HomeMy Public PortalAbout20180402plCC701-32
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: 4/2/2018
Document dates: 3/14/2018 – 3/21/2018
Set 1 of 2
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 | 3/19/2018 10:17 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 8:41 AM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Cc:Jeanne Fleming
Subject:Vote "NO" on changes to wireless ordinance
Dear Honorable Mayor Kniss and Members of the City Council:
As you know from previous emails to you, I am vehemently opposed to the aesthetically ugly, noisy, radiation-
emitting cell towers in our neighborhoods. However, here we are, months in to this debate and I am left
scratching my head. Why isn't the city staff opposed? Why are they doing so much to skirt this issue? If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would greatly suspect that someone (or several people) are manipulating this for his/her/their own agenda. I am not that conspiracy theorist quite yet.
And yet...why is Staff attempting to change the wireless ordinance so that an ARB hearing would not be
required to review and approve/deny the cell towers? In just 2015, the City Attorney said that the current
ordinance would require ARB review. Hmmm. This doesn't pass the "smell test" when Staff knows that so very many of us oppose these towers.
Palo Alto has a history of leadership. But right now, so many other communities are taking the lead--rejecting
these types of towers in their neighborhoods. Fremont, Hillsborough, and Santa Rosa are now added to the list.
Why aren't we ahead of this? Is someone/some people receiving some sort of benefit from littering our
residential neighborhoods with the towers?
Please, council. Vote "NO" on the changes that Staff is seeking to make in the City's wireless ordinance. It is the right thing to do.
Yours truly,
Annette Evans Fazzino
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:17 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 17, 2018 12:38 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:Please vote against the changes City Staff want to make in Palo Alto’s Wireless
ordinance
To our City Council,
When I sat in the City Council meeting last week, and waited patiently to voice my protest - it wasn't b/c I had
nothing better to do on a Monday night. I feel really strongly, that despite staff's explanation that the changes is
to somehow clarify current process makes no logical sense. The current ARB review process is working, that's
how I'm able to learn about Verizon's plans. Why fix something when it's not broken? The timing is also very suspicious, b/c while cluster 1's proposal may not be effected - there are other clusters that will come up for
review by ARB and there's no guarantee that the changes won't effect those. And what about additional
proposals from other telco companies like AT&T/T-Mobile/Sprint?
Please vote against the changes City Staff want to make in Palo Alto’s Wireless ordinance.
Thx, Jerry Fan
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:17 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Gitelman, Hillary
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 2:51 PM
To:Miriam Sedman; Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:RE: Don't change the existing Wireless ordinance
Ms. Sedman,
Thanks for providing this comment regarding the item on Monday’s City Council agenda. In advance of the meeting, I
wanted to clarify the proposed ordinance and correct what is clearly a misunderstanding about its intent and
effect. Here are some quick points of clarification – we can offer more at Monday’s meeting:
The City’s 2015 wireless ordinance (adopted to ensure the City can comply with a federal ruling concerning
processing time limits for these applications) established three tiers of projects and gave the Director of
Planning and Community Environment (the “Director”) decision making authority, subject to appeal to the City
Council. The ordinance requires that Tier 3 projects conform with Architectural Review and Conditional Use
Permit (CUP) findings. In Palo Alto, these findings are made by the Director, often but not always with the
advice of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and/or the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC). The
2015 ordinance did not explicitly provide for review by the ARB or the PTC before the Director’s decision.
Since 2015, the City has asserted (to Verizon and other applicants) that the Director has the authority to consult
with the ARB and/or the PTC via a public hearing process even though this is not explicit in the code. The
ordinance proposed on Monday would make this explicit. The proposed ordinance would not change the
findings that need to be made or the City’s current practice (of involving the ARB).
The 2015 ordinance provides two possible routes for appeal of the Director’s decision on these types of
applications: one that goes to the ARB and then the Council, and one that goes to the PTC and then the
Council. The ordinance proposed on Monday would simplify the appeal process by routing the Director’s
decision straight to the City Council on appeal. Staff strongly recommends this process to make sure we can
meet the federally imposed time limits.
I hope this short explanation is helpful. To reiterate, we are not proposing any change to the findings, we are seeking to
affirm the ARB/PTC role in the process, and we hope to elevate appeals directly to the City Council.
Regards,
Hillary
Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:17 AM
5
From: Miriam Sedman [mailto:msedman@pacbell.net]
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2018 10:45 PM
To: Council, City
Cc: Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject: Don't change the existing Wireless ordinance
Dear City Council Members,
I urge you, on behalf of Palo Alto residents, to vote against changing the Wireless ordinance. As the City
Attorney wrote to City Council in her 4/29/15 report regarding what is now the existing ordinance, this ordinance requires—and “require” is her word—that no new or collocated cell towers may be installed in Palo Alto without both an architectural review and conditional use permit findings. Yet now Senior Staff are
recommending you allow the Director of Planning, if she so chooses, to bypass ARB and PTC review of these
cell towers.
The fact is, now more than ever, both an architectural review and conditional use permit findings are necessary to protect residents. On a case-by-case basis it is absolutely necessary for the city to review requests to place
cell phone towers in residential neighborhoods.
For example, a sign proposing a Verizon cell phone tower has appeared in the Triple El neighborhood and it
makes no sense to install a cell phone tower in this neighborhood for the following reasons.
· The proposed location is central to homes where children, elderly and retirees are at home 24 hours a day
and will be exposed to high levels of radiation (lots of data on this!)
· Verizon is optimizing their plan for ease of access and NOT to minimize exposure of radiation to citizens
(This is just wrong).
· Our neighborhood has good Verizon coverage right now. Even the Verizon maps show that we are in
good shape.
· The houses in the triple El neighborhood that have poles and wires already bear the burden of additional
radiation and maintenance for the neighborhood; let alone that the poles and wires are unsightly. Why penalize
the same homeowners for phones?
· There are just a whole lot better places to put these poles e.g. NOT in the middle of densely populated
neighborhoods.
It is essential that you continue to protect the safety of Palo Alto residents and push back on utility companies
who’s primary concern is profit and who are not concerned with public safety or neighborhood well being.
Regards,
Miriam Sedman
915 Elsinore Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:17 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Sherryl Casella <orioness@hotmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 11:46 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Don't let cell companies get away with ugly boxes in our neighborhoods
Please help preserve this lovely city!
Now we hear that the Planning Department and the City Attorney are seeking changes to Palo Alto’s Wireless ordinance, making it easier for them to build these ugly, intrusive boxes ABOVE GROUND.
Please vote against changing the ordinance.
Sincerely,
Sherryl Casella
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 4:21 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Tina Chow <chow_tina@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 11:16 AM
To:Filseth, Eric (external)
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Re: Don't change the existing Wireless ordinance
Hi Eric,
Yes, I have. It doesn’t make sense to me to allow the Director to have the option to bypass ARB and PTC
review of these cell towers. The wireless companies are bombarding the city with poorly thought-out proposals and if anything, we need to have _more_ careful review and planning. Many other California cities are passing stricter ordinances for wireless installations and we should be just as careful. The City of Palo Alto owes it to its
residents to maintain neighbhorhoods which meet noise, aesthetic, and health/safety standards and to maintain
the property value of homes.
Thank you for considering this.
-Tina Chow
Barron Park resident
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, UC Berkeley
On Mar 19, 2018, at 8:58 AM, efilseth@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Tina,
Thank you for your email. May I ask if you have read the ordinance yourself?
Rgeards, Eric
Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone.
From: Tina Chow
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2018 8:44 AM
To: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Don't change the existing Wireless ordinance
Dear City Council,
I strongly urge you to vote against changing the wireless ordinance in Palo Alto. We're
counting on you to protect the residents of Palo Alto against the invasion of
unnecessarily ugly, noisy, bulky and hazardous cell towers that Verizon and others are currently proposing.
Thank you,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 4:21 PM
2
Tina Chow
(Barron Park)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2018 1:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ng, Judy
Sent:Friday, March 16, 2018 1:34 PM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Nickel, Eric; Capriles,
Catherine; Blackshire, Geoffrey; Cullen, Charles; McNally, Kevin; Ngo, Mai; Marshall,
Tomm; Batchelor, Dean; Ting, Tom; Lloyd, Debra
Subject:3/19 Council Agenda Questions for Items 5, 8, & 9
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries
made by Council Member Tanaka in regard to the March 19, 2018 council meeting agenda.
Item 5: Fire Station Alerting System ‐ CM Tanaka
Item 8: Approval of a Gas Surveying Contract for $437,710 with Manesco Corporation ‐ CM
Tanaka
Item 9: Approval of a Utilities Electric Fund Contract (UUD#46) ‐ CM Tanaka
Item 5: Fire Station Alerting System
Q. 1. Will this system actually reduce response time if implicated instead of the
current system, as response times in Palo Alto are already low?
A. 1. As noted in the Staff Report, the components that were quoted in the
contract, will allow the firefighters to respond faster than they do with the
current system. The initial station alert is sent automatically when the dispatcher
receives the 9‐1‐1 call. The dispatcher then can focus on gathering pertinent
information related to the call instead of taking a break to alert the responders
themselves. The USDD system will interface with the Department’s radio alerting
system to enable simultaneous automated voice alerts without dispatcher
intervention.
USDD has also developed the first and only smartphone/mobile station alerting
app directly tied to the System, and sends simultaneous alerts, such as dispatch
announcements, administrative alerts, IT support notifications and application
update notifications, to personnel. The mobile alerts play the same tones as
those in the station, show incident location using the device’s built‐in mapping
capabilities and enable users to save notifications for future reference and search
for previous notifications. USDD’s app provides fire agencies with a dependable
means of redundant notification.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2018 1:42 PM
2
While the Department’s response times meet performance benchmarks, we strive
for continuous improvement to better serve the community.
Q. 2. What is the average turnout time before and after (not a percentage) in
Santa Clara’s fire department?
A. 2. In a one‐year comparison of turnout times with the old system and new
system, the Santa Clara County Fire Department (SCCFD) reduced their average
turnout time by 9 seconds (1 minute, 30 seconds to 1 minute, 21 seconds). In the
first two months of 2018, the time reduction increased to 12 seconds (1 minute,
30 seconds to 1 minute, 18 seconds).
Q. 3. What is the estimate (an absolute time, not a percentage) for reduction in
turnout time if this system is implemented in Palo Alto?
A. 3. As noted in the Staff Report, SCCFD has seen a nearly 20 percent reduction
in turnout times. Other agencies using the USDD System note similar reductions.
We would estimate the same reduction.
Q. 4. Why wasn’t there an open bidding process for this? Were other systems
considered? What were their costs?
A. 4. As noted in the Staff Report, after meeting with SCCFD, and reviewing their
RFP process, including the other bidders, it was apparent that USDD was the most
affordable system and the most technologically advanced system. In our goal of
regionalizing emergency response functions other systems were not considered.
All City of Palo Alto Procurement Policies were followed, and this bid has been
reviewed for compliance by the City Attorney’s Office.
Q. 5. What are the problems with the current system? Does the current system
still meet government standards?
A. 5. The current system is an outdated analog system made of basic copper
wiring and is nearly impossible to move due to the infrastructure and the cost.
The USDD system is an Internet Protocol (IP) based system. This means that the
system talks to the server over the City’s IT network, is easy to maintain and move
components.
The current analog system lacks redundancy. When the system goes down, the
Fire Dispatchers have to call the crews on the phone. The problem with calling
crews for station alerting is that there are no pre‐tones to give the crews an early
notification on the type of emergency or its location. The USDD system has five
redundancy systems in place if the primary station alerting system fails.
The standards for station alerting systems are guided by the National Fire
Protection Agency (NFPA). NFPA states that an effective system should be used to
alert emergency responders, however, the current system lacks redundancy, and
therefore, the current system falls short of the standard.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2018 1:42 PM
3
Q. 6. How does cooperative purchasing work? Does each city get a discount
individually?
A. 6. As noted in the Staff Report, cooperative purchasing allows the Fire
Departments access through publicly solicited contracts from vendors who supply
goods and services to other fire departments. Contracts are created through a
public RFP process by a “Lead” public agency that allows members to “piggy back”
on the contract, eliminating the need to complete their own RFP process. The
most recent joint fire truck purchase with Mountain View Fire Department, as
well as several of the Fire apparatus, were acquired through cooperative
purchasing. The discount applies to each agency that is eligible.
SCCFD spent over 6 months, and hundreds of hours, to complete the RFP process,
in which the City of Palo Alto did not have to invest.
Q. 7. How much did the current system cost?
A. 7. The current Zetron Station Alerting system was purchased in 2003 for
$131,716 and is at end of life. The annual maintenance cost for the system is
$14,000.
Item 8: Approval of a Gas Surveying Contract for $437,710 with Manesco Corporation
Q. 1. How much did the contract cost last time compared to this time? I would
recommend that we always include the previous cost in the report summary to
make the comparison with the current bid amounts easier.
A. 1. The cost last time the contract was issued was $84,000 for the walking and
mobile survey, and the current amount for the same services is $85,750. As general
information on this contract, the work specified is required by DOT regulations with
specific time lines that must be met per our Operations and Maintenance Manual
and DOT regulations. The work was bid as a Request for Quote requiring the award
to go to the lowest qualified bidder for the work.
Item 9: Approval of a Utilities Electric Fund Contract (UUD#46)
Q. 1. Is there a plan to underground utilities in any other part of town?
A. 1. Yes, currently there are two other underground districts identified in the 5‐
year CIP plan as part of the City’s ongoing underground conversion
program. Neighborhoods citywide are interested in undergrounding; the pace of
implementation depends on funding available.
Q. 2. Why was the engineer’s original estimate 33% off for the first phase, going
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/16/2018 1:42 PM
4
from $866,875 to $1,341,400? Does that mean that, if this trend continues, the cost
of the project will be an extra $1 million on top of the original estimate of
$3,500,000? How will the city pay for the project if the estimates for the other
phases of the project are off as well?
A. 2. The engineer's base estimate of $866,875 was based on construction costs
for similar work performed for construction of Utility Underground District 47
completed in 2015. Due to market conditions and significant corporate
construction in the Bay Area, we have experienced large (30+%) increase in
construction costs in the past few years. We do not get as many bidders because
some contractors have chosen not to participate in the bidding process for
projects such as this undergrounding project, so the bidding process is not as
competitive, and we are getting significantly higher bids from the few that do bid
reflecting the current industry economics.
$3,5000,000 was not the original estimate, it is the revised total project estimate
given current construction costs, it is our best estimate at this time and may go up
or down depending on the economy.
Funding for the utility share of the project costs is allocated from electric
revenues, the increase from the original estimates has drawn from the CIP
reserves. Increased costs affect the timing of implementing future underground
districts.
Q. 3. What effect will this project have on residents living around the construction
area? Will it affect their ability to use utilities in any way?
A. 3. Resident services are not affected by construction. Overhead facilities will
stay in place to provide customers with their electric and telecom services until
the underground structures have been completed, at which point customers will
arrange for installation of their underground service connections and will be
connected to the undergrounded system. Not until then will overhead facilities
be removed.
Thank you,
Judy Ng
Judy Ng
City Manager’s Office|Administrative Associate III
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329‐2354
Email: Judy.Ng@CityofPaloAlto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sonya Bradski <sonyangary@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 12:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Request Your Continued Financial Support on Palo Alto Biking Projects
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
Thank you for your previous support on the Charleston-Arastradero Plan Neighborhood Traffic Safety Bike/Pedestrian Plan and bike bridge projects.
Palo Alto’s new Comprehensive Plan emphasizes sustainable transportation choices and safe streets for all
users. But as the city grapples with a $58 million dollar shortfall in its Infrastructure Budget, funding for already
approved projects prioritized in the city’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan are at risk. I am writing to
ask you to join me in supporting core projects in the Infrastructure Plan Budget that are designed to address multi-modal commutes city-wide:
* Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/infrastructure_plan/charleston_arastradero.asp
* Phase 2 of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Bike/Pedestrian Plan Projects: Bryant St Extension, Maybell
Ave, Stanford Ave, Park Blvd, andWilkie
Way. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4138 * Hwy 101/Adobe Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/infrastructure_plan/hwy_101_ped_bike_bridge.asp
These three Infrastructure Plan projects work together to create a street network with a place on the road for
everyone who bikes, walks, rides transit and drives -- enabling efficiency and greater safety for all people on the
road.
Please fund the implementation of these three long-awaited 2012 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan projects.
Please consider how each Infrastructure project aligns with recently approved goals, policies and programs of
the 2012 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element and the 2017 Sustainability & Climate Change Action Plan which prioritize safety, sustainability and healthy, active
alternatives to driving solo.
Please prioritize safety for all road users on our city-wide transportation system.
Our family bikes all over Palo Alto everyday and need to Palo Alto to be as bike friendly as possible.
Please DO NOT build extra parking in Palo Alto when we have autonomous robotic cars being implemented
and everyone using Uber & Lyft. Everyone needs to walk and or get on their bikes to reduce traffic and help
keep everyone fit!!!
Please continue to prioritize all these bike projects financially.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:45 AM
2
Sincerely,
Sonya Bradski 4082 Nelson Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Walt and Kay Hays <wkhays@igc.org>
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 4:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Priorities in the Infrastructure Plan Budget
Dear Council:
I am writing to urge you (first the Finance Committee and then the whole Council) to fully fund the following projects:
• The Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan
• Phase Two of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bike/Pedestrian Plan Project
• The Adobe Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge over Highway 101
I recognize that you face the difficult task of dealing with a $58 million shortfall. Even in that context, however, safe
transportation measures, including options that encourage pedestrians and bikers, deserve a high priority. You have so
indicated in the following adopted policies, and now is the time to give them meaning:
The 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan
The 2017 Comprehensive Plan
the 2017 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan
Thank you.
Walt Hays
Chair, Sustainable SchoolsCommittee
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sigrid K Pinsky <Sigridkp@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 4:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Gunn High School PTSA 2018 Letter of Support for the Charleston - Arastradero
Project
Attachments:Gunn PTSA Signal support 2017.pdf; Gunn PTSA letter 2015 re C-A Corridor.pdf
Dear Council Members,
Please find attached three letters of support from Gunn High School PTSA. The first is from March 2018, the second is from 2017 and the third is from 2015.
Thank you,
Sigrid K Pinsky Gunn High School PTSA President
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:nodiamonds@gmail.com on behalf of philippe@nodiamonds.com
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Request Your Continued Financial Support on Palo Alto Biking Projects
I concur with Palo Alto resident Sonya Bradski's ideas:
Dear Palo Alto City Council:
Thank you for your previous support on the Charleston-Arastradero Plan Neighborhood Traffic Safety
Bike/Pedestrian Plan and bike bridge projects.
Palo Alto’s new Comprehensive Plan emphasizes sustainable transportation choices and safe streets for all
users. But as the city grapples with a $58 million dollar shortfall in its Infrastructure Budget, funding for already approved projects prioritized in the city’s Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan are at risk. I am writing to
ask you to join me in supporting core projects in the Infrastructure Plan Budget that are designed to address
multi-modal commutes city-wide:
* Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/infrastructure_plan/charleston_arastradero.asp
* Phase 2 of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Bike/Pedestrian Plan Projects: Bryant St Extension, Maybell Ave, Stanford Ave, Park Blvd, andWilkie Way.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4138
* Hwy 101/Adobe Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/infrastructure_plan/hwy_101_ped_bike_bridge.asp
These three Infrastructure Plan projects work together to create a street network with a place on the road for
everyone who bikes, walks, rides transit and drives -- enabling efficiency and greater safety for all people on the road.
