HomeMy Public PortalAbout20170206plCC 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: 2/6/2017
Document dates: 1/18/2017 – 1/25/2017
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 | 1/23/2017 7:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, January 20, 2017 11:27 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:VTA Study Session on Jan. 23
Attachments:LWVPA LTR VTA PACC.docx
Dear City Council,
Attached is a letter from the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto regarding the VTA Study Session on the
Next Network Initiative on Jan. 23 2017. Thank you.
Bonnie Packer
President
--
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 209
Palo Alto, CA 94303
(650) 903-0600
January 23, 2017 Greg Scharff, Mayor, and City Council Members 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: VTA Next Network Initiative Study Session Dear Mayor Scharff and City Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) supports a transportation system that offers viable alternatives to single-occupancy vehicle use and that is multi-modal, efficient, convenient, reliable, cost-effective, accessible to people with disabilities, equitable, and safe. Accordingly, LWVPA is pleased that VTA has made an effort through the proposed Next Network Initiative to attempt to achieve these goals for many areas of Santa Clara County. However, LWVPA is deeply troubled that by proposing to drastically cut existing bus routes in Palo Alto, the Next Network Initiative falls far short of these goals. LWVPA concurs with the concerns raised in the letters to VTA from Palo Alto City Manager Keene, the Palo Alto Council of PTAs, the Gunn High School PTSA, Stevenson House and Palo Alto Housing, which are attached to the staff report on this issue. These concerns were repeated at VTA’s community meeting on January 19th. LWVPA believes that a well-connected transit system that offers effective and efficient options for the transportation needs of ALL residents and employees is essential to reduce traffic congestion and to improve our environment. Such a system must provide coverage, frequency and flexibility, must be effectively coordinated with other public and private transit services and have an equitable fare structure. While we acknowledge there can be difficult tradeoffs between routes that reduce congestion and improve revenues with routes that provide basic and essential service for vulnerable groups, we would hope that VTA would maintain the few critical bus lines we now have for those groups while increasing service to our employment centers. However, in the event VTA turns a deaf ear to our citizens’ concerns and proceeds with their proposed cuts, we urge the City of Palo Alto to begin considering options now to enhance and improve our local transit services to provide coverage, frequency and convenience for all and which would be integrated with the county and regional systems. Most importantly, the City must ensure that there is no gap in transit services in Palo Alto while any changes are being planned. Very truly yours, Bonnie Packer President, League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
THE LEAGUE
OF WOMEN VOTERS
OF PALO ALTO
3921 E. BAYSHORE RD., SUITE 209 • PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94303 • 650-903-0600 • www.lwvpaloalto.org
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net>
Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2017 10:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:VTA Next Network Plans in Palo Alto
January 18, 2017
To: Palo Alto City Council Re: VTA NextNetwork Proposal Information Item, Monday January 23.
Dear City Council,
I am a Palo Alto resident and bus/bicycle commuter who uses the VTA 522 Rapid bus to get to work near Lawrence in
Santa Clara daily, for about the last 10 years. The 22 and 522 routes run from the Palo Alto Transit center, at University
and El Camino, down El Camino Real all the way to Santa Clara, and continues through downtown San Jose. The 22 is a local bus, with stops every quarter mile, and the 522 “Rapid” makes limited stops, allowing faster service.
First, I have a small correction to the staff report. On page 2 the report states that the draft plan would “bolster service along El Camino Real by increasing the frequency of service on routes 22 and 522.” This is not true. The draft plan will
reduce service on the 22 from 5 to 4 buses/hour, and increase service on the 522 by the same amount, so this is a shift. The point of my letter is to encourage you to ask VTA to add more stops to the 522 route in Palo Alto, and in other parts
of the route where there are large gaps between the stops. VTA’s own guideline is a stop every 1/2 to 1 mile for the 522
Rapid, which means that if you are on El Camino, you would have at most a 1/2 mile walk to a bus stop -- a 10 minute walk or less. Unfortunately the existing 522 stops have 5 gaps of about 1.6 miles each, and 2 of these are in Palo Alto. In
Palo Alto, the only stops are at the Transit Center, at California, and at Charleston/Arastradero. The stops are spaced 1.7
and 1.6 miles apart. As cities develop housing and business along El Camino as part of our Grand Boulevard Plan, the 522 service should be available at a reasonable walking distance.
