Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20171120plCC701-32 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: 11/20/2017 Document dates: 11/01/2017 – 11/08/2017 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:12 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Bryan Chan <chan_bk@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, November 05, 2017 3:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Opposition to salary increases for City Attorney and City Manager Attachments:CityManagers_Position.pdf Hello, I'm concerning about the rising payroll for our city employees; specifically, I oppose any additional pay raises for the City Manager and City Attorney. For a city of the size of Palo Alto, they are already one of the most highly compensated officials with this title in the State of California when you look at cities with a population between 50,000-100,000. This data is directly from State of California (http://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/PositionRpts.aspx?rpt=CityManagers). You can also do a search for City Attorneys and find a similar finding that our existing City Attorney is vastly overpaid compared to her counterparts. The average salary for a City Manager for a population of this range is $218,902!! In fact, I would argue that the City Council consider pay decreases due to the increasing pension liability causing much stress on our budget and to bring their salaries in line with counterparts at other cities. Why do they need to make $466,000 a year for such a small city? For a city with such high property values and property taxes, we should not be having budget difficulties. It would be completely irresponsible to provide pay raises. Furthermore, I would say that I do not believe that our City Manager and City Attorney work on behalf of the citizens of the community as their recommendations to the City Council often clash with what residents want. Thank you, Bryan Position City City Population County Total Wages Total Ret. & Health Cost City Manager Palm Desert 50,740 Riverside County $376,530 $32,832 City Manager Santa Monica 93,834 Los Angeles County $361,707 $86,238 City Manager Redlands 69,851 San Bernardino County $350,745 $85,940 City Manager Citrus Heights 87,013 Sacramento County $345,241 $50,107 City Manager La Mesa 60,286 San Diego County $322,285 $57,798 City Manager Palo Alto 68,691 Santa Clara County $317,910 $148,769 City Manager Chino 88,026 San Bernardino County $311,802 $90,630 City Manager Gardena 60,721 Los Angeles County $307,636 $56,248 City Manager Tustin 82,372 Orange County $303,078 $71,386 City Manager Poway 50,253 San Diego County $301,351 $59,002 City Manager Dublin 59,686 Alameda County $300,990 $32,644 City Manager Lakewood 79,272 Los Angeles County $291,953 $46,644 City Manager South San Francisco 65,451 San Mateo County $291,853 $55,490 City Manager Mountain View 79,278 Santa Clara County $290,763 $102,257 City Manager San Clemente 65,975 Orange County $288,694 $77,569 City Manager Redondo Beach 68,907 Los Angeles County $284,650 $85,004 City Manager Lake Forest 84,931 Orange County $280,937 $52,998 City Manager Pico Rivera 64,046 Los Angeles County $280,477 $21,750 City Manager Newport Beach 84,915 Orange County $275,720 $77,488 City Admin/Clerk/Treasurer Santa Barbara 93,063 Santa Barbara County $275,669 $86,364 City Manager Milpitas 75,410 Santa Clara County $269,910 $122,077 City Administrator Madera 66,082 Madera County $269,177 $68,117 City Manager Union City 73,452 Alameda County $268,580 $65,046 City Manager Citrus Heights 87,013 Sacramento County $266,098 $73,562 City Manager San Leandro 88,274 Alameda County $265,228 $73,950 City Manager Laguna Niguel 66,689 Orange County $264,683 $35,364 City Manager Livermore 89,648 Alameda County $264,036 $88,897 City Manager Cupertino 58,917 Santa Clara County $262,034 $79,132 City Manager Chino Hills 80,676 San Bernardino County $260,326 $110,094 Interim City Manager Novato 54,522 Marin County $258,196 $50,996 City Manager Whittier 87,708 Los Angeles County $257,915 $55,764 A100 City Manager Redwood City 85,601 San Mateo County $257,536 $64,278 City Manager Montebello 63,917 Los Angeles County $256,677 $76,345 City Manager West Sacramento 53,163 Yolo County $256,352 $101,756 City Manager Redding 90,653 Shasta County $255,304 $36,117 City Manager Mission Viejo 96,718 Orange County $254,994 $56,402 City Manager Buena Park 83,884 Orange County $254,733 $67,727 City Manager Pittsburg 69,818 Contra Costa County $253,862 $67,369 City Manager Perris 75,739 Riverside County $253,494 $58,804 City Manager Rancho Cordova 73,872 Sacramento County $252,301 $53,826 The information presented is posted as submitted by the reporting employer. The State Controller's Office is not responsible for the accuracy of this informationThis report attempts to identify City Managers, City Administrators, and Town Managers. Some cities may not employ a position with one of these titles. Other positions held by an employee are listed in this report. Variation in position names provided by employers may affect the accuracy of this report. City Manager Bellflower 76,657 Los Angeles County $251,739 $54,194 Town Manager Apple Valley 74,701 San Bernardino County $251,025 $65,792 City Manager Camarillo 69,623 Ventura County $250,905 $91,562 City Manager Carson 93,674 Los Angeles County $250,256 $102,801 City Manager Vacaville 98,456 Solano County $250,121 $101,261 City Manager Brentwood 61,055 Contra Costa County $249,247 $45,391 City Manager Walnut Creek 70,974 Contra Costa County $247,678 $65,274 City Manager Indio 88,718 Riverside County $246,614 $25,354 City Manager Upland 76,790 San Bernardino County $244,658 $54,257 City Manager Diamond Bar 57,066 Los Angeles County $243,976 $57,341 City Manager Cathedral City 54,557 Riverside County $243,713 $37,090 City Manager Rocklin 64,417 Placer County $243,613 $78,271 City Manager Yorba Linda 67,890 Orange County $243,100 $66,299 City Manager Folsom 78,525 Sacramento County $242,822 $92,657 City Manager San Rafael 60,842 Marin County $240,656 $147,524 City Manager Exec Napa 80,628 Napa County $240,122 $95,803 City Manager San Ramon 80,550 Contra Costa County $239,913 $52,779 Interim City Manager Hawthorne 87,662 Los Angeles County $239,468 $83,901 City Manager Arcadia 57,374 Los Angeles County $238,437 $70,877 City Manager Encinitas 62,288 San Diego County $238,189 $70,496 City Manager Cerritos 50,039 Los Angeles County $236,053 $91,740 City Manager Aliso Viejo 50,312 Orange County $235,758 $60,817 City Manager Santa Cruz 65,070 Santa Cruz County $235,681 $33,795 City Manager Pleasanton 75,916 Alameda County $234,924 $82,946 City Manager Yucaipa 54,324 San Bernardino County $234,359 $73,143 City Manager Westminster 93,533 Orange County $234,002 $67,827 City Manager Manteca 76,247 San Joaquin County $231,940 $8,527 City Manager Fountain Valley 56,709 Orange County $230,572 $38,920 City Manager Tracy 90,890 San Joaquin County $230,389 $71,762 City Manager Glendora 52,608 Los Angeles County $229,125 $73,475 Chief Executive Officer- City Manager Baldwin Park 75,537 Los Angeles County $228,994 $72,318 City Manager Menifee 90,660 Riverside County $228,934 $38,220 City Manager Woodland 59,616 Yolo County $228,547 $65,694 City Manager Paramount 55,923 Los Angeles County $228,502 $66,113 City Manager Lake Elsinore 62,092 Riverside County $227,945 $22,474 City Manager Alhambra 86,922 Los Angeles County $224,183 $87,520 City Manager Davis 68,740 Yolo County $223,539 $84,991 City Manager National City 61,210 San Diego County $221,744 $64,411 City Manager Watsonville 53,015 Santa Cruz County $219,979 $30,252 City Administrator Placentia 52,268 Orange County $218,017 $41,486 City Manager La Habra 62,084 Orange County $217,698 $69,680 City Manager South Gate 98,633 Los Angeles County $216,155 $61,892 City Manager Chico 93,383 Butte County $215,251 $91,249 City Manager Walnut Creek 70,974 Contra Costa County $214,847 $64,052 City Manager Petaluma 60,941 Sonoma County $212,643 $73,754 City Manager Poway 50,253 San Diego County $211,879 $110,747 City Manager Other Positions Held: City Clerk Yuba City 67,445 Sutter County $211,618 $64,315 City Manager Highland 54,377 San Bernardino County $210,429 $51,881 City Manager Monterey Park 61,606 Los Angeles County $207,601 $50,293 City Manager Huntington Park 59,383 Los Angeles County $204,780 $23,694 City Manager Alameda 79,928 Alameda County $202,454 $75,044 City Manager San Marcos 94,042 San Diego County $202,134 $80,178 City Manager Hemet 81,868 Riverside County $201,206 $56,046 City Manager Turlock 72,879 Stanislaus County $197,880 $63,491 City Manager Colton 53,879 San Bernardino County $196,252 $50,196 City Manager Lodi 64,058 San Joaquin County $195,576 $79,621 City Manager La Mesa 60,286 San Diego County $191,251 $70,736 City Manager Hanford 55,645 Kings County $189,459 $61,380 City Manager Hesperia 94,133 San Bernardino County $188,759 $28,417 City Manager Merced 84,464 Merced County $188,534 $47,666 City Manager Camarillo 69,623 Ventura County $179,878 $36,550 City Manager Delano 53,152 Kern County $179,297 $62,569 City Manager Eastvale 64,613 Riverside County $167,244 $9,198 City Manager Porterville 59,908 Tulare County $159,685 $50,729 City Administrator Gilroy 55,936 Santa Clara County $146,962 $37,853 City Manager Santee 57,100 San Diego County $145,533 $28,069 Interim City Manager Alhambra 86,922 Los Angeles County $144,680 $24,914 City Manager Tulare 64,661 Tulare County $140,302 $38,913 City Manager Rosemead 54,984 Los Angeles County $135,943 $13,071 City Manager Rosemead 54,984 Los Angeles County $114,521 $21,458 Interim City Manager Palm Desert 50,740 Riverside County $110,134 -- Ea To The City Mgr Mountain View 79,278 Santa Clara County $102,792 $43,461 City Manager Manteca 76,247 San Joaquin County $87,462 $19,912 City Administrator Gilroy 55,936 Santa Clara County $72,831 -- City Manager Novato 54,522 Marin County $52,523 $681 City Manager Palm Desert 50,740 Riverside County $50,995 $18,562 City Manager Turlock 72,879 Stanislaus County $49,567 $16,894 Interim City Manager Merced 84,464 Merced County $47,323 -- Interim City Manager Santee 57,100 San Diego County $45,494 -- City Manager Novato 54,522 Marin County $38,453 $8,920 Interim City Manager Upland 76,790 San Bernardino County $35,550 -- Interim City Manager Hemet 81,868 Riverside County $11,009 -- Interim City Manager Monterey Park 61,606 Los Angeles County $7,530 $2,051 City Manager San Rafael 60,842 Marin County $859 -- Average $218,902 $60,908 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ofer Bruhis <ofer.bruhis@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 4:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Mr. Keene’s and Ms. Stump’s salaries Dear Council,    I am totally against raising Mr. Keene’s and Ms. Stump’s salaries.  This is more then governor Brown is earning.  They  have been nothing but apologists for Verizon.  Mr. Keene, for example, has systematically misrepresented to City Council  how effective other California cities have become in keeping ugly, noisy, radiation‐emitting cell towers away from  people’s homes.    Also, they have done nothing regarding SFO traffic for the last 2 years.      Compensation should be based on PERFORMANCE.  I am unimpressed with theirs.    Best    Ofer Bruhis  3272 Bryant Street  Palo Alto, CA 94306  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Mary Thomas <mj_thomas_2000@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 4:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vote NO on pay raises for city manager and city attorney Dear City Council Members, I am writing to encourage you to vote against giving our City Manager, James Keene and City Attorney, Molly Stump pay raises. They have wonderful salaries as it is! I see no reason to give our tax money to these pay raises. Please vote no! Thank you. Mary Thomas City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Ocean Huang <huang_lee_lee@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 4:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Salary Raise for City Manager James Keene and other senior staff a raise. Dear City Council members,    I just learn and would like to ask whether it Is the fact that Palo Alto currently pays Mr. Keene $466,000/year  in salary and benefits (and that does not include the unfunded portion of his pension).  This is more than the  State of California pays Governor Brown.  In addition, City Attorney Molly Stump is paid close to  $425,000/year in salary and benefits, again not including the unfunded portion of her pension.    If the above are facts, I would like to urge you vote against the salary raise for both. Thank you!    Sincerely,  Hai   Resident at 2330 Cowper St., Palo Alto    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Francesca <dfkautz@pacbell.net> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 4:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Do not give raises to City Manager James Keene and other senior staff Dear Palo Alto City Council,    Please do not raise Mr. Keene’s and Ms. Stump’s salaries. Anything over $400,000 in salary and benefits is more than  enough for anyone to be making in our city, even with the high cost of housing.    Thank you,    Francesca Kautz        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:Andrew Martin <123andy@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 5:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Salary levels for senior staff It was brought to my attention that James Keene makes over $450k/yr and there is a proposed raise. I would like to ask you to either: 1) Tell me this is incorrect and share more information (preferrably via NextDoor as it seems to be the dominant thread for neighborhood discussions). 2) Not approve any raise 3) Rationalize any salary over 250k/yr. I really find it hard to believe this level of salary is necessary to recruit suitable talent (especially if pensions are involved). This should be a job of community service for those in the community who have benefited. I don't think we should need to spend our tax dollars on salaries like this -- it is contradictory to the core mission of our community. Saying it another way, I'd rather have bathrooms in our parks or more outreach for homeless than a 400k+ salary for our elite staff. Sincerely, Andrew Martin 940 Scott St 650-380-3405 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:Sharleen Fiddaman <sf@sharleenfiddaman.com> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 5:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:salaries City Council members: Please vote against raising the salaries of Mr. Keene and Molly Stump. They are currently exhorbitant. Sharleen Fiddaman on Webster in Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 7 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 6:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Opposing Keene, Stump, and staff pay raises! City Council Members, I am writing to oppose any pay raise for City Manager James Keene, whose present income is more than the State of  California pays Governor Brown, or for City Attorney Molly Stump.  In light of the shameful state of Palo Alto's Fiscal  Obligations, I do not understand how you could even consider such outrageous and unwise pay raises.  This would be  fiscally irresponsible to the citizens you represent.  In my opinion, Keene's and Stump's stance on supporting the Verizon  cell towers by itself disqualifies them from any merit‐based pay raise. Before making a foolhardy decision, please remember the citizens you represent, who know the difference between  smart management and budgeting and reckless behavior and decisions. Barbara Kelly 444 Washington Avenue Palo Alto, CA  94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 8 Carnahan, David From:Jerry Fan <jerry.fan@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 6:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Against raise for City Manager James Keene I'm against his raise - already earning $466,000/year in salary and benefits (and that does not include the unfunded portion of his pension). This is more than the State of California pays Governor Brown. Are we saying he's doing more for us than Governor Brown? No. Jerry Fan City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 9 Carnahan, David From:J. Shi <jian1@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 7:51 PM To:Council, City Cc:jfleming@metricus.net Subject:Re: Update: What we're paying people who want cell towers next to our homes I am very angry why manager can get so much salary? The city manager can get more salary than US President? His salary should be $1. Otherwise let anyone only likes to get $1 as manager. Thanks. Jian On Friday, November 3, 2017 7:49 PM, J. Shi <jian1@sbcglobal.net> wrote: I am very angry why manager can get so much salary? The city manager can get more salary than US President? His salary should be $1. Otherwise let anyone only likes to get $1 as manager. Thanks. Jian On Friday, November 3, 2017 3:58 PM, Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> wrote: Dear Neighbors, We have just learned that on Monday, City Council will be voting on whether to give City Manager James Keene and other senior staff a raise. Palo Alto currently pays Mr. Keene $466,000/year in salary and benefits (and that does not include the unfunded portion of his pension). This is more than the State of California pays Governor Brown. Moreover, on the cell towers in residential neighborhoods issue, he and City Attorney Molly Stump (who’s paid close to $425,000/year in salary and benefits, again not including the unfunded portion of her pension) have been nothing but apologists for Verizon. Mr. Keene, for example, has systematically misrepresented to City Council how effective other California cities have become in keeping ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting cell towers away from people’s homes. I encourage you to write to City Council (City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org) and ask them to vote against raising Mr. Keene’s and Ms. Stump’s salaries. I hope you will encourage your friends to write as well. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 10 Jeanne For United Neighbors City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 11 Carnahan, David From:Andy Gibson <andyawesomegibson@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 8:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Mr. Keene’s Salary I’m not sure why in the world anyone would consider raising Mr. Keene’s salary. He already makes way more than our  governor at 466,000 and year and shows little interest in our city’s issues. He has consistently misrepresented  arguments (clearly for the benefit of his bank account), such as the effects of Verizons cheap, noisy cell towers, as  evidenced by countless other neighborhoods. Augmenting the already massive salary of this greedy and self‐interested  individual does not serve our communities needs ‐ only his own.    Andrew Gibson  119 Seale Ave, 94301  Palo Alto  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 12 Carnahan, David From:barbara elspas <elspas@icloud.com> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 9:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:no raise for City Manager More than Jerry Brown?  Impossible.  Not worth the work.  I say NO.    28 year Palo Alto Resident.        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 13 Carnahan, David From:Annette Rahn <annetterahn@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 10:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Merit Raises for James Keene and Molly Stump Dear Council Members, Please do not vote to give merit raises to either James Keene or Molly Stump. Thank you. Sincerely, Annette Rahn City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 14 Carnahan, David From:Nahid Waleh <nwaleh@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:Pay Raise It is totally OUTRAGEOUS to give pay raise to Mr. Keene and Ms. Stump. On one hand, they say the city doesn't have money and wants to give in to Verizon for installing cell towers in the city and the on other give such extravagant salaries to the city manager and City Attorney. Please DON'T raise their salaries. Respectfully, Nahid Waleh 2344 Emerson St City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 15 Carnahan, David From:Greg Kovacs <greg.kovacs@physiowave.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 11:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:Against Raising Senior City Employee Salaries To Whom It May Concern,  I am writing to express my opposition to raising any senior City employee salaries (presently under consideration, Mr.  Keene, City Manager) who already makes $466k/yr with pension, which is RIDICULOUS by any standard.    Any reasonable person, calibrated to corporate salaries, would think most of the City leadership are grossly, grossly  overpaid.     As a long‐term Palo Alto resident, I think the entire salary structure of City personnel needs revision downward in a  significant way.    Sincerely,  Gregory Kovacs    Professor (Emeritus) of Electrical Engineering Stanford University        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 16 Carnahan, David From:barbara@1035b.com Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 1:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Staff Salaries We have a city staff that cannot manage to keep the City out of debt without constantly robbing the utilities fund for more money. Time to stop raising their salaries until something is done about unpaid pension liabilities and other issues that keep us without parking, without a reasonably sized supermarket in town and all the big boxes taking our taxes in the neighboring cities – when we go there to shop because our downtown is not shopper-friendly. Stop spending money we don’t have! Contain salaries at their current levels until satisfaction among the citizenry improves. Barbara Bowden barbara@1035b.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 17 Carnahan, David From:Christy Neidig <christy@highstgroup.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 1:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vote NO on pay raises!   Please vote against raising Mr. Keene's compensation or the compensation of other, similarly over‐paid City Staff.. Let’s  put this into perspective City Council ‐ the GOVERNOR is only paid $196,000 per year.     What justification is there to pay the City Manager of a small city (67,000 population) $466,000 per year?????  Ridiculous.    Christy Neidig  Webster Street  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 18 Carnahan, David From:suekemp@AOL.com Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 1:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Mr. Keene's raise Hi Guys, Mr Keene already makes plenty of money. Please don't add to it! Sue Kemp 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 19 Carnahan, David From:Nancy McGaraghan <chezmcg@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 2:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Raise for City Manager Dear Council Members,    Please do not approve a raise for City Manager, Jim Keene.  His present salary plus benefits of $466,000 is already  exorbitant for city the size of Palo Alto.  In fact, I wonder why Mr Keene is not embarrassed to even be considered for  such a raise.      Thank you for your consideration of this request.    Nancy McGaraghan  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 20 Carnahan, David From:Russ Brown <russ.brown@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 4:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:james keene's salary Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am concerned that the Palo Alto City Manager, James Keene, is overpaid with an annual salary of $466,000. Rather than increase his salary, I recommend that you lower it. I would like to see our city employees, and in particular our police officers and fire fighters, paid competitive salaries. However, James Keene's salary appears to be excessive. Very truly, Russell A. Brown City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 21 Carnahan, David From:Joyce Beattie <jycbyt@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 4:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Salary raises for City Manager and staff raises Aside from questions of their service to the City of Palo Alto Residents, I do not believe they are deserving of further increases to their salaries nor benefits. They are over paid already. Please vote against any further increases. We deserve better. Thank you, Joyce Beattie City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 22 Carnahan, David From:Susan Phillips Moskowitz <susan@mrsmoskowitz.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 4:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:No raise   Vote no on raise for city manager.    Susan Phillips‐Moskowitz       City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 23 Carnahan, David From:Paul Rubinstein <pcrubinstein@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 5:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Manager Dear Council Members,    It has come to my attention that the city manager's compensation package is about to be re‐considered and  there is the possibility of raising his salary, see below.    Palo Alto pays City Manager James Keene $466,000/year in salary and benefits (not including the unfunded  portion of his pension). That is more than the State of California pays Governor Brown.     I can't believe the reckless extravagance of the City Council in spending taxpayer's money on this position. I  don't know what metric the Council is using to determine his compensation but unless he is doing pro bono  neurosurgery on residents I think his package is excessive by any standard.    Sincerely,    Paul Rubinstein, MD  458 Tennyson Avenue  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 24 Carnahan, David From:dedra <dedra@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 6:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Keene doesn't need a raise Dear Council Members,    I understand that our city is running a deficit, and at the same time we're paying our City Manager more than the  Governor of California.   Something is wrong with the way this city is run and the massive salaries are just a symptom. But maybe you can start  with some moderation on the salaries to spearhead an effort to serve the citizens rather than the business and real  estate community, Stanford and your colleagues.    I would appreciate a response from each of you.    