The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20180205plCC 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: 2/5/2018 Document dates: 1/17/2018 – 1/24/2018 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:30 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 19, 2018 8:49 PM To:Council, City; CTRAboard@googlegroups.com; Keller, Arthur; Summa, Doria; Fred Balin Subject:Fwd: Stanford GUP Below is a copy of an email I have sent to Mr. Rader regarding Stanford's proposed GUP: Date: Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 8:37 PM Subject: Stanford GUP To: david.rader@pln.sccgov.org Dear Mr. Rader, I believe Stanford's GUP report regarding the impact of their proposed expansion on Palo Alto's streets is based on inaccurate assumptions which minimize what the true impact will be. Stanford must be asked to redo their study to include a more accurate projection of the impact their proposed expansion will have on Palo Alto's streets, which are already functioning at near capacity during the extended commute hours. Specifically, the number of employees they claim will commute by train instead of automobile is overestimated. A) Stanford's study claims there will be longer trains which their employees will be able to use, resulting in less impact on Palo Alto streets. However, the platforms are not long enough for these longer trains. Unless, that is, Stanford is planning to pay to extend all the platforms to accommodate the longer trains they claim will accommodate their additional employees. B) Stanford's study claims there will be more frequent trains as well as longer trains to accommodate their additional employees. However, more frequent and longer trains will effectively close the grade crossings during the extended commute hours at Churchill, E. Meadow, and Charleston. This will result in either long vehicle back-ups at those grade crossings, or push additional cars to the already at capacity El Camino intersections with Embarcadero, Page Mill/Oregon, and San Antonio, or both. Unless, that is, Stanford is planning to pay for grade separation at Churchill, E. Meadow, and Charleston. C) In addition, Stanford must extend the scope of their study to reflect the projected impact on ALL the train stations from San Francisco to San Jose. Including the impact on the parking capacity at the stations. Stanford's proposed expansion will place great pressure on the area's already critical housing shortage. Their current proposal is inadequate given the amount of additional non-residential expansion proposed. Mitigation for permission for Stanford to build non-residential development should be tied to: D) A proportional amount of residential construction, within Stanford's boundary, tied to the rate of non-residential construction. Housing that will be available to all Stanford employees, not just faculty and senior administration. Including below market and low income housing. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:30 PM 2 E) A significant area of the Stanford Research Park reassigned for dense housing. With a timeline for building said housing tied to the rate of Stanford's expansion. Finally, as part of the required mitigation for the impact that will result from significant construction, Stanford should be: F) Required to permanently set aside the "Dish" as open space. G) Required to permanently set aside the pasture land that is visible to the south of Page Mill Road, between Highway 280 and Foothill Expressway, as a buffer for the footpath that was built as mitigation for the last GUP. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, Yours faithfully, Margaret Heath 2140 Cornell Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:37 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:ksabes@aol.com Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 3:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stanford Development I am totally opposed to the development at Stanford. We already can't handle the traffic. How can you consider adding more and more cars, buildings, and other forms of transportation and housing in our wonderful city. This would be the final straw that breaks the camels back!!!!! Kay Sabin 1990 Webster St. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:38 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Margaret Feuer <portulaca24@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 4:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stanford Expansion Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council, I live on University Avenue between Chaucer and Lincoln and can assure you that Stanford’s policy of “no new net trips” is not working. Adding 2.275 million square feet of academic and academic support space and 3,150 new beds/units will further exacerbate the currently intolerable traffic on University Avenue and the surrounding streets of Crescent Park. The afternoon commute period begins at 2:30pm and ends at 7 or 7:30. During this time, it is virtually impossible to exit or enter my driveway. It takes 15 to 20 minutes to go 1/4 of a mile from my house to 101. To go from Middlefield Road to 101 takes ½ hour to 45 minutes. Stanford should be obliged to count the “cut‐off” traffic in its totals. Commuters using Hamilton, Center, Lincoln, Crescent and Southwood use Waze and Google maps to circumvent University Avenue. It is the responsibility of the City Council to represent andprotect its citizens. Telling Stanford that their DEIR is flawed is easy; telling Stanford that they needto lessen their square footage will be harder but its necessary. Sincerely, Margaret R. Feuer 1310 University Avenue City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:40 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jason Matlof <jmatlof@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:17 PM To:cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; david.rader@pln.sccgov.org; Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Jason's Gmail Subject:Fwd: Opposition to the Stanford 2018 GUP from Palo Alto Resident Dear County Supervisors and Staff, As a 22-year tax-paying Santa Clara County and City of Palo Alto resident (as well as lifelong Northern Californian), I'm deeply disturbed by the implications of the Stanford 2018 GUP proposal. While the community recognizes the University's great intellectual and cultural contribution to the broader S.F. Bay Area community, our small city (Palo Alto) can not be expected to endure the impact and costs of the dramatic infrastructure requirements that would be required to sustain the proposed growth at acceptable traffic, environment and safety levels. Stanford must pay for the requisite infrastructure improvements prior to the approval of the 2018 GUP. The institution is growing well beyond our means. I urge you to stop all further development by Stanford until infrastructure and impact analysis is completed and requirements are placed upon Stanford to fund the necessary infrastructure improvements that would make their GUP proposals truly "no net impact" to our community. Specifically, I find the following concerns with the 2018 GUP:  Stanford's proposal should not be considered in isolation of the significant existing transportation and traffic congestion problems that the City of Palo Alto is already experiencing given the large imbalance between local jobs vs. locally employed residents. This ratio is one of the highest in the country, and contributes to an already existing traffic dilemma in our small residential community.  University growth should not be considered in isolation given that it is tied to the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC), the Stanford Research Park (SRP), Stanford Shopping Mall, SLAC, including the development proposed for 500 El Camino Real in Menlo Park (429,000 SF of office, retail and housing). Looking at each site in isolation does not provide a full picture of the cumulative impacts to Palo Alto.  The GUP claim of "No Net New Commuter Trips" is naive given the millions of square feet of development proposed. [Many reports detail the naive and poorly formed aspects of these claims.]  The GUP claims that Caltrain usage will offset growth in daily employee road commuting are naive given that Caltrain is already at full capacity and can only practically address a fraction of total employee commuters.  The GUP totally disregards the looming and alarming transportation and traffic congestion problems that will be created by imminent Caltrain electrification, increased traffic stops, and the likelihood of grade separation construction at various intersections, which will only add to the City's financial and traffic burdens.  The GUP is absent any rigorous traffic impact analysis along the impacted main and secondary impacted corridors already strained by Stanford-bound traffic, including Embarcadero and University, as well as Churchill and Kellogg avenues. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:40 PM 2 We need to stop giving Stanford carte blanche rights to development in our community without making them carry the fair share of the financial burden needed to fund Palo Alto's transportation infrastructure that their growth requires. I propose that the County require Stanford to fund the following specific projects to offset their impact prior to the approval of the Stanford 2018 GUP: 1. Stanford should be required to work with the City on mutually agreeable traffic mitigation solutions. 2. Stanford should be required to fund Caltrain grade separation projects at the Churchill and Embarcadero intersections with Alma given that they're already at capacity and will become unmanageable with the proposed Stanford expansions. 3. Stanford should be required to fund the construction of pedestrian underpasses at Embarcadero Rd and Palo Alto H.S. given the already precarious danger facing students by Stanford-bound traffic, as well as the traffic congestion caused by the existing light. 4. Stanford should be required to fund the expansion from 3-lanes to 4-lanes on the 300 yard stretch of the Embarcadero Road underpass, which already causes gridlock at rush hour and will only be further exacerbated with more traffic flowing inbound/outbound of Stanford. 5. Stanford should be required to pay for the addition of left-turn traffic signals at the intersection of the Embarcadero Road Underpass and Alma road to facilitate the safe onramp/offramp of inbound/outbound traffic to Stanford along the Alma corridor. Please hold Stanford accountable for these significant infrastructure investments prior to any approval consideration for the 2018 GUP. The City and County can not endure the proposed growth without holding firm to that requirement. Regards Jason Matlof 118 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:40 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Patricia Jones <pkjones1000@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 12:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stanford's GUP In our opinion, it would be irresponsible to allow Stanford to implement its huge expansion without requiring it to participate SIGNIFICANTLY in mitigating the traffic impacts it will surely have on Palo Alto. Their plan concedes that Crescent Park will be impacted by additional traffic. However, Crescent Park is already inundated with traffic, and current levels are already unacceptable. We know, because that’s where we live and what we experience on a daily basis. Public safety is a major issue here, because emergency vehicles and other kinds of help will be unable to reach citizens in need during periods of total gridlock. PLEASE DO NOT let Stanford off the hook in addressing the traffic issues that their planned expansion will create. Thank you. Patricia Jones and Larry Jones 1407 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Patricia Jones www.pkjones.com pkjones1000@icloud.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:40 PM 4 Carnahan, David From:Paul B Goldstein <marmot@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 11:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Stanford University GUP Honorable Council Members, I support the comments in draft letter enclosed in your packet. I am particularly concerned with the following: 1) The increased traffic generated by the proposed build out. The “no net increase” concept needs to be applied to a larger window than the current methodology. The peak commute hour is lengthening. Traffic increase all day long is a problem that must be mitigated. 2) Open space protections need to be extended to the full period of the GUP. 3) The secondary effects of the Stanford build out need to be evaluated. Increased activity on campus will generate a host of businesses and services off-campus. In addition, it is only fair that Stanford pay for its impacts to our community infrastructure and services, given that it is exempt from local taxes. Sincerely, Paul Goldstein Emerson Street Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:44 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Susie Richardson <susiebmc@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Kniss, Liz (external); Supervisor Joe Simitian; Holman, Karen (external); Greg Scharff; Adrian Fine Subject:Stanford General Plan Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members, I want to encourage you to speak out on strictly limiting any new development at Stanford to housing. We all agree that we have much too much traffic and much too little housing. We talk about limiting commercial development within the City limits (an appropriate conversation) and search for ways to build more housing, but I think that we need to do more to quantify Stanford’s roll in the problems and to address them. I suspect that the back up on University Avenue and Oregon Expressway/Page Mill Road and Embarcadero are primarily a result of Stanford employees. I suspect the recent increase is attributable to the build out underway including the opening of the new Children’s Hospital. I think that Stanford has used new housing as a trading chip. Stanford needs housing in order to accommodate their faculty and students. This need is not dependent on more academic development. They need to be forced to acknowledge their self-interest in providing housing and encouraged to provide it. Stanford is a world class institution of which we are all rightly proud, but and they have many ways to “grow” through redesign without expanding their physical footprint. We are all being choked by traffic now. I shutter to think what more jobs at Stanford will do to the current situation. I suggest a moratorium on expanding Stanford’s footprint (with the exception of new housing) until it can be proven that Stanford has been effective at substantially reducing car trips. That will both preserve what is left of our quality of like and encourage real innovation in traffic management. And please remember that we will all be greatly impacted by Stanford’s planned development in Menlo Park. I anticipate a true traffic nightmare is on the way. Respectfully, Susie Richardson 1322 Martin Ave Palo Alto 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:33 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, January 20, 2018 5:57 PM To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC; CAC-TACC; ConnectedCity Subject:Comments re Q&A for Upgrade Downtown Project Council members, At your 01-22-18 meeting, you will consider Item 14, which is about the Upgrade Downtown Project. Agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62863 Staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62851 Q&A: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62960 Please see (below the "###" line) my comments about the Q&A (paragraphs beginning with "###"). I'd like to thank the Council member(s) who submitted the questions. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ########################################################################### ### Comments about the Q&A: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62960 Item 14 – Upgrade to Downtown Project Q. 1. What basis was used to allocate the costs among the Enterprise funds? A. 1. Each utility will pay for the work directly associated with the installation as described in the bid items. The joint trench work of $5.7M will be split among the 3 utilities being installed in the trench (water main, gas main, and two fiber conduits). ### Staff's answer didn't describe the algorithm for deciding how much of the joint trench work cost would be assigned to each participant. See question Q3. ### Since the project incorporates work on traffic signals, shouldn't the entity responsible for traffic signals participate in the shared costs? Ditto for wayfinding. ### Do I understand correctly that no electric utility work will be done? (Item #117 is zero.) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:33 PM 2 Q. 2. Page 3 refers to "dig once" policy ‐ have we adopted an updated dig once policy? A. 2. Staff developed this project based on a “dig once” policy, though the policy has not yet been officially adopted. Staff is developing this along with other ordinances, such as String Once, Multi‐unit Housing, and Micro‐trenching, to reduce construction costs and minimize disruption in the public‐right‐of‐way. Staff plans to bring all the ordinances to Council at one time as a comprehensive package for approval. Since University Avenue is the main artery for downtown, it makes sense to install everything at the same time to avoid future excavation/disruption and only pay indirect and overhead costs once. Q. 3. As the staff report states, the point of a dig once policy is to "reduce underground construction costs..." . As such the, laying fiber should be viewed as incremental work and not be assigned any of the cost of the digging. ### I am sympathetic to this point of view. But staff's answer A1 indicates that the fiber utility is expected to share in the digging costs. What does Council think? Can you break down the $2.1M expense for fiber on this project? What would be the cost if fiber conduit was laid separately at a future date? How much is the dig once policy saving us on costs? A. 3. Water, gas, and two fiber conduits are going to be installed in the joint trench. Bid item #1 includes the labor, equipment, material costs to excavate and shore the trench, install pipes, backfill/restore the trench, as well as all indirect and overhead costs such as mobilization/demobilization, traffic control, and construction management by the contractor. ### Could the costs within bid item #1 be split out as follows: * costs associated with digging the trench, filling the trench, etc. * costs associated with installing pipes once the trench is dug -- water pipe materials -- gas pipe materials -- fiber conduit materials -- water pipe labor -- gas pipe labor -- fiber conduit labor -- water pipe equipment -- gas pipe equipment -- fiber conduit equipment The estimated cost to install fibers separately on University Avenue at a future date has not been estimated at this point. ### I think staff meant the cost to install conduit for fiber at a future date. Such a project would necessarily carry all the indirect and overhead costs by itself, but may be located along a different alignment within this crowded (with infrastructure) street. As designed, fiber installation requires a deeper trench, with associated shoring and other constructability costs. Nonetheless, the dig once policy saves the City from paying the indirect and overhead costs twice and minimizes impact on residents, businesses, and transportation in downtown. ### Incidentally, it's legitimate to ask, once the conduit for fiber is installed, how much it would cost to install fiber in the conduit. (And presumably that wouldn't involve any digging cost, right?) Q. 4. In the detailed bid the fiber related costs appear to be only about $35,000 dollars ‐ $15K to install 2 PVC conduits, $13K to to [sic] install another 4 PVC conduits, and$6K to install a fiber optic pull boxes. Is that correct? Where is the rest of the fiber expense coming from? A. 4.These bid items are the pull boxes and fiber conduits directly allocated to the fiber installation and are in addition to the fiber utility’s share of the joint trench cost. The primary fiber expense is listed under Bid Item #1 – joint trench and installation of water pipe, gas pipe, and fiber conduit. Bid item #1 includes the labor, equipment, material costs to excavate and shore the trench, install pipes, backfill/restore the trench, as well as all indirect and overhead costs such as mobilization/demobilization, traffic control, and construction management by the contractor. Q. 5. Is more fiber capacity needed at this location? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:33 PM 3 ### I'd ask the question in a different way. What would (or might) these conduits be used for in the future? If the answer were FTTP, then where are the vaults? If the answer were to increase capacity on the dark fiber network, then why is this location better than the dark fiber network's existing locations? (See the January 2013 dark fiber map on page 45.) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/42930 Recall that staff has never had to document what it's doing to refurbish the dark fiber network. A.5. At this time, there are no immediate or forecasted needs for the City. This was included to provide flexibility for future uses and advance prior council direction to include fiber capacity in conjunction with main replacement projects. ### Now that Council realizes that this kind of "flexibility" might cost $4 million per mile, would Council be willing to consider designing citywide FTTP, so that it can be implemented without the need for so much "flexibility"? Q. 6. The staff report on page 4 says "for this specific location, however, the incremental cost to include fiber optic conduits may be marginal....:" If council decides not to include fiber at this time, how will the $2.1M in cost be allocated to other enterprise funds? A.6. It is worth noting that the sentence concludes, “…marginal in comparison to anticipated benefits.” ### However, apparently none of the anticipated benefits are immediate or forecasted needs for the City. Since the fiber is an integral part of the negotiated contract package, if council prefers not to include fiber, staff would not recommend awarding the contract. The project will require repackaging and rebidding, to return to council at a future date. This may encounter the same problem with few or no bidders (high market demand and downtown restrictions) and the bid prices for other programs (general fund as well as utilities) will be allocated overhead and indirect costs. Q. 7. East Palo Alto is in the process of a fiber installation to its public buildings. I know some of the ongoing operational costs maybe subsidized but I believe the actual construction and installation costs are estimated to be much lower, under $200,000 for more than 8000 ft distance. How are they able to do it so cost effectively? A. 7. It is difficult to make a comparison of costs since we do not know where East Palo Alto’s conduits are to be installed or what construction method will be used. The installation on University Avenue is very expensive due to the congestion of underground utilities in the street (directional drilling method is not feasible because of the potential impact to existing underground utilities), restricted construction timeframes, extensive outreach and traffic management requirements. The high cost of water main installation on California Avenue in the Cal Ave Business District around 4 years ago also indicates that it’s typically more costly to install utilities in downtown or business districts. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:18 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeralyn Moran <jeralyn.moran@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please re-consider the 2 parking garages Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council members, In the spirit of moving Palo Alto forward toward its important goal of getting our GHG emissions down by 80% by the year 2030, I add my name to the long list of residents who are troubled by the currently questionable justification for two new parking garages in the City’s infrastructure plans. Times are changing quickly, and I encourage you, as a Council, to re-visit these previously agreed-upon projects accordingly. In terms of Community health into the future, accommodating even more cars takes us backward - away from our Climate Change & traffic mitigation commitments. Financially, the large expense to build these garages is very hard to fit into the City’s budget without losses elsewhere. They will become obsolete long before their physical life span, as more people push for a carbon-free future. The Palo Alto Weekly is highlighting 2018 as our City’s year of housing – please consider the alternative of investing in the design/construction of housing on these two sites. Desperately needed housing to help reduce car commutes into Palo Alto by workers forced to do so. Future residents & leaders will thank you. Sincerely, Jeralyn Moran -- City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:18 PM 2 jeralyn.moran@gmail.com ..... the Time for Climate Action Is Now. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:18 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:David Coale <david@evcl.com> Sent:Friday, January 19, 2018 7:30 AM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Friend, Gil Cc:Hodge, Bruce; Bret Andersen; Sandra Slater; lvandusen@mac.com; James Tuleya; Jeralyn Moran; Jennifer Thompson; Stew Plock; Sven Thesen; Steve Schmidt; Debbie Mytels; Robert Neff; Robinson, William; Robyn Duby; Serene Ang; David Alan Foster; Lynnie Melena; Nordman, Eric; Amie Ashton; John Woodfill; Rothstein, Jane Subject:Parking garages Dear Mayor and City Council, As you are reviewing capital projects for this coming year, there is one project that needs serious re- consideration and that is the parking garages for the downtown and Cal Ave areas. These projects are in direct conflict with the Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) and also are not sustainable from a fiscal point of view. We just don’t have the money to pay for these and the problems they will incur. What’s more, we really don’t need them as other solutions are much less expensive and are working. Environmental/Sustainability/Climate Change issues The city did a study of the parking downtown. Staff worked with a parking consultant and got a parking solution. At no time were the garages viewed through the greater lens of sustainability. While the SIP did try to address the parking garages in the FAQ part of the report (Appendix D, copied below), this was by no means a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of the parking garages on our goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. In fact the first part of the FAQ answer to why are we building parking garages are all the reasons why we should not build them; they are in direct conflict and moving us in the opposite direction of the main parts of the SIP. We should not be encouraging more cars, traffic and the GHG produced by the construction of garages and the induced increase in auto use with these projects. For each pound of concrete used in the parking garages, a pound of CO2 is produced and for each pound of steel, 4 to 7 pounds of CO2 are produced (depending on the source1), so building the garages will have a large GHG footprint. The even larger environmental impact is the increased traffic, congestion and other impacts that will happen with these projects. With 338 parking spaces for the downtown garage, if we assume the parking garage is 80% full, and that each space turns over 4 times in a day we get 1082 car trips. If each car drives 6 miles to get downtown (this is conservative as most of the traffic in Palo Alto is from outside of Palo Alto) we get 6490 miles each day or about 5,200 pound of CO2 per day or 2.6 tons/day. This conservative estimate does not include the GHG of the added congestion caused by this additional traffic. So each year this amounts to about 650 tons of CO2 from cars. The largest part of the SIP is the reduction of auto use in Palo Alto. The garages are in direct conflict with this. How can we accept awards for our work on addressing climate change from the League of Cities and then turn around and build two huge parking garages? The parking garages need to be revisited with a greater eye on sustainability. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:18 PM 4 Water is also an area that is addressed in the SIP. With the proposed project downtown, there will parking below ground. A huge dewatering effort may be required to realize this project. I don’t think this has been adequately addressed and certainly not with respect to the SIP or the recent dewatering ordinance which everyone agrees needs to be strengthened to be really protective of our ground water. Fiscally not viable. The projected cost of these projects is $68.5 million. Where is this coming from? As of yet, we don’t know. We also know that the price of any project will be more then projected. This has never come out any other way. The more fiscally responsible approach would be to see how the lower cost fixes to our parking problems are working before building the most expensive, most environmentally damaging solutions possible. From the latest Transportation Management Association (TMA) survey2 we see that Signal Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips have been reduced with their efforts. This is great news! The TMA efforts are working even though the TMA is under funded. The Residential Parking Permit program is also helping to ease the parking issues downtown and this continues to be refined. Parking pricing will also help to reduce SOV and create revenue for the city. As use of various ridesharing services increases, the need for parking will be reduced. And with the advent of self-driving cars, this will further reduce the need for parking. The continued build-out of the Bike-Ped network will also help to reduce the parking need for downtown and Cal Ave along with other transit improvements such as the electrification of CalTrain and other transit options such as the bike sharing program. Right now we are at the peak of our parking need and due to that, with all the possible solutions coming into play, we just need some time to let these efforts play out and work. Building parking garages now where they would only be obsolete in a few years just does not make good sense, environmentally or fiscally. Besides with all the money we are saving, we could fully fund the TMA, the Bike- Ped plans, the SIP and more and still have money left over to address other shortfalls the city is facing. Conclusion Anytime the council spends money you have an opportunity to vote for or against sustainability, and anytime a project of this size is being considered, it is even more imperative to look at the project through the greater lens of sustainability. In this case, there is a win-win solution by letting the less expensive solutions work before committing to a very expensive solution that will likely be obsolete in 5 to 10 years and have a large environmental impact. Use the money saved from delaying this project to fund the other solutions that will decrease the need for parking and get us closer to the goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. If you should decide to proceed with building the garages, a much larger, comprehensive study should be done that looks at all the impacts on the environment, the SIP and the budget. This study should also include the possibility of building affordable housing at these garage sites instead and the funding to expand the successful TMA effort to the California Ave area. Thanks for your consideration, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:18 PM 5 Sincerely, David Coale \ Bruce Hodge | Bret Andersen | Carbon Free Palo Alto Sandra Slater | Lisa Van Dusen / James Tuleya, Carbon Free Silicon Valley Green Sanctuary Committee, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Palo Alto Silicon Valley Climate Action Alliance Jennifer Thompson, Executive Director Sustainable Silicon Valley Stew Plock, board member 350 Silicon Valley Sven Thesen, Project Green Home Steve Schmidt, ex Mayor of Menlo Park Debbie Mytels Robert Neff William M Robinson Robyn Duby Serene Ang David Alan Foster Lynnie Melena Eric Nordman Amie Ashton John Woodfill Jane Rosten City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:18 PM 6 From Appendix D, SIP FAQs Why is the City of Palo Alto building more parking garages? Won't that encourage people to drive instead of using other means to get downtown? The City Manager and staff (as well as the 1998 Comp Plan and the ongoing update) envision a future in which the use of single occupant vehicles will decline, reducing the need for parking. We are actively nurturing this vision with policies and actions in Downtown and elsewhere (including establishment of the TMA, introduction of parking pricing, more effective management of the parking we already have, and development of Mobility As A Service solutions through our Federal Transit Administration grant and other programs). This future will also be advanced by changes in the marketplace, such as the expansion of ridesharing companies and the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles. Meanwhile, we need to address today’s challenges, including current parking demand, without precluding or discouraging future progress, and without wasting resources. We’ll also need to anticipate how current parking lots could be redeveloped with other uses as parking demand declines in the future. 