HomeMy Public PortalAbout20171023plCC 701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 10/23/2017
Document dates: 10/4/2017 – 10/11/2017
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 9:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent:Friday, October 06, 2017 3:29 PM
To:WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto
Cc:Council, City; Mario Dianda; David@healthwrights.org; Dave Price;
bjohnson@paweekly.com
Subject:Re: Renter Protections in Palo Alto
/orNo, I don't know Angie Evans but she is my dream advocate. She's doing what we have been trying to do, that is, reach out to likely allies
with a specific helpful suggestion. This is my contribution to the rent control debate: We should have
rent control not because landlords are "greedy", but because rental housing for the workforce is one
of the components of responsible city planning. We have a capitalist system, that is, not socialist; the
economy is built by private enterprise; it is, nevertheless, orchestrated by the city, county or state government. which controls land use. They say you may put homes here, stores there, factories over
yonder, and they arrange public transportation to the sites which are destinations for many. Some of
these uses are money making uses, so the property they are on is worth more; the property tax
reflects that difference in value, and traditionally, as the money to be made increases, the property
tax produces more revenue. However, Prop 13, designed to change the traditional method, which was driving the middles, skilled workers and white collar workers, from their homes, also made it
possible to earn more money from a given property without paying back a commensurate tax. A
more satisfactory solution would be to have split tax rolls, and/or hand the health and education
burden back to the federal government, which does have revenue which increases as the nation's
wealth increases, because the payroll tax is a percentage of wages. It would be more practical to lhave the care provided by the county , basically for unskilled workers and their families, paid for by
the payroll tax on these workers, (single payer) and higher education, as well as higher education,
which increases the earning power of those who get it, increasing the income tax. WILPF has a
particular interest in this use of federal tax money, because the federal government has been getting
more money, and spending it on "defense" from countries we don't need to be defended from. Nevertheless, owners of land which may bear rental property received their permission
to make their money by the useful function of housing hoi polloi, the workers whose labor,
consumption and child bearing make possible our society. They weren't given permission to make as
much money as possible by renting to high class families who have traditionally been property
owners. Exception should be make for single-family homes because the rental goes toward the owner's living someplace else, and some consideration should be given to the possibility of deflation,
also.
In the past, it has been characteristic of elected rulers to feel that property enrichment, was the
highest good, but Prop. 13 set us on a different course. If we recognize that land is to be used to bring prosperity to all individuals. rather than power and glory to the commonwealth, we
will probably want to look into insuring that catastrophe doesn't destroy the rental housing stock, nor
Death, Disease and Depression destroy completely the buying power of the low income renters,
putting the landlord out of business.
Stephanie Munoz
From: "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto" <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>
: "Roberta Ahlquist" <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, "chuck jagoda" <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 9:36 AM
2
"Ruth Chippendale" <grchippendale@yahoo.com>, "stephanie" <stephanie@dslextreme.com>,
"Wendy Peikes" <wendypei@yahoo.com>, "Mary Gallagner" <writing2win@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, October 6, 2017 8:52:14 AM
Subject: Fwd: Renter Protections in Palo Alto
Do you know about this? Is this DuBois's colleagues memo? If you find out details - I don't see her
name on our contact list - I can send something out to the full roster. Are you familiar with her name
with one of the organizations that's on our mailing list. Judy A. ---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, Oct 5, 2017 at 9:00 PM
Subject: Renter Protections in Palo Alto To: wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com
Hi,
I'm a Palo Alto residents and a community organizer. I'm writing because I'd love if some of your
members could come to the City Council meeting on October 16th. As you may have seen, they'll be discussing passing a form of local rent control that protects tenants from steep and sudden increases
and from unfair evictions. We seriously need this in Palo Alto and throughout the peninsula but they
won't do this without hearing from as many residents and organizations as possible. I'm going out of
town on October 12th - my Grandfather's 90th birthday can't be missed, even for renter protections -
but I'd love to talk with you all if you have time before the meeting. I've seen your priorities and believe this is completely in line with your beliefs about housing rights. I hope you'll consider sending
folks to give testimony on October 16th!
All my best,
Angie
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 9:00 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Pepper Person <pepperxigua@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 8:57 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Rebecca Sanders
Subject:3001 El Camino
Dear City Council (cc: VNA),
We received notice of a very special public hearing of the city council for 3001 El Camino Real...
And in this notice, you state that a draft MND was circulated for public review on 7/3/2017. Circulated where? To what public?
Let's go back to the article in the Mercury News ( http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/07/19/50-apartment-project-on-el-
camino-gets-ok-from-palo-alto-commission/ ). In that article, Commissioner Gardias wondered why there was a lack of community discussion around the
project at 3001 El Camino.
Here, Planning Director Hillary Gitelman hypothesized that the "likely answer could be that the project is not asking for any zoning variances."
Well, now there is a Design Enhancement Exception. Maybe that will bring out the community.
But there are obviously a few questions to answer. First, why isn't there any tip for how to find the final MND on this notice? Why not provide a link? The
assertion that the draft MND was circulated should be qualified, to note that it was an extremely limited
circulation.
Sending out notices saying that a draft MND was circulated and now there's a final MND, without any guidance as to find those, is disingenuous at best.
Do you really think that people will call each project's representative, or piddle around the CoPA website, to
find these items? You specify the representative, why not add a simple link?
Second, is it possible for a developer to build something in Palo Alto without an MND? Could there actually be
a project without a document full of negatives?
Third, is it possible for a developer to build something in Palo Alto without a cornucopia of variances? How many will follow this one? Why even have rules, if they're so rarely followed?
These projects seem to follow a familiar tack. Get approval without variances. Add variances. Get approval.
Perhaps we should merge Palo Alto with Mountain View, or rebrand as Mountain Alto, since we obviously look
at our neighbors to the south as role models on how to grow.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 9:00 AM
2
Regards,
Jason Robinson, PhD, MBA
Jieming Robinson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 10:22 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2017 6:52 AM
To:Stump, Molly
Cc:Council, City; Keene, James; Keith, Claudia; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Bullerjahn,
Rich; Reifschneider, James; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky
Subject:CPRA Violation Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
10/10/17, 7:49 AM
@cityofpaloalto attorney Molly Stump in violation of California Public Records Act refuses to state
mandated delays @CaCities @StateBarCA twitter.com/pafreepress/st…
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 04, 2017 12:19 PM
To:supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Floodwater retention at the headwaters of San Francisco Creek
I'm pleased to see the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority is still looking at storing water west of 280 and
slowly releasing it:
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/10/03/public-comment-sought-on-flood-control-projects#comment_form
It is my understanding that the state water board held up the original approval of the current flood control
construction because that was not part of the plan.
Please require Stanford, as part of their current GUP application, to include a retention basin for overflows from San
Francisquito Creek, as recommended by the State Water Resources Control Board. Stanford should be required, in
detail, to contribute to the improvement of local communities in order to receive massive approval to redevelop their
property far beyond current zoning. No institution should be allowed to facilitate flooding downstream of their land by refusing even minimal modifications. This retention basin is critical in preventing future flooding downstream from San Francisquito Creek, as was pointed out by the State Water Resources Control Board.
The City of Palo Alto spends hundreds of thousands of dollars maintaining the upstream environment (by removing
sediment) above Stanford supporter Arillaga's property in Foothills Park so as to reduce the potential of flooding on
Arillaga's downstream property. Why isn't Stanford held to that same requirement for its upstream property?
Kathleen Goldfein
Palo Alto Resident for 28 years
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 05, 2017 11:17 AM
To:Mello, Joshuah
Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Shikada, Ed; Council, City
Subject:Foothill/Arastradero/Miranda Intersection
Dear Mr. Mellow,
I am writing to you about the safety and efficiency of the challenging Foothill/Arastradero/Miranda intersection. On September 7, 2017, I counted the traffic going through this intersection between 7:45 and 9:15 a.m. I collected the following the data for motorized vehicles:
Turned right onto Miranda 283
Turned right onto Foothill* 234
Went straight on Arastradero 444
Turned left onto Foothill 116
Total motorized vehicles that went through the Intersection 1077
____________________
*Of 234 vehicles that turned right onto Foothill, 164 turned from the right lane and 70 turned from the second lane.
The current configuration has 48% of the vehicles using the right lane and 52% using the second and third lanes. This uneven allocation of traffic among the lanes results in long wait times in the right lane. This is problematic because the right lane is on
the emergency route to the VA hospital. Of course it is also aggravating for commuters.