Sincerely,    Dedra Hauser    410 Stanford resident        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 25 Carnahan, David From:Lynn Kearney <lynnjkearney@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Mr. Keene’s salary I am a resident and small business owner in Palo Alto.   Please vote against raising Mr. Keene's compensation or the compensation of other, similarly over‐paid City Staff.  Thank you,  Lynn Kearney   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 26 Carnahan, David From:Sarah French <frenchelmore@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 7:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Raise No please on any raises.   Ridiculous.        Sarah french    Sent from my iPhone    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 27 Carnahan, David From:Victoria Reid <victoria@reid.org> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 8:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Raise for City Manager If it is true that City Manager Keene makes 466K a year I am against him getting a raise.     Sincerely,    Victoria Reid  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 28 Carnahan, David From:Thomas Clark <thomassampson.clark@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 10:25 PM To:Council, City WOW!!!! KEENE AND STAFF ARE GROSSLY OVER PAID ALREADY . NO RAISES USING MY TAX MONEY, THANK YOU. TOM CLARK City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 29 Carnahan, David From:James ODonohue <odonohue@pacbell.net> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 11:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:NO raise for the city manager! Dear City Council Leaders, Please do not give a raise to the city manager. With the city budget in crisis, and an unfunded pension crisis looming in our future, this is no time to be extravagant and make things worse. Jim O'Donohue 1321 Waverley St Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 30 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Sunday, November 05, 2017 11:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Vote against raising the compensation of senior City Staff Dear Members of City Council, I am writing to you to urge you to vote against raising the compensation of the City Manager and other senior City Staff. The City Manager’s salary and benefits now total $466,000/year, and that is not counting the unfunded portion of his pension. That $466,000/year is already almost 20 percent higher than the compensation the City Manager of Mountain View receives, a full 25 percent higher than the City Manager of Berkeley receives, and 40 percent higher than the City Manager of Menlo Park receives. Moreover, Mountain View and Berkeley are both significantly larger cities than Palo Alto. Indeed, we pay our City Manager 34 percent more than the City of Sacramento pays its City Manager. I trust you agree with me that, as highly as we like to think of ourselves here in Palo Alto, being the City Manager of the 500,000 plus in population capital city of California is a more important job than the City Manager has here. The same pattern of too-high compensation is true for other senior staff. For example, our City Attorney’s compensation is forty-seven percent—that’s right, forty-seven percent!—higher than the compensation of Berkeley’s City Attorney. Bottom line: The people of Palo Alto are overpaying the City Manager and other senior staff now, and we should not be giving them a raise. The fact that Palo Alto is operating in the red only makes it all the more important that we stop overpaying City employees. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming   Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 31 Carnahan, David From:Willy Lai <willyhlai@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, November 05, 2017 2:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Opposing raises for City Manager James Keene and other senior staff To whom it may concern, I'm writing this email to express my disapproval for salary raises for City Manager James Keene and other senior staff. Palo Alto currently pays Mr. Keene $466,000/year in salary and benefits (and that does not include the unfunded portion of his pension). This is more than the State of California pays Governor Brown. Moreover, on the cell towers in residential neighborhoods issue, he and City Attorney Molly Stump (who’s paid close to $425,000/year in salary and benefits, again not including the unfunded portion of her pension) have been nothing but apologists for Verizon. Mr. Keene, for example, has systematically misrepresented to City Council how effective other California cities have become in keeping ugly, noisy, radiation-emitting cell towers away from people’s homes. As a Palo Alto resident, they have not addressed my concerns regarding cell towers and I think they are already paid quite exorbitantly as it is. I do not approve their raises. Please do not give them raises. Thank you, Willy Lai City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 32 Carnahan, David From:Anila Yahoo <amittal01@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:No more raises   No more raises for the city manager or other city employees.      Sent from my iPad    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 33 Carnahan, David From:family@vansine.com on behalf of Debra <debra@vansine.com> Sent:Sunday, November 05, 2017 7:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vote against the raise for the city manager Please vote against the raise for the city manager. Please also vote against any pension increase, in fact as a city manager he should be managing these costs and is not because he is benefiting from the crazy pension benefit. Please restore fiscal prudence to out small city. Debra Sine Old Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 34 Carnahan, David From:HEIDI SCHWENK <heidi29@me.com> Sent:Sunday, November 05, 2017 8:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:Heidi Schwenk Subject:VOTE "NO" about giving over-paid Senior City of Palo Alto Staff a Raise or any other Increase in Benefits! Dear ‘Elected' City of Palo Alto Council ‘Representatives',   Please VOTE “NO” in regard to ‘giving’ a raise, increased other pay (whatever that is) or additional  benefits paid for by our City Tax Money to ALL of the over‐paid Senior City Staff; especially James  Keene. We are a small city of only 65,000 people, and we are operating in the red. What is going  on? What public are you serving? How can anyone on the City Council even entertain the thought  of increasing salaries, increasing ‘other pay’, or increasing any Benefits (especially into a  retirement plan).    It has come to my attention, that the City of Palo Alto provides more pay and  benefits for the City of Palo Alto's Manager James Keene, than OUR State of California provides  pay and benefits for the Governor of California E.G. Brown! Do you know how ludicrous and  undeserving it is for a City Manager or City Employee to earn more than a State Governor? Please  see this website for details about salaries in Palo Alto. It can also be used to review salaries of all  California State Employees.   https://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/2016/palo‐alto/ Name Job Title Regular pay 2016 Overtime Other pay Total pay Total Benefits Total pay & benefits James Keene City Manager Palo Alto, 2016 $296,597.60 $0.00 $21,311.52 $317,909.12 PLEASE COMPARE the above information with Governor Brown’s: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 35 Edmund G Brown Jr GOVERNOR State of California, 2016 $179,166.86 $0.00 $0.00 $179,166.86 Edmund G Brown Jr GOVERNOR State of California, 2015 $173,892.22 $0.00 $0.00 $173,892.22 The City of Palo Alto Council should be discussing the Budget for mandatory Programs and the  possibility of rewriting the retirement plan and organize it like a 401(k) Safe‐Harbour where the  employee can contribute up to 5% of their salary and the employer matches 1 to 1 up to 3% and  then 1/2 to 1 up to 5%. In addition, all health, dental and vision benefits need to be discussed.  There should be no life time provision of any healthcare benefits after retirement. The day of the  pension is not viable or sustainable. Each person needs to take full responsibility for their life,  performance, growth, planning and organizing for the now and the future.    Please think about how your children can possibly grow up to pay billions of dollars in pensions or  healthcare benefits and afford to live in the city they grew up in! Please think about how your  children’s children could be in the same sandbox as their parents if our generation does not take  action now. Seize the DAY!   Best regards, Heidi Schwenk Palo Alto, CA 94303 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 36 Carnahan, David From:Lorraine Menuz <lmenuz@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 5:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:Raises   I am urging you to do the right thing for Palo Alto residents. Do not vote a raise for ANY  council member or city  manager. The last 10 years have been a disaster: library overruns and building errors, utilities and  road improvement   repaving the same street twice, cutting down healthy trees along California Street, shopping center at Edgewood fiasco   not to mention  Maybell   Where the city gave 5 million for that building project that the people didn’t want and voted  down.   Must be nice to have a job where you can travel abroad on the residents buck, make more than the governor and have  such lousy track record.    Sent from my iPhone    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 37 Carnahan, David From:Dan Harden <dan@whipsaw.com> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 7:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Keenes salary... ...is ridiculously high. I was shocked to learn this and quitre frankly, disgusted especially considering what we need done in Palo Alto and our steep property tax. Please put an end to this nonsense. Dan Harden Tax paying Citizen of PA since 1989 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 38 Carnahan, David From:jorgen wedseltoft <jorgenw@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 8:06 AM To:Council, City Subject:STAFF TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I urge Council to vote against raising Mr. Keene's compensation or the compensation of other, similarly over-paid City Staff. Jorgen Wedseltoft Palo Alto jorgenw@icloud.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 2:03 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Haley Champion Carter <haley.c.carter@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 1:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:Doug Carter Subject:DO NOT RAISE JAMES KEANE'S COMPENSATION I was very saddened to hear that James Keane is paid $466K a year - more than Gov Brown is paid AND more than CEOs of for-profit companies in the valley are paid. More than what BOTH my husband and I are paid, and we work in senior management roles at top consulting and tech companies in the area. I am also discovering that the City of Palo Alto - a non-profit operation - is operating in the RED. This means that Mr. Keane is NOT, in fact, bringing his talents to help drive the necessary revenue-generating ideas and cost-controlling measures to the city operations. If anything, his salary should be CUT in half - along with the salaries of any other top city officials who are being paid ridiculous amounts. WAKE UP AND DO YOUR JOB, CITY COUNCIL. Look out for the best interests of the citizens of this town. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 2:03 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Leonard Schwarz <lschwarz@right-thing.net> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 12:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:No pay raises for City staff Ladies and Gentlemen:    Palo Alto is in the red.  It already provides handsome compensation packages for senior city staff such as the City  Manager and the City Attorney.  Giving them a raise when the City is in the hole would be irresponsible.    I voted for most of you guys because I believed you could be counted on to do the right thing.  I hope you’ll prove me  right.    Leonard Schwarz   Webster St.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 2:03 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Peggy Phelan <pphelan@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 8:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:absolutely opposed!!!! Do not even dare to suggest paying Mr James Keene or Ms Molly Stump a penny more than they are paid  already. If they are given raises, I will work hard to organize a plan to fire them both.    Professor Phelan  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 5:05 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Charles Casella <casellapa@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 2:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:salary raises pending Please decide against. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:16 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, November 05, 2017 5:14 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:November 6, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #11: Sidewalk Assessment Contract Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    November 5, 2017    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      NOVEMBER 6, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #11  SIDEWALK ASSESSMENT CONTRACT      Dear City Council:    Staff's 10/23/2017 at places memorandum says, "there is no inventory of temporary repairs awaiting a full replacement" in response to my October 23, 2017, letter that requested the City to keep its commitment to use the criteria in effect before 1991 and to replace sidewalks in the neighborhoods where sidewalks were replaced using the newer criteria that meant that 44% of the sidewalks that would have been replaced in those neighborhoods under the old criteria would not be replaced under the new criteria.    Staff's statement about there being "no inventory of temporary repairs awaiting a full replacement" is not responsive to my request, because when staff goes back to the relevant neighborhoods to replace the sidewalks that were not replaced due to the change in criteria, the staff or its contractor can simply do a survey of the sidewalks in the neighborhood to determine what needs to be replaced, just as they do whenever a neighborhood is the subject of a sidewalk replacement program.    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:26 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 02, 2017 10:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:November 6, 2017, Agenda Item No. 12: Colleagues' Memo Attachments:CC ltr colleagues memo.docx Dear City Councilmembers, Attached please find a letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto regarding the November 6, 2017, Agenda Item No. 12: Colleagues' Memo Regarding Zoning Updates To Encourage Diverse Housing Near Jobs, Transit, And Services. Thank You Bonnie Packer President -- League of Women Voters of Palo Alto 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 November 2, 2017 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, Re: November 6, 2017, Agenda Item No. 12: Colleagues' Memo Regarding Zoning Updates To Encourage Diverse Housing Near Jobs, Transit, And Services The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) supports efforts by the City to increase the supply of housing for all, particularly for those with lower incomes. LWVPA also supports walkable, mixed-use developments and efforts to increase the number and density of multiple-family units especially near transit centers and along transportation corridors. For those reasons we encourage you to adopt the recommendations in the Colleagues' Memo. We support directing the staff to return to you with a work plan outlining the process and resources to study and implement proposals on zoning updates that will encourage diverse housing near jobs, transit, and services. Each of the proposals in this Colleagues’ Memo deserves meaningful and immediate attention. Accordingly, we request that you also direct staff to return with timelines that reflect the urgent need to address the current housing crisis. Thank you. Very truly yours, Bonnie Packer President League of Women Voters of Palo Alto THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PALO ALTO 3921 E. BAYSHORE RD., SUITE 209 • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 • 650-903-0600 • www.lwvpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Thursday, November 02, 2017 3:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James Subject:Colleagues' memo on housing Dear Mayor Scharff and council members, Palo Alto Forward thanks council members Fine, Kniss and Wolbach for carrying forward the housing priority established by council at your January retreat. The memo asks staff to explore policy actions that will increase the supply and affordability of housing in our city. The council has taken already moved ahead in making it easier to build ADUs and the colleagues' proposals for study represent the next steps in implementing your housing priority. The broad policy buckets identified below in the colleagues' memo are in line with the steps identified by the Committee to House the Bay Area (CASA), which is now meeting to examine our housing crises from a regional perspective and supported by both advocates for low-income residents and supply advocates 1. Update and improve the zoning code and other regulations to facilitate a greater variety and quantity of both below market rate (BMR) and moderately-sized market-rate housing; and 2. Increase housing density near jobs, transit, and services; and 3. Streamline the approval process for new housing projects. Exploring these policies is in line with the petition we gave council on October 30th signed by more than 250 residents from south and north, owners and renters, affluent residents and those struggling, young and old and in between. Zoning, cost and approval delay barriers affect nearly all projects. To cite one example, the Palo Alto Housing proposal for low-income adults including special needs adults cannot be successful without changes in the amount of housing allowed on the site, parking requirements that do not cause the loss of their needed tax credits and drawn out project delays that affect the viability of the project. These same barriers and challenges raise the cost of all housing projects. Ways to overcome these barriers are vital to meeting the council's and Housing Element goals. The memo asks staff to get the process of moving forward started. It is time to move ahead on housing. Stephen Levy Treasurer Palo Alto Forward City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 10:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Zoning Update Proposal Dear City Council Members, I wanted to convey some thoughts regarding the Nov 6th proposal from Council Members Fine, Kniss and Wolbach, including changing zoning and streamlining approval processes associated with new housing. I understand there is an imbalance between housing and jobs in our region, and I appreciate the various pressures to add more housing and residents to our city. And I agree with many of the assertions, including the need for less office space and more affordable housing. That said, I don't think the answer is to change existing zoning ordinances or hasten approval processes associated with new buildings. I think most Palo Altans would agree there are some buildings in our community that should not have been approved as built, and I don't think we aspire to have our city look like what Mountain View is doing on San Antonio Rd between El Camino and Alma. I think city's like Saratoga and Los Altos, which have more stringent zoning than Palo Alto does even today, are not to be ignored. I think benchmarking is an underutilized tool...what city do we want to look like, and what are they doing? I would urge caution before taking swift action in this area, and, specifically, I think it is critically important that any potential changes be made with significant community involvement. My bet is most residents want to preserve the aesthetics, community design and streetscape that exists today and do NOT want bigger, taller buidlings constructed with quicker approval processes. New housing can be done with existing zoning and approvals, perhaps with some change to incent more BMR units/smaller sq footage units and disincent big penthouses and office space. But keep existing ordinances, including FAR and height limits. Before any action is taken, I think a vote of the community might even make sense, given the impact any changes will have will be felt for decades. Thank you for your careful thought on this important topic. Chris Robell Palo Alto Resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:21 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Elaine Srn <elainesrn3@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 9:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Housing/zoning changes re: upcoming meeting Dear neighbors, (1) I live in University South and have been alarmed at how dense the area has become, both with  housing and businesses. Additionally, the heights of buildings continue to rise.  Please, please stick with  – or “return to”  would be more appropriate ‐  to Palo Alto’s slow growth policy (which has been  increasingly violated). There is too much traffic, it needs to decrease not increase.  I miss the small  university town Palo Alto where we bought in 2001. No, No, No, do not make housing or zoning  changes which make quality of life worse for those of us who ARE LIVING HERE and love our town.               I will be working so am unable to attend the meeting, but you and this topic  will be in my  thoughts.  Please do the right thing rather than what would be more financially lucrative. Let’s re‐set our  priorities  back to when our quality of life mattered.  No more housing units and no more commercial  buildings, this is out of control and we’re fed up! If you want more housing units, turn currently existing  business/commercial buildings into housing.  NO MORE NEW BUILDING! Do NOT increase the HEIGHT or  DENSITY of existing structures!   (2) While we’re on the subject, please push for solar panels on existing buildings and any buildings  that will be doing renovations.   (3) People are now riding their bicycles on the sidewalks because they understandably fear getting  hit  given the increased traffic.  When are we going to modernize our communities with bicycle lanes  with physical barriers to protect bicyclists from auto injury?    It is embarrassing how we are so far behind other cities in Europe and elsewhere in the US regarding  alternative energy sources:  we live in California, what’s our excuse for not going completely solar? We must Do MORE to encourage people to get out of their cars and walk or bicycle – where are our  pedestrian walkways/plazas?  Why are we so far behind other cities?  Palo Alto used to be a model  for living a  green, healthy  and intelligent lifestyle, but not any more.  Please work with our community to make Palo Alto  once again a special place to live…let’s be part of the cutting edge of livable communities in the 21st +  century.     Thank  you for taking care of our downtown community;  please send an email re what happens with this  issue.      Sincerely, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:21 AM 3     Doris Elaine Sarni, M.D. 635 Forest Avenue, P.A. 94301   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:21 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Eric Rosenblum <mitericr@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:In support of the Kniss-Fine-Wolbach Colleagues' Memo To City Council My remarks below are submitted as a resident of Palo Alto; not as a Planning Commissioner. I would like to congratulate Councilmembers Kniss, Fine, and Wolbach for authoring a Colleagues' Memo that grapples with the zoning codes that have contributed to our current housing crisis. It is not a secret among urban planning specialists that many well-intentioned zoning codes have had perverse consequences: parking minimums have had the effect of subsidizing automobile ownership and usage, and have made alternatives less attractive (while driving up the cost of construction). Density maximums have forced the construction of larger units, and have made experiments with true micro units unworkable. We experience the results of our zoning: we have zoned for relatively large apartments/ housing units, with ample parking. What we have gotten are large apartments/ housing units (for the few housing projects that have been approved) with lots of cars. What we want (as a city) is a variety of housing with less reliance on cars. But that's not what we zone for. This zoning rigidity has created the situation where we only build a small fraction of the housing that we should. In the last Housing Element cycle, we only built 38% of our Regional Housing Needs Allocation. This is unacceptable. In picking our target for our next Housing Element, we did little to ensure that we would succeed. This Colleagues' Memo is among the first serious attempts to put conditions in place to meet the target. A robust Below Market Rate program is important. Creating market based conditions to encourage housing formation is equally important. I am excited to see these issues formally debated by Council. This is obviously just the start-- I expect to see a lot of community input and balancing of these proposals. Thank you, Eric Rosenblum 154 Bryant Street City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 2:03 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Martinson <rsmsmartinson@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 8:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support towards Colleagues Memo Dear Palo Alto City Council, I would like to encourage you to support the colleagues memo relative to possible zoning updates as presented by Council Member Fine, Vice Mayor Kniss and Council Member Wolbach. Thank you for this consideration, Stephanie Martinson Park Blvd. Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 5:05 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Chang Hetterly <jchetterly@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 3:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Colleagues Memo on Housing November 6, 2017 Honorable Mayor Scharff and City Councilmembers, I appreciate this effort by Vice-Mayor Kniss and Councilmembers Fine and Wolbach to advance greater housing supply in Palo Alto through a variety of means. The proposals are thoughtful and well articulated, and in many instances align well with the draft Comprehensive Plan Update. Nevertheless, several pieces (parking reductions in particular) are likely to generate significant community concern. And a singular focus on new construction creates suspicion about intended beneficiaries that limits community appeal. I hope you will move forward with alacrity on those items that achieve consensus on the dais, but take care to refine and balance your direction to staff on issues of contention and gaps in city strategy. There is little public confidence that building for a “car light” future will reduce car ownership rates in a city like ours, and thus substantial concern that spillover parking into the public domain will be acutely detrimental to the retail and residential community. The City has much invested in new parking strategies likely to come on line soon, some of which have been a source of notable controversy. Moving forward with intentional under-parking of new developments before those strategies have proven to bear fruit may increase dissension over the City’s entire parking program. I urge you to build confidence first – for example, step up transparency, independent review, and enforcement of existing TDM programs; establish and impose penalties with demonstrable teeth; and conglomerate claims of increased Caltrain usage verified against ridership and capacity --before trying to sell inflexible construction of under-parked buildings. The authors’ stated interest is to focus on “the central cause” of symptoms like displacement, lack of diversity and long commutes by building more housing supply. However, it is widely understood that new housing will take several years (likely decades) to ameliorate those symptoms. To many, the Memo’s singular focus on new construction is seen to serve unknown future Palo Altans (and developers) while neglecting the struggles of current residents. Inclusion of strategies to address the “symptoms” in the short term for current residents and articulation of means by which the city will capture the value of significant construction incentives would go a long way toward building public support. The Colleagues’ Memo refers to “smaller” and “moderate-sized” units as well as “apartments that working professionals and families can afford,” but beyond BMR, the recommendations fail to specify how the City will ensure that construction savings translate into greater affordability to residents in a diversity of housing options. While small market rate units may naturally come with a lower total price tag, they won’t serve the needs of families. With our current rental stock predominantly comprised of two bedroom or smaller units (70% according to the 2015 Housing Element), what is meant by affordable and “moderate-sized” matters. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 5:05 PM 2 Furthermore, as you contemplate what new housing stock should look like, please consider how those new residents’ needs will change over time. Keep in mind that single workers later have families and that densities, amenities and neighborhood character appropriate for young workers may differ significantly from the needs of downsizing seniors. It is important to look beyond mere quantity of units created and ensure an appropriate balance to meet changing needs and preserve Palo Alto’s multi-generational, family-oriented character. I understand that this is just the beginning of a process to formulate policy around these proposals, but what you do tonight will set the tone for community debate and future deliberation. Your direction to staff should be sensitive to the diversity of needs and opinions in the community and carefully but clearly convey not only priorities and intentions but also what tools the City will employ to avoid negative unintended consequences. Sincerely, Jennifer Hetterly City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 5:05 PM 3 Carnahan, David From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 4:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:You can't rely on bringing people downtown, you have to put them there. Dear City Council Members, Special thanks to Vice Mayor Kniss and Council Members Fine and Wolbach for advancing tonight's housing zoning memo. This is a very important and much needed first step to providing more housing in the right places (near stores, restaurants, services, transit). Lack of housing is a serious issue and is getting worse: I urge you to read this article about Silicon Valley RV dwellers, to understand people's plights, including longtime residents. In Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs said "You can't rely on bringing people downtown, you have to put them there." Today we bemoan the loss of retail in our city, but in order for retail to survive (especially in the Amazon era) retail needs customers (people) and lots of them. If people don't live next to retail, people have to get there (usually by car) and then we bemoan the lack of parking. But if we put people downtown, we support retail and don't need so much parking On University Avenue today, how many residential buildings can you think of? Probably only one: Hotel President. On California Avenue today, how many residential buildings can you think of? Hotel California was recently converted to affordable housing. Why don't we have more housing over retail in our downtown? Because our zoning code today does't allow it. - We don't allow enough FAR or square footage and especially residential FAR on our commercial mixed use zones. - We limit the # units allowed per parcel - Hotel President has 70 units on a .22 acre site or 312 units/acre. Our maximum density limit today is 50 units per acre - We don't have the right parking standards - It's impossible for small parcels to accommodate a lot of parking below grade, and it's expensive, adding to cost. We need flexible parking standards for mixed use housing downtown and carshare - We don't allow enough height: land costs are expensive and so are construction costs. If we can only build a 50' tall building it may not pencil out to construct and sell - if we are serious about affordable housing (including but not limited to Below Market Rate) we may need to allow taller buildings - for reference, the Hotel President is 7 stories. Tonight's colleague's memo on housing zoning changes directly supports Comp Plan policies for housing in our commercial mixed use zones. The only thing I would urge you to reconsider is a separate commercial zoning designation for El Camino CN/CS parcels. They should not necessarily have the same parking, height or setback standards as the CN/CS parcels on Cal Ave or University Ave. Remember, "You can't rely on bringing people downtown, you have to put them there." Tonight's colleague's memo brings housing to our downtowns. Please move this forward and give our residents better housing options. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 5:05 PM 4 Respectfully, Elaine Uang Kipling Street City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 5:05 PM 5 Carnahan, David From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 4:47 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:November 6, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #12: Proposed Zoning Updates Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    November 6, 2017    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      NOVEMBER 6, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #12  COLLEAGUES MEMO REGARDING ZONING UPDATES      Dear City Council:    No changes are needed to the Zoning Ordinance to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA).    The 2015-2023 Housing Element adopted by the City Council on November 20, 2014, and approved by the California Department of Housing and Community Development indicates that "the City can adequately accommodate the RHNA without any rezoning."    Only two weeks ago, on October 23, 2017, you approved a housing development for 50 residential units at 3001 El Camino Real that did not need any changes to the Zoning Ordinance to entitle new incentives.    Next week when you consider adopting a new Comprehensive Plan you will have the opportunity to enable the insatiable greed of developers to increase the amount of office development and, thereby, increase the demand for housing.    Those same developers can make an adequate return on investment by building housing now, but they will continue to exacerbate the housing crisis by building more offices if you allow them to do that.    The proposal in the Colleagues Memo should be continued until after the new RHNA numbers are established and the Council considers an update to City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 5:05 PM 6 the City's Housing Element that would be required to achieve the City's new Regional Housing Needs Allocation.    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock        City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:01 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Svendsen, Janice Sent:Thursday, November 02, 2017 5:01 PM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Bobel, Phil; Sartor, Mike; Eggleston, Brad; Dauler, Heather; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; De Geus, Robert; Nose, Kiely; Perez, Lalo Subject:11/6 Council Questions for Agenda Item 3: RMC Water and Environment Legislative Analysis, Item 4: Townsend Contract Extension, Item 5: Van Scoyoc Associates & Item 6: Budget Re-appropriation     Dear Mayor and Council Members:    On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries  by Council Member Tanaka regarding the November 6, 2017 council meeting.    Item 3: RMC Water and Environment Legislative Analysis – CM Tanaka  Item 4: Townsend Contract Extension – CM Tanaka  Item 5: Van Scoyoc Associates ‐Federal Legislative Advocacy Services – CM Tanaka  Item 6: Budget Re‐appropriation– CM Tanaka       Item 3: RMC Water and Environment Legislative Analysis    Q 1.  Why has the Long Range Facilities Plan (LRFP) been taking longer than  expected and why is funding for the remainder of it uncertain?    A. 1. The LRFP is taking longer than hoped to implement due to escalating  construction costs, insufficient funds, fewer City Staff than needed and  emergency projects at the Plant which have diverted resources from the LRFP  projects. Funding is uncertain due to escalating construction costs, and the fact  that the State has far fewer loan funds than desirable.    Q 2.     How can we ensure that the contract will not need to be extended again?     A. 2.   The LRFP will be implemented over the next several decades. When the  current contract  dollar amount is expended, a new Contract will in all likelihood,  be established. We are not trying to avoid contract time extensions, in this  unique case.    Q. 3. Why is there no additional funding needed for this amendment? It is not clear  whether additional funding is needed or not.     A. 3.  No new funding is needed for this contract at this time. We have spent  contract dollars at a lower rate than anticipated, mostly due to Staff being  diverted to emergency repairs under other contracts and procurements.  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:01 PM 2     Item 4: Townsend Contract Extension     Q. 1. What has this lobbying group actually done for us?    A. 1. Townsend Public Affairs has assisted the City in the following ways: (not an  exhaustive list)      Successfully advocated for the inclusion of regional infrastructure  projects, supported by Palo Alto, into the recent RM3 bill.   Worked with a broad local government coalition to ensure a veto of a  2016 public employment bill, estimated to cost $350 annually for state  and local agencies, with $70 million passed to local governments. Also  worked to exclude cities from a 2017 bill that would have severely  limited local government contracting.   Met with Governor Brown’s staff to encourage a veto of the small cell  bill and support of the Caltrain funding bill, with favorable results    Informed policymakers of the City’s position on various bills, including  those that affected schools, renewable energy mandates, utility rates,  cap & trade allocations, reporting mandates, housing, infrastructure,  and other issues   Participated in stakeholder meetings on behalf of the City as many of the  above bills were negotiated   Assisted City staff in crafting advocacy letters to policymakers and in  discerning which person or committee should receive the letters   Proactively informed City staff of new legislative developments to  ensure the continued flow of up‐to‐date information and to gain  direction as needed   Formed relationships with staff of key state policymakers for the benefit  of Palo Alto    Assisted staff in preparing for upcoming sessions of the Legislature by  discussing issues ripe for political action       Item 5: Van Scoyoc Associates ‐Federal Legislative Advocacy Services    Q.1. Could any other means be used to try and find other respondents to the RFP?    A.1. For this RFP, we utilized two methods to garner responses: posting the  Request on PlanetBid, which notified over 150 potential vendors, and sending  the Request directly to six lobbying firms with local government experience.  These two methods are standard practice for the City, and the only ones used to  solicit responses.     Q.2. Why was the period of specifically 48 months proposed for the contract?    A.2. 48 months was selected to (1) lock in the new, lower price and (2) ensure  continuity of services. It should be noted that the Agreement contains the  standard 10‐day termination clause, allowing the City to end the Agreement  with or without cause upon written notice to the Contractor. (Section 19)  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:01 PM 3   Q.3. What has VSA accomplished previously for the city?     A.3. In the past 12 months, VSA has:  o Secured a Congressional letter of support for a federal recycled  water grant application    o Provided in‐depth information on how best the City can engage  with federal policymakers on issues such as airplane noise and grant  funding for Caltrain   o Facilitated efforts between the Army Corps of Engineers and the  San Francisquito Creek JPA and monitored the progress of federal  requests made of behalf of the Creek   o Facilitated and coordinated a City Council trip to D.C., including  scheduling meetings with key policymakers, attending the meetings  to offer substantive assistance, providing information for briefing  sheets and handouts, and providing follow‐up services  o Analyzed energy bills that might have the potential to ease current  hydropower licensing restrictions  o Notified staff on the progress of government action on items such  as tax reform, including municipal bonds and grant opportunities   o Met with City department heads to gain a deeper understanding of  local issues        Other accomplishments in prior years include:  o Securing $331,000 in an appropriations bill to complete the  San Francisquito Creek JPA feasibility study, the full amount  of the budget request  o Advocating for the creation of the Select Committee to help  ensure the development and consideration of a broad range  of South Bay concerns, including airport noise with the  implementation of NextGen  o Leading the effort in the 2012 National Flood Insurance  Program reauthorization bill to remove the residual risk  provision for the bill. (This provision would have required  residents that have been removed from the floodplain by a  structure such as a levee, to continue to pay flood insurance,  as well as impose building restrictions in that area)  o Helping ensure continued funding of the Community  Development Block Grant and the HOME Investment  Partnerships programs for affordable housing  o Working with the United States Postal Service on the City’s  interest in acquiring the Hamilton Street post office.          Q.4. Why was the decision to send out an RFP made? Is there anything with the  VSA that the city was dissatisfied? If so, why is a contract being extended with the  same firm?    A.4. Staff is not dissatisfied with VSA’s performance. Rather, as the last RFP was  issued in 2009, the decision to seek Proposals in 2017 was based on the desire  to ensure the City continued to receive the best representation for the best  price. Staff looks forward to continuing to work with VSA, at a monthly amount  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:01 PM 4 significantly lower than under the current contract. ($8,000 currently; the new  contract price is $6,500 monthly).       Item 6:  2017 Budget Re‐appropriation Requests    Q. 1. Is this referring to the "contingency" budget established last year or  something new I haven't seen yet?    A.1.  As part of the FY 2017 Adopted Budget, the City Council approved a one‐ time $250,000 Office of Sustainability Contingency.  Funding was approved to be  used for S/CAP research and analysis, management of existing and pending pilot  projects and grants, and community engagement.  The Office of Sustainability  continues to work on approval of the Sustainability Implementation Plan (SIP)  and has been absorbing management costs in the office’s annual budget. Upon  completion of the SIP, it is anticipated that the Office of Sustainability will bring  forward recommendations to the City Council for use of this reserve.  Additional  details on the activities necessary to execute the Sustainability and Climate  Action Plan can be found on page 8 of the CMR  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52505.        Thank you,  Janice Svendsen         Janice Svendsen | Executive Assistant to James Keene, City Manager   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2105 | E: janice.svendsen@cityofpaloalto.org             City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/8/2017 12:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Prasad Chakka <prasad.chakka@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 07, 2017 11:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:additional Community Indicators Hi, I am a resident of Southgate neighborhood. As a parent of two small kids and with more parents of small kids moving to Palo Alto, community and public areas such as parks and rinconada swimming pool etc are very important to quality of life. In fact it is one of the reasons why we moved to Palo Alto. With that in mind, I would like to add another indicator to monitor quality of life in Palo Alto. A metric indicating use of public spaces, including various play grounds, parks (such as foothill park), pools etc. Thank you, Prasad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/7/2017 9:07 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 07, 2017 4:48 AM To:Holman, Karen Cc:Burt, Patrick; Council, City; lennysiegel@sonic.net Subject:"affordable" Dear Karen: "Affordable" differs according to the individual.It is the amount a tenant can pay and still have enough left over to keep the lod We are best served by grouping people with similar affordabilities. First, veterans, because they are the responsibility of the federal government, which has lots of land in surplus military bases. It would also be useful to prevent that land from being used for offices. Second, elderly and SSI recipients who do not use cars because they don't choose to or don't need to or aren't allowed to. Almost all of them get at least $880 a month. What could be provided for that amount? A bedroom, bath, big balcony, in a building like Ronald McDonald House with a large dining room, good sized kitchen, workshop, media room, hot tub. Ideally it would have La Comida or other subsidized nutrition program because then, in a pinch, the older person could eat for free. How many 200 square foot units could conveniently be built in one building? Several hundred. 101 has 100 2 bedroom apartments on 14 floors, which would house easily four hundred people. How many such units could would have to be in the building in order for rents to make a modest profit, say, 3%?. 3% over the cost of construction plus cost of land. The council has the power to allow that many units to be built, but would first have to express the size of the habitable building in square feet rather than number of individual units. The balconies would not be counted as square footage. If no developer was interested in building this project, the city could sponsor landlord co-ops, the same income level of investor who now buys Treasury bonds. You want to make the subsidy money go as far as possible. Other groups are employees of companies located in Palo Alto, starting with teachers who could be housed in high rise apartments on school owned land, and employees of Stanford, which has hundreds of acres of land, and employees of Facebook and Google, which likewise have fairly large tracts of land. For them, the financial constraints are much less, but the same principle of density applies. tenants would be young unmarried people; two such units could be combined for couples, and the second unit might have a laundry and a little more of a kitchen than just a microwave, rather than a second bathroom. There would be ample basement storage, paid for at the same amount per square foot as the living space. There could be large garages for those with cars, they wouldn't have to be adjacent to the living quarters because it would not be necessary to drive to work. The subsidies would be saved for families, who generally do not have a much to spend per person on rent. An effort should be mad to have dense family groupings next to parks, to buffer them from richer, low density residents. The poorest persons would have four or even six to a bedroom, using bunk beds. Men who were troublesome would be in special shelters adjacent to police stations, so they could be housed without danger to themselves or others. The ground floors of these buildings, sometimes called "co-housing" could be community facilities or commercial. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/7/2017 9:07 AM 2 I've prepared a room with balcony at my home at 101 Alma as a sample of how pleasant even a tiny space would be, and I hope to invite the Councils of Palo Alto and our neighboring cities to see it soon. Stephanie Munoz Respectfully yours, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/7/2017 9:07 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 5:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 12: I urge you to the Colleagues’ Memo to the City Staff Via Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Honorable Gregory Scharff, Mayor Honorable Liz Kniss, Vice Mayor Honorable City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 Re: November 6, 2017, Agenda Item 12, Colleagues’ Memo Regarding Zoning Updates to Encourage Diverse Housing near Jobs, Transit, and Services Dear Mayor Scharff, Vice Mayor Kniss, and City Council Members, Due to prior business commitments, I will not be able to attend tonight’s City Council meeting, but I urge you to take further action in support of Agenda Item 12, “Colleagues’ Memo Regarding Zoning Updates to Encourage Diverse Housing near Jobs, Transit, and Services” (“Colleagues’ Memo”). While the City Council still must take further action to revise the Comprehensive Plan, it is not too early --- far from it --- to begin examining the changes that will be necessary to: 1. Update and improve the zoning code and other regulations to facilitate a greater variety and quantity of both below market rate (BMR) and moderately-sized market-rate housing; and 2. Increase housing density near jobs, transit, and services; and 3. Streamline the approval process for new housing projects. (Id. at p. 1.) The Colleague’s Memo is a great way to begin this process. By beginning it now, one might hope that we, as a community, can chart a wise course forward, quickly and thoughtfully. Therefore, I urge you to begin this process now --- without further delay --- and to refer the Colleagues’ Memo to the City Staff, as detailed in the Colleagues’ Memo itself. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/7/2017 9:07 AM 2 Respectfully submitted, John Kelley See http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61770 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:25 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Alice Smith <alice.smith@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 02, 2017 8:18 AM To:Alice Smith Subject:BailTrap: why Bail is unfair. Reminder : tonight Attachments:BAILTrap Flyer.pdf PLEASE DISTRIBUTE THE INVITATION BROADLY (please see PDF) The Bail Trap: American Ransom made by Brave New Films Where: Rinconada Library 1213 Newell Rd, Palo Alto, 94303 When: Thursday, November 2nd at 6:30pm. (Film approx. 35 mins) There will be light refreshments at 6:30pm. Screening starts at 6:45. The library has a parking lot. There is ample street parking. Screening is FREE. Please attend and bring family and friends. We feel this film and the Q and A following will inform and shine a brighter light on this very important topic. Let's talk about what we can do to replace the broken money bail system right here in California. Issue Summary: Are you aware that minorities such as Blacks, Latinos and Native Americans are twice as likely to be stuck in jail because they can't afford bail? The U.S. money bail system is largely to blame for over-crowded jails across the nation. 70 percent of people are incarcerated for one simple reason: being too poor to afford bail. Unscrupulous bail bonds contracts allow private corporations to make exorbitant profits off of people living in poverty. While people with access to wealth can buy their freedom, poor people have weeks, months, and even years of their lives taken from them. This isn't justice. Race and socio-economic status should not determine whether someone is free or in jail while they await their trial. Locally, bail reform is moving ahead in Silicon Valley. Sources: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=204620 https://www.aclu.org/report/selling- our-freedom-how-insurance-corporations-have-taken-over-our-bail-system Jerry Schwarz Contact: midpen.aclu@gmail.com Lauren Cory Volunteer Members of the Mid-Peninsula Chapter of ACLU of Northern California City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:25 PM 2 6.30 at Rinconada Library, 1213 Newell Road, Palo Alto The Bail Trap: American Ransom made by Brave New Films Where: Rinconada Library 1213 Newell Rd, Palo Alto, 94303 When: Thursday, November 2nd at 6:30pm. (Film approx. 