HomeMy Public PortalAbout20171211plCC701-32
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: 12/11/2017
Document dates: 11/20/2017 – 11/29/2017
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 | 11/27/2017 11:30 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, November 25, 2017 3:46 PM
To:UAC; Council, City
Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); CAC-TACC; ConnectedCity
Subject:Joint Study Session between UAC and Council
Commissioners and Council members,
On 11-27-17, Council and UAC will have their first joint study session since 04-20-15.
Agenda: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62203
Staff report: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62187
The staff report suggests talking about:
> 1. Fiscal Year 2017 accomplishments
An hour is isn't much time. I don't think it's enough time to look at every little thing staff did, or even every little thing UAC did.
> 2. Fiscal Year 2018 work plan
An hour isn't much time. I don't think it's enough time to look at every little thing staff plans to do, or even every little thing UAC
plans to do.
> 3. UAC Interest Areas
Yes, this topic is appropriate, generally.
> 3a. Resiliency
"Resiliency" seems to have become a fashionable topic in only the past few months, perhaps since the 08-02-17 UAC meeting. But, as far as I know, there's no staff report or colleagues' memo that even says what it means in the utilities context, or why previous ways
of talking about utilities issues have been inadequate.
Incidentally, "resilience" seems to be the preferred way to say "resiliency." (Googling "resilience" gets 66,400,000 hits; Googling "resiliency" gets only 12,200,000 hits. Also, when I Google "site:cityofpaloalto.org resiliency", Google asks, "Did you mean:
resilience site:cityofpaloalto.org"?)
> 3b. Electric Vehicles
I don't know why UAC thinks Council's mandate is unclear. Is Council facilitating EV recharging with one hand and getting automobiles off the road with the other hand?
> 3c. Fiber Utility
I don't know what the issue is. UAC is the deliberative body responsible for overseeing the fiber utility -- FTTP as well as dark fiber.
> 3d. Workforce
Does UAC have the charter responsibility to worry about this?
> 4. Council focus areas
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:30 AM
2
In a way, I'm surprised that these "council focus areas" aren't spelled out in more detail. On 04-20-15, they seemed to be:
* FTTP * Undergrounding
* "Second" (i.e., 4th) transmission line * Electrification
* Water recycling (Or at least that seemed to be UAC's takeaway. See the 05-06-15 UAC minutes at Item 2.)
http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47848
To be responsive to these topics, UAC set up subcommittees to watch them. I think that was a disaster, because it didn't result in the issues returning to UAC for discussions in public. What does Council think?
Commissioner Schwartz has talked about taking undergrounding "off the plate" because the case can be made that it wouldn't
contribute much to electric reliability. But surely there are other things to consider: aesthetics, property values, and the fact that it was a citywide commitment. What does Council think?
UAC has pointed out examples where electrification doesn't result in lowering carbon emissions. Does Council agree?
> 5. Local Solar Policy
If local solar costs more and doesn't (yet) result in greater reliability, why are we doing it?
> 6. Council-UAC Communications & Relationship
To me, this should be the major focus of the entire joint study session. How can UAC effectively oversee utilities staff so that Council
doesn't have to spend so much time doing that? And how can UAC let Council know when it should rethink issues?
When the joint study session was scheduled for 05-03-17, I wrote to you about it (pages 21-22). http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/58111
Here (below the "###" line) is an updated version.
Thanks.
Jeff
-------------------
Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303 -------------------
#########################################################################
I think at least part of the joint study session should focus on how Council can give UAC the support it needs to do its job as an
independent advisory body. Here are some specific ideas about that.
1. Controlling the agenda
Who decides which items to put on UAC agendas? Who decides whether an item should be an "action" item or a "discussion" item (or a "presentation" item)?
UAC's job is to give its advice to Council. But if a topic is not agendized, UAC can't give its advice. And if a topic is not agendized as
an action item, UAC can't express its advice concisely and collectively in the form of a vote on a motion.
2. Verbatim minutes
Council Member Schmid often said that he'd like UAC's minutes to be verbatim, so he could find out exactly what happened at UAC meetings. He said he could read verbatim minutes in roughly a quarter of the time it would take to view the video.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:30 AM
3
UAC minutes used to be verbatim, but starting 06-02-04, staff decided unilaterally to do sense minutes instead, despite the objections
of some of the commissioners.
Here's an example of why it's important. On 07-07-04, UAC discussed financial options for FTTH, But we don't know exactly what was said. And the video is no longer online.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/uac-meetings/3745.pdf (On page 3, there's a note, highlighted in red, for the editor of the minutes to do something, but that didn't happen.)
P&TC minutes are verbatim.
3. Subcommittees
Who still thinks subcommittees are a good idea? And why?
The UAC "home page" names four subcommittees, but doesn't say who is serving on them, or what the issue status is.
http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/uac/default.asp
Whose job is it to keep this information up-to-date?
4, Rules of order
UAC uses a non-standard rules of order in which amendments are not allowed but substitute motions may be nested to any level. I think more-nearly-standard rules of order that did allow amendments but did not allow nested substitute motions would better
facilitate the crafting of potentially complex motions.
Both Council and P&TC have posted their rules of order online.
5. Scheduling joint study sessions between UAC and Council
Whose job is it to do this? In theory, they're supposed to be annual. As far as I know, the last one was 04-20-15.
6. The role of the liaison
Resource or eighth commissioner?
7. Representative of the City Attorney's Office
It used to be the case that a representative of the City Attorney's office (most recently Jessica Mullan) attended UAC meetings, to advise UAC on legal fine points as necessary. Has this practice been changed? I last saw her on the 07-01-17 UAC video. (UAC
minutes do not record the names of staff members who attend but do not speak. But maybe they should.)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net>
Sent:Friday, November 24, 2017 5:46 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Nov. 27 Agenda Item 3
Attachments:PAN Response to 285 Hamilton.docx
I'm resending PAN's concerns about this agenda item. See attached.
sheri
PAN Response to 285 Hamilton Prescreening Request for Roof Decks
Dear Mayor Scharff and City Councilmembers:
We, the co-chairs and Zoning Committee members of PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods), are concerned that the
proposed roof deck amendment for nonconforming buildings will harm residents who live in our commercial
areas. Although the staff report indicates that the roof decks must meet “certain performance standards related
to the proximity of residential development," the proposed protections in the attached letter apply only to “150
feet of any abutting residential zoning districts” – ignoring the fact that our commercial zones are also
increasingly residential!
The Downtown CD zone allows up to 1.0 FAR for residences. This is the same as RM-40, our densest
residential zone. Many hope that more residences will be built downtown, taking advantage of the generous
FAR allowance. We could easily end up with more residents per acre downtown than in any R-1 area. The staff
report says:
Roof decks on nonconforming buildings near residential land uses, especially single family zoned properties are
inappropriate.
Why then aren’t roof decks inappropriate in zones that contain residential land uses such as Downtown? We
also don’t understand the sentence’s implication that single family residences are more deserving of protection
that multi-family ones. The intrusive noise, light, and loss of privacy from roof decks near multi-family
residences will presumably harm even more people than those near single family properties.
The city should not rely on discretionary review or enforcement to protect residents from roof decks. Review
processes cannot protect residences that have yet to be built. And our enforcement mechanisms are ill-suited
for evening noise complaints. Architectural Review Board member Wynne Furth pointed out at the March 17,
2016 hearing for 411-437 Lytton that it was hard to get enforcement for conditions imposed on buildings. She
was speaking of a very similar situation, namely a proposed outdoor deck for employee functions at an office
building whose neighboring residents raised concerns about noise, light, and privacy intrusion.
The purpose of these large roof decks raises another concern. These decks aren’t just for a few employees to
get some fresh air on a break. Rather, they are designed for large-scale employee events, which can be loud
and intrusive. Such events can also be held indoors in restaurants. In fact, we want to encourage Downtown
offices to use our local restaurants and thus bolster our retail sector.
It seems unfortunate that this proposal stems from the desire of one tenant of a single non-conforming building
to gain a non-essential benefit but fails to address the much more vital goals of encouraging residential and
retail uses in our commercial areas.
Rather than support the roof deck proposal, either as a general change or as a “test case,” we suggest the
Council instead consider extending more of the protections our traditional residential zones enjoy to all our other
districts that allow residences. Doing so will make more of the city livable and attractive to residents and seems
both fair and appropriate, given our City focus on improving housing opportunities.
Thank you,
Sheri Furman, Co-Chair of PAN and Zoning Committee Member
Rebecca Sanders, Co-Chair of PAN and Zoning Committee Member
Jeff Levinsky, Zoning Committee Chair
Neilson Buchanan, Zoning Committee Member
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Boris Foelsch <borisfoelsch@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 26, 2017 9:43 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Adobe Creek 101 Bike / Pdestrian Bridge
Honorable Council Members,
I write in support of the pending decision to move forward with the 101 overcrossing. I am one of many voices that has consistently been in favor opening year round, convenient access to the Bay trails from our south Palo
Alto neighborhoods. A growing number of people are commuting to work and enjoying the open space access
that our Lefkowitz undercrossing offers us. Alas, it will be closed again for the rains and we will have to add
significant detours and danger to access our commutes and recreational opportunities.
I will continue bike commuting to work near the Lawrence train station and the great trail access helps
immensely. It does become a lot less appealing when I have to ride to Oregon, San Antonio or Rengstorff just to
access the wonderful, off-street trails (like the Google-improved Moffet Bay trail) that are out there on the other
side of the freeway. I drive more often then and others won't even do it once the underpass is closed. The access
that would be afforded by a safe year-round overcrossing would help to get more people working on the bay side or beyond to get out of their cars.
In addition, the many residents of the area living in neighborhoods that are bounded by the freeway would
benefit greatly from safe, convenient access to open space.
I ask for your vote in favor of this very worthwhile project.
Respectfully,
Boris Foelsch
Louis Rd.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:26 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net>
Sent:Sunday, November 26, 2017 8:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support the 101 Ped/bike bridge staff recommendation (item 10)
Dear City Council,
I am pleased to see our public works department moving forward with the
101 Ped/Bike bridge at Adobe Creek. Creating a year round crossing at that point will expand access to the baylands for
recreation, and improve year‐round active transportation connections from Palo Alto to Mountain View and Sunnyvale,
and from North Sunnyvale to Palo Alto.
At Monday evening's meeting, please support all the staff recommendations, which will move this project further along
towards completion. This has been a long time in development, and I hope it can be completed as quickly as possible.
Thank you for your service to our city,
Robert Neff
Emerson Street near Loma Verde
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:26 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:BRYAN WILSON <bjw3bjw3@comcast.net>
Sent:Sunday, November 26, 2017 8:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Adobe Creek Bike Bridge
Dear Members of the City Council:
I am writing to voice my strong support for the construction of a bike and pedestrian bridge over
Highway 101 at Adobe Creek. There's no question that it's necessary because it's an important
commuting and recreational route that should be passable year round. There are no practical
alternatives -- the Embarcadero Road overpass requires a considerable detour to the north, and
crossing 101 at San Antonio on foot or bike is not safe. My personal preference would be for a
"statement" bridge, but if we can't afford that a utilitarian crossing will still be vastly superior to what
we have now. Let's get it done, and the sooner the better.
Sincerely,
Bryan Wilson
3444 Greer Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:26 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Elke MacGregor <bemacgregor@earthlink.net>
Sent:Sunday, November 26, 2017 8:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike/Ped overpass
Esteemed Council members
We would like to express our support of the proposed bike/ped overpass at hwy 101. Our whole family has used the
underpass many times and look forward to a year round connection that will give us all non‐motorized access to the Bay
trails, parks and events. We applaud your efforts to improve bike friendly transportation in Palo Alto.
Elke MacGregor and family
55 Roosevelt Circle
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:26 AM
5
Carnahan, David
From:Greg Watson <gwatson@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 26, 2017 5:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project
Dear Council members,
Regarding the proposal for the Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project: I cycle to
work from Palo Alto down to Santa Clara virtually every work day. I ride down the Bay Trail, as it is safe, quiet and
beautiful. My regular access in summer is via the Adobe Creek/101 underpass. Alas that is closed in winter due to
possible flooding, and so I cycle over 101 on either San Antonio Rd or Rengstorff, both of which have heavy traffic.
I would like to express my support for the bridge project, as I would love to be able to access Shoreline and the Bay trail in
a safe and convenient way throughout the year.
Thank you for listening,
Sincerely,
Greg Watson
Kipling St
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:26 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:William Robinson <williamrobinson@goldenworld.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 26, 2017 4:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Adobe Creek Bridge- needed: ADA compliant and all season availability
Yes, like many, I thought the “art bridges” exercise a delay and waste of funds. I avoid the Oregon
bridge due to steepness and narrowness. I am a daily bike rider.
The cooperation of Google to impinge and the teamwork with SC Water District is terrific.
Please stress that access from Meadow via creek will occur jointly at project end.
Please assure that an anonymous counter will be included.
I happen to be “keeper of the anonymous counters” at El Palo Alto and Wilkie Bridges
William’Rob’ Robinson, member PABAC (Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee), Palo Alto
since 2005
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:26 AM
7
Carnahan, David
From:Luis Valente <lfvalente@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 26, 2017 4:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Hwy 101 bike/pedestrian overpass project
Dear Council members,
I commute from midtown Palo Alto to the Google offices in Sunnyvale on an almost daily basis. Whenever it is open, I take advantage of the current underpass at Adobe Creek. The Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass
Capital Improvement Project is of great interest to me as it would make my commute much more safe and
enjoyable all year round. Please support the staff's recommendation with regards to this project.
Luis Valente
2903 Sevyson Ct
Palo Alto 94303
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:26 AM
8
Carnahan, David
From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, November 26, 2017 3:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail Project
Honorable City Council Members,
I remember writing in support of VTA funding for this important connection more than a decade ago—funding that was awarded and then subsequently rescinded because of project delays. The project before you is a good,
cost-effective plan and funding is (once again) in place. Please approve staff’s recommendations this evening.
The current crossing at Embarcadero Road is one and a half miles away. Using it when the tunnel is closed can
add as much as three miles to a bike trip. That is a barrier for young children. For an adult biking at fifteen miles an hour this extra distance means added time of twelve minutes, plus up to three minutes waiting for a
green light at Oregon Expressway. For people like my husband who bike commute from south Palo Alto to
points south (San Jose, in his case), that would be a significant addition to daily bike commutes.
Today, when the Lefkowitz Tunnel is closed, bicycle commuters are pushed to busy, arterial surface streets during the wettest, darkest months. Safety is an issue.
