HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170116plCC 701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL
RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 1/16/2017
Document dates: 12/28/2016 – 1/4/2017
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 | 1/3/2017 7:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Barbara Rieder <barieder@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 01, 2017 12:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear Palo Alto Council Members and Mayor,
I am writing to request that Item 10:Aquatics Swim Lesson Contract with Team Sheeper be removed
from the Consent Calendar of 1/9/2017. After attending the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting in November, attending a meeting December 6,2016 with the Community Services Director, attending a poolside 'Coffee', and reading the proposed Agreement, I am very concerned about the
inconsistent messages regarding swim schedules and the impact on the existing swim groups. The
schedule originally to be seen in Appendix A has been lined out. Exhibit 'C' Compensation indicates
$25.00/hr for regular lifeguards and $40.00/hr for Lead or Head lifeguards. Has any 1000 hour lifeguard employed by the City been offered these amounts to solve our staffing problems? What will be the impact on summer employment for Palo Alto students?
As a senior swimmer and Palo Alto resident, these and other issues surrounding expanded,
privatization of our public asset is certainly disconcerting.
Thank-you for your consideration. Barbara A. Rieder
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 7:50 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn Bauriedel <mbauriedel@ursu.com>
Sent:Monday, January 02, 2017 11:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Item #10 on January 9, 2017 Council Meeting Agenda: Contract with Team Sheeper,
LLC for swim lessons at Rinconada Pool
Dear Mayor and Palo Alto City Council Members,
I am writing as a Palo Alto resident and a regular lap swimmer at Rinconada Pool since 1973 to request that for
your January 9, 2017 meeting you take Item 10, the proposal to approve a contract with Team Sheeper, LLC,
for Learn-to-Swim lessons at Rinconada Pool, off the Consent Calendar and put it on as a regular agenda item for full discussion and an open public hearing. There are many regular swimmers at Rinconada Pool who want to speak on this subject, as the contract will greatly affect their swimming life.
I believe that the staff report on this matter lacks sufficient information for Council to make a truly informed
decision about the contract. Moreover, there are some real discrepancies between the description of contract
terms in the staff report and the draft contract attached to the report. Item 10 and staff report label this a contract for summer 2017 swim lessons. The draft contract by contrast hires Team Sheeper to run a Learn-to-Swim program beginning in March 2017 for three quarters of the year---spring, summer, and fall of 2017.
The staff report is not fully transparent about all the activities the contract with Team Sheeper will include at
Rinconada —namely it doesn’t mention (except in an attached Exhibit) that, in addition to being granted the
right to offer double the number of swim lessons over last year, Team Sheeper will be granted the right to run swim camps all summer. Swim camps are a totally new program and concept that should be fully described and debated before being approved and introduced at Rinconada Pool.
These camps for 40 children will take place Monday through Friday for 10 or 11 weeks during the summer,
will cost each child $355 per week, and will utilize 5 lanes of the Lap pool for 5 hours a day from 8:45 a.m. to
1:50 p.m. and substantial space in the Children’s pool. They will heavily degrade the availability of lanes for residents expecting the space to be there for Rec Swimming, lap swimming, and Master’s swimming during morning and afternoon prime times. For lessons and camps Team Sheeper will retain 90% of the gross
revenues, and the City will receive 10% of gross revenues under the contract for use of our city’s only
swimming pool. For the camps alone in the Lap pool Team Sheeper, a private, for-profit corporation, will net up
to $12,780 per week (or $127,800 for the 10 weeks of summer 2017). Team Sheeper’s revenues for the camps could be double this amount if camps take place simultaneously in both Lap pool and Children’s pool as the draft contract contemplates. The Parks & Recreation Master Plan survey results show no indication that Palo
Alto residents are asking for swim camps to be part of the city’s aquatic programs. The most popular request in
these results is for more Recreational Swimming.
Another issue is that the staff report does not reveal that CSD is assigning Tim Sheeper, CEO of Team Sheeper, the task of establishing the Rinconada pool schedule for all the lessons and camps. This will give his company preference over all other programs at the pool in number of lanes (and space in the Children’s pool) and activity
times. The schedule he proposed last fall (circulated in the staff report for the November 16, 2016 Parks & Rec
Commission meeting) was unacceptable to many regular lap swimmers and Master’s swimmers because of a
substantial reduction in lanes at peak hours of use by these swimmers. The proposed schedule also greatly reduced Rec Swim space in the Lap pool. The proposed contract now provides for further reduction of Rec
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 7:50 AM
3
Swim space, as Team Sheeper will offer swim lessons for young children in the Children’s pool. Family
recreation swimmers have heretofore counted on having all the space in the Children’s pool for unprogrammed
recreation during the summer. Unprogrammed “play is in short supply in busy Palo Alto, and summer is the season when parents look forward to being able to drop in for several hours of the day with their children. How
much of the pool and which sections will be off limits to Rec Swim? Will families be turned away?
