Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20171218plCC701-32 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: 12/18/2017 Document dates: 11/29/2017 – 12/6/2017 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 | 12/4/2017 7:49 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Svendsen, Janice Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 7:48 AM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Portillo, Rumi; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Keene, James; De Geus, Robert Subject:12/4 Council Agenda Questions for Item 4: Cal Train Go Pass Program Dear Mayor and Council Members:  On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries made by  Council Member Tanaka in regard to the December 4, 2017 council meeting agenda.  Item 4: Cal Train Go Pass Program – CM Tanaka   Q.1. About how many times per year does an average Go Pass participant ride the Caltrain?   A.1. Approx. 150 times per year (based on the 2017 employee commuter survey)  Q.2. How does the price of the Go Pass compare to the price of individual Caltrain tickets?  A.2. The Go Pass cost is $237.50 per year per employee.  Individual Caltrain tickets are  $16.50 for a 3‐zone day pass (travel to/from San Jose or San Francisco). CalTrain also offers  a monthly pass (Clipper Card) at $215.60 per month.  A monthly Clipper Card for 12 months  = $2,587.20 per employee.  Q.3. Currently, only 200 employees participate in this program, although there are 353  eligible employees. What will happen to the money set aside for the employees who  currently do not participate in this program if they chose not to do so?   A.3. In order to participate in the Go Pass program, the City must purchase a Go Pass for all  employees at the covered location, which is the City Hall building at 250 Hamilton  Avenue.  The program requirements are specified:  Thank you,  Janice Svendsen   Janice Svendsen | Executive Assistant to James Keene, City Manager   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  D: 650.329.2105 | E: janice.svendsen@cityofpaloalto.org  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:09 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:34 PM To:kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org; david.rader@pln.sccgov.org; BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org; supervisor.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City Subject:Stanford GUP DEIR Extension Request To whom it may concern, I am writing as a citizen of Palo Alto to encourage you to grant the 60-day extension that has been requested by the City of Palo Alto and City of Menlo Park. I know that PAUSD also has requested an extension, though the scope of the district’s concerns is narrower than the city’s. Stanford’s small army of paid lawyers, architects, engineers, and developer representatives has been preparing their proposal for years. They propose a project of grand scale which will add almost 10,000 people per day to our local transportation infrastructure. The weight and magnificent scale of the project and the contents of the DEIR are overwhelming. As a private citizen and a layman, I have found it very difficult to find adequate time to wade through all three fat volumes in my limited spare time. The early public meetings were useless. Most people had not even had a chance to read the document yet. I hope that the county wants thoughtful community responses (rather than angry, hurried responses) to inform preparation of an adequate mitigation plan. I think it would be wise to grant the request. I must say, I think Stanford’s public response to the request was inappropriate, given the enormous review and comment task Stanford’s lengthy, technical, and complex proposed project DEIR requires of its neighbors. How can the cities respond on behalf of their citizens when their citizens are still wading through the document? Thank you for considering my comments, Sincerely, Penny Ellson Palo Alto resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:09 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 29, 2017 6:49 PM To:kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org; david.rader@pln.sccgov.org; BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org; supervisor.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Holman, Karen; lydiakou@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Fine, Adrian; Scharff, Gregory (internal); City Mgr Subject:Stanford Expansion Needs More Study or Better Yet a Total Rejection Hello. My partner, sister and many friends are Stanford grads but we are adamantly opposed to this huge expansion. I've lived in Palo Alto for 32 years and like many others am thoroughly disgusted with the aggressive growth here and how it has severely reduced our quality of life. At the very least, a project of this magnitude requires much more study to assess its effect on traffic, congestion, natural resources, housing affordability, school enrollment, the ability of emergency services to get through the gridlock in a timely fashion, etc etc, Palo Alto is already way too over-developed to sustain the expansion that Stanford proposes at a time when we're already gridlocked and still spending a ridiculous amount of money to narrow roads, put barriers and "road furniture" and other obstacles into the road to and restrict traffic. Traffic is already backing up into major arteries like Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway due to these attempts to limit car traffic yet we're already seeing Palo Alto's population triple due to commuters. This is so costly and so illogical -- and we certainly don't need to make it so much worse! Extend the study for 60 days or better yet 60 years. In other words, just say NO to more development that severely reduces our quality of life, Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 Jo Ann Mandinach Need To Know Info Solutions http:.// www.needtoknow.com 650 329-8655 or cell 650 269-0650 Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:09 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Patricia Jones <pkjones1000@icloud.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 29, 2017 11:28 PM To:kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org; david.rader@pln.sccgov.org; BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org; supervisor.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Holman, Karen; lydiakou@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Fine, Adrian; Scharff, Gregory (internal); City Mgr Subject:Please support a 60-day extension for review of Stanford's proposed expansion. Please support a 60-day extension for review of Stanford’s proposed expansion. This project will have a huge impact on our community. In order for that impact to be as positive as possible, we need more time to study and understand the ramifications of what is being proposed. Thank you. Patricia Jones Patricia Jones www.pkjones.com pkjones1000@icloud.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:09 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:37 AM To:kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org; david.rader@pln.sccgov.org; BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org; supervisor.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Holman, Karen; lydiakou@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Fine, Adrian; Scharff, Gregory (internal); City Mgr Cc:Christian Pease Subject:Please extend the public comment period for the Stanford draft EIR / 2018 GUP Dear Sir or Madam, The cities of Menlo Park and Palo Alto, as well as the Palo Alto Unified School District, have requested a sixty day extension to the public comment period regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report for Stanford University’s 2018 General Use Permit (GUP). Given the potential for high long-term impacts of Stanford University's expansion plans on surrounding communities and beyond, not to mention the attendant complexity of addressing such impacts, this is a wholly reasonable request. I urge you to support and/or grant this sixty day extension. Thank you for your consideration in this matter, Christian Pease Palo Alto resident City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:09 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 6:22 PM To:supervisor.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org Cc:Council, City; kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org; david.rader@pln.sccgov.org; BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org; Keene, James Subject:Request extension of comment period for Stanford GUP (General Use Permit) Honorable Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, My name is Nelson Ng and I am a 21 year resident of Palo Alto. I worked in the Stanford Research Park in the early 80's and again the last 2 years. During the last 34 years, I have seen traffic grow to epic proportions of gridlock in Palo Alto during commute hours on all of the major arteries such as Embarcadero and Page Mill. Here is a picture that was taken last year on Embarcadero by Alma during the morning commute hour traveling westbound on Embarcadero. Another photo was taken during the afternoon commute hour going eastbound on Embarcadero. This congestion occurs daily on Palo Alto's major roads and significantly and negatively impacts the quality of life for the residents of Palo Alto. Given that the traffic is already at gridlock level, we should be looking for solutions to reduce the traffic instead of considering expansion that will add to the problem. Let us implement measurably effective solutions before going forth with any plans for additional growth. The following is from section 5.15 Transportation and Traffic of the DEIR. Significance after Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable. This mitigation would substantially reduce traffic congestion impacts to intersections; however, this is considered a significant and unavoidable impact because it is uncertain whether it would be feasible to improve some of the affected intersections if the No Net New Commute Trips standard is not achieved, if there are not sufficient additional funds to complete the intersection impacts, or if there are not sufficient off-campus projects available to reduce peak hour traffic. As discussed in further detail below, many of the intersections adversely affected under 2018 Baseline with Project conditions identified in Table 1, above, are located in other jurisdictions, and consequently, the improvements depend on the actions of those jurisdictions. In some cases, additional funding for intersection improvements may be required and is not yet identified, and consequently, it is not certain that these improvements would be implemented in a timely manner. For these reasons, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable. It is not acceptable for the citizens of Palo Alto that the traffic impact could be Significant and Unavoidable even after the mitigation. Therefore, I am requesting the Board of Supervisors to grant a 60 days extension to allow the City of Palo Alto to provide more complete and in-depth comments on the DEIR to ensure there will be measurable goals and effective mitigation for traffic impacts. Sincerely, Nelson Ng City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:09 AM 6 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:09 AM 7 Carnahan, David From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:04 PM To:kirk.girard@pln.sccgov.org; david.rader@pln.sccgov.org; BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org; supervisor.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City; Kniss, Liz (internal); Holman, Karen; lydiakou@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Fine, Adrian; Scharff, Gregory (internal); City Mgr Subject:Extend deadline for Stanford GUP The Stanford GUP has too big of an impact on Palo Alto and Menlo Park. I urge you to support extending the deadline for discussion by 60 days. Jim Colton 670 Georgia Ave Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:09 AM 8 Carnahan, David From:Rosenblums(pol1) <pol1@rosenblums.us> Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 8:51 PM To:supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Supervisor Yeager; Council, City Subject:Stanford GUP Stanford needs to be asked to pay for grade separations for Caltrain since many of their employees use it to  get to work. They are the largest employer in Santa Clara County and do not pull their weight in supporting  our infrastructure since they pay no taxes. The GUP approval should be used to extract some cash from their  endowment.  Dr. Stephen Rosenblum, Palo Alto  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:11 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 3:00 PM To:david.rader@pln.sccgov.org Cc:Girard, Kirk; Board Operations; supervisor.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.yeager@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City; Kristina Loquist; Flamm, Sarah; Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; info Subject:Stanford GUP DEIR - Formal Request for a 60 day extension. Attachments:Stanford GUP request for extension.pdf Dear Mr. Rader, We are writing to request a 60 day extension to the formal comment period for the DEIR. We have made multiple requests over the last week for information relating to the transportation section of the GUP and have not received a response nor the data we requested. On Wednesday, November 15th, 2017, I met with County Supervisor Joe Simitian and his staff members, Kristina Loquist and Sarah Flam, to discuss my concerns about the transportation section of the GUP. Specifically, I noticed that the information relating to Stanford’s impacts on the Caltrain system were likely incorrect. For example, the GUP states: “During the AM peak of 7:00-8:00 AM, the northbound and southbound peak load Caltrain stations that Stanford commuters affect are California Avenue and San Carlos. During the PM peak of 5:00-6:00 PM this trend reverses, with the San Carlos Station being the northbound peak load point and the California Avenue Station being the southbound peak load point. “ This finding makes little sense, given very few trains actually serve San Carlos station. It is true, however, that San Carlos is midway between baby bullet stations Hillsdale and Palo Alto. In reality, many of the actual trains headed north and south have their peak ridership headed to Palo Alto. In addition, the Caltrain capacity numbers are incorrect. Logically, Stanford commuters have some quantifiable effect on the University Avenue station in Palo Alto. This glaring omission brings into question all of the Caltrain related analysis in the GUP. Given that the basis of “No Net New Trips” is critically dependent on Caltrain, Supervisor Simitian and his staff thought a meeting with Kirk Girard (SCC Director, Office of Planning and Development) was warranted to further understand this issue. On Monday, November 20th, my colleague Elizabeth Alexis and I spoke to Mr. Girard via conference call that lasted one hour and explained our findings and concerns. We also requested additional information, including the detailed Marguerite shuttle data in order to better understand the who is currently boarding and alighting at Caltrain stations. The detailed Marguerite ridership data is not included in any part of the GUP (including all appendices). Mr. Girard thought that, given the technical nature of our questions and concerns, it would be most helpful for us to meet with the Arup consultants who did the Caltrain portion of the GUP analysis. It was clear from the City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:11 AM 2 conversation that meeting the Arup consultants would also help evaluate if there was any additional information missing in the GUP that would be useful. On Monday, November 27th, I emailed Mr. Girard again to ask whether it would be possible to have a meeting ASAP given the comment period ends Monday, December 4th. To date, we have received no more information or further communication from Mr. Girard or the Arup Consultants. Without this missing critical information, it is impossible to adequately respond to the DEIR. This is an unusually large document with several thousand pages of data that needs to be hand tabulated and compared with a variety of other complicated transit data in order to consider possible impacts and any mitigations that might be necessary. Given the criticality of the GUP’s reliance on Caltrain as the backbone of their TDM program, we feel a 60 day extension is imperative. In addition, we would note that the GUP is a Program Level EIR and that under CEQA, transportation mitigations would usually be evaluated at a Project level. We are not aware of any Project level EIRs to have resulted from the 2000 GUP. Which means, following the precedence set previously, this would be the only opportunity for the public to comment given it is unlikely there would be an project level EIRs. Thus, a minimum 60 day extension is warranted. Sincerely, Nadia Naik, Co-founder Californians Advocating Responsible Rail Design (650) 539-8284 www.calhsr.com nadianaik@calhsr.com November​ ​30,​ ​2017 County​ ​of​ ​Santa​ ​Clara Department​ ​of​ ​Planning​ ​and​ ​Development Attention:​ ​David​ ​Rader County​ ​Government​ ​Center 70​ ​West​ ​Hedding​ ​Street,​ ​San​ ​Jose,​ ​CA​ ​95110 Phone:​ ​(408)​ ​299-5779 david.rader@pln.sccgov.org Subject:​ ​Formal​ ​Request​ ​for​ ​a​ ​60​ ​day​ ​extension​ ​of​ ​the​ ​formal​ ​DEIR​ ​Comment​ ​Period. Dear​ ​Mr.​ ​Rader, We​ ​are​ ​writing​ ​to​ ​request​ ​a​ ​60​ ​day​ ​extension​ ​to​ ​the​ ​formal​ ​comment​ ​period​ ​for​ ​the​ ​DEIR. We​ ​have​ ​made​ ​multiple​ ​requests​ ​over​ ​the​ ​last​ ​week​ ​for​ ​information​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​the​ ​transportation​ ​section of​ ​the​ ​GUP​ ​and​ ​have​ ​not​ ​received​ ​a​ ​response​ ​nor​ ​the​ ​data​ ​we​ ​requested. On​ ​Wednesday,​ ​November​ ​15th,​ ​2017,​ ​I​ ​met​ ​with​ ​County​ ​Supervisor​ ​Joe​ ​Simitian​ ​and​ ​his​ ​staff members,​ ​Kristina​ ​Loquist​ ​and​ ​Sarah​ ​Flam,​ ​to​ ​discuss​ ​my​ ​concerns​ ​about​ ​the​ ​transportation​ ​section​ ​of the​ ​GUP. Specifically,​ ​I​ ​noticed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​information​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​Stanford’s​ ​impacts​ ​on​ ​the​ ​Caltrain​ ​system​ ​were likely​ ​incorrect.​ ​For​ ​example,​ ​the​ ​GUP​ ​states: “During​ ​the​ ​AM​ ​peak​ ​of​ ​7:00-8:00​ ​AM,​ ​the​ ​northbound​ ​and​ ​southbound​ ​peak​ ​load​ ​Caltrain​ ​stations​ ​that Stanford​ ​commuters​ ​affect​ ​are​ ​California​ ​Avenue​ ​and​ ​San​ ​Carlos.​ ​During​ ​the​ ​PM​ ​peak​ ​of​ ​5:00-6:00​ ​PM this​ ​trend​ ​reverses,​ ​with​ ​the​ ​San​ ​Carlos​ ​Station​ ​being​ ​the​ ​northbound​ ​peak​ ​load​ ​point​ ​and​ ​the​ ​California Avenue​ ​Station​ ​being​ ​the​ ​southbound​ ​peak​ ​load​ ​point.​ ​“ 1 This​ ​finding​ ​makes​ ​little​ ​sense,​ ​given​ ​very​ ​few​ ​trains​ ​actually​ ​serve​ ​San​ ​Carlos​ ​station. 1​ ​Stanford​ ​GUP​ ​2018​ ​Transportation​ ​Chapter​ ​SU_Gup2018_DEIR_Vol2.pdf​ ​pg​ ​172 It​ ​is​ ​true,​ ​however,​ ​that​ ​San​ ​Carlos​ ​is​ ​midway​ ​between​ ​baby​ ​bullet​ ​stations​ ​Hillsdale​ ​and​ ​Palo​ ​Alto.​ ​In reality,​ ​many​ ​of​ ​the​ ​actual​ ​trains​ ​headed​ ​north​ ​and​ ​south​ ​have​ ​their​ ​peak​ ​ridership​ ​headed​ ​to​ ​Palo​ ​Alto. In​ ​addition,​ ​the​ ​Caltrain​ ​capacity​ ​numbers​ ​are​ ​incorrect. Logically,​ ​Stanford​ ​commuters​ ​have​ ​some​ ​quantifiable​ ​effect​ ​on​ ​the​ ​University​ ​Avenue​ ​station​ ​in​ ​Palo Alto.​ ​This​ ​glaring​ ​omission​ ​brings​ ​into​ ​question​ ​all​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Caltrain​ ​related​ ​analysis​ ​in​ ​the​ ​GUP.​ ​​ ​Given that​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​“No​ ​Net​ ​New​ ​Trips”​ ​is​ ​critically​ ​dependent​ ​on​ ​Caltrain,​ ​Supervisor​ ​Simitian​ ​and​ ​his​ ​staff thought​ ​a​ ​meeting​ ​with​ ​Kirk​ ​Girard​ ​(SCC​ ​Director,​ ​Office​ ​of​ ​Planning​ ​and​ ​Development)​ ​was​ ​warranted to​ ​further​ ​understand​ ​this​ ​issue. On​ ​Monday,​ ​November​ ​20th,​ ​my​ ​colleague​ ​Elizabeth​ ​Alexis​ ​and​ ​I​ ​spoke​ ​to​ ​Mr.​ ​Girard​ ​via​ ​conference call​ ​that​ ​lasted​ ​one​ ​hour​ ​and​ ​explained​ ​our​ ​findings​ ​and​ ​concerns.​ ​We​ ​also​ ​requested​ ​additional information,​ ​including​ ​the​ ​detailed​ ​Marguerite​ ​shuttle​ ​data​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​better​ ​understand​ ​the​ ​who​ ​is currently​ ​boarding​ ​and​ ​alighting​ ​at​ ​Caltrain​ ​stations.​ ​The​ ​detailed​ ​Marguerite​ ​​ ​ridership​ ​data​ ​is​ ​​not included​ ​in​ ​any​ ​part​ ​of​ ​the​ ​GUP​ ​(including​ ​all​ ​appendices). Mr.​ ​Girard​ ​thought​ ​that,​ ​given​ ​the​ ​technical​ ​nature​ ​of​ ​our​ ​questions​ ​and​ ​concerns,​ ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​most helpful​ ​for​ ​us​ ​to​ ​meet​ ​with​ ​the​ ​Arup​ ​consultants​ ​who​ ​did​ ​the​ ​Caltrain​ ​portion​ ​of​ ​the​ ​GUP​ ​analysis.​ ​It​ ​was clear​ ​from​ ​the​ ​conversation​ ​that​ ​meeting​ ​the​ ​Arup​ ​consultants​ ​would​ ​also​ ​help​ ​evaluate​ ​if​ ​there​ ​was​ ​any additional​ ​information​ ​missing​ ​in​ ​the​ ​GUP​ ​that​ ​would​ ​be​ ​useful. On​ ​Monday,​ ​November​ ​27th,​ ​I​ ​emailed​ ​Mr.​ ​Girard​ ​again​ ​to​ ​ask​ ​whether​ ​it​ ​would​ ​be​ ​possible​ ​to​ ​have​ ​a meeting​ ​ASAP​ ​given​ ​the​ ​comment​ ​period​ ​ends​ ​Monday,​ ​December​ ​4th. To​ ​date,​ ​we​ ​have​ ​received​ ​no​ ​more​ ​information​ ​or​ ​further​ ​communication​ ​from​ ​Mr.​ ​Girard​ ​or​ ​the​ ​Arup Consultants.​ ​​ ​Without​ ​this​ ​missing​ ​critical​ ​information,​ ​it​ ​is​ ​impossible​ ​to​ ​adequately​ ​respond​ ​to​ ​the DEIR.​ ​This​ ​is​ ​an​ ​unusually​ ​large​ ​document​ ​with​ ​several​ ​thousand​ ​pages​ ​of​ ​data​ ​that​ ​needs​ ​to​ ​be​ ​hand tabulated​ ​and​ ​compared​ ​with​ ​a​ ​variety​ ​of​ ​other​ ​complicated​ ​transit​ ​data​ ​in​ ​order​ ​to​ ​consider​ ​possible impacts​ ​and​ ​any​ ​mitigations​ ​that​ ​might​ ​be​ ​necessary. Given​ ​the​ ​criticality​ ​of​ ​the​ ​GUP’s​ ​reliance​ ​on​ ​Caltrain​ ​as​ ​the​ ​backbone​ ​of​ ​their​ ​TDM​ ​program,​ ​we​ ​feel​ ​a 60​ ​day​ ​extension​ ​is​ ​imperative. In​ ​addition,​ ​we​ ​would​ ​note​ ​that​ ​the​ ​GUP​ ​is​ ​a​ ​Program​ ​Level​ ​EIR​ ​and​ ​that​ ​under​ ​CEQA,​ ​transportation mitigations​ ​would​ ​usually​ ​be​ ​evaluated​ ​at​ ​a​ ​Project​ ​level.​ ​We​ ​are​ ​not​ ​aware​ ​of​ ​any​ ​Project​ ​level​ ​EIRs​ ​to have​ ​resulted​ ​from​ ​the​ ​2000​ ​GUP.​ ​Which​ ​means,​ ​following​ ​the​ ​precedence​ ​set​ ​previously,​ ​this​ ​would be​ ​the​ ​only​ ​opportunity​ ​for​ ​the​ ​public​ ​to​ ​comment​ ​given​ ​it​ ​is​ ​unlikely​ ​there​ ​would​ ​be​ ​an​ ​project​ ​level EIRs.​ ​Thus,​ ​a​ ​minimum​ ​60​ ​day​ ​extension​ ​is​ ​warranted. Sincerely, Nadia​ ​Naik,​ ​Co-founder Californians​ ​Advocating​ ​Responsible​ ​Rail​ ​Design (650)​ ​539-8284 www.calhsr.com nadianaik@calhsr.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/30/2017 5:17 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Svendsen, Janice Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:17 PM To:Council Members; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; De Geus, Robert; Flaherty, Michelle; Bobel, Phil; Halpern, Rhyena; LeBlanc, Jazmin; O'Kane, Kristen; Cullen, Charles; Eggleston, Brad; Abendschein, Jonathan; Arp, Ron; Dailey, Karla; Teixeira, Barbara Subject:12/4 Council Agenda Questions for Items 3, 6, 7, 11 Dear Mayor and Council Members:  On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to inquiries made  by Council Members DuBois, Filseth, Holman and Tanaka in regard to the December 4, 2017  council meeting agenda.  Item 3:  Emission Reduction Agreement – CM Tanaka   Item 6:  Purchase of Radios for Multiple Departments – CMs Holman and Tanaka  Item 7:  Penalty Scheduled:  Muni Codes/Vehicle Codes – CM Tanaka  Item 11:  1451 Middlefield Road ‐Junior Museum and Zoo – CMs Filseth and DuBois  Item 3:  Emission Reduction Agreement  Q.1. What would be the consequence of not approving this resolution?   A.1. The resolution would cause Palo Alto to purchase about 10% of what is needed to  supply the Carbon Neutral Gas Program (Resolution 9649). If the proposed resolution  is not approved, Palo Alto would not purchase the Mexican VERs and would instead  purchase VERs using the Council‐approved enabling agreements (Resolution 9704).   Q.2. If the resolution fails, where could we use the money originally allotted for the  purchase of VER agreements?   A.2. Carbon offset or VER purchases are paid for via a volumetric charge to customers.  As noted above, if these specific carbon offsets are not purchased, the funds would be  used to purchase offsets for which staff has authority under the Carbon Neutral Gas  Program. The Carbon Neutral Gas Program provides staff general authority to  purchase forestry offsets within the United States, and this resolution simply enables  staff to purchase some forestry offsets outside the United States in Palo Alto’s sister  city of Oaxaca.  Q.3. Why are we paying for Oaxaca’s VER’s?   A.3. The City is purchasing VERs for itself, not for Oaxaca. The City will receive all credit  for the carbon reduced. VERs must be purchased to implement the Council‐approved  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/30/2017 5:17 PM 2 Carbon Neutral Gas Program. By purchasing these VERs, Palo Alto is supporting a  project that, additionally, provides benefits such to our sister city, Oaxaca.      Item 6:  Purchase of Radios for Multiple Departments     Q.1. Why are radios so expensive?    A.1. In order to operate on the new regional radio system we have to replace all of the  mobile and portable radios in the city with new radios that can operate in the 700 MHz  frequency range. Public Safety radios require multiband capability in order to  communicate with other jurisdictions (particularly in San Mateo County) that operate  on other frequencies.  Most of the public safety radios have been purchased and we  have utilized grant money when possible. All of the radios for Utilities, Public Works,  the Rangers, and Animal Control will be replaced.  Those radios will be lower cost  single band models.    Regarding specific CSD cost inquiries by CM Holman, here is the cost break down for  the CSD Ranger radios.  They require the more expensive multiband radios because  they respond on emergencies in the foothills with various Fire and Police agencies:    12 portable and 7 mobile radios:  $7000 each             $133,000     one‐time cost    Annual subscriber fee                      $432 per radio        $8208          reoccurring      Q.2. Is there a cheaper method of communication?    A.2. There is not; Council approved participation in the Silicon Valley Regional  Communications System (SVRCS) in 2015 and the city has invested approximately $1.8  million in the system infrastructure.      Q.3. Why can’t people just use phones or devices they already have for communication  instead of buying radios?    A.3. Radios are the primary method for communication for field responders.  Radio is  reliable,  provides dedicated path for communication and allows one to many  communication.   This system is designed to function during an emergency, when cell  systems may be overloaded or not functioning.    The parks and open space divisions of CSD utilize radios for communication, safety  reasons and for emergency response, especially in remote areas such as open space  preserves. Radios are the primary method for communication for field responders,  which includes the rangers.  Radios are reliable,  provide dedicated paths for  communication and allows one‐to‐many communication.       Q.4. How expensive was the last contract to buy radios?    A.4. The city has been replacing radios as required.  Public safety has been purchasing  multiband radios for the past five years in anticipation of the transition to the SVRCS  system. Those purchases have occurred in several iterations as older radios reached  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/30/2017 5:17 PM 3 end of life.  This purchase is the first wholesale replacement of radios in at least the  past 20 years.    Q.5.  How long do the radios last for?    A.5. 10 – 15 years      Item 7:  Penalty Schedule:  Muni Codes/Vehicle Codes    Q.1. Approximately how many people per year are fined for discarding solid waste? How  many people are expected to be fined for the newly instated offenses?     A.1. These solid waste penalties have rarely been implemented in the past. Recently,  the Municipal Code was strengthened to achieved more refuse diversion from  landfills, and the modified penalty amounts are  companion actions. Staff does not  have an estimate of the number of commercial customers that would be fined, but it  is expected to be a small number as Staff will use an enforcement process that relies  heavily on outreach to the customers, notifications of non‐compliance and voluntary  agreements to allow the customer to get back in compliance.  Generally, a minimum  of three failed inspections will be conducted (and the customer notified) before a  penalty action would be taken.      Q.2. Why was specifically $250 chosen as the penalty? Why is the penalty for violating  refuse codes at special events only $100.    A.2. The $250 is consistent with most of the current solid waste related  penalties.  Currently, there is no special events penalty.  Staff proposes setting the  penalty at a lower amount ($100) because non‐profit entities are often involved. Staff  believes this amount is adequate for these types of non‐frequent events (typically  once per year).        Item 11:  1451 Middlefield Road ‐Junior Museum and Zoo     Q.1. Capital Costs to City.  What is the City’s anticipated total capital investment in the  JMZ effort?  I see references including $2.6M from the Rinconada Park Improvements  CIP, and $3.4M for exhibits and signage which is currently unfunded.  What’s the net of  all the City’s capital contributions?    A.1. In addition to the $2.6M from the Rinconada Park Improvements CIP, and the  unfunded $3.4M for exhibits, FFE, park improvements,  and signage, there is an  existing CIP AC‐18001 that is funded at $706,000. CIP AC‐18001 funds the temporary  relocation of the JMZ to Cubberley and the permit and inspections fees related to the  JMZ rebuild project. The current estimate for total City contribution, inclusive of  Rinconada Park and parking lot improvements, is $6,706,000. We will have a final  update on capital costs when we return to Council on Feb. 5th.      Q.2. Operating Costs to City.  Currently the JMZ accounts for 8.5 City FTE’s.  After the  remodel, this number is expected to increase.  Do we know what the new number will  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 11/30/2017 5:17 PM 4 be?  And, how much of the increase is anticipated to be funded by the City’s General  Fund, as opposed to ticket sales and the Friends of JMZ?  A.2.  Staff are working on a detailed pro forma for the new JMZ for Council to review  and discuss in early 2018, at that time staff will also bring draft contracts with the  Friends of the JMZ to build the project. Staff are working hard to limit the need for  increased FTE and net costs to the City to operate the rebuilt JMZ. The anticipated  ticketed gate revenue and increased contributed income is expected to cover the  majority of operating cost increases. Specifically regarding FTE, staff anticipates the  need for 3‐4 FTE in new hourly staff and 1 ‐2 FTE in regular staff. The draft pro forma  will include different scenarios of program investment, ranging from no net increase  in costs to $200,000 in net increased net costs.  The long‐term goal is to re‐engage the  Friends of the JMZ in our mutual interest to transition from a City‐operated program  to non‐profit operated program.  Q.3. How would using the unencumbered balance of $2.6M Rinconada Park funds  impact the overall park plans?   A.3. The park improvement plans outlined in the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan are  intended to be addressed over a twenty year period.  The $2.6M prioritizes the  improvements in Rinconada Park near the JMZ first.  Funding for additional  improvements to Rinconada Park, as identified in the RPLRP, will need to be identified  and included in future capital budgets.  Q.4. What is in the plan that would not then be funded?   A.4. The aspects of the Rinconada Park Long Range Plan that would be funded in the  near term are the playground on the west side of the park, renovated parking lot,  improved park entrance and  improved circulation and connectivity to the JMZ.  All  other improvements as seen in the Plan (packet page 269‐270) would require  additional funding sources to be determined in the future.    