I found that, on average, 10.1 vehicles turn onto Miranda with each cycle of the traffic light. However, on the rare occasion when
no vehicle stopped on a red because they were going to turn right onto Foothill, 32 vehicles turned right onto
Miranda. Three times as many vehicles turned right onto Miranda when no vehicle had to wait until the light turned green.
I propose that the right lane be dedicated to right turns onto Miranda. When this was the case previously, the only problem was that some vehicles that wanted to turn right onto Foothill would do so from the right lane and would stop until the light turned green. Drivers did not read the signs or did not heed the signs. We have the same problem with the current configuration in that 30% of the vehicles that turn right onto Foothill do so from the second lane that is clearly marked for going straight across Foothill. Drivers take the path that is most efficient for them regardless of the signs.
I believe the only way to insure that vehicles in the right lane turn onto Miranda is to have a barrier that prevents them from going straight. I propose installing bollards as indicated in the diagram below. The bollards would start at the beginning of the green bike lane and, along with proper signage, would indicate the right lane is for Miranda only.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
2
Traffic coming from the south or west onto Miranda must not impeded by the bollards. To accommodate this traffic the diagram shows a second lane on Miranda north. (The lane boundary is marked with dashed lines on the pavement, not bollards.) To create room for this lane requires that the three lanes going south on Miranda be reduced in width by 10% as shown in the diagram. These lanes are presently wider than average and can easily accommodate this reduction.
I have a lot of support for this proposal from residents and from the businesses along Miranda whose staff use this
intersection. Please let me know what you think of this proposal.
Thanks,
Jim Colton
670 Georgia Ave
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
3
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 10:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com
Sent:Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:55 AM
To:Stump, Molly
Cc:Council, City; Keene, James; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay
Boyarsky; swebby@dao.sccgov.org; dangel@dao.sccgov.org
Subject:Fwd: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: W000939-092617
This delay is an outright obstruction of the CPRA request process and actionable per cal state bar complaint process... Willful and Wonton knowledge of obstruction and mandated processes...
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Palo Alto Public Records Center" <paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net>
Date: October 6, 2017 at 10:31:54 PM CST To: public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com Subject: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: W000939-092617
--- Please respond above this line ---
10/06/2017
RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of September 26, 2017, Reference # W000939‐092617
Dear Mark,
I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public
Records Act (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.) received by the City on 9/26/2017.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 10:26 AM
2
Pursuant to Government Code section 6253(c), the City requires an extension of time to
respond to your requests. The City continues to locate and examine potentially
responsive records.
The City will provide an initial determination regarding your request by 10/13/2017.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me
by responding to this message.
Sincerely,
David Carnahan
Deputy City Clerk
To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the [NAMEOFSYSTEM]
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 10:21 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Monday, October 09, 2017 1:15 PM
To:dennisbalakian; David Balakian; info@superide1.com; midge@thebarretts.com; Mayor;
CityManager; Council, City; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com; kfsndesk; newsdesk; jboren; Joel
Stiner; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov;
paul.caprioglio; Paul Dictos; oliver.baines; clinton.olivier; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg;
steve.brandau; Mark Kreutzer; firstvp@fresnopoa.org; Raymond Rivas; Dan Richard;
Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; bballpod; leager; Leodies Buchanan; lxcastro93@yahoo.com;
allison.wisk@latimes.com; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; francis.collins@nih.gov;
Greg.Gatzka; Jason Tarvin; kclark; lawrence.ingrassia@latimes.com; mmt4@pge.com;
nick yovino; nchase@bayareanewsgroup.com; pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com; terry;
thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov; Mark Waldrep
Subject:Fwd: KCBS today, Sun. Oct. 8, 2017-In Depth- re Admins efforts to ruin ACA and HC in
gen
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Mon, Oct 9, 2017 at 12:54 PM
Subject: Fwd: KCBS today, Sun. Oct. 8, 2017-In Depth- re Admins efforts to ruin ACA and HC in gen
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Monday, October 9, 2017
To all- As if the attached were not enough, Sheryl Atkisson interviewed an expert on health insurance
yesterday. He said the following:
The Trump administration has told the IRS not to go after people who do not indicate on their tax returns
that they have health insurance. They showed a copy of a 1040 and circled the appropriate lines. So people who
might have expected to pay a fine if they do not show on their tax return that they have purchased health
insurance are now safe from that, further undermining the effort to get people to buy health insurance.
I wonder where the rule came from. Congress writes the Internal Revenue Code and then the Executive
branch, the Dept. of the Treasury, writes the 7 or 8 thick, thick books known as "the regs" which interpret the
IRC. These are thousands of pages thick, and each one is as long as the IRC itself. If the rule re saying on one's
tax return whether he has health insurance was written into the IRC by Congress, then Congress should be interested in Trump abrogating that rule by telling the IRS not to pursue people who do not buy health
insurance.
This newest move by the administration to destroy the ACA should, along with all I state in the attached,
grab the attention of Congress. The scumbag Republicans couldn't repeal the ACA, so they are doing everything they can to undermine it. Does anyone in Congress think of the "I" word when they realize all of this? If I were
in Congress, I would think of it, and suggest it for consideration.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 10:21 AM
2
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:33 PM
Subject: Fwd: KCBS today, Sun. Oct. 8, 2017-In Depth- re Admins efforts to ruin ACA and HC in gen
To: info@superide1.com, midge@thebarretts.com, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David
Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>,
CityManager <citymanager@fresno.gov>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>, Paul Dictos <paul@dictos.com>, pavenjitdhillon@yahoo.com,
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>,
"oliver.baines" <oliver.baines@fresno.gov>, "clinton.olivier" <clinton.olivier@fresno.gov>, Mark Kreutzer
<mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, "steve.brandau"
<steve.brandau@fresno.gov>, jboren <jboren@fresnobee.com>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>,
firstvp@fresnopoa.org, fmerlo@wildelectric.net, Raymond Rivas <financialadvisor007@gmail.com>,
francis.collins@nih.gov, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, Irv Weissman <irv@stanford.edu>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Oct 8, 2017 at 1:26 PM
Subject: KCBS today, Sun. Oct. 8, 2017-In Depth- re Admins efforts to ruin ACA and HC in gen
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sun. Oct 8, 2017
I heard the 30 min. "In Depth" show with Jane MacMillan on KCBS this morning. Her guest was Dr.
Andrew Bindman, a physician and health policy researcher at Zuckerberg-UCSF. Topic was what is happening
to HC with this admin. and the Repubs. in Congress determined to ruin the lives of most Americans. They failed
to repeal and replace the ACA, but here on some other dirty tricks the scumbag Repubs are doing to damage most Americans on HC:
Six topics:
1) The government is keeping very quiet this year about the November 1 start date for enrollment in the ACA. They are providing less money this year to enable the States to advertise the Nov. 1 date. They think that
if fewer people enroll, the ACA may collapse on its own. The enrollment period is Nov. 1 to Dec. 15.
2) Cost sharing subsidies to help low income. The admin. has not made clear whether or not they will
provide this money, and the uncertainty can cause health insurance cos. to raise premiums.
3) Under Obamacare, there has been a push to go from "volume to value", and it has been having an impact
on HC costs. Instead of getting paid by the number of office visits he gets or the number of tests the physician
orders (volume), the emphasis is now more on addressing the HC needs of the populations they serve (value).
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 10:21 AM
3
4) The bill In Congress now will cut funding for Medicare by $400 billion over 10 years and cut funding for
Medicaid by $1 trillion over 10 years. Medicaid serves the poor, and, since they tend to be less well-educated
and politically astute and active, we go after them the hardest. These are the folks we tended to draft and get murdered in Viet Nam, all to enrich the same people who put these bastard Republicans in Congress.
5) Before the ACA, a big percentage of patients seen at UCSF were uninsured. Now, with ACA, 93% of
Californians have some health insurance. 17% were uninsured before the ACA, so it has cut the percentage of
uninsured Californians in half.
6) Medicare for all? 93% of Californians have some form of health insurance and that last 7% can be
covered somehow in our patchwork system of Medicare, Medicaid and employer-paid health insurance without
going to single-payer. The mantra now in the HC community is "Universal without single-payer".
Good show. It runs at 8:30 AM and, I believe, 8:30 PM on Sundays on KCBS-SF.