Another issue with the contract that should be fully discussed is the quite substantial increase in fees for the
Learn-to-Swim lessons and the City’s very generous subsidy ($6 per group lesson and $28 per private lesson)
for every Palo Alto resident child taking lessons from Team Sheeper. The subsidies will supplant a long-standing practice of Palo Alto’s subsidizing lessons only for families with financial need. Do residents want a
pool that charges for lessons quite a bit more than comparable public facilities charge (fees similar to private
swim clubs’ charges) and that subsidizes resident families of substantial means?
I believe all these issues need a full airing and discussion with a public hearing before the City is approved to
sign a contract with Team Sheeper for greatly expanded swim lessons. I will appreciate very much your moving the item off the Consent Calendar and onto regular agenda status.
Sincerely,
Marilyn U. Bauriedel
South Court
Marilyn U. Bauriedel mbauriedel@ursu.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 10:22 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bruce Anderson <bruce.g.anderson@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:21 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
As a long time recreational swimmer, I am concerned about the details of the contract for Team Sheaper in
consent agenda item 10.
At the last public meeting, it seemed that city staff had already decided what to do and were surprised at swimmer concerns.
Bruce Anderson
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 11:19 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sue Anderson <sue_stollberg@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, January 03, 2017 11:00 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Lap swimming
Dear Mayor and Council members,
As a many-decades resident lap swimmer I continue to be concerned by the apparent Team Sheeper inroads into the lap and community swim programs. I urge you to take Item 10 (Rinconada contract with Team Sheeper) off the Consent Calendar and put it on the regular agenda so that it can be
properly discussed. I feel like much of what is happening is going on way above my head.
Thank you, Sue Anderson
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 11:19 AM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Susan Amkraut <samkraut@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:43 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Rinconada pool and the 1/9 city council meeting
Please take item 10 off the consent agenda for the January 9th meeting. It needs to be discussed. I am a lap
swimmer at Rinconada and myself and other lap swimmers plan to attend the meeting to discuss this
item. Thanks very much.
Susan Amkraut, long time Palo Alto resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 1:11 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 03, 2017 12:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear City Council Member,
We are regular year‐round Rinconada swimmers. Item #10 on the Jan 9 consent calendar concerns the aquatic program
for the summer. Please take this item off the consent calendar and put it on the regular agenda for discussion so that
you can hear comments from the public. We have real concerns about adding a swim camp to an already crowded pool
during the summer.
Thank you,
Carol and Richard Heermance
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 3:21 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 03, 2017 2:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:January 9 meeting: concerns about vote to approve outsourcing summer aquatics
program
To: Palo Alto City Council Members On January 9 you will be asked to approve a contract with Team Sheeper to provide swim lessons at Rinconada Pool in 2017. Included
in the contract are swim camps. We agree that the city may need to outsource swim lessons on a trial basis for 2017, but we have serious reservations about including swim camps in this initial contract.
These are our concerns: Dedicated lanes for the camps every day during the recreational swim periods will take pool space away from recreational swimmers.
Often during the summer, swimmers are turned away because of lack of space and safety regulations. Do we want to further limit this activity to our youth?
In the contract with Team Sheeper, there is no mention of how many children they plan to enroll in the camp. In the contract the camps are included in the lessons, however a camp is every day for a week at a time. A lesson is for 1/2 hour. This is a huge impact difference on the pool, as well as on Rinconada Park. Current outsourcing contracts with Masters Swimming and PASA (swim team) stipulate a 70/30 revenue split with 30% going to the city.
Why would the city accept an outsourcing contract of 90/10 with Team Sheeper with only 10% going to the city? We think the best course of action for testing the concept of outsourcing the aquatics programs is to outsource only swim lessons for
one summer and then, if it is successful, to consider adding other programs, if there is space and when it serves the needs of the residents.