Please fund the implementation of these three long-awaited 2012 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan projects.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:56 AM
2
Please consider how each Infrastructure project aligns with recently approved goals, policies and programs of
the 2012 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element and the 2017 Sustainability & Climate Change Action Plan which prioritize safety, sustainability and healthy, active
alternatives to driving solo.
Please prioritize safety for all road users on our city-wide transportation system.
Our family bikes all over Palo Alto everyday and need to Palo Alto to be as bike friendly as possible.
Please DO NOT build extra parking in Palo Alto when we have autonomous robotic cars being implemented
and everyone using Uber & Lyft. Everyone needs to walk and or get on their bikes to reduce traffic and help keep everyone fit!!!
Please continue to prioritize all these bike projects financially.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Sonya Bradski
4082 Nelson Dr.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:59 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:William Robinson <williamrobinson@goldenworld.com>
Sent:Friday, March 16, 2018 12:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Garages in Infrastructure Projects Jeopardize Long Held Goal
49 Year resident, William’Rob’ Robinson, member PABAC (Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee), Palo
Alto since 2005
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:02 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Anne Schmitt <schmitta@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, March 16, 2018 8:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please eliminate CA Ave garage from infrastructure plan.
Analysis of the Finance Committee Staff Report by Carbon Free Palo Alto
In looking at the Finance Committee Staff Report (ID #9039) on funding infrastructure needs for city projects, there is
another option that the city should be looking. In light of the recent success of the TMA progress in reducing solo car trips
and also taking into account of recent trends and changes in transportation options/choices.
The recent article in the Palo Alto Weekly (https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/14/palo-alto-
nonprofit-revs-up-efforts-to-reduce-traffic) shows that the TMA efforts have been successful in reducing solo car
trips downtown to such an extent that the downtown garage is not needed. This success has come about with minimal
funding with a program that is not even fully developed. As the article states the TMA would like to expand to the Cal Ave
area where currently there are similar parking and congestion problems with similar solutions that the TMA can readily
address..
This success combined with the increasing use of ridesharing programs, the electrification of CalTrain, the bike share
program (free to the city), and the eventual introduction of the automatous vehicles along with changing demographics
where people will not want even to own cars, means that the reductions of solo car use/trips would be sustained even with
the increasing growth in the Cal Ave and downtown areas.
In looking at attachment B of the Staff report, Estimated Savings From Deferring/Eliminating Projects, we see that the
elimination of the Cal Ave and downtown garages would save about $65 million. To fully fund the TMA effort over the
next ten years would cost $4.8 million. Therefore the city could save $60.2 million with a solution that would reduce
congestion & parking. This solution would also comply with the Comp and Sustainability Implementation
Plans and would not subject these areas to disruptions of building the garages.
With this savings, the rest of the budgeted infrastructure projects (Table 1), could be covered by the anticipated project
funding (Table 2) without the need for a questionable ballot measure.
This is the type of solution that is expected from the heart of Silicon Valley. It can be implemented faster then building the
garages, is flexible and scalable and will avoid building expensive garages that are likely to be obsolete in only a few years
with the changes noted above. It is less that 1/10th the cost of the garages and it also is in line with keeping the promise to
address the parking issues in the Cal Ave and downtown areas. It will preserve the other projects on the infrastructure list
which have been in the works for years.
We urge you to seriously consider this win-win solution for making sure the city can fund our needed infrastructure
projects now and in the future in a manner that is consistent with the city’s Comp and SIP goals.
Anne Schmitt
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:07 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Trish Mulvey <mulvey@ix.netcom.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 17, 2018 3:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Transportation Priorities in Infrastructure Plan Budget
Attachments:TM_Transportation Priorities 2 031718.docx
Please see attached letter, trish
March 17, 2018 via electronic mail
Honorable Liz Kniss, Mayor, and
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto RE: Transportation priorities in Infrastructure Plan Budget
Dear Mayor Kniss and City Council Members
Special thanks to those of you serving on the Finance Committee and taking on the difficult task of reviewing the Infrastructure Plan Budget to close a $56 million dollar shortfall on March 20th.
As a resident since 1951 and a member of the Sustainable Schools Committee, I want you to
know of my strong support for fully funding the following three active transportation/complete
streets projects: • Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan • Phase 2 of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bike/Pedestrian Plan Project
• Adobe Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge over Hwy 101
All three projects require funding and implementation to create a strong, cohesive transportation network that provides reliable, efficient and safe choices for all users:
• pedestrians,
• bicyclists, and
• motorists All of these projects are included in our 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, and
align with key goals and policies from these two recently approved Council Plans:
• 2017 Comprehensive Plan,
• 2017 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (SCAP).
I very much appreciate the Council’s past support of so many pedestrian, bicycle and roadway
improvements in our community, and I sincerely hope you will do so again at the Finance
Committee Meeting on March 20th. Our personal safety and kids’ school commute safety depend on all three of these measures being full funded to create a strong intercity network of safe streets
for all.
Thanks for your consideration of this recommendation.
Sincerely,
Trish Mulvey
527 Rhodes Drive, Palo Alto
(650) 326-0252 or mulvey@ix.netcom.com
cc: Interested Parties
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:14 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, March 18, 2018 5:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please fund our top Bike Ped Infrastructure Projects
Dear Councilmembers,
I urge you to make it a Council priority to fund the 3 long awaited bicycle and pedestrian related projects as listed in the March 20, City Manager letter as Council Infrastructure Plan. Our community and city has worked
hard for many years on defining these priority projects in order to move us forward toward our safe and
sustainable active transportation goals as defined in the Comprehensive Plan and SIP.
I use Palo Alto’s bikeways regularly and more so as routes and access improve around the city. As a volunteer on the annual Bike Palo Alto event I see interest in biking in and through Palo Alto increasing every year.
Improving access to more and safer routes at the key points in the network that these 3 projects address will
induce more biking still.
These projects are also complemented by the TMA efforts in our commercial centers. The TMA is showing strong early results in its first and only implementation on University Ave. TMAs promotes alternatives to
driving and parking. They educate workers about alternative modes including transit, car pooling, ride sharing
as well as biking and walking. People using transit need last/first mile walking or biking solutions. People
without access to a parked car during the day also need mobility options that include biking, walking, shuttles
and such when they do errands or go out for lunch. Let’s also push to expand the TMA efforts to the California Ave commercial district to build further on our active transportation investments in that area.
Thank you for your considering these points regarding our infrastructure funding priorities.
Sincerely,
Bret Andersen, Palo Verde Neighborhood Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:16 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Markus Fromherz <markus@fromherz.us>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 9:24 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plans
Honored City Council Members,
I am a Barron Park resident, live on Amaranta, used to work in the research park above Foothill Expressway, and used to drive or bike daily to work, at various times, including 7:30-8:30am and 4-6pm.
I would like to express my support for bicycle and pedestrian transportation measures currently planned for Palo
Alto. That includes the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan, Phase 2 of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety
Bike/Pedestrian Plan Projects, and the Hwy 101/Adobe Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge. Each of these project aligns with recently approved goals, policies, and programs of the 2012 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation
Plan, the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, and the 2017 Sustainability & Climate Change
Action Plan, which prioritize safety, sustainability, and healthy, active alternatives to driving solo.
In particular, I would like to express my very strong support for the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan, which is now ready for final construction. We have been working on this for many years. This project will
provide signalization and hardscape improvements that will provide better safety and operational efficiency
for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users. It also will create new bike lanes where there currently is
a dangerous gap in the existing bike lanes at the El Camino Real intersection.
I would like to re-iterate what I have written before. After several years, I find the restriping to be a huge
improvement without introducing any downsides:
1. The road is more structured, with clear turn-offs along the way where cars used to block the left lane
when turning. Compare that to a four-lane highway before, where cars dominated the road. Overall I feel
we have achieved the compromise we need between local traffic for schools and parks, much of it bikes and pedestrians, and commute traffic, much of it cars.
2. The restriping provided a number of improvements for bicyclists and pedestrians, including more room
for bicyclists, better turn protection for bicyclists, better crossings for pedestrians, and lower car speeds.
I have heard this confirmed from other bicyclists. The final treatment will further improve and fine-tune
these changes. 3. As a car driver, I find traffic from Coulombe to Gunn acceptable, given the constraints of the
environment, such as several large schools and substantial commuter through-traffic. There always was
a traffic jam around school start time. Traffic in the morning has further markedly improved since the
bell changes at Gunn and Bowman. In any case, traffic is acceptable most of the day, but fortunately it
has slowed down noticeably from the previous highway speeds. 4. Traffic on Amaranta seems to be about the same as before. Related to that, on Coulombe in the morning
there are never more than three cars waiting to enter Arastradero, which tells me that at least from that
side we are not overloaded.
Overall, I feel this road has been vastly improved, and I look forward to the final treatment.
Please prioritize safety for all road users on our city-wide transportation system!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:16 AM
2
Sincerely, Markus Fromherz
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:16 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Gladwyn D'Souza <godsouza@mac.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 9:44 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:let TMA work before adding parking
Dear City Council,
Please give the TMA time to work before looking at options for more parking in Palo Alto. Changes from shared mobility
to driverless cars are transforming how we use land. Please ensure that people can move in a safe healthy, and timely
manner.
In looking at the Finance Committee Staff Report (ID #9039) on funding infrastructure needs for city projects, there is
another option that the city should be looking at. In light of the recent success of the TMA progress in reducing solo car
trips and also taking into account of recent trends and changes in transportation options/choices.
The recent article in the Palo Alto Weekly (https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/14/palo‐alto‐nonprofit‐revs‐
up‐efforts‐to‐reduce‐traffic) shows that the TMA efforts have been successful in reducing solo car trips downtown to
such an extent that the downtown garage is not needed. This success has come about with minimal funding with a
program that is not even fully developed. As the article states the TMA would like to expand to the Cal Ave area where
currently there are similar parking and congestion problems with similar solutions that the TMA can readily address.
This success combined with the increasing use of ridesharing programs, the electrification of CalTrain, the bike share
program (free to the city), and the eventual introduction of automatous vehicles along with changing demographics
where people will not want to even own cars, means that the reductions of solo car use/trips would be sustained and
encouraged even with the increasing growth in the Cal Ave and downtown areas.
In looking at attachment B of the Staff report, Estimated Savings From Deferring/Eliminating Projects, we see that the
elimination of the Cal Ave and downtown garages would save about $65 million. To fully fund the TMA effort over the
next ten years would cost $4.8 million. Therefore the city could save $60.2 million with a solution that would reduce
congestion & parking. This solution would also comply with the Comp and Sustainability Implementation Plans and
would not subject these areas to disruptions of building the garages.
With this savings, the rest of the budgeted infrastructure projects (Table 1), could be covered by the anticipated project
funding (Table 2) without the need for a questionable ballot measure. Should additional funding be required, the city
should also look at polling that include a special assessment district, which has funded projects in the past and also a
business license tax which almost all other cities have.
This is the type of solution that is expected from the heart of Silicon Valley. It can be implemented faster then building
the garages, is flexible and scalable and will avoid building expensive garages that are likely to be obsolete in only a few
years with the changes noted above. It is less that 1/10th the cost of the garages and it also is in line with keeping the
promise to address the parking issues in the Cal Ave and downtown areas. It will preserve the other projects on the
infrastructure list which have been in the works for years.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:16 AM
4
We urge you to seriously consider this win‐win solution for making sure the city can fund our needed infrastructure
projects now and in the future in a manor that is consistent with the city’s Comp and SIP goals.
Sincerely,
Gladwyn d’Souza
chair, Transportation Committee,
Loma Prieta Chapter Sierra Club.
https://www.sierraclub.org/loma‐prieta
650‐804‐8225
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 3:25 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Clara Chang <clarac@abcandm.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 3:23 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:ben@bikesiliconvalley.org; Pat Burt; Clara CHANG
Subject:3/20 Palo Alto Finance Meeting
I understand that the Palo Alto Finance Committee will be meeting tomorrow to discuss
options for reigning in the $56 million deficit to fund infrastructure projects. I am writing
to ask you not to remove the three projects on the Council Infrastructure Plan that
improve our roadway system for cyclist and pedestrians, specifically implementation of
the Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan, Charleston/Arastradero Corridor improvements, and the
Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge.
In brief, I have been a resident of Palo Alto since 1991. I moved to the University South
neighborhood so that I could raise my family in a pedestrian and bike-friendly
community. In 2013, I started working at VMware and began commuting by bike. In
addition, I regularly use bike routes through Palo Alto if I need to run errands in
Mountain View or further south on the weekends.
My main reason for cycling is to stay out of car traffic on local roads and to avoid
parking anywhere near downtown. I find that cycling instead of driving also helps to
improve my mental and physical health. I regularly encourage friends, neighbors, and
coworkers to commute by bike as well. If I can show them how easy it is to find safe
routes through Palo Alto, I often succeed in convincing them to bike with me.
Personally, I think the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan and Phase 2 of the
Neighborhood Traffic Safety Bike/Pedestrian Plan Projects must be implemented.
As business and housing densities increase in close proximity to one another, these
plans are necessary to ensure the safety of cyclists in congested areas. I think the Hwy
101 /Adobe Creek Bike/Pedestrian Bridge is a nice-to-have option, but because it
has taken such a long time to build and is estimated at such a high cost, it is less
important to me. The Clark Avenue-to-West Bayshore crossing that East Palo Alto is
building is an example of a bike bridge over 101 that looks like it will complete sooner
and at less expense than the Adobe Creek project.
Thanks for your consideration and I hope you continue to make big strides in moving
Palo Alto toward becoming an even more bike-friendly city.
--
Clara Chang
mailto:clarac@ABCandM.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 3:25 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Barry M Katz <bkatz@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 10:21 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:David Coale
Subject:To the Finance Committee
To the Finance Committee, Palo Alto City Council:
I am writing to register my strong opposition to continuing investment parking structures, in the California
Avenue district and elsewhere. Investing tens of millions of dollars into infrastructure projects of this sort is a short-sighted, short-term solution that locks us into a cycle from which there is no escape. As I have observed in a recent editorial for the Palo Alto Weekly “throwing more ‘capacity' at the problem is like treating obesity by
loosening your belt.”
I believe that as a community we should be looking at alternatives that address the underlying problem, not simply throwing money at its visible symptoms.
Barry Katz
Consulting Professor, Design Group Department of Mechanical Engineering Stanford University
m: 650.644-8697
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 3:25 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 10:47 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Fund Sustainable Streets for All!
Dear City Council Members,
Palo Alto’s new Comprehensive Plan emphasizes sustainable transportation choices and safe streets for all users. On Tuesday March 20, as the Finance Committee reviews the $58 million dollar shortfall in the Infrastructure Budget, we hope you will
consider our Comp Plan goals and support full funding for the following three projects to create city-wide sustainable streets for
all:
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan
Phase 2 of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Bike/Pedestrian Plan Projects: (Bryant St Extension, Maybell Ave,
Stanford Ave, Park Blvd, and Wilkie Way.)
Hwy 101/Adobe Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
All three Infrastructure Plan projects work together to create a strong network of safe streets for everyone who walks, bikes, rides transit and drives. It improves roadway efficiency and greater safety for all people who use our roads. Above all, these three projects align with the 2012 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Goal T-1 of 2017 Comprehensive Plan (Promote Sustainable Transportation) and 2017 Sustainability & Climate Change Action Plan. Investment in sustainable safe streets for all is one of the best ways to improve transportation choices and mobility of all residents (young and not-so-young), and to reduce congestion caused by shorter commutes, school commutes and local trips.
Thank you for your time and attention to this important and difficult budget issue.
Sincerely,
Elaine Uang
on behalf of Palo Alto Forward's Board of Directors
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 3:25 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Heike Schmitz <heike.schmitz@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 2:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Here is my support for Palo Alto's Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plans
Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I am a Barron Park resident, live on Amaranta Avenue, and work in downtown Los Altos. I drive my car to work using Coulomb, Arastradero and Foothill Expressway and sometimes, mostly in the summer, I ride my
bike to work, at different times and often during school traffic hours.
I would like to support the bicycle and pedestrian transportation measures currently planned for Palo Alto. That includes the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan, Phase 2 of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Bike/Pedestrian Plan Projects, and the Hwy 101/Adobe Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge. Each of these project
aligns with recently approved goals, policies, and programs of the 2012 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation
Plan, the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element, and the 2017 Sustainability & Climate Change
Action Plan, which prioritize safety, sustainability, and healthy, active alternatives to driving solo.
I am directly affected by the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan, which is now ready for final construction and I have been waiting for this for many years. This project will provide better safety and
operational efficiency for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users and create new bike lanes where
there currently is a dangerous gap in the existing bike lanes at the El Camino Real intersection.
I find the measures that have been taken up to here have been very successful, for me as a bike rider as well as a car driver. Yes, at times it feels like there is a lot of traffic, but tht is just what it is and the new
measures seem to help make it as safe as the situation allows. As a car driver, I find traffic from Coulombe to
Gunn acceptable, given the constraints of the environment, such as several large schools and substantial
commuter through-traffic. The kids come first and their safety should be our highest priority. As a car driver, I accept that responsibility and find the price to pay small. E.g., how can waiting on Coulombe in the morning for
the light to change be a burden? There are never more than three cars waiting to enter Arastradero, which tells
me that at least from that side we are not overloaded.
We have come a far way and everything seems to have improved. Please make sure the last measures are taken and please make safety for all road users on our city-wide transportation system your priority!
Thank you!
Heike Schmitz
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 4:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:lindsayjoye@gmail.com
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 3:28 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Ben@bikesiliconvalley.org
Subject:Please support bicycle infrastructure funding
As a 26 year resident of the Ventura neighborhood I strongly urge Palo Alto City Council members to continue funding
improvements to our fine city’s bike infrastructure.
In 1991, we bought our first home on the Park Bike Boulevard because it was a great location to use our bicycles to
safely get to work, Caltrain, California Avenue retail and Palo Alto schools. I commuted to the City of Palo Alto’s Civic
Center office for over 31 years on my bike before I retired.
I have appreciated the bicycling infrastructure improvements on Middlefield, Charleston, Arastradero, Homer (tunnel),
Class I bike path behind Palo Alto High School, Bol Park path and recently on Ross Road. I am looking forward to being
able to bike to the Baylands using the new Adobe Creek overpass instead of worrying that the underpass will be closed. I
especially look forward to the improvements identified in the Phase 2 Neighborhood project plan for Park Blvd. and
Wilkie Way.
Given Palo Alto’s ambitious goals listed in the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan and Comprehensive Plan, it is
imperative that we continue to make Palo Alto safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
Thank you!
Lindsay Joye
Park Blvd., Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 9:27 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:ForestLight <forest129@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 6:48 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Boyd, Holly
Subject:Requesting Support and Funding for the Charleston-Arastradero Plan
I have lived in Palo Alto, on the south side of both Charleston and Arastradero since 1949.
And my family and I strongly support the Charleston-Arastradero Plan.
We sincerely thank all of you who have supported the development of the Plan over the years.
We are writing to encourage the funding of the implementation of this project as a first priority in the Infrastructure Plan Budget.
We exit and enter our Greenacres One neighborhood several times each day and frequently have to travel the Charleston-Arastradero corridor when the school children of all ages are going to and coming from school. Our own children attended Juana Briones, JLS and Gunn. And many of our friends and their children
continue to face its perils daily.
So we’re constantly aware of the continuing safety issues posed by this heavy school- traffic load, including many on bicycles. The the need for ensuring the safety of Palo Alto’s children — and all the other road users on Charleston-Arastradero — is a critical goal for us.
