Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
20171113plCC2
701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 11/13/2017 Document dates: 10/25/2017 – 11/01/2017 Set 2/2 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 | 11/1/2017 12:53 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 01, 2017 7:55 AM To:Council, City Cc:Gennady Sheyner; lkrieger@mercurynews.com; Dave Price Subject:LOS and VMT Comparison from Stanford 2018 General Use Permit Attachments:VMT Analysis from Stanford_GUP_DEIR_Vol_2-2.pdf; Cumulative LOS from Stanford_GUP_DEIR_Vol_2.pdf; Comparison of LOS Standards from Stanford_GUP_DEIR_Vol_2.pdf The Council is considering the roles of LOS and VMT for transportation impact analysis. These excerpts from the Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR are instructive why we need to keep VMT and indeed adopt Menlo Park’s LOS thresholds. Stanford’s growth has 2035 cumulative LOS impacts at 21 intersections. Any excess trips over the No Net New Commute Trips standard results in Stanford paying mitigation fees towards fixing these 21 intersections based on the LOS analysis. Under the VMT analysis, Stanford has no impacts. No mitigation is required even if Stanford were to dramatically increase commute trips. I’ve also included a page from the Stanford 2018 GUP DEIR comparing various LOS threshold standards. Best regards, Arthur Keller 5. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.15 Transportation and Traffic Stanford 2018 General Use Permit 5.15-55 ESA / D160531 Environmental Impact Report October 2017 TABLE 5.15-9 SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS Jurisdiction Intersection LOS Standards (minimum acceptable LOS) Thresholds of Significance if LOS Standard is Exceeded Without the Project Santa Clara County LOS E Increases the average critical delay by more than four seconds and increases the critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more; OR increases the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more when the critical delay is decreased. VTA Congestion Management Program (CMP) LOS E Increases the average critical delay by more than four seconds and increases the critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more; OR increases the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more when the critical delay is decreased. San Mateo County • Outside dense urban areas: LOS C, with no individual movement at worse than LOS D. • Within dense urban areas: LOS D • Increases the average critical delay by more than four seconds • Increases the average critical delay by more than four seconds C/CAG Congestion Management Program (CMP) LOS F for the two C/CAG CMP intersections within the study area Increases the average critical delay by four seconds or more City of Menlo Park • LOS C for collector street intersections. • LOS D for all arterial streets or local approaches to State-controlled signalized intersections. • Increases the average delay by more than 0.8 second on all critical movements for intersections on a collector or arterial. • Increases the average delay by more than 0.8 second on any critical movement that is located on the local approach to a State- controlled intersection. Note: Increases vehicle delay by 23 seconds or more at an intersection that would continue to operate at an acceptable LOS Cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, Mountain View and Los Altos, and Town of Atherton LOS D Increases the average critical delay by more than four seconds and increases the critical volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio by 0.01 or more; OR increases the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more when the critical delay is decreased. SOURCES: Santa Clara County General Plan, 1994; Santa Clara County Annual Monitoring and Conformance Report, 2014; and Traffic Impact Study Requirements, 2013; San Mateo County 2015 Congestion Management Program; Palo Alto 2007 Comprehensive Plan working documents; and Staff Report #6805, 2016; Menlo Park Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, 2014; City of East Palo Alto General Plan Update EIR, 2016; City of Mountain View 2030 General Plan and Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program EIR, 2012; and City of Los Altos General Plan, 2002. 5. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.15 Transportation and Traffic Stanford 2018 General Use Permit 5.15-113 ESA / D160531 Environmental Impact Report October 2017 TABLE 5.15-29 2035 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (2035 CUMULATIVE AND 2035 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT) ID Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Thresholdb Peak Hourc 2035 Cumulative 2035 Cumulative With Project Delayd LOSe Delayd LOSe Δ in Crit. V/Cf Δ in Crit. Delayg 1 I-280 NB On-Ramp / Sand Hill Road Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 10.3 12.6 B+ B 10.1 13.7 B+ B 0.015 0.032 -0.2 1.2 2 I-280 NB Off-Ramp / Sand Hill Rd Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 136.9 18.4 F B- 155.2 18.6 F B- 0.038 0.021 19.2 0.2 3 Addison Wesley / Sand Hill Rd Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 37.9 21.5 D+ C+ 49.6 22.3 D C+ 0.037 0.032 18.3 1.4 4 Saga Ln / Sand Hill Rd Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 19.4 30.1 B- C 19.6 29.8 B- C 0.036 0.032 0.5 -0.2 5 Sharon Park Dr / Sand Hill Rd Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 17.4 18.9 B B- 17.4 18.6 B B- 0.036 0.032 0.3 0.0 6 Alameda de las Pulgas / Santa Cruz Ave San Mateo County LOS D AM PM 13.3 14.6 B B 13.3 14.5 B B 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0 7 Santa Cruz Ave / Sand Hill Rd Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 50.6 45.9 D D 52.1 46.9 D- D 0.030 0.038 2.0 1.7 8 Oak Ave / Sand Hill Rd Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 10.5 3.9 B+ A 10.5 3.9 B+ A 0.025 0.024 0.1 0.1 9 Stock Farm Rd / Sand Hill Rd Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 24.3 29.4 C C 25.4 30.3 C C 0.028 0.022 1.7 0.9 10 Pasteur Dr / Sand Hill Rd Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 20.8 26.9 C+ C 20.8 27.7 C+ C 0.009 0.021 0.4 1.4 11 Arboretum Rd / Sand Hill Rd Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 25.2 31.6 C C 25.9 32.3 C C- 0.013 0.012 1.2 0.9 12 El Camino Real / Sand Hill Rd Palo Alto (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 43.7 39.8 D D 43.6 40.3 D D 0.016 0.013 -3.1 0.6 13 I-280 SB Ramps / Page Mill Road Santa Clara County LOS E AM PM 32.5 47.1 C- D 32.7 47.8 C- D 0.002 0.005 0.1 0.2 5. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.15 Transportation and Traffic Stanford 2018 General Use Permit 5.15-114 ESA / D160531 Environmental Impact Report October 2017 TABLE 5.15-29 (CONTINUED) 2035 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (2035 CUMULATIVE AND 2035 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT) ID Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Thresholdb Peak Hourc 2035 Cumulative 2035 Cumulative With Project Delayd LOSe Delayd LOSe Δ in Crit. V/Cf Δ in Crit. Delayg 14 I-280 NB Ramps / Page Mill Road Santa Clara County LOS E AM PM 9.3 11.7 A B+ 9.3 12.2 A B 0.004 0.007 0.1 1.8 15 Deer Creek Road / Page Mill Road Santa Clara County LOS E AM PM 15.9 13.8 B B 16.6 13.9 B B 0.021 0.016 1.2 -0.3 16 Coyote Hill Road / Page Mill Road Santa Clara County LOS E AM PM 8.0 8.7 A A 8.5 9.0 A A 0.011 0.016 0.0 -0.2 17 Junipero Serra Blvd – Foothill Expy / Page Mill Road Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 163.6 152.6 F F 169.5 166.9 F F 0.026 0.063 4.2 20.3 18 Peter Coutts Road / Page Mill Road Santa Clara County LOS E AM PM 22.7 30.6 C+ C 23.3 30.9 C C 0.020 0.015 0.9 0.0 19 Hanover Street / Page Mill Road Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 90.7 52.7 F D- 97.6 53.8 F D- 0.025 0.018 11.6 0.7 20 El Camino Real / Page Mill Road – Oregon Expressway Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 76.4 83.1 E- F 86.3 90.7 F F 0.047 0.035 13.4 10.8 21 Middlefield Road / Oregon Expressway Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 122.6 101.6 F F 125.3 103.7 F F 0.014 0.012 4.4 3.1 22 Oregon Expressway / West Bayshore Rd Santa Clara County LOS E AM PM 23.6 20.9 C C+ 23.6 21.0 C C+ 0.003 0.008 0.0 0.1 23 I-280 SB Ramps / Alpine Road * San Mateo County LOS E (Warrant) AM PM 42.0 16.7 E C 42.7 16.9 E C N/A N/A 24 I-280 NB Ramps / Alpine Road * San Mateo County LOS E (Warrant) AM PM 26.3 26.7 D D 27.4 29.7 D D N/A N/A 25 Junipero Serra Blvd / Alpine Road Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 47.8 50.4 D D 50.7 52.6 D D- 0.049 0.029 4.3 1.6 26 Junipero Serra Blvd / Campus Drive West Santa Clara County LOS E AM PM 29.9 43.7 C D 32.2 49.9 C- D 0.009 0.043 1.4 8.2 5. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.15 Transportation and Traffic Stanford 2018 General Use Permit 5.15-115 ESA / D160531 Environmental Impact Report October 2017 TABLE 5.15-29 (CONTINUED) 2035 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (2035 CUMULATIVE AND 2035 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT) ID Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Thresholdb Peak Hourc 2035 Cumulative 2035 Cumulative With Project Delayd LOSe Delayd LOSe Δ in Crit. V/Cf Δ in Crit. Delayg 27 Junipero Serra Blvd / Campus Drive East Santa Clara County LOS E AM PM 14.0 18.1 B B- 14.3 19.7 B B- 0.020 0.037 0.7 2.7 28 Junipero Serra Blvd / Stanford Avenue Santa Clara County LOS E AM PM 20.6 25.9 C+ C 22.4 31.3 C+ C 0.061 0.084 2.5 7.3 29 Foothill Expressway / Hillview Avenue Santa Clara County LOS E AM PM 121.1 48.2 F D 131.6 52.4 F D- 0.024 0.015 16.1 6.7 30 Foothill Expressway / Arastradero Road Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 293.4 211.5 F F 298.6 217.3 F F 0.016 0.013 7.8 -2.0 31 Foothill Expressway / San Antonio Road Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 36.0 156.3 D+ F 40.1 161.2 D- F 0.016 0.021 6.1 7.6 32 Foothill Expressway / El Monte Avenue Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 142.1 123.9 F F 148.9 128.4 F F 0.014 0.004 13.5 1.8 33 Foothill Expressway / Springer Road – Magdalena Avenue Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 128.7 148.3 F F 131.9 151.1 F F 0.014 0.010 4.8 5.1 34 Bowdoin Street / Stanford Avenue * Palo Alto LOS E (Warrant) AM PM 16.7 25.8 C D 22.8 43.2 C E N/A N/A 35 Arboretum Road / Quarry Road Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 46.8 43.3 D D 47.5 44.2 D D 0.040 0.039 1.3 1.8 36 Arboretum Road / Palm Drive Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 31.0 31.1 C C 32.4 32.5 C C 0.080 0.049 2.1 2.5 37 El Camino Real / Encinal Ave Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 44.9 89.9 D F 45.4 92.9 D F 0.007 0.015 1.4 5.5 38 El Camino Real / Valparaiso Ave Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 53.5 56.0 D- E+ 54.0 57.4 D- E+ 0.017 0.015 1.9 2.7 39 El Camino Real / Oak Grove Ave Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 34.4 39.0 C- D+ 34.1 38.9 C- D+ 0.018 0.017 -0.2 0.0 5. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.15 Transportation and Traffic Stanford 2018 General Use Permit 5.15-116 ESA / D160531 Environmental Impact Report October 2017 TABLE 5.15-29 (CONTINUED) 2035 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (2035 CUMULATIVE AND 2035 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT) ID Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Thresholdb Peak Hourc 2035 Cumulative 2035 Cumulative With Project Delayd LOSe Delayd LOSe Δ in Crit. V/Cf Δ in Crit. Delayg 40 El Camino Real / Santa Cruz Avenue Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 26.8 35.5 C D+ 26.5 35.5 C D+ 0.018 0.010 -0.1 0.0 41 El Camino Real / Ravenswood Road Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 48.0 63.8 D E 48.7 65.8 D F 0.008 0.020 1.0 3.8 42 El Camino Real / Roble Avenue Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 12.8 15.3 B B 12.7 15.2 B B 0.006 0.009 -0.1 -0.1 43 El Camino Real / Middle Avenue Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 25.1 28.5 C C 24.9 28.3 C C 0.014 0.009 -0.2 0.1 44 El Camino Real / Cambridge Avenue Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 15.2 24.8 B C 15.0 24.8 B C 0.014 0.009 -0.2 0.2 45 El Camino Real / Quarry Road Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 12.0 33.0 B+ C- 13.3 34.8 B C- 0.029 0.032 1.6 2.7 46 El Camino Real (SB) / University Avenue Palo Alto (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 21.0 22.7 C+ C+ 20.7 22.5 C+ C+ 0.016 0.031 -0.1 0.0 47 El Camino Real (NB) / University Avenue Palo Alto (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 27.3 25.2 C C 28.6 26.1 C C 0.008 0.016 0.5 0.7 48 El Camino Real / Embarcadero Road Palo Alto (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 56.9 72.1 E+ E 60.4 82.2 E F 0.032 0.059 5.2 20.0 49 El Camino Real / Churchill Avenue Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 25.4 27.1 C C 25.3 27.1 C C 0.017 0.018 0.1 0.1 50 El Camino Real / Serra Street Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 25.2 29.0 C C 28.8 35.8 C D+ 0.082 0.111 6.0 10.8 51 El Camino Real / Stanford Ave Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 31.0 32.3 C C- 31.7 34.8 C C- 0.033 0.054 1.0 4.0 52 El Camino Real / California Ave Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 22.7 27.7 C+ C 22.1 27.5 C+ C 0.029 0.031 -0.4 0.0 5. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.15 Transportation and Traffic Stanford 2018 General Use Permit 5.15-117 ESA / D160531 Environmental Impact Report October 2017 TABLE 5.15-29 (CONTINUED) 2035 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (2035 CUMULATIVE AND 2035 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT) ID Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Thresholdb Peak Hourc 2035 Cumulative 2035 Cumulative With Project Delayd LOSe Delayd LOSe Δ in Crit. V/Cf Δ in Crit. Delayg 53 El Camino Real / Arastradero Road - Charleston Road Palo Alto (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 68.5 71.6 E E 71.7 74.0 E E 0.020 0.010 5.5 2.0 54 El Camino Real / San Antonio Road Mountain View (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 60.9 55.7 E E+ 61.4 55.8 E E+ 0.008 0.005 0.8 0.1 55 Alma Street / Lytton Avenue Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 28.2 25.9 C C 30.9 27.1 C C 0.017 0.015 4.1 1.9 56 Alma Street / Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 10.2 57.7 B+ E+ 10.4 60.0 B+ E 0.007 0.012 0.3 5.0 57 Alma Street / Churchill Avenue Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 32.4 59.2 C- E+ 32.5 59.8 C- E+ 0.005 0.005 0.2 1.0 58 Alma Street / Charleston Road Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 123.7 117.4 F F 127.5 122.5 F F 0.009 0.017 3.9 6.6 59 Middlefield Road / Marsh Road Atherton LOS D AM PM 76.9 76.0 E- E- 79.7 77.4 E- E 0.012 0.000 4.6 0.0 60 Middlefield Road / Ravenswood Avenue Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 49.3 45.3 D D 51.0 46.7 D D 0.011 0.012 2.1 1.9 61 Middlefield Road / Ringwood Avenue Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 43.2 52.6 D D- 43.4 52.9 D D- 0.004 0.006 0.2 0.4 62 Middlefield Road / Willow Road Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 50.0 53.0 D D- 50.2 53.4 D D- 0.000 0.006 0.0 0.5 63 Middlefield Road / Lytton Avenue Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 49.2 66.1 D E 51.1 70.1 D- E 0.018 0.017 2.1 4.4 64 Middlefield Road / University Avenue Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 35.1 39.4 D+ D 35.6 40.8 D+ D 0.019 0.031 0.5 2.0 65 Middlefield Road / Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 10.5 10.8 B+ B+ 10.6 10.9 B+ B+ 0.005 0.007 0.1 0.1 5. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.15 Transportation and Traffic Stanford 2018 General Use Permit 5.15-118 ESA / D160531 Environmental Impact Report October 2017 TABLE 5.15-29 (CONTINUED) 2035 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (2035 CUMULATIVE AND 2035 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT) ID Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Thresholdb Peak Hourc 2035 Cumulative 2035 Cumulative With Project Delayd LOSe Delayd LOSe Δ in Crit. V/Cf Δ in Crit. Delayg 66 Middlefield Road / Embarcadero Road Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 55.0 68.1 D- E 59.4 72.9 E+ E 0.030 0.025 5.8 6.4 67 St. Francis Drive / Embarcadero Road Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 23.0 19.3 C+ B- 23.0 19.1 C+ B- 0.015 0.014 0.2 -0.1 68 E. Bayshore Road / Embarcadero Road Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 98.5 77.7 F E- 99.0 78.7 F E- 0.006 0.004 0.5 0.9 69 Middlefield Road / Charleston Road Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 56.9 66.5 E+ E 57.2 67.2 E+ E 0.004 0.007 0.3 1.4 70 US 101 SB Ramps / Marsh Road Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 77.3 78.0 E- E- 77.2 77.9 E- E- 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0 71 US 101 NB Ramps / Marsh Road Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 23.2 41.1 C D 23.2 41.1 C D 0.000 0.000 0.0 0.0 72 Bay Road / Willow Road Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 19.7 11.3 B- B+ 19.7 11.3 B- B+ 0.008 0.006 0.1 0.1 73 Newbridge Street / Willow Road Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 42.7 53.6 D D- 42.7 53.9 D D- 0.005 0.004 0.1 0.6 74 O'Brien Drive / Willow Road Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 19.4 20.1 B- C+ 1934 20.0 B- C+ 0.003 0.004 0.0 0.0 75 Hamilton Avenue / Willow Road Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 41.3 40.9 D D 42.0 41.1 D D 0.005 0.004 1.2 0.3 76 Bayfront Expy / Willow Road Menlo Park (SM CMP) LOS F AM PM 51.1 64.9 D- E 51.1 65.3 D- E 0.000 0.004 0.0 0.6 77 Woodland Avenue / University Avenue East Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 71.7 66.1 E E 72.7 66.4 E E 0.000 0.006 0.0 0.9 78 US 101 SB Ramps / University Avenue East Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 27.9 25.8 C C 28.0 25.8 C C 0.004 0.006 0.2 0.1 5. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.15 Transportation and Traffic Stanford 2018 General Use Permit 5.15-119 ESA / D160531 Environmental Impact Report October 2017 TABLE 5.15-29 (CONTINUED) 2035 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (2035 CUMULATIVE AND 2035 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT) ID Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Thresholdb Peak Hourc 2035 Cumulative 2035 Cumulative With Project Delayd LOSe Delayd LOSe Δ in Crit. V/Cf Δ in Crit. Delayg 79 Donohoe Street / University Avenue East Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 76.3 43.4 E- D 77.1 43.5 E- D 0.005 0.004 1.3 0.1 80 University Avenue / Bay Road East Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 54.1 51.8 D- D- 54.4 52.4 D- D- 0.005 0.009 0.5 1.1 81 University Avenue / Bayfront Expressway Menlo Park (SM CMP) LOS F AM PM 26.4 137.3 C F 26.6 140.0 C F 0.008 0.007 0.5 3.3 82 Town & Country Driveway / Embarcadero Road Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 27.8 28.3 C C 27.2 27.9 C C 0.031 0.021 -0.4 -0.3 83 Charleston Road / San Antonio Road Mountain View (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 79.2 66.8 E- E 79.4 67.0 E- E 0.001 0.002 0.4 0.5 84 US 101 SB Ramps / Willow Road Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 11.1 12.8 B+ B 11.2 12.8 B+ B 0.003 0.000 0.2 0.0 85 US 101 NB Ramps / Willow Road Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 25.0 24.2 C C 25.1 24.2 C C 0.000 0.003 0.0 0.1 86 Central Expressway / Rengstorff Avenue Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 449.7 247.6 F F 452.3 250.0 F F 0.010 0.008 2.3 2.5 87 Central Expressway / Shoreline Blvd (N) Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 227.3 97.6 F F 226.4 97.4 F F 0.004 0.006 0.2 -0.1 88 Central Expressway / Shoreline Blvd (S) Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 11.2 7.5 B+ A 11.2 7.5 B+ A 0.003 0.005 -0.1 0.0 89 Central Expressway / Moffett Boulevard Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 241.9 221.4 F F 245.4 225.0 F F 0.010 0.009 5.2 4.5 90 Foothill Expressway / Edith Avenue Santa Clara County LOS E AM PM 52.2 92.8 D- F 57.5 99.7 E+ F 0.016 0.015 9.6 11.6 91 Foothill Expressway / Main Street Santa Clara Co. (SC CMP) LOS E AM PM 41.1 53.8 D D- 46.0 54.2 D D- 0.016 0.009 7.7 -1.3 5. Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures 5.15 Transportation and Traffic Stanford 2018 General Use Permit 5.15-120 ESA / D160531 Environmental Impact Report October 2017 TABLE 5.15-29 (CONTINUED) 2035 INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE (2035 CUMULATIVE AND 2035 CUMULATIVE WITH PROJECT) ID Intersection Jurisdiction/ CMPa LOS Thresholdb Peak Hourc 2035 Cumulative 2035 Cumulative With Project Delayd LOSe Delayd LOSe Δ in Crit. V/Cf Δ in Crit. Delayg 92 University Avenue / O’Brien Drive Menlo Park LOS D AM PM 9.1 13.4 A B 9.1 13.3 A B 0.005 0.006 0.0 0.0 93 University Avenue / Adams Drive * Menlo Park LOS E (warrant) AM PM 425.5 39.6 Fh E 456.2 41.4 Fh E N/A N/A 94 University Avenue / Runnymede Street East Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 15.3 19.1 B B- 15.3 19.1 B B- 0.005 0.005 0.0 0.0 95 University Avenue / Bell Street East Palo Alto LOS D AM PM 14.8 17.3 B B 14.7 17.2 B B 0.005 0.005 0.0 -0.1 Bold text indicates intersection operates at unacceptable level of service. Bold and Shaded text indicates a significant impact. In some cases, intersections may show a reduction in average delay with the addition of Project traffic, which is counter-intuitive. However, average delay values are weighted averages, which will decrease when traffic is added to a vehicle movement that operates with low delay. Conversely, relatively small volume increases to movements with high delays can substantially increase the weighted average delay. * Indicates unsignalized intersection. a Intersection jurisdiction and identification of CMP (Congestion Management Program) intersections. “(SC CMP)” indicates CMP intersection in Santa Clara County; “(SM CMP)” indicates CMP intersection in San Mateo County b LOS Threshold is the threshold between acceptable and unacceptable level of service. “(warrant)” indicates that meeting Signal Warrant 3 (Peak Hour Volumes) is part of the threshold of a significant impact. c AM = morning peak traffic hour, PM = evening peak traffic hour. d Whole intersection weighted average control delay (signalized and all-way stop-controlled intersections) expressed in seconds per vehicle calculated using methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, with adjusted saturation flow rates to reflect Santa Clara County Conditions for signalized intersections. For side-street stop-controlled intersections, delay and LOS are reported for the worst-case approach. e LOS = Level of Service. LOS calculations conducted using the TRAFFIX 8.0 analysis software program, which applies the methods described in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual. f Change (“Δ”) in critical volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C) between Cumulative (2035) and Cumulative (2035) With Project Conditions. This ratio is not applicable for side-street stop controlled intersections and is denoted by “N/A”. g Change (“Δ”) in average critical movement delay between Cumulative (2035) and Cumulative (2035) With Project Conditions. This ratio is not applicable for side-street stop controlled intersections and is denoted by “N/A”. h A signal warrant is not met for this intersection. SOURCE: Fehr & Peers, August 2017. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:48 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:RAH <robhallewell@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, October 28, 2017 12:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page Dear City Councillors, This email is to register our strong family objection (home owners in the Community Center district) to the Castilleja school expansion. We believe not only should the expansion application be rejected but that the existing pupil limit for the school should be enforced. Sincerely, Hongmei Lu & Robert Hallewell City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:55 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Hartmut Wiesenthal <hartmut_uwe@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, October 29, 2017 1:20 PM To:Palo Alto Airport; Council, City; 7-AWP-OAK-FSDO/AWP/FAA@FAA.gov; 9-awa- noiseombudsman@faa.gov Subject:Noise Complain - low flying aiplane below 1000ft on Oct 29; 12:28pm over Fremont; request to improve noise abatement procedure Attachments:2017-10-29-12-28pm.jpg Dear Airport Manager / Dear City of Palo Alto, I like to complain about a low flying airplane on Oct 29; 12:28pm over Fremont, CA (see attached). The airplane is flying below 1000 ft (around 900 ft) and violates minimum required flight altitude, and noise abatement procedures. Please contact the pilot and ask him to change his flight pattern in the future, and/or, tell him, that he is not longer welcome to use Palo Alto Airport. I urge the City of Palo Alto, to improve the noise abatement procedure, asking pilots to avoid flying at low altitude over any residential areas, including Fremont, CA. Kind regards, Hartmut Wiesenthal 3600 Braxton Common Fremont, CA 94538 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:43 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, October 25, 2017 4:19 PM To:Reifschneider, James Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com; Council, City; Watson, Ron; sdremann@paweekly.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com; Jay Boyarsky; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Scharff, Greg; pressstrong@gmail.com; James Aram; Philip, Brian; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org Subject:Palo Alto Police fatal shooting...Memphis program offers example for police and mentally ill https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/10/25/fatal-shooting-triggers-training-with-less-lethal-weapon Sorry.... The Palo Alto Police Department was not the first and the Weekly reporter #FakeNews#Media gets it wrong again.... I have personally spoken with the Memphis police chief on this issue on my occasions... In fact, the Memphis Police Department was the first, the first to deploy Webshot capturing system developed by the US Department of Defense in collaboration with the US Army.... The Weekly reporter got it wrong again...”Badger Breath”..... Johnny Carson https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/02/police-navy-yard-mental-illness-alexis-shooting/2910763/ Mark Petersen-Perez Editor: PaloAltoFreePress Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:48 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, October 28, 2017 1:07 PM To:Council, City; dprice@padailypost.com; Eric Kurhi; Jason Green; Sue Dremann; Sandy Perry-HCA; Robert Aguirre; Robert Norse; becky_johnson222@hotmail.com; Abbi Samuels; Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Board; Board Operations; Kelcy Fleming; housingforallsv@gmail.com; Housing 1000; kristina.loquist@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Please watch and imitate These values are what the people of Palo Alto want you to have. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ridk6OvkgGM&t=194s Chuck Jagoda City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:09 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephens, James Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 12:47 PM To:Winter Dellenbach Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; French, Amy; Keene, James; Council, City Subject:RE: 3457 El Camino - CC Restaurant Supply Code-Coupa Cafe Enforcement Complaint Winter, Thank you for your email. I will review the information and discuss it with management. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, James Stephens Lead Code Enforcement Officer Ext: 2428 From: Winter Dellenbach [mailto:wintergery@earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 7:57 AM To: Stephens, James Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; French, Amy; Keene, James; Council, City Subject: 3457 El Camino - CC Restaurant Supply Code-Coupa Cafe Enforcement Complaint Code Enforcement Complaint To: James Stephens, Supervisor, Code Enforcement From: Winter Dellenbach Email: winterdell@earthlink.net Date: October 30, 2017 RE: 3457 El Camino: CC Restaurant Supply James - Once again I must draw Code Enforements attention to CC Restaurant Supply - I hope for the last time. 1. Unpermitted, Illegal Signs – There are 3 paper signs at CC Restaurant Supply (CCRS), all without permits and illegal. They are the only signs for this business. I brought this to your attention in my 7/31/17 email to you, but you did you not address it and never responded to my email. Two signs are taped to the front utility door and made of white 8 inch x 11½ inch paper. One piece of paper has the name of the business on it, and the other has the hours of business and phone number to call to make an appointment (photos). In back off the alley, there is a long narrow white sign, also presumably of paper, affixed on one of the warehouse double doors. It has on it, “CC RESTAURANT SUPPLY” (photo). City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:09 PM 2 In Code Enforcement’s July 7, 2017 Notice of Violation, CCRS’s front door signage is described this way - “…the “sign” (a piece of paper) posted on the building ….” That Code Enforcement put the word “sign” in quotes and noted in parentheses that it is made of paper seems to indicate how marginal and sub-par the signage is at CCRS (yet ignored this obvious violation of the sign ordinance). Paper is not permitted material for permanent exterior signs. These signs have been the only ones for this business since its inception, well over a year ago. CCRS has never applied for sign permits. CC Restaurant Supply is in violation of the sign ordinance. 2. CCRS’s Party Rental Business is non-operational, and it's Catering Business is apparently nonexistent A Ventura neighbor’s daughter was getting married this May so the neighbor filled out the online form on the CCRS website in order to receive information about party rental items for the reception (see screen shot). The neighbor didn't get a response, so she called a phone number indicated on the CCRS website for party rental (the same as on the front door, 650 200-3113). A woman answered who told the neighbor that she would be called back, but never was. CCRS’s party rental isn’t functioning any more than its retail sales business does. I also note that the CCRS Catering Business is no longer mentioned on its website and can only conclude it too is no longer operable. (see below) Conclusiona CCRS is in violation of the sign ordinance and its party rental, catering and restaurant supply business is non- existent. It doesn't do extensive retail business at 3457 El Camino Real. Instead, Coupa Café vans continue to load-up regularly from its illegal warehouse, and Costco trucks periodically resupply it. No other customers are seen these. Given the above, Code Enforcement, Code Enforcement should: A. Issue a Notice of Violation to CCRS B. Revoke CCRS’s Use and Occupancy permit C. Follow the Notice of Violation of July 7, 2017 issued to CCRS, and proceed to issue citations and fines at $500 per day, next day $750, next day $1000 and each day after until tenant shuts down his warehouse use entirely. I would appreciate it if Code Enforcement would confirm receipt of this Complaint and update me on the investigations and resolution of this matter. Our neighborhoods have been deprived too long of this CN retail protected space. Sincerely, Winter Dellenbach Email: wintergery@earthlink.net Photos: Customer entry door, El Camino City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:09 PM 3 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Front door – taped-up paper signs The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. Warehouse door sign in parking lot City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:09 PM 4 The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. CC Restaurant Supply website: Party Rentals form for customer inquiry for services: The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:09 PM 5 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:51 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Sunday, October 29, 2017 12:15 AM To:WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto Cc:Council, City; lennysiegel@sonic.net; Schmid, Greg; Grant Munoz Subject:Re: Report on the Oct. 16 Palo Alto City Meeting and Renters' protections Thanks for a very thorough description of the issues discussed at the Oct. 16 Palo Alto City Council meeting and some practical suggestions to protect renters. The most useful suggestion, I think, is an anti-demolition law. We need it particularly right now, because Stanford is planning to demolish Escondido Village. To be sure, the plan is to replace it with more and better housing, but that is irrelevant. Stanford has thousands of acres on which the more and better housing could be built, and there is no way in the universe it will be allowed to build commercial structures on all of it, if that is the purpose of saving it from residential construction. I think we would make more progress if all interest groups understood and/or acknowledged that the City is always and everywhere in control of rental. They dictate where it is to be built or not built, how big, the ratio of building to open space (FAR) and the number of units, which is not the same thing, the quality of construction and the amenities. By issuing few house building permits in relation to jobs, they assure that prices be high, as is always assured when supply is lower than demand. Yes, conceivably government could itself build the missing housing stock, but why would it? Their whole thrust is to make money by encouraging more valuable housing which will pay more, not spend more. They can build some, but they can't possibly build enough even with State bonds and HUD help, because by encouraging high value building, they have priced themselves, or rather, us taxpayers, out of the land market. How much did Palo Alto pay the Jissers for the land on which the Buena Vista tenants put their homes? And how much did the Jissers pay for that property, and pay Prop 13 taxes? We don't have the option of buying land on the cheap. "Rent control" is merely the city controlling the end price of the rental to protect renters from being forced out of the town where they make their living and their children go to school, but there is no need to prevent the owner from making the same profit he made when the permit was issued, and, although the city could, and sometimes does, demand that it is below market rate housing that is built, it is not implicit that it be so, and although the city could require that new units rent for some low price--(as they, in practice, assure that they rent for a higher price, I believe that the city's taxing purposes could, and should, be achieved by making it possible for developers to make a reasonable profit with rentals working class people could afford, but from smaller, denser units. This is, after all, California, not Vermont. We are the home of the Eichler and the window wall, concepts which bring the great outdoors into the home and where outdoor play is possible year round, but of course the swimming pools, ball courts, playing fields and vegetable gardens have to be part of the plan, as should co-housing features like a media room, adult care or child care, a doctor or dentist's office, a wood shop, coffee shop or bicycle shop. Sharing the space makes possible economies in transportation, like a shuttle bus, and in services, like physical therapists and cleaners. Ideally, housing for the elderly on Social Security would have a subsidized nutrition program like La Comida, available to the general elderly population also, of course. Many people , whether rich or poor, have possessions that they cherish. so there would be ample basement storage that they could pay for if they were so inclined. In order to accommodate enough people to amortize the building costs in spite City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:51 AM 2 of the low income of social security recipients, starting at $800 some per month, the paradigm would be quite small personal space, say 200 square feet (but you know, Bridgepoint and other popular retirement communities provide comparable space allotments) and the tenant would have to manage without a car, or at least without a pet car housed in the same building, but retired people, almost by definition, don't need to drive to work daily, don't need to drive children to school and dancing lessons, and, as often as not, are not allowed to drive. However, if these miniscule private spaces and spacious common spaces proved popular with families, their cars could be garaged at a distance, perhaps even in another town where land is cheaper. lIt should be obvious that gg all the objection by potential neighbors to "density" is actually directed at density of cars, not people. The so- called Maybell senior residence project a couple of years ago actually included a bunch of homes of the type where the mommy and daddy have cars, the butler has a car, the housekeeper has a car, the nanny has a car, and the teenagers have motorcycles, and they were to be put on a street where, the previous year, half of the traffic of the major artery to the Stanford Industrial Park had been re- routed, perhaps with the idea of lowering property values so PAHC could buy the land more cheaply. Taking as a model the iconic 101 Alma building, I'd like to suggest that the Palo Alto idea of garden surrounding could be met, even on a busy street like El Camino, by having the entire facades on all sides made up of full room sized balconies, professionally gardened, or at least professionally supervised, with citrus trees, vines, flowers and vegetables, making a true green wall, a gift to the street. That building is pretty much self-contained and produces very little traffic, although it is fourteen stories tall and has a hundred units, i.e. two hundred bedrooms. If, say, ten of the floors were individuals' hotel suites, the same space would hold over 300 persons but would still , without cars, have negligible impact on the neighborhood. Respectfully yours, Stephanie Munoz From: "WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto" <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>coulSent: Friday, October 27, 2017 6:00:13 PM Subject: Report on the Oct. 16 Palo Alto City Meeting and Renters' protections Dear WILPF members and supporters for Palo Alto Renters' Protections: First, thanks so much for your support at the October 16 Council meeting. THIS IS AN UPDATE. We have kept you up to date on the "Renters' Protection memo that Palo Alto City Council members Tom DuBois, Karen Holman and Lydia Kou succeeded in placing on the Oct. 16 Council's agenda. They proposed modest goals: To support retention of a healthy, diverse community, an action that also supports our local economy; to moderate the rate of rent increases; to provide protections from unjust evictions by means that are fair to both renters and landlords; and to continue to promote construction of new multi-unit rental developments After spirited and often personal comments by more than 70 speakers on both sides of the issue - which Council member Tom DuBois stated was not a Rent Control proposal - the memo was rejected by the Council with 3 for and 6 against (Mayor Scharff, Vice-Mayor Kniss, Council Members Eric Filseth, Adrian Fine, Greg Tanaka and Cory Wolbach). City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:51 AM 3 City Council member Wolbach accused DuBois, Holman and Kou of not being sincere, and of being misguided. The 3 Council members who made the proposal asked for a comprehensive STUDY of the issues, not immediate implementation of their suggestions. For local press on the meeting, see the Daily Post at http://padailypost.com/2017/10/18/council-rejects-study-of-rent-control/ and the Palo Alto Weekly article: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/10/17/citizens-clash-over-palo-alto-rent- protectionsand discussion: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/square/2017/10/17/plan-to-boost-renter- protections-fizzles The Weekly also reported that Kniss stated at the meeting that “…she had co-authored a memo with Wolbach and Fine that proposes ways to spur more housing construction.” But apparently that memo did not include low-income housing. WILPF's emphasis has been on low- income as well as "affordable" rental housing. his will not be the end of discussion of renters' protections, the City's inadequate supply of “affordable" and low-income housing, and of future discussions of housing and support programs for Palo Alto's homeless population. OPPOSING VIEWPOINTS 1) Landlords, realtors, real estate investors and corporate housing developers, speaking against the proposal repeatedly raised the specter of what they characterized as Rent Control's disastrous potential results, as in SF rent control, an entirely different situation in a metropolitan, urban center. This group of speakers urged the city to develop more housing units and not place the burden on the shoulders of property owners/landlords and investors who would not be able to keep their profits, cover upkeep and tax expenses. Note: In fact, the goals of the proposed study included the issue of construction of new housing units to meet housing goals for the 44% of the city's population who are renters in addition to renter protections. Although it didn't specifically target low-income housing, we need to retain existing low- income housing rather than having it torn down and be replaced with "affordable" housing. These points could be further studied. 2) Speakers in support of action on the proposed renter protections study - including the city workers' union, SEIU, the teachers' union, middle-class and low income tenants, and housing advocacy group representatives - spoke about the pressures upon renters who are being priced out of the housing market, subject to unfettered, and frequent, exorbitant rent hikes, subject to unjust evictions, and who are fearful of complaining about poor property upkeep because of possible eviction. What can we do to continue to pressure the City Council to address the city's shortage of affordable and low-income housing? Our housing committee - as we're sure all the individual speakers and tenants' advocacy groups who spoke at the meeting - will work hard for housing equality and increased affordable and low-income rentals. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:51 AM 4 ACTIONS: If you are in favor of renters' protections like those proposed by City Council members DuBois, Holman and Kou, join us - and encourage your friends, neighbors, and colleagues - to: write to the City Council members, especially those who rejected the call by their 3 colleagues for renters' protections, to urge them to work with housing advocates to protect renters by establishing policies with 'teeth' for arbitration/mediation of "unreasonable", rent increases, and passing an ordinance defining "just-cause" evictions; stop the demolition of existing rental housing until a balance between jobs and housing exists; speak for the rights and protections of renters at City Council meetings; write letters to the editor in the local press, go online at nextdoor.com and in other social media to publicly call for equality in housing access; sign the Peninsula Peace and Justice petition for renters' protections ( https://goo.gl/forms/YzJWixG0xvVVGuiY2); lobby for the city to build more rental housing units, with a balance of "affordable" and low-income housing; work within your organization, and in coalition with other groups and individuals on a local ballot measure on renters’ rights. Thanks to members of our branch Housing/Homeless Issues committee and to other WILPF members/supporters who spoke at the Oct. 16 Council meeting. Thanks to the Peninsula Peace and Justice Center for its "Protect Renters!" petition and its many signers. Thanks to all of the many impassioned speakers for the basic renters' protections who spoke at the meeting. This is an ongoing effort to get the city to build more affordable and low-income rental housing and to stand up for renters' protections. Shame on the City Council for rejecting their three City Council colleagues' request to begin dialogue to study the issues! Sincerely, WILPF LOW-INCOME HOUSING COMMITTEE Join WILPF and our committee by contacting us at wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:07 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeffrey Lipkin <repjal@att.net> Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 11:27 AM To:Corrao, Christopher; Council, City Cc:Jen Fryhling; Star-Lack, Sylvia Subject:Re: Traffic slowing at the high school cut - through on Georgia Avenue Mr. Corrao It is one year after you sent the following email. What progress have you made on these points? Why does it take you so long? Responsiveness, speed and a concern for student pedestrians and bike riders should have a higher priority with you. As far as I can see, you and your staff are a large waste of our tax dollars so far. Jeff Lipkin On Sep 13, 2016, at 1:57 PM, Corrao, Christopher <Christopher.Corrao@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Lipkin, Below are some answers to your questions from your recent email: 1) Work has not stalled, and is continuing. The striping contractor marked the locations for the signage and striping and we approved the locations with a few modifications next week. The signage and striping contractor should be out soon to complete the project. 