We urge you to reject the swim camp portion of the summer aquatics program. Richard and Carol Heermance
long time Palo Alto residents and Rinconada lap swimmers
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/4/2017 12:22 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Andres Mediavilla <andres.mediavilla@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 04, 2017 11:01 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown Permit Parking Program
Attachments:IMPROVEMENTS FOR DOWNTOWN PERMIT PARKING Janaury 2017.pdf
Dear Palo Alto City Council members,
Please support the permit program improvements outlined in the
attachment. This program has greatly improved the quality of life in
the neighborhood (Downtown North) by reducing the amount of
traffic and cars parked at all times. I would also like to include the
support (either with personnel or through technology) of some of
the traffic restrictions that many people constantly violate, such as
scheduled NON-turns into/from Middlefield to/from Downtown North
(Hawthorne and Everett Ave).
Thank you,
Andres Mediavilla
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/4/2017 12:22 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Sandy Peters <peterssandyj@pacbell.net>
Sent:Wednesday, January 04, 2017 9:51 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown Residential Permit Parking Meeting - Wednesday, January 4 @ 4 PM
Attachments:IMPROVEMENTS FOR DOWNTOWN PERMIT PARKING Janaury 2017.pdf
.Please support the program improvements outlined in the
attachment to this email. Be certain to include the
attachment.
Thanks!
Sandy & Jerry Peters
1021 Ramona Street
Palo Alto 650-325-0692
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/4/2017 12:22 PM
3
Carnahan, David
From:dwahlercpa@aol.com
Sent:Wednesday, January 04, 2017 9:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:RPP Meeting
Attachments:IMPROVEMENTS FOR DOWNTOWN PERMIT PARKING Janaury 2017.pdf
Dear Council Members, I will not be able to attend today's meeting at 4 pm but urge you to support the proposed improvements outlined on the attached document. While I believe that there have been improvements in the parking situation, our block, 900 Bryant, remains fully parked during business hours. We would like the improvements made to the plan to spread the parking impact throughout the neighborhoods on a more equal basis. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration for improving the quality of life for residents. Sincerely, Diana Wahler
1
IMPROVEMENTS
TO
PHASE 2 RESIDENT PERMIT PARKING PROGRAM
January 2017
Residents’ primary concerns
1. Council policy requires annual reduction in the number of non-resident vehicles parked on
residential streets. Residents don’t have information to understand the numbers and types
permits issued during Phase 2. Therefore, we submitted a request for public records covering
Aug 1 thru Dec 31.
2. Severe clustering on some streets is evident and this too must be addressed by staff and
Council. Residents have compiled data and will continue through January 2017 and
beyond. Michael Hodos will be submitting data demonstrating the clustering problems. He also
has a low-cost solution for you to consider.
3. Reduction of non-resident vehicles can be managed by reducing number of non-resident
vehicles permits and balancing among the 8 zones. This requires active management and
review by city staff quarterly.
Residents are hopeful that the January 4 meeting and staff report for the February Council will
address eight other long-standing concerns below.
Cost of enforcement and technology. Consistent placement of permits on vehicles can be
improved. Some technology was introduced in 2016 but more technology is warranted. We are
confident that staff and residents are in agreement that permits must be consistently placed on
vehicles at designated locations to lower enforcement costs. Lack of technology, especially
garage guidance technology, restricts efficiency of city garages and lots. This creates more
parking pressure from the commercial core to residential neighborhoods.
Two-hour parking. Unlimited 2-hr commercial parking in residential neighborhoods
compromises integrity of the Council's commitment to reduce non-resident vehicles. Certain
zones obviously are vulnerable to commercial parking spillover from the commercial core. The
current study of commercial core parking and pricing will highlight the scope of this problem as it
impacts RPP.
Inconsistent Quality Standards. Inconsistent quality standards for bumper/window stickers
compromises RPP. Below are the photos of varied style of stickers in use within the
commercial core and neighborhoods. The highest quality sticker (for city garages and lots)
contains serial number, location, license plate and expiration. Resident noted that many of the
parking permits in use in the City Hall garage (CC) do not comply with RRP or commercial core
sticker standards. Also the orange "CC medalion" stickers are not consistently on rear bumpers
or windows to reduce enforcement costs.
Hangtag Design. Hangtags are subject to fraud and abuse. Residents will present to City
Council examples of easily counterfeited hang tags. Only technology can eliminate this abuse
which will escalate over time as price of parking increases. Residents have not found
technology which can read a hang tag barcode through a window shield. Use of hangtags next
year should be exception not the rule.