For people who enjoy hiking and birding in the bay lands, the bridge will provide a new car-free connection to
this amazing natural, open space.
The bridge and trail improvements are well-supported by Comprehensive Plan policies and goals. The Hwy
101/Adobe pedestrian/bike bridge is an important regional connector that is long overdue. Please move it
forward quickly.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Sincerely,
Penny Ellson
Palo Alto resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:26 AM
9
Carnahan, David
From:nodiamonds@gmail.com on behalf of philippe@nodiamonds.com
Sent:Sunday, November 26, 2017 2:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support of Adobe 101 Bike crossing
As a Palo Alto resident (349 Diablo Ct, 94306) I heartily support the proposed bike crossing.
Thank you,
Philippe Alexis
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 3:44 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Frank Viggiano <fpviggiano@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 27, 2017 3:24 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please approve Adobe Creek US 101 Bike/Ped Bridge
Dear Council Members:
I'm writing in support of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge over US highway 101 at Adobe Creek, as well as the
approach paths. I believe this bridge and paths would open up our unique Baylands open space area to south Palo Alto residents in a way which the seasonal underpass does not. It will also be a safe and convenient access
point onto the wonderful Bay Trail system. I currently commute to work by bicycle through the underpass
during the months in which the underpass is open, continuing on to my job in north Santa Clara via the Bay
Trail. By doing so, I am one less car on the roads and freeways, not adding to traffic and pollution. When the
underpass is closed, the alternative is to cross through the congested and unsafe Charleston/San Antonio Rd intersection and over either the San Antonio Rd. overpass or Rengstorff Ave. overpass -- neither of which
makes for a safe route for bicycle traffic.
For the safety of riders such as myself, for cleaner air and less vehicular traffic, and to open up our beautiful
Baylands open space to more Palo Altans, I strongly urge you to approve the new bridge and its approach paths.
Regards, Francis (Frank) Viggiano
830 Talisman Drive
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 3:44 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:timoey@gmail.com on behalf of Tim Oey <tim@oey.us>
Sent:Monday, November 27, 2017 3:16 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Yes for Highway 101 Bike/Ped bridge and Adobe Creek Reach Trail!
Please approve and move forward with the highway 101 Bike/Ped bridge at Adobe Creek.
I regularly bike to and through Palo Alto and a year-around connection over 101 between the Baylands Nature Preserve and Palo Alto is a huge improvement over the seasonal underpass.
Bicyclists and pedestrians deserve year around safety and beauty so we attract more people out of their cars and
reduce GHGs.
Thanks!
Sincerely,
Tim Oey
Sunnyvale, CA 94087 http://www.timoey.com/
"Knowledge is Power"
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 3:44 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Betsy Bechtel <betsybechtel@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 27, 2017 2:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Agenda # 10 Bike/Pedestrian bridge
Please support agenda item #10, for the Bike bridge.
The design appears excellent and is much needed. Palo Alto has delayed this bridge for far too many years. As a bicyclist, I know that the most important part of the design concerns the slope of the bridge and the width of
the pathway. This bridge meets those criteria.
I have ridden my bike over most of the bicycle bridges spanning highways in our County, over 237, 101, 280
and 85. There are many excellent bridges which Palo Alto easily could have copied.
The underpass in south Palo Alto is closed six months of the year. The highway bridge at San Antonio Road is
not safe for bicycles.
Please do not delay this any longer.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 3:44 PM
4
Carnahan, David
From:Jeff Weitzman <jeff@weitzman.net>
Sent:Monday, November 27, 2017 12:28 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bike bridge
Dear Council members,
I’m writing to support staff’s recommendation to approve the Highway 101/Pedestrian Bike Bridge project. The Baylands and trails in the area are an important recreational resource that my family enjoys and that make living
in Palo Alto so great. These trails connect to a larger regional network of bike paths (which are frankly far
superior to what we have in Palo Alto) that make it possible to use bike transportation for getting around the
region, and to take meaningful rides.
The current underpass is seasonal and unpleasant. For a dedicated rider or commuter, it’s OK when it’s open,
but it is a clear impediment to more people taking advantage of biking in the Baylands. The overpass at Oregon
is open all the time, but it’s narrow, the entrance/exit is steep and hard to navigate, and the paths to get to the
more continuous sections of Baylands pathways involve crossing traffic and driveways.
Bottom line: we need this bike bridge.
Jeff Weitzman
jeff@weitzman.net 650-395-7292 (mobile)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 3:46 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From: Jo Bellomo [mailto:jo@bellomoarchitects.com]
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2017 3:26 PM
To: Gitelman, Hillary; Lait, Jonathan
Cc: pratima@bellomocarchitects.com
Subject: 101 overpass design
Hello Hillary and Jonathan,
Hope your both having a nice Fall.
I am enclosing a design study for the 101 overpass design we created a few years ago.
We read and heard that the City is re-looking at the overpass design potential.
We would also have a spec on a sustainable / reuse concrete admixtures making for a very sustainable design.
Pratima is dropping off a hard copy at your offices now.
best regards,
joseph
_
Joseph Bellomo, Architect
102 University Ave, Suite C
Palo Alto. CA 94301
DATE
JOB NUMBER
HW 101
PED/ BIKE OVERPASS
PALO ALTO, CA
ARB SUBMITTAL
www.bellomoarchitects.com
F 6 5 0 .3 2 6.0 4 8 4ax
T e l 6 5 0 .3 2 6 .0 3 7 4
102 University Ave.
P a l o A l to ,C A 94 301
Suite B
071610
HWY 101 PEDESTRIAN/ BICYCLE, PALO ALTO, CA
FEASIBILITY 3D STUDY
12/01/10
1
AERIAL VIEW
DATE
JOB NUMBER
HW 101
PED/ BIKE OVERPASS PALO ALTO, CA
ARB SUBMITTAL
www.bellomoarchitects.com
F 6 5 0 .3 2 6.0 48 4ax
T e l 6 5 0 .3 2 6 .0 37 4
102University Ave.P alo Alto ,CA 94 301
Suite B
071610
HWY 101 PEDESTRIAN/ BICYCLE, PALO ALTO, CA
FEASIBILITY 3D STUDY
12/01/10
2
PROPOSED "GATHERING SPACE" WITH SEATING AND BIKE PARKING - AERIAL VIEW
101 SOUTH BOUND VIEW
DATE
JOB NUMBER
HW 101
PED/ BIKE OVERPASS
PALO ALTO, CA
ARB SUBMITTAL
www.bellomoarchitects.com
F 6 5 0 .3 2 6.0 4 8 4ax
T e l 6 5 0 .3 2 6 .0 3 7 4
102 University Ave.
P a l o A l t o ,C A 9 4 3 0 1
Suite B
071610
HW
Y
1
0
1
P
E
D
E
S
T
R
I
A
N
/
B
I
C
Y
C
L
E
, P
A
L
O
A
L
T
O
, C
A
FE
A
S
I
B
I
L
I
T
Y
3
D
S
T
U
D
Y
02/03/11
2
PROPOSED "GATHERING SPACE" WITH SEATING AND BIKE PARKING
101 SOUTH BOUND VIEW
50 100
PROPOSED "GATHERING SPOT" WITHSEATING AND BIKE PARKING
POTENTIAL GATHERING SPACE
SITE PLAN
Scale: 1:1000 1
B A Y L A N D S VIE W
NEIGHBORHOOD AND
WEST HILLS VIEWS
NEW BIKE OVERCROSSING ENTRY
NEW BIKE OVERCROSSING ENTRY
TO PALO ALTO BIKE PATH NET
W
ORK
EXISTING ADOBE BIKE AND
PEDESTRIAN UNDER CROSSING
UP
UP
DATE
JOB NUMBER
HW 101
PED/ BIKE OVERPASS PALO ALTO, CA
ARB SUBMITTAL
www.bellomoarchitects.com
F 6 50 .3 2 6.0 4 84ax
T el 6 50 .32 6 .0 3 7 4
102 UniversityAve.
P alo A lto,C A 943 01
Suite B
071610
11/30/10
1
HWY 101 PEDESTRIAN/ BICYCLE, PALO ALTO, CA
FEASIBILITY SITE PLAN STUDY
12/01/10
3
100 500
LOCATION PLAN
Scale: 1:5000 2
22'-6"
3'-6"
13'-5"
20'-3"
14'-0" TRAIL WIDTH
1 2 4
18'-6"
24
8'-0"
CONCRETE
CURB
CONCRETE
BOX GIRDER
6'-5" RADIU S
SECTION 1
LED LIGHTING AT RIB
STEEL RIB
70% SLAG MIX SMOOTH
FORM CONCRETE
DATE
JOB NUMBER
HW 101
PED/ BIKE OVERPASS PALO ALTO, CA
ARB SUBMITTAL
www.bellomoarchitects.com
F 6 5 0 .3 2 6.0 48 4ax
T e l 6 5 0 .3 2 6 .0 37 4
102University Ave.P alo Alto ,CA 94 301
Suite B
071610
HWY 101 PEDESTRIAN/ BICYCLE, PALO ALTO, CA
FEASIBILITY 3D STUDY
12/01/10
"CAMBRIDGE" STAINLESS STEEL MESH
4"
4"
T4, EXPOSED
GALVANIZED
STAGGERED
EMBED BOLTS
DETAILScale: Half Actual Size 2
4
LIGHT EXAMPLES 3
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/22/2017 11:46 AM
1
Brettle, Jessica
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Wednesday, November 22, 2017 11:42 AM
To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Eggleston, Brad; Nickel,
Eric; Blackshire, Geoffrey; Bobel, Phil
Subject:11/28 Council Questions for Items 5 , 6, 7 & 10
Attachments:Item 6 attachment.docx
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries made
by Council Member Tanaka regarding the November 27, 2017 council meeting agenda.
Item 5: On Call Emergency Services ‐ CM Tanaka
Item 6: Purchase of Backhoes – CM Tanaka
Item 7: Fire Station 3 Rebuild – CM Tanaka
Item 10: Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass – CM Tanaka
Item 5: On Call Emergency Services
Q. 1. Do other cities pitch in to pay for the contract, as the plant services the whole San
Francisco Bay?
A.1. Yes. Our 5 Partner entities pay their share of this and all operating expenses as
determined by the flow and strength of their sewage (the plant just covers a small
portion of the whole Bay Area, however.)
Q 2. Was most of the original $250,000 used in the first year? Is this why there is a need
for an increase this so early in the contract?
A. 2. Yes, this is the essential problem. For example we just paid $ 150,000 to repair
unexpected leaks in a 54” pipeline that was in danger of holding up the new apron
project at the Airport, and we had to use our “On Call Emergency Services Contract”.
Further, we can now see that the number of these emergency episodes is on the rise,
due to the fact that most of the plant is now greater than 45 years old,: well beyond
the design life. Therefore more money needs to be encumbered for emergencies, as
requested.
Item 6: Purchase of Backhoes
Q.1. Why was Peterson Cat chosen to provide these vehicles, not any other company?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/22/2017 11:46 AM
2
A.1. The bid process was through an Intergovernmental Cooperative Purchasing
Agreement with National Joint Purchasing Alliance (NJPA). NJPA creates national
cooperative contract purchasing solutions on behalf of its members which include
government, education and non‐profit agencies nationwide and in Canada. These
cooperative contract opportunities offer both time and money savings for their users
by consolidating the efforts of numerous individually prepared solicitations to one
national, cooperatively shared process. Peterson Cat was selected via the NJPA
process.
Q.2. What type and size of backhoe is it?
A.2. They are Caterpillar Model 420F2 HRC Backhoe Loaders. Please see the
attachment for the specifications and photo for additional information.
Item 7: Fire Station 3 Rebuild
Q.1. Why is total funding for the project $7.3 million, but the contract itself is only
$5,944,000?
A.1. $7.3 million is the amount currently budgeted, but the total project budget as
described in the report’s Resource Impact section is $9.5 million. The total project
budget includes many items beyond just the construction contract. The total funding
includes but is not limited to the following: staff salaries and benefits, survey services,
hazardous materials services, geotechnical services, arborist services, historical
resources evaluation, architectural design services, architectural review board fees,
building permit fees, utility connection fees, third party stormwater design review
services, preparation of temporary facilities at Geng Road, construction
administration (CA) services, construction management (CM) services, commissioning
agent services, and Inspector of Record (IOR) services. IOR services are required by
State law for essential services facilities such as fire stations.
Q.2. Is there anything wrong with Fire Station 3? Why does it need fixing so badly?
A.2. The current Fire Station 3 facility is operationally and technologically deficient. In
2011, the Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC) recommended this station for
replacement. The apparatus bay is undersized with respect to modern fire engine
sizes, and it requires emergency response vehicles to back into their storage
locations. Living quarters for fire personnel are not adequately separated from
potentially hazardous fumes and soiled equipment. Storage and shop space is not
sufficient for supplies and equipment, nor is there adequate space for drying hoses
after use. This project will provide a new facility built to essential services standards,
having a high likelihood of being fully operational after a major disaster such as a
significant earthquake. The new apparatus bay will have ample room and will allow
fire trucks to drive into the station by driving through from the rear parking area.
Q.3. Why does a fire station need to have all of things like “a pedestrian plaza, a bicycle
queuing area, public art, landscaping that will incorporate protected trees, new regional
indigenous drought resistant plant material, and a stormwater collection system
integrated with a cobblestone dry steam bed.”
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/22/2017 11:46 AM
3
A.3. Fire Station 3 is located at the intersection of Embarcadero & Newell Road, a
major crossing and queueing point for pedestrians and cyclists. In addition, the
Station is a location where the public can register bicycles. It also regularly hosts tours
for groups such as Cub Scout dens. The pedestrian plaza and bicycle queuing area will
help support all of these functions, and are endorsed in the Architectural Review
Board’s review. The landscaping, drought‐resistant plant material, and the
stormwater collection system were designed to meet the Palo Alto Municipal Code
requirements for a new commercial project. The specific stormwater regulations are
commonly referred to as “C.3 requirements” that denotes the section (C.3) from the
County‐wide stormwater discharge permit issued by the Regional Water Quality
Control Board. The Public Art Commission decided that the project was suitable for
incorporation of Public Art. They approved Pete Beeman as the project artist in
September 2016. The art is separately funded by the “Art in Public Spaces”, Capital
Improvement Program project AC‐86017.
Q.4. Why was this project determined “substantially complex” ?