Some of us, in this end of town all too painfully remember the events of January 28, 2003 when one of our south-end children, a 10 year old school girl, was struck and killed and her friend had her leg broken by a hit-and-run high school student speeding down Miranda on her way to school. One such incident was more than
enough to make the points that:
-Yes, it can happen
-One such incident is too many
-We all need to do our share, and prioritize doing what it takes to keep our children, our community safe.
Road striping, while it has been a significant improvement in this regard, is not enough to ensure traffic control and safety.
With plans complete and Caltrans approvals in place and bids coming in the C-A project is ready to move toward construction if funded. The promised but long-delayed implementation of this project includes signalization and hardscape improvements that will provide better safety and operational efficiency for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users. We are told that the project also provides for new bike lanes where there currently is a dangerous gap in the existing bike lanes at the El Camino Real intersection.
It is our understanding that this issue will be under consideration by the Finance Committee tomorrow evening, March 20. So we ask to support its prioritization for funding and implementation at that meeting and in any future city meetings where it may be discussed.
Please do keep in mind how each Infrastructure project discussed aligns with recently approved goals, policies and programs of the 2012 Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the 2017 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element and the 2017 Sustainability & Climate Change Action Plan which prioritize safety, sustainability and healthy, active alternatives to driving solo.
Sincerely,
Michael & Judith Maurier Fairmede Ave. Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 9:27 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:lindsayjoye@gmail.com
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 6:18 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Ben@bikesiliconvalley.org
Subject:Please support bicycle infrastructure funding
As a 26 year resident of the Ventura neighborhood I strongly urge Palo Alto City Council members to continue funding
improvements to our fine city’s bike infrastructure.
In 1991, we bought our first home on the Park Bike Boulevard because it was a great location to use our bicycles to
safely get to work, Caltrain, California Avenue retail and Palo Alto schools. I commuted to the City of Palo Alto’s Civic
Center office for over 31 years on my bike before I retired.
I have appreciated the bicycling infrastructure improvements on Middlefield, Charleston, Arastradero, Homer (tunnel),
Class I bike path behind Palo Alto High School, Bol Park path and recently on Ross Road. I am looking forward to being
able to bike to the Baylands using the new Adobe Creek overpass instead of worrying that the underpass will be closed. I
especially look forward to the improvements identified in the Phase 2 Neighborhood project plan for Park Blvd. and
Wilkie Way.
Given Palo Alto’s ambitious goals listed in the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan and Comprehensive Plan, it is
imperative that we continue to make Palo Alto safer for cyclists and pedestrians.
Thank you!
Lindsay Joye
Park Blvd., Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 9:27 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Debbie Mytels <dmytels@batnet.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 4:31 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Ben@bikesiliconvalley.org
Subject:Bicycle Plan Expenditures
Dear Council members,
I regularly use the bicycle path from my home on Louis Road to my work on East Bayshore Road — EXCEPT
in the winter when there is no safe and direct route to my office because the underpass at 101 is closed due to high water.
The long promised bike bridge over 101 at Adobe Creek would make bike commuting MUCH easier and safer
for me and hundreds of other bike riders each week. Please do NOT cut this from the City’s 2018-19 budget
plan. Along with other bicycle path improvements, this bridge over 101 will make cycling a safer and more convenient option for people to get to work thus reducing car trips during the week — and allowing for recreational use on the weekends.
It would be a sorry decision if this improvement in bicycle infrastructure would be chopped from the city
budget so that more garages for cars downtown and in the Cal Ave. area would be funded instead. Let’s remember our city’s commitment to sustainable transportation, please!
Debbie Mytels
Debbie Mytels 2824 Louis Road. Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 856-7580
dmytels@batnet.com
"Remembering the Future in our Actions Every Day"
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 9:27 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:David Coale <david@evcl.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 10:19 PM
To:Council, City; Tanaka, Greg; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia
Cc:Keene, James; Friend, Gil; Shikada, Ed; Mello, Joshuah; Rupert, Hillary; Eggleston, Brad
Subject:Finance Committee, infrastructure projects - City garages
Attachments:Analysis of the Finance Committee Staff Report.pdf; PastedGraphic-1.pdf;
PastedGraphic-2.pdf; PastedGraphic-3.pdf
Dear Finance Committee,
Here is an analysis of the Staff Report for “Initial Public Option Survey for Infrastructure Funding Needs" by
Carbon Free Palo Alto. We believe there a much less expensive way to address the city’s parking needs without
building the garages that could save the city $60 million while complying with the Comp and SIP plans.
Thanks for your consideration,
Sincerely,
David Coale
for Carbon Free Palo Alto
———————
Analysis of the Finance Committee Staff Report:
Initial Public Opinion Survey for Infrastructure Funding Needs
by Carbon Free Palo Alto
The recent Finance Committee Staff Report (ID #9039) on funding infrastructure needs for city projects fails to consider important options when it comes to building the California Avenue Garage. It should take into account recent trends and changes in transportation options and choices, and should consider the success of the Palo
Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) in reducing solo car trips in the downtown area.
The recent article in the Palo Alto Weekly (https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/14/palo-alto-
nonprofit-revs-up-efforts-to-reduce-traffic) shows that the TMA efforts have been successful in reducing solo car trips downtown to such an extent that the downtown garage is not needed. This success has occurred with a minimally funded program that is not even fully developed. As the article states, the TMA would like to
expand to the Cal Ave area where currently there are similar parking and congestion problems. The TMA can
readily deploy the same solutions that it has applied to the downtown area. Traffic Demand Management
(TDM) has proven to be very affective in reducing congestion, cost and GHG for our area
(http://www.transformca.org/sites/default/files/Windfall for All Summary.pdf).
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 9:27 AM
2
This success, combined with the increasing use of ridesharing programs (New Jersey town decides to pay Uber
instead of building a parking lot)1, the electrification of CalTrain, the bike share program (free to the city), and
the eventual introduction of autonomous vehicles, along with changing demographics where people will not even want to own cars, means that the reductions of solo car use/trips could be sustained even with the increasing growth in the Cal Ave and downtown areas.
Attachment B of the Staff report, Estimated Savings From Deferring/Eliminating Projects, shows that the
elimination of the Cal Ave and downtown garages would save about $65 million. Fully funding the expansion
of the TMA effort into the Cal Ave area over the next ten years would cost $4.8 million, assuming it would cost the same as the downtown effort. Therefore, the city could save approximately $60 million with a solution that
would reduce congestion and parking. This solution would also comply with the Palo Alto Comp Plan and the
Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP), and would avoid the disruptions of building the garages.
With this savings, the rest of the budgeted city-wide infrastructure projects (listed in Table 1), could be funded
by the available or anticipated project funding (listed in Table 2).
This could eliminate the need for a questionable revenue generating ballot measure mentioned in the staff report as a viable option to raise the requisite revenue to pay for the projects.
The city should also include several additional options in the proposed public opinion survey: 1) define a
special assessment district, which has funded projects in the past and 2) consider a business license tax which
almost all other cities have. The amount of the business tax should include two options: one similar to that of our neighbors and one similar to the San Francisco business tax, which is higher and will fully fund all the
current and future projects including some of the grade separations.
The proposed solution is the type of 21st century solution that is expected from the heart of Silicon Valley. It can be implemented faster than building the garages, is flexible and scalable and will avoid building expensive
garages that are likely to be obsolete in only a few years. With the success of the TMA efforts, changes to our
transportation systems and changing demographics, the city can realize this solution for less than $5
million. This solution is also in line with keeping the promise to address the parking issues in the Cal Ave and
downtown areas while avoiding the disruption associated with building the garages and will preserve the other projects on the infrastructure list, which have also been in the works for years.
We urge you to seriously consider this win-win-win solution: win for the city budget and projects, win for the
Cal Ave and downtown areas and the Comp Plan, and win for the planet and the SIP goals.
Sincerely,
David Coale and Bruce Hodge for Carbon Free Palo Alto
Gladwin d’Souza, Transportation Committee, Loma Prieta Chapter Sierra Club
Adam Stern, Acterra
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain
Diane Bailey, Menlo Spark
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 9:27 AM
3
Chris Lepe, Transform
Craig Lewis, ED Clean Coalition
Stew Plock, 350 Silicon Valley
Green Sanctuary Committee, Palo Alto Unitarian Universalist Church
Barry Katz, Consulting Professor, Stanford University
Sven Thesen, Evergreen Park
Jane Rosten, Cal Ave area
Debbie Mytels
Walt Hays
Bret Andersen
Lisa Van Dusen
John Woodfill
Jeremy Shaw
Amie Ashton
Mark Grossman
Lisa Altieri
Patricia Kinney
Robyn Duby
Jeb Eddy
1 https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/3/13147680/uber-new-jersey-free-ride-parking-lot-train-commute
Analysis of the Finance Committee Staff Report:
Initial Public Opinion Survey for Infrastructure Funding Needs
by Carbon Free Palo Alto
The recent Finance Committee Staff Report (ID #9039) on funding infrastructure needs for city
projects fails to consider important options when it comes to building the California Avenue
Garage. It should take into account recent trends and changes in transportation options and
choices, and should consider the success of the Palo Alto Transportation Management
Association (TMA) in reducing solo car trips in the downtown area.
The recent article in the Palo Alto Weekly
(https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/14/palo-alto-nonprofit-revs-up-efforts-to-
reduce-traffic) shows that the TMA efforts have been successful in reducing solo car trips
downtown to such an extent that the downtown garage is not needed. This success has
occurred with a minimally funded program that is not even fully developed. As the article
states, the TMA would like to expand to the Cal Ave area where currently there are similar
parking and congestion problems. The TMA can readily deploy the same solutions that it has
applied to the downtown area. Traffic Demand Management (TDM) has proven to be very
affective in reducing congestion, cost and GHG for our area
(http://www.transformca.org/sites/default/files/Windfall for All Summary.pdf).
This success, combined with the increasing use of ridesharing programs (New Jersey town
decides to pay Uber instead of building a parking lot)1, the electrification of CalTrain, the bike
share program (free to the city), and the eventual introduction of autonomous vehicles, along
with changing demographics where people will not even want to own cars, means that the
reductions of solo car use/trips could be sustained even with the increasing growth in the Cal
Ave and downtown areas.
Attachment B of the Staff report, Estimated Savings From Deferring/Eliminating Projects,
shows that the elimination of the Cal Ave and downtown garages would save about $65
million. Fully funding the expansion of the TMA effort into the Cal Ave area over the next ten
years would cost $4.8 million, assuming it would cost the same as the downtown
effort. Therefore, the city could save approximately $60 million with a solution that would
reduce congestion and parking. This solution would also comply with the Palo Alto Comp
Plan and the Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP), and would avoid the disruptions of
building the garages.
With this savings, the rest of the budgeted city-wide infrastructure projects (listed in Table 1),
could be funded by the available or anticipated project funding (listed in Table 2).
This could eliminate the need for a questionable revenue generating ballot measure
mentioned in the staff report as a viable option to raise the requisite revenue to pay for the
projects.
The city should also include several additional options in the proposed public opinion survey:
1) define a special assessment district, which has funded projects in the past and 2) consider
a business license tax which almost all other cities have. The amount of the business tax
should include two options: one similar to that of our neighbors and one similar to the San
Francisco business tax, which is higher and will fully fund all the current and future projects
including some of the grade separations.
The proposed solution is the type of 21st century solution that is expected from the heart of
Silicon Valley. It can be implemented faster than building the garages, is flexible and scalable
and will avoid building expensive garages that are likely to be obsolete in only a few years.
With the success of the TMA efforts, changes to our transportation systems and changing
demographics, the city can realize this solution for less than $5 million. This solution is also in
line with keeping the promise to address the parking issues in the Cal Ave and downtown
areas while avoiding the disruption associated with building the garages and will preserve the
other projects on the infrastructure list, which have also been in the works for years.
We urge you to seriously consider this win-win-win solution: win for the city budget and
projects, win for the Cal Ave and downtown areas and the Comp Plan, and win for the planet
and the SIP goals.
Sincerely,
David Coale and Bruce Hodge for Carbon Free Palo Alto
Gladwin d’Souza, Transportation Committee, Loma Prieta Chapter Sierra Club
Adam Stern, Acterra
Adina Levin, Friends of Caltrain
Diane Bailey, Menlo Spark
Chris Lepe, Transform
Craig Lewis, ED Clean Coalition
Stew Plock, 350 Silicon Valley
Green Sanctuary Committee, Palo Alto Unitarian Universalist Church
Barry Katz, Consulting Professor, Stanford University
Sven Thesen, Evergreen Park
Jane Rosten, Cal Ave area
Debbie Mytels
Walt Hays
Bret Andersen
Lisa Van Dusen
John Woodfill
Jeremy Shaw
Amie Ashton
Mark Grossman
Lisa Altieri
Patricia Kinney
Robyn Duby
Jeb Eddy
1 https://www.theverge.com/2016/10/3/13147680/uber-new-jersey-free-ride-parking-lot-train-
commute
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 4:42 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 12:36 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Norman H. Beamer; Brand, Richard; Michael Hodos;
Gabrielle Layton; Allen Akin; Elaine Uang; Steve Levy; Eric Rosenblum; Sandra Slater
Subject:Comments for March 20 Finance Committee
Attachments:Cowper Webster Bryant Garage Under Utilization Feb and Mar 2018.xlsx; Strengths
and Weaknesses of March 20 Finance Committee Strategies and Tactics.pdf
I am unable to attend tonight's committee meeting.
Please accept the following comments. I apologize for late submission of these comments. I
overlooked the Finance Committee schedule and agenda. I am out of state in Oregon and am available for any questions you may have now or in future Finance Committee meetings.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis
Decisions for
March 20 Finance Committee
Allocation of Scarce Capital
Strengths
80% of the options are outlined for public review
Acknowledgement of vulnerable capital cost estimates
Acknowledgment of debt limitations and economic downturn
Prudent leveraging TOT, Doc Transfer Taxes, etc
Weaknesses
Report has a very narrow definition of allocating resources.
• The most basic option is traditional choices among competing capital projects.
• Report is silent about over-investment in capital creating the operational pressures upon city staff and
operations. RRPs and TMA are prime examples of chronically under-funded and under-managed city
operations. As a result, fundamental solutions for parking and traffic mitigation have been failing for the past
10 years. There are other noteworthy compromised city operations due to under-funding.
• The report is silent about the largest capital shortfall . The rail corridor is another massive “gap” cost and it
seems out of sync with polling of any new CIP package. How can Council CIP surveys be rational without the
public’s input for the rail corridor modifications?
• Accrued pension and retiree healthcare liabilities are so large that they are best addressed as footnotes.
• Impact from other agencies creating new sales taxes, polls, parcel taxes, etc is unaddressed and should be
footnoted. Each of these nearby agencies are creating competition for taxes and fees and in some cases may
be over-lapping with Palo Alto.
• City staff and Council will be making decisions with unknown public reaction to Federal SALT limitation on
taxpayer’s personal cash flows.
• Finally and most importantly, staff report does not present a clear summary of potential funding from
business community which has created so much negative impact from parking, traffic congestion and mass
transit shortfalls. The staff report seems to suggest that most funding will be coming from individual
taxpayers and city reserves.
REDUCTION OF COMPLEXITY
Too many polling alternatives exist in light of severe capital constraints and escalating construction costs. An
expanded tier of top priority capital projects is needed.
Tier One- Essential projects that support Palo Alto for the next 80 years. Deferral is not a practical option financially
or politically.
Public Safety Building $90 million
California St. Garage $40 million*
Fire Stations #3 and #4 $17 million
Charleston Corridor $11 million
Bike Bridge $6 million**
Tier Two(A&B)—Deferrable projects with longer-term alternative funding, including new philanthropy. A second
round of city funding would be appropriate for some of these programs after TMA, paid parking programs and other
traffic/parking programs establish their viability.
Byxbee Park $.6 million**
Junior Museum/Zoo $5 million**
Animal Shelter $10-15 million**
City Share-Rail Corridor $100s of millions(TBD late 2018)
Park Master Plan $40-45 million**
University Ave Garage $25 million***
*Costs can reduced via paid parking in some or all floors. Costs can be further reduced by new and reformed PAD to
cover recent addition of floors. Terms for a new PAD must be much tighter than in the past.
**These projects have high potential of mid-term philanthropic support from major corporations and high net worth
donors. This is new ground for City Council and will require fresh skills and goodwill.
***City Council and Finance Committee are not fully informed about the recently improved utilization of Bryant and
Cowper/Webster garage with additional capacity coming from two valet programs to match High Street garage
optimal use. This garage (Waverley/Hamilton) can be deferred for 3-7 years to preserve options for the city-owned
surface lot. The concept of this garage is obsolete. Open space or housing/garage are noteworthy modern options.
If unexpected demand occurs, then a new, reformed PAD can be created and funded by organizations/property
owners creating the need for a traditional parking garage. An analysis from residents will soon be presented showing
that these two garages have recently accommodated 150 additional permitted vehicles on a daily basis. Another 100
vehicles can be parked in these two garages without any denial of service. This will require valet parking service on a
par with High Street garage and permitted vehicles diverted from University Ave RPP neighborhoods. An analysis of
University Avenue parking garages is included with this report to Finance Committee.
CRITICAL PATH DECISIONS
Refine and adopt the two tier concepts.
The compressed CIP timeline creates the potential for complex polling which could create great confusion for the
voters in November. Reduce polling complexity to the most basic options for voters and business community in
November.
Limit debt through Certification of Participation, etc to lowest possible level until rail corridor solutions and funding
have been agreed upon.
Assure that Capital Improvement Projects do not cannibalize the city operational budgets to the degree that key
departments are starved for resources to manage their “daily operational” responsibilities.
Respectfully submitted, Neilson Buchanan March 20, 2018 cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
650 537-9611
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2728
29
30
31
3233
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
AB C D EFG HI JK L MN
Cowper/Webster and Bryant Garage Survey
Source: N. Buchanan cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 650 537‐9611
photographs are available for Bryant and Cowper/Webster daily surveys
time window
plus/minus
10 min
Cowper/
Webster
Level 6
Cowper/
Webster
Level 5
Bryant St
Level 5
Untapped
otential
from staffed
Valet
Parking**
Untapped
potential
from staffed
Valet
Parking***
Total
Vacant
Spaces
Potential for
additional
permit sales
@ 120%
Built In
Safety
Cushion for
Peak
Demand
Days
Wed, Feb 14 1122am 68 17 no survey 20 26 131 157 46
Wed, Feb 14 142pm 61 12 no survey 20 26 119 143 46
Thur, Feb 15 1207pm 70 13 13 20 26 142 170 46
Thur, Feb 15 205pm 58 13 2 20 26 119 143 46
Fri, Feb 16 1205pm 70 17 13 20 26 146 175 46 Holiday
Fri, Feb 16 159pm 75 33 21 20 26 175 210 46 Holiday
Wed, Feb 21 1155am 72 21 4 20 26 143 172 46
Wed, Feb 21 250pm 73 16 5 20 26 140 168 46
Thur, Feb 22 1150am 76 32 21 20 26 175 210 46
Thur, Feb 22 239pm 75 37 2 20 26 160 192 46
Fri, Feb 23 1159am 75 31 17 20 26 169 203 46
Fri, Feb 23 250pm 74 33 23 20 26 176 211 46
Tues, Feb 27 1201pm 64 15 5 20 26 130 156 46
Wed, Feb 28 1148am 67 17 0 20 26 130 156 46
Wed, Feb 28 154pm 59 15 1 20 26 121 145 46
Thur, Mar 1 145pm 69 25 1 20 26 141 169 46
Fri, Mar 2 1201pm 69 0
Mon, Mar 5 1150am 38 5
Mon, Mar 5 200pm 32 5 0 20 26 83 100 46
Tues, Mar 6 1159am 51 5 5 20 26 107 128 46
Tues, Mar 6 215pm 5 2
Wed, Mar 7 1124am 58 10 7 20 26 121 145 46
Thurs, Mar 8 240pm 52 27 5 20 26 130 156 46
Frid, Mar 9 212pm 71 23 7 20 26 147 176 46
Mon, Mar12 121pm 29 0 0 20 26 75 90 46
Tues, Mar 13 116pm 46 3 0 20 26 95 114 46
Wed, Mar 141213pm 36 0 2 20 26 84 101 46
Thur, Mar 15120pm 68 9 0 20 26 123 148 46
**Cowper Webster practical valet capacity is 50% of 40 possilbe valet parked vehicles
***Bryant practical valet capacity is 50% of 52 possible valet parked vehicles
Please note that an analysis for High Street garage is not included due to lack of time. It is a role model for effective management
and for leveraging 5‐day a week valet parking service expanding garage capacity by approximately 25‐40+ parking space. As a result
City has been able to avoid unnecessary capital investment in garage structures.