I think the 522 should stop at Embarcadero/Galvez, serving Stanford, riders who may want to stop and shop at Town and Country, for students who would walk to Stanford and for residents who walk or use the Embarcadero shuttle to connect
through the Embarcadero underpass into the neighborhood North of the tracks. It should also stop south of Page Mill,
perhaps near Barron Ave. to serve the Barron Park and apartment dense Ventura neighborhoods. Adding these stops will improve VTA service along El Camino, making it more accessible to our residents, and more flexible for all riders.
Thank you for your service to the city of Palo Alto,
Sincerely,
Robert Neff Emerson Street & Loma Verde
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net>
Sent:Friday, January 20, 2017 11:32 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Collaborate with VTA to improve bus speeds
January 20, 2017,
To: Palo Alto City Council Re: VTA NextNetwork Proposal Information Item
Dear City Council,
After attending yesterday evening’s VTA NextNetwork public meeting in Palo Alto, I am writing to encourage
you ask VTA what Palo Alto can do to help VTA increase the average speed of transit on our streets, especially the 522 Rapid route, and also any improvements that will speed the VTA and shuttle routes on Middlefield and Embarcadero.
At the meeting I asked VTA staff what VTA could do to improve the average speed of Rapid and Light Rail routes in the county. The answer was that VTA is working on speed improvements, but this is largely out of
VTA’s hands. There are many ways to speed vehicles through traffic signals, with signal priority and advanced
detection schemes, but these require cooperation with city traffic staff. There are techniques to add bus bypass lanes at intersections with long backups, but these may require removing some parking, or narrowing
lanes to be effective, again requiring local cooperation. Bus stops on rapid routes can be moved into the travel
lane, to reduce merging delays. I’m sure there is more, and I do not know to what degree Palo Alto is already working with VTA.
There are other factors under VTA’s direct control, but these speed improvements which give slightly more street priority to transit require local cooperation. Cities like Palo Alto (and our neighbors) must work with VTA
collaboratively to develop an efficient and speedy transit network.
Thank you for your service to our city,
Sincerely,
Robert Neff
Emerson Street & Loma Verde
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 4:51 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:48 PM
To:DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz (internal); Scharff, Greg;
Wolbach, Cory; ORG - Clerk's Office; Council Agenda Email; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg;
Fine, Adrian
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Keith, Claudia; Perez, Lalo; Nose, Kiely; Svendsen, Janice
Subject:January 23, 2017 Council Question: Item 5: Est. of Supplemental PARS Pension Trust
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to an inquiry made
by the Council Member Fine regarding the January 23, 2017 council agenda Item: 5: Establishing a
Supplemental PARS Pension Trust.
Q1. Where will city be investing this supplemental trust?
A1. The funds will be sent to PARS to establish the Trust. The funds will be managed by
HighMark Capital Management who has provided such services since 1919 and has over
$15 Billion in assets under management. Staff is recommending using the Moderately
Conservative Portfolio (see Attachment C) since 85 percent of the participating agencies
have selected this option.
Q2. What projections do we have around future deposits?
A2. The $2.1 million in General Fund assets being transfer represent about 10% of the
annual required contribution to the CalPERS Pension Trust. Staff is working on a plan to
have the other funds match a similar contribution and will propose specifics in the FY18
Proposed Budget. In addition, staff is working on a future funding plan for all Funds to
contribute on an ongoing basis.
Q3. Which other cities are doing this?
A3. There are 63 local government agencies in the PARS Pension Trust program, of those
24 are cities. Some nearby cities include Morgan Hill, Capitola, Napa, Brisbane and Half
Moon Bay.