2
Temporary Permits. Phase 2 resulted in temporary paper permits without expiration
dates. Some of these dashboard paper permits are still in use by residents and non-
residents. It is possible that bumper stickers are in use on other vehicles. Next year all
temporary paper permits must have expiration dates to eliminate abuse and lower enforcement
costs.
Admin Guidelines. Residents are still unclear about the notification and approval process for
Administrative Guidelines for RPP. Please cover this issue on January 4 and in the upcoming
staff report to City Council.
Loss of Residential Parking Spaces. Residents understand that parking spaces may be
reduced soon only to improve bike safety on a limited number of intersections. We ask that
Administrative Guidelines prescribe a notification and comment period for reduction of any
parking capacity in the residential neighborhoods. The number of permits to be issued must be
reduced in proportion to the loss of parking capacity.
Expectations for January 4. Residents are hopeful that staff can address most of these
issues during the January 4 community meeting. If staff is unable to address these issues, then
conclude the meeting with common understanding for a follow-up timetable.
Drafted by resident leaders
Neilson Buchanan
John Guislin
Michael Hodos
Bumper Stickers in Use Palo Alto, CA January 1, 2017
Downtown RPP Worker Permit. Displays location, serial number and expiration date.
Does not display vehicle license number.
Downtown RPP Worker Temporary Paper Permit Issued for 12 months. Displays serial number, vehicle license number
and location. Recipient probably received a bumper sticker valid for 12 months.
Downtown Worker Permit in Use at City Garages. Good quality. Fraud proof.
Displays full data set: serial number, license number, location and expiration date.
City Hall Parking Lot Permit (presumably only for city employees). Displays location,
serial number and expiration. Does not display vehicle license number.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/4/2017 12:23 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 04, 2017 11:35 AM
To:Joe Simitian; Dave Cortese
Subject:DR CODY: NO FLUORIDE FOR Babies Sept 22
From: Arlene Goetze, Educational Report, No Toxins for Children, photowrite67@yahoo.com
Scott Herhold, in a second article in the Mercury News on Jan. 1, did not include important information
about fluoride in Santa Clara County Dec. 12.. Again the Mercury did not tell readers that Dr. Sara Cody in her Sept. 22 letter on fluoride to dental professionals said to stop fluoride supplements where water is fluoridated...and do NOT give fluoridated water to babies.
No fluoride for babies under 6 mo (or up to age 16)
Age 3: less than .25 mg; Age 6: less than .5 mg (in water less than .3 ppm)
Age 16: 1 mg or less in .3 ppm but Zero fluoride if water has .6 ppm or more. SCVWD can't tell us amount in water since it depends on the weather. If .7 mg is put in county water....then children under age 16 SHOULD NOT HAVE ANY AT
ALL. Chart also from Amer. Acad. of Pediatric Dentistry
Dr Cody also wrote: As recommended by the California Public Health Dept., stop fluoride
supplements for one year when fluoride is put in tap water. A year later, test fluoride amount
put in water and "the age and overall risk for tooth decay" of a child before resuming. If over
.6 ppm, stop supplements so child does not get problem of tooth formation (fluorosis).
San Jose Water CO: Sept. 21 letter to its customers:
Stop fluoride supplements when fluoride is put in tap water. No time line.
THIS IS VERY BIG NEWS.....FROM DR CODY, THE HEAD OF SCC PUBLIC HEALTH. SCVWB uses them as one of its experts on fluoride ....but no one tells the parents directly about fluoride levels for age groups and NO Fluoride
for babies under 6 months.
GOOD NEWS AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
On November 22, 2016, the International Academy of Oral Medicine &
Toxicology (IAOMT), Fluoride Action Network (FAN), and others, hand delivered to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) a petition, accompanied by over 2,500 pages of scientific documentation, to ban the
use of fluoridation chemicals because of the neurotoxic risks of
fluoride ingestion.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/4/2017 12:23 PM
2
Overview of Petition to EPA: Fluoride Action Network | Groups Urge EPA to Ban Fluoridation Based on
Risk to Brain
There are 300 studies on how fluoride damages brains and lowers IQs. ------------------------ National Institute of Health writes in 2009 after 8 years of study:
* Fluoride when swallowed does not prevent cavities.
* Fluoride when swallowed does cause fluorosis. Fluorosis increases with higher levels of fluoride but
cavities do not decline. CDC says fluorosis affects over 41% of US teens, mostly poor children of color who have had fluoride in
baby formula while permanent teeth are forming. Up to 70% of Hispanics and 90% of Black children suffer
with it.