2) Flashing beacons are currently not planned for this location. We are installing a high visibility crosswalk, warning signs, and yield signs which will require vehicles on Georgia Avenue to yield right of way to path users. We typically reserve the use of the flashing beacons for crosswalks on arterial or collector roads with higher traffic volumes, speeds, and/or visibility constraints. We also frequently hear concerns from the community members regarding light impacts of flashing beacons in residential neighborhoods. 3) The project was an early implementation task for the council‐approved Georgia‐Maybell bike boulevard concept plan line, and additional speed tables near this crosswalk will be evaluated during the design phase of this bigger project. Please see attached plans showing potential locations for the speed tables. 4) We make every effort to complete construction projects before the beginning of the school year, and the most disruptive parts of this project were completed before school began. Unfortunately, there were some delays in striping this location due to competing needs for striping at high‐volume intersections which were resurfaced as part of the city’s five year paving plan and reoccurring capital improvement program. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:07 PM 2 5) U‐Turn signs are not planned as part of this project but may be implemented through the Maybell bicycle boulevard project. This spot project focused on the improved crossing. Also, when reviewing the attached plans please note that the “green‐back sharrows” shown have been changed and will be traditional white “bike‐blvd” legends, they look like a typical white sharrow but include “blvd” below the chevrons. Kind Regards, Chris Corrao <image001.png> Chris Corrao, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner City of Palo Alto Planning + Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ph: (650) 329‐2106 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. Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Jeffrey Lipkin [mailto:repjal@att.net] Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2016 3:49 PM To: Corrao, Christopher Cc: Jen Fryhling; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Council, City Subject: Re: Traffic slowing at the high school cut - through on Georgia Avenue Dear Mr. Corrao: I see that you have made progress since my email on a crosswalk at the spot in question on Georgia Avenue, but the work has stalled without completion of the crosswalk, including signage and painting the crosswalk. In this connection, I have a few questions: 1. are you planning on installing the kind of signs with flashing lights like you have on Arastradero? If not, why not? 2. why didn’t the project include a speed hump to slow and calm traffic? Can you, and will you, add one now? 3. it is already the middle of September - why hasn’t the project been finished - school is well underway, and I see no current progress on this? 4. now that the crosswalk will be there, are you planning on installing NO-U-TURN signs at that point? If not, why not? Sincerely yours, Jeff Lipkin City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:07 PM 3 On Jul 28, 2016, at 10:13 AM, Corrao, Christopher <Christopher.Corrao@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Hi Jen, Thank you for forwarding Jeff’s email. I will look into it and see how the Arastradero project and other projects we’re working on may address his concerns. Jeff is also welcome to do a 311 request as well, but why don’t I check into this first and we can take it from there. On another note, I’ve been meaning to follow up with you regarding our discussion of Maybell. We have had some internal discussion regarding the “greenback” sharrows, and have decided that to be consistent with what we’re doing in other neighborhoods we’ll be changing them to white “bike boulevard legends.” These are the traditional white stencil markings we’ll also be using on Bryant St. Thanks! Chris Corrao <image001.png> Chris Corrao, AICP, Senior Transportation Planner City of Palo Alto Planning + Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ph: (650) 329‐2106 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. Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Jen Fryhling [mailto:jfryhling@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 27, 2016 1:28 PM To: Corrao, Christopher Cc: Star-Lack, Sylvia; Jeffrey Lipkin Subject: Fwd: Traffic slowing at the high school cut - through on Georgia Avenue Hi Chris, As we discussed on July 13th, I am forwarding you an email from my neighbor Jeff Lipkin, who lives near the back entry path into Gunn High School. He raises a traffic safety concern on Georgia Avenue. You had mentioned during our meeting that you would look into his concern as a 311 matter. He is cc'd in case you have questions. I have cc'd Sylvia, as you suggested, because she is the Safe Routes to School coordinator. Thanks for listening to residents' traffic and safety concerns near all the schools in the Greenacres 2 and Barron Park neighborhoods. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:07 PM 4 Regards, -Jen ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: <repjal@att.net> Date: Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 5:14 PM Subject: Traffic slowing at the high school cut - through on Georgia Avenue To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: jfryhling@gmail.com Congratulations on taking the best action on the Maybell Avenue project. A fitting sequel would be to take traffic slowing actions on the block of Georgia where students from the high school and Terman enter and leave Bol Park. The two speed limit signs at either end of the block are completely ineffectual. This problem is worsened by the cut-through traffic from Arastradero and the hot-rod driving habits of teenagers. The simple solution would be to mark and prominently sign a crosswalk across Georgia at the cut-through, raise the road in a hump a few inches high and as wide as the crosswalk, and cross-hatch the raised crosswalk. I had been told the citizens advising you on the Atastradero project would address this problem, but they called me after the fact to say they failed to do so. Please act this summer so no student gets killed or injured next school year. It will be on your moral and political record if nothing is done. Jeff Lipkin 650 Georgia Avenue Sent from my iPhone <2015 - January Approved Maybell-Bike-Blvd_Concepts.pdf> City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:57 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, October 29, 2017 1:41 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah Subject:Regional Transportation Policies Attachments:Palo Alto Comment Letter on Dumbarton Rail Study September 2017.pdf Dear City Council Members, Below please find two posts by Adina Levin from Friends of Caltrain. These posts are related to the DRAFT Dumbarton Rail Corridor Study and the DRAFT State Rail Plan. Per the article, Palo Alto did NOT participate in the joint letter to MTC regarding the regional significance of Dumbarton Rail. We did, however, send a comment letter (attached). Both the State Rail Plan and the Dumbarton Rail Project are significant for Palo Alto's future given the Caltrain Corridor. Thus far, we have not actively participated in strategic conversations about these topics or in lobbying for either of these causes. I would strongly recommend we prioritize these topics and actively participate going forward. Palo Alto should be a strong regional leader on these issues given the importance of Caltrain in our community. Best, Nadia Naik ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Green Caltrain <donotreply@wordpress.com> Date: Sun, Oct 29, 2017 at 9:33 AM Subject: [New post] Dumbarton corridor legislators, city leaders urge MTC to revisit Dumbarton To: nadianaik@gmail.com New post on Green Caltrain Dumbarton corridor legislators, city leaders urge MTC to revisit Dumbarton by alevin Legislators representing the Dumbarton corridor and local policymakers have sent a strong letter of support to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, urging them to look at the Dumbarton corridor City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:57 AM 2 with fresh eyes. A new SamTrans study suggests the potential for over 30,000 transit riders, a much stronger project than earlier studies suggested. While many locals along the corridor have been paying close attention to the potential for better transit and traffic relief, leaders elsewhere in the region have been less aware of the renewed interest, and may vaguely remember the weak forecasts for less than 10,000 riders in the never-finalized, unpublished studies a decade ago that lead to the project being put to sleep. Why the MTC? In order to revive a transit program on the Dumbarton corridor and be eligible for regional/state/federal funding, the projects would need to be added back to the region's list of active projects. The letter didn't have a specific ask of MTC commissioners, though, it simply sought to raise awareness that there is much more optimism about the potential for high-ridership projects. Who's present, who's missing? The initiative was led by County Supervisor Warren Slocum, whose district includes the Dumbarton corridor. The letter has signatures from state legislators, county supervisors, and city council members from both sides of the Bay in Alameda and San Mateo Counties, including Redwood City, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto in the West Bay. There are a few notable absences, still. There are city representatives from Union City, Hayward, and Newark, but not Fremont, which earlier on had strongly favored moving ahead with BART-San Jose before Dumbarton. Now that BART is moving ahead, Fremont is adding jobs, and West Bay cities are starting to add housing, that dynamic could change; but a Fremont signature is still missing. Also missing are city representatives from Santa Clara County. Palo Alto is the destination for a sizable share of Dumbarton corridor commuters. Mountain View and Sunnyvale also attract Dumbarton traffic; but the Dumbarton corridor has gotten less attention in Santa Clara County, and none of Samtrans' public City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:57 AM 3 meetings were in SCC. If you live in Santa Clara County or Fremont and want to see your jurisdiction showing support also, contact your city council person and ask for them to reach out to Supervisor Slocum's office, who's continuing to organize support. The signatories: Jerry Hill California State Senate, District 13 Marc Berman, California State Assembly, District 24 Kevin Mullin California State Assembly, District 22 Bill Quirk California State Assembly, District 20 Don Horsley President, San Mateo County Board of Supervisors/Vice-Chair, San Mateo County Transportation Authority Warren Slocum San Mateo County Board of Supervisors/MTC Commissioner Richard Valle Alameda County Board of Supervisors /Vice-Chair, Alameda County Transportation Commission Carol Dutra-Vernaci Mayor, City of Union City/MTC Commissioner Barbara Halliday Mayor, City of Hayward Kirsten Keith Mayor, City of Menlo Park Larry Moody Mayor, City of East Palo Alto Alan Nagy Mayor, City of Newark City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:57 AM 4 John Seybert Mayor, City of Redwood City Alicia Aguirre Councilmember, City of Redwood City/MTC Commissioner Anne Halsted Vice-Chair, Bay Conservation & Development Commission/MTC Commissioner alevin | October 29, 2017 at 9:32 am | Tags: recent | Categories: Friends of Caltrain | URL: https://wp.me/pZ1Wi-zY Comment See all comments Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from Green Caltrain. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://www.greencaltrain.com/2017/10/dumbarton-corridor-legislators-city-leaders-urge-mtc-to-revisit-dumbarton/ --------------- New post on Green Caltrain The State Rail Plan and the Caltrain Network by alevin “Imagine if you could board a train at least every 30 minutes in urban regions, or every 60 minutes at any station in the rest of the state, and travel seamlessly to any city in California? Instead of stapling together sets of projects from around the state and calling it a plan, the California State Transportation Agency is taking a new approach - a vision and set of strategies to create a convenient transportation network, backed by the money and power of the state of California, using effective practices from around the world. Creating an integrated network could greatly increase ridership - the State Rail Plan envisions intercity passenger ridership multiplying more than tenfold from 115,000 trips per day today to to 1.3 million trips per day. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:57 AM 5 Core principles to create this network include: Getting more riders with capital investments by investing in capacity increases, using global best practices for efficiency and avoiding redundant investments Systemwide electrification and corridor grade separations A “pulse” schedule that synchronizes connections between long-distance and feeder services Hub stations designed for convenient connections and walkable land use Disentangling passenger and freight services, allowing long-distance passenger services to arrive on time Providing integrated fares and ticketing The Caltrain Corridor, as the West Bay spine slated to share tracks with High Speed Rail service, is seen as a critical piece of the network. As such the Caltrain Network is on deck for major investments to improve capacity and coordination. Read on for opportunities posed by the State Rail Plan to bring major improvements to the Caltrain corridor, and thoughts about comments and improvement. The comment deadline for the State Rail Plan is December 11. There is one Bay Area public meeting on Wednesday November 1 in Oakland, at 1721 Broadway from 4:30 to 7:30, and a webinar on Wednesday December 6, 12-1:30. Click here for more information about meetings around the state, and click here to send comments. Caltrain Corridor Capacity The State Rail Plan sees the value of increased capacity on the Caltrain corridor where the most popular trains are overcrowded. The State Rail Plan supports plans for full electrification, longer trains, and level boarding, to carry more passengers more quickly and reliably. The State Rail Plan is clear that dates in its roadmap are coarse-grained time windows not specific delivery dates. That said, the Caltrain Modernization 2.0 improvements are listed in the plan as just getting started by 2027 and being complete by 2040. That is a long time from now. Given growth on the corridor, we will need funding and momentum to get the increased capacity sooner. Corridor grade separations The State Rail Plan envisions grade separations, not only as stand-alone safety and traffic relieve projects, but as families of projects to pursue systematically on key corridors. “When organized and pursued strategically as part of an identified corridor, grade- separation projects can dramatically improve rail capacity and passenger service.” The City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:57 AM 6 Caltrain corridor is identified as needing full grade separation; this strategy could help fund the program and potentially help improve the cost-effectiveness of designs. Electrification and fleet upgrades The State Rail Plan calls for along with systemwide electrification, which reduces the cost of operations and maintenance, and life cycle analysis to be considered in the timing of fleet upgrades, including the cost of maintenance. By 2040, Caltrans expects a majority of passenger miles on the rail system to be provided by electric trains, with Caltrain electrification considered a priority project. These principles could help accelerate Caltrain full electrification in the near future, facilitating lower operating costs and better schedules. Pulse system and clockface schedule The mandate for a “pulse” schedule could be beneficial to ensure that the blended system with High Speed Rail is helpful and not harmful to Caltrain service. The mandate requires services that feed key long distance routes to connect and enable timely transfers. Without good design of passing infrastructure, a blended system with High Speed Rail could result in an irregular schedule local trains. But that wouldn’t allow Caltrain trains to be pulse feeders for high speed long-distance trains. A pulse mandate could help ensure a quality Caltrain schedule with the blended system. Hub stations and the downtown extension to Transbay The pulse schedule is designed to connect "hub" station areas, at major urban centers, and places evolving as walkable communities. Transbay is included as a major hub, with the Downtown Extension connecting the tracks to downtown San Francisco. A classic strategy to increase ridership on a rail line originally built for commuter service is connecting the line to the core city downtown; there are 3 times as many jobs within walking distance of the Transbay station as the rest of the Caltrain line combined. The Downtown Extension project is a key part of the State Rail Plan; the report timeline envisions construction having started by 2022 and being complete by 2027. Through-running to Oakland and Sacramento The plan envisions even more capacity and more ridership by pursuing the strategy of extending regional lines through the center of core cities, instead of stopping at a terminal station, which forces all trains to share the limited track access into and out of the station. Historically “commuter rail” systems were often designed with stub-end terminals. Around City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:57 AM 7 the world, over the last 50-60 years, major metros have modernized their systems, running the regional system through town, much higher capacity and ridership. The State Rail Plan calls for a second transbay tube including conventional rail, connecting from Transbay through a hub in Oakland via electrified service out to Sacramento. The plan envisions that major investment of a second transbay tube could be justified by the combined benefits of local congestion, access to regional markets, and long-distance service (4.10.2). Hub capacity, turnaround time, and value for money The State Rail Plan sets goals for using assets more efficiently following international best practices, and investing more efficiently by avoiding redundant projects. One of the challenges in planning for service at the Transbay and Diridon hubs with Caltrain and High Speed Rail has been expectations for relatively long turnaround times and coordination challenges, leading to proposals for lower service levels. The State Rail Plan promises to set and enforce standards using global best practices, resulting in higher capacity at hub stations. The Dumbarton connection, and disentangling passenger rail from freight The State Rail Plan envisions the Dumbarton Corridor as a logical link in the statewide network. The plan envisions integrated express bus connections by 2022, and bus or rail connections over time, coordinated with the state’s pulse system. Integration with the State Rail Plan could help make Dumbarton corridor transit better for riders and more cost-effective. One of the major barriers to good passenger rail service is that major freight railroads own much of the right of way. The report identifies key bottlenecks and goals to use money and leverage of the state to reduce conflicts between freight and passenger rail. SamTrans’ recent Dumbarton study assumes that will be difficult for ACE and Capitol Corridor, running on freight tracks, to achieve timed connections, and therefore it does not City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:57 AM 8 have robust forecasts for these connections. The difficulty of making tight connections also plays into the SamTrans recommendation to run bus service parallel to rail. The vision of a pulse system connected at hubs leads the plan to envision an East Bay hub station near Newark, Hayward, or Fremont to allow connections across Dumbarton to the Peninsula, to north-south service between Oakland and San Jose, to east-west services between Stockton and San Jose, and to BART. With this vision, the Plan clear sees need for a hub station to improve multiple connections, unlike the "blind men and elephant" fragmented view of connections found in various studies from BART, SamTrans, ACE and Capital Corridor. Considering the Dumbarton connection as part of the pulse system, fixing freight bottlenecks to allow timely passenger connections, and creating an East Bay hub with connections North, East, West, and BART, could provide much more convenient service for riders. Freight barriers and the Caltrain Corridor The Peninsula Corridor is fortunate that far-sighted leaders in the 90s purchased the Caltrain right of way, but freight still has rights to use the corridor, and conditions imposed by freight add challenges to improving passenger service. There may be additional opportunities to leverage the principles of the State Rail Plan to address other challenges presented by freight on the Caltrain corridor, such as a 1% grade preference and the opportunity to reduce vertical height preferences from 22’ to 19’, that could improve designs and lower capital costs for corridor grade separations. Coordinated fares and ticketing The State Rail Plan envisions a system of coordinated fares and integrated ticketing options across service providers, with a demonstration in place by 2022, and a full system operating by 2027. This is a compelling vision that other parts of the world already achieve. However, California and the Bay Area in particular are notoriously fragmented. At the first public meeting in Oakland, State Rail Plan staff said that they envisioned local operators continuing to be in charge of fares. Given this, we are puzzled as to how an integrated statewide system can be successful. Corridor transportation demand management The State Rail Plan includes an innovative concept for corridorwide transportation demand management programs. Such a program could set ridership and mode share goals for a corridor, and reward/require effective practices including paid parking, guaranteed ride City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:57 AM 9 home, transit passes, carpool programs, and other services, democratizing the successful programs run by the largest corporations. As with fare integration, we are wondering about the institutional arrangements that need to be put in place to provide an unprecedented level of coordination. Beyond Commuter Rail - a Regional Metro The data assembled in the State Rail plan reveals something that Bay Area transit watchers know intuitively - Caltrain is in a different league than other services classified as “commuter rail.” Excluding Gilroy service, Caltrain generates more than ten times the number of passengers per route-mile. For further comparison, Caltrain generates about a third of the passengers per mile as BART, though Caltrain currently offers less frequent service. The State Rail Plan supports critical concepts that will enable Caltrain service to break out of the “commuter rail” box, following the example of systems around the world: integrated fares and scheduling, a downtown connection with eventual through-running for much greater capacity, electrification, better asset utilization with shorter turnaround times and more service for higher ridership. But it classifies Caltrain with classic commuter rail services. The service pattern envisioned isn’t differentiated from other “commuter rail” services in the plan: “integrated all-day, express, and local service between San Francisco and San Jose, allowing all stations to be served at least half-hourly, and to connect with the Statewide rail network in San Jose.” The State Rail Plan doesn’t give a name to the “regional metro” service pattern that is used so successfully in other parts of the world, where services such as German S-Bahn and French RER provide frequent, all-day service as an integrated part of metropolitan area transit. Having a “regional metro” overlay concept might help the State Rail Plan identify additional ways to increase ridership and value from more urban segments of the State Rail network, and would help justify and fund these improvements for Caltrain. 