Available Capacity
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 4:43 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn Keller <marilynkeller@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 4:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Funding for safe, sustainable transportation
Attachments:councilgarageletter032018.docx
March 20, 2018
Dear Council Members:
Please support CIP spending for projects that support Palo Alto’s new Comp Plan and Sustainability Implementation Plan
(SIP). These plans envision a shift away from single occupancy vehicles towards a safer, more walkable community with
sustainable transportation choices that better serves our citizens.
Specifically, please support the following projects that address safe sustainable transportation and reduce car traffic:
Highway 101/Adobe Creek Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge
Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Plan
Phase 2 of the Neighborhood Traffic Safety Bike/Pedestrian Plan Projects.
In addition, please enhance sustainable transportation options in downtown Palo Alto and the Cal Ave. areas to
encourage Palo Alto employees to travel throughout the city without cars, especially during the noon hours.
There are several successful programs to consider to incentivize companies to help employees travel during the work
day. These include using bikes, shuttles, and free passes for Uber, Lyft, or taxi services. Providing these services for
many who live outside of Palo Alto would be far less expensive than adding parking places in garages that cost Palo Alto
citizens about $100,000/space to address a lunch time crowd. Based on staff analyses, the proposed Cal Ave garage
with the extra proposed basement level would exceed needed capacity. Please invest in better transportation options
for the future rather than in excess capacity for single occupancy vehicles.
Marilyn
Keller
3476 Waverley Street
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 4:44 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeremy Robinson <jeremy.robinson67@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 4:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:A word concerning the future of Palo Alto Animal Shelter
Sometimes I have wondered if your vision of our new Animal Shelter is
anywhere close to what ours is. I hope you have not considered our new facility
to be just a bigger, newer and more expensive version of what we have had here for 40+ years.
Consider the wonderful new Mitchell Park Library. Any day you visit you will see
a vibrant environment with people of all ages gathering there, each pursuing his
own interest. There is something for everyone with quiet excitement and real community spirit. There the common thread is books, education and learning. We see our new Animal Shelter as something identical only there, the
common thread will be animals, education and learning.
At the heart of the new shelter will be the commitment No-Kill , which will eventually be standard throughout California. The state of the art medical facility will bring people for spay neuter and many other medical procedures now
offered only by local vets.The shelter will be a place people will come to not only
find the perfect pet to adopt, but they will come because it will be so inviting and
will offer so many services to people of all ages. Teaching children how to be around all animals, learning empathy for all living things. We envision a Cat Cafe where you can have lunch and play with cats and kittens. Ava's would be a
perfect fit here! How about an outpost for Wildlife Rescue? Friday night movies
for kids; birthday parties with dogs invited to play; a small library filled with books
about dogs and cats, rabbits and birds. A dog walking park with trees and wandering paths dotted with benches.
Just think of the income producing features I have just suggested here! But in
addition to that, consider the appeal this will have to local philanthropists, large
and small. Name a building after a major donor! Each bench in the park a gift from a donor. Each dog or cat room naming the family that donated funds. A memorial wall dedicated to beloved pets. The income a facility like this can
produce will be significant! But as important, it will encompass our community,
bring people together, encourage fun, friendship and passion for the care of
animals. And a respect for all living creatures. We all know the alternative to our vision is to continue to watch the decline of our
present shelter; plus the continued cost of maintaining it until it finally closes. My
absolute fear is that this process is taking so long we could lose the partner we
need to make this new shelter happen, Pets In Need. That would be a catastrophe!
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 4:44 PM
2
So please, let's work together to make this a reality before it's too late. On March
26 we pray we will move forward toward the management agreement.
Respectfully yours
Jeremy Robinson
President
Friends of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 5:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Finance committee: Parking garages/ business license tax
I am writing to recommend that the finance committee consider a different approach to parking garages. First, it is very concerning that public funds would be used to pay for additional parking spaces. As a policy, it is difficult to understand why these should not be user funded - through parking fees or through a special district.
While I understand and am sympathetic to the needs of smaller commercial tenants, there are many ways to ensure
that the burden falls on those who can afford it and many other policy instruments exist to support small business. For
California Avenue, it would be great to see a frequent Marguerite shuttle between the Research Park, Stanford and
California Avenue, particularly during lunchtime. In addition, making sure that any new structure include retail and small commercial spaces would increase the supply of available space and lower the cost, as long as zoning restrictions limited the uses. My understanding is that the new RPP program for Evergreen, while not perfect, has been effective in providing adequate space for residents to park. The remaining issue is that employees do not have enough parking spaces. For this problem, it seems smart to spend some money on really trying to implement TDM measures, before turning to more concrete solutions. As you know, this can be very cost effective as compared to the price of structured parking.
It does seem that some kind of new structure will be required to replace the spaces used by the Public Safety
building. This type of project which could combine some parking (paid and otherwise), some retail and perhaps some
other purpose seems like the ideal candidate for a public-private partnership. If certain concessions such as height
were made, it would be very interesting to solicit proposals and see what is the lowest cost proposal. It seems plausible that this could actually generate revenue for the city - as long we can find other ways to limit how much parking needs to be built.
Business license tax We are the only city in the region that does not help businesses directly for some help. With all the critical projects on the list, it seems imperative to include this revenue source in the mix. Regards,
Elizabeth Alexis
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 5:16 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:please re-affirm commitment to bike/ped infrastructure
Since the time that Ellen Fletcher sat on the Palo Alto City Council, our community has continued to make it
easier to get around town on bicycles. At this point, it is important to re-affirm our commitment to Safe Streets
for All Users.
I have been a resident of the Ventura neighborhood since 1992 and one of the things I like most about living
where I do is the ability to walk or ride my bicycle to California Avenue. I appreciate the ability to go shopping
there, on University Avenue or even Castro Street in Mountain View without having to worry about parking an
automobile. I appreciate the ability to bring home my purchases from the Sunday farmer’s market in my bike trailer. I
I ask that you continue to support these three projects mentioned in the Finance Committee Staff Report
#9039: the Highway-101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge, the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor, and the
Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan Implementation. Each of these fulfills the transportation vision in the Comp Plan and is tied to our sustainability goals. Now is the time to make sure that these projects are funded so that we can all
benefit from them
I thank you for all the work you do to make Palo Alto a great place to live
Ken Joye
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 4:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 9:34 AM
To:cory.wobach@cityofpaloalto.com; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Fine, Adrian; Kou, Lydia
Cc:Keene, James; Mello, Joshuah; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary; De Geus, Robert; Council,
City; Clerk, City; info
Subject:CARRD Public Comment for PA Rail Committee March 21 2018
Attachments:Final CARRD Public Comment for PA Rail Committee for March 21 2018 (Initial
Screening of Master List).pdf; Attachment A - SMA Sample pages for PA Rail
Committee comment for March 21 2018 meeting.pdf
Dear City Council Members,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this report. Attached please find our full public comment for the
Rail Committee Meeting this week.
We are concerned that by adding criteria and suggesting the elimination of alternatives without first going to the City Council goes against the explicit intent outlined in the PA Rail Committee Charter.
On 12/4/17 the Rail Committee adopted an addendum to the Rail Committee Charter (Staff Report 8675) in
which they adopted language to improve community engagement. From the report: “The Rail Committee will provide a recommendation to the City Council at each decision point based on community input as well as data
and analysis developed by a team of staff and consultants.” The following graphic describing the process was
included in the report.
In the current report (9052), Staff has amended the criteria without public or city council input and then applied
that criteria using a scored weighting system that will not be available to the public until tomorrow's meeting
(although the "results" of the application of this screening are in the report). Based on the process described by the Rail Committee Charter, the “Master List of Alternatives” represents
“Identify Alternatives for Evaluation” in the graphic above. The “screening of alternatives” clearly falls in the
next step described as “Evaluate and Refine Alternatives.”
If the criteria will be amended further (ie. the staff has amended the Problem Definition and Evaluation Criteria), then the City Council and public should have a chance to comment before
continuing on to step 2 - "Identify Alternatives for Evaluation. Indeed, by amending the criteria,
applying a weighting and scoring mechanism and narrowing the range of alternatives, the staff report
has skipped to step 3 - "Evaluate and Refine alternatives."
The City Council has clearly articulated the need for full engagement from the community on this important
issue. In order to do that, the City council and the public should be allowed time to carefully analyze and give
feedback at each step. If criteria is being redefined and amended, then there should be time to comment on that
and the City Council needs to approve it. If a scoring and weighing of criteria is going to be developed, than
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 4:47 PM
2
that also should be available for public comment and city council approval. If a full list of alternatives is being
presented, the public and the City Council should also review that list to be sure it is exhaustive before
narrowing down the alternatives.
We understand that the City is looking to move expediently towards finding a solution, but we must make sure
we are following the process that was outlined and adopted. The Rail Committee previously discussed meeting
more frequently to be able to have more discussion on these issues. We recommend this be done ASAP to
ensure full public participation, city council approval and schedule adherence.
Our full list of remarks is attached. If you have any questions, please let us know.
Regards,
Nadia Naik Co-founder, CARRD
www.calhsr.com
info@calhsr.com
Public
Comment:
PA
Rail
Committee
Meting
3/21/18
1
To: Palo Alto Rail Committee
From: CARRD
Date: March 2018
Subject: Comments on Initial Screening of the Master List of Ideas for the Connecting Palo Alto Rail Program
We appreciate the effort the city has made in trying to get as many people as possible to
engage with this topic. We offer the following comments and recommendations to help improve public participation and the City’s process as we move forward through the elimination of
alternatives. We will go into the following points in depth, but at a high level, here is the
summary of comments and recommendations
Process Recommendations: 1. The Rail Committee must follow their Charter and make recommendations to City Council before any alternatives are eliminated.
2. The Master List of Alternatives is unclear and should include more graphics to help
citizens understand the alternatives.
3. Staff’s addendum to criteria requires review by City Council per Rail Charter 4. Allow the public and City Council time to comment on the scoring methodology and how
weighting of the criteria was used to eliminate before moving forward
5. Technical Advisory Committee Members and Key Stakeholders should provide more
detailed feedback on criteria, scoring and weighting of criteria, and this should be
reviewed by City Council, before the elimination of alternatives can begin 6. Amend the TAC to ensure domain expertise 7. Funding Feasibility is unclear
8. Funding/Financing paper and public comments should be reflected in a final document
that forms the basis of the “Funding Feasibility” criteria
9. Use a more robust system to classify and sort considerations to develop criteria and identify responsible parties for decision making per CSS principles
Criteria Recommendations:
1. Criteria that incorporates Comp Plan Goals should be included
2. Calculate the impact and alternatives of heavy freight on grade separations and related impacts: 3. Station Access and Station Areas should be considered in the criteria
4. Criteria should include recommendations from the SPUR Caltrain Corridor Vision Report
5. Criteria should take into consideration future track upgrades that might be necessary
(TAC should verify what’s needed) 6. Criteria for bike/ped crossings should consider vertical height of existing tracks as well as
circulation of bikes and cars
7. Less tangible, value based, criteria must be developed to eliminate alternatives:
On-going Process Recommendations: 1. Database of public comments should be made public 2. Glossary is a helpful, please continue
If there are any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us: info@calhsr.com
Public
Comment:
PA
Rail
Committee
Meting
3/21/18
2
Process Recommendations:
1. The Rail Committee Charter requires recommendations to City Council before any
alternatives are eliminated.
The staff report recommends “the Rail Committee take up an action item to move forward with
the early elimination of Ideas at its first meeting in April.” It appears, however, that eliminating
criteria before having identified all of the alternatives for evaluation goes against the Rail Committee Charter.
On 12/4/17 the Rail Committee adopted an addendum to the Rail Committee Charter (Staff
Report 8675) in which they adopted language to improve community engagement. The adopted language from that report: “The City Council is committed to robust community engagement regarding
grade separations along the Caltrain corridor and has requested that the Rail Committee conduct
meetings to engage directly with community stakeholders to support the decision-making process. These
meetings will be formatted to allow for and encourage dialog and to supplement other regular meetings
of the Committee as well as larger community workshops, focus group meetings, and other forms of
engagement utilized to develop a Context Sensitive Solution for the rail corridor. The Rail Committee will
ultimately formulate recommendations to the City Council. The stakeholder input that the Committee
receives will help shape and inform those recommendations and the Council’s decisions.”
The Staff report also explains “The Rail Committee will provide a recommendation to the City Council at each decision point based on community input as well as data and analysis
developed by a team of staff and consultants.” The following graphic describing the process
was included in the report.
The current staff report (9052) is recommending that the Rail Committee simply receive the report on the “Initial Screening of the Master List of Ideas” but it doesn’t recommend any action
until early April. At the Trenching/Tunneling Community Meeting, a Powerpoint presentation
given by Staff described that the “Master List” was developed in January 2018, however this list
was not made available to the public until now.
Based on the process described by the Rail Committee Charter, the “Master List of Alternatives”
which would represent “Identify Alternatives for Evaluation” in the graphic above. The “screening
of alternatives” clearly falls in the next step described as “Evaluate and Refine Alternatives.”
Before proceeding to step 3, the full City Council should be updated on what has happened in
Step 2 and they should be allowed to opine. Additionally, the public should be allowed time to review the entire list of alternatives before proceeding to the elimination phase.
While the Master List of Alternatives is extensive, it does not include all possibilities. For
example, Alternative WVR is described as a “Citywide railroad viaduct from Menlo Park city limits to Mountain View city limits within existing rail corridor with two new elevated stations.” A
similar variation of this alternative could include NOT building elevated stations but instead
City of Palo Alto (ID # 8675) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/4/2017
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Addendum to the Rail Committee Charter Title: Adoption of an Addendum to the Rail Committee Charter
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council accept the Rail Committee’s recommendation
and adopt the following addendum to the Rail Committee’s current charter (attached):
The City Council is committed to robust community engagement regarding grade
separations along the Caltrain corridor and has requested that the Rail Committee
conduct meetings to engage directly with community stakeholders to support the
decision-making process. These meetings will be formatted to allow for and
encourage dialog and to supplement other regular meetings of the Committee as
well as larger community workshops, focus group meetings, and other forms of
engagement utilized to develop a Context Sensitive Solution for the rail corridor.
The Rail Committee will ultimately formulate recommendations to the City Council.
The stakeholder input that the Committee receives will help shape and inform those
recommendations and the Council’s decisions.
Executive Summary
On April 11, 2017, the City Council adopted an updated charter for the Rail Committee
(Attachment A) and on September 11, 2017, the City Council requested an addendum
to the Rail Committee’s charter, reflecting its desire for the Rail Committee to play an
expanded role in community engagement. The Rail Committee considered a draft of
the addendum on November 8, 2017 and recommended its adoption. The goal of the
Public
Comment:
PA
Rail
Committee
Meting
3/21/18
3
using existing stations. This is not included on the list. There are multiple examples of this type
of variability that should be addressed by the public and the full City Council before any
alternatives are eliminated.
2. The Master List of Alternatives is unclear and should include more graphics to help
citizens understand the alternatives.
The Master List of Alternatives provides a technical description of a number of grade crossing
alternatives that are difficult to understand without graphics. For example, on page 11, alternative MDA is described as “No grade separation at Meadow Drive crossing; depress Alma
Street into trench within existing Alma Street right-of-way under Meadow Drive (no connection
between Meadow Drive and Alma Street)” is very difficult for most people to understand without
a graphic representing what that would look like. The Master List also makes references to
information that is not described. For example, Alternative MDN makes reference to “potential Section 130 project to be completed in 2020-2022” without offering any explanation as to what that is or what it would entail. In order for the public to be able to adequately comment on the
alternatives, more drawings and descriptions should accompany the Master List of Alternatives.
3. Staff’s addendum to criteria requires review by City Council per the Rail Charter
The City Council adopted criteria in September 2017, but in this report, the Staff amended the
criteria in seemingly meaningful ways and then developed a scoring and weighting system
without any input from the City Council and/or without input from stakeholders or the TAC.
These proposed changes warrant a review by the full City Council. We would agree generally that the evaluation criteria should be amended but this change warrants public review and full council approval before continuing to the next step.
4. Allow the public and City Council time to comment on the scoring methodology and
how weighting of the criteria was used to eliminate before moving forward
The Staff report describes in detail the process by which City Staff took the Master List of Ideas
and then applied criteria to develop the results of the Initial Screening. This elimination process
used the criteria approved by City Council in September 2017, but added three new criteria
developed and applied by staff. From the Staff report (ID# 9052 pg 3-4): “Using the methodology
outlined below, Staff conducted an Initial Screening exercise based on the adopted Evaluation
Criteria, as well as three new criteria: 1) Estimated Community Support, City of Palo Alto Page 4
2) Constructability, and 3) Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) Opinion. Much of this scoring is
qualitative in nature and relies on the professional judgment of Staff. An internal working group
comprised of staff from the Planning and Community Environment Department, Public Works
Department, and Utilities Department coordinated on the evaluation under the technical
screening criteria.”
Unfortunately, the report explains that the detailed scoring used for the initial screening will be
distributed during the Rail Committee Meeting on March 21st. This does not provide the public or the City Council time to review how the scoring methods were applied, how the different criteria were weighted, and whether they would agree with the methods or results.
Additionally, “Estimated Community Support” is described as criteria used to judge Staff’s belief
that the project may have broad support within the community based on their recent community
Public
Comment:
PA
Rail
Committee
Meting
3/21/18
4
engagement activities. A better way to estimate community support is to have detailed criteria
that encapsulate the various concerns of the community so that support for a variety of
characteristics and goals can ultimately be decided by the City Council. For example, a tunnel
has repeatedly been the single most supported alternative, but the community support for a tunnel might wane significantly if a $15,000 parcel tax per Palo Altan was proposed. And, without seeing the weighting of the scoring criteria, it is impossible to understand how the
citywide trench and tunnel alternatives were eliminated given they would have scored very high
on the “Estimated Community Support” criteria. We recommend eliminating the criteria
“Estimated Community Support” altogether.
5. Technical Advisory Committee Members and Key Stakeholders should provide more
detailed feedback on criteria, scoring and weighting of criteria, and this should be
reviewed by City Council, before the elimination of alternatives can begin
The Technical Advisory Committee should be included in helping establish criteria. The Staff report makes clear that the TAC has not yet provided feedback as they have not met to discuss
the Master List of Alternatives. However, it is unclear whether when they do meet, they will
simply provide one metric (aka: “TAC Opinion” or whether they will further refine the technical
criteria that might be necessary).