Q. 5. Can staff please clarify the cost for the .4 staff member addition?  A.5. The hourly staff position funded through the IMLS grant will cost $100,000 over  the 4 years of the grant period.  Q.6.  What were HRB comments on the project?  A.6. The HRB was interested in making sure the design of the building reflected the  historic Stern Community Center and asked staff to pursue the eligibility of the Girl  Scout House for the National Preservation Registry.  They gave comments on the color  of the roof of the new JMZ as also.  They were very supportive of the project.  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  FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING __12/05/2017__ [X] Placed Before Meeting [ ] Received at Meeting Item #_3_ City of Palo Alto M E M O R A N D U M TO: Finance Committee DATE: December 4, 2017 SUBJECT: FY 2019-2028 Long Range Financial Forecast (LRFF) Alternative Scenarios This memorandum provides additional information pertaining to the FY 2019-2028 Long Range Financial Report and City Pension Liabilities report, issued on November 21, 2017. When the report was issued, staff had insufficient data to complete the alternative forecast scenarios requested by the Finance Committee at the October 17, 2017 committee meeting. Three alternative scenarios are outlined in this memorandum that each have adverse impacts on the General Fund’s bottom line. The intent is to review these alternatives as a modeling of isolated changes in variables and for comparison against the Base Case. As a reminder the base case reflects the forecasted revenues and expenses if the same general trends and policy choices continue. The following three alternative scenarios are described in detail in this memorandum, however, it is important to note these are not the only variables that could impact the financial outlook. Alternative Scenario #1: 7.0% discount rate beginning FY 2019 (no phase-in) Alternative Scenario #2: 6.2% discount rate beginning FY 2019 (no phase-in) Alternative Scenario #3: Major tax revenue sensitivity analysis Analysis As part of the ongoing discussions associated with the Finance Committee regarding assumptions used to calculate the City’s pension liability, the Committee passed a motion to direct staff to prepare two alternate long range financial models. Below are the details for each scenario and a third scenario articulating the implications on major tax revenues should an economic downturn occur (based on previous experience in the City of Palo Alto). These models take the LRFF Base case, and alter the assumptions as detailed, resulting in a re-stated General Fund forecast in totality. Overall the FY 2019 forecasted gap can range from the status quo of $2.6 million as forecasted in the base case, up to $11.1 million in Alternative Scenario #3. In each scenario, the near term experience worsens to varying degrees depending on the model, before improving in the out 2 12/05/2017 years of the forecast. The cumulative surplus/(gap) over the full ten years of the forecast improves by approximately $1.6 million in the Alternative #1 when compared to the base case, however it could grow to $33.5 million should an economic contraction be felt (Alt Scenario #3). Table 5: FY 2019 - 2028 General Fund LRFF Base Case & Alternative Scenarios (Net One-time Surplus/(Gap) implications) Each alternative scenario reaches an inflection point, a point where eventually revenues will outpace expenses assuming the same general trends and policy choices are continued. For example, in the first alternative scenario, should the City choose to solve these gaps with one- time solutions, in FY 2024 the organization will still experience a surplus of $1.3 million. However, should the City continue its history of prudent financial planning and solve these gaps with ongoing solutions, such as ongoing expense reductions or ongoing increases in revenues, the financial outlook is positive through the remaining nine years of the forecast period with marginal surpluses (excluding alternative scenario #3) beginning as early as FY 2020. Table 6: FY 2019 - 2028 General Fund LRFF Base Case & Alternative Scenarios (Net Operating Margin) Adopted 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Base Case (3,384)$ (2,551) (2,217) (2,350) (1,986) (1,127) 209 1,842 3,511 6,861 8,810 Cumulative Surplus/(Gap)11,002$ Alternative Scenario #1 (3,384)$ (7,006) (5,685) (4,612) (3,242) (1,261) 1,329 3,950 6,452 10,183 12,510 Cumulative Surplus/(Gap)12,619$ Alternative Scenario #2 (3,384)$ (11,129) (9,319) (8,316) (6,872) (4,831) (2,140) 643 2,776 7,089 9,615 Cumulative Surplus/(Gap)(22,484)$ Alternative Scenario #3 (3,384)$ (2,551) (2,362) (11,967) (16,720) (15,465) (8,294) (621) 2,986 8,562 12,908 Cumulative Surplus/(Gap)(33,525)$ 3 12/05/2017 Alternative Scenario #1: 7% discount rate beginning FY 2019 In early 2017, the CalPERs board approved a reduction in the assumed discount rate of the pension plans from 7.5 percent to 7.0 percent with a phased implementation. The current CalPERS actuarial valuations reflect this phased approach with a 7.35 percent discount rate in FY 2019. This alternative scenario assumes that the City’s contributions would immediately be calculated based on a 7.0 percent discount rate in FY 2019. As a result, the City’s pension contribution rate increases from 32.6 percent and 55.6 percent for miscellaneous and safety plans to 37.6 percent and 64.9 percent respectively. This results in a $4.6 million increase in the anticipated pension payment in FY 2019 when compared to the base case. However, over the 10 year forecast, this results in savings of $1.0 million in pension costs. Overall this model shows a gap of $7.0 million in FY 2019. Table 7: FY 2019 - 2028 Long Range Financial Forecast Alternative Scenario #1 The near term outline reflects a more significant gap between revenues and expenses. However, if that gap were to be addressed through ongoing solutions, the City would face marginal surpluses of $1.0 million to $2.6 million over the 10 year period. This model does not project any additional revenue growth compared to the base mode; slight increases in revenues reflecting fees for service would minimally diminish this increased gap in FY 2019 assuming current cost recovery levels and activity levels are maintained. This scenario does assume that the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) meets or exceeds the Council approved minimum of 15 percent of anticipated expenses in any given year. Alternative Scenario #1 Adopted 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Revenue $207,042 $213,229 $221,638 $229,695 $237,623 $245,792 $253,881 $262,065 $269,898 $277,349 $285,652 3.0%3.9%3.6%3.5%3.4%3.3%3.2%3.0%2.8%3.0% Total Expenditures $210,426 $220,235 $227,323 $234,307 $240,865 $247,053 $252,552 $258,115 $263,445 $267,167 $273,142 4.7%3.2%3.1%2.8%2.6%2.2%2.2%2.1%1.4%2.2% Net One-Time Surplus/(Shortfall)($3,384)($7,006)($5,685)($4,612)($3,242)($1,261)$1,329 $3,950 $6,452 $10,183 $12,510 Cumulative Net Operating Margin (One-Time)$12,619 Net Operating Margin ($7,006)$1,321 $1,073 $1,369 $1,981 $2,590 $2,622 $2,502 $3,730 $2,328 Cumulative Net Operating Margin $12,510 Assumes that the annual shortfalls are solved with ongoing solutions and annual surpluses are spent for ongoing expenditures. 4 12/05/2017 Alternative Scenario #2: 6.2% discount rate beginning FY 2019 In early 2017, the CalPERs board approved a reduction in the assumed discount rate of the pension plans from 7.5 percent to 7.0 percent with a phased implementation. The current CalPERS actuarial valuations reflect this phased approach with a 7.35 percent discount rate in FY 2019. However, this alternative scenario assumes an even lower discount rate than that approved by the CalPERs Board. It assumes a discount rate of 6.2 percent as compared to the current approved rate of 7.0 percent. This rate reflects Wilshire Associates’ projection for CalPERs over the next ten (10) years. This alternative also assumes no phase-in of this drop to a 6.2 percent rate, and calculates the City’s contributions immediately in FY 2019. As a result, the City’s pension contribution rate spikes from 32.6 percent and 55.6 percent for miscellaneous and safety plans to 42.3 percent and 73.4 percent respectively. This results in an $8.6 million increase in the anticipated pension payment in FY 2019 when compared to the base case. Over the 10 year forecast, this results in higher pension costs of $33.6 million. Overall this model shows a gap of $11.1 million in FY 2019. Table 9: FY 2019 - 2028 Long Range Financial Forecast Alternative Scenario #2 The near term outline reflects a more significant gap between revenues and expenses. However, if that gap were to be addressed through ongoing solutions, the City would face marginal surpluses of $1.0 million to $4.3 million over the 10 year period. This model does not project any additional revenue growth compared to the base model; slight increases in revenues reflecting fees for service would minimally diminish this increased gap in FY 2019 assuming current cost recovery levels and activity levels are maintained. This scenario does assume that the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR) meets or exceeds the Council approved minimum of 15 percent of anticipated expenses in any given year. Alternative Scenario #2 Adopted 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Revenue $207,042 $213,229 $221,638 $229,695 $237,623 $245,792 $253,881 $262,065 $269,898 $277,349 $285,652 3.0%3.9%3.6%3.5%3.4%3.3%3.2%3.0%2.8%3.0% Total Expenditures $210,426 $224,358 $230,957 $238,011 $244,495 $250,623 $256,021 $261,422 $267,122 $270,260 $276,037 6.6%2.9%3.1%2.7%2.5%2.2%2.1%2.2%1.2%2.1% Net One-Time Surplus/(Shortfall)($3,384)($11,129)($9,319)($8,316)($6,872)($4,831)($2,140)$643 $2,776 $7,089 $9,615 Cumulative Net Operating Margin (One-Time)-$22,484 Net Operating Margin ($11,129)$1,810 $1,003 $1,443 $2,041 $2,691 $2,784 $2,132 $4,313 $2,526 Cumulative Net Operating Margin $9,615 Assumes that the annual shortfalls are solved with ongoing solutions and annual surpluses are spent for ongoing expenditures. 5 12/05/2017 Alternative Scenario #3: Major Tax Revenue Sensitivity Analysis As discussed in the base case, FY 2019 total tax receipts constitute nearly 60 percent of the General Fund revenues. The base case assumes that average tax receipts grow 4.2 percent or $5.0 million in FY 2019 over current FY 2018 projections reflecting 3.7 percent growth over the FY 2018 budget. The year over year assumed growth in total tax revenues is between 3.5 percent and 4.0 percent. All other assumptions remaining the same, if tax receipts’ growth falls similar to patterns in prior recessions in the City of Palo Alto, the loss in revenue would be approximately $11.1 million in the first year. This scenario models the potential impact should the economy feel a contraction in FY 2021 and the growth rates expected following that downturn. Table 11: FY 2019 - 2028 Long Range Financial Forecast Alternative Scenario #3 Table 12: FY 2019 - 2028 Long Range Financial Forecast Alternative Scenario #3 Net Operating Margin Summary These alternative scenarios look to better inform and prepare the City for future implications not contemplated in the base case forecast. They are intended for discussion purposes and to assist in forming future policy direction. As the City continues to discuss the pension liabilities Alternative Scenario #3 Adopted 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 Total Revenue $207,042 $213,229 $221,506 $218,636 $220,590 $229,087 $243,279 $257,657 $267,369 $276,987 $287,629 3.0%3.9%-1.3%0.9%3.9%6.2%5.9%3.8%3.6%3.8% Total Expenditures $210,426 $215,780 $223,868 $230,603 $237,309 $244,552 $251,574 $258,278 $264,384 $268,425 $274,721 2.5%3.7%3.0%2.9%3.1%2.9%2.7%2.4%1.5%2.3% Net One-Time Surplus/(Shortfall)($3,384)($2,551)($2,362)($11,967)($16,720)($15,465)($8,294)($621)$2,986 $8,562 $12,908 Cumulative Net Operating Margin (One-Time)-$33,525 Net Operating Margin ($2,551)$189 ($9,605)($4,753)$1,255 $7,170 $7,673 $3,607 $5,576 $4,346 Cumulative Net Operating Margin $12,908 Assumes that the annual shortfalls are solved with ongoing solutions and annual surpluses are spent for ongoing expenditures. 6 12/05/2017 for its employees, the growing costs of infrastructure total cost of ownership and services will be an important consideration to bear in mind. The City has made sound financial decisions recently including establishing an irrevocable IRS Section 115 Pension Trust fund. That fund currently has $3.5 million residing in it ($2.1 million General Fund) reflecting contributions from all funds made over the past two fiscal years. The table summarizes the different pension rates as a percentage of salary over the term of the forecast. Table 13: Comparison of Pension Rates Among Forecast Scenarios by Plan FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024 FY 2025 FY 2026 FY 2027 FY 2028 Miscellaneous (Base Case, per CalPERS) 30.2% 32.6% 35.9% 38.7% 40.9% 42.6% 43.5% 44.0% 42.0% 38.4% 38.3% Misc: Alternative #1 (per Bartel Associates) 37.6% 39.2% 40.1% 40.9% 41.3% 40.9% 40.8% 38.5% 34.2% 34.0% Misc: Alternative #2 (per Bartel Associates) 42.3% 43.2% 44.1% 44.7% 44.9% 44.3% 44.0% 41.5% 37.1% 36.6% Misc. EE Cost Share 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% Safety (Base Case, per CalPERS) 49.7% 55.6% 61.5% 66.3% 70.3% 73.5% 75.1% 76.2% 77.5% 78.0% 78.2% Safety: Alternative #1 (per Bartel Associates) 64.9% 67.7% 69.4% 71.1% 71.9% 71.2% 71.2% 71.7% 71.3% 70.6% Safety: Alternative #2 (per Bartel Associates) 73.4% 74.9% 76.4% 77.8% 78.4% 77.4% 77.0% 77.2% 76.4% 75.4% Safety EE Cost Share 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% Consistent with these increases in the rate, a spike in the contribution from the General Fund can be seen in the graph below in FY 2019 ranging from $4.6 million to $8.6 million depending on the scenario. Table 14: Comparison of Pension Contributions among Forecast Scenarios 7 12/05/2017 The graph below articulates the impact on the average total cost to the City of an employee assuming average salaries of $110,000 and $140,000 for miscellaneous and safety employees respectively. This shows the marginal increase on the total cost for the alternative scenarios, and it is for illustrative purposes only. In these scenarios, additional costs up to $11,000 or 5.8 percent of the miscellaneous total employee cost or additional costs up to $25,000 or 8.5 percent of the safety total employee cost would be realized. Table 15: Comparison of average total cost of an Employee by Plan in FY 2019 *Overtime is included for each plan, but is averaged only for the total overtime budget for eligible groups divided by the eligible number of employees. Overtime is not pensionable, and changes to the discount rate would be de minimis on the overtime budget. DEPARTMENT HEAD: LALO PEREZ Director, Administrative Services/CFO CITY MANAGER: JAMES KEENE City Manager City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 4:01 PM 1 Carnahan, David From: Wayne Martin <wmartin46@yahoo.com> Date: December 4, 2017 at 2:41:32 PM PST To: "eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org" <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org" <Adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org>, "karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org" <karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org>, "greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org" <greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Lalo Perez <lalo.perez@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: CalPERS Accrued Liability Increases Council Member Eric Filseth (Chair) : eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org Council Member Adrian Fine: Adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org Council Member Karen Holman: karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org Council Member Greg Tanaka: greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: lalo.perez@cityofpaloalto.org Finance Committee Members: The attached MS-WORD contains a communication about the increase in our CalPERS Accrued Liability. Wayne Martin Palo Alto < /html> Council Member Eric Filseth (Chair) : eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org Council Member Adrian Fine: Adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org Council Member Karen Holman: karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org Council Member Greg Tanaka: greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org Finance Committee Members: From reading the latest Annual CalPERS Valuation Report, the table on page.30 peaked my interest. That table is provided below: Summary Title: Review and Discuss CalPERS Pension Annual Valuation Reports Table from Page.30--Funding History Valuation Date Accrued Liability Market Value of Assets (MVA) Unfunded Liability Funded Ratio 6/30/2011 $313,183,690 $225,015,089 $88,168,601 71.80% 6/30/2012 327,608,300 215,605,457 112,002,843 65.80% 6/30/2013 338,666,499 233,417,363 105,249,136 68.90% 6/30/2014 367,478,634 264,145,000 103,333,634 71.90% 6/30/2015 377,934,524 259,169,591 118,764,933 68.60% 6/30/2016 392,911,774 249,886,581 143,025,193 63.60% Estimated Accrued Liability 2017- 2032 6/30/2017 412,916,713 6/30/2018 433,940,195 6/30/2019 456,034,079 6/30/2020 479,252,863 6/30/2021 503,653,823 6/30/2022 529,297,147 6/30/2023 556,291,301 6/30/2024 584,662,158 6/30/2025 614,479,928 6/30/2026 645,818,404 6/30/2027 678,755,143 6/30/2028 713,371,655 6/30/2029 749,753,610 6/30/2030 787,991,044 6/30/2031 828,178,587 6/30/2032 870,415,695 The 2017-2032 projection was based on the fact the 2011-2016 Accrued Liability increased on an aggregate yearly increase of 5%. The projection above is based on this five percent. The simple projection, based on this 5% compounded increase, will almost triple Palo Alto’s Accrued Liability. This approach is probably not fully accurate, since the City’s Accrued Liability will be moderated by PEPRA hires--which will have their pensions limited to a much smaller amount that are possible under the pre-PEPRA pension restraints. This communication to the Finance Committee is to raise the issue with the Committee that this simple number (Accrued Liability), buried in a CalPERS report is growing very fast, with the implications that the cost of Palo Alto’s pensions are getting to be so large that the term “unsustainable” will have no value to the City. In that case, the City will see that funds which should be applied to services and capital projects diverted to pay retired employees pension payouts that easily could come to twice what they earned while on active service. It’s clear that if this projection were extended to twenty or twenty-five years that the Accrued Liability could be over one billion dollars! It is requested that the Finance Department find the resources to project this Accrued Liability out thirty years using the actuarial methods that CalPERS is likely to use so that the City can better understand the impact of the “defined benefit” pensions that it has previously offered its employees. Wayne Martin Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 12:13 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 05, 2017 9:06 AM To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:Council Finance Committee meeting tonight It is hard for me to believe that Federal tax reform package will be adopted in its current form. If housing prices and cash flow from California property taxes become unstable for the next few years, then Palo Alto's infrastructure improvements are at great risk for delay. Likewise city department operational budgets are at risk to meet their current workload challenges. If our economic bubble is popped by Federal legislation, then early 2018 will be time for much greater contingency planning. I know that city staff and Finance Committee are well aware of this mess, but I think the general public in Palo Alto has not begun to ponder the consequences. Will the GOP tax bill lower home prices in California? Will the GOP tax bill lower home prices in California? A prominent group of realtors over the weekend slammed the GOP’s tax plan — which passed Saturday in the Senate ... Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:19 PM 1 Carnahan, David From: Wayne Martin [mailto:wmartin46@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 1:11 PM To: Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Tanaka, Greg Cc: Perez, Lalo Subject: Projections of Future Labor Costs with Implications About Pensions Council Member Eric Filseth (Chair) : eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org Council Member Adrian Fine: Adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org Council Member Karen Holman: karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org Council Member Greg Tanaka: greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: lalo.perez@cityofpaloalto.org Finance Committee Members: The attached MS-WORD file contains data derived from various City documents involving future labor costs, with implications of pension impacts on the City budget. Wayne Martin Palo Alto Council Member Eric Filseth (Chair) : eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org Council Member Adrian Fine: Adrian.fine@cityofpaloalto.org Council Member Karen Holman: karen.holman@cityofpaloalto.org Council Member Greg Tanaka: greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: lalo.perez@cityofpaloalto.org Finance Committee Members: This communication to the Finance Committee concerns the ever-increasing costs of labor at the City of Palo Alto government, with the costs of pensions which follow from these salaries. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62316 Page.9 Summary Title: FY2019 - FY2028 Long Range Financial Forecast & City Pension Liabilities Expenditures & Other Uses Adopted 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 CAGR 10 Years Salary $74,191 $76,171 $78,361 $80,475 $82,445 $84,343 $86,262 $88,190 $90,141 $92,117 $94,113 2.40% Benefits 51,432 54,116 58,512 62,655 66,184 69,592 72,411 74,962 76,546 76,666 78,661 4.30% Subtotal: Salary & Benefits 125,623 130,287 136,873 143,130 148,629 153,935 158,673 163,153 166,687 168,783 172,774 3.20% Cost/Employee $209 $217 $228 $239 $248 $257 $264 $272 $278 $281 $288 Number of Emps: 600 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 CAGR 10 Years Salary $96,372 $76,171 $78,361 $80,475 $82,445 $84,343 $86,262 $88,190 $90,141 $92,117 $94,113 2.40% Benefits 82,043 85,571 89,251 93,089 97,091 101,266 105,621 110,163 114,900 119,840 124,993 4.30% Subtotal: Salary & Benefits 178,415 161,742 167,612 173,564 179,536 185,609 191,883 198,353 205,041 211,957 219,106 3.20% Cost/Employee $297 $270 $279 $289 $299 $309 $320 $331 $342 $353 $365 Table 1—Projected Cost-to-Employ Expenses (General Fund) Using the City’s inflation estimates, note that the General Fund cost-to-employ numbers jump from $209,000 per employee per year, the cost jumps to $365 per employee by the year 2029. Note—this table only represents about 600 employees. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61330 Fiscal Year 2018 Adopted Operating Budget Category Mgmt/Prof. Utilities Mgmt/Prof. Fire Chief Assn. IAFF Police Mgmt Assoc. PAPOA SIEU Weighted Average CAGR 10 Years Equivalent (FTE) 229 48 5 99 7 83 588 1,059 Average Salary & Benefits: 2018 $220,234 $231,916 $284,439 $258,722 $346,235 $260,611 $151,339 $199,988 3.20% 2019 227281 239337 293541 267001 357315 268951 156182 206388 2020 234554 246996 302934 275545 368749 277557 161180 212992 2021 242060 254900 312628 284363 380549 286439 166337 219808 2022 249806 263057 322632 293462 392726 295605 171660 226842 2023 257800 271475 332957 302853 405293 305064 177153 234101 2024 266050 280162 343611 312544 418263 314826 182822 241592 2025 274563 289127 354607 322546 431647 324901 188673 249323 2026 283349 298379 365954 332867 445460 335298 194710 257301 2027 292416 307927 377665 343519 459715 346027 200941 265535 2028 301774 317781 389750 354512 474425 357100 207371 274032 2029 311430 327950 402222 365856 489607 368527 214007 282801 2030 321396 338444 415093 377563 505274 380320 220855 291850 2031 331681 349274 428376 389645 521443 392490 227922 301190 2032 342295 360451 442084 402114 538129 405050 235216 310828 2033 353248 371986 456231 414982 555350 418011 242743 320774 2034 364552 383889 470830 428261 573121 431388 250511 331039 2035 376218 396174 485897 441965 591461 445192 258527 341632 2036 388257 408851 501445 456108 610387 459438 266800 352564 2037 400681 421934 517492 470704 629920 474140 275337 363846 2038 413503 435436 534051 485766 650077 489313 284148 375490 2039 426735 449370 551141 501311 670880 504971 293241 387505 2040 440390 463750 568778 517353 692348 521130 302625 399905 2041 454483 478590 586978 533908 714503 537806 312309 412702 2042 469026 493905 605762 550993 737367 555016 322302 425909 2043 484035 509710 625146 568625 760963 572776 332616 439538 2044 499524 526021 645151 586821 785314 591105 343260 453603 2045 515509 542853 665796 605599 810444 610021 354244 468118 Table 2 – Projected Cost-to-Employee By Bargaining Unit The 2018 Operating Budget provides a breakout of the cost-to-employee expenditures by actual expense type. This table then summarizes the actual cost-to-employ by bargaining unit, and a weighted average for all employees (All Funds). The breakdown by bargaining units and the annual inflation multiplier have been combined to produce Table 2 (above) which provides an insight into the City’s labor costs in the coming years. The implication of these future labor costs should concern the Finance Committee, the Council and every resident of Palo Alto. Not only are these numbers staggering, but the costs of pensions for employees drawing salaries in the hundreds of thousands of dollars defy the imagination. The Finance Committee is requested to direct the Finance Department to provide more accurate projections than those provided in this communication, to publish these projections and to update them yearly with other financial projections, including implications on pension costs associated with these salaries. Wayne Martin Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Christine Shambora <christineshambora@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 9:17 AM To:Council, City; Keene, James Cc:Gitelman, Hillary; Peter Shambora; Gail Woolley; Jim McFall; Keith Ferrell; Tom Vlasic; Shepherd, Nancy; Peter Henry Subject:Please remove item #8670 Summary Title: Resolutions Modifying Evergreen Park- Mayfield and Southgate RPP Programs from the consent calendar Dear Members of the City Council,  The Southgate neighborhood respectfully requests the above item be removed from the consent calendar for December  11.  This request to add an additional 15 employee permits to the Southgate RPP has not received proper notification to  the Southgate Community nor have the stakeholders had a chance to meet to discuss this proposed change.  This is a  150% increase over the existing allotment of employee permits and will have a significant impact without any input from  the Southgate community.  My understanding is that the city staff has had pressure from local businesses to make this  change yet we never heard from these businesses at the time the RPP was under consideration.  Why are we allowing  pressure from local businesses to supersede the quality of life of residents and the neighborhood?    Please allow time for a stakeholders meeting and discussion before this proposal returns to the Council.  Christine Shambora  christineshambora@gmail.com          City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:17 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 01, 2017 3:08 PM To:Keene, James; Council, City; Gitelman, Hillary; Scharff, Gregory (internal); Wolbach, Cory; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal) Subject:Fwd: Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program Update I just checked the on line agenda for 12/11 and this matter is on the consent calendar to be heard at 6pm. This memo says it is to be heard at 5pm. Also the below memo says the commercial Zone will be extended on the east side of El Camino from College to Park Ave. while the on line packet says it is to extended from College to Park Blvd.. Please advise which is correct as there is a block between Park Blvd and Park Ave. Thank you Paul Machado --------- Forwarded message ---------- From: City of Palo Alto <cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com> Date: Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:41 PM Subject: Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program Update To: plmachado@gmail.com You are subscribed to Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program for the City of Palo Alto. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Dear Stakeholder, At the December 11, 2017 at 5:00 PM meeting, the Palo Alto City Council will review an item regarding Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Southgate RPPs, as follows: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program Resolution 9663 and a Resolution Amending Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program Resolution City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:17 AM 6 9688, Both to Adjust the Number and Allocation of Employee Parking Permits, and a Resolution Establishing a Two-Hour Parking Restriction in the Commercial Zones Adjacent to 1515 El Camino Real and 1681 El Camino Real, and on the East Side of El Camino Real between College Avenue and Park Avenue. The meeting agenda and packet for the 12/11 meeting will be available at: http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp If you would like to comment on this item, you can either do so in person at the meeting, or by email. To email the City Council: The City Council appreciates hearing from citizens. Thank you in advance for your comments and concerns. Your email will be forwarded to all nine Council Members and a printed copy will be included in the next Council Packet. Correspondence received before noon on the Wednesday before the meeting will be included in the Council Packet. Any correspondence received after noon on Wednesday, relating to an Item on the Agenda, will be put at the Council Members places at the next Council meeting. When you email the City Council, your email becomes a public record. You should not include any private information (such as your phone number, home address, or minor children's names) in your correspondence to Council. If you wish to continue, click here. Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please visit subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com. This service is provided to you at no charge by City of Palo Alto. This email was sent to plmachado@gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: City of Palo Alto · 250 Hamilton Ave · Palo Alto, CA 94301 · 650-329-2100 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.GovDelivery logo City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 12:59 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 12:17 PM To:Gitelman, Hillary Cc:Kamhi, Philip; Mello, Joshuah; Christine Shambora; Tom Vlasic; Pete Henry; Peter Shambora; Jim McFall; Gail Woolley; Council, City Subject:Re: Additional worker permits for the Southgate Neighborhood + PA City Council Members Looking at the Council packet, I see the following under Attachment D for Item Number 6: Executive Summary The Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) programs in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Southgate neighborhoods are in their initial “pilot” phases and limit commercial parking on residential streets by requiring permits for any person desiring to park for longer than two hours during business hours. The programs also limit the number of permits available to area employees and businesses for purchase, while allowing for an unlimited number of residential permits. As both programs have gotten underway, some business owners including owners of smaller dental and medical office uses in both districts have been unable to purchase permits because of the limited supply (i.e. all employee permits in their area have been sold out). As a result, these business owners have asked the City to release more employee permits. City staff has evaluated the on-street occupancy within the affected areas, discussed the request with resident and business stakeholders, and is recommending that some additional employee permits be made available for purchase through the remainder of the pilot phases of both programs. At stakeholders’ recommendations, the recommended resolution would also create two-hour parking zones (with no ability to park for longer with a permit) adjacent to two commercial properties in the Southgate area. More information is provided regarding these recommendations below. Discussion On March 13, 2017 staff mailed out surveys to all residential properties and property owners within the proposed program area, and the program design elements included in the mail survey included “A maximum of 10 annual employee permits would be available in the Southgate RPP Program.” Although the Southgate RPP Program area only includes two commercial properties located at 1515 El Camino Real and 1681 El Camino Real, per the Palo Alto Business Registry there are seven businesses registered (one business is not in operation) on these properties with over 70 employees, although many of these are part-time employees. Policy Implications The following Comprehensive Plan programs and policies are relevant to the Evergreen ParkMayfield and Southgate RPP programs: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 12:59 PM 2 Policy T-5.5 Minimize the need for employees to park in and adjacent to commercial centers, employment districts and schools Policy T-5.11 Work to protect residential areas from parking impacts of nearby businesses and uses, recognizing that fully addressing some existing intrusions may take time. I would like to make some comments on the information that is being provided to City Council Members: 1) Southgate has yet to start the enforcement of their RPP. We are not in are initial "pilot" phase yet. I do not see how staff can determine how effective the program is prior to it ever starting. 