I wish Ms. MacMillan would spell important names of people and organizations. In Fresno, I am maybe 165
miles from the KCBS transmitter and reception is not perfect. I assume the Republicans have jamming
equipment up in the Pacheco Pass too.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 10:18 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:John Baum <baumjwb@sonic.net>
Sent:Monday, October 09, 2017 11:39 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear City Council,
Either city ordinance or state law require dust suppression measures when a building is demolished. This is a sensible measure.
With increased frequency we see 'mow-and-blow gardeners' who wisely protect themselves with dust
masks raising large clouds of dust as they attempt to blow together a small pile of leaves and other
detritus. I believe that the time has come to apply dust suppression measures to 'leaf blowing' (a generic term for sweeping with high velocity air streams. I trust that you are well informed enough about the public health risks of filling our lungs with dust that need not be raised that I can spare you
my including these details. I believe this is a public health problem that ought to be addressed for the
sake of our community.
John Baum 922 El Cajon Way
Virus-free. www.avast.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:34 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:California High-Speed Rail <Northern.California@hsr.ca.gov>
Sent:Thursday, October 05, 2017 1:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:New San Mateo Grade Separation Project Funded in Part by High-Speed Rail
To view this email as a web page, go here.
Video Release
October 5, 2017
Amy MacPherson
(916) 330-5667 (w)
(916) 832-4271 (c)
Amy.MacPherson@hsr.ca.gov
Video Release: New San Mateo Grade Separation Project
Funded in Part by High-Speed Rail
SAN MATEO, Calif. – The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) is celebrating the beginning of
construction on the 25th Avenue Grade Separation Project in San Mateo. The Authority, in partnership with the City
of San Mateo and the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board, is making a life-saving investment by contributing
funding to this important safety improvement project. This grade separation will significantly reduce accidents and
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:34 PM
2
congestion at a dangerous intersection, long before high-speed rail service on the blended corridor reaches the Bay Area. See how this project will protect the community and how a unique partnership made it all possible.
Watch Now
For more information visit the San Francisco to San Jose Project Section page on HSR.ca.gov.
SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV
California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street, Suite 620
Sacramento, CA 956814 info@hsr.ca.gov (916) 324-1541
This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority
770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US
Privacy Policy
Unsubscribe
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 9:31 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Public Records Request Tracking System <public.records.request.tracking@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, October 06, 2017 6:22 AM
To:Watson, Ron; Stump, Molly; Lum, Patty; Perron, Zachary
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Non-compliance California Public Records Act
Palo Alto Free Press
Ticuantepe, Nicaragua
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 10:24 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Janet Levy <jmlevy324@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2017 10:06 AM
To:UAC
Cc:Auzenne, Tom; Council, City; Richard Schwartz; Maan, Preet
Subject:Palo Alto Utilities Leak Adjustment Rules
Dear Utilities Advisory Commissioners and Mayor Scharff,
We are writing regarding the City of Palo Alto Utilities Leak Adjustment Rules. Our home had high water usage due to an
unknown leak during the month of June, of which we were notified by the city in early July. Upon being informed, we
took immediate steps with the help of a leak detection group to remediate the situation. Having now experienced the
City's process for dealing with this bill, including having our claim for relief rejected, we can emphatically confirm that
the current regulation, which rolled back the city's long‐standing forgiveness program, coupled with the rate schedule
applied in overusage situations, creates an inequitable, punitive and burdensome situation to citizens. We implore you
to take action on this issue. Specifically, we ask that the Commission recommend to the city: 1) until an advanced meter
system is installed, to reinstate the forgiveness program and/or 2) review the rate charged for anomalous one‐time
overusage to remove the 2nd tiered rate currently applied for use exceeding 6 CCFs.. We ask for relief from our July 29,
2017 water bill or for our bill to be held until the city reinstates the forgiveness program.
At the July 12, 2017 Special Meeting of the Utilities Advisory Commission, the Commission discussed this issue in Item
3: Discussion Regarding Utilities Leak Adjustment Rules. Assistant Director, Utilities Customer Support Services Tom
Auzenne confirmed the inequity and flaws in the current regulation by testifying that "In the future, with advanced
meters, customers may be able to receive a notification when unusual flow was observed, but right now
customers often do not discover the leak until they receive their bill. It was not their fault . . . " While the
city has avoided a significant expense by not installing advanced meters, our family has been significantly
burdened with a $1500 water bill as a result of the failure of the City's obsolete equipment and reporting
system.
In addition, our one‐time anomalous bill represents 147 CCFs while our average usage before and after the leak was
discovered and stopped is 3‐4 CCFs. To add to the burdensome impact of Rule and Regulation 11, “Billing, Adjustment
and Payments of Bills”, the city applies an intentionally punitive tiered billing rate, which assesses a significantly higher
per CCF rate when the CCFs exceed 6. Using this rate model, our bill was calculated as follows:
The first 6 CCFs is calculated at the 1st tier rate of $6.30 *6= $37.80
The next 141 CCFs is calculated at the 2nd tier rate of $8.82*141= $1243.62
The drought surcharge is calculated on all usage 6 CCFs*$.43=$2.58; 141*$1.21=$170.61
Tax 1471.38*.05%=$73.75
Total charges for water = $1544.95
Presumably, this rate model is designed to discourage repetitive and habitual overuse, but it is entirely inappropriate in
the situation where the leak is inadvertent, clearly anomalous based on usage history and is not immediately made
known to the resident. During the hearing, Commissioner Filseth opined that "customers experiencing leaks should
pay the wholesale water cost but not necessarily the distribution component."
During the July 12 meeting, Chair Danaher reported that "only twelve leaks have been reported in eight
years". This comment supports the reinstatement of the first‐time forgiveness program that nearly all of our
neighboring communities have in place. Based on this comment, reinstating the forgiveness program would
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 10:24 AM
2
clearly cost the City little, but provide significant relief to homeowners who are at the mercy of an antiquated
system, as noted in the testimony of Mr. Auzenne above.
In concluding this item of the agenda, all of the comments made by the commissioners acknowledged the need and
benefit of reinstating the forgiveness program (emphasis added):
"Vice Chair Ballantine agreed that the cost impact [of the forgiveness program] among all customers would
be negligible. Commissioner Schwartz agreed that the problem was small and that if customers fix the
problem, there should be a leak forgiveness policy. Chair Danaher supported instituting a well‐designed leak
adjustment policy."
We ask for your consideration to take steps to revamp the current system, and, in addition, to grant the staff permission
to relieve our family of this burdensome debt or to place a hold on the bill until such time as a final decision is made
regarding re‐instituting a forgiveness program.
Thank you,
Janet Levy & Richard Schwartz
1843 Edgewood Drive
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 465‐8058
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 10:16 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com>
Sent:Saturday, October 07, 2017 3:34 PM
To:customer.service@vta.org
Cc:Council, City; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; David@healthwrights.org; supervisor simitian
Subject:the customer's point of view
because the have been taking public transportation for the last month, and I feel very fortunate that
there is a bus which goes from Palo Alto to San Jose.
I have learned a few things I'd like to share with you.
I've had trouble finding a trip planner--the person on the phone who tells you how to get down to your hairdresser...
It would be helpful if you put more information on the placards which tell you which bus or busses
stop at the bus stop--how frequently they run, when the last bus passes, what and where the
connecting busses are.