Our recommendation is that the TAC be asked a series of specific questions set to elicit more
information about whether we have the right technical criteria represented in our current criteria
process. In addition, TAC recommended criteria should be brought to the full City Council for
review. The Community Engagement Plan presented to the Rail Committee on 9/5/17 explains that “The
Connecting Palo Alto process will bring forward input and lead to decisions that will impact a
wide range of stakeholders so the identification of key participants is essential to a successful
outcome.”
This Plan identified the following participants or target audiences:
¥ Palo Alto residents who live near or
travel across the rail corridor
¥ Regular transit riders
¥ Senior citizens
¥ Citizens with special needs
¥ Low income residents
¥ City elected officials and staff
¥ Non-profit organizations (i.e. CARRD
and Friends of Caltrain)
¥ Local businesses
¥ Local educational institutions
¥ Local environmental advocates
¥ Community-based organizations
¥ Neighboring elected officials and staff
¥ Other members of the general public
We recommend the Rail Committee direct staff to obtain feedback from the identified groups to
ensure that the final criteria and weighting methodology used for scoring specifically considers key
stakeholder input. This is especially important for stakeholder groups that have had low attendance or
engagement thus far. (For example, how is the City tracking whether the needs of low income or
Public
Comment:
PA
Rail
Committee
Meting
3/21/18
5
special needs residents are being considered in the criteria? How can we know what their needs might be without specific engagement around this issue?)
6. Amend the TAC to ensure domain expertise.
The current TAC (as described by 9/5/2017 in Staff report 8277) was described a group that will help
“identify the technical opportunities and constraints for the various alternatives.” The TAC “will likely only be convened on an as-needed basis moving forward. “ Our understanding is that the make-up of
the TAC is as follows:
¥ California High Speed Rail Authority
¥ Catrain (PCJBP)
¥ City of Menlo Park
¥ City of Mountain View
¥ City of PA Planning and Community
Environment Department
¥ City of PA Public Works Department
¥ PA Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory
Committee
¥ Palo Alto Transportation Management
Association (PATMA)
¥ Palo Alto Unified School District (and
interested site administrators)
¥ Santa Clara County Roads and Airport Department
¥ Santa Clara VTA
¥ Santa Clara Valley Water District
¥ Stanford University
¥ Union Pacific
CARRD recommends the City consider amending the TAC to ensure technical
expertise/representation in the following areas:
¥ Arborist and/or CANOPY/ or similar
¥ Domain expertise in Operations and
Maintenance
¥ Domain expertise on staging
construction of active
¥ Passenger / freight railroad (Caltrain
does NOT have this)
¥ Hydrologist
¥ Stanford Research Park
¥ Stanford Shopping Center Stanford
Hospital
¥ Other Large Employers along the
Caltrain ROW in PA
¥ Historic Resources
7. Funding Feasibility is unclear
There is no description of the underlying criteria for “Funding Feasibility”, although it is identified as a
potential “fatal flaw.”
City of Palo Alto Page 5
z The project will likely facilitate improved rail operations.
The project will likely have no impact on rail operations.
{ The project will likely constrain flexibility for future rail operations and expansion of
service.
Funding Feasibility (Fatal Flaw)
✔It’s possible that the entire project can be funded with established revenue
sources.
X It’s possible that the majority of the project can be funded with established
revenue sources, although some portion of the project will likely require new
funding mechanisms, and that portion is likely to be eligible for competitive grant
funding.
X The estimated cost of the project likely exceeds the capacity of existing
revenue sources and potential new funding mechanisms, and the project would be
unlikely to be eligible for competitive grant funding.
Tier 2 Evaluation Criteria
Reduce Noise
z The project will likely reduce noise from trains—air horns and roadway crossing warning
bells—while not increasing other noise.
The project will likely reduce some sources of noise—air horns and roadway crossing
warning bells—while potentially increasing the degree or intensity of noise from other
sources.
{ The project will likely not reduce noise.
Minimize Visual Changes
z The project will likely either improve or not substantially alter the appearance of the
project area.
The project will moderately alter the appearance of the project area.
{ The project will likely substantially alter the appearance of the project area.
Minimize Right-of-Way
z The project will likely require very minimal or no permanent property acquisition.
Public
Comment:
PA
Rail
Committee
Meting
3/21/18
6
It is unclear what is meant by “established revenue sources” – is this Measure B only? Does it include other ideas presented in the Funding/Financing White Paper? Did the public comments received on the Funding/Financing White paper change the city’s assumptions and if so how? Etc. Again, without
clarity on what is being used for criteria and weighting, it is difficult for the public or the City Council to
agree or disagree with Staff’s analysis.
8. Public comments to the Funding/Financing paper should be reflected in a final document
that forms the basis of the “Funding Feasibility” criteria:
The Funding/Financing Paper was presented on November 29, 2017 to the Rail Committee. Nowhere
on the City’s website is it possible to view any of the public comment that was made on this document. There were no electronic copies of public comment made available for the November 29th report and at the subsequent meeting in February 2018, there were no electronic versions of public
comment made on the Funding/Financing report. Without this information made available, the public
has no idea what, if any, feedback was received on this report.
A rough count shows that about 25% of the comments logged at the Trenching/Tunneling meeting in
March 2018 (Staff Report #9049) related to the funding and financing of alternatives for these
projects. In order to show that the City is evaluating suggestions from the public and is seeking ways
to be creative on this issue, we recommend that comments made to the Funding/Financing paper or
in other settings related to funding, should be made public and incorporated in a public report and their feasibility should be addressed. This would help the community see that their input is being heard and considered throughout this iterative process. This cumulative, iterative work could then be
the basis for the “Funding Feasibility” criteria that would then be approved by the City Council.
For example, the Funding/Financing Paper only considered tax measures that last 10 years, despite the fact that this infrastructure is considered a 100 year project, and even county tax measures last
30 years. Without Council’s decision on what is appropriate to consider in the evaluation criteria and
weighting and scoring, the alternatives should not be eliminated.
9. Use a more robust system to classify and sort considerations to develop criteria and
identify responsible parties for decision making per CSS principles
In a CSS process, concerns, constraints and criteria are developed and reviewed by stakeholders,
technical advisory committees and other relevant parties prior to their final approval. Only AFTER,
this has all been decided ahead of time, would the criteria be applied to the Master List of alternatives.
Another important element of the process is to identify exactly what technical criteria is assumed
(before options are eliminated) and who is the ultimate owner/decision maker on the assumptions.
For example, there are technical assumptions around freight that are under the purview of Caltrain/UPRR and others that are CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission) rules. When eliminating alternatives, it is important to show why a particular alternative failed a technical
requirement. This allows the opportunity to understand the constraint, but also to identify possible
constraints that might be more flexible than previously considered.
To offer a real world example, I’ve included excerpts from a report done by SMA for Caltrain and HSR
that analyzes capacity constraints between operational goals of HSR and Caltrain. (See Attachment
A).
Public
Comment:
PA
Rail
Committee
Meting
3/21/18
7
The methodology SMA used is similar to a CSS process:
Understand and agree upon stakeholder considerations (request clarity on vague/conflicting
goals)
Classify and sort considerations
Develop evaluation criteria
First tackle the most constrained part of the system
Build on complexity once fundamental system constraints are satisfied
They divided the criteria into Constraints, Needs and Wants defined as follows:
Constraints: Stakeholder expectations that must be fulfilled by the project.
Needs: Stakeholder expectations that must be fulfilled by the project, if the project constraints
are not violated or other stakeholder needs are not in conflict.
Wants: Stakeholder expectations that will be considered once constraints and needs are met
and if they are feasible.
If we were to apply that methodology to our grade separations project, one example might be:
Sequence of Considerations
Step 1: Identify and tackle the most constrained part of the system
Step 2: Build upon concept(s) that satisfy fundamental corridor constraints to include
additional considerations
Step 3: Increase the robustness of the concept(s) by taking into consideration broader considerations that are an integral part of community concerns, but not necessary technical
requirements
In the report, considerations are broken into two categories for evaluation purposes:
1. Constraints and 2. Needs/Wants
Constraints: Either fulfilled or not ✖
Needs/Wants: Ranges of goal achievement categorized Good, OK or Poor, based on
stakeholder-defined thresholds
Page 7 of Attachment A shows an example of the chart with alternatives.
The stakeholders and their Needs/Wants are identified on the left side of the chart. This allows the
decision makers to understand what stakeholder concerns are as represented by the Needs/Wants
statements. You may notice that when there are iterations done, the chart identifies the technical parameters used and the assumptions.
For the purposes of narrowing the range of alternatives for grade separations, we propose that the
City Staff continue using a similar methodology that specifically tracks the concerns raised by the
various stakeholder segments such as businesses, schools, Technical Advisory Committee members
Public
Comment:
PA
Rail
Committee
Meting
3/21/18
8
(not as a group, but each individual domain expert), City Council, etc. and also the technical assumptions that were used when eliminating (or keeping) specific alternatives.
This improved methodology will allow councilmembers and the public to respond to each assumption
clearly and directly based on the specific information, rather than an interpretation of general and
unspecific interpretations. For example, under the Tier 1 Criteria “Facilitate Movement – All Modes”, the report describes the achievement of this goal as: “At year of completion, the project will likely
improve access and mobility compared to a scenario with no project.” Any grade separation built
where there isn’t currently a separation will likely improve movement. But, if a crossing is closed then
“facilitate movement” is difficult to assess, especially if spill-over traffic has resulted in a new concern
elsewhere (or possibly in multiple locations). Thus, the criteria description requires further explanation and the weighting of any scoring related to this goal must be carefully articulated and considered as well to ensure it can be applied as intended.
Criteria Suggestions:
1. Criteria that incorporates Comp Plan Goals should be included Palo Alto has a number of long-term vision goals expressed in the new Comprehensive Plan. When
looking at refining alternatives for grade separations, the City should look for ways to assess whether
something that might be considered a project impact could in fact be an opportunity to achieve or
hinder an indirect goal. As an example, how would the alternative of a trench or tunnel help the goal
of developing more housing? Would the associated costs of alternatives be more appealing if they
were solving more than one problem? Would the attainment of more than one goal present a secondary funding source not yet considered? How can the City and staff incorporate this type of
thinking into the criteria categories and eventual scoring and weighting methodology?
2. Calculate the impact and alternatives of heavy freight on grade separations and related
impacts:
There were many community comments relating to freight. While the City asked the consultant to look
at the possibility of going at a steeper grade (2%), the consultant report does not explain how heavy
freight requirements impact the range of alternatives, design, cost, construction and ongoing
operation.
We recommend Clem Tillier’s excellent blog1 post about the effects of heavy freight trains on grade
separation planning. Below is a paraphrased version of Clem’s information to help clarify why
quantifying impacts of heavy freight is important.
Heavy freight requires steeper grades than electrified passenger trains. (This is the explanation for
the difference between 1% and 2% grade considerations, which this committee has heard about
extensively). When a train track is designed to go over the road (train is lifted on a berm or an aerial
viaduct), heavy freight increases the length and the area of the retaining wall that must be built to lift
the tracks. This is true for hybrid alternatives as well.
1
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2009/08/effect-of-heavy-freight.html
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 6:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Cedric de La Beaujardiere <cedric.bike@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 6:22 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Transportation
Subject:Reasons to Include Rail on Viaduct for Connecting Palo Alto
Honorable Council Members,
I am writing today in support of including raised railway viaducts in the list of ideas for achieving grade
separation of our train street crossings. We've spent considerable effort investigating the multi billion dollar option of trenching and tunneling, and yet it appears that viaducts may have been prematurely screened out without given them a fair shake.
As Staff made clear at the last rail committee meeting on Feb 21, you have the authority to and I
strongly urge you to direct staff to include viaducts in the initial evaluation and screening
process, and among the 4-8 Alternatives to be recommended for Study in June. The benefits for viaducts include:
viaducts are much more affordable than the trenching and tunneling options,
viaducts are more pleasant than riding in a trench or tunnel for the tens of thousands of daily train
riders,
viaducts do not require reconfiguration of the roadways,
viaducts' open structure improve sight-lines at intersections
viaducts allow for bicycle and pedestrian travel underneath them between the pillars, both:
o at the road crossings where they free bikes and peds from being stuck in close and dangerous
confines with the auto traffic ala Embarcadero and University underpasses
o parallel to Alma, bikes and peds can have safe and attractive landscaped paths, for as far
as the viaducts are raised
viaducts are more compact than raising rail on berms
viaducts are more attractive than raising rail on vertical walls
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 6:56 AM
2
Above, I provide a quick artists rendition of a viaduct rail structure crossing Charleston. Note the landscaping below the viaduct and the happy cyclist passing safely underneath away from auto traffic. This pictured rail
viaduct cross-section includes multiple noise mitigation strategies which are discussed in the subsequent links to
railway noise mitigation factsheets, including:
floating slab tracks which isolate the structure from the vibration of the passing trains (sound reduction
of 8-10db),
under-walkway absorptive plenums,
a short soundwall at the wheel level between the tracks
taller soundwalls on either side (sound reduction of ~10db for the height shown)
cantilevered tops of the walls help deflect sound and are equivalent to an additional 3' of wall height in
noise reduction.
Not shown but I'd recommend for inclusion:
transparent soundwalls at the level of the train windows up to the height of the train for these additional
benefits:
o greater sound reduction possibly up to ~5db,
o reduced noise sensitivity for being able to see the source of the sound (see references below),
o and better views for the passengers than a blank wall
possibly an enclosed top or mesh top or solar panels at top to prevent birds from entering the space
possibly UV reflective patterning to make the transparent soundwalls visible to birds and prevent
birds from striking them
possibly including planting on the exterior of the viaduct to provide visual screening and additional sound absorption.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 6:56 AM
3
While dropping a train into a trench reduces noise by 2-5db, and raising rail above grade increases the noise up
to 10db, in particular the noise propagation for those in the line of sight, as I noted above and in more detail
below there are numerous effective strategies for reducing noise and vibration emissions on the order of at least 20db from the numbers I've found and listed here. In addition, modern high speed trains are said to be about
10db quieter than the early generations of high speed trains such as the original TGV in France. For
comparison, every 10db of noise reduction equates to a halving of the noise perceived.
At the bottom of this email I include some excerpts from a set of noise mitigation fact sheets that were prepared in 2012 for a high speed rail project in England.
Viaducts are a feasible strategy, there is room to make the grade, as it were: at a 1% grade, to reach
a clearance height of 15.5' above the road to the underside of the viaduct structure would require a
distance of 1550'. There is enough room to make that elevation around Charleston, Meadow, and Churchill. Palo Alto Avenue is just about that distance from the station, so a slightly greater grade may be needed, or depress the road slightly and/or raise the station platforms slightly. In the maps
below, probably too small to really see, the black lines are ~1550' North of Meadow, and South of
Charleston, Churchill, and Palo Alto Ave.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 6:56 AM
4
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 6:56 AM
5
Some notes on noise mitigation (emphasis added by Cedric):
Railway noise mitigation factsheet 06: Viaducts and bridges
http://www.51m.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Factsheet-06-nov-2012-Viaducts-Bridges.pdf
"Developments in the design of rail fasteners have been shown to provide a noise level reduction of
about 8 to 10dB"
"The benefits of mitigation strategies for bridges/viaducts can be summarised as follows:
Resilient rail fasteners are a cost-effective solution to noise and vibration.
Floating slab tracks can be adapted for many different rail situations and generally do not require much
maintenance and are designed for high longevity.
The disbenefits of mitigation strategies for bridges/viaducts can be summarised as follows:
Some mitigation strategies can increase the static mass of the bridge construction, which then requires additional measures of reinforcement to be installed.
There are few examples of these noise mitigation measures for structures on high speed rail although the
floating slab tracks have been identified as being suitable for high speed trains.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 6:56 AM
6
There may be potentially adverse visual impacts from the presence of noise barriers on viaducts;
considerable care would have to be taken during the design process to overcome these impacts."
Railway noise mitigation factsheet 02: Full-height noise barriers
http://www.51m.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Factsheet-02-nov-2012-Full-Height-Noise-Barriers.pdf
"The effectiveness of the noise barrier in mitigating these different noise sources is dependent upon the
height of the barrier. For trains travelling at high speeds (in excess of 340 km/h), aerodynamic noise sources
will be the primary source of noise disturbance. Aerodynamic sources can be distributed over the full height of
the train...Literature suggests that pantograph noise is most effectively treated directly at the source, e.g. by
screening the pantograph directly on the rolling stock itself"
"Noise barriers reduce noise levels at a receiver behind the barrier by obstructing the direct transmission of
airborne sound emanating from the source in front of the barrier (in this case, rail traffic). Sound waves are
either reflected back from the barrier, absorbed by the barrier, transmitted through it or are diffracted over the
top of the barrier (see Figure 2)."
"The level of mitigation offered will also be affected by the position of the barrier relative to the track and the
local topography. The closer a barrier is located to the source, the greater the degree of screening that can
be achieved."
... "The use of sound absorptive noise barriers will help to reduce the impact of sound waves reflected between the
body of the train and the noise barrier.
Transparent sections can sometimes be included to break up the visual impact of the barriers. It has been reported (Watts et al., 1999d) that human sensitivity to noise appears to be greater when the source of noise cannot be seen; in principle therefore transparent barriers may provide greater perceived sound insulation than
opaque barriers of the same height, although it is not known if this has been evaluated in detail. There are
further benefits to transparent screens in that there is less reduction in light levels and residents can see across
the railway (although some individuals may prefer an obscured view). Downsides to transparent barriers include the need for regular cleaning and bird impact.
Vegetative barriers are those made of living vegetation; however these need regular irrigation and
maintenance. Alternatively it may be possible to use the barrier itself as a support structure for vegetation such
as climbing plants, etc. to mask the appearance of the noise barrier from the residential side; concrete barriers are particularly well suited for this purpose. However, regular maintenance of the plants will be required to control growth and maintain an appropriate visual aesthetic."
...
A 2012 European Commission report (Clausen et al., 2012) suggests typical levels of noise reduction
are, on average ... of the order of 10 dB(A) for 2 m high barriers and 15 dB(A) for 3-4 m high barriers."
additional documents in this set:
http://www.51m.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Factsheet-01-nov-2012-Railway-Noise-Overview.pdf
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 6:56 AM
7
http://www.51m.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Factsheet-02-nov-2012-Full-Height-Noise-Barriers.pdf
http://www.51m.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Factsheet-03-nov-2012-Low-Height-Noise-Barriers.pdf
http://www.51m.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Factsheet-04-nov-2012-Railway-Tunnels-Portals.pdf http://www.51m.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Factsheet-05-nov-2012-Earth-Berms-And-Cuttings.pdf
http://www.51m.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Factsheet-06-nov-2012-Viaducts-Bridges.pdf
Thank you for your time and service, Cedric de La Beaujardiere
Palo Alto resident, bicyclist. and daily train rider most of these past 20 years
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:55 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marianne Mueller <mrm@sonic.net>
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 7:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:affordable housing overlay ( ptc recommendation)
please put the affordable housing overlay on the council agenda, I support the work of Palo alto forward in advancing
this initiative and as they point out we must zone for and budget for affordable housing, not only desire it in the
abstract.thank you, Marianne mueller 333 Kingsley ave. paloalto 94301 mrm@sonic.net
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Michael <mark_d_michael@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 10:35 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Eric Rosenblum; Sandra Slater; Stephen Levy; Kniss, Liz (external)
Subject:Affordable Housing Overlay District
Dear Mayor and Members of Council, I look forward to your prompt action and debate regarding the
proposed ordinance to create an Affordable Housing Overlay District. The split vote at the PTC and
majority preference for Planned Community Zoning highlights the controversy and potential confusion
about the challenge for our community to achieve the housing goals set for in the Comprehensive
Plan. The next step by Council should include clarifying the policies and related actions appropriate to making progress on these goals. Creation of an Overlay District for Affordable Housing is one
such policy and action. Respectfully submitted \Mark Michael
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:40 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Adriana Anca Suvaiala <anca11@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 5:15 PM
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Affordable Housing regulations
Dear City Commissioners and City Councilors,
I believe Affordable Housing is important for our community, and our generation has an obligation to try to pay forward
the opportunities that were afforded to us.