US is among the lowest in education and health in industrialized nations. How are the two
connected?? Does the child's brain matter?
Only 5% of the world fluoridates. They have other ways to stop cavities. All cities with fluoride still have lots of cavities. San Francisco after 50 years of fluoride reports 2/3 of kids have cavities in a late 1990s health report.
Perhaps you know Mexico buys more coke than any other nation. A S.J. Museum exhibit a few
years ago showed how Mexicans are addicted to coke with coke being 1/5 of kitchen staples in its
display. Stopping coke and other sugar is a 100% successful way to stop cavities. Fluoride in water is only 1/15% of 1% successful. There are 104 zip codes in SCC county but Dr. Cody refers to 63 and San Jose Water just 21. No info
about these unmentioned zip codes regarding the 600 tons of hydrofluosilicic acid soon driving through county
streets.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 7:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:irvbb <irvbb@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, January 02, 2017 6:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:DTN Parking Permits
Dear Council Members,
I urge you to approve the one-year extension to the current permit parking plan, and to
incorporate the program improvements and permit improvements outlined in the PDF
attachment you've received from Neilson Buchanan. The project has worked
exceptionally well but these small improvements will ensure consistency and fairness.
Thanks and Respectfully,
Irv Brenner
250 Byron Street
PA, 94301
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/30/2016 10:26 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:wsrfr418@yahoo.com
Sent:Friday, December 30, 2016 10:24 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:garage?
Council needs to make up its mind whether it wants more traffic downtown or less.
A garage will likely attract more cars, and therefore more congestion on city streets.
Its already bad enough and likely to get worse unless infrastructure is also improved. Throw in expansion by FB and gridlock will be a commonly used term.
Its already that way on University at rush hour and likely to get worse when Facebook expands.
I don't know what council decided to do with the 50 foot limit on new buildings I am in favor of keeping that height limit.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 3:22 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dirk Zander <dzander@pahgcc.net>
Sent:Tuesday, January 03, 2017 2:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Palo Alto wage increase.
Good afternoon and Happy New Year,
As the GM for Palo Alto Hills it is my job to be fiscally responsible to the many members of our club. For this reason
when doing budgets for the club myself and my staff will always reach out to vendors and providers for any
upcoming increases so that we can account for them.
A few months ago I reached out as did my HR Director to people within the City to inquire as to any substantial
hourly wage increases that might happen in 2017. We were informed that it would not be like 2016 and would most
likely be based on CPI.
For the second year in a row without any notice we find out that there has been a $1.00 per hour wage increase
effective January 1st. I do not have an issue with the increase I do have an issue with the lack of notice given to us
and I am sure other business. For the future it would be appreciated if a formal letter would be sent out to businesses
with Palo Alto in a timely manner to avoid these unforeseen increases.
Kind regards,
Dirk Zander, CCM
PGA Apprentice
General Manager
Palo Alto Hills Golf and Country Club 650-948-1800
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 7:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Jan Merryweather <jan@hamilton.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 03, 2017 6:51 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please Support Downtown Residential Permit Parking Program
Attachments:IMPROVEMENTS FOR DOWNTOWN PERMIT PARKING Janaury 2017.pdf
Good Morning, Council Leaders
I am unable to attend this week's community meeting on the Downtown RPP program, but wanted to lend my support
just the same. Please support the RPP recommendations outlined in the attached. Thank you.
Happy New Year!
Jan Merryweather (Downtown North resident)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/30/2016 8:30 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Thursday, December 29, 2016 12:57 PM
To:Pamela Decharo; Council, City
Subject:RE: Message from the City Council Home Page
Hi,
That is tentatively scheduled for February 6th. However, please check back with us the second week of January so we
can let you know if it has moved.
Thanks,
B‐
Beth D. Minor | City Clerk | City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue| Palo Alto, CA 94301
T: 650‐ 329‐2379 E: beth.minor@cityofpaloalto.org
City Clerks Rock and Rule
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐
From: Pamela Decharo [mailto:hairintlpaloalto@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2016 12:55 PM
To: Council, City
Subject: Message from the City Council Home Page
Hello!
I am interested in attending the Palo Alto City Council meeting wherein the future of the Palo Alto Animal Services
shelter will be discussed and show my support for it’s survival.
Can someone let me know the date and time of this particular meeting?