It would be nice if you had transfers. I realize it is much more economical for most passengers to buy
a pass--hardly more than a return trip would cost. Since so many do buy passes, it wouldn't cost
much for the driver to have an all purpose transfer. In my case, since you have just taken me many
miles, I don't mind paying you an extra dollar for the three blocks between Santa Clara and San Carlos, but you should make it easier. On Santa Clara, between First and Second, there are two bus
stops, one at the corner, one closer to the middle of the block. It wouldn't hurt you to stop twice, for
both the convenience of the traveller to First Street and to Second Street, because both are transfer
points, and I think you should have the connecting bus stop at the corner of Santa Clara instead of in
the middle of the block. I am 84 and walk with some difficulty, and it is worrisome to think I am not going to make that connecting bus (the 23), although, in the event, there has always been plenty of
overlap time between them, in fact, while I am waiting, I am passed by the 53, the Gilroy bus,
something that goes to Senter, some other bus, and the light rail, and I really don't see why one I
couldn't get on one of them, because they all go to San Carlos, but they don't stop at San
Carlos. Why? It has to be a long enough distance, because the 23 stops at San Antonio, and that's just one short block. I think, at least in the dark of night, when there are hardly any passengers and
rather little traffic, you should stop where the passenger wants to stop. After all, if you have only two
or three passengers, the one who wants to get off at San Carlos, if you let him, won't be getting off at
the next stop, so it's just as many stops, overall. The bus stop street furniture is very attractive, but not too convenient. At the stop on 2nd between
Santa Clara and Paseo San Antonio, the aluminum chairs are elevated--I'm not sure but what they're
facing the wrong way, also-but even if they're facing so you could see an approaching 23, (and then
you couldn't see the light rail car) and you could climb up a couple of steps to it, you could never scramble down in time to get on that bus. You could sit on the handsome marble or polished granite abutment, at least at the Santa Clara end, but not at the
San Antonio end, because the sidewalk slopes down, and the space to the ground is too short for
older people to be able to get up from.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 10:16 AM
2
Besides letting people get off the bus where they want at night, you should put up notices when the
bus is going some place it doesn't normally go. One Sunday I looked up while riding along and was
bewildered; we were driving along San Carlos and passed exactly where I wanted to go before returning to the normal route and stopping where I did not want to be, and had to walk back. Last month, the 22 terminus was changed (without notice, at the station or on the bus) from the train
station to Quarry Road, the Southern end of the Stanford Shopping Center, another quarter of a mile
to walk, but to get there the bus circled the shopping center, re-entering El Camino at Sand Hill Road,
which happens to be right across El Camino from my cross street, Palo Alto Avenue. The first time I saw it I ran across El Camino against the light and knocked on the door of the 522, and not only would he not let me in, he didn't look apologetic; he looked annoyed! How dare he be annoyed that I
don't want to walk a quarter of a mile and get a later bus? It was quite provoking.
There have been a couple of incidents I'd like to call to your attention, which don't affect me directly, only peripherally as a resident and citizen of Santa Clara County for some 60 years, as a member of a family which lived in San Jose for four generations. One day there was a problem on the 22, with a
would be passenger being refused entrance to the bus. I asked a woman who was facing the entry
what the matter was, and she said there was a man who'd had an accident, she didn't say exactly but
I suppose it was his bowels. He angrily called out "I'm a human being". I believe the bus driver, who didn't have much choice, should have telephoned headquarters and had them send out one of those
passenger cars marked "Valley Transit," or some such thing, which don't seem to have much to do,
and put some kind of tarp around him so he wouldn't injure the seats, and taken him where he could
be attended to. It wouldn't cost much; it surely can't happen more than once every few months, anad
it would make a big difference about the way the people who live in this county feel about living here. We pay fairly high taxes to support an excellent county hospital and all kinds of human
services, which are not cheap, and I feel the bus, which is the face of our society to most of the
people on the bottom of the heap, should present us as caring and responsible. From my perch of
age and decrepitude I've seen more caring and courtesy among the poorest of the realm than I ever
could have imagined: a helping hand offered by the ill-clad and downtrodden with the grace and dignity of a nobleman...Surely we, the haves, of one of the richest counties in the country, could do as
well.
The other ugly face of governance is the terminus of the 22, which, as you know, runs all
night. People who have no home or even a car sleep in it, and since they buy day passes, they are entitled to continuous return trips. Astonishingly, when they reach the terminus which is the Palo Alto
train station, they are awakened and made to get off the bus and walk across a raised cement
platform to sit on rocks and benches and wait until the bus comes around so they can board it
again. Moreover, the train station with its bathroom is locked, but there's a sign warning that urination
and defecation are prohibited. Remember, this is at midnight. Back in the last century, I used to ride that train to school and there were bathrooms available--are we going back to the hygienic standards
of olden times? It's bad enough that we are indifferent to the homeless, irresponsible not to provide
the bare minimum of shelter and protection from predators, but it is simply unconscionable
deliberately to waken them from their hard-earned moments of surcease of pain on a minimal bus
bench. I'm embarrassed and ashamed every time I pass them.
Yours truly,
Stephanie Munoz 101 Alma, apt 701 Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 7:57 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2017 4:20 PM
To:Utilities Strategic Plan; Council, City
Subject:Thoughts on Utility Strategic Plan Workshop For Residents
Attachments:break_out_groups_1.rtf
Strategic Plan Committee and City Council City of Palo Alto, CA Palo Alto, CA Attached please find some thoughts about the recently held Utility's Strategic Plan workshop held to elicit residents' thoughts. Wayne Martin Palo Alto, cA
Thoughts about Utility’s Strategic Plan Workshop
Having attended the recently held Utility workshop that was seeking resident input on the on-going
development of the Utility’s Strategic plan, I wanted to comment more than I did on the session, and
thoughts that I have had since then. Those thoughts follow:
Overview
The group moderator explained the need for such a Strategic Plan, and walked through the process that
had been devised in order to create a meaningful strategy for the Utility. All in all, the moderator did a
very professional job handling the walkthrough of this process and then turning the meeting over to the
Utility employees running the breakout groups. I make note of this because I had been to some City
functions over the years which were not nearly as well handled by the moderators as this workshop.
I found some of the ideas being presented by the moderator to be a little off-putting, particularly in the
areas where the process of creating the strategy suggested that the Utility would somehow be leading
the world in who knows what. Terms like “aspirational” were particularly unnerving, since it seems to
me that the role of the Utility is to provide reliable inexpensive water, gas and electricity to the residents
and businesses of Palo Alto only. The idea that the Utility would somehow begin to sit on standards
committees to provide guidance to the world on how to design, and implement technology and process
that other private sector organizations could not I found baffling. My sense as a ratepayer is that I
would like to see this organization function within the charter of a City department providing essential
City services and not leading the world in progressive activities, or “politically correct agendas”, that are
intended to involve the City in politics that have nothing to do with providing reliable commodity Utility
services to the residents of this town.
Technology
I was interested in the breakout group particularly, but was disappointed in that there was very little
time available to discuss issues and that people in the group seemed to focus only on the impacts of
electric vehicles on the power grid. While everyone at the table recognized that fundamentally
electricity was going to cost more in order to recharge their vehicles’ batteries, it was not clear to most
of them whether or not the grid could sustain the increased load all of these vehicle recharges. The
Staff members tried to explain what they believed to be the likelihood of these increased loads on the
grid. But there were some communication difficulties between the group members and Staff based on
terminology differences used by Staff and residents attending the workshop.
In my opinion, a couple of the issues that arose from these questions about electric vehicles did not
seem to have particularly well thought out answers by Staff. One response to increased load for
electric vehicles suggested that larger transformers in the neighborhoods would be necessary to handle
increased load. One gentleman asked if everyone would have to pay higher rates in order to pay for
the new transformers. AS I remember, staff did not have an answer for that question.
One comment that Staff did make piqued my interest. That Staff member mentioned something about
“checking the load sheet"--implying that in order to install a new transformer that Manual calculations
would have to be done, rather than using Computer Software to make that determination.
One Staff member mentioned that the Utility was behind in using Computer-based tools. From
research that I have done previously on the Utility, this came as no surprise. The Staff member
handling this topic went on to say, when asked why Utility was not using mobile computing devices such
as iPads to help reduce paperwork, that there were no applications the Utility could buy to do the work
needed. When I asked him if the Utility had a requirements document for these applications, he took a
moment are two to say “yes”. Personally, I would very much like to see that requirements document,
as I got a clear sense of his response that no such document really existed.
Underneath any use of mobile computing devices for doing data entry would have to exist regional
interfaces to an integrated data management system--which may, or may not exist, presently. Given
the small management structure of Utility, and doubtless the small, or nonexistent, I to department
within Utility--any sense that the Utility will be able to use more--or--less state of the art computing
devices and software seems unlikely in the near term future.
Given the short time frame of each breakout group, and the “pushy” nature of one of the UAC members
who was in the group, details of any technology Solutions were discouraged and hence, not addressed.
Back to the topic of the load sheets discussed above relative to the replacement of transformers, one
can only wonder if the Utility has a computer model of the complete redistribution network serviced by
the Utility, so that the software could be used to predict the number of transformers needed to handle
some number of electric vehicles within the City. It would even be nice, if the software could predict
when the transformer on a given pole would have to be replaced when an additional number of
electrical vehicles were to be operated from houses in a given street or neighborhood.
Ideas about “futuristic” uses of technology did not seem to have much support in this group. I did
suggest the use of self-driving vehicles when they were legal. Staff seemed confused at this suggestion
and asked: “why?” My response of “labor cost reduction” was received with rolling eyes. There was
little time in the group session to promote this idea; however, it seems that self-driving vehicles will be a
reality within a few years and that the City, including the Utility, should be considering how these
advances in transportation can, and should be utilized, to both increase service capabilities and reduce
costs by all City departments.