Please do not make building Affordable Housing even harder than it already is and do not give priority to cars and
parking lots over people.
Looking forward to your contribution in building more affordable housing.
Sincerely,
Adriana Suvaiala
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:01 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Joy Wright <joy0603@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 16, 2018 12:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Agendize Affordable Housing
To whom it may concern,
I would like to add my voice to all the other Palo Alto parents with special needs to please agendize our request for
affordable housing for our children. It is really disappointing that you have so little regard for the needs for this group of
people in our community. If Mountainview can provide affordable housing for its special needs residents than Palo Alto
should do likewise. Please agendize affordable housing at your next meeting.
Thanks
Joy & Peter
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marianne Mueller <mrm@sonic.net>
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 8:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:amend
dear city council members, aunt Steph, I would like to amend my previous better after spending some time reading the
comments on the Palo alto online website I think I am poorly informed about the issue and I have to say the parking
issuesand traffic issues are significant, having lived through the residential parking permit history and now benefiting
from the new parking zoning areas, it is certainly true that development without adequate parking leads to neighboring
streets being filled with cars up and downit seems logical thatone parking space per home or employee as tge case may
be should be a requirement,I agree with who suggest we call places homes and not units, and although I wish we could
find a way to have 20 more Buena Vistas in our community, I think that is highly unlikely, I do think old fashionedcottage
clusters that areclustersgetoursprinkled throughout Palo Alto are a good way to build high density affordable housing
and I suggest we find a way to encourage that sort of development I am a happy resident I'm such a cottage cluster at
thekingsley park park homeowners association aBirge Clark development from 1940, I have long fuck this particular
development would serve as a wonderful blueprint for similar higher density development and depending on
construction could be built as affordable housing, each home here does have a single car garage, to me it is almost
miraculous how 10 houses and ten 10 single car garage are built on this amount of land, and an analysis of the cottage
clusters would be a eightvaluable guide for how to effectively build wonderful housing for many people without needing
as much land as is typically assume thank you for listening and I will take my hobby horse over to the discussion section
on Palo alto online. I apologize for my previous poorly thought out letter.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:13 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Grossman <grossman_mark@hotmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 7:15 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:ben@bikesiliconvalley.org
Subject:Bicycle infrastructure
Dear Council Members -
I have been a resident of Old PA for over 25 years. As you probably know, and as I have seen firsthand,
the city prides itself on its bicycle friendliness. It's part of its brand. The plans for improving bike
infrastructure should go forward. These are clearly in line with the overall city goals, especially for
sustainability, and are a FAR better use of scarce resources than building new parking garages!
thank you,
Mark Grossman and Lauren Janov 2063 Byron St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:09 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rosanna Lee <rkslee@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 18, 2018 10:46 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike lane projects
My family have lived at this address since 1988. I bike 2 to 3 times a week, from East Meadow to Downtown Palo Alto or to Mountain View. My kids used to bike to their schools. I felt safe for them and myself. I was very pleased when East Meadow was converted to a bike-safe street many years ago, up until the recent changes at Ross and
East Meadow.
I see the recent addition of the traffic circle at East Meadow and Ross alarming. I no longer feel safe biking down
East Meadow. The design of the circle pushes bike traffic into car traffic. It is a ridiculous design and needlessly
expensive. What's wrong with the old East Meadow? As a long time resident of this street, I'm dismayed to learn
that you intend to put even more circles like this, one very close to my house. Please stop this project and consider its impact on the safety of the adult and children cyclists, as well as the considerable cost such designs must incur. The original street was nice and wide -- cars and bikes can share the road. That is no longer the case. I am all for bike safety but this project is overdesigned and counter to bike safety. Sincerely,
-Rosanna Lee
914 East Meadow Drive
Palo Alto, CA
94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 4:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Janet St Peter <jst.pete@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 3:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:California Avenue Underpass
Dear City Council,
I feel unsafe walking in the California Avenue underpass since the bike barriers have been opened. Bicyclist can
now ride full-speed-ahead the entire length of the underpass, passing too close to pedestrians.
Something needs to change before a pedestrian is injured.
Sincerely,
Jan St. Peter
2139 High St.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Dimit <marydimit@mindspring.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 1:21 AM
To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City
Cc:Clerk, City
Subject:Cell towers in residential neighborhoods
To the ARB & City Council:
We request that you deny approval to the Verizon's cell towers as proposed. Verizon's proposed actions to
install these cell towers would adversely affect the quality of life in our residential neighborhoods.
Please require that all cell tower equipment except the antennas be located completely underground and also comply with our local noise ordinances.
In addition, locate any installations as far away from any residences as possible.
We do not want more boxes of large noisy and unsightly commercial equipment in our residential
neighborhoods than we already have -- telephone & cable installations are currently located in above-ground boxes in the immediate blocks around us.
Thank you,
Mary Dimit
President, VCA HOA Board University Ave. between Fulton & Guinda Streets
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 12:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 21, 2018 9:07 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Keene, James; Perez, Lalo
Subject:citizen survey
Please ask citizen opinion about SALT impact upon their decision making
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 11:28 AM
To:Aram James
Cc:sdremann@paweekly.com; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; Binder, Andrew;
Council, City; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Watson, Ron; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Bullerjahn, Rich; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org;
gsheyner@paweekly.com; Scharff, Greg; swagstaffe@smcgov.org;
dprice@padailypost.com; allison@padailypost.com; HRC;
acisneros@CApublicrecordslaw.com; Scheff, Lisa; Stump, Molly;
molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Keith, Claudia; citycouncil@menlopark.org;
cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; bjohnson@paweekly.com; Cullen, Charles
Subject:Commission questions police-video transparency policy Re: Got your message
Thank you Aram. This illustrates the biases of subconscious racial motivated behavior of Ms. Dremann’s non-
fact finding reporting... It’s outright fake news and shameful. Thanks for setting the record straight...
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2018/03/13/commission-questions-police-video-transparency-policy
Mark Petersen-Perez
Editor: Bay Area Free Press
Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮
Sent from my iPad
On Mar 15, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mark,
Yes, you should have been given credit for suggesting defense attorney should be allowed to
review the PAPD body-worn camera policy. I wasn’t give credit for that comment, nor should I
have been. It was one of the Commission members who Sue D., reports discussed your idea.
Check out the article and I think you will see that’s how it unfolded.
Best, aram
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:06 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Alison McNall <amcnall7@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 17, 2018 1:08 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cool Block
I want to let you know what a great program Cool Block has been for our family. We are reducing our carbon
footprint, and have a great relationship with our new found neighbors. We have learnt so much from doing the
program. Alison and Rod McNall
1326 Byron Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 4:21 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 2:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ethical Conflict
To City Council Members
From what I have read and heard, it seems that Commissioner Alcheck has had a conflict of
interest . Before his application was passed to make the 'car ports' that certainly looks like a garage,
he
had the doors installed which finished the garages. Whether this was 'legal' is
questionable. However, to me it is not questionable that he has used his influence to circumvent the city code.
Comment from Fred Balin follows:
"However it is still important that the matter related to the code revision be handled properly, as well
as that city investigate and report how they allowed him to build what was an attached garage without
a door rather than a carport, after he was able to use a loophole in the code to allow him a carport in the front where no attached garage was allowed."
"In my formal complaint filed with the city at the meeting on the 5th, I wrote that Commissioner Alcheck’s presence at the Nov 29, 2017 planning commission meeting constituted a conflict of interest and the related items before the council “be tabled until it is assured that it receives a fair
hearing by disinterested members of the Planning and Transportation Commission not including
Commissioner Alcheck.”
I fully agree with Fred's comments.
Alcheck's attitude on the Planning Commission, late, rude etc., which is no way for a City official to conduct business, should be questioned.
We need to have a rule that anyone with business projects in Palo Alto, should not be appointed to a
Commission or be able to run for
City Council. I agree with others that he needs to resign.
Sincerely,
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St. 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:02 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 16, 2018 7:48 PM
To:Council, City; citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org;
myraw@smcba.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; gkirby@redwoodcity.org;
paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; Jonsen, Robert;
Cullen, Charles; edwinfrey@hotmail.com; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; miguel.rodriguez@pdo.sccgov.org; bos@smcgov.org;
hayden@yourcriminaldefender.com; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Kilpatrick, Brad;
Lee, Craig; Kan, Michael
Subject:Excerpt from PA online March 13, 2018 -snitches should be recorded
James, the police watchdog, told commissioners that some camera policies allow police to turn off their cameras when interviewing informants.
"The rationale often given is that police informants will be reluctant to talk with police out of fear of exposure if
they are recorded. One of the leading causes of wrongful convictions is the false testimony of police informants.
The better policy is to require that conversations between police and informants should be recorded, but not
released to the defense or prosecution without appropriate protective orders," he said.
City policy does not detail whether to record informants.
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ben Pacho <ben@bikesiliconvalley.org>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 5:41 PM
To:Council, City; Mello, Joshuah
Cc:Emma Shlaes; Shiloh Ballard
Subject:3/20 Finance Committee Meeting - Infrastructure Budget
Attachments:180320 PA-SVBC Support for Bike Projects .pdf
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members,
As the Finance Committee meets tonight to discuss options for mitigating the gap in its infrastructure budget,
I am writing to ask for your support in funding the three City of Palo Alto Transportation Plan projects, as
prioritized in the Council Infrastructure Plan:
1) The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project
2) The Bike Boulevard projects
3) The Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge
We thank City Council for their steadfast leadership in bringing these projects to fruition, and further encourage their continued investment and implementation in the days ahead. We also look forward to working with you in
achieving the ambitious goals as set out in the City's Comprehensive and Climate Action Plans. Kindly find
attached our support letter, and feel free to reach out to us if you have any questions.
Best regards,
Ben Pacho
Santa Clara County Advocate Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition
96 N. Third Street, Suite 375 PO Box 1927 San Jose, CA 95109
Office: 408-287-7259 Ext. 230 http://bikesiliconvalley.org
96 N. Third Street, Suite 375
Post Office Box 1927
San Jose, CA 95109
Tel 408.287.7259
Fax 408.213.7559
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
Amie Ashton
Phil Brotherton
Gary Brustin, Esq.
Ken Chin
Ian Dewar Poncho Guevara Peter Ingram James Lucas Daina Lujan Jim Parker Alyssa Plicka Jeff Selzer
Lisa Sinizer
Cheryl Smith
ADVISORY BOARD
Andrew J. Ball
Partner
Ball + Winter Carl Guardino
President and CEO
Silicon Valley Leadership
Group
Richard Lowenthal
Founder and CTO
ChargePoint
Erica Rogers
President and CEO
Silk Road Medical Rick Wallace
President and CEO
KLA-Tencor
Tom Werner
President and CEO
SunPower Corp.
PRESIDENT AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR Shiloh Ballard
SVBC is a 501(c)(3) non-profit
organization
EIN 77-0338658
http://bikesiliconvalley.org
March 20, 2018
Honorable Mayor Greg Scharff and
Members of the Palo Alto City Council
RE: Infrastructure Budget
Dear Mayor Scharff and Members of the Palo Alto City Council:
I am writing on behalf of Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC), a nonprofit working to create a
healthy community, environment, and economy through bicycling for people who live, work, or
play in Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties. SVBC supports the Council Infrastructure Plan to
prioritize funding of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Plan, Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project, and
the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge. We also support funding for the Transportation
Management Association (TMA).
Collectively, these three Transportation Plan projects—in addition to TMA efforts—affirm Palo
Alto’s reputation as a trailblazer in Santa Clara County, encompassing a bold vision for the built
environment where people of all ages and abilities feel safe and comfortable biking around their
community. This is reflected in the City’s recent adoption of the Comprehensive and Climate
Action Plans (S/CAP), which have put forward tangible solutions to encourage multimodal
transportation and sustainable growth (Transportation Element/Rethinking Mobility). Therefore,
we urge you to continue investing in these three core projects that will help realize our common
cause in seeing a thriving and resilient community.
§ The Bike Boulevard projects fulfill the City’s vision of creating a low-stress network of
neighborhood bicycle routes, which are increasingly being utilized for transportation by people of
all ages and skill levels. Additionally, these projects benefit people walking by creating a calmer
traffic environment and making the streets safer.
§ The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project supports the growing usage of this corridor
by students who bike to the 11 surrounding public and private K-12 schools. In addition to creating
a safe route to school, the Project will function as an important biking node for regional trips
originating from cities south of Palo Alto to its extensive bike boulevard network.
§ The Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge Project serves as an important linkage
between the built and natural environments, connecting folks over the major barrier of Highway
101 from bustling job centers to regional trails and comfortable bike facilities.
§ The Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) has demonstrated
promise toward achieving its mandate of reducing solo car trips in the downtown area. Through its
subsidized-transit and carpooling programs, downtown workers are increasingly using other modes
of transportation to get to work; this furthers City goals of reducing congestion, costs, and GHG
emissions. We fully support funding/expanding TMA’s mandate to include bike projects over other
projects that may not help the City meet its mobility/sustainability goals.
We commend Council for their dedication, since for many years, City of Palo Alto has been hard at
work building community and Council consensus in support of these projects. As City Council
enters a difficult negotiation over how to close the budget deficit, we thank them for their
leadership thus far, and ask them to continue their support of aligning environmental and budgetary
stewardship.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Shiloh Ballard
President and Executive Director
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/20/2018 4:41 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 8:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: High-density living worse for environment than suburban sprawl
Interesting study that was sent to me. Suzanne Keehn
Subject: FW: High-density living worse for environment than suburban sprawl
https://www.domain.com.au/news/highdensity-living-worse-for-environment-than-suburban-sprawl-
new-study-shows-20171031-gzcdkw/
EXCERPTS:
Apartment dwellers consume more energy, spend more of their time travelling and use their cars
more, In terms of embodied energy – the quantities and specifications of materials used in the construction
of both types of housing – high-rise fared even worse. The project found that high-rise buildings
required 49 per cent more embodied energy to construct per square metre, and a stunning 72 per
cent more on a per person basis.
High-rise residents were also found to own more cars (0.6 cars per person as against 0.5 in the suburb) and travel longer distances in them, 9 per cent further per year.
On the plus side for city centre high-risers, they were discovered to use less water – 73 per cent of
the water used in suburban households, they took fewer separate journeys a year (92 per cent of
those taken in the suburbs), and they walked and cycled nearly three times more.
One factor that may have skewed the findings is that high-rise city residents were generally older [is this true in the Bay Area?] than those in the suburbs with an average age of 51 compared to 31.8,
and were wealthier.
Full study at: http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/9/6/1052
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:14 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:George Jaquette <jaquette@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 8:45 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Mello, Joshuah; De Geus, Robert; Greg Tanaka; Kou, Lydia; Adrian Lew; Liza Kolbasov;
Raj Shetty; Maximilian Goetz; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Gaines, Chantal; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Fwd: Ross Rd Bike Boulevard
Attachments:Conversation with the City of Palo Alto.pdf
Greg, Adrian, Liz, Lydia, Tom, Eric, Adrian, Karen, Gregory & Cory-
739 people have now signed the petition to STOP DIGGING HOLES in Palo Alto streets while we figure out what has been done
to our intersection at East Meadow and Ross Road.
Below is the email exchange I just had with Joshuah Mello. As he confirmed, the traffic changes implemented at East Meadow
Road and Ross Road violate every design consideration published by any authority worldwide.
Before we build ten more of these intersections, let's stop and ask why we are violating every professional design guideline.
Making it harder for emergency vehicles to get to citizens. Putting children at risk every morning. Stop the insanity. If 739 people are not enough to force you to address the issue, we will get more signatures. But YOU need to own the result. George Jaquette ANGRY parent of two kids who have to bike through the intersection at East Meadow Road and Ross Road twice every day ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: George Jaquette <jaquette@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 4:19 PM
Subject: Re: Ross Rd Bike Boulevard
To: "Mello, Joshuah" <Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org>, "De Geus, Robert" <Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: "Gaines, Chantal" <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Shikada, Ed" <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>
Josh-
Thanks for sending the attachments. As I indicated last week when we met, the FHWA guidelines are the same as the NCHRP guidelines and this mini-roundabout does not adhere to the guidelines -- it does not even
remotely follow the guidelines. As we discussed, the implementation at the intersection of East Meadow and
Ross Road measures 64 feet from the northeast corner to the southwest corner. The minimum
recommended ICD for a single-lane roundabout is more than 50% bigger at 105 feet. As I also pointed out, the
bike lane ends abruptly into a sharp curb and by all guidance should slowly taper into a rolled curb.
Quoting from your documents:
California Highway Design Manual - Roundabouts Section (2015).pdf
p. 400-37
In some locations, it may not be practical to build a single lane roundabout that will operate for 10 years. Geometric constraints and other conflicts may preclude widening to the ultimate configuration. In
such cases, other intersection configurations or control strategies addressed in Index 401.5 may need to be
considered
p 400-38
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:14 AM
2
The inscribed circle diameter for a single lane roundabout generally ranges between 105 feet to 150
feet to accommodate the California Legal design vehicle and 130 feet to 180 feet to accommodate the
STAA design vehicle (George's note: STAA design vehicle = largest firetruck spec of 48 feet).
Roundabouts: An Informational Guide Second Edition
p 1-12, Exhibit 1-9
- clearly states that a Mini-Roundabout has an ICD of between 45-90 feet (a roundabout has a minimum
ICD of 90-feet). - clearly states that a Mini-Roundabout has a fully traversable island and splitters
p 1-12, Exhibit 1-10 shows a diagram of what SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT
p 1-13, Exhibit 1-11 shows a picture of what SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT
p 1-13 In retrofit applications, mini-roundabouts are relatively inexpensive because they typically require
minimal additional pavement at the intersecting roads and minor widening at the corner curbs. They
are mostly recommended when there is insufficient right-of-way to accommodate the design vehicle with
a traditional single-lane roundabout. Because they are small, mini-roundabouts are perceived as
pedestrian-friendly with short crossing distances and very low vehicle speeds on approaches and exits. A fully traversable central island is provided to accommodate large vehicles and serves one of the
distinguishing features of a mini-roundabout. The miniroundabout is designed to accommodate passenger
cars without requiring them to traverse over the central island. The overall design of a mini-roundabout
should align vehicles at entry to guide drivers to the intended path and minimize running over of the
central island to the extent possible. pp. 2-17,18
Where bicycle lanes or shoulders are used on approach roadways, they should be terminated in
advance of roundabouts to merge cyclists into traffic for appropriate circulation with other vehicles. In
addition, bicycle lanes should not be located within the circulatory roadway of roundabouts as this would
suggest that bicyclists should ride at the outer edge of the circulatory roadway, which can increase crashes with cyclists and both entering and exiting motor vehicles. Because some cyclists may not feel
comfortable traversing some roundabouts in the same manner as other vehicles, bicycle ramps can be
provided to allow access to the sidewalk or a shared use path at the roundabout. Bicycle ramps at
roundabouts have the potential to be confused as pedestrian ramps, particularly for pedestrians who are
blind or who have low vision. Therefore, bicycle ramps should be reserved for those situations where the roundabout complexity or design speed may result in less comfort for some bicyclists. Ramps should not
normally be used at urban single-lane roundabouts. More details about bicycle design treatments at
roundabouts can be found in Chapter 6.
p 6-72
Where bicycle lanes or shoulders are used on approach roadways, they should be terminated in advance of roundabouts. The full-width bicycle lane should normally end at least 100 ft (30 m) before the
edge of the circulatory roadway. Terminating the bike lane helps remind cyclists that they need to
merge. An appropriate taper should be provided to narrow the sum of the travel lane and bike lane widths
down to the appropriate width necessary to achieve desired motor vehicle speeds on the roundabout
approach. The taper should end prior to the crosswalk at the roundabout to achieve the shortest possible pedestrian crossing distance. A taper rate of 7:1 is recommended to accommodate a design speed of 20
mph (30 km/h), which is appropriate for bicyclists and motor vehicles approaching the roundabout. To
taper a 5 ft to 6 ft (1.4 m to 1.8 m) wide bicycle lane, a 40 ft (12.2 m) taper is recommended. The
bicycle lane line should be dotted for 50 to 200 ft (15 m to 60 m) prior to the beginning of the taper and
dropped entirely through the taper itself. A longer dotted line gives advance notice to cyclists that they need to merge, providing more room for them to achieve this maneuver and find an appropriate gap in
traffic.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:14 AM
3
Where traffic design guidelines are not followed, an engineer should provide detailed explanations for such
variances -- this is a matter of public safety, not an art project. I would like to know what regulations you refer
to when you write "engineering judgement is always permitted in the field of roadway design"? If an
engineer uses bad judgment to design a dangerous traffic obstacle, who is responsible for remedying
the dangerous obstacle? Can you provide any justification for the as-built design in this intersection?