2016 Ridership Route- miles Riders per mile Caltrain comparison Caltrain 19,000,000 50 380,000 Metrolink 10,900,000 534 20,412 19 ACE 1,300,000 85 15,294 25 Capitol Corridor 1,500,000 169 8,876 43 Coaster 1,556,056 41 37,953 10 BART 126,000,000 112 1,125,000 0.34 alevin | October 29, 2017 at 10:42 am | Tags: recent | Categories:Friends of Caltrain | URL: https://wp.me/pZ1Wi-A0 September 29, 2017 Melissa Reggiardo, Principal Planner San Mateo County Transit District P.O. Box 3006, 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 Subject: Draft Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study Dear Ms. Reggiardo: Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Dumbarton Transportation Corridor Study (Study). The City of Palo Alto Transportation Division would like to offer the following feedback on the plan, based on the City’s adopted transportation goals and policies. According to the Study’s travel demand forecasts, the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University are, and will continue to be, the largest destination for peak‐period Dumbarton Corridor trips. By extension, the city’s local street network will undoubtedly experience the impacts from any increase in roadway capacity that induces or allows for increases in single‐occupant motor vehicle travel across the bridge. The City’s adopted policies are not generally supportive of projects that substantially increase single‐ occupant motor vehicle capacity͕ except in critical areas when the needs of motor vehicles, transit, bicyclists, and pedestrians are balanced. However, ŽƵƌ ƉŽůŝĐŝĞƐ do support ƚŚĞ prioritization of projects that improve transit connectivity, frequency, travel time, and overall quality of service within the corridor. Some relevant policies from our adopted Comprehensive Plan are listed below for your reference: x POLICY T‐3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels. x POLICY T‐5: Support continued development and improvement of the University Avenue and California Avenue Multi‐modal Transit Stations, and the San Antonio Road Station as important transportation nodes for the City. x POLICY T‐6: Improve public transit access to regional destinations, including those within Palo Alto. x POLICY T‐7: Support plans for a quiet, fast rail system that encircles the Bay, and for intra‐ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/1/2017 12:54 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jill Asher <jill@magicalbridge.org> Sent:Wednesday, November 01, 2017 8:53 AM To:Council, City; De Geus, Robert; O'Kane, Kristen; Peter Jensen; Olenka Villarreal; Levy, Leland; Judy Huey Subject:Sharing press and accolades about Magical Bridge Playground in Palo Alto Good Morning Palo Alto City Council Members and Friends! I wanted to share some local and national press we've received about Magical Bridge Playground in Palo Alto to our MAGICAL Palo Alto leaders! I thought you'd enjoy reading about how we are bringing a lot of recognition to our beloved city! Kindly Yours, Jill Asher and Olenka Villarreal Fatherly Magazine: The 11 Best Environmental-Friendly Playgrounds in America (10/31/17) Magical Bridge Playground was featured on Culture Trip too: Family-Friendly Activities in Silicon Valley to Enjoy -- Jill Asher Co-Founder, Magical Bridge Foundation VIDEO of Magical Bridge p: 650-520-8512 e: jill@magicalbridge.org Connect with Magical Bridge on: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/magicalbridge Twitter: https://twitter.com/magicalbridge City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, October 29, 2017 12:40 PM To:CAC-TACC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); ConnectedCity; Council, City; UAC Subject:Should cities be able to build their own internet services? CAC members, Here, below the "###" line, is a critique of "Should cities be able to build their own internet services," one of the nine things on staff's reading list to prepare for the 11-08-17 CAC meeting. (My comments are the paragraphs beginning with "###".) The article is mainly about the results of a Pew Research Center survey: 70 percent of Americans think municipalities should be allowed to build their own high-speed networks, and 27 percent think they should not. I don't know why this article is on the suggested reading list. I don't think Council loses a lot of sleep over the question of whether Palo Alto ought to be allowed to decide for itself whether or not to deploy citywide municipal FTTP. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ####################################################################### 04-12-17: "Should cities be able to build their own internet services?" http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-cities-own-internet-poll-wp-bsi-20170412-story.html ### Brian Fung writes for the Washington Post. Here's the original source. This version has clickable-link references. (However, the Washington Post limits the number of free accesses, so that could be inconvenient.) 04-11-17: "Most Americans want to let cities build and sell homegrown Internet service" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/04/11/most-americans-want-to-let-cities-build-and-sell- homegrown-internet-service/?utm_term=.a242a63220f1 Most Americans want to let cities build and sell homegrown Internet service By Brian Fung April 11 With Internet providers ranking near the bottom of customer satisfaction surveys, 06-01-16: "ACSI Telecom Report Shows Competitive Industries Have Higher Customer Satisfaction" https://www.theacsi.org/news-and-resources/press-releases/press-2016/press-release-telecommunications-2016 7 in 10 Americans say their towns or communities should be allowed to build new Internet networks that compete with large, established providers, according to new data from the Pew Research Center. 04-10-17: "Americans have mixed views on policies encouraging broadband adoption" http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/10/americans-have-mixed-views-on-policies-encouraging-broadband- adoption/ City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 2 ### Details of the survey are here: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/12/2017/04/07132853/FT_17.04.07_Broadband_methdology_topline_charts_FINAL.pdf Note that the survey didn't ask WHY municipalities should or shouldn't be allowed to deploy their own high-speed networks, or WHAT entity should have the authority to do the allowing (or not). The latest findings add to a long-running battle over restrictions — often written by state legislatures and supported by telecom and cable companies — that prevent local governments from establishing homegrown rivals to ISPs such as AT&T or Charter. And, policy analysts say, the results underscore a gulf in attitudes about public infrastructure spending — although perhaps not the kind you may expect. Substantial majorities of Democrats and Republicans back the ability of towns to build and sell their own Internet plans to local residents, according to the study. Although conservatives are slightly more likely than liberals to say they are a bad idea, just 27 percent of Americans overall say local governments shouldn't be able to offer competing service, Pew's survey found. (The same study found that Americans largely oppose government subsidies for low-income Internet users, which is timely in light of a recent government decision.) 03-30-17: "The FCC wants to block dozens of companies from providing low-cost Internet" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2017/03/30/the-fcc-blocks-more-companies-from-providing-low- cost-internet/?utm_term=.43c8e57aabb4 ### The cited article provides a Pew Research graphic that shows: * 70% of U.S. adults say Local governments should be allowed to build their own high-speed networks, and 27% say they should not be allowed to do so. * For "Rep/Lean Rep," it's 67% and 31%, respectively. * For "Dem/Lean Dem," it's 74% and 23%, respectively. ### Also, in the detailed report, it says: http://assets.pewresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/sites/12/2017/04/07132853/FT_17.04.07_Broadband_methdology_topline_charts_FINAL.pdf * For "Household income: $75,000+" it's 76% and 23%, respectively. * For "Educational attainment: College+" it's 78% and 20%, respectively. (Pew Research Center) Proponents of independent Internet networks argue that a “public option” for Internet access could help drive down the price of broadband and increase speeds. Opponents say the expense of building new networks represents an unacceptable financial risk for many local governments. “Municipal broadband networks too often end up failing and costing taxpayers millions,” said USTelecom, a trade association representing Internet providers and telecom companies. ### I'm surprised that Fung didn't cite a reference for this. When I Googled the quote, all of the hits looked like derivatives of Fung's article. http://www.pcta.com/news/clips_4_13_2017.pdf Some public projects have resulted in high-profile failures. In 2009, residents of Burlington, Vt., learned that its mayor at the time, Bob Kiss, quietly used $17 million 10-21-15: "WTF: What's Happening With Burlington Telecom?" https://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/whats-happening-with-burlington-telecom/Content?oid=2962120 in city funds to prop up the local public broadband utility, Burlington Telecom. The utility is now in the process of being auctioned off 01-31-17: "Residents Urge Advisory Board to Keep Burlington Telecom Local" https://www.sevendaysvt.com/OffMessage/archives/2017/01/31/residents-urge-advisory-board-to-keep-burlington- telecom-local City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 3 as part of a negotiated settlement. ### Yes, Burlington, VT, is an oft-cited municipal broadband failure. Delays and cost overruns were also a feature of a public-sector broadband project in Utah. 12-03-12: "UTOPIA: Fiber-optic nirvana or a nightmare with no way out?" http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/news/55284692-78/utopia-network-fiber-west.html.csp ### See also: 12-03-12: "UTOPIA: World-class broadband, sky-high debt," http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=55316142&itype=CMSID published by the same newspaper, on the same day, and written by one of the same authors. This article now comes with a warning: "This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2012, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted." ### Yes, UTOPIA had its financial difficulties early on, caused in part by a Utah state law, HB 149 (2001), that restricted what municipal telecom networks could do. More recently, it has been doing better. But the movement to build public broadband has also led to successes. Long before Google Fiber came on the scene and began challenging incumbent ISPs, the city of Chattanooga, Tenn., 09-17-13: "How Chattanooga beat Google Fiber by half a decade" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/09/17/how-chattanooga-beat-google-fiber-by-half-a- decade/?utm_term=.e8043936cd45 was competing aggressively with offers of download speeds up to 1 gigabit per second. In 2013, the city dropped its prices from $300 a month to $70 — and in 2015 opened up a new service tier of 10 Gbps. After relying primarily on bond money and declining to fund the project with a new city tax, Chattanooga turned its fiber network into what its manager has called a “great profit center.” Where they are allowed to, other towns have increasingly moved to build their own independent networks. For example, the government of Colorado Springs, recently became the 100th jurisdiction in the state to vote to overcome the Colorado legislature's restrictions 11-06-13: "Big Cable may have felled Seattle’s mayor, but it couldn’t stop this Colo. project" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2013/11/06/big-cable-helped-defeat-seattles-mayor-mcginn-but- they-couldnt-stop-this-colorado-project/?utm_term=.f2f0704b11a3&wtm_term=.66b90548a742 on municipal broadband, said Christopher Mitchell, a public broadband advocate at the Institute for Local Self-Reliance in Minneapolis. ### The closest thing I could find in support of this was: 04-07-17: "Opting Out of Colorado Limits: Central City and Colorado Springs" https://muninetworks.org/content/opting-out-colorado-limits-central-city-and-colorado-springs "These two communities [Colorado Springs and Central City] join the nearly 100 communities that have already restored local authority." “In Colorado, we see liberal cities like Boulder, conservative cities like Colorado Springs, and many conservative counties putting, in some sense, their money where their mouth is,” said Mitchell. While Colorado law allows cities and towns to move forward with municipal broadband if enough residents vote to approve it, other states can be more restrictive. ### See this list of restrictions by state: http://www.baller.com/wp-content/uploads/BallerStokesLideStateBarriers11-1-16.pdf (California restricts what Community Service Districts can do, but Palo Alto is not a Community Service District.) City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 4 Chattanooga became part of a high-profile legal battle 02-26-15: "The FCC rules against state limits on city-run Internet https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2015/02/26/the-fcc-rules-against-state-limits-on-city-run- internet/?utm_term=.15536dcd0435 in 2015, when it asked the federal government to help it overcome restrictions put in place by Tennessee's legislature. Under those rules, the city's Internet network was not allowed to grow to serve neighboring customers. Regulators at the Federal Communications Commission voted to supersede the state regulation, but a year later they were defeated 08-10-16: "Cities looking to compete with large Internet providers just suffered a big defeat" https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/08/10/the-government-just-lost-a-big-court-battle-over-public- internet-service/?utm_term=.9cda23e44b8e when a federal court ruled the move unconstitutional. Lawmakers in Congress lined up for and against the FCC's initial vote on a partisan basis, with Democrats siding with Chattanooga and Republicans siding against it. But the picture is different at the local level, where few partisan divisions exist over the issue, said Mitchell. “The most striking thing is how out of touch Republicans in Washington, D.C. are from their base,” he said. “I talk to Republicans at the local level regularly, especially in rural communities — and they all realize they need the public option.” 61 Comments Brian Fung covers technology for The Washington Post, focusing on telecommunications, Internet access and the shifting media economy. Before joining The Post, he was the technology correspondent for National Journal and an associate editor at the Atlantic. Follow @b_fung City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:07 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Scottie Zimmerman <bigwheel.spot@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 12:22 PM To:De Geus, Robert Cc:Council, City; Keene, James; Alaee, Khashayar; Carole Hyde; Jeremy Robinson Subject:Some Questions about Spay/Neuter at PAAS Hello Rob, I’m writing you in response to your helpful explanation of the current loss of veterinary services at PAAS. As you may know, the first announcement of the spay/neuter shutdown came on October 24 and caused some confusion. The updated announcement appeared on the City website, under Animal Services, on October 27. The added details there and in your email help clarify exactly what’s happening. PAAS was one of the first shelters to offer low-cost spay & neuter surgeries to the public. Our City veterinarians have been serving the animal-loving community for a long time. Local families and a number of local animal rescue groups have been able to count on PAAS for the important surgery that helps prevent unwanted increases in animal populations. Now that service is being denied at PAAS, with the suggestion that people take their animals to other shelters in our area. An alternative would be to hire, on contract, a substitute veterinarian who can perform s/n surgeries and reinstate that important service. In my years as a volunteer at PAAS, I have seen substitute/contract veterinarians brought in to help. (Sandy Stadler was managing the shelter at that time.) It seems to me that rather than closing the spay/neuter clinic for an indefinite period of time, Palo Alto should pay for a contract veterinarian and continue serving our community of animal lovers. Sincerely, — Scottie City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:53 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, October 29, 2017 12:37 PM To:CAC-TACC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); ConnectedCity; Council, City; UAC Subject:Staff's suggested reading for FTTP CAC members, I was annoyed by the "suggested reading" list that staff proposed (see below the "###" line) as background for CAC's 11- 08-17 meeting. Three of the four items in "support" of muni broadband are about the aspirations of municipalities (San Francisco and Seattle) that haven't actually deployed municipal FTTP yet. The four items in "opposition" to muni broadband are all written by shills of the telecom incumbents. The one so-called "objective" item focuses on whether municipalities should even be allowed to deploy broadband networks, which, thankfully, is not (yet) an issue in California. This is the kind of "suggested reading" list that could have been proposed by the telecom incumbents, not by anyone who wants to take seriously the possibility of citywide municipal FTTP in Palo Alto. Palo Alto has been talking about deploying citywide municipal FTTP for more than 18 years. (On 04-05-99, Council voted 7-1 to move forward with both a "Universal Telecommunications System" RFP and a FTTH Trial.) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-archive/1999/990405.html You'd think that by now we'd be wise to the incumbents' stratagems. Suppose, for example, that the City's Chief Sustainability Officer had sent a "suggested reading" list to, say, UAC commissioners, that included a lot of items written by shills of the fossil fuel energy companies saying that anthropogenic climate change was a hoax. What would that do to the credibility -- let alone the future employment prospects -- of that officer? Let me propose another "suggested reading" list: * 10-04-17: "Enabling Competition & Innovation on a City Fiber Network: Case Study" https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3047420 (Click on "download this paper" to get the paper itself, which doesn't have its own URL.) This paper describes the emerging municipal open access FTTP network in Ammon, ID, including the novel way it's financed. * 10-09-17: "Couldn't Make It To Ammon? Event Videos Now Available" https://muninetworks.org/content/couldnt-make-it-ammon-event-videos-now-available This is a guide to viewing a 6:14:50 video of an "Event" in Ammon, ID, that talks about their FTTP network. I especially recommend "The Ammon Story" panel (at 4:31:10), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvBTjaoPRuc&feature=youtu.be&t=4h31m10s featuring Ammon's Mayor, President of the Council, CIO, and City Attorney, plus a volunteer fiber champion. (Well, this is something to view, not read, but I'll send a transcript as a separate message, if you want to read something.) * 10-25-17: "San Francisco Just Took a Huge Step Toward Internet Utopia" (recommended by Andy Poggio on 10-26- 17). https://www.wired.com/story/san-francisco-municipal-fiber/ It's still only aspirational. * October 2017: "The Potential for Ubiquitous, Open Fiber-to-the-Premises in San Francisco" (201 pages) http://sfbos.org/sites/default/files/CTC-Deliverable22-final-20171017.pdf So, OK, how can CTC say FTTP isn't feasible in Palo Alto but might be feasible in San Francisco? * 10-26-17: "Capex for Alphabet's 'Other Bets' Falls Off a Cliff" (recommended by Richard Brand on 10-27-17). http://www.multichannel.com/news/finance/capex-alphabet-s-other-bets-falls-cliff/416190 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:53 AM 2 The article provides a graph showing Alphabet's capital expenditures on "other bets," including Google Fiber, for the last 12 quarters. It looks like they've given up on GF. * 10-24-17: "Yet Another Key Google Fiber Executive Departs" https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Yet-Another-Key-Google-Fiber-Executive-Departs-140576 Charles Barr, founder of Webpass, is gone. What does that tell you about GF's pivot to wireless? * September 2014: "Correcting Community Fiber Fallacies: The Reality of Lafayette's Gigabit Network" Christopher Mitchell (34 pages) http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/10/fiberfallacieslusfiber.pdf This paper is a blow-by-blow debunking of a 2013 paper by Steve Titch, "Lessons in Municipal Broadband From Lafayette, Louisiana." Please see my further comments about the "recommended reading" list below (paragraphs beginning with "###"). Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ############################################################################ ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: "Henderson, Todd" <Todd.Henderson@CityofPaloAlto.org> To: CAC-TACC <CAC-TACC@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: ConnectedCity <ConnectedCity@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 7:54 AM Subject: Update on the October CAC meeting Good Morning, The Fiber and Wireless Evaluation Core Team is sending the following update in preparation for our next meeting, please review the information below: Schedule Change for the next CAC Meeting The Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) meeting scheduled for October 19, 2017 is being moved to October 30, 2017 due to internal scheduling conflicts. The agenda for the meeting will be published the week before the meeting. ### This CAC meeting has been rescheduled for 11-08-17. Focus of the Meeting During the meeting, we will continue to discuss the City Council motion from August 21, 2017 and the work we’re doing regarding the development of the business case, funding plans, identification of potential partners and/or service providers, a high-level network design and the four (4) ordinances. We’ll also discuss engaging an engineering firm to design a network, including an expansion option to build a citywide FTTP network. Suggested Reading in Advance We encourage you to read many of the following articles in preparation for the October 30 meeting. The primary focus of the meeting will involve the CAC members working with City staff to develop a “problem statement” for the FTTN/FTTP Business Case. We’ve collected the following articles in support of municipal broadband and opposed to municipal City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:53 AM 3 broadband for educational purposes to help facilitate an objective discussion as we move forward in the next phase of our work: Support for Muni Broadband * Community Network: Successes and Failures (Institute for Local Self Reliance/Muni Networks) https://muninetworks.org/content/successes-and-failures ### MuniNetworks is a reliable advocate for municipal broadband. This particular article is from 2014, so its video's description of the incumbents' Internet speeds is a little dated. * The Time Is Now for San Francisco Municipal Fiber, Says Report http://www.govtech.com/fs/The-Time-is-Now-for-San-Francisco-Municipal-Fiber-Says-Report.html ### This 06-19-17 article talks about San Francisco's aspirations to deploy citywide municipal FTTP. Aspirations are nice, but shouldn't we want to focus on municipal networks that have already proven to be successful? * Why Fiber? Should San Francisco Deploy a Fiber Broadband Network? -San Francisco Blue Ribbon Panel on Municipal Fiber Subcommittee on Technology & Infrastructure https://sfmunifiber.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/why-fiber-report.pdf ### This July 2017 paper also talks about San Francisco's aspirations. Why fixate on San Francisco at this point? * Why Municipal Broadband https://www.theurbanist.org/2016/06/02/why-municipal-broadband/ ### This 06-02-16 article talks about Seattle's aspirations. Opposition to Muni Broadband * The false promise of 'municipal broadband' networks http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/technology/339232-the-false-promise-of-municipal-broadband-networks ### Author Katie McAuliffe works for Americans for Tax Reform (ATR). ATR's President is Grover Norquist. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Americans_for_Tax_Reform ### I didn't find an online rebuttal of this particular article. It cites the Yoo study (below). * The Failures of Government-Owned Internet https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2016/04/26/government-owned-internet-failure/#726739a855e2 ### Author Tom Reynolds is Chairman of the State Government Leadership Foundation (SGLF) http://sglf.org/about/about-sglf/ Apparently SGLF is able to keep its donor lists mostly secret, but in 2004, donors included AT&T and Time Warner. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/603571-sglf-donors-test https://www.propublica.org/article/big-corporations-put-up-seed-money-for-republican-nonprofit ### The SGLF "study" cited in the article is a 67-page paper written by George S. Ford in 2016: "The Impact of Government-Owned Broadband Networks on Private Investment and Consumer Welfare." http://sglf.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2016/04/SGLF-Muni-Broadband-Study-1.pdf It is debunked in this lighthearted 05-03-16 "Crazy Talk" podcast from MuniNetworks. https://muninetworks.org/content/crazy-talk-another-telco-funded-think-tank-community-broadband-bits-podcast-200 https://muninetworks.org/content/transcript-community-broadband-bits-episode-200 * How Broadband Populists Are Pushing for Government-Run Internet One Step at a Time http://www2.itif.org/2017-broadband-populism.pdf City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:53 AM 4 ### The lead author of this 27-page paper is Robert D. Atkinson. He is founder and president of the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation (ITIF). The other author, Doug Brake, also works for ITIF. https://itif.org/about ITIF has received funding from telecom industry trade groups (National Cable & Telecommunications Association, CTIA-- The Wireless Association, and Information Technology Industry Council), https://gizmodo.com/tech-think-tank-whines-that-journalists-are-too-mean-1792673883 as reported by this tool. (But you have to ask for "information technology andinnovation foundation" -- note the absence of a space between "and" and "innovation".) https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/08/03/20030/search-nonprofit-network * Municipal Fiber in the United States: An Empirical Assessment of Financial Performance https://www.law.upenn.edu/live/files/6611-report-municipal-fiber-in-the-united-states-an ### The lead author of this 36-page paper is Christopher S. Yoo. He is a professor at University of Pennsylvania and founding director of its Center for Technology, Innovation and Competition (CTIC). The other author is Timothy Pfenninger. CTIC is funded by AT&T, Comcast, Time Warner, Verizon, CTIA (who's trademarked motto is "Everything Wireless"), etc. https://www.law.upenn.edu/institutes/ctic/about-ctic.php ### MuniNetworks' Christopher Mitchell wrote this 06-15-17 rebuttal: "Correcting Community Fiber Fallacies: Yoo Discredits UPenn, Not Municipal Networks" (17 pages). https://muninetworks.org/sites/www.muninetworks.org/files/fiber-fallacies-upenn-yoo-1.pdf ### Blair Levin, of the Brookings Institute, wrote an independent 06-29-17 rebuttal: "New report swings and misses on communities and next generation broadband." https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/06/29/new-report-swings-and-misses-on-communities-and-next- generation-broadband/ ### In this video, Yoo claims (at 0:04:10) that "... Palo Alto considered it [municipal fiber] and decided not to move forward." Where is he getting his information? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86EFl4PHT8w Objective Article (Includes pros and cons) * Should cities be able to build their own internet services? http://www.chicagotribune.com/bluesky/technology/ct-cities-own-internet-poll-wp-bsi-20170412-story.html ### This 04-12-17 article reports that most Americans say that municipalities should be allowed to deploy municipal telecom networks. So far, that hasn't been an issue for Palo Alto. As always, feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. Thanks, Todd Todd Henderson, PMP | Project Manager 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650-329-2342 E: todd.henderson@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/1/2017 12:53 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, October 31, 2017 5:13 PM To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City Subject:The 3Q17 Utilities Quarterly Report Commissioners, The Utilities Quarterly Report for 3Q17 hasn't been published yet. (Or at least it hasn't been published in the place I expected.) http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/reports/default.asp Previous 3rd Quarter Utilities Reports were published: + 2016 -- 08-25-16 + 2015 -- 06-03-15 + 2014 -- 06-04-14 + 2013 -- 07-31-13 + 2012 -- Never + 2011 -- 06-01-11 Previous 4th Quarter Utilities Reports were published: + 2016 -- 11-02-16 + 2015 -- 10-07-15 + 2014 -- 10-01-14 + 2013 -- 12-04-13 + 2012 -- 10-03-12 + 2011 -- Never Please consider agendizing a discussion of when the 3Q17 Utilities Quarterly Report should be published. Also, in the old days, UAC used to agendize discussions of Utilities Quarterly Reports as they became available, just in case the commissioners had any questions about them. I think that was a good idea, and maybe UAC should start doing that again. What do you think? Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, October 29, 2017 12:39 PM To:CAC-TACC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); ConnectedCity; Council, City; UAC Subject:TRANSCRIPT -- The Ammon Story -- Panel -- 10-05-17 CAC members, Here, below the "###" line, is a transcript of a video of a panel discussing "The Ammon Story," which I've recommended as part of an alternative "reading list" in preparation for CAC's 11-08-17 meeting. I was impressed that, on the topic of municipal broadband, all of the panelists seemed knowledgeable and engaged. Thanks. Jeff ------------------ Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------ ####################################################################### 10-09-17: "Couldn't Make It To Ammon? Event Videos Now Available" https://muninetworks.org/content/couldnt-make-it-ammon-event-videos-now-available Ammon Fiber Optic Utility Live Stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YvBTjaoPRuc&feature=youtu.be&t=4h31m10s PANEL: The Ammon Story : Bruce Patterson, Technology Director, City of Ammon Dana Kirkham, Mayor, City of Ammon Brian Powell, City Councilor, City of Ammon Scott Hall, City Attorney, City of Ammon Matt Hulse, Neighborhood Champion, City of Ammon Moderated by Christopher Mitchell, Director, Community Broadband Networks 4:31:10: Christopher Mitchell: Thank you all. We're going to have a discussion session now, to try and answer some of the questions you may have developed along the way. So, let me just do a very brief introduction. I'll start with Bruce. Bruce Patterson was on the stage earlier. Mayor Kirkham was on the stage earlier. People know who they are. You are -- sorry -- 4:31:29: Matt Hulse: Fiber champion, Matt Hulse. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 2 4:31:32: Christopher Mitchell: Matt Hulse. The fiber champion. I have to admit -- the other three guys I don't know quite as well. But I'm guessing this is Brian Powell. 4:31:39: Brian Powell: (nods) 4:31:39: Christopher Mitchell: And -- who is the President of the City Council. And Scott Hall. Hall and Hulse -- you're challenging me a little bit. Scott Hall is the City Attorney. And Matt Hulse is our champion, who has been organizing some of the residents that are organizing to get this network. I want to ask the first question. And I think probably I'll ask Bruce, and then the other people, to kick in. What was the first moment of this network? Where would you trace its beginning to? 4:32:12: Bruce Patterson: Wow! The first moment of the network, huh? You ask me to think a long ways back. You know that, don't you? Well, there was a -- I guess, for me, you know, we had talked it. And we'd actually adopted policy, and done some things. But, you know, it kind of became real when City Council actually gave me a budget. And I can kind of remember driving around and looking down some of the roadsides that I knew we'd have to go down, and asking myself if I really wanted to do this. Because once you put it in the ground, there's no going back. And I was asking myself, do I -- can I really do this? And as I tried -- I don't know how to relate it to people, other than to just say, it's kind of like assuming you're going to pull a V8 motor out of some car and overhaul it, when you've never done it before. 'Cause I don't know how to do this. A good friend of mine, who you've heard a lot about -- Robert Peterson -- I had a conversation with him. And he said, you know, the journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. And don't worry about those things tomorrow if you can just get started and learn it. So, with that encouragement, and the City Council expressing their confidence, we just move forward. But that's, I think, when it's real for me, is when we started to spend money on it. 4:33:24: Dana Kirkham: That's when it's always real -- when you start spending money. But I really think it was real when we adopted the ordinance in 2008. But I had to stop, to tell Bruce's story a little bit, so we can appreciate it. He started in our building department. And then he came to us along the way, and said, you know, I really think that I could do something - - you know, I could do something -- with IT. And I was like, all right, well, we're kind of getting to that point, maybe we need an IT Director. So we moved him over. I don't know that there was necessarily any great expectation. And he wasn't there six months before he came and said, you know, I have this idea. And this is what it entails. And he really was the visionary that kind of sold it, I think, to Brian, and to myself. And said -- And then, Brian is a bit of a visionary, too. He was really eager to get on the bandwagon. And so -- Anyway -- But when we adopted the ordinance in 2008, that's when it really became real. Because what's the point of an ordinance if you're not going to actually follow through? 4:34:15: Bruce Peterson: So -- And that's how she remembers it, OK? But I was the -- I was this new IT guy. And Brian was put over me. And Brian had a meeting with me, and he said, you know what we really need is, we need this -- this fiber. And he was looking around the country, and trying to be visionary. And I think you'll have to see if this aligns with your memory. I went out and did some homework, and I came back to you initially. And I think I said, you're crazy. The amount of money it's going to take -- I don't know how to do this. I don't know how to do this for you. But, you know, some things developed. You were pretty consistent in your support of me. And encourage me to do it. And I think that's how we got where we are. 4:34:53: Christopher Mitchell: I'm definitely curious, Brian, what your first thoughts were along those lines, and the scope you anticipated at that time. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 3 4:35:00: Brian Powell: I don't -- I think that's pretty much how it all happened. With Bruce and the Mayor has stated before. But I do remember riding around with Bruce in the truck, and we were looking at places where we could put it in. And I also remember telling him, you know, what we really need to do is, we need to think of immediate users. Who could we immediately get on the network? 'Cause that's what really is going to drive this going forward. And he came up with a list of educational entities, school districts, wireless towers that could immediately use the service. And I think you have to start somewhere where there's an immediate use. And some kind of way to expand and grow the scale of the project. And that's really what we needed. And I think that was the right step. 4:35:51: Christopher Mitchell: And I think it's just really worth diving into -- how the early phases were financed. Because this was long before the local improvement districts. So, who was the first user of the network? 4:36:03: Dana Kirkham: The City. 4:36:04: Bruce Patterson: Yeah. 4:36:05: Dana Kirkham: The City was the first user. And that was kind of how, I think, the idea really took form, is that Bruce and Brian said, OK -- both pragmatists and, and Brian, for sure, a fiscal conservative -- you know, said, look, this is how we're going to do it. We're going to connect to all of our City services -- our well houses, our lift stations, City Hall, the fire station. We're going to do it in the name of public safety. And we're going to finance it ourselves from reserves from public works. And so we made that initial million-dollar investment. And it's more than paid dividends. 4:36:41: Bruce Patterson: So, to clarify that, you saw Michael Curri earlier. And he threw some numbers up. Doesn't really mean a whole lot, right? But what we did is, we -- I shouldn't say it that way. I'm sorry, Mike. 4:36:52: (laugher) 4:36:53: Bruce Patterson: I think, presented in that rapid of a context, it's hard for people to assimilate. Does that make -- Is that fair? OK. 4:37:00: Christopher Mitchell: Mike has thick skin. 4:37:01: Bruce Patterson: OK. So -- But we were spending money every month on outsourced connectivity. And, basically, the idea was, we looked at 20 years, and we said, we know we'll still own the properties in 20 years, right? And we know that we're going to need more than this 10 meg we're getting. 'Cause, you gotta remember, this is 2010. And we said, why don't we just hook it up at one gig? And how much would it cost us to do it ourselves? Then we looked it and said, well, it will pay for itself in 20 years. So, that was really the rationale that moved us. 4:37:28: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 4 Christopher Mitchell: And, Brian, I'm just curious if you could explain to folks why you need more than 10 megs to a water station. 4:37:37: Brian Powell: You're -- What you're trying to do is, you're trying to relay packets of data at a very fast pace, so the SCADA systems can communicate properly, and adjust flow rates from different wells, if need be, or different towers. And so, 10 megs is just not enough. And you get latency issues, and things of this nature. So, to bring that in internally, and run it on a private network, you can eliminate a lot of those problems. 4:38:03: Christopher Mitchell: Great. Well, there's a lot of interesting chronological discussion that we could go in. But I want to make sure we're able to bring everyone on board. And we'll do some flashbacks. So, let's talk about a more recent challenge -- which was going beyond City use to going -- to connecting City residents. What sort of things did the City have to consider, Scott, in order to do that? 4:38:28: Scott Hall: Well, I remember when it -- when this first started, it was my responsibility that -- The inmates in our jail wear orange. 4:38:36: Dana Kirkham: (laughs) 4:38:37: Scott Hall: And it was my responsibility -- and I told the Mayor -- to keep her from wearing orange. 4:38:41: Dana Kirkham: It's not my color. 4:38:42: Scott Hall: She says it's not her color. 4:38:43: Dana Kirkham: I would not do well in prison. 4:38:45: Scott Hall: So that really is kind of the first challenge. But, really, Idaho's a ** -- I often said to the Council -- It's like being in the year 1876. Alexander Graham Bell just invented the telephone. And how do we now get this out to people? The statutes at that time, I'm sure, were not clear as to how you did it. And today they weren't necessarily clear as to how we fiber -- or the Internet -- to the home. And so, we looked at the statutes. We determined that, in fact, the statutes, we thought, gave us authority, but weren't absolutely clear. So we took it to judicial confirmation. Gave notice to all providers, and said, essentially, that ... 4:39:28: Christopher Mitchell: So, judicial confirmation. I know that when you contemplated doing this, it was the first time I came across that. Maybe you can just jump into that for a second. What is a judicial confirmation? 4:39:38: Scott Hall: Essentially, where you go to the judge and say, we believe the statute grants us authority to do the following. And then you get the judge -- you file your petition, allow individuals notice of the petition, and then you go in City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 5 front of the judge, and say, do you agree that the statute provides that opportunity? Or provides the authority to do that? Our judge ruled that it did. And so we've proceeded that way. I think the second thing behind that, though, that was real important is because we were going to do local improvement districts, which are a taxing district, and because we were allowing people to opt in, we felt, even if the statute didn't allow us, we were really providing a contractual opportunity. So, if Mr. Powell wanted fiber to his home, and Mr. Hulse did not, they could make that choice. And they essentially were entering into a contract that would say, bring that to my house and I will pay for it. And we felt that that was not pushing it onto everybody else. Because if you have a -- take, for instance, a school bond. One may vote for a school bond, one may vote against it. But once that bond passes, they're both obligated on it. And here, that was not the case. If you chose it, you got it. If you didn't choose it, you didn't have to have it. And so, we felt like the additional layer of protection was that it was a contractual obligation you were agreeing to do. 4:41:06: Christopher Mitchell: I'm curious, Mayor, if one of the reasons -- and Council Member Powell -- one of the reasons you felt emboldened to move forward with that step -- a step that I've seen city leaders shy away from -- was because of public support, or because you personally felt that was the right thing to do? What was the calculus in going before a judge in that way? 4:41:34: Dana Kirkham: I think for sure the public support is there. And I would say this to -- I know there's many mayors in the audience. And you worry about the pushback. But I would tell you that fiber has been a positive thing. And of all of the things that we do, it is the thing that I get the least pushback from. People are more worried about their garbage not being picked up on time, or the neighbor's dog running through their yard, and, you know, whatever. So, this is the thing that the conversation's completely different. Usually, it's "why." Why did you do this? Why are you doing this? You know, we just did a road project. Why did you do it this way? I never get the "why" with fiber. People already understand the why. It's the "when." When are you getting to my neighborhood? When are you hooking me up? So, I think for sure the public support was there to go for judicial confirmation. 4:42:27: Brian Powell: I looked at it -- and I think all of the Council members, if not all of us, looked at it -- as, this was not a lose situation. Everybody wins in this situation. We're not imposing a tax on anybody. We're not - Yeah we're creating a local improvement district. But it's an opt-in. So those that want to have it can have it, as Scott has explained before. So, from a Council side of things, we looked at it and said, you know what, nobody loses in this situation. Everybody wins. So, we felt very comfortable moving forward with it. 4:43:00: Christopher Mitchell: So, I want to bring Matt in. Matt, you're a local resident who's organized around getting your neighbors to support this. But before we talk about how you did that, I think some of the people maybe on the live stream -- maybe some of the people in the audience -- might be thinking, well, sure, you're going to get that kind of interest in a community that has NO access to the Internet. But, do you want to describe the access to the Internet you already have in your neighborhood? 