Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20181231plCC 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: 12/31/2018 Document dates: 12/12/2018 – 12/19/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Carnahan, David From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 4:05 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Minor, Beth; De Geus, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Pat Burt Subject:Public Comment for Study Session with Supervisor Simitian Attachments:Stanford GUP DA Naik Burt Comments 112918.pdf Dear City Council Members, I will not be able to attend the Study Session with Supervisor Simitian, but I hope you will agendize a future meeting on the Stanford GUP and Development agreement very soon. City Staff is recommending doing a University Avenue area plan where the discussion of how to deal with Palo Alto Avenue could be addressed. We support this idea, but disagree that it should begin in late 2019. We must begin the conversation ASAP because of the GUP and Development agreement timelines. Recently, I submitted a letter to the County (co-authored by Pat Burt) where we argue that Stanford is an adjacent jurisdiction and, as such, is at least co-equally responsible for the northern Palo Alto grade separations and any upgrades that will be necessary at the University Avenue station to handle future Caltrain ridership. I've attached the letter for your review. These two items are intertwined and efforts to address them should come before the council ASAP. Thanks for your consideration. Nadia Naik November 29, 2018 County Supervisors Cindy Chaves and Joe Simitian County Government Center Tenth Floor - East Wing 70 West Hedding Street San Jose, CA 95110 Re: Stanford Development Agreement Dear Supervisors Chavez and Simitian, We are writing today to recommend that Stanford be responsible for their fair share of Palo Alto/Stanford area Caltrain grade separations and station improvements. We’d like to preface our remarks by stating that the Development Agreement should focus on public benefits and not be at the expense of mitigations necessary to address any environmental impact. Change is Coming Huge regional growth is causing jurisdictions along the peninsula corridor to address the biggest infrastructure projects many of those cities have ever faced, the need to eliminate at-grade rail crossings. These projects are being driven by the pending doubling of the number of trains per hour planned to occur over the next decade. Caltrain is already the backbone transit system for the peninsula and its expansion is essential for the TDM programs in jurisdictions throughout the line, including Stanford and Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto has determined that the gate down times and signal recovery periods, resulting from the pending 20 total trains per hour, will render existing at-grade rail crossings functionally gridlocked, severely hindering car, bus, bike and pedestrian access routes to the Stanford campus. Stanford as a Regional Jurisdiction with Financial Obligations The basis for Stanford’s fair share obligation to fund grade separations and related station improvements is fundamentally different from other GUP related mitigations that are determined by Stanford’s incremental growth impacts. Mitigations for affordable housing, schools or traffic impacts are calculated based on the additional needs generated by the impacts of GUP growth. In contrast, Caltrain expansion is not happening due to specific new development from the City of Palo Alto or Stanford, but rather it is being imposed on jurisdictions because of the overwhelming cumulative regional needs and Caltrain’s expanding vital role in regional transportation. The need for each jurisdiction to solve grade crossing problems is essential to maintaining their existing circulation after accommodating the increased Caltrain service that is the backbone of TDM programs in the City and at Stanford. Stanford has recognized their reliance on Caltrain expansion and is consequently playing a key financial and planning role in the development of the new Caltrain Business Plan. Stanford’s growth and reliance on Caltrain is also a key driver in the need to expand Caltrain service. Together, their reliance on the grade crossings for campus access and their need for expansion of Caltrain capacity for their TDM program arguably make Stanford’s cost share obligation at least equal to that of the city. Throughout the corridor, much of these costs are being absorbed by the impacted jurisdictions. As a major unincorporated jurisdictional entity, Stanford is responsible for their share of the local grade crossing expense. The Caltrain corridor is essentially a permeable membrane that physically separates the Stanford campus from critical transportation corridors to the East (101, East Bay, etc.) The expansion of Caltrain service and the subsequently required grade separations are forcing a full re-evaluation of how East-West traffic travels across the Caltrain line. In the case of North Palo Alto, the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University represent the two jurisdictions that share the crossings. The potential closure of some existing at- grade crossings is being considered (Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue), which could increase traffic on existing grade separations (Embarcadero and University Avenue) that may then need to be upgraded and expanded to handle the increased flow. In addition, both Palo Alto train stations (University and California Avenue) will likely need to be scaled differently to reflect passenger demand. Significant changes may include improved circulation for all modes, bus/shuttle stops, parking lots or garages for vehicles and bikes, drop-off areas. The Tri-Party Agreement Role Since the 1980’s, the Stanford GUPs have been framed by the Tri-Party Agreement (Santa Clara County, Palo Alto and Stanford) which embodies a recognition of how the three parties are intertwined and their respective responsibilities. This agreement effectively acknowledges Stanford as its own jurisdiction under the governance of the county. The GUP is the means under the Tri-Party Agreement framework by which the county can obligate Stanford to meet its fair share of what will be a very costly and significant project. The Agreement requires Stanford to provide for “all municipal services”. Roadway and transit services are essential municipal services that Stanford should share the responsibility to provide. Stanford’s Marguerite bus system, which by necessity extends beyond the campus boundaries, is a key part of their transit service obligation. Stanford must also meet this emerging grade separation roadway and transit obligation. Recommended Actions The City of Palo Alto currently has underway a multimillion-dollar program to evaluate grade separation design alternatives, their impacts and select alternatives for implementation. The VTA Measure B tax is providing the initial significant down payment for design and construction. However, these funds will need to be supplemented by significant local and regional/state dollars. Because the design selection and cost determination will not be resolved prior to the GUP and Development Agreement approvals, the Stanford fair share dollar amounts will need to be determined subsequent to the GUP approval. Consequently, the Development Agreement should include language that frames Stanford’s fair share obligation for amounts to be determined based on the costs and the portion of those costs that will need to be borne by the two local jurisdictions, Palo Alto and Stanford. Sincerely, Pat Burt Palo Alto resident and former Mayor of Palo Alto patburt11@gmail.com Nadia Naik Palo Alto resident and Co-founder, Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design nadianaik@gmail.com   1 Carnahan, David From:Don McDougall <mcdougall.don@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 8:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 2 Dec 17, Historical Museum Extension and Roth building Attachments:Roth and EV.docx Honorable Mayor and Council Members    Reference Item 2, December 17, 2018     As Council considers the staff recommendation of an extension of the agreement with the Palo Alto  History Museum, I would like to suggest consideration of the allocation of the $665,000 funds raised by the  sale of the TDR funds made available through Environmental Volunteers.   EV continues to make effective and efficient use of the City owned EcoCenter.  The EcoCenter houses a  small staff, equipment used for classroom and outdoor education, and meeting center.  It hosts environmental  home‐school classes, meetings and EV training.  EV works in close cooperation with the Baylands rangers and  in a few weeks EV will co‐host a king‐tide event with the city.   Originally Environmental Volunteers was awarded only $300,000 of the $965,000 sale of TDR benefits.  At the time EV misspoke, saying and incremental funds would simply be used for operating costs including  maintenance.  EV previously used funds raised for operating to complete the reconstruction and now has  further capital improvement projects for the EcoCenter. Under its new ED, Elliott Wright, EV is successfully  focused on generating the needed operating funds.   I would like to ask for the Council’s consideration of allocating 10% of the $665,000 EV‐generated TDR  funds to Environmental Volunteers when and if the funds become available. Or please explore alternative  sources for this purpose.  Thank you for your consideration of support for this valuable community resource.     Don McDougall  Palo Alto resident  650 815 1455    This letter is submitted as a resident, not as a representative of Environmental Volunteers. A copy is  attached            Reference Item 2, December 17, 2018 As Council considers the staff recommendation of an extension of the agreement with the Palo Alto History Museum, I would like to suggest consideration of the allocation of the $665,000 funds raised by the sale of the TDR funds made available through Environmental Volunteers. EV continues to make effective and efficient use of the City owned EcoCenter. The EcoCenter houses a small staff, equipment used for classroom and outdoor education, and meeting center. It hosts environmental home-school classes, meetings and EV training. EV works in close cooperation with the Baylands rangers and in a few weeks EV will co-host a king- tide event with the city. Originally Environmental Volunteers was awarded only $300,000 of the $965,000 sale of TDR benefits. At the time EV misspoke, saying and incremental funds would simply be used for operating costs including maintenance. EV previously used funds raised for operating to complete the reconstruction and now has further capital improvement projects for the EcoCenter. Under its new ED, Elliott Wright, EV is successfully focused on generating the needed operating funds. I would like to ask for the Council’s consideration of allocating 10% of the $665,000 EV- generated TDR funds to Environmental Volunteers when and if the funds become available. Or please explore alternative sources for this purpose. Thank you for your consideration of support for this valuable community resource. Don McDougall Palo Alto resident This note is submitted on my behalf only, not as a representative of Environmental Volunteers. 1 Carnahan, David From:mollytinney <mollytinney@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 11:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:PAHM Dear Council Members,  I am unable to attend the City Council meeting tonight but wanted to express my support of the Palo Alto History  Museum. The museum will be a great asset to our city and it’s residents. I hope that the city continues its support of this  very important project.  With gratitude,    Molly Tinney  Secretary,   Palo Alto Historical Association           Sent from my iPhone  2 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Lim Hing <luckco@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 11:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Museum Super Investments! You got our support!    Palo Alto Museum is a place our community can bring together what's important to all of us    ‐Our History    ‐Our Desires to Move forward to Make History that Will Include Every Group that Contributed to our Community    ‐Our Diversity    ‐Our Progress    Our Appreciation & Respect for Every Ethnic & Cultural groups  &     Many More Good Stuff!    Go for it, all!    We can't make it tonight but the Museum has our support,   Ray & Barbara Hing      3 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Shepherd <nlshep@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 12:18 PM To:Council, City Cc:laurabajuk@paloaltohistorymuseum.org; rich@richgreenink.com Subject:Roth Building Agenda and Action Dear Council, I am writing in support of the staff recommendation to update the lease agreement between the Palo Alto History Museum and the designation of the Roth Building site as parkland. Please approve this action. The Palo Alto story is historical and impactful to our community and the world—I look forward to breaking ground and installing the Museum. In fact, I think the City should help facilitate this effort by including in the lease a modification that would allow the Museum to rehabilitate the building and fundraise simultaneously. The $2.88M City funds and the Sea Scout Building TDRs are already designated for the Roth Building rehab. Logistics can be worked out with the City Council Task Force and staff to ensure donor fundraising is completed timely in the six-month lease update. Many donors, community members and volunteers are confident that once under construction, the rehabilitation of the Roth Building and installation of the museum will coincide with completing the fundraising requirements. Why wait. Thank you for this consideration, and congratulations to PAHM and the community for making this project a success. Sincerely, Nancy Shepherd, former Mayor City of Palo Alto   1 Carnahan, David From:martin@sommer.net Sent:Thursday, December 6, 2018 4:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:arobeso@menlopark.org Subject:Attn: Rail Committee, Palo Alto Email sent to Angela Obeso, City of Menlo Park: Please address the issue of: a) closing the Palo Alto Ave rail crossing, in conjunction with b) taking Alma directly across the creek between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Thank you! Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." -------- Original Message -------- Subject:Great meeting you last night  Date:2018‐12‐06 10:24  From:martin@sommer.net  To:arobeso@menlopark.org  Good morning Angela, It was great meeting you last night at the Menlo Park Caltrain meeting. I had proposed the idea of closing the Palo Alto Ave rail crossing in Palo Alto, and taking Alma directly across the creek between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. I had also suggested moving the small El Palo Alto Park to the other side of the tracks, and extend the El Camino Park. This idea would: a) eliminate the cost of another grade separation, b) eliminate train noise wrt to current crossing, and c) lower the number of track crossings, between Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Please let me know, if I can help you explain this idea to Menlo Park and/or Palo Alto stake holders. Thanks again, Martin 2 -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." 1 Carnahan, David From:Clerk, City Sent:Tuesday, December 11, 2018 10:50 AM To:Carnahan, David Subject:FW: Public Comment: Request to add an alternative for study for the Meadow/Charleston Grade separations Attachments:CARRD Comment - Short Electric tunnel only recommendation.pdf From: Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 10:19 AM  To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Fwd: Public Comment: Request to add an alternative for study for the Meadow/Charleston Grade separations  Hi, I'm resending this to ensure it is included in the City Council packet for December 17th. Thanks in advance for your help! Nadia Naik 650-814-1820   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>  Date: Mon, Nov 12, 2018 at 9:10 PM  Subject: Public Comment: Request to add an alternative for study for the Meadow/Charleston Grade separations  To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: James Keene <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>, Shikada, Ed <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, De Geus, Robert  <Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org>, Goodwin Eileen <apexstr@pacbell.net>, <etty.mercurio@aecom.com>,  <millette.litzinger@aecom.com>, Elizabeth Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com>    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:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 1:31 PM To:Clerk, City; Minor, Beth Cc:Council, City; Dave Shen; Megan Kanne; Carrasco, Tony; Inyoung Cho; Philip Burton; Parag Patkar; Mandar Borkar; Kari Hodgson; Patricia Lau; De Geus, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Keene, James; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; Goodwin Eileen; millette.litzinger@aecom.com Subject:Public Comment for Packet for December 17th meeting Attachments:FINAL - CARRD Freighless tunnel.pptx.pdf Attached is a presentation I'd like to submit as public comment for December 17th meeting related to the Palo Alto grade separations. It is a more visual presentation to support my previous written comments on this subject (also in the packet). Thanks Nadia Naik Nadia Naik December 17th, 2018 Palo Alto City Council Design Alternative for ONLY Meadow and Charleston Presenter version 2018.09.01 info@calhsr.com www.calhsr.com Problem  PA residents prefer an underground solution.  Tunnels at stations are costly (high cost of burying station)  Trench under Meadow and Charleston may be fatally flawed because of the creeks  Hybrid and Viaduct options are not well liked Goal of this concept:  Creative solution  Addresses community preference for underground solution  Increases design alternatives  Minimize costs and impacts Design Challenges:  Caltrain and Freight must maintain operations during construction  Temporary “Passing Tracks” during construction are highly disruptive and expensive  Underground utility relocation is complicated and costly  Matadero, Barron and Adobe Creeks create obstacles to underground alternatives  Freight trains can’t handle steeper grades and constrain design alternatives  Diesel freight tunnels require extra ventilation that electric trains don’t need (>$). 3 Existing Opportunities?  Only 3 freight trains per day in PA – all at night and don’t impact circulation  Freight makes up less than 5% of operations on the corridor  Without freight, we have more design flexibility  Future Dumbarton Rail Corridor improvements could reduce or eliminate freight trains  Future freight could be electrified New Design Alternative: A short, electric train only tunnel under Meadow and Charleston ONLY with a single track of freight on the surface. Requires two twin bore tunnels (TBM) We are NOT advocating this as a SOLUTION Only that it be included as an ALTERNATIVE for further study This is a NEW idea that developed based on the early issues identified by preliminary AECOM engineering – it was NOT part of the original Master List of Alternatives 5 Electric train tunnel with 1 track of freight on surface Single track Freight At-grade Caltrain/HSR Tunnel Alameda Trench Corridor (E. Compton Blvd and Alameda Street, Compton ) 7 • NOTE: This shows a TRENCH – we are proposing TUNNEL • Right of Way (ROW) is 100 feet (same as South Palo Alto) • This ROW fits 4 tracks – PA would have 2 Caltrain (in tunnel) and one freight track (at grade) • A simple curve is needed to separate the single freight track • 3 tracks enter a trench in Alameda instead of a tunnel – but similar concept Conceptual example Considerations:  Electric only tunnel can be >2% grade (design flexibility)  Goes under creeks (avoiding potential fatal flaw)  Tunnel goes under the utilities, reducing the cost.  Can maintain Caltrain/Freight operations during construction  Tunnels without a station are much cheaper  Tunnels are faster to build.  Construction time is much shorter - less work window issues and little to no road disruption. Additional Considerations:  Temporary passing tracks (shoo-fly tracks) only at tunnel portal entrance & exit vs entire right-of-way (saves money)  With careful planning, TBM’s can be reused by other cities  Some or all future freight may be re-routed over Dumbarton Rail route (currently being studied) leaving space for other land use options.  Needs further study: Temporary space for the tunnel portal may be necessary and could require minimal commercial or residential eminent domain that could be returned to the commercial/housing stock on completion of the project Source on TBM Reuse: https://www.herrenknecht.com/en/services/global-services/tbm- refurbishment.html Comparative Project: Central Subway Tunnel in SF  Built in 2014 in downtown San Francisco  Two twin bore machines (TBM) with 20.7 ft diameter for 1.7 miles  $234 million dollars (2014 dollars)  Built under an active BART line  Went through various soils: soft to thinly bedded siltstone, shale and sandstone bedrock  Some soil even deemed “Potentially Gassy with Special Conditions” by Cal/OSHA.  Navigated steep, turning alignment  Worked with low cover, urban utilities, and sensitive structures requiring precautions to limit settlement impact and ensure the structures in downtown SF were safe. 10 Source: http://www.therobbinscompany.com/project-category/epb-tbm/ 11 View of Central Subway Twin Bore Tunnels View of TBM Extraction Point (above) View of Low Clearance under which Central Subway was built (and under ACTIVE BART line!) Cost Comparisons Hybrid Viaduct Trench Short Tunnel (no freight) Estimated Cost 2018 $ $200M - $250M $400M - $500M $800M – 950M $400M - $550M* 12 *CARRD estimated the Short Tunnel (No freight) alternative based on 2x price of similar 2014 SF Central Subway tunnel project in downtown SF Note: Costs could potentially be reduced further (next slide) In 2014, Hatch Mott MacDonald estimated a trench under Meadow and Charleston (2% grade) would be $480 M. (Source: HMM Study 2014) In 2018, AECOM estimated same trench would be $800 - $950 M – so costs have almost doubled since 2014. (Source: PA Community Meeting 11/14/18 slide 41) Reducing Tunnel Cost further  Reducing the tunnel diameter helps lower costs  2014 – HSR White paper on Tunneling - significant cost reductions by reducing max operating speeds assumptions from 220 to 200 mph thus reducing tunnel diameters from 29.5’ to 28’ ID (Inside Diameter).*  AECOM studying City Wide tunnel with freight used 28’ Inside Diameter (assumes 200 mph)  Tunnel diameter can be reduced since Caltrain/HSR will only operate max 125 mph on Peninsula  Caltrain Electrification EIR shows that San Francisquito Creek bridge will have a maximum clearance of just 19ft. (See CARRD’s previous public comments re: Vertical Clearance assumptions) 13 *Source: California High-Speed Rail Program Whitepaper On Cost Reduction Strategies, 7/25/14 Direct Comparison of Tunnels Central Subway No freight PA Short Tunnel No freight Length: 1.7 miles 1.6 miles Tunnel Diameter: 20.7 ft 28ft* (could be reduced) Constraint: Built under active BART Under active Caltrain Soil types: 5 various soil types including hazardous soils Unknown but PA Tunnel White Paper says suitable for tunneling Setting: Dense urban setting Empty suburban ROW Conditions: Steep, turning alignment with vertical clearance issues Relatively flat, straight alignment with no vertical clearance issues Special Circumstances: Required special planning to support adjacent tall buildings No buildings in ROW and no adjacent skyscrapers 14 Final Thoughts  CARRD is NOT advocating that this is THE alternative – only that it be given further analysis  Further preliminary analysis and study is needed and warranted for this alternative given strong community preference for underground solution.  Too early to evaluate is this is the right solution vs. other design alternatives – need more info Appendix 16 Palo Alto Right Of Way Widths 96 ft 85 ft 79 ft *Approximate – not perfectly to scale. Not official diagram. 1 Carnahan, David From:Jason Matlof <jmatlof@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 13, 2018 3:34 PM To:Council, City; De Geus, Robert Subject:Public Comments for December 17th Council Meeting Dear Council Members and Staff    I’m writing to briefly discuss two concerns that I have regarding the Rail Grade Separation process.    I ‐ Embarcadero Road Underpass Considerations  For many reasons (existing traffic congestion, pending Churchill Full/Partial Closure, traffic through residential “Emerson  Cloverleaf”, etc), the Council passed a resolution on June 19th, 2018 as part of the grade separation decision process to  “study additional options for addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area.” While I appreciate that City  Staff and consultants have committed to study these solutions AFTER the traffic study is completed, that seems illogical  relative to the target timelines. Specifically, the Council has a timeline to select a preferred decision in Q1’19 (delayed  from previously). If we don’t start considering Embarcadero mitigations until Q1’19 it seems unlikely that this can occur  prior to such a vote, which leads me to believe that there will be further inevitable delays or the Council will not have  the data it needs to make a decision. I urge you to spend the $250,000 to study these options given the inevitability and  need.    II ‐ Commingling Decision Making on Palo Alto Avenue and a “Coordinate Downtown Plan”  Let me start by saying that I wholeheartedly support the idea of a “Coordinated Downtown Plan”; however, I urge you to  decouple that process from the existing Grade Separation decision making process. The reason for this is due to the  large uncertainty, time and fundraising uncertainty that will be required to get this project approved and financial  commitment from the many interested parties: Stanford University, Caltrain, City voters (given likely bond measure),  Caltrans (it will impact El Camino Real), CA‐PUC, and the list goes on.     Alternatively, I propose committing to a “contingent Grade Separation plan” for Palo Alto Avenue with final decision  pending the outcome of a Coordinated Plan outcome. While this would potentially waste more than $250,000 it is more  than justified given the huge risk that is implied by NOT (a) getting approval from the required authorities or (b) raising  the necessary funding for a Coordinated Downtown Plan within a reasonable time. Palo Alto Avenue supports 17k  cars/day and is a central intersection to Menlo Park, Stanford, Sand Hill Road, et al.     Again, I fully support such a Downtown plan, but don’t want the City residents to be left out to dry wallowing in  thousands of backed up cars if we can’t do either of the above. I think we all have to acknowledge that there is a serious  non‐zero risk associated with this grand “coordinated plan” concept.    Many thanks for your consideration.    Jason  2 Carnahan, David From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 14, 2018 6:23 AM To:Council, City Cc:Jason Matlof; Jeff Brown; Monica; David Shen; De Geus, Robert Subject:Re: Public comment for Monday 12/17/18 City Council Mtg - Subject: Grade Separation To all,    I wanted to make sure that this made it into the printed packets for Monday's meeting. I did not receive a reply from the  City Council email when I sent this the first time.    Thanks, Dave    On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 9:06 PM Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com> wrote:  Distinguished City Councilmembers,    A few comments at this juncture on the grade separation project for Monday's City Council meeting:    This coming Monday, I intend on presenting a short deck on some potential alternate solutions to Embarcadero and  Palo Alto Ave. My hope is to stimulate more creative thinking on both intersections. The more detailed issues for each  intersection are:    Embarcadero:    I am concerned that Embarcadero is not higher up in priority in our work plan for exploration and study with the  consultants. I believe that if closing Churchill is to be fully viable, that traffic mitigation must be done at its closest  substitute which is Embarcadero. Staff has said we must wait until traffic studies are done without Embarcadero  mitigations modeled. If true, then I would like to make sure we are all aligned and ready to direct staff to more fully  study Embarcadero if/when the traffic studies become available ‐ I am very skeptical that a result would show that  mitigations were not necessary, were Churchill to be closed.    I would like to know if we have set aside or allocated funds for studying Embarcadero. It is likely to cost the same as  studying the other intersections, which is approximately $250‐300K.    I am concerned that we are not thinking creatively enough about possible alterations this intersection. Josh Mello's  creative ideas as well as from Tony Carrasco, a local architect are included in my presentation. I am hoping that  Coucilmembers will help encourage staff to explore ideas more fully.    Palo Alto Ave:    In my presentation, I talk through many creative concepts for addressing the Palo Alto Ave grade separation. Up to  now, the results of the City and consultants studying Palo Alto Ave seemingly have stopped at "we can't do anything  because we would affect the historic bridge and harm the El Palo Alto tree." Given some further thought, it is obvious  to us that other solutions are possible in that area, that solve these issues.     I advocate for further study of the Palo Alto Ave grade separation and to direct staff and the consultants to come up  with more solutions.    3 The proposed Palo Alto Ave / Downtown Land Use Planning Problem Statement:    I support having the proposed Palo Alto Ave / Downtown Land Use Planning Problem Statement and where it leads.  Fixing the University Station area and the roads around it is a great idea and I hope it happens.    I must also advocate for decoupling Palo Alto Ave's grade separation activity from the Palo Alto Ave / Downtown Land  Use Planning Problem Statement. We do not know how long it will take to study and design for this plan. It may even  not be acceptable to the stakeholders: community, City, Caltrain, HSR, or its cost may kill it. And while we study and  design this plan, time marches on and Caltrain will continue its electrification work. Palo Alto Ave must be kept open to  support traffic and shouldn't be tied to the Palo Alto Ave / Downtown Land Use Plan. We should continue to work on  Palo Alto Ave's grade separation independently as a hedge for if the Palo Alto Ave / Downtown Land Use Plan is  delayed or does not happen.     Depending on the situation, I would also advocate for decoupling Embarcadero, if the Palo Alto Ave / Downtown Land  Use Planning Problem Statement were to include the area up to (or past) Embarcadero, for the same reason as above.    Lastly I am concerned about the overlap time between when Caltrain starts increasing trains and when we finish grade  separations. It will be a time of great pain and discomfort for Palo Alto, when roads are alternately open and closed,  and traffic snarls are the norm every day during rush hour, and we experience construction noise and disruption across  the town. Right now, if we were to magically start today, that time of pain is approximately 6‐7 years from when  Caltrain starts increasing trains in 2021‐22 to when we finish grade separation in 2028, 10 years from now. The more  we delay decisions, the longer the length of time we experience this pain.    This is why I advocate for speeding up as much as possible, making decisions efficiently, and not delaying for any  reason. My hope is that Council will help push staff to do good work BUT do it faster and more efficiently.    Thank you for your kind consideration,    David Shen  CAP member  North Old Palo Alto Group  http://www.northoldpaloalto.org        ‐‐     1 Carnahan, David From:Carnahan, David Sent:Friday, December 14, 2018 7:39 AM To:dshenster@gmail.com Cc:Council, City; De Geus, Robert; Brettle, Jessica; Minor, Beth Subject:RE: URGENT Re: Presentation at City Council meeting on Monday night 12/17/18 Attachments:Embarcadero and Palo Alto Ave Concepts v7.pptx Good morning Mr. Shen,    The Packet for Monday’s Council meeting was published and printed yesterday. This email and presentation will be  printed for Council and the public at Monday’s Council meeting. The presentation will be loaded on the computer in the  Chambers.    When 5 members of the public cede their time to a Spokesperson, the Spokesperson is provided 10 minutes to address  the Council (Procedures 1.4(D)3). In the event of a large number of public speakers, this time may be reduced by the  Chair (Mayor)  (Procedures 1.4(D)2).    David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA  O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org      From: Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com>   Sent: Friday, December 14, 2018 5:24 AM  To: Carnahan, David <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: David Shen <dshenster@gmail.com>; De Geus, Robert <Robert.DeGeus@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: URGENT Re: Presentation at City Council meeting on Monday night 12/17/18    NOTE!!!! THE INCORRECT PRESENTATION IS IN THE PACKET FOR MONDAY!!!! Would you please substitute this one for  the one that is in there?    The one you have inserted was one I previewed at CAP ‐ we made modifications to shorten its length to be suitable for  presentation during public comment.    THANK YOU!! Dave Shen    On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:32 AM Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com> wrote:  David,    How are you? I have a presentation which I'd like to share with City Council and staff for Monday's City Council meeting  on 12/17/18. I have not seen the agenda yet so not sure where it could be presented but my understanding is that City  Council will take some time to talk about the grade separation project, with which this presentation is related.    My plan is to ask 5 members of the community to give up their time for me to be able to deliver this presentation.  Would you also please confirm how much actual time can be assembled via this method? Could I get 5 people x 3  minutes each = 15 minutes?    Thank you very much for the opportunity to present this information and please let me know if there are any issues.    