Thank you so much and have a wonderful New Year!
Pam Decharo
snowpony25@yahoo.com
777 San Antonio Road #107
Palo Alto, Ca 94303
650‐303‐1858
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 11:20 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Mary Ann Michel <maryannm7@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 03, 2017 11:19 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: New Jersey Town Calls on Uber to Solve Commuter Parking Dilemma
I think a new parking garage only invite
more cars to Palo Alto just got this from a
friend worth considering I would say. Seriously how could you even consider
another garage ???
MA Michel
850 Webster
P A 94301
On Jan 3, 2017, at 8:32 AM, robell <robell999@yahoo.com> wrote:
Here is one city's solution to solving their parking problem.
Mary New Jersey Town Calls on Uber to
Solve Commuter Parking Dilemma
Instead of building a new garage at the train station, Summit, N.J., is
paying for residents to take the car service
By
ESTHER FUNG
Updated Jan. 1, 2017 9:00 a.m. ET
City officials in Summit, N.J., are turning to the ride-hailing app Uber to combat
their commuter parking problem.
The city is paying for local residents to get Uber rides to and from the train
station. The calculation: Such payments are far less expensive than the cost of
building enough new parking to accommodate the throngs of commuters heading
into and out of New York City each day.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 11:20 AM
2
A six-month pilot program offers residents an opportunity to take Uber rides to
and from Summit’s NJ Transit station at the cost of the $4 daily parking fee. The
program, which was limited to 100 residents and runs through March, filled up
before it started in October and is now adding names to a waiting list.
In all, there are 2,809 parking spaces at the train station, in two structured garages
and seven surface lots, and these spaces are typically filled by 8:15 a.m. every
weekday morning.
“We had a lot of complaints [about insufficient parking] in August and
September,” said Michael Rogers, Summit’s city administrator, who noted that in
the month after the pilot program started there was a noticeable decrease in
complaints. In all, there was a deficit of 200 to 400 parking spaces that has been
largely erased, he estimates.j
Mr. Rogers said that city officials were looking to solve the problem of
insufficient parking within the existing infrastructure, and noticed that a lot of the
commuters park their cars in valuable space without much turnover. “The cars sit
there all day, pretty much for 8, 10, 12 hours, “ he said. When these cars are left
at home or for the nanny to use, the space would be freed up for other commuters
for the rest of the day.
The pilot program is a partnership with Uber Technologies Inc., and the city isn’t
subsidizing rides from taxis or from Lyft Inc, a smaller rival to Uber.
“Uber helps riders get to transit hubs without having to find parking. It also saves
them time having to search for parking, and saves money since they don’t have to
pay to park,” said an Uber spokeswoman.
Based on the average cost of $7 for each Uber ride, the ride-sharing program will
cost about $167,000 a year for 100 residents. This is funded from the parking
utility, a stand-alone budget from the collection of parking fees, Mr. Rogers said.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 11:20 AM
3
By contrast, converting an existing lot with 100 spaces into a structured garage
with 400 spaces would cost around $10 million, while land for another surface lot
of 100 parking spaces would cost around $5 million to $7 million.
“That land doesn’t exist in the area,” Mr. Rogers said, adding that the ride-
sharing program also offers flexibility to scale up or down depending on demand
for Uber rides. “But when you build a parking structure, it’s permanent.”
Write to Esther Fung at esther.fung@wsj.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/30/2016 8:30 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Diane Guinta <diane.guinta@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, December 29, 2016 10:09 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Ross Road Bike Path Proposal Concerns
Attachments:bike path letter to City Council.docx
Dear Esteemed City Council Members,
Please find attached a letter outlining my concerns about the proposed Ross Rd Bike Path. I would appreciate a
reply to my letter. Sincerely yours,
Diane Guinta
--
Diane Guinta diane.guinta@gmail.com
Diane R Guinta 3588 Arbutus Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
December 29, 2016
Dear Esteemed Council Members,
I am writing to you as a resident of Palo Alto, a former Palo Verde Elementary
School parent, a 60+year old person who bikes to work part of the year to the Stanford Industrial Park, and a member of the Ross Rd YMCA. I live on Arbutus
Ave., one block east of Ross Rd, between East Meadow and Talisman Ave. I
attended the Sept. 2016 community meeting at the Ohlone School on the
proposed Ross Rd Bike Path Project. I think the proposal is dangerous and I
would like to explain why.