Thank you,
Janice Svendsen
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Sunday, January 22, 2017 5:30 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Esther Nigenda; Keith Bennett
Subject:Fw: Rite Aid..... could this alos happen at 900 N. California?
Hello Mayor Scharff, City Council Members and Mr. Keane:
As 900 N. California Ave will be discussed tomorrow I hope you will review this article re Rite Aid. Could this happen at 900 N. California Ave?
Thank you.
Rita C. Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM
Medical Case Management
Phone: 650-325-2298
Fax: 650-326-9451
Millennium redux? San Mateo Rite Aid says dewatering sank floor
Millennium redux? San Mateo Rite Aid
says dewatering sank floor
The owner of the Rite Aid Pharmacy in San Mateo is suing the
developer of a large office complex under construct...
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 4:57 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Svendsen, Janice
Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2017 4:57 PM
To:Council Agenda Email; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Holman, Karen; Kniss, Liz
(internal); Scharff, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Kou, Lydia; Fine, Adrian; Tanaka, Greg; ORG -
Clerk's Office
Cc:Keene, James; Shikada, Ed; Keith, Claudia; Gitelman, Hillary; Cervantes, Yolanda;
Svendsen, Janice
Subject:January 23, 2017 Council Question: Item 11: 900 N California Appeal
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
On behalf of City Manager Jim Keene, please find below in bold staff responses to an inquiry made
by Council Member Holman in regard to the January 23, 2017 council meeting agenda Item 11: 900
N California Appeal.
Q1: Who will hire the geo tech consultant, the applicant of the City at the applicant’s
expense?
A1. Geotechnical reports are prepared by qualified professionals under contract to the
applicant and submitted to the City for review.
Q2: If the Conditions of Approval do not include the cumulative impact of dewatering all three
sites at once, how will the requirement be captured by those reviewing for completeness of
requirements? It is not clear to me why it cannot be included after reading the explanation.
A2. As indicated in the responses provided in Attachment M, the City Council has already
conditioned this project to require that staff review the applicant’s geotechnical report to
assure that any aggregate impact presented by construction schedule is evaluated. See
Condition 10 in the Record of Land Use Action in Attachment L.
Q3: In response to the final question and response…how will the neighbors know when to
ask for the plans or is the response indicating that the neighbors can proactively make a
request and the staff will make note to inform them when the submittal materials are
available to review?
Q3. Neighbors are encouraged to reach out to the project applicant and request a copy of
the report when its available. Alternatively, neighbors may contact staff of the
Development Center once building permit applications and supporting materials are on
file. The easiest way to check and see if permit applications are on file is to use the
Buildingeye website that tracks building permits. Neighbors can receive email updates
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:45 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net>
Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2017 11:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Middlefield Road Jan 23
Attachments:PABACLetterToCouncilMiddlefieldRoad01_02_2017.pdf
Attached is a letter from the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Commission to council about the council action
item for Middlefield Road on January 23.
‐‐ Robert Neff ‐ PABAC 2016 Chair.
January 2, 2017
To: Palo Alto Transportation Staff and City Council
From: Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC)
Re: Traffic calming proposal for Middlefield Road between Lytton and Menlo Park
Dear Council and Transportation Staff,
PABAC discussed the proposals for traffic calming on Middlefield with city staff at our meeting
on December 6, 2016. At that meeting PABAC members voted unanimously that I send this
letter with their consensus recommendations:
●Any changes that calm traffic on Middlefield will be beneficial to bicyclists who
choose to ride on Middlefield. In one of the plans there are bicycle lanes, and these
go as far as Everett. In most cases, we expect bicyclists to get off Middlefield, and
choose to ride on a pleasant neighborhood street, such as Palo Alto Ave. or Webster, to
get to their destination. Even if traffic is calmer in this section, Middlefield will continue to
be a congested, unpleasant street for bicycling south of Everett. Webster is planned to
be a bike boulevard in the 2012 Bicycle/Pedestrian Transportation Plan.