2 David Shen  CAP member, Palo Alto Grade Separation Project  North Old Palo Alto Group  http://www.northoldpaloalto.org      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐          Embarcadero and Palo Alto Ave Concepts David Shen, Tony Carrasco, Jason Matlof V7 12-12-18 Concept Goals •STIMULATE THINKING AND POSSIBILITIES •TREAT TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS IN PALO ALTO AS A SYSTEM •ADVOCATE FOR ADDING EMBARCADERO TO WORK PLAN •ADVOCATE FOR EXPANDED THINKING ON PALO ALTO AVE Embarcadero Ave Goals •Upgrade/update old 1930s structure. •Reduce traffic flow in neighborhood streets. •Increase safety and access for pedestrians and cyclists. •Fix traffic lights between Alma and El Camino. •Do all this without property takings Concept 1: Josh Mello – Curve Embarcadero to the south, add exit loop onto Embarcadero West. Exit loop Orange= original path of Embarcadero Traffic light Traffic light Concept 2: Josh Mello – Curve Embarcadero to the south, add left exit lane from Alma North onto Embarcadero West. Left exit lane Orange= original path of Embarcadero Traffic light Traffic light Exit ramp from Kingsley to Embarcadero West Orange= original path of Embarcadero Traffic light Traffic light Concept 3: Exit ramp from Alma North onto Embarcadero West. Curve Embarcadero to south Concept 4: Tony Carrasco – Create traffic circle between Alma and Embarcadero Palo Alto Ave Goals •Maintain access from Alma to El Camino into Menlo Park. •Maintain pedestrian/cyclist access •Protect historic bridge and El Palo Alto tree. •Do all this without property takings Concept 1: Shift new road to El Camino to the south, change location in park area of El Camino Park. Add sloping down road alongside Alma to drop down to underpass. If 2% grade, slope down begins at Everett. Adjacent drop down 2 lanes, approx. 2-3% grade 2 lanes slope up to meet El Camino, approx. 2-4% grade Traffic light governs flow Train tracks remain at same level Concept 1a: Shift new road to El Camino to the south, change location in park area of El Camino Park. Add sloping down road alongside Alma to drop down to underpass. If 5% grade, slope can start in/around Hawthorne. Adjacent drop down 2 lanes, approx. 5% grade 2 lanes slope up to meet El Camino, approx. 5% grade Traffic light governs flow Train tracks remain at same level Concept 2: Tony Carrasco – Create rail viaduct from Menlo Park through Palo Alto downtown, change path of train tracks around historic bridge TO REPEAT: •AGAIN: CONCEPTS TO STIMULATE THINKING AND CREATIVITY •ADVOCATE FOR EMBARCADERO TO BE INSERTED INTO THE WORK PLAN NOW •ADVOCATE FOR MORE STUDY ON PALO ALTO AVE •GOALS: •MAKE PALO ALTO OVERALL A BETTER ENVIRONMENT FOR CARS, BIKES, AND PEDESTRIANS •PRESERVE *ALL* NEIGHBORHOODS’ INTEGRITY •DO IT ALL WITHOUT PROPERTY TAKINGS We Are Already in the ”Red Zone” 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 Trains/Day Data: AECOM Estimated construction time = 10 years RED ZONE = 7 YEARS RED ZONE •The RED ZONE grows in time every month/year we delay. •MINIMIZE THE RED ZONE = MINIMIZE DISRUPTION AND DISCOMFORT! •Advocate for: •Speed up: more parallel work •Minimize delays in decisions •Don’t get trapped in endless study and information gathering •Make decisions and stick with them •MINIMIZE THE RED ZONE! 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Friday, December 14, 2018 11:22 AM To:Dan Richard; boardmembers; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Mayor; Mark Standriff; scott.mozier; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; nick yovino; Daniel Zack; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; popoff; leager; terry; paul.caprioglio; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; David Balakian Subject:Fwd: How the Japanese are quieting their bullet trains   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:07 AM  Subject: How the Japanese are quieting their bullet trains  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                  Friday, Dec. 14, 2018               Dan‐  Here is an interesting prototype the Japanese hope will reduce noise from HSR.  I wonder if Calif. HSR could  employ such a design. It would placate some of the noise‐sensitive critics. Would such a thing be able to get through  tunnels and trenches? It wouldn't matter how goofy it looked if it reduced noise along the ROW.               https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Companies/Faster‐bullet‐train‐aims‐to‐give‐airlines‐a‐run‐for‐their‐money                   Then good article there too re HSR coming to Hong Kong. That one says that in 2007, China had 1,350 KM of HSR  lines. Now it has 25,000 KM, so the past 10 years has been a huge HSR building boom in China, as you know.                   The brutal, ruthless Communist dictators in China see HSR as a boon for their country. The Republicans in  California do all in their power, including lying about it, to stop HSR here.  Who is suppressing their people and who is  not?                 LH  1 Carnahan, David From:Pam Parke <pamsgarden@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 6:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Freightless Tunnel for East Meadow and Charleston intersections DearCity Council,    “The Freightless Tunnel is the Best Bundle!” (for East Meadow and Charleston intersections)    Thanks,  Pamela Parke, M.D.  3357 South Court   Palo Alto 94306  (Within hearing distance of the train)    Sent from my iPhone  2 Carnahan, David From:William Robinson <williamrobinson@goldenworld.com> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 5:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 3(b -please keep a Loma Verde bike/ped tunnel in study Dear Council, Please ignore staff recommendation on item 3(b to set aside study of a bike/ped  undercrossing CalTrain at Loma Verde. You must keep such a long needed facility in synch with  construction of rail separations. Imagine the disruption costs and safety risks if Midtown and  Ventura citizens cannot cross CalTrain and Alma during construction. Regardless of a chosen  design for Meadow and Charleston, a dedicated undercrossing near Loma Verde will serve  future increased density expected for Ventura and adjacent area. During construction vehicle  traffic may increase at San Antonio, a crossover unsafe for bikes and pedestrians  Yoriko Kishimoto reminded me how the whole community must be included in studies as  important a rail separation. She recently referenced the ADT vehicle counts at Charleston  (16,000) and Meadow (9,000). Non‐motorized ADT for California Avenue bike/ped tunnel is  over 2,000. We need a proper bike/ped pathway under CalTrain and Alma near Loma Verde!  William’Rob’ Robinson, member PABAC (Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee), Palo Alto since 2005    3 Carnahan, David From:Robert Ohlmann <rohlmann@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 4:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Public comments for Monday, Dec. 17 meeting on Rail Crossings Dear Council members, The freightless tunnel in S PA seems me like an excellent compromise for the rail crossing issue, preserving the privacy and views of housing on the West side of Alma, solving the 2% grade potential bottleneck, going below the creeks, and having a reasonable cost. Additional funds should go into the study of that alternative to uncover problems that might exist, such as guaranteed pumping during rainstorms and emergency access from a deeper tunnel. Your constituent, Robert Ohlmann 372 Creekside 4 Carnahan, David From:YORIKO KISHIMOTO <yoriko12330@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 4:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 3, Rail Grade Separation item Honorable City Council:    I am sending you a copy of the Guest Opinion just published in the Palo Alto Weekly on the topic of grade separations.    Specifically for Monday night, I join my neighbors in proposing a modification to item a) of staff recommendations, to read as follows:    “Separate from Study all Alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue and Churchill Avenue Crossings (Closure and Hybrid) and Include Palo Alto Avenue and Churchill Avenue in a Separate Comprehensive Planning Effort;”    This would in effect prioritize the grade separations in South Palo Alto because (a) there are no grade separations in South Palo Alto and there is a greater need there and (b) there are more viable options. This would allow Palo Alto to apply for Measure B funds on a timely basis. As a next step, a North Palo Alto Comprehensive Planning process should be initiated to allow for an integrated look at circulation and grade separation options for the section between Churchill and Palo Alto Avenue. No one would dispute that one change to any of these would affect them all.    Thank you and staff for your diligent work on these challenging decisions.    Yoriko Kishimoto          https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/12/13/guest‐opinion‐keeping‐options‐open‐integrating‐rail‐and‐ community    Include Photos | Include Comments | Print this page | Close Window https://paloaltoonline.com/news/print/2018/12/13/guest-opinion-keeping-options-open- integrating-rail-and-community Uploaded: Thu, Dec 13, 2018, 2:13 pm Guest Opinion: Keeping options open: Integrating rail and community 5 Broad spectrum of experiences can help make final decision on grade-separation methods by Yoriko Kishimoto Palo Alto is facing potentially its biggest capital project since the construction of Oregon Expressway in 1962: the re-building of the Caltrain corridor through Palo Alto, particularly the rail crossings. I was the first chair of the City Council's Rail Committee and founder of the Peninsula Cities Consortium, a coalition of cities that held weekly hearings, invited speakers and coordinated multi-city responses to the proposed high speed rail coming up the Peninsula. As such, I was among the first to advocate against an elevated "viaduct" rail option, since it seemed so intrusive visually. The current council Rail Committee recommended at its Oct. 17 meeting the removal of the viaduct options from consideration. Yoriko Kishimoto But today, for the city to reach the right decision, I am, to my surprise, advocating that we keep key options on the table, including the viaduct, the trench, the tunnel and, perhaps for now, the "do nothing" option for two of the crossings. Most Palo Altans agree Caltrain provides essential and efficient regional transportation services to the University Avenue and California Avenue districts, as well as Stanford University and the Research Park, which is preferable to more auto lanes on U.S. Highway 101, Interstate 280 and El Camino Real. Just to review quickly, the average daily traffic (ADT, aka vehicles) at the Caltrain crossings is (according to a 2016 City of Palo Alto analysis, posted here): • At Palo Alto Avenue (Alma): 2 lanes, 15,000 ADT • University Avenue: 4 underpass lanes, 19,000 ADT • Embarcadero Road: 3 underpass lanes, 25,000 ADT 6 • Churchill Avenue, 2 lanes 11,000 ADT • Oregon Expressway, 4 underpass lanes, 31,000 ADT • Meadow Drive, 2 lanes, 9,000 ADT • Charleston Rd: 2 lanes, 16,000 ADT • San Antonio: 4-6 overpass lanes, 36,000 ADT Staff and consultants have done enough research to show us that there are more options at Charleston and Meadow that will not lead to significant property takings or road closings. At this point, I propose: 1. The city prioritize making a decision at Charleston and Meadow and compete for Measure A grade separation funding. 2. We keep the options of the viaduct and a tunnel on the table at least through an urban design and environmental/economic analysis stage. It seems prudent to pay $250,000 more in studies to make the right decision for projects that will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. 3. We sponsor design charettes, field trips, and research and education to a broad spectrum of policy makers, residents, business leaders and subject-level experts. Melbourne is a recent example that we can learn from. It's in the process of grade separating 50 street-level crossings. Some of them have been trenched, but elevated rail is also used. As part of their process, Australia's national research council commissioned university researchers to lead a project to "deepen understanding of the issues involved in level-crossing removals so that when proposals for specific locations are considered, professional, government and industry stakeholders as well as the community can participate in a more informed way" (see the report here). We have a community of great universities, urban design experts, engineers and most importantly, educated and interested residents. We all need more education. Some may remember the famous fight for a solution at Devil's Slide on the San Mateo coast. Caltrans was moving towards a more environmentally destructive highway bypass. One major problem was that Caltrans had not built any tunnels in half a century and was adamantly opposing it. It took a vote of the people to push this decision towards twin single-lane tunnels through the hills. So far, Menlo Park has made a decision for now to "do nothing" at three roads by keeping them open and at grade level and to pursue grade separation at Ravenswood. Mountain View is 7 moving towards closing Castro Street. I believe both cities would welcome more and better choices. The ideal approach is a corridor-wide one, rather than leaving the issue to each city to struggle with. Caltrain is developing a business plan, posted at caltrain2040.org, with scenarios and policy implications for growth out to the year 2040. It mentions a possible corridor-wide approach to address at-grade separations, but coming to a regional consensus, financing and implementation will take much work. Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan, just updated last year, prioritizes the need for grade crossings but has only one specific policy: T3.16, "Keep existing at-grade rail crossings open to motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists, consistent with results of a focused circulation study and a context-sensitive alternatives analysis." It is clear, however, that the transportation priority is "providing more options and more convenience so that people will more readily choose not to drive." We know by now that we don't want a network of expressways connecting our neighborhoods and business centers. Indeed, our newer residents may not know there were real plans to make Sand Hill Road, Alameda de las Pulgas and others part of an efficient regional expressway system to allow us to zoom pleasantly between home and work. We found that the single- occupancy-vehicle model doesn't scale well for high density, or even medium density, cities — or for our planet. We need a balance, allowing the longer commute trips to be by transit or shared rides and local trips such as to schools, transit centers and shopping to be by a mix of biking, low-speed car trips, local shuttles or walking. One important goal should be to do no harm to the relatively walkable street grids we have. As the Comprehensive Plan already provides, let's not close streets unless there is no reasonable alternative. And let's call upon the best of our town's design expertise to more seamlessly integrate rail and community. We need to more carefully analyze our alternatives. Examples of good design can be found around the world that might better preserve the network of walkable streets that has kept our city livable for over a century. Yoriko Kishimoto is Ward 2 director, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District and former mayor of Palo Alto. She can be reached at yoriko12330@icloud.com.         8 Carnahan, David From:Florence LaRiviere <florence@refuge.org> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 3:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail separation Dear City Council Members,    Please bring back to the table for further study the short tunnel in south Palo Alto.    No one I know in the neighborhood wants the viaduct.    Please continue to consider the trench option.    Our preference is the short tunnel with freight at grade.    Thank you for your work on this matter.    Florence LaRiviere  Virginia LaRiviere  9 Carnahan, David From:Stephen Ludington <slud@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 12:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:CalTrain Please, please, please, don’t put the train above ground.      Steve Ludington  slud@earthlink.net  650.387.0561    Let everything happen to you: beauty and terror. / Just keep going. No feeling is final.    ——Rainer Maria Rilke          10 Carnahan, David From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 6:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:GET RID OF VIADUCT OPTION Dear City Council:    PLEASE vote to discontinue (STOP) all further consideration of the viaduct option for the train.  By "viaduct" I mean the option where the train runs on a structure built high up.    This is the ugliest, the most visually invasive, the noisiest, the dirtiest (tosses dirt and dust the furthest) and in the future  will be, the most problematic for loitering, wasted land, trash collection, and graffitti.    100 years from now WHEN THIS TRAIN OPTION WILL STILL BE IN USE  nobody will remember or care how much or how little it cost !!  All they will notice is how it affects their lives on a daily basis.    I encourage you to move forward with the underground TUNNEL option.  This option will free up all the land above the tunnel for you to create bike paths, tennis courts, parks, additional across‐ city crossings, etc.  Land is THE most valuable thing you have at your disposal for city planning.    Carlin Otto  231 Whitclem Court  Palo Alto, CA  94306  11 Carnahan, David From:Dave Shen <dshenster@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 6:23 AM To:Council, City Cc:David Shen Subject:Public comment for Monday 12/17/18 City Council Mtg - Subject: Grade Separation   Distinguished City Councilmembers,    A few comments at this juncture on the grade separation project for Monday's City Council meeting:    This coming Monday, I intend on presenting a short deck on some potential alternate solutions to Embarcadero and Palo  Alto Ave. My hope is to stimulate more creative thinking on both intersections. The more detailed issues for each  intersection are:    Embarcadero:    I am concerned that Embarcadero is not higher up in priority in our work plan for exploration and study with the  consultants. I believe that if closing Churchill is to be fully viable, that traffic mitigation must be done at its closest  substitute which is Embarcadero. Staff has said we must wait until traffic studies are done without Embarcadero  mitigations modeled. If true, then I would like to make sure we are all aligned and ready to direct staff to more fully  study Embarcadero if/when the traffic studies become available ‐ I am very skeptical that a result would show that  mitigations were not necessary, were Churchill to be closed.    I would like to know if we have set aside or allocated funds for studying Embarcadero. It is likely to cost the same as  studying the other intersections, which is approximately $250‐300K.    I am concerned that we are not thinking creatively enough about possible alterations this intersection. Josh Mello's  creative ideas as well as from Tony Carrasco, a local architect are included in my presentation. I am hoping that  Coucilmembers will help encourage staff to explore ideas more fully.    Palo Alto Ave:    In my presentation, I talk through many creative concepts for addressing the Palo Alto Ave grade separation. Up to now,  the results of the City and consultants studying Palo Alto Ave seemingly have stopped at "we can't do anything because  we would affect the historic bridge and harm the El Palo Alto tree." Given some further thought, it is obvious to us that  other solutions are possible in that area, that solve these issues.     I advocate for further study of the Palo Alto Ave grade separation and to direct staff and the consultants to come up  with more solutions.    The proposed Palo Alto Ave / Downtown Land Use Planning Problem Statement:    I support having the proposed Palo Alto Ave / Downtown Land Use Planning Problem Statement and where it leads.  Fixing the University Station area and the roads around it is a great idea and I hope it happens.    I must also advocate for decoupling Palo Alto Ave's grade separation activity from the Palo Alto Ave / Downtown Land  Use Planning Problem Statement. We do not know how long it will take to study and design for this plan. It may even  12 not be acceptable to the stakeholders: community, City, Caltrain, HSR, or its cost may kill it. And while we study and  design this plan, time marches on and Caltrain will continue its electrification work. Palo Alto Ave must be kept open to  support traffic and shouldn't be tied to the Palo Alto Ave / Downtown Land Use Plan. We should continue to work on  Palo Alto Ave's grade separation independently as a hedge for if the Palo Alto Ave / Downtown Land Use Plan is delayed  or does not happen.     Depending on the situation, I would also advocate for decoupling Embarcadero, if the Palo Alto Ave / Downtown Land  Use Planning Problem Statement were to include the area up to (or past) Embarcadero, for the same reason as above.    Lastly I am concerned about the overlap time between when Caltrain starts increasing trains and when we finish grade  separations. It will be a time of great pain and discomfort for Palo Alto, when roads are alternately open and closed, and  traffic snarls are the norm every day during rush hour, and we experience construction noise and disruption across the  town. Right now, if we were to magically start today, that time of pain is approximately 6‐7 years from when Caltrain  starts increasing trains in 2021‐22 to when we finish grade separation in 2028, 10 years from now. The more we delay  decisions, the longer the length of time we experience this pain.    This is why I advocate for speeding up as much as possible, making decisions efficiently, and not delaying for any reason.  My hope is that Council will help push staff to do good work BUT do it faster and more efficiently.    Thank you for your kind consideration,    David Shen  CAP member  North Old Palo Alto Group            13 Carnahan, David From:Mitchell Rosen <mitchellrosen@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, December 15, 2018 2:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:I question the need for viaduct/trench/hybrid crossings at Meadow and Churchill To Council:    The last Connecting Palo Alto meeting at Mitchell Park in November, chaired by the Aecom organization, began from an  erroneous assumption, i.e. that grade separation at both Meadow and Charleston is required and can be done without  undue temporary or permanent disruption.    The 2017 Mott McDonald data that showed traffic volumes at current grade crossings was not mentioned ‐‐ it  demonstrates that both Churchill and Meadow carry relatively light vehicular loads that, if closed, would redistribute to  Embarcadero and a separated Charleston. The study correctly points out the need for Charleston to continue serving as  a 280‐to‐101 artery, designed similarly to Mountain View's plan for the Rengstorff crossing. The Churchill and Meadow  crossings together carry about the same traffic volume as Charleston alone. The latter's volumes compare to Oregon and  San Antonio.    Palo Alto has EIGHT vehicular rail crossings, counting San Antonio. With some modifications to the remaining crossings,  we should be able to close Meadow and Churchill, rearrange Palo Alto Avenue, and manage well ‐‐ all without spending  the hundreds of millions for construction and disruption that the last meeting envisioned.     I strongly hold the belief that HSR will never run on the Peninsula for both financial and engineering reasons, eliminating the need for a 110mph design -- but that's a different issue.    Mitchell Rosen, Greenmeadow  14 Carnahan, David From:Stinson Valerie <stinsonvalerie37@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 15, 2018 11:39 AM To:Council, City Cc:stinsonvalerie37@gmail.com Subject:PA City Council Dec 17 meeting, Grade Separation Palo Alto Council Members,  I am a Palo Alto resident who resides in the Meadowcreek Homeowner’s Association, a small Eichler Condominium  complex on Greenmeadow Way, abutting Alma St. in South Palo Alto. The train tracks are just the other side of Alma  from us, and we are ½ mile from the Charleston‐ Alma intersection We are completely owner occupied, and we house  34 people, four of whom are Palo Alto Unified students. Collectively, our current property value is over $22M and rising. This issue is very important to our quality of life, and I urge you to please consider the following:  1)  Include the additional alternative of “Freight Trains on Surface with Passenger Trains Underground,” in addition to the  tunnel and trench options.  This is a cost effective alternative. “Freight on Surface” would not require any shoofly track  during construction. All trains would continue on the current track during construction, which would minimize quality of  life issues (safety, noise, visuals, air quality and vibrations.) WE LIVE HERE!  2)  Ensure that the Rail Committee:  a.  Properly weighs all Quality of Life factors in future evaluations (safety, noise, visibility of track and train,  air quality and vibrations.)   b.  Stops limiting options before thorough vetting has been conducted including studies and on  environmental impacts, quality‐of‐life determinations (safety, noise, vibration, visibility of track and  train) and true cost. Consider these factors during construction time as well.   c.  Provides a more balanced evaluation of the options (Presentation on 11‐28‐18 was extremely biased  toward viaduct and anti‐trench or tunnel.)   d. Include bicycle riding capability and walkability as important factors for our students and all residents  moving east and west at all train intersections, during and after construction.  e.  Work regionally to ensure the plans across cities align.  Thank you for your deliberate attention to this important topic.  Val Stinson  Palo Alto  15 Carnahan, David From:Felicia Fahey <feliciafahey@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 14, 2018 9:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:PA City Council Dec 17 meeting, Grade Separation   Dear Palo Alto Council Members,    I am a Palo Alto resident who resides in the Meadowcreek Homeowner’s Association, a small Eichler Condominium  complex on Greenmeadow Way, abutting Alma St. in South Palo Alto. The train is just across the street from our  complex and is particular concern to me as a mother of a twelve year old who commutes to school regularly along Alma  and who also moves across the Charleston/Alma train corridor on a regular basis each day.     I have been following discussions in the community regarding the development of the rail corridor I am especially  concerned that this following option is not being taken seriously. It seems to me that it ought to be given serious time  and consideration given that it is a win‐win for so many:    1)  Include the additional alternative of “Freight Trains on Surface with Passenger Trains Underground,” in addition to  the tunnel and trench options.  This is a cost effective alternative. “Freight on Surface” would not require any shoofly  track during construction. All trains would continue on the current track during construction, which would minimize  quality of life issues (safety, noise, visuals, air quality and vibrations.)     More generally for those of us who live here, the upcoming changes are serious and will affect our experience of where  we live and our safety. Please make sure that the Rail Committee is doing due diligence by:    a.  Properly weighing all Quality of Life factors in future evaluations (safety, noise, visibility of track and train, air quality  and vibrations.)     b.  Carefully reviewing all options and not limiting options before thorough vetting has been conducted including studies  and on environmental impacts, quality‐of‐life determinations (safety, noise, vibration, visibility of track and train) and  true cost. Consider these factors during construction time as well.     c.   Providing a more balanced evaluation of the options (Presentation on 11‐28‐18 was extremely biased toward viaduct  and anti‐trench or tunnel.)     d.  Weighing more heavily on bicycle riding capability and walkability as important factors for our students and all  residents moving east and west at all train intersections.n.    Thank you for your time and consideration of the neighborhood inhabitants as you move forward in making important  decisions.    Sincerely,  Felicia Fahey       16 Carnahan, David From:bruce.train@yahoo.com Sent:Friday, December 14, 2018 9:14 PM To:Council, City Cc:mickie winkler Subject:Re: [chbb850] Please avoid years of road construction impacts Dear Council Members: I'm also a Palo Alto resident and I agree completely with Mickie Winkler. One reason I favor the viaduct option is that it could allow installation of multiple safe paths for cyclists and pedestrians under the tracks, undoing a lot of the bifurcation of the city caused by the railroad tracks. It could also open the possibility of more crossings for cars, reducing some of the traffic congestion at the current crossings that occurs during much of the day. Thank you for looking carefully at the viaduct option. Bruce Train (650) 324-7346 Channing House Palo Alto resident since 1972 On Friday, December 14, 2018, 7:10:55 PM PST, mickie winkler <mickie650@gmail.com> wrote: Dear council members,  When you think about the railroad grade crossings, please consider the potential multi‐year traffic impacts of  your decision‐‐the impacts to our school kid and businesses, the added travel times and relentless congestion,  and the ability of all of us to get around for years.      The viaduct option alone –according to our staff report—has minimal impacts to roadways during  construction‐‐plus an option to build the track without a shoofly.     The viaduct option further creates new real estate underneath the track. It could be visually preferable to a  raised solid wall. Despite fears expressed continually, the noise impacts, according to staff, will be attenuated.  (The pros and cons of the Viaduct option, as presented by staff,  are listed below. )     Thank you for bringing the interests of the full community to the decision‐making process by pursuing the viaduct  option.  Your job is to lead.      Sincerely,   Mickie Winkler  Channing House  850 Webster St.  Palo Alto, CA 94301     17 Pros  Minimal impact to roadways during construction  Option to build without a shoo fly  Landscaping can be fully restored  Opportunity for linear park  Does not block creeks  Low long‐term maintenance costs  No major utility reconstruction     Cons   Requires design exception from Caltrain  Visual impact  Relocate rail‐road cross over just north of San Antonio station  Mickie Winkler 650-324-7444 office 650-335-5540 cell -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "CHBB" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to chbb850+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to chbb850@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/chbb850. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 1 Carnahan, David From:Kellerman, Thomas W. <thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 6:18 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Barbara Ann Hazlett; kanne.megan@gmail.com; Rachel Kellerman; yoriko12330@icloud.com; nadianaik@gmail.com; alisonlcormack@gmail.com Subject:Submission for December 17, 2018 Council Meeting Attachments:Rail Letter - 12-17-18 Council Meeting.docx Honorable City Council Members: We are writing with regard to the proposal to be considered at the City Council meeting to be held on December 17, 2018 concerning proposed modifications to the Connecting Palo Alto alternatives under consideration. We would like to submit the attached letter for your review. Thank you for your consideration of the attached submission and for your efforts to address these important issues as the City strives to improve its transportation infrastructure. Best regards, Barbara Hazlett Megan Kanne Thomas Kellerman Rachel Kellerman Yoriko Kishimoto    thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com +1.650.843.7550 DISCLAIMER This e-mail message is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an attorney-client communication and as such privileged and confidential and/or it may include attorney work product. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message. C:\Users\MP014805\Desktop\Rail Letter - 12-17-18 Council Meeting.docx 1    Honorable Council Members:    We are a group of University South residents writing regarding the proposed actions for the December 17, 2018 City  Council meeting with respect to the Connecting Palo Alto project (agenda Item number 3).  We have met with several  neighbors in the University South area and attended a number of community meetings concerning the various  proposals under consideration.  In these discussions there has been a strong consensus that any changes to existing  rail crossings need to be approved only after a thorough traffic study and the inclusion of appropriate mitigation  measures to ensure that the criteria adopted by the City Council are truly achieved.  We agree with City staff and  other constituents in North Palo Alto that the traffic solutions need to be treated as an integrated system and not  merely as individual intersections.  We encourage the City Council to abide by these agreed prerequisites in its  consideration of which alternatives to implement.    For the reasons described below, we believe that the Churchill Avenue crossing should be added to the Coordinated  Area Plan.  Accordingly, we respectfully propose that item a) under the Action Item #3 to be considered by the City  Council be modified to read as follows:    “Separate from Study all Alternatives for the Palo Alto Avenue and Churchill Avenue Crossings (Closure and  Hybrid) and Include Palo Alto Avenue and Churchill Avenue in a Separate Comprehensive Planning Effort;”    Our analysis of this proposal and a number of related issues is set forth below.    Impact of Alternatives on Traffic in Residential Streets    The City Council adopted several criteria to consider in evaluating each alternative.  Among these criteria are the  following:     Consider the impact on traffic on residential streets and work to minimize the effect of changes to the  city’s rail crossings;   The FAQs published by the City state at answer A24 a commitment for “evaluation criteria to provide  clear, safe routes for pedestrians and bikes”; and   The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, policy T‐3.16 provides as follows: “Keep existing at‐grade rail  crossings open to motor vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists, consistent with results of a focused  circulation study and context sensitive alternatives analysis”.    These criteria have often not been included in the summaries of the alternatives under consideration as they impact  the articulated criteria.  The continued inclusion of these criteria and a careful analysis of the impact of each proposal  on residential traffic as well as pedestrian and bicycle safety is required by the agreed evaluation process, and indeed  is required by the existing Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.  It is our expectation that the City Council will ensure that  this analysis is included as it moves forward with the evaluation process.     