A.4. This project represents a significant investment for Palo Alto. This modern
building has a complicated exterior and the structure must withstand a significant
earthquake. It is also designed to achieve LEED Silver certification. It is, therefore,
“substantially complex” and State of California Code allows the City to retain 10% of
payments due to the contractor until the project is deemed complete. The city is
limited to withhold only 5% for projects that are not determined to be “substantially
complex”. Council found the project “substantially complex” on August 28, 2017, and
further information is available in the staff report supporting that public hearing at
ID# 8231.
Q.5. Was there any bids lower than Strawn Construction?
A.5. No, Strawn Construction submitted the lowest bid of the four bids received.
Q.6. What was the reasoning for the bid protest?
A.6. The reasoning behind the bid protest was allegations about the listing of
subcontractors on Strawn Construction’s submitted bid form. Pursuant to Palo Alto
Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.30.480 “Waiver of minor irregularities, defects and
informalities”, the City’s awarding authority may exercise its discretion to waive minor
irregularities, defects or informalities in the bids or proposals, provided the waiver
would not affect the amount of the bid or proposal. Under this authority, the
Purchasing Manager denied the bid protest after determining that the errors in the
subcontractors list are minor irregularities and defects that do not affect the amount
of the bid.
Q.7. How is the relocation project working for when Fire Station 3 is under construction?
A.7. Fire Station 3 will be temporarily relocated to 2000 Geng Road during the
construction. During the daytime, the crew will co‐locate at Fire Station 1 at 301 Alma
Street. Staff anticipates this will result in a net decrease in response times due to the
high daytime call volume in the Fire Station 1 service area. In the evenings,
Fire Station 3’s crew will reside at the Geng Road facility. This relocation option was
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/22/2017 11:46 AM
4
selected by Council on October 17, 2016, and further information is available in the
staff report supporting that discussion at ID# 7356.
Item 10‐ Highway 101 Pedestrian/Bicycle Overpass and Adobe Creek Reach Trail
Q.1. How many people use the current Adobe Creek Underpass when it is open in the
summer? How many more people are expected to use the new overpass when it is
opened?
A.1. The Highway 101 Over/Undercrossing Feasibility Study completed in 2011
estimated current use of the Adobe Creek Underpass at 43,000 annual trips. The
Feasibility Study predicted that users of a new facility would increase to 74,000
annually based on a model developed by Alta Planning and Design. The model
considered projected land use, jobs creation in the area, and the ability of the crossing
to remain open year‐round.
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
CITYOF~
SANJOSE
CAPIThL OF SILICON VALLEY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR
AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: SEE BELOW
Approved'JS • P~iL
COUNCIL AGENDA: 3/8/16
ITEM: 3.4
Memorandum
FROM: Kim Walesh
Julia H. Cooper
DATE: February 26, 2016
Date
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF CITIZEN-
INITIATED GROSS RECEIPTS TAX BALLOT MEASURE, AND
OPTIONS FOR UPDATING CURRENT BUSINESS TAX
RECOMMENDATION
Consideration of the preliminary analysis of the citizen-initiated Gross Receipts Tax Ballot
Measure and preliminary review and discussion of City options for updating the current Business
Tax. -
BACKGROUND
On January 13, San Jose residents Steven Hunt, Kathleen Krenek, and Scott Myers-Lipton filed
with the City Clerk a Notice of Intent to circulate a petition within the City of San Jose for the
purpose of modernizing the business tax. The Notice of Intent to Circulate can be found here
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/53694.
As required by California Elections Code Section 9203, on January 26 the City Attorney
provided the residents with the ballot title and summary which can be found here
http://www.sanjoseca.gov/DocumentCenterNiew/53694
On February 2, City Council took the following actions:
• Approved the recommendation to study the proposed Gross Receipts Tax Ballot Measure
contained in the Memo from Councilmembers Rocha and Peralez dated January 14, 2016.
• Directed staff to conduct a limited preliminary review of the City's options for updating
the current Business Tax in Chapter 4.76 of the San Jose Municipal Code as contained in
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
February 26, 2016
Subject: Preliminary Analysis and Discussion of Gross Receipts Tax Ballot Measure
Page2
the Supplemental Memo from Councilmembers Rocha and Peralez dated January 29,
2016.
The City Manager was directed to perform the analysis as expeditiously as possible, and with the
use of consultant experts if required. ·
ANALYSIS
This analytic project was scoped, managed, and completed by a staff team (in conjunction with
Keyser Marston as discussed below) from the Finance Department, City Attorney's Office,
Office of Economic Development, and City Manager's Office.
Keyser Marston, a firm with experience in a range of services to local agencies including real
estate advisory services, fiscal analysis and municipal services financing was hired to conduct
the impact assessment of the proposed Gross Receipts Tax Measure, including the revenue
estimate, the impact by sector and size of firm, and the specific impact on eight prototype
examples. Keyser Marston also reviewed the analysis prepared by staff. The cost of Keyser
Marston's assistance was $24,000.
The attached presentation includes the following three sections:
I. Current Business Tax -describes San Jose's current employment-based business tax, its
history, and comparisons with other Bay Area and Santa Clara County cities.
II. Gross Receipts Tax Citizen Ballot Measure -describes the proposed ballot measure,
revenue projection, financial impact projection on various types of businesses, and
identifies implementation, administrative, and other considerations.
III. Options for Updating Current Business Tax -identifies options for changing San Jose's
current employment-based Business Tax.
This material will be presented at the March 8, 2016 Council meeting by Keyser Marston and
City staff.
EVALUATION AND FOLLOW-UP
Additional follow-up will be based on the direction from the City Council.
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
February 26, 2016
Subject: Preliminary Analysis and Discussion of Gross Receipts Tax Ballot Measure -
Page 3 ·
PUBLIC OUTREACH
This memorandum will be posted on the City's Council Agenda website for the March 8, 2016
Council Meeting.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with the City Attorney's Office and the City Clerk's Office.
CEQA
Not a Project, File No. PP10-069(a), Staff Reports that involve no approvals of any City Actions.
Isl
KIMWALESH
Deputy City Manager
Director of Economic Development
Isl
JULIA H. COOPER
Director of Finance
For questions, please contact Wendy Sollazzi, Division Manager, Department of Finance, at
(408) 535-7005.
San José’s Business Tax:
Preliminary Analysis of
Gross Receipts Tax Ballot Measure,
Options for Updating Current Business Tax
February 26, 2016
City Council Direction (2/2/16)
Conduct:
•Preliminary analysis of citizen-initiated
Gross Receipts Tax Ballot Measure
•Preliminary review of options for updating
the City’s current employment-based
Business Tax
Background:
On January 13, San José residents Steven Hunt, Kathleen Krenek, and
Scott Myers-Lipton filed with the City Clerk a Notice of Intent to circulate a
petition within the City to place a proposed gross receipts tax on a future
ballot. If the measure qualifies for the November 8, 2016 ballot and is
approved by a majority of voters, it will take effect January 1, 2018.
2
I. Current Business Tax
Structure
History
Comparisons
3
Current Business Tax Structure & Rate
Employment Based Model
Types of
Business
Annual Tax Additional Tax
Increments
Not to
Exceed
Number of
Registered
Businesses
Annual
Tax
Revenue
Most
Businesses
$150 up to 8
employees
$18 per employee
over 8
$25,000(1)67,000 $10.5 M
Commercial
Landlords
$150 up to
15,000 sq. ft.
$.01 per sq. ft.
over 15,000
$5,000(2) 3,600 $1.3 M
Residential
Landlords
$150 up to 30
units
$5 per unit over
30
$5,000(2)3,800 $0.8 M
Mobile
Home Parks
$150 up to 30
units
$5 per lot over 30 $5,000 50 $0.05 M
Totals 74,450
(3)$12.7 M
(1) 12 registered businesses are at the $25,000 cap(2) 24 registered landlords are at the $5,000 cap(3) Total count includes approximately 13,000 exempt businesses, but does not include approximately
11,000 branch locations 4
History of San José Business Tax
•Adopted in 1964
•Council last modified 30 years ago
•1984-Base rate increased from $30 to $75
•1986-Base rate increased from $75 to $150
•Voters rejected an inflationary
adjustment in 1998
5
Recent History
•Recommendation of General Fund Structural Deficit
Elimination Plan Stakeholder Group (2008):
–“Restructure Business Tax rates to modernize and reflect
current business profile”
–Revenue estimate: +$1 million-$7 million annually
•Recommendation of Fiscal Reform Plan (2011) as
one of four Revenue Strategies to pursue after
implementation of other fiscal reforms
–Revenue estimate: at least +$5 million annually
•Tested high-level concept in Community Budget
Priorities Surveys 2008 to 2012; results varied
6
Recent History
February 13, 2012 City Council Budget Planning
Study Session
–Shared benchmark data: San José in mid-range
of Santa Clara County cities
–Provided two options for modernization: (1)
change current employment-based tax or (2)
change to gross receipts
–Did not recommend gross receipts option: “very
significant effort to change tax base; is more
intrusive and less competitive model”
–Directed to conduct initial outreach to
stakeholders
7
Comparative Analysis
San José’s business tax revenue per firm is:
•In the mid-range of South Bay cities
•Far below San Francisco and Oakland
8
South Bay Region Comparison:
Average Business Tax Per Business
San José
$171
Santa Clara
$80Sunnyvale
$192
Mountain View
$31
Milpitas
$24
Cupertino
$450
Fremont
$453
Campbell
$133
9
South Bay Region Comparison
City Tax Basis
Admin
Fee
Annual
Revenue
Generated
Number of
Businesses
Average Tax
Revenue Per
Business
San José Unit No $12.7 M 74,450 $171
Campbell Unit No $0.7 M 5,000 $133
Cupertino Flat Rate No $0.9 M 2,000 $450
Fremont Gross Receipts $30 $8.6 M 19,000 $453
Los Gatos Unit $25 $1.3 M 4,000 $313
Milpitas Unit $50 $0.7 M 2,800 $24
Morgan Hill Unit $60 $0.2 M 3,200 $57
Mountain View Flat Rate No $0.2 M 6,500 $31
Santa Clara Unit No $1.0 M 12,000 $80
Sunnyvale Unit No $1.5 M 7,800 $192
Notes
(1) Unit taxation is driven by number of employees, apartments, lots, square footage, etc. –or some combination thereof
(2) Flat Rate taxation is a single tax amount applied to all business regardless of size
(3) Gross Receipts taxation is driven by top line revenue of each business
10
Bay Area Large City Comparison
San José San Francisco Oakland
Tax Basis Unit Gross
Receipts
Gross
Receipts
Tax Revenue
Generated
$12.7 M $600 M $70M
Average Tax
Revenue Per
Business
$171 $6,000 $1,077
Notes
(1) Unit taxation is driven by number of employees, apartments, lots, square
footage, etc. – or, some combination thereof
(2) Gross Receipts taxation is driven by top line revenue of each business
11
II. Gross Receipts Tax Ballot Measure
Description
Revenue Projection (Keyser Marston)
Impact (Keyser Marston)
Other Analysis
12
Gross Receipts Tax Ballot Measure
•Tax on annual gross receipts from activities
in San José
•Tax rate differs by industry classification
−$0.60, $0.90, or $1.20 per $1,000 in gross
receipts
•Businesses with gross receipts of $1M or less
(adjusted annually for inflation) are exempt
•No Cap
13
Impacts on Existing Business Tax
•Base tax of $150 remains for businesses
and landlords
•Businesses exempt under current business
tax remain exempt from base business tax
of $150
•Incremental increases are suspended (e.g.
$18 per employee over 8 employees)
•No inflation index on $150 base tax
14
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 23, 2017 10:26 AM
To:bjohnson@paweekly.com
Cc:ekadvany@paweekly.com; Council, City; sdremann@paweekly.com;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Keene, James; gsheyner@paweekly.com;
SWebby@da.sccgov.org; CSumida@da.sccgov.org; James Aram
Subject:Brown Act story censorship
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/11/21/school-district-will-correct-brown-act-violation
Unbelievable. Leave the comment intact and have your moderator / censor site the correct citation
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 12:03 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 24, 2017 11:45 AM
To:Brettle, Jessica; Carnahan, David
Cc:Watson, Ron; RJonsen@menlopark.org; Perron, Zachary; Council, City;
citycouncil@menlopark.org; council@redwoodcity.org; bos@smcgov.org;
swagstaffe@smcgov.org; myraw@smcba.org
Subject:California Public Records Act Request, Re PAPD dog attack on African-American Teen
Tajae Murray ( all camera, and video footage, etc., requested)
David & Jessica:
Here is a slightly edited version of my CPRA request, that I filed on Nov 23, 2017. Thanks,
Aram James
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST ( made this 23rd day of Nov, 2017)
Hi David Carnahan:
Hope your thanksgiving was a great one.
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I am requesting the release of all of
the following: video, digital, body-worn camera footage, and any other audio or
visual records, re the alleged PAPD dog mauling, of Tajae Murray, that occurred on or about April 7, 2016.
To assist in locating the above footage
The alleged victim of the dog attack was Tajae Murray. Below I have included links to two articles re this case. In the 1st article, linked to below, a list of all the
officers alleged to have been at scene of the dog mauling are named. This
information should provide you, and the city, a way to search for all footage
related to the incident.
The second linked article, see below, refers to video related to this incident.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 12:03 PM
2
Finally, I am aware of the fact that frequently, when CPRA requests are made, for
police body-worn camera footage, video of an incident, and other forms of video
and audio evidence, the city and police often cite or assert the ongoing investigation exception to the CPRA, Gov’t Code Section 6254 (f), in denying
release of said camera footage. I am requesting that the city waive said exception,
and release the above materials, for the following reasons:
1. This case involves very serious allegations of extreme police brutality. There is wide public interest in the matter. There is a compelling need to allow public
oversight of our police. All of which outweighs the ongoing investigation
exception to the CPRA.
2. In addition, at least one of the below articles, suggests that there has never been a serious police investigation in this case. As such, the ongoing investigation
exception should not apply.
3. In the William Raff case, 12/25/2015, when William Raff was shot and killed
by members of the Palo Alto Police Department, body-worn, or other camera footage, was released to the public, by the PAPD, or the district Attorney’s office,
or both, despite an ongoing investigation.
4. As such, there is precedent for releasing police maintained camera footage,
despite the ongoing investigation exception to the CPRA. A credible argument can be made, that waiver of the ongoing investigation exception, in the Raff case,
acts as a waiver in the current case.
5. The police should not be allowed to release camera footage, when they believe
said footage shows their conduct to be justified, and then be allowed to withhold footage, in another controversy police brutality case, where the police fear that the
camera footage might show them in an unfavorable light.