●Currently Middlefield is busy and congested. The only safe pedestrian and bicycle
crossing point is the signal at Lytton, but Lytton is very congested for bicyclists, and may
be out of the way for pedestrians. It would be valuable to have good pedestrian
and/or bicycle crossings at Everett (a future bicycle boulevard), and at Palo Alto
Avenue, at the city limits. We hope city staff will consider how to improve safety at
these crossing points in the plans. Where there is a good pedestrian crossing, bicyclists
may use the crossing, walking their bikes.
●The bridge across San Francisquito creek on Middlefield is a valuable connection to
Menlo Park. It is approximately 1⁄2 mile from the other nearest bicycle and pedestrian
crossings. It is especially important for connecting adjacent Palo Alto neighborhoods to
the market at Willow road and to the extensive bike lane network on Middlefield in Menlo
Park. Although this location is now challenging and uncomfortable for both pedestrians
and bicyclists it is currently being used. We support any opportunities to improve it for
non-motorized users.
We thank you for your service to the city of Palo Alto, and we thank the Middlefield neighbors for
prompting the city to move forward with this.
Sincerely,
Robert Neff, 2016 PABAC chair.
JOHN PAUL HANNA
A PROl'ESSIONAL. CORPORATION
DAVID M. VAN ATTA
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
WILLIAM R. GARRETT
A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
January 17, 2017
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
City Hall
Palo Alto, CA 94310
HANNA & VAN ATTA
ATTOR."IEYS AT LAW
A PARTNERSHIP OF PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS
525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE, SUITE 600
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94301-1921
www.hanvan.com
RE: Road Diet -Middlefield Road:
Dear City Council Members;
TEt.EPHONF
(650) 321-5700
fiACSll\111.E
(650) 321.5639
Email: dvanattai(i!hanvan.cum
The so called "road diet" for Middlefield Road from Lytton to the Menlo Park boarder is not a good
idea. The local newspaper reports stated that the rational for this was because this stretch of
roadway was "too busy". Implementing this scheme will only make this worse.
In the evenings, b~tween 4-7 p.m. this stretch of roadway is totally congested already due to the
increased amount of traffic and some recent changes by Menlo Park to the traffic signals at Willow
Road and Middlefield. If this plan is implemented, I fear that there will be even greater congestion,
with the backup extending beyond Lytton southward, perhaps beyond University.
I have seen traffic sometimes. balled up in this vicinity so badly that it can take over Y:i hour to get
through this stretch. If ~ise traffic management ,w~_re to .Re ~mployed, then Middlefield Road would
be reconfigured to be ~o lanes each w"py from University AvenuEf -on the· South to the Menlo Park
boundary oo the Nort~ and the -traffic light signals at .Willow Roaif woultl be readjusted.