C:\Users\MP014805\Desktop\Rail Letter - 12-17-18 Council Meeting.docx 2      Required Inclusion of Mitigation Actions    In its Motion 2, adopted on June 19, 2018, the City Council included the following requirements:   d. Remove the language regarding widening Embarcadero Road underpass from description of Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea; and e. Add to Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea, “study additional options for addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area including actions to minimize redirected traffic onto residential streets in adjacent neighborhoods and commit to adopting appropriate mitigations to address the impacts” As stated, the adoption of mitigation measures is a required aspect of each proposal.  With respect to the proposals  under consideration regarding the Churchill crossing, we have yet to hear any potential mitigation actions from City  staff or its consultants.  Logically a thoughtful analysis of mitigation factors will require specific proposals and a  thorough study of projected traffic patterns and the likely impact of the suggested mitigation actions.  This aspect of  the overall analysis cannot be given short shrift.  The City Council has committed that it will not adopt any specific  proposal until the intended mitigation actions are incorporated into the proposal.  We expect the Council will honor  this commitment.    Traffic Study Data    The City’s consultants have recently been conducting traffic studies and gathering relevant data.  This data will be  essential to a proper analysis and adoption of thoughtful proposals.  Our community is fortunate to have many  residents with deep skill sets in data analytics.  We strongly encourage the City to make the raw traffic study data  available to the community to ensure a robust analysis is performed.  The traffic data has been compiled in a very  short time period.  In reviewing the data, the City Council should ensure that the data is truly sufficient to support its  decision‐making process.  If it is determined that the collected data is not sufficiently detailed or comprehensive, it  will be incumbent on the Council to gather additional data before any decisions are reached.  With respect to the  Churchill crossing, we have the benefit of the opportunity to conduct a real‐world trial closure for a period of time  necessary to gather data reflecting the actual experience of such a closure.  If the City Council decides to continue to  analyze this alternative, we encourage conducting a real‐world trial before a final decision is made.    Coordinated Area Plan    The City staff is proposing that alterations be made to the Connecting Palo Alto planning process to include any  potential alterations to the Palo Alto Avenue crossing as part of a Coordinated Area Plan for the Downtown area.  We  are supportive of this proposal.  As noted above, there seems to be a general consensus that the planning process  should be conducted on a system‐wide basis.  As stated by City staff, the Stanford University General Use Permit  (“GUP”) process will directly impact the North Palo Alto traffic planning process. In answer A27 to the City’s FAQs on  this project, the City has acknowledged that both the Embarcadero and University crossings are interconnected and  would benefit from “a more comprehensive planning effort”.  This seems empirically obvious and we support this  approach.  University Avenue and Embarcadero Road constitute the principal entrances to Stanford and this  interaction needs to be contemplated in a single integrated traffic proposal.  Moreover, the earlier observations from  C:\Users\MP014805\Desktop\Rail Letter - 12-17-18 Council Meeting.docx 3    City staff and consultants have emphasized that the traffic patterns between Churchill Avenue and Embarcadero Road  are closely intertwined.  It is clear to us that the approach that will yield the best results over the long term is to  incorporate all of the North Palo Alto crossings into the intended Coordinated Area Plan.  A carefully coordinated plan  will best serve our community for many years to come.    Proposed Revision to Council Proposal #3    Based on the foregoing, we believe the revision to the City Council proposal set forth above is the best method to  achieve the City’s long‐term goals and meet the needs of our residents.    Our neighbors welcome an opportunity to discuss these matters further with the members of City Council and the  Rail Committee.    Thank you for your time and commitment to this important process.    Sincerely,    Barbara Hazlett  Megan Kanne  Rachel H. Kellerman  Thomas W. Kellerman  Yoriko Kishimoto  1 Carnahan, David From:Bonny Parke <bonny.parke@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 6:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Freightless tunnel option Dear City Council Members,    Please explore this option suggested by Nadia Naik:     "Nadia Naik has researched and put forward another option for the Council to study, which is a tunnel only for  Charleston and Meadow with Caltrain in the tunnel and freight on top ("freightless tunnel"), and she estimates the cost  at $550M (her comparables from downtown SF tunnel)."      I have already spoken at a subcommittee meeting on rail options, and this option seems doable. Thank you for your hard  work on this important issue.    Bonny    Bonny Parke, Ph.D.  3292 South Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (close to East Meadow crossing)        2 Carnahan, David From:Mary Ann Michel <maryannm7@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 7:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Viaduct train option yes   Dear council members,    When you think about the railroad grade crossings, please consider the potential multi‐year traffic impacts of your  decision‐‐the impacts to our school kid and businesses, the added travel times and relentless congestion, and the ability  of all of us to get around for years.    The viaduct option alone –according to our staff report—has minimal impacts to roadways during construction‐‐plus an  option to build the track without a shoofly.    The viaduct option further creates new real estate underneath the track. It could be visually preferable to a raised solid  wall. Despite fears expressed continually, the noise impacts, according to staff, will be attenuated.    I hope you are working with Mountain View and Atherton and Redwood City.    Mary Ann M  #384 503    1 Carnahan, David From:davherzl@sbcglobal.net Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 8:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Selection of Alternatives for Road Separation Meadow and Charleston Attachments:Meadow and Charleston Matrix.xlsx To the Rail Committee,  Thank you for taking your time and reading my feedback in regards to road separation for Meadow and Charleston.  I have been a long time Palo Alto Resident.  I went to Palo Verde Elementary School, Wilber Middle School, graduated  Palo Alto High in 1982, and continue to live and enjoy Palo Alto.  Palo Alto is a great place to live, this is my home, and  love living in Palo Alto.  Palo Alto has always been bicycle friendly, been on top of recycling, invested in trees throughout the city, and a city that  is respectful to the citizens.  I have been following the decision of grade separation, have been to several rail committee meetings, and attended the  recent community meeting on November 28th.  I have reviewed all the alternatives with an open mind and come to this question “What is best for the community” and I  strongly feel the Trench alternative is the best.  I reviewed the evaluation matrix and put scores of 1 to 6 for each criteria, see attached.  Trench scored 43, Hybrid 36, and Viaduct scored 44.  Even though the Viaduct scored the highest by one point, I still  believe the best alternative is the Trench.  The criteria of noise & vibration and visual should be weighted more, and the  Trench is the leader in both of these.  Also a criteria of what does the community want should be included.  After all it is the community that has to live with  the decision.  All the feedback that I have listen to from the community is that they do not want any of the raised  options and in fact there are about 500 neighbors that have signed a petition to this effect.  The city has a big decision to make, I believe they should evaluate all alternatives using criteria, but should look at what  criteria is most important to the community, and what does the community want.  I am willing to live with the disruption and duration of construction if the end product is better.  I strongly believe the  Trench is the best option.  The visual impact of the Hybrid and Viaduct are terrible.  We do not want to look up at this 30  to 40 foot high monstrosity.  I know that the Trench is the hard option for it has to overcome some design issues – It however is the favored option  with the community and the best option.  Thanks.  David Herzl  4135 Park Blvd. Palo Alto    Meadow & Charleson Evaluation Matrix. Number Comment Criteria Trench Hybrid Viaduct Trench Hybrid Viaduct Improve East‐ West Connectivity 6 4 6 The crossing is at street level, this is the  best option for connectivity The crossing is down and up. The crossing is at street level Reduce Traffic Congestion and Delays 6 6 6 Agree all are improvements Agree all are improvements Agree all are improvements Provide clear, safer routes for pedestrians a 646Bikes cross at street level Bikes have to go down and back up, less  safe. Bikes cross at street level Support continued operations 4 4 5 Will have shoofly, and some additional  maintenance Will have shoofly Least disruptive to operations, no shoofly Finance with feasible funding sources 1 3 2 Based on cost Based on cost Based on cost Minimize right of way acquisition 2 3 6 Used values from the Evaluation Matrix  provided by the committee Used values from the Evaluation Matrix  provided by the committee Used values from the Evaluation Matrix  provided by the committee Reduce rail noise and vibration 6 3 2 I believe this would have the least rail  noise and vibration, the ground is  sheltering the noise, I would think that  noise bouncing off the walls would reflect  high up in the air I believe this will impact a larger  community I believe the higher up would generate  noise further out. Maintain or improve local access 6 6 6 Used values from the Evaluation Matrix  provided by the committee Used values from the Evaluation Matrix  provided by the committee Used values from the Evaluation Matrix  provided by the committee Minimize visual changes along corridor 5 1 2 Visually this is the best, and is one the  more important criterias.  The limit to the  bushes shaves it by one factor, but you  put in hedges with shallow roots. The big  visual advantage is you do not see the  train high up in the air. Visually the worst, from the neighbors  yards this will be closer than the Viaduct. Visually better to the Hybrid, but still very  poor there will be a train that is high up in  the air that can be seen from a far. Minimize disruption and duration of constr 1 2 3 Used values from the Evaluation Matrix  provided by the committee. I did not  change values, but to me this is not an  important criteria, the end product is  what is more imortant Used values from the Evaluation Matrix  provided by the committee. I did not  change values, but to me this is not an  important criteria, the end product is  what is more imortant Used values from the Evaluation Matrix  provided by the committee. I did not  change values, but to me this is not an  important criteria, the end product is  what is more imortant 43 36 44 1 Carnahan, David From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 10:55 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: We urge you to remove all raised rail options for S Palo Alto intersections at the council meeting on Monday Attachments:List of Palo Alto residents who don't want any raised rail options for S PA intersections.pdf; Why No Raised Rail.pdf Hi all,    I agree with Parag. Please review options and try to find ones that would not close 3 lanes of Alma Street for months and  years totally disrupting traffic patterns.     A tunnel for Caltrain leaving freight trains at ground level seems the best solution today     Kathleen Goldfein   Resident on Alma Street in a South Palo Alto          Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPhone  Begin forwarded message:    On Sunday, December 16, 2018, 3:55 AM, Parag Patkar <parag@virtunetsystems.com> wrote:  Dear Cory, Lydia, Adrian, Greg (Tanaka), Tom, Greg (Scharff), Karen, Liz, Eric, Ed, and Rob,    First of all I appreciate you all taking the bull by the horns and moving forward aggressively to finalize grade separation options for the Palo Alto train-road intersections by early 2019.  I would again like to bring to your attention that there is fierce opposition from residents in S Palo Alto to both raised rail options - viaduct (train on a tall structure) and hybrid (train on wall) for Charleston and Meadow intersections, that are on the agenda for Monday's Council meeting.    Attached is a list of 500 residents (names and addresses) who have asked me to convey this opinion to the Council and City Staff.    I am also attaching some comments on Nextdoor from folks who have lived in places where trains run on elevated structures.     2 At the City Council meeting on Monday, we urge you to remove all raised rail options from consideration.     Respectfully,     Parag     Parag Patkar  4117 Park Blvd  cell (510) 418 2912  parag@virtunetsystems.com  ‐‐   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Palo Alto Citizens" group.  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to  paloaltocitizens+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  To view this discussion on the web visit  https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/paloaltocitizens/007101d4951d%2420cec900%24626c5b00%24%4 0virtunetsystems.com.  For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.  Why No Raised Rail? Ideal option is train in trench or tunnel with Alma, Charleston and Meadow at existing grade. South Palo Alto Community feedback on train on a viaduct or train on a wall: •Looks really bad. •Depreciates property values. •Sound travels farther and louder. Especially for freight which is louder for a longer time. •Underpass might get flooded. Not good for bike traffic. Meadow and Charleston are major school bike routes. •Divides the city. •Area under the viaduct magnet for transients/homeless with associated filth. Few of the 200+ comments on Email and NextDoor ~ Lorri Lewis, Barron Park · 19 Aug Parag Patkar. thank you for your clear presentation to us.e-~.:..,,,._,..__ Shifrin that a tunnel is #1 option and a trench #2. I live in quiet day/evening with light traffic, we can hear the trains.~~:,;;;;o~r:e"":fr;:equent and longer trains coming, the noise from trains on a high wall would significantly and negatively impact the noise level for all of Palo Alto. Anatol Zolotusky, Midtown · 19 Aug Pa rag, Thank you for the heads up. The 'train in trench or tunnel' option is so much better, that to seriously consider the other one is laug~ Please let us know how we can help to uphold the former, and to reject the latter. In particular, please let us know the dates of the relevant Rail Committee and City Council meetings. I'll try my best to make it there. Frank Shif rin, Midtown· 19 Aug If the cost is bearable, there can be no question as to what should be done. We really houldn't block of part of town with a "wall". f we choose t he trench option, someday int e u ure, we ca n turn it into a tunnel, like it should be from the beginning -if we can afford to do so now. Frank Shifrin-a resident for more than 60 years. Susan McConnell, Fairmeadow · 19 Aug I am totally opposed to the hybrid '1rain of wall" option. With so many trains going by, we will suffer from noise pollution from the train whistles. II will be awful! Having a train 40+ feet above ground will be an~or many of our homes! I much prefer the '1rain in trench or tunnel" option. Noise would be greatly reduced and we 'I a train whiZZing by from our backyards. If they can ke Alma, Charleston and Meadow at the v that would be a major plus. e ice ere is a no ra1ner...train in trench or tunnel option. Even if it is more expensive, it needs to me done because it's going to affect so many of us on a daily basis. Carol MacDonell. Palo Verdp -19''7':0~--.,._ __ The trench or tunnel. The raised trains in San Mateo Belmont and San Carlos are along El Camino in u Palo Alto. ---- v Sat 9/15/2018 6:04 PM l ee Law <leelanghammer@yahoo.com> Re:: Proposed strongly worded email to Council to remove all raised rail options in South Palo Alto To C!Parag Patl<ar @ You replied to this message on 9/15/2018 6:10 PM. Pa rag, Thanks so much for this. I cie.rmitety \Vant to keep my name.on the list. I donrt kno\v 1vhere. this frts in, but another huge <iisinc.entii.:e. for ra ise.d trac-ks on a v:ia<iuct, e.spe-cia lly. is the fact that, unfortunat ely. it \vill be-come. a ~gnet for transie.nts and hon1eless indi-..:iduals~ .:\nyone driving in San Francisco or Oakland and other areas in the Bay c.an c.te.arly se.e this in place, 1vhere incll-..:ldualS ha·•e staked out ground under the ;:lariu.cts and o.,:erpasses forth:eir tents, shopping-carts, sleeping bags,_ drug paraphernalia,_ and more. With the. train running through neighborhoods like-ours and Southgate, there is absolutely no \Vay that a viaduct or \Vall,. \Vhicb \vill j ust become. a graf:frti-infe.ste-d eye.sore, \Vill do anything but depress property values .. ~()the.r point is that a c.ity\vide via<iuc.t has be-en ruled out. This \1,;as announce-d at the. meeting a fe\V \\1eeks .ago at the tvlitcheU Park Community Center. So if a viaduct isntt good enough for the \\1hole c.ity of Palo i~lto, then \vhy is it still being considere-d "good enough" for consideration for south Palo .~o? \Ve absolutefy· must not let this happen! It is painfully obvious that, based on i.vhat I've observed and picke-<i up on during the past several meetings .. there. does se.em to be an undercu.rrent of support for a south P.~rais-ed rail o ption -by the consultants, city officia~, and several CC me,mbe.rs. This make.sme suspicious that there's some sort of back room deal going on. I hope I'm mong. #First Name Last Name Street#Street Name Zip 1 Carmela Ciral 94306 2 Engenne Kim 94306 3 Wesky Lin 94306 4 Rubert Meggwra 94306 5 C.Schwerer 94306 6 Cary Shants 94306 7 Neel Valame 94306 8 Raj Valame 94306 9 Candice Wheeler 94306 10 Heewon Park 94306 11 Marie Anne Fogel 94306 12 Hongxia Xiong 94306 13 Kathleen Goldfein 94306 14 Kathleen Goldfein 94306 15 Dawne Hom 94306 16 Ivan Hom 94306 17 Rachael Cox 94306 18 Elaine Aeal 94306 19 Gaya Bhaskar 94306 20 Lakshmi Muralidharan 94306 21 Marta Rostriguey 94306 22 Christy Rice 94306 23 Dennis Brown 94306 24 Jake Brown 94306 25 Faith Brown-Rate 94306 26 Sandra Koppe 94306 27 Matt Passell 94306 28 KC Keith 94306 29 Laurie Levy 94306 30 Elizabeth Dong 94306 31 Paul Seaver 94306 32 Jean-marc mommessin 94306 33 Tim Perkins 94306 34 Nicola Chriss 94306 35 Hing Sham 94306 36 Bob Adle 94306 37 Edith Carrick 94306 38 Ester Chiachio 94306 39 Min Chung 94306 40 Douglas Eck 94306 41 Claire Fiennes 94306 42 Hugo Fiennes 94306 List of Palo Alto residents, alphabetically sorted by street name, who oppose any raised rail options (both viaduct and Hybrid) for Charleston and Meadow intersections. 43 Anne Hessing 94306 44 Lee Hsiand 94306 45 Lowt Lakye 94306 46 Choi Lee 94306 47 Xiaohua Liu 94306 48 Jack Liu 94306 49 Mattison Lutini 94306 50 Trene Mata 94306 51 Kevin Moore 94306 52 kathleen murren 94306 53 Amie Neff 94306 54 Ying On 94306 55 Oscar Redondo 94306 56 Eva Shen 94306 57 Stephen Shigematsu 94306 58 Chikako Shigmatsu 94306 59 Neera Sohoni 94306 60 Venkat Sohoni 94306 61 Pauline Tran 94306 62 Michael Wu 94306 63 Jane Xue 94306 64 Mark Segato 94306 65 Lori McCormick 94306 66 Nisha Datta 94306 67 Brian McCormick 94306 68 Lori McCormick 94306 69 Susan Burnett 94306 70 Jason Matlof 94301 71 David Shen 94301 72 lei lin 94303 73 Katherine Lose'94303 74 Linda Jensen 94301 75 Mike Li 94303 76 Mercia Zheng 94303 77 Ana Funes 94306 78 Anne Schmtt 94306 79 Yi Zhang 94306 80 Jihong Fang 94306 81 Karen Schreiber 94306 82 Cristiana Costa 94306 83 A Fiedzienly 94306 84 S.Fiedzivsko 94306 85 Xiangqim Hu 94306 86 Zhengqi Li 94306 87 Harry Maklee 94306 88 Curis May 94306 89 MB McGrath 94306 90 I Purse 94306 91 Youxiang Wang 94306 92 Anna Wang 94306 93 Kevin Wang 94306 94 Yi Zheng 94306 95 Lillian Arajon 94306 96 Han Chen 94306 97 Xun Liu 94306 98 Diwret Lou McCourt 94306 99 Roxanne Patel 94306 100 Jean Wang 94306 101 Ying Zhang 94306 102 Rebacca Marasco 94306 103 Mary Shaw 94306 104 Aleqeksandr Shvets 94306 105 Patrice Banal 94306 106 Ying Fong 94306 107 Jean Qiu 94306 108 Michael Wessel 94306 109 Jawahar Chiguruapti 94303 110 Karen Kalinsky 94306 111 Kathy Lierle 94303 112 Shachi Bahl 94306 113 Lucy Baldwin 94306 114 Carol Bly 94306 115 Jim Bly 94306 116 Brian Cooper 94306 117 Michelle Djolic 94306 118 Becky Epstein 94306 119 Craig Evans 94306 120 Angela Feng 94306 121 Joanna Jiao 94306 122 Trevor Jones 94306 123 Kyung Jung 94306 124 Yoon Jung 94306 125 Anne Littleboy 94306 126 John Littleboy 94306 127 Diana Luberman 94306 128 Krista McDermott 94306 129 Andrea Moore 94306 130 Keith Reckdahl 94306 131 Jaime Ross 94306 132 Anakarid Salles 94306 133 Mark Talbott 94306 134 Nicolas Talbott 94306 135 Ken Wagner 94306 136 Keri Wagner 94306 137 James Young 94306 138 Lindsay Zosmo 94306 139 Sergei Lopatin 94306 140 Elizabeth Cowie 94306 141 Jim Cowie 94306 142 Jinghong Liu 94306 143 Ashish Patwardhan 94306 144 Sonia Patwardhan 94306 145 David Collins 94306 146 Lianying Duan 94306 147 Paula Collins 94306 148 Ana Barabas 94306 149 Karen Brannon 94306 150 Deyu Hu 95306 151 Samir Mittal 94306 152 Jennifer Ramberg 94306 153 Nicholas Hall 94306 154 Rinat Beeri 94306 155 Nikki Narang 94306 156 Sophie Ravel 94306 157 Miriam Brown 94306 158 Jonathan Brown 94306 159 Suman Kasturia 94306 160 Franklin Shifrin 94306 161 Vanessa You 94306 162 Nancy Hogan 94303 163 Calvin Chen 94306 164 Jayendu Jayendu 94306 165 Jaya Pandey 94306 166 Crystal Botham 94306 167 Peir Wen Xu 94306 168 LYNDA HEIDEN 94306 169 Chris Proia 94306 170 Valerie Stinson 94306 171 Shesleara Ballopos 94306 172 Davina Brown 94303 173 Sunita Sarin 94303 174 payvand kadivar 94301 175 Betsy Dickie 94303 176 Anamari Eng 94306 177 Ceabi Senguta 94306 178 Johanna Sunden 94306 179 Marius Milner 94306 180 Casie Walker 94306 181 Manjusree Bose 94306 182 Katie O'Conner 94306 183 Prerana Vaidya 94306 1 Carnahan, David From:Mueller, Ray <RDMueller@menlopark.org> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 11:56 AM To:Council, City Cc:menlo.mueller@gmail.com Subject:Re: Tunnel for High Speed Rail ?Apologies for the inserted question mark after my name.  My apple laptop does not always work well with our city  email system.      ________________________________  From: Mueller, Ray  Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 11:54 AM  To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: menlo.mueller@gmail.com  Subject: Tunnel for High Speed Rail    Dear Mayor Kniss and Esteemed Palo Alto City Councilmembers,    While I cannot speak for the newly seated City Council of Menlo Park, as we have not yet met on this issue, I can speak  for myself.  I remain very interested in meeting with representatives of the Palo Alto City Council and other City Councils  subregionally, formally, to discuss the viability of a tunnel for high speed rail in our portion of the peninsula. My hope is  you will not dismiss this alternative until we have had a chance to discuss this option, collaboratively, together.    With kind regards,  Ray Mueller?  2 Carnahan, David From:Amie Neff <amie.neff@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 11:21 AM To:Council, City; Cory Wolbach; Adrian Fine; Filseth, Eric (external); kou.pacc@gmail.com; Tom DuBois; Greg Tanaka; Scharff, Greg; electcormack@gmail.com; Shikada, Ed; Keene, James; De Geus, Robert Subject:Train Grade Separation Alternative Dear Council and Rail Committee Members,   I am unable to attend tonights meeting, but would like to add to my neighbors voices and ask the council to carefully  consider the lasting impact tonight's decision will have on our community.    I would urge you to eliminate all above‐ground options for South Palo Alto.     I would also urge you to study the option of putting the passenger train in a tunnel below, with freight above. This will  be the best long‐term solution. The future of freight on this line is uncertain. Why would we spend millions to  accommodate a train which is running infrequently, and maybe not for long.       To Misters Keene, Scharff, and Wolbach, I'm sorry to see you three go and appreciate all your years of service and  dedication to this project, and the City of Palo Alto.    Happy Holidays Everyone, and Best Wishes for the New Year.     ‐‐   Amie Neff  M.Arch, LEED® AP  ‐‐  cell: 650/ 396/ 9146  amie.neff@gmail.com  www.capabledesign.com  1 Carnahan, David From:Nathan Szajnberg <nmoshe@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 2:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please use measured, thoughtful judgement about this rail question. Think of other priorities, such as future pension funding, schools, etc.. The “rail” question has taken on its own momentum and with single‐minded advocates.    You, our elected officials, can consider our other City priorities as mentioned above and others you would know better  than I.    Please put a hold on moving precipitously forward.    In the interim, what about asking one of our Silicon Valley companies about developing a better algorithm for wait times  at crossings.?    And the “compromise” plan of having freight trains run on the tracks and spending millions to put passengers  underground seems not a fine fix.    Please exercise your judgement and knowledge about our future needs.    Nathan Szajnberg, MD  And Yikun Wu, Ph.D.    PS. The cost estimates I’ve read for increased taxes to pay for tunnels or such would increase my monthly real estate tax  to an amount that I, a semi‐retired physician, could not afford.  1 Carnahan, David From:Helen Golden <hsgoldenart@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 3:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Rail Crossing decisions   To: The Palo Alto City Council  Re: Rail Crossings  Date: Monday, December 17, 2018      Thank you for bringing the interests of the full community to the decision‐making process by pursuing the viaduct  option but I am concerned that the meeting this evening, Monday, December 17, 2018 at 8:00PM will be at an  inopportune time and the issue will not get the proper attention. Don’t we already have a January 23rd meeting  scheduled to discuss related issues?    However, I do ask that when the railroad grade crossings are discussed tonight, that you please consider the potential multi-year traffic impacts of your decision--the impacts to our school kids and to our local businesses, the added travel times and the merciless congestion that we would have to contend with, and the ability of all of us to move around our community for many long years.    The viaduct option alone – according to the staff report—has minimal impacts to roadways during construction--plus an option to build the track without a shoofly. The viaduct option further creates new real estate underneath the track, a very interesting feature and a viaduct could be visually preferable to a raised solid wall. Despite fears expressed continually, the noise impacts, according to staff, will be attenuated.    Sincerely yours,  Helen Golden   850 Webster Street  Palo Alto, CA 94301      1 Carnahan, David From:William Xuan <william.y.xuan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 3:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Railroad Dear council,  We should try to identify the best financial option for our city. Given the current state of budgetary finances, we are in  no position to entertains ‘viaducts’ and ‘tunnels’. Instead, it seems more suitable to build an underpass for pedestrians,  like the one near Paly. Or we could just have a highway style barrier next to the tracks as a crude sound barrier of sorts,  or both. The only people who are pushing for it are those who stand to benefit the most when their property values rise  as a result, otherwise known as a vocal minority, while everyone else suffers.  It’s time for us to face it, Palo Alto doesn’t have unlimited money, and it's from that standpoint in which we should look  at this issue.   Thanks,  William  2 Carnahan, David From:Gregory Brail <greg@brail.org> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 3:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail tunnel options for December 17 Dear councilors:    December 17 is too soon to change any grade separation options that involve a tunnel.     The staff has recommended studying a tunnel that begins south of California Avenue. Studying such an option as an  alternative to a viaduct or a hybrid option for South Palo Alto makes a lot of sense if there's a chance that it will yield an  affordable tunnel.    However, we have not discussed this particular tunnel option publicly or at the CAP. The only tunnel option that we have  discussed publicly or at the CAP is one that begins further north, between Embarcadero and Churchill.     It's also likely that neither of these options is the "city‐wide tunnel" that many are imagining. Given that so many  residents are pinning their hopes on a tunnel that we can all afford, it makes sense to take the time to get it right.        1 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 7, 2018 5:06 AM To:rothlaw1@comcast.net; Yang, Albert; Stump, Molly; Keene, James; Lait, Jonathan; Timothy Kassouni Andrea Sacramento, Park 7th St Entrance; Council, City Subject:Fwd: Council Hearing Dec 3 Please see forwarded link to video of council hearing on December 3.    Thanks.    Elizabeth   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: "Carnahan, David" <David.Carnahan@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Date: December 4, 2018 at 2:37:31 PM PST  To: Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com>  Cc: Timothy Kassouni <timothy@kassounilaw.com>, Andrew Wong <a.jaime.wong@gmail.com>, Jaime  Wong <jandewong@gmail.com>  Subject: RE: Council Hearing Dec 3  Elizabeth,     Here is the LINK.     David Carnahan, Deputy City Clerk, MPA  O: 650‐329‐2267 | E: david.carnahan@cityofpaloalto.org       1 Carnahan, David From:Michael Harbour <dr.mharbour@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 14, 2018 9:05 PM To:Council, City Cc:Architectural Review Board; Adam Petersen; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Keene, James Subject:429 University has come to the end of its rope Dear City Council Members,  The Palo Alto Weekly invited me to write a guest column in today's edition regarding the issues surrounding ongoing  code violations of 429 University Ave at Kipling Street.  The developer has not designed an approvable plan despite  multiple opportunities.  The plan violates the council Motion from February 6, 2017.  I've attached a link to the  article:  https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2018/12/14/guest‐opinion‐should‐persistent‐developers‐get‐to‐ ignore‐city‐laws  The Council is scheduled to hear the item on Monday evening.  I urge the Council to uphold the denial and deny any  further extension.    Thanks,  Michael Harbour, MD, MPH  2 Carnahan, David From:Peter Brewer <peter@brewerfirm.com> Sent:Saturday, December 15, 2018 2:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Ave., at Kipling Street Honorable Council Members, Please turn down, with finality, the inappropriate plans for development of 429 University Ave., at Kipling Street, for all the reasons recited in the article in “Palo Alto – Online”, affiliated with the Palo Alto Weekly:   https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2018/12/14/guest‐opinion‐should‐persistent‐developers‐ get‐to‐ignore‐city‐laws  Thank you, Peter Brewer Owner of 2501 Park Blvd. Palo Alto Peter N. Brewer, Esq.  Brewer Offord & Pedersen LLP  2501 Park Blvd, 2nd Flr.  Palo Alto, CA 94306  (650) 327‐2900 x 12  www.BrewerFirm.com  BayAreaRealEstateLawyers.com    Real Estate Law – From the Ground Up®      3 Carnahan, David From:Bob Taber <rtaber@covad.net> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 7:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Ave: please stick to the codes Palo Alto City Council members,  As residents of 328 Kipling Street (downtown north) since 1982, we have been dismayed at the steady demands of  developers and their architects for approval for projects that significantly over‐ride the allowances of Palo Alto’s  carefully‐composed guidelines (and building codes). Please bring this to an end; we are overdue to come to a time when  developers understand that the city plans were carefully and thoughtfully composed and asking for special permission to  evade the various codes and guidelines is a waste of time and resources. Let’s stick to the plans!     Carolyn & Bob Taber  328 Kipling St.  Palo Alto       4 Carnahan, David From:Evan Reade <evanreade@aol.