I would also like to suggest that drones be considered as tools for various Utility needs, such as
inspecting trees near power lines which might need trimming. In the past, and no doubt currently, a
Utility employee walks from house to house inspecting the trees which may have grown to close to the
Utility's power lines. This task could easily be done by drones flying overhead. In addition, the drums
would provide videos of the utilities power lines which would have GPS tags facilitating the identification
of the street addresses where these videos were taken.
The facilitator of the workshop, made some comment about the possibility of power sources becoming
online and possibly utilized by Utility customers--both residential and commercial. One example that
was not openly discussed, but should be included in the topic of new power sources, is one currently
being offered by the Tesla Corporation--solar roof tiles. Tesla claims that over a 30-40 year period that
a significant amount of surplus electricity can be sold back to the “grid”--justifying the use of these solar
tiles. If a significant number of Palo Alto's residents, or commercial customers, were to install these
devices, this could conceivably alter the utilities revenue streams in such a way that the cost of
electricity could be driven up considerably since the amount of electricity used by the City in the
aggregate would not put the Utility in an optimal bargaining position for purchasing cheap blocks of
power from power suppliers. It is suggested that the Utility should have a computer model which
analyzes changes in both local power produced and sold to the grid as well as shifts in revenue and costs
associated with these changes. Perhaps a spreadsheet can provide a reasonable first approximation to
these changes, but given the possible shift to electric vehicles, as well as local production of electricity, a
more sophisticated modeling capability is suggested to provide both planners and decision makers, a
better view of e future.
My researches into the Utility in the past, albeit some years ago, led me to believe that the Utility was at
that time utterly paperbound--without any sense of real oversight by the Council, much less the CAPUC,
and was for the most part leaderless. I have always believed that the Utility needed a good audit,
which did my mind has not occurred to this day. While not specifically in the topic area of
“technology", I would like to suggest that some sort of Auditor be added to the Utility Staff. This
function would be reporting to the council--not the City Manager or the Utility Manager.
Another area that needs to be suggested for every aspect of the Utility's operation is transparency.
Certainly some of this transparency could be produced through continuous auditing, but getting this
information to the public is always a probable, since people in this community are either too busy to be
concerned, or not prepared to appreciate the information. I would like to suggest that using script
generation tools to create web pages is a technological solution to at least cost-effectively transfer
information from whatever source in which the Utility maintains that information to web pages without
any, or little, human intervention. Again, this suggests some sort of internal IT function for the Utility,
bypassing the City's IT function.
Another low-level technology tool that might be of use would be GPS tracking hardware and software so
that would be installed on all Utility vehicles, so that they can be located, monitored. Daily, weekly and
monthly utilization reports could generated automatically—providing management clear knowledge of
where these vehicles have been.
Just to recap this section, the main points are the use of computer simulation software to deter predict
load variations based on changing sources of power and consumption of power; use of self-driving
vehicles to reduce labor costs; use of script generating software to produce more transparency of Utility
functions at the lowest cost possible; use the drones to reduce labor costs for periodic functions such
as three interference of power lines; the addition of an auditor to inspect and report on Utility
operations; use of GPS tracking hardware and software to keep track of Utility vehicle movements and
travel.
Given the level of technical expertise of so many Palo Alto residents, it might pay to have some sort of
technology resources committee convened for a year or so to talk about different kinds of technologies
that are available, or emerging, in both the commercial and Utilities Industries. Such a group would
probably not have any particular authority other than to facilitate the dissemination of information and
make recommendations both to the Utility and the City Council.
One final point--one of the members of the breakout groups of which I was a member was probably a
UAC member who seemed to want to take charge of the sessions by being a little belligerent with the
facilitators, or directing Staff not to answer certain questions requiring a bit of technical explanation in
the technology group. It is my sense that people associated with the Utility should be more in a
“listening mode” than a lecturing mode.
Finance
There were only a couple of us at the breakout group for the finance topic. The facilitator for this
group provided a brief topic overview and then asked for questions. There was very little information
about finance of Utility provided, so there were no real questions we could ask. I did inquire about the
claims that the Utility provided cheaper commodities to Palo Alto ratepayers. The facilitator pointed
out that that information was offered to the public about once a year. I suggested that it would be
better to do it on a monthly, or perhaps quarterly, basis. The suggestion did not seem to bear much
fruit with the facilitator.
The topic of reliability was included in the topic of finance. Remembering the total blackout of the City
when the Tesla employee flew his plane into the high tension lines providing power to Palo Alto, I asked
about the Utility’s increasing the high tension feeds along another pathway to the City. Another
employee attempted to answer the question, but provided no clear answer as to why the Utility has not
been able to provide additional high tension feeds to the City along another path than that crossing the
bay.
I asked as to what metrics the Utility used to provide evidence of excellent management they were
promoting on the sheet documenting the goals for the breakout session. The facilitator did not offer
any specific metrics that one might find in the private sector. It was clear to me that the Utility was
attempting some inexpensive PR, rather than providing hard evidence as to how the Utility was
managed. Although I did not make a point of it at that time, I do want to point out that the California
Public Utilities Commission {CAPUC) does not have much oversight of Municipal Utilities, so the kinds of
transparency that the CACPUC demands of the private sector are not produced by the Palo Alto Utility.
Hence, there's very little transparency of this Utility as their of private sector utilities.
Given the short period of time allotted for each breakout session, I was not able to bring up the topic of
long-term, and transparent, modeling of the utilities finances. Mentioned elsewhere is my suggestion
that the Utility needs to do long-term modeling of possible changes in both power generation and uses.
Along with this modeling, the finances of the Utility need to flow from this modelling so that customers
of the Utility can begin to see what the cost of utilities will be over the next 20 to 30 years. If the state
continues to mandate energy uses, and sources, as it has over the last 20 years--all utilities may very
well need to rethink their business models which will definitely see higher prices for all concerned. The
Utility needs to recognize this fact and make these possible views of the future known to the customers.
In summary, I'd like to point out that far more transparency of the Utility is needed in order to fulfill the
promise of this being a well-run Utility.
Employment
The gentleman facilitating this topic began to make a number of claims which I found doubtful. I
immediately questioned each of these claims. He provided certain detailed information to back up his
assertions. I countered, after discussing a number of these claims, that all of these problems could be
solved within the construct of Utility. Since the Utility is a wholly owned function of the City
government it has the power, and the financial resources, to experiment with any number of solutions
believed necessary to its seek new employees and deal with retention problems.
Looking at the big picture, it was my suggestion that outsourcing a certain percentage of utilities work to
the private sector provided access to temporary employees with the skills needed to provide the Utility
the ability to accomplish various tasks needed to do its maintenance and upgrade functions. The
Utility employee admitted that about 33% of the capital projects undertaken by the Utility currently are
performed through outsourcing the work. It was my suggestion that rather than dwelling on ways to
increase employment and retention that the Utility endorse and refine this hybrid approach to Staffing.
The issue of compensation arose. The Utility employee did not specifically provide data about Utility
employee compensation. This information is available on the City's web site for all who are interested
to see. When I brought up the fact that Utility offered pensions that started at the 82% of final salary,
the employee shot back that “millennials we're not interested in pensions. I responded that the Utility
needed to do a better job of pointing out just how much money the taxpayers were obligated to pay
retired Utility employees over 30 to 40 year payout. The employee did not seem overly responsive to
that idea. I would like to point out that given the vast sums of money that the taxpayers obligated to
pay retired City employees for their retirement years that it was a moral obligation of every City
department to make that known both to the employees and taxpayers--including potential employees,
how lucrative employment with the City of Palo Alto is.
Later groups apparently made suggestions about the Utility building, or perhaps acquiring, “affordable
housing” for Utility employees as an inducement for people to seek employment at the Utility. The
costs of such an idea would obviously be carried by the ratepayers. What did not seem to occur to the
people making the suggestions, is in a housing allowance would be a lot less expensive to the Utility and
the ratepayers and owning and managing housing for its employees.
I also suggested that perhaps selling portions of the Utility to the private sector might reduce the
workload of Utility, as well as bring an a sizable bit of money which could be used to fund other City
needs--such as a police station.
Collaboration
I found this breakout group to be almost totally incomprehensible. While there are a lot of ideas being
suggested, it wasn't all clear to me just how much collaboration the Utility needed to do in order to
continue doing what it has been doing for decades. Again, the person thought to be with the UAC
argued with the facilitator in a way that tended to undercut the authority of the facilitator running the
group.