6. For all of the above reasons, I am requesting the PAPD waive any and all
possible exceptions to the CPRA, and release said footage to the requester, Aram James. In addition, said footage should be released to any other interested member
of the public or press.
Sincerely,
Aram James
http://padailypost.com/2017/05/06/suit-police-dog-mauled-teen-officers-accused-
of-just-standing-by-during-attack/
http://padailypost.com/2017/05/10/attorney-says-police-dog-bit-off-a-chunk-of-
boys-leg/
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:41 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net>
Sent:Tuesday, November 21, 2017 8:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cannabis
Could cannabis be sold at liquor stores? Or maybe some liquor stores? Seems like it’s the same set of problems for both
alcohol and cannabis.
In case you don’t know, THE best way to keep cannabis out of the hands of teenagers is to make it legally accessible to
adults. If you can sell legally to adults and make money, why sell to underage and risk prison.
Any teenager can tell you it’s easier to get pot than it is alcohol. I work with teens. Dragging your feet on tackling the
cannabis sale issue is not in anyone’s best interest.
Deb Goldeen
2130 Birch St., 06
321‐7375
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 22, 2017 7:00 PM
To:Stump, Molly; Reifschneider, James; Keene, James; Dave Price; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
Perron, Zachary; Jay Boyarsky; sdremann@paweekly.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com;
bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; dangel@da.sccgov.org; Keith, Claudia;
csumida@da.sccgov.org; Cullen, Charles; Watson, Ron; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org;
smanley@scscourt.org; dryan@scscourt.org; rpichon@scscourt.org;
ppennypacker@scscourt.org; sscott@scscourt.org; jseybert@redwoodcity.org;
jsylva@da.sccgov.org; swebby@da.sccgov.org
Cc:Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Council, City
Subject:Champagne or Jail?
So the question. How much alcohol was served... and if a city council member was found or picked up on a DUI or severally injured or killed someone. Who would be responsible? Molly Stump to address the issue at next city council meeting....
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:34 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, November 24, 2017 10:09 PM
To:Council, City; Perez, Lalo
Subject:City Attorneys' Salaries
Attachments:pacc_city_attorney_raises.docx; city_managers_salaries_2016_1.xlsx
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, CA 94301
Cc: Lalo Perez Re: Salary Raises for Key Employees
Elected Council Members:
The attached MS-WORD file contains data about City Attorney Salaries in the Greater Bay Area. Also attached is the spreadsheet from which this data was derived.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto
Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Cc: Lalo Perez
Re: Raises for Key Employees
Elected Council Members:
Recently one of the Palo Alto City Council members was quoted in a local paper that Palo Alto’s City
Attorney’s salary was “in the middle of Silicon Valley’s City Attorneys’ salaries” when the Council was
about to increase the salaries of Palo Alto’s key employees. This did not seem realistic, given the already
high salary of the Palo Alto City Attorney. It seemed that a little research into the matter was called for,
since this matter of increasing the salary of key employees keeps recurring yearly.
Using the data on www.transparenentcalifornia.com, which contains salary and pension data for
hundreds of responding California agencies, the salary data for the highest one hundred or so California
City Attorneys was extracted and transformed into an Excel spreadsheet. An additional field was added
to each row of the spreadsheet which allowed the data to be aggregated into regions, such as “Silicon
Valley”, “Southern California” and so on. Once sorted into regions, the salary data was then sorted from
highest to lowest values. That data is presented below in two tables.
Table 1 (below) provides the salaries of the highest-paid City Attorneys and Assistant City Attorneys in
the greater Bay Area. Table 2 (below) provides the cost-to-employ these same City Attorneys and
Assistant City Attorneys, ranked by total salary and benefits. Attached also is the spreadsheet from
which these tables were constructed.
As can be seen from the data, the Palo Alto City Attorney’s regular salary is the highest in the area, and
her cost-to-employ expenditure puts her near the top of the list for the year 2016. It’s a shame that this
data is not routinely provided to the City Council, since it is readily available to the public.
Wayne Martin
Palo Alto, CA
Table 1—Silicon Valley City Attorneys Ranked By Regular Pay.
Name Job title City Year
Regular
pay
Total
pay
Total
Benefits
Total
pay &
benefits
%
Salary
Over-
head
Molly Stump City Attorney Palo Alto 2016 $270,431 $286,770 $116,910 $403,680 33.0%
Richard E. Nosky City Attorney Santa Clara 2016 $268,548 $285,766 $93,885 $379,651 29.3%
Harvey Levine City Attorney Fremont 2016 $267,787 $270,888 $124,499 $395,387 32.3%
Dennis J Herrera City Attorney San Francisco 2016 $244,558 $244,558 $69,888 $314,445 22.2%
Jannie L Quinn City Attorney
Mountain
View 2016 $241,347 $256,133 $91,130 $347,263 30.5%
William
Seligmann City Attorney Campbell 2016 $237,720 $362,125 $80,303 $442,428 46.3%
Bruce Goodmiller City Attorney Richmond 2016 $222,084 $241,062 $71,521 $312,583 29.0%
Marc Zafferano City Attorney San Bruno 2016 $221,386 $229,357 $78,803 $308,160 28.2%
Damien B Brower City Attorney Brentwood 2016 $220,888 $238,100 $61,328 $299,428 26.2%
Shawn Mason City Attorney San Mateo 2016 $216,250 $220,749 $67,281 $288,031 24.9%
Janet Kern City Attorney Alameda 2016 $214,639 $221,771 $51,135 $272,906 21.4%
Scott Rennie City Attorney Belmont 2016 $214,257 $219,657 $72,481 $292,138 26.7%
Randolph Hom City Attorney Cupertino 2016 $213,873 $213,873 $67,286 $281,159 23.9%
Jason R Alcala City Attorney Livermore 2016 $210,894 $233,005 $84,025 $317,030 33.5%
Nora Frimann
Assist City
Attorney San Jose 2016 $209,133 $218,214 $175,514 $393,729 46.9%
Edmundo Moran
Assist City
Attorney San Jose 2016 $209,133 $218,214 $181,899 $400,113 47.7%
Barbara J Parker City Attorney Oakland 2016 $207,349 $213,949 $80,054 $294,004 29.5%
Michael S Lawson City Attorney Hayward 2016 $206,430 $226,622 $66,025 $292,646 29.5%
Doryanna Moreno
City Attorney,
Assistant Oakland 2016 $206,225 $219,222 $94,409 $313,630 34.2%
Otis McGee Jr.
City Attorney,
Assistant Oakland 2016 $206,223 $210,541 $72,284 $282,825 27.1%
Rose L
Zimmerman City Attorney Daly City 2016 $204,120 $211,870 $79,578 $291,448 30.0%
Kathleen Kane City Attorney Burlingame 2016 $203,973 $209,976 $60,370 $270,346 24.6%
Zachary D Cowan City Attorney Berkeley 2016 $203,465 $200,775 $74,332 $275,107 26.0%
Robert B Ewing City Attorney Danville 2016 $200,849 $212,923 $85,116 $298,039 32.6%
Veronica Ramirez City Attorney Redwood City 2016 $199,996 $223,319 $60,097 $283,416 29.4%
Debra Sue
Margolis
Assistant City
Attorney Fremont 2016 $196,845 $205,055 $62,431 $267,486 26.4%
Alexander E. Abbe
Assistant City
Attorney Santa Clara 2016 $196,734 $202,281 $73,812 $276,093 28.7%
Claudia M
Quintana City Attorney Vallejo 2016 $194,002 $256,845 $110,272 $367,117 47.2%
John Nagel City Attorney Sunnyvale 2016 $193,150 $220,388 $93,689 $314,077 38.5%
Heather C.
Westmoreland City Attorney Benicia 2016 $183,960 $229,047 $63,123 $292,170 37.0%
Julie Harryman
Assistant City
Attorney Pleasanton 2016 $182,773 $199,982 $76,846 $276,828 34.0%
Rocio V Fierro
Deputy City
Attorney V Oakland 2016 $177,596 $188,302 $84,753 $273,055 35.0%
Daniel Rossi
Deputy City
Attorney V Oakland 2016 $177,596 $196,328 $84,793 $281,120 36.8%
Richard F Illgen
Deputy City
Attorney V Oakland 2016 $177,596 $200,750 $70,338 $271,088 34.5%
Celso Dolores
Ortiz
Deputy City
Attorney IV Oakland 2016 $161,091 $194,759 $79,231 $273,990 41.2%
Gerald L Hobrecht City Attorney Vacaville 2016 $151,593 $337,373 $61,374 $398,747 62.0%
Table 2—Silicon Valley City Attorneys Ranked By Cost-To-Employ Expenditure.
Name Job title City Year
Regular
pay Total pay
Total
Benefits
Total pay
&
benefits
%
Salary
Over-
head
William Seligmann City Attorney Campbell 2016 $237,720 $362,125 $80,303 $442,428 46.3%
Molly Stump City Attorney Palo Alto 2016 $270,431 $286,770 $116,910 $403,680 33.0%
Edmundo Moran
Assist City
Attorney San Jose 2016 $209,133 $218,214 $181,899 $400,113 47.7%
Gerald L Hobrecht City Attorney Vacaville 2016 $151,593 $337,373 $61,374 $398,747 62.0%
Harvey Levine City Attorney Fremont 2016 $267,787 $270,888 $124,499 $395,387 32.3%
Nora Frimann
Assist City
Attorney San Jose 2016 $209,133 $218,214 $175,514 $393,729 46.9%
Richard E. Nosky City Attorney Santa Clara 2016 $268,548 $285,766 $93,885 $379,651 29.3%
Claudia M Quintana City Attorney Vallejo 2016 $194,002 $256,845 $110,272 $367,117 47.2%
Jannie L Quinn City Attorney
Mountain
View 2016 $241,347 $256,133 $91,130 $347,263 30.5%
Jason R Alcala City Attorney Livermore 2016 $210,894 $233,005 $84,025 $317,030 33.5%
Dennis J Herrera City Attorney San Francisco 2016 $244,558 $244,558 $69,888 $314,445 22.2%
John Nagel City Attorney Sunnyvale 2016 $193,150 $220,388 $93,689 $314,077 38.5%
Doryanna Moreno
City Attorney,
Assistant Oakland 2016 $206,225 $219,222 $94,409 $313,630 34.2%
Bruce Goodmiller City Attorney Richmond 2016 $222,084 $241,062 $71,521 $312,583 29.0%
Marc Zafferano City Attorney San Bruno 2016 $221,386 $229,357 $78,803 $308,160 28.2%
Damien B Brower City Attorney Brentwood 2016 $220,888 $238,100 $61,328 $299,428 26.2%
Robert B Ewing City Attorney Danville 2016 $200,849 $212,923 $85,116 $298,039 32.6%
Barbara J Parker City Attorney Oakland 2016 $207,349 $213,949 $80,054 $294,004 29.5%
Michael S Lawson City Attorney Hayward 2016 $206,430 $226,622 $66,025 $292,646 29.5%
Heather C.
Westmoreland City Attorney Benicia 2016 $183,960 $229,047 $63,123 $292,170 37.0%
Scott Rennie City Attorney Belmont 2016 $214,257 $219,657 $72,481 $292,138 26.7%
Rose L Zimmerman City Attorney Daly City 2016 $204,120 $211,870 $79,578 $291,448 30.0%
Shawn Mason City Attorney San Mateo 2016 $216,250 $220,749 $67,281 $288,031 24.9%
Veronica Ramirez City Attorney Redwood City 2016 $199,996 $223,319 $60,097 $283,416 29.4%
Otis McGee Jr.