35 mins) There will be light refreshments at 6:30pm. Screening starts at 6:45. The library has a parking lot. There is ample street parking. Screening is FREE. Please attend and bring family and friends. We feel this film and the Q and A following will inform and shine a brighter light on this very important topic. Let's talk about what we can do to replace the broken money bail system right here in California. Issue Summary: The U.S. money bail system is largely to blame for over-crowded jails across the nation. 70% of pre-trial detainees are incarcerated for one simple reason: being too poor to afford bail. The most impacted communities are minorities, such as: African-Americans, Latinos and Native Americans who are twice as likely to be stuck in jail because they can’t afford bail. Unscrupulous bail bonds contracts allow private corporations to make exorbitant profits off of people living in poverty. While people with access to wealth can buy their freedom, poor people have weeks, months, and even years of their lives taken from them. This isn't justice. Race and socio-economic status should not determine whether someone is free or in jail while they await their trial. Locally, bail reform is moving ahead in Silicon Valley. Sources: https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/Abstract.aspx?id=204620 https://www.aclu.org/report/selling-our-freedom-how-insurance-corporations-have-taken-over-our-bail- system Jerry Schwarz Contact: midpen.aclu@gmail.com Lauren Cory Volunteer Members of the Mid-Peninsula Chapter of ACLU of Northern California City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/7/2017 9:06 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:California High-Speed Rail <Northern.California@hsr.ca.gov> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 3:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:California High-Speed Rail: Northern California Regional E-Update – November 2017 To view this email as a web page, go here. Northern California Regional Update The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) continues its commitment to conduct public outreach. Here are a few updates this month. STATEWIDE UPDATE California High-Speed Rail Meets Federal Funding Requirements City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/7/2017 9:06 AM 2 The California High-Speed Rail Authority announced in October that it has met its federal American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 requirements by investing more than $2.55 billion granted to the State since 2009 to build the nation’s first high-speed rail system. These funds have helped to create thousands of new jobs and generated approximately $4 billion in economic activity in the Central Valley and across California. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act was enacted in 2009 to address the Great Recession by creating jobs, spurring technological development and building new infrastructure. The Authority invested the federal funds in core program tasks, including advanced planning, design and environmental outreach with communities along the full Phase 1 system from San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim. The funds helped advance construction on over 119 miles in the Central Valley from Madera to north of Bakersfield with 14 active construction sites. For more information, read the full Investing in California’s Future through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act report. Click to Read Full Report Bay Area Small Businesses Doing Work on High-Speed Rail In the most recent issue of our quarterly small business newsletter, we look at a handful of the over 400 certified small business working or committed to work on the nation’s first high-speed rail system. This issues cover story profiles a certified Microbusiness based out of Benicia called JMA Civil. They currently have contracts for two of the construction packages in the Central Valley to design temporary routes known as shoo-flies that re- route freight lines while high-speed rail is being built. It’s an important and essential job being done to ensure that we can build the project and keep freight lines moving. Read more about JMA Civil and the other businesses in the latest Small Business Newsletter. Click to Read Full Report November Construction Update City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/7/2017 9:06 AM 3 In this month’s construction update see two new projects that are now underway in the Central Valley. The update also features construction videos from the San Joaquin River Viaduct, Avenue 12, the State Route 99 Realignment and the Tulare Street Undercrossing. Plus, meet a veteran who learned how to operate cranes in the Army and has been doing it around the world for 50 years, hear what he says about working on the nation’s first high-speed rail line. Click for Construction Update What's New in the San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Caltrain 25th Avenue Grade Separation Project In recognition of September as Rail Safety Month, the Authority released a video that highlights San Mateo’s 25th Avenue Grade Separation project which celebrated its official groundbreaking on September 25. This crucial safety improvement will save lives, reduce accidents, and limit idle time for drivers using the crossings. Watch the video to learn more about the project and its benefits to the community. Alignment Tour The Authority recently hosted a series of outreach meetings along the San Francisco to San Jose project section corridor. On October 18, city staffers from communities along the Peninsula attended an alignment tour, where Authority representatives discussed project elements of the high-speed rail program. City staff provided our team feedback on how the future of high-speed rail will impact their communities. This collaboration with stakeholders continues to be an important component of the Authority’s comprehensive community outreach efforts. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/7/2017 9:06 AM 4 City Council Briefings Do you live in Redwood City or City of San Carlos? On October 23, 2017, the Redwood City City Council invited the Authority to provide a project update and the next day, the Authority and Caltrain met with the City of San Carlos to provide a joint update about possible passing track alternatives in the city. Caltrain and the Authority will continue to work together as the design is refined and analyzed. The Authority is committed to working with Caltrain to ensure both operators can provide the best possible service and operational flexibility for future growth along the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor that operates from downtown San Francisco to the Diridon Station in San Jose. What’s New in the San Jose to Merced Project Section Geotechnical Investigation Update In October, the Authority completed all of the geotechnical field work for public right-of-way exploration in the Pacheco Pass. Four deep boring wells were completed, with each being fitted with a groundwater measuring device. The Authority also installed a pair of groundwater monitoring wells. The Authority hopes to complete more deep-rock borings by summer of 2018. In the meantime, groundwater evaluations will continue to be monitored, which will assist in assessing groundwater impacts on future tunneling. The next step phase of the investigation will be in the Santa Clara Valley expected to start later in November. To see more about this work, please view our geotechnical video. San Jose Community Working Group Representatives from the Authority met with members of the San Jose Community Working Group (CWG) on Thursday, Oct. 26, at the Martin Luther King Library. During the two-hour session, the Authority and CWG members reviewed a flyover with simulations of the high-speed rail program. The group also discussed future meeting dates and what topics they would like to prioritize for the January 2018 meeting. Information about this meeting and previous meetings can be found under Community Meetings here: http://hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Statewide_Rail_Modernization/Project_Sections/sanjose_merced.html If you are interested in inviting us to your community meeting to receive a project update, our team would be happy to coordinate with you. Feel free to contact us here: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/7/2017 9:06 AM 5 Via Email: san.jose_merced@hsr.ca.gov san.francisco_san.jose@hsr.ca.gov Via Phone: San Francisco to San Jose Project Section: (800) 435-8670 San Jose to Merced Project Section: (800) 455-8166 Mail: Northern California Regional Office California High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 206 San Jose, CA 95113 Sincerely, SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV California High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 206 San Jose, CA 95113 northern.california@hsr.ca.gov (408) 277-1083 This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US Privacy Policy Unsubscribe City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/8/2017 12:59 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:ealexis@gmail.com on behalf of Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <elizabeth@calhsr.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 08, 2017 8:26 AM To:Council, City Cc:Nadia Naik; Mello, Joshuah Subject:CARRD Comments Rail Study Attachments:CARRD Comments Traffic Model.pdf; CPA 2013-12 Hexagon City of Palo Alto Transportation Model Validation Memo.pdf; CPA 2015 Fehrs Evaluation of Preemption software 6B-Barnes.pdf Attached is a digital copy of our comments, as well as two reference documents. Regards Elizabeth -- Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis Co-founder Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (CARRD) cell (650) 996-8018 www.calhsr.com       Technical Memorandum (Revised) Date: December 11, 2013 To: Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official From: Jill Hough Subject: Palo Alto Model Validation - Documentation Introduction The purpose of this memo is to present the 2013 model validation and 2035 forecast result of the Palo Alto Transportation Model (PATM). The PATM was developed as a transportation planning tool to assist City staff in evaluating traffic impacts of land use proposals and transportation improvement projects; as well as a tool for testing and evaluating a Comprehensive Plan Update. Hexagon was charged with developing the PATM using the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) countywide model and focusing on the Palo Alto area. Refinements to the VTA model were made to the network and land uses within Palo Alto, and the model was validated against 2013 traffic counts. The scope of work that was developed for this assignment consisted of the following tasks: (1) 2013 Model Validation. Although the original PATM had been validated to year 2005 traffic counts, the previous validation was not easily aligned to the VTA travel demand model and often resulted in diverging model results that were not easy to explain. (2) Documentation: Technical documentation of the Palo Alto Model was prepared consisting of VTA’s documentation of the Countywide models and this Technical Memorandum that documents the land use assumptions and the model validation. A future memorandum will be prepared, presenting future forecasting results, and the year 2035 intersection level of service results. 2013 and 2035 Land Use Consolidation The 2013 and 2035 estimates of households and numbers of jobs for the zones within the City of Palo Alto were developed by city staff. The land use data were then transferred to a set of variables that are used as input into the PATM. 2013 Residential Data City staff developed the estimates of year 2010 single-family and multi-family units for each traffic zone within the city. The zonal household data were extrapolated to estimate household population, total population, employed residents, and households by four income categories using shares and factors derived from the ABAG data. The total base year 2013 citywide residential data are summarized and compared to the VTA 2010 data in Table 1 below. Although different years are being compared, there were not a significant number of approved projects between 2010 and 2013. City of Palo Alto Model Validation and Forecasting Results December 11, 2013    2  | Page  Table 1 Year 2010 Residential Data Land Use Variable VTA/ABAG City of Palo  Alto Delta Single‐Family Households 17,909 17,950 41 Multi‐Family Households 12,367 13,975 1,608 Total Households 30,276 31,925 1,649 Household Population 69,249 73,392 4,143 Total Population 76,331 82,407 6,076 Households in Income Quartile 1 9,210 9,358 148 Households in Income Quartile 2 4,802 5,226 424 Households in Income Quartile 3 5,596 6,014 418 Households in Income Quartile 4 10,675 11,327 652 Employed Residents 32,486 37,942 5,456 Note: "VTA/ABAG refers to the ABAG Socio‐economic projections for City of  Palo Alto and relates to year 2010. "City of Palo Alto" refers to City of Palo  Alto's local planning database as of 2013. 2013 Employment-Based Data The City of Palo Alto maintains a zone-based land use data set for the traffic analysis zones (taz’s) within the City and sphere of influence that includes employment-based land uses. The LEHD was the primary source for the employment data. The total base year 2010 VTA and Citywide employment data are summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Year 2010 Employment Data Land Use Variable VTA/ABAG City of Palo  Alto Delta Total Employment 90,886 88,865 ‐2,021 Agriculture Employment 276 23 ‐253 Manufacturing Employment 19,327 8,144 ‐11,183 Retail Employment 9,631 9,897 266 Wholesale Employment 4,007 982 ‐3,025 Services Employment 47,733 31,974 ‐15,759 Other Employment 9,912 37,844 27,932 Note: "VTA/ABAG refers to the ABAG Socio‐economic projections for City of  Palo Alto and relates to year 2010. "City of Palo Alto" refers to City of Palo  Alto's local planning database as of 2013. Highway Model Validation Highway assignment validation is the process in which the traffic volumes estimated by the model are compared with observed traffic count data. Traffic counts were collected at various intersections throughout the city, as shown on Figure 1. The 2013 model validation presented in this memo provides two levels of checks: system-level validation of the peak hour volumes by facility type (freeways, expressways, arterials and collectors), and a validation of peak-hour traffic at six screen line locations. LEGEND o .. study InlIIrMCtion o . Pouibl. AdIIIion.1 study 1"Iwi..:tior, ~ ~ ~UA~OH TumoITATI()~ (ONIUlIAHH, I~c Figure 1 Study Intersections City of Palo Alto Model Validation and Forecasting Results December 11, 2013    4  | Page  System Level Validation Targets For the system-level validation, criteria were used from FHWA recommendations that were also used by VTA. Criteria were used for both overall volumes and volumes stratified by facility type. The following highway assignment validation goals were established: • Freeways: less than 7 percent error compared to observed counts. Examples include I-280 and US 101. • Expressway: less than 10 percent error compared to observed counts. Examples include Foothill Expressway and Oregon Expressway. • Arterials: less than 10 percent error compared to observed counts. Examples include El Camino Real, Alma Ave, Churchill Ave, Middlefield Rd, Page Mill Rd, E Bayshore Rd, Embarcadero Rd, Quarry Rd, Arboretum Rd, University Ave, Arastradero Ave. • Collectors: less than 25 percent error compared to observed counts. Examples include California Ave, W Bayshore Rd, Meadow Dr, Loma Verde Ave. • All Facility Types: less than 5 percent error compared to observed counts Screen Line Validation Targets Screen lines are imaginary lines that cut through a set of parallel roadways, intercepting travel across them. The purpose of using a set of screen lines is to provide a systematic comparison of model estimated versus observed travel through different parts of the city, regardless of the individual route choice. A total of three screen lines were used to validate the PATM. Each screen line was evaluated by direction, for a total of 6 metrics. The locations of the screen lines are shown on Figure 2. A typical goal is for model estimated traffic volumes to be within 10 to20 percent of the traffic counts on each screen line. Development of the highway model validation is an iterative process where the model results (by facility type and at the screen lines) are compared to the traffic counts after each model run. Analysis of the results leads to making further adjustments until most or all of the validation target values are achieved. During the model validation process, adjustments are typically made to the roadway’s speed and capacity assumptions, the location of centroid connectors, trip rates, and peak-hour factors. The starting point for the PATM validation was the 2010 VTA model. During the validation process the following adjustments were made:  Several local roadways were added to the transportation network,  the time-of-day factors for the peak AM and peak PM periods were increased in order to capture local traffic patterns in Palo Alto,  The free-flow speed and capacity assumptions were changed to better reflect traffic operating conditions, and  The Akcelic travel time functions were used to calculate the travel times on the links for successive iterations during the highway assignment process. During the model validation, it appeared that the PATM overestimated traffic on some facilities and underestimated traffic on other facilities. The underestimated traffic was more significant in magnitude than the overestimated traffic. A possible explanation for the initial model volumes being lower than the count volumes is that when the model was initially developed and validated against earlier count data throughout the County by VTA, there may have been more peak spreading occurring than is characteristic of Palo Alto -- or peak spreading may be more pervasive in other parts of Santa Clara County than in Palo Alto. This tendency for underestimated trips is dealt with primarily through adjusting the peak-hour factors between LEGEND o .. study InlIIrMCtion o . Pouibl. AdIIIion.1 study 1"Iwi..:tior, ~ ~ ~UA~OH TumoITATI()~ (ONIUlIAHH, I~c Figura 2 Scraenline Locations City of Palo Alto Model Validation and Forecasting Results December 11, 2013    6  | Page  counties and super districts. This process applies increased proportions of trips, by trip purposes, that are occurring within the AM and PM four-hour windows. AM and PM Peak Hour Validation Results System wide highway validation results for the AM and PM peak 4-hour traffic assignments are summarized in Tables 3 and 4, respectively. The peak 4-hour model volumes are compared to the counts, stratified by facility type. Table 3 Comparison of AM Peak 4-Hour Counts and Model Volumes by Facility Type Facility Count  Volume Model  Volume Difference Target Freeways 377,558 365,821 3% +/‐ 7 % Expressways 68,752 90,603 ‐24% +/‐ 10 % Arterials 201,251 202,592 ‐1% +/‐ 15 % Collectors 22,680 24,945 ‐9% +/‐ 25 % Table 4 Comparison of PM Peak 4-Hour Counts and Model Volumes by Facility Type Facility Count  Volume Model  Volume Difference Target Freeways 413,943 409,425 1% +/‐ 7 % Expressways 91,881 117,946 ‐22% +/‐ 10 % Arterials 295,675 287,402 3% +/‐ 15 % Collectors 38,854 38,758 0% +/‐ 25 % The tables show that the validation targets were met for all facilities except expressways, during both the AM and PM Peak 4-hour periods. Even though the expressway validation target was not met, the validation for the other facility types were actually much tighter than the target values, suggesting that the overall validation is reasonably acceptable. Also, the expressway facilities account for a fairly limited portion of the roadway system in Palo Alto. The screen line validation results are presented in Tables 5 and 6 for the AM and PM peak 4 hour periods, respectively. The screen line validation shows that the model matches the 30% target at 5 of the 6 screen lines (3 of 3 in the AM and 2 of 3 in the PM). Table 5 Comparison of Counts and Model Estimated Volumes at Screen Lines ‐ AM Screenline Name Numeric Percent North of Stanford Ave/California Ave 86,708 93,153 ‐6445 ‐6.9% Yes West of Route 101 20,928 28,286 ‐7358 ‐26.0% Yes West of Alma Ave 18,656 14,521 4135 28.5% Yes Total 126,292 135,960 ‐9668 ‐7.1% Yes Target Met Model  Volume Count  Volume Difference City of Palo Alto Model Validation and Forecasting Results December 11, 2013    7  | Page  Table 6 Comparison of Counts and Model Estimated Volumes at Screen Lines ‐ PM Screenline Name Numeric Percent North of Stanford Ave/California Ave 104,187 110,333 ‐6146 ‐5.6% Yes West of Route 101 33,070 24,703 8367 33.9% no West of Alma Ave 21,688 22,514 ‐826 ‐3.7% Yes Total 158,945 157,550 1395 0.9% Yes Target Met Model  Volume Count  Volume Difference These comparisons show that the volumes at 1 of the 3 (33%) screen lines in the AM and 2 out of 3 (67%) screen lines in the PM are within 10% of the screen line counts. Highway validation results for the AM and PM peak 4-hour traffic assignments for several local roadway corridors are presented in Table 7. The peak hour model volumes are compared to the VTA model results. City of Palo Alto Model Validation and Forecasting Results December 11, 2013    8  | Page  Table 7 Model Volume Comparisons on Local Streets (City of Palo Alto and VTA Models) Roadway Segment University Avenue between Bryant St and Waverly St 1716 908 591 1955 828 734 between Waverly St and Middlefield Rd 1647 947 698 1999 913 801 between Middlefield Rd and Chaucer St 1206 1026 776 1774 1044 778 Loma Verde Avenue between Alma St and Middlefield Rd 54 701 123 47 462 172 between Middlefield Rd and Bayshore Rd 55 649 136 95 473 190 Meadow Drive between El Camino Real and Alma St 582 882 1731 743 783 1217 between Alma St and Middlefield Rd 44 977 316 78 850 341 between Middlefield Rd and Fabian Wy 130 585 222 269 420 282 Charleston Road between El Camino Real and Alma St 784 1161 1032 1265 1100 615 between Alma St and Middlefield Rd 1201 960 2303 1632 964 1290 between Middlefield Rd and Fabian Wy 857 1346 1216 761 1231 1319 Stanford Avenue between Junipero Serra Blvd and Peter Courtts Rd 262 773 631 637 684 215 between Peter Coutts Rd and Hanover St 247 670 455 322 754 697 between Hanover St and El Camino Real 314 583 246 539 685 335 Middlefield Road between Everett Ave and Lytton Ave 1497 1437 1640 1913 1636 1666 between Lytton Ave and University Ave 1535 1044 638 1934 1314 912 between University Ave and Hamilton Ave 939 877 749 1667 1212 891 between Colorado Ave and Loma Verde Ave 320 1394 296 813 1575 1077 between Loma Verde Ave and Meadow Dr 385 1451 389 806 1717 1090 between Meadow Dr and Charleston Rd 402 1687 596 884 1941 1208 Bryant Street between Oregon Expwy and N California Ave 1 194 404 13 233 971 between Oregon Expwy and Colorado Ave 1 147 59 88 132 52 Miranda Avenue north of Arastradero Rd 104 628 83 58 691 107 south of Arastradero Rd 13 379 32 13 148 17 Notes: Directional volumes from both models were added together to yield two‐way volumes. CPA 2013 Raw Model Volumes and VTA Volumes were converted from 4 hour model output to 1 hour volume by applying factors of 2.793 (AM) and 3.584 (PM). AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour VTA Model  Volume CPA 2013 Count  Volume CPA 2013 Model  Raw Volume VTA Model  Volume CPA 2013 Count  Volume CPA 2013 Model  Raw Volume Conclusions Even though the expressway validation target was not met, there are several reasons why the validation is considered acceptable: • The validation for the facility types of freeways, arterials, and collectors were actually much tighter and within a significantly lower deviation than the target values, • The target values by facility type are goals as opposed to requirements and are not based on measurements, • There are fewer expressway lane miles than arterial lane miles, collector lane miles, or freeway lane miles regarding the roadway system in Palo Alto, and • For purposes of using the model for actual analysis on projects such as the Comprehensive Plan Update, the model forecasts get adjusted using actual traffic count data. For these reasons, the PATM validation is considered acceptable as a tool to forecast traffic for analyzing transportation projects and development projects. Comments on Draft Rail Corridor Circulation Study White Paper Elizabeth Alexis, CARRD November 8, 2017 The traffic model failed validation. It cannot be used to forecast traffic shifts. The traffic model used failed the validation test. It should not be used to draw any conclusions about shifts in traffic to other roadways based on grade separation alternatives. In particular, the results for the Alma/ Palo Alto and Churchill crossings are particularly misleading. Palo Alto’s traffic model is based on the countywide VTA model that is based on the regional MTC model. They all utilize Cube software (the same software used in the California High Speed Rail Model) to forecast: ●How many trips will be taken in the ENTIRE BAY AREA ●Where will people go in the ENTIRE BAY AREA ●How will they travel (bike, train, car etc) in the ENTIRE BAY AREA ●What route will be taken from A to B These are very complicated models and many assumptions have to be made. For all automobile drivers traveling between two specific zones, the model decides on the one fastest route and assumes everyone uses this specific route to travel from the center of each zone to the center of the other zone. The model has very limited information about many of the real world factors that actually go into our decision-making about what route to take. It doesn’t include all the streets in Palo Alto. It omits key details about the design of the streets that impact their usage. It definitely doesn’t handle train pre-emptions in a direct way. It is useful for estimating the number of trips in a 24 hour period between Stanford campus and and the west side of San Jose - the trips between A and B. It is not useful for predicting the local routes that people will take to get to specific locations within Palo Alto - how to get from A to B. This can clearly be seen in the model validation that was done by Hexagon in December 2013 for the Comprehensive Plan Update, as well as the validation that was done by Mott MacDonald for this study. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/8/2017 1:00 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:tom@tomvlasic.com Sent:Wednesday, November 08, 2017 10:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Comments on Stanford GUP and Draft EIR Attachments:Letter 11817 Stan. DEIR.pdf Good morning, FYI, attached is a letter that I have sent to the County on the subject project. Look forward to seeing the comments that are prepared by the City on the Draft EIR for the project. Regards, Tom Vlasic Southgate resident Thomas C. Vlasic 1540 Mariposa Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 November 8, 2017 MEMORANDUM To :Santa Clara County Planning Office (Transmitted by e-mail) Atten: Kirk Girard, Planning Director David Rader, Senior Planner Kavitha Kumar, Senior Planner From : Tom Vlasic, Member Stanford CRG, Southgate Resident, Palo Alto Subject :Comments on Stanford 2018 GUP Proposal Draft EIR (DEIR) First, I want to apologize for not being able to attend the November 16, 2017 CRG meeting. I tried to keep the rescheduled date open, but was unable to do so and have to travel out of the state. Thus, I’ve prepared the following comments that I wanted County CRG staff to have for the 11/16 meeting, hopefully to share with other committee members. Also, herewith, I’m transmitting my comments to Mr. Rader as formal input on subject DEIR. 1. Holding Capacity/maximum University build out. At the October 19th Palo Alto public meeting on the DEIR, Supervisor Simitian outlined the history of the adopted 2000 GUP provisions requiring preparation of a holding capacity analysis intended to set the maximum build out limits for the Stanford lands governed by the GUP, with particular attention to the foothills. As Mr. Simitian explained, this was not specifically accomplished and he advised that he would push for this requirement to be fulfilled as a condition of any action on the 2018 GUP application. Setting the holding capacity limits and the key parameters for such limits is essential to coming to grips with a number of the key development proposals in the subject GUP application. I believe that Stanford should prepare a holding capacity analysis that can be fully evaluated in the final EIR and this analysis needs to define and set the limits for acceptable holding capacity and maximum campus build out. It should be more than a “planning exercise” as the 2008 “Sustainable Development Study” was labeled by Stanford. Without this base, campus growth is essentially unrestricted. Further, there needs to be a clear definition of holding capacity by campus area so that, in particular, provisions for protection of the foothills open space can be crafted and implemented. Without an acceptable analysis and holding capacity base, the County will need to consider other actions to ensure that specific, now undeveloped sensitive areas, like the foothills are protected. This could include, for example, open space/conservation easements granted to the benefit of the County or another appropriate public agency. To be clear, I wish I had understood the background on this matter as explained by Mr. Simitian at the 10/19 meeting earlier, as I would have raised the issue during the DEIR scoping process. 2. Traffic/Transportation. While I acknowledge that the DEIR analysis is comprehensive and extensive, it is also difficult to wade through and determine the specific actions that will be implemented to ensure the No Net Commute Trips goal is actually being achieved, or any Comments Stanford DEIR Page of 1 7 November 8, 2017 other specific information on areas of concern. The first comment is that the final EIR must include a detailed table of contents for at least the traffic and transportation section to help the reader find what they are searching for. As is is currently structured, it is a fishing process and a particularly frustrating experience if you do this on line. Second, the questions raised in my Southgate neighborhood’s February 16, 2017 letter submitted during the scoping process and included in the public comments received section of the County web site, are still valid and not specifically addressed in the DEIR analysis. The approach relative to mitigations appears to still focus on counting of trips in the cordon area and trip credits. Further, remedies for exceeding significance thresholds continue to rely on after-the-fact dollar contributions to the County for intersection improvements and/or other transit related improvements to be made at the discretion of the County. As others have argued, based on review of the comments received, there should be an approach implemented to halt pursuit of growth under the GUP if significance thresholds are crossed. This should remain in place until the impacts have been remedied to less than significant levels. Further, any mitigation measure dollar expenditures for remedies should include involvement of the specific jurisdiction(s) involved, particularly Palo Alto, and this should be clearly stated, not just implied, in the mitigation measures. 3. Foothills open space protection guarantees. While the current proposals, as well as the adopted Stanford Community plan, call for only open space and field research uses in the foothills areas, they, as well as the Sustainable Development Study, keep the options open for a general plan amendment to permit more intense uses in the foothills like those permitted within the academic growth area, albeit with certain limitations. These provisions need to be revisited based on the holding capacity analysis discussed above and a determination made as to what changes are needed to ensure that the more intense development desired by Stanford is offset by permanent provisions for protection of the open space character of the foothills. At this point, the protection of the foothills, which are critical open space resources for the County and the entire Region, is left open to the future wishes of the University and decision-makers. If the academic core is to grow as the University now desires, there needs to be provisions for ensuring that foothills open space is protected in perpetuity to off set the now proposed growth and implied desired flexibility for consideration of future growth beyond 2035. 4. Visual Impacts within the El Camino Real Corridor. The DEIR relies on the 2007 approved Plan for El Camino Real Frontage to reach a conclusion that any potential visual impacts along the frontage are less than significant. This is an inadequate analysis and conclusion relative to the proposed 200,000 sf of new growth proposed for the DAPER Administrative Zone and the significant growth requested for Quarry North. The Frontage plan only requires a 20 foot building setback from the street frontage and a 50 foot height limit. This is not adequate to protect the historic visual resources that exist along Stanford’s El Camino Real frontage. The close-in views as well as the long distance views across the campus from critical points along El Camino would be lost and these are what help to make Stanford growth and development at least partially acceptable to its neighbors. The open views also are unique resources along El Camino in the County and beyond and need to be so recognized and protected. Some photos follow that show critical views, particularly across the play fields, that need to be protected with more land use restrictions than what is set forth in the 2007 plan or analyzed in the DEIR. While it is recognized that in the 2007 plan, Stanford says it will go through a more specific process for review and approval of any land use proposal for the play fields along El Camino, experience has shown that this is a “fine tuning” process of Stanford’s proposal and not any guarantee that the critical, and historic, open spaces and associated view vistas will in fact be protected. Comments Stanford DEIR Page of 2 7 November 8, 2017 Views 1&2. From Churchill-El Camino Intersection to fields, Hoover Tower and foothills. Comments Stanford DEIR Page of 3 7 November 8, 2017 View 3. From Play frontage to fields, stadium and foothills. View 4. View across fields to tree backdrop and foothills. Comments Stanford DEIR Page of 4 7 November 8, 2017 View 5. View From Town & Country Village to Arboretum. View 6. View of Oak Grove, Stadium Frontage. Comments Stanford DEIR Page of 5 7 November 8, 2017 The 2007 El Camino Real frontage plan and its analyses attempt to evaluate the character of the Stanford frontage, and set standards for it, based on the existing conditions and zone provisions for the Palo Alto side of El Camino. This is a flawed approach as the ownership patterns and historic uses are far different than on the Stanford side. The Palo Alto parcels are much smaller, have numerous owners and represent a far different pattern of use. Often these uses have been reflective of and supportive to Stanford, including public schools, residential neighborhoods and commercial uses providing services to Stanford and the greater Palo Alto community. Stanford has the ability to adjust its uses to protect the open space resources and should do so when seeking the type of growth now proposed. The historic visual conditions along El Camino are special, set the unique visual character for the area, and need to be far better recognized and protected than what is now provided for in the 2007 plan, especially in light of the proposed growth in the DAPER and Administrative and Quarry North areas. As an overall visual impact mitigation, at a minimum, the Campus Open Space designation should be extended south from the Stadium frontage at least to the East Campus Area and should include the play fields visible from El Camino Real. 5. Off Campus Parking impacts. The DEIR does a creditable job in evaluating the overall parking, including off campus parking, impacts. For now the conclusions appear generally acceptable. However, special event parking, particularly the well attended football games and non-Stanford events like major league soccer at the Stadium, all mostly on weekends and evenings when the RPP programs are not in effect, will continue to impact parking in adjacent neighborhoods. This is the case even with the game day temporary barricades that are used. As a neighbor, I see this as an acceptable situation given the overall campus benefits to the community. However, if the non-Stanford use of the Stadium increases in a signifiant way, where regularly adjacent neighborhoods are impacted by parking of non- University uses, limits on such uses should be considered. I was not able to identify any current or proposed limits on such outside uses, and may have just missed them, but this is something County staff and officials may want to review and be clear on as final acton on the EIR and GUP are considered. Also, as an observation, the RPP programs in Palo Alto will likely increase. The intrusive parking problems are being shifted to other neighborhoods where RPP programs are not in place. This will result in more RPP requests and likely approvals. Ultimately, there will likely be a very signifiant parking problem in the community as Stanford affiliates and other heavy parking demand use employees seek parking spaces. Summary As discussed above, I do have concerns with the GUP proposal and the DEIR, and I know that the City of Palo Alto, other jurisdictions, and the neighboring public interests will also have concerns, particularly with the traffic and development intensity. At the same time, I commend Stanford for its efforts to minimize the impacts of its recent growth and future proposals. The University has likely done more in traffic management and overall sustainable development than any other private entity or institution in the Bay Area. Further, it provides numerous and “priceless” tangible and intangible benefits to the local and greater community that significantly enhance the quality of life. Nonetheless, we all can do better to protect that quality and there is still room for Stanford to refine its plans and proposals to that end. Comments Stanford DEIR Page of 6 7 November 8, 2017 As a CRG member and neighbor to the University I appreciate the opportunity to review the GUP proposal and DEIR and offer the above comments on them. T. Vlasic cc. Joe Simitian, Santa Clara County Supervisor Southgate Neighborhood Committee Palo Alto City Council Comments Stanford DEIR Page of 7 7 November 8, 2017 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/8/2017 12:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Evan Reade <evanreade@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 07, 2017 12:48 PM To:Holman, Karen Cc:Council, City Subject:Comments on street markings Dear Council Member Holman: I was very pleased to hear your comments at last night's Council meeting about the patchwork appearance of some of the sidewalks in town. I agree completely. But in many cases, I imagine this is the result of work done by contractors on private jobs that are poorly (or not) supervised by City inspectors. What bothers me more than the sidewalks is the shoddy, haphazard, unprofessional and frankly disgraceful appearance of some of the road markings throughout our city. I thought it likely that I was the only person who noticed this, but after your remarks last night, I hope I have found a kindred spirit in a position to perhaps do something about this. Once upon a time, back in the "good old days" before the city started contracting out many of its routine functions, the city had its own crew to stripe and paint the roadways. It had the equipment it needed, the members of the team were long-time, skilled employees who knew what they were doing and, just as importantly, seemed to take pride in their work and cared about what they were doing. When a street was newly repaired or resurfaced, the city street painting crew would promptly remark the road. Throughout the year there was a regular rotating schedule of painting/maintenance, so that the center lines were repainted at the start of the summer, and school zones and crosswalks were repainted just before classes started again in the fall. Limit lines, crosswalks, curbs and parking spaces were regularly repainted during the rest of the year. The streets looked professional, well- maintained, and safe. Then the city started contracting out much of the street painting, often times to different firms. It seems that every time the city resurfaces a street, a different contractor is selected to do the striping. The result is a mishmash of different styles, stencils, and materials from block to block. At the same time, the city seemed to have a crisis about identifying what type of markings to use. Old- fashioned reflective paint? Thermoplastic? Tape? Raised dots? You can now find all these markings on our streets, sometimes in the space of a single block or at a single intersection. There seems to be no regular schedule of maintaining or repainting the markings, some of which haven't been redone in years and are now almost invisible. (Never mind El Camino Real, which looks terrible; I realize this is a Caldrons issue, although maybe you can raise this with them.) I imagine that at some point, someone decided that thermoplastic is a more permanent marking and is therefore less expensive, requiring less maintenance. But this is a fallacy. The reflective nature of the material wears down just like the old-fashioned paint, it becomes stained and obscured by dirt and tree sap, marked by tires, and worn down at intersections. But the city doesn't think it needs to be redone on a regular basis, if at all, so it just starts to look old and tired. In addition, when street cuts or other repairs to the streets are made, the contractors often only replace the small portion of the markings where new asphalt or concrete is installed, sometimes only several inches or feet long, resulting in an unprofessional and shoddy patchwork appearance. I've also been told by city crews I've spoken with that the city has now decided that because thermoplastic does not adhere well to concrete, many of the markings will have to be replaced. So much for saving money. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/8/2017 12:56 PM 2 Ditto with the raised dots. Take a look at University Avenue, or Hamilton, or any of the other streets where these are used. Many are missing, are chipped, are scuffed, or don't match the others because they are replacements for those removed by construction. (I'm not speaking of the raised reflectors, which are critical to nighttime and rainy driving, and should be regularly maintained/replaced.) In short, all you have to do is walk downtown to see an unsightly array of mismatched street markings. I can show you intersections where several different models of stencils have been used to spell out "Stop." Others where one "Stop" is even marked using two different methods. Crosswalks are chipping away, centerlines are worn down almost to the point of invisibility. Other lines look like mosaics because they've been only partially repaired or replaced. Etc., etc. I'd be happy to show you photos, if you'd like a more graphic illustration of what I'm referring to. You mentioned Mt. View in your remarks. Take a look at their roadway markings. Clear, clean, uniform, professionally and regularly redone. How? The old fashioned way, using traditional traffic paint with reflective beads. I'm told by the city crews I've spoken with that Palo Alto doesn't even own a centerline striper any more. We sold it to a contractor. Perhaps I seem a bit obsessed by this issue, but I happen to think that the appearance of our streets is an important reflection of how well our city is run and maintained. Sadly, our traffic markings look tired, shabby, inconsistent in style, material and upkeep, unprofessional in appearance, and totally slap-dash in many places. Never mind the impact on traffic safety! An example: next time you're driving into Palo Alto on Sand Hill Road, take a look at the pathetic markings on that roadway. It looks like they were intended to be temporary, but that was several years ago. The lines are crooked, made of what looks like tape, are hardly visible, are of differing lengths, and look like they were installed by a child. This is the first impression people have of our roadways when they enter our city from Menlo Park. It's embarrassing, especially considering that we are one of the wealthiest and supposedly best managed cities in the state. I hope you will agree and consider asking city staff to seriously explore the possibility of returning the street painting function to in-house city crews to assure that markings are uniform, professional, attractive, well and regularly maintained and functional for safety and appearance. Again, I would look to Mt. View as a model. Or perhaps there are still some old-timers out at MSC who can show us how it used to be done here. Sincerely, and many thanks, Evan G. Reade 890 Sharon Court (650)387-3394 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 1:59 PM To:Council, City Cc:Mello, Joshuah Subject:Conflict of Tunnel/Trench Meeting with Stanford GUP County Planning Commission Meeting This Stanford GUP meeting by the County Planning Commission conflicts with the trench or tunnel meeting on Caltrain. Please reschedule the tunnel/trench meeting. I think the County Planning Commission meeting is harder to change. I also think that there are too many meetings on Caltrain in November run by the City of Palo Alto. And that the grade separation meeting on tunnel or trenching would be better informed by having time to digest the results of the other three meetings. Best regards, Arthur Public Meetings on the Draft Environmental Impact Report Several neighboring jurisdictions will be hosting meetings on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, including: Palo Alto, Los Altos Hills, Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, and Mountain View. Please check your local jurisdiction's website for the meeting schedule. The County has also provided a list of upcoming meetings for your convenience (look for the Community Meeting Schedule link)*. The County will be holding a Special County Planning Commission meeting to receive public comments on the Draft EIR on Thursday, November 30 from 7-9 PM at the Palo Alto Arts Center Auditorium, located at 1313 Newell Road in Palo Alto. *Meetings subject to change. Please visit the website of your local jurisdiction for the latest meeting dates, times and locations. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:19 AM 2 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, November 05, 2017 9:18 PM To:Stop the Ban Google Discussion Group; Board; Board Operations; Kelcy Fleming Subject:Happy 73rd Birthday to Angela Davis Chuck Jagoda Ain’t she great! So is Barbara Lee and Bernie Sanders and Jerry Brown. Let's not let ageism rob us leaders like we let racism and sexism do. Chuck City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, November 04, 2017 3:22 PM To:Council, City; UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); CAC-TACC; ConnectedCity Subject:How Communities Succeed With Fiber -- Broadband Communities Magazine Council members and Commissioners, The October 2017 issue of Broadband Communities Magazine is about municipal FTTP: "How Communities Succeed With Fiber." http://www.bbpmag.com/ (Sorry, I don't know a permalink for this issue.) Some of you may remember that in a couple of previous years, I handed out paper copies of BBCMag's annual municipal FTTP issue to Council and UAC. This year, the online version will have to do. Here's a PDF of the entire issue. http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Oct/BBC_Oct17_webFINAL.pdf PDFs of individual articles are also available. Please note in particular: * "A Record Increase In Municipal Fiber Broadband" http://www.bbcmag.com/2017mags/Oct/BBC_Oct17_RecordIncrease.pdf "Broadband Communities' count of public and public-private fiber-to-the-premises projects in the United States now stands at 216. this is a 21 percent jump over last year's count of 178 and the largest increase in any year." (BBCMag's online interactive database says it's now 221.) http://www.bbpmag.com/search.php Obviously, these communities are not buying the claim that in the future wireless will be good enough. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- PS: In my message of 10-29-17, I suggested a "reading list." Here are some recent additions: 11-01-17: "AT&T admits defeat in lawsuit if filed to stall Google Fiber" https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/11/att-admits-defeat-in-lawsuit-it-filed-to-stall-google- fiber/?mc_cid=1fc553fba5&mc_eid=99443c82f8 10-17-17: "Broadband Prices Are About to Soar & Wall Street is Thrilled" https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Broadband-Prices-Are-About-to-Soar-Wall-Street-is-Thrilled-140534 "Last week New Street analyst Jonathan Chaplin predicted that Comcast's broadband rates specifically could double from existing pricing levels, which are already among the most expensive among all developed nations." Apparently Chaplin doesn't see competition emerging (from 5G or anywhere else) to keep prices low. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:19 AM 2 09-21-17: "UAE Leads With 93.7% of Homes on Fiber Internet; U.S. Lags at 13.1% http://stopthecap.com/2017/09/21/uae-leads-93-7-homes-fiber-internet-u-s-lags-13-1/ On 08-21-17, Jonathan Reichental told Council that Etisalat would be deploying 5G in UAE. Apparently they already have the necessary fiber infrastructure because they have FTTP. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, November 02, 2017 6:49 PM To:PAC; Council, City Subject:Input About Public Statues--Egg and Mama City of Palo Alto Art Commission City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 Cc: City Council Selected Art Commission Members: This communication is in response to your request for public input relative to the two statues being considered for replacement. I have never been happy with the egg in the downtown area. It would be fine with me if it were to “disappear” and never return. As to the statue in the California Avenue Business district—I have over time come to see it as interesting and worthy of continued occupation of its current, or some other, location. I would like to add that perhaps smaller pieces of art could be put on a rotation around town, and perhaps other local communities, on say, a five-year cycle. It would also be a good idea to create a program to allow local, or even non- local, artists to donate, or loan, art to the City without compensation. This suggestion is aimed at the artists who are being subsidized by the taxpayers at the Cubberley Center. Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 5:14 AM To:swebby@da.sccgov.org; csumida@da.sccgov.org Cc:Jay Boyarsky; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Reifschneider, James; Watson, Ron; Keene, James; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); James Aram; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Philip, Brian; bjohnson@paweekly.com; sdremann@paweekly.com; gsheyner@paweekly.com; dprice@padailypost.com; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; dangel@da.sccgov.org Subject:Justifiable Killing -Tweet by Bay Area Free Press on Twitter Palo Alto fake news media won't touch this..... Bay Area Free Press (@BayAreaFreePres) 11/3/17, 6:09 AM @SantaClaraDA justifies killing of yet another #mentalhealth patient bit.ly/2zuFUbw Justification RT was performed by same agency Far from being independent Cops policing Cops. i.e. NTSB has no stake in the game and are not paid by the airline industry Who do you trust? pic.twitter.com/gpm8kYQMGq Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/7/2017 9:06 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:ruth foley <ruth28@me.com> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 2:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:No Cars on University Ave. Council Members:  I strongly oppose this idea. I use a cane and walk very slowly. I do not qualify for a Disabled sticker. There is no public  transportation within walking distance of my home. I do not have an I‐phone.    If this idea is implemented the parking structures and lots will always be full, and I will no longer be able to visit  downtown for shopping and dining. Yes, I could call a taxi, but that becomes mighty expensive.    Have you really thought this through?    Ruth H. Foley  169 Hemlock Court  Palo Alto  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:14 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Thursday, November 02, 2017 6:20 PM To:Info Cc:Council, City Subject:"On the Table" conversations about housing challenges at an unworkable time for working people. Hello Info,    I just saw a notice for discussions about housing detailed here:    http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4043    All of these are scheduled between 8:30 and 10:30 AM on a weekday. Certainly anyone in the community who works a  "normal" job would be unable to attend any of these.  In the future I hope you will consider scheduling this kind of thing  with weekend or evening options, or perhaps you can add an additional time.    ‐‐ Robert Neff  Emerson Street at Loma Verde      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/8/2017 12:54 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ann Bowers <asbowers@noycefdn.org> Sent:Tuesday, November 07, 2017 10:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Outrageous salaries The salaries and benefits that are being paid to the city manager and city attorney are more than people in jobs that are  more demanding and require more skills and experience.  And on top of that they are supporting the verizon plan to put up those ugly and noisy boxes.  The least you can do for the community is to vote against as raising their salaries.    Ann bowers              Sent from m  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/8/2017 12:57 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 07, 2017 4:15 PM To:mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.com; beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.com; Council, City Subject:Parking Ticket # R100042827 Attachments:Parking Ticket Oct 11 2017.docx Mark and Beth,    On Oct 11 I had taken in my car in for repair, and I had been given a loaner car.  I have a permit for my car, but  I did not have a permit for the loaner car.  I got a ticket for parking a car without a permit in a newly  established permit zone. I explained all this in a letter with copies of related documentation (see attached).    My claim for forgiveness was denied without explanation. This permit process is new in our area, and I think a  better process might have been to forgive this ticket and provide a description of how to get a temporary  permit for similar times in the future. Perhaps Palo Alto needs the money these tickets provide. More likely I  think a little fairness and training of your personnel, Beth, are needed.    I appealed this denial, and today I was contacted to schedule  a phone appeal of this ticket. Amazing! To  schedule a phone call took 15 minutes on the phone! The whole appeal process would have taken less time!  Instead, the earliest time the phone appeal process could occur was Jan. 23, two and a half months from  now!! Clearly you are being overwhelmed by the number of appeals which should probably tell you  something.    The appeal procees is obviously so backed up because of the rigidity, Beth, of your people applying the rules  and a general lack of fairness.    This is actually the second time I have had the displeasure of going through an appeal process on a parking  ticket. (I suppose two tickets in 42 years isn't so bad.) In that case I showed up for my hearing and the "judge"  didn't show up at all. He later phoned me with his denial which in no way reflected the documented evidence  in the case.    When city "leaders" treat citizens arbitrarily and unfairly, these  "leaders" become worthy of our disrespect  and even contempt. You can do better.    Ed Supplee  650‐327‐3284    Oct. 17, 2017 City of Palo Alto Processing Center P.O. Box 10550 Palo Alto, CA 94303-0908 Dear Sir/Madam; I received the attached parking ticket (A) in front of my house at 1901 Birch St. on Oct.11 for the loaner car I was driving while my car was being repaired. I had taken in my car for repair on that date. See (B). I was given a loaner car at that time which I kept until I picked up my car the next day (Oct. 12). See loaner car document (C). Attached is a photo of my car that was in the shop for repair showing my license plate number and permit (D). Also attached is a close-up of my Palo Alto permit number issued to me for my car (E). I do not believe I should have to pay this ticket for use of a loaner vehicle while my car was being repaired. Sincerely, Ed Supplee 650-327-3284 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:27 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Thursday, November 02, 2017 11:45 AM To:Stump, Molly Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James; Architectural Review Board Subject:RE: City Staff failing to adhere to California Public Records Act in responding to requests for information regarding cell tower installations Dear Ms. Stump, I was pleased to receive an email from the Planning Department yesterday that provided me with access to what appears to be much of the information I requested. (I haven’t gone through everything yet.) I assume I have you to thank for this, so, thank you. I am puzzled by one thing, however: The Planning Department has redacted email addresses and street address numbers from the emails sent by Palo Altans to Planning on the subject of cell tower installations. It is my understanding that any correspondence sent to the City is, in its entirety, part of the public record. Moreover, in the last round of Planning emails to which I was provided access, email addresses and street address numbers were not redacted. If a mistake has been made, I would appreciate it if you would see that it is corrected. However, if a mistake has not been made, I would appreciate it if you would: 1) tell me whether, when these Planning Department emails were shared with Verizon, the email addresses and/or street numbers were also redacted; and 2) tell me of other instances in which the City has redacted email addresses and/or street numbers in fulfilling a resident’s Public Records request for access to emails sent to Planning or any other City Department (i.e., point to precedents in Palo Alto for redacting this information). I look forward to hearing from you. And, again, thank you for your hand in seeing to it that my requests for information are starting to be fulfilled. I’m most appreciative. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151   From: Stump, Molly [mailto:Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org]   Sent: Wednesday, November 1, 2017 12:37 PM  To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>; Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Keene, James  <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:27 PM 2 Subject: RE: City Staff failing to adhere to California Public Records Act in responding to requests for information  regarding cell tower installations    Dear Ms. Fleming –    Thank you for your note. The California Public Records Act provides a 10 day period to make an initial determination as  to whether records will be disclosed. The law allows for an additional 14 day period under certain circumstances,  including where there are voluminous records to review or when multiple departments may have to respond. Once an  initial determination has been made, the Public Records Act does not require disclosure under a set timeline. Rather,  cities have a duty to provide relevant documents “promptly,” which courts interpret in light of all the circumstances. In  regards to your outstanding requests, the City is in the process of collecting and reviewing responsive records and  making an initial determination. The City’s response complies with the requirements of the Public Records Act.    Please be advised that Palo Alto, like most small and mid‐sized cities, relies on existing staff to gather and review  documents for disclosure to members of the public who request them. While we’re happy to assist the public in this  way, these tasks have to be integrated with a full set of substantive duties that the public also relies on staff to perform,  such as analyzing applications, responding to applicants and neighbors on issues of concern, and supporting policy  makers in their decision‐making process. As you know, neighbors have had many questions and concerns regarding  applications by Verizon and other providers for small cell attachments to City poles. The staff has tried to provide  customized responses to as many of these inquiries as feasible. The staff has also created and will be updating a  centralized webpage for information about these applications:  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/verizon_small_cell_nodes/default.asp. The webpage will ensure that  consistent information is available to interested community members. It should also allow the staff to disseminate  information efficiently, so that other critical duties can be attended to.    Finally, please be advised that the City has an online Public Records Act Center, located at  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/clk/public_records_request.asp, which facilitates tracking of requests and  routing them to the appropriate City department for handling. While you are not obligated to use this portal, doing so  will assist both you and us.    Regards,    Molly Stump  City Attorney        From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net]   Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 8:37 PM  To: Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Keene,  James <James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: City Staff failing to adhere to California Public Records Act in responding to requests for information regarding  cell tower installations    Dear Ms. Gitelman, Ms. Stump and Mr. Keene: Under the California Public Records Act, the City must respond to a formal request for information within ten days. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:27 PM 3 I have made several requests of City Staff, all regarding the proposed installation of cell towers in residential neighborhoods. All my requests were made over ten days ago, and all were copied to Ms. Gitelman and to Vice-Mayor Ed Shikada. Yet the City has not provided me with even a subset of the information I am seeking. On the contrary, City employee Yolanda Cervantes has notified me by email that I will have to wait until November 8th—that is, three and one-half weeks after my October 15th requests—to even receive what she calls “an initial determination” in response to those requests. And City employee Rebecca Atkinson has notified me by email that a separate request I made for information on October 18th (i.e., thirteen days ago) will not be fulfilled until Ms. Cervantes responds on November 8th to my other requests. I am writing to you to insist that the City of Palo Alto abide by the California Public Records Act and immediately provide me with the information I have requested. Please understand, I do not believe that Ms. Cervantes and Ms. Atkinson are rogue employees who are, on their own, thwarting my requests for public information. I assume they are ignoring the law at the direction of their supervisors. A final point: Others in United Neighbors—for example, Celia Chow and Annette Fazzino—have also sent emails to City Hall requesting information, emails that have been ignored completely (i.e., no one ever responded to them at all).   Thank you for your attention. Sincerely,  Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:24 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 01, 2017 3:08 PM To:dprice@padailypost.com Cc:Council, City; Reifschneider, James; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Watson, Ron; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Keith, Claudia; Keene, James; James Aram; Jay Boyarsky; sdremann@paweekly.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Perron, Zachary Subject:Re: Every Drug you could get your hands Dave?...Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter Dave.... I think in light of all the talk on sex in the news..... We believe everyone would be more interested in your sexual escapades. Were they drugs fueled as well..... ? Need to hire a PI for that one.... Did you know Natasha Powers operates out of Denver...? As a PI....? Really she does...serves as an expert witness too....Google her.... Sent from my iPad On Nov 1, 2017, at 3:45 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: We always through something was wrong with your editorials..... You need the revenue right.... ? We’ve direct everyone to your archive bank so you should hopefully see an upswing....in $$$$$ Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 11/1/17, 3:39 PM Editor @DavePrice94301 full admission of debauched lifestyle @paloaltoweekly no #FakeNews here We publish the naked truth @SFPPC @AP @BBC pic.twitter.com/I08tyVuR6H Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:bharat bhushan <22bhushan@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, November 03, 2017 9:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: How can you hurt our children??? just to complete, I am Harvard trained physician. Call me if you have any doubt at 650-346-3907 only in weekends of after 4 pm. Otherwise, my patients would be compromised. Thanks for your time, Bharat Bhushan, MD On Fri, Nov 3, 2017 at 9:52 PM, bharat bhushan <22bhushan@gmail.com> wrote: Are you somebody who doesn't believe in science like Scott Pruit or just ignorant? If you know scence, look at evidence. If evidence is not 100% convincing, at least it is 100 % convincing to an extent that it is more than 50% sure that it could damage the growing brains of our children, It could be extrapolated to increased incidence of dementia in elderly here than in places, where these cell towers are there, What is the advantage of these towers anyway, other than they are ready to spend a lot of money for their nefarious interests.? City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/7/2017 9:04 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net> Sent:Monday, November 06, 2017 1:36 PM To:Moitra, Chitra; A-MIKE BECHLER; price@padailypost.com; Dorian Manke; k_nordman30 @yahoo.com; Rius, Rafael; Kidzy@att.net; melanie_brake@yahoo.com; IMOGENE AND ROCHARD HILBERS; arlenerosenblum@gmail.com; Peter Drekmeier; Council, City; avarner@aol.com; Glanckopf, Annette Cc:Lee, Elena Subject:Re: Update -- City Council Meeting on Comprehensive Plan Thank you , CHITRA    I have to rest a lot, due to  with regular walking, so I have cut down on meetings that I go  to.    HOWEVER,  please know that the comprehensive plan should have protected us from SPEEDING drivers  everywhere within Palo Alto.  ENFORCEMENT is essential   In our city.    It is terrifying to get in or out of my driveway in Midtown with reckless drivers.    We need a signal on MORENO   or MARION STREETS.   at Middlefield so we can turn left.    The city put TWO signals in ONE BLOCK at WALGREENS and CVS parking lots instead of a real street.  The OREGON EX. Is  not sequenced with a moments break for our safety at MARION.    Our plan SHOULD include complete safety for its own residents on Middlefield in Midtown.     So many more people have been hit by cars than by airplanes here in Palo Alto.     Thank you for all your work and communication to me.    Geri Mcgilvray   EVERYDAY SAFETY AND WALKABILITY FOR PALO ALTO    On Nov 6, 2017, at 9:18 AM, Moitra, Chitra <Chitra.Moitra@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:  Good Morning     This email serves to inform you of upcoming City Council meeting on the adoption of the Comprehensive  Plan Update:     The Monday, October 30, 2017 City Council meeting regarding the Comprehensive Plan Update was  continued to the November 13, 2017 Council meeting.      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/7/2017 9:04 AM 2 The City Council is scheduled to continue their discussion and to consider adopting resolutions certifying  the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Comprehensive Plan Update, adopting findings  pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).      The Monday, November 13, 2017 City Council meeting is the third public hearing on the Comprehensive  Plan Update.  The Council will continue reviewing and discussing the Comprehensive Plan and consider  the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan and other related actions.      The November 13th the City Council meeting is scheduled to begin at 5 pm.  This item is Action item #10  and is tentatively scheduled to begin at 6:05 pm. The agendas and staff reports can be viewed or  obtained by going to  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61931  http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61914     The meeting will be held at the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301.       Interested persons may appear and be heard.  Hard copies of the Staff report for the agendized item  will be available in the bin in Council Chambers, City Hall on the Friday preceding the meeting date, after  2:00 PM.       AMERICANS WITH DISABILITY ACT (ADA) Persons with disabilities who require auxiliary aids or services  in using City facilities, services or programs or who would like information on the City’s compliance with  the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, may contact (650) 329‐2368 (Voicemail)     For detailed information on the Comprehensive Plan Update and the Final Environmental Impact Report  (EIR) please visit:  http://www.paloaltocompplan.org/     There are many ways to share your ideas:     you can either email your comments to staff (chitra.moitra@cityofpaloalto.org )   send your written copies to the Planning Department (see address in signature line)      Thank you for your continued support in the Comprehensive Plan Update process and we look forward  to hearing from you.          Chitra Moitra  Planner  Planning and Community Environment Department  250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301  Email: chitra.moitra@cityofpaloalto.org     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:25 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 02, 2017 7:45 AM To:Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Watson, Ron; Jay Boyarsky; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; SWebby@da.sccgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Keene, James; Council, City Subject:still waiting for A letter of exoneration and a check for 5k...Until hell freezes over mr. mayor?     mark    Sent from my iPhone   City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/6/2017 8:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Terry Trumbull <terryt1011@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, November 05, 2017 6:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for BAAQMD rule 11-18 Members of the Council- I am writing to urge you to support the strengthening of toxics enforcement by the BAAQMD, proposed rule 11-18. I have spent my life on improving of air quality, which fails federal standards in the Bay Area. these are not as stringent as the state ARB standards. Both are based on your health. Virtually, every environmental policy text book talks about improvement of air quality since 1970 for non-toxic pollutants, and little improvement for toxics. this needs to change. To give you an example in Mountain View, I was a member and chair of the BAAQMD Hearing Board from 2002-17, leaving in May. A few years ago, I lost a 3-2 vote, which allowed a dry cleaner to continue operating in Mountain View for a year, and the toxic risk assessment concluded that it would kill 12 of a million people nearby in a year. the acceptable national standard is one person per million per year. My point is to highlight that virtually every local government in the Bay Area has such nearby sources. Stronger regulation and enforcement is the only way to protect ourselves. I hope you support the proposed rule 11-18. sincerely, Terry A. Trumbull Lecturer, Environmental Law & Policy Santa Clara & San Jose State Universities City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:25 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 01, 2017 4:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Council Decision to Ban "Pot Shops" Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 Elected Council Members: I was pleased to see that the Council has banned “pot shop” and other associated businesses from operating in Palo Alto. Even though Palo Altans are supposed to have voted at/about 66% of those voting during the Fall, 2016 General Election for Prop.64—when one looks at the actual voting numbers (online at the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters web-site), one recognizes that about 22,000 people voted “Yes”—which is about 66% of those voting. But this number drops to about 58% when compared to the total number of registered voters, and about 30% when compared to the total number of residents. From reading about the effects of Colorado’s opening up the State to open marijuana use, it’s becoming clear that there has been an increase in traffic accidents (although not fatal accidents), and that there has been a small increase in crime, according to the July 11, 2017, Denver Post. Since there may be some dissatisfaction with this decision by the Council by people who voted "Yes" on Prop.64, I would suggest the Council consider putting the issue on the local ballot at some point in the future. Thank you for considering this matter. Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:28 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Thursday, November 02, 2017 3:23 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Keene, James Subject:Terner Center Presentation to CASA Attachments:Terner CASA presentation 10.25.pdf I am attaching the slides presented by Carol Galante of the Terner Center for Housing at Berkeley to the CASA technical committee last month. I saw the presentation and heard the committee comments. There is broad support for policies that reduce costs and remove barriers for housing for both low-income residents and other residents. I will keep the council informed as CASA members consider a range of housing policies. Stephen Levy Carol Galante CASA Technical Committee Presentation October 25th, 2017 The mission of the Terner Center for Housing Innovation is to formulate bold strategies to house families from all walks of life in vibrant, sustainable, and affordable homes and communities. The Housing Challenge We’re not building enough homes We need to build 180,000 homes a year in California to keep up with demand, or 1.8 million by 2025 (HCD) 3 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY The Housing Challenge We’re not building enough homes While we’ve seen an uptick in production in recent years, we are well below historic homebuilding rates 4 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY The Housing Challenge 5 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY Attracting jobs without the homes Jobs added to housing permitted, 2010-2015 •San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward: 6.8 to 1 •San Jose- Sunnyvale- Santa Clara: 5.5 to 1 The Housing Challenge 6 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY Cities that produced the fewest housing units between 2000-2015 tend to have larger price increases The Realities of Development 7 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY Because of cost, new construction limited to highest rents $5/6-psf Newconstruction works only at highest rents serving fewest people-ascosts rise, fewer people can afford new construction East Bay demand at various rents and new construction rents (2015- Concord Group) The Realities of Development To explain the challenges facing the production of housing, we’ve developed two “prototype” developments –Market Rate and Affordable •Affordable: 50% AMI (Alameda County) •4% LIHTC –100 units –1:1 parking –5 over 1 construction (stick over podium) •Least expensive infill construction type 8 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY The Realities of Development Assumptions 9 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY •Prototypes are an average Bay Area location •$6.5 million land price •No EIR* •No demolition* •No environmental remediation* •No inclusionary zoning •No offsite infrastructure improvements* •No exactions* •Standard approval times •Prevailing wages •Current construction costs *Rare that infill projects avoid these costs. Any combination of these costs plus current inflation could add as much as $100,000/unit The Realities of Development Total Development Cost 10 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY $578,424/unit $621,280/unit $57,842,411 $62,127,966 $0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 $50,000,000 $60,000,000 $70,000,000 Market Rate Affordable The Realities of Development Per Unit Development Costs 11 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY $65,400 $65,400 $382,463 $411,550 $41,000 $41,000$55,223 $68,979$26,314 $28,428$5,888 $4,424 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 Market Rate Affordable Tax, Title, Escrow Consultants Financing Fees Hard Cost Land The Realities of Development Development Funding Sources 12 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY 35 41 5065 9 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Market Rate Affordable Equity Public Funds Debt The Realities of Development Rents required with prototype development costs 13 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY Market Rate Affordable $0 $500 $1,000 $1,500 $2,000 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000 $4,500 $5,000 Studio 1 bedroom 2 bedroom 3 bedroom $1,988 $2,858 $4,161 $4,696 Market Rate Affordable The Realities of Development Threshold requirements to make Market Rate prototype feasible 14 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY 1. Return on Cost must be at least 5.5% Return on Cost is determined by dividing project’s Net Operating Income (income minus expenses= $3,179,685) by total project cost ($57,842,411) Market Rate Prototype Return on Cost: 5.50% 2. How much debt can I raise? We assume that our debt requires a 1.3% Debt Service Coverage Ratio (DSCR) and a 65% Loan to Cost, which means we can obtain $37,597,567 in debt (at 5% interest rate) 3. Equity required With 65% of costs covered with debt, we must raise $20,244,844 in equity (8% preferred return, 17% Internal Rate of Return) The Realities of Development To reach 120% AMI with similar returns, significant cost reductions must be achieved •Reduce impact/utility fees by 50% ($1,750,000) •Reduce parking requirements by 50% ($1,950,000) •Construction innovations savings ($4,00,000) –As costs are reduced, so are other items (contingency, consultants, etc) –Total cost savings: $9,466,158 ($94,661/unit) –New ROC: 5.20% 15 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY Cost Reduction Strategies •Reducing overall cost of housing is paramount –Pursue construction innovations –Right size fees –Streamline approvals process –Revisit parking minimums –Utilize public lands 16 TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY Terner Center Development Dashboard Development Calculator TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY 17 Terner Center Development Dashboard Policy Gauge TERNER CENTER FOR HOUSING INNOVATION UC BERKELEY 18 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/8/2017 12:55 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, November 07, 2017 12:18 PM To:Council, City Cc:Dave Price Subject:Thoughts On Veterans Day Event Attachments:pacc_veterans_day.docx Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA The attached MS-Word file contains thoughts about the Nov. 6th Veterans Commemoration Event at City Hall. Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Veteran’s Day Commemoration Elected Council Members: I was pleased to see that the city of Palo Alto has once again decided to honor its veterans. It was nice to see that the event packed City Hall’s Council Chambers. The following are a few thoughts: As it were, I happen to have had some business at City Hall. As I was leaving, I noticed some men walking towards the City Hall across the plaza in military garb. Deciding to follow them into the building I noticed a sign announcing the veterans event starting around 3:45. Being a veteran myself, I decided to stay for the event. There was a five-piece brass ensemble, the Golden West Brass from Travis Air Force Base, which played the songs associated with each Military organization. Veterans from each branch were asked to stand when the song for their branch was played. I noticed at that point that they were not that many Veterans in the Chambers. While I did not count the number of men and women who stood for their song, it seemed to me that given the size of the crowd that the number of Veterans was small in number. According to the 2010 census, there were about 2300 veterans living in Palo Alto at the time and that number probably isn’t too much different today. After the event I checked both of the local papers and noticed that there was no notification of the event in either of these papers. There was a notification on the city’s Web-site however. Given the size of Chambers, perhaps the notifications that were made by the event organizer were adequate. However, given the number of veterans from the area, it’s a shame that more were not in attendance. If the city were to continue this event in the future, perhaps another location that could accommodate more people would be worth considering. While the program was interesting, it occurred to me that during WWI and WWII that Palo Alto’s citizens were involved in the War effort in one way or another. I would like to suggest that in future events the program include some of the history of Palo Alto during these times of national strife. From researching Palo Alto’s history, I have found many photographs in the archives of the Palo Alto historical society. Additionally, there are microfilm in their possession of the local newspapers which could be researched for additional stories on Palo Alto’s involvement and support for the war effort. Stanford was very involved with the Military during WWII. Given the glass wall in the Council Chamber, these photographs could be presented to the attendees as was done in this week’s event. The Band was good, but too loud for the size of Council Chambers. It’s a shame that someone did not think about this during the rebuild of the “Community Room” so that a small “band stand” might have been accommodated in some fashion that would help to reduce the volume of sound from such a band at events like these. I don’t remember seeing any veteran’s group tables like VFW and American Legion. This seemed odd to me. It would be nice to know if they were invited. . I would like to suggest a sign-in sheet for veterans so that they can be notified of future Veterans events. The table that had been set up for people to write cards for Veterans in the local VA Health Care Center did not seem to attract many people. This seemed like a good idea, but it did not resonate with those attending this event. Rethinking this idea to be more inviting, or even compelling, would hopefully generate more cards. There was no mention that the event was being recorded. If it was not, hopefully next year it will be recorded and the video made available on Youtube. In the past our Military and its members have not always been treated well by the society they sacrificed so much to protect and serve. I would like to compliment those in our local government that organized this event. I hope that we will see this event continue in the future—perhaps enlarging its scope to include more Veterans each year. Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:23 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Amy Christel <amymchristel@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 01, 2017 12:47 PM To:Palo Alto Airport Cc:Council, City Subject:Unnecessarily low PAO aircraft--what is City Council doing? Dear Council Members and Airport Staff, On Sunday, 10/29/17, at 1:00:23 pm, another aircraft buzzed Midtown PA at altitudes below 1000 ft. It was already below 1400 ft over Stanford, and 1200 ft crossing El Camino--unnecessarily low so far from PAO. As seen in the screen shots below, it was at 900 ft. crossing Louis Rd., and 800 ft over Greer Park. These are all residential neighborhoods! I know the PAO staff will tell me this was perfectly normal and acceptable behavior, and there is no action to be taken. (Yes, log my complaint.) But this pilot was responsible for causing unacceptable noise, pollution, and risk to public safety. Worse still, the pilot and aircraft fly unidentified, thanks to FAA rules that consistently favor aviation. What, in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, offers residents protection from these jarring intrusions on our lives? They happen daily--not rarely. What is Council doing to protect residents from ever worsening impacts from PAO? If you examine the airport's published noise abatement program, you'll see that this is meant only to provide the community a false sense of security. In fact, aircraft to and from PAO are exempt from the 1500' altitude recommendation! We actually have no protection from PAO low aircraft. The City accepted funding from the FAA to repair an un-ecological, un- neighborly, (and certainly not carbon neutral) fossil of an airport. It should have been left to die a natural death. Instead we have a huge chunk of city property devoted to the region's City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:23 PM 2  hobby pilots (who fly noisily over the region's parks and open spaces)  student pilots (who circle and burn leaded fuel over our wetlands all day long)  helicopter schools (whop-whop noise heard across swaths of town and at the baylands)  and air taxis (serving the privileged few) Residents, the majority not airport users, are told the airport is an asset to the community (as though medical transport couldn't use nearby airports) and that some day (that date gets pushed out each year) the airport will be financially self-sustaining. It is clear that the City is not really owning up to the effects of the airport on the common people. Notably, no voter referendum was offered residents before the City burdened us with this albatross. Every time funds are needed to improve the airport operations, Council gives up control to the City Manager to unilaterally apply for and accept FAA funds--funds that come with 20 years of grant assurances--and cost our community dearly. What a mess. Why isn't the City willing to pay for the airport upkeep so that we have local control over how it impacts us? We just came back from San Luis Obispo, where there is also an airport, but where I saw/heard only 4 aircraft in 4 days. Perhaps they have better restrictions on how and aircraft fly over populated areas. It was a heavenly respite from aircraft noise intrusion. In our first 5 minutes back in Palo Alto, two GA planes and two SFO jets tore through our otherwise peaceful neighborhood. What is wrong with the priorities of this city? We are 2 miles from PAO and no published airport or city maps would suggest we are in a GA arrival and departure path. Yet, this airport is robbing our quality of life, and benefits the very few--most of whom are not PA residents. How about some noise monitors in Midtown and a study of actual flight paths and altitudes of PAO aircraft--or don't you want to City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:23 PM 3 know the real effects of PAO on our quality of life? How fitting that a buzzing PAO plane thunders over as I send this... Sincerely, Amy Christel Midtown Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:23 PM 4 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/2/2017 5:23 PM 5 Landed at TO: FROM: DATE: CITY OF PALO ALTO HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 3 HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT NOVEMBER 7, 2017 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3-Adoption of an Ordinance to Increase the Posted Speed Limit on Deer Creek Road and a Segment of East Bayshore Road to Enable Radar Enforcement and to Reduce the Posted Speed Limit in School Zones Consistent With State Law, and Adoption of a Resolution Establishing Target Speeds for Certain Arterials and Residential Arterials. Environmental Assessment: Exempt Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Continued From October 16, 2017) City staff conducted an Engineering and Traffic Survey for Deer Creek Road from Page Mill Road to Arastradero Road to ensure consistency throughout the entire length of roadway. However, the City is authorized to set speed limits only on portion of street that falls under City of Palo Alto jurisdiction, which is Deer Creek Road from Western City Limits to Arastradero Road . While City staff analyzed all streets near schools for the proposed reduced speed zones, the City is not authorized to set speed limits on Escondido Road and Bowdoin Street (West of Stanford Avenue) and Stanford Avenue south of Amherst Street, since these streets are not within City of Palo Alto jurisdiction. Lastly, survey completion date has been changed from September 2016 to November 2017 to reflect City Council meeting date. Planning and Community Environment ,..-VJames Keene City Manager 1of1 Not Yet Approved Ordinance No. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Pursuant to the California Vehicle Code and Amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 10.S6 (Special Speed Zones) to Establish Such Speed Limits, Including Increased Speed Limits of 40 MPH on Two Roadway Segments and Reduced Speed Limits of 20 MPH Within School Zones During School Hours When Children Are Present The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Findings and Recitals. The Council of the City of Palo Alto finds and declares as follows: A. California Vehicle Code section 223S7 provides that whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that a speed greater than 2S miles per hour would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon any street other than a state highway otherwise subject to a prima facie limit of 2S miles per hour, the local authority may by ordinance determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 30, 3S, 40, 4S, SO, SS, or 60 miles per hour or a maximum speed limit of 6S miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate. B. California Vehicle Code section 223S8.3 provides that whenever a local authority determines upon the basis of an engineering and traffic survey that the prima facie speed limit of 2S miles per hour in a business or residence district or in a public park on any street having a roadway not exceeding 25 feet in width, other than a state highway, is more than is reasonable or safe, the local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare a prima facie speed limit of 20 or lS miles per hour, whichever is found most appropriate. C. California Vehicle Code section 223S8.4 provides that a local authority may, by ordinance or resolution, determine and declare prima facie speed limits of lS miles per hour, in a residence district, on a highway with a posted speed limit of 30 miles per hour or slower, when approaching, at a distance of less than SOO feet from, or passing, a school building or the grounds of a school building, contiguous to a highway and posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of lS miles per hour, while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period. The prima facie limit shall also apply when approaching, at a distance of less than SOO feet from, or passing, school grounds that are not separated from the highway by a fence, gate, or other physical barrier while the grounds are in use by children and the highway is posted with a school warning sign that indicates a speed limit of lS miles per hour. 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Not Yet Approved D. The declared prima facie limit shall only be effective when appropriate signs giving notice thereof are erected upon the street and the limits shall not be revised except upon the basis of an engineering and traffic study. E. An engineering and traffic study survey was conducted for the City by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. in 2016. F. The City Council desires to establish an increased speed of 40 mph for two roadway segments -East Bayshore from the Bay Lands frontage to San Antonio Road, and Deer Creek Road from Page Mill Road to Arastradero Road --to allow for radar enforcement of speed limits consistent with the 2016 survey. G. In 2008, California Assembly Bill (AB) 321 went into effect which allows local jurisdictions, by adoption of an ordinance or resolution, to extend the 25 mph prim a facie speed limit in school zones from 500 feet to 1,000 feet from the school grounds and to reduce the speed limit to 15 or 20 mph up to 500 feet from the school grounds, under certain conditions. H. The City Council desires to establish a reduced speed limit of 20 mph within 500 feet of public schools within the City during school hours when children are present, as allowed by law. I. The City Council has determined and declares that on the basis of the California Vehicle Code and the relevant engineering and traffic survey(s) that the speed limits set forth herein are the most reasonable, safe and appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic on the applicable portions of such streets within the City. SECTION 2: Section 10.56.010 (State twenty-five miles per hour prima facie speed limit justified) is hereby amended as follows: 10.56.010 Twenty-five (25) miles per hour prima fade speed limit justified It is determined that the state twenty-five miles per hour prima facie speed limit for business or residence districts is justified, as required by state law, with respect to the following streets or portions of streets by engineering and traffic surveys conducted by the city and completed on the dates shown below: Street er Pertien Thereef .n.ffeeteEI Chmchill Avem1e from ER'lbarcadero Road to El Camino Real Colorado Aven1:1e from Middlefield Road to Lo1:1is Road University /wen1:1e from Mieldlefield Reas to easterly city limit Embarcaaero Road from Alma Street Under~ass to El Camino ~ \6-'elch Road from Q1:1arry Road to Paste1:1r Drive 170814 EP/Plannlng ORD Establlshing Speed Limits for Certain Streets l!ngineering aAEI Traffie iwF\•ey CeRipletien Qate March 21, 1994 September 26, 199S September 26, 199S September 26, 199S Septemeer 26, 199S Not Yet Approved Road Segment Name Surve~ ComQletion Date Alma St from El Camino Real to University Ave June 2014 Amaranta Ave from Los Robles Ave to Maybell Ave November 2017 Arboretum Rd from Sand Hill Rd to Quar[Y Rd November 2017 Birch St from California Ave to Page Mill Ex12 November 2017 California Ave from Park Blvd to El Camino Real November 2017 California Ave from El Camino Real to Hanover St November 2017 Charleston Rd from Fabian Way to South City Limit June 2014 Channing Ave from W Bayshore Rd to Newell Rd November 2017 Channing Ave from Newell Rd to Guinda Ave November 2017 Channing Ave from Guinda Ave to Alma St November 2017 Charleston Rd from Alma St to Middlefield Rd November 2017 Churchill Ave from Embarcadero Rd to Alma St November 2017 Churchill Ave from Alma St to El Camino Real November 2017 Colorado AVe from W Bayshore Rd to Middlefield Rd November 2017 E Meadow Dr from W Bayshore Rd to Louis Rd November 2017 E Meadow Dr from Louis Rd to Alma St November 2017 El Camino Way from Los Robles Ave to Maybell Ave November 2017 Embarcadero Rd from El Camino Real to Alma St June 2014 Guinda Ave from LY!;ton Ave to Channing Ave November 2017 Hamilton Ave from Middlefield Rd to Alma St November 2017 High St from Lytton Ave to Channing Ave November 2017 Homer Ave from Guinda Ave to Alma St November 2017 Laguna Ave from Matadero Ave to Los Robles Ave November 2017 Lambert Ave from Park Blvd to El Camino Real November 2017 Loma Verde Ave from W Bayshore Rd to Middlefield Rd November 2017 Loma Verde Ave from Middlefield Rd to Alma St November 2017 Los Robles Ave from Laguna Ave to El Camino Real November 2017 Louis Rd from Embarcadero Rd to Oregon Ex12 November 2017 Louis Rd from Oregon Ex12 to Loma Verde Rd November 2017 Louis Rd from Loma Verde Rd to Charleston Rd November 2017 Lytton Ave from Alma St to Middlefield Rd November 2017 Matadero Ave from El Camino Real to Laguna Ave November 2017 Middlefield Rd from University Ave to Embarcadero Rd June 2014 Middlefield Rd from Embarcadero Rd to Oregon Ex12 November 2017 Newell Rd from East City Limit to Channing Ave November 2017 Newell Rd from Channing Ave to Embarcadero Rd November 2017 N California Ave from Embarcadero Rd to Middlefield Rd November 2017 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Not Yet Approved N California Ave from Middlefield Rd to Alma St Nove'mber 2017 Park Blvd from California Ave to Lambert Ave November 2017 Peter Coutts Rd from Stanford Ave to Page Mill Rd November 2017 Porter Dr from Hillview Ave to Page Mill Rd November 2017 Quaqy Rd from El Camino Real to Cam12us Dr November 2017 Stanford Ave from El Camino Real to Peter Coutts Rd November 2017 Stanford Ave from Peter Coutts Rd to Juni12ero Serra Blvd November 2017 University Ave from Middlefield Rd to Alma St November 2017 Waverley St from Lytton Ave to Channing Ave November 2017 Waverley St from Channing Ave to Embarcadero Rd November 2017 W Meadow Dr from Alma St to El Camino Way November 2017 SECTION 3: Section 10.56.015 (State speed limit decreased (thirty miles per hour)) is hereby amended as follows: 10.56.015 Thirty (30) miles per hour prima facie speed limit It is determined and justified upon the basis of engineering and traffic surveysL cond1::1cted by the city, as req1::1ired by state law and cornpleted on the date shown in this section, that the rna><irnurn speed lirnit applicable 1::1nder state law is rnore than is reasonable or safe upon the following streets or portions of streets, and that the follo·.ving speed limits which facilitate the orderly movernent of vehicular traffic and are reasonable and safe, and it is declared that the prima facie speed shall be as set forth in this section, e><cept for school wnes, on those streets or parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice thereof: that a speed greater than the twenty-five (25) miles per hour prima fade speed limit set forth in Section 22352 of the Vehicle Code of the state, would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon the streets, or portions thereof, set forth in this section, and it is hereby declared that thirty (30) miles per hour shall be the prima fade speed limit upon these streets, or portions thereof, except for school zones, as shown below: ~g MPM Ql!CbARl!Q PRIMA i;ACll! 5Pl!l!Q blMIT litreet er PertieR Tllereef !'.ffeGtell Fal3iaA Wa•( fraA'l East Cl:iarlestaA Raael ta West Baysl:iare FraAtage .Reitd MaABYer Street freFR Page PAlll bpresswav te MillYiew ftNeA11e Mill\·ie"v A'ieA11e freA'l MaAe·1er Street te Feetl:iill Enpresswa•1 MaAseA 'Ala;· ffeFA fl CaFRiAe Real ta Page Mill EKpresswa·1 Road Segment Name 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets ERgiReeriRg aRll Traffi& lillF·\'ey GeFRpletieR Qate SepteA'l13er 2!i, lQQ§ SepteA'll3er 2!i, lQQ§ SepteA'll3er 2!i, lQQ§ SepteA'll3er 26, lQQ§ Survey Completion Date Not Yet Approved Fabian Way_ from Charleston Rd to W Bay_shore Rd June 2014 Hansen Way_ from El Camino Real to Page Mill ExQ November 2017 Hanover St from Page Mill Rd to Hillview Ave June 2014 Hillview Ave from Hanover St to Foothill Ex~ June 2014 Sand Hill Rd from El Camino Real to Arboretum November 2017 W Bay_shore Rd from Oregon ExQ to Colorado Ave November 2017 SECTION 4: Section 10.56.020 (State speed limit decreased (thirty-five miles per hour)) is hereby amended by eleleting its text anel title in entirety anel rqilacing tl:ie eleleteel text witl:i tl:ieas follo1...,ingfollows: Section 10.56.020 Thirty-five (35) miles per hour prima facie speed limit It is determined and justified upon the basis of engineering and traffic surveysL conel1::1cteel by tl:ie city, as req1::1ireel by state law, anel corn13leteel on tl:ie elates sl:iown belo'...,, tl:iat tl:ie rnaxirn1::1rn s13eeel lirnit a13131icable 1::1neler state law is rnore tl:ian is reasonable or safe 1::113on tl:ie following streets or 13ortions of streets, anel tl:iat tl:ie follo1tving s13eed lirnits wo1::1ld facilitate tl:ie orderly rnovernent of vel:iic1::1lar traffic and are reasonable and safe, and it is declared tl:iat tl:ie 13rirna facie s13eed lirnit sl:iall be as set forth in these sections, exce13t for school zones, on those streets or 13arts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice thereof: that a speed greater than the twenty-five {25) miles per hour prima facie speed limit set forth in Section 22352 of the Vehicle Code of the state, would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon the streets, or portions thereof, set forth in this section, and it is hereby declared that thirty-five (35) miles per hour shall be the prima facie speed limit upon these streets, or portions thereof, except for school zones, as shown below: ii MPM Ql!CbARl!Q PRIMA ~AClli 5P&&Q blMIT litreet er PeFtieR Tllereef Affe&ted Arastraelere Reael freFA Feetllill i11pressway ta eity liFAit west ef Eleer Creel1 Reael OregeR !!11pressway freFA Mielellefielel Read ta AIFAa !itreet OregeR i>Epressway freFA Mielellefielel Reael ta bl.Ii. lQl !iaRel Mill Reael freFA Areeret1:1FA !itreet ta Paste1:1r Elrive !iaRd Mill Reael freFA Paste1:1r Elrive ta westerly eity liFAit Page Mill inpressway freFA MaRever !itreet ta Feetllill i11presswa~· Millview A•1eR1:1e freFA Feetllill !!11pressway ta Arastraelere Read Road Segment Name Alma St from Lincoln Ave to Oregon ExQY. Alma St from Oregon ExQ to E Meadow Dr Alma St from E Meadow Dr to South City_ Limit Arastradero Rd from Purissima Rd to Deer Creek Rd 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets iRSiReeFiRS aRd TraffiG liYF\fe)' 'eFApletieR Qate Marel:1 21, 1994 Marell 211 1994 !iepteFAeer 20, 199!i !iepteFAeer 2e, 199!i !iepteFAeer 2e, 199!i !iepteFAeer 2e, 199!i !iepteFAeer ;i.e, 199§ Survell Comeletion Date November 2017 November 2017 November 2017 November 2017 Not Yet Approved Arastradero Rd from Deer Creek Rd to Foothill Exi;i November 2017 Hillview Ave from Foothill Exi;i to Arastradero Rd November 2017 Oregon Exi;i from Middlefield Rd to Highway 101 June 2014 Oregon Exi;i from Middlefield Rd to Alma St November 2017 Page Mill Rd from El Camino Real to Hanover St June 2014 Page Mill Rd from Hanover St to Foothill Exi;i June 2014 Sand Hill Rd from Arboretum to West City limit November 2017 San Antonio Rd from Alma St Overi;iass to Middlefield Rd June 2014 San Antonio Rd from Middlefield Rd to Charleston Rd June 2014 San Antonio Rd from Charleston Rd to East City Limit June 2014 W Bayshore Rd from Oregon Exi;i to Loma Verde Ave November 2017 W Bayshore Rd from Loma Verde to Fabian Way June 2014 SECTION 5: Section 10.56.025 (State speed limit increased (thirty miles per hour)) is hereby amended as follows: Section 10.56.025 Forty (40) miles per hour prima facie speed limit It is determined and justified upon the basis of engineering and traffic surveysL conducted b'( the cit'(, as required by state law, and completed on the dates shown below, that a speed greater than that provided b'( state law would facilitate the orderl'( moi.•ement of traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon the following streets or portions of streets, and it is declared that the prima fade speed limit shall be as set forth in this section except for school zones, on the streets or parts of streets designated in this section when signs are erected giving notice thereof: that a speed greater than the twenty-five (25) miles per hour prima facie speed limit set forth in Section 22352 of the Vehicle Code of the state, would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon the streets, or portions thereof, set forth in this section, and it is hereby declared that forty (40) miles per hour shall be the prima facie speed limit upon these streets, or portions thereof, except for school zones, as shown below: iO MPM Dl!CbARl!D PRIMA i::ACll! SPl!li D blMIT !itreet er PeFtieR ll:lereef ,".ffeeted West 8aysl:lefe ~reRtage Read H=em OregeA l!upress .. vay ta l'.marille A'«eA11e Road Segment Name E Bayshore from Bay Lands frontage to San Antonio Rd Deer Creek Rd from western City limits to Arastradero Rd !;RgiReeriRg aRd Tram& !iuwe·1 CeFRpletieR Qate Septemlaer 2€i, lQ!Hi Survey ComRletion Date November 2017 November 2017 SECTION 6: Section 10.56.30 (State speed limit increased (thirty-five miles per hour)) is hereby amended as follows: 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limlts for Certain Streets Not Yet Approved Section 10.56.30 Forty-five (45) miles per hour prima fade speed limit It is determined and justified upon the basis of engineering and traffic surveysL conducted by the city, as reeiuired by state law, and completed on tl=ie dates sl=iown below, that a speed greater tl=ian that provideEI by state la·.v would facilitate the orderly movement of traffic and would be reasonable and safe upon the following streets or portions of streets, and it is declareEI tl=iat tl=ie prima facie speed limit sl=iall be as set fortl=i in this section, except for scl=iool zones, on the streets or parts of streets designated in tl=iis section when signs are erected giving notice thereof: that a speed greater than the twenty-five (25) miles per hour prima facie speed limit set forth in Section 22352 of the Vehicle Code of the state, would facilitate the orderly movement of vehicular traffic and would be reasonable and safe under the conditions found to exist upon the streets, or portions thereof, set forth in this section, and it is hereby declared that forty-five (45) miles per hour shall be the prima facie speed limit upon these streets, or portions thereof, except for school zones, as shown below: ii MPM Ql!CbARl!Q PRIMA IPACli 5Plil!D blMIT East 8a'fSAare Raael fraFR EFReareaelera Raael ta Aartl:ier1·1• eity liFAit Page Mill EJ113ressway fraFR .O.IFRa Street ta l-laAa•1er Raael SaA AAtaAia Raael fraFR East Baysl:iare Raael ta AIFRa Street AIFRa Street fraFR EFReareaelera Raael ta OregaA iJ113resswa•1 AIFRa Street fraFA OregaA E1111ressway ta Meaelaw 9rive AIFRa Street fraFA MeaElaw 9rive ta SaA AAtaAia RaaEI Road Segment Name Foothill Expressway from Page Mill Rd to South City Limit iABiAeariAB aAij Tra~& 511F"&'i' GaA'lpletiaA !;)ate Marel:i 21, 1994 Marel:i 21, 1994 Marel:i 21, 1994 Se13teFReer 26, 199§ Se13teFReer 26, 1995 Se13teFReer 26, 1995 Survey Completion Date November 2017 SECTION 7: New Section 10.56.35 (Twenty (20) miles per hour School Zones Speed Limit) is added as follows: Section 10.56.35 Twenty (20) miles per hour School Zones Speed Limit It is determined and justified pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22358.4(b)(l) that twenty (20) miles per hour shall be the prima facie speed limit on the road segments shown below at a distance within 500 feet from or of the school grounds while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the noon recess period . . School name Road Segment Name 1 Addison Elementa!Y School Middlefield Rd Webster St 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Not Yet Approved Addison Ave Lincoln Ave 2 Palo Alto High School Churchill Ave Embarcadero Rd 3 Wa lter Hays Elementart School Embarcadero Rd Middlefield Rd 4 Duveneck Elementart School Channing Ave Alester Ave 5 Jordan Middle School California Ave Middlefield Rd 6 Ohlone Elementart School Amarillo Ave 7 El Carmelo Elementa!