2) Yes, there is a limited supply of employee permits. That is the point of an RPP. It's right there in the title. RESIDENTIAL PREFERRED PARKING. 3) Staff mailed out surveys to all property owners, including businesses. If they wanted more permits, that was their chance to ask for them, not AFTER council approved the program. To me that is an insult to the work the council did in discussing the plan to begin with. It is also insulting to the residents who were promised one thing by staff and council, only to have it changed without notice, discussion or data to back up their request. 4) Staff has NOT discussed the request with residents of Southgate. Obviously, they are taking the business' needs into account more than the residents of the city. Why is that? 5) Businesses were well aware that they were getting a total of 10 permits back in March 2017. 6) This has no effect on Policy T-5.5 as it pertains to Southgate. This does not force any employee to park adjacent to a commercial center, employment district or a school. The closest they would get would be parking along El Camino Real adjacent to the PAUSD District Office or along El Camino Real adjacent to the Stanford Intramural fields. There are plenty of available spaces to accommodate the employees which are a short walk to their office. (less than 1/4 mile) 7) This does not protect the Southgate "residential area from parking impacts of nearby businesses and uses". In fact, it does exactly the opposite. 8) There is NO WAY those offices hold anywhere close to 70 employees. Before any changes are made, staff needs to get an accurate count of the actual employee situation is at those businesses. Why are they asking for an additional 15 permits? What measures have these businesses undertaken to reduce their parking impact? How can you expect a change in employee parking behavior if you never ask them to change that behavior? After walking the neighborhood this morning, I saw 9 Employee Permits, all along Chuchill and the 1500 block of El Camino Way (along with many cars parked illegally along El Camino Way. I also noticed there were 4 empty parking spots (40% vacancy) in the parking lot of 1515 El Camino and 2 empty spots (40% vacancy) at 1681 El Camino. In addition, walking along El Camino, north of Churchill where there was additional parking opened up last year, there are many available spaces (photos attached). The first photo shows 5 cars parked north of Churchill and the second photo shows a large gap of available parking past that 5th car. This would provide more than ample parking for the employees of 1515 El Camino. The residents of Southgate have, in the past, been the de facto overflow parking lot for Palo Alto High School for years. The nearby businesses have also used the neighborhood as an overflow lot. The RPP was supposed to bring relief to that situation and return Southgate to the quiet residential neighborhood it has been for over 75 years. Yet, when businesses go to the city asking for more parking permits, the staff puts it on the council agenda under the guise of already talking to the residents, when in fact they haven't. Is this the proper way to run a city? Does the city just discount the resident's opinions and do what the businesses want? The businesses City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 12:59 PM 3 had their chance to speak up and they chose to remain silent. Had the residents gone to the city with their list of changes, I doubt the staff would come to council with their requests. i request that the item be removed from the agenda and also tabled until after the Southgate RPP completes the first year of the program. At that point, we would love to sit down with all parties to discuss changes that might need to be made. I would also note that the start date for the Southgate program has still not arrived, so until we start seeing actual enforcement of the program, the city cannot claim that Southgate's program has begun. Keith Ferrell On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Thanks Keith.  Phillip is working on setting up a meeting so you can pose questions to representatives of the local  businesses.  We can offer responses then as well.   Hillary      Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!   From: Keith Ferrell [mailto:ferrell.keith@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 10:41 AM To: Gitelman, Hillary Cc: Kamhi, Philip; Mello, Joshuah; Christine Shambora; Tom Vlasic; Pete Henry; Peter Shambora; Jim McFall; Gail Woolley Subject: RE: Additional worker permits for the Southgate Neighborhood What data points have changed to initiate the increase in employee permits? What steps have businesses undertaken to address their concerns? Given that the program has yet to begin, it seems far too premature to try to make changes. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 12:59 PM 4 Why didnt the businesses express their concern during the lengthy approval process? How many employees are on site at the businesses at any one time? I would expect, at a minimum, that these questions be specifically addressed before any changes are contemplated. Residents have also asked for tweaks to the program and we were continually told that this is a one-year trial period and any concerns would be addressed AFTER seeing how the trial works. Why is there a different set of rules for businesses? On Dec 4, 2017 8:53 AM, "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Thanks Keith,   Our staff has been out to Southgate.  While roll‐out of the RPP program has been slow, it does appear that with your  help, the initial problem we were trying to solve (students parking in the neighborhood) has been addressed.     As with any new program, there have been hiccups, and we have gotten an earful from local businesses in the last few  months.  Phillip is trying to set up a meeting so you can hear from them as well.     Hillary            Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 12:59 PM 5   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!   From: Keith Ferrell [mailto:ferrell.keith@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 8:40 AM To: Gitelman, Hillary Cc: Christine Shambora; Mello, Joshuah; Kamhi, Philip; Tom Vlasic; Pete Henry; Peter Shambora; Jim McFall; Gail Woolley Subject: RE: Additional worker permits for the Southgate Neighborhood How can you say that it is "unlikely to result in any significant change within the neighborhood" when there hasn't even been any enforcement of the original plan yet? Has anyone at the city.even come out to Southgate to evaluate the environment? Why is the city just handing out another 15 employee permits? Is it just because the businesses said it's inconvenient? Where were they during the initial process? They had their chance to speak up, did they not? The plan was approved for a one year trial and now, after the fact, the businesses want to complain and ask for more than double the amount of permits? How many employees do these businesses employ? Does the city have that information? Overall, the running of these RPPs appears to be very sloppy. We all know of the issues with the Downtown RPP. With Southgate, 1) when residents went in to apply for a permit we we're greeted with a message stating that our address was not eligible for an RPP. 2)The signs were printed with the incorrect enforcement hours. 3) Residents including myself, received warnings that we needed to buy and display a permit or we would be ticketed despite the fact that a permit was displayed in the lower left corner of the rear window on the car. And now 4) we're being told that because the RESIDENTIAL PREFERRED PARKING program is not working out for the BUSINESSES that the city is going to add 15 more permits to our very small neighborhood. I would also add that these are not "neighborhood serving" businesses. I would like to see numbers of how many employees these businesses have on site at one time. I would also like to know what the businesses have done to cut down on their employees' commute trips. There is plenty of parking on the east side of El Camino adjacent to the PAUSD district office and also on the west side of El Camino adjacent to the Stanford intramural fields. Those locations are very short walks to those businesses. It doesn't seem like too much of a struggle to come up with that recommendation. Keith Ferrell City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 12:59 PM 6 On Dec 4, 2017 8:21 AM, "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Christine, Thanks for this email. We would be happy to get together with you and others to discuss this matter, and I think Phillip is reaching out to find a time that works. We understand that the change we are recommending is not one that many residents will view favorably, yet we have heard from local businesses with the opposite perspective and have struggled to develop what we think is a reasonable recommendation. While the change from 10 to 25 employee permits may be proportionally large, it constitutes a net of 15 spaces and is unlikely to result in significant change within the neighborhood. Hillary Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! -----Original Message----- From: Christine Shambora [mailto:christineshambora@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 7:33 PM To: Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; Kamhi, Philip Cc: Tom Vlasic; Keith Ferrell; Peter Henry; Peter Shambora; Jim McFall; Gail Woolley Subject: Additional worker permits for the Southgate Neighborhood Hillary and Josh, I have learned that the staff has requested an amendment for additional employee permits for the Southgate neighborhood RPP increasing permits from 10 to 25. This request is a 150% increase in employee permits on an RPP that is barely a month old. There has not been any opportunity for a discussion about this change with Southgate residents. Our neighborhood never had a stakeholder process meeting in the first place when this RPP was under consideration and then approved. While we are generally pleased with the outcome and the approval of the Southgate RPP this step which was required as a part of the ordinance never happened and it should have!. Matters are being made worse by the fact that now changes are being recommended without any consultation with the stakeholders and particularly the neighbors. This item is being placed on the consent calendar for the December 11 meeting which means, as you well know, it will automatically be approved without any input or discussion. This is not right. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 12:59 PM 7 I respectfully request that you remove this item from the consent calendar and agenda and give the neighborhood the opportunity to be involved in understanding whether additional employee permits are warranted and an explanation as to why this is being recommended by staff. Southgate would like to understand what is behind the proposed increase and who, in fact, is requesting this change. Is it for the businesses in the vicinity? Is it neighbors who want it? Please give us the courtesy of making the Southgate neighborhood a part of this discussion and proposed change. An explanation of changes to the parking along Churchill which would also affect residences should also be given. In reviewing the back up documentation for this proposed change I notice that you include the Bay IVF Center as a business with 0-25 employees in the Southgate neighborhood. While this may be technically correct I really think it should be excluded from the neighborhood as it is beyond the frontage boundaries of Southgate and it is inaccessible to Southgate except through a pedestrian path. In summary, please remove the resolution from the consent calendar for December 11 meeting amending the employee permit numbers and then convene a timely and properly noticed stakeholder meeting for Southgate to discuss this proposal. If I do not hear back from staff by the end of day on December 4 I will further this request to the Council and post this information on “Nextdoor Southgate” so that you may hear from others to give feedback to staff and the Council. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Christine Shambora christineshambora@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:09 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 1:54 PM To:Gitelman, Hillary Cc:Kamhi, Philip; Mello, Joshuah; Christine Shambora; Tom Vlasic; Pete Henry; Peter Shambora; Jim McFall; Gail Woolley; Council, City; Shepherd, Nancy Subject:Re: Additional worker permits for the Southgate Neighborhood Reading into this report I noticed this in the Exectutive Summary: At stakeholders’ recommendations, the recommended resolution would also create two-hour parking zones (with no ability to park for longer with a permit) adjacent to two commercial properties in the Southgate area. Which stakeholders recommended limiting these areas to two-hour only, parking? That would force the current employees that currently park in that area (I counted 8 there today) to now move their cars into the Southgate neighborhood, instead of parking adjacent to the place of work. Who does that positively impact? I would say that's a huge benefit to the businesses. Who does that negatively impact? Once again, it puts the burden on the residents. Who did the city talk to in Southgate that recommended this? I would like to know specifically who the city talked to and how it was then taken to the city as representing the residents of Southgate. If staff is coming to the city with fabrications of facts, it needs to be addressed immediately. I actually remember Nancy Shepherd requesting that the city limit the employee parking to the frontage along the property of 1515 El Camino, which would include the "East side of El Camino Real starting at Churchill Boulevard and extending approximately 110 feet southeasterly, and the south side of Churchill Avenue starting at El Camino Real and extending 120 feet east along Churchill (adjacent to 1515 El Camino Real)". This would "Work to protect residential areas from parking impacts of nearby businesses and uses" as stated in Policy T-5.11. Making that area 2-hour only parking would force those employees to park elsewhere. By giving them RPP permits, you are now encouraging them to park in the interior of the Southgate neighborhood which is directly opposed to what the residents were trying to accomplish when we requested the RPP to be established. I am thoroughly confused as to how the city staff could think that this is what Southgate residents wanted from the RPP. And to have it be put in front of council without any notice to the residents seems underhanded, to be polite. If you maintain the status quo, the employees that cannot find space along Churchill can park along El Camino, north of Churchill, other parts of El Camino or find alternative transportation. Keith Ferrell On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 12:16 PM, Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: + PA City Council Members Looking at the Council packet, I see the following under Attachment D for Item Number 6: Executive Summary City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:09 PM 2 The Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) programs in the Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Southgate neighborhoods are in their initial “pilot” phases and limit commercial parking on residential streets by requiring permits for any person desiring to park for longer than two hours during business hours. The programs also limit the number of permits available to area employees and businesses for purchase, while allowing for an unlimited number of residential permits. As both programs have gotten underway, some business owners including owners of smaller dental and medical office uses in both districts have been unable to purchase permits because of the limited supply (i.e. all employee permits in their area have been sold out). As a result, these business owners have asked the City to release more employee permits. City staff has evaluated the on-street occupancy within the affected areas, discussed the request with resident and business stakeholders, and is recommending that some additional employee permits be made available for purchase through the remainder of the pilot phases of both programs. At stakeholders’ recommendations, the recommended resolution would also create two-hour parking zones (with no ability to park for longer with a permit) adjacent to two commercial properties in the Southgate area. More information is provided regarding these recommendations below. Discussion On March 13, 2017 staff mailed out surveys to all residential properties and property owners within the proposed program area, and the program design elements included in the mail survey included “A maximum of 10 annual employee permits would be available in the Southgate RPP Program.” Although the Southgate RPP Program area only includes two commercial properties located at 1515 El Camino Real and 1681 El Camino Real, per the Palo Alto Business Registry there are seven businesses registered (one business is not in operation) on these properties with over 70 employees, although many of these are part-time employees. Policy Implications The following Comprehensive Plan programs and policies are relevant to the Evergreen ParkMayfield and Southgate RPP programs: Policy T-5.5 Minimize the need for employees to park in and adjacent to commercial centers, employment districts and schools Policy T-5.11 Work to protect residential areas from parking impacts of nearby businesses and uses, recognizing that fully addressing some existing intrusions may take time. I would like to make some comments on the information that is being provided to City Council Members: 1) Southgate has yet to start the enforcement of their RPP. We are not in are initial "pilot" phase yet. I do not see how staff can determine how effective the program is prior to it ever starting. 2) Yes, there is a limited supply of employee permits. That is the point of an RPP. It's right there in the title. RESIDENTIAL PREFERRED PARKING. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:09 PM 3 3) Staff mailed out surveys to all property owners, including businesses. If they wanted more permits, that was their chance to ask for them, not AFTER council approved the program. To me that is an insult to the work the council did in discussing the plan to begin with. It is also insulting to the residents who were promised one thing by staff and council, only to have it changed without notice, discussion or data to back up their request. 4) Staff has NOT discussed the request with residents of Southgate. Obviously, they are taking the business' needs into account more than the residents of the city. Why is that? 5) Businesses were well aware that they were getting a total of 10 permits back in March 2017. 6) This has no effect on Policy T-5.5 as it pertains to Southgate. This does not force any employee to park adjacent to a commercial center, employment district or a school. The closest they would get would be parking along El Camino Real adjacent to the PAUSD District Office or along El Camino Real adjacent to the Stanford Intramural fields. There are plenty of available spaces to accommodate the employees which are a short walk to their office. (less than 1/4 mile) 7) This does not protect the Southgate "residential area from parking impacts of nearby businesses and uses". In fact, it does exactly the opposite. 8) There is NO WAY those offices hold anywhere close to 70 employees. Before any changes are made, staff needs to get an accurate count of the actual employee situation is at those businesses. Why are they asking for an additional 15 permits? What measures have these businesses undertaken to reduce their parking impact? How can you expect a change in employee parking behavior if you never ask them to change that behavior? After walking the neighborhood this morning, I saw 9 Employee Permits, all along Chuchill and the 1500 block of El Camino Way (along with many cars parked illegally along El Camino Way. I also noticed there were 4 empty parking spots (40% vacancy) in the parking lot of 1515 El Camino and 2 empty spots (40% vacancy) at 1681 El Camino. In addition, walking along El Camino, north of Churchill where there was additional parking opened up last year, there are many available spaces (photos attached). The first photo shows 5 cars parked north of Churchill and the second photo shows a large gap of available parking past that 5th car. This would provide more than ample parking for the employees of 1515 El Camino. The residents of Southgate have, in the past, been the de facto overflow parking lot for Palo Alto High School for years. The nearby businesses have also used the neighborhood as an overflow lot. The RPP was supposed to bring relief to that situation and return Southgate to the quiet residential neighborhood it has been for over 75 years. Yet, when businesses go to the city asking for more parking permits, the staff puts it on the council agenda under the guise of already talking to the residents, when in fact they haven't. Is this the proper way to run a city? Does the city just discount the resident's opinions and do what the businesses want? The businesses had their chance to speak up and they chose to remain silent. Had the residents gone to the city with their list of changes, I doubt the staff would come to council with their requests. i request that the item be removed from the agenda and also tabled until after the Southgate RPP completes the first year of the program. At that point, we would love to sit down with all parties to discuss changes that might need to be made. I would also note that the start date for the Southgate program has still not arrived, so until we start seeing actual enforcement of the program, the city cannot claim that Southgate's program has begun. Keith Ferrell On Mon, Dec 4, 2017 at 10:53 AM, Gitelman, Hillary <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Thanks Keith.  Phillip is working on setting up a meeting so you can pose questions to representatives of the local  businesses.  We can offer responses then as well. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:09 PM 4   Hillary      Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!   From: Keith Ferrell [mailto:ferrell.keith@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 10:41 AM To: Gitelman, Hillary Cc: Kamhi, Philip; Mello, Joshuah; Christine Shambora; Tom Vlasic; Pete Henry; Peter Shambora; Jim McFall; Gail Woolley Subject: RE: Additional worker permits for the Southgate Neighborhood What data points have changed to initiate the increase in employee permits? What steps have businesses undertaken to address their concerns? Given that the program has yet to begin, it seems far too premature to try to make changes. Why didnt the businesses express their concern during the lengthy approval process? How many employees are on site at the businesses at any one time? I would expect, at a minimum, that these questions be specifically addressed before any changes are contemplated. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:09 PM 5 Residents have also asked for tweaks to the program and we were continually told that this is a one-year trial period and any concerns would be addressed AFTER seeing how the trial works. Why is there a different set of rules for businesses? On Dec 4, 2017 8:53 AM, "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Thanks Keith,   Our staff has been out to Southgate.  While roll‐out of the RPP program has been slow, it does appear that with your  help, the initial problem we were trying to solve (students parking in the neighborhood) has been addressed.     As with any new program, there have been hiccups, and we have gotten an earful from local businesses in the last few  months.  Phillip is trying to set up a meeting so you can hear from them as well.     Hillary            Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!   From: Keith Ferrell [mailto:ferrell.keith@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 04, 2017 8:40 AM To: Gitelman, Hillary Cc: Christine Shambora; Mello, Joshuah; Kamhi, Philip; Tom Vlasic; Pete Henry; Peter Shambora; Jim McFall; Gail Woolley Subject: RE: Additional worker permits for the Southgate Neighborhood City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:09 PM 6 How can you say that it is "unlikely to result in any significant change within the neighborhood" when there hasn't even been any enforcement of the original plan yet? Has anyone at the city.even come out to Southgate to evaluate the environment? Why is the city just handing out another 15 employee permits? Is it just because the businesses said it's inconvenient? Where were they during the initial process? They had their chance to speak up, did they not? The plan was approved for a one year trial and now, after the fact, the businesses want to complain and ask for more than double the amount of permits? How many employees do these businesses employ? Does the city have that information? Overall, the running of these RPPs appears to be very sloppy. We all know of the issues with the Downtown RPP. With Southgate, 1) when residents went in to apply for a permit we we're greeted with a message stating that our address was not eligible for an RPP. 2)The signs were printed with the incorrect enforcement hours. 3) Residents including myself, received warnings that we needed to buy and display a permit or we would be ticketed despite the fact that a permit was displayed in the lower left corner of the rear window on the car. And now 4) we're being told that because the RESIDENTIAL PREFERRED PARKING program is not working out for the BUSINESSES that the city is going to add 15 more permits to our very small neighborhood. I would also add that these are not "neighborhood serving" businesses. I would like to see numbers of how many employees these businesses have on site at one time. I would also like to know what the businesses have done to cut down on their employees' commute trips. There is plenty of parking on the east side of El Camino adjacent to the PAUSD district office and also on the west side of El Camino adjacent to the Stanford intramural fields. Those locations are very short walks to those businesses. It doesn't seem like too much of a struggle to come up with that recommendation. Keith Ferrell On Dec 4, 2017 8:21 AM, "Gitelman, Hillary" <Hillary.Gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Christine, Thanks for this email. We would be happy to get together with you and others to discuss this matter, and I think Phillip is reaching out to find a time that works. We understand that the change we are recommending is not one that many residents will view favorably, yet we have heard from local businesses with the opposite perspective and have struggled to develop what we think is a reasonable recommendation. While the change from 10 to 25 employee permits may be proportionally large, it constitutes a net of 15 spaces and is unlikely to result in significant change within the neighborhood. Hillary City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:09 PM 7 Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! -----Original Message----- From: Christine Shambora [mailto:christineshambora@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, December 03, 2017 7:33 PM To: Gitelman, Hillary; Mello, Joshuah; Kamhi, Philip Cc: Tom Vlasic; Keith Ferrell; Peter Henry; Peter Shambora; Jim McFall; Gail Woolley Subject: Additional worker permits for the Southgate Neighborhood Hillary and Josh, I have learned that the staff has requested an amendment for additional employee permits for the Southgate neighborhood RPP increasing permits from 10 to 25. This request is a 150% increase in employee permits on an RPP that is barely a month old. There has not been any opportunity for a discussion about this change with Southgate residents. Our neighborhood never had a stakeholder process meeting in the first place when this RPP was under consideration and then approved. While we are generally pleased with the outcome and the approval of the Southgate RPP this step which was required as a part of the ordinance never happened and it should have!. Matters are being made worse by the fact that now changes are being recommended without any consultation with the stakeholders and particularly the neighbors. This item is being placed on the consent calendar for the December 11 meeting which means, as you well know, it will automatically be approved without any input or discussion. This is not right. I respectfully request that you remove this item from the consent calendar and agenda and give the neighborhood the opportunity to be involved in understanding whether additional employee permits are warranted and an explanation as to why this is being recommended by staff. Southgate would like to understand what is behind the proposed increase and who, in fact, is requesting this change. Is it for the businesses in the vicinity? Is it neighbors who want it? Please give us the courtesy of making the Southgate neighborhood a part of this discussion and proposed change. An explanation of changes to the parking along Churchill which would also affect residences should also be given. In reviewing the back up documentation for this proposed change I notice that you include the Bay IVF Center as a business with 0-25 employees in the Southgate neighborhood. While this may be technically correct I really think it should be excluded from the neighborhood as it is beyond the frontage boundaries of Southgate and it is inaccessible to Southgate except through a pedestrian path. In summary, please remove the resolution from the consent calendar for December 11 meeting amending the employee permit numbers and then convene a timely and properly noticed stakeholder meeting for Southgate to discuss this proposal. If I do not hear back from staff by the end of day on December 4 I will further this request to the Council and City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:09 PM 8 post this information on “Nextdoor Southgate” so that you may hear from others to give feedback to staff and the Council. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Christine Shambora christineshambora@gmail.