1 Amounts of CO2 Released when Making & Using Products http://www.co2list.org/files/carbon.htm 2 TMA Commute Survey Results www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56092 rafic City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:19 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rosenblums(pol1) <pol1@rosenblums.us> Sent:Friday, January 19, 2018 12:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda item 15, Meeting of January 22nd In all its future plans, the City Council has committed to reducing single vehicle miles travelled in Palo Alto. I find the idea of constructing 2 new parking garages , one in the downtown and one in the California Avenue neighborhood to be in direct contradiction to that aim. Why waste almost $70 million on two structures whose purpose we are trying to work against? The money could be better spent on Mobility as a Service in Palo Alto. This would eliminate the need for many parking spaces as well as fighting climate change . Stephen Rosenblum City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:19 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Diane Bailey <diane@menlospark.org> Sent:Friday, January 19, 2018 1:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Reconsider the Need for New Parking Garages - those funds could cover parking in a smarter way with plenty leftover Attachments:C421302D-8C87-4C6E-9C4A-456168B4C399.png Dear City Council Members, I’m writing on behalf of Menlo Spark, a neighboring environmental group working towards a zero carbon, sustainable city, to urge you to reconsider spending valuable city funds on a parking garage. For all the reasons stated in the December 11th, 2017 comments below, and described in detail by David Coale of Carbon Free Palo Alto, I urge you to consider a smarter approach to managing parking. Instead of building a new garage, the city could institute dynamic managed parking, which will make parking more convenient and free up city revenue for other more necessary projects (affordable housing, public transit, beautiful streetscapes & parks, climate actions such as natural gas replacement, etc.). Thanks very much for considering these comments and for the important service that you provide leading the City of Palo Alto. Sincerely, Diane Bailey, Executive Director Menlo Spark From: Diane Bailey <diane@menlospark.org> Date: Monday, December 11, 2017 at 4:58 PM To: "city.council@cityofpaloalto.org" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Support SIP Moving Ahead & Please Reconsider the Need for New Parking Garages Dear City Council Members, I’m writing on behalf of Menlo Spark, working in neighboring Menlo Park, towards a zero carbon city. We support the updated Sustainability Implementation Plan and welcome the City’s efforts to move forward on its ambitious “80 by 30” greenhouse gas reduction goal. The key measures highlighted in the SIP are smart strategies to advance carbon reductions in the most meaningful way. One separate but related policy that we are concerned about is the proposal to build additional parking garages. We appreciate that current parking needs are a significant issue but recommend alternative approaches to meeting these needs without locking in car‐centric and expensive infrastructure that runs counter to a key SIP measure: Parking management strategies to support transportation and sustainability goals. Please find our sustainability guide for city mobility planning attached (see p. 4-6 for dynamic parking). We recommend a parking program that includes dynamic pricing similar to that employed successfully by the City of Santa Monica. Other nearby cities, such as Redwood City, are moving towards this model more slowly with higher parking prices a the center of the city, decreasing with distance from the core pedestrian and shopping zones. We recommend an emphasis on managing existing parking to maximize convenience, while parking revenues could be channeled into programs that support alternatives to driving, such as subsidized transit passes. Avoided costs of new parking garage infrastructure could also be used to support important mobility and housing programs. Residents and downtown visitors are likely to appreciate an ap-based parking system that allows easy location of available parking spots and payment. This can be implemented more quickly and at a lower cost than constructing new garages. It also supports a lively, walkable, and sustainable city. Thank you for considering these comments. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:19 PM 2 Sincerely, Diane Bailey Diane Bailey | Executive Director MENLO SPARK diane@menlospark.org | 650‐281‐7073 Visit us: www.MenloSpark.org Find us on Facebook Follow us on Twitter Climate Neutral for a Healthy, Prosperous Menlo Park EV, PV & Fossil Free: Guides for Electric Cars, solar & Fossil Free Homes at: http://menlospark.org/what‐we‐do/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Judy Ohki <judy@lpetal.com> Sent:Friday, January 19, 2018 5:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page regarding Cal Ave parking To Palo Alto City Council, As a business owner on California Avenue in Palo Alto, we desperately need to maximize the parking spaces in the construction of the new garages. This area continues to grow and parking will only get worse if you decide to cut back on the spaces. As it is, employees and customers are struggling to find adequate parking. Please consider the needs of the businesses in this area as you make your decisions. Best regards, Judy Ohki Leaf & Petal City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:jack <jack@mortoncpa.com> Sent:Friday, January 19, 2018 6:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:11th hour Staff Betrayal of the Cal Ave Community Attachments:CAL AVE PARKING STRUCTURE PROTEST.pdf CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: As the attached letter from Cal Ave businesses outlines, the community has once again been sabotaged by City staff. This time staff is attempting to have Council remove 100 parking spaces from the yet‐to‐be built garage that Council only approved last spring. Former Vice Mayor, JACK MORTON January 18, 2018 Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth and Council Members, The members of the California Avenue Area Business Association (CAABA) listed below have reviewed the staff report before you on Monday, January 22, 2018 that proposes a reduction in the size of the new California Avenue garage. The proposed reduction to only one sub-level rather than two is ill-advised and we ask that the Council approve the original proposal that includes two sub-levels. We understand the reduction is proposed as a cost-saving measure to help meet other City infrastructure and transportation needs. We believe this is a short-sighted mistake and strongly encourage the Council to approve the original design with two sub-levels fo r the following reasons: • City representatives, from mayors to City staff, have been discussing a new garage with the Cal Ave business community for nearly 15 years. Over that entire time, the stated intention of the City was to build as large a garage as possible to accommodate the increased needs of the area. • It has been an ongoing discussion among both City and Cal Ave area businesses that the area should become a more vibrant commercial district serving more retail and residential needs. Based on that goal, the City encouraged area development, made multiple new enhancements to the avenue and approved multiple new developments with added customers and local workers that have brought increased business to the area, and, with it, increased need for parking (e.g. Visa's new office building , 3 active developments on Park Boulevard, new buildings proposed for Cambridge and Sherman Avenues, and several new restaurants). Older businesses expanded or upgraded, and new businesses located in the area based on the improved business climate for the district and in reliance on the understanding that parking deficits created by this intensification would be addressed with the largest new parking garage possible. • If there is a financial shortfall for the infrastructure needs of the City, we ask the Council to find other projects that may be deferred and authorize the original capacity Cal Ave garage which the City Council approved last Spring. For example, the $6 .?M upgrade of Fire Station #3 could be deferred without violating any deadline and would pay for the second level, or portions of the bike/pedestrian plan could be delayed for a period of time without any significant cost impact. This 11th-hour change caught area businesses by surprise with almost no time for review and response. The garage design and capacity have been reviewed several times with area businesses and residents and the proposal with two sub-levels was approved by the City Council last Spring The proposal to significantly reduce the capacity of the new parking facility is nothing less than a breach of faith with the business community that has worked collaboratively with the City for so many years on th is project. This is the last possible garage development for the California Avenue commercial district. No other garage is planned or, even if envisioned, would be unlikely for the next several decades. This is an opportunity that should not be short-changed or diminished when there are viable options to build the garage the area needs and still meet other infrastructure needs of the City. This priority has not changed and in fact th~ need has intensified over the 15 years of review and discussion. If the Council cannot approve the garage with two sub-levels, the matter should be put over for a review of City infrastructure priorities, with time for the area businesses to work with staff on an acceptable garage proposal. Respectfully, Jessica Roth: The Cobblery Peter Katz: Managing Partner, Counter Intelligence LLC, The Counter Robert Martinez: Palo Alto Eyeworks Maxime Roucoule: Pastis John Garcia: Mollie Stone's Market Israel Rind: Izzy's Bagels Abraham Khalil: Med Wraps Terr-Y Shuchat: California Avenue Property Owner (Keeble & Shuchat Photography) Jack Morton: President, CAABA Mora Oommen: Blossom Birth Mike Meffert: Meffert Investment, LLC and California Avenue Property Owner Philippe Lehot: Villerousse Properties, LLC Malek Kaci: La Boheme Galen Fletcher: Sundance The Steakhouse Lynn and Bob Davidson: California Avenue Property Owners Hai To: Campus Barbershop Elena Silverman: Country Sun Natural Foods Jennifer Allen and Mike Maystead: PIP Printing Don Lundell and Gillian Robinson: Zombie Runner Lara and Michael Ekwall: La Bodeguita del Media Dino Tekdemir: Anatolian Kitchen Franco Campilongo: Terun & ltalico Margot Goldberg: Palo Alto Central Peter Brewer: Law Offices of Peter Brewer N. Brewer Zareen Khan: Zareen's Restaurant Aaron Ryan: Amity Cross Fit Lori Villareal: True Salon & Calave Wine Bar Jeff Davidson: California Paint Chris Gaines: Performance Gaines Anthony Secviar: Protege Al Ghafouri: Printers Cafe Rory Shannon: Summit Bicycles Kyle Talbott: Grey Matters Ann Vuong: La Jolie Nail Spa ~~ California Avenue Area Business Association City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:32 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 20, 2018 5:04 PM To:Council, City Cc:board@paloaltoforward.com Subject:Palo Alto Forward: Considerations before approving downtown garage Attachments:PAF letter on downtown garages 2017.1.19.pdf Dear Mayor and City Council On behalf of Palo Alto Forward, I would like to express our general agreement with the attached letter from Carbon Free Palo Alto et al (expressing reservations concerning the proposed downtown parking garage). I have also attached the below as a .pdf file in case there are email formatting issues. In addition to that letter’s concern about the sustainability and environmental issues that argue against another garage, we would like to raise several practical considerations: 1. We should use our existing parking capacity more effectively: the PTC has started the process of discussing paid parking (potentially with dynamic pricing) for our downtown areas, This has been successfully used in neighboring communities to effectively manage capacity utilization. In addition, even without paid parking, the city has presented evidence that our garages are not currently filled to capacity (and that better way finding could help guide people to the right garages). In short, there are several critical steps-- including implementation of paid parking, enforcement, and better way finding-- that should be rolled out before embarking on an expensive and permanent infrastructure project like a garage. 2. Financial considerations: Since the adoption of the city infrastructure plan, costs have risen substantially as noted in the staff report. Currently the approved projects face a funding shortfall of over $50 million. Before moving forward on one piece of the package (the garages), it would be prudent to consider how the funding shortfall affects project timing and priorities. For the parking garages it would be helpful and prudent to see how the current RPP and growing GoPass programs are affecting parking demand and availability since conditions may have changed since the origi9nal garages were suggested by the infrastructure commission and adopted by the city. In short, we thank Carbon Free Palo Alto et al for eloquently arguing for a more environmentally friendly policy. We would additionally like you to consider other capacity measures and financial considerations before approving the garage. On behalf of Palo Alto Forward, Eric Rosenblum Below is the letter from Carbon Free Palo Alto Dear Mayor and City Council, As you are reviewing capital projects for this coming year, there is one project that needs serious re-consideration and that is the parking garages for the downtown and Cal Ave areas. These projects are in direct conflict with the Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) and also are not sustainable from a fiscal point of view. We just don’t have the money to pay for these and the problems they will incur. What’s more, we really don’t need them as other solutions are much less expensive and are working. Environmental/Sustainability/Climate Change issues The city did a study of the parking downtown. Staff worked with a parking consultant and got a parking solution. At no time were the garages viewed through the greater lens of sustainability. While the SIP did try to address the parking garages in the FAQ part of the report (Appendix D, copied below), this was by no means a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of the parking garages on our goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. In fact the first part of the FAQ answer to why are we building parking garages are all the reasons why we should not build them; they are in direct conflict and moving us in the opposite direction of the main parts of the SIP. We should not be encouraging more cars, traffic and the GHG produced by the construction of garages and the induced increase in auto use with these projects. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:32 PM 2 For each pound of concrete used in the parking garages, a pound of CO2 is produced and for each pound of steel, 4 to 7 pounds of CO2 are produced (depending on the source1), so building the garages will have a large GHG footprint. The even larger environmental impact is the increased traffic, congestion and other impacts that will happen with these projects. With 338 parking spaces for the downtown garage, if we assume the parking garage is 80% full, and that each space turns over 4 times in a day we get 1082 car trips. If each car drives 6 miles to get downtown (this is conservative as most of the traffic in Palo Alto is from outside of Palo Alto) we get 6490 miles each day or about 5,200 pound of CO2 per day or 2.6 tons/day. This conservative estimate does not include the GHG of the added congestion caused by this additional traffic. So each year this amounts to about 650 tons of CO2 from cars. The largest part of the SIP is the reduction of auto use in Palo Alto. The garages are in direct conflict with this. How can we accept awards for our work on addressing climate change from the League of Cities and then turn around and build two huge parking garages? The parking garages need to be revisited with a greater eye on sustainability. Water is also an area that is addressed in the SIP. With the proposed project downtown, there will parking below ground. A huge dewatering effort may be required to realize this project. I don’t think this has been adequately addressed and certainly not with respect to the SIP or the recent dewatering ordinance which everyone agrees needs to be strengthened to be really protective of our ground water. Fiscally not viable. The projected cost of these projects is $68.5 million. Where is this coming from? As of yet, we don’t know. We also know that the price of any project will be more then projected. This has never come out any other way. The more fiscally responsible approach would be to see how the lower cost fixes to our parking problems are working before building the most expensive, most environmentally damaging solutions possible. From the latest Transportation Management Association (TMA) survey2 we see that Signal Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips have been reduced with their efforts. This is great news! The TMA efforts are working even though the TMA is under funded. The Residential Parking Permit program is also helping to ease the parking issues downtown and this continues to be refined. Parking pricing will also help to reduce SOV and create revenue for the city. As use of various ridesharing services increases, the need for parking will be reduced. And with the advent of self-driving cars, this will further reduce the need for parking. The continued build-out of the Bike-Ped network will also help to reduce the parking need for downtown and Cal Ave along with other transit improvements such as the electrification of CalTrain and other transit options such as the bike sharing program. Right now we are at the peak of our parking need and due to that, with all the possible solutions coming into play, we just need some time to let these efforts play out and work. Building parking garages now where they would only be obsolete in a few years just does not make good sense, environmentally or fiscally. Besides with all the money we are saving, we could fully fund the TMA, the Bike-Ped plans, the SIP and more and still have money left over to address other shortfalls the city is facing. Conclusion Anytime the council spends money you have an opportunity to vote for or against sustainability, and anytime a project of this size is being considered, it is even more imperative to look at the project through the greater lens of sustainability. In this case, there is a win-win solution by letting the less expensive solutions work before committing to a very expensive solution that will likely be obsolete in 5 to 10 years and have a large environmental impact. Use the money saved from delaying this project to fund the other solutions that will decrease the need for parking and get us closer to the goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. If you should decide to proceed with building the garages, a much larger, comprehensive study should be done that looks at all the impacts on the environment, the SIP and the budget. This study should also include the possibility of building affordable housing at these garage sites instead and the funding to expand the successful TMA effort to the California Ave area. Thanks for your consideration, Sincerely, David Coale \ Bruce Hodge | Bret Andersen | Carbon Free Palo Alto Sandra Slater | Lisa Van Dusen / James Tuleya, Carbon Free Silicon Valley Green Sanctuary Committee, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Palo Alto Silicon Valley Climate Action Alliance Jennifer Thompson, Executive Director Sustainable Silicon Valley Stew Plock, board member 350 Silicon Valley Sven Thesen, Project Green Home Steve Schmidt, ex Mayor of Menlo Park Debbie Mytels Robert Neff William M Robinson Robyn Duby Serene Ang David Alan Foster Lynnie Melena City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:32 PM 3 Eric Nordman Amie Ashton John Woodfill Jane Rosten From Appendix D, SIP FAQs Why is the City of Palo Alto building more parking garages? Won't that encourage people to drive instead of using other means to get downtown? The City Manager and staff (as well as the 1998 Comp Plan and the ongoing update) envision a future in which the use of single occupant vehicles will decline, reducing the need for parking. We are actively nurturing this vision with policies and actions in Downtown and elsewhere (including establishment of the TMA, introduction of parking pricing, more effective management of the parking we already have, and development of Mobility As A Service solutions through our Federal Transit Administration grant and other programs). This future will also be advanced by changes in the marketplace, such as the expansion of ridesharing companies and the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles. Meanwhile, we need to address today’s challenges, including current parking demand, without precluding or discouraging future progress, and without wasting resources. We’ll also need to anticipate how current parking lots could be redeveloped with other uses as parking demand declines in the future. 1 Amounts of CO2 Released when Making & Using Products http://www.co2list.org/files/carbon.htm 2 TMA Commute Survey Results www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56092 -- Eric Rosenblum 206 604 0443 Dear Mayor and City Council On behalf of Palo Alto Forward, I would like to express our general agreement with the attached letter from Carbon Free Palo Alto et al(expressing reservations concerning the proposed downtown parking garage). In addition to that letter’s concern about the sustainability and environmental issues that argue against another garage, we would like to raise several practical considerations: 1.We should use our existing parking capacity more effectively: the PTC has started the process of discussing paid parking (potentially with dynamic pricing) for our downtown areas, This has been successfully used in neighboring communities to effectively manage capacity utilization. In addition, even without paid parking, the city has presented evidence that our garages are not currently filled to capacity (and that better way finding could help guide people to the right garages). In short, there are several critical steps-- including implementation of paid parking, enforcement, and better way finding-- that should be rolled out before embarking on an expensive and permanent infrastructure project like a garage. 2. Financial considerations: Since the adoption of the city infrastructure plan, costs have risen substantially as noted in the staff report. Currently the approved projects face a funding shortfall of over $50 million. Before moving forward on one piece of the package (the garages), it would be prudent to consider how the funding shortfall affects project timing and priorities. For the parking garages it would be helpful and prudent to see how the current RPP and growing GoPass programs are affecting parking demand and availability since conditions may have changed since the origi9nal garages were suggested by the infrastructure commission and adopted by the city. In short, we thank Carbon Free Palo Alto et al for eloquently arguing for a more environmentally friendly policy. We would additionally like you to consider other capacity measures and financial considerations before approving the garage. On behalf of Palo Alto Forward, Eric Rosenblum Below is the letter from Carbon Free Palo Alto Dear Mayor and City Council, As you are reviewing capital projects for this coming year, there is one project that needs serious re-consideration and that is the parking garages for the downtown and Cal Ave areas. These projects are in direct conflict with the Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP) and also are not sustainable from a fiscal point of view. We just don’t have the money to pay for these and the problems they will incur. What’s more, we really don’t need them as other solutions are much less expensive and are working. Environmental/Sustainability/Climate Change issues The city did a study of the parking downtown. Staff worked with a parking consultant and got a parking solution. At no time were the garages viewed through the greater lens of sustainability. While the SIP did try to address the parking garages in the FAQ part of the report (Appendix D, copied below), this was by no means a comprehensive analysis of the impacts of the parking garages on our goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. In fact the first part of the FAQ answer to why are we building parking garages are all the reasons why we should not build them; they are in direct conflict and moving us in the opposite direction of the main parts of the SIP. We should not be encouraging more cars, traffic and the GHG produced by the construction of garages and the induced increase in auto use with these projects. For each pound of concrete used in the parking garages, a pound of CO2 is produced and for each pound of steel, 4 to 7 pounds of CO2 are produced (depending on the source1), so building the garages will have a large GHG footprint. The even larger environmental impact is the increased traffic, congestion and other impacts that will happen with these projects. With 338 parking spaces for the downtown garage, if we assume the parking garage is 80% full, and that each space turns over 4 times in a day we get 1082 car trips. If each car drives 6 miles to get downtown (this is conservative as most of the traffic in Palo Alto is from outside of Palo Alto) we get 6490 miles each day or about 5,200 pound of CO2 per day or 2.6 tons/day. This conservative estimate does not include the GHG of the added congestion caused by this additional traffic. So each year this amounts to about 650 tons of CO2 from cars. The largest part of the SIP is the reduction of auto use in Palo Alto. The garages are in direct conflict with this. How can we accept awards for our work on addressing climate change from the League of Cities and then turn around and build two huge parking garages? The parking garages need to be revisited with a greater eye on sustainability. Water is also an area that is addressed in the SIP. With the proposed project downtown, there will parking below ground. A huge dewatering effort may be required to realize this project. I don’t think this has been adequately addressed and certainly not with respect to the SIP or the recent dewatering ordinance which everyone agrees needs to be strengthened to be really protective of our ground water. Fiscally not viable. The projected cost of these projects is $68.5 million. Where is this coming from? As of yet, we don’t know. We also know that the price of any project will be more then projected. This has never come out any other way. The more fiscally responsible approach would be to see how the lower cost fixes to our parking problems are working before building the most expensive, most environmentally damaging solutions possible. From the latest Transportation Management Association (TMA) survey2 we see that Signal Occupancy Vehicle (SOV) trips have been reduced with their efforts. This is great news! The TMA efforts are working even though the TMA is under funded. The Residential Parking Permit program is also helping to ease the parking issues downtown and this continues to be refined. Parking pricing will also help to reduce SOV and create revenue for the city. As use of various ridesharing services increases, the need for parking will be reduced. And with the advent of self-driving cars, this will further reduce the need for parking. The continued build-out of the Bike-Ped network will also help to reduce the parking need for downtown and Cal Ave along with other transit improvements such as the electrification of CalTrain and other transit options such as the bike sharing program. Right now we are at the peak of our parking need and due to that, with all the possible solutions coming into play, we just need some time to let these efforts play out and work. Building parking garages now where they would only be obsolete in a few years just does not make good sense, environmentally or fiscally. Besides with all the money we are saving, we could fully fund the TMA, the Bike-Ped plans, the SIP and more and still have money left over to address other shortfalls the city is facing. Conclusion Anytime the council spends money you have an opportunity to vote for or against sustainability, and anytime a project of this size is being considered, it is even more imperative to look at the project through the greater lens of sustainability. In this case, there is a win-win solution by letting the less expensive solutions work before committing to a very expensive solution that will likely be obsolete in 5 to 10 years and have a large environmental impact. Use the money saved from delaying this project to fund the other solutions that will decrease the need for parking and get us closer to the goal of 80% GHG reductions by 2030. If you should decide to proceed with building the garages, a much larger, comprehensive study should be done that looks at all the impacts on the environment, the SIP and the budget. This study should also include the possibility of building affordable housing at these garage sites instead and the funding to expand the successful TMA effort to the California Ave area. Thanks for your consideration, Sincerely, David Coale \ Bruce Hodge | Bret Andersen | Carbon Free Palo Alto Sandra Slater | Lisa Van Dusen / James Tuleya, Carbon Free Silicon Valley Green Sanctuary Committee, Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Palo Alto Silicon Valley Climate Action Alliance Jennifer Thompson, Executive Director Sustainable Silicon Valley Stew Plock, board member 350 Silicon Valley Sven Thesen, Project Green Home Steve Schmidt, ex Mayor of Menlo Park Debbie Mytels Robert Neff William M Robinson Robyn Duby Serene Ang David Alan Foster Lynnie Melena Eric Nordman Amie Ashton John Woodfill Jane Rosten From Appendix D, SIP FAQs Why is the City of Palo Alto building more parking garages? Won't that encourage people to drive instead of using other means to get downtown? The City Manager and staff (as well as the 1998 Comp Plan and the ongoing update) envision a future in which the use of single occupant vehicles will decline, reducing the need for parking. We are actively nurturing this vision with policies and actions in Downtown and elsewhere (including establishment of the TMA, introduction of parking pricing, more effective management of the parking we already have, and development of Mobility As A Service solutions through our Federal Transit Administration grant and other programs). This future will also be advanced by changes in the marketplace, such as the expansion of ridesharing companies and the development and deployment of autonomous vehicles. Meanwhile, we need to address today’s challenges, including current parking demand, without precluding or discouraging future progress, and without wasting resources. We’ll also need to anticipate how current parking lots could be redeveloped with other uses as parking demand declines in the future. 1 Amounts of CO2 Released when Making & Using Products http://www.co2list.org/files/carbon.htm 2 TMA Commute Survey Results www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/56092 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:37 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Peter Brewer <peter@brewerfirm.com> Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 11:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:Cal Ave Garage - Do Not Reduce I am unable to attend the City Council Meeting on Monday, January 22, 18 at 8:30pm, but that is not because I do not care about the Cal. Ave. business district. I do care deeply. The proposed garage on Sherman Avenue, between Birch and Ash (which was approved last spring by the city council) is now planned to be reduced by one level, resulting in a loss of 90+ spaces. This reduction is ill-advised and as a building owner and business owner in the Cal. Ave. area I ask that the Council approve the original proposal that includes two subterranean levels. Please do not sacrifice the future for a proportionally small savings now. Peter Brewer Peter N. Brewer, Esq. Law Offices of Peter N. Brewer 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® City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:39 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 7:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:California Avenue gararage Dear Council Members, While I realize that Palo Alto has budget constraints, I believe that a decision to reduce the size of the proposed California Avenue Business District parking garage is short sighted and a real disservice to both local merchants and neighborhood serving businesses. I am writing to request that you fully fund the new California Avenue parking structure as originally approved, even if that means delaying or reducing the scope of projects such as the Ross Road and Loma Verde hardscapes. Council's policy of encouraging and approving dense office construction with insufficient parking in the California Avenue area is resulting in the parking lots intended for the local businesses, merchants, and residents, turned into de facto all day parking lots to accommodate new office construction. As a result, our local merchants and small businesses struggle more than ever in today's environment and desperately need to replace their lost parking. Residents need the lost parking. A large part of Palo Alto's livability has been the presence of our merchants and other local businesses. In today's difficult retail climate and high rents, we need to support the small businesses that serve us in every way we can, and for as long as we can. And more often than not we need to be able to park to do so. Over the years we develop friendships and loyalty with the owners and employees of the local businesses we patronize. But, as is becoming increasingly often, for lack of parking we end up driving further to neighboring towns. As each merchant or small business is forced to close down or move away, partly as a result of council's actions or lack of action in the past, it is likely they will be replaced by businesses that do not serve residents nearly as well. Please, listen to the merchants and small business owners, and fully fund the parking garage. Sincerely, Margaret Heath 2140 Cornell Street Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:39 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 7:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re. Delay the Parking Garage Projects / Spending Dear Mayor and City Council, I would like to reinforce the key points from David Coale’s letter recommending that you move to delay further spending on the parking garage projects for the time being. These projects represent a huge capital commitment to a long-term (decades), inflexible solution to the evolving problem of parking demand and traffic congestion. As David’s letter described, we have several other approaches that reduce demand for publicly subsidized parking, that are much less expensive, seem to be working, and align with our city’s established sustainability plan. But we also see technology changing rapidly including car sharing services and autonomous vehicle technologies. For example, Uber and Lyft increasingly reduce parking demand and self-driving shuttle pilots are already beginning in U.S. cities (see article below). We will no doubt have very different needs for parking within 10 years. I hope we can use the money saved from delaying the garage projects to fund the other solutions that both decrease the need for parking and address our long term sustainable transportation goals. Sincerely, Bret Andersen https://www.wired.com/story/las-vegas-shuttle-crash-self-driving-autonomous/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:39 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Einar Sunde <einarsunde@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, January 21, 2018 10:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda item 15 Meeting 1/11 - Parking structures I have been a Palo Alto resident since 1971 and have witnessed first hand the exponential growth in office buildings and traffic and the glaring lack of action (i.e. lack of concern) for reducing traffic and parking issues. Your professed goal is to reduce single vehicle miles, particularly into downtown and the California Avenue district. If you really mean it you would not spend $60M or more on new parking structures in the commercial districts that will, given present trends and lack of effective counter-measures, be inadequate before they open. You would instead build out a serious (widespread and fast) local shuttle system that would connect the two Caltrain stations, office parks, commercial districts and the residential zones (and possibly a major parking facility east of 101). I suspect a decent system (say 40 to 50 new shuttle buses) could be operating within a relatively short time for less than one tenth of the cost of these garages. It should be obvious - if you want to reduce traffic, don't add new incentives to drive. Instead, spend taxpayer's money for effective long-term solutions that will actually work. Thank you. Einar Sunde 675 Channing Avenue City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:43 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Shannon McEntee <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 12:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Request to Council Dear City Council, I know costs are skyrocketing, but Palo Alto should not reduce the planned size or scope of the new parking garage on Sherman. This garage is vitally needed for the small businesses, service providers, and residents who need to park when they visit this area. We don’t want visitors and business employees to be forced out into the streets and into our neighborhoods. Also, we must bite the bullet and build all the below-ground levels of the garage. No matter how expensive, we can’t throw away this opportunity. If we don’t build it now, the opportunity is lost! Regarding the PSB: this is where we can economize or postpone! We should consider a full re-evaluation of the PSB project and its escalating costs. Why couldn’t an efficient, effective, and possibly smaller project be built? One option is to put the police in temporary space while we build their new facility on Hamilton, where they are now and where ingress and egress is much easier and more suitable. Sherman Avenue was never a suitable location. Sincerely, Shannon Rose McEntee 410 Sheridan Avenue City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:44 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Lori Villarreal <calavelori@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 12:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page Attachments:PastedGraphic-8.tiff Hello council members, My name is Lori and I have been a business owner on California Avenue for 13 years. I have two business on the corner of California and Birch street Calave wine bar and True salon. Both my businesses will be in very close proximity and be directly affected by the new safety building and parking structure. I attended the last city council meeting on the project and was pleased with the decision that the parking would have the most levels of parking possible. Unfortunately I am unable to attend the meeting tonight but wanted another opportunity to speak to you all. Our businesses will suffer during this process but I am okay with this as it is for the greater good for our community. My partners and I see the benefits of adding parking to this area. I have seen this area grow immensely within the last few years and know how vital it is to plan ahead for patrons to be able to access our businesses easily. I already hear how difficult it is for customers to find parking during lunch times. I see multiple larger buidings being built and can only imagine more in the future. I know they have their own parking but it also just brings more people to the area. More apartments being built at the end of California Ave near Hanover. I know most of those wont be walking to our area. Why would we not plan for as much parking as possible? We need to ahead of the game and not behind the times with old views. Growth is inevitable and hope you all plan for this area to continue to grow and plan for it. Why would you not approve the most amount of parking? You can’t go back and add more later at this location. We need to keep the big long term picture in mind and not the short term. I know your job is not easy and I understand the challenges. However, please hear me when I say parking is an issue already. I have built many relationships with residence and neighboring residence that come to visit my businesses and the common concern is PARKING!! I have not met one person from fellow business owners to patrons that is not in favor of the most parking as possible. Please keep to the plan that was agreed upon previously for 2 levels below and 4 levels above. Please do not reduce the parking spaces! Thank you for taking the time to read my response. Cheers, Lori Romero Villarreal Managing Partner C: 408-887-5155 calavelori@gmail.com www.calave.