City Attorney,
Assistant Oakland 2016 $206,223 $210,541 $72,284 $282,825 27.1%
Randolph Hom City Attorney Cupertino 2016 $213,873 $213,873 $67,286 $281,159 23.9%
Daniel Rossi
Deputy City
Attorney V Oakland 2016 $177,596 $196,328 $84,793 $281,120 36.8%
Julie Harryman
Assistant City
Attorney Pleasanton 2016 $182,773 $199,982 $76,846 $276,828 34.0%
Alexander E. Abbe
Assistant City
Attorney Santa Clara 2016 $196,734 $202,281 $73,812 $276,093 28.7%
Zachary D Cowan City Attorney Berkeley 2016 $203,465 $200,775 $74,332 $275,107 26.0%
Celso Dolores Ortiz
Deputy City
Attorney IV Oakland 2016 $161,091 $194,759 $79,231 $273,990 41.2%
Rocio V Fierro
Deputy City
Attorney V Oakland 2016 $177,596 $188,302 $84,753 $273,055 35.0%
Janet Kern City Attorney Alameda 2016 $214,639 $221,771 $51,135 $272,906 21.4%
Richard F Illgen
Deputy City
Attorney V Oakland 2016 $177,596 $200,750 $70,338 $271,088 34.5%
Kathleen Kane City Attorney Burlingame 2016 $203,973 $209,976 $60,370 $270,346 24.6%
Debra Sue Margolis
Assistant City
Attorney Fremont 2016 $196,845 $205,055 $62,431 $267,486 26.4%
Name Job title City Year
Regular
pay Total pay
Total
Benefits
Total pay
& benefits
Reg-
ion
% Salary
Over-
head
Christopher A Callihan City Attorney Salinas 2016 $189,351 $253,114 $41,860 $294,974 CC 35.8%
Jacquelyn Christine DieASSISTANT City ASan Luis Obispo 2016 $194,550 $206,297 $84,428 $290,725 CC 33.1%
John M Luebberke City Attorney Stockton 2016 $208,153 $208,153 $60,460 $268,613 CC 22.5%
Brent Richardson City Attorney Madera 2016 $196,772 $211,141 $67,615 $278,757 EC 29.4%
Daniel Mchugh City Attorney Redlands 2016 $238,143 $278,289 $92,008 $370,297 NC 35.7%
Robert Schmitt City Attorney Roseville 2016 $240,539 $260,191 $79,461 $339,652 NC 29.2%
Michael W Barrett City Attorney EXNapa 2016 $190,228 $212,639 $86,414 $299,053 NC 36.4%
James C. Sanchez City Attorney Sacramento 2016 $219,939 $238,542 $58,714 $297,256 NC 26.0%
Wm M Ditzhazy City Attorney Palmdale 2016 $260,030 $293,903 $159,535 $453,438 SC 42.7%
John Richard Doyle City Attorney San Jose 2016 $229,395 $241,506 $195,943 $437,449 SC 47.6%
Joseph P Lawrence Asst City AttorneSanta Monica 2016 $275,868 $326,593 $109,889 $436,482 SC 36.8%
Marsha J Moutrie City Attorney Santa Monica 2016 $309,978 $323,990 $111,761 $435,751 SC 28.9%
Kenneth Campos City Attorney Inglewood 2016 $237,017 $263,337 $169,653 $432,990 SC 45.3%
Jeffrey R Epp City Attorney Escondido 2016 $253,694 $319,438 $110,221 $429,659 SC 41.0%
MICHAEL WEBB City Attorney Redondo Beach 2016 $248,618 $302,724 $89,624 $392,348 SC 36.6%
Celia A. Brewer City Attorney Carlsbad 2016 $269,688 $274,302 $115,453 $389,755 SC 30.8%
Adam Radinsky Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $228,282 $282,255 $104,710 $386,965 SC 41.0%
Iii John L Fellows Iii City Attorney Torrance 2016 $290,318 $330,454 $54,714 $385,168 SC 24.6%
Dean Derleth City Attorney/LE Corona 2016 $237,247 $280,331 $98,046 $378,377 SC 37.3%
Lance S Gams Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $228,282 $272,981 $104,506 $377,487 SC 39.5%
Terry L White Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $228,282 $271,728 $90,019 $361,747 SC 36.9%
John Higginbotham ASSISTANT City ACorona 2016 $219,050 $251,838 $103,524 $355,362 SC 38.4%
Michele Bagneris City Attorney/Ci Pasadena 2016 $254,073 $278,410 $76,443 $354,853 SC 28.4%
Anthony P Serritella Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $228,282 $262,791 $90,862 $353,653 SC 35.5%
Carol Warshaw City Attorney Culver City 2016 $243,470 $279,783 $73,836 $353,618 SC 31.1%
John Charles Parkin City Attorney Long Beach 2016 $274,489 $279,889 $65,911 $345,800 SC 20.6%
Michael Garcia City Attorney Glendale 2016 $243,546 $270,761 $74,211 $344,972 SC 29.4%
Darold Pieper City Attorney Vista 2016 $253,348 $260,428 $79,526 $339,954 SC 25.5%
Carol A Rohr Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $228,282 $257,346 $80,055 $337,401 SC 32.3%
Eriko Matsumoto Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $228,282 $239,239 $94,785 $334,024 SC 31.7%
Tracy Noonan City Attorney Thousand Oaks 2016 $234,022 $240,422 $91,335 $331,757 SC 29.5%
Susan Young Cola Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $228,282 $243,566 $87,363 $330,929 SC 31.0%
Ariel P Calonne City Attorney Santa Barbara 2016 $239,433 $254,917 $73,333 $328,250 SC 27.1%
Gary Geuss City Attorney Riverside 2016 $270,017 $283,044 $42,866 $325,910 SC 17.1%
Yibin Shen Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $226,975 $245,791 $76,024 $321,815 SC 29.5%
Gilbert Trujillo City Attorney Santa Maria 2016 $194,930 $242,350 $79,356 $321,706 SC 39.4%
David Armstrong Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $201,746 $229,598 $89,115 $318,713 SC 36.7%
Ivan O Campbell Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $228,282 $240,469 $77,555 $318,024 SC 28.2%
Aaron Harp City Attorney Newport Beach 2016 $236,908 $262,638 $53,948 $316,586 SC 25.2%
Jeanette R Schachtner Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $148,674 $241,674 $72,714 $314,388 SC 52.7%
Amy Albano City Attorney Burbank 2016 $229,476 $253,273 $60,406 $313,679 SC 26.8%
Gary W Rhoades Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $228,282 $238,423 $74,971 $313,394 SC 27.2%
Hema Patel City Attorney Vernon 2016 $259,131 $263,931 $43,122 $307,053 SC 15.6%
Virginia A Farley City Attorney Bakersfield 2016 $193,283 $205,668 $101,052 $306,720 SC 37.0%
John P Mullen City Attorney Oceanside 2016 $237,250 $247,881 $58,442 $306,322 SC 22.5%
Christopher NagakawaDeputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $217,754 $231,097 $73,372 $304,469 SC 28.5%
Michael E Gates City Attorney Huntington Bea 2016 $208,562 $236,411 $67,800 $304,210 SC 31.4%
Kristin A Pelletier Senior Assistant Anaheim 2016 $216,247 $226,593 $75,841 $302,434 SC 28.5%
Name Job title City Year
Regular
pay Total pay
Total
Benefits
Total pay
& benefits
Reg-
ion
% Salary
Over-
head
Molly Stump City Attorney Palo Alto 2016 $270,431 $286,770 $116,910 $403,680 SV 33.0%
Richard E. Nosky City Attorney Santa Clara 2016 $268,548 $285,766 $93,885 $379,651 SV 29.3%
Harvey Levine City Attorney Fremont 2016 $267,787 $270,888 $124,499 $395,387 SV 32.3%
Dennis J Herrera City Attorney San Francisco 2016 $244,558 $244,558 $69,888 $314,445 SV 22.2%
Carol Warshaw City Attorney Culver City 2016 $243,470 $279,783 $73,836 $353,618 SV 31.1%
Jannie L Quinn City Attorney Mountain View 2016 $241,347 $256,133 $91,130 $347,263 SV 30.5%
William Seligmann City Attorney Campbell 2016 $237,720 $362,125 $80,303 $442,428 SV 46.3%
Bruce Goodmiller City Attorney Richmond 2016 $222,084 $241,062 $71,521 $312,583 SV 29.0%
Marc Zafferano City Attorney San Bruno 2016 $221,386 $229,357 $78,803 $308,160 SV 28.2%
Damien B Brower City Attorney Brentwood 2016 $220,888 $238,100 $61,328 $299,428 SV 26.2%
Shawn Mason City Attorney San Mateo 2016 $216,250 $220,749 $67,281 $288,031 SV 24.9%
Janet Kern City Attorney Alameda 2016 $214,639 $221,771 $51,135 $272,906 SV 21.4%
Scott Rennie City Attorney Belmont 2016 $214,257 $219,657 $72,481 $292,138 SV 26.7%
Randolph Hom City Attorney Cupertino 2016 $213,873 $213,873 $67,286 $281,159 SV 23.9%
Jason R Alcala City Attorney Livermore 2016 $210,894 $233,005 $84,025 $317,030 SV 33.5%
Nora Frimann Assist City Attor San Jose 2016 $209,133 $218,214 $175,514 $393,729 SV 46.9%
Edmundo Moran Assist City Attor San Jose 2016 $209,133 $218,214 $181,899 $400,113 SV 47.7%
Barbara J Parker City Attorney Oakland 2016 $207,349 $213,949 $80,054 $294,004 SV 29.5%
Michael S Lawson City Attorney Hayward 2016 $206,430 $226,622 $66,025 $292,646 SV 29.5%
Doryanna Moreno City Attorney, AsOakland 2016 $206,225 $219,222 $94,409 $313,630 SV 34.2%
Otis McGee Jr.City Attorney, AsOakland 2016 $206,223 $210,541 $72,284 $282,825 SV 27.1%
Rose L Zimmerman City Attorney Daly City 2016 $204,120 $211,870 $79,578 $291,448 SV 30.0%
Kathleen Kane City Attorney Burlingame 2016 $203,973 $209,976 $60,370 $270,346 SV 24.6%
Zachary D Cowan City Attorney Berkeley 2016 $203,465 $200,775 $74,332 $275,107 SV 26.0%
Robert B Ewing City Attorney Danville 2016 $200,849 $212,923 $85,116 $298,039 SV 32.6%
Veronica Ramirez City Attorney Redwood City 2016 $199,996 $223,319 $60,097 $283,416 SV 29.4%
Debra Sue Margolis Assistant City At Fremont 2016 $196,845 $205,055 $62,431 $267,486 SV 26.4%
Alexander E. Abbe Assistant City At Santa Clara 2016 $196,734 $202,281 $73,812 $276,093 SV 28.7%
Claudia M Quintana City Attorney Vallejo 2016 $194,002 $256,845 $110,272 $367,117 SV 47.2%
John Nagel City Attorney Sunnyvale 2016 $193,150 $220,388 $93,689 $314,077 SV 38.5%
Heather C. Westmorel City Attorney Benicia 2016 $183,960 $229,047 $63,123 $292,170 SV 37.0%
Julie Harryman Assistant City At Pleasanton 2016 $182,773 $199,982 $76,846 $276,828 SV 34.0%
Rocio V Fierro Deputy City Atto Oakland 2016 $177,596 $188,302 $84,753 $273,055 SV 35.0%
Daniel Rossi Deputy City Atto Oakland 2016 $177,596 $196,328 $84,793 $281,120 SV 36.8%
Richard F Illgen Deputy City Atto Oakland 2016 $177,596 $200,750 $70,338 $271,088 SV 34.5%
Celso Dolores Ortiz Deputy City Atto Oakland 2016 $161,091 $194,759 $79,231 $273,990 SV 41.2%
Gerald L Hobrecht City Attorney Vacaville 2016 $151,593 $337,373 $61,374 $398,747 SV 62.0%
Name Job title City Year
Regular
pay Total pay
Total
Benefits
Total pay
& benefits
Reg-
ion
% Salary
Over-
head
William Seligmann City Attorney Campbell 2016 $237,720 $362,125 $80,303 $442,428 SV 46.3%
Molly Stump City Attorney Palo Alto 2016 $270,431 $286,770 $116,910 $403,680 SV 33.0%
Edmundo Moran Assist City Attor San Jose 2016 $209,133 $218,214 $181,899 $400,113 SV 47.7%
Gerald L Hobrecht City Attorney Vacaville 2016 $151,593 $337,373 $61,374 $398,747 SV 62.0%
Harvey Levine City Attorney Fremont 2016 $267,787 $270,888 $124,499 $395,387 SV 32.3%
Nora Frimann Assist City Attor San Jose 2016 $209,133 $218,214 $175,514 $393,729 SV 46.9%
Susanne Brown City Attorney Concord 2016 $200,253 $204,477 $94,893 $299,370 SC 33.1%
Wayne Winthers City Attorney Orange 2016 $215,591 $228,570 $70,656 $299,226 SC 28.0%
Eda U Suh Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $197,780 $211,565 $87,253 $298,818 SC 33.8%
STEVE SKOLNIK City Attorney Santa Fe Springs 2016 $197,706 $199,231 $98,756 $297,987 SC 33.7%
Melanie L Skehar Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $215,563 $211,483 $77,269 $288,752 SC 25.3%
Michael John Mais Assistant City At Long Beach 2016 $225,286 $230,086 $56,605 $286,691 SC 21.4%
Kristi Smith Chief Assistant C Riverside 2016 $200,898 $206,710 $79,612 $286,321 SC 29.8%
Monte Hugh Machit Assistant City At Long Beach 2016 $213,832 $226,875 $59,254 $286,129 SC 25.3%
Lonnie Eldridge City Attorney Simi Valley 2016 $207,130 $235,246 $50,410 $285,656 SC 27.5%
Jose Sandoval Chief Assistant C Santa Ana 2016 $186,798 $186,798 $95,122 $281,920 SC 33.7%
Denny Wei Senior Assistant Burbank 2016 $172,732 $227,432 $54,301 $281,733 SC 38.7%
Meishya Yang Deputy City Atto Santa Monica 2016 $200,750 $206,011 $72,384 $278,395 SC 27.9%
STEPHEN M FISCHER City Attorney Oxnard 2016 $174,741 $200,791 $77,041 $277,832 SC 37.1%
Yvette Abich-Garcia City Attorney Downey 2016 $199,351 $210,769 $63,237 $274,006 SC 27.2%
Timothy W Giles City Attorney Goleta 2016 $209,332 $227,820 $41,679 $269,499 SC 22.3%
Heather Baker Assistant City At Culver City 2016 $190,401 $209,317 $59,691 $269,008 SC 29.2%
William Seligmann City Attorney Campbell 2016 $237,720 $362,125 $80,303 $442,428 SV 46.3%
Molly Stump City Attorney Palo Alto 2016 $270,431 $286,770 $116,910 $403,680 SV 33.0%
Edmundo Moran Assist City Attor San Jose 2016 $209,133 $218,214 $181,899 $400,113 SV 47.7%
Gerald L Hobrecht City Attorney Vacaville 2016 $151,593 $337,373 $61,374 $398,747 SV 62.0%
Harvey Levine City Attorney Fremont 2016 $267,787 $270,888 $124,499 $395,387 SV 32.3%
Nora Frimann Assist City Attor San Jose 2016 $209,133 $218,214 $175,514 $393,729 SV 46.9%
Richard E. Nosky City Attorney Santa Clara 2016 $268,548 $285,766 $93,885 $379,651 SV 29.3%
Claudia M Quintana City Attorney Vallejo 2016 $194,002 $256,845 $110,272 $367,117 SV 47.2%
Jannie L Quinn City Attorney Mountain View 2016 $241,347 $256,133 $91,130 $347,263 SV 30.5%
Jason R Alcala City Attorney Livermore 2016 $210,894 $233,005 $84,025 $317,030 SV 33.5%
Dennis J Herrera City Attorney San Francisco 2016 $244,558 $244,558 $69,888 $314,445 SV 22.2%
John Nagel City Attorney Sunnyvale 2016 $193,150 $220,388 $93,689 $314,077 SV 38.5%
Doryanna Moreno City Attorney, AsOakland 2016 $206,225 $219,222 $94,409 $313,630 SV 34.2%
Bruce Goodmiller City Attorney Richmond 2016 $222,084 $241,062 $71,521 $312,583 SV 29.0%
Marc Zafferano City Attorney San Bruno 2016 $221,386 $229,357 $78,803 $308,160 SV 28.2%
Damien B Brower City Attorney Brentwood 2016 $220,888 $238,100 $61,328 $299,428 SV 26.2%
Robert B Ewing City Attorney Danville 2016 $200,849 $212,923 $85,116 $298,039 SV 32.6%
Barbara J Parker City Attorney Oakland 2016 $207,349 $213,949 $80,054 $294,004 SV 29.5%
Michael S Lawson City Attorney Hayward 2016 $206,430 $226,622 $66,025 $292,646 SV 29.5%
Heather C. Westmorel City Attorney Benicia 2016 $183,960 $229,047 $63,123 $292,170 SV 37.0%