}'. School El Carmelo Ave Loma Verde Ave Brtant St Ramona St 8 Palo Verde Elementa!}'. School Louis Rd Rorke Way 9 Fairmeadow Elementart School East Meadow Dr 10 JLS Middle School East Meadow Dr 11 Herbert Elementart School Charleston Rd 12 Barron Park Elementart School Barron Ave 13 Juana Briones Elementart School Maybell Dr Gerogia Ave Orme St 14 Terman Elementa!Y School Terman Ave Arastradero Rd 15 Gunn High School Arastradero Rd 16 Escondido Elementart School Stanford Ave 170814 EP/Plannlng ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets Not Yet Approved SECTION 8. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this ordinance, or the application to any person or circumstances, shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application and, to this end, the provisions of this ordinance are hereby declared to be severable. SECTION 9. CEQA. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. SECTION 10. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty- first date after its passage and adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS : ABSENT: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Assistant City Attorney 170814 EP/Planning ORD Establishing Speed Limits for Certain Streets APPROVED : Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY OF PA Council AL "" You are invited to our Community Roundtables! We have the opportunity to address long-standing challenges with the four grade crossings on the rail corridor that runs through our City. Join us to help evaluate potential grade separations at Churchill Avenue, Charleston Road and Meadow Drive, Palo Alto Avenue, as well as one session devoted to a tunnel and trench discussion. Feel free to attend as many of the roundtables as you like or attend the one that you are interested in most. Your feedback and ideas will be used to help us identify the universe of grade separation alternatives to be considered. Bring a friend or a neighbor who hasn't come to any of our previous Connecting Palo Alto workshops and you'll receive a City of Palo Alto notebook and For the Love of Palo Alto lapel pin! Mark your calendars and RSVP for the free roundtables at https://connectingpaloalto.brownpapertickets.com/ This effort is part of Connecting Palo Alto, a community based process designed to inform decisions affecting both aesthetics and mobility choices for many future generations. For more information, visit www. tityofpaloalto.org/ConnectingPaloAlto or contact us at (650) 329-2520 or transportation@tityofpaloalto.org CITY OF 5 TO: PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RAIL COMMITTEE FROM: HILLARY GITELMAN, DIRECTOR, PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 2017 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 -Review and Comment on Draft Rail Corridor Circulation Study White Paper The Existing Conditions section has been added to the Draft Rail Corridor Circulation Study White Paper. The final draft of the section was not available when the staff report was published. r Plann ng and Community Environment ff"' James Keene City Manager 1of1 M ,. MOTT M MACDONALD CITY OF PALO ALTO Existing Conditions Report Draft City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management November 2, 2017 City of Palo Alto Mott MacDonald 4301 Hacienda Drive Suite 300 Pleasanton CA 94588 United States of America T +1 (925) 469 8010 F +1 (925) 469 8011 mottmac.com/americas City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Existing Conditions Report Draft City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management November 2, 2017 City of Palo Alto .. Mott MacDonald I Existing Conditions Report Draft City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management Issue and revision record Revision Date Originator Checker A Feb24, Tina Hu Ravi N 2017 B March 3, Tina Hu Michele 2017 Di Francia c June 7, Darlene Ravi N 2017 Gonzalez D Nov2, Darlene Richard 2017 Gonzalez Davies Document reference: 372569 I 1 I 1 Information class: Standard Approver Description Michele First Internal Draft DiFrancia Richard Davies Second Internal Draft Michele Third Internal Draft DiFrancia Richard Davies Ariel Morales Fourth Draft This document is issued for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the above-captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other purpose. We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other party, or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error or omission in data supplied to us by other parties. This document contains confidential information and proprietary intellectual property. It should not be shown to other parties without consent from us and from the party which commissioned it. 372569 I 1 J 1 I November 2, 2017 C:\Users\cla34137\Desktop\Palo Alto\PaloAltoRPM_ T ask4 _ ExistingConditionsReport _ v4.docx Mott MacDonald I Existing Conditions Report. Draft City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management Contents 1 Introduction 1.1 Purpose 2 Policy Framework 2.1 Palo Alto Policies 2.1.1 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan -Transportation Element 2.1.2 Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan 2.1.3 Palo Alto Climate Protection Plan 2.1.4 Palo Alto Municipal Code 2.1.5 Safe Routes to School 2.2 Stakeholder Agencies 3 Study Area 3.1 Land Use 3.2 Demographics 3.3 At-Grade Crossings 3.3.1 Palo Alto Avenue 3.3.2 Churchill Avenue 3.3.3 Meadow Drive 3.3.4 Charleston Road 3.4 Grade-Separated Crossings 3.4.1 Everett Avenue 3.4.2 University Avenue 3.4.3 Homer Avenue 3.4.4 Embarcadero Road 3.4.5 Seale Avenue 3.4.6 California Avenue 3.4.7 Oregon Expressway 3.4.8 Loma Verde Avenue 3.4.9 San Antonio Road 4 Cal train 4.1 Caltrain Operations 4.1.1 Caltrain Stations 4.2 Grade Crossing Inventory Checklist from Caltrain Hazard Analysis 4.3 Caltrain Capital Projects 4.3.1 Signal Preemption Improvement Project 4.3.2 CBOSS Positive Train Control System 372569 11 11 I November 2, 2017 C:\Users\cla34137\Desktop\Palo Alto\PatoAltoRPM_ Task4_ExistingConditionsReport_ v4.docx 7 7 8 8 8 9 9 10 10 12 13 13 14 15 15 16 18 19 21 21 22 23 24 24 25 25 27 27 28 28 29 31 33 33 33 Mott MacDonald I Existing Conditions Report Draft City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management 4.3.3 Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) 4.3.4 PCEP Relation to the High-Speed Rail Project 5 Traffic Operational Analysis 5.1 Vehicular Level of Service Methodology and Standards 5.2 Significant Impact Criteria 5.3 Traffic Signal Warrant Analysis Criteria 5.4 Traffic Count Data 5.4.1 Intersection Traffic Operations 5.4.2 Roadway Traffic Counts and Traffic Operations 5.4.3 Roadway Intersection Collision Data 6 Other Transit Services 6.1 Overview 6.2 Santa Clara Valley Tr~nsportation Authority 6.3 SamTrans 6.4 AC Transit 6.5 Shuttles 7 Bicycle and Pedestrian Network 7 .1 Overview 7.2 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle+ Pedestrian Transportation Plan 7.3 Safe Routes to Schools 7.4 Bicycle Facilities 33 34 35 35 36 36 37 37 38 42 44 44 44 46 46 47 48 48 48 49 49 Appendix A -Federal, State and Regional Policy and Framework Review 50 Americans with Disabilities Act 50 Federal Highway Administration 50 Federal Railroad Administration 50 Union Pacific Railroad 51 California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) 51 California Department of Transportation 51 California Public Utilities Commission 52 California Transportation Commission 53 Senate Bill 743 (Steinberg, 2013) 53 Association of Bay Area Governments 53 Metropolitan Transportation Commission 53 Bay Area Air Quality Management District 54 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the Congestion Management Plan54 Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Bicycle Program 55 Santa Clara County 55 Appendix B -Caltrain Weekday Train Schedule 57 372569 I 1 I 1 I November 2, 2017 C:\Userslcla34137\Desktop\Palo Alto\PaloAltoRPM_ Task4_ExistingConditionsReport_ v4.docx Mott MacDonald I Existing Conditions Report Draft City of Palo Alto Rall Program Management Tables Table 2-1: Summary of Transportation Goals from Comprehensive Plan Table 2-2: SRTS Infrastructure Project Timeline Table 3-1: Commute Modes Table 3-2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes at Palo Alto Avenue Crossing Table 3-3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes at Churchill Avenue Crossing Table 3-4: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes at Meadow Drive Crossing Table 3-5: Pedestrian and Bicycle Volumes at Charleston Road Crossing Table 4-1: Caltrain Operations Table 4-2: Average Weekday Ridership for Major Caltrain Stations Table 4-3: At-Grade Crossing Intersection Inventory Table 4-4: At-Grade Crossing Intersection Inventory Table 4-5: Estimated Ridership with Proposed Caltrain Electrification Project Table 5-1: LOS Definition for Intersection Control Delay (sec/veh) Table 5-2: Existing Conditions: Intersections Level of Service -Typical Operations Table 5-3: Palo Alto Avenue Railroad Crossing Traffic Volumes Table 5-4: Churchill Avenue Railroad Crossing Traffic Volumes Table 5-5: Meadow Drive Railroad Crossing Traffic Volumes Table 5-6: Charleston Road Railroad Crossing Traffic Volumes Table 5-7: Study Area Intersection Roadway Collision Data 2011-2015 Table 6-1: AC Transit -Line U Schedule Table 7-1: City of Palo Alto Bicycle+ Pedestrian Transportation Plan Objectives Table 7-2: Bicycle Facilities Figures Figure 2-1: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan -Bikeways in Palo Alto Figure 2-2: Safe Routes to School Statistics Figure 2-3: Walk and Roll Map Example -Hoover Elementary School Figure 3-1: Study Area Map Figure 3-2: Overall Land Use Map Figure 3-3: Palo Alto Avenue At-Grade Crossing Figure 3-4: Palo Alto Avenue Grade Crossing Land Use Figure 3-5: Churchill Avenue At-Grade Crossing Figure 3-6: Churchill Avenue Grade Crossing Land Use Map Figure 3-7: Meadow Drive At-Grade Crossing Figure 3-8: Meadow Drive Crossing Land Use Map Figure 3-9: Charleston Road At-Grade Crossing Figure 3-10: Charleston Road Crossing Land Use Map Figure 3-11: Everett Avenue Planned Grade Separation Figure 3-12: University Avenue Grade Separation Figure 3-13: University Avenue Underpass, Looking West 372569 j 1 11 I November 2, 2017 C:\Userslcla34137\Desktop\Palo Alto\PaloAltoRPM_ Task4_ExistingConditionsReport_ v4.docx 8 12 14 15 17 18 20 29 30 32 32 34 35 38 41 41 42 42 43 46 49 49 9 10 11 13 14 15 16 16 17 18 19 19 20 21 22 22 Mott MacDonald I Existing Conditions Report Draft City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management Figure 3-14: University Avenue Underpass, Looking East Figure 3-15: Horner Avenue Tunnel, Looking East Figure 3-16: Homer Avenue and Alma Street Bike and Pedestrian Undercrossing Figure 3-17: Homer Avenue Undercrossing Design Figure 3-18: Embarcadero Grade Separation Figure 3-19: Seale Ave Proposed Bike/Ped Crossing Figure 3-20: California Ave Bike/Ped Crossing Figure 3-21: Oregon Expressway Grade Separation Figure 3-22: Oregon Expressway Underpass, Looking West Figure 3-23: Oregon Expressway Underpass, Looking East Figure 3-24: Loma Verde Avenue Figure 3-25: San Antonio Road Grade Separation Figure 4-1: Caltrain System Map Figure 4-2: Change in Caltrain Average Weekday Ridership 1997-2016 Figure 4-3: Palo Alto Caltrain Station Figure 4-4: California Ave Caltrain Station Figure 4-5: Stanford Caltrain Station Figure 5-1: Vehicle Total Counts (Eastbound & Westbound) Figure 5-2: FHWA Vehicle Classifications Figure 6-1: Exiting Transit Services Map Figure 6-2: VT A Bus Route Map -Palo Alto Figure 6-3: AC Transit Line U Figure 7 -1: Existing Bicycle Network within Study Area Figure 0-1: PTC Implementation for Caltrain 372569 I 1 I 1 I November 2, 2017 C:\Userslcla34137\Desktop\Palo Alto\PaloAltoRPM_ Task4_ExistingConditionsReport_ v4.docx 22 23 23 23 24 24 25 25 26 26 27 27 28 29 30 31 31 39 40 44 45 46 48 51 Mott MacDonald I Existing Conditions Report Draft City of Palo Alto Rall Program Management Abbreviations/ Acronyms ADA ................. American Disabilities Act ADT ............ : ..... Average Daily Traffic BAAQMD ......... Bay Area Air Quality Management District BPTP ............... Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan BTG ................. Bicycle Technical Guidelines CAP ................. Climate Action Plan CBOSS ............ Communications Based Overlay Signal System CHSRA ............ California High-Speed Rail Authority CMP ................. Congestion Management Program CPP ................. Climate Protection Plan CTC ................. California Transportation Commission EMU ................. Electrical Multiple Unit FTA .................. Federal Transit Administration GHG ................. Greenhouse Gas HCM ................. Highway Capacity Manual HSR ................. High-Speed Rail LOS .................. Level of Service MTC ................. Metropolitan Transportation Commission PCEP ............... Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project PTC .................. Positive Train Control SCCBP ............. Santa Clara Countywide Bicycle Plan VTA .................. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 372569 I 1 11 I November 2, 2017 C:\Users\cla34137\Desktop\Palo Alto\PaloAltoRPM_ Task4_ExistingConditionsReport_ v4.docx Mott MacDonald I Existing Conditions Report Draft City of Palo Alto Rail Program Management 1 Introduction The City of Palo Alto (referred to as the "City") is preparing for increases in passenger rail service along the existing Caltrain rail corridor and potential impacts to existing at-grade crossings associated with service increases. Passenger rail service changes will be a result of the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) and potentially the California High-Speed Rail (HSR) project. The City of Palo Alto is bisected by the Caltrain rail corridor and enjoys both the benefits as well as the impacts associated with rail service: train noise and vibration, traffic congestion around grade crossings, and community safety concerns. These impacts are expected to grow as train service in the corridor increases regardless of whether or not the state's HSR project comes to fruition. As a result, the City is conducting a study to assess grade separation alternatives and minimize the impact of increased rail services on local traffic, the basis of which is referred to as the "Rail Program" throughout this document. In 2010, the City Council initiated the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study to evaluate land use, transportation, and urban design elements of the rail corridor, particularly in response to potential improvements to passenger rail service on the Caltrain corridor. The study report, as a result of a two-year process, includes an analysis of those elements and their potential impacts f ram the range of possible rail improvements, including Caltrain upgrades, such as electrification and/or grade separations, and/or the potential options for the HSR project1• In early 2014, the City conducted a study for conceptual grade separation alternatives for a portion of the Caltrain right-of-way encompassing three existing at-grade crossings: Charleston Road, Meadow Drive, and Churchill Avenue'. This study provided preliminary information on the potential impacts and costs of construction (by order of magnitude) for various roadway depression and trenching of the railroad alternatives. A railroad trench alternative would place the railroad tracks and rail operations below street-level, thus separating train traffic from motor vehicles, pedestrian, and bicyclist activity at the street-level. The study was not definitive in determining an ultimate configuration, but provided a starting point for dialogue on the issue, and indicated that roadway depression alternatives would require significant property acquisitions, while trenching alternatives would not. The study also concluded that while not all of the roadway depressions could maintain turning movements along Alma Street, the trenching alternatives could do so. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this Existing Conditions report is to examine the current conditions relevant to the Palo Alto Rail Corridor Circulation Study. This report includes sections on the policy framework for the Palo Alto Rail Program, overview of the study area, bike and pedestrian access, transportation networks, traffic conditions, and existing transit services in the City. Palo Alto Rail Corridor Study, 2013 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/lilebank/documents/38025 Palo Alto Grade Separation and Trenching Study, 2014 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/44211 372569 I 1 l 1 I November 2, 2017 C:\Userslcla34137\Desktop\Palo Alto\PaloAltoRPM_ Task4_ExistingConditionsReport_ v4.docx ''When women thrive, all of society benefits." -Kofi Annan ··w11c11 wome11 tl1rive , all of society l1e11efits."' -Kofi Annan ©Castilleja ""When \vomen thrive., all of society benefits." -Kofi Annan I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... t , TA-.:;.,,, o.. to O+ "f...uM.. ~A.al. ; ....,,,*' AiA.+,'°t""'-~ L....o ,,,4~-<.d... ~~~ ;.,.._ r~~,~~ ~·;t-;j!..~- z . W.e. 11...A ~ ~~ ~ fA-0~ f-o A.~ ~~,.,_~ 17 NOV-2 AH 9= 36 Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 1 ~ ~---vvV..'1· K.~_.vt-~. //'~ J ""'l~l'~~ll111l111111l111jlillldlJll111lljl1 I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... ITY DF PAL ITY CLERK95ADLFTO. CA F'ICE 7NOV -2 AH 9136 Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... ·,+ lN Ol.-\..l J b~ ~v~ c.... +--ft>...,, ~ ov<- j '• r ls ·-h rc::~e--1" ~ ~ 't-V"-<-iA--1. ~ J._ c;r-vo.._ s b~""'" -'!..-~ +-s of a.-. Cfff.1 o~s~~9t}:Mt \1 NOV-1 P" 3: 02 Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 Ca_s t-i l l <--j ~ e-J ~c: D--.ft . b"--<-. ...._.,I 'T.;,._ a: ' ~vV I J~11ffjJfl1J11hJJJJ!1l11111/Jl111lj1l1IJ1JJfJIJ1fl1111J111 I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize itsl7 campus because ... ca,.D-L n~j °'-~ CL ~k-.-1-; ( ,::>+• ""'-lv J~"~s7 ~ ~ ~ hC9Af~ft slc..:lL ~ ~~ ~~-'t ~Q.)· U:rt ~ (-' ?' cJ f l_.,_,J ~ -lof:l: t-1'rj)fl~ -h, ~Cl""--p D', V -8 AH Iii 13 Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 11111111'' '' '' ''' '' 11 I li1i'I'1111 ,, ,, ,,,, 197 Watter Hays Dnve Palo Alto, CA 94303 2924 ------------:---R>l T Of PALO ALTO.CA l y CLERK'S OFFICE I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... 11 NOV -2 AH 91 31 Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 ~ v&tu~i.fo . ~ f11i11iifitt111111jp1il1J11J1Jii1l11h1Jf11l11J1/ll111lJ11l1l; I support Castilleja's proposal to e-·-.. .::, · 1 increase enrollment and modernize its 0 GO TC.MQ~ ~CITY 0 PA~~Lm~U!C I "\-tn f.ll:, ---'II-, CITY &~~ cu:;:~O"R~ ii,.,. 17 NOV -6 AH IO: 37 Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 Office of the Clerk USA FOREVER ... Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 RETURN ADDRESS: . . '!l.'flj'Cf'. I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... tie_ ;vr/~d.. rencJvei//dJ1. wi"'// move fn<~k.. ~j;ve,,n~r and stu.JeJ-dr-r-dt?-~ flfY'll n.RJ.Jli_~n-s . !ks ~sive /f tto'llt:ti>~ (-e f dM.tls ~ ~ fl/XO cl Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 (tWk i ~('Utt1f. ~ J) ~ ~IJW,ttl ~..A.zJ.I' I support Castilleja~s proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because... -r 1J roJ.J.J..r ho. II L ldu~ vJovt'\~ 'v<JMIW. ih"'"-.. ~ 1c...h..., 1) ~r~r.t..d ~.11-10~~. 11. Utvl~-L, 'Jf"~ a.& 13,.-cE,l} ~"") M1)tjl)S Ml"-5c;"~ _Jo do ~ )G i J'Aq2t_ .Ool'l-//4t.o P.L 16 -t-b a... b" t.lc.k_ <!le ~ rt1._., ~y oLD ~ ~ _ __... --=----------------.--=--...;.__.,.. 11 NOV -3 PH I: ltlt Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 RETURN ADDRESS: 5"1 ,·I:-i's ~ fre,, -e;n1"J...th\.~ 5J.. ®I fo' ed.Yt ~~ ;; , .Yl-(,..s, a,d (J'U-r ~"11nw"''7 <J7Ajl.1-to e/A/,nl'CL ~ J?ll'rY,.. M,,-,. ~/ .. 7,.J -14 ~ l>f ~ ~"') rJ~14J CfJt-t>ffet.14.,-cn;:,,~u--71- 7NOV-3 PH I: ltl Office of the Clerk USA FOREVER ... Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 tJ /n6Ye, /~~ ~ /Jt-U ' ~~3~. l111lil11h1lil'll11ll 1ihll 111lillll1jl1lillil1111h11l1h1l11P I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 p n 1 ll:>N AODRESS: Barbara' · a·· J~<s'Jjt •. ~ Uew··· · -~ 1176 ~ers~n St PalO"Alto .CA 94301-2.418 " . "'· .... · · .. t~-.NCJV 40 -,,._ l.r • . RETURN ADDRESS' Kelli and Steffan TomHmon 431 Uncotn A~ .F.RANCI · . Palo Alto, CilifOmll 94301 Q2··:NOV2C> I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... USA FOREVER 17 NOV -6 AH IQ: 36 Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 ,11:,. I support Castilleja's proposal to-= increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... "f S.~D<""\--l/V'~~L~ Q...~l.-e. ~ CT"v\ - 17 NOV-6 AM 10: 37 :s.: ~""( r ~~ r-~ tA.s.. .\-i\ i.e..) c..l > ~ ~ ~ ~ t--ftl ~ ~ r \ S.. Office of the Clerk l Please distribute to all City Council Members \OvJ~>t>~'ve.~;(... \~-t ~ 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor _ ::t:-ot~" t U \le_ \ ~ of-Palo Alto, CA, 94301 ~ ~ G~+-~;)\fl>~, ~~\-)t\e.; "L.s ~Lt....-'\~*° ~ ~ ~0{...uo \ ~ 11\.-\.~u -pl.'-' ~ o ~ f'lo~ J ~l>/ >i-ti~~·1l1~il(f\;-h\il!ti 1 1lil ~fr'lti'lfJi-1qL h1 Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 The Cal-Ventura Greenway David Hirsch, RA Location: Palo Alto, California Neighborhood: Ventura Fahmida Ali Di Yang The Cal -Ventura Greenway is an approximately 1 /4 mile bike and ~trian linking element, connecting Park Boulevard to Boulware Park ttnfOugh the present Fry's site. It is a uniquely designed public amenity that Jvi11 integrate the new, mostly residential development of this site with the Cal -Ventura neighborhood from Page Mill to East Meadow. The concept of this development recognizes that Palo Alto must pro-actively create the design and designate the pathway for this quality landscaped urban structur~Qrior to the housing development to achieve the higher purpose of the neighborhood quality of life. This process, with the expanded uses of public space. will also benefit the future users, the residents and commercial tenants of this developmentand add to its marketability. As a creative landscape design exP,erience it will attract visits from the larger Palo Alto community to explore its unique attributes. The Greenway will achieve the following objectives: 1. To connect the entire Cal -Ventura neighborhood with a pedestrian/bike only route close to California Street and the Coltrain station. 2. To retain Park Boulevard and Lambert Street as the major vehicular link to El Camino Real to maintain appropriate traffic flow in the neighborhood. 3. To eliminate Olive Street access to Park Boulevard to allow a vehicle free public plaza entry to the Greenway. 4. To encourage public access by providing community parking in the rail right-of- way at the north entry to the Greenway. 5. To provide public amenities to encourage Greenway attendance, such as toilets, seating, signage, native plantings, art, etc. 6. To make the appropriate connection from Fry's site to Boulware Park at the intersection of Ash Street and Lambert. 7. To make the passage across Lambert safe by providing traffic signals. 8. To eliminate Ash Street adjacent to Boulware Park to allow the expansion of the usable Park area. 9. To make Boulware Park into a desirable destination by expanding on the activities of the park to encourage multi-aged users. ICOUNCJL!EETING 11/CP I 7 ( ] Placed Before Meeting ~eived at Meeting Other Considerations 1. Financing for the Greenway and Boulware Park will be a negotiation between the city and the developer. 2. The Greenway area is an easement on the property, but to be considered as included with the entire Fry's lot as a part of the zoning for purposes of development. It is not a taking. It is a public 'right of way'. 3. As in Park Plaza, much of the ground floor is to be used as small office commercial. but may also include local retail and residential. Zoning to be altered to allow for this mixed use. 4. Parking on the railroad right of way to enhance the parking for the Coltrain capacity as well as designated for the Greenway and the new office/retail use. 5. Housing planning and massing to consider the easterly portion of the lot to be taller than the west to maximize sunlight within the courtyard open space. 6. The present designation of housing is a placeholder for the future design. 7. Besides participating in the greenway financing and design commitment, the developer should be required to designate a certain percentage of units as affordable. 8. The Greenway presentation and program is a schematic concept created to show a variety of possibilities. A complete landscape presentation by qualified professionals is required to bring it to reality. 9. The maintenance of the Greenway and Boulware Park facilities requires an agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the present and ultimate owners of the development. l 0. Access to Matadero Creek for maintenance purposes must be retained. I I () () g 0 -+- CD I ~ ~ -8 ::J -+ c ..., 0 GJ ~ = I i !!i 5 () o:7 ~ 0 ~ ~ ::T 0 " ff :r 0 c -0 ::T .., " 0 -::T ··Cal-Ventura Greenway .. Detail Plan ': .... D Housing • Grass -Matadero Creek ~ Pedestrian Way II Bike Route • Plaza/Cafe II Planting/Seating Community Garden Cactus Garden e Bike Parking Restrooms Residentiaf Area D Picnic Area Volley Ball D Soccer Field Basketball Court Ill Children Playground • Creek Maintenance Area -Fence Coltrain = Bike Parking Area