The project managers did not adequately study the use of Ross Rd in my
neighborhood. I am concerned about pedestrian safety from the roundabouts.
Also, I am concerned about the loss of parking on Ross Rd for YMCA use, which
is very heavy at certain times of day, on weekends, and during the Y basketball season. Also, there is heavy use of street parking for the Russian Orthodox
Church (across the street from the Y), which has a tiny parking lot, resulting in
overflow parking every Sunday, in the evenings, and on holidays (of which there
are a surprising number). You may not be aware of this, but that church has a
large regional attendance, as there are few churches of that denomination in the area. Where are these cyclists to ride and be safe from cars with all that parking
on that part of Ross? And then, if we are slowing down and backing up traffic
with street squeezers such as those suggested on Ross and Ames, what does
that do to all the foot traffic by children every morning going to Palo Verde? The planners had very little familiarity with the neighborhood when we asked them questions.
I am concerned that the #88 SamTrans bus runs on East Meadow and the
proposal would have the bus ride up on the round- about at East Meadow and Ross (per the planners at the meeting who seemed to not know that this is a bus route). This does not make any sense and could be dangerous to pedestrians,
especially children, who have to wait to be seen to cross the roundabout. I am
also concerned that the planners have a belief that roundabouts are safer for
pedestrians but do not take into account how much foot traffic there is in this stretch of Ross Rd and on East Meadow because of the very high density housing that was built on East Meadow Circle. Although driver behavior is not
ideal at 4-way stop signs, there is no ambiguity about the fact that you must stop.
In a roundabout, there is chaos. No one stops for pedestrians; the pedestrians
have to stop to see when it is safe to cross.
If another cross-town bike path is needed, perhaps a better idea is to use Greer, a completely residential street. I would also like to offer an observation. We
narrowed Arastradero and put in bike lanes. Do high school and middle school
kids use those bike lanes? No, they do not, they use the back paths to Gunn and
to Terman. I know this to be a fact because I ride my bike to work with them in
the morning.
I know the City has spent a lot of money on this project, but it is another example
of bringing in outsiders who do not do adequate research. It is also troubling to
me that their report on that meeting was that there was widespread support of
the plan. There was, in fact, a mix of support and great concern. It is important that you understand the concerns. Please send this plan back and take into
consideration the fact that the East Meadow to Loma Verde stretch of Ross Rd is
too busy a street to support these plans.
Thank you for your consideration of my view. I would appreciate a detailed response to my safety concerns.
Sincerely yours,
Diane Guinta
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/4/2017 7:16 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 03, 2017 10:02 PM
To:Bruce Heister; Melvin Matsumoto; Joe Baldwin; Merrill Newman
Cc:Keene, James; Council, City
Subject:senior citizen involvement
Dear Bruce, Mel, Joe and Merrill
I strongly recommend that Avenidas and Channing House
collaborate and demand (politely) one seat at the table for the effort
below
Stakeholder Committee to Explore Priority Transportation Needs, Funding Requirements and a Potential Business Tax Ballot Measure
The City is currently accepting applications for membership on the
Transportation Funding Stakeholder Advisory Committee that will
be working to advise the City Council regarding a potential future
ballot measure seeking voter approval for a general tax on
businesses, as well as other potential funding sources that the City
could use to fund transportation programs and projects. The
Stakeholder Committee will be asked to explore transportation
needs, identify funding requirements, and assist staff with
development of a timeline for a potential future ballot measure. It is
expected this Committee will complete its work by November 2017.
Membership
The Council directed that the Committee membership criteria be
comprised of the following (including at least one representative to
be a member of the Chamber of Commerce):
Stanford Research Park Transportation Management
Association (organization selection)
Palo Alto Downtown Transportation Management Association
(organization selection)
Stanford Healthcare (organization selection)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/4/2017 7:16 AM
2
Stanford Shopping Center (organization selection)
Commercial Property Owner
Small Business Owner from other than the organizations listed
above
Small Business Owner from Downtown
Medium or Large Sized Business Owner from other than the
organizations listed above
Transit advocate or Expert (preferably a Palo Alto Resident)
Bicycling advocate or Expert (preferably a Palo Alto Resident)
Non-Profit (preferably a Palo Alto Resident)
Affordable Housing (preferably a Palo Alto Resident)
Palo Alto Unified School District (organization selection)
North or South Downtown Resident
Resident One (not representing other criteria groups)
Resident Two (not representing other criteria groups)
Ex Officio Membership
Planning and Transportation Commission
City of East Palo Alto
To apply, click this link:
https://na2.docusign.net/member/PowerFormSigning.aspx?PowerF
ormId=6d4a1f49-812b-4970-83ab-9108c441ce0d
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 | 1/3/2017 7:52 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Guy Livneh <guy.livneh@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 02, 2017 7:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Swastikas on Page Mill Road
Dear Council and Mayor of Palo Alto,
I was shocked and appalled to see that somebody painted several Swastikas on electric boxes on page mill road, Attached is a photo taken today of one of them.