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:10 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 1:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:This is very disappointing Dear Council Members, It seems that every time I turn around, some action the City or the Council is taking requires me to take time out of my life to come down to City Council meetings to defend my neighborhood from yet one more assault on the quality of life here. When the Evergreen Park RRP was approved, we were told we had a one-year trial period. Yet, barely 8 months since we received our permits -- and 7 months since enforcement started around May -- here we are with a proposed change to the program to allow for more commercial permits for the dentists. What is it with you people about my neighborhood that you just can't let it be a neighborhood? What is it about you people that you just can't help penalizing residents and their quality of life because of your poor past decision? We have just begun to enjoy our neighborhood again, and here we go again. This is truly a terrible idea. First, you are establishing a special class of business -- the dentists -- which just invites other types of worthy businesses (charities, not-for-profit social services, etc.) from asking for their own special category. Second, if the dentists have not been able to purchase enough permits, then why is that? Did they not apply promptly? Poor things if they were just late to the party. They already have parking lots that can accommodate their workers who are there all day. Their patients should now have plenty of two-hour parking (thanks to the RRP) to accommodate their visits. Have the actually incurred any complaints from their patients that they cannot find onstreet parking? Third, if the dentists are indeed so special and if they indeed have not been able to fight it out against other commercial enterprises, they why not allocate a special portion of the existing business permits for them? In other words, if they are a special kind of business, then carve out special permits from the business allocation for them. Fourth, I'm flat tired of these attacks on Evergreen Park because you allowed large office buildings to be build with insufficient parking. Those workers -- all of whom were certainly going to take the train -- have put additional pressure on the parking that used to be sufficient for small business and retail operations. This is YOUR fault -- not mine. I do not wish to pay the price for your error. So, why don't you give the special dentists a special allocation from the commercial spaces until YOU get around to building the parking lot. And, by the way, when you do get around to doing that, figure out a way for those commercial entities to pay for the parking lot -- not me - -and find someplace to put all of the cars -- other than in my neighborhood -- that will be displaced while the surface lot is closed for construction. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:10 PM 2 Thank you so much for 'improving' California Ave. and turning it into a destination rather than a neighborhood shopping area. Where neighbors used to walk over to run errands, eat at reasonably priced cafes and neighborhoods, now there are high-price restaurants (to appeal to highly-paid tech workers and to accommodate the rising rents due to Class A office space), 4 exercise places (a Bar studio, a Pilates studio, a Cross Fit gym, and another awful looking gym on the corner of Birch and California Ave.), two smoke shops (now there is a fine addition!), and a wine bar. Wow. All this, and a glittery sidewalk to boot! This is how to increase, not decrease, car trips. I am tired of having to spend my time defending my neighborhood from the City Council who should be protecting my quailty of life. I am tired of being invited at the last minute -- with hardly any notice -- to a meeting called by City administrators who disingenuously told us it was merely to see how things are going . . . . When, in fact, they had already spoken to dentists and were just checking off boxes so they could say they had 'consulted' the residents. Shame on you for turning Palo Alto into just a place of developers who do not live here to profit at our expense. We have smart people in this community. Surely you can figure out, or hire decent city planners to figure out, how to accommodate growth without making the residents' life hell. Go see what you have done to Park Blvd past California Ave -- a canyon now of massive buildings built right to the curb. No loading zones (which are required by law), no parking sufficient for them, no way to combat the traffic trying to get on the underpass to Oregon Expressway, and absolutely no protection of the many bicycles that you are directing down Park Blvd. See what you have done to make Park Blvd. going past Peers Park where children play a raceway for cars and bicycles (that are not benign as I can say from experience almost being run over by them). I probably sounds angry. Maybe that's because I am. And, by the way, this doesn't even begin the conversation about Mayor Sharf apparently telling the County Planning Commission that there is no need to delay the Stanford plans -- despite widespread concern among Palo Alto residents. Carol Scott Evergreen Park -- Carol Scott City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 3:59 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 3:53 PM To:Council, City Cc:Wolfgang Dueregger; Paul & Karen Machado Subject:Re: Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program Update Dear Councilmembers, I write regarding Evergreen Park Permit Parking. Thank you again for providing relief from a large part of the abuse that predated permit parking in our neighborhood. By your action you substantially reduced traffic and noise, and increased safety, especially for bicyclists and pedestrians in our neighborhood. I concur with what my neighbor Wolfgang Dueregger wrote you. I, too, am ignorant of any discussion with any resident pertaining to this proposal. I, too, fail to understand how we went from "no impact" in October to a proposal for 41 additional spaces now. I agree that putting this item on the consent calendar a few weeks before the holidays with short notice to residents or prior opportunity for us to consider and question allows too little opportunity for us to understand it and alternatives, and to respond in a manner that reflects such understanding. I join Wolfgang in requesting that you postpone action on this item until the new year. I'll add that we've comprehensive plans, old and new, that call for protection of residential neighborhood quality, and reduction of reliance upon cars. Every time we subsidize commercial property owners and their tenants by allowing owners to provide insufficient parking and to rely upon residential neighborhood streets as commercial parking lots we fly in the face of these provisions. We also contravene longstanding and widely accepted land use and transportation principles. And we disregard a basic principle of fairness that those who benefit from an activity properly bear its costs. That council granted, and commercial owners received this perverse public subsidy in the past is poor reason for owners to feel entitled, or council to grant it any longer. Thank you for your consideration, David Schrom ********** Magic, 1979-2017: thirty-eight years of valuescience leadership *********** Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize it more fully. Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one-time or recurring gifts at http://ecomagic.org/participate.shtml#contribute. Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax-deductible to the full extent permitted by law. THANK YOU! www.ecomagic.org --------- (650) 323-7333 --—----- Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309 ************************************************************************************** On Sun, Dec 3, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com> wrote: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 3:59 PM 2 Dear City Council, regarding the Residential Preferential Parking Program in Evergreen Park (EPRPP): -1: there was a community "outreach" meeting sometime in October or early November (organized by the City) to discuss and get feedback about the EPRPP. There was no mention of any resolution to amend the EPRPP. What has changed since November that suddenly there is this need for additional business parking permits in the Evergreen Park Neighborhood? - the EPRPP started in April. In the staff report it says the following: ============ ... As both programs have gotten underway, some business owners including owners of smaller dental and medical office uses in both districts have been unable to purchase permits because of the limited supply (i.e. all employee permits in their area have been sold out). As a result, these business owners have asked the City to release more employee permits. City staff has evaluated the on-street occupancy within the affected areas, discussed the request with resident and business stakeholders, and is recommending that some additional employee permits be made available for purchase through the remainder of the pilot phases of both programs. At stakeholders’ recommendations, the recommended resolution would also create two-hour parking zones (with no ability to park for longer with a permit) adjacent to two commercial properties in the Southgate area. More information is provided regarding these recommendations below. ...etc... ============ - the section highlighted in red states that city staff discussed the "request with resident and business stakeholders"...; With whom from the Evergreen Park Neighborhood did the City discuss this and when? We would like to see the minutes of that meeting and any conclusions/recommendations/suggestions. -2: the smaller dental and medical offices concentrated around Park Ave and El Camino would need another 41 spots? the staff report on page 3 reads: ============= .... Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program Permit sales for the Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program pilot began in March 2017. At this time, there was some concern that some of the smaller businesses that are located far away from the garages and lots, such as small dental and medical offices, might have difficulty purchasing permits for themselves and staff. During the first six months of this program, staff reached out to these offices to make sure that they were not impacted, and they were not. However, in October 2017 the second phase of six-month employee permits went on sale, and it was immediately obvious that there would not be an adequate number of employee parking permits available the small dental and medical offices, specifically businesses that are outside of the California Avenue Parking Assessment District and are thus unable to purchase public garage and lot permits ---- etc. ============== During the first 6 months there were no problems and the dental offices were NOT impacted. and in October 2017 they suddenly were? What happened? and now we need an additional 41 spots just for the dental offices from our neighborhood? This does not sound credible at all. -3: we, The Evergreen Park Neighborhood, request that these questionable and non-vetted (by our community) resolutions to amend the EPRPP - without prior notifying anybody in time for proper analysis and discussion - be pulled from the consent calendar on either 12/04 and/or 12/11/2017 and be sent back to staff. The Evergreen Park Neighborhood requests that no decision will be made to pursue any amendment - either the topic being on the consent calendar or NOT - and that our stake holder group will be involved in any discussion to amend or alter the current EPRPP (as was done in the past when the EPRPP was established). The Evergreen Park Neighborhood further requests that any discussion will be picked up in due time in January - after the holiday season. It is disappointing that such an important matter seems to be "quietly" being pushed through where many people are taking time off from a busy year and don't have the bandwidth to study all the implications of such proposed amendments. -4:Given the staff report there seems to be the perception that more business parking is needed in Evergreen Park. We want to remind you that when the EPRPP was established our neighborhood clearly stated verbally and in writing many times, that in order to re-establish a certain livelihood in our streets - we requested a phaseout of any business permits over 5 years. There was an acknowledgment from the City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 3:59 PM 3 City about this issue but the City did not put anything into writing. So this is definitely one important item our stake holder group will pick up with the City once a serious discussion gets under way about how to build this EPRPP into the future. We assume the City represents residents and businesses and not just businesses alone. -5:Without going at this stage into details, El Camino would obviously be the straight-forward solution to any business parking problem - if it exists at all which needs to be determined. For example, to offer additional parking, one could introduce the same parking rules as we have in the streets of Evergreen Park to El Camino East (which is mentioned in the staff report) but also to El Camino West (since Stanford wants to get their use permit 2035 approved, the City will have enough leverage to negotiate with Stanford to make El Camino West available for parking as well). The dentists themselves have stated in the past that parking as close as possible to their offices is what they want and they stated that El Camino would be perfect for them. We strongly oppose any new addition of business parking in Evergreen Park especially because this "need" of 41 additional spots did not even exist a mere 2 months ago (according to the staff report). Wolfgang Dueregger Evergreen Park ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: City of Palo Alto <cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com> Date: Fri, Dec 1, 2017 at 1:41 PM Subject: Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program Update To: wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com You are subscribed to Evergreen Park-Mayfield RPP Program for the City of Palo Alto. This information has recently been updated, and is now available. Dear Stakeholder, At the December 11, 2017 at 5:00 PM meeting, the Palo Alto City Council will review an item regarding Evergreen Park-Mayfield and Southgate RPPs, as follows: Adoption of a Resolution Amending Evergreen Park-Mayfield Residential Preferential Parking Program Resolution 9663 and a Resolution Amending Southgate Residential Preferential Parking Program Resolution 9688, Both to Adjust the Number and Allocation of Employee Parking Permits, and a Resolution Establishing a Two-Hour Parking Restriction in the Commercial Zones Adjacent to 1515 El Camino Real and 1681 El Camino Real, and on the East Side of El Camino Real between College Avenue and Park Avenue. The meeting agenda and packet for the 12/11 meeting will be available at: http://cityofpaloalto.org/gov/agendas/council/default.asp If you would like to comment on this item, you can either do so in person at the meeting, or by email. To email the City Council: The City Council appreciates hearing from citizens. Thank you in advance for your comments and concerns. Your email will be forwarded to all nine Council Members and a printed copy will be included in the next Council Packet. Correspondence received before noon on the Wednesday before the meeting will be included in the Council Packet. Any correspondence received after noon on Wednesday, relating to an Item on the Agenda, will be put at the Council Members places at the next Council meeting. When you email the City Council, your email becomes a public record. You should not include any private information (such as your phone number, home address, or minor children's names) in your correspondence to Council. If you wish to continue, click here. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 3:59 PM 4 Update your subscriptions, modify your password or e-mail address, or stop subscriptions at any time on your Subscriber Preferences Page. You will need to use your email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please visit subscriberhelp.govdelivery.com. This service is provided to you at no charge by City of Palo Alto. This email was sent to wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: City of Palo Alto · 250 Hamilton Ave · Palo Alto, CA 94301 · 650-329-2100 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 12:59 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 11:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:Our region with its growth plans is almost as thirsty as Utah I understand that city staff has been working very collaboratively with residents about conservation of groundwater. I also understand fine tuning is being worked out with staff, residents and City Council. I urge that Council adopt the recommendations of Save Palo Altos Groundwater Org. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com A county in Utah wants to suck 77 million gallons a day out of Lake Powell, threatening the Colorado River A county in Utah wants to suck 77 million gallons a day out of Lake Powe... Keith Schneider A plan to build one of the West's longest and most expensive water pipelines in southwest Utah pits planning pra... Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 12:59 PM 2 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:09 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 1:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Much Concern About Our Groundwater This information was sent to me by Rita Vhrel. Please include these suggestions in the Ordinance. We need to value our groundwater and mandate techniques that save and preserve it. The recent study by Todd Engineering identified groundwater extraction of 2,500 acre feet /year as sustainable. The Marriott could, if they used techniques and construction practices similar to those used at 2555 Park Ave, extract 2,900 acre feet of community groundwater. FAR above what the entire City can sustainably extract in a year!!! We all know what is coming on San Antonio Rd:. more large commercial projects and massive groundwater extraction. We must request cut-off walls and best construction practices and include mandated techniques in the Ordinance or they will NOT happen. On 11/30, Esther and I met with Phil @ Public Works, some of his team and several construction representatives as well as 2 private residents. Many useful and implementable recommendations were made. We are hoping the excellent suggestions will be included in the Ordinance by 12/11 when it is on the Consent Calendar. Please join us in fighting to save our groundwater; with anticipated population growth and climate change we must conserve, use wisely and not pump and dump. Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St 493 1373 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:32 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Keith Bennett <pagroundwater@luxsci.net> Sent:Tuesday, December 05, 2017 11:04 AM To:Council, City Cc:Rita Vrhel; Esther Nigenda Subject:Comments from Save Palo Alto's Groundwater on Draft Groundwater Ordinance (2018) Attachments:DrainageCriteria_Atherton.pdf; ID# 8580 Groundwater Pumping Ordinance Revision.pdf; Questions_on_proposed_2018_dewatering_regulations_V3.docx; Water Level Near Dewatering Sites.pdf To all Palo Alto City Council Members: 1) The 2018 ordinance should have specific (and tighter) regulations for large dewatering projects (such as 2555 Park) as the 2017 measurements show that 1 commercial project pumped 40% of the total amount of water from all projects. Specifically, cut- off walls should generally be required if pumping will exceed 30 gallons / minute. 2) The ordinance needs specific language to require use of best practices and minimizing the rate (gallons per minute) of the pumping. There is absolutely no limit proposed on the flow rates predicted by the dewatering plan. A dewatering plan should only be acceptable if it predicts a flow rate below a specified maximum (we believe 60 gallons per minute) is reasonable and often achievable. Pumping flow rates can be substantially reduced if the dewatering plan is based upon the hydrogeological study. Cutoff walls can be used when such rates cannot be achieved. The current proposal does not direct the Staff to minimize flow rates or limit flows. Please see our detailed comments attached, along with the current (March 2017) regulations. We are available to discuss further if desired. Thank you in advance for your kind considerations, Keith Bennett http://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org Questions / Concerns on the 2018 Draft Dewatering Ordinance Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater December 3, 2017 Overall, in our opinion, this draft ordinance is incomplete and lacks details in several key sections, and will be not meet the policy goals of conserving groundwater. Staff should to add specific metrics required for the City Engineer to accept dewatering plans and hydrogeological reports, include specific guidelines for commercial / large underground construction projects, and underground construction in the vicinity of toxic plumes. 1. For what projects does the Ordinance take effect? Those which receive building permits on or after the effective date of the ordinance? The applicability must be clearly stated in the Ordinance to avoid confusion and "grandfathering." Is there any reason the ordinance related to “controlled groundwater pumping” cannot take effect for any projects if a street work permit has not been issued for that project? [Note: Public Works should not issue streetwork permits prior to April 1] 2. Who is the “City Engineer?” The 2017 Regulations also refer to the City Engineer. The sections of this ordinance related to “controlled dewatering” are effectively left to the discretion of the City Engineer. Without clear guidance, decisions left to an individual will be subject to very wide interpretation. The following questions pertain to subsection (f) of the proposed ordinance 3. f (i) Dewatering plan a. What are the requirements for an acceptable dewatering plan? b. What is different in the dewatering plans required for 2018 from the 2017 dewatering plans accepted by the City? The current guidelines are incorporated as Appendix C, and the proposed 2018 guidelines ratify these requirements without addressing the demonstrated limitations. c. What “best practices” are required to reduce dewatering? For example, there is no requirement to design and use the hydrogeological report to design a dewatering plan which limits the dewatering. Furthermore, limiting the depth of dewatering wells is a very effective method for reducing flow rates (when cutoff walls aren’t used), however this ordinance does not limit dewatering wells in any way. d. How will the City decide if the dewatering plan effectively minimizes dewatering? What prevents an applicant from simply predicting a very high (e.g. 200 gpm) flow rate, extracting 20 million gallons, with a 6 foot drawdown, and stating “no effects are expected”. A report simply estimating the amount of water pumped is ineffective for minimizing groundwater pumping, and is “make work” for applicants. 4. f (ii) Hydrogeology report a. What is required by the City Engineer for an acceptable hydrogeology report? The requirements for such a report should be included, at least by reference. b. The City Engineer has had authority to accept or reject the hydrogeological study since 2017. However, the City Engineer has accepted all “Geotechnical” reports and dewatering plans without contest, even if they are obviously incomplete or in error. Public Works claimed, the City had neither the basis nor technical ability to determine which reports to accept. What’s changed? c. How does the hydrogeology report reduce total amount of water pumped for dewatering? Note: Sterling Banks, whose company does much of the residential dewatering in Palo Alto suggested requiring 4 bore holes instead of 1 to "customize" the depth of the dewatering wells for each property, and said this will decrease well depth and groundwater extraction. 5. f (iii) Structural monitoring and building survey a. Why does this proposed ordinance limit monitoring of structures to adjacent properties? Multiple residents have complained of damages from dewatering, and significant groundwater pulldown several hundred feet from dewatering sites has been documented. b. How does monitoring protect other property? No recourse is provided to those affected. The following questions pertain to subsection (g) of the proposed ordinance 6. g (i) Year-around discharge a. Why is discharge in excess of 10 gpm permitted year around? This is a major loophole: Enforcement during a time of storm emergency is not practical, and the main concern is not 10-year storm events, but rather 100-year storm events. 7. g (ii) and others. Two-week startup period a. What is the purpose of this start-up period? The terminology is confusing. b. How did applicants use the start-up period in 2017? 8. g (vi) Trucking a. Are fill stations and trucking required during the “start-up” period? The wording is not clear. b. Is increased trucking (5 days / week) required after 8-total weeks of “regular” trucking? Or 6 weeks of trucking beginning at the end of the start-up period? 9. Commercial and large dewatering projects a. Will commercial or large projects be subject to stronger regulations? A single commercial project in 2017 pumped 45 million gallons (40% of the total construction dewatering groundwater pumped in 2017). The City should have stronger and clear regulations for any large (>4,000 square feet underground construction requiring dewatering) and commercial projects. 10. Section 6: Dewatering near groundwater contaminant plume areas Clear regulations should be provided, as dewatering near (within 1000 feet) of contaminant plumes can mobilize and spread contaminated groundwater into uncontaminated areas. See the attached graph of changes in groundwater levels 220 feet from a dewatering site, which shows the groundwater was lowered by approximately 3 feet. What “various complexities” and specific requirements are anticipated that would require decision on a case-by-case basis? 11. Impacts of underground construction on stormwater retention and drainage The Council should direct Staff to analyze the impacts of underground construction on groundwater absorption by the soils and flows, especially for construction extending into groundwater levels. Underground construction removes soils which would otherwise be available to absorb stormwater and block groundwater flows of stormwater. Atherton already has regulations to protect groundwater storage and flows. See section 1 (b) of the attached document. https://www.ci.atherton.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/281 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 3/31 5/20 7/9 8/28 10/17 Water Table Drop from April 1, 2016 at 45', 115' and 220' from closest pump Project 2 220 feet from pumpProject 1 45 feet from pump 115 feet from pump Fe e t b e l o w w a t e r l e v e l @ 4 / 1 Date (2016)Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater Town of Atherton Drainage Criteria 1/2/13 A.Standard Specifications B.Storm Drain Design Standards 1. Project Documents 2. Hydrologic Criteria 3.Hydraulic Criteria C. Additional Permit and Notification Requirements D.Basement Construction Hydraulic Criteria E.Construction Site Control F.Criteria References Tables Tables 1A – 1D Precipitation Values Table 2 Adjustment of Intensities with Mean Annual Precipitation Appendix Exhibit 1 Mean Annual Precipitation (MAP) Isohyetals Exhibit 2 Groundwater Map Attachment A NPDES Permit Requirements Checklist Attachment B Operation and Maintenance Agreement Page 1 Drainage Criteria 1/2/13 Town of Atherton Drainage Criteria The following Manual of Standards for Storm Drainage supplements Chapter 8.50 and 8.54 of the Atherton Municipal Code (MC). A. STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS Storm drain facilities, manholes and appurtenances shall meet product and installation requirements listed in the current Caltrans Standard Specifications and Standard Plans, current APWA “Standard Plans for Public Works Construction” (commonly referred to as “The Green Book”) and associated Specifications. Standard details from other Bay Area Cities and Agencies may be used with prior approval of the City Engineer. B. STORM DRAIN DESIGN STANDARDS 1. PROJECT DOCUMENTS a)A Drainage Area Master Plan, Storm Water Management Plan and either a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan or Erosion/Pollution Control Plan are to be submitted with all Improvement Plans. Exemptions to this requirement are listed in MC Chapter 8.54. The three plans each must be signed and stamped by a Professional Civil Engineer registered in the State of California. Clarification: These Storm Drain Design Standards apply only to storm drain lines where flow is conveyed from buildings to off-site or where inadequate flow capacity associated with a storm drain line could cause runoff to enter a building. Storm drain lines that solely serve landscape areas where there is an overland release to an approved drainage system are exempt from the requirements of these standards. Page 2 Drainage Criteria 1/2/13 b)Drainage Area Master Plans shall include the following information: 1) A scaled Engineering topographic map for the on-site drainage. The on-site drainage map shall document that either, (1) proposed improvements do not block subsurface or overland flow across the property, or, (2) appropriate drainage facilities are proposed to direct subsurface and overland flows around existing and proposed improvements. 2) A second map of appropriate scale, preferably 1"= 100’ scale, as necessary to show large offsite drainage basins. 3) Delineated and labeled project site plan showing all existing and proposed drainage basins. The boundaries of the site plan shall extend a minimum of 10 feet outside the property line where accessible, to the centerline of all adjacent streets and to the opposite top of bank at channels. The survey requirements are described in more detail on the Town’s Grading and Drainage Checklist. 4) The area in acres and the flow (Q) in cubic feet per second (cfs) of all drainage entering and leaving the site before and after development for the design storm event with associated calculations. 5) Drainage area and peak flow rates for all the drainage facilities for the design storm and 100-year storm. Hydrologic computations shall be provided that document flow rates. 6) Hydraulic computations for channel, structure and pipe sizing. Hydraulic gradients (for proposed structures or systems) shall be shown on a set of drainage plans or profiles. 7) A schedule for drainage improvements. For projects that construct greater than 5,000 square feet impervious area, stormwater detention facilities shall be in-place prior to construction of the impervious area. The schedule shall document that structures have required freeboard and that off-site flows are able Page 3 Drainage Criteria 1/2/13 to pass through the property without increasing off-site water levels through all phases of project construction. 8) For any project that will include excavation of soils, depth to groundwater shall be reported. For portions of the Town east of Alameda de las Pulgas, groundwater depth from either Plate 2 or from a site specific Geotechnical investigation may be used. For areas west of Alameda de las Pulgas, a Geotechnical investigation is required that includes depth to groundwater. 9) A Geotechnical Report or additional soils information may be required at the discretion of the City Engineer. The Geotechnical Report is required if percolation is included as a Treatment Measure or if the lowest point of excavation is within 10 feet of the groundwater table. The Geotechnical Report shall include documentation of the soil percolation rate at the treatment measure location. 10) An Arborist Report shall be submitted in conjunction with the Storm Drain Report. The Storm Drain Report shall state measures proposed to comply with drainage recommendations contained within the Arborist Report. c)Storm Water Management Plans shall include the following information: 1) A project description including graphics from the Drainage Area Master Plan. 2) The hydrologic setting of the site including flows from the Drainage Area Master Plan. 3) A listing of stormwater quality opportunities and constraints. 4) Best Management Practices for Source Control that would be implemented as a part of the project. A checklist shall be provided showing Town mandated source control measures. A description of supplemental source control measures shall be provided. The source control checklist can be acquired from San Mateo Page 4 Drainage Criteria 1/2/13 Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) at www.flowstobay.org . 5) Best Management Practices for Treatment of site runoff that would be implemented as a part of the project. Calculations shall be included to document compliance with Section C.3 of the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit. The C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance Manual can be acquired from San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program (SMCWPPP) at www.flowstobay.org . 