Scott Rennie City Attorney Belmont 2016 $214,257 $219,657 $72,481 $292,138 SV 26.7%
Rose L Zimmerman City Attorney Daly City 2016 $204,120 $211,870 $79,578 $291,448 SV 30.0%
Shawn Mason City Attorney San Mateo 2016 $216,250 $220,749 $67,281 $288,031 SV 24.9%
Veronica Ramirez City Attorney Redwood City 2016 $199,996 $223,319 $60,097 $283,416 SV 29.4%
Otis McGee Jr.City Attorney, AsOakland 2016 $206,223 $210,541 $72,284 $282,825 SV 27.1%
Randolph Hom City Attorney Cupertino 2016 $213,873 $213,873 $67,286 $281,159 SV 23.9%
Daniel Rossi Deputy City Atto Oakland 2016 $177,596 $196,328 $84,793 $281,120 SV 36.8%
Julie Harryman Assistant City At Pleasanton 2016 $182,773 $199,982 $76,846 $276,828 SV 34.0%
Alexander E. Abbe Assistant City At Santa Clara 2016 $196,734 $202,281 $73,812 $276,093 SV 28.7%
Zachary D Cowan City Attorney Berkeley 2016 $203,465 $200,775 $74,332 $275,107 SV 26.0%
Celso Dolores Ortiz Deputy City Atto Oakland 2016 $161,091 $194,759 $79,231 $273,990 SV 41.2%
Rocio V Fierro Deputy City Atto Oakland 2016 $177,596 $188,302 $84,753 $273,055 SV 35.0%
Janet Kern City Attorney Alameda 2016 $214,639 $221,771 $51,135 $272,906 SV 21.4%
Richard F Illgen Deputy City Atto Oakland 2016 $177,596 $200,750 $70,338 $271,088 SV 34.5%
Kathleen Kane City Attorney Burlingame 2016 $203,973 $209,976 $60,370 $270,346 SV 24.6%
Debra Sue Margolis Assistant City At Fremont 2016 $196,845 $205,055 $62,431 $267,486 SV 26.4%
Richard E. Nosky City Attorney Santa Clara 2016 $268,548 $285,766 $93,885 $379,651 SV 29.3%
Claudia M Quintana City Attorney Vallejo 2016 $194,002 $256,845 $110,272 $367,117 SV 47.2%
Jannie L Quinn City Attorney Mountain View 2016 $241,347 $256,133 $91,130 $347,263 SV 30.5%
Jason R Alcala City Attorney Livermore 2016 $210,894 $233,005 $84,025 $317,030 SV 33.5%
Dennis J Herrera City Attorney San Francisco 2016 $244,558 $244,558 $69,888 $314,445 SV 22.2%
John Nagel City Attorney Sunnyvale 2016 $193,150 $220,388 $93,689 $314,077 SV 38.5%
Doryanna Moreno City Attorney, AsOakland 2016 $206,225 $219,222 $94,409 $313,630 SV 34.2%
Bruce Goodmiller City Attorney Richmond 2016 $222,084 $241,062 $71,521 $312,583 SV 29.0%
Marc Zafferano City Attorney San Bruno 2016 $221,386 $229,357 $78,803 $308,160 SV 28.2%
Damien B Brower City Attorney Brentwood 2016 $220,888 $238,100 $61,328 $299,428 SV 26.2%
Robert B Ewing City Attorney Danville 2016 $200,849 $212,923 $85,116 $298,039 SV 32.6%
Barbara J Parker City Attorney Oakland 2016 $207,349 $213,949 $80,054 $294,004 SV 29.5%
Michael S Lawson City Attorney Hayward 2016 $206,430 $226,622 $66,025 $292,646 SV 29.5%
Heather C. Westmorel City Attorney Benicia 2016 $183,960 $229,047 $63,123 $292,170 SV 37.0%
Scott Rennie City Attorney Belmont 2016 $214,257 $219,657 $72,481 $292,138 SV 26.7%
Rose L Zimmerman City Attorney Daly City 2016 $204,120 $211,870 $79,578 $291,448 SV 30.0%
Shawn Mason City Attorney San Mateo 2016 $216,250 $220,749 $67,281 $288,031 SV 24.9%
Veronica Ramirez City Attorney Redwood City 2016 $199,996 $223,319 $60,097 $283,416 SV 29.4%
Otis McGee Jr.City Attorney, AsOakland 2016 $206,223 $210,541 $72,284 $282,825 SV 27.1%
Randolph Hom City Attorney Cupertino 2016 $213,873 $213,873 $67,286 $281,159 SV 23.9%
Daniel Rossi Deputy City Atto Oakland 2016 $177,596 $196,328 $84,793 $281,120 SV 36.8%
Julie Harryman Assistant City At Pleasanton 2016 $182,773 $199,982 $76,846 $276,828 SV 34.0%
Alexander E. Abbe Assistant City At Santa Clara 2016 $196,734 $202,281 $73,812 $276,093 SV 28.7%
Zachary D Cowan City Attorney Berkeley 2016 $203,465 $200,775 $74,332 $275,107 SV 26.0%
Celso Dolores Ortiz Deputy City Atto Oakland 2016 $161,091 $194,759 $79,231 $273,990 SV 41.2%
Rocio V Fierro Deputy City Atto Oakland 2016 $177,596 $188,302 $84,753 $273,055 SV 35.0%
Janet Kern City Attorney Alameda 2016 $214,639 $221,771 $51,135 $272,906 SV 21.4%
Richard F Illgen Deputy City Atto Oakland 2016 $177,596 $200,750 $70,338 $271,088 SV 34.5%
Kathleen Kane City Attorney Burlingame 2016 $203,973 $209,976 $60,370 $270,346 SV 24.6%
Debra Sue Margolis Assistant City At Fremont 2016 $196,845 $205,055 $62,431 $267,486 SV 26.4%
Data Source: Transparentcalifornia.com
Total pay &Total %
City Year benefits benefits Overhead
Kenneth C Farfsing City Manager Carson 2016 $353,057.00 $235,256.00 $15,000.00 $250,256.00 $102,801.00 WC 50.1%
Norberto L Duenas City Manager San Jose 2016 $492,288.61 $261,362.53 $23,037.71 $284,400.24 $207,888.37 SV 88.4%
Jennifer A Maguire Senr Deputy City San Jose 2016 $485,325.76 $253,749.99 $16,508.10 $270,258.09 $215,067.67 SV 91.3%
David D Sykes Assist City ManagSan Jose 2016 $479,495.15 $260,052.39 $5,100.00 $265,152.39 $214,342.76 SV 84.4%
James Keene City Manager Palo Alto 2016 $466,702.19 $296,597.60 $21,311.52 $317,909.12 $148,793.07 SV 57.4%
Deanna Santana City Manager Sunnyvale 2016 $463,406.00 $271,216.00 $63,732.00 $334,948.00 $128,458.00 SV 70.9%
Daniel E Keen City Manager Vallejo 2016 $460,914.88 $270,000.00 $46,777.00 $316,777.00 $144,137.88 SV 70.7%
Kimberly A Walesh Deputy City ManaSan Jose 2016 $443,296.13 $236,554.11 $9,772.49 $246,326.60 $196,969.53 SV 87.4%
Julie Edmonds-MaresDeputy City ManaSan Jose 2016 $437,813.73 $236,446.99 $15,538.21 $251,985.20 $185,828.53 SV 85.2%
Frederick M Diaz City Manager Fremont 2016 $411,317.00 $291,143.00 $9,704.00 $300,847.00 $110,470.00 SV 41.3%
John Nachbar City Manager Culver City 2016 $404,400.74 $263,874.52 $47,127.67 $311,002.19 $93,398.55 SV 53.3%
Patricia E Martel City Manager Daly City 2016 $401,427.00 $295,211.00 $23,046.00 $318,257.00 $83,170.00 SV 36.0%
Thomas Williams City Manager Milpitas 2016 $399,559.00 $252,913.36 $24,567.67 $277,481.03 $122,077.97 SV 58.0%
Daniel H Rich City Manager Mountain View 2016 $393,020.00 $270,960.00 $19,803.00 $290,763.00 $102,257.00 SV 45.0%
Jim Schutz City Manager San Rafael 2016 $388,180.00 $233,518.00 $7,138.00 $240,656.00 $147,524.00 SV 66.2%
William Lindsay City Manager Richmond 2016 $387,190.93 $278,689.20 $19,750.01 $298,439.21 $88,751.72 SV 38.9%
Robert Jensen City Manager Roseville 2016 $383,386.66 $263,806.66 $24,595.56 $288,402.22 $94,984.44 SV 45.3%
Edward Shikada Asst City Manage Palo Alto 2016 $380,652.94 $273,328.49 $6,966.76 $280,295.25 $100,357.69 SV 39.3%
Rajeev Batra Acting City ManagSanta Clara 2016 $380,172.05 $276,848.00 $9,199.00 $286,047.00 $94,125.05 SV 37.3%
Bedwendolyn D Willi City Manager Berkeley 2016 $372,745.00 $257,692.00 $5,914.00 $263,606.00 $109,139.00 SV 44.6%
Valerie Barone City Manager Concord 2016 $367,245.36 $242,231.82 $8,982.78 $251,214.60 $116,030.76 SV 51.6%
Steven Falk City Manager Lafayette 2016 $361,286.13 $233,505.18 $57,654.17 $291,159.35 $70,126.78 SV 54.7%
Alan S Kurotori Assistant City Ma Santa Clara 2016 $355,248.22 $249,614.00 $15,799.00 $265,413.00 $89,835.22 SV 42.3%
Greg Scoles City Manager Belmont 2016 $353,803.18 $264,887.18 $11,866.08 $276,753.26 $77,049.92 SV 33.6%
Ernest M Roberts City Manager Livermore 2016 $352,932.76 $223,884.92 $40,150.84 $264,035.76 $88,897.00 SV 57.6%
Laura C Kuhn City Manager Vacaville 2016 $351,381.72 $220,280.72 $29,840.00 $250,120.72 $101,261.00 SV 59.5%
Charles Michael Futr City Manager South San Fran 2016 $347,344.13 $279,339.12 $12,514.32 $291,853.44 $55,490.69 SV 24.3%
Stephen Rymer City Manager Morgan Hill 2016 $343,568.68 $230,183.68 $27,016.00 $257,199.68 $86,369.00 SV 49.3%
Kent Steffens Assistant City Ma Sunnyvale 2016 $341,355.00 $220,908.00 $25,157.00 $246,065.00 $95,290.00 SV 54.5%
David Cavazos City Manager (EMSanta Ana 2016 $466,796.38 $343,101.00 $26,984.20 $370,085.20 $96,711.18 SC 36.1%
Artie Fields City Manager Inglewood 2016 $452,759.00 $301,448.00 $16,779.00 $318,227.00 $134,532.00 Sc 50.2%
Roger L Haley City Manager Compton 2016 $449,221.24 $129,625.00 $263,000.00 $392,625.00 $56,596.24 SC 246.6%
Kenneth Hunt City Manager Fontana 2016 $448,376.67 $291,928.00 $71,857.31 $363,785.31 $84,591.36 Sc 53.6%
Frederick Cole City Manager Santa Monica 2016 $447,945.00 $336,876.00 $24,831.00 $361,707.00 $86,238.00 SC 33.0%
Mark V Bozigian City Manager Lancaster 2016 $440,581.00 $284,202.00 $11,251.00 $295,453.00 $145,128.00 SC 55.0%
Paul Arevalo City Manager West Hollywoo 2016 $439,117.00 $312,188.00 $24,408.00 $336,596.00 $102,521.00 SC 40.7%
Elaine M Polachek Asst City Manage Santa Monica 2016 $437,902.00 $299,289.00 $29,906.00 $329,195.00 $108,707.00 SC 46.3%
Al C Boling City Manager Ontario 2016 $426,325.54 $289,314.89 $47,589.45 $336,904.34 $89,421.20 SC 47.4%
David Ready City Manager Palm Springs 2016 $421,440.61 $320,850.70 $24,154.96 $345,005.66 $76,434.95 SC 31.4%
Mahdi Aluzri City Manager Beverly Hills 2016 $420,042.04 $302,400.01 $25,507.34 $327,907.35 $92,134.69 SC 38.9%
John Russo City Manager Riverside 2016 $415,988.40 $301,944.04 $23,514.54 $325,458.58 $90,529.82 SC 37.8%
Ronald E Davis City Manager Burbank 2016 $414,916.00 $277,377.00 $66,130.00 $343,507.00 $71,409.00 SC 49.6%
George Chavez Assistant City Ma Beverly Hills 2016 $413,697.95 $267,519.48 $66,903.97 $334,423.45 $79,274.50 SC 54.6%
John M Wohlmuth City Manager Palm Desert 2016 $409,362.63 $76,844.48 $299,685.87 $376,530.35 $32,832.28 SC 432.7%
Leroy J Jackson City Manager Torrance 2016 $402,967.00 $278,705.00 $66,848.00 $345,553.00 $57,414.00 SC 44.6%
Matthew Ballantyne City Manager Chino 2016 $402,431.87 $252,268.17 $59,533.51 $311,801.68 $90,630.19 SC 59.5%
John Gillison City Manager Rancho Cucam 2016 $401,306.00 $261,492.00 $26,475.00 $287,967.00 $113,339.00 SC 53.5%
Darrell Talbert City Manager Corona 2016 $400,787.40 $249,382.63 $38,120.88 $287,503.51 $113,283.89 SC 60.7%
James Purtee City Manager Palmdale 2016 $397,810.98 $236,574.00 $10,025.00 $246,599.00 $151,211.98 SC 68.2%
Paul S Emery City Manager Anaheim 2016 $395,879.11 $294,015.42 $14,910.58 $308,926.00 $86,953.11 SC 34.6%
Henry Tingle City Manager Citrus Heights 2016 $395,348.00 $233,968.00 $111,273.00 $345,241.00 $50,107.00 SC 69.0%
Kenneth Striplin Jr City Manager Santa Clarita 2016 $390,965.03 $259,979.28 $48,777.02 $308,756.30 $82,208.73 SC 50.4%
Graham L. Mitchell City Manager Escondido 2016 $386,796.00 $238,453.00 $43,824.00 $282,277.00 $104,519.00 SC 62.2%
Michael Falkow Assistant City Ma Inglewood 2016 $384,021.00 $225,845.00 $19,509.00 $245,354.00 $138,667.00 SC 70.0%
David Lightner Deputy City ManaBeverly Hills 2016 $383,601.48 $41,968.38 $331,102.54 $373,070.92 $10,530.56 SC 814.0%
David E Witt City Manager La Mesa 2016 $380,083.81 $134,713.32 $187,571.28 $322,284.60 $57,799.21 SC 182.1%
Steven Mermell City Manager Pasadena 2016 $378,917.96 $258,892.27 $31,023.36 $289,915.63 $89,002.33 SC 46.4%
Doug Chotkevys City Manager Dana Point 2016 $377,078.00 $208,908.00 $119,134.00 $328,042.00 $49,036.00 SC 80.5%
Richard Haydon City Manager Santa Maria 2016 $376,828.00 $216,796.00 $53,095.00 $269,891.00 $106,937.00 SC 73.8%
Jeffrey Parker City Manager Tustin 2016 $374,463.99 $275,172.26 $27,906.31 $303,078.57 $71,385.42 SC 36.1%
Scott Ochoa City Manager Glendale 2016 $373,834.00 $274,901.00 $32,145.00 $307,046.00 $66,788.00 SC 36.0%
Edward Starr City Manager Montclair 2016 $372,472.29 $219,996.00 $52,265.00 $272,261.00 $100,211.29 SC 69.3%
Paul Philips City Manager City of Industry 2016 $371,825.37 $274,999.92 $9,000.00 $283,999.92 $87,825.45 SC 35.2%
Mary K Giordano Assistant City Ma Torrance 2016 $370,643.00 $263,358.00 $50,828.00 $314,186.00 $56,457.00 SC 40.7%
Konradt L Bartlam City Manager Chino Hills 2016 $370,419.91 $212,867.90 $47,458.35 $260,326.25 $110,093.66 SC 74.0%
RegionNameJob title Regular pay Other pay Total pay
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 12:02 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 23, 2017 7:44 PM
To:dcbertini@menlopark.org; RJonsen@menlopark.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com;
Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; dryan@scscourt.org; smanley@scscourt.org;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Kniss, Liz
(external); Reifschneider, James; Keene, James; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council,
City; jseybert@redwoodcity.org; bjohnson@paweekly.com; council@redwoodcity.org;
bhushans@aol.com; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; mharris@scscourt.org;
ppennypacker@scscourt.org; Carnahan, David; Scharff, Greg; gsheyner@paweekly.com;
Keith, Claudia; sdremann@paweekly.com; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly;
Doug Fort; moore2j@att.net; jsylva@scscourt.org; Kilpatrick, Brad; Kan, Michael;
stevendlee@alumni.duke.edu; Lee, Craig; myraw@smcba.org; paloaltolife@gmail.com;
Virginia Jansen; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org;
jboyarsky@da.sccgov.org; bwalsh@scscourt.org; letters@mercurynews.com;
bos@smcgov.org; Kevin.Nious@nbcuni.com; Holman, Karen (external);
bunnychiba@icloud.com; pbains7@projectwehope.com
Subject:City of Palo Alto sued over police-dog bite | News | Palo Alto Online |
Hi Folks:
Dave Price, Editor and co-publisher of The Daily Post, was kind enough to forward two additional articles on
the the Palo Alto teen mauled by one of PAPD’s police dogs, while officers are alleged to have stood around
watching.