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 8:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:429 University Dear City Council Members: I would like to add my voice to those that already OPPOSE the project proposed for 429 University. I have followed the developments leading to the current situation and attended the last meeting where you examined this issue. The project is too large, does not conform to the aesthetic of our existing downtown and is quite unattractive. I am reminded somewhat of the very sorry example of the concrete and glass structure that comes right out to the street on the 600 block of Waverley. While perhaps a fine building standing on its own, in it's current location it is an eyesore that just doesn't belong. I urge you to stand behind, support, and follow the advice of your ARB and City Staff. I believe your responsibility is to preserve quality of life issues for those living in this city, and that this includes protecting the character of our downtown. You should not be intimidated by a deep-pocket developer who has already established a history of ramming things down your throats and those of their neighbors because they're willing to challenge you with lawsuits. I believe in progress, and recognized that University Avenue should not somehow be frozen in time. But projects undertaken in the heart of our city must be reasonable and at least somewhat conforming to the existing character of our downtown. Please do the right thing: -- stand behind those professionals and board members who have already spent hours trying to make this project work but who have concluded that it doesn't; -- protect the aesthetics of our existing downtown; -- don't cave in; to do so will only encourage others to pursue the same tactics. Sincerely, Evan G. Reade Sharon Court 5 Carnahan, David From:JIM POPPY <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 10:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:Just say NO to 429 University Avenue Ms. Wong has abused the system long enough. Please refuse this eyesore and poorly planned project. Thank you, Jim Poppy 135 Melville Avenue 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 2:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:429 University To the Palo Alto City Council, The owner of this building has disregarded many instructions about size, not complied with the original dimensions, will change the face of University and Kipling with an ugly building, do we need another one in our city? The ally way will not be able to facilitate all the additional cars and certainly creates more congestion with no way to escape. Kipling St. is the narrowest street in the downtown. Our ARB needs to have higher standards for what is allowed in P.A. For all the reasons that Michael Harbour has listed and the recommendations of the Planning Dept, ARB and the HRB and the neighbors, please do permanently deny the developer's plan. Thank You, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 9430 by Michael Harbour How many years should a developer be allowed to wear down city staff and residents in order to push through bad construction plans? The City Council will hold a crucial meeting on Dec. 17 to evaluate the future of 429 University Ave., at Kipling Street, in downtown Palo Alto after facing years of pressure from the property owner to accept her development plans or face litigation. Now is the time that the Council should follow the respective recommendations of the Palo Alto Planning Department, Architectural Review Board, Historical Review Board and many neighbors and permanently deny the developer's poorly designed plan. This proposed building is a massive four-story, cold cement block patterned after the city garage and office complex at 102 University Ave. The proposed design is not pedestrian friendly, which should be a priority since it is prominently located in a public shopping area. It removes the existing pattern of shelter, awnings and alcoves, which are comforting in rainy weather and replaces them with an immense flat wall. The 2 proposed building does not enhance the surrounding historical neighborhood. The largest proportion of the building is dedicated to office space, which will most likely subject the rest of us to the associated traffic congestion created by new daily roundtrip commuters using the space. The proposal also includes demolishing four Birge Clark buildings on the site, including those once occupied by the Shady Lane gift store and Design Within Reach showroom. Municipal Code specifies that a proposed new building must be appropriate in size, scale, mass and transition to its neighbors. The Council passed a motion stating that the developer must consider all sides of the building in its design, including Kipling Street and the alleyway behind the building. The Downtown Development Guidelines also encourage the responsible development of new businesses that open onto alleyways. This proposal inhibits that goal. Kipling Street is a quaint street lined by historic one- and two-story Victorian homes and beautiful gardens. Kipling Street also is the narrowest street in downtown Palo Alto — nearly half the width of Bryant or Waverley streets. Yet, the developer is trying to build a multi-use project that would overwhelm the existing Victorians with the same tall and massive buildings permitted on El Camino Real. The alley adjoining Kipling Street serves as an entrance for several businesses. This proposed building would swallow up its neighbors and convert the alley into a busy garage ramp. 1 Carnahan, David From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 4:43 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Minor, Beth; Keene, James; De Geus, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Megan Kanne; Philip Burton; Carrasco, Tony; Inyoung Cho; Chris Logan; Greg Brail; Kari Hodgson; Parag Patkar; Mandar Borkar; Dave Shen; Patricia Lau Subject:URGENT: Request to pull Consent Item #15 - Caltrain Electrification Agreement Attachments:CARRD Public Comment- Consent- Caltrain Electrification agreement.pdf Attached please find CARRD's recommendation to pull the Caltrain Electrification Agreement from Consent Calendar There are a number of issues that warrant a robust City Council discussion - including the type and placement of the electrification poles, the wiring on the historic bridge and the staging and storage areas highlighted on the maps that are drawn over places with existing trees and bushes. More details are provided in our comments attached. Thanks, Nadia Naik CARRD !! ! To: City Council From: CARRD (Nadia Naik – nadianaik@gmail.com) Date: December 17, 2018 Re: Recommendation to pull Consent Calendar Item #15: Caltrain Electrification Agreement CARRD requests the Caltrain Electrification Agreement (Consent Calendar item #15) be pulled from consent. We understand the sense of urgency to approve the Caltrain Electrification agreement, however, there are significant items that warrant more detailed oversight by the City Council. Were it not for how big the grade separation projects are, the electrification of Caltrain would be the single largest and most significant change to happen to the ROW in Palo Alto. As such, it deserves more careful attention to the details. CARRD notices at least ! 1. Staging Areas: The map on page 28 and 29 of the packet for this item (Exhibit C) are maps showing two staging areas (attached). One image shows a diagram overlaid on what appears to be mature oaks (google maps view) that border the soccer fields near PA Avenue. The other appears to be the area between East Meadow and Charleston along the tracks and Alma. The diagram is overlaid on the trees and bushes that currently serve as a buffer. Will the use of the space as a staging area require additional removal of trees and shrubs? Is this a permanent storage area? In South Palo Alto, if it is permanent storage does that impact shoo-fly design? 2. Historic Bridge over San Francisquito Bridge: The San Francisquito creek rail bridge is historic. We recently reviewed the relevant EIR section (http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Caltrain+Modernization+Program/FEIR/3.4+Cultural.pdf) that says: "The installation of the power system supports on this historically significant bridge could result in significant adverse impacts...Substantial alteration of the bridge structure could be a significant impact. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1d, the historic resource would not be altered other than the small clearance holes, and the cables would be suspended above and parallel to the existing railroad line. Thus, with mitigation there would be no significant impact on the characteristics of the bridge that make it appear to meet the criteria for listing in the CRHR." Mitigation measure CUL-1d has measures regarding pole placement at historic stations that don't seem directly applicable. Mitigation measure CUL-1f, however, has information specific to the bridge. "The OCS cables shall be suspended from the upper portions of the San Francisquito Creek Bridge truss. The power cables shall use fasteners and brackets to support the power lines. The brackets shall be attached to the existing structure, but no part of the existing structure shall be removed as a part of the Proposed Project. Installation of the main support brackets shall require no permanent modification to the bridge structure and shall be completely removable. Installation of the static wire grounding brackets will require site drilling of eight 5/8-inch diameter clearance holes, with the brackets completely removable. No poles shall be set on the bridge itself." This section makes clear there will actually be power support brackets on the bridge - exactly what was described as potentially a significant impact. We have never actually seen any plans showing what they would look like. As far as we know, the ARB has not reviewed them - relying on the main text that states there will only be a few small holes drilled and unaware an un-cited mitigation measure described the attachment of power supports. We assume the State Historic board also did the same. It is possible that the brackets are not an issue, but we think it is important to make sure that the relevant parties have an opportunity to review the plans. 3. Pole Types and Pole Placement: Several councilmembers have shown a keen interest in understanding what kinds of poles will be placed in Palo Alto (center pole supports or side poles, etc.) Reading the recent ARB staff report and minutes, we are a little confused on the status of pole type decisions. The type of pole used can have a significant impact on tree pruning and removal. It would be helpful to understand what is up for discussion and what is non-negotiable. This is a significant concern for the residents and should be closely understood and discussed publicly. ! ~ N ;.; I "' 0 N .,; 0 ~ 0 I ~ " ~ i ~ ~ :> 8 -------PCJPB _____ PCJPB OPERATING EASEMENT _____ RAILROAD FRANCHISE ON CITY PROPERTY -------------PCJPB EASEMENT PROPERlY INFORMATION -------SAMTRANS -------SMCTA/VTA -------BART -----BART OPERATING EASEMENT -------UPRR -----CITY EASEMENT ON PCJPB PROPERTY -------CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO -----SFPUC EASEMENT ( SYMBOLS OPOSED STAGING/ ;:, 10RAGE AREA PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ALIGNMENT 1250 Son Carlos Avenue Son Carlos, CA 94070 CAOD Fll£ NAME CADD DATE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD ASAS 21-:io-A 12052018 ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT ~100• ACCESS, STORAGE AND STAGING 1-CO_NTRA_CT _NO ____ ,LE_POST--i CITY OF PALO ALTO SHEET 1 OF 2 OWG NO MP 29 REV PAGE NO 30 ~ ~ ~ g I ~ "' J ;;, ~ "' 1--% ~ cl I ~ ~ (.!) ~ 8 a:::: l ~ w I > 0 CD ~ ili <( > w' z "' ~ / l ::> w 0 2 (/) ~ j :;;! 0 ~ u :;:: u w ~ ~ u 0 8 € ~ "' u / i' ~ a; '° PROPERlY INFORMATION 0 ~ -------PCJPB -------SAMTRANS N a; " ~ PCJPB OPERATING > EASEMENT -------SMCTA/VTA 0 z RAILROAD FRANCHISE -------BART ~ ON CITY PROPERTY BART OPERATING E' ::> ------------PCJPB EASEMENT 0 0 EASEMENT -------UPRR -----CITY EASEMENT ON PCJPB PROPERTY -------CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO -----SFPUC EASEMENT FZ SYMBOLS PROPOSED STAGING/ r L ! STORAGE AREA _ _ ~ PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ALIGNMENT PROPOSED STAGING/STORAGE AREA LYING PARTIALLY OR WHOLLY OUTSIDE OF JPB'S PROPERTY /OPERATING EASEMENT LINES CAOD FILE NAME PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD ASAS_31-40 CAOD llAlE 05202015 ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT ~100• ACCESS, STORAGE AND STAGING r=c=oNTRACT=~N0~~M=-=iLE=POsr=-----. CITY OF PALO ALTO SHEET 2 OF 2 DWG NO MP 33 REV PAGE NO 34 1 Carnahan, David From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 11:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please Pull #15 off of consent tonight Hello Council:  Thank goodness we have Nadia.  Don't you think?  I just read CAARD's analysis of the flaws of Agenda Item #15 and have  to agree that it should be pulled off consent.  Thank you very much.  Becky Sanders.  1 Carnahan, David From:kemp650@aol.com Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 11:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Request to pull Consent Item #15 - Caltrain Electrification Agreement from tonight's meeting agenda Dear City Council members, I am writing to urge you to pull Consent Item #15 - Caltrain Electrification Agreement from tonight's city council meeting agenda. I agree with others who believe there are too many issues involved and that a public forum should be held before this issue gets voted on by the city council. I also believe that it shouldn’t be rushed through in a year-end session by a ‘lame duck’ council. Electrification is a huge undertaking with lasting impacts over many years. I believe progress is being made, but that we should take the time to allow for a public forum. Thanks, Susan Kemp Ventura resident From:Kim Murray To:Council, City Subject:Tonight - Train Electrification Date:Monday, December 17, 2018 12:59:29 PM Attachments:image001.png Hello:   Since it sounds like it is too early to discuss train electrification, I am requesting that you pull #15 from the consent calendar and refrain from discussing till a later date.   From a Ventura Neighborhood resident.   Kim Murray 3543 Park Blvd.   Kim Murray Director of Administrative Services for Janine Bisharat 1550 El Camino Real, Suite 250
 Menlo Park, CA 94025
 Direct: 650-264-9087 Main: 650-328-2758 Fax: 650-242-4473 Kim@KarunaAdvisors.com| www.karunaadvisors.com 1 Carnahan, David From:Angela Dellaporta <asdellaporta@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 1:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item #15 Dear City Council ‐‐     Please remove Item #15 from the consent calendar tonight. Addressing this issue on the without public input, during the  last meeting of the year, with a "lame duck" council is not good governance.    Thank you,     Angela Dellaporta   1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 1:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Request to pull Consent Item #15 - Caltrain Electrification Agreement Attachments:CARRD Public Comment- Consent- Caltrain Electrification agreement.pdf I have read the pdf below, and feel there are too many unknowns that will effect our residents and community. Please pull this item from the consent calendar. Thank You, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 - Request to pull Consent Item #15 - Caltrain Electrification Agreement Attached please find CARRD's recommendation to pull the Caltrain Electrification Agreement from Consent Calendar There are a number of issues that warrant a robust City Council discussion - including the type and placement of the electrification poles, the wiring on the historic bridge and the staging and storage areas highlighted on the maps that are drawn over places with existing trees and bushes. More details are provided in our comments attached. Thanks, Nadia Naik CARRD -- > 1 Carnahan, David From:Nancy Adler <adcomm109@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 2:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Caltrain Electrification Agreement With regard to the above item on tonight’s agenda, I fully support CAARD ‐ Nadia Naik’s  request to pull from consent,  Item 15.  I agree that significant items need further oversight by the City Council.    Nancy Adler    Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 3:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Tonight's council agenda Importance:High Council Members,  I read CARRDs email to council and I agree that Item 15, Caltrain Electrification Agreement, should be pulled  from the consent calendar.    There are too many complex issues and too much at stake to rush this through.   Thank you,              Pat Marriott    Palo Alto property owner    1 Carnahan, David From:Leslie Goldman <lrgc@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 3:28 PM To:Council, City Cc:nadianaik@gmail.com; Neilson Buchanan Subject:Pull the Caltrain Electrification Agreement from Consent Calendar Attn: Council As a Palo Alto homeowner, voter and interested community member, I request that Council pull Item #15: Caltrain  Electrification Agreement from tonight's Consent Calendar.    As per CARRD's request, there are a number of issues that warrant a robust City Council discussion - including the type and placement of the electrification poles, the wiring on the historic bridge and the staging and storage areas highlighted on the maps that are drawn over places with existing trees and bushes.     Thank you,  Leslie Goldman Caine  Bryant Street  1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 3:35 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:December 17, 2018, 4:30 pm City Council Meeting, Item #15: Caltrain Agreement Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    December 17, 2018    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      DECEMBER 17, 2018, 4:30 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #15  AGREEMENT FOR CALTRAIN PENINSULA CORRIDOR ELECTRIFICATION PROJECT      Dear City Council:    Before you approve this agenda item, I urge you to find out what work Caltrain has already done along its right-of-way in Palo Alto since it announced in the last week of August 2018 that it was beginning that week to work on its project in Palo Alto.    http://www.caltrain.com/about/MediaRelations/news/Caltrain_to_Hold_Public_Meeting_on_Electrification_i n_Palo_Alto.html Caltrain to Hold Public Meeting on Electrification in Palo Alto August 27, 2018 Caltrain will host a community meeting on Tuesday, August 28, to discuss how continued construction for the Caltrain Electrification project will affect Palo Alto. The meeting will take place inside the Fireside Room of the Lucie Stern Community Center, 1305 Middlefield Road, from 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. Construction activities are set to begin along the Caltrain right-of-way in Palo Alto this week. These activities consist of utility potholing, tree pruning/removal and the installation of the overhead contact system foundations. The Caltrain Electrification project is a key component of the Caltrain Modernization Program that will electrify the corridor from the San Francisco Caltrain Station at 4th and King streets 2 to approximately the Tamien Station in San Jose, and replace diesel-hauled trains with Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) trains. Electrification will improve Caltrain’s system performance, enable more frequent and/or faster train service, and reduce long-term environmental impact by reducing noise, improving regional air quality and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Caltrain Electrification is scheduled to be operational by 2022.  Thank you. Herb Borock       1 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 4:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:ADU fee waiver- December 17, 4:30 pm Item 18 Consent Calendar - Please pull and amend proposed law I am glad to see the council taking steps to lower the costs of ADUs by eliminating the fees. Upon a close reading of the  bill, I was surprised to see that it will only apply to garage conversions where the garage is DETACHED.     The motion passed by council at the October 1, 2018 meeting stated:    "D. Eliminate the development fees for JADUs or for garage conversions;"    Nowhere did the motion specify that it should only apply to detached garages, not attached ones.  I would request that  council pull this item from the consent agenda and amend the proposed law to include all garage conversions. ADUs will  almost all be naturally affordable housing. As a city and county, we are willing to provide hundreds of thousands of  dollars per unit to create affordable housing. It seems perverse to charge fees for a very economical way to create more  housing options in the city.    Regards  Elizabeth Alexis  1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 3:45 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:December 17, 2018, 4:30 pm Council Meeting, Item #19: $4 million General Fund Savings Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    December 17, 2018    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      DECEMBER 17, 2018, 4:30 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #19  $4 MILLION GENERAL FUND BUDGET AMENDMENTS      Dear City Council:    An earlier decision to create a separate Infrastructure Fund that was previously included as part of the General Fund should not exempt the Infrastructure Fund from being considered whenever it is necessary to reduce expenses for any reason or to reallocate funds to other purposes.    Retaining infrastructure funding while cutting services tends to benefit businesses at the expense of residents.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock        1 Carnahan, David From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 1:41 PM To:Council, City Cc:Holman, Karen (external); Kniss, Liz (external); Becky Sanders; Roxy Rapp; Peter Pau; Elizabeth Chapman; Zelkha, Mila; Miriam K. Freedman; Charlie Knox; Mateo Romero; Ken Dauber; Camille Townsend; Terry Acebo Davis; David Hess Subject:artist colony in Ventura or at Cubberley Yo: (or Honorable Yo's): The New York Times yesterday has an article about WestBeth artist colony in New York, a federally subsidized project. Artists such as Diane Arbus, Patti Brown, Robert DiNero Sr., and Gil Evans lived and thrived there. I'm wondering if there is support, among leadership, the arts, or philanthropy (like Laurene Powell Jobs' wonder Emerson Collective) to create such a community in Palo Alto, perhaps at the 30-acre special district in Ventura (east of El Camino, between Oregon and Meadow, aka "Fry's") or the Cubberley campus, which is a natural transition in that it already is the locus of many arts offerings. Finding Her Place at Westbeth     Finding Her Place at Westbeth It took this writer 24 years to get a one‐bedroom in the West  Village artists’ colony, and now she wouldn’t drea...       See: "A One-Bedroom That's Worth The 24-Year Wait: It took a decade to get a studio at an artists' colony, and a while longer for something bigger" by Kim Velsey (NYT, Sunday December 16, 2018 p BU13). I'm aware that I've suggested such pipe dreams and idealisms before, to no avail. Yet sometimes a pipe is not a pipe. Mark Weiss Earthwise Productions of Palo Alto (25 years: 1993-2108+)   2 Plastic Alto blog 3x candidate for Council 6x candidate for commission/board Gunn graduate Dartmouth graduate married to a former arts commissioner (in fact, we met at the studio of an artist whose work is now at Mitchell Park) Bryant Street, Downtown North (650) 305-0701 1 Carnahan, David From:Murphy, Seamus <murphys@samtrans.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 19, 2018 10:40 AM To:Council, City Cc:Fromson, Casey; Ledezma, Paola; Bouchard, Michelle; Reggiardo, Melissa; Petty, Sebastian Subject:Calrain Grade Separation responses Attachments:City of PA Caltrain Response 12-18-18.pdf Mayor Kniss and Councilmembers,     Please see the attached letter responding to the City’s questions about grade separation requirements.     Please feel free to let me know if you have questions or need more information.       Seamus P. Murphy | Caltrain, SamTrans, SMCTA  Chief Communications Officer  1250 San Carlos Avenue | San Carlos, CA 94070  650.508.6388 | murphys@samtrans.com     Calr BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2018 JEANNIE BRUINS, CHAIR GILLIAN GILLETI, VICE CHAIR CHERYL BRINKMAN CINDY CHAVEZ DEVORA "DEV" DAVIS JEFF GEE DAVE PINE CHARLES STONE MONIQUE ZMUDA JIMHARTNETI EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR December 18, 2018 Mayor Liz Kniss City of Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94063 Dear Mayor Kniss: Thank you for your letter regarding grade separation considerations. I understand Caltrain has discussed these issues with the City in various other venues, but wanted to make sure you have a consolidated response to the questions posed in the letter. 1. Under what conditions would Ca/train accept a grade variance from 1 percent to 2 percent, and what would the approval process be? Caltrain has a standard procedure for design variances. It outlines the approval process and required supporting documentation. The allowable maximum grade takes into consideration factors such as operational impacts, vehicle performance, proximity to stations, other site specific conditions, and maintenance impacts. A comprehensive study including operational simulations is required to support the design variance request. Additionally, the requestor is responsible for the costs to support the variance review/analysis. 2. Under what conditions would Ca/train accept a variance to the existing vertical clearance for poles and wires, and what would the approval process be? Caltrain minimum clearance to the pole and wires is established to meet California Public Utilities Commission requirements such as General Order 95 and SEO 2. Union Pacific Railroad also requires minimum clearances. 3. How are grade separation design criteria and constraints likely to change in the future? The Caltrain Business Plan wi ll help shape a long range vision for the corridor and will address how train service will grow over time and the kinds of supporting infrastructure that may be needed to support this growth. This work will include significant focus on the issue of grade- crossings and an effort to develop a corridor-wide strategy to support the funding and PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD 1250 San Carlos Ave . -P.O. Box 3006 San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 (650) 508-6269 Mayor Liz Kniss December 18, 2018 Page 2 of 3 implementation of grade separations. Any changes to Caltrain's standards must be considered in a way that is careful, deliberate and fully and fairly weighs both benefits and consequences, and should be undertaken on a system-wide basis. We anticipate working with the City of Palo Alto and other corridor communities in the coming year to begin this discussion. 4. What should the City of Palo Alto assume regarding freight on the Ca/train right-of-way in the future? The City of Palo Alto should assume that freight will continue to operate diesel locomotives along the corridor, even after Caltrain electrifies the line. UPRR use of the Caltrain Corridor is governed by the Surface Transportation Board. Subsequently, Caltrain has a trackage rights agreement with UPRR that specifies the terms of freight operations. After the electrification of the Corridor, it is anticipated that a short-line freight operator will replace UPRR. In addition, the Caltrain Corridor is included in the STRACNET Corridor which specifies additional requirements to allow shipments of military equipment, if needed. 5. What is Caltrain's criteria regarding shooflies that are likely needed for several grade separations during construction? In general, the shoofly track shall be designed for timetable speed for both passenger and freight trains per Caltrain track standards and operating requirements. Except for approved construction windows during cut over operations, the proposed grade separation design shall keep all Caltrain tracks fully operational at all times and shall cause no interruption to train operations during construction. The construction of the grade separation shall not temporarily or permanently reduce the future demand on the Caltrain operating system and shall meet future Caltrain standards and requirements. 6. What level of funding support needed to grade separate because of the PCEP can or could be expected from Ca/train? The Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) does not include any grade separations. As stated previously, the Business Plan will identify a long term service vision for the corridor and the infrastructure needed to support that service. The Plan will also include a strategy for funding these investments over time. It is anticipated that a variety of local, regional, state and federal funding sources will be needed to support these corridor-wide investments. Ill Mayor Liz Kniss December 18, 2018 Page 3 of 3 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? Environmental and economic life-cycle assessments should be performed for all alternatives. For a traditional grade separation such as raising and/or lowering the track by embankment, viaduct and bridge, the City of Palo Alto may assume that Caltrain will take on the maintenance responsibility for such new infrastructure. However, the City of Palo Alto may assume it is responsible for the cost to maintain trench and/or tunnel alternatives as they are anticipated to be significantly more expensive to maintain. Additionally, a mixed operation with freight (diesel powered locomotive) and passenger trains in a tunnel is not desired and requires special attention by FRA under High-Speed Passenger Rail Operations. Ultimately, the specific terms of a maintenance agreement would need to be negotiated between Caltrain and the City. Again, thank you for these thoughtful questions. As the City continues its assessment of potential options, please let us know if more information is needed. Sincerely, cc: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board Palo Alto City Council 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2018 9:21 AM To:Supervisor Simitian Cc:Council, City; Dave Price; Bill Johnson; Jon Mays; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; Neil Chase Subject:CASA Compact Centralization of power via MTC Wednesday Dec 19 Attachments:181215 Widening Gulf of the Tech Cities WS Journal Dec 15 2015.pdf Joe, thanks for spending study session time with Council and citizens last night. It is good to have a solid update on so many issues. I find it amusing that MTC and CASA Compact were not on the front burner. I hope you will return to our Council for the sole purpose of conveying your grasp of SB50, et al. I wonder when some type of Moses arises and leads us to a better promised land. This type of leadership coming from "appointed, un-elected" ABAG/MTC representation now flows to super majority legislature. The level of public awareness is subpar. Therefore, it is perilous politics and social change. Please lake a look at the 8 minutes youtube summary of ABAG Exec Board discussion in mid- Nov. Comments from Greg Scharff and Dave Cortese portend a modern day Christmas Carol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuZwxcrPucc&feature=youtu.be Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301oeoe, 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> To: wslocum@smcgov.org <wslocum@smcgov.org>; jbruins@losaltosca.gov <jbruins@losaltosca.gov>; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org <dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org>; aworth@cityoforinda.org <aworth@cityoforinda.org> Cc: info@bayareametro.gov <info@bayareametro.gov>; City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greg Scharff <gregscharff@aol.com>; Jon Mays <jon@smdailyjournal.com>; Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>; Neil Chase <nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com>; Dave Price <price@padailypost.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2018, 8:46:09 AM PST Subject: Centralization of power via MTC Wednesday Dec 19 Dear MTC Commissioners, Everyone in California is aware of our housing crisis. It is a crisis in almost every successful city and region in the United States. Please take time and read the attached Wall Street Journal on December 15 It is not prescriptive. It is perspective lacking in your deliberations to date. 2 This Compact will create massive disequilibrium for lower income workers and the fragile supply of housing they have. There is no evidence of placing direct fiscal responsibility on the businesses creating massive imbalance on housing and transportation infrastructure. . Formulation of the CASA Compact is flawed. It has not relied on the proven, but slow process of democracy. The Compact has been driven by relentless job growth locally and in similar regions of the United States. Economic boom in our 9-county region is extremely unusual. It may be permanent; it may be a bubble....a big bubble. Special solutions are needed, but not at the expense of proven principles of democracy. I personally doubt many regions will choose the solution MTC is endorsing. MTC-appointed committees are concentrated with biased representatives from big businesses, real estate developers, and big cities. Hardly any of the 101 cities in the 9-county Bay Area have been informed or engaged. Up until last week, the content and format of the CASA Compact was still changing. The decision is being rushed forward during the holidays without adequate time for review. The Compact sets up an adversarial model that falsely blames cities and aims to pass legislation to punish cities for not building more housing. Punishing a city is punishing its citizens and duly elected officials. Who has thought through the political and social ramification of your proposals to the state legislature. The Compact proposes a new, independent, public/private "Regional Housing Enterprise" wit/taxing authority to annually collect and distribute $1.5B in new taxes and administer standardized zoning for the entire area. The Regional Housing Enterprise would divert property taxes that fund basic community services and infrastructure into a regional coffer. Let's avoid hyperbole. "A 15-Year Emergency Policy Package to Confront the Housing Crisis in the San Francisco Bay Area." You are recommending an unproven social experiment to eliminate local control in order to expand corporate ownership of land and wealth as a means of generating even more corporate profits. We have a big housing problem. You are creating a bigger crisis in our democracy. In conclusion, please reflect on ABAG discussion in mid-November. Dave Cortese and Gregg Scharff recognized political perils of moving too fast and too far beyond public expectations. Here are Cortese and Scharff concerns posted on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuZwxcrPucc&feature=youtu.be Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com r 812 I Saturday/Sunday, December l~~-16, 2018 **** KEYWORDS I CHRISTOPHER MIMS . . Ameri~_a's Top Digital Citie~ A handful of cities are.pulling away from all the rest as technology drives a widening gulf Technology is cre- ating an econqmy in which superstar em- pfoyees work for su- \ perstar firms that .. j·...._.. . \ gather them into su- . ·=-J. • perstar cities, leading to a stark geographic concentration of wealth unlike any seen in the past century. The latest example of this is ~­ ple announcing this past week a· billion-dollar investment in a new campus that could ultimately ac- commodate up to 15,000 employ- ees in a city already red hot with talent (Austin, Texas). That follows Amazon's recent choice to put its two new headquarters in existing superstar cities (New York and Washington, D.C.). When economists talk about "superstar" anything, they're refer- encing a phenomenon first de- scribed in the early 1980s. It began as the product of mass media and was put into overdrive by the in- ternet. In an age when the reach of everything we make is greater than ever, members of an elite class of bankers, chief executives, program- mers, Instagram influencers and just about anyone with in-demand technical skills have seen their in- comes grow far faster than those of the middle class. In this winner-take-all economy, the superstar firms-think Apple, Google and Amazon, but also their increasingly high-tech equivalents in finance1 health care and every other industry-appear to account for most of the divergence in pro- ductivity and profits between com- panies in the U.S. As~s clu~ter around talent, and t ent is.iBturn drawn to those firm' , the result is a self-reinforc- ing trend toward ever-richer, ever- costlier metro areas that are eco- nomically dominant over the rest of the country. Ironically, the inter- net that ma,ny of the firms power isn't helping. While it was sup- posed to pase distance, it can't yet replace.ijigh-quality face-to-face - commu.nlcation required for rapid- fire innovation. ·• Members of the Federal Reserve, among others, have warned that the rise of-geographic inequality and a deepening urban-rural divide threaten growth in the U.S. This has led some to declare that rural America is the "new inner city," plagued by poverty, drugs and "deaths of despair." Similar pat- terns of migration of wealth to cit- ies appear to be playing out all over the world. For most of the 20th century, this divide did not exist. "Something changed in 1980," says Mark Muro, a senior fellow and director of the metropolitan policy program at the Brookings Institution. "Wh~t happened was the introduction of the PC." He adds, "Until about then, metros were becoming more like ea·ch other. Incomes were converging, and industries were becoming . more distributed across place." From the early 1970s through Rising Fortunes Index of average annual wages 160'-----~--"------f- 140 120 100 I Top 2% of metros I Bottom third of metros Median metro '80 '90 2000 10 Note: 1969 ; 100. Metro rankings are determined each year of the data. Source: Brookings Institute analysis of BEA data THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. the 1980s, companies like IBM, Digital Equipment Corp. and Apple used mainframes, minicomputers and eventually PCs to make com- panies-and the first technologi- cally adept superstar workers- more productive. Mr. Muro calls it the first wave of the '"digitaliza- tion" of work. The internet was supposed to lead to a golden age of distributeq workforces. In some ways it did: The proportion of workers who do their jobs remotely is now at least 20% and groWing. But superstar firms continue to insist that their top-performing employees cluster in global head- quarters or at least regional of-. . fices, costs and congestion bE damned. Facebook's new office is lit the world's largest open-plan workspace, even though wor.11 generally hate them. Apple's 1 HQ in California was designec the ground up to force people bump into each other and coll rate. Amazon could have save bundle by creating an entirely tual ''HQ2." After all, the-mo online-oolsi o · dentifying ti talent work anywhere, and cru spot a great coder in Arkansai India. But even the most modern I munication technologies are li ited: They can't carry as much formation as a real-life, face-t< face collaboration. Slack, emai instant messaging are well knc for their inability to convey toi and the resulting crossed wire. The more a firm is depende; on innovation-that is, leverag technology to be the absolute I at what it does-the more inte the collaboration of its superst employees. Famously, Google's two ''Level ll" eJl$ineers (on a scale of 1to10) code by sittinii next to one another, staring at same screen and working on a gle-i<:eyboard. Technologists who employ b remote workers and people col lected into an office have debat and analyzed the phenomenon great length. Their own experiE boils down to this ban mot fror venture capitalist Marc Andree sen: There's a "huge premium to being 10% better at executing,". meaning that while it can be a:,I?