Conclusion
Please accept these thoughts relative to the recent utilities workshop focusing on residents' input
towards ensuring the strategic plan is not the product of only one group or another.
I appreciated the opportunity to attend and would do so to another in the future. If anyone is
interested in further discussion with me about my thoughts please don't hesitate to contact me.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:34 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 05, 2017 12:56 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Bullerjahn, Rich;
Reifschneider, James
Subject:Victor Frost - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter
Would you like to see the financial analysis Mr. Mayor?
Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress)
10/5/17, 1:50 PM @PaloAltoPolice Litigation circumstances surrounding prosecution of Victor Frost cost the city over 1
million dollars #PaloAlto #Milkcrate #FirstAmendment pic.twitter.com/BR99KIFWwr
Download the Twitter app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/11/2017 7:56 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Ross, Annette P. <Rossa@sullcrom.com>
Sent:Tuesday, October 10, 2017 2:44 PM
To:OES; Council, City
Subject:Volunteering in fire torn areas
Are you aware of any sort of organized local response to the devastating fires that “regular citizens” can support without
getting in the way of the professionals who obviously have their hands full? I would like to volunteer time to assist as
needed but do not want to interfere in any way – or add another car on local roads in the fire‐torn area if the preference
is that people avoid the area.
Any guidance you can provide will be much appreciated.
Thank you.
Annette Ross
(former PANDA/CERT)
This e-mail is sent by a law firm and contains information that may be privileged and confidential. If you are
not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and notify us immediately.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Christine Stafford <beanball48@sonic.net>
Sent:Wednesday, October 04, 2017 12:27 PM
To:board.secretary@vta.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Caltrain Grade Separations
Please remove item 6.3 from the Consent Calendar and change the language for Caltrain Grade Separations
to, Funds will be allocated to projects that cost‐effectively utilize Measure B funding.
Christine Stafford
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 04, 2017 12:31 PM
To:board.secretary@vta.org
Cc:Council, City; Christian Pease; Carol Scott
Subject:Please delete Item #6.3 from 10/05/2017 Consent Calendar
Dear VTA Board,
Please delete Item #6.3 from your Thursday evening 10/05 Consent Calendar.
Measure B funds for Caltrain / Highspeed Rail grade separations should not be determined on this basis.
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE contained in this item “Funds will be allocated to projects that cost‐effectively utilize
Measure B funding” SHOULD BE REMOVED AND CHANGED TO: “Funds will be allocated to projects that cost‐effectively
utilize Measure B funding.”
This will be fairer to all cities concerned - Sunnyvale + Mountain View + Palo Alto - in each of their efforts to
find grade separations that are the best designs when all factors are considered.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
Christian Pease and Carol Scott
1834 Park Blvd.
Palo Alto, CA. 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 04, 2017 1:42 PM
To:board.secretary@vta.org
Cc:Council, City; Christian Pease; Carol Scott
Subject:CORRECTED: Please delete Item #6.3 from 10/05/2017 Consent Calendar
Dear VTA Board,
I am re-sending my and Carol Scott's earlier request because it INCORRECTLY REPEATED MY SUGGEST
CHANGED WORDING instead of first citing the current workding.
My apologies.
Here is our corrected update to my original request:
Dear VTA Board,
Please delete Item #6.3 from your Thursday evening 10/05 Consent Calendar.
Measure B funds for Caltrain / Highspeed Rail grade separations should not be determined on this basis.
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE contained in this item is "... allocate 2016 Measure B funding to the most cost-
effective grade separations alternative possible" SHOULD BE REMOVED AND CHANGED TO: “...funds will be
allocated to projects that cost‐effectively utilize Measure B funding.”
This will be fairer to all cities concerned - Sunnyvale + Mountain View + Palo Alto - in each of their efforts to find grade separations that are the best designs when all factors are considered.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
Christian Pease and Carol Scott 1834 Park Blvd.
Palo Alto, CA. 94306
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com> Date: Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 12:30 PM
Subject: Please delete Item #6.3 from 10/05/2017 Consent Calendar
To: board.secretary@vta.org
Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com>, Carol Scott
<c.scott1@yahoo.com>
Dear VTA Board,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
4
Please delete Item #6.3 from your Thursday evening 10/05 Consent Calendar.
Measure B funds for Caltrain / Highspeed Rail grade separations should not be determined on this basis.
THE CURRENT LANGUAGE contained in this item “Funds will be allocated to projects that cost‐effectively utilize
Measure B funding” SHOULD BE REMOVED AND CHANGED TO: “Funds will be allocated to projects that cost‐effectively
utilize Measure B funding.”
This will be fairer to all cities concerned - Sunnyvale + Mountain View + Palo Alto - in each of their efforts to
find grade separations that are the best designs when all factors are considered.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter,
Christian Pease and Carol Scott
1834 Park Blvd.
Palo Alto, CA. 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Kass <vz22@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 04, 2017 3:45 PM
To:board.secretary@vta.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Caltrain Grade separations
Given the cost of grade crossings, I think all cities deserve help. To give all the funds to just some of the projected grade
separations, would be totally unfair. Please consider the following actions:
1) Please remove item 6.3 from the Consent Calendar and change the language for Caltrain Grade Separations to divide
the available funds equally among all the affected grade crossings.
One approach that might accomplish this is to replace the sentence: "To complete all eight projects, VTA would allocate
2016 Measure B funding to the most cost-effective grade separation alternatives possible."
with
Funds will be allocated to projects that cost‐effectively utilize Measure B funding.
This would allow all projects to be eligible for funding rather than only some of them.
Also, in considering cost‐effectiveness between different approaches, it is important to include the cost of acquisition of
property, both financially and socially. The discussions of cost that I have seen from HSR and Caltrain, do not include the
cost of acquiring needed property and so distort the cost of different approaches. Raising the train and lowering the
road, as was done in San Carlos, makes sense in an area of light industrial areas. However, in Palo Alto, that would
require upwards of 80 parcels of land and likely 1‐3 lanes of Alma Street. Both financially, and politically, I don't think
this can be done. Palo Alto already has a severe shortage of housing. The owners of those properties would be unlikely
to acquire equivalent properties, even if they received fair market value for the property, as there just is not enough
housing stock to do so, not to mention the net value after paying capital gains taxes and the paying increased property
taxes. The legal and political opposition would be considerable and significantly affect building schedules.
The need to remove lanes of Alma Street was a major reason for rejecting the HSR plan of adding two more railroad
tracks through Palo Alto and neighboring towns. Requiring a grade separation plan that similarly requires the reduction
of lanes on Alma would cause chaos in an area with inadequate road capacity as it is. The increase in Caltrain capacity
during rush hour would never be able to offset the impact of reduction of carrying capacity on Alma, 24/7.
Instead, I hope that people will be able to consider out of the box solutions to fund grade separations, including selling
air rights (development rights) over tracks that have been trenched or tunneled. It worked for Grand Central. It can
work for us.
I support the electrification of Caltrain, and the implementation of HSR, even at the considerable disruption to my life as
I live on Alma Street. The construction will be really difficult. However, any solution that includes a reduction of lanes or
the acquisition of dozens of houses is just not acceptable.
Best regards,
Kathleen Goldfein
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
6
Resident living on Alma Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 04, 2017 3:55 PM
To:board.secretary@vta.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Grade seperation
Palo Alto has been on record for years that it desires Cal Train be placed
underground.
The VTA promised in a previous sales tax windfall that it would spend
money on the Dumbarton rail connection but it did not spend a dime as
promised.
Perhaps, it is therefore not surprising that 6 miles of BART will be placed
underground in San Jose, but the VTA will not put the 4 miles of Cal
Train underground in Palo Alto. .
Paul M
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Jim Cornett <jbcornett@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 04, 2017 6:56 PM
To:board.secretary@vta.org; Council, City
Subject:2016 Measure B Fund Allocation
October 4, 2017
Via Email: board.secretary@vta.org
cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
RE: Fund allocation from the 2016 Measure B Program
Dear VTA Board Members:
I respectfully request that:
1. Item 6.3 be removed from the Consent Calendar of the Oct 5, 2017 VTA Board Meeting; and
2. the language describing the allocation of funds from the 2016 Measure B Program be divided equally
among all eight (8) of the affected grade crossings.
The residents of Santa Clara County recognize that Caltrain at‐grade crossings represent a continued safety
hazard to all whose travels require crossing the Caltrain tracks.