In addition, Dave Price, forwarded another article, describing yet another police dog attack, this time involving
the San Mateo County Sheriff’s office. A jury recently awarded the victim of the brutal attack 1.1 million.
Maybe it’s past time we end the use of police dogs except in search and rescue operations.
Aram
On Nov 23, 2017, at 2:36 PM, Dave Price wrote: Aram, you might be interested in these
stories
http://padailypost.com/2017/05/06/suit-police-dog-
mauled-teen-officers-accused-of-just-standing-by-during-attack/
http://padailypost.com/2017/05/10/attorney-says-
police-dog-bit-off-a-chunk-of-boys-leg/
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 12:02 PM
2
http://padailypost.com/2017/06/15/dog-attack-costs-
county-1-1-million/
On Nov 23, 2017, at 10:56 AM,
Aram James wrote:
FYI: follow up on the NPR story I
sent out yesterday. Thanks to the Palo Alto Free Press for bringing this
piece to my attention.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/05/10/palo-alto-police-sued-
over-police-dog-bite
Sent from my iPhone
Dave Price
Editor and co-publisher
The Daily Post and padailypost.com
385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301
(650) 328-7700
price@padailypost.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/28/2017 8:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Monday, November 27, 2017 4:49 PM
To:price@padailypost.com; A-MIKE BECHLER; k_nordman30@yahoo.com; IMOGENE AND
ROCHARD HILBERS; Moitra, Chitra; Kratt, Ken; Keene, James; Council, City;
Kidzy@att.net
Subject:City Shortfall
# 1.
The council gave itself $11,000,000. to re decorate Their council chambers for the THIRD time since 911. I was there at
that meeting.
#2.
We, the citizens voted by more than our 2/3’s against the building of a giant, NEW Police digs for such a depleted police
force, few of which are on active duty.
Our VOTE WAS IGNORED
COMPLETELY.
Perhaps no one cared.
Then we sent a proponent of
Overturning our vote on to much higher office in our state capital.
#3.
It is a travesty that our protectors contribute almost nothing toward their retirements of a quarter million dollars
annually. This isn’t BELL. The perks have gone overboard, and, are spiked up by crazy raises.
#4.
We have a LOT of speeding and crime, with no preventative enforcement to protect the kids from so many accidents.
Geri Mcgilvray
2533 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto, Ca.
650‐328‐2416
EVERYDAY SAFETY AND WALKABILITY, and speed enforcement within our city including MIdtown along MIDDLEFIELD
Road.
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:38 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Winter Dellenbach <winterdell@earthlink.net>
Sent:Tuesday, November 21, 2017 5:41 PM
Subject:Donations are still needed for Buena Vista Posada
Attachments:posada donation 3 pdf 2017 (1).pdf
Hi Friends of Buena Vista - If you want to participate in supporting this years Posada, please do so now.
More help is needed and would be greatly appreciated. All the information you need is below. I look forward to seeing you on December 2nd!
Winter
Dear Friends - Now is our opportunity to assist Buena Vista
residents with this years Posada.
Years ago when Board members of Buena Vista first told me they were going to
invite everyone in town to their posada and feast, I was delighted but concerned.
How could they afford to do such a thing? I suggested they charge people a
small fee to defray the cost. They looked shocked. They could no more charge
guests a fee than they could charge guests for a Thanksgiving meal at their home.
That was when Friends of Buena Vista started to help with the substantial
posada costs by asking for individual contributions of any amount, a bit like
bringing the cranberry sauce or pumpkin pie. This supplements the
contributions made by all BV households able to do so. I invite you to once again
make a donation to this years posada.
Some of what your contribution supports
Food tents & tables, chairs, stanchions, lights, signs, cups, plates, food &
beverages, leaflets, the DJ, decorations & dancers, hay for the stable & wings for
the angels.
What to do to donate – every penny goes to the Posada
Write a check to: Winter Dellenbach, noting “posada” on lower left corner.
Send to: Winter Dellenbach, 859 La Para Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306at Buena
lI will acknowledge your donation via email.
Thank you once again for supporting your neighbors on this especially festive
evening, having finally saved Buena Vista. Viva!
Saturday, December 2, 5:30-9PM, 3980 El Camino, Palo Alto
RSVP @ winterdell@earthlink.net
Winter Dellenbach,
Friends of Buena Vista fobv.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:29 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 26, 2017 8:13 AM
To:policechief@menlopark.org; Lum, Patty; Council, City
Cc:Reifschneider, James; Keene, James; Cullen, Charles; Perron, Zachary; Wagner, April;
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external)
Subject:Elder Abuse....Screenshot 2017-11-26 at 10.06.37 AM
This woman abused my mother.... And treated my entire family as rapists...This women should resign and decertified... Got that!
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:36 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elise Scher <elise.scher01@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, November 24, 2017 2:55 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fry's Redevelopment
Dear Council Members,
Please include a Fry's store in your redevelopment plans.
Sincerely,
Elise Scher
KI6PUO
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/29/2017 2:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Kathy Jarvis <kjarvis@mac.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 28, 2017 12:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Light pollution from roof deck installations
For a building of any size, I strenuously oppose allowing exterior lighting - especially on a rooftop - that will
add to light pollution. It is a problem that we should try to chip away not make worse.
Please look at www.darksky.org for practical advice, guidelines and recommended ordinances.
Katherine Jarvis
1275 Martin Avenue
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:40 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Brigham Wilson <brighamwilson@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 21, 2017 6:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Not for Castilleja Expansion
Hello City Council,
I ride my bike past Castilleja School every day and have found the conflict disheartening.
Castilleja School has enrolled above its limits in the past and has used communication techniques that are not
fitting a good Palo Alto neighbor. Palo Alto High School does more to "educate and empower young women"
than this elite private school. Until Castilleja conforms with the approved enrollment levels and appeases
neighbor concerns, it doesn't seem fair to give them full support.
-Brigham
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:28 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Annette Fazzino <annette.fazzino@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, November 26, 2017 7:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto History Museum
Dear Mayor Scharff and Honorable Members of the City Council:
I am writing today to let you know how important the Palo Alto History museum is to me and my family. My
late husband, Gary, was passionate about preserving and sharing the history of our unique community. It was his dream that the museum would become a reality and a place to celebrate all that is great about Palo Alto.
Because it was Gary's dream, it is now my dream and that of our children.
Our community is truly special. Palo Alto, as the birthplace of Silicon Valley has been a star on the world stage.
So many have come to our community to learn, to work, and to live. Do these new folks know about our past
and the many people who have lived here who laid the foundations to make our present day a reality? Our history is rich and needs to be shared with the community, visitors and future generations.
Martin Luther King, Jr. said, "We are not makers of history. We are made by history." We modern Palo Altans
are beneficiaries of all of those who came before. I urge you to support the Palo Alto History Museum. Let's
show our community its beginnings and how we came to today and the possibilities of continued greatness.
Thank you for your consideration and your efforts to share our history with everyone.
Very truly yours,
Annette Evans Fazzino
663 Lowell Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 12:02 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, November 23, 2017 12:26 PM
To:Aram James
Cc:RJonsen@menlopark.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary;
price@padailypost.com; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org;
jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; ppennypacker@scscourt.org; dryan@scscourt.org;
sscott@scscourt.org; mharris@scscourt.org; jseybert@redwoodcity.org;
jsylva@scscourt.org; swebby@da.sccgov.org; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Stump,
Molly; Keene, James; Kniss, Liz (external); citycouncil@menlopark.org; Council, City;
council@redwoodcity.org; bjohnson@paweekly.com;
bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; sdremann@paweekly.com; Scharff, Greg;
gsheyner@paweekly.com; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; ekadvany@paweekly.com;
Reifschneider, James; Jay Boyarsky; ripvanwinkleath@gmail.com;
DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; dangel@da.sccgov.org; Keith, Claudia; Cullen, Charles;
csumida@da.sccgov.org; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Philip, Brian; Lum, Patty
Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto sued over police-dog bite | News | Palo Alto Online |
Aram,
Thanks for sharing...We need to see how due process plays out in court. Having said this, what is equally
disturbing is the fact, paloaltoonline.com closed further comments to this story coming from minority East Palo Alto.
“Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.”
In a rare exchange with its CEO Bill Johnson, he attempts to explain or rationalize what I perceive as a racist
motive for doing so.
Censorship and paloaltoomline.com
https://www.facebook.com/PAFreePress/posts/1689913184366253
However, the readers will need to reach their own conclusion. But given the fact, this young man is an African American teenager from East Palo Alto, gives weight to Mr. Johnson’s motives of closing comments through censorship.
In addition, the Palo Alto Police department has a very, very long sustainable record of racist treatment, of not
only those of the African America community of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park, but Mexicanos and Latino’s of Redwood City and perhaps beyond. That fact, is indisputable.
Mark Petersen-Perez
Editor: Palo Alto Free Press
Twitter: @PAFreePress Ticuantepe, Nicaragua Central America
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 12:02 PM
2
Sent from my iPad
On Nov 23, 2017, at 12:56 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI: follow up on the NPR story I sent out yesterday. Thanks to the Palo Alto Free Press for
bringing this piece to my attention.
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/05/10/palo-alto-police-sued-over-police-dog-bite
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/28/2017 8:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Monday, November 27, 2017 8:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Roof Decks
Hi,
I have always wanted us to have a quality coffee shop like Coupa, where citizens could enjoy a view toward the sunset
while enjoying a treat.
It should be shaded and accessible to all residents.
Thank you,
Geri Mcgilvray
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:31 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, November 25, 2017 3:37 PM
To:david.rader@pln.sccgov.org
Cc:stephen@stanford.edu; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City;
Kavitha.Kumar@PLN.SCCGOV.ORG; jmccown@stanford.edu; Planning Commission;
Lee, Elena; Costello, Elaine; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:Stanford GUP Draft DEIR Input from Hamilton Hitchings, Palo Alto Resident
To: David Rader, Department of Planning and Development, County of Santa Clara
Cc: Palo Alto City Council, Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Committee and Palo Alto Planning Department
Stanford is one (if not the) best Research University in the world and while I support the Stanford GUP, that support is
conditioned on Stanford fully mitigating their growth impacts. Thus, I encourage the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to impose the following requirements as conditions of approval of Stanford’s 2018 GUP.
Stanford’s development should not make the regional traffic crisis worse. The existing 2018 GUP language
merely continues existing TDM programs and is not a commitment to no new net car trips. Stanford should not
get trip reduction credits for off-site bicycle improvements. Rather the effectiveness of these programs should be
measured on whether they actually achieve no new net car trips. Thus, Stanford’s net car trips should not increase
both during peak and non-peak hours. This should be verified at least every quarter on the estimated busiest
day. Current fee penalties for exceeding no new trips are insufficient and should be sufficiently high to force
Stanford to immediately mitigate the overage in that same year.
Stanford is relying heavily on increased Caltrain ridership to offset increased car trips. The GUP should not over-
estimate mitigations for transportation alternatives such as Caltrains. Caltrain is already at capacity and Caltrain
electrification & modernization may not generate the increased capacity it has estimated. In addition, many other
cities and organizations are relying on this increased capacity for their own growth and double counting of
capacity may be occurring. Careful and accurate analysis of the actual increased capacity and number of
additional Stanford riders who can and will use Caltrain should be included in the GUP including competing
demands for this capacity from other cities and companies up and down the peninsula.
This web page below on the Caltrain website that show the increase from electrification will result in a 10%
increase in peak hourly passenger capacity:
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:31 AM
2
http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/Modernization/PeninsulaCorridorElectrificationPro
ject/Capacity.html
Given CalTrain's limitations I suggest Stanford set up long-distance commute buses similar to the ones Google
and other big companies have. And maybe those could serve not only the campus and hospital but also the
research park and Downtown and Cal Ave firms. The county could make that a GUP mitigation and require that
that non-Stanford riders be billed no more than Stanford riders.