~ to bring workers to a central offfce, it's worth it even if it leads to an • incremental gain in productivity. Johnathan Nightingale, ·former vice president of Firefox at Mozila, has pointed out that while remote work can be sustainable, anything that ·slows down a startup in the- critical first few years can mean I losing to a faster competitor. / Whether or not this·is the case, it's become such an acc~pted way of thinking in tech that compa- nies-even big ones that only "think like a startup"-obey it as if it were a law. ~ ~-'----~~~~~~~~~~~ ~ The internet can't yet ;.. replace the face-to-face · communication required for rapid-fire innovation. Attempts to turn cities outside of Silicon Valley into superstar cit- ies by making them tech hubs have met with mixed success. Metro ar- eas succeed when they capitalize on their existing talents. One rea- son Amazon chose Nashville, Tenn., for a big regional office, says Mr. Muro, could be that it's already a ~ub for medical IT and digital pa- tient records. Using data from time-use surr veys conducted by the federal gov- ernment, Mr. Muro and his col- leagues created an index of every metro area in the U.S., ranking them by how much workers in each use computers to accomplish their jobs. This yields a measure of the digitalization of every worker in· dustry and city surveyed. '. The results include both exactly what you would expect-Silicon Valley is No. 1-and some illustra- tive surprises. Salt Lake City home to the "Silicon Slopes," is No'. 12 on the list, right behind the tech hub of San Francisco and ahead of tech-~appy Se~ttle. Austin, where Apple is expanding, is No. 9 on the list. Unlike other rankings, from real- estate prices to venture-capital in- vestment, the Brookings index shows us not only which cities have done well and become unafford- able. It also shows which ·still-af- fordable ones should, by the sup - star logic, do well in the future. Not everyone agrees that tech- nology is a primary driver of geo· graphic inequality. Stacy Mitchell co-director of the nonprofit Insti: tute for Local Self-Reliance, argues that many of these trends are bet- ter explained by changes.in policy which since the early 1980s have ' in many distinct ways given large companies free rein to merge dominate markets, pursue go~ern­ ment subsidies and tax breaks and · in general grow larger at the ~x­ pense of small, medium and local businesses. :'In particular, the 1982 merger gwdelines are very specific in that the only thing that matters [when considering antitrust] is economic efficiency, which is translated into consumer welfare and low prices," she adds. The cities with the most start- ups and investment tend to see more business formation, but a · long-term challenge lurks: If a su- pers~ar city becomes too large, the service workers who aren't benefit- ing from the boom will be priced o_ut. In the end, this might limit the size of these cities-at least until many of those workers are re- placed by robots. 1 Carnahan, David From:Dan Adams <dan_adams@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 8:51 AM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission; Clerk, City Subject:cell network equipment on poles - they should become extinct Dear City Council Members,  I'm writing again to ask you to eliminate pole‐top cell network infrastructure by pushing the telecom companies to bury  their installations in underground vaults. Underground installations should be the only option for locating this type of  equipment in residential neighborhoods. These systems don't belong next to people's houses and above our  neighborhood sidewalks and walking paths.    My primary grievance with the pole‐mounted equipment in residential neighborhoods is the noise pollution. Within 50  feet of these poles, constant white noise is noticeable during otherwise quiet times of the day. For people who have  houses right next to these poles, they must hear this noise in their yards all the time. Within 20 feet of these poles, the  sound is loud enough to be heard inside a houses if the windows are open. It seems wrong to bring this sort of constant  noise pollution onto someone's property. On my morning walks, I walk by several of these pole‐mounted systems. When  walking toward them and as the noise starts to be audible, it sounds like a car is approaching from down the street.     I love the quiet times in our neighborhood and am lucky enough to own a home here. If the city added one of these  constant noise sources within earshot of my yard and house, I would be heartbroken at the loss of the quiet we cherish  and would be furious someone allowed this kind of infrastructure to alter the environment of my house and yard.  Airplane and car noise break the silence periodically but then quiet returns. With these systems, quiet is gone for good.  These systems are also eyesores, especially the big cans sticking up from the top of the pole, usually looking wobbly and  sloppy since they rarely seems to be lined up well with the pole. In a community which cares about aesthetics, our great  tree canopy and architecture controls and review, why would we possibly tolerate such lousy looking equipment  mounted in our neighborhoods? Would you accept one of these things mounted on the corner or side of your lot?  The telecom industry is not hurting for profit these days. Please make them pay to bury all of their infrastructure. Palo  Alto must allow the Utilities to bear his cost. The city must not make the residents bear the significant everyday  environmental burden just so the Utilities can increase their profitability.  Thanks,  Dan Adams  3550 Whitsell Ave.  1 Carnahan, David From:Melody Song <shanghaimelody@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 9:30 PM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers in Palo Alto Neighborhoods Dear Members of City Council,    I recently learned that the Architectural Review Board, considering its first new set of cell tower applications since last  December, voted 4‐1 to require that ancillary cell tower equipment be located underground. This is the right decision,  and it is good for Palo Alto.    I strongly urge the City Council to:  1. Reverse the May 21st decision allowing Verizon to install its cheap, ugly and potentially hazardous equipment above  ground next to people’s homes; 2. Direct city staff to vigorously enforce Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise, and other  ordinances with respect to the siting and installation of cell towers near residences; and 3. Direct city staff to stop  advising the Planning and Transportation Commission to incorporate the FCC’s aggressively pro‐telecommunications  industry order into our municipal ordinances.    Sincerely  Melody Song, a concerned Palo Alto resident                  1 Carnahan, David From:Linda Clarke <lspclarke@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 1:51 PM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan; Clerk, City Subject:Cell Towers in Residential Areas Dear City Council,    I am writing to implore you to reverse your May 21st decision allowing Verizon to install its ugly and potentially  hazardous equipment above ground next to people’s homes. Some of the many reasons I chose to live in Palo  Alto are the city’s aesthetics, noise ordinances and support of its residents.     It is clear that the FCC’s pro‐telecommunications industry stance does not adhere to Palo Alto’s values, so  please stop advising the Planning and Transportation Commission to incorporate the FCC’s aggressively pro‐ telecommunications‐industry October order into our municipal ordinances.    Thank You,  Linda Clarke  204 Washington Avenue  Palo Alto      1 Carnahan, David From:Debbie Mytels <dmytels@batnet.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:39 AM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Copy of letter from Anna Eshoo to FCC Commissioner Attachments:Blumenthal Eshoo letter to FCC re 5G safety December 2018.pdf Dear Wynne and other members of the Architectural Review Board (Peter Baltay, David Hirsch, Alexander Lew, and Osma Thompson),      Here is a copy of Rep. Eshoo’s letter to the FCC Commissioner, referred to in the letter I just sent you:    Thank you again for you attention to this matter.      Sincerely,    Debbie Mytels    Debbie Mytels  2824 Louis Road. Palo Alto, CA  94303  (650) 856‐7580  dmytels@batnet.com  "Remembering the Future in our Actions Every Day"        Congress of tfJr filnttcb ii>tatcs MfosfJmrrton, D\C 20310 The Honorable Brendan Carr Commissioner Federal Communications Commission 445 12th Street SW Washington, DC 20554 Dear Commissioner Carr: December 3, 2018 We write \Vith interest regarding your recent remarks on the safety of 5G technologies during a Senate Commerce Committee field hearing in Sioux Falls, South Dakota. During this hearing, the Mayor of Sioux Falls, the Honorable Paul TenHaken, asked about '"the health ramifications of 5G and small cell deployment.'' His request as the leader of his municipality, \Vas for ''clear direction, talking points, studies that have been done that show that there is no harm to our constituents and to the taxpayers on putting these small cells on to\vers close to libraries, close to schools, close to their homes." Speaking on behalf of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), you explained, "Federal law actually says that state and local governments can't take [radiofrequency] concerns into account given how much work has gone into this issue at the federal level. .. Both at the FCC and other expe11 health agencies in Washington. they stay very much up to speed on these issues and have reached the determination that these are safe.'" Most of our current regulations regarding radiofrequency safety were adopted in 1996 and have not yet been updated for next generation equipment and devices. For example, the FCC's specific absorption rate (SAR) limits do not apply to devices operating above 6.0 GHz; however, 5G devices will operate at frequencies as high as or even exceeding 24 GHz. The FCC has acknowledged, ''The SAR probe calibration, measurement accuracy, tissue dielectric parameters and other SAR measurement procedures required for testing recent generation \Vireless devices need further examination.''1 Fmihermore, the final results of the world's largest and most expensive study to date on the link between radiofrequency radiation and cancer were only just released on November 1, 2018 by the National Toxicology Program (NTP)-an inter-agency program within the U.S. 1 Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering and Technology, Laboratory Division, ''SAR Measurement Requirements for I 00 MHz TO 6 GHz." https://apps. fee .gov/kdb1GetAttachment.htm l 0id= RUMcMDL 7fmD LsdRSsbCNoA %3 D%3 D&desc=865664 %20DO I %20SAR%20Measurement%20I00%20MHz%20to%206%20GHz%20vO1 r04&tracking_number=28242. Department of Health and Human Services. 2 That study, which began in 1999, is limited in scope to radiofrequency radiation associated with 2G and 3G cell phones. As you know, this study found evidence of cancerous heaii tumors. as well as some evidence of cancerous brain tumors, in male rats exposed to exposed to high levels of radiofrequency radiation like that used in 2G and 3G cell phones. However, researchers have cautioned that findings "do not apply to 4G or 5G technologies. •·3 To ensure we communicate accurate information to our constituents-many of whom have concerns similar to Mayor TenHaken's-we respectfully request you provide to our offices the 5G safety detennination from FCC and relevant health agencies that you referred to during the field hearing. Please also include current citations for the studies informing that safety determination. Like Mayor TenHaken, we recognize that the literature on 5G technology may be limited "because it's so new," and are interested in acquainting ourselves with the latest studies evaluating the health effects of high-band frequencies and modulations that would be used in 5G networks. The cooperation and partnership of localities and states will be critical as we move forward with this transformative technology, which promises wireless speeds as much as five times faster and with much lower latency. Carriers will also need updated guidelines governing the authorization of devices to be used with 5G. We also believe it is critical for the FCC to act on its March 27, 2013 Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Inquiry to ensure all individuals, and especially those working in close proximity to the hundreds of thousands of small cell facilities to be deployed, are protected from any kind of excess radiofrequency radiation.4 We look forward to hearing from you on this important matter. We respectfully request a response by December 17, 2018. ,??/#~~ Richard Blumenthal United States Senator Sincerely, Anna G. Eshoo '----Metriber of Congress c William J. Broad, "Study of Cellphone Risks Finds 'Some Evidence' of Link to Cancer, at Least in Male Rats," New York Times (New York, New York). November I, 2018, https:/iwww .nytimes.com/2018/ 11 10 J ihcalth1cellphone-radiation-cancer.html. 3 National Toxicology Program, "Cell Phone Radio Frequency Radiation Studies." llttps ://www.niehs.nih.gov/health/materials/cel ]_phone _radio frequency _radiation_ studies_ 508. pdf. 4 Federal Communications Commission, .. Reassessment of Federal Communications Commission Radiofrequency Exposure Limits and Policies; Proposed Changes in the Commission's Rules Regarding Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields," 28 FCC Red 3498 ( 4), https:1/docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-I 3- 39A 1 .pdf. 1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 5:52 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:December 17, 2018, 6:00 pm Council Meeting, Item #5: CAO Employment Agreements Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    December 17, 2018    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      DECEMBER 17, 2018, 6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5  COUNCIL APPOINTED OFFICERS EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS      Dear City Council:    I have three concerns with the procedures followed by the City Council that have resulted in the proposals for new employment agreements with the Council Appointed Officers.    First, the agenda for the December 4, 2018, Council meeting did not abide by the Ralph M. Brown Act requirement that the agenda include the names of the City's labor negotiators instead of the vague statement "Agency Negotiators: Mayor and City Council Members" that failed to disclose whether the negotiators constituted a legislative body subject to the Brown Act's open meeting rules when the negotiators met with the Council Appointed Officers. (The online version of the minutes of the December 4, 2018, meeting do not accurately reflect what I said. I will be requesting the City Clerk to correct the remarks attributed to me.)    The omission in the December 4, 2018, agenda is important because the November 13, 2018, City Council agenda identifies the negotiators as the entire Council Appointed Officers Committee that is a legislative body that is subject to the open meeting provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act when it meets with any Council Appointed Officer.    November 13, 2018, City Council meeting agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=40911.42& BlobID=67631 December 4, 2018, City Council meeting agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=62042.78& BlobID=67813 2 Second, the employment contracts with three of the Council Appointed Officers say that their salary adjustments are at the sole discretion of the Council which is just the opposite of a negotiation.    When employees represented by a collective bargaining association have a contract for a term of years, or when City Managers, for example, employed by other municipalities have a contract for a term of years, it makes sense to have a negotiation for the next contract.    But when the City of Palo Alto has employment agreements with its Council Appointed Officers that have no time limit, and those agreements give the Council the sole discretion to decide on salary adjustments, then there is no reason to have negotiations.    Third, the proposed salary adjustments are based on past performance, but the California Constitution prohibits the payment of bonuses for past work, and both (1) basing future salaries on past performance and (2) giving retroactive pay increases to employees that have been performing work with an employment contract in place seem to be tantamount to bonuses in violation of the Constitution.    CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE IV LEGISLATIVE SEC. 17. The Legislature has no power to grant, or to authorize a city, county, or other public body to grant, extra compensation or extra allowance to a public officer, public employee, or contractor after service has been rendered or a contract has been entered into and performed in whole or in part, or to authorize the payment of a claim against the State or a city, county, or other public body under an agreement made without authority of law. (Sec. 17 added Nov. 8, 1966, by Prop. 1-a. Res.Ch. 139, 1966 1st Ex. Sess.) ARTICLE XI LOCAL GOVERNMENT SEC. 10. (a) A local government body may not grant extra compensation or extra allowance to a public officer, public employee, or contractor after service has been rendered or a contract has been entered into and performed in whole or in part, or pay a claim under an agreement made without authority of law. (Sec. 10 amended June 8, 1976, by Prop. 14. Res.Ch. 5, 1976.) 3 Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock         1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 5:02 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Decenber 17, 2018, 6:00 pm Council Meeting, Item #2: Roth Building Park Use Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    December 17, 2018    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      DECEMBER 17, 2018, 6:00 PM CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #2  ROTH BUILDING PARK USE      Dear City Council:    Attachment A to the staff report for this agenda item (ID #9767) is a draft Resolution that if adopted claims that the Roth Building project "will be continually used for park purposes for a minimum of 20 years subject to ... Charter limits on appropriations for future years ..."    The City Council cannot guarantee the use of land for park purposes by means of adopting a Resolution.    The City Council can guarantee the use of land for park purposes only by dedicating the land for park purposes by ordinance as required by the Palo Alto Charter.    The Palo Alto Charter at "Article VIII. Parks" adopted as an initiative measure by the voters in May 1965 says, "All lands owned or controlled by the city which are or will be used for park, playground, recreation or conservation purposes shall be dedicated for such purposes by ordinance", and "No land ... dedicated for such purposes .. shall [have] its use be abandoned or discontinued except pursuant to majority vote of the electorate."    When the City of Palo Alto controls, but does not own, land dedicated for park purposes, it can only dedicate the land for park purposes for the period of time the City controls the land, such as the City's 51-year lease with Stanford University for the Stanford/Palo Alto Community Playing Fields at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real.    2 However, when the City dedicates land that it owns for park purposes, only the electorate can remove the park dedication. The Council cannot remove the dedication by including a term of years in the park dedication ordinance.    I urge you to amend the draft Resolution in Attachment A to say you will be dedicating the subject parcel for park purposes, and I urge you to direct staff to draft the necessary park dedication ordinance, present it to the Parks and Recreation Commission and other Boards and Commissions as necessary for their recommendations, and then present the park dedication ordinance to the Council for adoption.    Once the Roth Building parcel is dedicated for park purposes it can always be removed from park dedication by a vote of the electorate.    Palo Alto as a long history of park dedicated land being removed from park dedication, as the following summary demonstrates:    When the City Council adopted park dedication ordinances to implement the Charter language for Parks, the leasehold for the Red Cross building was included as park-dedicated land. In 1976 when that leasehold expired, the voters removed the area from park dedication to permit the land to be continued to be used for the Red Cross building.    In 1968, the voters removed additional area from park dedication for the construction of the new multi-jurisdictional Regional Water Quality Control Plant, and removed additional area from park dedication for a proposed expansion of the airport.    In 1985, 3.74 acres of park-dedicated land adjacent to the golf course driving range was removed from park dedication to exchange it for an equal-sized parcel on Middlefield Road to permit an office building to be built on the former park-dedicated land and to permit the City to take ownership of the land for the Winter Lodge Ice Skating Rink and Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Club.    In 2011, the voters removed 10-acres of park-dedicated land to provide the opportunity to study the feasibility of constructing a waste-to-energy plant there.    Therefore, if the Council dedicates the Roth Building parcel to park purposes and that use is no longer required in the future, the voters can remove the land from park dedication when presented with an acceptable alternative.    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock      1 Carnahan, David From:Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:21 AM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Disinformation campaign on pole-mounted ancillary Dear Chair Furth, Vice‐Chair Baltay, Mr. Gooyer, Mr. Lew & Ms. Thompson,    I've heard from some neighbors that they've heard of a letter‐writing campaign to try and persuade the ARB that we  actually want pole‐mounted ancillary cell‐tower equipment.  First of all, as one of the home owners with a pole that's on  the proposal ‐ I have not been approached to voice my opinion.  It's obvious that they're trying to engineer an  overwhelming opinion so they can continue their lies to us.    Only Verizon and their partners in the telecom industry want pole‐mounted cell tower equipment b/c it's cheap.  They're  claiming that the undergrounding equipment would violate the noise ordinance ‐ a quick google search will show there  are equipment using the same wireless technology that are VERY quiet & small.  For reference, here's a link to the  official article + video of the equipment (https://www.ericsson.com/en/news/2016/3/swisscom‐and‐ericsson‐plant‐lte‐ small‐cells‐underground).  You can also find it is you google for "swisscom and ericsson lte small cells underground".    This technology has been in existence since 2016, even if Verizon isn't at the bleeding edge of research, I'd think 2 yrs of  time would be plenty for them to catch up or at least realize better technology exists ‐ and offer that to us instead of  lying to us.    Sincerely,  Jerry Fan  1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Sunday, December 16, 2018 2:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Planning Commission Subject:Don't allow Palo Alto to be a pawn of the FCC Dear Mayor Kniss, Vice-Mayor Filseth and Council Members DuBois, Fine, Holman, Kou, Scharff, Tanaka and Wolbach: I am writing to urge you to do two things. First, please reject City Staff’s advice that Palo Alto incorporate into its ordinances elements of an order issued by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in October. The FCC order is intended to strip cities of important rights with respect to city-owned property, including the right to set the rental fee for space on city-owned poles. There is absolutely no reason for Palo Alto to voluntarily give up these rights. (Please note that the current administration has stacked the FCC with Commissioners who are unequivocal supporters of the telecommunications industry. For example, Ajit Pai, the man appointed by President Trump to chair the FCC, is former Associate General Counsel of Verizon.) Second, as the Planning and Transportation Commission has recommended, please instead consider joining the League of California Cities and dozens of individual cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Portland, Seattle and San Jose, in suing the FCC with respect to its October order. City Staff’s end-of-year rush to change Palo Alto’s ordinances to embrace the FCC’s blatantly pro- telecom order raises many questions, among them: 1. Why now, when major legal challenges to the FCC’s order have not yet been decided? 2. Why now, when the California PUC—and indeed the entire State of California—is rethinking the wisdom of aboveground utilities in the wake of the Camp, Tubbs and Woolsey wildfires, to name but a few?   3. Why now, when our Representative, Anna Eshoo, and her colleague, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, are challenging the FCC’s current assertion that cell tower installations near people’s jobs and homes are safe? 4. Why now, when Palo Alto’s Architectural Review Board has directed Crown Castle/Verizon to locate ancillary cell tower equipment underground? and 5. Why now, when serious questions have been raised about the integrity of Palo Alto’s cell tower application review process in the wake of Chief Technology Officer Jonathan Reichental’s abrupt resignation following the revelation that he had for years been accepting lavish gifts of travel from the telecommunications industry?   Finally, I hope you will take note that—in advising the Planning and Transportation Commission to recommend that you modify our municipal ordinances so as to codify the FCC’s pro- 2 telecommunications-industry order—City Staff failed to reveal that the order they were advising you endorse is being fought by the League of California Cities, to which Palo Alto belongs. Instead, the Planning and Transportation Commission had to learn from residents that the League, along with dozens of individual cities, has filed a lawsuit to halt the order’s implementation. Thank you for your consideration. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Wednesday, December 19, 2018 9:10 AM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Don't fall for the disinformation campaign Dear Chair Furth, Vice-Chair Baltay, Mr. Gooyer, Mr. Lew & Ms. Thompson, As you are probably aware, someone in the telecommunications industry is orchestrating a letter- writing campaign to try to persuade the ARB that Palo Altans actually want pole-mounted ancillary cell-tower equipment. Palo Alto residents do not want pole-mounted ancillary cell-tower equipment. Only Verizon and their fellow telecoms want pole-mounted cell tower equipment, because it is cheapest and easiest for them. The letters being sent to you claim that undergrounding ancillary equipment violates Palo Alto’s noise ordinance. That is not true—not true unless Verizon et al choose to use cheap, noisy exhaust fans, even though much quieter models exist. In other words, the problem isn’t noise; it’s Verizon’s unwillingness to incur the expense of eliminating it. These industry-orchestrated letters also claim that installing equipment underground is in itself noisy and dusty, and therefore unacceptable. Rest assured, there is not a single resident—not one— whose home is slated to adjoin a Verizon pole-mounted-equipment installation who wouldn’t gladly put up with a little noise and dust while the equipment is being vaulted, rather than permanently live next to hundreds of pounds of ugly, noisy and home-value-lowering commercial equipment. Please note that I am not misspeaking when I say that Verizon’s pole-mounted installations will be noisy. Verizon is well known for wanting loud backup batteries on its cell towers, and the company has never—not once!—promised that it would not return to Palo Alto and install these batteries at a later date. In fact, at the first Architectural Review Board meeting at which cell towers were addressed, Verizon’s attorney, Paul Albritton, admitted that that is exactly what they did the last time they installed cell towers in Palo Alto: they came back later and added noisy backup batteries. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2018 11:12 AM To:press_harris@harris.senate.gov; Joe Simitian Subject:Fluoride expert fired for public statements Subject: Fluoride expert fired for public statements Forwarded by Arlene Goetze,l No Toxins for Children,photowrite67@yahoo.com From FLUORIDE ALERT .ORG Subject: Former expert fired for public statements on fluoride Letter to Paul Connect, director of Fluoride Alert Network Dec. 18, 2018 You wanted Fluoride statements from professionals opposed to water fluoridation so I offer mine: I am a licensed chemical/environmental engineer (MSc, P.Eng.) with 45 years in my profession as an engineering consultant. I am now retired. In the 1970s, as a consultant for the EPA, I authored the EPA air pollution control techniques document on the Phosphate Fertilizer industry. The document was needed by the EPA in order for it to set federal emission limits (for fluoride). I recommended wet scrubbers (the only real choice) and in doing so I warned them that according to my calculations the wastewater (from the scrubbers) would have a very high fluoride content. My supervisor told me the water pollution experts would handle that. I had no idea at the time how this toxic waste would be handled. Later I found out that the poison was "beneficially recycled" into public water supplies. We know now that this was part of the scheme to medicate citizens (usually without their knowledge) to prevent one little hole on a tooth! This toxic waste was then destined to be filtered through human bodies, where 50% is removed by the kidney, with the remainder discharged to streams and rivers through the sewer system. At the time, I did know of possible health effects from doing this. (This was the same time of the fluoride scare in the Cincinnati area due to tiny levels of fluoride compounds in the Ohio River used for water supplies.) In 2012, I was fired from my last job as a contractor for the state EPA inside a local health department for my public and published statements I made on water fluoridation on my own time. You can use this for your purposes and I am extremely impressed with the work of FAN and have been a supporter for about 10 years. Best regards. David M. Augenstein, MSc, P.Eng. (ret) ________________________________ 2 PS -- If Trendley Dean was the recognized father of fluoridation, was David the unwitting father of the most common fluoridating chemical used today (hexafluorosilicic acid)? This is how Rebecca Hanmer an EPA spokesperson in 1983, described the end result of David's recommendation: "By recovering by-product fluosilicic acid from fertilizer manufacturing, water and air pollution are minimized, and water authorities have a low-cost source of fluoride available to them.” (http://fluoridealert.org/issues/water/fluoridation-chemicals/ ) Thank you, Paul Connett, Ph.DDirector Fluoride Action Network See all FAN bulletins online 1 Carnahan, David From:Whitney Leeman <whitney.r.leeman@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 4:04 PM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan; Clerk, City Subject:Fwd: 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto Dear Councilmembers,     I am writing to ask that you reverse your May 21st decision allowing Verizon to install its cheap, ugly and potentially  hazardous equipment aboveground next to people’s homes and businesses.    I am also requesting that you direct City Staff to vigorously enforce Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances  with respect to the siting and installation of cell towers near residences and businesses.     