4:43:23: Matt Hulse: Yeah. So, the access to the Internet that we have in our -- in my neighborhood is very limited -- to a couple providers. And if you want anything high-speed, which I consider 100 megabit and beyond, there's really only one. And you're locked into the contracts that they have. The data caps. I mean, you have no choice. So, that's what really appealed to me, is this opportunity to have a choice. And competition between different providers. Which doesn't exist right now. Existing providers, some of which have been contacted and asked about our local neighborhood, have said, we're not going to do any further improvements to your neighborhood. You know. Our bill is going to pay for improvements elsewhere. So, it was a frustrating place to be. And it's great to be a part of this. 4:44:17: Christopher Mitchell: Well, I don't want to -- I don't want to downplay that frustration. But, I'll note, it is a frustration most Americans have. So, it is worth noting that when you have this incredible success -- of 75 percent, which we're coming to -- these are people who have what most Americans have. It's not a particularly left-behind community. It's about City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 6 average. The cable provider might be rated a little bit below average. But it's certainly not lacking anything. So, with that, I think, I want to ask -- go back to one of the exciting moments that we chose to lead our video off with, which was the ability of the network to do interesting things for public safety. And so, Bruce, I want to first ask you to just describe the active shooter program that was mentioned on the presentation from Glenn, talking about the shooting in the -- the test shooting in the school. And what the network allows you to do. What do you do with that? 4:45:16: Bruce Patterson: What will we do with it? 4:45:18: Christopher Mitchell: Well, you can describe it for people who aren't familiar with it. 4:45:20: Bruce Patterson: Oh. OK. Excuse me. 4:45:22: Christopher Mitchell: We're all having this issue with our throats. There's something on the stage. 4:45:25: Bruce Patterson: Yeah. So, it really was -- It came out of a challenge that the National Institute of Justice put out. Department of Justice. And, basically, they said, we want those of you that have a high-speed network to demonstrate how that could change an outcome in public safety. That was -- it was a really broad general thing. But you have to understand that, on a national scale, there are organizations that want to see improvements in the infrastructure - - improvements in speed. And we're just not seeing it in this country, like they are in other lands. And, you know, there's basic reasons why. So they want to demonstrate what can be done if you had a good network. So, I thought about that a little bit, and had very good partners in the school district. Rick Davis is here. He's their network administrator. He's actually sitting right back there. And we found a gunshot-sensing manufacturer. And they said we have this really cool sensor, but, you know, we really don't have a main system to plug it into. We're not sure what that looks like. Well, the school district, when we talked with then, said, look, for the purposes of building an app, we'll give you access to our video cameras. So, we used the existing video cameras and video server that was there. We put sensors in. And we tied that all together. And we took that to dispatch. And dispatch is here as well. And we, then -- the sheriff's department came in, shot some bullets into a bullet trap, to activate it -- to see. And it's about three seconds. The system would identify where it was in the school, by the GPS coordinate. And then it would figure out which cameras had that visual. And it would display that at dispatch in about three seconds. So, that's what it was. That's how it worked. You fired a shot. An alarm went off in dispatch, and the screen populated, showed the guy standing there holding the gun. 4:47:03: Christopher Mitchell: And maybe, Mayor Kirkham, you can pick up and describe why that's important for a community. 4:47:10: Dana Kirkham: Well, I'd say two things about it, Christopher. First of all, I think, when we received the Department of Justice award for this activity, that was kind of turning point, I think, in our thinking and ideology. Recognizing that this was so much more than Internet. This is so much more than access -- connectivity in the home. This has all of these possibilities that we had maybe never really considered. So I think that was really important. But, specific to that exercise, as a mayor and as a mother, to know that you can have that kind of technology in the world we live in, that is sometimes, you know, maybe not as stable as we'd like it to be, to know that you can increase the safety of your child when you send them off to school every day, is priceless. 4:47:57: Christopher Mitchell: And I just wanted to note the -- one of the things that's unique about this is, a lot of schools may have high-quality connectivity to the school. One of the things that's unique about Ammon is, you might be having teachers using YouTube videos and things like that, teaching the network. With the software-defined networking, what it City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 7 does is, it basically says, OK, this stuff is less of a priority now. Right now, we have to make sure that we have high- definition feeds going to dispatch, so that they can relay that to officers responding. And that's one of the unique things about it all being on the network. Being about to dynamically change and make sure dispatch has all the capacity it needs. And that sort of thing. So, it's -- You know, it's kind of a big deal. 4:48:39: Scott Hall: I think one of the other important things in that is that it said not only that a gun had gone off at the school, but it said where in the school. Because one of the major problems law enforcement's always going to have. They come to the school, and now they're trying find where to get to protect these children. 4:48:56: Christopher Mitchell: Um hum. 4:48:57: Scott Hall: When it went off, and it gave the coordinates where it was. And that allows law enforcement to respond to the right places, to secure places, and to let other kids out of the school, or to get them away from the premises, in a captive situation. 4:49:10: Dana Kirkham: And the cameras actually identify the shooter. I mean, they can see. They have a visual. They know who their -- who's the culprit. 4:49:17: Christopher Mitchell: And how many. 4:49:18: Dana Kirkham: Yeah. 4:49:19: Scott Hall: Right. 4:49:19: Christopher Mitchell: One of the things -- I also am just terrible moderator right now, but -- I don't know how to ask this question -- prompt it -- is -- Brian, I can ask you. The sense that I get is that having a network like this allows you to bring connections to places dispatch may not have the business case to reach, because you can do it more affordably. When I went and visited dispatch several years ago, they were talking about different locations in which they'd have the ability to put up cameras and things like that, where they might not be able to justify that if they had to pay a private provider per camera to lease to -- Is that something that I'm on base with? 4:49:55: Brian Powell: Yeah. No, that's correct. But I think the important to note, too, is, dispatch -- Bonneville County dispatch -- right now is highly advanced. They've got a lot of fantastic technology. The problem is, throughout a rural county -- and some of our rural areas, especially on the eastern side of the state, that technology doesn't exist. There's no broadband to those areas. So, as Ammon continues to build out their fiber network, you're able to now link those cameras -- high- speed -- with dispatch, as well. So, we're allowing the county to catch up with dispatch. And I think that's going to be a great benefit for our sheriffs and first responders. 4:50:36: Christopher Mitchell: Great. So, I want to come back to one of the things that interests all of us as residents somewhere, is how we get this in our home. So, Matt, I'm curious if you can tell us -- You learn about the ability to -- um -- that some City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 8 neighborhood's going to be picked. And you're trying to rally people to make sure you have as much support as possible. Just go through that process for us, from when you first found out about the opportunity to what you did. 4:51:02: Matt Hulse: OK. First of all, when I found out that this was something that Ammon was doing, I was amazed. You know. I really have not had a lot of local government experience. And for a first impression, it was just awesome. I'm a software engineer by trade. So higher speeds are more interesting to me perhaps than to some other people. So, when I heard that it was available, I wanted it. But I couldn't get it. And, going to the information meetings, I found out that it would be on a limited basis, and it would be rolled out to the areas that had the highest take rate. And so, a higher density meant that you had a better chance of getting it to your area. There were several people that volunteered to be fiber champions. Several in my neighborhood. And we worked very closely together, to try and drum up interest, to -- first of all, let people know that this was an option. This was something that could happen if they expressed interest. And, again, to spread the word. To say, if you help us out, you know, we can all be a part of this, and have this opportunity for our neighborhood. 4:52:17: Christopher Mitchell: So, you're a software engineer. You have a sense of why this is important. What kind of reaction did you get from less technical neighbors? 4:52:26: Matt Hulse: So, there were -- you know, it was all across the board. There were people who mistrusted anything that had to do with the government. There were those who said, you know, for my email and Facebook, my 5 megabits -- Of course, they didn't know what their speed was. They just said, what I have is good enough. And then there were a lot of people -- I would say probably 75 percent in my neighborhood -- obviously, based on the take rate -- who were in the same position. You know, unable to use the Internet the way they expected to when they signed up. And with the way things are moving technologically, and, you know, all the streaming services that are available now, all the other things that you can do with you Internet connection, it's just a pain point for a lot of people. And I saw that. As we went door to door, and talked to people. And the majority of them said, you're telling me that I can pay less, and have the service that I was promised in the first place, without all these other restrictions. It's like, where do I sign up? Please. And it was really a positive experience. 4:53:35: Christopher Mitchell: So, we're going to describe the LID in a second -- the Local Improvement District. But I'm curious if this made your neighborhood come together more. If like living in this neighborhood is a better because of this experience of talking to your neighbors and things like that. 4:53:52: Matt Hulse: Yeah. I'm a software engineer. So I prefer to be in a cubicle on a keyboard. So going and talking with my neighbors is not what I normally do on a Saturday. But I have to say that being part of this community effort and part of this local government, like I said, it's something that I hadn't experienced before. I feel like it's empowered me. And it's helped me to meet neighbors and to build on common ground. 4:54:19: Christopher Mitchell: So, Scott, do you want to explain exactly how the local improvement district works, from the perspective of a homeowner? 4:54:26: Scott Hall: Sure. And, for any governmental officials that are here, you may have been involved in a local improvement district, to build a road, put a sewer in, lighting districts -- there's all sorts of different purposes for which you can use a local improvement district. And essentially what happens is, city government has to decide -- or county government has to decide -- if they want to create a local improvement district. Once they make that determination, it goes into effect. And on most types of utilities or other infrastructure that we're doing, everybody is caught in that local improvement district. And that's what's so unique about the fiber ones. We're currently in the process of creating our second local City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 9 improvement district for fiber. For the second area where we've gone. It's opt-in. And so, they have that ability to be a part of it or not be a part of it. And so, ultimately, there's the passage of an ordinance that creates the local improvement district. That then goes onto the tax rolls for the county, and comes back to the homeowner in the form of a tax. 4:55:37: Christopher Mitchell: Bruce, do you want to go over the exact numbers involved in this? In terms of cost to homeowners in this district? 4:55:44: Bruce Patterson: So, we told them that it would not exceed $3,000. That was our commitment, right? And, so far, we're on budget. We won't exceed that. We are behind on the time. In fact, I'll say, Matt's a great guy, because he's staring at my splice trailer, sitting out on the corner down from his house, now going, c'mon, Bruce, get this done. 4:56:06: Christopher Mitchell: And what are the costs, then, once the service is hooked up? Can you describe the three different payments? 4:56:14: Bruce Patterson: Um. Excuse me. Scott can answer that, while I take care of this. [dry throat] So, ... You know, they can pay for it up-front. Or it's monthly. 4:56:22: Dana Kirkham: Yeah. $3,000 up-front. Or you can amortize over the 20 years. And it comes to roughly $18 [monthly] for your ... 4:56:33: Bruce Patterson: Yeah. By the time -- Still got a problem. Thanks, Chris. 4:56:36: Christopher Mitchell: (laughs) 4:56:37: Bruce Patterson: By the time it trickles down to the mortgage -- because you're going to pay it in your escrow, and that's going to take a while -- so the honest truth is, it'll get applied to the property, but it's going to take probably a year to start showing up. But then you're going to have to play catch-up in your escrow. But it's going to work out to about $17 or $18 a month. 4:56:54: Christopher Mitchell: OK. And there's two other fees that -- well, one more fee that's mandatory, and an additional fee for the service providers. So I don't know if someone wants to jump in and describe that. In terms of -- just so everyone in the audience understands that you're not paying $10 a month and getting 100 megabits. You are paying a couple of other fees. One is what we've just described as the cost of attaching a fiber to your house. And then there are two additional fees. 4:57:20: Matt Hulse: So, I can -- This is something that I talk with neighbors about quite a bit. And so, an access fee, essentially, is something to maintain the -- to keep the lights on. About $16.50. To the City of Ammon. Just comes on your utility bill. And then, of course, they've talked already about the approximately $3,000 for the infrastructure. It can be paid up- front, or it can be assessed as part of your taxes. And then you have the separate cost to the service provider. And, actually, while it was a little confusing to present that to the community, as it's a new way of thinking about it, a lot of City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 7:54 AM 10 people really appreciated that. And, personally, the fact that I can pay off that infrastructure development cost -- I really can have a monthly Internet bill that's closer to $30 that's a really competitive speed. 4:58:17: Bruce Patterson: And I would like to jump in there and just point out, it's been mentioned that you can have two Internet service providers. And that doesn't cost you -- We don't charge you twice for the wire, right? 'Cause that's locked down. We can't change that. It's just on the property. And then the monthly utility fee is flat, too. It's $16.50. So, if you want to -- So the comment I would make is, of the homes -- the 150 homes that we have live today -- there's a handful of people that actually take two service providers today. Because they put one on at $10 or so, and they put the second one at $15 or $20 a month. And they're still telling us they're paying below what they were paying monthly before. So they - - It's been commented on. Some of them take kind of more of a business class service. And they take that, and they plug a second one into their home Wi-Fi router, and that's what the kids use. But what that means, then, is, whatever the kids are doing doesn't impact what they're trying to do at work, when they're home. 4:59:08: Dana Kirkham: Well, one of the most fun things about this -- in the decade-long process -- has been to have a front-row seat, to see the free market play out. Because we thought that's what would happen. But we weren't totally sure that is exactly what would happen. And, you know, we all learned Econ 101, and we understand how it's supposed to play out, but to actually see that -- see those rates continue to drop, and see it do exactly what we predicted it would do. It's just been so fun. 4:59:35: Bruce Patterson: And Matt probably remembers a conversation we had when we turned on the very first **. Remember that, Matt? And we talked about, well, here's, you know, kind of what the first packages are coming online at. 4:59:46: Matt Hulse: Yeah. They were a little more frightening to look at. 4:59:50: Bruce Patterson. Yeah. It really wasn't much less. If anything, it might have been a little bit more. But within a month or so, they kind of started to come down. And we've seen them come down even more. So, it does take a while to get that market to work. 5:00:02: Christopher Mitchell: Quite a while. You mean, a few months? 5:00:05: Bruce Patterson: Yeah. We were lucky. We have some good providers. I mean, we've got them here in the room. And some of them are in the portal, so they go to the home. Some only do business services today. But they're very genuine people, on the whole. We can talk about providers, and we can talk about the problems that we have with competition. But, on the whole, if you put those people in the right environment, they're just trying to feed their kids like you are, they'll do the right things. So, they're a very good group of people. 5:00:30: Christopher Mitchell: So, to recap, we have a network that started off connecting schools, library, the water system, City utilities. The pool. That's an interesting story in the video. It expanded. It also started leasing fiber to providers that wanted to connect some businesses in town. And that led to some economic development on Hitt Road, as we've discussed. And the more recent development is going into the homes, and having a portal, for which the users are financing the network. So, I hope that people will feel free to come and ask a question. Drew, do you want to ask a question quick? 5:01:04: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/1/2017 12:54 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sea <paloaltolife@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 01, 2017 8:27 AM Subject:Tweet by Sea-Seelam Reddy on Twitter Sea-Seelam Reddy (@SealamReddy) 11/1/17, 07:19 Pothole infront of 2280 El Camino Real. SantaClara county/Palo Alto:Please prioritize to fix it. #cityofpaloalto... fb.me/Ak5HZxit Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:09 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 12:25 PM To:Council, City; Police Subject:Wrong Way Driver - Public Works Tree Shredder The barricade in Park Blvd between Oxford and College, where traffic can go out of the neighborhood, but is not allowed to come in, has a constant problem with drivers driving the wrong way on this half a block section of one way street to get around the barricade. Today’s scofflaw was a City of Palo Alto Public Works tree shredder truck and trailer, license 1059424. I immediately called communications; 329‐2413; and was told, “I’m sorry. It doesn’t matter if you have a picture. An officer has to be present to make a citation. Why don’t you call Public Works and complain?” I said, “No, I want you to call Public Works.” The dispatcher said, indignantly, “this is a call center for life and death emergencies!” I said, “No it’s not. This is communications. I did not call 911. I’ve been calling this number for thirty five years. Then police need to call public works because because my complaint will do nothing.” PAPD used to have a non‐emergency business number that was anwsered by someone sitting at the front desk working Monday through Friday 9 to 4 (or something like that). I don’t know how many years it’s been, but that number now gets you the records department with someone who says, “I’m sorry, I can’t help you.” Driving around the barricade is something I’ve seen non‐emergency city vehicle do before. They think nothing of it. Please make them stop! The attitude of the dispatcher was unacceptably rude. (I placed call at 11:51am today, 10/30.) I’m expecting an apology from the police department. Since officers need to be present issue a citation (duh), PAPD is keeping track of complaint calls? I am copy an pasting this email into the Public Works contact form on the CPA website as their email is not provided. Thank you for your help. Deb Goldeen 2130 Birch St. 94306 321‐7375 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:09 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, October 30, 2017 1:02 PM To:Ro Khanna; Dave Cortese Subject:Yondr Lock-pouches Reduce Cellphone use in School & depression Are smartphones connected to depression? Yondr lock-pouches make profound change in school Below: ----- San Lorenzo High School (CA) finds one answer for better discipline----- for schools, meetings, plays, concerts, and bedtime at home??? (also Mercy HS in Burlingame) Stats from Health and Human services (HHS) * 60% rise in depression from 2010-16 among teens * 48% rise in suicidal thoughts when phones are used 5 hours a day. (HHS stats) When phones are used more than 3 hours a day, 34% may suffer one suicidal-related outcome. Teens have “underdeveloped impulse control” . . . which can lead them to disturbing online encounters . . . Jean Twenge, psychology prof at SDSU and author of iGen Cognitive capacity is significantly reduced when a smartphone is within reach -- even if it's off. Study from McCombs School of Business at University of Texas at Austin. Journal Reference: The researchers found that participants with their phones in another room significantly outperformed those with their phones on the desk, and they also slightly outperformed those participants who had kept their phones in a pocket or bag. 1 Adrian F. Ward, Kristen Duke, Ayelet Gneezy, Maarten W. Bos. Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One’s Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity. Journal of the Association for Consumer Research, 2017; 2 (2): 140 DOI: 10.1086/691462 Why we can't put our smartphones down – and what it's doing to our ... https://newatlas.com/how-smartphones-affect-real-life-communication/48361 Mar 16, 2017 - How smartphones change the way we communicate, on and off ... nature of smartphones can prevent us from giving full attention to our. Smartphones make people distracted and unproductive | Computerworld https://www.computerworld.com/.../smartphones/smartphones-make-people-distracted... Aug 12, 2017 - A smartphone can sap attention even when it's not in use or turned off and in your pocket. That doesn't bode well for productivity. Yondr to the Rescue Phones locked in Yondr pouches at San Lorenzo HS near Oakland Yondr is a San Francisco company making fabric-locking pouches to store cell phones. It is used in some theaters, schools, who lock the phone in a pouch which stays in the possession of the owner. It is then unlocked when they leave the facility. The purpose is to keep the owner more focused on the present activity. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:09 PM 2 Cell phones are the #1 discipline issue at San Lorenzo HS so its Unified School District now orders that cell phones shall be turned off and kept out of sight during class time. (TIME magazine, Nov. 7, 2017) Cell Phones and The Statistics (San Lorenzo HS website) ● The average person checks their cell 150 times/once every 6 minutes ● Youth send ~110 texts/day ● 75% check their cell after they have gone to sleep ● 46% cannot live without a cell ● 50% youth state they are addicted ● 26% of all car accidents are due to texting/checking and driving Studies find cell phones ● Decrease brain power ● Lower grades/performance ● No matter on or off it is a distraction ● Increases Anxiety and Agitation ● Decreases happiness Changes are Profound with Yondr Principal Allison Silvestri reports that ‘Changes have been profound’ since the school started the pouches. “Kids are more focused during class, and student journals report less stress,” Silvestri is quoted in Time Magazine. There are fewer fights and more joy and interaction, she reports. Why is Yondr Being Used? The Yondr cell phone pouch, which allows students to keep their phones with them all day, but prevents them from using them, will be used school-wide this year. Yondr has donated materials for the entire school to go phone free for the 2017- 2018 school year. Use of the pouch is not a punishment but an effort to increase positive interactions and socialization among students and staff. It is to improve the focus of student learning and achievement, according to the school website.. From San Lorenzo HS website. Research from Scientific American, Science News, Time Magazine 11/7/17 and San Lorenzo High School website. Compiled by Arlene Goetze, M.A., Health Writer, NO Toxins for Children, freelance to national newspapers, Former Dir. of Communication for Diocese of San Jose, founder/editor of non-profit organization on women’s spirituality and health. Drummer for Health in Nursing Homes, Mother of 7, grandmother of 18. photowrite67@yahoo.com Please share with teachers and parents...for one way to deal with depression in children. Mercy High School in Burlingame is a California school testing ‘phone pouches’ that lock cellphones away during lessons When person enters ‘phone-free zone,’ phone is first placed into Yondr bag This is locked in a way that resembles the security tags in clothing stores Phones remain in the possession of the owner, but cannot be accessed In order to unlock the bag, person must return to the 'phone access zone' By Cheyenne Macdonald For Dailymail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 10/30/2017 1:09 PM 3 PUBLISHED: 18:36 EDT, 5 May 2016 | UPDATED: 10:24 EDT, 15 September 2016 Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3575988/California-school-testing-phone-pouches-block-cellphone-signals-lessons.html#ixzz4x1QS45XG Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | http://ec.tynt.com/b/rf?id=bBOTTqvd0r3Pooab7jrHcU&u=DailyMail ""Whe11 women tl1rive., all of socienr • l1enefils." -Kofi Annan · © Castilleja ··w11e11 \vomen tl1ri\1e., all of society • l1enefits.'' -Kofi Annan ©Castilleja RETURN ADDRESS; ~ FRAN ib lde(d.\ ~Cf•, 940 I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its 17 campus because ... C4\i\\~c.t \S '"""' 6.~0..~~ s~u\. ~ 'i c.v.""'j ~~ \+ ou.r c.o"""""un:."J . .I+. 1s ~~J ~re. \eo.ck<s 0...,....1 V'\~~ -\b \,,.\~~ ~U.~e.s \o .e..~ \~ fl\.\CUI'.~ ~ ~ ev..n ~x.~-+.~\\~rA. Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 ks-r-~ ~.\-·,.\-C,0.1/\ ~ \\s ,,.,...nc..d-II-Aw~~ · -\ L -~ J ' I jl1 liq l1U 1l lili lll1•1H\ll11H~1111111p~\IO'\A \r..t\\ W71M..\o. ~"''"rts'i'\.tv\ll..;r<. ~~~ ~ s-. I > ---~·~ Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 October 23, 2017 Erika Lim 2634 Franklin Ave. E. #307 Seattle, WA 98102 206-322-5790 erika.lim (at) msn.com Office of the Clerk City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave . ._j.h Floor Palo Alto, CA ~1 °t'-\~O\ Dear Clerk, CITY .Of PALO ALTO CA CITY CLERK'S OFF't'CE . I 7 OCT 31 AH 9: 34 I am writing about Castilleja School's proposal to modernize its campus and increase enrollment. Please distribute copies of this letter to all City Council members. I attended Castilleja between 1971 -1977, all six years, when it was a six-year school, and my parents still live in Palo Alto, in the midtown area where I grew up. I am deeply grateful for the education I received there and draw on it every single day. I have not closely reviewed the school's plans for modernization but I recently visited campus and saw that the classrooms are the same as those I used, over 40 years ago, and that many newer classrooms are retrofitted spaces that were never meant to be classrooms. I support the school's proposal to modernize learning spaces, so that they are appropriate for current needs. I also adamantly oppose any proposal to increase enrollment. The school has never abided by an earlier agreement to limit enrollment to 415 and now feels that its mission should override community considerations because it is special. And I concur, it is special, but it is also in a residential neighborhood and, more importantly, it should model and live the lessons it teaches about being aware, compassionate, and engaged (ACE, a major school initiative). Its belief that these principles apply only to relationships with those living in other countries or in "underserved" or "underprivileged" areas smacks of high-mindedness at the expense of the lives of those who live closely and constantly with its consistent non-compliance with enrollment limits. The school needs to walk its talk about what 21st century citizenship means. Sincerely, <izf Erika Lim ICOUN.lIL t,1EE.TING liJ f()/ I . I [ ] P~ Before Meeting [...yt{eceived at Meeting PALO ALTO Tte Vcv F~ Ttt kTttl'l.Aa Of SI.ICON VAWY Two ways of looking at this discussion: content and process Content: is this a reasonable plan or not? Are the choices and compromises things we can live with? Process: after countless citizens (and committees and commissions and staff) have worked on every aspect of this plan, what sorts of changes are appropriate at this stage? 10/30/17 1 Content: there's a lot to like ... • Some areas of agreement: Everyone (Palo Alto Forward, "Save Palo Alto", etc) have zeroed in on HOUSING as an urgent need. o This plan could accelerate our housing supply, with particular emphasis on affordable housing • For the first time, the TMA becomes a priority • A holistic parking strategy (including paid parking and neighborhood protections) is supported • Coordinated Area Plans for Downtown and North Ventura are hugely important ... but we all have our quibbles Housing: we would have liked to see Council target 1 Ok units • In the past, we've fallen well short of our goals (in the last housing element cycle, we only built 38% of our target), so we would have liked more flexibility on zoning to achieve housing targets Metrics: • Many success metrics are not included in the plan. It would be good to target % achievement of housing target, SOV%, Shuttle ridership and frequency, etc., by key dates • One of the metrics that is in the plan--"Vehicle Miles Traveled" -should be the ONLY transportation impact metric used as it is aligned with our Comp Plan's and S/CAP goals to encourage infill development; "LOS" discourages infill development) 10/30/17 2 Although there are some areas where we agree with other critics (ie., we are all for "housing"), other areas need clarification Claim: Commercial growth: "the draft Plan would add up to three million square feet of non-residential space over the next 15 years. This translates into an average of twice the annual growth rate experienced during the past 27 years ... " -"Save Palo Alto" First, the cap is a combination of office/R&D (1.7M) and the hospital (1.3M) Language matters: we are talking about hospitals, retail space, etc., Not just office space (1.3M of the 3.0M cap is already taken by the approved Stanford Hospital expansion, so the relevant cap is 1. 7M) 10/30/17 3 Furthermore, it's apples and oranges A CAP is being compared to a RA TE The 1998 Comp Plan had a CAP of 3.2M SQFT in "monitored areas" \ Curren1 comp plan ... and an additional 1.3M SQFT in other areas +--(mostly Stanford Medical Center); this didn't count against the cap .___ We ended up building 1.5M SQFT against this cap since .ifilm ... ----"--- Furthermore, it's apples and oranges Where did the "draft plan" cap come from? How does it compare to the old cap? Current comp plan Draft (2017) Comp Plan 1.3M SQFT 1.3M SQFT from (already approved) hospital plan The Draft Plan now has 1. 7M SQFT cltvwjde cap for~ B.M2; AND 1.3M for SUMC) 10/30/17 4 Our cap going forward is slightly lower than our ca p in the past Our cap going forward averages to -1131</year; our past cap was an average of -1281</year Traffic Mitigations Claim: Annual non-residential development, 1995-2015 Annual average of 2 ap: 1281</year \ Annual average of draft cap: 1131</year "Transportation mitigations in the Plan have all been under active discussion since the late 1980s with very limited success" -"Save Palo Alto" 10/30/17 5 Traffic Mitigations Reality ... the last plan was in 1998 • There is no plan to have (let alone fund) a Transportation Management Association • There is no discussion of properly pricing parking • There is no discussion of building-by-building offsets • No data was routinely collected on SOV rates At that time, Stanford University had not even launched their highly successful set of TOM programs, so there was not even a model It's possible that people talked about mitigations. It is not true that we planned for or budgeted for mitigations THIS Council has achieved a tremendous amount on this front already: establishing SOV survey baselines, business surveys, TMA formation, parking strategy overhaul Moving from content to process ... So ... final stretch ... where do we hope that this discussion goes? 10/30/17 6 Our hope for tonight We believe that it is important to distinguish between "core elements of the plan" (housing targets, non-residential SQFT caps, TMA, Paid Parking, etc) -+ we hope that this will be retained Vs. "Programs that support core elements of the Plan" (metrics; zoning barriers to achieving housing supply goals, etc) -+ we hope that Council has a robust discussion and support achievement of goals The 250 people who signed our petition calling for adoption of the plan and a move to implementation Drew Dennison Cl!tol Lippert Jerolyn Moran Chartas Escobar PalttckYe Mary McDougall Ros Broughton Uaquelin Diaz QulntslaMa Lisa van Dusen t<annaBaba Netissa Broughton Rubi Esquivel James Brandenburg Mary Jane Mateus Karolina Wernor Pater Allon t<alhtyn Jollnstln Janyd Domlngo Td'l'IOlhy Bauman Alisa Ambrosio Marc Miller Sheny Holler Loan Doan Susan Owicki Pater Sullivan VlmalGool RuiulaShah Chioma Ureh Anita lusebrtnk Alex Anltlbl Paul Han Laena Sansgulrl Col1oon WHlson Bret Andersen Manon Janssen David Fung Ryan Morris RobWdklns Nancy Shephenl Ian MaDaco CllrisUna Hood Jeanetta Btosnan Georgina Mascatenhas DaVld Moran Henry Yu TitiUu Villa Masalaalo Danny Ross Jillian McNemoy AIYuen Tula Mondragon karin mayer Lauren Bigelow Nick Martinolli Motinda Wedomeyor Sarah Bell Anton Monk Lisa FolSSltll Diano Meier Arny Wu Serena Chung ClaytOnN Candice GonzaleZ Sarah Flamm Jana Tseng Angola Evans Hilary GlaM Stefan Heck Fred Glick C8lharine Gmbet Iqbal Sotang Jennifer Wong Lisa Bao Wiliam Riggs Lea Hoh Marylyn Genovese Jesalca De Wit SallyWOOd Katia Kamangat Gooige Herman Yangle Granadosin Ericka Villalobos Joy Sloizet Sebastian NleSlrath 10/30/17 7 The 250 people who signed our petition calling for ad option of the plan and a move to implementation Miko McNomoy Willam Durhlm Ela!no Haight Kathy Johnson Vlja Lusobrlnk MonkaSothl DllVld Chan Potor Mmcsca Martayna Tulasosopo Mallhow Lowis Dawn81Uman Yevgonlya Uyvova Linnea Wldlslrom Carol Lemont Evan Goldin Justino Burt Jack Goode Jarod Helton Victoria Thorp Chris Colohan Jo!l'roy Salzman Mary Minne Kyle Borland Grogory Slovens Mary Jo Levy Heidi Emberling Susie Hwang MayGaspay Kirtika Ruchendanl Linda Honig n Jason Titus Jllnmfor OIBrlonza Paid Heft Marianne Mueller AlmaPhilllps A.C. Johnston Slophanlo Soalo Gloria Cahu:dl GonzAilOZ Fred Kohler Chris Logan Gr.loo Hinton Gtanl Dasher Mallary Alchodt Ellzaboth L.amblrd Mary Both Train Jossica Clark DavidCoalo David Hirsch Loo Sondolbock Nllncy Smith Mark Schmitz Elwiboth Lasky SuoGl:bort GallPrial Ru11'1Consut McHalo Newport-Borra Amlo Ashton Chao lam Edward Hlnard Aarof Hllaly Mary Gallagher Grog Boll KathyDumam Kimberly Toth Emll Popov Cluistlno Boohm Loo Morklo--Raymond Dllld.orDawos Ne:I Shoa Potya Goorglova Jane Huang Slevon Alneoson Thorosa Chon Stovo Plorco Drow Maran Aloxandor Tsypt.kl!tn Jarod Bomstom Bryan Sllvortllom Jan Rubens Tahlra Piractla Joanollo M.hov ShwlaMelvfn Randy Monl-Rilynaud Dary! Waggott Katharine Miiier The 250 people who signed our petition calling for adoption of th e plan and a move to implementation Trina Lovercheck Julia Weber Karen Kailnsky David Kleiman Lisa Peschcke-Koedt Miriam Rotman Stephanie Martinson Joe Rolfe O'Malley stoumen Diane Morin Debbie Mytels Leah Friedman Diane Rolfe JonStoumen Don Barr Megan Fogarty Margaret Rosenbloom MilaZelkha William Macrae Jennifer Gonsalves Valerie Stinger Nicole Lederer Aisha Piracha-Zakariya Patrick Pichette Mary Cudahy Dorsey Bass Tory Bers Bonnie Packer Jan Skotheim Harvey Schloss Katherine Bass Ellen Smith Monica Stone Jeremy Hoffman Mike Buchanan Joyce Tavrow Vandana Arora (Varanasi) Liza Hausman Markus Fromherz Aleksandar Totic Mike Greenfield Lynnie Melena Steve Dr. Kadivar carol Danaher Raul Rojas Robert Millavec Ellen Forbes Judy Adams Naphtali Knox Urs Hoelzle Ellen Springer Paula Collins Patricia Saflir Ozzie Fallick Josh Lehrer Jean Dawes Lisa Ratner BobWenzlau JulanChu JafiUpson Catherine Crystal Foster Tony carrasco Randy Popp Amy Sung Charles Salmon Laurie Spaeth Ellen Uhrbrock S Kleiman N"ick Selby John Kelley Marlene Prendergast Maximilian Kapczynski Kyla Farrell Christy Dennison Lucinda Lenicheck Karen Douglas Sigrid Pinsky Gabriel Manjarrez Diane Bailey ElaineUang Loretta castellano MarkAlain Dery Karen Schlesser GinaDalma Mehdi Alhassani 10/30/17 8 10/30/17 FINALLY: THANK YOU!! This job is not easy We thank you for your work and time! 9 ~ITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 17 NOV -I AH IQ: I 0 Oakland, CA October 23, 2017 City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Robert F. Mac Donald Transportation Specialist and Historian 1510 Holman Road Oakland, CA 94610-1833 510-336-9533 Plantrat@comcast.net SUBJECT: SILICON VALLEY LOOP Honorable Council Members: Dumb. 39 Enclosed is a copy of my write-up for passenger rail service in the Silicon Valley region of California. To make this transportation system a success, and to keep Silicon Valley "green", your City, or your City in consort with some of your neighboring Cities, need to provide all the auxiliaries needed to get its workers and the Valley's visitors from their homes to their work place, and then back home! These auxiliaries can be bus routes, mini buses, bicycle paths or lanes, or sidewalks for skate boarders or by walking. Oh yes, there will be autonomous vehicles, but it will be two or more generations before all of the General Public will trust their controls! The Silicon Valley Loop should connect the campuses of the "Tech Giants", the support industries, and the "Cubbyholes" of the "Startups" of the South Bay. CAL TRAIN to the northwest, BART to the north, CAPITAL CORRIDOR to the north and east, ACE from the east, i.e., the Valley from Stockton to Merced, and the Pajaros from the south i.e., from Tres Pinos, Salinas, and maybe from Monterey Bay, will be the tentacles of the Loop to bring some of the workers to and from their places of employment in Silicon Valley. Like Rome, this Loop and its auxiliary transportation facilities will not be built in a day! How ever, we should start right now to put them into place! REMEMBER: A "greener" Bay Area you can obtain, If next time you take the train! Let us do it! Can we? Please let me know! Sincerely, rR~ 7, fir~~ Robert F. Mac Donald The "Retired" Plant Rat Southern Pacific Transportation Company Former: Transportation Planning Manager Transportation Authority of Monterey County, CA 0 0 0 SILICON VALLEY LOOP Robert F. Mac Donald Oakland, CA Retired: Engineer Plant Rationalization, Southern Pacific Transportation Company Former: Transportation Planning Manager, Transportation Agency for Monterey County July 31, 2017 Rev. Oct. 20, 2017 SILICON VALLEY LOOP WHERE WE ARE NOW! The time is now in the second half of the Year 2017, in the second decade of the twenty-first century. This report will address present and future Passenger Rail routes in a mini region of the Sierra Pacific Megalopolis known as The Silicon Valley! The U.S. Census Bureau describes the Sierra Pacific Megalopolis as the 20 counties of Central California and the 7 counties Central-West Nevada! Sierra Pacific Megalopolis has aa estimated population of about 10 million. The currant population of the Silicon Valley Region is about two million! San Jose is now California's fourth largest City. The State of California is now ranked from sixth to eighth largest economic engine in the World! '-or the past decade, Silicon Valley has talked about the "Electric Automobile". While the ocean side of the Valley has concentrated on computers, apps and the cloud, the eastern side of the Valley has seen the reactivation of the General Motors assembly plant at Fremont, CA (Warm Springs district) for construction of Tesla Motors electric powered automobiles. Materials and parts for these electric powered automobiles can come from many parts of the world. THE SILICON VALLEY LOOP DIRIDON DEPOT-SAN JOSE: This is the start of this discussion of passenger rail facilities now in the south Bay Area, or will be needed in the future! The DIRIDON Depot was built, circa 1930's, as part of a WPA project. The project was both a line change and a depot relocation. This project brought the Peninsula main line south about two miles from College Park, then it junctioned from the Santa Cruz Branch to a new right-of-way to Lick, Salinas, and Los Angeles! DIRIDON DEPOT is the super hub station for the Silicon Valley Loop. It is currently served by (_ AMTRAK, CALTRAIN, the CAPITAL CORRIDOR, ACE, and VTA, as well as buses to Stockton, Santa Cruz, and the Salinas Valley. In the next decade, it is planned to be a major stop for the California High speed trains and for the southern extension of BART. It should be noted that the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe RR may also have trackage rights from Niles to this depot. Currently, the CAL TRAIN operates about six trains between Diridon Depot south to and from Gilroy. In the next couple of yeas, CAL TRAIN and/or the CAPITAL CORRIDOR will start service between DIRIDON DEPOT and Salinas. Leaving DIRIDON DEPOT the Silicon Valley Loop would junction to the right, and connect to the Union Pacific's Milpitas Branch. MABURY: About a mile east of the junction, would be the first station-S. J. State. This station would have a short platform. It would be a limited stop for students going to the CSU-San Jose campus. RURIC would be the end of double track between San Jose and Niles Tower. The existing right-of-way between the junction of the Coast Main and Ruric is narrow and have a number of street crossings. WAYNE: WAYNE, too, would have a short platform and be used a limited stop, commuter station. MILPITAS: 0 The Milpitas passenger station would be moved to the intersection of the VT A east San Jose line andQ the Milpitas Branch. This would permit passengers transfer from VTA_to the Loop, the Capital Corridor, or ACE trains. TESLA YARD: TESLA YARD is the former WARM SPRINGS yard which now serves the Tesla Auto Plant and the surrounding industrial district. There would be no passenger service at this point. WARM SPRINGS: WARM SPRINGS Passenger Rail Station would be constructed and consolidated in to BART's new (2017) WARM SPRINGS station! This station would also be served by AMTRAK, ACE, and the CAPITAL CORRIDOR. WARM SPRINGS would be a Mega Hub Station on the Silicon Valley Loop and AMTRAK's national system. It would serve as a commute station for the Warm Springs industrial district and Mission San Jose district of the City of Fremont. It would be a terminal for local bus lines, and provide a station for Ford Go-Bikes. Also, AMTRAK would change its STARLIGHT's route to have them stop at WARM SPRINGS station, and AMTRAK should extend its CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR to serve WARM SPRINGS station, SAN JOSE-Diridon, Salinas, and the California Coast tq~ Los Angeles! If the CALIFORNIA ZEPHYR becomes the night train between Emeryville and Los V Angeles, via the Coast, it too should make a stop at the Warm Springs depot. If the Dumbarton Line between Redwood Jct. and Newark is reinstated, several sets of CAL TRAIN trains could be routed through Warm Springs via the Dumbarton Line and the Milpitas Line. Some of the serving the Pajaro Valley, Hollister and Salinas could be routed via Warm Springs going north to Sacramento, via O akland, or to San Francisco, via Niles Tower and Redwood Jct. NILES TOWER: NILES TOWER is the junction between the Milpitas Branch to the south, the Dumbarton Line to the west, the Decato Line to the north and the Altamont Line to Tracy and Stockton, to the east. At this point, the Silicon Valley Loop would turn west and onto the Dumbarton Line. SHINN: At SHINN, a new connection would be created to serve the former Fremont yard and the Union City industrial district. At SHINN, the Silicon Valley Loop crosses the Hayward Fault for the second time! CENTERVILLE: CENTERVILLE Station would remain in place. Q EWARK: NEWARK would see major track changes as the double track would be extended westerly to the station of Dumbarton, and new connections would be made to the Mulford Line and a new commute station would be built in the wye area. DUMBARTON: DUMBARTON Station is an operating station only. It would be the end of double track on the East Bay side of the Dumbarton Bridge. The old track alignment west of the end of double track and the bridge will have to be raised about six feet or more, due to the projected 5.6-foot raze in the Bay due to "Climate Change" and due to the levees of the salt ponds being opened. DUMBARTON BRIDGE: (_ fhe DUMBARTON BRIDGE was shut down during the 1960's. The steel portion of the bridge over the main channel of the Bay was put into service in 1905! The swing span has been "locked open" to navigation on the Bay. The steel spans should be replaced in order to carry maximum freight train weight. The swing span should be replaced by a shorter lift span over the channel. West of the steel portion of the bridge, about a 0.6 miles of the bridge was rebuilt in the 1960's with concrete piers and decking. About 0.35 miles of the bride has been remove and must be rebuilt. The trestle between thO steel portion of the bridge and the easterly shore may also need to be rebuilt. RAVERNSWOOD HENDERSON: The east end of the old HENDERSON siding should be the end of double track on the west side of the Bay. At about the junction of State Route 84 and Willow Road, a new passenger station should be built to serve East Palo Alto and a new high-tech campus in Menlo Park. BELLE HAVEN: BELLE HAVEN is the former end of double track and serves an industrial park. BESTOS: BESTOS: is at the east end of the REDWOOD JCT. Wye (Middlefield Road)! It is about 0.4 miles east of REDWOOD JCT. on the Dumbarton Line. At BESTOS, the Silicon Valley Loop would take south leg of the wye and then connect to CAL TRAIN's Peninsula Line at SEMICIRCLE. REDWOOD JCT. REDWOOD JCT. is at the north end of the REDWOOD JCT. yard. Here trains from the Dumbarton Line would join the CAL TRAIN line north to San Francisco. About a mile south of REDWOOD JCT. the south leg of the wye from Bestos and the lead from the south end of the REDWOOD JCT. yard would join the multi track, CAL TRAIN main line. This CAL TRAIN main line tracks are now being electrified. SEMICIRCLE SEMICIRCLE about a mile south of REDWOOD JCT. At this point the south leg of the wye from Bestos and the lead from the south end of the REDWOOD JCT. yard would join the multi track, CAL TRAIN main line. SEMICIRCLE would be and operating station only-no passengers. These CAL TRAIN main line tracks are now being electrified. MENLO PARK 0 MENLO PARK is the first station on the Peninsula JPB. It was probably founded circa 1864! It is the Q location of several Federal Agencies, Menlo Community College, and other tech satellites. PALO ALTO PALO AL TO is the home of Stanford University and many tech companies. 