Moreover, the continual increase in traffic density, both for Caltrain service and for vehicular traffic, mandate
that such at‐grade crossings be eliminated.
Each of the three cities (Sunnyvale, Mountain View and Palo Alto) will be guided by their residents to provide
the best solution to this problem. As such, the VTA should allocate the 2016 Measure B funds equally as noted
above.
Most sincerely,
James Cornett
420 Sequoia Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
9
Carnahan, David
From:Sherry Listgarten <sherry@listgarten.com>
Sent:Wednesday, October 04, 2017 7:24 PM
To:board.secretary@vta.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Grade separation: cheapest <> best
Dear VTA Board Secretary:
I am dismayed by the language included in the VTA Proposed Guidelines for Caltrain Grade Separations, which
implies that the cheapest methods for grade separation are the best. Palo Alto, and I'm sure other cities, have many other considerations (e.g., safety, aesthetics, noise, traffic impact, land reclaimed) to consider, along with cost. We prefer to replace the "we will fund the cheapest" phrasing ("To complete all eight projects, VTA would
allocate 2016 Measure B funding to the most cost-effective grade separation alternatives possible.") with
phrasing that emphasizes cost-effective use of funds: “Funds will be allocated to projects that cost-effectively
utilize Measure B funding.”
Thank you for your consideration,
Sherry Listgarten
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
10
Carnahan, David
From:wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com on behalf of Wolfgang Dueregger
<wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, October 04, 2017 9:16 PM
To:board.secretary@vta.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: PROTEST FLAWED VTA Proposed Guidelines for Caltrain Grade Separations
Dear VTA Board,
I request to remove item 6.3 from the Consent Calendar and alter the language such that the total money
allocated for Caltrain Grade Separations between Palo Alto and Sunnyvale be divided equally among all
affected grade crossings. Wolfgang
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
11
Carnahan, David
From:Daniel Lilienstein <dlilienstein@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 05, 2017 10:20 AM
To:board.secretary@vta.org; Council, City
Subject:CALTRAIN grade separation
Two items:
First for today's meeting, I'm joining the chorus to ask that you remove item 6.3 from the Consent
Calendar and change the language for Caltrain Grade Separations to divide the available funds
equally among all the affected grade crossings. This will allow for all choices to be discussed, not just the cheapest ones; sometimes the best and ultimately cheapest alternative is not as obvious as it
may appear up front.
Second item, related to the first: I have read much of the information about the various grade
separation options and have concluded that the best plan is deep tunneling. The main reasons are as follows:
Tunneling limits disruption on the surface. The surface disruption from every other option is extreme.
The inconveniences, traffic snarls, train delays, construction noise and unsightly chaos will disfigure the
peninsula for years. If you do everything underground until complete, it allows rail, vehicle and human use of the services as they are now to remain functional until cut-over. Tunneling will have some surface impacts, but they will be more localized and of shorter duration.
Tunneling will allow the project to better avoid stream crossings and other obstacles (such as the
existing road underpasses). These issues have been faced by other big tunnel projects around the world,
so I'm sure expertise can be found to overcome geological and water infiltration concerns.
Once the cutover for rail has occurred and the trains are running underground, the next phases of the transition can be executed: removal of the tracks, development on the former right-of-way, and knitting
the city together where it was once separated by the tracks.
Certainly tunneling starts out as the most expensive option. But is it really? Once the costs of disruption
are figured in for any of the surface options, the cost comparison may be favorable. Tunneling is the best long term solution, and gives the best quality of life for residents and the employment centers.
Thank you for consideration.
Daniel Lilienstein
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/5/2017 2:33 PM
12
Carnahan, David
From:Richard Huang <mechdaddy@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 05, 2017 11:35 AM
To:board.secretary@vta.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Proposed alternative language for Agenda Item 6.3 on the Consent Calendar
I To Whom it may concern:
Regarding Agenda item 6.3 on the Consent Calendar, I request alternate language that is
fairer to all cities and promotes the optimal designs, not the cheapest.
Because the amount of funding in 2016 Measure B will likely not be enough to fully fund
all eight projects listed in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category. To complete
all eight projects, VTA advocates allocating 2016 Measure B funding to the most cost-
effective grade separation alternatives possible. I suggest the following language be used
instead:
To complete all eight projects, VTA shall divide the 2016 Measure B funding equally in
2017 dollars among the eight projects listed in the Caltrain Grade Separation Program Category. Designs higher than baseline costs will require additional local and other
funding. VTA will work with collectively with the cities to secure funds from outside
sources to complete the program.
Sincerely,
Richard Huang
679 Georgia Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-996-1153 mobile
mechdaddy@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 9:30 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Douglas Moran <dbmoran@gmail.com> on behalf of Douglas Moran
<dmoran@dougmoran.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 05, 2017 4:03 PM
To:board.secretary@vta.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Item 6.3 on the consent calendar: Please remove and reword
VTA,
In 2016, I opposed Measure B both personally and in my blog at Palo Alto Weekly. It was not that I opposed
the projects, but rather that I expected VTA to once again shift funding away from places like Palo Alto.
No on B, Faithlessness, Fecklessness http://www.paloaltoonline.com/blogs/p/2016/10/08/no-on-b-faithlessness-and-fecklessness
The language in Item 6.3 on distribution of funds seems deliberately designed to disqualify Palo Alto from
receiving that funding. I won't elaborate because I expect that you have already received comments from many.
-- Douglas Moran
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 9:30 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Sent:Thursday, October 05, 2017 4:48 PM
To:board.secretary@vta.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Item 6.3 on the Consent Calendar
Please remove item 6.3 from the Consent Calendar and change the language for Caltrain Grade
Separations to divide the available funds equally among all the affected grade crossings in each city.
Sincerely, Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 9:30 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Kaye Crawford <kayedc@aol.com>
Sent:Friday, October 06, 2017 1:51 PM
To:board.secretary@vta.org
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Agenda Item 6.3 on the Consent Calendar
Dear VTA Board: Agenda Item 6.3 on the Consent Calendar is "ACTION ITEM -1) Adopt a Resolution, establishing the 2016 Measure B Program; and 2) adopt the 2016 Measure B Program Category Guidelines.” As currently worded, this item is flawed and should be revised to have better language that is fairer to all cities and promotes balanced design, not just the cheapest. Please remove item 6.3 from the Consent Calendar and change the language for Caltrain Grade Separations to “Funds will be allocated to projects that cost-effectively utilize Measure B funding.” Thank you for your attention. Kaye Crawford 3836 Louis Rd. Palo Alto, CA 94303-4513
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/10/2017 9:31 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:ealexis@gmail.com on behalf of Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <elizabeth@calhsr.com>
Sent:Thursday, October 05, 2017 5:10 PM
To:Board.Secretary
Cc:Council, City; CARRD
Subject:Comment for board meeting today
Attachments:CARRD VTA grade seps.pdf
We are requesting the board pull item 6.3 from the consent calendar.
We are writing to request that VTA defer approval of Grade Separation Measure B guidelines and instead ask
staff to establish a small working group who could work expeditiously to make recommendations for how to
complete grade separation of the Caltrain corridor over the next decade.
Please accept the attached letter in support of this request.
Regards,
Elizabeth
-- Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis
Co-founder Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD)
cell (650) 996-8018
www.calhsr.com
Questions? Email info@calhsr.com / CARRD www.calhsr.com
Cooperation, not competition required
October 5, 2017 Measure B Grade Separations program
We are writing to request that VTA defer approval of Grade Separation Measure B guidelines and instead ask staff to establish a small working group who could work expeditiously to make
recommendations for how to complete grade separation of the Caltrain corridor over the next decade.
We need a reset on the approach to grade separation projects, both in Santa Clara County and
elsewhere on the Caltrain corridor.
To date, most projects have been done on a one-off basis, largely to improve local community mobility. In other words, road projects not train projects.
While improving traffic today would be a benefit of completing additional grade separations, we see
the driving need to be much more about Caltrain service than anything else.
We are spending $5 billion to electrify Caltrain and extend service to the core San Francisco
business district which has more jobs than all stations along the Caltrain corridor combined.
Along with organic job growth along the corridor, this forward thinking investment will easily provide both the capacity and demand to double service levels in the next decade. This is not even
considering the possibility that high speed rail or another intercity rail provider will want to use the
Caltrain right-of-way.
An additional $5 billion is being spent to extend BART to San Jose’s downtown, where job growth is
expected to skyrocket, fueled by better transit and a strategic investment by Google.