Thirdly, I ask that you direct City Staff to stop advising the Planning and Transportation Commission to incorporate the  FCC’s aggressively pro‐telecommunications‐industry October order into its municipal ordinances.     I realize that Cities get excited about renting their infrastructure to cellular carriers, but by doing so, you are allowing  your constituents to be the subjects of human experimentation, without their consent.  See the email I sent to Rebecca  Atkinson, below.    Sincerely,    Whitney Leeman    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Whitney Leeman <whitney.r.leeman@gmail.com>  Date: Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 9:08 AM  Subject: 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto  To: <rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org>    Dear Rebecca, I am writing to voice opposition to the AT&T sponsored small cell project proposed at 250 Hamilton,  Avenue, Palo Alto.    Despite industry claims, there are no data proving the safety of microwave/RF radiation at the density needed for  "internet of things", self driving cars, augmented reality, etc.      However, there are thousands of published papers in peer‐reviewed journals documenting negative effects of  microwave/RF radiation.  For example, see the following link: https://ehtrust.org/worlds‐largest‐animal‐study‐on‐cell‐ tower‐radiation‐confirms‐cancer‐link/     There is a huge difference between "proven safety" vs. "assumed safety", "lack of data" or "lack of conclusive evidence"  on the subject of small cell towers in close proximity to humans, or nonconsensual saturation of public and private space  with microwave/RF radiation by cellular providers.    By approving this project, you are subjecting citizens of Palo Alto to nonconsensual human experimentation.    2 If the project is approved, I for one will avoid the restaurants/businesses near the 250 Hamilton Avenue site, where I  was having dinner when I saw the public notice posted.  I will also inform the business owners about this project, in case  they are unaware of its potential impacts on employees and patrons.    Sincerely,    Whitney Leeman, Ph.D.  Portola Valley, CA  1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, December 19, 2018 9:32 AM To:dennisbalakian; David Balakian; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; huidentalsanmateo; terry; Mayor; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; bballpod; Doug Vagim; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; Council, City; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; popoff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com Subject:Fwd: New Hyundai Kona EV. Loads of comments.   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 3:14 PM  Subject: Fwd: New Hyundai Kona EV. Loads of comments.  To: Steven Feinstein <steven.feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 2:24 PM  Subject: Fwd: New Hyundai Kona EV. Loads of comments.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 2:16 PM  Subject: Fwd: New Hyundai Kona EV. Loads of comments.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:57 PM  Subject: New Hyundai Kona EV. Loads of comments.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                  Tues. Dec. 18, 2018                  Steven Feinstein  2               Ionic Materials Corp.             Mr. Feinstein‐  Here in an article the new Hyundai Kona EV, coming in Jan.                 https://seekingalpha.com/article/4228744‐tesla‐model‐3‐gets‐formidable‐challenger‐37495‐hyundai‐kona‐ev‐ suv?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter‐widget               There are a lot of comments following this article. I just read 1/3 of them, a lot, and I learned things there, things  you won't learn from Hyundai. At this point, EVs are a rich man's game. You see the Model S and Model 3 around Palo  Alto. Two miles north in Atherton, the avg. home is $6.5 million. Maybe only $3 million in Palo Alto.                Here is the Kona on the Hyundai website:               https://www.hyundaiusa.com/kona‐electric/index.aspx                   MG, thousands more for an EV when gas is $2.30 US avg. and $3.20 in Calif. Not for me!. The people who buy  them all earn $500,000 as dentists etc., or a lot more. I'd buy a used Chevy Tahoe for a third the money. Endless room,  comfort, sit up high, more crash worthy. Amazing anyone buys Tesla's, but, again, the (rich) mindset on the peninsula,  etc.  generates buyers. Funny what people will do once they get some real money, is it not?              Regarding the charging issue, hilarious that there are still a bunch of different standards, requiring a trunk full of  adaptors, I would imagine. STILL! Where is industry and Congress (or the UN) to standardize chargers? Actually, I think  the answer there will be inductive charging of EVs. Drive over the coil, your car identifies itself to the system, the cost  appears on your utility bill at the end of the month, if not done at your place of employment.  If they can put men on the  moon...                  See the vids by Siemens re inductive charging. I know you already have. Very interesting. Also, there is a Co. in  Virginia that makes such a system for the home. Coil on the garage floor, you drive over it, it starts charging. The Chevy  Volt could have the receiver coil installed under the front end by a Chevy dealer, they were saying. Evetran was the  Co.??  Woman running it was named Hough, pronounced Huff. That and charging coils buried in thousands of parking  lots is where we will go eventually, I think. The muddy charging cable and muddy plug, once you locate the right one, to  be used in a lightening storm, will go to the same museum as the hand crank.                 There is a blurb today that GM will fire ~50 people at its lithium battery plant in Detroit. Small wonder since the  Volt will soon be gone. I can't wait till GM teams up with Ionic Materials to make your Lithium Metal battery in quantity.  They hold more charge than lith. ion, I think the Nova show said, so there is more range.  And far safer.               What if your company became prominent in advocating for inductive charging?  That system would stimulate sales  of EVs by eliminating the PITA of having to plug a car in. Fun for a while, no doubt, but I'll bet it gets old. Inductive would  eliminate the PITA factor and the compatible cable issue. Somebody, or some group, in the EV industry, should advocate  for inductive charging. It wouldn't have to be in every shopping center parking lot. Just at places of employment where  the EEs' cars could be charging while they work would be a huge help. Deduct the juice used from their paycheck, or  even provide it at a discount as a bene.                  And where do we get all of the electricity? I like thorium reactors. Keith or Ken Sorensen is the guru. Lots of vids  on YouTube. He told me that Steven Chu opposes it. DOE, etc. should ask Chu to detail why, and then work on solutions.  DOE will remember Chu. Thorium is 4X more abundant than Uranium. Vast thorium sands in Canada and western U.S.                L. William Harding              Fresno, Ca.    1 Carnahan, David From:Kelly Germa <kelly.germa@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2018 10:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Pole-mounted Cell Towers   Sent from my iPad    Begin forwarded message:  From: Kelly Germa <kelly.germa@gmail.com>  Date: December 18, 2018 at 10:30:26 PM EST  To: arb@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: Pole‐mounted Cell Towers  Dear ARB members,    I am writing to you today to make it very clear that many people in Barron Park and Midtown Palo Alto  (where I own my home) do not want pole‐mounted cell towers.  We have written many letters and  voiced this opinion in multiple ways to the ARB.  Verizon has the capability and money to underground  this equipment as is being done in municipalities across the US.    The pole‐mounted units are unsightly and cause noise pollution.  It will devalue our property and  tranquility.  Please understand that your Palo Alto constituents do not want these installed.  Verizon  keeps trying to push through their own agenda without regard to the everlasting beauty of our  city.  Please do not approve pole‐mounted cell towers in Barron Park.    Thank you so much for listening and acting on our behalf.    Kelly Germa  Palo Alto homeowner  650‐544‐5711      Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Mary Anne Deierlein <maryannedeier@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 5:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: We urge you to remove all raised rail options for S Palo Alto intersections at the council meeting on Monday Attachments:List of Palo Alto residents who don't want any raised rail options for S PA intersections.pdf; Why No Raised Rail.pdf Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council,    Unfortunately, I'm unable to speak at the meeting this evening, but I am in agreement with Parag Patkar and the Palo  Alto Citizens group position and recommendations.  I, too, urge you to remove all raised options from consideration.    Sincerely,  Mary Anne Deierlein  318 Parkside Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94306    On Sun, Dec 16, 2018 at 12:55 AM Parag Patkar <parag@virtunetsystems.com> wrote:  Dear Cory, Lydia, Adrian, Greg (Tanaka), Tom, Greg (Scharff), Karen, Liz, Eric, Ed, and Rob,    First of all I appreciate you all taking the bull by the horns and moving forward aggressively to finalize grade separation options for the Palo Alto train-road intersections by early 2019.  I would again like to bring to your attention that there is fierce opposition from residents in S Palo Alto to both raised rail options - viaduct (train on a tall structure) and hybrid (train on wall) for Charleston and Meadow intersections, that are on the agenda for Monday's Council meeting.    Attached is a list of 500 residents (names and addresses) who have asked me to convey this opinion to the Council and City Staff.    I am also attaching some comments on Nextdoor from folks who have lived in places where trains run on elevated structures.     At the City Council meeting on Monday, we urge you to remove all raised rail options from consideration.     Respectfully,     1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 8:11 PM To:Council, City Cc:roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Ruth Chippendale; chuck jagoda Subject:humanty There's nothing wrong with being rich. Rich people are some of the nicest people I know. And there's nothing wrong with being a landlord. My husband and I were landlords, my mother and us kids were landladies, my grandmother was a landlady in San Francisco. And tenants are not necessarily particularly virtuous or deserving. But they do deserve to be treated as human , not as inanimate objects. One thing you can say in favor of rent control: they always pay the rent, so they won't lose a good deal.You can't just say to a tenant: oh you can't live here anymore--would you do that to a dog or cat? say we don't want you anymore because you can be replaced with a better dog?/ I don't think so..And even with rent control the landlord raises the rent. My husband always raised the rent just a percent or two every year or, so the tenant would be conscious of market realities. But this situation in which the tenant is helpless to find another place to live is the doing of city government which continuously looks forward to raising the value of the land under its jurisdiction. About sixty years ago, the Palo Alto city government saw an opportunity to make a leap in land value. A visionary Stanford professor, Terman, realized that Stanford land, together with Stanford know-how, could create an industrial park without equal, if Palo Alto agreed. And they did, They rezoned so that land which had been planned as residential expansion became commercial; the Bayshore Freeway, which had been built to serve future industry growing toward the Baylands, was superfluous , but an even worse error was not replacing the future homes that were to have been built. You know how it takes a heap of livin 'to make a house a home? Well, it takes a heap of low paid workers to made a successful enterprise, and there wasn't anyplace to put them. I really don't think they thought about what they were doing, but it was particularly inappropriate given Stanford's mission to educate the poor youth of California They were taking the bonanza in revenue to improve Palo Alto schools, which were among the best in the nation, but casting off the workers' children to be educated in Cupertino, Sunnyvale and San Jose., The superintendent of the Cupertino School District revealed that it required the taxes from a $43,000 unoz to edzzzucate one (1) child in school. We had four children under ten years old, and we lived in a house which cost $17,000., and that was in olden days, before Prop 13, when assessors were in the habit of forcing out the old settlers, starting with the conquered Mexican subjects, by taxing according to what newcomers were willing to pay for their land. Another habit that has mitigated against housing for the working class is councils antipathy to economy of scale--"crowding" if you will. Homes could be constructed with generous helpings of recreational and garden space, approaching the FAR of less dense housing, if the councils permitted it. Cubberly could be develped in this manner. However, there is only one cutre for the congestion of commuters clogging our streets, and that requites going back to the original drawing board which put homes in the Stanford foothills. The employers must put housing for their workers on their working campuses. Respectfully yours, Stephanie Munoz 1 Carnahan, David From:Ben Stolpa <jben@stolpa.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 1:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:More: PA traffic observation > TO: PA City Council    > I live on Forest, near Center.  12/11/18, 5:54 PM, again, a line of cars on Forest, toward Center, solid from Lincoln.   Center heading toward Dana‐Hamilton‐University seems full of cars; all are inching forward or at dead stop, bumper to  bumper, same as on Forest.  Today there is no rain.  Several cars have chosen to turn into driveways and turn around,  heading back on Forest toward Lincoln, gunning their engines as they head back —I would assume frustrated.  >   > I am not bothering to take photos any more.  I could just copy/re‐send the ones from a few days ago, of last week.  >   > Twice recently I twice had occasion to drive across Dumbarton Bridge not at peak ? commute time, but somewhere  around it, though I am not sure what the peak is any more.  My observation both times was that the intersection lights  on University in East Palo Alto were set at absolutely ridiculously short intervals for green for University traffic, allowing  very few cars through at each cycle.  My observation was it was thus so as to allow cars coming off the northbound 101  ramps to merge onto the University Avenue  eastbound direction; i.e., a higher priority was given to the 101 traffic than  the Palo Alto University Avenue traffic.  >   > Personally, I am not going to spend any more time on this issue.  The City Council has been given enough factual  information, by many, to act; if it chooses.   >   > Ben Stolpa  > jben@stolpa.com    1 Carnahan, David From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> Sent:Friday, December 14, 2018 1:37 PM To:Public Works Public Services Cc:Council, City Subject:No Street Sweeping on Corina Way for two weeks I live on Corina Way between Ross and Ross.  There are leaves piled up that have not been collected for two weeks.  I  saw the street sweeper yesterday nearby on Louis Road, during our neighborhood sweep day of Thursday.  Some of our  street looks swept, but it appears to be windswept, not street sweeper swept.    Also the City website at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/sweeping.asp does not have a link specific to  contact regarding Street Sweeping.      The entry on the City Directory would be placed on the Street Sweeping page:    treet Sweeping  3201 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303  Phone: 650‐496‐6974  Email: pwps@cityofpaloalto.org    I think Palo Alto needs to do a better job of managing its contractors.  For example, is there a GPS recorder on the street  sweepers to show where they have gone? If not, wouldn’t this be a useful measure to ascertain whether there is  compliance with the contract?    Thank you for your consideration of this matter.    Best regards,  Arthur Keller      1 Carnahan, David From:Carla Wray <carla.wray@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 10:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:#15 Please pull #15 from consent tonite,  more discussion needed.      ‐‐Carla Wray  PA resident    Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Rice, Danille Sent:Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:06 AM To:jmackenzie@rpcity.com Cc:sheminger@bayareametro.gov; info@bayareametro.gov; casa@bayareametro.gov; Council, City; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; jbruins@losaltosca.gov; Shikada, Ed; Andi Jordan Subject:Palo Alto Letter to MTC Attachments:Scanned from a Xerox Multifunction Printer.pdf Good morning Mr. Mackenzie  Please find attached letter regarding the City of Palo Alto’s comments on commission meeting of December 19, 2018,  Item 2b.     Respectfully,  Danille        Danille Rice | Administrative Assistant   Office of the City Manager  650.329.2229                                      Ci!yof Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council Via email: sheminger@bayareametro.gov ; info@bayareametro.gov; casa@bayareametro.gov December 19, 2018 Jake Mackenzie, Chair and Commissioners Metropolitan Transportation Commission 375 Beale Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94105-2066 Re: Commission meeting of December 19, 2018, item 2b Dear Mr. Mackenzie and Commissioners: On behalf of the City of Palo Alto, I write today to thank you for the efforts of the Committee to House the Bay Area (CASA), and to respectfully ask that you not vote to authorize the Chair to sign the CASA Compact as proposed on item 2b this afternoon. Palo Alto agrees that preserving existing affordable housing and increasing housing production in the Bay Area are vital regional goals. In fact, our City recently revised our zoning code to allow for new minimum density standards for multi-family housing, among several other recent housing-supportive policy changes. This change to our local ordinance occurred after a deliberate public process and is an example of one City acting in a manner that best meets the needs of its residents. It is also the type of local decision-making we believe is lacking in the proposed CASA Compact. Local land use ordinances and citywide housing planning are subject to a transparent, public process. It would be problematic for MTC, as an organization representing local governments, to advocate the sweeping legislative proposals embodied in the CASA Compact without clear and robust engagement opportunities for Bay Area communities. Members of our community can attend public meetings and submit written thoughts on how they would see the City proceed. Unfortunately, adhering to a CASA Compact, created without our City's involvement, would circumvent this public, community process. Additionally, the Compact does not appear to take into consideration the local land use laws of each Bay Area City, the plans each City has in place to meet its housing needs in the near future, or the housing needs of the residents in each city. We are also concerned with the funding mechanism of diverting property tax growth. The City of Palo Alto uses this funding in part for our core services; there is no mention in the Compact about the financial consequences for cities. Indeed, there is little mention of any of the funding specifics. As such, we ask that at today's Commission meeting, you not proceed with approval of the CASA Compact pending more inclusive engagement with the very cities the Compact will affect. Printed with •oy-based Inks on 100~ recycled paper proces1ed without chlorine. P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2477 650.328.3631 fax Yours, r / Liz Kniss, Mayor, Palo Alto Cc: Palo Alto City Council Steve Heminger, Executive Director Dave Cortese Commissioner Jeannie Bruins, Commissioner Andi Jordan, Santa Clara Cities Association Executive Director 1 Carnahan, David From:J <jtseng88@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 1:35 PM To:Howard, Adam; Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Permanent Pickleball Courts in Palo Alto Dear Palo Alto Parks and Recreation Commissioners and City Council Members:  The tennis courts at Mitchell Park are in terrible shape and the Parks and Recreation Commission has earmarked funds for resurfacing the courts. We ask respectfully that the Commission and the City resurface the courts shortly, and also install permanent pickleball courts at the time of the resurfacing. Please bear in mind these numbers in support of our request. * In a single year, Pickleball volunteers set up and take down nets at Mitchell Park an estimated 7,920 times (11 nets x 2 times x 360 days). Each net weighs approximately 25 pounds. The Commission and the City rely on volunteers to heft nearly 100 tons of equipment each year. This is unsustainable. * On a given day of pickleball play at Mitchell Park, between 30 to 80 pickleball players on average come to the courts to play in a space that houses three tennis courts. * The City of Palo Alto has paid $0 for pickleball nets, equipment or instruction prior to October of this year (when two former paddleball courts were converted into pickleball courts). While the two courts in the unlighted enclosed small space area near Tennis Court #1 is a good start, the two in that confined space do not adequately address the needs or numbers of pickleball players. * Private or semi-private tennis court lessons given by Whitlinger Sarsfield on the city’s public tennis courts cost $80 to $100 per hour. Pickleball lessons given to interested beginners by seasoned players, including award-winning USPTA ranked pickleball players, cost the public $0. Group tennis lessons offered through the City cost on average $15 per lesson - pickleball costs $5 per lesson. * Palo Alto Recreation classes for pickleball were continuously popular and heavily enrolled. Monica Williams gave superb instruction to those enrolled through the City on how to play beginning or intermediate pickleball. However, the City provided Monica with very little support. She was responsible for setting up nets and taking down all the nets for each and every class that she taught. The result was BURNOUT — the constant required effort placed on the teacher and volunteers went unalleviated by the City. Monica no longer offers adult classes through the City of Palo Alto. This is a terrible loss. * The Palo Alto Pickleball Club has offered to offset the costs of converting Court #5 into three pickleball courts, should the costs exceed the earmarked City funds for resurfacing. That is a donation pledge likely worth over $10,000, and is a win-win partnership between the PAPC and the City of Palo Alto. Pickleball play at Mitchell Park is become an invaluable addition to the public park offerings of Palo Alto. As the sport continues to grow and expand in popularity, please do not continue to require volunteers to heft the growing load. It is time for the City of Palo Alto to step up. Please support the work of those private citizens who have shouldered the costs and the effort for many years in order to bring this social and fun sport to Palo Alto. The physical, emotional and mental health benefits to the community have been, are, and continue to be immeasurable. Thank you for your consideration. Best regards, Ben and Jocelyn Tseng Wilkie Ct., Palo Alto 1 Carnahan, David From:Debbie Mytels <dmytels@batnet.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 19, 2018 11:32 AM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Pleae oppose pole-mounted cell phone transmitters in Barron Park Dear Wynne and other members of the Architectural Review Board (Peter Baltay, David Hirsch, Alexander Lew, and Osma Thompson),  Thank you for the ARB’s recent decision to require that cell phone transmitters in Old Palo Alto be placed in underground installations. I hope that you will follow through and make a similar recommendation for Barron Park. Pole-mounted transmitters are not appropriate for residential neighborhoods: they are ugly, industrial-appearing equipment; they are heavy and may topple in case of high winds or an earthquake; and they are noisy, especially when back-up batteries are added after initial construction.   Undergrounded vaults may be more expensive for Verizon to install, but considering that it is a very profitable mega corporation — and that Palo Alto has decided to give them a cut-rate fee for the first 11 installations planned above ground in South Palo Alto (one of which, unfortunately, is going to be placed outside my bedroom window) — Verizon should be able to afford this cost. Residents will certainly not mind the slightly added inconvenience during construction, knowing that their neighborhood and homes are not going to be degraded by unslightly and dangerous pole-topped equipment.  And while the Telecommunications Act of 1996 prohibited consideration of the health impacts of radio frequency emissions when reviewing permit applications, recent studies finding such negative effects are now accumulating. Our Congressmember Anna Eshoo recently joined with Connecticut Senator Richard Blumenthal to write a letter to the head of the FCC, asking for a justification of that agency’s position about the negtive health impacts of telecom emissions. See https://ctmirror.org/2018/12/03/blumenthal‐wants‐fcc‐prove‐5g‐wireless‐technology‐safe/    Although large corporations are currently able to hold sway over Federal agencies, with the technological changes over the years since 1996, it’s time for local officials to stand up to deceptive profit-making corporations. It’s the responsibility of local governments to consider the health impact upon residents from any such installations. Palo Alto should join with other cities to adopt the precautionary principle and put a moratorium on pole-mounted transmitters until 5G installations have been fully vetted for health and safety.  Sincerely,  Debbie Mytels  Debbie Mytels  2824 Louis Road. Palo Alto, CA  94303  (650) 856‐7580  dmytels@batnet.com  "Remembering the Future in our Actions Every Day"  1 Carnahan, David From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2018 2:34 PM To:Passmore, Walter Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City Subject:Please save 40 beautiful trees Hi Walter,    I am saddened to hear about the planned removal and destruction of 40 trees (according to Derek) as part of the new  police building and/or CA Ave parking garage construction projects.  I was shocked to see removal signs on many tall,  beautiful trees, including at least one redwood hundreds of feet high, near the corner of Park and Sherman (see pictures  below).     I personally am in favor of the new parking garage and the new police building but would have hoped (and assumed) the  city would be a model applicant and designed these buildings in such a way as to not destroy dozens of trees, many of  them protected species. Is there any way these buildings can be designed in such a way as to protect the city’s canopy?    Finally, I am wondering if residents are aware of the plans to destroy these trees.  I may have missed it, but I did not  hear anything about this significant environmental impact at the most recent City Council meeting earlier this month  when the parking garage was discussed.  Has there been a sufficient heads‐up to the community about this?  The small  sample of people I’ve pinged were shocked when I pointed out the removal signs posted on these trees.    Please let me know your thoughts.    Thank you and Happy Holidays,    Chris Robell  Cell:  650‐245‐7395          2 3 4 5 6 discussed at  City Council earlier this month.    I personally am in favor of the new parking garage and, to the extent needed for safety, the new police building, but  would have hoped/assumed the city would be a model applicant and not destroy dozens of trees, many of them  protected species.  Is there any way these buildings can be designed in such a way as to protect the city’s canopy?    Thank you,    Chris Robell          1 Carnahan, David From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 19, 2018 10:57 AM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:please underground small cell tower equipment Dear ARB members, I am writing to re-iterate that Palo Alto residents do not want small cell towers in their neighborhoods with heavy equipment installed above ground. Verizon is here to provide a service to our community, and residents who live here and are faced with these towers directly in front of their homes are here to have an active voice in the design and placement of these towers. This service is presumably for us, and many of us are concerned about the current proposals. Undergrounding makes sense and is feasible for all of Palo Alto, not just downtown. Verizon has the ability to install quiet, underground equipment. It is just more expensive for them. The inconvenience of underground installation is small compared to the ongoing issues with equipment mounted on the pole, including: * fire risk is increased with heavy equipment mounted on leaning poles * neighborhood aesthetics compromised with ancillary equipment hanging off poles  * impacts for individuals with disabilities due to electro-sensitivity are greater with ancillary equipment above ground * increased noise(1) Note (1): Even if Verizon says they will use quiet equipment in their initial pole-mounted installations, there is nothing to prevent them from installing backup batteries with loud fans at a later date, as they have done before in Palo Alto. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tina Chow, PhD   1 Carnahan, David From:Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 6:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James Subject:Rail decisions Mayor, City Council and Jim Keene,     Please consider all options for High Speed rail including trenching as well as work with other cities north and south of us  to decide what is the best overall solution to bring High Speed rail to the Peninsula.     Please do not allow special interest groups dictate what is done without evaluating what is best for entire railway  project.      More time needs to be dedicated to researching all the possibilities, especially those which will impact and increase  traffic woes on streets such as Embarcadero which already suffers from high throughout of traffic presently!     I live one block from both Alma and Embarcadero so experience this traffic on a daily basis.      Concerned and affected citizen of the Embarcadero/Alma corridors    Kimberley Wong  North Old Palo Alto        1 Carnahan, David From:Gregory Deierlein <ggd@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 5:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail options in south Palo Alto: Preferred Option - TRENCJ Dear Members of City Council,    I am unable to attend tonight’s meeting (Dec. 17, 2018), but I would like to voice support for the TRENCH option as the  best of the three alternatives, balancing the concerns of the south Palo Alto residents with rail and automotive  transportation needs and construction costs.        I have also heard mention of a proposed fourth option that would involve splitting freight and passenger trains (freight  on surface, passenger in tunnel), but the feasibility of this seems questionable.  Plus, it would not eliminate grade  crossings (and midnight train whistles) of the freight trains.    Sincerely,    Greg Deierlein, PhD, PE  Professor of Civil/Structural Engineering at Stanford University    Palo Alto Resident:    318 Parkside Drive  Palo Alto, CA  1 Carnahan, David From:Kim Atkinson <atkinsonkim@pacbell.net> Sent:Thursday, December 13, 2018 12:58 PM To:Owen, Graham Cc:Council, City; Holman, Karen (external); Kniss, Liz (internal) Subject:Re: 670 Los Trancos private development bordering Arastradero Open Space Preserve Hi Graham, I appreciate your time on this. Thank you very much for going up there and for verifying construction compliance with the approved plans at 670 Los Trancos. Honestly, many of us did not realize that the story poles outlined what was to be the top of a building (nearly 10,000 square feet in size + guest house) that would be so very visible from below, plastered onto the front of the slope, facing straight into the park. Yikes. Its turning out to be worse than we thought. Re your photo: zoomed in or not, this mansion is going to make hikers up there feel like they are treading in someone's yard. We will feel a lack of our own privacy when out in nature, and less connected with that once-beautiful sky view at the top. The open space feel of that park is forever spoiled by this. I have met hikers up there recently, shaking their heads at the construction, asking me if I knew what was going on. It is disheartening. Open space is so precious to all of us, and this park is a jewel, full of, but diminishing, wildlife. In my opinion, the city of Palo Alto is not being guided today by the caring stewardship I knew when I grew up here, with an eye to preserving precious open space for the community to enjoy in perpetuity. Once its gone, its gone forever. And this private estate does nothing to alleviate our housing problems here. Kim cc city council, mayor Palo Alto friends and family are bcc'd on this correspondence. On Thursday, December 13, 2018 11:01 AM, "Owen, Graham" <Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Kim, I conducted a visit to the Meadowlark trail on Friday and can confirm that the site construction is limited to the top of the hill (certainly not at the bottom) and in accordance with the Council-approved plans. I’ve attached a photograph that I took while I was out there showing the view. The story poles that you reference were intended to show the outline of the house, which is still under construction. Regardless, we’ll see if they can plant some additional trees to better screen the site. Best, Graham 2 From: Kim Atkinson [mailto:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 10:48 AM To: Owen, Graham Subject: Re: 670 Los Trancos private development bordering Arastradero Open Space Preserve Hi Graham, It is Thursday now. Have you had a chance to visit the 670 Los Trancos site, to inspect for construction compliance with the original city-approved plans ? When the original marker flags were put up at the top of the hill in winter 2017 to alert the public to the proposed project, they were not very visible to people, because the hiking trails up there were mostly closed due to mud conditions. But, what we did see up there was that the flags, demarking the proposed project, were placed at the TOP of the hill. Not down the side, very visible to the park, like is taking place today. I can supply photos to you of this, if you'd like to see them. I look forward to learning from you what the situation is up there. Thank you for your kind comment about my advocacy for the park. In the 1960's, when I was a child growing up here, it was the city council of Palo Alto that advocated for our parks, and created Foothills Park with great foresight for the future. Where is this city-based advocacy today ? Kim Atkinson On Thursday, December 6, 2018 1:00 PM, "Owen, Graham" <Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Kim, 3 I wanted to let you know that I’ve received your message about the construction at 670 Los Trancos Road. I will be conducting an inspection tomorrow or early next week to check on this, and I’ll follow-up with my findings afterwards. Thanks again for your advocacy for protecting the Preserve. Best, Graham Graham Owen, AICP | Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2552 | E: graham.owen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Lait, Jonathan Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2018 3:23 PM To: Lait, Jonathan; Owen, Graham Subject: FW: 670 Los Trancos private development bordering Arastradero Open Space Preserve Forwarding from City Council mailbox. Yolanda M. Cervantes Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto Yolanda.cervantes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2404 From: Kim Atkinson <atkinsonkim@pacbell.