0 MAYFIELD MAYFIELD is also known as CALIFORNIA AVENUE. Prior to the 1960's, MAYFIELD was the northerly junction of the Los Altos Branch. This branch allowed trains from San Francisco to bypass San Jose, and go to Santa Cruz via VASONA JCT. This line was also used as a commuter line between San Francisco and San Jose. This branch line now exists between VASONA JCT. and MONTE VISTA, but is freight only! It serves the westerly (ocean) side of Silicon Valley and is near to some very large tech campuses. MOUNTAIN VIEW MOUNTAIN VIEW is the transfer point to the VTA light rail system which serves the Bay side of the cities of Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, San Jose and Milpitas. This light rail system also serves Levi Stadium and Great America Park! SUNNYVALE SUNNYVALE is the down town station for the City of Sunnyvale. Q AWRENCE LAWRENCE serves the industrial districts of Sunnyvale and Santa Clara. It is also an access to both Levi Stadium and Great America Park! SANTA CLARA SANTA CLARA is the site of the University of Santa Clara, tech campuses, and an industrial park. It is also the southern junction to the Mulford Line! COLLEGE PARK COLLEGE PARK station is used as a school commute stop. DIRIDON DEPOT -SAN JOSE: End of the Silicon Valley Loop! It should be noted that train will run in both directions on the Silicon Valley Loop o· 0 0 0 I To San francisco ' Redwood City I ~ ~' ~<:; let. I ~ D~ I To Elmlmr.~I 1! l I: ~ ~~I ~~¢ ~.. Q i ~ ·~ 0 ~ I .,-"• .._ .. <:-i.:. ~ I§ ,,ic.< AIVllrud11 ~ To Redw1m1/ llt1rbor ~'bi:; I )Ir-.,,,~._...,,., ..... .....,... I ~ G"~ Fremont I __ .9. ~\\"'"' ~o :.::.&."8'_.,..1.1.1.1.1~_....1.1.1.1.1.1~~ ~I-- - - -i "' rI ToSlockton 111.1 ' Bc.~tos ~ ; ,..,lit d> ;,:s> Semlclrcle I I I t Mmlol'"" I + PoloA"" I I ~tt ~o fl .. 't $:"' l .~" oil) ~ ;. 4-' ~· ~-j • j r: ,s; ~~· , ~ I ,t; ~<:; .::.~~~-r ~ f 1 cl' i:;<:> i:;<:' ~~ ""' t Moylicld w.1.11.1..--·~ w.1.1.1.1..-WI.I.I~ ,, LEGEND ,.....I.I.I ... MULTI TRACK ·-----•SINGLE TRACK ------REMOVE TRACK • • ~ PASSENGER STATION OPERA TING STATION/ JUNCTION HUB STATION ""'" Cl•m l I ,_._......_._,_.,.-BART c_.r:.or..--. 'nnall St!cond Main Lin~ Trodcag~ ••••-•• VTA I I I I I I I I I •• . I Alvi~u Alhrac l ~ ·ll; ,l! Dniwbridi;e c.; "!$ ... t' 'ti ~ ~ ~ ~ Grc111 Amcrlc11 ~ i ~ ii ~ ~---------~o :u .11 WARMSPRINGS , t ~ 8 "" I I I ~ Tesha Vurd i 1d i ~r. d~ , .., · iU ,, ill '~f)'I • i ,~ 411.~ --~ ~ ~ !!: ... .s ....: .s .:? ... ~ 8 ~ :::: ,l! ti l t Agnew ~~r.;, ~~ ~;;. '\fll ~ d " .... ;,_;'if< \ ,,,~ ·c ;,.":,j1r .,, • ~ . = ""fr i-\1'' = a: -.,,~ ,,,11 .a jll! ~,fr --~~I ~ ~~./# 111\I · c: .,,, ,,,, .'-'/: _,. -4 SAN JOSE-DIRIDON ,, ~ ... Tamicn ~I ..._._, s: ~ ~<..,, ~~ ~ SCHEMATIC CAPITAL CORRIDOR SILICON VALLEY LOOP No Scale June 30, 2017 lfF/llv '/?.,o. ,5,,, ,.i. I, 2 tH7 PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDE Thank you for your interest in the Stanford University 2018 Genera I Use Perm it. Stanford has prepared this guide to summarize key findings of the Stanford University 2018 General Use Permit Draft Environmental Impact Report. This guide complements the Application Overview and Summary document that highlights key elements of our application, which is available at our website at gup.stanford.edu. For more information, please contact Stanford2018GUP@stanford.edu Welcome to Our Readers We are pleased to announce that Santa Clara County has published a Draft Environmental Im pact Report (EIR) that describes the physical environmental consequences of Stanford's proposed 2018 General Use Permit. The Draft EIR identifies potentially significant impacts from project construction and campus operations over an approximate 17-year planning horizon, from 2018 through 2035. It outlines mitigation measures designed to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels wherever feasible. The General Use Permit provides a framework for how Stanford University manages its growth and development. The last General Use Permit was approved in 2000. The proposed 2018 General Use Permit, similar to the 2000 General Use Permit, would authorize the land use and development of Stanford's lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County in a manner that implements the existing Stanford Community Plan's policies. It is consistent with growth assumptions in the Sustainable Development Study that was approved by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in 2009. The Stanford Community Plan is the part of the County's General Plan that applies specifically to Stanford. The Community Plan's planning principles have fundamentally shaped the university's built environment and have ensured that we grow in a manner that protects the environment and our surrounding communities. Working collaboratively with our neighbors, Stanford has successfully implemented innovative solutions for managing traffic, reducing greenhouse gas and air pollutant emissions, reducing potable water use and protecting sensitive habitats. Some of these solutions are highlighted in the Draft EIR. We invite you to review our application, as well as the complete Draft EIR, which is available on the County's website. We welcome your engagement in the County of Santa Clara environmental review and approval process. Opportunities for providing public comment are available at our website at gup.stanford.edu. TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................... 2 Environmental Review Process .......... 4 Project Overview ...................... 6 Summary of the Draft EIR Findings and Mitigation Measures ................ 8 Alternatives Evaluated ................ 22 Overriding Considerations ............. 23 Conclusion and Next Steps ............. 25 PHOTO CREDIT: L.A. CICERO DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I OVERVIEW & SUMMARY I 1 Executive Summary As the university nears the completion of the facilities and housing authorized under the 2000 General Use Permit, Stanford seeks approval for a new 2018 General Use Permit that covers over 4,000 acres of university lands located in unincorporated Santa Clara County. The General Use Permit's flexible framework allows Stanford to add state-of-the-art facilities for education and research while holding Stanford accountable for potential impacts that could arise from new development. This report summarizes key findings of the Draft The Draft EIR finds that with mitigation, the 2018 Environmental Impact Report for the university's General Use Permit wilt not have significant 2018 General Use Permit application. adverse effects on most environmental resources. These include visual resources, ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW air quality and health risk, biological The County has prepared a Draft EIR for the resources, energy conservation, greenhouse proposed 2018 General Use Permit. gas emissions, land use, hazardous material use, transportation, hydrodology (including The Draft EIR evaluates environmental factors flooding), operational noise, vehicle miles including: traveled, population and housing, public • Visual and Scenic Resources services, recreation and utilities. • Air Quality • Biological Resources • Cultural Resources • Energy Conservation • Geology and Soils • Hazards and Hazardous Materials • Greenhouse Gases • Hydrology and Water Quality • Land Use and Planning • Noise and Vibration • Population and Housing • Public Services • Recreation • Transportation • Utilities and Service Systems 2 I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I OVERVIEW & SUMMARY The Draft EIR also finds some adverse effects in three areas -construction noise, historic buildings and transportation -that cannot be completely avoided, though it recommends mitigation measures to reduce their impact. The Draft EIR finds there could be increased noise on a temporary basis due to campus construction. And because it is not yet known where specific new buildings will be located or whether any historic buildings will be replaced, the EIR makes the conservative assumption that there will be significant and unavoidable impacts -though it identifies mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. The Draft EIR also finds that if Stanford does not expand its transportation demand management programs to meet the No Net New Commute Trips standard, significant and unavoidable impacts to intersections and freeways could occur. Stanford University is committed to implementing all mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR, including implementing additional transportation demand management programs designed to achieve the No Net New Commute Trips standard. Stanford will also continue the contribution of funds to Santa Clara County's Affordable Housing Fund to support housing within the surrounding communities. Finally, the Draft EIR recognizes that Stanford has added a proposal to respond to public feedback on the project application. Stanford has offered to fund four off-campus bicycle infrastructure improvement projects -one each in Palo Alto, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto and San Mateo County. These improvements will benefit the surrounding communities while assisting Stanford in achieving the No Net New Commute Trips standard. PHOTO CREDIT: L.A. CICERO Please note: This guide is an overview and summary of the contents of the Draft EIR and is not a substitute for the document. Interested parties that want detailed information on the environmental impacts, mitigation measures and alternatives to the project should review the full Draft EIR, available on the County of Santa Clara's website. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I OVERVIEW & SUMMARY I 3 Written comments on the Draft EIR should be sent by mail to: Mr. David Rader, Senior Planner, County of Santa Clara Planning Office, County Government Center, 70 West Hedding,7th Floor, East Wing, San Jose, California 95110 or by email to: david.rader@ pln.sccgov.org. Environmental Review Process The County of Santa Clara is completing a series of steps to receive public and agency input on the 2018 General Use Permit: • Release of the Draft EIR • Opportunities for written comments on the Draft EIR • Release of the Final Environmental Impact Report • Multiple public hearings The County of Santa Clara has discretionary authority over the proposed 2018 General Use Permit and serves as the lead agency responsible for complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report when a proposed project could result in significant, adverse effects on the physical environment. The EIR is an informational document for use by governmental agencies and the public to aid in the land use planning and decision-making process by disclosing the physical environmental effects of the proposed project and by identifying possible ways of reducing or avoiding its potentially significant impacts. A Draft EIR identifies: • The effects of the project on the physical environment • Mitigation to reduce significant effects • Project alternatives An EIR focuses on changes to the physical environment. To assess whether those changes are significant, an EIR: • Identifies the incremental change from conditions existing at project approval to conditions expected with the project, using scientifically accepted methodologies • Applies standard thresholds to determine whether the incremental change is significant • Determines whether mitigation will reduce the impacts to below the significance threshold Publication of the Draft EIR initiates a public review period, during which time the County of Santa Clara will accept comments on the Draft EIR. The public review period for the Draft EIR is from October 6 through December 4, 2017. Printed copies of the 2018 General Use Permit Application and the Draft EIR and documents referenced in the Draft EIR are available for public review at the following locations: • County of Santa Clara Planning Office, County Government Center, 70 West Hedding, 7th Floor, East Wing, San Jose, California • Stanford Green Library circulation desk • Palo Alto Rinconada Library reference desk To view a copy of the university's application for the 2018 General Use Permit, please visit https://stanford.edu/the-project/deir. 4 J DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT \ OVERVIEW & SUMMARY STANFORD 2018 GENERAL USE PERMIT PROCESS The following graphic illustrates the General Use Permit application review process, highlighting four key points at which members of the community can provide feedback directly to Santa Clara County. In addition, Stanford's outreach and engagement efforts with the community will be occurring on an ongoing basis throughout the review process. Community Feedback Community provides comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report October- December 2017 Community Open Houses Stanford gets input from the community Apply Stanford submits application to county June 2016 November 2016 Draft County Report County publishes Draft Environmental Impact Report October 2017 ~ Community Feedback Stanford holds Community Forum to share details of the application and to hear input from the community January 2017 © © / © ,.ongoing Stanford Engagement With Community_,.. I I Community Feedback Community provides input on what the Environmental Impact Report should study February 2017 I I I I I I I I I I I ~ing ~. Planning Commission Pubhc Hearing l hearing and community Board of Supervisors County Reports Complete County issues Final Environmental Impact Report - - - - - -~ feedback hearing and decision During the public review period for the Draft EIR, the County of Santa Clara will conduct a public meeting to receive oral comments on the Draft EIR. The public meeting is scheduled to be held at Palo Alto Art Center on November 30, 2017. All comments are due to the County by December 4, 2017. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I OVERVIEW & SUMMARY I 5 AVERAGE 1.2% ANNUAL INCREASE IN TOTAL ACADEM IC AND SUPPORT SPACE AT STANFORD DURING EACH OF THE YEARS OF THE 2018 GENERAL USE PERMIT Project Overview During the projected period of 2018-2035, the proposed General Use Permit will allow for the construction of up to: • 2.275 million net new square feet of academic and academic support space • 3,150 net new on-campus housing units/beds • 40,000 net new square feet of child care centers and facilities that support campus transportation demand management programs CURRENT AND PROPOSED GROWTH ,----------CUMULATIVE AFTER 2000 GUP --------2018 PROPOSAL SQUARE FEET OF ACADEMIC AND ACADEMIC SUPPORT FACILITIES: 10 255M 2.275M NUMBER OF STUDENT BEDS 14,300 2,600 BEDS SQUARE FEET OF STUDENT HOUSING 6.63SM 1.225M FACULTY/STAFF UNITS 937 THE NEED The General Use Permit provides a framework for the future, giving Stanford the flexibility it needs to adapt its facilities in response to evolving academic and housing needs while providing accountability to the community and region. As knowledge advances and new technology becomes available, existing fields of study grow and entirely new fields emerge. Meanwhile, the model of teaching and research itself is rapidly evolving. Updating the General 550 UNITS Use Permit will enable Stanford to continue to be at the forefront of research and teaching. Stanford has focused from its earliest days on supporting a residential academic environment. For students and faculty, living on campus enhances learning and research and fosters collaboration and community. The proposed General Use Permit would authorize Stanford to construct more housing on campus, further enhancing Stanford's ability to connect students and faculty. 6 I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I OVERVIEW & SUMMARY KEY FEATURES OF STANFORD'S NOVEMBER 2016 APPLICATION CONTINUATION OF STANFORD COMMUNITY PLAN Stanford's application for an updated General Use Permit proposes no changes in the governing principles contained in the Stanford Community Plan adopted by Santa Clara County in 2000 -including the overarching concepts of compact infill development and protection of natural resources. ENHANCED ACADEMIC AND SUPPORT SPACE Stanford seeks the ability under the General Use Permit to develop new academic and support space to maintain its leadership in teaching and research. This space would support newly emerging academic fields; provide improved space for interdisciplinary collaboration and state-of-the-art research; allow replacement of outdated buildings and infrastructure; and accommodate potential modest growth in undergraduate enrollments in the coming years. MORE ON-CAMPUS HOUSING Stanford has focused from its earliest days on supporting a residential academic environment. For students and faculty, living on campus enhances learning and research, fostering collaboration and community. The proposed General Use Permit would authorize Stanford to construct more housing on campus, further enhancing Stanford's ability to connect students and faculty with the educational life of the campus and to the services the campus provides. ACTIONS TO STIMULATE REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING Stanford will continue to provide funding to support affordable housing in nearby communities. Under Stanford's application, the university would provide an estimated $56 million over the course of the General Use Permit for affordable housing projects in the region. CONTINUED STEPS TO ADDRESS TRANSPORTATION CHALLENGES Stanford plans to continue to meet the goal of generating no net new automobile commute trips to the campus, even as it adds square footage authorized under the proposed General Use Permit. Stanford has had great success over the last 16 years in developing alternative transportation programs; today, fully half of Stanford employees who do not live on campus commute to work in ways other than driving alone. A FOCUS ON STEWARDSHIP AND SUSTAINABILITY Stanford intends to continue employing state-of-the art sustainable operations to minimize its impact on our community and planet. Under the current General Use Permit, Stanford has dramatically reduced water usage; developed an innovative energy system that has cut campus greenhouse gas emissions; and implemented solar energy technology that will ensure Stanford obtains over half of its electricity from renewable sources. NO CHANGE TO THE ACADEMIC GROWTH BOUNDARY Stanford will continue its pattern of compact development by siting new buildings within the existing Academic Growth Boundary, which delineates a boundary separating the core campus from the open spaces on Stanford lands in the surrounding foothill areas. No square footage is being requested outside this Academic Growth Boundary. DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I OVERVIEW & SUMMARY I 7 Summary of the Draft EIR Findings and Mitigation Measures The Draft EIR describes the proposed Project and required approvals, analyzes potential environmental impacts of the proposed Project, identifies mitigation measures where those impacts are significant, identifies cumulative adverse impacts to which the proposed Project could make a substantial contribution and evaluates alternatives to the Project that could avoid or reduce significant impacts while still meeting most of the Project's objectives. The following is a summary of the Draft EIR sections. VISUAL AND SCENIC RESOURCES Will the buildout of the 2018 General Use Permit change the visual character of the campus? • The specific design and location of each new building is not yet known; however, based on the proposed development distribution, the potential effects on visual resources would be less than significant. Further, Stanford's application proposes no new buildings in the Foothills Development District. This means that all development authorized by the General Use Permit will be sited within the developed portion of the campus, inside the Academic 8 I DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I OVERVIEW & SUMMARY Growth Boundary. Larger, taller new buildings must undergo Architecture and Site Approval, which would ensure no significant impact on the visual quality of the campus occurs. • Buildout under the 2018 General Use Permit would incrementally increase ambient light levels on campus. Mitigation • A lighting plan must be submitted for each project showing the extent of illumination and that state-of-the-art luminaries would be used where necessary. PHOTO CREDIT: L.A. CICERO