6) A Monitoring and Maintenance Program (MMP) for stormwater treatment and detention facilities shall be provided. The MMP shall include an agreement to be recorded in the County property roles stating that the property owner will maintain the Source Control and Treatment measures and that monitoring and maintenance responsibility will be legally transferred during future property transfers. The plan shall include monitoring and cleanout access points. The plan shall provide for the facility being operable for the life-time of the system. Regulated projects (single family residential is not considered as “Regulated”) must provide for inspection as required by the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit in the MMP. 7) Non-residential projects that create and/or replace at least 2,500 square feet of impervious area, but less than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface, or stand- alone single family home that creates and/or replaces 2,500 square feet or more of impervious surface are required to incorporate at least one of the following site design measures: a)Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for use in conformance with Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies (BASMAA) Bulletin “Rain Barrels and Cisterns, Stormwater Control for Small Projects”. b)Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas in conformance with BASMAA Bulletin “Landscape Designs for Stormwater Management, Stormwater Control for Small Projects” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:26 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:IRENE Yeh <ikcyeh@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:I encourage you to support the Museum project As a city council member, your support to the Museum project is critical in preserving the history of Palo Alto. I encourage you to vote yes on the extension. Thank you. Irene Yeh City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:26 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Long Cherie <cheriemarielong@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:I encourage you to support the Museum project I very much encourage you to support the Museum project. The History Museum is a star in Palo Alto’s firmament. It is a  resource for both newcomers and older residents to know and appreciate the community in which they live.  Sincerely,  Cherie Long   435 Sheridan Ave. Apt. 207  Palo Alto 94306  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:26 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Edma Dumanian <edmadumanian@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 03, 2017 2:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:I encourage you to support the Museum project I encourage you to support the museum project What a museum campus it will be: across from the heritage museum,  next to the heritage park and children's playground What a nurturing corner it will become with your support  Visionaries...  Sincerely. Edma Dumanian. ( I live in the Woodmark)    Sent from my iPhone  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 1:47 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Cole Wilbur (TE) <CWilbur@packard.org> Sent:Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Palo Alto Historical Museum lease     From: Cole Wilbur (TE)   Sent: Wednesday, December 06, 2017 11:31 AM  To: 'citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org' <citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Palo Alto Historical Museum lease    Dear City Council members:                    I would like to support the request by the Palo Alto Historical Museum (PAHM) for an extension of their lease  for another year.                    My father, Dr. Blake Wilbur, was a surgeon at the Palo Alto Clinic starting in the 1930s until his death in  1976.                      Dr. Esther Clark  (my pediatrician) was one of the early women in medicine and worked successfully for the  children of Palo Alto for many years at the PA Clinic.  She should be recognized for her excellent work.    This clinic saved the lives, treated the sick and cured a great many people from Palo Alto and the city will gain  from allowing the PAHM to continue to develop this museum during this coming year.     Thanks for your help.    Cole                        COLBURN WILBUR 571 JEFFERSON DR. PALO ALTO  Trustee Emeritus and Former President  The David and Lucile Packard Foundation    650 917 7124 | cwilbur@packard.org     City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:24 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 03, 2017 7:01 AM To:Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Perron, Zachary; Jay Boyarsky; Reichental, Jonathan; Keene, James; Watson, Ron; policechief@menlopark.org; Carnahan, David; Stump, Molly; Council, City; Brian Welch; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Lum, Patty; Wagner, April; dangel@da.sccgov.org Subject:2018 Will be the year of exoneration Attachments:SandraBrownVoiceMail.mp3 City of Palo Alto has demonstrated discrimination at every level... From racism, prosecutorial discrimination, the planned willful, wonton discriminatory business practices levied at Palo Alto Free Press by excluding our agency as a bona fide minority news reporting agency ... California Public Records Request Act - Exoneration begins with the following: 1. The release of my entire criminal file and complaint including ALL information retained at the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office (Jay Boyarsky's recorded conversation confirmed in previous email received by Mr. Boyarsky) Email will be presented in a writ of mendacious if necessary. Until that moment arrives, get busy with my request. Mark Petersen-Perez City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:23 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 02, 2017 4:45 AM To:Keene, James; policechief@menlopark.org; Watson, Ron; Council, City Cc:James Aram; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Reichental, Jonathan; Reifschneider, James; Keith, Claudia; Cullen, Charles; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Perron, Zachary; Philip, Brian; bos@smcgov.org; bjohnson@paweekly.com; Stump, Molly; sdremann@paweekly.com; stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com; smanley@scscourt.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; Lum, Patty; dangel@da.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; Dave Price; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; dryan@scscourt.org Subject:A “Stellar” moment at StarBucks... Admittedly, great cup of coffee... They were hiding the donuts inside their vehicle... A matter of fact.... I would send $400 a month on Caffe Moca’s Can't do that now that I’m retired..... But, I don't cook at home Breakfast, lunch and diner out.... Nicaraguan prices.... Typical Nicaraguan seafood dish Saludo, Mark Petersen-Perez Editor: Palo Alto Free Press Ticuantepe, Nicaragua Twitter: @PAFreePress Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:20 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 02, 2017 4:23 AM To:policechief@menlopark.org; Watson, Ron; Reifschneider, James; Keene, James; James Aram; Council, City; Lum, Patty; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; bjohnson@paweekly.com; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; sdremann@paweekly.com; Keith, Claudia; Cullen, Charles; csumida@da.sccgov.org; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Perron, Zachary; gsheyner@paweekly.com; Scharff, Greg; Gary.Goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com; smanley@scscourt.org Subject:Attacks on the disenfranchised The PAPD spares no one.... Absolutely a “Stellar” moment Mr. Keene... Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 1:47 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:California High-Speed Rail <Northern.California@hsr.ca.gov> Sent:Wednesday, December 06, 2017 10:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:California High-Speed Rail: Northern California Regional E-Update – December 2017 To view this email as a web page, go here. Can't see the images? View As Webpage Northern California Regional Update The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) continues its commitment to conduct public outreach. Here are a few updates this month. San Francisco to San Jose San Jose to Merced Statewide Update City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 1:47 PM 2 California High-Speed Rail Authority Awards Early Train Operator Contract The Board of Directors awarded a contract for Early Train Operator services to DB Engineering & Consulting USA during its monthly meeting in November. DB Engineering & Consulting USA will assist the Authority with planning, designing and implementation of the nation’s first high-speed rail program. The contract will be performance- based, with a not-to-exceed amount of $30 million dollars for the first phase of the contract. “Today’s Board action is a major step forward for California’s High-Speed Rail Program,” said Board Chair Dan Richard. “Bringing on an Early Train Operator during the current design and development phase of the program will allow us to infuse commercial thinking into the design of the system, including station layout, technical specifications, and strategies to improve asset performance and control costs. As far as we know, this approach of bringing a commercial operator into a design phase is unique for major infrastructure projects .” The 2016 Business Plan called for the engagement of an early train operator to ensure that its perspective is considered in the planning and design of track, systems, high-speed trains (rolling stock), and stations. Engaging an operator in early decisions on safety, operations, equipment and systems, fare structures and schedules, as well as other commercial and operating elements, will ensure that the system is designed to operate as a safe and successful enterprise. To learn more the Early Train Operator visit: http://hsr.ca.gov/Programs/early_train_operator.html. High-Speed Rail Releases Draft NEPA Assignment Application for Public Review and Comment City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 1:47 PM 3 Learn More On November 9th , the Authority, in partnership with the California State Transportation Agency (CalSTA), made available for public review and comment a draft application to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to assume the federal environmental responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other federal environmental laws. The State of California is seeking federal environmental responsibilities to enable more efficient reviews and approvals of the environmental documents required to advance the high-speed rail program and related rail projects. Through this process, the State of California would assume federal environmental responsibilities on all projects comprising the Phase 1 system of the high-speed rail program connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim, and projects extending service to Sacramento and San Diego as part of the Phase 2 system. Additionally, the State is applying to include the ACEforward project on the Altamont Corridor Express System, and projects that will directly connect to stations on the high-speed rail system such as Link Union Station (Link US) and West Santa Ana Branch Extension projects in Southern California. Through NEPA Assignment, the Authority will manage both NEPA and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) document preparation for the Phase 1 and Phase 2 system of the high-speed rail program, finding efficiencies where possible to complete the process faster without diminishing the rigor of the environmental analysis or the opportunities for the public meaningfully to engage with the program. The official comment period begins Thursday, November 9 and ends on Monday, December 11. Comments received during the public comment period will be reviewed and considered before submitting the final application to the FRA. The state anticipates the completion of NEPA Assignment in spring 2018. To view the draft NEPA Assignment Application and submit a comment, visit: http://hsr.ca.gov/Programs/Environmental_Planning/nepa_assignment.html. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 1:47 PM 4 December Construction Update 2017 was a year of progress made on the California High-Speed Rail program. This month’s construction update includes a slideshow of aerial photos that give you a good sense of where our active construction sites stand right now and just how far we’ve come in the last year. It also includes several videos that show how high-speed rail is already changing lives for the people working on it. These workers come from various backgrounds and have different levels of experience but share the common goal of creating the nation’s first high-speed rail line. Click for Construction Update City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 1:47 PM 5 San Francisco to San Jose Project Section High-Speed Rail has continued to work with affected communities and permitting partners to analyze high-speed rail routes and station locations, which has resulted in improved outcomes for communities, the environment and settlement of litigation. With that said, the environmental schedules continue to be refined and updated in collaboration and partnership with the Federal Railroad Administration. In November, the Authority released updated environmental milestone dates for the San Francisco to San Jose Project Section that include the following:  August 2018 Board concurrence on a preferred alternative to be identified in the draft environmental document.  January 2019 issuance of the draft environmental document More details can be found on page 49 of the November Operations Report found here. Schedules are always subject to change based on a variety of factors and we continue to be committed to environmental clearance as quickly as possible in order to provide clarity to local communities, stakeholders and regional partners as to the route and station location and be shovel ready to facilitate intermediate improvements as funding is available. In November, Caltrain and the Authority hosted a joint Local Policy Maker Group (LPMG) meeting. During this meeting, Caltrain presented an update on their Business Plan and an update on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project. The Authority presented a statewide update on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a reminder that the public comment period for the NEPA Assignment is from November 9 to December 11, and the updated environmental schedule. Information and presentation materials from the November LPMG meeting can be found here. The December LPMG meeting will be cancelled due to winter holidays. The next regularly scheduled LPMG meeting will be hosted by Caltrain on January 17, 2018. An agenda will be posted on the Caltrain website as the meeting date draws closer. The next High-Speed Rail-hosted LPMG meeting is scheduled on February 14, 2018. The LPMG meetings are open to the public. San Jose to Merced Project Section High-Speed Rail has continued to work with affected communities and permitting partners to analyze high-speed rail routes and station locations, which has resulted in improved outcomes for City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 1:47 PM 6 communities, the environment and settlement of litigation. With that said, the environmental schedules continue to be refined and updated in collaboration and partnership with the Federal Railroad Administration. In November, the Authority released updated environmental milestone dates for the San Jose to Merced Project Section that include the following:  May 2018 Board concurrence on a preferred alternative to be identified in the draft environmental document.  October 2018 issuance of the draft environmental document More details can be found on page 49 of the November Operations Report found here. Schedules are always subject to change based on a variety of factors and we continue to be committed to environmental clearance as quickly as possible in order to provide clarity to local communities, stakeholders and regional partners as to the route and station location and be shovel ready to facilitate intermediate improvements as funding is available. The Authority has held extensive outreach activities along the alignment throughout 2017, including Community Working Groups, Technical Working Groups and Open Houses. As work progresses, we look forward to continuing our efforts in reaching out to stakeholders in various forums in 2018. In early 2018, geotechnical work will begin in the Santa Clara Valley. The Authority is coordinating with various local jurisdictions to accomplish this drilling which is expected to last for several months. This work will assist in determining soil conditions along the alignment and supports future engineering, environmental work and procurements. A final alignment alternative along this area will be identified through the ongoing environmental clearance process. o. If you are interested in inviting us to your community meeting to receive a project update, our team would be happy to coordinate with you. Feel free to contact us here: Via Email: san.jose_merced@hsr.ca.gov san.francisco_san.jose@hsr.ca.gov Via Phone: San Francisco to San Jose Project Section: (800) 435-8670 San Jose to Merced Project Section: (800) 455-8166 Via Mail: Northern California Regional Office California High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 206 San Jose, CA 95113 Sincerely, City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 1:47 PM 7 SEE MORE AT WWW.HSR.CA.GOV California High-Speed Rail Authority 100 Paseo de San Antonio, Suite 206 San Jose, CA 95113 northern.california@hsr.ca.gov (408) 277-1083 This email was sent by: California High-Speed Rail Authority 770 L Street Suite 620, Sacramento, CA, 95814 US Privacy Policy Unsubscribe City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:15 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 8:28 AM To:Gitelman, Hillary Cc:Council, City; Architectural Review Board Subject:Re: Senior City Staff coordinating with Verizon behind closed doors Dear Ms. Gitelman, Thank you for your prompt reply to my email of November 29th. Your response, however, did not address the issue I raised, namely, that you and other Senior Staff have been ignoring procedure and according special privileges to corporate monolith Verizon by allowing it to revise the final, formal applications it has submitted to the City. I would appreciate it if you would explain to me what the purpose was of a) your department’s review of Verizon’s preliminary applications, b) the company’s response to that review and c) its submission of final, formal applications (I am quoting your Department’s language here) if, in fact, you are now allowing Verizon to simply keep resubmitting applications. It seems to me—and to many of my fellow Palo Alto residents as well—that you and other Senior Staff are determined that Verizon be allowed to install the 100 plus ugly, noisy, bulky cell towers it has proposed for Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods, no matter how indifferent this company is to our City’s ordinances, no matter how many Palo Altans in the affected neighborhoods raise objections and no matter how much concern City Council members express about what is happening. So my question to you is this, and it is not rhetorical: Why? Why are you so determined to see these towers go in? You must be aware that there are better ways for Verizon to provide cellular service—albeit at greater expense to Verizon—and yet you continue to facilitate the company’s plans to turn our neighborhoods into ugly, noisy antenna farms. I would appreciate it if you would please tell me why. Thank you for your consideration.   Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151         From: Gitelman, Hillary [mailto:Hillary.Gitelman@CityofPaloAlto.org]   Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 5:12 PM  To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Architectural Review Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Yang, Albert <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Atkinson,  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:15 AM 2 Rebecca <Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Keith, Claudia <Claudia.Keith@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: Senior City Staff coordinating with Verizon behind closed doors    Ms. Fleming,    Thanks for this email message.  I’d like to offer a quick response and explain that our professional staff is treating this  project as we would any other land use application.   In general, we focus our review on issues of concern by comparing  the project to standards in our regulations and policies, and by hearing from members of the community such as  yourself.  Following our review, we commonly ask project applicants to revise their submittals and that is what is being  done in this case.  Ultimately, it means that by the time a project is presented to the ARB for a recommendation, the  applicant has tried to respond to community and staff input, which we think is a good thing.  Their efforts to address our  collective input doesn’t pre‐determine any particular outcome, and the ARB will conduct its own review of the  application in a noticed public hearing.     I hope this explanation is helpful. We do appreciate your focus on the wireless facilities being proposed in Palo Alto.    Hillary           Hillary Gitelman | Planning Director | P&CE Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2321 |E: hillary.gitelman@cityofpaloalto.org   Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you!   From: Jeanne Fleming [mailto:jfleming@metricus.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2017 4:35 PM To: Council, City Cc: Architectural Review Board Subject: Senior City Staff coordinating with Verizon behind closed doors   Dear Members of City Council, As you know, Verizon has been applying to install over 100 cell towers in Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. According to the Planning Department, Verizon—having gone through a preliminary application process and Planning Department review—submitted final applications for its proposed Cluster 1, Cluster 2 and Cluster 3 installations weeks ago. Now City Staff have quietly revealed that they are permitting Verizon a do-over on the final, formal Cluster 2 application “with the expectation that Verizon/Vinculums will modify its proposal and resubmit materials in early January 2018 based on feedback from the December 7, 2017 ARB hearing on Cluster 1.” Moreover, they have revealed that they have now decided that Verizon’s Cluster 3 final application is “incomplete” (in what way they do not specify) and they have returned it to Verizon to “complete.” According to Staff, the City has 30 days after a formal application is filed to review a final application for completeness. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:15 AM 3 Even if Staff is correct in asserting that there exists a 30 day window to return a final application as “incomplete,” more than 30 days elapsed between the time Verizon submitted its final application for Cluster 3 and Staff invited them to “complete” it. As for Cluster 2, Staff doesn’t even try to pretend that they are complying with procedure. Verizon submitted its final application for Cluster 2 long ago, and Staff doesn’t even bother to assert that Verizon filed an incomplete application. Instead, Staff has simply declared that it is going to allow Verizon a do-over on Cluster 2, including allowing Verizon to wait until after the ARB hearing on Cluster 1 to submit new materials. Verizon is a multi-billion dollar company. Vinculums, the firm they hired to site their proposed installations and shepherd their applications through Palo Alto’s Planning Department, is staffed by seasoned professionals. There is no good reason why City Staff should be granting them do-overs on their final applications, and it is an outrage that Staff is doing so. Do Staff next plan to require Verizon and Vinculums to notify the public of the revised applications? Will the companies be required to post revised designs on poles? Will they be required to hold more public meetings? And just how much more of Staff’s time is going to be sucked up by this process? More generally, what’s going on here? Why are City Staff—your employees—coordinating with Verizon behind closed doors to try to ensure that Verizon’s applications are ultimately approved? I am writing to you to ask that you tell senior City Staff to stand down from permitting these do-overs for Verizon and to pledge that they will no longer grant special concessions to this multi-billion dollar telecommunications company and its consultants. Staff should be looking after the interests of the residents of Palo Alto, not the interests of the telecom industry. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, Ph.D. JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:15 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Willy Lai <willyhlai@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, December 03, 2017 3:23 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City; City Attorney Subject:Verizon Cell Tower Installations Dear Architectural Review Board and City Council,    I’m writing this email to let you know that I am strongly opposed to all proposals involving cell tower installations near  Palo Alto residences and schools, including Verizon’s latest proposals of mini cell tower installations throughout the city  of Palo Alto.  I’m asking that you reject Verizon’s proposals to install cell towers throughout the city due to the noise,  aesthetic considerations, property value impact, and most importantly health impacts from such installations near those  populations, and especially near children.    Dear Ms. Molly Stump and City Council Members,    I appreciate the efforts council member Greg Tanaka had made in hearing the residents’ concerns at he public hearing  he assembled recently.  If felt it was the first time the city has actually been willing to listen to the feedback of those  who are most greatly impacted by your decisions of allowing carriers like Verizon to install cell towers near/next to Palo  Alto residences.    I felt it was the first step in moving forward with a city‐wide plan and ordinance to responsibly place  cell towers throughout the city.  However, I’m disheartened to hear now that you have decided to skip the public  hearing for the first cluster of cell tower installations, and instead  skip straight to an ARB review.  I ask that you suspend  Verizon’s plans until an appropriate and suitable city wide solution/ordinance is established for appropriate and safe  installations of cell towers throughout the city of Palo Alto.  I also ask that you please reinstate the originally planned  public hearing prior to proceeding with the ARB meeting.    Sincerely,    Willy Lai  Concerned Midtown Resident          City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:15 AM 5 Carnahan, David From:Dan Adams <dan_adams@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, December 03, 2017 2:54 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City Subject:pole-top and residential cell equipment - bad for our neighborhoods Hello members of the ARB and City Council, I believe there must be a better way to handle cell reception problems rather than putting noisy, ugly equipment teetering above people's houses and sidewalks. We should push the telecoms to use other means which don't intrude on the neighborhoods. In many of Palo Alto's neighborhoods, the rare moments of wonderful quiet (already rare and sandwiched between traffic noise, airplane noise and other noises) pull us back to a feeling of calm and provides a little break from the energy and bustle of daily routines. The pole-top cell equipment cooling fans seem to run constantly, from what I can tell from the units I run by in our neighborhood. From what I have experienced, the sound is noticeably audible from a distance of about 25 feet. The white noise is certainly audible when walking by, and must also be audible in the yards. It seems likely the noise can be heard in the homes of the properties where the equipment is located, at least if the windows are open. While the sound level probably meets the city noise ordinances in terms of measured dB above ambient, the quality of the sound is very different from quiet ambient noise and so is certainly noise pollution which should be kept out of residential neighborhoods. If you are considering allowing Verizon and others mount these devices on poles, please do this on condition they find a way to use passive cooling rather than fans. Even better, please find other solutions which support cell reception but don't degrade the neighborhood environments. These devices in our neighborhood also look terrible - like a ridiculous, top-heavy, off-balance-and-leaning, patched-up, add-on, ill-considered solution. With our property values and taxes, we should pass some of the cost to the companies and challenge them aggressively to come up with a solution which looks and sound good, not terrible. We in Palo Alto seem to think good products and good design are important. So why not hold the telecom providers to high standards? Regards, Dan Adams and Star Teachout 3550 Whitsell Ave Palo Alto, CA City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:15 AM 6 Carnahan, David From:Annette Rahn <bno21@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, December 02, 2017 3:28 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City Subject:Cell Towers Please reject Verizon’s request to build cell towers in my neighborhood.  Thank you    Annette Rahn  590 Santa Rita  Palo Alto          City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:15 AM 7 Carnahan, David From:GMAIL <outrageouslums@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 02, 2017 11:42 AM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Objection to Verizon cell towers Dear Members of the ARB, I am disappointed to learn the City Council will not be hearing from tax paying citizens the objections to the cell towers in residential neighborhoods. I am asking the ARB insists that Verizon abide by Palo Alto’s noise and aesthetics ordinances and regulations. These towers are a huge distraction due to emended noise generation and an eye sore. Verizon has a long history of cheating on local ordinances and of bullying municipalities into allowing this to happen. Please do what you can to prevent the cell towers from going up and deny a permit to build. Respectfully yours, Robert Lum, Palo Alto resident in the Barron Park area City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:15 AM 8 Carnahan, David From:Anne <annelum@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 02, 2017 11:23 AM To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City Subject:Objection to Verizon cell towers Dear Members of the ARB, I am disappointed to learn the City Council will not be hearing from tax paying citizens the objections to the cell towers in residential neighborhoods. I am asking the ARB insists that Verizon abide by Palo Alto’s noise and aesthetics ordinances and regulations. Verizon has a long history of cheating on local ordinances and of bullying municipalities into allowing this to happen. Please do what you can to prevent the cell towers from going up. Respectfully yours, Anne Lum, Palo Alto resident in the Barron Park area Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:15 AM 9 Carnahan, David From:Janet Gu <janetlipingding1120@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 01, 2017 9:29 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City Subject:Please protect the quality of life in our community and demand that Verizon respect our rules Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board, I understand that on December 7th you will be considering Verizon’s applications to install the first 15 of over 100 ugly, noisy, bulky cell towers in Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. I am writing to ask you to insist that Verizon abide by our city’s noise and aesthetics ordinances and other regulations. Verizon has a long history of cheating on local ordinances and of bullying municipalities into allowing this to happen. Please protect the quality of life in our community and demand that Verizon respect our rules, as the FCC requires it to do. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Janet Ding City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:15 AM 10 Carnahan, David From:John D Melnychuk <jmelnychuk@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, December 01, 2017 2:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Verizon Cell tower installations - oppose, please. Dear Mayor Scarf and Council Members, I send this email to you to ask you to NOT approve installation of the Verizon Cell towers next to residences. There is much evidence pointing to negative health effects for those exposed to Cell tower and other microwave radiation. For example, we can see what has been presented to Oregon's Senate Interim Committee On Health Care and Human Services regarding the problems emanating from such installations. https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2013I1/Committees/SHH/2014-12-08-08-00/MeetingMaterials I think presentations by Dr. Paul Dart, MD are persuasive, well organized and comprehensive. Dr. Dart was instrumental in helping the city of Eugene, OR, change and stop it’s plans for introduction of “Smart Meters.” Thanks so much, John John Melnychuk Palo Alto, CA 94306 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:15 AM 11 Carnahan, David From:Alice Holmes <AHolmes@renault-handley.com> Sent:Friday, December 01, 2017 1:26 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City; Jeanne Fleming (jfleming@metricus.net) Subject:Cell towers - Verizon Dear ARB Members:    I am writing you as a long time resident of Palo Alto (30 years) who is strongly opposed to the installation of more cell  phone towers in our residential neighborhoods.  The already existing towers from AT&T are unsightly, omit noise (and  who knows what else) and will prohibit the future undergrounding of utilities in our beautiful neighborhoods.  These cell  towers belong in commercial areas, not our residential streets.  As the ARB is tasked with holding a hearing, I appeal to  your sense of design and aesthetics in rejecting this Verizon proposal, or at the very least, insist that Verizon abide by  Palo Alto’s noise and aesthetics ordinances and regulations and insist on a strict and punitive fine if they do not comply.     I appreciate your service to the citizens of Palo Alto to maintain and improve our standard of living through your careful  work.  I am unable to attend the meeting on December 7th as I will be out of town. Please consider this email as my  strong vote against the Verizon proposal.    With appreciation,    Alice Holmes  272 Rinconada Avenue      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Daniel Cohen <dcsea6237@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 4:08 PM To:RebeccaAtkinson@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Proposed plan to install a small cell network in Palo Alto wDear Ms. Atkinson, I am writing in support of Verizon’s proposed plan to install a small cell network in Palo Alto.   As a Verizon user and member of the Palo Alto community, I’d like to see more wireless facilities to help prevent coverage failures,  ensure Silicon Valley keeps up with technology, and, most importantly, that future 911 calls made from cell phones are not  dropped or delayed.  I find it frustrating that my cell coverage is so poor, although I live in the in the heart of Silicon Valley, I hope Palo Alto City Council  understands the necessity to improve wireless infrastructure in Palo Alto. It is my sincere desire that  the Council will agree to this proposal to improve cell coverage for Palo Alto residents and businesses, while recognizing the safety  issues present in 911 calls that currently are dropped or don't go through.  Sincerely, Daniel Cohen 110 Webster St., Apt. C Palo Alto, CA 94301 408‐892‐2436 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:29 PM 2 Carnahan, David From:Daniel Cohen <dcsea6237@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 4:43 PM To:Atkinson, Rebecca Cc:Council, City Subject:Proposed plan to install a small cell network in Palo Alto Dear Ms. Atkinson, I am writing in support of Verizon’s proposed plan to install a small cell network in Palo Alto.   As a Verizon user and member of the Palo Alto community, I’d like to see more wireless facilities to help prevent coverage failures,  ensure Silicon Valley keeps up with technology, and, most importantly, that future 911 calls made from cell phones are not  dropped or delayed.  I find it frustrating that my cell coverage is so poor, although I live in the in the heart of Silicon Valley, I hope the Palo Alto City Council  understands the necessity to improve wireless infrastructure in Palo Alto. It is my sincere desire  that the Council will agree to this proposal to improve cell coverage for Palo Alto residents and businesses, while recognizing the  safety issues present in 911 calls that currently are dropped or don't go through.  Please pardon me for sending this twice to the City Council. My first email had Ms. Atkinson's email address wrong. Sincerely, Daniel Cohen 110 Webster St., Apt. C Palo Alto, CA 94301 408‐892‐2436 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 3:45 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeffrey Peters <jeffreypeters@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, December 05, 2017 3:36 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Council, City Subject:Verizon network improvement I’m writing this message in lieu of appearance at the December 7 city council meeting. I’m out of the country for the  holidays so I can’t very well attend, but I did want to express an opinion. My wife and I own, and reside in, the home at  990 Loma Verde Avenue. All of South Palo Alto seems to have very poor cellular service. Since we have Verizon, which is  supposed to be the provider with the most robust network overall, I was happy to learn that new antennas would soon  be installed in our area.    But nothing is ever that simple in Palo Alto, it seems. Nimby‐syndrome runs deep in our culture. Apparently there is  opposition from people who fear electromagnetic pollution, even from low energy sources. Small antennas make good  sense because they reduce the exposure of an antenna’s immediate neighbors. We live in the modern world and I for  one don’t wish to go back to the stone age just to reduce EM pollution to zero! If other people don’t want these  antennas, I would be very happy to have one installed on the phone pole across the street from, or behind, our house.  That way I’d finally have decent cellular service!    Thanks for considering my input.    Sincerely, Jeff Peters      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 8:04 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Kelly Germa <kelly.germa@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 06, 2017 7:35 AM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City Subject:Please Stop Cell Towers To Whom It May Concern,    Please do not allow cell towers to be put up in Midtown Palo Alto.  We own a property on David Avenue in Midtown.   The whole reason we bought this wonderful property is to enjoy the quiet, small‐town feel of this neighborhood.    We specifically selected this property because you cannot hear or see any of the main thoroughfares and noise of cars.   My husband is very audio‐conscious and stood for several hours in the yard of our house before we bought it to make  sure he could not hear Oregon Expressway noise.  We bought this house 15 years ago for quiet enjoyment with specific  respect for the Palo Alto noise and aesthetics ordinances.      These cell towers that Verizon want to put up are for their monetary gain.  Please do not make it impossible for us to  keep this property we have owned for 15 years.  We implore the members of the City Council to examine their  conscience and do the right thing here.  Verizon can come up with many alternative ways to service their customers  without defacing our beautiful neighborhood.    Please do not give way to the profit motives of Verizon.  They will continue to operate and make money without these  cell towers.  Please think of the citizens you are elected to represent.  Please insist on abiding by the well‐established  City of Palo Alto regulations and ordinances regarding noise and aesthetics.    Thank you,  Kelly Germa  650‐544‐5711    Sent from my iPad  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 8:04 AM 2 Carnahan, David From:Barbara Kelly <bmkelly@hotmail.com> on behalf of Barbara Kelly <barbara.kelly@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 05, 2017 10:41 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City Subject:Verizon To Whom It May Concern: My husband and I are very much against allowing the telecom industry to install cell towers next to people's  homes.  That being said, it is important that Verizon abide by Palo Alto's noise and aesthetics ordinances and  regulations.  Please pay attention to the voting citizens you represent who object to Verizon or other telecoms wishing  to invade our residential neighborhoods. Sincerely, George and Barbara Kelly 444 Washington Avenue Palo Alto, CA  94301 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 8:04 AM 3 Carnahan, David From:Mary Thomas <mj_thomas_2000@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 05, 2017 8:20 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City Subject:Cell Phone Towers in Palo Alto I am writing in regard to the possible installation of cell phone towers in Palo Alto neighborhoods. Please do not have these monsters installed next to people's homes. They are health hazards as well as ugly and do not belong in our beautiful Palo Alto neighborhoods! Verizon should abide by Palo Alto's noise and aethetics ordinances and regulations! There is no need for these cell phone towers in our beautiful neighborhoods! Sincerely, Mary Thomas City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 8:04 AM 4 Carnahan, David From:Peggy Phelan <pphelan@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, December 05, 2017 7:10 PM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City Subject:Verizon I am writing to say, in the strongest possible terms, that I am adamantly opposed to Verizon's attempt to  install yet more cell towers in Palo Alto. I think this is a corporate land grab and reeks of corruption in several  different directions. We know nothing of the health effects and risks involved here. We also are in violation of  our own city policies. Moreover, other towns near Palo Alto have refused to have these towers installed. The  current proposal is very good for Verizon and not at all good for Palo Alto.   I think calling this meeting at 8:30 in the morning on a business day is part of the dodge and corruption I  suspect here. Most of us work and cannot come to a public discussion at the start of business. I have written  and called about my opposition several times (I wrote to Ms. Atkinson when I first heard of this).  I live in mid‐town and there are already many of these units here. There are several schools near the proposed  sites and I do not want those children, nor my own, to be subject to this experiment that has had so little  study about health effects in long or short term trials.  Do not allow Verizon to proceed.  Thank you.  Professor Phelan  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/6/2017 1:46 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:christophe c <christophe168@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, December 06, 2017 8:45 AM To:Architectural Review Board Cc:Council, City Subject:Noisy Verizon local cell towers to: ARB Please insist that Verizon either find another solution, or make their local proposed cell towers absolutely silent. The current AT&T boxes that are in place are very noisy. It's a constant hum from a fan that disturbs neighbors days and nights. The technology exists, to have whisper quiet fans or fanless designs. Please insist that Verizon spend the money and use such a design. thank you, Respectfully Christophe Chevallier 168 Tennyson ave Palo Alto City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 5:41 PM To:Council, City Cc:Nadia Naik Subject:Comments on Stanford GUP EIR process Attachments:Westbound traffic Crescent Park Data Stanford GUP DEIR Volume 3.pdf; Eastbound traffic Crescent Park Data Stanford GUP DEIR Volume 3.pdf I am writing to request that the city use the 60 day extension for the Stanford GUP EIR to continue public outreach and incorporate additional data into the analysis before submitting a letter. I do have some specific suggestions and ideas which are outlined below. The multiplier effect of a major research university Stanford has analyzed the impacts of increasing its directly affiliated students and employees by 25%, as well as the indirect impact of these employees (e.g. more Stanford faculty will increase the demand for dentists). It ignores entirely the massive stimulus effect of a university that is singular in its efforts to promote technology transfer to industry. Every new professor means another technology spin-off, another consulting firm - many of will locate nearby. This report shows the incredible number of firms created using Stanford technology - there are many more companies where Stanford does not have official intellectual property rights. As the number of technology firms increase, the need for more patent lawyers and IPO bankers located nearby increases also. This is why the demand for incredibly expensive office space remains high and why companies are finding ways to fit more employees into smaller spaces. And those tech jobs create the demand for many service jobs - at a ratio of up to 5:1. All of these service workers need to live somewhere they can afford - which may mean a nightmarish commute. This cluster effect is not a bad thing. It is clearly one of the reasons why Stanford wants to expand its existing campus. But it is real - and it needs to be planned for. The GUP artificially segments Stanford into multiple parts. The reality is that Stanford is not just a set of buildings in unincorporated Santa Clara County. It is tied with the Research Park, the Medical Center, SLAC and even the Stanford Shopping Center. We have been asked to look at impacts in a piecemeal fashion. The overall impacts can get lost - and potential solutions overlooked. Traffic cordon counts at Stanford Hexagon raises a number of issues with the current methodology, which only looks at one specific time period. It is clear that an increase in overall traffic is leading to "peak-spreading". If the extra traffic was confined to highways and arterial roads, this would not necessarily be a problem. There are significant overflow issues however into the neighborhoods which mean that residents may face several hours every evening of gridlock traffic. It is also impacting travel times for buses that are stuck in traffic and cannot divert to neighborhood streets, as anyone with Waze can. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:29 PM 2 "Cut-through" trips are subtracted from trip counts. The data shows that this is an increasing percentage of all trips. While some trips may be truly cut-through, it is likely that more employees and visitors are taking Lyft and Uber or getting dropped off at campus. Any new metric should either try and distinguish between these type of trips or simply not subtract them. Crescent Park The draft EIR has some startling data about afternoon traffic in Crescent Park. Not only is Hamilton Avenue being used as a cut-through route, it is actually able to accommodate more cars than University. The traffic on University is so bad that flows are limited to 160 cars per hour in some sections. Using standard analysis tools like TIRE or intersection based delay models will fail to capture the disfunctionality of the road system. The Willows in Menlo Park is experiencing similar back-ups, which may result in virtual gridlock for hours. This is a serious problem for local residents, transit vehicles and emergency responders, happening multiple times per week. Stanford's response is that they will either not increase cars or if they do, it is already such a mess, what difference will the additional traffic make? First, the analysis needs to be redone. There is significant data available - we have summarized it in the attached document. We need to understand the problem and then consider ways to fix it. We also need to understand how much additional capacity we could have with reasonable changes to street patterns and infrastructure. Second, we need to figure out who is driving during peak time periods. Are they coming from Stanford? Downtown? The Research Park? Are they trying to go to the East Bay? Or just East Palo Alto? It is very possible that the majority of the problem is caused by Stanford affiliated projects. If previous analyses underestimated neighborhood traffic impacts, it seems unreasonable that Stanford could use the current dysfunction to argue that really bad and REALLY bad can't be distinguished. Marguerite data We have also requested detailed Margeurite data (by route and time) that we have not received. This data is necessary to validate Stanford's assumptions, many of which are from derived calculations, rather than observations. This data should be provided now - so that the city and others can provide comment for the DEIR, not simply made available for the FEIR, Caltrain capacity While Stanford has not committed to any particular TDM program, a scenario is presented that would increase Stanford-affliate ridership of Caltrain by 50%. Many of the trains stopping at Palo Alto are at or above capacity today. There are some serious concerns that the current electrification plans will not provide the capacity to accommodate Stanford's increased demand, as well as other local TDM efforts. We are waiting for information from Caltrain and we would highly recommend that the city look closely at the assumptions in Stanford's plans as well as Caltrains before submitting a final comment letter. Stanford long range planning Stanford is undertaking a major long range planning exercise called the "Purposeful University" - https://planning.stanford.edu/. Initial findings are expected soon. We are concerned that this process seems to City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:29 PM 3 have been excluded from the DEIR, as it will greatly influence how Stanford expands in the future. The current DEIR is a blank check. Other large universities in California have found ways to integrate their long range planning exercises with their expansion EIRs. This seems like a serious missed opportunity for all involved to help evolve Stanford in a way that improves the local community, rather than simply create impacts that need mitigating. Mitigation There are a number of mitigations that the city, county and Stanford should consider.  Creation of joint transportation authority (Stanford, Palo Alto, Menlo Park?, East Palo Alto?). The Margeurite buses are great, but most people don't know you don't require a Stanford affiliation. There may be efficiencies for the city to have Stanford run the city shuttles. A joint service would minimize confusion and increase ridership.  Comprehensive bike share program. There is a real need for a serious bike share program that would include the Stanford Shopping Center, downtown Palo Alto, Stanford, the hospital, SRP and California Avenue. This would help minimize car trips as people travel to and from Stanford. It might decrease the number of people who bring bikes on Caltrain, which would leave more room for passengers. Currently, many people still drive to work because they need to get around during the day - a better shuttle system and bike share could be the key to TDM success.  The current traffic woes in the afternoon and some difficult decisions about grade separations have highlighted the deficiencies in the current analytical approach to modeling traffic. As part of its expansion, Stanford should consider an institute focused around infrastructure. This would call upon many areas in which Stanford has expertise and could be used for the direct benefit of the local community. EAST AM Peak typically 7:45 am - 8:45 am East of Middlefield West of Lincoln East of Lincoln West of Woodland University 674 507 591.5 747.5 Hamilton 112.5 92.5 78 Lytton 51 Total 837.5 599.5 669.5 747.5 EAST Mid day max Typically 13:45- 14:45 East of Middlefield West of Lincoln East of Lincoln West of Woodland University 752.5 769 826.5 956 Hamilton 263.5 162.5 143.5 Lytton 112 Total 1128 931.5 970 956 EAST PM Peak 4:45 pm - 5:45 pm East of Middlefield West of Lincoln East of Lincoln West of Woodland University 509 197 160.5 424 Hamilton 402.5 375.5 398.5 Lytton 282 Total 1193.5 572.5 559 424 WEST AM Peak typically 7:45 am - 8:45 am East of MiddlefieldWest of Lincoln East of Lincoln West of Woodland University 680.5 832 957.5 1104 Hamilton 266 171 160.5 Lytton 143 Total 1089.5 1003 1118 1104 WEST Mid day typically 12:30 - 13:30 East of MiddlefieldWest of Lincoln East of Lincoln West of Woodland University 609.5 719.5 786 901 Hamilton 139 78 61.5 Lytton 51.5 Total 800 797.5 847.5 901 WEST PM Peak typically 4:45 pm - 5:45 pm East of MiddlefieldWest of Lincoln East of Lincoln West of Woodland University 423 383 382.5 513 Hamilton 169 139 127 Lytton 104 Total 696 522 509.5 513 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:12 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 01, 2017 5:56 AM To:Council, City; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Lum, Patty Cc:Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Council, City; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Cullen, Charles; Wagner, April; Bonilla, Robert; Ryan, Dan; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; dangel@da.sccgov.org; policechief@menlopark.org Subject:Elder abuse.....Screenshot 2017-12-01 at 7.50.57 AM Surpassed 6K views...on Elder abuse.... Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stan Hutchings <stan.hutchings@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 02, 2017 12:27 AM To:Council, City; Palo Alto Daily Subject:Elevate the tracks on graceful pillars Traveling by train in Japan, I see elevated tracks on which trains travel at high speed through cities. Indeed, the famed Bullet Train is elevated for much of its route. In some places, there are several layers of elevation, trains passing above and below each other. The stations have escalators and elevators in addition to stairs to reach the various levels. The stations are public transportation hubs, from which bus lines, taxis, cars and bicycles fan out in every direction. Roads cross freely underneath, without traffic having to stop for trains. Suicide by train is unheard of. Much of the property under the tracks in cities are shops, open to both sides in places. Stations are "anchored" by major department stores in the cities. Those graceful elevated structures did not bankrupt the rail companies or the government. Fares are reasonable, with passes for students and seniors. Is this something Silicon Valley and the Bay Area can't do? If not, why? If so, why are we not doing it? Regards Stan Hutchings City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Stephanie Munoz <stephanie@dslextreme.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 5:30 PM To:SFChronicle.com/letters sfgate.com/chronicle/submissions Cc:WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Council, City; chuck jagoda; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Court Skinner; senator.hill@senate.ca.gov Subject:excessive height Probably most of us concur with Ms. Heatherton's wish that San Francisco retain its charm, but we have passed the point of esthetic concern. When we see people--women--sleeping in the streets, when the streets bear witness to lack of facilities for sanitation, we have a city in decay. This situation exists because of the relentless pursuit of economic growth by our rulers, who have made every land use decision on the basis of the money it would produce, leaving no place for the workers to live. For many years the towns along the railroad absorbed the excess population, but they are now full and we will have to use airspace to expand living space. We have to insist that air space be used for small, affordable housing, only, although if the business entity prefers, it might swap space for the lower stories. We cannot afford to give the privilege of building upper stories to money making concerns, and no, I don't live in the City any more; we (and our rent controlled tenants) lost our beautiful home to the estate tax, an ingenious ways of forcing owners to relinquish their property so it can increase its taxable value by a factor of ten. Stephanie Cleary 101 Alma, Palo Alto apt 701 248-1842 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:28 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 03, 2017 4:59 PM To:Stump, Molly; Council, City; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Reifschneider, James; Reichental, Jonathan; Perron, Zachary; Watson, Ron; Keene, James; policechief@menlopark.org; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; SWebby@da.sccgov.org; Keith, Claudia; swagstaffe@smcgov.org Subject:Freedom of speech and expressions violated - Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter Palo Alto Free Press (@PAFreePress) 12/3/17, 6:45 PM Government #Censorship @cityofpaloalto well documented history. The word censored? Bullshit! You don’t have a #FirstAmendment right freedom of expression in #PaloAlto attorney Molly Stump will see to that & that’s #BullShit! Stump’s on going #constitutional violations @StateBarCA pic.twitter.com/RGgXiOasII City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:28 AM 2 Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:23 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Martin Liberman <martinhl7@att.net> Sent:Saturday, December 02, 2017 2:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: [FARS-Announce] Act to Retain Local Electronics Parts Source 112417o I concur. Martin Liberman 145 Lundy Lane Palo Alto, CA 94306 Begin forwarded message: From: RICH via FARS-Announce <fars-announce@svpal.org> Subject: [FARS-Announce] Act to Retain Local Electronics Parts Source 112417o Date: November 24, 2017 at 10:36:06 AM PST To: ec-pa@yahoogroups.com, board@specsnet.org, ba_radio_builders@yahoogroups.com, fars-announce@svpal.org Reply-To: RICH <w6apz@comcast.net> I’ve read with concern articles about redevelopment of the Fry’s site in Palo Alto. Nowhere has there been any mention about including Fry’s Electronics in those redevelopment plans. Palo Alto is located in the heart of Silicon Valley, the home to numerous start-ups among them, one that grew to become known as Hewlett-Packard. Start-ups need access to electronic parts and test equipment to build and test innovative hardware. Ham radio operators need a local source for parts and test equipment. Fry’s does not require a minimum dollar amount in order to purchase the part you need as do some other places in the area Fry’s provides a great local source for ham radio operators, electronic builders, startups, and other informal electronics experimenters to quickly get the parts needed for projects. Especially with Radio Shack gone, we need to let the Palo Alto City council know that we want them to include Fry’s in any redevelopment plans for that site. Please send emails to: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Rich Stiebel 840 Talisman Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303-4435 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:23 AM 2 Email: W6APZ@comcast.net P.S. I have no financial interest in Fry’s, I’m just trying to retain a good source of parts for all hams & experimenters. _______________________________________________ FARS-Announce mailing list; FARS-Announce@svpal.org Manage email subscription: https://mailman.svpal.org/mailman/listinfo/fars-announce FARS website: http://www.fars.k6ya.org City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:12 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Esther Nigenda <enigenda@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, December 01, 2017 5:37 AM To:Council, City; Keene, James; Friend, Gil Subject:FYI: Moody's Warns Cities to Address Climate Risks or Face Downgrades Moody's Warns Cities to Address Climate Risks or Face Downgrades Moody's Warns Cities to Address Climate Risks or Face Downgrades By Christopher Flavelle Coastal communities from Maine to California have been put on notice from one of the top credit rating agencies:... City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:18 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 02, 2017 3:59 AM To:Watson, Ron; Scharff, Greg; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; Kniss, Liz (external); Reifschneider, James Cc:policechief@menlopark.org Subject:I believe that spiting and jumping up and down drooling encounter was mistaken for this You couldn’t get it into your mouth... Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:07 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Chioma Ureh <urehchioma@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 29, 2017 5:20 PM To:Council, City Cc:maryjane.marcus@gmail.com Subject:Lucie Stern Community Center's non-refund policy. Attachments:Application.pdf; Enjoy! Online - City of Palo Alto.pdf- Lucie Stern (1).pdf Dear City Council, I have never contacted city Council before but my friend Mary Jane said you may be my last recourse for my situation. I booked Lucie Stern for our (myself and my spouse) wedding next summer (July 2018). I soon realized the space was not going to work for our wedding shortly after my husband pointed out that the sitting capacity at Lucie Stern would not be able to comfortably and conveniently accommodate our guests after he was opportune d to see the space during a friend's wedding. However this was contrarily to what was I was being told when I asked Lucie Stern's representative and as advertised. He was not pleased nor thrilled about the space. I tried reaching out to Natalie Khwaja- "Program Assistant" to no avail. I requested to be referred to an upper management, someone who would be willing to hear me out. After a couple or more days I was referred to Sharon Eva "Community Services Manager". Sharon pointed out the strict refund polices Lucie Stern has implemented, hence no refunds would be made. I tried to be reasonable by requesting to hold the ceremony only for 4 hours just to find a justifiable reason for the amount paid however I was once again denied to that effect. Personally, I feel that $1514.00 withheld by Lucie Stern is a bit extreme and not justifiable given that an advance notice was issued (more than 8 months at the time of the request) and possibilities of the space being re-rented is high. I have worked, lived and genuinely served Palo Alto community for more than a decade. Can you please review Lucie Stern's policy on refunding deposits, especially for Palo Alto residents in general? Can a partial refund of my deposit be made as opposed to a full refund? Working with a budget, this ordeal has put an significant constraint on my wedding planning. Please see the attached application and a copy of the payments made so far. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Chioma Ureh City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:31 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Press strong <pressstrong@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 10:19 PM To:michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Council, City; Keene, James Cc:bcorr@nacole.org; info@nacole.org; mcellhiney@nacole.org; msc@calbar.ca.gov; HILARIE.BASS@americanbar.org; DEBORAH.ENIX-ROSS@americanbar.org; Leah.Wilson@calbar.ca.gov; Vanessa.Holton@calbar.ca.gov; Donna.Hershkowitz@calbar.ca.gov; Steven.Moawad@calbar.ca.gov Subject:PA IPA Gennaco falsely states that one taser probe will not work Michael Gennaco Former U.S. Attorney Currently Lead Independent Attorney of OIR Group Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor You have stated in official reports that when a person is struck with only one taser probe from a taser gun the taser gun will not discharge electricity into that person. The evidence below contradicts your assertion. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNayQGlOe1M City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:31 PM 2 http://abcnews.go.com/US/ohio-police-officer-accidentally-stun-gun-partner-injuring/story?id=51470127 It appears that one probe struck the officer and the other probe struck the suspect and that both the officer and the suspect were subjected to electricity from the Taser gun each having been struck by only ONE taser probe from the taser gun. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqFyjMx1Ass City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:31 PM 3 Further comprehensive and exhaustive evidence here: https://michaelgennacooir.weebly.com/lies-3--4-one-taser-probe-shocks.html https://michaelgennacooir.weebly.com/ https://www.oirgroup.com/michael-gennaco Tony Ciampi City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:21 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 02, 2017 4:31 AM To:Watson, Ron; policechief@menlopark.org Cc:Council, City; Kniss, Liz (external); Reifschneider, James; James Aram; Keene, James; Jay Boyarsky; jrosen@da.sccgov.org; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; swebby@da.sccgov.org; DOkonkwo@da.sccgov.org; dangel@da.sccgov.org; sscott@scscourt.org; swagstaffe@smcgov.org; stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com; Stump, Molly; bjohnson@paweekly.com; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; Scharff, Greg Subject:Photo line-up Ive examined all of the junk science on photo line-up reams of data....Just so theirs on mistake in identity.... I’m the one in the middle.... Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:13 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Brodsky, Jay <JBrodsky@stanfordhealthcare.org> Sent:Friday, December 01, 2017 6:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rat Control Subject: Rat Eradication City Council Members: We have a serious rat problems in my neighborhood. This appears to be a problem throughout Palo Alto. I would like the Council to poll Palo Alto residents about the extent of rat problems, and I would like the Council to explore preventative and eradication solutions. This is a potentially serious health problem, and as our elected representatives you must take action.. Jay B. Brodsky  Hemlock Court  Palo Alto    City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:31 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:liang chunlei <chunleiliang@outlook.fr> Sent:Tuesday, December 05, 2017 7:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rat Eradication City Council Members: Several of my neighbors have rat problems, not only in their yards but in their homes. There is a big family of rats lives in my yard. A pest control company comes to the home and solves the problem, but only temporarily. Rats are not cute little animals; they can be vicious and can carry disease. This is not a problem only in our neighborhood; it is city-wide. It is my understanding that Council members don’t often hear from residents about this problem, possibly because rats on property is a subject that is stigmatized, and may reflect poorly on them as homeowners. I would like to request that Council members ask their constituents if they have rat problems, and if the data show a problem, I would like to request that the Council explore preventative and eradication solutions that other cities have implemented. This is a serious problem that Council must address. Chunlei Liang City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:13 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Leonard Schwarz <lschwarz@right-thing.net> Sent:Friday, December 01, 2017 12:10 PM To:'Palo Alto Public Records Center' Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:RE: [Records Center] Public Records Request :: W000984-111317 Dear David Carnahan:    Thank you for your prompt response and for informing me that the City of Palo Alto did not pay for the trip City Manager  James Keene, Mayor Greg Scharff and Vice‐Mayor Liz Kniss took to Europe this fall.      Please note, however, that my request is also for documents related to payments that have or will be made by other  parties for this trip.    If Mr. Keene, Mr. Scharff and Ms. Kniss paid for this trip entirely out of their own pockets, please tell me.  Otherwise, I  would like to know who paid for all or a portion of this trip.    Thank you for your cooperation.    Leonard Schwarz  lschwarz@right‐thing.net        ‐‐‐ Please respond above this line ‐‐‐        11/30/2017     RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of November 13, 2017, Reference # W000984‐111317    Dear Leonard,     I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code  § 6250 et seq.) received by the City on 11/13/2017.     Your request mentioned All documents—including, but not limited to, travel expense reports, payments that  have been or will be made by the City of Palo Alto, and payments that have been or will be made by any other  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:13 AM 2 parties—that are in any way related to the expenses incurred by City Manager James Keene, Mayor Greg  Scharff and Vice‐Mayor Liz Kniss on their trip to Europe this fall (i.e., in the fall 0f 2017).    In response to your query of 11/30/2017, ʺYour email, however, responds to only a portion of the information I  requested.  Specifically, you state that City Manager James Keene, Mayor Greg Scharff and Vice‐Mayor Liz  Kniss have not requested “any form of reimbursement” from the City or any other parties related to their  recent travel to Europe.  Please note that my request is not only for documents related to  “reimbursement.”  The request is also for all documents related to “payments” that have or will be made by  the City or by other parties related to this trip.ʺ The City has reviewed its files and has determined there are no  responsive documents to your requests. City of Palo Alto funds were not used for this trip.    If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me by responding to this  message.      Sincerely,    David Carnahan  Deputy City Clerk  Office of the City Clerk  To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the [NAMEOFSYSTEM]            City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:29 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 4:48 PM To:Representative Anna G. Eshoo Cc:Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City; Karen.Chapman@mail.house.gov Subject:Response to Representative Eshoo's communication on Flight Path Changes and Aircraft Noise Dear Representative Eshoo, Thank you for your leadership to address jet noise with the FAA, and the important work of helping get relief for impacted people. The following is to alert problems with the follow up to the Select Committee, which I hope that you and FAA can please resolve. In your communication last week, here below, it is stated that the Select Committee (over the course of six months) reviewed "FAA proposals;" however, the Select committee did not review FAA proposals but rather the committee reviewed " dozens of specific recommendations submitted by the three members’ constituencies" as explained in the FAA's Initiative (top of page 2). The Select Committee voted unanimously to support nearly all community ideas, except for the proposal to reconstitute the Big Sur ground track which was not a unanimous vote, and met the consensus threshold, only after criteria and assurances were added to this item. Select Committee members understood early on that noise cannot not be reduced on the Big Sur track if altitudes are also not also reconstituted, or if various issues related to congested airspace remain unresolved. It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole to reduce noise with planes flying low in a congested area. The FAA has since responded that the criteria and assurances requested by the Select Committee cannot be met for the Big Sur track. Work is thus still needed to address this problem. Given the inability to significantly reduce noise with a Big Sur reconstitution proposal (and actually may increase noise for many), it was surprising to hear that Representative Jimmy Panetta and Santa Cruz Supervisor John Leopold announced on Saturday in Santa Cruz, that FAA Western Regional Director Dennis Roberts plans to proceed with implementation of a Big Sur ground track design, with an August 2018 date, dispensing with environmental review. I can only hope this is a mis communication. The lessons from by-passing NEPA laws are costing many Palo Alto families dearly, with livability, productivity. and health impacts from jet noise which should have been averted a long time ago and certainly in planning for Nextgen. Environmental reviews may seem like bureaucratic exercises but they are important because, they offer the public a chance to address mitigations and alternatives to proposed actions. The Select Committee was not a replacement for environmental review. And at no point were communities asked to forego that right. As a matter of fact, at every step of the process, FAA assured environmental reviews in testimony and in writing. Reviews certainly are part of "Design procedures" under FAA Order 7100.41A, PBN processing - step 2 of 5 stages. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:29 PM 2 IFP Gateway PAGE 10 - FAA Initiative: o "Design Activities: This includes the creation of a working group in order to design a procedures/route that meets the project goals and objectives. An environmental review is included in this stage." The Select Committee accomplished many things (three highlights below), but none replace an environmental review of specific actions being considered. 1) The Select Committee (SC) developed Underlying Principles, and responded to the FAA's "ask" for community Design Criteria. 2) SC heard public testimony from affected residents in three counties. 3) SC Voted on a set of community recommendations, with FAA acting as Technical Support. FAA guided the committee as to what could be asked and considered (or not) at the time these recommendations were developed. The work done by the Select Committee deserves to be followed up now with a hard look at impacts of proposed design changes and a real environmental review. FAA has state of the art tools which were not used during the Select Committee but are very accessible and should be employed soon. Lastly, in the recent FAA response Appendix D page 106 it was confirmed that what has been frequently referred to as a safety issue - to lower altitudes in the Menlo vicinity - goes hand in hand with capacity plans and these were established in the design phase. SFO had insisted in 2014 that nothing had changed except for changes due to the Asiana accident. FOIA analysis obtained thanks to your office in 2015 said otherwise, and a Historical Noise Assessment shows that Palo Alto has been experiencing changes which rise to the FAA's own threshold for significant impact. The cursory Environmental Analysis in 2014 (which did not reveal the planned altitudes or throughput plans for the Menlo vicinity) was misleading and deprived the public of key information which FAA now confirms was known early on in the design phase. Please do not allow for environmental reviews to be by-passed. Moreover, on May 6, 2016, at the Select Committee's organizing meeting you committed (as did the FAA) to provide data and analysis of any proposals. I urge you to please make this a priority, to have proper look at impacts for all proposed designs, before they get baked. With much appreciation for you and your staff's dedication, and Best wishes, Jennifer Landesmann copy: Supervisor Joe Simitian Palo Alto City Council City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:29 PM 3 On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 6:08 PM, Representative Anna G. Eshoo <CA18AEima@mail.house.gov> wrote: November 27, 2017 Dear Mrs. Landesmann, Because you have previously contacted me regarding flight path changes and an increase in aircraft noise affecting you and your community, I want to provide you with an update on this issue. On November 16, 2017, I joined with Congresswoman Jackie Speier (CA-14) and Congressman Jimmy Panetta (CA-20) to release the updated version of the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) response to the report and recommendations of the committee on South Bay arrivals. As you may know, myself, Congresswoman Speier, and former Congressman Sam Farr (CA-20) formed a committee in 2016 comprised of 12 local elected officials from our three congressional districts, all impacted by aircraft noise. Over the course of six months, the committee held nearly two dozen meetings to review FAA proposals, receive community input, and develop recommendations for regional solutions to this problem. In November of last year, the committee approved its final report which includes short- and long-term recommendations to the FAA to address aircraft noise in our region. The updated response of the FAA can be viewed on my website here. My colleagues and I share the frustration of our constituents with regard to how long this evaluation by the FAA has taken to produce. However, I’m reassured by the FAA’s statement in the Executive Summary on Page 2 which states, “This report does not represent the end of our work. The FAA continues to commit to work collaboratively with communities and local Members of Congress to address a wide range of noise concerns.” As representatives of the various affected communities throughout the region, we will continue to work together to ensure that the timelines outlined in the report are maintained by the FAA.” City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 2:29 PM 4 While the committee concluded its work at the end of last year, the SFO Airport/Community Roundtable will continue its work for aircraft noise mitigation on behalf of the residents of San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. Rep. Panetta and I who represent parts of Santa Clara and Santa Cruz Counties have followed up on the committee’s recommendation for a permanent venue in the South Bay to address aircraft noise concerns for the currently unrepresented cities in our Congressional Districts. A copy of my letter co-authored with Rep. Ro Khanna (CA-17) can be viewed here and a response from the Cities Association can be found here. I will continue to push the FAA to implement short-term and long-term solutions to address this issue on a region-wide basis. I will also continue to work with my colleagues in the Congressional Quiet Skies Caucus to pursue legislative efforts to hold FAA, airlines, and airports accountable to reduce aircraft noise and encourage the industry to adopt new technologies that will reduce noise. As always, constituents can report any excessive aircraft noise complaints to the SFO and SJC Noise Abatement Offices. This ensures that your report is part of the official record. You can reach the SFO Noise Abatement Office at (650) 821-4736 or via email at sfo.noise@flysfo.com. You can file a complaint with the SJC Noise Abatement Office at http://www.flysanjose.com/fl/environmental.php?page=noise&subtitle=Noise+Abatement. If you have any questions or comments, let me hear from you. I value what my constituents say to me, and I always need your thoughts and benefit from your ideas. Most gratefully, Anna G. Eshoo Member of Congress To share your thoughts or receive updates from me, please visit my website.  Unsubscribe City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:11 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jim Holmlund <jjh2000@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 2:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Say, if Phoenix can get the FAA to make changes, why can't you? http://www.abc15.com/news/region‐phoenix‐metro/central‐phoenix/phoenix‐faa‐propose‐plans‐to‐lessen‐aircraft‐ noise  Maybe you have to file a lawsuit?    jjh      City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:10 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Peter Macdonald <psmacdonald@mac.com> Sent:Thursday, November 30, 2017 9:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Ross Road Bicycle Boulevard Project Dear Council Members, Because I’ve become aware that some residents are complaining about the bike boulevard implementation currently under construction on Ross Road, I want to voice my support of this project and further such efforts. It’s exciting and encouraging to have the city take these measures to make our residential streets safer for everyone. Thank you. Peter Macdonald 3469 Janice Way psmacdonald@mac.com City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:28 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:mwilliams <moniwilliams@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 9:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you! Attachments:Thank you.docx Please see attachment. Monica Engel Williams USAPA Ambassador SVPC President (650)254-1041 Monica Engel Williams Windsor Lochs, 248 Walker Drive Unit 20 Mountain View, CA 94043 Honorable Mayor Greg Scharff and Palo Alto City Council Members, Palo Alto City Hall. 500 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 December 4, 2017 Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, It is with great appreciation that I am writing to thank you, on behalf of all the pickleball players at Mitchell Park, for the tremendous honor of the recent Proclamation acknowledging the health and wellness benefits that pickleball brings to the Palo Alto Community. We are all delighted and extremely proud to be the recipients of such a prestigious honor. We will endeavor to continue to reach out to all generations including those with mild disabilities who can benefit from playing this easy to learn sport, to teach in a volunteer capacity, and to share our joy of pickleball with the community. Yours sincerely, Monica Engel Williams President Silicon Valley Pickleball Club USAPA Ambassador 650-254-1041 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:05 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, November 29, 2017 1:11 PM To:michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; stephen.connolly@oirgroup.com; Keene, James; Council, City; Watson, Ron; JReifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org; Reifschneider, James; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); Perron, Zachary; Cullen, Charles; Wagner, April; Jay Boyarsky; jrosen@da.sccgov.org Subject:The Gennaco Chronicles Ive analyzed over 10 years of material. I’m convinced you had a ghostwriter... dude.... And youve aged... That’s what lying does to you... It takes a definite toll on your body.... Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:56 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, December 04, 2017 2:46 PM To:Council, City; UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); CAC-TACC; ConnectedCity Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS --11-27-17 Council meeting, Item 2, Joint Study Session with UAC Council members and Commissioners, I'd like to comment on the joint study session with Council and UAC, item 2 on Council's 11-27-17 agenda. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62203 The study session was attended by all nine Council members (Scharff, Kniss, DuBois, Holman, Filseth, Fine, Kou, Tanaka, and Wolbach) and seven UAC commissioners (Danaher, Ballantine, Forssell, Schwartz, and Segal, but not Johnston and Trumbull). In the transcript below, my comments are the paragraphs beginning with "###". Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ######################################################################### Video: http://midpenmedia.org/city-council-148/ ### The joint study session started at about 6:20 pm. 8:37: Mayor Scharff: So, we're here for a study session with the UAC. Welcome, to the UAC. And I'm going to turn it over to Chair Danaher. 8:45: Chair Danaher: OK. All right. I thought I'd pulled out my comments here. Just a minute. So, first, I speak for all of us. We're delighted to be serving on the UAC, to be working with such a really terrific, talented staff. Our primary objective of this meeting is to find out how the UAC can be more effective working for the Council. And on our own. I'm going to mention areas that we're looking into, and areas of concern. And we want to hear what the Council would like us to be doing. ### In a way, the UAC should be doing the things that the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 2 Section 2.23, says they should be doing. http://library.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/paloalto_ca/paloaltomunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$v id=amlegal:paloalto_ca I think that includes giving Council advice that Council might not have given itself. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:56 PM 2 One overall comment is: I think before Ed took over, the UAC was largely confined to viewing proposals that the staff put forward. And woe betide the commissioner who wanted to raise anything else. ### I have a different perspective. During the time when Valerie Fong was Utilities Director, commissioners sometimes asked that topics be agendized that Fong didn't want to agendize. And woe did not betide them. But, all too often, the topics were not agendized, so Council was deprived of the advice that UAC might have given them. ### It makes the successes more memorable. For example, at UAC's 03-06-13 meeting, Commissioner Melton asked for a 5-year financial forecast of the fiber utility. Staff initially resisted, but Melton persuaded his colleagues to formalize the request in a 5-1 vote. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/34474 Staff prepared a staff report and agendized it for UAC's 04-03-13 meeting (as a discussion item). http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33752 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33583 I'd like UAC to ask for another such five-year forecast. ### Incidentally, the video of UAC's 03-06-13 meeting is no longer available online at the Midpeninsula Media Center, so it's no longer possible to watch how Commissioner Melton argued his case. (On this page, http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ click on "2013." The oldest available UAC video appears to be from 10-02-13.) What understanding does the City of Palo Alto have with the Midpeninsula Media Center about how long videos should remain online? It's -- Now we have a more open, two-way relationship, and I really appreciate it. We're able to bring up issues and pursue them. Council Member Filseth -- oh, there he is -- has been the Liaison, and a really valuable contributor to the discussions. But, still, the UAC has questions about how are we communicating with the Council? You get the minutes. Is that effective? Should we have some other way of raising issues, or bringing items to your attention? Also, from time to time, we're acting on proposals that relate to policies set by the Council years back. And we sometimes wonder if the policies should be revisited. How do we open that? For example, there are policies about how much we support local solar. And whether we support community solar. How much do we subsidize those? And some of us feel that since we get solar power more cheaply from the Central Valley, we shouldn't be subsidizing other methods of getting solar, when we could use the money more effectively somewhere else. But that's not a unanimous opinion. But it's -- we think it's a policy that's worth revisiting. How do we raise that with the Council? I'll mention a few topics that we think deserve attention. Probably the biggest problem facing Utilities is going to be workforce turnover in the years ahead. And that's really not for us to address. And I know Council is very much aware of workforce issues. But it is our biggest concern. Resiliency, from -- against storms, against fires, against cyberattacks, and the like -- is a concern that a number of members on the Commission -- is very important. And we're going to try to delve into this over the next year, with the staff, on that. Capex, and maintaining the infrastructure. The budgets stayed relatively the same, but costs -- construction costs have gone way up. So the City is actually replacing fewer miles each year. That problem's getting worse. That's something we're not really prepared to address, but Council should be aware of, and we should think about it at some point. We're looking into -- We're working on the Strategic Plan. And we want to think about futureproofing what we do now. For example, in EV charging infrastructure, growth in EVs could be a headache, but it also could be a big opportunity for the City. What we do in building codes. And, along these lines, what we should be doing, if anything, to align the Strategic Plan with the City's strategic plan. Finally, we have not spent much time at all on fiber-to-the-premise issues this last year, and would like to know what the Council would like us to do on spending time on that. Several people have noted that the FCC decision to abandon net neutrality is another reason, maybe, for the City -- in favor of municipal network, on that. So, those are just some prefatory comments. And we'd like to hear from the Council. 12:48: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:56 PM 3 Mayor Scharff: OK. All right. It's a little hard for me to see -- I guess ... 12:53: [multiple speakers -- logistics] 12:56: Mayor Scharff: So, I think the lights work. So, if you put on your lights -- for Council members. Do you have any questions? All right, Cory. 13:07: Council Member Wolbach: First, I just want to say thank you to the UAC. You do tremendous work. This is really one of our most important, you know, boards and commissions. The work that you do really does take a lot of load off of us, frankly. This is, you know -- Obviously, as you know, Utilities is a -- nearly half of our budget. It's a huge amount of staff work that's involved with it. Covers so many areas of different services that benefit the residents of this -- of the community. And others who come to the community to work or to visit. And the time that you spend on this Commission really does make our life easier, because we have to be generalists and look at everything else in the City. And you make that easier for us. So, keep it up. Thank you. Um, a couple things. I just wanted to suggest, you know, really emphasizing -- and also ask if you guys have started to give any thought to -- one, obvious, probably goes without saying, but I'm just going to say it, because I think it can never forget it -- When it comes to resiliency, the impacts -- not just singular, but multiple impacts -- of climate change in the coming decades, and what that means for our City. I'll be honest. I think we probably could have gone further in our recent Comprehensive Plan than we did. And I hope that in -- you know, looking at future planning in the Utilities Department, both for staff and the UAC -- I hope they really think very, very carefully about all the different negative impacts and risks posed by climate change. From fire risk, to changes in where we source our electricity, to changes in cost for certain -- certain sources, to, of course, the flooding risk, and what that means for our Utilities infrastructure within our City, or to grids and other networks outside of our City, but that we depend on, whether it be from water, gas, or electricity. And there's probably a bunch more that I'm forgetting, of the top of my head. 15:08: Chair Danaher: That has been on our mind. And those come up in discussions. Yeah, thank you for mentioning that. 15:11: Council Member Wolbach. Yeah. And so, I -- you just -- you have -- I know that you guys have been talking about it. I know that you've thought about this stuff for years, before you got onto the UAC. So, you just -- I just wanted to make sure you had my full support -- and, I think, my colleagues as well -- but I'll let them speak for themselves if they disagree - - to continue to make that a high priority in your conversations and your thoughts going forward. Also, when you're talk- -- you mentioned EV chargers. And I just wanted to encourage -- again, both for staff and for UAC -- to really think about the breadth of vehicles that can use charging stations. Right? From personal mobility devices like skateboards, or, you know, things that look like traditional scooters, to, you know, Vespa-style scooters and motorcycles, regular cars and SUVs, and larger trucks that are making deliveries. And I think if somebody's making a delivery to a grocery store, can they charge their truck? Should they be charging their truck? I don't have an answer about that, but I hope you'll certainly think about it. And think about, you know, if somebody's, you know, parking their motorcycle, or their car, or their electric bike, or their -- or their electric skateboard, or their truck, somewhere in Palo Alto, do we want to make it easier for them to top off? And, you know, what does that look like? So, just keep thinking about the broad range, not just the stuff that we usually talk about. 16:28: Chair Danaher. OK. 16:30: Council Member Wolbach: Keep it up. Thanks. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:56 PM 4 16:33: Mayor Scharff: Vice Mayor Kniss. 16:36: Vice Mayor Kniss: (unamplified) That's right, I've got to pull this out of its socket. (amplified) So, thank you, all. I can - - Now, I can -- I think I can see most of you. Hello down there. So -- And, again, thanks for what you do. I think that the UAC is really charged with our most difficult issues. And you are -- have been a huge part of our -- our budget planning every year. So, thank you for all of that. 17:09: So, let me dive into the -- into the fiber-to-the-home -- or whatever else we may call it. ### Around 2002, World Wide Packets, a start-up supplier of fiber optic transceivers, popularized the term "fiber-to-the- premises" (FTTP), to make clear that a fiber network's customers could include both homes and businesses. Some people continue to use the term "fiber-to-the-home" to include both homes and businesses, but it's less clear. And I know that Tom DuBois is interested in this as well. We put our dark fiber in, as I recall, in '97 or '98. ### On 09-05-96, Council voted to implement a dark fiber network, which initially was about 15 route miles. Over the years, it's grown to over route 41 miles. (See my message of 10-19-16, pages 3-13 here.) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54495 We've had it there all this time. It's been used well, by companies in -- certainly in Palo Alto. We have talked any number of times through the years about how we could do fiber-to-the-home. There was an experiment you probably all know about -- maybe in '08, '09 and '10 -- right in there somewhere. ### On 04-05-99, Council voted to implement a FTTH Trial (to about 67 homes). It started operation in 2001. On 12-16- 05, service was terminated. It involved the Community Center and other areas where they tried it. And all liked it. But I think it failed because the company couldn't continue to support it that was involved in it. ### NO! The Trial originally used equipment from Marconi (the only vendor willing to let the City use the equipment for free for the first year). Six months after the Trial started, Marconi exited the FTTH business. Fortunately, the equipment continued to work without vendor support. Also, fortunately, Marconi didn't ask the City to give its equipment back or pay for it. Nevertheless, staff, for reasons best known to staff, decided to swap out the Marconi equipment and swap in some BPON equipment from Motorola (which also agreed to let the City use the equipment for free for the first year). After the first year, Motorola (which was perfectly capable of supporting its equipment) wanted to be paid or to get its equipment back. The City didn't want to pay, so Council voted to terminate the Trial. FTTH advocates talked Motorola into gifting the equipment, but not into gifting the support. FTTH advocates wanted the Trial to continue, without support, until support became an issue. Council considered rescinding its termination of the Trial, but that would have required 5 affirmative votes (because a contract was involved), and there were four recusals and one "no" vote. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54495 Two of us went to Kansas City in 2013, as I recall, where they had first begun the Googlehoods. ### Google actually called the neighborhoods where it deployed Google Fiber "fiberhoods." Before Kansas City, Google deployed a beta network on the Stanford campus, but Kansas City was the first large-scale commercial deployment. So, you're all familiar with the Googlehoods. I don't actually know how that's actually worked out. ### Google found that it was harder than they had thought to get fiber infrastructure deployed when the incumbents resisted it. CFO Ruth Porat changed Alphabet's focus from changing the world to pleasing Wall Street. Several Google Fiber executives quit. There's speculation that they might try some kind of wireless instead. http://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Missed-Deadlines-NonAnswers-Raise-Questions-for-Google-Fiber-140435 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:56 PM 5 I heard just a snippet of it the other day, and thought, well, we actually did, I think, consider that.at one point. You know, could you do a Googlehood? ### Municipalities can do -- and have done -- FTTP networks successfully, because they don't have to please Wall Street. ### At this point, UAC Commissioner Lisa Forssell arrives. 