Can anyone? Rob, I'll repeat what I wrote in my first email exchange with you -- I really believe that the City of Palo Alto
should HALT the project completely until someone can explain the reasons for these gross violations of all
published guidelines. I have forwarded you contact information for an expert at the FHWA who has offered to
provide his guidance for free, and I really think we need to get an expert in here before someone gets hurt. But first -- STOP DIGGING HOLES until we sort this out.
The correct design will likely be cheaper and easier to implement than what Laurentiu Dusciuc designed (if, as
Josh said Friday, he is the engineer who "sealed" this design). The intersection at East Meadow and Ross could
be retrofitted to be completely traversable (or mountable), and the bulbouts can be removed and curbs can be rolled. Getting this one right is really important if you are going to replicate it ten more times around the city in
coming years.
Thanks-
George
On Tue, Mar 20, 2018 at 11:43 AM, Mello, Joshuah <Joshuah.Mello@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
>
> Mr. Jaquette:
> > Thank you for coming in to meet with us last week. I really appreciate the thought that you have put into this issue. I also fully understand what is driving you in your campaign, as I have two small children myself.
>
> I promised you a few follow-up items at the meeting. The list of the items and their current status is below:
> > > Provide you with collision data in the vicinity of Ross Rd and E Meadow Dr for the period between January
1, 2018 and March 17, 2018. We already have data from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2017. Status: We
have requested data from the Police Department.
> Provide you with traffic volume data for the intersection of Ross Rd and E Meadow Dr. Status: We are assembling the data. > Provide you with the relevant design guidance for roundabouts in Palo Alto. Status: Attached you will find
the roundabout section of the California Highway Design Manual and the NCHRP document that the manual
references. It is our opinion that the roundabout at Ross Rd and E Meadow Dr meets these guidelines, however
engineering judgement is always permitted in the field of roadway design. > Have the Safe Routes to School team reach out to you and your daughter regarding the development of a roundabout education curriculum for third and eighth graders. Status: The Safe Routes to School team will be
reaching out to you and your daughter shortly.
> Monitor impacts to Louis Rd in adjacent to Palo Verde Elementary School. Status: The Safe Routes to School
team will continue to coordinate with the school administration and PTA leadership. >
>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:14 AM
4
> Regards,
>
> JOSHUAH D. MELLO, AICP > Chief Transportation Official
> PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
> Transportation
> Joshuah.Mello@CityofPaloAlto.org
> office: 650.329.2520 fax: 650.329.2154 >
> Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix. Download the app or click here to make a service
request.
>
> > -----Original Appointment-----
> From: De Geus, Robert
> Sent: Wednesday, March 07, 2018 1:49 PM
> To: De Geus, Robert; Gaines, Chantal; Mello, Joshuah; George Jaquette
> Subject: Ross Rd Bike Boulevard > When: Friday, March 16, 2018 9:00 AM-10:00 AM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada).
> Where: 7th Floor Conf Room
>
>
> >
>
>
> Danille Rice
> > Office of the City Manager
>
> D: 650.329.2229
>
> >
> From: George Jaquette [mailto:jaquette@gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2018 6:48 PM
> To: De Geus, Robert
> Subject: Re: Ross Rd Bike Boulevard >
>
>
> Rob-
> > Sounds great, I would love to share our experience and hear more about the goals. My personal objective is to
stop further work, as the current phase has created a very dangerous situation at the intersection of East
Meadow and Ross Road. 552 people (to date) agree with me.
>
> >
> I'll look forward to hearing from Judy, and also to meeting with you soon.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:14 AM
5
>
>
> George >
>
>
>
> > On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 4:25 PM, De Geus, Robert <Robert.DeGeus@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
>
> Good afternoon George,
>
> My name is Rob de Geus I work for the City of Palo Alto. I understand that you have a petition to stop the bike boulevard project on Ross Rd. I would like to schedule a meeting with you to listen to your concerns and I
also hope we may be able to share more about what the project is intending to accomplish overtime, in relation
to the City-wide bike and pedestrian plan. I hope you will be open to this as I am very interested in hearing
more resident feedback about this project. I will ask my assistant Judy Ng to find a day and time that works for
us. >
> Thank you,
> Rob
>
> >
> Rob de Geus
>
> Deputy City Manager
> > 250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301
>
> D: 650.463.4951 | F: 650.321.5612 | E: Robert.deGeus@cityofpaloalto.org
>
> >
> “Engaging Individuals and Families to Create a Strong and Healthy Community”
>
>
> > --
>
> George Jaquette
> email: jaquette@gmail.com
> >
--
Conversation with City Planning Department
George Jaquette March 16, 2018 Page 1 of x
March 16th, 9am
Questions:
1. Can we go around the room to introduce ourselves and share roles and titles
please?
2. Can you each please indicate whether you have observed traffic at the corner
of Ross Road and East Meadow during peak traffic?
3. How many vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians go through that intersection
between 7:30-8:30am and again between 2:30-3:30pm?
4. What is the AADT through the intersection of Ross Road and East Meadow?
5. How many students attend Fairmeadow Elementary School? How many of
them live west of Ross Road?
6. How many students attend JLS Middle School? How many of them live west
of Ross Road?
7. How many students attend Gunn High School? How many of them live west
of Ross Road?
8. How many accidents (police reports) were filed for this intersection in 2017?
9. How many accidents (police reports) have been filed for this intersection so
far in 2018?
10. What is your relationship with Alta Planning & Design?
11. When did the City of Palo Alto first hire Alta Planning & Design as a
contractor?
12. What is the value of Alta Planning and Design contracts with the City of Palo
Alto, both past and future?
13. What is your relationship with Jaime Rodriguez, past employee of the City of
Palo Alto?
14. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) defines any roundabout less
than 90-feet for interior circle diameter as a mini-roundabout. Does everyone
in the room understand that the traffic circle at East Meadow and Ross Road
has an ICD of 64-feet?
15. For a mini-roundabout, the FHWA states that the interior island should be
completely traversable. Does everyone present understand that this is NOT
what has been built at the intersection of East Meadow and Ross Road?
16. The FHWA does not recommend mini-roundabouts for intersections with
greater than 25,000 AADT. Estimates for questions (5), (6), and (7) above
likely result in 7,000 trips within one hour. What data can you share that this
design is appropriate for this intersection?
17. What is an appropriate sight-line for a roundabout with an expected vehicle
speed of 25-mph?
18. What is your relationship with Laurentiu Dusciuc?
19. What do you think Ed Rice said when contacted about a 64-foot mini-
roundabout?
Conversation with City Planning Department
George Jaquette March 16, 2018 Page 1 of x
Requests:
1. May I please have a copy of the Intersection Control Analysis for this
intersection, which is required by the Department of Transportation for
changes to traffic flow.
2. Can you provide the locations for the rest of the planned round-abouts in the
city plan, together with the dimensions of each intersection (existing
sidewalk to existing sidewalk, both directions)?
3. Can you provide me with the roundabout design (measurements, materials,
sizes) for the intersection of Ross Road and East Meadow?
4. Please provide any traffic data to support your AADT analysis, which again is
required by the ICA described in (1).
From the contract that the city signed with Alta Design, please share the following
data for this intersection:
Traffic data collection will be conducted by the CONSULT ANT upon approval
by CITY, and is anticipated to include:
• Seven days of vehicle speed and classification hose counts along each
project route (up to 15 locations)
• Seven days of bicyclist and pedestrian counts using video including
information on directionality, for each project, one coW'I.t will include
approximate information regarding bicyclist type (age, gender, helmet use)-
(up to 15 locations) ·
• Where appropriate, intersection peak hour turning movement counts (up
to 16 total)
Was Josh Mello involved in selecting Alta Planning and Design? What was the
elapsed time between Josh accepting a job with the City of Palo Alto and the
signing of a design contract?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bala Meduri <bamrutha@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, March 15, 2018 6:00 AM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board
Subject:I oppose the installation of 93 cell towers proposed by Verizon
Dear City Council of Palo Alto
I, Meduri BalaMurali K, resident of Palo Alto, CA writing this email to oppose the installation of 93 cell towers proposed by City of Palo Alto.
Thanks
Bala
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:09 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 18, 2018 11:57 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:3/14 Letter from Attorney on Behalf of Philips Rd / Madison Way Residents
Attachments:r-blaw.com_20180314_132114.pdf
FYI attached, in case you have not receive it.
‐Fred Balin
2385 Columbia Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:40 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:christophe c <christophe168@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 4:09 PM
To:Architectural Review Board
Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:local Verizon cell towers
Dear members of the ARB,
Please deny approval of the street level cell towers proposed by Verizon in Palo Alto, and insist that
all the electronics be put underground. Of particular concern is the noise level, with the constant hum of a fan that would bother neighbors
24/7. Even a low level hum is not acceptable if it is non-stop, day and night. And this can easily be
avoided by putting the equipment underground.
Thank you for all your efforts in finding an appropriate solution. Most respectfully,
Christophe Chevallier
168 Tennyson ave.
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:39 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 1:59 PM
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Owen, Graham; Lait, Jonathan; Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:March 14, 2018, P&TC Meeting, Item #2: Affordable Housing Combining District
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
March 14, 2018
Planning and Transportation Commission
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
MARCH 14, 2018, PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #2
AFFORDABLE HOUSING (AH) COMBINING DISTRICT
Dear Planning and Transportation Commission:
The original proposal for an Affordable Housing (AH) Combining District
combined two different types of housing that should be kept separate when
recommending and enacting legislation for housing.
One type of housing is deed-restricted housing that ensures that the units
are available only to those at a given income level, and where the monthly
rents are limited to a percentage of tenants incomes, usually 30% of
household income.
The other type of housing is for-profit housing of a unit size and project
size that will give developers a desired return on investment. This
second type of housing is sometimes referred to by slogans such as
"affordable" housing or "work force" housing, but is not housing that
is affordable to households that have incomes at or below the county
median income, and is housing that could be marketed to people who work in
other communities when the housing is located on high transit corridors.
The 2017 Annual Housing Element Report for the Period of January 1, 2017,
to December 31, 2017, was discussed in a Study Session by the City Council
at its March 5, 2018 meeting.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:39 AM
2
The staff report for that agenda item (ID # 8694) at Page 10 of 35 at
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63643
describes non-deed-restricted moderate units as being apartments for rent
and ADUs/JADUs.
The State Income Limits for 2017 published by the California Department of
Housing and Community Development (HCD) for Santa Clara County are on Page
11 of 13 at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants-funding/income-limits/state-and-
federal-income-limits/docs/inc2k17.pdf.
The 2017 Annual Housing Element Report omits the rental prices for the
units described as "moderate income" in the Report.
Here are two examples of recent rental listings that can be compared to
the HCD income limits and the percentage of income required to rent those
units.
One of the units is an Accessory Dwelling Unit. The other is a two
bedroom house. One and two bedroom apartment market rents fall between
the two examples.
A 600 square foot Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) renting for $3,100 a month
is described in the March 9, 2018, edition of the Palo Alto Weekly on Page
31 at
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/morguepdf/2018/2018_03_09.paw.section1.pdf.
That ADU rent is 30% of the income of a three-person family earning 120%
of the median county income, or 33% of a four-person family earning the
median county income.
A 997 square foot 2 Bedroom, 1 Bath house at 850 Boyce Avenue available on
May 1, 2018, is currently listed for a one-year rental at $4,800 a month
at https://hotpads.com/850-boyce-ave-palo-alto-ca-94301-
1m7hu4q/pad?propertyTypes=house&z=12&lat=37.4577&lon=-
122.1732&border=false.
I believe that house is currently renting for $4,500 a month.
That rent for that house at $4,500 a month is 30% of the income of an
eight-person family earning 120% of the County median income.
The rent for that same house at the listed price of $4,800 a month is 32%
of the income of an eight-person family earning 120% of the County median
income.
I urge you to limit your recommendation for an AH Combining District to
deed-restricted rent levels for designated income classes.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:14 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 18, 2018 3:01 PM
To:chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com;
51swampdog@gmail.com; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; Jonsen, Robert;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; myraw@smcba.org; Council, City;
citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org; Binder, Andrew; Perron,
Zachary; HRC; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com
Subject:Marijuana and Racial Justice: Striking Differences in 2 Cities
http://www.watertowndailytimes.com/national/marijuana-and-racial-justice-striking-differences-in-2-cities-
20180317&template=mwdt
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:41 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jane Smith <bloomsmithfamily@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, March 14, 2018 6:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear City Council,
I am writing as a resident in Midtown supporting the Ross Road Bike Boulevard. I have seen many angry posts
complaining / threatening on Next Door about the changes to Ross Road's status of a bicycle boulevard.
The changes are good, and that traffic is already calmer. Most of the objections can be attributed to initial
unfamiliarity, or objections to the idea and operation of a bike boulevard at all.
An anti-bike boulevard petition is circulating. With all due respect to those signing the petition, the time for raising objections was during any of the many community meetings about the project, or even as far back as
2003 when the city’s bike plan was adopted, and Ross was designated a bike boulevard.
I am simply providing a perspective from the other side since it less likely that people will write in to say they
like the changes!
Sincerely,
Jane Smith
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/21/2018 8:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, March 20, 2018 1:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Mr. Alcheck
Dear Mayor Kniss and Council Members:
I was shocked to learn that Mr. Michael Alcheck leveraged his position of power on the PTC to build two illegal garages on properties he owns. Playing fast and loose with the building codes he has sworn to uphold is
surely enough grounds for dismissal.
I urge you to invite Mr. Alcheck to step down. He is a distraction to the work of the Planning Department and of
the PTC and of the Council. In public life, he will taint everything he touches because his hands are no longer
clean. As long as he holds a position of public trust, his opinions and votes are no longer credible because as a public servant, he must be held to the highest ethical standards.
Here are links to some of the telling moments in public meetings where Mr. Alcheck suitability to serve is in
question:
Web Link - Outline of the events
Web Link - Pictures of the garages, presented by resident of Edgewood
The Feb 14 PTC meeting where Mr. Balin raises concerns about PTC decorum:
Web Link
The March 14 PTC meeting where staff was lectured from the dais is here:
Web Link
Thank you for considering my input in this matter. Sincerely,
Becky Sanders
Ventura Neighborhood
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 9:58 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jane Gorokhovsky <janego@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, March 16, 2018 12:10 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:My daughter and I almost got hit by a car on Ross
Hello,
I wanted to let you know that my 8-year-old daughter and I were biking on Ross when we almost got run over
while trying to fit into the little gap on a bump. The car behind us cut us and went right in front of us. My daughter and I stopped in time but my bike hit her bike. I lost control of my bike and almost fell, hurting
myself.
My daughter was so stressed she couldn't stop crying. We now bike on Louis Rd.
I am very afraid of fatalities of young bikers if this road stays the way it is today. It's very dangerous.
Thank you
Jane
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:16 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 12:04 AM
To:Council, City; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com
Subject:National Geographic: As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind
As America Changes, Some Anxious Whites Feel Left Behind
National Geographic
Demographic shifts rippling across the nation are fueling fears that their culture and standing are under threat. Read the full story
Shared from Apple News
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:15 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:ron ito <wsrfr418@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 18, 2018 7:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Need pension reform.....
Walters: How Santa Cruz is going under, like many California cities
Walters: How Santa Cruz is going under, like many
California cities
When Santa Cruz, a picturesque and funky coastal city, first
started to feel the pinch of rising retirement cost...
Employees should not be encouraged to spend their entire careers here because we offer a good pension.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:11 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, March 18, 2018 2:53 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Gennady Sheyner; price@padailypost.com
Subject:New Information Confirming Alcheck Conflict
Attachments:10_2_17 from staff to council.pdf
Council Members,
I would like to bring your attention to a new piece of vital information regarding Item 14 on your agenda for tomorrow
(Monday) night.
Attached please find a copy of an email dated October 2, 2017 from the Planning Director to the City Council and others.
Section 3 relates to Planning and Transportation Commissioner Michael Alcheck. The final sentence reads as follows:
“Unless the code is changed, however, the conversion can be approved after a reasonable period of time."
This is new evidence that his conversion from “carports” to garages could have been blocked by a change in the code
related to contextual garage placement.
However Commissioner Alcheck participated the next month and subsequently in Planning Commission hearings on
possible changes to that very code.
This confirms that his participation was a conflict of interest and violated FPPC rules.
I again request, as stated in the formal complaint I filed on March 5, that the matter before you be tabled until it
receives a fair hearing by disinterested members of the Planning and Transportation Commission not including
Commissioner Alcheck.
Thank you,
Fred Balin
2385 Columbia Street
From: Gitelman, Hillary
_.,, S~nt: Monday, October 2, 2017 1 :30 PM
To: DuBois, Tom; Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Scharff, Greg; Tanaka,
Greg; PACory Wolbach; Filseth, Eric (external); Kniss, Liz (external)
Cc: Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Stump, Molly;
Lait, Jonathan; Keith, Claudia
Subject: Planning Issues of Interest FYI
Mayor Scharff & Councilmembers:
Jim asked me to provide some information on a few different issues that we've been
working on or have received multiple questions about.
1. First, as we communicated previously, the proposed marijuana paraphernalia
store on Cal Ave is required to comply with PAMC Section 4.58, which I paraphrased as
requiring items to be sold in a back room that is not accessible to minors. The applicant
is proposing to prohibit entry to the shop by minors and is arguing that this means he
does not need a floor plan separating the goods for sale in a back room. Based on our
code language, we are forced to agree.
2. Second, we had a number of questions from Councilmembers over the weekend
about outdoor seating at Antonio's Nut House. Apparently, there were posts on
NextDoor suggesting that the City had denied an application or somehow prohibited
outdoor seating. In actuality, the City has not received an application for outdoor
seating at the Nut House in recent years, although our staff recently answered
questions from the owner/representative about how to apply and we were able to find
an approval letter for outdoor tables and chairs from 2003. The 2003 letter specifically
states that the approval for the tables and chairs did not expand the alcohol service
area such that alcohol was permitted outside.