Stanford cannot continue to grow indefinitely without seriously compromising our quality of life on the
Peninsula. The County should establish a maximum build-out for the University. Under the 2000 GUP, Stanford
was required to study the maximum build-out potential for its campus in its Sustainable Development Study, but
failed to do so.
The proposed academic development under the GUP should not make the regional housing shortage worse.
Stanford should be required to provide housing on campus or on Stanford lands for the influx of new students,
faculty, staff and contract workers.
Stanford should be required to adopt a policy of carbon neutrality for all new construction.
In exchange for the higher density of development on campus, the Stanford foothills outside of the Academic
Growth Boundary should be preserved as permanent open space forever and not expire in 2025.
It is likely that this plan will cause increased runoff from Stanford campus into San Francisquito Creek resulting
in increased likelihood of flooding and potential future damage. I would request Stanford generate no increase in
runoff during major storms. Also, Stanford has done an excellent job of studying the Searsville dam as a possible
source of downstream flooding and it would be great if a commitment to that project was part of the GUP as a
mitigation.
By taking these steps listed above, Stanford can grow sustainably and mitigate its local growth impacts as it expands.
Hamilton Hitchings, Palo Alto Resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/28/2017 8:12 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Stefan Rosner <stefan.rosner@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, November 27, 2017 5:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Support for Council to accept staff recommendations re: Highway 101 Pedestrian /
Bicycle Overpass Capital Improvement Project
Dear Honorable Council Members,
I am writing in advance of tonight's meeting of the City Council to express my strong support of staff’s recommendations to: 1. adopt
the resolution adopting the draft mitigated negative declaration; 2. approve the Record of Land Use Action; and 3. Adopt
the proposed Park Improvement Ordinance (PIO) for the design of the Highway 101 Pedestrian / Bicycle
Overpass Capital Improvement Project, which appears as Item #10 under Action Items.
I have downloaded and reviewed the associated Staff Report at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62189 and feel that
this approach and design is adequately mature, and that it is time to move forward with project implementation.
I moved to the Bay Area in 1984, and have been a daily bicycle commuter ever since, for 33 years now and counting! In 1999 I moved to the
Barron Park neighborhood of Palo Alto and have enjoyed my truly lovely bicycle commute to and from my work at NASA Ames Research
Center, via the San Francisco Bay Trail and Stevens Creek Trail. The Benjamin Lefkowitz Highway 101 Pedestrian / Bicycle Undercrossing at Adobe Creek is a wonderful facility, and I use this to access the Bay Trail whenever it is open. However, it is subject to seasonal flooding that tends to close it for about half of the year. The wet weather that closes this undercrossing does not deter me from bicycling commuting, however it does force me to detour to the San Antonio Road overpass to cross Highway 101, as the other existing overpasses near Oregon Expressway and at Permanente Creek are too far "off track" to be practical for my commute.
There are several issues with this seasonal detour via the San Antonio Rd. overpass that make it quite hazardous, including the approach
which forces me to navigate through the Charleston / Fabian and Charleston / San Antonio intersections and past a very busy parking garage
exit from the JCC to get to the overpass, and then transit not one but two freeway on- and off-ramps.
Given the large and growing number of cyclists who commute between Palo Alto and the businesses in the North Bayshore region of Mountain View, it is very important that safe, year-round access be provided. It is only a matter of time before a cyclist is mowed down while attempting to cross Highway 101 using the San Antonio Rd. overpass during the months when the Lefkowitz undercrossing is seasonally closed. Many simply opt to avoid this hazardous situation by suspending their bicycle commuting during these months, but this then makes them part of the problem vs. the solution. When I go to the movies with my family, we always bicycle through the Baylands when the underpass is open, but I just cannot justify putting my kids (who are less experienced cyclists than I am) in harms way by asking them to hazard the San Antonio Rd. overpass.
I urge you to keep this in mind in your consideration of the staff recommendations. Please don't be swayed by residents who will no doubt
claim that this represents a frivolous expense that will only be used by a small fraction of city residents. The existing Lefkowitz underpass
sees heavy use every day that it is open, by both regional commuters and recreational users who need access between South Palo Alto and the
Baylands. Even those residents who may not plan to use this facility themselves should recognize and respect the critical importance of enabling safe transit for those who presently are forced to put themselves in great peril to keep single-passenger automobiles off the road during peak commute hours. Creation of a safe, year-round connection between South Palo Alto and the network of multi-use trails east of Highway 101 is clearly among the goals established in the City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, which was unanimously approved by the Planning and Transportation Committee and City Council.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/28/2017 8:12 AM
2
Sincerely; Stefan Rosner 786 Matadero Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306
--
----- __o
------- _`\<,_
stefan ---- (*)/ (*)
__________________________________________________________
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:32 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Libby Lungren <libbymlungren@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, November 25, 2017 8:35 AM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Thank you for supporting Middlefield Complete Streets Project!
Hi! I just wanted to give a shout and thank you for supporting this project. The Middlefield/Kellogg crosswalk (near Lucie Stern and JMZ) has been open a few days and just wanted to share that it really works!! Right after they took the barriers away my husband went out there and stood on the corner and people ACTUALLY stopped to let him cross! It's so crazy! :) The visibility afforded by the bulb out corners really does make people slow down and prepare to stop when someone is standing there. This is so great for our family as we cross at this
intersection several times a day. We actually feel safer having our 5th grader cross Middlefield here to get to the park instead of
Embarcadero/Middlefield where we are always worried about right turning traffic. We are so excited about this!! Now we just need to work
on a clear bike/ped path to the park through that crazy parking lot...
Thanks for supporting the transportation department and allowing them to facilitate a great design!
Libby Lungren 1410 Middlefield Rd
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:41 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Casey Cameron <alt.caseyc@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 22, 2017 2:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:thank you, Mayor Scharff
Thank you for Mayor Scharff 's emails/reports - they're well expressed and encouraging. Great job, Mayor
Scharff! I appreciate your values and your messages about the city's priorities.
Best wishes, Casey
Casey Cameron
1033 Bryant St.
Palo Alto, CA
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/27/2017 11:41 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, November 22, 2017 10:06 AM
To:RJonsen@menlopark.org; dcbertini@menlopark.org; Watson, Ron;
dprice@padailypost.com; Perron, Zachary; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Council, City;
citycouncil@menlopark.org; jboyarsky@da.sccgov.org; Kniss, Liz (external);
jrosen@da.sccgov.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; Stump, Molly;
molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Reifschneider, James; smanley@scscourt.org;
dryan@scscourt.org; rpichon@scscourt.org; ppennypacker@scscourt.org;
sscott@scscourt.org; jseybert@redwoodcity.org; jsylva@da.sccgov.org; Keene, James;
swebby@da.sccgov.org
Subject:Videos Reveal A Close, Gory View Of Police Dog Bites
I found the following story on the NPR iPhone App
Videos Reveal A Close, Gory View Of Police Dog Bites
by Martin Kaste
NPR - November 20, 2017
Donald W. Cook is a Los Angeles attorney with decades of experience bringing lawsuits over police dog bites
— and mostly losing. He blames what he calls "The Rin Tin Tin Effect" — juries think of police dogs as noble,
and have trouble visualizing how violent they can be during an arrest....
https://www.npr.org/2017/11/20/563973584/videos-reveal-a-close-gory-view-of-police-dog-bites?sc=17&f=2&utm_source=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/29/2017 2:47 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, November 28, 2017 1:44 PM
To:Keith, Claudia; Council, City; Keene, James; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external)
Cc:Perez, Lalo
Subject:Where are the checks and balances
Sent from my iPad
""Wh:e
women tbrive,
all of society
benefits."
-Kofi Annan
.,.. ""Wll c 11
·"'romen thrive,
all of sociel)r
l1e11efits."
-Kofi Annan
[[)>Castilleja
I support Castilleja's proposal to
increase enrollment and modernize its
campus because... ~ ~, ~h
fkl ~ -1-Z> do .
we_~ 1i?
~k ~o..,J--Office of the Clerk
Please distribute to all City Council Members
r ~ . I __ .. n 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor ~ r--"-\\A-''-C.. .:: Palo Alto, CA, 94301 ~ioJ.f°'I?;;~~ .
:+301(.g~.J;o pvo p~4r .. 1111 11i111111.1p111.11 111.111i 11"111111 111i1
campus because ...
vJt.~r
w~''7 ~~ ~~~
(W\~..r ~
~ I.e.. Jj ,,-;:::::--
~
'IJ
Cli>
Office of the Clerk._
Please distribute to all City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
campus because ...
RETURN ADDRESS:
campus because ...
-(")~ ...... -~ z ~-< ~ nO r-"'" ~ fti~ :r:r-,, ujO
:IC ol> Office of the Clerk \0 ~c;
Please distribute to all ci,b Co~Atembers
250 Hamilton Aver9, 7t'"£9or
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
I 1Jlli111j1i l l Ii p 1li1llJ1Jllii JiJll' 1Iii1JI 1111' "11
Office of the Clerk
Please distribute to all City Council Members
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA, 94301
I 'h ll'i II ii1i I j1JiiIil1i iljij111i 1ii 111111ii11iih iii 111iiiii111
n£? -..... ~.-<
no ,...,
FTt:-l:>
Office of the Clerk -~~
Please distribute to all c:J!r ulo 250 ~voura~mbers
Hamilton Avenij6 7t~r
Palo Alto, CA, 94301-_ :::!!o c.J n·
-f"'1n l>
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043
November 7, 2016
Go o g le
Mayor Patrick Burt and the Palo Alto City Council
City of Palo Alto City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
cjty.council@cityotoaloa!to, org
Dear Mayor Burt and Council:
Tel: 650.253.0000
www .google.com
ICOUf«:ILZEETING
///_:l.7 7
[ ] Placed Before Meeting
(..-r-treCeived at Meeting
• Google is excited to see the progress of the Adobe Cree'k Bridge design. We applaud and
appreciate City's staff efforts in the last couple of months in driving the concept design of the
bridge and keeping it on the target budget. They have done a fantastic job balancing City's
design preferences and the budget. We would like to thank them for their efforts.
We also thank the council for their support and direction and encourage the them to continue
holding the bridge concept to the budget and allowing staff to move forward with the proposed
base concept.
As noted in our previous letters, Google renews our commitment to cooperating in this project
by working with the City of Palo Alto in granting an easement for this project across our property.
In addition, this letter emphasizes our offer to contribute up to $1 M from our Safe Bike Program
to directly support funding of the new Adobe Creek Bridge.
We are glad to support the City's efforts to enhance its bicycle and pedestrian network and its
steadfast promotion of alternative transportation programs.
Sincerely,
nlg
, irector of Real Estate and Workplace Services
Google, Inc.
cc: Brad Eggleston, Assistant Director of Public Works
•
•
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
PO Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94301
~ 1¥ •t t
CJ f'-Y ~6.i.P.Atr.'o ·ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
17 HOV 27 PH g: 3!
I am writing to you on behalf of the 355 senior residents who live on the 600 block of Lytton Ave.
While we are supportive of the safety improvements being tested on Middlefield Road, we are
concerned about the traffic backups that these changes have brought to our block of Lytton Ave.
We have detailed our concerns in the attached letter to the Palo Alto Transportation Department.
We have also been reading about plans to redirect traffic off of University Ave onto Lytton Ave.
Pushing more through traffic onto Lytton will make our ability to exit and enter our driveways
even more hazardous. And pedestrian safety at the intersection of Lytton Ave and Webster St will
be further impacted.
Please be mindful of our problems as you move forward with future transportation designs. Our
neighbors to the northwest have driven much of the discussion about the Middlefield Rd project.
But our numbers are large and we ask that you include our safety and wellbeing in your future
decisions impacting Lytton Ave.
Sincerely,
~~A_,~&-Q
Christine Gandel
401 Webster Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Representing:
Webster House Independent Living
Lytton Gardens Independent Living
cc: Joe Simitian
Santa Clara Board of Supervisors
Webster House Residents' Association
401 Webster Street
October 20, 2017
City of Palo Alto
Transportation Division
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Middlefield North Pilot Project
Palo Alto CA 94301
The Middlefield North Pilot Project has created serious traffic and pedestrian
safety problems on Lytton Avenue from Webster Street to Middlefield Road. As
residents of the apartment building at the SE corner of Webster Street and
Lytton Avenue we are in a position to see these problems on a daily basis. This
letter comes from the Webster House Residents' Association representing our
forty-seven senior residents.
With the reconfiguration of the Lytton/Middlefield intersection from two left
turn lanes to one, a great deal of stacking space (i.e. space for cars to wait in
queue to travel north on Middlefield) was lost. Eliminating the two-lane
configuration on Middlefield eliminated even more stacking space. The result
is that the cars now queue up down Lytton well past the Webster/Lytton
intersection. These long queues down Lytton do not just occur during evening
rush hour but at various times throughout the day and evening. It is not
unusual to see them at 8:00 pm or at 1:30 pm.
We have two driveways that open onto Lytton between Webster and Byron
Street. Entering and exiting from these driveways can now be very unsafe. If a
considerate motorist allows you to exit, you have no ability to see if traffic is
clear in the westbound lane. And trying to turn into the driveway through a
solid line of traffic causes right-of-way conflicts. Lytton Gardens, the building
east of us with 310 senior residents, has a driveway next to ours with the same
problems.
Page 1of2
•
The Webster /Lytton intersection is now very dangerous for pedestrians.
Frustrated drivers on Lytton run the red light rather than lose their place in
queue. Vehicles trying to turn onto Lytton from Webster ignore pedestrians in
their concentration to get into the queue. The combination of all of these
distracted drivers and the high volume of elderly pedestrians who cross at the
Webster /Lytton intersection daily is a serious safety issue.
With the changed traffic pattern on Lytton our residents now suffer the
problem of vehicles idling right outside our windows for extended periods
during the day. With this ongoing traffic jam comes vehicle fumes, horns
honking and radios turned up load. The quality of life of our residents has
deteriorated dramatically in the months since this Pilot Program was started.
The first goal of the Pilot Project was to: "Reduce neighborhood impacts from
through traffic and improve the quality of life for local residents". The project
may be helping on Hawthorne, Everett and Middlefield, but we need to fix the
problems on Lytton to achieve the project goals.
Sincerely,
~~
Judy Creek
Contact Person
650-329-8718
jcreek@pobox.com
Page 2 of 2