18:24: Mayor Scharff: (unamplified): So, I think a commissioner ** 18:25: Vice Mayor Kniss: And then ... 18:25: Chair Danaher: (unamplified) Yes, Lisa Forssell. 18:27: Vice Mayor Kniss: Pardon? 18:28: Mayor Scharff: So, Lisa, come join us. 18:30: Ed Shikada: (unamplified) She can't sit where her nameplate is, though, because that's ... 18:32: Chair Danaher: We'll move her down. Pass down the nameplate. 18:35: Vice Chair Kniss: We'll fix it. Hi, Lisa. 18:38: Commissioner Forssell: (unamplified) Hi. Sorry. ** 18:41: Vice Mayor Kniss: So, in -- Now, we're sort of in a different sphere, once again. And so, I'd be interested -- You know, we're really almost coming up on twenty years of this discussion. ### Council was discussing dark fiber in 1995 -- 22 years ago. I'd like to know what some of you think about it. Are you ready to tackle it again in the UAC? Does it seem like it -- it's just doomed to never be carried through? So -- Any comments you have about that, I'd really be interested in hearing them. 19:10: Mayor Scharff: So, do any commissioners want to respond? Just raise your hand. I -- Yes. 19:17: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:56 PM 6 Commissioner Ballantine: So, one, we've -- I mean, I've only watched us talk about this for a year and -- a little more than a year. And one thing that we seem to grapple with is, the scale to implement it is quite large. And that then turns into a budget problem for the Utility and staff. And yet, we're back at a debate of -- is it a good idea or not a good idea. So, one of the recent conversations was around, could we create a "trial"? ### Good idea. I'm not sure "trial" is exactly the right word. Council envisioned the 2001 FTTH Trial as running for only a year, and answering only two questions: could staff make it work at all, and would people like it. What we'd do this time is to deploy infrastructure that would last at least for decades, confident that it would work, confident that people would like it. In other words, take a -- you know, just as we've done for undergrounding of Utilities. ### I wouldn't call the City's electric and telecom undergrounding a "trial" either. It was just a project so massive that it couldn't be done, or paid for, all at once. Sure, things were learned along the way. For example, the first undergrounding districts used direct-buried electric wires; subsequent districts put the wires in conduit. You know, that's not citywide. It's been section by section, with a very careful plan of how and when. Maybe that's a way to take a look at fiber. Take a section of the City. We're going to try it out here. Then we learn what's good and what's bad. And then when it comes around again for the next conversation, rather than, you know, our best -- our best debates being what we get in terms of quotes and what happens in other cities, now we have real, live Palo Alto examples and data to look at. And yet we didn't have to spend the whole budget to try it out. But, I think, without something like that, it's hard to see how we don't end up in a ... 20:36: Vice Mayor Kniss: A pilot? 20:36: Commissioner Ballantine: ... a continuous debate. A pilot. Yeah. 20:38: Vice Mayor Kniss: Um-hum. 20:41: Mayor Scharff: Judith. 20:41: Commissioner Schwartz: Hi. So, I have a couple of concerns about this. One has to do with the workforce issue. Because we're already sort of in a difficult position of, are we going to be able to backfill all the people who are going to be retiring. And so it makes me a little nervous to say we're going to take on another utility, that is a very -- that's one that has a very high customer service element -- that's much higher than a lot of the others. So, it just sort of strikes me as -- if we do that, we have to understand the commitment. ### The City would probably contract with a construction firm to deploy the infrastructure, rather than using City employees. The City could contract with a private-sector company to provide Internet services. Or the City could contract with a private-sector company to manage an open access system where any number of ISPs could compete to offer services. Another thing, in terms of looking at how we compare to other cities who have done it -- One of the things that is different about Palo Alto than a lot of the other cities is that a lot of the cities that have made the major investments were doing it for economic revitalization of their communities. And that is not our problem. OK? ### Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall. http://biblehub.com/proverbs/16-18.htm City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:56 PM 7 ### I also like this quote, by Andrew S. Grove, from his book, "Only the Paranoid Survive." https://www.goodreads.com/work/quotes/664484-only-the-paranoid-survive "if you're wrong, you will die. But most companies don't die because they are wrong; most die because they don't commit themselves. They fritter away their valuable resources while attempting to make a decision. The greatest danger is in standing still." And because we have an affluent community, we are a more desirable location for the incumbents to at least try to keep -- give us leading-edge service. ### Where I live, in Midtown, the fastest Internet service AT&T offers is 768 kbps down, and even slower up. My landline phone service fails from time to time, probably because water gets into the wires. The last time this happened, an AT&T salesperson tried to talk me into switching to wireless. And so, I think that if we want to do a limited-scale program, we can. But one of the things that I think we should pay attention to is, what are the applications that people need this for? ### As long as people are willing to pay for the Internet services, the City (Council, UAC) doesn't have to know what apps are being used. Because if you have a business, and having fiber to your premise is really important, you can get it today. ### You can get dark fiber to connect your premises to PAIX (or another service provider location), but that's pretty expensive. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=1508&TargetID=235,310 Also, "having (dark) fiber to your premise" isn't the same as getting FTTP. The customer has to provide and maintain the electronics. And so, maybe if there are some other people that we want to make it available to, we can build it out, using a subset of the money that we have available for those applications. ### The City shouldn't have to figure out what applications or customers to subsidize. Has the City already set aside money to subsidize certain applications? If so, where did that money come from? You know, let people say, I want this for X-Y-Z reason. And whether it's for healthcare, or immersive whatever, then we're doing it on a case-by-case basis, for somebody who really needs it. But for people who just think it's going to make their movies run faster, it really isn't the solution. You know. Getting a faster computer is a faster way to do it. ### A fast computer is not a substitute for a fast Internet connection. And so, I just think that if we're going to keep that on the table, those are the kinds of things we should keep about. I'm very supportive of it as part of our backhaul for smart grid and the things that we're doing. ### What "it" is Commissioner Schwartz supportive of? FTTN? Chattanooga officials say they knew they needed FTTP to support the smart grid they wanted, so that's what they built. So, I think that the investment we've made in the fiber ring is not wasted at all. And if we use it for these other purposes, we'll continue to keep it vital and up-to-date, but not necessarily use it for these -- for some sort of generic application that we don't know exactly what it is. 23:24: Vice Mayor Kniss: (unamplified) Thanks. 23:24: Mayor Scharff: Tom. 23:26: Council Member DuBois: Great. Thanks. So, thank you guys, all, for serving. Sorry, I walked in a little bit late. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:56 PM 8 ### Council Member DuBois missed some of Chair Danaher's opening remarks, but that's all. I assume you spoke about EV vehicles. You know, one thing I do notice is, we have, I think, an extreme shortage of charging ports. And I think it -- we're falling behind there, you know, versus other cities on the Peninsula. I'd really be interested in you guys coming up with incentives and programs that could expand the number of EV ports on both public and private -- private enterprise for public use. I don't think it was mentioned, but I -- again, I'm really interested in the future -- long-term future of the gas utility, as we move to clean energy. At some point, what do we do with our gas utility? You know. Does it become an albatross, that we need for certain uses, but it's going to have large capital expenditures to maintain? I do find the net neutrality moves of the Trump administration troubling. The FCC is talking about preventing states and cities from overriding the end of net neutrality. And I do think it's something the City and our lobbyists, you know, should start to get involved in. When I think about the fiber utility, I really think that the City should look at owning the physical infrastructure, and that we should try to partner with a private entity to manage the customer service -- the high-tough aspects. ### Would Council Member DuBois be open to hiring a private-sector entity to do this rather than "partnering" with one? I'd want the City to be in control of what the private-sector entity was trying to do. But I do think it's very worthwhile to look at kind of the economics of a single network and, you know, who should own that infrastructure. Council has voted. And we asked that we extend the dark fiber into the neighborhoods. So that is our policy. I hope you guys will support that, and help us come up with a good plan. ### I'm concerned that what it means to "extend the dark fiber into the neighborhoods" is not well-defined or understood by Council. We've basically asked staff to come back with a business plan. The current dark fiber network does not go everywhere. ### There are (by my count) 89 access points. (See a January 2013 map of the dark fiber on page 45 of this RFP document.) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/42930 (Shouldn't the most up-to-date map be available in a standard place on the City's website?) Not everybody can get it. ### Everyone in Palo Alto can get it, but it could be expensive. If you do, you have to spend a tremendous amount of money. It's extremely expensive if you try to extend it from the commercial district into a neighborhood that's nowhere near a node. ### I'm not sure whether Council Member DuBois is talking about the cost to deploy the connections initially or the monthly fee to rent dark fibers on the backbone -- or some of each. ### In principle, staff could make a dark fiber map that looks like a topological map, except that instead of showing height it would show the estimated cost to get to the nearest access point. And so, the idea is that we would build out the dark fiber network, and that we would -- Again, we haven't seen the business plan yet. ### The current dark fiber network doesn't "pass" any premises, in the FTTP sense. If building out the dark fiber network just means adding more dark fiber access points without "passing" any premises, then that won't be a significant step towards citywide FTTP. And constructing dark fiber connections will still be expensive for customers (although maybe a little less expensive). And the monthly fee for leasing dark fiber will still be as expensive as ever, especially for long distances, e.g., for folks who want to connect to PAIX but are not close to downtown. City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:56 PM 9 It could -- But it probably would be a private partnership to connect it from that node to a home. ### I don't agree that hoping for a private partner to do FTTP is a good idea. The Google Fiber disaster teaches us that private-sector entities want a faster return on investment than municipalities can live with. 26:02: There are a lot of community models that I'm seeing start to appear. And I'd ask you guys to watch San Francisco and San Jose. They're both working on their own muni-owned fiber plans. ### To my knowledge, San Jose is not thinking about anything that might lead to FTTP. San Francisco's is probably going to be the largest in the country. And I think it will be informative to us. ### I've tried to stay informed about what San Francisco is talking about doing, and I think it hasn't all been revealed yet. See this blog item from CCG's Doug Dawson: 11-29-17: "The San Francisco Broadband Experiment" https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2017/11/29/the-san-francisco-broadband-experiment/ He thinks they'll finance it, at least in part, by having ALL premises pay a monthly fee, of perhaps $26. Would we be willing to consider doing that? He thinks they want to CONNECT ALL premises (not just pass all premises and connect paying customers). Would we be willing to consider doing that? I also would love to see us leverage that backbone for smart city programs. And, you know, how we could apply some of the enterprise -- Utility enterprise -- funds for those portions of the network. I don't think the network needs to be funded entirely by residential use. ### Right. Or funded entirely by premises use (that would include both businesses and residences). I think there's a lot of uses we can get out of a backbone. And we should start to break it out from just one massive project into, you know, just extending the network, and using it for smart city initiatives and other programs. 26:56: And then, the last thing I wanted to say was, I am concerned that our current dark fiber network is an aging asset. And, you know, I'm hearing, Santa Clara -- the City of Santa Clara's network is cheaper and better. I'm worried that we're falling behind there. ### In 2015, when staff proposed CIP FO-16000 to rebuild the dark fiber network, http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/54357 I asked Council to consider requiring staff to write a staff report explaining why a rebuild was necessary and what a rebuild would accomplish. (For example, see my 05-24-15 message here, pages 77-79.) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/47531 But that didn't happen. I asked again in 2016. (For example, see my 05-01-16 message here, pages 41-42.) http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/52263 And I think it would be great if you guys could benchmark, you know, our current service versus Burbank and Santa Clara and other cities that have thriving dark fiber businesses, to really make sure that we are kind of maintaining that asset to the level it should be maintained. So. Thanks. 27:33: Mayor Scharff: (unamplified) Did -- I saw Judith had a comment. You had a comment? (amplified) If commissioners have comments they want to get, just raise your hand, because it's supposed to be a dialogue. Yeah, go first. 27:41: Commissioner Schwartz: So, I want to go back to the -- eliminating the gas utility comment that you made. If you look at ... 27:54: City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 2:56 PM 10 Council Member DuBois: That's not what I said. But -- I just said we needed a long-term plan. 27:57: Commissioner Schwartz: Right. No. No. But I think if you look at the long-term plans, both in the state of California and in -- nationally, natural gas is not going away in the foreseeable future. Because, right now, if we want to have these lights on, we have to have generation that can be available and dispatchable at night. ### Do we know how many customers in Palo Alto (including the City) depend on the City's natural gas infrastructure for their electricity, even for backup? ### How available and dispatchable at night is the City's hydroelectric sources? And so, there are ** mornings when we're not going to be able -- So, the sort of -- I'll call it the almost the -- the aspirational goal of being able to do everything with solar and batteries and doing that -- is just -- it's just not really practical. It sounds really great, and it's aspirational. And one of the reasons I wanted this handout given to all of you ### Will the public get to see this handout? is that -- which is about EVs, which, I think, is sort of the wave of the future, and something we should be focusing on, is that, if you look at sort of things like the residential and commercial impact that are -- of the businesses and homes that are using gas, it's really minimal when it comes to the carbon footprint and the impact. And if you really want to have a - - If we want to be a model for other communities, then dealing with the transportation sector is where the big bang for the buck is. And that we can really -- We are in the unique position, in Palo Alto, because we have one of the highest penetrations of EV purchases that you have anywhere. ### What fraction of those EV purchases are by folks who will need to charge their EVs regularly in Palo Alto? And it's interesting that you said that we're falling behind in charging infrastructure. There's a new initiative that's come up, that I've encouraged staff to look at it, to have us be part of it, that I want them to bring to you -- is that they're trying to get utilities -- There's a movement afoot to get the commissions to allow utilities -- IOUs -- to participate in charging, so that there can be more activity. And one of the advantages that we have in Palo Alto is that we don't have a barrier to the utility being part of the charging infrastructure. And so I think we can be part of this effort on the national scale, and demonstrate some things that are very viable. And it's the way that we can really tie in to doing projects tied to local solar, and things that are sort of a little more innovative. But I think that it's -- We need to look at this holistically -- OK? -- when we're looking at out energy resources. And so, I think that our immediate problem is not getting rid of the -- or even the -- even the near-term, or mid-term, problem of getting rid of the gas utility. It's more, how do we take advantage of this unusual opportunity we have, in terms of EV concentration, to do some things that really matter. 30:54: Council Member DuBois: Thank you for that. Just to clarify, it's really how do we manage a potentially shrinking the gas utility, in a cashflow-positive manner? So -- 31:05: Mayor Scharff: OK. Ah, Karen, you had your -- 31:10: Council Member Holman: Yes. Two things. And I don't think -- um -- I don't think Cory mentioned this in the things that you were mentioning earlier on. But in 2010, there was a plane crash that was pretty prominent in the news for some period of time. That was 2010. And sometimes the discussion about a redundant power source comes to the surface, and comes, it seems, as a priority. ### The City actually has three connections to the grid already. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/50608 City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:17 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Sea <paloaltolife@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, December 01, 2017 5:41 PM To:gsheyner@paweekly.com; jdong@paweekly.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com; bertcmail2 @yahoo.com; bwarchangelmichael@gmail.com; Council, City; cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com; abjpd1@gmail.com; Kenneth Manrao; earwopa@yahoo.com; jkfredrich@gmail.com; Holman, Karen; Greg Schmid (external); Scharff, Greg; lkou@apr.com; bmurarka@indiawest.com; ctraboard@googlegroups.com; Filseth, Eric (external); tom.dubois@gmail.com; Keene, James Subject:Tweet by Sea-Seelam Reddy on Twitter Sea-Seelam Reddy (@SealamReddy) 12/1/17, 17:25 The Market, by Edgewood center opened today. I rate A+or 10 for layout looks & products. Citizens & City &. SandHill Properties you have scored. Congratulations all! #PaloAlto @paloaltoweekly @SFGate @mercnews pic.twitter.com/3LxDJY27jd Download the Twitter app Sent from my iPhone City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:26 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 03, 2017 10:28 AM To:Council, City Cc:sdremann@paweekly.com; bjohnson@embarcaderomediagroup.com; bjohnson@paweekly.com; swebby@da.sccgov.org; Keith, Claudia; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external) Subject:Waiting for comments to be censored or removed https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/12/02/ex-teacher-sentenced-to-five-years-for- molestation#comment_form We will Tweet before and after..... Worldwide..... Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:23 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Mark Petersen-Perez <bayareafreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, December 03, 2017 5:34 AM To:Reichental, Jonathan Cc:Keene, James; Council, City; Carnahan, David; Minor, Beth; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external) Subject:We were the First to bring Apple iPad into city council chambers And you make no mention of this digital breakthrough and the end of clunky laptop PC presentations...Your no different  from the other bureaucrats .... And it demonstrates an embedded binary vindictiveness.    Mark    Sent from my iPad  City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/4/2017 10:19 AM 1 Carnahan, David From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, December 02, 2017 4:17 AM To:Council, City; Reifschneider, James; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Scharff, Greg; Kniss, Liz (external); policechief@menlopark.org; bwelch@dao.sccgov.org; Philip, Brian; swebby@da.sccgov.org Subject:While on a Whitewater rafting trip to Costa Rica I discover an undisclosed and or lost photo of Palo Alto City Council members or perhaps its a mix of past Police Chiefs... Which one looks like Ron Watson? Lynne Johnson, Dennis Burns? Sent from my iPad City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/5/2017 4:19 PM 1 Carnahan, David From:Tim Mealiffe <tmealiffe@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, December 05, 2017 3:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Why haven’t garages been constructed to alleviate such a long term problem? When will we see some movement?     Tim Mealiffe.   Sent from my iPhone    'I :,. .... ~'ti' . ''Wi,; ~~~~ ~· . , 1-1.en women thrive, all of society l1enefits." -Kofi Annan ""When \\1omen thrive, all of society benefits." -Kofi Annan ff)> Castilleja ... ~,,..... I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... IVi.e PtJC:>~~~ ~ 1 ~~~ ~l>e.~~c/. .... Office of the Clerk f!.._~r;.., ~ Please distribute to all City Council Members U -250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor ~ 1 ~ ~ VKLUJ 'fo /iU-"Wnll>f-Palo Alto, CA, 94301 ~J~~~~ f11.tVrt.'1 -~ ~,,,~ I' I l'Jllil111JIJl111JlJ11IJhl1pl1ll'JI p~ ~. ~ J' .• : (. I I I support Castilleja's proposal t"""" increase enrollment and modernize its campus because... £t>0 C.A-"Tto.J tl~ ALLJJM-{'S ~A\ -r~t: wcze oF wt.\ Kr iM A't--E5 ?Ac.O t\ t,;1-0 A ~A\ ~ t -r'"'f • W \"\\.to01 A vou.Br cAs-rtu..:E-TA ' L ~ A tJ A&tht=T To ~t2. to \Ni IN{ 0 µ tll-1 AJ....Jt> we- Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 ~ ou (.., 1> t2ALfr.~1 .1 J,9i1,f?,TI',P., ~r.., .. ,,,,,,,,,,111,.1·11Ji11 -r-"'~t 12 IM L 4 . 0 #--)' =Bt '..(.... 6LJ'(2.CJ.J I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because ... ~ o...re.. $o ~~ ~ ~ ~ \) (:.-~ ~ ./ru, -~Ii ~-t.~ \S l'\rl ~ J.Jvtllvo,.i \vJ cP~ {Jrz., 1'o ~ ~ ~i)J "6 ~ ./\tl~'"'-' ~""'k-4veJ;l-~ ~~,J~b ts ot Office of the Clerk !E '° •• en ~-- Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 11!J1111111b,;1, hi ,11It'11jJ111 11111, 11, ;, 11111Ii,1ijii11l1 im u f..-t:i ~ '' ~crs f\l ...J • >rint I of3 https://mail.yahoo.com/#mail Subject: Fw: Basement Construction Dewatering Update From: Esther Nigenda (enigenda@yahoo.com) ICOUNC,IL /jEJJNG /dJ.. 14' I ( [ ] Placed Before Meeting [~ived at Meeting To: ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net; Date: Monday, December 4, 2017 3:56 PM On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 3:38 PM, "Phil Sobel, City of Palo Alto" <pwecips@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: View this email in your browser CITY OF PALO ALTO Groundwater Pumping Interested Parties: Below is a new summary of the sites that have begun and ceased basement construction pumping and discharge to the City's storm drain system in 2017. To avoid capacity concerns during the rainy season, October 31 was the deadline for cessation of discharge to the City's storm drain system for this year. Citations were issued to two sites that had not ceased discharge (544 Patricia and 3875 Mumford). Mumford ceased discharge on 11/2 and Patricia ceased discharge on 11/6. These were the last two basement construction sites discharging to the storm drain system this year. Other basement construction sites still pumping groundwater have "cut-off walls", they are pumping at low levels, and they are not discharging to the storm drain system. When they finish, we'll provide a summary of them as well. Start Date End Date Gallons Pumped Gallons Cut off wall No. Address of Pumping of Pumping from Discharged to installed? (YIN) Groundwater Storm Drain 12/4/2017, 5:20 PM Print " l of3 https://mail.yahoo.com/#mail 780 Loma 6/6/2017 7/18/2017 7,926,000 7,788,000 N Verde 2 2762 Ross 71712017 9/18/2017 15,995,000 15,823,000 N 3 2121 6/29/2017 911512017 133,000 0 y Webster 4 2189 7/18/2017 1017/2017 22,323,000 21,996,000 N Webster 5 2555 Park 5/23/2017 11/1/2017 45,283,000 45,283,000 N 6 3875 7/12/2017 11/212017 10,988,000 10,807,000 N Mumford 7 544 Patricia 8/26/2017 11/612017 13,467,000 13,299,000 N Totals 116,115,000 114,996,000 Currently, we are scheduled to bring proposed changes to the ordinance regulating basement construction pumping to City Council on December 4, 2017. We will distribute our staff report and proposed changes to you about 10 days ahead of that. The staff report is likely to be on the Council's Consent Calendar, but comments can still be made to Council. Just fill out the speaker card and put the "item" number on it. If questions on any of this arise, please contact Phil Bobel, Assistant Director, Public Works at phil.bobel@cityofpaloalto.org . Phil Bobel & the Public Works team 0 0 Copyright© 2017 City of Palo Alto Public Worl<s Engineering Div., All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you expressed interest in groundwater. The City of Palo Alto will periodically send out emails pertaining to groundwater. Our mailing address is: City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Div. 250 Hamilton Avenue 6th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 12/4/2017, 5:20 PM • November 29, 2017 TO: STATE, CITY AND LOCAL OFFICIALS CITY OF PALO ALTO CA NOTIFICATION OF PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY'S ~'{jE§t~·~E RATES FOR GAS TRANSMISSION AND STORAGE APPLICATION (A.17-11-009) f 7D£C -5 AH IO:·or Summary On November 17, 2017, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) filed its Gas Transmission and Storage (GT&S) application with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) requesting to increase rates for the following: • Comply with new regulatory requirements for the safety of gas transmission and storage facilities • Infrastructure investments to ensure gas transmission pipelines and storage facilities continue to operate safely and reliably • Retirement of two gas storage fields in order to reduce costs to customers in the long term, reduce risk and streamline operations Related to the programs above, PG&E is requesting a total increase of $1.317 billion to be collected in rates from customers during the period 2019-2021. Background The GT&S Application is submitted approximately every three years by PG&E. The scope of the Application includes gas transmission and gas storage facilities. In this Application, PG&E forecasts the costs necessary to operate gas transmission and storage facilities in a safe and reliable manner. This Application also proposes how the costs to operate PG&E's transmission and storage business will be assigned to each customer class. The Application covers the years 2019-2021, although PG&E has also forecast the costs necessary for 2022 should the CPUC or stakeholders wish to consider extending the case into a fourth year. How will PG&E's Application affect me? A summary of the rate impact for PG&E's gas customers was provided in a bill insert sent directly to customers in December. For each year covered in this Application, PG&E is requesting increases of$289 million in 2019, $135 million in 2020 and $180 million in 2021. If approved, this application would increase rates effective beginning January 1, 2019. Based on rates currently in effect, the bill for a typical residential non CARE customer averaging 34 therms per month of gas usage would increase from $54.85 to $55.96, or 2.0 percent. Actual impacts will vary depending on energy usage across the months. How will PG&E's Application affect customers who buy gas from a third party? Certain residential customers only receive gas distribution services from PG&E and purchase their gas from a third party. PG&E does not purchase gas for these customers. The impact of PG&E's Application on the transportation component of the bill is an average increase of $0.65, or 1.6 percent. Transportation components of the customer bill are the same regardless of whether the customer obtains gas service from PG&E or from a third party. How do I find out more about PG&E's proposals? If you have questions about PG&E's filing, please contact PG&E at 1-800-743-5000. For TTY, call 1-800-652-4712. Para mas detalles !lame al 1-800-660-6789 • ~fflmU&il 1-800-893-9555. If you would like a copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits, please write to PG&E at the address below: Pacific Gas and Electric Company 2019 GT&S Application (A.17-11-009) P.O. Box 7442 San Francisco, CA 94120 A copy of PG&E's filing and exhibits is also available for review at the CPUC's Central Files Office by appointment only. For more information, contact aljcentralfilesid@cpuc.ca.gov or 1-415-703-2045. PG&E's Application (without exhibits) is available on the CPUC's website at www.cpuc.ca.gov. CPUC process This Application will be assigned to an Administrative Law Judge (Judge) who will determine how to receive evidence and other related documents necessary for the CPUC to establish a record upon which to base its decision. Evidentiary 1 hearings may be held where parties will present their testimony and may be subject to cross-examination by other parties. These evidentiary hearings are open to the public, but only those who are formal parties in the case can participate. After considering all proposals and evidence presented during the hearings, the assigned Judge will issue a proposed decision which may cid@pt Pp&E's pr6posal,1modify it or deny it. Any of the five CPUC Commissioners may sponsor an alternate decision. The proposed decision, and any alternate decisions, will be discussed and voted upon at a scheduled CPUC Voting Meeting. The Office of Ratepayer Advocates (ORA) may review this Application. ORA is the independent consumer advocate within the CPUC with a legislative mandate to represent investor-owned utility customers to obtain the lowest possible rate for service consistent with reliable and safe service levels. ORA has a multi-disciplinary staff with expertise in economics, finance, accounting and engineering. For more information about ORA, please call 1-415-703-1584, email ora@cpuc.ca.gov or visit ORA's website at www.ora.ca.gov. Stay informed • If you would like to follow this proceeding, or any other issue before the CPUC, you may use the CPUC's free subscription service. Sign up at: http://subscribecpuc.cpuc.ca.gov/. If you would like to learn how you can participate in the proceeding, have informal comments about the Application, or have questions about the CPUC processes, you may access the CPUC's Public Advisor Office (PAO) webpage at http://consumers.cpuc.ca.gov/pao/. You may also contact the PAO as follows: Email: public.advisor@cpuc.ca.gov Mail: CPUC Public Advisor's Office 505 Van Ness Avenue San Francisco, CA 94102 Call: 1-866-849-8390 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-2074 TTY: 1-866-836-7825 (toll-free) or 1-415-703-5282 If you are writing or emailing the PAO, please include the application number (2019 GT&S Application; A.17 -11-009). All comments will be circulated to the Commissioners, the assigned Judge and appropriate CPUC staff, and will become public record. 2