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2018 10:25 AM To: Holman, Karen (external) <kcholman@sbcglobal.net>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: 670 Los Trancos private development bordering Arastradero Open Space Preserve Hello City Council members, Have you had time to look into the legality or code conformation of the private development taking place at 670 Los Trancos, above Arastradero Open Space Preserve, which is creating a severely negative visual impact on the upper portion of our public park and trails ? You were sent letters and photographs inquiring about this in mid November. Is anyone from the city of Palo Alto monitoring this project for adherence to guidelines, and to the agreed upon project that you approved by unanimous vote ? Thank you for responding, whenever convenient. Kim Atkinson 4 1 Carnahan, David From:DeMarzo, Elise Sent:Friday, December 14, 2018 5:12 PM To:Shannon Rose McEntee; Council, City; City Mgr; studio@peterwegner.com; PAC Cc:leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique; O'Kane, Kristen Subject:RE: Proposed Art for the new Parking Garage on Sherman Avenue Dear Ms. McEntee:    Thank you for your response, and your continued vigilance regarding environmental concerns associated with the  project. The design team has conferred with the artist and manufacturers of the proposed LED modules to confirm that  the artwork falls within the parameters of the Environmental Impact Report for the Cal Ave Garage and Public Safety  Building. The light levels will be well within city requirements preventing light pollution.    The team will continue to evaluate environmentally friendly options as we move into detailed design.    Thank you.    Sincerely,    Elise DeMarzo      From: Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, December 13, 2018 6:16 PM  To: DeMarzo, Elise <Elise.DeMarzo@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Mgr  <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; studio@peterwegner.com; PAC <pac@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Re: Proposed Art for the new Parking Garage on Sherman Avenue    Dear Ms. DeMarzo,    My examples of metal sculptures (see message below) were only to point out that materials other than plastic  are more environmentally friendly and they can be marvelously diverse and thrilling.  Cloud Gate is a  monumental sculpture that people walk under and around, while marveling at their reflections and the  reflections of the Chicago cityscape and the sky.  While dramatic, perhaps it was a poor choice as an example  given its monumentality.  I merely wanted to reference materials other than plastic.    We are discussing art to be placed on a public parking garage wall, located on a narrow street in a modest  neighborhood.  Something modest would be more in line with the neighborhood's vibe.  Whatever art our City  chooses for the new parking garage, its maintenance won't approach what you described for Cloud Gate ‐‐  $35,000 to $50,000 annually.    Something I didn't mention before, but an additional negative impact of the proposed three‐dimensional  plastic sculpture with LED lighting, concerns light pollution.  A quick Google search can succinctly tell us:    "The inappropriate or excessive use of artificial light – known as light pollution – can have serious environmental consequences for humans, wildlife, and our climate."     2 Thank you for listening.  I realize that all art and whether it is beautiful is subjective.  While we will never agree  on what is beautiful, I hope we can agree that we must protect this precious planet.  We must reduce plastics,  particularly when there are so many other viable and attractive options.    Sincerely,    Shannon Rose McEntee        On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 2:34 PM DeMarzo, Elise <Elise.DeMarzo@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Dear Ms. McEntee:     Thank you for your thoughtful email regarding the conceptual proposals for the artworks at the upcoming Public Safety  Building.  I do remember talking to you last Thursday at the community meeting and your expressed support for the  suite of four artwork concepts.  As we discussed at the meeting, since these are in the conceptual phase, input from the  community is truly helpful in directing us as we get into more detailed design.     As a parking structure, there has been a lot of discussion in Palo Alto regarding the environmental implications of  building these structures.  It is not surprising that the environmental concerns may also spill over onto the artwork  considered for the structure.  According to the artist’s consultant, the half‐life for LEDs operating at 100% illumination  is 100,000 hours (Las Vegas lights use 80% illumination during day and 20% at night). The half‐life is not when the LEDs  will fail, but when they may begin to fade.  Wegner proposes using a fraction of the illumination to achieve the subtlety  of color he intends, which will extend the life of the LED elements.  By our quick calculations, a high annual usage for  the LED artwork on the recessed corner of the garage (at the current scale – which may be reduced) is equivalent to 1.6  households.  We are looking more closely at the energy consumption and will do what we can to be as efficient as  possible. Additionally, the artwork may only be running limited hours, both expanding the lifespan of the modules and  allowing staff to set appropriate hours for the artwork based on community feedback. A detailed maintenance plan will  be part of the fabrication and delivery agreement with the artist, and the funds for that maintenance will be set aside  as part of the commissioning process out of the ordinance required 1% for public art budget. In other words, rather  than commission the most artwork possible for the full 1% for art budget and further burdening our maintenance  obligations, we are setting a large portion of those funds aside at the time of the commission to care for the works  through their expected lifespan.     Based on the feedback we got from the community meeting last week regarding the plastic used in one of the  artworks, the artist has already researched sourcing recycled ABS plastic for the artwork.  We discovered that in  addition to being able to incorporate recycled ABS plastic into the piece, the entire artwork could be recycled at the  end of its lifespan!      All artworks, like other City assets, require regular maintenance.  While I am glad to hear that we make the  maintenance of the permanent artworks look effortless, they all require maintenance and care to prevent them falling  into disrepair.  You mentioned Cloud Gate by Anish Kapoor as an example.  From what I have been able to research,  3 that $23M sculpture requires multiple hand cleanings with a solvent each day on the lower six feet, is often power  washed each night in warmer seasons, and is washed down twice a year with 40 gallons of detergent twice a year with  specialized equipment.  The estimates I have seen are $35,000 ‐ $50,000 annually for maintenance of that  artwork.  While we love the green wall at SFMoMA, we have discovered through our experience with the one at  Mitchell Park Library that they require a lot more maintenance than they appear to.  Furthermore, the 1% for art funds  are only for the commission of artwork only.  The design for the garage is complete and may incorporate an artwork, or  go back to the approved design, but there are not additional funds available to add other elements.     I applaud your vigilance in making sure that the environment is considered when we commission artwork.  The  comments from the community meeting are being incorporated into the staff report and presentation materials for the  Public Art Commission meeting Thursday, December 20th at 7pm in the Community Room of City Hall.  Artist Peter  Wegner will make another public presentation of the suite of concepts for the Public Art Commission prior to their  deliberation on the conceptual stage of the proposals.  I encourage you to attend and/or send an email to the Public  Art Commission at PAC@cityofpaloalto.org. Feel free to contact me directly at 650.617.3517 with any questions.     All the best,  Elise DeMarzo             Elise DeMarzo | Public Art Program Director   1313 Newell Road | Palo Alto, CA 94303  D: 650.617.3517  | E: elise.demarzo@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicart    Facebook: facebook.com/publicartpa               From: Shannon Rose McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com>   Sent: Tuesday, December 11, 2018 4:09 PM  To: DeMarzo, Elise <Elise.DeMarzo@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Mgr  <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Proposed Art for the new Public Safety Building     4 Dear Elise DeMarzo, Peter Wegner (please forward a copy to Peter), City Council, and City Manager:  Thank you for sharing the initial art designs for the new parking structure and Public Safety Building planned  for Sherman Avenue in the Cal Ave neighborhood.  I enjoyed hearing about your creative process,  Peter.  Your research and thought processes are impressive and inspiring.  The PSB will be in my backyard as I live in Mayfield and ride my bike on Sherman and Park every day.  Also, I  am an artist myself ‐‐ I have a BFA and a Master of Arts.  I very much enjoy the public art in Palo Alto and I  look forward to new treasures in the future.    You asked for feedback last week at the community meeting focused on the four art pieces Peter is designing  for the PSB and the new parking garage.  Hence I write with reservations concerning your concept for the  outside wall of the parking structure (I think this is where you plan to place it).  The three‐dimensional  sculpture composed of LED lights gives me pause.  As an environmentalist, I believe it is a mistake to create  art that requires power consumption 24 hours a day, and I'm concerned about the costs of ongoing  maintenance such an artwork would require.  Such a sculpture would be expensive to run and maintain, and  it would needlessly draw on the City's resources.  I also feel the massive three‐dimensionality of the piece is  unattractive.  While the lighting would add interest, it also suggests that the City has energy to burn and that  is a turnoff.  I would much rather see something in metal or glass or perhaps a wall of succulents ‐‐ something that doesn't  require ongoing energy consumption and expensive maintenance.  I think of Anish Kapoor's spectacular  stainless steel sculpture in Chicago's Millennium Park titled Cloud Gate, or the famous metal bull sculpture  that until recently was in front of Merrill Lynch in New York City, or the stunning outdoor wall of succulents at  SFMOMA.  Some greenery would look wonderful on that wall.  It would add color, texture and would plants  help fight climate change.   I hope that everyone involved in choosing Public Art for Palo Alto will factor in an analysis of the  environmental impacts.  We should be conserving energy AND reducing plastics, etc.  The proposed indoor  piece in the PSB lobby was described as being composed of slices of plastic.  Could that same concept be  constructed from wood?  I imagine it would be equally if not more beautiful if made from wood.  Everything we do in our City must take into account climate change ‐‐ everything right down to the art we  choose.  Thank you for considering these points.  Sincerely,  Shannon Rose McEntee  410  Sheridan Avenue  1 Carnahan, David From:Bill Leikam <wcleikam@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2018 8:51 AM To:Renzel, Emily; Engelage, Samantha Cc:Pearson, Enid; Bobel, Phil; North, Karin; Council, City; Kleinhaus, Shani; Leikam, Bill Subject:RE: Recycled Water / Measure E site @ Monday, 17 Dec Thank you, Emily. Take care, Bill   Within the seeds of philosophy, the forest of science is born. wcl - 2018 From: Emily Renzel <marshmama2@att.net>   Sent: Tuesday, 18 December, 2018 6:57 AM  To: Engelage, Samantha <Samantha.Engelage@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Enid Pearson <enidpearson1@gmail.com>; Phil Bobel <Phil.Bobel@CityofPaloAlto.org>; North, Karin  <Karin.North@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kleinhaus, Shani  <shani@scvas.org>; Bill Leikam Leikam <wcleikam@gmail.com>  Subject: Re: Recycled Water / Measure E site @ Monday, 17 Dec  Thanks, Samantha, for our meeting and for sending the white paper on use of the Measure E site. The paper actually includes some incorrect information. It says, "Immediately southwest of the existing RWQCP, the City owns a 126-acre landfill which closed in 2012. Since then the landfill was designated as Byxbee Park and includes wetlands,pedestrian and bicycle trails, various art installations, and habitat for native species (Palo Alto,2008).” Byxbee Park was dedicated as Park by Citizen Initiative adopted in 1964 (90% in favor) and adopted by City Ordinance effective on January 1, 1965. (Enid Pearson led the Initiative effort.) Byxbee Park was being used as a landfill at that time and the landfill was expected to be filled and closed in approximately 1968. Alas, it was a big revenue producer for the Refuse Fund and City, and Public Works managed to keep it operating until 2011 — 47 years later. And the park was not opened to the public until 2012 - nearly half a century after it was dedicated as a park. (See Charter Article VIII - Parks, and Title 22 Parks, Exhibit A-2). Landscaped buffer. The 125’ landscaped buffer South of RWQCP was required as part of the Site and Design Review for the RWQCP clarifier tanks built to the RWQCP fenceline in 1988, during my tenure on the Council. RWQCP was required to provide 125’ of screen landscaping, including large trees, to shield the Park from views of RWQCP’s industrial operation. “The required landscaping for the new secondary clarifiers included berms (soil from the excavation for the dugout tanks) and landscape south of the plant to screen the tanks from the Byxbee Park area. Some of the required landscaping for the Secondary Clarifiers is outside of the RWQCP site - on adjacent parkland.” (2008 Baylands Master Plan update page 184.) A 1999 aerial photo of the proposed project shows a virtual forest south of the clarifiers. The maximum Byxbee Park elevation in 1988 was about 36’. Now it’s closer to 90’. Government actions are essentially a covenant with the public and should be honored. It should not require constant vigilance by the public to make sure a covenant is enforced. These covenants should be part of the public record and referenced by Staff in perpetuity. That way, changes in public and staff do not 2 relegate the covenants to oblivion. As our sloganeering U.S. President likes to say, “Promises made, Promises kept.” (Just a little tongue in cheek there, but I’m sure the City of Palo Alto would like to be seen as keeping its promises.) Thanks for all your time yesterday. Emily On Dec 17, 2018, at 3:13 PM, Engelage, Samantha <Samantha.Engelage@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi All,   As discussed in our meeting earlier today, attached is the Measure E Site White Paper that sought to  summarize the background of the current approved use of the site and the legal process required to add  or change the use designation.    Thanks, Sam   <image001.png> Samantha Engelage, P.E. Senior Engineer, Environmental Services Division 2501 Embarcadero Way | Palo Alto, CA 94303 D: (650) 329‐2123 Samantha.Engelage@CityofPaloAlto.org From: North, Karin Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 9:25 AM To: Leikam, Bill; Bobel, Phil Cc: Renzel, Emily; Pearson, Enid; Kleinhaus, Shani; Dailey, Karla; Engelage, Samantha Subject: RE: Recycled Water / Measure site @ Monday, 17 Dec We are meeting in the conference room   From: Bill Leikam [mailto:wcleikam@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 17, 2018 9:24 AM To: Bobel, Phil Cc: Renzel, Emily; Pearson, Enid; Kleinhaus, Shani; North, Karin; Dailey, Karla; Engelage, Samantha Subject: Re: Recycled Water / Measure site @ Monday, 17 Dec Where is the meeting place? I am in Jamie's office. Bill On Tue, Dec 11, 2018, 2:00 AM Bobel, Phil <Phil.Bobel@cityofpaloalto.org wrote: It looks like 9:30 on 12/.17 can do. Bill- If you want come early I'early, I'll brief your PE On Dec 10, 2018, at 10:59 AM, Bobel, Phil <Phil.Bobel@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Does 9:00 on 12/17 work for others ?   3 From: Bill Leikam [mailto:wcleikam@gmail.com]   Sent: Monday, December 10, 2018 10:57 AM  To: Bobel, Phil <Phil.Bobel@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Renzel, Emily  <marshmama2@att.net>; Pearson, Enid <enidpearson1@gmail.com>; Kleinhaus, Shani  <shani@scvas.org>; Leikam, Bill <wcleikam@gmail.com>  Cc: North, Karin <Karin.North@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dailey, Karla  <Karla.Dailey@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Engelage, Samantha  <Samantha.Engelage@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: Recycled Water / Measure E site @ Monday, 17 December 2018 Phil: I will have to move another meeting if we start at 10:00. Might we begin the meeting at 9:00 AM. If so, then I can more comfortably do both meetings. In any case, I will be there. I assume that the meeting will be an hour long? Let me know ASAP. Sincerely, Bill Leikam – The Fox Guy CEO & President, UrbanWildlifeResearchProject.com Nonprofit 501 C3 650 - 856 - 3041 Striving to enhance wildlife habitat and linkages so as to sustain a healthy ecosystem. Wcl - 2017 Within the seeds of philosophy, the forest of science is born. wcl - 2018 From: Bobel, Phil <Phil.Bobel@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Monday, 10 December, 2018 9:52 AM  To: Renzel, Emily <marshmama2@att.net>; Pearson, Enid  <enidpearson1@gmail.com>; Kleinhaus, Shani <shani@scvas.org>; Leikam, Bill  <wcleikam@gmail.com>  Cc: North, Karin <Karin.North@cityofpaloalto.org>; Dailey, Karla  <Karla.Dailey@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Engelage, Samantha  <Samantha.Engelage@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Recycled Water / Measure E site @ Monday, 17 December 2018 Sorry for confusion, Emily  ‐ that was an earlier note –  In any event, I’ll find a new  date  ‐ the Water district wanted to tell their Board before we talked in more detail –  but my Management would prefer we proceeded . We don’t want to appear to be  hiding something.   So….. How about Dec 17 at 10:00 at the Plant ‐  Admin Bldg ??   Phil   From: Emily Renzel [mailto:marshmama2@att.net]   Sent: Sunday, December 09, 2018 10:33 AM  To: Bobel, Phil <Phil.Bobel@CityofPaloAlto.org>  4 Cc: Pearson, Enid <enidpearson1@gmail.com>  Subject: Re: Cancelled: Recycled Water / Measure E site @ Monday, 10 December  2018 Dear Phil: I’m confused. You already cancelled this meeting, but the email says you are trying to calendar it again. Please let me know if I’m supposed to do anything. Thanks. Emily On Dec 9, 2018, at 10:20 AM, Bobel, Phil <Phil.Bobel@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: DEC 10 "Recycled Water / Measure E site" has been cancelled When Monday, 10 December 2018 06:00 PM to 07:00 PM (GMT) Greenwich Mean Time - Dublin / Edinburgh / Lisbon / London Where Plant Message I?m trying again to calendar this ? I ?cancelled? the earlier attempt !! I?d like to spend 20-30 min picture? stuff, sort of listed below, mostly #1. I?m actually encouraged by discussions we?ve had (We?ll see what Garth & others think!). The key is for us to brainstorm and outlining a way forwa more water, from somewhere, if needed during the 40 year period. If we staff can come up with on that , I think we can all make the rest fall in place. After that , we can dive into the Dst?s lates sheet. I?ve got a meeting set up with the activist residents who led the Measure E efforts, includ course. I?m setting up a separate meeting with likely opponents ? Renzel, etc. 1) PA needs to k needs more water in the 40-year period, there is something that can be done, and a pathway to having the ?big plant? here in PA. 3) PA sees Direct Potable as the ?End Game? in PA , and wa taken to be consistent with that goal. 4) PA needs an 80 % Dst cost share on the ?small plant? T This event invitation was sent from Yahoo Calendar <invite.ics><Mail Attachment.ics> <Final White Paper 20171010.pdf> 1 Carnahan, David From:Bjarki Valberg <Bjarki.Valberg@kopavogur.is> Sent:Wednesday, December 19, 2018 3:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Request for information and collaboration Dear sir or madam,    As the environmental and planning technician of the municipal of Kopavogur (est. 35.000.‐ inhabitants) in  Iceland we are facing the transition to sustainable transport development and the use of technology and  information to ease that transition in an innovative way.    I have been very interested in the approach and mindset of Palo Alto and the solutions implemented and strategy  approach to induction of sustainable transportation and data gathering and utilization. We are currently structuring our  transportation policy and forming the change from vertical speed reduction measures to horizontal speed reduction  measures and speed camera system.    We are faced with similar and sometimes same problems, in different scale, to gather information regarding the  transportation system and utilization of that Information to be able to develop our current transport system to a more  sustainable transportation system.    Our request is if there could be an interest in sharing information with our municipality and open a conversation  regarding solutions, technology and mindset.    We think this might be a mutual beneficial conversation since the size of our community is the perfect test market for  larger scale induction.    Our questions are both objective; what sensors are you using to count traffic, is it fiber optic connected, and subjective;  how do you approach open data and development of open data and structuring of the open data collection and sharing.    We hope we can have an open conversations and this request finds you well.  Sincerely,    http://www.kopavogur.is    Bjarki Valberg  Skipulagsfræðingur  Umhverfisfulltrúi   Umhverfissvið ‐ Skipulags‐ og byggingardeild  Sími 441‐0000    Kópavogsbær  |  Digranesvegur 1  |  200 Kópavogur     Þessi tölvupóstur og viðhengi gæti innihaldið trúnaðarupplýsingar og/eða einkamál og er eingöngu ætlaður þeim sem hann er stílaður á.   Ef sending þessi hefur ranglega borist yður vinsamlega gætið fyllsta trúnaðar, tilkynnið sendanda og eyðileggið sendinguna eins og skylt   er skv. 47. gr. laga nr. 81/2003 um fjarskipti.    The information transmitted, including any attachment, may contain confidential and/or privileged material and is intended only for the   addressee.  If you receive this in error, please keep the information confidential, contact the sender and delete the material from your   system.    1 Carnahan, David From:Tirumala Ranganath <ranguranganath@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 4:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:request to item # 15 from the consent callendar Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members,               Having gone over the deatiled request put forward by Nadia naik in regard to ulling item #15 from the consent  callendar from this evening's meeting, I fully agree with her reasoning.  I would like to add my voice to Nadia's  request.  Please do the needful and remover the said item, so it can be discussed publically, in more detail with resident  inputs, etc at a later date in the New Year.  Thanks for listening to my request,    Regards,    Ranganath   Greater Ventura resident  1 Carnahan, David From:Anne Rosenthal <greategret2018@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 12, 2018 4:20 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan; Clerk, City Subject:Reverse Verizon Decision To the Palo Alto City Council:      I urge you to    1. To reverse your May 21st decision allowing Verizon to install its cheap, ugly and potentially hazardous, especially during earthquakes, equipment aboveground next to people’s homes;     2. To direct City Staff to vigorously enforce Palo Alto’s aesthetics, noise and other ordinances with respect to the siting and installation of cell towers near residences; and, more specifically,;    3. To direct City Staff to stop advising the Planning and Transportation Commission to incorporate the FCC’s aggressively pro-telecommunications-industry October order into our municipal ordinances.      Anne M Rosenthal  Palo Alto Resident and Voter  1 Carnahan, David From:Rice, Danille Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2018 1:24 PM To:camille.garibaldi@faa.gov Cc:trevor_higgins@feinstein.senate.gov; Flaherty, Michelle; Keene, James; Stump, Molly; Isaac_Irby@harris.senate.gov; eric.henshall@mail.house.gov; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Tanner, Rachael Subject:SFO, Noise Compatibility Program - Part 150 Study Update Attachments:SFO, Noise Compatibility Program - 14 CFR Part 150 Update July 2018.pdf Good afternoon Ms. Garibaldi,  Please find attached letter regarding the City of Palo Alto’s comments on the Noise Compatibility Program – Part 150  Study Update.     Respectfully,  Danille        Danille Rice | Administrative Assistant   Office of the City Manager  650.329.2229                December 17, 2018 Ms. Camille Garibaldi Environmental Protection Specialist, SFO -613 Federal Aviation Administration San Francisco Airports District Office 1000 Marina Boulevard, Suite 220 Brisbane, California 94005 -1835 City of Palo Alto Office of the Mayor and City Council RE: San Francisco International Airport, Noise Compatibility Program -14 CFR Part 150 Update July 2018 Dear Ms. Garibaldi, This commentary is provided by the City of Palo Alto, located south-southeast of the San Francisco International Airport (SFO), under the flight paths for most of SFO's arrivals. The City appreciates this opportunity to provide input regarding the Part 150 Study Update. This letter addresses the SFO Noise Compatibility Program (NCP) that is currently before the FAA for review. Additionally, this letter comments on the Noise Exposure Maps produced by the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) and accepted by the FAA in January 2016. The Noise Exposure Maps are a critical component as the maps dictate the areas to be considered in the creation of the Noise Compatibility Program. Overall, our overriding concern is the exclusion of Palo Alto from the geographic scope of the Noise Exposure Maps and thus the exclusion of Palo Alto from consideration in the Noise Compatibility Program Update. Palo Alto has become the recipients of SFO's additional noise, overflight, and other environmental impacts without consideration in the Part 150 Study (Consultation and Public Involvement, §1.6, Table 1-1, Page 1-7). We also find that both the Noise Compatibility Program and the Noise Exposure Maps fail to take into consideration the Northern California Optimization of the Airspace and Procedures in the Metroplex (NorCal OAPM). The NorCal OAPM and the national Next Generation Air Transportation System initiative (NextGen) have resulted in more air traffic passing over Palo Alto en route to SFO. San Francisco's Part 150 Update purports to reflect changes since 2014 in Noise Exposure Maps and related data, yet the Update does not even address the NorCal OAPM. The Update is also incomplete because it fails to include Palo Alto and its neighbors as part of the Study. In addition to these overarching comments, we provide specific comments focused on the Noise Compatibility Program Update as well as the Noise Exposure Maps. Comments Regarding the "Purpose" Section of the of the 14 CFR Part 150 Update Noise Compatibility Program The City of Palo Alto finds the following deficiencies in the Study: • The Study does not address or meet the goals of NextGen as mandated by Congress. 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 Congress mandated that NextGen, "take into consideration, to the greatest extent practicable, design of airport approach and departure flight tracks to reduce the exposure of noise and emissions pollution on affected residents" (per the "VISON 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act of 2003"). Congress also issued a number of NextGen-related mandates in the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-254, including sections 175, 176, 178, and 179. We believe that it would be appropriate for the NCP to address the applicability of these and other statutory mandates and, in particular, to explain how NextGen implementation imperatives could affect San Francisco's ability to implement proposed NCP measures. In addition, sections 187 and 188 of that statute mandate studies relevant to noise mitigation and analysis under Part 150. The NCP should incorporate the mandates from those statutory provisions as well. This "Purpose" section fails to discuss any effort to reduce noise, emissions, or other environmental impacts produced by the Metroplex and Air Traffic. This demonstrates that the Part 150 Study does not meet the goals established by Congress. • The Study fails to account for the drastic changes of the NorCal Metroplex OAPM that were deployed starting in 2015. These changes included a redesign of the Class B airspace and the introduction of OPD arrival procedures. In fact, the environmental ramifications of the Nor Cal Metroplex (OAPM) were entirely omitted from this document. • The Study is based on the old /NM noise modeling tool instead of the AEDT tool. The FAA has mandated the use of AEDT since March 2012.The 2014 NEM was prepared after 2012 and was based on 2013 data. Since the initial AEDT release, the noise modeling capabilities have drastically improved (especially compared to the previous INM capabilities). It is unclear why San Francisco chose not to use the AEDT tool in preparation of the NEM nor the NCP. The NCP should analyze the differences, if any, that would result if the currently mandated model had appropriately been used. • The Study is based on underestimated forecast of SFO operations. See comparison table below. In 2017, SFO already exceeded the 2019 forecast by 7,643 operations. The forecast in the Purpose section covers a period of 2014 through 2019. This is no longer appropriately ·considered as a forecast period, but instead a validation of historical fact. The only forecast information is for next year and four days of 2018. The Part 150 update projects that SFO air traffic will continue to grow "at an average rate of 2.0 percent annually over the forecast period, increasing from an estimated 421,400 operations in 2013 to 625,620 operations in 2033" (see p. 1-5, table 1.2). It is unfair for the FAA to increase operations, knowing that this increased traffic will fly over Peninsula communities such as Palo Alto and increase noise in those communities, while excluding these communities from the Part 150 Update and associated abatement and mitigation measures. If the NCP is to be an effective noise mitigation and compatibility tool, it should examine several years in the future -not just one year. We recognize that the NEM was submitted in 2016 but the agency should require that the sponsor revalidate the 2016 maps and propose NCP measures for the five-year period beginning 2019 (or at the very least, 2018). Comments Regarding Mitigation Measures Identified in Chapter 3 of the Part 150 Study • 3.2.4.2 Modify Arrival Profiles/Procedures -The study dismisses changes to arrival procedures because the limited 65 CNEL study area is within the /LS approaches where 3-degree approaches have been standardized. There is a discussion of an experimental continuous descent approach {CDA), now termed optimized profile descent {OPD). This concept has been around for more than twenty years, but is applied to descending aircraft entering the Metroplex and not to aircraft on the ILS approach, as all aircraft are in the study area. OPD approaches are recommended for aircraft approaching the outer waypoint on the ILS (beyond the study area of the report). This would provide significant noise relief to South Bay residents and should be a part of an organized and well-run Metroplex. • 3.2.4.3 Restrict the number or time of day of aircraft operations -This recommendation is important and should be implemented. Currently, too many aircraft arrive within a short period ohime in the afternoons and must be radar vectored over Palo Alto and other local communities awaiting a slot for final approach to SFO. This results from poor ATC planning by the FAA and should be incorporated with OPD approaches to minimize noise, save fuel, minimize arrival delays, and reduce air pollution. • 3.2.6 Management Measures . o 3.2.6.1 Implement noise abatement office for monitoring, reporting, and responding to aircraft noise. We recommend this measure to include areas out to the 45 CNEL contour boundary. o 3.2.6.2 Record or Track Noise Complaints. We recommend this measure to include areas out to the 45 CNEL contour boundary. Comments Regarding Noise Exposure Maps (NEM) {Part 150, Subpart B) • 2019 Noise Exposure Map (August 13, 2015) does not display f>NI: CNEL noise exposure contours below 65 dBA. In developing its noise exposure maps, the Part 150 Update utilizes an outdated metric: CNEL 65 dB and higher (see §1.5, exhs. 1.2, 1.3). This measure ignores low-frequency noise that nonetheless is palpable and fails to reflect the adverse effect on populations newly experiencing more frequent over-flights, at regular intervals, concentrated in narrow corridors. Section 188 of the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 directs the FAA to "evaluate alternative metrics to the current average day-night level standard, such as the use of actual noise sampling and other methods, to address community airplane noise concerns." San Francisco should provide leadership on this issue. • /NM Arrival and Departure Flight Tracks for Runway's 01L I 01R appear to have been cropped, built solely on Instruments Procedures. This oversight fails to fully disclose low altitude radar vectoring to final approaches, or early turns on departures, consistently directed by NorCal TRACON (FAA NCT). Full disclosure would have shown their environmental effect near surrounding cities such as Brisbane and South San Francisco, and the full Peninsula. This operational short-cut has been noted in two Congressional Subcommittee hearings (the Nor Cal Class B Study and, most recently, San Francisco Short-Term Noise Monitoring Report, October 31, 2018). These reports show the Oakland departures being turned across the Bay and co-mingled with the SFO departures down the middle of the Peninsula. • The /NM Arrival and Departures Maps have omitted all aircraft on radar vectors. • The /NM Arrival and Departure Maps have omitted all CNEL noise contours below 65 dB. • The /NM Arrival and Departure Maps did not stratify, parse, or color code tracks data by altitudes. Comments Regarding the San Francisco International Airport 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 150 Study Update Noise Exposure Map Report • Airspace {3.6} Full disclosure, relative to the Class B Airspace change was omitted from this update. • Air Traffic Control (3. 