If we cannot increase Caltrain service to meet demand, the wasted investment will be the least of our problems.
Clem Tillier did a recent analysis of the number of passengers on Caltrain that travel through the Peninsula during peak commute time. [http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2017/08/freeway-lanes-of-caltrain.html]
Questions? Email info@calhsr.com / CARRD www.calhsr.com
It is easy to see how there would be demand for 7,000 passengers per hour in each direction throughout the corridor in the not distant future. If Caltrain can expand service to meet this demand, it
would be the equivalent of 3 lanes of Highway 101 in each direction.
If we do not complete grade separations along the corridor, it will be difficult to go beyond the much smaller capacity improvement (5 trains in each direction to 6) now on the table. Because Caltrain, for
various reasons, has never included higher service levels in official plans, it has been difficult for cities along the corridor to conceive of the necessary improvements to crossings and station areas to accommodate the Bay Area’s transportation needs.
As we do start to increase service levels, the cost and impact of building new crossings of the Caltrain corridor will rise dramatically.
The need to finish grade separations in a timely manner is not limited to Santa Clara County.
In Burlingame, 70,000 cars cross the Broadway interchange each day. This grade crossing is the No.1 priority for Northern California in the CPUC 2017-2018 statewide ranking. The Burlingame city
council was recently told that even with an approved configuration, they will not start construction until
2025 - and then only if everything goes perfectly.
Questions? Email info@calhsr.com / CARRD www.calhsr.com
We have seen exciting plans for San Jose and other cities in the region. These are all contingent on
Caltrain being able to expand service and get people to work without adding to the crush on Highway 101.
The current approach to Measure B spending does not reflect the need to get everything done in the
next decade, which is impossible if we continue business as usual.
Business-a- usual pits cities against each other in a race for funds - where cities accept costly and
often unnecessary requirements instead of working together to lower costs for everyone.
It also means cities feel rushed in initial planning. While we are the first to emphasize a sense ofurgency, there are several reasons why a little more time upfront could save a lot of money and time -
and result in much better outcomes for the communities.
We have identified several requirements that drive costs up, lengthen projects and increase constructions impacts and lead to sub-optimal choices.
x Required gradient slope for Caltrain and freight (1%) rather than steeper grades of 2%
x Very high vertical clearance levels, based on CPUC General Order 26d - even though existing (grandfathered) tunnels in San Francisco are much lower and will not be raised. Both BART
and LA Metro have received approval for lower clearances.
x Side clearance levels in GO 26d make ADA-friendly level boarding difficult - even though we
no longer have conductors hanging off cabooses.
x While we had weekend shutdowns for Caltrain Bullet improvements, it is presumed that we cannot have any shutdowns, even though the extremely short work windows drive up costs
and lengthen construction periods.
x The use of construction methods that increase the height of elevated train structures.
Most current freight crossings of highway 101 were originally constructed using “U-shaped
bridges”, but these are not used today by Caltrain. [ see http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-u-shaped-grade-separation.html for more information].
Questions? Email info@calhsr.com / CARRD www.calhsr.com
x It is assumed that grade separations need to accommodate freight and diesel trains, even though Caltrain is trying to phaseout diesel trains and there are only a couple of freight trains a
day. There are certain places where it might make sense to build grade separations for
electrified service only - this would drive costs of trenches closer to the BART ones recently completed.
No city on its own, and perhaps no county on its own, can change these. It will take an effort to make traction - but the payoff is in the billions and decades.
There are two other areas where a collective effort could bear fruit.
Financing
Even if we make strides on lowering the costs of grade separations, costs will exceed the cash in hand from Measure B. We need a plan to frontload Measure B funds through prioritization of projects
and bonding. We need to work together on the use of SB 1 funds and may even need to get legislation to make it easier for cities to raise local funds.
Urban planning
While there needs to be a sense of urgency to complete grade separation of the corridor, these are
truly 100 year projects for each community. The cities could use guidance to think carefully about the transportation network - for cars, buses, bikes and pedestrians - they will lay in concrete.
In addition, some of the grade separations are really station area projects. We have not seen any
station that is really prepared to handle the demand that will soon be reality. Caltrain stations are not suburban park-n-ride BART stations; station accessibility is critical. Minutes count.
While it is tempting to say there is not enough time to do this, our experience is that a little extra
planning goes a long way. As we previously mentioned, any project that impacts the Caltrain right-of-way will become increasingly expensive so now is the time to think ahead.
October 4th, 2017
City Council,
Palo Alto City Hall, 7th Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
Copy sent to: Mary Diesch, Vinculums Services
CIT"f OF PALO Al · CITY CLEl.,K/ 10. CA \ S OFFICE
17 OCT -6 AH ID: 40
Subject: Proposed installation of Verizon cell phone tower at the intersection of Los Robles and Villa Vera,
Palo Alto (17PLN-00033}
Dear members of City Council,
We feel compelled to voice our concern about the proposed location of a Verizon small cell tower that will be 9 feet
into my property at the very edge of the public right of the way request you to ask Verizon to reconsider this
installation. Please consider this as our formal request to reconsider this location for the proposed installation due to
the concerns stated below.
Our questions and concerns:
1. We are Verizon customers and are satisfied with the quality and strength of cellular network in our area. In fact a
Verizon representative has recently confirmed that we have an excellent coverage in our area and our
experience as Verizon cellular network customers confirms this. This also indicates that there is no need to
select this particular location for the proposed small cell installation.
2. How is Verizon complying with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.42.1100)(3) by running a projected analysis
on emissions from this installation? This is very important to me_considering the node will be practically on my
property. I plan to construct a second story and this proposed node will be right outside of the children's bedroom
window where it poses a significant noise and radiation hazard.
3. The equipment, I was told by the City, is very likely to extend over my property. It also makes installation and
any future maintenance activities likely to result in trespassing on my property which is not acceptable. Please
see attached picture of the street light pole where this installation is being proposed.
4. We all live under a constant threat of earthquakes. I am concerned that having this equipment installed so close
to my property poses additional unnecessary risk in the event of a big earthquake.
5. This is a street light pole for the purpose of providing light at a turn and connection between Los Robles and
Villa Vera (that is a private street) and not a utility pole. There are some utility poles on the City property just
across the street, I would like to understand why this small cell node can't it be installed there where noise will
not be much of a concern and Verizon will have easier access for installation and future maintenance? Attached
are some pictures of the proposed tower and the utility poles in the area.
6. This is a densely populated residential area and safety and other concerns of the residents should be prioritized.
Why can't this installation be done in a nearby commercial area where many of these concerns do not apply?
We request Vinculum's project manager for this site to look for alternative poles for this installation. We strongly
oppose the choice of this location when there may be more acceptable options nearby.
Thanks in advance for addressing our concerns and answering our questions.
Sincerely,
~nd Subod?::
4010 Villa Vera
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Proposed location fo install a Verizon Cell Phone tower at the intersection of Villa Vera (a private street) and Los Robles, Palo Alto
""When
women thrive,
all of society -
benefits."
-Kofi Annan
''When
\\70men thrive,
all of society
benefits."
-Kofi Annan
PaJo II. CA 9iff6 pcr·'tffy of~f ol. AL o. CA
CIT CLERK'S OFFICE
I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its 17 0 T -6 PH 4: 32
campus because ...
rAs~://1)4 is 11.i ottly i4Vf Sl:•a
'" i4e .fo-1.'6,.e ~ ,:is e•,,.?•s,
b ... t 4/'o i11 l:J,. ~ .f .,lut'#S o.f.
l
tlae b,.:,ltf -yo,_,.1 "'-'o*"" o.f.
ou,. to,,.1teu11.7. -rle 11l''hf
~'"1>".S ..,_. .. If ;a'o":o~ tJtt
ltlt.oeJe,.f\ 1!t:lu~ri:o11•I f1t1':~01tllltlff
Oll r (!.n,•/ore~ C)e{et"lle •
Office of the Clerk
Please disfribute to all City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
-lirj11r~h1 .,1,1 1., .1,1.,1i,ij;,,1,i.111,1,1,1,,11i,,1,111111
I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because... if;~
iAltJ~ -, ~ ~ 1/1]).} NYtL
~~ ~~A~~o-wfv ~~u ~I~
iJ
CIT _Y ur i·/.1LO. t
Cl7 Y CLEHK'S ~£ ---~~---.3
17 OCT -6 PH 4: 32
Office of the Clerk
Please distribute to all City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301