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:44 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 1:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:slow capital spending on Arastradero - Charleston reconstruction At this evening's meeting, you will be reviewing capital spending projects and their budgets. Recent estimates show inflated costs for projects and you must make some hard choices. I have reviewed the City Manager's report and would like to make a suggestion. Instead of reducing the capacity and cost of the CalAve parking garage, as proposed by Staff, I suggest to slow - or stop for the time being - the reconstruction of the Arastradero-Charleston roadway corridor. The roadway is functioning and rebuilding it now, when funds are short, is an expenditure that Palo Alto cannot afford. It is not going to measurably improve traffic and safety on the corridor, for bicyclists, has largely been addressed by the roadway configurations that reduced traffic lanes and widened bike lanes. Many in the city would view its reconstruction now as a solution in search of a problem - and a very expensive solution and certainly of much lesser importance than others in the list In particular, the project for the new Public Safety building and the nearby parking garage should be the top priority and no changes to those plans ought to be adopted. Sincerely, Arthur Liberman 751 Chimalus Drive City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 2:48 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sharon C <sharonchin@msn.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 2:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:EPPP Permits & Cal Ave Parking Garage Dear Palo Alto City Council, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/01/19/as-costs-grow-city-may-scale-back-garage-plan This is just infuriating. The City Council needs to take a giant step back and assess. Whether you are a 'residentialist' or 'pro-housing', remove those labels. Please do two things. Look at the situation from two different perspectives 1) Pretend you are a resident and live in either Evergreen Park or Mayfield neighborhoods and think how you would feel. And 2) As an elected official, think about what is best for Palo Alto almost as if this city were a person. Don't think about who donated to your campaign or the politics of any of it. Just think purely about Palo Alto and what will make this city thrive for the next several decades - remembering that Palo Alto residents are an important cog of what makes this city vibrant and interesting. Whether you are an advocate of slow-growth or pro-development, you cannot build without planning for impact this development will have on residents, businesses and existing infrastructure. What is the strategic growth plan here for Palo Alto? Even the most thoughtful development creates impact -- and it is your duty to ensure various components that are impacted - residents, infrastructure, businesses are kept in balance. If you continue to allow development along Park Boulevard and other locations not just in Mayfield, Evergreen Park, but also other city neighborhoods without planning for what impact this will have on the streets - traffic, safety, commute of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles + adequate parking not just for commuters but for residents and guests to frequent our city and business districts -- you simply will continue to have negative impacts and threaten the livelihood of Palo Alto. The city is playing catch up from all the construction that was allowed to happen without adequate parking and thought to the impact this development would have on our infrastructure, city streets and neighborhoods. To reduce the size of this parking garage and 'solve' the problem by approving more parking permits to be sold so cars here on business can park on residential streets is putting a bandaid on the problem - and it's unfair to put the burden solely on the residents of Evergreen Park and Mayfield. If any of you lived here, how would you feel? If any of you commuted on Park Boulevard near the Alma/Oregon overpass on a regular basis between 3-6pm, how would you feel? If any of you frequent Cal Ave on a regular basis between 11- 2pm, how long does it take you to find a parking spot? What hasn't been mentioned yet is the impact all this traffic congestion has on safety of pedestrians and bicyclists/foot traffic of all ages. You all need to take a long view here and consider all perspectives of what these decisions mean for our city and for its inhabitants. I am just exasperated with your thought process and feel suspect of what is influencing your decisions. 1) Do not reduce the planned size or scope of the new parking garage. This garage is vitally needed for the small businesses, service providers, and residents who needs somewhere to park when they visit this area. We don’t want visitors and business employees to be forced out into the streets and into our neighborhoods. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 2:48 PM 2 2) Adding more commercial parking permits is the exact opposite or purpose of having an RPPP in our neighborhoods. The goal of these programs is to actually find ways to “reduce” the need for commercial permits over time and hopefully make neighborhood parking open for residents. Therefore: A) Do not increase the current 250 commercial permits limit in the Evergreen Park/Mayfield neighborhood. Adding more permits for commercial use will continue to add to an already congested parking problem in this area. Instead, we need to find a way to “reduce” commercial permits by at least 10% each year. B) No commercial permits should be issued to new buildings that have Traffic Development Management programs (TDMs). C) Make commercial permit parking available along El Camino Real (both sides of the street), from Stanford Avenue to Park Blvd./Serra for local businesses. Don't let shortsighted decisions continue to plague the vibrancy of this town. Sharon Chin Resident of Evergreen Park City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 2:50 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:aldeivnian@gmail.com on behalf of Adina Levin <adina.levin@friendsofcaltrain.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 2:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda #15 - Infrastructure Plan and Projects - Cost-effective parking and access Honorable Council Members, Friends of Caltrain would like to support the concerns raised by Carbon Free Palo Alto regarding the status of the proposed parking garages, given the $50 million shortfall for the city’s infrastructure projects. After City Council made decisions early in 2017 to move forward with two parking garages, Palo Alto's Downtown Transportation Management Association, created with a goal of reducing solo driving by 30%, reported strong take-up from its initial pilot programs. Based on the strong pilot results, the city decided to fund TMA expansion, and with this funding, the TMA plans to shift up to 750 people to non-SOV modes by the end of calendar year 2018. As a major employer, the City of Palo Alto’s Go Pass participation is showing strong results, with an uptake that has increased from 51 in 2015 to 172 in 2016, to 200 in 2017. The PATMA survey, and the results from the programs from the TMA and the city, both suggest that there may be about 400 fewer workers driving to and parking in downtown Palo Alto over the last year. In short, Palo Alto has already reduced more car trips with its downtown TDM programs than the number of spaces proposed in the downtown garage; and TDM activity in the Cal Ave area has not even been commissioned. Also, since Council approved the garages in April, the federal funding for Caltrain electrification, which was hung up in DC earlier in the year, was finally confirmed, construction is under way, and expected to be complete in 2022. Electric Caltrain will have the ability to carry more passengers and provide better service to underserved stations such as Cal Ave. One staff recommendation is to downsize the Cal Ave parking garage, eliminating the second underground level and reducing the number of net new spaces from 335 to 241. Staff's recommendation to prune the Cal Ave parking garage is based on recent data-collection showing that the demand crunch is largely during weekday lunchtime hours; and anticipating upcoming initiatives to shift travel from single occupancy vehicle trips. Given Palo Alto's initial success at reducing downtown car commuting, and the progress on Caltrain electrification, we would recommend holding off on costly and permanent expenditures in parking supply, while: * continuing to invest in and assess the results of the TDM programs to reduce driving * using business registry and other data to verify that Palo Alto is able to reduce driving faster than employment growth in areas targeted by TDM programs * continuing to advance wayfinding and paid parking as strategies to better manage existing parking supply * experimenting with programs such as being piloted in Mountain View, providing Lyft/Uber discounts for people coming to Cal Ave from other parts of Palo Alto at times of high parking occupancy As Carbon Free Palo Alto points out, reducing solo driving is an essential strategy to achieve the city’s climate goals. Given recent data on the progress of these initiatives, pausing the garage projects, while focusing on City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 2:50 PM 2 investments in reducing driving and managing supply would be a prudent strategy to address the funding shortfall. A future decision to move forward with the garages should depend on clear evidence that growth of employees and visitors in the Downtown and/or Cal Ave areas will outstrip the ability of TDM, parking management, and transit improvements to reduce parking demand. Thank you for your consideration, Adina Adina Levin Friends of Caltrain http://greencaltrain.com 650-646-4344 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 3:39 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Elani Gitterman <elani.gitterman@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 3:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:California Avenue parking Hello, I'm a Palo Alto resident and visit cal ave regularly. I've always found it difficult to park ‐ I understand the proposal is to make the parking garage smaller and highly recommend against that due to the traffic this street gets. It is especially helpful for small businesses to have parking available here for their customers. Thanks, Elani Gitterman City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/18/2018 4:50 PM 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Svendsen, Janice Sent:Thursday, January 18, 2018 4:48 PM To:Council Members; Council Agenda Email; ORG - Clerk's Office Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Yuan, Dave; Ghaemmaghami, Hamid; Gitelman, Hillary; Reichental, Jonathan; Dauler, Heather Subject:1/22 Council Agenda Questions for Items 5,11 & 14 Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries made by Council Members DuBois and Kou in regard to the January 22, 2018 council meeting agenda. Item 5 – Adoption of 2018 Legislative Policy & Priorities – CM Kou Item 11 – Verizon Wireless placement of communication equipment – CM Kou Item 14 – Upgrade to Downtown Project ‐ CM DuBois Item 5 – Adoption of 2018 Legislative Policy & Priorities Q.1. In the Technology category "Authorizing Palo Alto as a place for autonomous vehicle testing." The priority of reducing the congestion on Palo Alto street seems to conflict with this authorization. There is a safety factor as well. In the Other category "Supporting reasonable state action to update, implement, and refine processes, services, and programs affecting the city." With the State proposing and passing legislation taking away a municipality's governing controls and imposing blanket mandates is not something I want to encourage especially with our City budgets thinning. Why are we allowing for the State to continue deregulating our local controls and impose unreasonable chaos and financial burden? A. 1. The authorization of autonomous vehicle testing would not limit the City’s ability to set standards and requirements on any entity allowed to operate. If authorized, subsequent City Council action would be required. With regard to the question about “Supporting reasonable state action to update, implement, and refine processes, services, and programs affecting the city,” this allows staff the ability to support and encourage state action that would positively impact the City. For example, the City may wish to support bills that allow us to streamline duplicative reporting requirements, or regulations that provide flexibility in implementing mandated programs. This would not in any way diminish the City’s position regarding local control and unfunded mandates, as stated in the “Foundational Principles”. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/18/2018 4:50 PM 2 Item 11 – Verizon Wireless placement of communication equipment Q.1. Was notification provided to the residents in the townhome complex at Colorado Place? A. 1. After the approval of the lease and ratification by both parties, Verizon will start the planning review and approval with our Planning Department. Please refer to Palo Alto Municipal Code listed below for more information. The property currently houses two other cellular carriers. The current site was used previously by Metro PCS. The muni code (18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities) can be accessed here: http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto _ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid =amlegal:paloalto_ca ** **Instructions: Upon opening the above link, go to Title 18 (Zoning) on the left side bar. Scroll down to 18.42 (Standards and Special Uses). Locate 18.42.110 (Wireless Communication Facilities.) Scroll down to Section C (Types of WCF Permits Required.) Item 14 – Upgrade to Downtown Project Q. 1. What basis was used to allocate the costs among the Enterprise funds? A. 1. Each utility will pay for the work directly associated with the installation as described in the bid items. The joint trench work of $5.7M will be split among the 3 utilities being installed in the trench (water main, gas main, and two fiber conduits). Q. 2. Page 3 refers to "dig once" policy ‐ have we adopted an updated dig once policy? A. 2. Staff developed this project based on a “dig once” policy, though the policy has not yet been officially adopted. Staff is developing this along with other ordinances, such as String Once, Multi‐unit Housing, and Micro‐trenching, to reduce construction costs and minimize disruption in the public‐right‐of‐way. Staff plans to bring all the ordinances to Council at one time as a comprehensive package for approval. Since University Avenue is the main artery for downtown, it makes sense to install everything at the same time to avoid future excavation/disruption and only pay indirect and overhead costs once. Q. 3. As the staff report states, the point of a dig once policy is to "reduce underground construction costs..." . As such the, laying fiber should be viewed as incremental work and not be assigned any of the cost of the digging. Can you break down the $2.1M expense for fiber on this project? What would be the cost if fiber City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/18/2018 4:50 PM 3 conduit was laid separately at a future date? How much is the dig once policy saving us on costs? A. 3.Water, gas, and two fiber conduits are going to be installed in the joint trench. Bid item #1 includes the labor, equipment, material costs to excavate and shore the trench, install pipes, backfill/restore the trench, as well as all indirect and overhead costs such as mobilization/demobilization, traffic control, and construction management by the contractor. The estimated cost to install fibers separately on University Avenue at a future date has not been estimated at this point. Such a project would necessarily carry all the indirect and overhead costs by itself, but may be located along a different alignment within this crowded (with infrastructure) street. As designed, fiber installation requires a deeper trench, with associated shoring and other constructability costs. Nonetheless, the dig once policy saves the City from paying the indirect and overhead costs twice and minimizes impact on residents, businesses, and transportation in downtown. Q. 4. In the detailed bid the fiber related costs appear to be only about $35,000 dollars ‐ $15K to install 2 PVC conduits, $13K to to install another 4 PVC conduits, and $6K to install a fiber optic pull boxes. Is that correct? Where is the rest of the fiber expense coming from? A. 4.These bid items are the pull boxes and fiber conduits directly allocated to the fiber installation and are in addition to the fiber utility’s share of the joint trench cost. The primary fiber expense is listed under Bid Item #1 – joint trench and installation of water pipe, gas pipe, and fiber conduit. Bid item #1 includes the labor, equipment, material costs to excavate and shore the trench, install pipes, backfill/restore the trench, as well as all indirect and overhead costs such as mobilization/demobilization, traffic control, and construction management by the contractor. Q. 5. Is more fiber capacity needed at this location? A.5. At this time, there are no immediate or forecasted needs for the City. This was included to provide flexibility for future uses and advance prior council direction to include fiber capacity in conjunction with main replacement projects. Q. 6. The staff report on page 4 says "for this specific location, however, the incremental cost to include fiber optic conduits may be marginal....:" If council decides not to include fiber at this time, how will the $2.1M in cost be allocated to other enterprise funds? A.6. It is worth noting that the sentence concludes, “…marginal in comparison to anticipated benefits.” Since the fiber is an integral part of the negotiated contract package, if council prefers not to include fiber, staff would not recommend awarding the contract. The project will require repackaging and rebidding, to return to council at a future date. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/18/2018 4:50 PM 4 This may encounter the same problem with few or no bidders (high market demand and downtown restrictions) and the bid prices for other programs (general fund as well as utilities) will be allocated overhead and indirect costs. Q. 7. East Palo Alto is in the process of a fiber installation to its public buildings. I know some of the ongoing operational costs maybe subsidized but I believe the actual construction and installation costs are estimated to be much lower, under $200,000 for more than 8000 ft distance. How are they able to do it so cost effectively? A. 7. It is difficult to make a comparison of costs since we do not know where East Palo Alto’s conduits are to be installed or what construction method will be used. The installation on University Avenue is very expensive due to the congestion of underground utilities in the street (directional drilling method is not feasible because of the potential impact to existing underground utilities), restricted construction timeframes, extensive outreach and traffic management requirements. The high cost of water main installation on California Avenue in the Cal Ave Business District around 4 years ago also indicates that it’s typically more costly to install utilities in downtown or business districts. Thank you, Janice Svendsen Janice Svendsen | Executive Assistant to James Keene, City Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2105 | E: janice.svendsen@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:43 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <skeehn2012@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 11:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:Council meeting Jan. 22nd, Grand Blvd Meeting Jan 23rd, GUP meeting Jan 23rd To the Palo Alto City Council, I read the proposed letter that will go to Stanford, and thought it did cover many issues. However, the same issues apply to all the development that Palo Alto proposes, and the same considerations should be applied. From what I understand, the update for the Cal Ave. Parking structure, would change two floors underground and three above ground. Which would result in a structure way over the limit of 50 feet presently allowed. I would be totally out of of place on Cal Ave and become a model for other such building exceptions in our city. For the residents in the area the current plan of two underground floors should stand. The residents cannot and should not absorb the overflow traffic. Business corporations and developers need to pay for the additional expense of the underground floors. The Legislative Priorities, Utilities document is much clearer, and I appreciate Councilwoman Lydia Kou's addition. I like the word emmisions added to the airplane noise. I am sure many are flying much lower than allowed, at night I think they could land in my house. And, yes we need to be aware of the sea level rise, and take steps, and acount for that in all our development decisions. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The city council is supposed to represent the residents and citizens of Palo Alto, the two meetings on January 23rd, says to me that you do not really want to inform us about the 'Grand Blvd' plans. I never heard about the first two, and one at Country Sun makes no sense, no room. This one tomorrow is at the Cal Train Station, outside, no seating,cold, and conflicts with the GUP meeting at City Council. I urge you to have a Grand Blvd information and discussion meeting at a reasonable place, as you did with the train discussion at the library. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:43 PM 2 I won't go nursing a cold, but hardly anyone will. I urge you to have another one with a large room at another time. The current meeting will not be conducive to either information or discussion.. Please Reprensent ALL of us. Sincerely, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 19, 2018 6:18 PM To:Kamhi, Philip Cc:Council, City; Planning Commission; City Mgr; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Clarification on Report #8763 Philip, What was the method used to calculate the 581 parking spaces in Southgate? We hand measured the neighborhood prior to the RPP and came up with 470 usable parking spaces. Our method used a 21' parking space, per the city, and took into account no parking zones, curb cuts, etc... As an example, if there was 35 feet on one side of a driveway and 28 feet on the other, that would be only two usable spaces, as you could only feasibly park one car on each side of the driveway. However, if you merely added those measurements and divided by 21', you could come up with 63 feet total and three 21' spaces. The former method is an accurate reflection of parking availability while the latter method overcounts spaces by 50%. Can you provide me with the method used and also the supporting documentation? If you would like, I can walk you through our measurements and you can confirm our counts. I would hate for more misinformation to go to council. I am starting to realize that one reason why residents could be constantly frustrated with some of the decisions made by council is due to the poor quality of information given to them. As the saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out". Please provide me with this information as soon as you can given the January 28th meeting date. Thanks Keith On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 12:00 PM, Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Phllip, In your report to council, there's a footnote on 1515 and 1681 El Camino Real which states, "The two commercial properties at 1515 and 1681 El Camino Real we rezoned RM-15 (multifamily housing) in the 1980s and the Council’s action at that time allowed medical office uses to remain on the sites as long as they did not expand." Do you have 1) the document stating this action and 2) the number of employees working at the offices at that time? If not, how did you get this information and what is the method to check to see if the offices are expanding? Is it based on employees, square footage, customer base? What is meant by "expand"? Two other quick points, which I will expand on in a more detailed email, 1) You continue to quote 70 employees. I understand you qualify that with "many" are part-time, but the report still throws out a number that has no meaning. It's irresponsible to say there are 70 employees as a way to sway council into thinking there's a huge need for permits, when in fact, there are only 25 -30 employees at both addresses on a consistent basis. I know this, because I counted cars for 2 weeks and took down license plate numbers. So, I have a record of all cars that showed up more than once over that span. 2) You also continue to tout a 30 - 40% show rate of employee permits. A quick walk around the offices and you'll find all 10 employee permits every day, that's 100% a show rate. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:29 PM 2 Now that you are presenting false information to council, I find it necessary to attend the council meeting on January 29th. I had hoped to travel to visit my father for his birthday during that time, but that will have to wait. I find it frustrating and still can't get my head around the fact that this type of misinformation is allowed to pass through staff and onto council where they are to make an informed decision. In order to make an informed decision, there must be an accurate representation of the facts, and this report does not have that. Even worse, you are more than aware that you are presenting false information and yet you continue to do so. Keith Ferrell City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2018 6:54 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Christopher Wong <christopher.wong76@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 5:19 PM To:Council, City; Wolfgang Dueregger wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu [evergreen-park-discuss] Subject:Re: [evergreen-park-discuss] new 7 floor parking garage in Cal Ave Business District (on tonight's agenda) Hi City Council, I am in agreement with Wolfgang. The compromise of removing an underground floor from the project doesn't seem logical, given the future impact of several buildings ongoing in various phases of construction in the Cal Ave business area. The utilization studies from November 2017 don't take into account the traffic and parking activity these businesses will account for when they come online this year and next, for example. If I understand correctly, the net parking space increase was to be a total of 158 spaces, at an updated schematic cost which exceeds 4x the original estimate. Staff recommendation suggestion to remove a subfloor will reduce the net parking increase down to 64 net spaces, at a cost of 3x the original estimate (assuming the ~$8m is saved). At nearly $40m using the schematic estimate, this seems like an awful lot of money to spend and it's a little alarming that the cost estimate from 4 years ago is so far off today (I would understand a 2x cost increase for improving economy, demand, but this doesn't seem logical). Are we doing due diligence in correctly measuring building cost, or is the city getting fleeced a bit here by the assumptions that construction costs have gone up this much (everyone loves PA money). Ultimately, you've got to account for future growth as well. I think this is short sighted at the expense of meeting the budget. This move will push people back into Evergreen RPP, and we'll be back in the same position again a year or two from now. Don't give Cal Ave businesses and surrounding neighborhoods the short stick for this. Regards, Christopher On Tuesday, January 23, 2018, 1:06:34 PM PST, Wolfgang Dueregger wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu [evergreen-park-discuss] <evergreen-park-discuss-noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Dear City Council, as a resident of Evergreen Park I am writing to you today to stick to your own promise last year to go "big" on the new parking garage, i.e. 2 floors underground and 5 floors above ground. There should be no violation of the existing height limit either. You know very well that the whole parking situation around Cal Ave is very dire, and local businesses have urged you together with us residents to build a new garage so that some relief will be possible, We are talking about to keep the current parking situation (without any reduction in floors of the planned garage) somewhat under control since numerous new developments are starting and the whole parking situation will get worse. A few years back, downtown got 3 big garages, and the "2nd" downtown does not "qualify" for at least a SINGLE ONE? we hope that you stick to your promise and words and build the garage with 7 floors (2 underground and 5 above ground). To cut away a whole floor is slap into the face of the whole Cal Ave Business District, its merchants, patrons and neighbors alike. if you need the money for the police station, then rethink the design of the police station. But you cannot cannibalize instead an approved project like the new garage building that was presented to businesses and neighbors as a "done" and "great deal" for everybody. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2018 6:54 AM 2 thanks Wolfgang Dueregger __._,_.___ Posted by: Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (1) Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Have you tried the highest rated email app? With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage. Join Nextdoor to connect and communicate with neighbors in Evergreen Park and Palo Alto. https://evergreenparkpaloalto.nextdoor.com VISIT YOUR GROUP Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:31 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 12:25 PM To:Sara Cody; Ro Khanna Subject:6 Steps to Vaccine Safety--Robt. F. Kennedy, Jr. World Mercury Project World Mercury Project Help Us Restore Children's Health by Ensuring Vaccines are Safe for Everyone See World Mercury Project led by Atty. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr for video in reference. American children’s ability to develop and thrive is being sabotaged by an avalanche of chronic health conditions, with rates among the highest in the world. And, American children are also the most vaccinated. Since 1990, the number of vaccines required for school entry has increased by approximately 260% which is in lockstep with all of the childhood epidemics. Counting vaccines administered during pregnancy and yearly flu shots, by the time our children are 18 years old they have received up to 73 doses of vaccines! Here are the facts:  One in every 2 American children (54%) is chronically ill  One in every 6 American children (15%) has a developmental disorder  One in every 8 American children (13%) requires special education services  One in every 10 American children (11%) has ADHD  One in every 13 American children has eczema and food allergies including deadly peanut allergies  One in every 68 American children has autism  Infant mortality (SIDS, etc.) in America is much higher than in other high-income countries Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (from the video): “We want to make sure that the conflicts are removed from the regulators who are making decisions over our vaccines and that the vaccines that our children get are as safe as they can possibly be, that the science is strong and robust. None of that is possible unless we first accomplish World Mercury Project’s 6 steps to vaccine safety.” RFK, Jr: Our ‘6 Steps to Vaccine Safety’ Will Create Scientific Integrity & a Robust, Transparent Regulatory Process 1. Subject vaccines to same rigorous approval process as other drugs. 2. Mandatory reporting of adverse vaccine effects; automate VAERS* and VSD• databases. 