I’m asking for the city to take immediate action both to clean this filth, investigate the crime and make sure the
person/s who did this unspeakable act should know that this will not be tolerated in this city.
I’m sure that you will agree with me and act swiftly on this matter. Not responding and keeping silent is as good
as cooperating.
Thanks
Guy Livneh Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/3/2017 7:52 AM
2
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/28/2016 3:29 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dan Bloomberg <dansbloomberg@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, December 28, 2016 3:10 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:We need a referendum on the Buena Vista massive giveaway
Members of the Palo Alto City Council,
I sent the following letter to the Palo Alto Daily Post, which was
published on December 26:
=================================================
A fundamental principle of democratic governance is that everyone is
treated equally, regardless of religion, race or wealth. This principle
is being violated by Palo Alto and Santa Clara County, which offered
$36.7 million to keep 104 family units in their substandard Buena
Vista (BV) housing. That's over $350,000 each!
The principle exists because its violation leads to generalized
corruption, kleptocracy, government waste and crony capitalism.
We have a good friend, long time resident of Palo Alto, who was
recently forced to leave the Bay Area because they couldn't afford
to live here after her husband lost his job. A $350,000 subsidy from
area taxpayers could have kept them in Palo Alto indefinitely.
Who entitles these government bureaucrats to decide that each of the
current BV residents is more worthy of $350,000 largesse than our friends?
And where does this end? Do we spend another $35 million
($350,000 each, $700,000 each in total) to build subsidized apartments?
Again, how in a democratic society could anybody be entitled to such
obscene government grants?
===================================================
You, the City Council, are largely responsible for this mess. The process
for converting BV was clearly laid out. It started in November 2012,
and was supposed to take one year. It took three years! A judge finally
approved the terms, and a veteran consultant was brought in, who
verified its fairness.
And then, after protests by BV residents, you (collectively) became
unwilling to let it go forward. Critical mistake! You asked the consultant
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/28/2016 3:29 PM
2
to review his decision, and he refused and blasted you for attempting to
reopen the issue. The BV residents, emboldened by your action, showed
their gratitude by suing the City! The BV owners, unable to sell with a
lawsuit in place, engaged the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest organization that carefully selects their cases and nearly
always wins, to sue the City.
But this was just the beginning. Simitian took the first step to
plunge us further into this quagmire, by pledging $8 million to buy BV.
Then you allowed City Manager Keene to pledge a matching $8 million.
The county escalated their offer to $14.5 million, and you had Keene
match that (total $29 million). Then the Housing Authority jumped in,
adding another $8 million. And here we are -- promising to throw
nearly $37 million at BV.
And STILL, that's only the beginning, because the property is worth
a lot more, and the owners will demand market value, which is at
least $45 million. The Housing Authority has threatened to steal it
with eminent domain if the owners do not accept their low-ball offer, but
that would bring more lawsuits. And if you buy it for $45 or $50 million,
you then must upgrade all the "units" to code, perhaps another $10
million. By then, you will have massively participated in the gift of $60
million
to the BV residents, which is $600,000 for each of the 104 units.
And perhaps you will decide that instead of upgrading the units, you
need to build apartments. So you will spend another $35 million or
so (on top of the $45-50 million for the land). At that point, you will have spent about $80 million ($800,000 for each BV unit) in
the most foolish and inappropriate waste of public money that I have ever seen, anywhere.
And do not forget, that is money that we do not have. Even in boom
times in wealthy Palo Alto, Keene has spent us $6 million
(he claims) into deficit territory -- a deficit that significantly increased
a few days ago when CalPERS reduced their bogus "expected"
annual investment returns on their pensions from 7.5% to 7.0%.
Stop this thing now. Withdraw the $14.5 million offer. Put this up as a referendum, as you did with Maybell. Let the people of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 12/28/2016 3:29 PM
3
decide if they want their money spent this way.
Dan Bloomberg
Palo Alto