7) The Part 150 documents fail to include any evaluation or mitigation for the arrival areas as they did for areas surrounding the departures. Nor Cal TRACON has promoted and amplified the use of navigable airspace over the City, and unbalanced usage as a "sort box" for the sequencing of arrival traffic to the RWYS 28 L/R at SFO below 5000 MSL. From the total arrival flow into SFO, following are the percentage of each: o BDEGA (25% SFO ARRIVALS) o SERFR (30% SFO ARRIVALS) o OCEANIC (5% SFO ARRIVALS) The BDEGA arrivals are split into two routes, east/ west. Of the total volume, over 70% are issued to the west, vectoring them over the Peninsula and the city, descending below 4000 MSL, with consequent noise and environmental impacts. The SER FR flow from the south has also caused 55% of approaching aircraft to be vectored for over 35 miles for sequencing to the final approach course. This is due to track compaction, poor traffic management (Oakland ARTCC), and Class B Airspace. This causes excessive vectored flights over Palo Alto. OCEANIC arrivals impact the peninsula and City during "nighttime" hours from unnecessarily low approaches over populated areas. During southeast weather conditions to San Jose International Airport (SJC) and northwest flow into SFO, an additional noise and environmental impact is incurred (amplified) by low altitude vectoring of arrival aircraft to both airports. Per the Ad Hoc Advisory Committee on South Flow Arrivals that met in early 2018, about 50% of the SJC south flow arrivals are vectored over Palo Alto. Both the NEM and the NCP fail to assess the combined impact of aircraft traffic from and to multiple airports. Palo Alto experiences low altitude overflights from and to SFO, from and to OAK, and to SJC when in south flow mode (note also that SJC has a normal flow daily departure flight to Narita that flies over Palo Alto at about 4,000 ft without going through the SJC departure loop system). In addition, there are overflights from and to SQL and PAO. • Standard Terminal Arrival {STAR's) and Departure Procedures {DPs} {3.8) This section fails to address any procedure implemented by the Nor Cal Metroplex in the Bay area during the forecasted period. • Instrument procedures 3.8.2 Table 3-5, is an incomplete, non-current, listing of SFO Instrument Approach Procedures (IAP's). • Departures 3.8.3 Table 3-6, is an incomplete, non-current, listing of SFO Departure Procedures (DP's). Conclusion The City of Palo Alto appreciates this opportunity to comment and looks forward to working with the FAA toward a legally supportable environmental review and successful implementation of an environmentally compliant and properly mitigated PART 150, Noise Compatibility Study for San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Respectfully submitted, cc: 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:Satyadev Patel <satya@almanacip.legal> Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2018 11:36 AM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Support for Wireless on Dec 20th Dear ARB Members,   I support improved wireless coverage in Palo Alto and the items on the Dec 20th ARB Agenda as proposed with  equipment mounted on poles.  Vaulting requires violating the City's noise ordinance with fans and pumps, removing trees and landscaping and digging  up the streets which causes traffic interruptions, dust, and more noise nuisance.  Please approve.   Thanks,     Satyadev Patel  943 Oregon Ave  Palo Alto CA 94303    1 Carnahan, David From:Max Kapczynski <maxnkap@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2018 12:28 PM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Support for Wireless on Dec 20th Dear ARB Members,    I support improved wireless coverage in Palo Alto and the items on the Dec 20th ARB Agenda as proposed with  equipment mounted on poles.    Vaulting requires violating the City's noise ordinance with fans and pumps, removing trees and landscaping and digging  up the streets which not only increases costs, but causes traffic interruptions, dust, and more noise nuisance.    Better cell service allows residents to be more productive, be better in touch with our friends and family and creates a  safer environment where people can reach help in emergencies.    Please approve.    Thanks,  Max Kapczynski  865 Mesa Ave, Palo Alto  1 Carnahan, David From:Cody Goodermote <cody@goodermote.net> Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2018 9:29 PM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Support for Wireless on Dec 20th Dear ARB Members,    I support improved wireless coverage in Palo Alto and the items on the Dec 20th ARB Agenda as proposed with  equipment mounted on polls.    Vaulting requires violating Palo Alto's noise ordinance with fans and pumps, removing trees and landscaping and  digging up the streets which causes traffic interruptions, dust, and more noise nuisance.    Palo Alto must lead the charge forward with 5G and other ultra-fast connected technologies -- we can only do that with small cell technology due to the higher frequencies most carriers will use for 5G. Cellular communication is CRITICAL to Palo Alto's Police and Fire Departments as well as all citizens and visitors that might someday need to dial 911.   Help build the city of the future and stop NIBYISM. Please approve the installation of additional cellular antenna sites in Palo Alto.    Best,  Cody M. Goodermote   (I work in Palo Alto)   1 Carnahan, David From:Ryan Polich <polich@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 17, 2018 11:37 AM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Support for Wireless on Dec 20th Hello there ARB!     I live in South of Midtown with my wife and I have appeared in front of the council around wireless issues a couple  times.  I'm an accidental activist on these issues, as the quality of wireless coverage has been a real problem where I live  in Palo Alto.  I broadly support improving coverage as a way to improve quality of life, specifically to improve access to  emergency services for those of us with no landline and allow me flexibility to work from home instead of commuting.      I understand there are seven items on the Dec 20th ARB Agenda ‐ I can't appear in person, but I support them  all.  Bottom line is that Palo Alto needs fast, reliable service.  I've seen the diagram signs around my neighborhood and  the existing pole‐mounted designs and think they look fine.  Heck, THEY LOOK GREAT.  It's not like they make a pole  uglier!      I sat through the entire presentation around vaulting earlier this year ‐ it seems like pushing for vaulting is an  idealistic delaying tactic, but one that will have a ton of negative impact on the neighborhood in terms of delays,  construction, etc.        Please approve the proposal!     Best,    Ryan Polich  3216 Emerson Street  Palo Alto, CA     1 Carnahan, David From:Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, December 13, 2018 9:44 AM To:Keene, James; Lait, Jonathan; Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Perez, Lalo; Nose, Kiely; Flaherty, Michelle; Keith, Claudia; Mora; Fred Balin Subject:touching base - College Terrace Centre fines & hearing Dear Jonathan, James and City Council,    Happy holidays,     I am just following up on the College Terrace Centre fines to....  1) Make sure they are still being collected  and kept aside (and verifying the amount, which should $320,000 or so)  2) Check on when the use of the fines will be discussed by City Council.       I know the market is opening soon, so perhaps you will wait for the exact date to have the hearing.  I believe the open  date was supposed to be 11/24 but it has not happened yet.       As you know, we desperately need to reconnect our Palo Alto neighborhoods & communities through community space  and community life so I look forward to discussing how these funds can be used.    Mark Berman had requested the  money be specifically for the neighborhoods (since the Market was a community benefit as a hub, so we felt the funds  should be used for alternative community gathering options).  The Council didn't want to decide in the moment but  agreed to have a special hearing for this issue.      I think this Monday is too soon for us to present options, but we have been getting input from the neighbors and will  make recommendations, hopefully when you bring this on the agenda in the New Year.    Sincerely,  Mary Jane  College Terrace, member CTRA   4152699079      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Keene, James <James.Keene@cityofpaloalto.org>  Date: Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 11:40 AM  Subject: RE: College Terrace Centre fine ‐ be sure to earmark the funds  To: Maryjane Marcus <maryjane.marcus@gmail.com>, Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, Council, City  <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Perez, Lalo  <Lalo.Perez@cityofpaloalto.org>, Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@cityofpaloalto.org>, Flaherty, Michelle  <Michelle.Flaherty@cityofpaloalto.org>, Keith, Claudia <Claudia.Keith@cityofpaloalto.org>    Ms. Marcus.  Thanks for your email and inclusion of the Council’s motion.  I can assure you that as we collect fines, we will  put them into a reserve.  They cannot and will not be spent or committed in any  way until we have explicit Council  direction, which will have to occur at some future Council meeting.    2                                     James Keene | City Manager    250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email –Thank you!        From: Maryjane Marcus [mailto:maryjane.marcus@gmail.com]   Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2018 1:38 PM  To: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Mgr  <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: College Terrace Centre fine ‐ be sure to earmark the funds     Dear Jonathan,     I wanted to write to you regarding the College Terrace Centre fine, which you confirmed to Ann Balini starts July 9th at  $2000/day.     I want to make sure you and Jim Keene are aware of a motion that also passed when the Ordinance was passed, and the  need to set aside and earmark the funds until you have guidance  from City Council as to how it will be used.     See below the transcript from Dec 15, 2014.    3    MINUTES 12/15/2014 116‐ 271 MOTION: Council Member Berman moved, seconded by Council Member Scharff that  any funds collected due to future violations of the grocery store be brought to Council for guidance on expenditure of  funds. Council Member Berman preferred penalty funds be utilized for the benefit of the College Terrace  neighborhood. Council Member Scharff felt expenditure of the funds should be more visible than Code Enforcement.  MOTION PASSED: 9:0     Can you please be sure the funds are earmarked until you receive this guidance?        Will you let us know when guidance from Council will be requested?        Sincerely  Mary Jane Marcus  Member, College Terrace Residents Association  1 Carnahan, David From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 18, 2018 5:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Trees in cal ave area Hi so someone just posted that the city is removing more mature trees one which is a heritage redwood tree. This  should not be allowed!!!  You could do what Stanford does and collect them into a container to use them after the  project. The Redwood should not be removed at all.  The project should work around the Redwood tree Amy    Sent from my iPhone  1 Carnahan, David From:Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 19, 2018 12:42 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City Subject:Verizon underground please   Dear Chair Furth, Vice-Chair Baltay, Mr. Gooyer, Mr. Lew & Ms. Thompson,    I am one of the many residents who would greatly prefer to have VERIZON cell phone towers be placed UNDERGROUND.    About twenty years ago there was some talk of placing all utility lines underground. While this didn't happen, my husband and I still talk about what a great idea that was. It probably lessens the fire danger, certainly lessens dangers in earthquakes, and would make the city more attractive. One of the things that makes Palo Alto stand out is the amount of trees we have. Gunking them up with Verizon towers is a bad idea.    We also don't want the noise.    Please allow us residents to create the city we want. While Verizon may want to save money, we want to have them place their ugly, noisy boxes underground.    Thanks,  Ann Protter        1 Carnahan, David From:California High-Speed Rail <news@hsr.ca.gov> Sent:Thursday, December 13, 2018 10:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:VIDEO RELEASE: California High-Speed Rail Program Highlights Major Accomplishments of 2018 To view this email as a web page, go here. News Release December 13, 2018 Annie Parker (916) 403-6931 (w) (916) 203-2960 (c) Annie.Parker@hsr.ca.gov California High-Speed Rail Program Highlights Major Accomplishments of 2018 SACRAMENTO, Calif. - The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) experienced changes, challenges and made significant progress on the nation’s first high-speed rail program in 2018. Starting with the appointment and new direction provided by Chief Executive Officer Brian P. Kelly in early 2018, the Authority demonstrated it’s committed to advancing the high-speed rail program by reaching several important milestones in the areas of construction in the Central Valley, as well as environmental reviews and local and regional partnerships in Northern and Southern California. “The Authority has made significant progress on delivering high-speed rail to California in 2018, and we are well positioned to build on that progress going into 2019,” said Authority Board Chair Dan Richard. “While we have a lot more work ahead of us, and challenges remain, we have taken steps to put high-speed rail on solid ground moving forward, while at the same time investing in local and regional projects that will provide immediate and long-term benefits for the millions of Californians who already use these systems.” The end-of-year video includes several highlights such as:  Adoption of the 2018 Business Plan  2,000th worker dispatched in the Central Valley  Environmental decisions in Southern California Watch the program highlight here: 2 Click to See Video SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street, Suite 620 Sacramento, CA 956814 info@hsr.ca.gov (916) 324-1541 This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US Privacy Policy Unsubscribe 1 Carnahan, David From:Paul Minsker <minskerpaul@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 19, 2018 1:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Your Refusal To Address My Complaint This is my THIRD time writing to your council, and I expect a reply to at least know if my legitimate concerns listed below  are heard, regardless of how ignored they obviously are:    The El Palo Alto Redwood tree located in El Palo Alto Park regularly has trash beneath the limbs,  often has evidence of vagabonds catching naps on the railroad side of the trunk (such as shirts,  jackets, newspapers laid out carefully, doormats, etc.), has had smoldering cigarette butts,  syringes, and open alcohol containers on this same side of the tree, has smelled often of urine  on the lower trunk from a few feet away, regularly has vagabonds hanging out around the area  waiting for people to stop by to check the plaques in front of the tree to look for "easy targets"  to panhandle towards (yes, it has happened), sits above the littered and vagabond‐infested San  Francisquito Creekbed, is regularly vandalized with carvings and pen‐marks on the dead section  of the trunk, almost died before due to governmental negligence of tree‐care responsibilities,  and is, despite being healthy, still threatened daily to meeting a demise if the soil, water, and  tree limbs and trunk are neglected as I cannot say now whether or not they are.    What is the plan for your council regarding such?     Since this tree lies on city park land, will someone please transfer my message to the Palo Alto Parks and Recreation  department?     Will the city mandate funds to have trash cans and more lights installed on the trail beside the tree to decrease litter  issues and have the park become better lit and theoretically safer at night?     Will the city spare a Palo Alto Police Patrolperson to walk the hundred feet to the Menlo Park Bridge and back to check  for vagabonds / vandals / litter / crime and deal with them accordingly?     Will SOMEONE please prove to me that the tree is on the city radar and is being monitored and cared for AND about?    OR, will this message just pass under your noses and go ignored because none of you have salaries based off of whether  or not a tree lives a protected and respected life or dies from neglect and ill environmental health.     WILL YOU HELP ME PROTECT THE TREE THAT NAMED YOUR CITY AND GAVE STANFORD AN IMAGE FOR THEIR  SYMBOLIC SEAL, OR MUST I INSTALL LIGHTS AND TRASH CANS MYSELF?!     I CARE ABOUT EL PALO ALTO. DO YOU? If so, please  respond and let me know why you care and how we  2 can ensure these problems are reduced and ideally  eventually eradicated.    ‐Paul Minsker  pg.l 3465 Kenneth Drive Palo Alto, Ca 94303 December 14, 2018 Project Manager, Charleston Traffic Corridor Project Transportation and Planning Commission City Council Members c/o City Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear All: Summary: This letter concerns two aspects of the plans for the Charleston Traffic Corridor Project. My opinions are given below. Details are provided on attached sheets. 1. The proposed stop light at the intersection of Charleston and Louis I am strongly opposed to this. I believe it unnecessary, will be difficult to manage, will cause more lost time for motorists that it purports to save, and we don't need to spend the money. 2. Changes to the traffic lanes on Charleston between Louis and San Antonio I believe that left tum lanes from Charleston to Fabian Way, even if only for 1 or 2 cars, would aid considerably in traffic flow at that intersection. I would appreciate your giving serious consideration to these comments and suggestions. Sincerely, Carl Jones ' o ;O\ WV B l 330 9 l 3~\.:l.:lO S.~ilJlJ i\113 v~ ·op\t o1vd :10 i\11~ Traffic Signal at Charleston and Louis I have lived just north of this intersection for over 30 years and have traveled this way on my work commute for more than half that time. I also travel that way lots of other times as well. Even though I, too, am affected by backups on Louis Road, I do not believe that this is a pressing problem that needs to be addressed, and certainly not by a traffic signal. Yes, there are times in the morning and evening when left-turning traffic from Louis might wait a minute or two. But those windows are perhaps a half-hour to an hour each. For the remaining 22-23 hours in a day, a traffic light will do more harm than good, affecting more drivers, and (I believe) likely causing a longer total aggregate person-wait-time than without a light -i.e. more people-time will be wasted sitting in cars idling at the stop light the rest of the day than what is 'saved' in the rush hours by the addition of a light. It just is not seen as easily because it happens in ones and twos. But it adds up over the whole day. Consider the following: (the light will generally be green on Charleston and red on Louis) • Drivers on Louis who arrive at the intersection when a left turn could be made immediately will now have to wait for the light. • Drivers on Louis who arrive at the intersection and would only have to wait for one car will now have to wait for the light. • Drivers on Charleston who could have passed the intersection before a left turn, leaving ample space to turn behind them, will now have to stop. • Drivers on Charleston who would have driven through immediately after a left turning car will now have to stop even though the turning car is gone. • There will need to be sensors in the Louis road to trigger the light (we don't want a red light on Charleston if there is no car on Louis!). The sensor is highly likely to be 'tripped' by a car which is turning right, thus stopping cars on Charleston which need not have been stopped. I believe these are more than enough reasons not to install a traffic signal. If regardless of the above the light installation cannot be avoided, consider using a convention found in the greater Boston area: at times of the day when red/green light control is not needed, the signal blinks Yellow on the thru street and Red on the side street. The blinking red acts as a stop sign to the side street and the blinking yellow alerts the thru street that a car could be turning. pg.6 Traffic Lane Changes on Charleston between Louis and San Antonio Traffic going east on Charleston towards San Antonio and 101 backs up at Fabian Way. From having lived near and traveled this intersection for 30+ years, my observation is that there are two main reasons: A. Traffic turning left onto northbound Fabian way which blocks the left lane on Charleston B. Insufficient space for cars turning left onto San Antonio which backs traffic up to and beyond the Fabian Way intersection. Forty+ years ago, when all of Fabian Way was industrial/office buildings and there was significant commuter traffic to and from that area, a dedicated right-tum lane was provided on westbound Charleston so that cars could tum from the rightmost two lanes. I have no current data, only my observations, but I question the need for that lane currently, given the replacement of what seems to be 50% of that area by housing and a school. But I must defer to the transportation department which I hope has current accurate numbers. However, assuming that an argument can be made for the removal of the dedicated right turn lane, such action would address (B) by allowing for a dedicated center left turn lane for the entire block between Fabian and San Antonio. This is shown in Diagram 1. One or two car-lengths could be allocated for left turns onto southbound Fabian so as not to block lane one. It would leave a much longer and larger capacity lane than exists now from which vehicles could turn left onto northbound San Antonio. That lane realignment would allow addressing (A) above. The west side of the Charleston/Fabian intersection needs to be changed to allow for a short dedicated lane for vehicles turning left onto northbound Fabian. This in turn would ease the backup on Charleston west of the curve. See Diagram 2. I strongly urge the implementation of the lane configuration shown in Diagram 2. I hope that it can be considered even if Diagram 1 is not feasible. Something needs to be done. When a car is turning left the cars behind it try squeezing into the right lane, slowing it down. Frequently the left turning car does not make the turn at the end of the green cycle. The whole flow on eastbound Charleston is affected. If it is impossible to provide a turn lane, please consider some change that would allow left-turning traffic to get out of the way quicker. Perhaps a 10+ second left-tum arrow simultaneous with the green for east-bound Charleston traffic would work -a small price to pay for flow. Finally, ifthe changes in Diagram 1 are not implemented, please consider the change indicated in Diagram 3. People are constantly getting 'lost' when the right lane suddenly becomes right-tum only, whether coming westbound on Charleston through the intersection, or turning right from San Antonio. Cars have no warning; they have no guidance as to what to do. A simple change as shown in Diagram 1 would be a big help. pg. 2 Diagram 1 -Center Left Turn Lane on Charleston between Fabian and San Antonio ~ fr-.0 l/\N \NA.'{ --..;:> pg. 3 r I I r I I I I t r t ' , ~m 2 -Left Turn Lane from Charleston onto Northbound Fabian Way r I \ . . \ . ~\-. . -, " \ . \ ~ .. f'ltl~·~ I I 1 Z<At I (MLel\f ONff ~ I jUAN Lfl;.tl~ I ~ , • J ~ ' '2.·CAl 1\J~ I ,.~ tl'e f jt) I i I ~NJ ~N\\) I ~ . ' pg.4 I t J f r I I I r I I I ' , '. Diagram 3 -Lane Striping Change to J!:xistin_g Charleston Lane Configuration r FA61Af'J •.) ' .ct ' ' ,. I r I r I r I r I r f J \ le ·'STA.\ Pe \ \ 111) \ Gu'~~~ \ \ \· \~Tb °Tt'\'\?' \ \ '""'A.\J \ \ LAt.1e,S \ \r I -----~ pg. 5 Palo Alto Council FIR evcrychild 011evoice.0 lcourz:1L MEETI NG /J-1/J'L [ ] Placed Before Meeting [ ] Received at Meeting FACT SHEET Stanford General Use Permit (GUP) Application & Development Agreement Background Santa Clara County regulates Stanford land use development through a series of General Use Permits ("GUP"). Stanford and the county board of supervisors are currently negotiating a Development Agreement governing Stanford GUP development through 2035. This GUP is the single largest development application in the history of Santa Clara County. Five county supervisors will vote on the new GUP. Supervisor Joe Simitian represents our area. Stanford's current GUP application seeks: • Up to 3,150 new units/beds for students, faculty, and staff. • 550 family rental units for faculty and staff {Quarry Road Development) • Up to 2,275,000 (2.275 million) square feet of new academic and academic support uses • Up to 40,000 new square feet of child care centers and facilities https://www.sccgov.org/sites/dpd/DocsForms/Documents/SU 2018GUP App Voll.pdf (pp. 3.3-3.4, 3.22) Potential Impacts on PAUSD Schools 1. Per-student funding PAUSD spends approximately $19,000 per student, raised primarily from local property tax dollars. Stanford does not pay property taxes on its rental housing (Stanford homeowners and ground- lease residents pay property taxes). In addition to the Stanford proposed 550 Quarry Road family rental units, the county analyzed two increased housing alternatives, to remedy the county jobs-to-housing imbalance. The anticipated new PAUSD students and cost to educate the students under these three proposals: • 275 students -Stanford 550 new rental units on Quarry Road -no property tax revenues $5.3 million per year-PAUSD cost to educate these new students • 861 new students -County EIR Alt B. Unknown rentals v. ground-lease homes $16.5 million per year -PAUSD cost to educate these new students if all live in rental units • 1,446 new students -County EIR Alt B. Unknown rentals v ground-lease homes $27.8 million per year -PAUSD cost to educate these new students if all live in rental units 2. School sites There is no PAUSD elementary school near the proposed Quarry Road development. Historically, when Stanford built housing developments, PAUSD purchased Stanford land at fair market value to build neighborhood schools near the new housing (Nixon and Escondido elementary schools). 1 Fact Sheet: Stanford General Use Permit & Development Agreement mrychild. ... ..ace· December 5, 2018 TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS CITY OF PALO .ALTO._CA.. NOTICE OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMP ANYf$~lm59:'~1tt!ICREASE RATES FOR ITS CUSTOMER DATA ACCESS APPLICATION (A.18-11-01~ Summary 18 DEC I 4 AH IQ: O 2 On November 26, 2018, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its Customer Data Access application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). This application is intended to make it easier and more secure for customers to share their electric energy data with third parties. Some of these third parties include demand response, energy efficiency and energy management providers. To accomplish this goal, the application is requesting $16.62 million for technology enhancements to streamline the existing on line platform and improve access to customers' usage data. Background In 2015, PG&E launched a solution for sharing energy data. Since then, the energy industry has been evolving to meet the changing needs of customers and California's electric grid. In addition, third party providers have emerged in response to California's policies and to developments in the state's energy environment. In order for third parties to provide their services for PG&E's customers, accurate and timely data about customers' energy use and other relevant information is required. In compliance with customer privacy laws, customers need a secure way to authorize release of their energy data. As the industry continues to innovate, the proposals in this application will help preserve customer privacy while making it easier for customers to share their data. How will PG&E's Application affect me? Many customers receive bundled electric service from PG&E, meaning they receive electric generation, transmission and distribution services. Based on rates currently in effect, the bill for a typical residential, bundled nonCARE customer using 500 kWh per month would increase from $113.64 to $113. 72, or 0.1 percent. Actual impacts will vary depending on energy usage. How will PG&E's Application affect customers who buy electricity from a third party? Direct Access and Community Choice Aggregation customers only receive electric transmission and distribution services from PG&E. On average, these customers will see an increase of 0.1 percent. Departing Load customers do not receive electric generation, transmission or distribution services from PG&E. However, they are required to pay certain charges as required by law or CPUC decision. These customers will not be impacted by this application. How do I find out more about PG&E's proposals? If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TIY call 1-800-652-4712. Para mas detalles llame al 1-800-660-6789 • ~1~~~)(~ 1-800-893-9555. If you would like a copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below: Pacific Gas and Electric Company Customer Data Access Application (A.18-11-015) P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is also available for review at the CPUC's Central Files office by appointment only. For more information, contact aljcentralfilesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's proposal (without exhibits) is available on the CPU C's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov. CPUC process This application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge) who will determine how to receive evidence and other related documents necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary hearings may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other parties. These evidentiary hearings are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate. 1 After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a proposed decision which may adopt PG&E's proposal, modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted upon at a scheduled CPUC Voting Meeting. The California Public Advocates Office (CalPA) may review this application. CalPA is the independent consumer advocate within the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. CalPA has a multidisciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about CalPA, please call 1-415-703-1584, email PublicAdvocatesOffice@cpuc.ca.gov or visit CalPA's website at www.publicadvocates.cpuc.ca.gov. Stay informed If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free subscription service. Sign up at http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov/. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the proceeding, have informal comments about the application or have questions about the CPUC processes, you may access the CPUC's Public Advisor Office (PAO) webpage at http://consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/. You may also contact the PAO as follows: Email: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov Mail: CPUC Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074 TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282 If you are contacting the CPUC, please include the application number (Customer Data Access Application; A.18-11-015). All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Judge and appropriate CPUC staff and will become public record. 2 PROPOSED SCHEDULE OCTOBER 17, 2018 2018 Tasks Months OCT NOV 1. PROJECT INITIATION+ MANAGEMENT Kickoff Meeting .......... . . ..... Project Management ................................................... ····-·· .................................. -- 2. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Working Group Meetings (9) WG#l WG#2 ···············-·····-······-···-............. -···-········ ................. ____ _ Stakeholder Meetings (15) Community Workshops (2) Decision Maker Meetings (4) •· 3. BACKGROUND CONDITIONS Data Collection .............. -...................................................... __ Analysis 4. ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS + DRAFT PLAN COMPONENTS Development of Alternatives ··········· .............. -· .. Comparison of Alternatives ······ ........ _ .............................. _ ... ··-·····--··- 5. DRAFT COORDINATED AREA PLAN Preferred Plan + Program .................................. ··· ............. -· ,,_ .................... . Coordinated Area Plan Report ········· .......... · ... ·· Financial Feasibility+ Economic Analysis + Funding Strategy 6. TECHNICAlJ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS Technical Reports ............................. . Draft Environmental Document Final Environmental Document 7. HEARINGS+ ADOPTION Public Hearings .... Adoption Hearing ................................................... -.. -.................... .. . Legend + Community Working Group Meeting o Community Workshop • Notes: All milestones and dates are subject to modification. Regular check-in meetings to be held with City Council throughout the process. DEC 2019 JAN WG#3 •• "Community 9 Workshop. 1 ~ FEB Combined; • • • ; Sess1CllJ:+: . . .. • Decision Maker Meeting MAR APR WG#5 . .. MAY WG#6 • QCommunity · Workshop 2 • JUN JUL AUG WG#l WG#B • • ·• •••••. fity • Review Stakeholder Meetings + Public Hearings SEP City Rl}v,{ew ... OCT NOV DEC • 1. City Review I I 2020 JAN FEB WG#9 • • • MAR I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I • APR • 0 '· PALO ALTO