3. Ensure that all involved with Federal vaccine approvals and recommendations are free from conflicts of interest. 4. Reevaluate all vaccines recommended by ACIP* prior to adoption of evidence-based guidelines. 5. Study what makes some individuals more susceptible to vaccine injury. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:31 PM 2 6. Support fully informed consent and individual rights to refuse vaccination. Let the Science Speak Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (from the video): “We all want the best for America’s children. We need to start with good science and a clean regulatory process.” Here are just a few of the many federal and regulatory publications admitting the deficiencies in the system. The government is asking healthy children to be vaccinated with shots that have not undergone a rigorous safety process. Vaccine injuries can and do happen. Our children deserve better. Children’s Health, The Nation’s Wealth: Assessing and Improving Child HealthElectronic Support for Public Health Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)Adverse Effects of Vaccines, Evidence and Causality. Institute of Medicine, August 2011; Report Brief The Childhood Immunization Schedule and Safety: Stakeholder Concerns, Scientific Evidence, and Future Studies. Committee on the Assessment of Studies of Health Outcomes Related to the Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Institute of Medicine.* National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity and 16 more... We are not anti-vaccine. We are pro vaccine safety. It's time to bring scientific integrity to our vaccine program. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the World Mercury Project want vaccines to go through the same rigorous approval process and testing as all drugs. The government admits that only 1% of vaccine injuries are reported. That would translate to as many as 6 million Americans possibly injured by vaccines each year. Our children deserve better. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr, (from the video): "I don't know anything more important that this issue. All of the environmental issues that I have worked on are absolutely critical to the future of our country and planet. But we can't solve those environmental problems if we don't have children with functioning brains and good health. We need a generation of kids that are ready to grapple with big problems." Neurotoxins don’t belong in vaccines. Our children deserve better. Donations accepted at igg.me/at/vaccinesafetyproject. An Educational Email forwarded by Arlene Goetze, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:32 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Rebecca Altamirano <rebecca@altamirano.org> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:07 PM To:Michael Callagy; Don Horsley; WSlocum@smcgov.org; smonowitz@smcgov.org; Council, City; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Janet Davis; Antonio Altamirano Subject:Alpine Road Concerns To Whom It May Concern, Our family has lived on Alpine Road in the Stanford Weekend Acres neighborhood for over 10 years. We have seen an incredible increase in traffic in the past few years and it has become unbearable. We have 4 children, 3 are school age, and we feel like we are taking our lives into our hands twice a day when we make the walk along Alpine Road to the bus stop on Bishop Lane. On at least 4 different occasions, our family has had to literally jump out of the way of a car that was driving too fast and distracted by a cell phone and almost rear- ended the car in front, and instead veered into the path, right where we were walking. This could have been catastrophic. Cars and trucks are almost always driving at high speeds, often veering into the bike lane and pedestrian path. The school bus often has to wait several minutes for cars to slow down in order to merge back onto the road. At one time, the CHP and school district entertained the idea of eliminating this bus stop altogether since no one was following the laws of stopping for the bus. It was mindblowing to me that the powers that be would consider doing this instead of enforcing the laws of having cars STOP for the school bus STOP sign and making it a safe stop for students. The only time when the traffic is moving at a safe pace is when there is a police presence. Since we are in unincorporated San Mateo County, we have to rely on the already stretched thin high way patrol. Recently, there has been collaboration across other patrol areas to have additional patrol cars out, but the county must pay these officers overtime and the police chief has explained to me that this is unsustainable with the current budget. Stanford claims that there will be no new net trips, but I do not think they are taking into account the uber, lyft, and taxi rides, the delivery trucks from Amazon, frequent visitors, the maintenance and repair teams that have to come out to support the ever-growing university. It is incredibly important that we maintain this unique neighborhood for ALL to enjoy. We are asking for:  Slower speeds  Traffic lights and other things to slow traffic down so that we can actually exit our neighborhood safely that Stanford will pay for  Daily police monitoring during school bus times  Make Alpine a no truck route  Barriers put up to protect the pedestrians and bikers from the vehicle traffic Please be proactive and listen to our concerns. We fear that a catastrophe-- like a child being hit or killed-- is a real possibility and only then will our concerns be addressed. Sincerely, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:31 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kathy Riley <ksr94306@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 20, 2018 9:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:Anti-Idle Ordinance Dear Council Members, Last summer there was talk of an anti‐idle ordinance but I cannot find it when I search the city code. I would like to encourage you to move forward with the concept. I am living with a situation where the employees of the Tesla showroom on El Camino park in front of my condominium unit. At noon time there was the man who was napping in his car at lunch time with the engine running for over half an hour until I became so exasperated with the sound that I knocked on the window and woke him up. Then there is the woman who eats her lunch in the car with the engine running and the radio blaring. And there is the man who works a night shift detailing the Tesla cars. He drives a large, old black truck with a loud rumbling muffler. He leaves work around 1 a.m. in the morning and runs his engine for as long as 20 to 30 minutes. Finally my husband went out at 1 a.m. to talk to him. He was sitting in the truck reading on his cell phone. He said that the engine of the old truck needed to warm up. I have talked to one of the managers at Tesla but feel that my complaints were dismissed when I was asked, "it's a public street isn't it?" Please put an anti‐idle ordinance in place! It would also be helpful if Tesla provided more parking for their employees or at least asked them to park on El Camino rather than in our little neighborhood where they take up all our street parking. Thanks and regards, Kathy Riley City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:31 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Bill Miller <rightcobmiller@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 1:34 PM To:david.rader@pln.sccgov.org; Council, City Subject:Comment regarding Stanford proposed expansion and GUP For an institution with a worldwide reputation as a citadel of enlightenment, I’m surprised by how little creative, innovative thinking is applied when deciding what to do with Stanford’s obscenely large endowment. Another billion dollars? Let’s build more buildings! The result is a relentlessly metastasizing campus that cannot help but eventually overtax and degrade the surrounding community and environment. With the gift of such funding, why not consider additional options? Offer more scholarships for underprivileged youth. How about funding more field research to transfer innovative medical and other technologies in the Third World? And if you simply must build, why not satellite campuses in disadvantaged communities? Or how about a demonstration city showcasing the latest in sustainability? With all the current chaos in the world, do we really need yet another art museum with a billionaire’s name on it? Bill Miller Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:28 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <skeehn2012@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 4:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis From: Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis [ mailto:eal exis@gmail.com ] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 5:41 PM To: Council, City Cc: Nadia Naik Subject: Comments on Stanford GUP EIR process I am writing to request that the city use the 60 day extension for the Stanford GUP EIR to continue public outreach a nd incorporate additional data into the analysis before submitting a letter. I do have some specific suggestions and ideas which are outlined below I have read this letter, and here suggestions and totally agree we need another 60 days, the GUP is overly huge and impacts our whole city and surrounding cities. Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:40 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Mello, Joshuah; info Subject:Examples of Stanford using land outside the cordon for Academic purposes (Stanford at Porter Road and Hoover Parking garage) Attachments:detailed cordon map.pdf Dear City Council Members, Tonight at the City Council meeting, I mentioned the Stanford at Porter Road area (in the Stanford Research Park). As was also mentioned by Pat Burt, this is an example of academic functions being moved into the Stanford Research Park. The CEQA process and segmentation of the EIRs (Academic vs. Research Park vs. Medical Center) prevents us from really seeing cumulative impacts or potentially developing holistic solutions to transportation and congestion issues. Below is a description of the Stanford at Porter from Stanford's website, as well as their parking policy. In addition, below is more information about the Hoover Parking Garage that was built recently. Commuters to campus jobs who park in the new parking lot would be outside the cordon, thus they would not be counted under the No Net New Trips counts. Beyond that, if they ride the Marguerite bus, then my understanding is they then get a credit for reducing a trip in the impacted area. This seems counter to the goal. If you have any additional questions, please let me know. Nadia SoM Technology & Innovation Park Introduction A total of seven buildings in the Porter Drive vicinity will be occupied by the School of Medicine (SoM) and Stanford University (SU) administrative units. Together this neighborhood will be referred to as Stanford @ Porter Drive. Four of the buildings are SoM facilities and make up the Technology and Innovation Park at Porter Drive; the other three University facilities. The Technology and Innovation (TnI) Park will continue to support the long standing commitment to the bio-medical research enterprise within the Stanford Research Park. Many hours have been spent on planning the operations associated with these facilities to ensure that the activities conducted there are well coordinated with activities on campus. The successful organization starts with proper planning, coordination and preparation in advance of the first occupant moving into the facilities. Stanford University Administrative Groups City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:29 PM 2 The three buildings that the university will occupy include 3160 and 3145 Porter Drive and 1841 Page Mill Road. These buildings will house administrative groups that support operations on the main campus including LBRE, Human Resources, Purchasing, etc. The University’s current plan is to occupy the facilities on Porter Drive for five to ten years, before permanently relocating these administrative groups to Redwood City. In that the SoM intends to occupy its facilities at Porter Drive for a significantly longer time horizon, the School may make fundamentally different infrastructure investment decisions than those made by the University. Areas where cooperation is appropriate and the School and University interests align are highlighted throughout the Stanford@Porter Drive website. SoM Technology and Innovation Park The Technology and Innovation (TnI) Park at Porter Drive is comprised of four buildings along Porter Drive and Page Mill Road. Three buildings are research facilities, and one building houses School of Medicine administrative support services. The research programs include the Human Genome Program, the Early Cancer Detection program and the Stanford Sleep Center. Additional research programs will be identified and evaluated in 2013/2014 for inclusion in the third research building at 1651 Page Mill Rd. The administrative groups include Dean’s Office support functions currently located at Stanford Menlo Park and the Medical Center Development group currently located on Sand Hill Road. Combined Campus At peak projections, it is anticipated that there will be 1,500 or more Stanford employees occupying the seven buildings that comprise the Porter Drive neighborhood. Of the 1,500 staff members, approximately 40% are expected to be Stanford University staff and 60%, Stanford School of Medicine faculty, staff and students. Here is their stated parking policy (bolding mine) - which seems to include contradictory statements. https://porterdrive.stanford.edu/som/parking Parking in the Porter Drive Neighborhood For Spring 2013, or until the construction in the 3155 and 3165 Porter Drive buildings is complete, 3172 Porter Drive occupants should park in the 3172 Porter Drive parking lot or as overflow in the 1651 Page Mill Road parking lot. Questions remain regarding parking capacity and policies within the Porter Drive neighborhood. A parking study of the Porter Drive area was conducted and concluded that while there may be oversubscription in one or two building lots, that there is a sufficient total number of parking spaces for the people who will need them. It is anticipated that no-cost parking permits will be issued next year to all Porter Drive residents for use in the lots associated with the Stanford buildings. This type of no-cost parking permit program will ensure that the available parking spaces are used by the occupants of the Porter Drive neighborhood. It is important to preserve “free City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:29 PM 3 parking” as it is currently an important benefit for employees who move off campus. Additionally, a no-cost permit program will prevent the upgraded shuttle service from being used by individuals on campus to connect them to free parking, as well as preventing neighboring non-Stanford entities from using the limited parking spaces available. In the meantime, a tight parking environment will however, encourage individuals to use the shuttle, departmental and zip cars and other forms of transportation to facilitate movement back and forth to campus during the work day. Purchase of a limited number of departmental parking permits for use in personal vehicles will also work to support, but limit, the number of trips to/from campus during the workday. The very real problem with driving your own car to campus will be the difficulty in finding a parking place both on campus and possibly when you return to Porter Drive. ----- Hoover Pavilion garage opens for parking Sept. 2 A new parking garage is expected to open the week of Sept. 2 at 211 Quarry Road at the Hoover Pavilion, across from the Stanford In light of increasingly limited parking capacity on campus, all Stanford commuters are encouraged to consider the Hoover Pavilio The Hoover garage will offer more than 1,000 parking spaces, including 300 patient/visitor spaces and approximately 700 commut The Marguerite shuttle will provide service between Hoover Pavilion and Stanford Medical Center via a revised Line MC route an the building, facing Palo Road. New Marguerite schedules, including Line H and revised Line MC, will be available the week of Aug. 26 on all buses, the Margue http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2013/08/hoover-pavilion-garage-opens-for-parking-sept-2.html If you need assistance with parking, please contact transportation@stanford.edu or (650) 723-9362. If you have questions about M City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:29 PM 5 Here's what where the Parking lot is (don't be confused as map already shows a parking lot - this is a NEW one lo :(/&+ 5' 5' 5' 6$1' + , / / SAN CREE K FRA N C I S QUI T O $/3 , 1 ( -8 1 , 3 ( 5 2 6(55$ 6(55 $ 2/06 7 ( ' 2/0 6 7 ( ' 67$1 ) 2 5 ' $9 $9 5' 5' 5' %2: ' 2 , 1 6 7 2%( 5 / , 1 6 7 <$/ ( 6 7 :(/ / ( 6 / ( < 67 $9 0$ < ) , ( / ' (6&21',' 2 6$17$7( 5 ( 6 $ 6 7 &$03 8 6 &$ 0 3 8 6 '5 '5 ($67 :(67 *$/ 9 ( = 67 67 3$/ 0 48$ 5 5 < '5 5' 5' 5' 5' %/ 9 ' 3$* ( 0 , / / +$1 2 9 ( 5 67 52$ ' (/ $/0 $ $/ 0 $ $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 (0( 5 6 2 1 :$ 9 ( 5 / < :( % 6 7 ( 5 0,' ' / ( ) , ( / ' 67 67 67 67 5' 5' &$ 0 , 1 2 5( $ / $5%2 5 ( 7 8 0 (0%$5&$'( 5 2 1& $ / , ) 2 5 1 , $ $ 9 &$ / , ) 2 5 1 , $ +$0 , / 7 2 1 81,9 ( 5 6 , 7 < /<77 2 1 (9( 5 ( 7 7 +$: 7 + 2 5 1 ( 5$9 ( 1 6 : 2 2 ' 5,1 * : 2 2 ' &DO W U D L Q 0,' ' / ( ) , ( / ' (/ &$0, 1 2 5($ / 5' $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 $9 '5 81,9 ( 5 6 , 7 < '5 2/,9 ( 67 &58 = 6$1 7 $ 2$. 0(1 / 2 0,'' / ( 52% / ( &2/ / ( * ( &$0 % 5 , ' * ( 9$/ 3 $ 5 $ , 6 2 *52 9 ( :,// 2 : :,//2: STANFORDUNIVERSITY &+85 & + , / / $ 9 $9 2$. 0(1/2 3$5. 3$/2 $/722$. ' ( / / 6+$ 5 2 1 5' '56+$52 1 3$5. $9 &5 8 = 6 $ 1 7 $ 6$1 7 $ 0 2 1 , & $ $ 9 &2/(0 $ 1 $ 9 *,/%(57$9 2·.(()(67 2·&2112567 :22'/$1' $9 &+$ 1 1 , 1 * $9 &+$11,1* /,1& 2 / 1 $9 9$ 1 / 2 & 1 , / +$0,/721 672&. 3$ / 2 5 ' 9,1( < $ 5 ' 3DOR $ O W R &DOWU D L Q 6 W D W L R Q 5' &('5 2 : < 5$, 0 8 1 ' 2 :< 3(7(5 &2 8 7 7 6 5')5( 1 & + 0 $ 1 6 5' 6$17 $ 0$5, $ $9 5' *(52 1 $ )$50 5' 2$. 6($569,//( 5' *2 9 ( 5 1 2 5 6 $9 /26 $ 5 % 2 / ( 6 $ 9 )5( 0 2 1 7 5 ' 5' (/(&7,21((5 3$67(85' 5 /$ 6 8 ( 1 6 7 280 Figure 2 STANFORD UNIVERSITY TRAFFIC MONITORING REPORT DAILY MACHINE CORDON COUNT LOCATIONS 06/15/12 W: \ S a n J o s e N D r i v e \ P r o j e c t s \ _ S J 1 5 _ P r o j e c t s \ S J 1 5 _ 1 5 8 5 _ S t a n f o r d _ G U P _ E I R \ G r a p h i c s \ A D O B E \ F i g 0 4 _ 1 _ G a t e w a y s . a i Stanford University Campus Gateways Figure 4-1 Source: AECOM Stanford University Traffic Monitoring ReportStanford 2018 General Use Permit Boundary Figure 5.15-2 Stanford University Campus Gateways SOURCE: AECOM Stanford University Traffic Monitoring Report; Fehr & Peers Stanford 2018 General Use Permit . 160531 5.15-7 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:15 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, January 17, 2018 1:48 PM To:Mark Standriff; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; steve.brandau; oliver.baines; Mayor; Mark Kreutzer; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; midge@thebarretts.com; info@superide1.com; nick yovino; robert.andersen; Leodies Buchanan; Council, City; Raymond Rivas; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; Greg.Gatzka; huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg; hennessy; Joel Stiner; jboren; jerry ruopoli; Jason Tarvin; kfsndesk; Cathy Lewis; lxcastro93 @yahoo.com; leager; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; newsdesk; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov; Daniel Zack; Doug Vagim Subject:Fwd: Some considerations when a city awards even medical MJ permits ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 1:29 PM Subject: Some considerations when a city awards even medical MJ permits To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Wed. Jan. 17, 2018 Here are some things that Hanford, Ca. considered in awarding medical MJ permits in Nov., 2017: http://hanfordsentinel.com/news/local/cannabis-permits-officially-awarded-at-council- meeting/article_43b224f7-1fb7-58a7-89b6-76dad793eb2c.html#tncms-source=infinity-scroll-summary-siderail- latest More will have to be considered in awarding recreational MJ permits, no doubt. But the MJ industry is unstoppable, in my opinion. Fresno might want to join the trend and get some revenue from it. Someone on KCBS said that the MJ industry is like a huge freight train coming down the track. Jeff Sessions jumps of the woods and sticks his leg across the tracks. 51% of Americans support MJ sales, 75% favor medical MJ, and 99% support States rights, said KCBS. Given that, an issue for federal prosecutors will be, "Can we find jurors who will convict when we bring cases against MJ dealers who are following Calif. State law". After they lose 5 or 6 big crim. cases in Calif, Congress will ask them why they are spending limited resources on this when real crimes are out there. The issue of getting jurors to convict will rapidly become a consideration for federal prosecutors in states where MJ has been legalized. In cases where organized crime is involved, if MJ is being sold to minors, or if they are selling MJ smuggled in from Mexico along with cocaine or heroin, they might get convictions. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2018 6:54 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Yuko Tanaka <yukotanaka_ca@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 10:38 PM To:Council, City Cc:Yuko Tanaka Subject:Input to the tentative plan for the Mitchell Park Tennis Courts I am a Palo Alto resident for over 15 years, and I am a tennis player. I use Mitchell Park library. I am very much concerned about the current tentative plan for several reasons. (1) Lit tennis courts are hard to find in Palo Alto. Many tennis players work or go to school, and we can play tennis on weekends and evenings only. When I play tennis at Mitchell Park, there are always other tennis players waiting for us to get off the courts - particularly in evenings. Please do not remove lit tennis courts. (2) The city's tentative plan includes building one new unlit tennis court. If that is within a budget, I think it is better to build four pickleball courts from scratch where the city plans to build a new tennis court, and convert small courts adjacent to the tennis courts to pickleball courts. I don't know the purpose of these small courts, but I know they are under utilized compared to tennis courts. That would make six designated pickleball courts without removing any tennis courts with the same or less budget. Alternatively, pickleball courts can be built at lower used unlit tennis courts, such as Peers Park with less impact to the Palo Alto tennis community, or keep the Mitchell Park back tennis courts to be dual-purpose courts. (3) Mitchell Park is already crowded. I am concerned that the current city's tentative plan would make it far worse. I have been experiencing difficulties in parking at Mitchell Park. I like visiting Mitchell Park library on weekends, but it is common for me to have to circle entire parking area three to five times just to find one parking spot. It sometimes prevent me from using the library altogether. I learned that about hundred pickleball players from across the Silicon Valley area are using Mitchell Park tennis courts on Saturdays and Sundays every week. It is a significant contributor of the parking difficulty. It is also a safety concern because I see many kids are wondering in the parking area while parents are looking for a parking space. The city's current tentative plan will practically make Mitchell Park as a main hub of pickleball for the entire Silicon Valley. I think one of the beauties of Mitchell Park is that it supports diversified needs including library, community meetings, sports, concerts, kids play, baby strolling, dog walking, etc. It is truly a community park. By adding a few designated pickleball courts would be fine, but making ten or more pickleball courts would change the nature of the park significantly. Thank you for reading a long message. Best Regards, Yuko Tanaka City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:30 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 8:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Gitelman, Hillary; Shikada, Ed; info Subject:Jobs Multiplier for Stanford Project Dear Council Members, As I mentioned in my comments, the Bay Area Council estimates the job multiplier as 4.3 instead of the 0.73 as used by Stanford in the GUP. Below is the article I referenced. Nadia http://www.bayareacouncil.org/community_engagement/new-study-for-every-new-high-tech-job-four-more-created/ NEW STUDY: FOR EVERY NEW HIGH-TECH JOB, FOUR MORE CREATED When it comes to creating jobs in California across a wide range of income levels and employment sectors, a new report by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute and commissioned by Engine Advocacy concludes it pays to play to your strengths. For much of the Bay Area and other regions in the state, high-tech jobs are where the action is. The report – Technology Works: High-Tech Employment and Wages in the United States – shows that high-tech jobs have been more resilient over the past 10 years to economic downturns than other private sector industries, pay more, create more indirect jobs by far than any other industry and hold the most promise for continued growth. We were pleased to hand Governor Brown a copy of the report yesterday fresh off the presses. Among the key findings: – Employment growth in tech jobs — defined as those most closely related to science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) — outpaced gains in all other occupations by a ratio of 27 to 1 from 2001 to 2011. – For each job created in the high-tech sector, approximately 4.3 jobs are created (multiplier effect) in other local goods and services sectors across all income groups, including lawyers, dentists, schoolteachers, cooks and retail clerks, among many others. – The jobs multiplier effect in the high-tech sector is significantly higher than for almost any other sector. By comparison, traditional manufacturing has a multiplier effect of 1.4 jobs. Demand for high tech occupations will be considerably stronger than demand for other workers at least through 2020. Using federal labor statistics, the report also shows that while California continues to dominate in high-tech jobs the Golden State is not the only game in town. There was sobering news for Silicon Valley, which didn’t crack the top 25 among high-tech regions with the biggest percentage job gains. High-tech jobs are increasingly popping up in states and regions that historically have not been associated with high tech, including in the Rust Belt and South. This has important implications at a federal level for how jobs and economic policy is shaped. But the study’s findings don’t suggest that California should necessarily engage in hand-to-hand combat with other states for these jobs. According to another recent study by the Economic Institute, how the vast majority of jobs get created or destroyed in the Bay Area has little to do with companies moving in or out of the region and more to with the survival rate of start-ups across all sectors. The availability of high-skilled workers, inadequate housing supply that drives up costs and burdensome regulation have a bigger role in deciding the survival of new firms and job growth than what other states might be doing to lure away companies. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:22 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:M. Gallagher <writing2win@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, January 19, 2018 3:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter to Council Re: Housing Crisis Attachments:2018 WILPF 1 Jan 19.pdf Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Council: Thank you for rising to address the affordable housing crisis in Palo Alto, CA. To join your efforts, I write on behalf of and with the Women's International League of Peace and Freedom to ask questions about variables that impact the availability of affordable housing in Palo Alto, CA. The signed letter is attached to this letter. I recently observed an outreach worker in front of the BMW repair shop (corner of Homer and Alma) asking a street dweller and his small pup to take refuge in shelter. I hope she was able to convince him being indoors in a shelter is better than not being indoors in a shelter. With mercy and hope for the homeless, Mary Gallagher, B.S. Content Strategist 650-683-7102 Copyright 2018 Security Alert Notice The information contained in this e-mail is confidential information, presumed to be virus free, and intended only for use by the individual or entity named above. Virus protection is the responsibility of the recipient. If the reader of this email is not the intended recipient, dissemination or distribution is prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please delete the material from your computer. Thank you. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com on behalf of Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 6:03 PM To:Council, City Cc:evergreen-park-discuss@yahoogroups.com; Paul & Karen Machado; Christian Pease; Tommy Derrick; Carol Scott; David Schrom; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (external); Lydia Kou; Neilson Buchanan; Arthur Keller; Patrick Slattery; Irene Au Subject:new 7 floor parking garage in Cal Ave Business District (on tonight's agenda) Dear City Council, as a resident of Evergreen Park I am writing to you today to stick to your own promise last year to go "big" on the new parking garage, i.e. 2 floors underground and 5 floors above ground. There should be no violation of the existing height limit either. You know very well that the whole parking situation around Cal Ave is very dire, and local businesses have urged you together with us residents to build a new garage so that some relief will be possible, We are talking about to keep the current parking situation (without any reduction in floors of the planned garage) somewhat under control since numerous new developments are starting and the whole parking situation will get worse. A few years back, downtown got 3 big garages, and the "2nd" downtown does not "qualify" for at least a SINGLE ONE? we hope that you stick to your promise and words and build the garage with 7 floors (2 underground and 5 above ground). To cut away a whole floor is slap into the face of the whole Cal Ave Business District, its merchants, patrons and neighbors alike. if you need the money for the police station, then rethink the design of the police station. But you cannot cannibalize instead an approved project like the new garage building that was presented to businesses and neighbors as a "done" and "great deal" for everybody. thanks Wolfgang Dueregger City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2018 6:53 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:ROBERT HALLEWELL <hallewell@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, January 24, 2018 11:56 AM To:Library, Pa Cc:Council, City Subject:NEW WEBSITE WORSE FOR LINK PLUS? Puzzled by what seems a less good PA library website. For example previously if I searched for a book and it was not available within the PA libraries then there was a direct link to Link Plus. Now it seems you have to start all over again, or am I missing something? Surely this is a case where the library has gone against the if it ain't broke... rule. And presumably the redo cost us all quite a lot of $. sincerely, Robert Hallewell Dr. Robert Hallewell Community Center District City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:30 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Diane Schiano <dianejschiano@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 11:18 AM To:Michael Callagy; Don Horsley; Steve Monowitz; Diana Shu; Joe Lo Coco; Warren Slocum; Raymond Mueller; Kirsten Keith; potahki@menlopark.org; Catherine Carlton; R. CLINE; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City Subject:Objections to Stanford's GUP; implications for SWA and Alpine Road x Piers Lane traffic, congestion, parking Attachments:IMG-1197.JPG; IMG-1198.JPG Hello, I am writing for myself, my husband, Rick Voreck, and my son, Christopher Voreck (age 19). We live at 2673 Alpine Road, which is located directly at the Piers Lane x Alpine Road intersection in unincorporated San Mateo County. We are part of the neighborhood known as Stanford Weekend Acres. We experience intense traffic congestion and speeding problems (depending on the time of day and day of week) every day, just trying to get out of our driveway. The "informal parking" of so many cars right above our property (as part of an easement, in fact) so that people can walk in the Stanford Open Space magnifies the problem, adding congestion and chaos. There are times when a left turn--and sometimes even a right turn--from Piers onto Alpine will take 10 minutes! We have read summaries and reviews of the proposed Stanford GUP and are extremely concerned about its impact on us, on our neighborhood, and on other neighborhoods in the area surrounding Stanford. We are discouraged by Stanford's inclusion of 2.275 million square of feet of academic and academic support space and 3,150 housing units, translating to a population expansion of over 9,600 people in this area. The traffic situation on Alpine Road after 280 and up to Junipero Serra is already nearly untenable, and this will only make it worse. We have complained and asked for mitigations in various ways and to various agencies...when we were notified (which has not always been the case). Our concern is especially great after Stanford's previous GUP, which was supposed to have no net increase in traffic. BULLSHIT! And the misleading way in which mitigation clauses were interpreted so as to push for expansion of public roads near the Stanford Open Space--in San Mateo as well as Santa Clara counties--rather than the "paths" in the Open Space, which was clearly the intent. BULLSHIT ON TOP OF BULLSHIT! More generally, we agree with Peter Drekmeier that Stanford should be required to specify a maximum build-out, which should be debated by the public. We agree with the Objections to the GUP that have been presented by many before us, including, most notably, Janet Davis, also of Stanford Weekend Acres./ I've pasted some of her messages, including a very compelling video of what goes on at our intersection regularly, below. I've also attached some photos I've taken, but unfortunately, the congestion that makes turning so difficult is hard to photograph, especially now that "Keep Open" notices have been painted on the street. (These are somewhat helpful, but not enough). But the fact that cars are stacked up onto 280 at our exit, which is common knowledge, should be compelling enough. The untenable parking and congestion problems we experience are directly due to Stanford. Parking should not be permitted, or should be highly regulared, iat this intersection. We'd love to have a stop light or stop sign, and have requested this many times. Anything else that could be done to mitigate these problems would be appreciated. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:30 PM 2 ... Janet Davis <jadjadjad@sbcglobal.net Re: Alpine Road problems by Piers Lane Jan 18 (5 days ago) . to Diana, Michael, Don, Rick, me, Dave, John, Christina, Jim, Rebecca, Robert, Susie Gunter took some pictures of the problems caused by parking for the Dish back entrance last weekend (Piers and Ansel Lanes). My observation has been that this happens in the early mornings and is especially bad when the weather is good. What you do not see in his pictures (see below) are all the cars parked on Ansel Lane, the occupants of which also race across the road. Note all the cyclists that have to venture out into the vehicle lanes and the (one of many) cars doing a U-turn from the Dish to head back towards I-280. I think that it would be safer if there were to be NO PARKING zone along the Webb Ranch side of Alpine, and (if possible) some means to prevent U-turns across traffic from Piers Lane. Diana Shu suggested that I ask Stanford to initiate a NO PARKING request which I will do. It would be helpful to get input from cyclists since this problem is just before the I-280 on and off ramps where a cyclist was killed a couple of years ago, and where the traffic headed towards Menlo Park is often going at freeway speed - despite the 35 mph limit! It would also be helpful if the CHP and Sheriff could focus on this area periodically. Produce1.mp4 Produce1.mp4 MP4 File >>>>>>>>> Janet Davis to David, Don, Michael, Warren, Christina, Diana, Peter, Kirsten, Raymond, Catherine, CLINE, Jim, supervisor.sim City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:30 PM 3 STANFORD UNIVERSITY GUP FURTHER OBJECTION TO TRAFFIC IMPACT ON ALPINE AND NEARBY ROADS Recent Events: Stanford Weekend Acres [SWA] is an old subdivision in San Mateo County, adjacent to Stanford University and sq between San Francisquito Creek and Alpine Road; home to several hundred people. These residents have been desp to get some improvements with respect to the traffic congestion and dangers caused largely by Stanford commuterssuppliers. The same is true for the many people residing along Santa Cruz Ave, Alameda and side streets, both with county jurisdiction and the City of Menlo Park. The data presented by the GUP as to traffic and purported public tr inaccurate and completely misrepresents the situation. What the County and City Have Been Doing: Santa Cruz/Alameda: A task force has been set up that meets to discuss potential mitigations. This involves consid manpower by the agencies concerned as well as community effort. There is a combined Enforcement Unit for the A Cruz Area which adds to the person power burden. The sheriff and the CHP installed portable radar trackers. The s reduced to 25 mph to reduce accidents, and this also involves extra person power to monitor. There have been sevemisses” with respect to children on the route to La Entrada. The senior residents of Menlo Commons have experien incidents of vehicles bound for Stanford using the middle access lane outside their building as an additional means turn to get to the Hospitals. To resolve this it is going to take engineering time and equipment to mitigate. The sen also experiencing dangers with respect to their crosswalk in front of the Menlo Commons because of all the traffic g from the hospitals. The only way this can be remedied is by a pedestrian activated crossing light and restriping, whexpensive. Alpine Road: Residents of SWA are virtual prisoners in their homes at various times of the day owing to Stanford suppliers. Traffic ignores the STOP signs for the school buses and drivers overtake in the oncoming lane in their ha Stanford. Cars have been using the bike lane and the pedestrian path as a secondary vehicular lane, and parents are lives when walking their kids to the school bus stop. There have been several accidents in the vicinity of Wildwood least a few of those were caused by documented SU employees. What the county has done recently to help with the traffic situation along Alpine: There have been several county sponsored community meetings The STOP signs were replaced with larger ones at I-280 and “Botts'-dots” added to reduce speed Engineering studies were undertaken of Alpine traffic The speed limit was reduced to 35 mph They have deployed extra sheriff patrols (assisted by the CHP) involving several vehicles and motor cycle units on Solar powered radar equipment has been installed Solar powered speed checking devices have also been installed along the road Extra white lines have been installed to delineate the bike and pedestrian lanes “Bots” have been installed to emphasize bike lanes Some plastic “Stanchions” have been installed (in lieu of steel barricades) to better mark the bike lanes in places. M especially near Wildwood, and a better solution is needed to protect cars going in and out of the frontage road. Traffic chaos recently occurred at Webb Ranch (a Stanford lessee) because of their Christmas Tree lot and the coun Enforcement unit issued a violation because there was no permit, and traffic was making a U-turn across Alpine by ramp. The bizarre parking at the Dish back entrance at Piers Lane requires both traffic enforcement and sheriff monitoring proliferation of thefts from those parked vehicles. FINANCIAL IMPACT OF THE ABOVE ON SAN MATEO COUNTY TAX PAYERS: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:30 PM 4 All of the above costs money that could be used by the county for other improvements. Obviously Stanford is not t generator of traffic, but in this area of San Mateo it is the dominant cause of problems for San Mateo county residen constant flow of large trucks must have a significant detrimental impact on Alpine road, which is just not suitable foand type of traffic to and from Stanford facilities. Attached are a few pictures of the engineering improvements that San Mateo County Public works has financed. A cannot support any additional traffic to and from Stanford facilities, and given the complete dearth of public transp area apart from school buses, the “No New Net Trips” mantra is totally meaningless with respect to San Mateo Couaddition to the above, there are huge problems within the City of Menlo Park’s jurisdiction along Alpine, Santa Cru and Alameda: all of which are presently, and will in the future, cost that City a lot of money to remedy. CONCLUSION: The massive expansion planned by the GUP is unwarranted and cannot be supported by the present infrastruMateo County and the City of Menlo Park. Even with a more moderate rate of growth, some large infusionsengineering talent are needed to make any quality of life sustainable for local residents. 6 Attachments >>>>> From: Janet Davis <jadjadjad@sbcglobal.net> To: David Rader <david.rader@pln.sccgov.org> Sent: Saturday, November 18, 2017 1:04 PM Subject: OPPOSITION TO STANFORD'S 2018 GUP MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE RELATED TO STANFORD DEVELOPMENTS RELATIVE TO ITS PROPOSED 2018 GUP BASIC PROBLEMS WITH THE GUP: It only deals with the specifically and narrowly defined core academic boundary, totally ignoring the cumulative impac surrounding area, of Stanford build out and proposed projects at, for example:  The massive Hospitals rebuilding,  Ronald McDonald expanded housing,  The Shopping Center additions,  The Page Mill industrial park rebuilding,  The developments along El Camino Real in Menlo Park,  The athletic facilities that attract thousands of fans,  The Golf Course and its catering operation,  2131 Sand Hill and other leasehold facilities along Sand Hill (including the Rosewood Hotel),  The Quarry Road project,  The huge developments in the Arastradero/Coyote Hills area,  The various satellite functions such as the Eye Center on Embarcadero East, the Imaging Center on Sherman Ave,  The huge Redwood City Campus, or  The expansion at SLAC (including the Guest House). All but two of the above are either in San Mateo county and/or require I-280 or San Mateo Road access. This GUP also focuses almost exclusively on Santa Clara County impact, ignoring the consequences in Menlo Park, LValley, Atherton, and Redwood City: all in San Mateo County, which is going to bear the brunt of the consequences fromdevelopment. This defeats the entire purpose of CEQA under Section 15064.3 which seeks to examine the cumulative effect of a proje impact on the surrounding communities. The GUP is also flawed in that it uses the discredited “No New Net Trips” finot deal with issues area by area. For example, a commute credit may be assessed in one area, leading to added traffic in City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:30 PM 5 fact that under the GUP Stanford is proposing to build 2000 parking spots in the core academic boundary belies the u assertion that there will be no new net trips!. Mr. Girard of the Santa Clara Planning Dept. at the Menlo Park meeting 15 attempted to explain this away by saying that the parking spaces might be used for storage. This is just not credible.2,275,000 extra sq. ft. of facilities and at least 10,577 additional workers, adding that there will be more vendors, deliver conferences and tours only adds to the lack of credibility of the assertion. An early summary of the GUP stated that the c currently has around 500,000 visitors annually. The traffic data is also tabulated via the VMT method [Vehicle Miles traveled] (rather than the locally applied LOS methe patently obvious fact that traffic in the vicinity of the university is over-capacity. This is largely due to the university expansion, and the fact that the housing/jobs imbalance (also accentuated by the university’s constant construction) is c of its lower income employees and other local workers who cannot afford local housing prices, to commute long distanc the traffic woes. Santa Clara County is not going to get much in the way of property taxes from all this development and San Mateo Coun bear the brunt of much of the resulting impact. BASIS FOR MY OBSERVATIONS: I have lived at 2455 Alpine, Menlo Park, for 50+ years (before the 280 freeway was built, before Sand Hill was widenedthe right turn lane was added to the Alpine/Junipero Serra intersection). I drive back and forth along Santa Cruz and Ala times a day and often drive down Junipero Serra to Los Altos, as well as down Alpine to Ladera and Portola Valley. I a drive up and down Sand Hill Road and many of the streets that cross Santa Cruz and Alameda, and along Avy and Mont Hill. Therefore I have extensive personal knowledge, over many years, of the traffic conditions that have existed, and p in the entire area around West Menlo Park, into Redwood City and south to Los Altos. I am also part of a County of SanForce that is addressing the safety aspects of all modes of traffic (cars/bikes/pedestrian/public transportation) in the vicin Hill/Santa Cruz intersection. Considerable research has been done by local residents and the county in this area and it ca at: https://publicworks.smcgov.org/santa-cruz-avenue-corridor-study. Particular attention should be paid to the resident-drafted documents at Univ.park.org which list the problems and pote mitigations for the drastically increased traffic being experienced in the area of the Sand Hill intersection. That site contphotographs and documents 21 accidents in the last year. There have been multiple meetings with County and City offic Sheriff, MPPD, CHP and the Fire District in the search for solutions. However, the basic problem is that all the roads surrounding the Stanford Campus are overloaded to beyond saturation p fact that there is virtually no public transportation apart from school day bus service for the local high school. Also, I hatraffic at various times of day and know that the vast majority of it goes to, or comes from, Stanford facilities. WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO TRAFFIC, PARTICULARLY SINCE 2000: Alpine Road background: Alpine Road is a narrow, two lane road with several blind curves that has speed limit of 35 mph. Back in 2000 it was estcarried over 20,000 vehicles/day. This number has increased very significantly. It is bounded on the west side by very s subject to erosion. On the east side, below the level of the road is the Stanford Weekend subdivision with around 150 ho the San Francisquito Creek, which frequently floods. Also, late in the evening and at night, deer frequently cross Alpine lands on the east to SLAC on the west side. On the West side (owned by Stanford) there are grazing fields, an equine ho horse barn. These facilities frequently have slow moving agricultural vehicles such as tractors, or trailers with 12-16 horand going. There are no traffic lights. On the East side there are several cul de sacs as well as individual driveways exiting directly onto Alpine. Currently the substantial remedial bank construction to fix drastic subsidence of the banks endangering major gas and water lines. In t have been several accidents involving vehicles going over the creek embankment. There is no drainage system in this arflows off the westerly hills towards the creek making winter driving especially hazardous during inclement weather. Ot City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:30 PM 6 include the back entrance to the Stanford dish which attracts numerous vehicles that park (legally and illegally) on both road, the back entrance to the Hewlett Foundation and the back entrance to SLAC: all of which cause significant safety p Law enforcement along Alpine is virtually nonexistent because it is the responsibility of the understaffed CHP. Becaus of enforcement and nonexistence of traffic lights, commercial vehicles especially, opt for Alpine over Sand Hill, even so their destination is Sand Hill Road. During Stanford’s recent hospital construction neighbors counted double semi dump rate of one every 17 seconds for a period of time. There are no traffic lights that would allow vehicles to platoon along Alpine, affording residents an opportunity egress/ from their property. The traffic into Piers and Ansel Lanes (Stanford lands) is sufficient to fit the State’s warrant require light, but absent costly reconfiguration of the 280 on/off ramps, this would be counterproductive for throughput. When Alpine is not gridlocked, it is a speedway, despite law enforcement’s best efforts. San Mateo County has recentlyinstalling KEEP CLEAR signs and radar speed signs to try and control the traffic, which has had a less than stellar resul Changes in Traffic Patterns Near Campus and Results Thereof: My observation has been that in the last 10-17 years, the volume of vehicles has probably doubled between 280 and J and that there has been a significant increase in construction and service vehicles such as flatbeds, double semi dump trutrucks, delivery vans, etc., much of which comes and goes to University sites. Morning Problems on Alpine/Sand Hill/Santa Cruz Heading Towards Stanford : (I know that the majority of vehicles in the morning head towards Campus Drive West, the Golf Course, or the Hospital have frequently followed them and, with respect to construction vehicles, have even taken some of their license no’s andthem to Stanford.) Alpine never used to be a truck route and was not so indicated on Stanford’s website. Around the tim Hill widening it was so designated, despite the fact that the entire length of Junipero Serra (even between Alpine and Ca West) is signed, banning all trucks over 7 tons. In the morning the vehicular onslaught on Alpine now starts around 5 a.m. By around 7:15 a.m. cars are bumper to bumpalong the freeway from both the north and south, and this gridlock continues all the way down Alpine, thence down Juni Campus Drive West and beyond, and down Sand Hill to the Hospital. Motorcyclists, trying to avoid the back-up, freque bike lane. Some drivers even try to overtake in the bike lane and, sometimes, even on the path. The two far right lanes at the Alpine/Junipero Serra intersection stretch back the full length of the turn lane, and traffic, wbumper to bumper, goes all the way back to 280. I have great difficulty getting out of my driveway to turn right until ar a.m. A left turn is almost impossible, requiring me to drive to Sand Hill to make a U-turn. Because of this back up, driv wishing to go to Santa Cruz or Alameda opt for the left hand lane to get through the Alpine light (otherwise one has to w iterations to go through this light). Once in the area between the Alpine and the Sand Hill lights, the entire right hand lane and bike lane is frequently bloc vehicles trying to get to the hospital. This has a number of consequences:  The bike lane is totally blocked, so many cyclists from Alpine heading towards Santa Cruz Ave, race down the tracantilevered section making it too dangerous for pedestrians and less proficient cyclists. There have been several accidehas become too dangerous for Stanford Weekend Acres (SWA) children to walk to La Entrada school, so their parents d creating more traffic.  Other cyclists heading towards Santa Cruz, Alameda or upper Sand Hill weave in and out of the lanes of traffic jo position, resulting in many near misses  Cars waiting at the Sand Hill intersection to make a right turn towards the hospital, block cyclists coming from up road because they are parked over the entrance to the trail going along the golf course and the actual bike lane on the roa City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:30 PM 7  Vehicles coming north from Junipero Serra hoping to cross the two lanes of traffic between the two intersections left turn towards SLAC, are totally blocked by the queueing vehicles in the right hand lane, and traffic backs up along J When the light is RED at Sand Hill, those drivers wanting to make a right turn from the area between the intersecthe hospital, rarely stop which has resulted in many near misses. (The same is true with respect to the red light at the op of Santa Cruz and Sand Hill where drivers going from Santa Cruz to upper Sand Hill, breeze through the red light)  Drivers aiming for Downtown Menlo Park after crossing Sand Hill then have to change lanes within the one block Sand Hill and the juncture of Santa Cruz and Alameda. I have seen as many as 7 lane changes in that one block. This isdangerous (especially for cyclists because there is no bike lane) since the east side of that block of Santa Cruz is lined w driveways, many of which are well below street level. In the past year there have been 21 accidents in the immediate vic  Since there are no Stanford signs indicating the route to the hospitals, many drivers are confused and end up in th lanes instead of the right hand lanes. Many of them subsequently veer across all the lanes to make the right turn lane, crmore hazards.  The vehicle lane changes in the first block of Santa Cruz after the Sand Hill intersection, make it virtually imposs homeowners along that block to exit or enter their driveways.  Another problem with the jammed Sand Hill intersection is that many commuters try to avoid it by cutting througWay which is a very narrow residential street. In the early morning, because of the increase in traffic, it sometimes takes me 45-50 mins. to get to the Menlo Park Burg Center instead of the 10 mins it should take me. If I try to come home before 10:30 a.m., I am stuck in the middle of Alp vehicles careening around me to the right, until some kindly soul allows me to make a left turn into my driveway. This ievery other SWA resident along Alpine. Vehicles Heading South towards Campus Drive West from Sand Hill or from Alameda: In the morning there is heavy traffic. There is a problem with the merge lane immediately south of the Sand Hill/Santa C intersection in that vehicles try to overtake on the inside because of congestion. This occurs mornings and evenings. Morning Problems with Alameda Because of the access problems with respect to 280, Alameda becomes jammed with traffic, much of which is trying to g Stanford. This creates a major problem for example, for those 174 residents of Menlo Commons trying to exit or enter t condominium development or for other University Park residents to access Alameda/Santa Cruz. Traffic is often so headrivers intent on getting to the hospital use the middle turn lane to overtake traffic on the inside to get ahead in the line t to the hospital. This endangers residents of Menlo Commons trying to make a left turn to get to downtown Menlo Park. Evening Problems with Alameda Because it is so difficult to access I-280, traffic (mostly from Stanford facilities) jams Alameda from Sand Hill, through Woodside Road in Redwood City. Evening Problems on Alpine/Santa Cruz/Sand Hill “Rush Hour” now starts around 3:15 p.m. which seems to coincide with some kind of shift change at the hospital since pouring out of Pasteur Drive and head towards Sand Hill or Alpine. Sand Hill becomes a virtual parking lot from Pasteu280. Alpine Road is also jammed from the Sand Hill/Alpine intersections to 280. This makes it almost impossible for S to make a left turn onto Alpine. Another problem involves vehicles exiting the back entrance of the Hewlett Foundation and making a highly perilous an left U-turn to get to Junipero Serra. Some of these vehicles have the Stanford logo on their side. Alameda is the location of a MPFD station. They are the first responders to any emergency in the West MP area, SWA accidents on 280. The fire engine and ambulances are often blocked by the traffic jamming the intersections and the roa Alameda to 280. Sometimes they have to use the residential Avy, Monte Rosa and Sharon Park roads to get better acces Morning Problems on Junipero Serra City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:30 PM 8 Traffic is usually solidly blocked from Alpine to Campus Drive West and heavy all the way to Page Mill. Evening Problems on Junipero Serra Traffic heading south to the Page Mill 280 entrance is very heavy from Campus Drive West and is virtually a parking lo Stanford Ave to Page Mill. Traffic heading north to the Alpine 280 entrance or towards Alameda, is also frequently a vi lot from Campus Drive East. Problems on Avy/Monte Rosa This has become a cut through route to and from 280 for traffic trying to avoid some of the back-up problems. This traf exceptionally fast and is a danger to local residents and to students at Philipps Brooks School. Traffic on ECR in San Mateo County In the morning it is bumper to bumper from Woodside road to the university. In the evening, the reverse is true. Cyclist/Pedestrian Problems Coming or going to Stanford There is no pedestrian crossing on Junipero Serra or at the Alpine intersection. This means that people walking to and fr Drive West have no safe way to cross Junipero Serra to get to SWA because of traffic. If they want to go from Junipero Menlo Park they have to walk in the bike lane over the creek, which is often blocked by cars. If cyclist commuters wantCampus Drive West to SWA homes there is no safe way to cross Alpine Road because of the increased traffic causing m speed bikers to use the footpath along SWA which is extremely perilous for residents. The brick surface surrounding the Buck Estate is blocked by metal rails for pedestrian travel, yet this is used by people c the Hewlett Foundation trying to walk around the corner to Safeway on Sand Hill road. If there were a pedestrian crossi Alpine/Junipero Serra intersection this would mean that this path could be used by local residents to avoid the dangers oand non ADA compliant “trail” under the cantilevered section between the two intersections. HOUSING ISSUES IN THE VICINITY OF THE UNIVERSITY: Housing affordability is an issue throughout the State. However, in the vicinity of the university this is particularly evid many visiting scholars requiring short term rentals and postgraduates seeking leased accommodations. Demand has drivincreased the number of “doubled up” lessees, and created a burgeoning AirBnB industry which will only add to traffic w future. It has altered the character of SWA from an almost exclusively owner occupied residential neighborhood to a mo rental market. HOW THE UNIVERSITY’S GROWTH AFFECTS MY & OTHER RESIDENTS’ QUALITY OF LIFE I appreciate the great medical facilities and the increased diversity in my neighborhood, but it has come at the expense o of the quality of life, especially related to traffic issues, a summary of which entails:  Inability to get in and out of my driveway because of traffic, most of which is Stanford based  Danger on the road because of traffic congestion and constant fear of an accident  The neighborhood path in SWA has become too dangerous to use because of cars veering onto it, and because cy both directions  The “trail” put in by Stanford that runs under the cantilevered section of Junipero Serra/Santa Cruz is non ADA c that together with the excessive use by high speed cyclists has made it too dangerous for safe pedestrian travel.  Closing down of Webb Ranch Fruit Stand because of dangerous traffic means that fresh produce is no longer so e  Removal of bus stop from Alpine because it was too dangerous to use because of added traffic  Failure of traffic to stop for school bus at Stowe and Bishop which means that commuters cross the yellow line intraffic to get to their destination. This also happens on Garbage days, which is extremely perilous for local residents andcommuters. When cars do stop for these vehicles they back up and block the KEEP CLEAR zones making it impossible out of my driveway  Necessity of traveling out of my way to make a safe U-turn at Sand Hill in order to drive to Portola Valley  Enormous amount of noise from the increased traffic most of which is destined for Stanford City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:30 PM 9  Oily storm water residue from excessive number of vehicles on Alpine, most going to or from Stanford  Heavy odor of diesel from the many construction trucks going to and from Stanford and other locations  Increase in number of student renters who often are very noisy compared to average families  Increase in amount of time it takes to get anywhere because of traffic in West Menlo Park  Increase in number of accidents and the associated noise from sirens  Massive increase in construction trucks, many going to Stanford  Difficulty in negotiating route to the hospital, especially to the ER when it has become necessary because of lack traffic back ups  Increase in tour buses using Alpine to get to and from campus  Increase in vehicles on Alpine carrying fans to athletic events, some of whom are careless drivers  Being verbally abused or flipped off by commuters angry that I am trying to enter or exit my driveway  Increase in noise from horns, and angry commuter/cyclist interactions on Alpine  Observed increase in number of killed wildlife and domestic pets along Alpine because of increased traffic  The enormous amount of time and effort it has taken me and other neighbors to work with the county (and Stanfo get some traffic mitigations. POSSIBLE MITIGATIONS: Traffic Physical mitigations to deal with traffic have limited potential. What is needed is better mass transit options from 280 to Campus. This could take the form of:  a park and ride lot near 280  Commuter buses from San Jose via I-280  Shuttle extensions from Ladera, Portola Valley and Woodside  Better coordination with Samtrans to provide effective service in the San Mateo county area  Given the huge increase in traffic to and from campus and the hospitals from I-280, eventually there will have to dedicated tunnel from 280 to Campus There are some “low hanging fruit” safety mitigations that could be undertaken. Many are listed in the UnivPark.org document. Below are some other suggestions that would make travel safer for all:  Crosswalks on Junipero Serra and Alpine  Removal of the bulb out between the Alpine and Sand Hill intersections that prevents more than one vehicle at a t from Junipero Serra to the left turn lane at Sand Hill  Addressing the ADA compliance problems of the “trail” from Alpine to Sand Hill and install speed limit signs for that trail  Engineering erosion and storm water solutions for the trail under the cantilevered section of the trail, making it sa pedestrians and cyclists. Also investigate the possibility of engineering a way for pedestrians coming from Junipero Ser get down the incline at the start of the bike lane, so that they do not have to walk in the bike lane and get hit by cars.  Work with San Mateo County and Caltrans to better engineer the 280 on/off ramps to avoid the mass confusion a  Provide pullover setbacks and shelters for the school bus stops at Stowe and Bishop so that the parents are not fea safety  Put some barricades along Alpine by Wildwood Lane to protect pedestrians from the constant problem of cars, tru motorbikes from driving in the bike lane and on the path  Put some barrier at the Hewlett Foundation back gate to prevent cars making U-turns there  Install legible illuminated signs indicating routes to hospitals, especially the ER.  Work with Samtrans to get better public transit in West Menlo Park. There is a special need to better organize wAtherton H.S. kids to get home instead of the bus dropping them off at Safeway so that their parents have to drive over t  Investigate feasibility of a park and ride near I-280  Provide shuttle service in W. Menlo Park, Ladera and Portola Valley where many Stanford community live, and w numerous Stanford associated facilities City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:30 PM 10  Investigate the possibility of commute vehicles along the 280 corridor  Eliminate double semi dump trucks from Alpine Road since these vehicles cannot stop easily in a short distance aseveral blind corners. Also, the driver has little control over the back semi and it strays into the bike lane. These vehicle trouble negotiating the traffic light at the Alpine intersection and the back trailer runs over the brick base to the light, nar cars waiting in the left hand lane. They also are too big to safely negotiate the turn from Alpine to Junipero Serra withou the bike lane.  Have some kind of monitoring/permitting system for construction trucks. Many of them speed because apparentlby the number of loads.  Install some arrows at the junction of Sand Hill where the lane turns under the Buck Estate. When traffic is heav much lane jockeying here and cars do not realize that the merge lane is not a separate traffic lane. This causes them to in lane which is hazardous for cyclists  Enlarge the merge lane at the beginning of Alpine Road by the Buck Estate since this is a huge hazard for cars an hour  Enlarge the bike lane heading towards Portola Valley on the West side of Alpine within the jurisdiction of Menlo unduly narrow and at one point there is a slotted lane that takes up most of the bike lane. Also provide better maintenantrimming foliage that hits taller cyclists.  Restrict access/parking to the back entrance to the Dish on Alpine road since it causes major traffic safety problem since it is right next to the 280 off ramp.  Engineer some way to deal with the extreme dangers to cyclists in between the Sand Hill and Alpine intersectionscoming from Santa Cruz or upper Sand Hill trying to get to Junipero Serra swerve in between cars in an ultrahazardous f major danger exists because the middle lane at the Alpine traffic light allows cars to go straight or make a left hand turn. numerous near fatalities where the cyclist is turning left, but the car behind him accelerates forward. The middle lane should ONLY BE LEFT TURN. This should not affect throughput since there is only a short space between the two i that accommodates only a few vehicles. Housing: Additional housing opportunities for lower income staff need to be provided on or near the core campus or other comme to lessen the need for lengthy commutes via I-280 from San Jose, Daly City and other less expensive housing areas. The additional opportunities, and desperate need for low income housing (not necessarily restricted to the Stanford communiprovided in North Fair Oaks. The site at 2131 Sand Hill would be better used as housing even if it is low density as curr the county. CONCLUSION This GUP ignores blatant significant negative impacts of the proposed developments with respect to the housing/jobs imbalance animpact. It also fails to provide accurate information as to bicycle, pedestrian and public transportation available on the San Mateo C of area. In recent years most of the commercial development on Stanford lands has occurred either in San Mateo County or at sites I-280 which has created an undue burden on West Menlo Park in particular, negatively affecting many aspects of our quality of life -- Diane J. Schiano https://sites.google.com/site/dianejschiano/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Barry M Katz <bkatz@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 6:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking Garage, California Ave. district To the City Council): My two cents: I was horrified to read reports of the demands of local merchants for more parking spaces and fewer human (mixed use amenities. As a resident of the Ventura neighborhood for whom Caliofrnia Avenue has been a regular destination for three decades, I would respectufully remind proprietors that NOT ONE AUTOMOBILE has even shopped in your stores, engaged your services, or dined in your restaurants. NOT ONE. EVER. To the best of my knowledge, it is PEOPLE who support these business, without exception. Making the Cal. Ave. district more car-friendly and less people-friendly is exactly the wrong approach. Aside from flying in the face of progressive efforts worldwide to humanize our cities, it is bad for business. Barry Katz Consulting Professor, Design Group Department of Mechanical Engineering Stanford University m: 650.644-8697 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:33 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Lucinda Lenicheck <lblenicheck@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parking garage/CA Ave. proposal on agenda TONIGHT Dear City Council, Please do nothing to change the plans for the prospective parking garage serving the California Ave. Business district AND thereby serving all the residential neighborhoods abutting that district. To quote from a neighbor: as a resident of Evergreen Park I am writing to you today to stick to your own promise last year to go "big" on the new parking garage, i.e. 2 floors underground and 5 floors above ground. There should be no violation of the existing height limit either. You know very well that the whole parking situation around Cal Ave is very dire, and local businesses have urged you together with us residents to build a new garage so that some relief will be possible, We are talking about to keep the current parking situation (without any reduction in floors of the planned garage) somewhat under control since numerous new developments are starting and the whole parking situation will get worse. A few years back, downtown got 3 big garages, and the "2nd" downtown does not "qualify" for at least a SINGLE ONE? We hope that you stick to your promise and words and build the garage with 7 floors (2 underground and 5 above ground). To cut away a whole floor is slap into the face of the whole Cal Ave Business District, its merchants, patrons and neighbors alike. If you need the money for the police station, then the design of the police station. But you cannot cannibalize instead an approved project like the new garage building that was presented to businesses and neighbors as a "done" and "great deal" for everybody. Please do not alter the parking garage plans! Find your cost savings elsewhere! Thank you, Lucinda Breed Lenicheck 342 Oxford Ave. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:32 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:J <jtseng88@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 2:11 PM To:Howard, Adam; Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Parks and Rec Master Plan comment Hi City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission Members, We wanted to write in support of the plan to add permanent pickleball courts to Mitchell Park. Since starting our first pickleball game at the volunteer run, drop‐in temporary courts on weekends at Mitchell Park a couple of years ago, we’ve experienced the fun and camaraderie of the sport of pickleball and witnessed the enormous numbers of people gathering to play whenever the temporary nets are put up. Pickleball will increasingly grow in popularity in the future. The reality, more importantly, is that it is an exceedingly popular sport today. My husband and two children (high school and elementary aged students) have been long‐time users of the tennis courts and outdoor racquetball courts at Mitchell Park. We’ve taken a lot of tennis lessons for many years through the City of Palo Alto’s Enjoy program. We are by no means weighing tennis against pickleball, or vice versa. That is a very unfortunately and unnecessarily adversarial pairing. We are blessed in this city to have plenty of public space for tennis, pickleball and other enjoyable sports. In our opinions, there are plenty of tennis court options throughout the city parks and on public school campuses. But there are very few pickleball opportunities and none that are financially supported by the city of Palo Alto. The fact that a group of volunteers are willing to purchase, maintain and put up pickleball nets every week is a wonderful example of community members making the game possible for others. The city has benefitted from the efforts of these volunteers by virtue of their monetary and time contributions. Now, it’s time for the city to step up. Palo Alto should support the sport that its residents desire. I would like to see taxpayer dollars fund public courts, so that the courts are open and available to all and are not a persistent burden on a group of volunteers. Our family would play outdoors more frequently if the city were to erect permanent pickleball courts in lighted areas (allowing for after work play). Please make permanent pickleball courts at Mitchell Park, and at other city parks, a reality for the City of Palo Alto and its residents. Best regards, Jocelyn and Ben Tseng Wilkie Ct. Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 4:30 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:mwilliams <moniwilliams@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 4:01 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; Howard, Adam Subject:Photos of Pickleball on Sunday at Mitchell Park A total of 92 people played drop-in pickleball at Mitchell Park yesterday, Sunday. These photos were taken when all 11 courts were filled with 4 to a court (44), and 27 players were waiting. Monica Engel Williams City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 4:30 PM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:41 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mark Nadim <marknadim@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 11:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:proposed SB-827 Honorable Council Members, SB-827, a bill recently sponsored by Senator Wiener (D-SF), poses a serious threat to local control of zoning and planning that is beyond anything we have ever seen before. This proposal to address the affordable housing crisis, by building 5-8 story buildings, by right, within a quarter or half mile of transit, disregards our General Plan, specific plans and zoning ordinances, and would result in unsustainable impacts on our environment, town character, schools, traffic, public services, infrastructure and quality of life. At a time when Palo Alto communities are working diligently to increase affordable housing options, this is not the time to allow local zoning and planning control to succumb to overly simplistic and counter-productive state legislation. As our elected representatives, we count on you to act in the best interests of our community. Will you show leadership to address the threats of SB-827 and the over-reach by Sacramento to remove local control of zoning and planning? We ask that you rise to the occasion and use your status as elected officials to voice our objections to this draconian legislation. You have the opportunity, and in fact the responsibility, to protect our city’s constitutional right to plan for our future and address our growth and housing affordability challenges. As a member of your community, I am writing to respectfully request and strongly suggest that you take the following actions. 1 Place the public discussion of SB-827 on the City Council’s public hearings agenda, within the next 30 days. 2 Issue a public comment and rebuttal to Senator Wiener and Sacramento lawmaker’s, regarding the proposals found in SB-827. We trust that you value Palo Alto's right to local control of planning and zoning for our future, as we do. We are ready to work with you to educate, engage, and empower residents to have their opinions on this issue heard. Mark Nadim Alexis Dr. Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 2:50 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sharon C <sharonchin@msn.com> Sent:Monday, January 22, 2018 2:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:EPPP Permits & Cal Ave Parking Garage Dear Palo Alto City Council, https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/01/19/as-costs-grow-city-may-scale-back-garage-plan This is just infuriating. The City Council needs to take a giant step back and assess. Whether you are a 'residentialist' or 'pro-housing', remove those labels. Please do two things. Look at the situation from two different perspectives 1) Pretend you are a resident and live in either Evergreen Park or Mayfield neighborhoods and think how you would feel. And 2) As an elected official, think about what is best for Palo Alto almost as if this city were a person. Don't think about who donated to your campaign or the politics of any of it. Just think purely about Palo Alto and what will make this city thrive for the next several decades - remembering that Palo Alto residents are an important cog of what makes this city vibrant and interesting. Whether you are an advocate of slow-growth or pro-development, you cannot build without planning for impact this development will have on residents, businesses and existing infrastructure. What is the strategic growth plan here for Palo Alto? Even the most thoughtful development creates impact -- and it is your duty to ensure various components that are impacted - residents, infrastructure, businesses are kept in balance. If you continue to allow development along Park Boulevard and other locations not just in Mayfield, Evergreen Park, but also other city neighborhoods without planning for what impact this will have on the streets - traffic, safety, commute of pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles + adequate parking not just for commuters but for residents and guests to frequent our city and business districts -- you simply will continue to have negative impacts and threaten the livelihood of Palo Alto. The city is playing catch up from all the construction that was allowed to happen without adequate parking and thought to the impact this development would have on our infrastructure, city streets and neighborhoods. To reduce the size of this parking garage and 'solve' the problem by approving more parking permits to be sold so cars here on business can park on residential streets is putting a bandaid on the problem - and it's unfair to put the burden solely on the residents of Evergreen Park and Mayfield. If any of you lived here, how would you feel? If any of you commuted on Park Boulevard near the Alma/Oregon overpass on a regular basis between 3-6pm, how would you feel? If any of you frequent Cal Ave on a regular basis between 11- 2pm, how long does it take you to find a parking spot? What hasn't been mentioned yet is the impact all this traffic congestion has on safety of pedestrians and bicyclists/foot traffic of all ages. You all need to take a long view here and consider all perspectives of what these decisions mean for our city and for its inhabitants. I am just exasperated with your thought process and feel suspect of what is influencing your decisions. 1) Do not reduce the planned size or scope of the new parking garage. This garage is vitally needed for the small businesses, service providers, and residents who needs somewhere to park when they visit this area. We don’t want visitors and business employees to be forced out into the streets and into our neighborhoods. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 2:50 PM 2 2) Adding more commercial parking permits is the exact opposite or purpose of having an RPPP in our neighborhoods. The goal of these programs is to actually find ways to “reduce” the need for commercial permits over time and hopefully make neighborhood parking open for residents. Therefore: A) Do not increase the current 250 commercial permits limit in the Evergreen Park/Mayfield neighborhood. Adding more permits for commercial use will continue to add to an already congested parking problem in this area. Instead, we need to find a way to “reduce” commercial permits by at least 10% each year. B) No commercial permits should be issued to new buildings that have Traffic Development Management programs (TDMs). C) Make commercial permit parking available along El Camino Real (both sides of the street), from Stanford Avenue to Park Blvd./Serra for local businesses. Don't let shortsighted decisions continue to plague the vibrancy of this town. Sharon Chin Resident of Evergreen Park City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:20 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mackenzie, Andrea <amackenzie@openspaceauthority.org> Sent:Friday, January 19, 2018 3:22 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Public Notice of the Availability of the Santa Clara County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy Attachments:RCIS_ Council_PaloAlto.pdf Dear Public Agency Partner, Please see the attached public notice of the availability of the Santa Clara County Regional Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS) on the website of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority is serving as the local sponsoring agency for this pilot RCIS, and we and the CDFW welcome your review and comment beginning January 22nd and ending March 22nd. The attached letter provides details about the RCIS document and how to submit comments during the 60-day review period. Sincerely Yours, Andrea Mackenzie -- Andrea Mackenzie General Manager 408.224.7476 Openspaceauthority.org Celebrate our 25th Anniversary with us! _________________________ Please print only if necessary. Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intendedrecipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender or telephone 408.224.7476. 33 Las Colinas Lane San Jose, CA 95119 408.224.7476 T 408.224.7548 F openspaceauthority.org January 19, 2018 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Regional Conservation Investment Strategy for the Santa Clara County Region Dear Councilmembers, This letter is to inform you that a draft Regional Conservation Investment Strategy (RCIS) has been developed for Santa Clara County and the Upper Pajaro River Watershed within San Benito County and will be available on the California Department of Fish and Wildlife website for a 60-day public review and comment period beginning January 22, 2018 and ending at 5:00 PM on March 22, 2018. The RCIS has been developed as part of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) Regional Conservation Investment Strategies (RCIS) Program, which was established by AB 2087 and signed into law in September 2016 by Governor Brown. AB 2087 establishes the RCIS Program to create a new, voluntary conservation planning tool to promote the conservation of species, habitats, and other natural resources and enable advance mitigation for public infrastructure projects. An RCIS provides a non-regulatory assessment and analysis of conservation needs in a region, including habitat connectivity and climate resilience. It is intended to provide scientific information for the consideration of public agencies. An RCIS is voluntary and does not create, modify, or impose regulatory requirements or standards; regulate the use of land; establish land-use designations; or affect the land-use authority of or exercise of discretion by any public agency. Entities can use an RCIS approved by CDFW to guide voluntary investment in conservation actions, including habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement, and to develop Mitigation Credit Agreements (MCAs) to enable advance mitigation to offset impacts to species and habitats from development and public infrastructure projects. Santa Clara County RCIS: A Pilot Project The Santa Clara County RCIS is a pilot initiated in 2016 to apply the new legislation. The Santa Clara Valley Open Space Authority (OSA) agreed to sponsor the RCIS, which has been developed with guidance from a steering committee that also includes the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency (VHA), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), The Nature Conservancy (TNC), and the State Coastal Conservancy (SCC). The region was chosen for a pilot program, in part, because in 2016, the VTA’s Measure B presented a unique opportunity to examine how an RCIS could streamline transportation project delivery and increase the effectiveness of mitigation measures to conserve the region’s habitats and species. Consistency with the Valley Habitat Plan The Santa Clara County RCIS area includes the permit area of the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan (Habitat Plan), implemented by the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency (VHA), a joint exercise of powers entity (JPA) created by the County of Santa Clara and the cities of San Jose, Morgan Hill, and Gilroy, under Government Code Section 6500 et seq. The Habitat Plan is a 50-year regional plan to protect endangered species and natural resources while allowing for future development in Santa Clara County. The RCIS was developed in coordination with the VHA to ensure that it complements and is consistent with the Habitat Plan’s conservation strategy both within and beyond the Habitat Plan’s permit area. The RCIS builds on the Habitat Plan’s conservation goals, objectives, and reserve design to “fill in the gaps” that are not addressed by the Habitat Plan, both in geography and in resources. On December 13, 2017, the VHA submitted a letter to CDFW determining that the RCIS is consistent and complements the Habitat Plan. RCIS Status and Next Steps The RCIS has been developed with input from conservation and transportation agencies and organizations, as well as the broader public. Once approved, the RCIS can be used to inform voluntary conservation and enhancement actions for focal species, sensitive habitats, other conservation elements, including habitat connectivity and working landscapes. If implemented as part of a MCA approved by CDFW, these actions may be used as advance mitigation for transportation projects, as envisioned through the Regional Advance Mitigation Planning process being developed for the Bay Area by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, TNC, and SCC as part of Plan Bay Area 2040. As the implementation sponsor, the OSA will track work to conduct conservation actions identified in the RCIS including development of any MCAs for priority conservation actions. The OSA will work with other conservation agencies on RCIS updates which are required every 10 years under AB2087. Submittal of Public Comments Public comments on the draft Santa Clara County RCIS should be submitted by email to both CDFW and the OSA, or by hard copy provided only to CDFW to minimize postage costs and effort. Public comments should be submitted in one of the following three ways (email, mail, or dropped off), to the following addresses: EMAIL (comments should be emailed to both CDFW and to the OSA): CDFW: rcis@wildlife.ca.gov OSA: RCIS@openspaceauthority.org MAILED COPY (comments may be mailed to CDFW alone): California Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Planning Branch P.O. Box 944209 Sacramento, CA 94244-2090 ATTENTION: Santa Clara County RCIS Comments DROPPED-OFF COPY (comments may be dropped off to CDFW alone): California Department of Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Planning Branch 1416 9th Street, 12th Floor, Room 1266 Sacramento, CA 95814 Additional Information Additional information about the RCIS program is available at the CDFW website: • https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning/regional-conservation If you have any questions about the RCIS public review process, please call Joelle Garretson at (408) 224-7476. Sincerely, Andrea Mackenzie General Manager City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:31 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 11:33 AM To:Clerk, City Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Public Records Act Request Dear City Clerk: Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain copies of the following, which I understand to be held by the City of Palo Alto: All letters, emails, texts or other communications from or to City Manager James Keene on the subject of telecommunications or related to the subject of telecommunications—communications including, but not limited to, those with City Staff; City Council; City advisory boards; Verizon; Verizon’s consultants and vendors; Crown Castle; NextG Networks; Vinculums; AT&T; AT&T’s consultants and vendors; AT&T Mobility; Astound Broadband (WAVE); members (including members of the Board of Directors, on which Mr. Keene serves, and advisory board members), staff and investors (including AT&T, Crown Castle, Hammett & Edison, and Verizon) of Joint Venture Silicon Valley; and anyone connected to any organization with which Mr. Keene has a relationship as Palo Alto’s City Manager—from the period starting on January 1, 2016 and ending on January 23, 2018. If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me at 650-325-5151. I ask that you notify me of any duplication costs exceeding $100 before you duplicate the records so that I may decide which records I want copied. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:15 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Wednesday, January 17, 2018 4:08 PM To:Clerk, City Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Public Records Act Request Dear City Clerk: Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain copies of the following, which I understand to be held by the City of Palo Alto: All letters and emails from or to City Chief Information Officer Jonathan Reichental on the subject of telecommunications or related to the subject of telecommunications—letters and emails including, but not limited to, correspondence with City Staff; City Council; City advisory boards; Verizon; Verizon’s consultants and vendors; Crown Castle; NextG Networks; Vinculums; AT&T; AT&T’s consultants and vendors; AT&T Mobility; Astound Broadband (WAVE); and members (including advisory board members), staff and investors (including AT&T, Crown Castle, Hammett & Edison, and Verizon) of Joint Venture Silicon Valley—from the period starting on January 1, 2016 and ending on January 17, 2018. If I can provide any clarification that will help expedite your attention to my request, please contact me at 650-325-5151. I ask that you notify me of any duplication costs exceeding $100 before you duplicate the records so that I may decide which records I want copied. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:16 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, January 18, 2018 12:13 PM To:Chapman, Karen Cc:Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City Subject:Re: Response to Representative Eshoo's communication on Flight Path Changes and Aircraft Noise Dear Karen, Thank you for letting me know, and look forward to hearing FAA's response soon. I believe there is also some trust building that needs to be done at the community level. The open questions about southern arrivals; the confounding lack of progress to mitigate BDEGA and night flights noise, and the length of time it has taken to this point is profoundly disappointing. It's a bit insult to injury as well, that the safety reasons given for coercing concentrated and lower to the ground paths are because of the reduction in distance between planes and the reduction in SFO minima. We now have three near catastrophes at SFO from pushing the envelope. That all of this was known in the design process was not evident when we started out. We had our suspicions and we had to research everything on our own. It is imperative for FAA to work to find truly regional solutions. If you recall, Rep Eshoo at the March 2016 meeting gave an eloquent statement that this was not to be a competition between communities but a competition of ideas. Yet - it has been almost overwhelmingly a runaway train to only cater to the single idea of the Big Sur track. Without traction on the other items people barely got from the Select Committee process, this will be a terrible hoax on the public. We should not have even been doing the ideas competition without the FAA's own ideas, and some from the airlines and other ideas from the airports. A fundamental flaw is relying ONLY on the single ideas from novices which the Select Committee stated in 4.1. Without real solutions, this work still needs to get done to get the airports and airlines on the ball to fix this. I urge that Rep Eshoo PLEASE not keep pushing only the ground track change for Big Sur. Thank you, Jennifer City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:16 PM 2 On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Chapman, Karen <Karen.Chapman@mail.house.gov> wrote: Dear Jennifer, I’m following up with you to let you know we sent your email with technical questions to the FAA for review and response. We followed up with the FAA to let them know you are still waiting for a response. My best, Karen Office of Congresswoman Eshoo From: Jennifer Landesmann [mailto:jlandesmann@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 7:48 PM To: Representative Anna G. Eshoo Cc: Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Chapman, Karen Subject: Response to Representative Eshoo's communication on Flight Path Changes and Aircraft Noise Dear Representative Eshoo, Thank you for your leadership to address jet noise with the FAA, and the important work of helping get relief for impacted people. The following is to alert problems with the follow up to the Select Committee, which I hope that you and FAA can please resolve. In your communication last week, here below, it is stated that the Select Committee (over the course of six months) reviewed "FAA proposals;" however, the Select committee did not review FAA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:16 PM 3 proposals but rather the committee reviewed " dozens of specific recommendations submitted by the three members’ constituencies" as explained in the FAA's Initiative (top of page 2). The Select Committee voted unanimously to support nearly all community ideas, except for the proposal to reconstitute the Big Sur ground track which was not a unanimous vote, and met the consensus threshold, only after criteria and assurances were added to this item. Select Committee members understood early on that noise cannot not be reduced on the Big Sur track if altitudes are also not also reconstituted, or if various issues related to congested airspace remain unresolved. It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole to reduce noise with planes flying low in a congested area. The FAA has since responded that the criteria and assurances requested by the Select Committee cannot be met for the Big Sur track. Work is thus still needed to address this problem. Given the inability to significantly reduce noise with a Big Sur reconstitution proposal (and actually may increase noise for many), it was surprising to hear that Representative Jimmy Panetta and Santa Cruz Supervisor John Leopold announced on Saturday in Santa Cruz, that FAA Western Regional Director Dennis Roberts plans to proceed with implementation of a Big Sur ground track design, with an August 2018 date, dispensing with environmental review. I can only hope this is a mis communication. The lessons from by-passing NEPA laws are costing many Palo Alto families dearly, with livability, productivity. and health impacts from jet noise which should have been averted a long time ago and certainly in planning for Nextgen. Environmental reviews may seem like bureaucratic exercises but they are important because, they offer the public a chance to address mitigations and alternatives to proposed actions. The Select Committee was not a replacement for environmental review. And at no point were communities asked to forego that right. As a matter of fact, at every step of the process, FAA assured environmental reviews in testimony and in writing. Reviews certainly are part of "Design procedures" under FAA Order 7100.41A, PBN processing - step 2 of 5 stages. IFP Gateway PAGE 10 - FAA Initiative: o "Design Activities: This includes the creation of a working group in order to design a procedures/route that meets the project goals and objectives. An environmental review is included in this stage." City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:16 PM 4 The Select Committee accomplished many things (three highlights below), but none replace an environmental review of specific actions being considered. 1) The Select Committee (SC) developed Underlying Principles, and responded to the FAA's "ask" for community Design Criteria. 2) SC heard public testimony from affected residents in three counties. 3) SC Voted on a set of community recommendations, with FAA acting as Technical Support. FAA guided the committee as to what could be asked and considered (or not) at the time these recommendations were developed. The work done by the Select Committee deserves to be followed up now with a hard look at impacts of proposed design changes and a real environmental review. FAA has state of the art tools which were not used during the Select Committee but are very accessible and should be employed soon. Lastly, in the recent FAA response Appendix D page 106 it was confirmed that what has been frequently referred to as a safety issue - to lower altitudes in the Menlo vicinity - goes hand in hand with capacity plans and these were established in the design phase. SFO had insisted in 2014 that nothing had changed except for changes due to the Asiana accident. FOIA analysis obtained thanks to your office in 2015 said otherwise, and a Historical Noise Assessment shows that Palo Alto has been experiencing changes which rise to the FAA's own threshold for significant impact. The cursory Environmental Analysis in 2014 (which did not reveal the planned altitudes or throughput plans for the Menlo vicinity) was misleading and deprived the public of key information which FAA now confirms was known early on in the design phase. Please do not allow for environmental reviews to be by-passed. Moreover, on May 6, 2016, at the Select Committee's organizing meeting you committed (as did the FAA) to provide data and analysis of any proposals. I urge you to please make this a priority, to have proper look at impacts for all proposed designs, before they get baked. With much appreciation for you and your staff's dedication, and Best wishes, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:16 PM 5 Jennifer Landesmann copy: Supervisor Joe Simitian Palo Alto City Council On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Representative Anna G. Eshoo <CA18AEima@mail.house.gov> wrote: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:16 PM 6 November 27, 2017 Dear Mrs. Landesmann, Because you have previously contacted me regarding flight path changes and an increase in aircraft noise affecting you and your community, I want to provide you with an update on this issue. On November 16, 2017, I joined with Congresswoman Jackie Speier (CA-14) and Congressman Jimmy Panetta (CA-20) to release the updated version of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) response to the report and recommendations of the committee on South Bay arrivals. As you may know, myself, Congresswoman Speier, and former Congressman Sam Farr (CA-20) formed a committee in 2016 comprised of 12 local elected officials from our three congressional districts, all impacted by aircraft noise. Over the course of six months, the committee held nearly two dozen meetings to review FAA proposals, receive community input, and develop recommendations for regional solutions to this problem. In November of last year, the committee approved its final report which includes short- and long-term recommendations to the FAA to address aircraft noise in our region. The updated response of the FAA can be viewed on my website here. My colleagues and I share the frustration of our constituents with regard to how long this evaluation by the FAA has taken to produce. However, I’m reassured by the FAA’s statement in the Executive Summary on Page 2 which states, “This report does not represent the end of our work. The FAA continues to commit to work collaboratively with communities and local Members of Congress to address a wide range of noise concerns.” As representatives of the various affected communities throughout the region, we will continue to work together to ensure that the timelines outlined in the report are maintained by the FAA.” While the committee concluded its work at the end of last year, the SFO Airport/Community Roundtable will continue its work for aircraft noise mitigation on behalf of the residents of San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. Rep. Panetta and I who represent parts of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties have followed up on the committee’s recommendation for a permanent venue in the South Bay to address aircraft noise concerns for the currently unrepresented cities in our Congressional Districts. A copy of my letter co-authored with Rep. Ro Khanna (CA-17) can be viewed here and a response from the Cities Association can be found here. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:16 PM 7 I will continue to push the FAA to implement short-term and long-term solutions to address this issue on a region-wide basis. I will also continue to work with my colleagues in the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus to pursue legislative efforts to hold FAA, airlines, and airports accountable to reduce aircraft noise and encourage the industry to adopt new technologies that will reduce noise. As always, constituents can report any excessive aircraft noise complaints to the SFO and SJC Noise Abatement Offices. This ensures that your report is part of the official record. You can reach the SFO Noise Abatement Office at (650) 821- 4736 or via email at sfo.noise@flysfo.com. You can file a complaint with the SJC Noise Abatement Office at http://www.flysanjose.com/fl/environmental.php?page=noise&subtitle=Noise+Abatement. If you have any questions or comments, let me hear from you. I value what my constituents say to me, and I always need your thoughts and benefit from your ideas. Most gratefully, Anna G. Eshoo Member of Congress To share your thoughts or receive updates from me, please visit my website. Unsubscribe City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2018 4:30 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:linda barman <lindabarman3@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, January 23, 2018 11:00 AM To:Council, City; dhorsley@smcgov.org; dpine@smcgov.org; cgroom@smcgov.org; citycouncil@menlopark.org; BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org; wslocum@smcgov.org; dcanepa@smcgov.org Subject:Stanford GUP Dear City Councilmembers and County Supervisors-- First of all, thank you for your work serving our community. I appreciate all the time you spend making our communities a better place, and know that you hardly make a fortune doing so! Your service is appreciated. I live near the proposed Stanford development at 2131 Sand Hill Road. I bike, walk or drive by that address almost every day, at different times of day, and am very familiar with the traffic flow. I pass it on runs, shop at the Safeway there, and visit my elderly in laws who live nearby. I am totally ok with Stanford building new buildings there. Go for it! Build offices, build housing, knock yourself out. Stanford is growing and they need space. No concerns here. I was delighted to hear that it will have no net impact on traffic, since that intersection is already a complete mess. There are a frequent accidents and even a fatality not too long ago, so I'm glad that Stanford has studied it and it won't increase traffic. Since it won't increase traffic, there will be no need for more parking spots at the new development. Maybe more handicapped spots if it doesn't meet current ADA requirements. Stanford must plan on running shuttles from the Caltrain station or shuttling employees there on the Marguerite. That's cool. In other words, approve the buildings, but don't approve the parking spots. If the development really won't increase traffic, they won't need the parking. If Stanford says they still need the parking, well, that shows they're lying about the traffic impact. Or, you know, "adjusting the figures". If a development of that size requires a larger number of parking spots to meet construction regulations, well, if there is parking people will drive. To be serious, the Sand Hill/Alpine/Alameda intersection is already super dangerous. I have literally driven my kids from my inlaws house to a meeting---directly across the street--because it is so dangerous. And Sand Hill at rush hour? Good luck getting anywhere. If Stanford wants to develop there, they need to figure out how to get their employees there without making it worse. Thank you very much for your time and consideration of this matter! Best Regards, Linda Barman Menlo Park Resident Stanford Employee (don't blame me for traffic, I bike!) Mom City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:35 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Maximilian Sent:Saturday, January 20, 2018 9:46 PM To:Council, City Cc:Perez Sanchez, Jose; Simran Pujji; Mallika Parulekar; louisakeyani@gmail.com Subject:The Palo Alto Youth Council Cordially Invites You to our First Ever Meet and Greet with City Council members Honorable City Council Members, Mayor Kniss, and Vice Mayor Filseth: My name is Max and I am a 10th Grader at . Many of you may know me as I am an intern for Greg Tanaka. Today, I am writing to you on behalf of the Palo Alto Youth Council, namely the youth government engagement subcommittee. As you may have heard, the Palo Alto Youth Council conducted a survey in December 2017 to youth in Palo Alto about their opinions regarding the local government. Overall, we received 162 responses from youth in all four grade levels at Henry M Gunn High School, Palo Alto High School, and Castilleja School. Key findings included: only 1.23% of respondents knew who the mayor of Palo Alto was, almost two-thirds of survey responders thought that the Palo Alto City Council had some impact on their lives, and survey responders felt that teen mental health and education were their top issues. I would encourage you to view the full results here. Compelled by the results of the survey, the Palo Alto Youth Council has decided to host a meet-and-greet between Palo Alto City Councilmembers and the public (specifically the youth community). The meet-and- greet will last for approximately two hours, and will consist of a moderated panel discussion followed by an open floor meet-and-greet. Given that we are all have various other commitments, the Palo Alto Youth Council would like to propose the following two dates: Sunday, February 25, 2018 from 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM Monday, March 11, 2018 (local holiday for PAUSD) from 3:00 PM - 5:00 PM We would prefer to host this event at the Mitchell Park Community Center, but would be open to hosting it at city hall. Which of the two proposed dates would you prefer? If you could let us know your availability by Tuesday, January 30, 2018, it would be very much appreciated. Once we have a date set, the Palo Alto Youth Council will start to publicize the event, and hope to expect attendance from at least fifty youth. In this email, I have copied Jose Perez-Sanchez (PAYC advisor), Louisa Keyani (PAYC president), and the other members of the youth government engagement subcommittee (Mallika Parulekar and Simran Pujji). Thank you very much for your ongoing dedication to making Palo Alto a better place for all and I look forward to hearing your responses. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact me at your earliest convenience. Best Regards, Max City of Palo Alto I City Clerk's Office I 1/22/2018 1:35 PM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/22/2018 1:33 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, January 20, 2018 7:28 PM To:Watson, Ron; Council, City Cc:stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu Subject:There’s no excuse for Taser use in our jails- by Richard Konda & Aram James Attachments:Aram James (DJ-1-12-18).pdf > > FYI: > > > > Sent from my iPhone tasered some 20 times by South ports 47% efficacy, but LAPD Boston, Virginia, police officers. far exceeds the size of SFPD. He died. There was substantial The OPD which is closer in evidence that the three officers size to the SFPD, reported that involved ignored the manufac-in 2015 Tasers were deployed turer's warning regarding the on just 37 occasions and 32 risk of repeatedly tasering vie-times in 2016. Oakland reported tiins. In addition, the officers ig-for each year, the efficacy was nored other warnings issued by 50%." Other studies have con- the manufacturer. Under oath at firmed that where warnings are a deposition, one of three offi-complied with the use of Tasers cers involved, Corporal Tiffany drops dramatically. Similarly, Bratton, acknowledged that she numerous studies have con- was aware of the manufacturer's firmed that Tasers have an unac- warnings. In a chilling statement, ceptably high failure rate putting she said, "If I read and abided by both the officers and intended every single warning ... I would victim at risk. not Taser anyone." Moreover, Tasers are not effec- tive. Michael Leonesio, a retired Catch-22 Oakland peace officer, provided More and more attention is answers to questions posed by being paid by commentators to the Bar Association of San Fran- the fact that the use of Tasers is cisco. "Given the warnings is- a Catch-22. Failure by police de-sued by Taser International, does partments to follow closely the this diminish the weapon's effi- ever growing restrictions on the cacy and/or circumstances other- use ofTasers issued by the manu-wise warranting Taser use[?] ... facturer has resulted in unneces-Answer: The latest manufacturer sary deaths and a huge increase warnings and trainings, as well in the costs of litigation borne as the Courts and current case by municipalities. On the other law decisions, have absolutely hand, where police departments limited the circumstances when are closely complying with the a TASER, can and/or, should be manufacturer's complex warn-used. Combine this with the fact ings, they are finding it increas-that the new generation weap- ingly impractical to use Tasers. ons are generating only half the The Oakland Police Department electrical output of the previous has over 700 police officers on generations, and I question the their force, all are armed with current weapons' ability for con- Tasers. The Bar Association of sistent, reliable, subject incapac- San Francisco Criminal Jus-itation." tice Task Force, Committee on Tasers contacted the Oakland Worth the Cost? Police Department to determine how frequently Tasers were de- ployed. "To help answer some of the questions, the BASF also reached out to the Oakland Po- lice Department (OPD) to deter- mine how often Tasers are used, and how often they are effective. It is well known that LAPD re- In June 2017, Taser expert Mi- chael Leonesio, was called as an expert witness before the San Francisco Police Commission on the potential costs of outfitting all members of the SFPD with Tasers. "During his testimony, he estimated the first year in costs to San Francisco at $8,000 to $10,000 per officer which in- eluded the purchase price, main- tenance, training and oversight. Assuming a department size of 2,200 officers, the cost is be- tween $17.6 mi llion and $22 million." Clearly, the sheriff and the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors need to consider the cost factors raised above before expending millions of tax payer dollars on a weapon that is in- creasingly seen as impractical to use. Final Argument Tasers kill on the average of one person per week in the Unit- ed States. According to the Re- uters series, nine out of 10 who die are unarmed. Tasers are un- safe to use in jails because of the substantial risk of injury or death to both inmates and correction officers. The strongest single piece of evidence of this lack of safety is the 1,005 Taser related deaths reported in the Reuters fivepart series on Tasers. Equally powerful evidence of why Tasers should be banned is the ever growing list of restrictions/warn- ings issued by the manufacturer themselves regarding the serious risks of injury and death related to the use of Tasers. The millions that would be spent in arming the correctional officers in the jails with Tasers would be better spent on hiring more and better trained correc- tional officers. Finally, given the recommendations of the Santa Clara County Blue Ribbon Com- mission on Improving Custody Operations, the purchase and use of Tasers in the jails runs counter to the community's loud and re- peated calls for a more humane approach to incarceration. Call to Action When your community is faced with a questionable police practice be it the use of Tasers, inhumane jail conditions, unconstitutional surveillance tactics, racially dis- criminatory police enforcement; be confident that there is a way to organize your community to ef- fectively challenge these issues. Meet early and often with the community and with your local elected officials. Provide them with the necessary information to fully educate them on the is- sues. Call on your local district attorney, who is the chief, law en- forcement officer in every com- munity, to support your efforts to challenge and end police practic- es that diminish public trust for local law enforcement. Remem- ber police practices are not some obscure body of knowledge that we the community need sit back and passively accept. We can in fact make a difference. Aram James is a retired Santa Clara County deputy public de- fender, a member of CJA and a co-founder of the Albert Cobar- rubias Justice Project (ACJP), a grassroots legal advocacy orga- nization located in San Jose. Richard Konda is an attor- ney and executive director of the Asian Law Alliance and the Chairperson of the Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA). Kanda and James have challenged the use of Tasers by law enforcement for more than a decade. Reprinted with permission from the Daily Journal. l!l>2018 Daily Journal Corporation. All rights reserved Reprinted by ReprintPros 949· 702·5390. JtY Qf'i>ALO AlTO.CA CCl'fY CLERK·s Off\CE 18 JAM 24 AH \01 'S City of Palo Alto Board of Supervisors County Executive: Jeffrey Smith Weed Abatement Public Hearing Jan. 22, 2018 City of Palo Alto Leaders: 3101 Alexis Dr. Palo Alto, CA. 94304 Jan. 19, 2018 My husband and I have lived at the above address since 1981. We have taken care of the weed abatement on our property, working with our gardener over several weeks, to clear vegetation. We understand the need and appreciate the Palo Alto Fire Department who makes inspections of our property every spring. When the Fire Department made their inspection, the weeds were gone, and we have a copy of their assessment. We are protesting the Weed Abatement fee to inspect our property of $90. We have always maintained the 30 foot clearance, as evidenced by the Fire Department records, and will continue to do so. Obviously, in years of heavy rain, we must start at the end of March, even though the hillside is still wet, to comply with the County rules. We will do so. Please consider our record of 37 years of compliance and rescind this onerous property inspection fee. Thank you, ~~~~'-f:/t.~~~ Diane Bottoms Board Meeting Minutes November 28, 2017 7 .3 Consider Establishment of a District Counsel Ad Hoc Committee Page2 The Board shall discuss establishment of a District Counsel ad hoc committee. President Famulener suggested keeping the same committee members who are on the Labor Negotiator Ad Hoc Committee -Directors Anderson and Barber. Motion by Director Jorgens and seconded by President Famulener to establish a District Counsel Ad Hoc Committee made up of Directors Anderson and Barber. Said motion carried a unanimous 5- 0 roll-call vote (Ayes: Anderson, Barber, Famulener, Jex, and Jergens). President Famulener announced that the Board would like to calendar a special meeting for December 6, 2017 at 9:00 A.M. 8. Adjournment At 10:40 A.M., President Famulener called for adjournment of the special meeting and announced that the Board would be returning to Closed Session. 9. Reconvene the Meeting President Famulener reconvened the special business meeting of the Moraga-Orinda Fire District Board of Directors at 11 :45 A.M. Present were the following Directors and Staff: Director Anderson (Teleconference) Director Jex Director Barber 10. Report of Closed Session Action President Famulener Director Jorgens There was no reportable action taken on item 3.2 Public Employee Appointment (Fire Chief). 11. Public Comment There was no comment from the public. 12. Adjournment At 11 :45 A.M., President Famulener called for adjournment of the special meeting. For an audio recording of this and other Board meetings, please visit the MOFD District Board Meeting webpage hltp:/lwww.mofd.org/board/meetings • M/S/C Leung, passed unanimously. New Business Hall of Fame Nomination forms are being accepted. The deadline to submit is Friday, January 12, 2018. STANDING COMMITTEES A. Committee for Older Adults Pat Way reported 1. Next meeting will be held on December 6, 2017 at 11 :00 a.m. B. Committee for Adults Reported by Dorothy Christian C. Committee for Children & Youth Reported by Betty Savin MHSAUPDATE DIRECTOR'S REPORT Serenity House Delays Federal Solutions Group, the contractor for the construction of Serenity House has defaulted on the construction agreement due to financial reasons on October 31st. The bonding company required by the County, Fidelity, stepped in and has replaced the contractor with another at no additional cost to the County. The Board of Supervisors approved the contract yesterday. A new construction schedule is not finalized and the new construction company, but not delivered due to lack of payment. This latest tum of events will delay opening until late summer or fall. Health Plan of San Mateo and BHRS Annual Plan The Health Plan of San Mateo (HPSM) and BHRS have agreed to develop an annual plan that will set priorities and focus on efforts to strengthen the relationship between the two parties. Central to the effort will be a process by which BHRS identifies specific areas to improve, develops a proposal and presents to HPSM, which will then support the initiative and assist with implementations. There will be 3 to 4 initiatives targeted for development in Calendar Year 2018 with proposal originating with BHRS and refined with HPSM. This will be a pathway to a strategic plan in the second and third years providing alignment and linkages with respective enterprise planning and pilot programs. Developing a Culture of Quality The Commission was most likely informed previously that BHRS had hired Health Management Associates (HMA) last year to provide an analysis of the Quality Management Unit due to a change in the leadership of the unit and the introduction of new managed care rules by the Federal government and State. HMA was to look for opportunities to increase the focus of quality improvement and make staffing recommendations. The report issued by HMA actually recommended that a "Culture of Quality" needed to be developed agency-wide. Over the last few months, the report was reviewed across the management ranks and agreement has aligned to move forward with the effort. HMA has been retained for the current year and the scope of work includes: Culture of Quality Strategy; Develop a single Model of Care across all clinics; Develop a standardization Strategy; Assist with strengthening Clinical Leadership within BHRS; and assist with continues integration with primary care. External Quality Review Organization Visit The annual EQRO program review is slated for December 14th and 15th. This review is a Federal requirement for agencies using Federal funding. EQRO looks at quality, timeliness, and access to health care services by on-site review. EQRO validates performance measures, performance improvement projects, health information system capabilities, state and county consumers satisfaction surveys, key activities and significant changes, strengths, improvement opportunities, and makes recommendations. Consumers and parents of child consumers are needed for participation in focus groups as part of the review and should contact Claudia at (650) 573-2189. The parent group is 1 :00-2:30PM on 12/13 and the adult is 10:15-11 :45AM on 12/14. The two performance improvement projects for this review that are under way are 1) Reduction of the use of "Not Otherwise Specified (NOS)" diagnoses; 2) Follow up to hospital discharges. An example of performance measures and access data that the EQRO will review includes: a. Time to first appointment: Adult 3 days, Youth 6 days, Both 4 days. b. Time to first find Doctor appointment: Adult 21 days, Youth 52 days. Both 25 days c. Follow up to hospitalization within 7 days: Adult 45%, Youth 50%, Both 46% d. Hospital readmissions w/in 30 days: Adult 16%, Youth 2%, Both 15% e. No show rate for Psychiatrists: Adult 3%, Youth 2%, Both 3% f. No show rate for Therapists: Adult 3%, Youth 3%, Both 3% One Last Quality Item After over 250 days in recruitment, there is a successful candidate to fill our vacant Quality Manager position. The announcement is forthcoming to allow for communication of this result on the candidate's end of things. San Mateo Legislation Becomes Law for Data Sharing The County of San Mateo has participated with the Counties of Santa Cruz and Santa Clara in the Silicone Valley Reginal Data Trust, which is one of a kind data project that pulls information from Behavioral Health, Child Welfare, Probation, and Education information systems real time, based on unique user permissions for the purpose of improving child outcomes. AB 597 was approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor this last October and creates the first of its kind of data sharing authority that pulls data from multiples systems, displays as a query, without actually removing data from the agency information systems and storing it for the query. The legislation is one-step of many to navigate the legal aspects of sharing this type of data and the platform being built is so unique that Google CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, has contributed $3 million and a team of engineers to develop it. The system's goal is to "stimulate change in the culture and practice of how data is responsibly and ethically used to develop actionable solutions to critical educational, health and social problems. I am happy to entertain any questions at any time. Your service on the Commission is greatly appreciated and BHRS is a better organization because of you! Liaison, Task Force and Ad Hoc Committees: There was nothing to report at the time of this meeting. PROGRAM PRESENTATION Adult System of Care -Crisis Services Presented by: Karen Krahn, Deputy Director Adult Services Pemille Gutschick, Clinical Services Manager II Development over the last Decade • 5150s to Psychiatric Emergency Services • Community Response T earn 1989 • Crisis Intervention Training 2005 • Field Crisis Collaborative Committee 2006 • Psychiatric Emergency Response Team 2015 • Serenity House 2018 5150s • Criteria: Danger to Self, Danger to Others or Gravely Disabled due to a mental illness. Up to 72 hour hold written only by authorized personnel • Destination: Peninsula Hospital or San Mateo Medical Center. Usually transported by police or ambulance/SMART • Changes in the law -AB 1424 San Mateo County form: Information from Family Member or Other Concerned Party Community Response Team • Provide services to mitigate the psychological reactions to a major community crisis or disaster and to enhance recovery. • Multidisciplinary Staff from BHRS and Partner Agencies Family partners, peer support workers, clinicians, nurses, psychiatrists and other staff as needed. • Members have many different skills in working with various populations (youth, adults and older adults) • Different language and cultural response abilities • Collaborates with Red Cross and other agencies when needed • Recent Examples of Response: San Bruno Fire, Asiana Airlines Disaster, Outreach to School around Youth Suicide, North Bay Fires Crisis Intervention Training Joint Effort Between: National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI), Sheriffs Office and BHRS • 2005-2015 2 classes/year offered -50 first responders trained • 2015 increased to 4 larger classes/year -170 first responders trained • Course is 40 hours, now mandated and consists of: o Variety of training in understanding about Mental Illness, Substance Abuse , Deme11tia, Intellectual disabilities, Conservatorships, Specialty Populations such as Veterans. o Family and Consumer Panels present their experience with mental illness and other challenging circumstances. o Site visits and roleplays to practice skills. Field Crisis Collaboration Committee County wide multidisciplinary meeting meets monthly and collaborate in between meetings. Purpose: Agencies working together to assist individuals in our community to recover and engage in the appropriate services. Participants: District Attorney's Office, Private Defender's, Specialty Court Programs, Law Enforcement Jurisdictions, Probation, NAMI, Psychiatric Emergency, Aging and Adult Services, Conservators Offices, Sobering Station, Detox Services Various community Based Organizations serving people with mental illness, Various teams from BHRS. Psychiatric Emergency Response Team PERT • Pilot program between the Sheriff's Office and BHRS, 1 detective and 1 program specialist • Resources for all deputies on patrol for consultation in the field. • Review all 5150s in the Sheriffs jurisdiction • Follow up on 5150s requiring support and connection to services • Participate in countywide efforts to serve the community. Serenity House • Short term Crisis Residential Facility • In construction phase now • 10 bed capacity -Average stay 10 days Purpose: To assist community members with public insurance who are experiencing a mental health crisis that does not require hospitalization. A safe place to stabilize and get connected to appropriate services needed. Meeting Adjourned: The meeting was adjourned at 4:35 p.m . Next MHSARC Meeting: Next Executive Committee Meeting: January 3, 2018 from 3:00-5:00 p.m. 225 37th Avenue, Room 100 San Mateo, CA 94403 Tuesday, December 19, 2017, at 3:30 p.m. 2000 Alameda de las Pulgas, Suite 235 San Mateo PLEASE BE SURE TO CONTACT CHANTAE ROCHESTER AT 650.573.2544 IF YOU ARE UNABLE TO ATTEND EITHER TUE MHSARC OR EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING. ln compliance with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA), auxiliary aids and services for this meeting will be provided upon request when given three-day notice. Please call 650.573.2544. January 18, 2018 Mayor Kniss, Vice Mayor Filseth and Council Members, lco~~~ING [ ] ~d Bdi .re Meeting (..o1'Received al ~leeting The members of the California Avenue Area Business Association (CAABA) listed below have reviewed the staff report before you on Monday, January 22, 2018 that proposes a reduction in the size of the new California Avenue garage. The proposed reduction to only one sub-level rather than two is ill-advised and we ask that the Council approve the original proposal that includes two sub-levels. We understand the reduction is proposed as a cost-saving measure to help meet other City infrastructure and transportation needs. We believe this is a short-sighted mistake and strongly encourage the Council to approve the original design with two sub-levels for the following reasons: • City representatives, from mayors to City staff, have been discussing a new garage with the Cal Ave business community for nearly 15 years. Over that entire time, the stated intention of the City was to build as large a garage as possible to accommodate the increased needs of the area. • It has been an ongoing discussion among both City and Cal Ave area businesses that the area should become a more vibrant commercial district serving more retail and residential needs. Based on that goal, the City encouraged area development, made multiple new enhancements to the avenue and approved multiple new developments with added customers and local workers that have brought increased business to the area, and , with it, increased need for parking (e .g. Visa's new office building, 3 active developments on Park Boulevard, new buildings proposed for Cambridge and Sherman Avenues, and several new restaurants). Older businesses expanded or upgraded, and new businesses located in the area based on the improved business climate for the district and in reliance on the understanding that parking deficits created by this intensification would be addressed with the largest new parking garage possible. • If there is a financial shortfall for the infrastructure needs of the City, we ask the Council to find other projects that may be deferred and authorize the original capacity Cal Ave garage which the City Council approved last Spring. For example, the $6. 7M upgrade of Fire Station #3 could be deferred without violating any deadline and would pay for the second level, or portions of the bike/pedestrian plan could be delayed for a period of time without any significant cost impact. This 11th-hour change caught area businesses by surprise with almost no time for review and response. The garage design and capacity· have been reviewed several times with area businesses and residents and the proposal with two sub-levels was approved by the City Council last Spring The proposal to significantly reduce the capacity of the new parking facility is nothing less than a breach of faith with the business community that has worked collaboratively with the City for so many years on this project. This is the last possible garage development for the California Avenue commercial district. No other garage is planned or, even if envisioned, would be unlikely for the next several decades. This is an opportunity that should not be short-changed or diminished when there are viable options to build the garage the area needs and still meet other infrastructure needs of the City. This priority has not changed and in fact the need has intensified over the 15 years of review and discussion. If the Council cannot approve the garage with two sub-levels, the matter should be put over for a review of City infrastructure priorities, with time for the area businesses to work with staff on an acceptable garage proposal. Respectfully, Jessica Roth: The Cobblery Peter Katz: Managing Partner, Counter Intelligence LLC, The Counter Robert Martinez: Palo Alto Eyeworks Maxime Roucoule: Pastis John Garcia: Mollie Stone's Market Israel Rind: Izzy's Bagels Abraham Khalil: Med Wraps Terry Shuchat: California Avenue Property Owner (Keeble & Shuchat Photography) Jack Morton: President, CAABA Mora Oommen: Blossom Birth Mike Meffert: Meffert Investment, LLC and California Avenue Property Owner Philippe Lehot: Villerousse Properties, LLC Malek Kaci: La Boheme Galen Fletcher: Sundance The Steakhouse Lynn and Bob Davidson: California Avenue Property Owners Hai To: Campus Barbershop Elena Silverman: Country Sun Natural Foods Jennifer Allen and Mike Maystead: PIP Printing Don Lundell and Gillian Robinson: Zombie Runner Lara and Michael Ekwall: La Bodeguita del Medic Dino Tekdemir: Anatolian Kitchen Franco Campilongo: Terun & ltalico Margot Goldberg: Palo Alto Central Peter Brewer: Law Offices of Peter Brewer N. Brewer Zareen Khan: Zareen's Restaurant Aaron Ryan: Amity Cross Fit Lori Villareal: True Salon & Calave Wine Bar Jeff Davidson: California Paint Chris Gaines: Performance Gaines Anthony Secviar: Protege Al Ghafouri: Printers Cafe Rory Shannon: Summit Bicycles Kyle Talbott: Grey Matters Ann Vuong: La Jolie Nail Spa Jack Morton, Chair California Avenue Area Business Association 112212018 Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley. California. US: A before·and-after study ·.@9·PLOS I MEDICINE • • Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study Lynn 0. Silver , Shu Wen Ng . Suzanne Ryan-Ibarra, Lindsey Smith Taillie. Marta lnduni, Donna R. Miles. Jennifer M. Poti, Barry M. Popkin Published: April 18, 2017 • https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002283 Abstract Background ' COUNCIL MEETING 1-.:&,2-i S< . [ J Placed Before M~etmg [ ] Received at Meeung Taxes on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) meant to improve health and raise revenue are being adopted, yet evaluation Is scarce. This study examines the association of the first penny per ounce SSB excise tax in the United States, in Berkeley, California. with beverage prices. sales, store revenue/consumer spending, and usual beverage intake. Methods and findings Methods included comparison of pre-taxation (before 1 January 2015) and first-year post-taxation (1 March 2015-29 February 2016) measures of (1) beverage prices at 26 Berkeley stores; (2) point~of-sale scanner data on 15.5 million checkouts for beverage prices. sales, and store revenue for two supermarket chains covering three Berkeley and six control non-Berkeley large supermarkets in adjacent cities; and (3) a representative telephone survey (1 7.4% cooperation rate) of 957 adult Berkeley residents. Key hypotheses were that (1) the tax would be passed through to the prices of taxed beverages among the chain stores in which Berkeley implemented the tax in 2015; (2} sales of taxed beverages would decline, and sales of untaxed beverages would rise, in Berkeley stores more than in comparison non-Berkeley stores; (3) consumer spending per transaction (checkout episode) would not increase in Berkeley stores; and (4} self-reported consumption of taxed beverages would decline. hllp://joumals .plos .org/plosmcdicine/article ?id= 10. l 371 /journal .pmc<!. I 002283 )(24 1122/2018 Ch:ingcs in prices, sales, consumer spending. and beverage consumption one year aft.er a taX on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley. California, US> A before-and-after study Main outcomes and measures included changes in inflation-adjusted prices (cents/ounce), beverage sales (ounces}, consumers' spending measured as store revenue (inflation-adjusted dollars per transaction) in two large chains, and usual beverage intake (grams/day and kilocalories/day). Tax pass-through (changes in the price after imposition of the tax) for SSBs varied in degree and timing by store type and beverage type. Pass-through was complete in large chain supermarkets (+1 .07¢/oz, p = 0.001) and small chain supermarkets and chain gas stations (1.31¢/oz, p = 0.004), partial in pharmacies (+0.45¢/oz, p = 0.03). and negative in independent corner stores and independent gas stations (-0.64¢/oz, p = 0.004). Sales-unweighted mean price change from scanner data was +0.67¢/oz (p = 0.00) (sales-weighted, +0.65¢/oz, p = 0.003), with +1 .09¢/oz (p < 0.001) for sodas and energy drinks, but a lower change in other categories. Post-tax year 1 scanner data SSB sales (ounces/transaction) in Berkeley stores declined 9.6% (p < 0.001) compared to estimates if the tax were not in place, but rose 6.9% (p < 0.001) for non-Berkeley stores. Sales of untaxed beverages in Berkeley stores rose by 3.5% versus 0.5% (both p < 0.001) for non-Berkeley stores. Overall beverage sales also rose across stores. In Berkeley, sales of water rose by 15.6% (p < 0.001) (exceeding the decline in SSB sales in ounces); untaxed fruit, vegetable, and tea drinks, by 4.37% (p < 0.001); and plain milk, by 0.63% (p = 0.01). Scanner data mean store revenue/consumer spending (dollars per transaction) fell 18¢ less in Berkeley (-$0.36, p < 0.001) than in comparison stores (-$0.54, p < 0.001). Baseline and post-tax Berkeley SSB sales and usual dietary intake were markedly low compared to national levels (at baseline, National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey SSB intake nationally was 131 kcal/d and in Berkeley was 45 kcal/d}. Reductions in self-reported mean daily SSB intake in grams (-19.8%, p = 0.49) and in mean per capita SSB caloric intake (-13.3%, p = 0.56) from baseline to post-tax were not statistically significant. Limitations of the study include inability to establish causal links due to observational design, and the absence of health outcomes. Analysis of consumption was limited by the small effect size in relation to high standard error and Berkeley's low baseline consumption. Conclusions One year following implementation of the nation's first large SSB tax, prices of SSBs increased in many, but not all, settings, SSB sales declined, and sales of untaxed beverages (especially water) and overall study beverages rose in Berkeley; overall consumer spending per transaction in the stores studied did not rise. Price increases for SSBs in two distinct data sources, their timing, and the patterns of change in taxed and untaxed beverage sales suggest that the observed changes may be attributable to the tax. Post-tax self-reported SSS intake did not change significantly compared to baseline. Significant declines in SSS sales, even in this relatively affluent community, accompanied by revenue used for prevention suggest promise for this policy. Evaluation of taxation in jurisdictions with more typical SSB consumption, with controls, is needed to assess broader dietary and potential health impacts. Author summary Why was this study done? > Berkeley passed the first large (one cent per ounce) tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) in the United States in November 2014, affording a unique opportunity for evaluation. hup://journals.plos.orglplosmedidne/articlc?id= I 0.1371 /joumal .pmed. I 002283 2/24 112212018 Changes m prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year aft.er a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US, A before-.and·after study > It was unknown to what extent people would change beverage purchasing in response to a tax, especially in a relatively prosperous community. > Few high-quality evaluations from other countries existed; studies of Mexico's tax (implemented starting January 2014) found substantial but not complete "pass-through" of the tax to consumers for taxed beverages. a 6% reduction in sales in the first year, and a 9% decrease in sales to lower-income households. What did the researchers do and find? > Three before-and-after studies were carried out: one of store scanner records from 15.5 million checkouts in two chains of large groq!ries in Berkeley and comparison cities; one of 26 stores of various types in Berkeley: and one random digit dialing telephone survey of consumption by Berkeley residents. > In the 15.5 million supermarket checkouts studied, 67% of the amount of the tax was passed on to consumers across all SSBs, and the tax was fully passed through for sodas and energy drinks; In the 26-store survey, the tax was more than fully passed on in Berkeley large and small chain groceries and gas stations, especially for carbonated beverages; partially passed on in pharmacies; and not passed on in small independent gas stations and corner stores. > Sales in ounces of taxed SSBs fell by 9.6% in relation to predicted sales in the absence of the tax, while sales of untaxed beverages rose 3.5% and total beverage sales rose in Berkeley. Consumer spending per transaction (average grocery bill) did not increase, nor did store revenue fall more in Berkeley, while SSB sales rose 6.9% in comparison cities. > Berkeley residents were low consumers of SSBs at baseline (consuming only 34% of the national average of SSBs). Dietary intake surveys found shifts of -19.8% (p = 0.49) in mean daily SSB intake (grams) and -13.3% (p = 0.56) in mean calories from SSBs that were not statistically significant, while caloric intake of untaxed beverages (milk and other diary-based beverages) increased. What do these findings mean? > Berkeley's innovative tax on SSBs was mostly, though not uniformly, passed through to consumers, and sales of SSBs declined significantly, consistent with published price elastfcity estimates. > There was no evidence in studied chains of higher grocery bills for consumers, loss of gross revenue per transaction for stores, or decreases in overall beverage sales for stores. While telephone respondents did not report changes in shopping location, scanner data were consistent with some increased purchasing of SSBs in neighboring cities. > The findings of this study, while limited by its observational design, suggest that SSB taxes may be effective in shifting consumers to purchase healthier beverages without causing undue economic hardship and while raising revenue for social objectives. > Population-based findings on SSB consumption were not definitive, and consumption should be further evaluated in more typical communities and with larger samples. Citation: Silver LO, Ng SW, Ryan-Ibarra S, Taillie LS, lnduni M, Miles DR, et al. (2017) Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study. PLoS Med 14(4): e1002283. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002283 http://joumals.plos.org/plosmedicinefarticle7id= I 0 .1371 /joumal .pmed. I 002283 3/24 112212018 Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending. and beverage consumption one year after a laX on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study Academic Editor: Claudia Langenberg, University of Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM Received: November 9, 2016; Accepted: March 10, 2017; Published: April 18, 2017 Copyright: © 2017 Silver et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability: Data are from the UNC-PHI Berkeley Evaluation of SSB Tax study. Datasets from the de-identified telephone survey and from the 26 store survey can be made fully available without restriction upon request. The retail scanner data set is available in aggregate form combined across chains due to confidentiality restrictions required when obtaining voluntary data sharing from stores. The databases and accompanying documentation are available at: http://globalfoodresearchprogram.web.unc.edu/research-in-the-united-states/u-s-policy-evaluations/Berkeley-SSB-Tax Funding: Funding for this study came primarily from the Bloomberg Philanthropies, with support from the Carolina Population Center and its NIH Center grant (P2C HD050924) at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Funders had no role design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Competing interests: BMP is on an NAS committee focused on preschool beverage consumption, chairs the Choices International Foundation scientific committee, has been a co-investigator of one random controlled trial funded by Nestle's Water USA, but has never consulted for them. BMP presented a paper on SSB global trends in a symposium at the British Nutrition Society symposium sponsored by Danone Waters. LOS is a volunteer board member of the Center for Science in the Public Interest and has worked as a consultant, both pa id and volunteer, for the World Health Organization, and organizations which have advocated for sugar sweetened beverage taxes. LOS has also donated to Berkeley's Measure D and advocated for its approval. SWN is on the expert advisory committee for the Philadelphia sweetened beverage tax evaluation project that is being conducted by researchers at University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University. Abbreviations: CPI, Consumer Price Index; SSS, sugar-sweetened beverage Introduction Sugar-sweetened beverage (SSS) consumption is linked to increased body weight, diabetes, cardiovascular risk factors, and dental caries, amongst other conditions [1,2]. Significant SSB taxes have been proposed and increasingly adopted as part of a comprehensive approach to obesity and diabetes prevention [3-5] with extensive potential health and social benefits [2,5-7]. Over 20 countries have passed strengthened SSB taxes of varying sizes, with a growing emphasis on larger excise taxes [6,8-10]. http://joumals.pJos.org/plosmcdicinelruticle?id=I O. L37 l/joumal .pmed, I 002283 4124 112212018 Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year a!lcr a tax on sugar-swc~tcncd beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A bc:forc-ond-aftcr study Setting. The city of Berkeley, located in California's Bay Area, had an estimated 121,000 inhabitants in 2015 and covers only 10.5 square miles. Residents are 55% non-Hispanic white, 19% Asian, 11% Hispanic or Latino, 10% African-American, and 21% foreign- born. Berkeley is home to a large public university and a very highly educated population, with 71 % of those over age 25 y holding a bachelor's degree or higher. Nevertheless, it has a high percentage of residents in poverty (20.4% versus 15.3% for California and 13.5% nationwide), though the median income of $66,237 is about 10% above the median for the state as a whole and 23% above the US median (12). Store price surveys. Store price surveys were conducted in December 2014 (pre-tax), June 2015 (4 months post-tax), and March 2016 (13 months post-tax, and 2 months into self-distributor tax collection) among a targeted sample of large supermarkets, small chain supermarkets, chain and independent gas stations, pharmacies (drugstores), and independent corner stores located in Berkeley, California (n = 26). Six top stores were identified from the telephone survey (described below), and the remainder were selected randomly within their type. Store price surveys collected 744 prices in December 2014, 798 prices in June 2015, and 633 prices in March 2016 for a standard panel of 70 beverages, which included 45 taxed and untaxed branded beverages in a variety of sizes. It was possible to collect 313 prices for 55 of the 70 products in the standard panel in all three rounds in the same stores. S1 Text provides details on the store price survey design. Point-of-sale data. Point-of-sale electronic scanner data were requested using personal outreach to all large supermarkets in Berkeley, as well as to pharmacies, small supermarkets, ethnic markets, convenience stores, and gas stations with scanner systems, and with extensive follow-up as needed to owners or corporate headquarters. Ultimately, two chains of large supermarkets with three of the city's nine large groceries provided electronic data covering 1 January 2013 through 29 February 2016 (26 months pre-tax; 12 months post-tax). They also provided data on six Bay Area control stores. Data covered 118.8 million barcode scans from 15.5 million transactions (checkout episodes), with 16.2 million barcode scans involving beverages (16,769 unique barcodes), of which 10.8 million barcode scans (5,631 unique barcodes) are included here. S2 Text describes the point-of- sale study design and the stores and beverage products included in our analyses. The tax status of each beverage was classified using the Berkeley law [13], nutrition data from product websites, and ingredient data from Mintel [14]. Dietary and shopping behavior surveys. These telephone surveys were conducted November-December 2014 (pre- tax/baseline) and November-December 2015 (post-tax/follow-up). The sample was identified using dual frame (landline/cellular) random digit dialing that oversampled lower income census blocks (>50% of households with annual gross household income <$100, 000) in Berkeley. Only Berkeley residents were interviewed. Oral informed consent was obtained from all participants. Trained interviewers used standardized questionnaires and computer-assisted telephone interviews to collect information on beverage shopping locations and behaviors, demographics, and 24-h recall of beverage intake [15]. To adjust for typical daily intake, a second 24-h beverage recall interview was collected 3--7 d later from consenting respondents. Sampling weights were calculated using iterative proportional fitting (raking) [16] to adjust the data to demographic proportions for Berkeley, California, obtained from the United States Census Bureau for 2010 (12). Details on the sample design, other methods, and response rates are found in SS Text. Caloric intake from beverages consumed was calculated using nutrition data from product websites, nutrition facts panel data from Mintel [14), and US Department of Agriculture databases [17, 18J. Analytical approaches hltp:l/joumals.plos .org/plosmedicine/article7id~ J 0 1371 ljoumal .pmed. I 002283 6124 1/22/2018 Changes in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a taX on sugar-sweetened beverages in Berkeley. California. US: A beforc-nnd-aftcr study Changes in prices. Prices were calculated based on prices paid, excluding sales tax and California Redemption Value bottle fee. Inflation-adjusted prices were derived by applying the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index (CPI} for the monthly average price of non-alcoholic beverages [19] to price measures, using January 2013 as the base. To measure changes in price after imposition of the tax, known as "pass-through," using prices from the store price surveys, we compared the mean prices in cents/ounce of beverage products collected across the 26 stores in Berkeley at three time points (December 2014, June 2015, and March 2016} using paired /-tests. Data were analyzed using only beverages that could be matched for product and size across all three rounds, reflecti ng same product prices, rather than total consumer experience. For details see S1 Text. Point-of-sale data included repeated measures of beverages sold (at barcode level) at both Berkeley and non-Berkeley stores, during both pre-tax and post-tax periods (see S2 Text for details). We used a fixed effects approach using the price (cents/ounce) of taxed beverages per barcode-month-store as the outcome, controlling for month-year (relative to January 2013} and potential underreporting due to data that were missing completely at random because of technical (data storage) issues for some stores on random days that contributed to the monthly value. For model specifications, see S3 Text. From the models, adjusted beverage prices (cents/ounce} in Berkeley versus non-Berkeley stores overall and by beverage category were derived. Since the tax implementation timeline was altered, the January-February 2015 period was ambiguous with regards to tax implementation and price change, so we compared prices from March-December in 2016 to the same 10-month period in earlier years. All analyses were conducted in Stata 13 [20]. Changes in sales and store revenue (consumer spending). Store-day data on the volume of taxed and untaxed beverages (ounces per transaction) and average daily store revenues (CPI- adjusted dollars per transaction) from all sales were the key outcomes and were modeled separately. We examined whether there were differences in these outcomes in non-Berkeley stores by distance from Berkeley. Comparison stores were classified into zones: zone 1, adjacent to Berkeley (two stores in two citres); zone 2, San Francisco (one store); and zone 3, ~20 miles (three stores in three cities) (see map in S4 Text). Since the beverage volume distributions (and their residuals) were skewed, outcomes were log-transformed to normalize distributions. For the volume outcomes, ordinary least squares models were used, with controls for store ID, day of week, holiday and holiday eve, month, year, number of transactions (linear and quadratic), a post-tax indicator, and interactions of store ID with the post-tax indicator, month, and year, correcting the standard errors by clustering the analyses at the city level. A similar model was used for revenue per transaction (a measure of the gross revenue for the stores as well as customer's spending in these stores), excluding number of transactions as a control. To test whether the post-tax trend in sales differed significantly from the pre-tax trend, we predicted taxed and untaxed beverage sale volume and store revenue per transaction if the post-tax indicator= 0 during March 2015-February 2016 (i.e., a "counterfactual" for if the tax had not been implemented [9]) and compared these predicted values to the adjusted volumes observed during the post-tax period, For detailed specifications, see S4 Text Changes in usual intake of beverages. Using a repeated cross-sectional approach, the National Cancer Institute method was used to estimate the usual intake distribution (kilocalories/day and grams/day) of taxed and untaxed beverages in each year, controlling for age, gender, race/ethnicity, education, income, weekend (including Friday), and recall sequence [21 ,22}. To account for the large proportion of nonconsumers http://jouma.ls.pios.org/p!osmedicinc/article?id= l 0.1371 /joumal .pmed. I 002283 71'1A 112212018 Chnnges in prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption one year after a tax on sugar-swcelcned beverages in Berkeley. California, US: A before-and-after study Top: price change between December 2014 (round 1) and March 2016 (round 3). Bottom: price change between December 2014 (round 1) and June 2015 (round 2). Sample limited to 55 product types with 313 prices across stores that were collected in all three rounds of the store price survey; of these, 56% were prices for taxed beverages and 44% for untaxed beverages. Prices account for inflation. Values in bold italics show the price difference between taxed and untaxed beverages. *Statistically significant difference between prices in later round (March 2016 or June 2015) compared to December 2014 at p < 0.05 using paired t-tests. **Statistically significant difference between prices in later round (March 2016 or June 2015) compared to December 2014 at p < 0.01 using paired t-tests. :t:statistically significant difference of price of taxed beverages compared to untaxed beverages at p < 0.05 (unpaired t-tests since taxed and untaxed beverage items are different). Source: store price survey data collected by Public Health Institute. https://doi.org/10.1371~ournal.pmed.1002283.g002 Point-of-sale prices from two supermart<et chains Fig 3 shows the model adjusted sales-unweighted beverage prices in Berkeley and non-Berkeley stores, illustrating the price differential for taxed versus untaxed beverages and change in prices of taxed beverages over time. Among taxed beverages, there were visible price increases in Berkeley stores after January 2015, but it was not until around April 2015 that prices stabilized. Specifically, among the Berkeley stores, taxed beverages had price change of +0.83¢/oz (p < 0.001), while this was only +0.16¢/oz (p < 0.001) in non-Berkeley stores, for a net difference of +0.67¢/oz (p < 0.001). Meanwhile, there were no statistically significant differences in the prices of untaxed beverages between Berkeley and non-Berkeley stores in the post-tax period. Sales-unweighted pass-through was complete among sodas and energy drinks (+1.09¢/oz), but incomplete for the other taxed beverage groups (S8 Table). Sales-weighted price changes for taxed beverages was similar, at +0.69¢/oz (S9 Table). Fig 3. Point-of-sale model adjusted beverage prices (cents per ounce) in Berkeley versus non-Berkeley stores (sales unweighted). Fixed effects models account for the month-year (indicator variables), store located or not located in Berkeley, interaction of Berkeley store and month-year, and an indicator variable of underreported sales data from each store in particular month. Prices account for inflation. Vertical lines demarcate the pre-tax period (January 2013-December 2014), the ambiguous period (January-February 2015), and the post-tax period (March 2015-February 2016). Full sales-unweighted results can be http:l/joumals.plos .org/plosmedicine/article?id= I 0.1371 ljoumal .pmed. I 002283 9/24 112212018 Changes io prices, sales, consumer spending, and beverage consumption One ye<!! after a rax on sugar-sweelcocd beverages in Berkeley, California, US: A before-and-after study found in SB Table. Full sales-weighted results can be found in S9 Table. 0 Statistically significant difference between the Berkeley and non-Berkeley prices for March-December 2015 at p < 0.01 . Source: point-of-sale data from two chains of large supermarkets in the Bay Area obtained by the Public Health Institute. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed. 1002283.g003 Point-of-sale volume sold In two supermarket chains The volume of untaxed beverages sold was consistently higher than for taxed beverages in all locations January 2013-February 2016 (Fig 4), and both types of sales were consistently and markedly lower in Berkeley than in comparison stores overall, and most notably in neighboring zone 1 stores, suggesting lower baseline purchasing of SSBs and of beverages in general. http://joumals.plos.org/plosmcdicinc/article?id=I 0 .1371fjouroal.pmed.l002283 10/24 1122/2018 Sugary drink tax -Wikipcdia teenager's diets.l14ll15J Trends indicate that traditional soda consumption is declining in many developed economies, but growing rapidly in middle income economies such as Vietnam and India. In the United States, the single biggest market for carbonated soft drinks, consumers annual average per capita purchase of soda was 154 liters.l1 6l Denmark began taxing soft drinks and juices in the 1930s. More recently, Finland reintroduced an earlier soft drink tax in 2011, while Hungary taxes sugary drinks as part of its 2011 public health product tax, which covers all food products with unhealthy levels of sugar. France introduced a targeted sugar tax on soft drinks in 2012.l171 At a national level similar measures have also been announced in Mexico in 2013 and in the United Kingdom in 2016. In November 2014, Berkeley, California was the first city in the U.S. to pass a targeted tax on surgary drinks. Tobacco taxes Proponents of soda taxes cite the success of tobacco taxes worldwide when explaining why they think a soda tax will work to lower soda consumption.r18l Where the main concern with tobacco is cancer, the main concerns with soda are diabetes and obesity. The tactics used to oppose soda taxes by soda companies mimic those of tobacco companies, including funding research that downplays the health risks of its products.1191 Economics and Economic Theory of the tax The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that a targeted tax on sugar in soda could generate $14.9 billion in the first year alone. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that three-cent-per-ounce tax would generate over $24 billion over four years.l20l Some tax measures call for using the revenue collected to pay for relevant health needs: improving diet, increasing physical activity, obesity prevention, nutrition education, advancing healthcare reform, etc.l211 Another area to which the revenue raised by a soda tax might go, as suggested by Mike Rayner of the United Kingdom, is to subsidize healthier foods like fruits and vegetables.l221 htlps://en.m.wikipcdia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_.taX#Albany~Califomia V33 J/2212018 Sugary drink tax -Wikipedia The imposition of a sugar tax means that sellers of sugary drinks would have to increase the price of their goods by an amount P2 from the original price X, and then take on the rest of the tax themselves (P1) in the form of lower profit per unit sold. The tax burden on consumers (P2) makes it more expensive for consumers to buy sugary drinks and hence a higher proportion of their incomes would have to be spent to buy the same amount of sugary drinks. This decreases the equilibrium quantity of sugary drinks that will be sold. Whether the sugary drinks tax is imposed on the seller or consumer, in both cases the tax burden is shared between both. l231 The way that the tax burden is divided upon the consumer and seller depends on the price elasticity for sugary drinks. The tax burden will fall more on sellers when the price elasticity of demand is greater than the price elasticity of supply while on buyers when the price elasticity of supply is greater than the price elasticity of demand. The price elasticity for sugary drinks is different from country to country. For instance, the price elasticity of demand for sugary drinks was found to be -1.37 in Chile while -1.16 in Mexico.l24U251 Hence if both of those results were realistic and the price elasticity of supply would be the same for both, the tax burden on consumers would be higher in Mexico than in Chile.l23J The reason for implementing a sugar tax in microeconomic terms The reasons for a sugar tax are the negative externalities of consuming sugar. As the consumption of sugar causes health problems (external costs) such as obesity, type 2 diabetes and other diseases, the third party impacted by this is the 'public health system' that will need to deal with those issues. More demand for health services leads to higher costs for health care and hence this increased stress on the public health system is a negative consumption externality of sugar consumption.l26H2 7J In economics terms, the marginal social benefit (MSB) of sugar consumption is less than the marginal private benefit (MB). This can also be illustrated in the following equation. MSB = MB -Marginal External Cost (MXC). This is the case due to the fact that consumers think only of the benefit of sugar consumption to them (MB) and not the negative externalities to third parties (MXC) and so want to consume at the unregulated market equilibrium to maximize their utility. This means that there is overconsumption of sugar and a welfare loss is created.l281 hllps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink~tax#Albany~California 3133 1122/2018 Sugary drink tax-Wikipedia The sugary drinks tax is a way to correct the negative externality by regulating the consumption of sugary drinks.l241 Without a sugary drink tax, taxpayer money is used to pay for higher health care costs incurred from high consumption of sugar. Although this solution corrects the negative consumption externality, taxpayers that consume sugary drinks moderately and hence do not contribute to higher health care costs, still need to pay for this negative externality. Hence a sugary drinks tax may be a more appropriate solution as tax revenue that is collected from the sugar tax can be used to create childhood nutrition programs or obesity-prevention programs.l27J This is a solution that could also correct the negative externality of sugar consumption as well as is a way to make the parties that cause the negative externality pay their fair share.l281 Countries Colombia A 2016 proposal for a 20% sugary drink tax, campaigned by Educar Consumidores, was turned down by the Colombian legislature despite popular support for it.l291 Soda is often less expensive than bottled water in Colombia. Denmark Denmark instituted a soft drink tax in the 1930s (it amounted to 1.64 Danish krone per liter), but announced in 2013 that they were going to abolish it along with an equally unpopular fat tax, with the goal of creating jobs and helping the local economy. !301 Critics claimed that the taxes were notably ineffective; to avoid the fat and sugar taxes, local retailers had complained that Danes simply went to Sweden and Germany, where prices were lower to buy butter, ice cream and soda.!311 Denmark repealed the fat tax in January 2013 and repealed the tax on soft drinks in 2014. France France first introduced a targeted tax on sugary drinks at a national level in 2012;!17J following introduction, soft drinks are https://cn.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_talt#Albany~California 4133 112212018 Sugary drink tax· W1kipedia estimated to be up to 3.5% more expensive.l32Jf33J Analysis by the market research firm Canadean found that sales of soft drinks declined in the year following the introduction of the tax, following several years of annual growthJ34J However, the tax applies to both drinks with added sugars and drinks with artificial sweeteners,!34U35J possibly limiting its effects on the healthfulness of soda products.l35l A 2016 study by Mazzochi has shown that t he sugary drinks tax saw a 19 euro-cent per liter increase in price of non-pure fruit juices, a 16 euro-cent per liter increase for diet sodas and little impact on regular soft drinks prices. The study also estimated that the quantity consumed of the taxed drinks has decreased by 9 centiliters per week per person after the tax has been implemented.l361 Hungary Hungary's tax, which came into effect in September 2011, has seen 22% of people reduce energy drink consumption and 19% of people reduce their intake of sugary-sweetened soft-drinks.l37J Ireland In 2016, Ireland approved a soda tax set to start in April 2018, which is around the same time a similar soda tax takes effect in the United Kingdom.f38J Mexico In September 2013, Mexico's president Enrique Pena Nieto, on his fiscal bill package, proposed a 10% tax on all soft drinks, especially carbonated drinks.[39H401 with the intention of reducing the number of patients with diabetes and other cardiovascular diseases in Mexico, which has one of the world's highest rates of obesity.l41J According to Mexican government data, in 2011, the treatment for each patient with diabetes cost the Mexican public health care system (the largest of Latin America) around 708 USO per year, with a total cost of 778,427,475 USO in 2010, and with each patient hltps:/lcn.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_taxHAlbany~Catifomia 5/33 112212018 Sugary drink tax -Wikipcdia paying only 30 MXN (around 2.31 USD).l421 In September 2013, soda companies launched a media campaign to discourage the Mexican Chamber of Deputies and Senate from approving the 10% soda tax. They argued that such measure would not help reduce the obesity in Mexico and would leave hundreds of Mexicans working in the sugar cane industry jobless.l43l They also publicly accused New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg[44J of orchestrating the controversial bill from overseas. In late October 2013, the Mexican Senate approved a 1 MXN per litre tax (around 0.08 USO) on sodas, along with a 5% tax on junk food.l451 Research has shown that Mexico's sugary drinks tax reduced soft drink consumption.[46n47J According to a 2016 study published in BMJ, annual sales of sodas in Mexico declined 6% in 2014 after the introduction of the soda taxJ461 Monthly sales figures for December 2014 were down 12% on the previous two years.l461 Households with the fewest resources had an average reduction in purchases of 9% in 2014, increasing to 17% by December.l461 Furthermore, purchases of water and non-taxed beverages increased by about 4% on average.l46l Whether the imposition of the tax and the resulting 6% decline in sales of soft drinks, will have any measurable impact on long-term obesity or diabetes trends in Mexico has yet to be determinedJ46l The authors of the study urged the Mexican authorities to double the tax to further reduce consumptionJ461 A 2016 study published in PLoS Medicine suggested that a 10% excise tax on soda "could prevent 189,300 new cases of Type 2 diabetes, 20,400 strokes and heart attacks1 and 18,900 deaths among adults 35 to 94 years old" over a ten-year period.l471 The study also included that 1'the reductions in diabetes alone could yield savings in projected healthcare costs of $983 million. "(471 A 2017 study in the Journal of Nutrition found a 6.3% reduction in soft drink consumption, with the greatest reductions "among lower-income households, residents living in urban areas, and households with children. We also found a 16.2% increase in water purchases that was higher in low-and middle-income households, in urban areas, and among households with adults only. 11 l481 Norway hllps:/le.n,m.wikipcdia .org/wiki/Sugary _drink.Jax If Albany ._California 6/33 l/2212018 Sugary drink taX -Wikipedia Norway has had a generalized sugar tax measure on refined sugar products since 1922, introduced to boost state income rather than reducing sugar consumption.l49l Non-alcoholic beverages have since been separated from the general tax, and in 2017, the tax for sugary drinks was set to 3.34 kroner per litre.l50l Philippines In the taxation reform law dubbed as the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion Law (TRAIN) signed by Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte in December 2017. It includes taxation on sugar-sweetened drinks which will be implemented the following year, as an effort to increase revenue and to fight obesity.[511 Drinks with caloric and non-caloric sweeteners will be taxed 1>6.00 per liter, while those using high-fructose corn syrup, a cheap sugar substitute, will be taxed at 'P'12 per liter. Exempted from the sugar tax are all kinds of milk, whether powdered or in liquid form, ground and 3-in-1 coffee packs, and 100-percent natural fruit and vegetable juices, meal replacements and medically indicated drinks, as well as beverages sweetened with stevia or coco sugar. These drinks, especially 3-in-1 coffee drinks which are popular especially among lower-income families, are to be taxed as initially proposed by the House of Representatives version of the bill(52l, but were exempted in the Senate versionf53J. South Africa South Africa proposed a sugar-sweetened beverages tax in the 2016 South African national government budget.l541 United Arab Emirates On October 2017, the United Arab Emirates introduced a 50% tax on soft drinks and a 100% tax on energy drinks, to curb unhealthy consumption of sugary drinks that can lead to diabetes; it also added a 100% tax on cigarettes.f55l United Kingdom https://en m. wiki pedia.org/wiki/Sugary _drink_tax# Al bruiy _California 7/33 1/22/2018 Sugary drink tax -Wikipedia In the 2016 United Kingdom budget, the UK Government announced the introduction of a sugar tax, officially named the "Soft Drinks Industry Levy". Planned to come into effect in 2018, beverage manufacturers will be taxed according to the volume of sugar"-sweetened beverages they produce or import. The tax will be imposed at the point of production or importation, in two bands. Drinks with total sugar content above 5g per 100 millilitres will be taxed at 18p per litre and drinks above 8g per 100 millilitres at 24p per litre. The measure is estimated to generate an additional £1 billion a year in tax revenue which will be spent on funding for sport in UK schools.l56ll571 It is proposed that pure fruit juices, milk-based drinks and the smallest producers will not be taxed. It is expected that some manufacturers will reduce sugar content in order to avoid the taxationJ581 Notable research on effect of excess sugar in modern diets in the United Kingdom includes the work of Professor John Yudkin with his book called, "Pure, White and Deadly: The Problem of Sugar" first published in 1972.!591 With regard to a proposed tax on sugar-sweetened beverages, a study published in the British Medical Journal on 31 October 2013, postulated that a 20% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would reduce obesity in the United Kingdom rates by about i .3%, and concluded that taxing sugar-sweetened beverages was "a promising population measure to target population obesity, particularly among younger adults. "l60l Campaigners want the sugar tax extended to include confectionary and sweets to help tackle childhood obesity.l611 Criticism The decision to impose the tax has been criticised by UK-based drinks producers and was described by Member of Parliament Will Quince as, "patronising, regressive and the nanny state at it's worst. "l621 Professor Robert Lustig of the University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, stated that the UK tax measure may not go far enough and that, "juice should be taxed the same way as soda because from a metabolic standpoint juice is the same as soda. "(631 The UK sugar tax proposal announced by the government in early-2016 is narrow in scope and does not target pure fruit juices and milk-based drinks.l64l https;//cn .m .wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary _dnnk_taxll Albany ~California 8133 1/2212018 Sugary drink tax -Wiki pedia A study by the University of Glasgow, which sampled 132,000 adults, found that focusing on sugar in isolation misleads consumers as reducing fat intake is also crucial to reducing obesity.f651 United States The United States does not have a nationwide soda tax, but a few of its cities have passed their own tax and the U.S. has seen a growing debate around taxing soda in various cities, states and even in Congress in recent years.l661 A few states impose excise taxes on bottled soft drinks or on wholesalers, manufacturers, or distributors of soft drinks.l671 Supermarket chilled beverage selection Medical costs related to obesity in the United States alone were estimated to be $147 billion a year in 2009. In the same year, the American Heart Association reported that the soft drinks and sugar sweetened beverages are the largest contributors of added sugars in Americans' diets. Added sugars are sugars and syrups added to foods during processing or preparation and sugars and syrups added after preparation. Excessive intake of added sugars, as opposed to naturally occurring sugars, is implicated in the rise in obesity.l681 American localities with a soda tax Philadelphia and Berkeley are the first two cities to pass a tax on sugary drinks in the U.S. Berkeley's tax of 1 cent/oz of sugary drink has seen a decline in soda consumption by more than 20 percent. Philadelphia's tax of 1.5 cents/oz took effect hltps://cn.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink_taxHAlbany~Califomia 9133 112212018 Sugary drink laX -Wikipcdia on January 1 , 2017 )69J Berkeley, California The Measure D soda tax was approved by 76%l7°J of Berkeley voters on 4 November 2014, and took effect on 1 January 2015 as the first such tax in the United States.l71l The measure imposes a tax of one cent per ounce on the distributors of specified sugar-sweetened beverages such as soda, sports drinks, energy drinks, and sweetened ice teas but excluding milk-based beverages, meal replacement drink, diet sodas, fruit juice, and alcohol. The revenue generated will enter the general fund of the City of BerkeleyP2l A similar measure in neighboring San Francisco received 54% of the vote, but fell short of the supermajority required to passP3l In August 2015, researchers found that average prices for beverages covered under the Jaw rose by less than half of the tax amount. For Coke and Pepsi, 22 percent of the tax was passed on to consumers, with the balance paid by vendors.l741 UC Berkeley researchers found a higher pass-through rate for the tax: 47% of the tax was passed-through to higher prices of sugar-sweetened beverages overall with 69% being passed-through to higher soda prices.f75l tn August 2016, a UC Berkeley study showed a 21 % drop in the drinking of soda and sugary beverages in low-income neighborhoods in its city.f761 A study from 2016 compared the changing intake of sugar sweetened beverages and water in Berkeley versus San Francisco and Oakland (which did not have a sugary drink tax passed) before and after Berkeley passed its sugary drink tax. This analysis showed a 26% decrease of soda consumption in Berkeley and 10% increase in San Francisco and Oakland while water intake increased by 63% in Berkeley and 19% in the two neighboring cities.l77l A 2017 before and after study has concluded that one year after the tax was introduced in Berkeley, sugary drink sales decreased by 9.6% when compared to a scenario where the tax was not in place.l781 This same study was also able to show that overall consumer spending did not increase, contradicting the argument of opponents of the Sugary Drink Tax.f78l Another 2017 study results were that purchases of healthier drinks went gone up and sales of sugary drinks went down, without overall grocery bills increasing or the local food sector losing money.f791 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania hnps://cn.m.wikipcdia.org/wiki/Sugary_drink...taxllAlbany~Califomia 10133 My name is David Shen and I live on Churchill Ave. ~COUNCIL MEE'!JNG ' -t:?-,;J -1_1:1 [ ] Placed Before Meeting . [ ] Received at Meeting Last November near Thanksgiving, I heard about the project to upgrade Caltrain and the desire to upgrade the intersections that cross Alma and train tracks. I would like to express my extreme disappointment at the communications to the community on this initiative. I found out after 2 meetings had already taken place, but managed to attend 2 following meetings. I would urge the Council to direct staff working on this project to expand and improve community communications. I also would like to comment that the meetings we had with staff were inadequate. I felt that the activities and questions they asked us to answer were leading and suggested that a direction was preferred already. The options that were discussed were also not broad enough to include all options and left out, without explanation, some obvious options. I would urge the Council to direct staff to improve meetings with the community to better inform, involve, and not raise unnecessary anxiety. On the note regarding raising unnecessary anxiety, I would request that the Council come to some clear direction regarding Churchill in an efficient, informed, and timely manner and not delay it. On the note regarding being informed, I would urge the Council to perform better, more complete, and accurate research on the costs and options. I personally reviewed the latest Circulation study and found it to be lacking and inaccurate in many areas. Others have reviewed the latest Financial study and found similar issues. In addition, our community has been having meetings and has come up with some guiding principles and a position on what to do with the intersection at Churchill and Alma. I would urge the Council to adapt these guiding principles when considering options to pursue: 1. Highest ROI on invested dollars and maximum use of existing infrastructure; 2. Making pedestrian and bicycle safety the highest priority; 3. Maintaining community neighborhoods' integrity; 4. Ensuring no eminent domain seizure of homes. Our position on grade separation is: 1. We support any ra ised or lowered rail option while keeping Churchill at grade; 2. We are opposed to any raised or lowered option for Churchill Road, especially when considering the advantages of other options; 3. As an alternative to either mentioned, we also support keeping the Churchill Ave crossing at-grade but closing it on the West side, and implementing other measures to improve East-West traffic and improve pedestrian and cyclist safety and access. Thank you. ~ ~ €, r \ 0- = 0 ~) I ~ 0 9 :: ~ () 0 =~ ~ ~ ::: ! ? )> ~ ~ = OJ :J ~ 0 .. . . . =- (/ ) :J Il l ~ =- ~ r+ :J .. . . = -· • .. . ~ ~ .. . .. . . . ~~ · ,< D . ~ . " .. . .. OJ