We are reaching out to ABC to see if they have recently denied a permit for alcohol
service outdoors based on this old letter from 2003. If the owner were to file a new
application with the City, we could review it to see if would be ok to serve alcohol
outside, although there is a history of noise and other disturbances associated with the
business. Also, per ABC requirements, they would need to have enough room to
establish a barrier for the alcohol service area.
3. Third, we wanted you to be aware that we've investigated complaints related to
conversion of two carports to garages by property owners that include Michael Alcheck,
the Chair of our PTC. In both cases, a new single family home was constructed in a
_.,,, neighborhood context that did not allow a garage to be built at the front of the lot. As
currently written, however, the code does not restrict the placement of carports at the
front of the lot and both projects were approved with carports. Immediately after final
inspections, the carports were converted to garages without benefit of permits. This is a
violation of the building code and we asked the owners to submit building permit
applications to legalize the conversions. After consultation with the City Manager and
City Attorney, staff will not be approving permits for the conversions from carports to
garages at this time as this would circumvent our code requirements on neighborhood
context. Unless the code is changed, however, the conversion can be approved after a
reasonable period of time.
4. Finally, I've attached a revised handout from the TMA summarizing results of their
survey that was provided in response to the Council's questions. The survey firm, EMC,
had previously re-weighted the data for more accurate comparisons, but not all slides
were updated with the re-weighted data. Slide 11 in particular, has now been updated
and is in synch with Slide 8. Several other slides were also updated. No conclusions or
key findings have changed and it's important to remember that the TMA is measuring
their effectiveness two ways: via this annual survey and by tracking active participation
in programs that get commuters out of SOV.
Please let us know if you have questions about any of these items (and please do not
"reply all"). ·
Hillary
Hillary Gitelman I Director I P&CE Department
250 Hamilton Avenue I Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650.329.2321 IE: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 4:21 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 12:06 PM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Subject:News that impacts Quality of Life on the Peninsula
If you find this helpful, please subscribe.
Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: SFPRA - San Francisco Peninsula Residents Association <cnsbuchanan+yahoo.com@ccsend.com>
To: "cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com" <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sunday, March 18, 2018, 6:36:04 PM PDT
Subject: News that impacts Quality of Life on the Peninsula
THIS WEEK ON THE SAN FRANCISCO PENINSULA
News that Impacts Your Quality of Life
March 18, 2018
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 4:21 PM
2
View as Webpage
In this Issue
Will Tech Titans step up?
Dear Readers,
What is the impact of 8+ years of sustained
success on the Silicon Peninsula? We think
Silicon Success has been overstated and that our transportation
infrastructure has been stretched too thin.
Proposed solutions, funding and timetables are not credible. Housing
is becoming a priority but will transportation catch up? We are
dubious.
Power and capital are being concentrated in Sacramento and among
Tech Titans. How will this power be tapped? Will the Tech Titans step
up to problems they created and fund public transportation
infrastructure? … “Catching up” is billions, not millions.
To Subscribe Click Here
Can Tech Titans be tamed?
For the record, we define Tech Titans broadly to
include all sectors of the local economy… not
just GAF. It is not fair game to only pick on
Google, Apple, Facebook or Stanford. Growing
up is hard to do and we will cover this topic
heavily in the future.
Economist.com
Is Facebook tone deaf?
Early in March the Wall Street Journal noted that
Facebook was a bit tone deaf. Unfortunately this article is
subscriber only but one sentence sums it up. “Social-
media giant played down allegations Russia exploited its
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 4:21 PM
3
platform, deepening perceptions it is oblivious to public
concern about its social impact.”
WallStreetJournal
Ed Comment: In the next newsletter we will have more
to say about Facebook’s plans to grow beyond its current
constraints in Menlo Park.
Pamper me
Mark Zuckerberg has hired a full-time pollster to gauge
his public image. Facebook’s brand came under fire after
the 2016 presidential election, after the company
revealed it failed to stop Russian-backed groups and
political wedge issues. The company has also been
criticized for allowing the spread of fake news stories.
On the positive side, Mr. Zuckerberg has defended
“Dreamers”, suggested universal basic income and
funded a massive initiative to “advance human potential
and promote equality.”
SVbusinessJournal
Ed. Comment: In 1896 The New York Times made
famous the expression “All the news that’s fit to print” Are
some Tech Titans ramping up their game to “All the
public relations that money can buy?” We ask Mr.
Zucckerberg what Dave Packard and Bill Hewlett would
say about corporate responsibility were they alive today?
How many horse towns?
Just when it seemed Facebook had taken up all the
space it could in Menlo Park and had started eying
up the East Bay to expand, the social media giant
appears to have found another 100,000 square feet
in its hometown on the Peninsula.
Real estate expert Phil Mahoney said, "I think [Menlo
Park] will become increasingly like Google in
Mountain View and Apple in Cupertino," he said,
adding that Menlo Park runs the risk of "becoming
more of a one-horse town" as the company grows.
SVBusinessJournal
Ed. Comment: In our spare time we will research
the success cycle of one-company towns. We see no
signs of the current boom fading anywhere on the
Peninsula. Change is unlikely to come from city halls
enamored with the status of being homes to
corporate HQs. Eventually change may be driven by
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 4:21 PM
4
outside regulators who force breakup of some
Titans, like breaking up telephone monopolies years
ago. But don’t hold your breath.
Our brains hijacked by technology?
Early Facebook and Google employees have
formed a coalition to fight what they built. What
is their thesis? “What began as a race to
monetize our attention is now eroding the pillars
of our society: mental health, democracy, social
relationships, and our children.”
SVBusinessJournal
Ed. Comment: We note these concerns all
over the world. The link above may be
subscriber only. However, you can google
Center for Humane Technology or
click HumanTech
Outlier opinion?
The rise of Tech Giants may be bad news for the
economy. The dominance of a few firms risks
harming productivity and growth, study finds.
Bloomberg
Ed. Comment: Who speaks truth to power? We take
Bloomberg News seriously. But who will take this
French economic report seriously? Most Americans
think the French play in left field. C'est la vie!
Mary walks
Steve Case’s “Rise of the Rest” initiative, which aims
to draw attention and capital to startups based
outside the coasts, has hired Mary Grove as head
of Google for Entrepreneurs as a partner.
Grove is migrating to Minneapolis to heat startups in
non-coastal cities. “I was really energized and
inspired by the model and platform and mission,”
Grove said. “I could constantly see that
entrepreneurship is something that’s thriving all over
the world, not just in Silicon Valley.”
SVBusinessJournal
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 4:21 PM
5
Ed. Comment: Basic economics has the power to
move people and capital from the coasts. “Steve
and Mary” raise our region’s employee retention
question. Can we continue our success with
massive, unfunded transportation infrastructure?
Musk sense
SJ Mercury has a sizzling editorial. “Elon Musk should
start behaving like an adult. The creator of Tesla and
SpaceX demonstrated that he’s a self-centered child
in a grownup’s body with his reckless pre-sale last
month of 20,000 flamethrowers.”
SJMercuryNews
Ed Comment: We thought flaming emails were one
of Silicon Peninsula’s greatest problems….but we
were wrong again. Will leaders as creative as Mr.
Musk buy back his flamethrowers and step up to
serious funding of public transportation for the
common good or just their own needs? Everyone
envies the fleets of private buses but they are often
stuck in the same traffic that plagues the rest of
us. We hear that ride inside is sweet!
Non-addicting opiate for our readers
We are searching for humor on the San Francisco
Peninsula. Please send us your ideas and we will
publish best of breed! Email link below.
Success of SFPRA newsletter success depends upon its readers. Please feel
free to forward the newletter to your friends and neighbors. Ask them to
subscribe at no cost by clicking the subscribe button above or by
emailing cnsbuchanan@gmail.com.
Editors Neilson Buchanan and John Guislin are unpaid, private citizens on the
SF Peninsula and have no ties to developers or government organizations.
Web Site and Social Media Coming Soon
Neilson Buchanan | Downtown North, Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:16 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, March 19, 2018 12:50 AM
To:chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Jonsen,
Robert; gkirby@redwoodcity.org; stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; Council, City;
wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; citycouncil@menlopark.org;
51swampdog@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; dprice@padailypost.com; bos@smcgov.org;
myraw@smcba.org; Perron, Zachary; HRC; sdremann@paweekly.com
Subject:NYTimes: ‘Testilying’ by Police: A Stubborn Problem
Here's a story from The New York Times that I thought you'd find interesting:
Police lying persists, even amid an explosion of video evidence that has allowed the public to test officers’
credibility. Read More...
Get The New York Times on your mobile device
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:08 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, March 17, 2018 3:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:: ongoing exchange between Stephanie Munoz and Aram James re the consequence of
the recall election of Judge Persky
FYI: Nat,
Here is an exchange between myself and Stephanie Munoz that goes back a few weeks. Thought this might
answer some of your concerns. Aram
Dear Stephanie, I agree that that this recall is bigger than Persky, bigger then Turner, bigger then
Dauber, or Cordell, et al. And yes, let’s start with the consequences of a recall on
the ordinary citizen. I like a James Baldwin quote here to start the conversation :
James Baldwin —
"If one really wants to know how justice is administered in a country, one does
not question the policemen, the lawyers, the judges, or the protected members of
the middle class. One goes to the unprotected — those, precisely, who need the
laws' protection most — and listens to their testimony.” The Price of the Ticket,
“No Name in the Street” (1972)
So here, Stephanie, I think we might agree. It’s the people, not the politicians, not
the judges or lawyers, that most need protection from the impact of our laws.
It is in this spirit, in this context, that I most fear the current recall. I don’t think a
recall of Persky helps the little person.
Quite to the contrary, this witch-hunt, will have the impact of hurting the very
ones you most advocate need the benefit of judicial discretion, and the mercy of
the courts.
Stephanie, you suggest that I might have overlooked the fact that if Turner didn't
have the benefit of white skin, he might have been treated more harshly.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:08 AM
2
That somehow my initial piece( Don’t judge Persky’s sentence in a vacuum),
didn’t address my deep concern with the impact the recall would have on the poor
and people of color.
But here’s a few paragraphs, from my initial piece, that speak directly to the issue
of racial disproportionality. And the fact that a successful recall will exacerbate,
not mitigate, the racial disparity in the system, that you seem so passionately to
oppose.
“... Many of the same progressives voices who have spoken out long and
passionately against over incarceration, mass incarceration, the disproportionate
sentencing imposed on the poor and people of color, are now doing an about face
in the Turner case.
They are shouting out that more barbarism should have been handed down in the
Turner case. The same mentality that has brought us to our current failed state of
mass incarceration.
Instead of blindly demanding that a white male elite be sentenced to prison for his
first offense, the better logic is to demand the same measure of justice and mercy,
for similarly situated defendants of color and the poor....”
( all three paragraphs above, my language)
You state the following in your latest response:
“The violence you recount that happens to people in jails--that's
what happens to women just because they're women.”
Are you suggesting that its okay with you that inmates, can be beaten, raped and
tortured, because, as a general proposition, women are beaten just because they’re
women? Do you really mean that? I’m convinced you don’t.
Isn’t the better solution both in our criminal justice system, and in our misogynistic society at large, to apply a restorative justice/solution based
approach first, before going the way of a vengeance model.
Your vengeance model has led to the largest prison industrial complex on the
plant. Stripping fair minded judges like Persky, of judicial discretion, will only add to our current Jeff Sessions/Donald Trump lock-um-all-up mentality/climate.
My guess is that if we were dealing with issues of war and peace, of the sort
championed by wonderful organizations like WILLF, a look at diplomacy and
restorative justice models would be a first instinct, before pursuing war against a perceived enemy on a whim .
Why not apply the same thinking, a diplomatic/restorative thought process, to the
war being fought by our government, against our own people, a war called the:
Criminal Injustice System.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:08 AM
3
Your support for the recall of Judge Persky, if looked at closely, is really a call for
war, without having first looked at the option of diplomacy or restorative justice,
for the parties.
I request that you take a step back and reconsider your support of this recall/rush
to judgement against a good and fair minded judge.
Peace, justice and respect,
Aram
On Feb 24, 2018, at 4:20 AM, Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
wrote:
Dearest Aram: I'm honored that you are taking the time to
send me a cogent, intelligent and good hearted
message. It's not about Judge Persky. After all, we still call George Washington the Father of our Country even though
he had slaves. It's not about judicial discretion, which is a
very good thing. I wouldn't say it's about white privilege, It's
not even about Brock Turner's punishment, although I think
that you'd be the first to admit that if Brock were a man not protected by the magic cloak of white skin he'd be quite
harshly treated. It's about the rest of us, simple non-lawyers,
supposed to govern ourselves; we've condoned a great deal
of injustice, and this isn't so much a recall as a referendum
on what's called "the rule of law", which includes the way people behave that's not codified, like The New York Times
mentioned a couple of women who went to prison for trying
to get their children in a better public school. In this
instance, an elected official in a high position has delivered
a sentence saying violating a woman's physical integrity, acting so as to impregnate her--which itself has danger, and
changes the course of her life, not to mention the enormous
injustice to the fatherless child, is about on a par with
smuggling in a Bengal tiger cub.
Every woman--well, almost every woman--wants to be the most special person to a man who will take good care of her
and her children, someone she can make the king of her life,
and give that very special gift to, something that she alone
can give to a man she loves. A man her children can look
up to and trust, not a man who trashes something wonderful and beautiful. She wants to be a mother, and she needs
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:08 AM
4
somebody who considers his power to father a child as
something tremendous, something sacred. Maybe the
person who considers sex sacred might have related qualities that could be hard to live with, and if one of those qualities is a prejudice against a woman who has been
tarnished, too bad.
The violence you recount that happens to people in jails--
that's what happens to women just because they're women. The indifference to the suffering of black people, that's what is happening to women. Recently I talked to two
men from different walks of life. Court is a moderately wealth
genius from MIT who spends most of his waking hours
volunteering computer training to the kids of East Palo Alto so they can get good jobs. You need some money for desks? Here. I was complaining about homelessness being
misgovernance and he said "They just don't care." and my
heart went out to him for the way cruelty to others hurts
him. A week or so later I was at the flea market chatting with Roy, a beautiful black after-market seller, and we were
talking about the homeless and he said the same exact
thing, in the exact same way, and I saw in his face the way
that indifference has hurt him personally. That must be true
for you, too. You have black children. You're a
defender. Don't be one of "Them", those people who don't
care. What is it engraved on the Museum of the
Holocaust? "For evil to prevail, it's only necessary that good
men do nothing."
love and peace, Stephanie
From: "@" <abjpd1@gmail.com>
To: "stephanie" <stephanie@dslextreme.com>i
Cc: "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto"
<wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>, "chuck jagoda" <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>, "roberta ahlquist"
<roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2018 11:00:50 PM
Subject: Re: representative government
Hi Stephanie,
Thanks for your latest response. Did you read the piece I
sent your way: Don't judge Persky sentence in a vacuum?
I certainly never took the position or does Cordell, in her
public pronouncements, for that matter, that Brock Turner
doesn’t deserve to be punished appropriately.
The thrust of my piece was that young defendants, without substantial prior records, should be first be sentenced
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:08 AM
5
coming from a restorative justice model, as opposed to a
vengeance 1st model of sentencing.
My article makes it clear that the offenses that Turner was convicted of, deserve the most serious consideration:
“... Based on the nature of Turner’s convictions, the terms
and conditions of his probation are multiple, complex
restrictive and appropriately oppressive.( my language).
I point out in the piece that offenders like Turner, who are
given jail time and probation at the outset, face a complex
dizzying maze of probationary conditions, that, if violated, subject the probationer to very lengthy prison sentences.
I handled literally thousand of felony probation matters in my
years as a public defender, and a huge preponderance of
my clients, violated probation, and were sent off to prison.
Sent off to prison, where they faced horrible circumstances,
in violation of the 8th Amendment ban on cruel and unusual
conditions. Many are raped and beaten, tortured, and other
unspeakable inhumane treatments inflicted.
Often, upon release, there are no jobs, no housing, no
second chances. And, yes, recidivism and back to prison
with new victims, all because good intentioned folks, didn’t
stop and think about what the vengeance 1st model of sentencing breeds, more of the same.
Why not give a judge like Persky the discretion to stop the
cycle, by imposing a restorative-rehabilitative sentence first,
while imposing very harsh conditions of probation, that if the defendant violates ( fails to avail himself of the rehabilitation
offered) is then sent off to prison for public safety.
Remember, the recommendation for 6 months in county jail,
with harsh conditions of probation, was recommended by a very senior female probation officer, who personally
interviewed both the defendant Turner and the victim.
Remember also, even if Turner makes it through his three
years of formal probation, unscathed, he still faces a life time of sex registration. Failure to register itself, upon conviction,
can result in a separate prison sentence.
This was never a light sentence except in the mind of a
Michele Dauber who has never practiced criminal law, never had to sentence a defendant after presiding over a jury trial,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:08 AM
6
never read a probation report as part of the sentencing
process, or listened to all of the witness on both sides.
Cordell on the other hand was both a criminal defense attorney, and a judge, for 20 years or more. She handled
and presided over thousands of criminal matters. Cordell is,
and always has been, a very strong and relentless advocate
for all women, gay, straight, and otherwise. I challenge you to discover otherwise.
As the first African American woman to serve on the bench
in Santa Clara County, I practiced as a public defender
during the same time frame-including in her courtroom, she suffered bullying and attempted intimation from white male judges on the bench. It was gross, it was racist, and it was
simply wrong.
My point: LaDoris Cordell would be the 1st to call out Persky, and call him out with fury, if he suffered from an over
abundance of white male privilege, as a judge, or in his
sentencing practices.
Stephanie, I hope you will reconsider your position and oppose this outrageous recall campaign.
With deep respect,
Aram
P.S. I look forward to more discussion re this extraordinarily
important event in the life of our democracy.
On Feb 19, 2018, at 6:51 PM, Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> wrote:
Aram, you astonish me. First, your analogy
limps. Persky is a judge, a government
official. What he says from the bench has the
force of law and, in this country which is supposed to be a democracy, he speaks for all
of us ordinary people. Michelle isn't a judge, or
a government official, she isn't even a
lawyer! She's just one of hoi polloi, and the
lower kind of one, a woman, never elected to any honor so she can't be recalled. She's
challenging; she's asking for a referendum.Do
we agree that rape is no big deal?
You can't agree. You just can't. Would you say to Chief Justice Taney "Yessir boss, I'm
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 3/19/2018 10:08 AM
7
coming right back as soon as I can get that
Underground Railway in reverse."?
You've claimed that all sorts of people were unjustly sentenced. I don't understand LaDoris, either. Maybe she's sort of like a nun
and just thinks sex is like brushing you hair, but
you're not like that. You've known women
carnally and al least one of them has borne you children. I think you know that a woman doesn't have to think sex in the only goal in life,
but at least she has to be able to tolerate it--a
tolerance that rape takes away, so she can't
ever feel that special tenderness. If she's impregnated, she has to manufacture from her own body a human being who has very little
chance of success or happiness in this world
without a father's love and guidance, and living
with the knowledge that his father was a rapist and his mother didn't want to conceive
him. Abortion isn't a 100% desirable solution
and even if her culture permits it, she may not
be able to get one. She's been reduced to less
than a being with free will who can make a mark on the world, to a creature who exists
only to give sexual satisfaction to men,
however unworthy, and produce cannon fodder
for the likes of
Trump. No. No. nonononononononononono...Your friend and admirer, Stephanie
By the way, a couple of weeks ago this same
act, apparently of no consequence when
performed by a man against his victim's will, was deemed by the high court in California if
performed by a woman who has no other skill
or resources and needs the money to stay
alive and feed her children for accepting
money for this useful and comforting service to be a criminal act.