• ' • • --• ·~ f • • • •
I agree that , there should be no left turns or c;:rossing traffic from any of the cross streets from
Lytton to Palo Alto Avenue during any rush hour times, morning or evening. I think that several of
the reported accidents along this stretch occLJr because of person's attempting to cross or make left
. turns. Knowing more about the nature and timing of these accidents would be useful information
and should be considered before any chang~s are made. ·
More thought needs to be put into this proposal. Attempts mu~t be made to coordinate traffic flow
with Menlo Park. The neightiors along this roadway may be surprised to find that this proposed
"road diet" will make their circumstances worse, ·not better, and the 'rest of us who use the city
roadways will be sorely discommoded. -. . .. ;
a~id .M.-.Yan)\~~:.:"~·:·:~'~:·· :. ··
: cc: Daily Pqst
·,,,;. •:.. '"\O:)~p .. ~ "~_,~
." • •; :~.•: j ... ! ·"1.t( .:~f : -.,; : j •: .. i. :.:~, -~::• 1t1 I -;
' .•. ~.: . .' ":•,< ~ f_.. r •I •: .:\ t, ;•!.I ::.,/n. !;
.r •.• ,, '•" hi,
T:\WPWIN60\DMVAN\Road Diet.doc
•: ~ • I
. :' I ......... ~ • •
.• , ... • f6. __ ,
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:katherine klein <kklein2@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, January 22, 2017 5:59 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:City Council meeting action item #12
To: City Council members,
In regard to the awful increased traffic and motorists who blatantly ignore
the turn restrictions to Hawthorne from Alma and from Hawthorne to
Middlefield, we residents are asking your help. Please read this before
deciding on action #12
Disc
Our quality of life in Palo Alto has been overtaken by the noise, danger
and stress of never being without the sound of cars. Our houses are very
close to the street, only 22 feet. The backyard is small but it is no longer
pleasant to be outside, because the noise of the cars makes conversation
difficult and even the bird song is not to be heard. I used a stopwatch, and
the longest period of silence from car noise inside the house was 8 seconds
and that occurred only every 6 minutes during the period of the turn
restrictions. Six seconds of silence, then six minutes of traffic repeated
for 6 hours a day.
There is also an increase in traffic around noon from the lunch crowd,
around three pm from those trying to get to the Dumbarton Bridge, and 9
pm from, I don't know who.
Stantec wrote in its report, "Together with some enforcement, the
implementation of the time limited right-turn only restriction at the
intersection could be effective."
I'm sure that you are aware that there is zero traffic violation
enforcement, as there have been no traffic enforcement officers since last
summer when the positions were eliminated. I asked about that at the
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:42 AM
2
Police Department Office and was told that I could call a number to report
when the cars were turning illegally and request a patrol car to look into it.
When I did so I was told that there were very few patrol cars and they had
so many responsibilities but they would try. I waited at the intersection,
but a patrol car was unable to come. I tried another day but it was the same
result. They are very short staffed, I suppose.
It is a waste of money to have another study until you monitor the illegal
turn from and onto Hawthorne and Everett Streets and give citations to
violators. It is a waste to spend our taxpayer money unless you see how
many cut-through cars are going down our residential streets.
Please, stop the violations first, then a new study will give us accurate
information, before deciding on more lane changes.
8 out of 10 cars ignore the turn restrictions, I've counted. Safety will
improve if you stop them.
Respectfully,
Katherine Abu-Romia
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 3:21 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Elaine Uang <elaine.uang@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 3:11 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Middlefield North Improvements
Dear Council Members,
I am writing today to encourage you all to consider an additional approach to the Middlefield Road North improvements: to embrace Tactical Urbanism principles and encourage a pilot program of more colorful,
creative or whimsical markings across Middlefield particularly at Everett, Hawthorne, and Palo Alto Avenue and
Lytton Avenues. More artistic, visible, painted street markings:
Better define each intersection and offer safer pedestrian and bicycle access Middlefield during non-
peak hours
Signal to drivers that pedestrians may be present and help slow driving speeds
Can define corners and provide better visibility for cars in all direction (see polka dot bulb outs)
Can also apply to bike lanes (see honeycomb bike lane)
Could create a sense of identity at each intersection and make Middlefield feel more like a neighborhood and less like a speedy arterial. (Portland has a program to encourage intersection art to
build community in neighborhoods)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 3:21 PM
2
This might sound crazy, but increasingly, cities around the country and the world are adopting similar roadway
design strategies to improve safety outcomes and facilitate multiple modes of transportation. These suggestions could help augment (not necessarily replace) the seven options staff and their consultants have
presented in their staff report.
I currently live a few block south of the proposed improvements and am very conscious of the speed with which cars travel along Middlefield, the difficulties of left turning vehicles and the accidents that occur (my
young daughters still have a strong memory of a four car pileup they saw about 9 months ago). While I am
supportive of traffic safety and a stronger bike network, I have concerns that the seven alternatives presented tonight might create challenges for our longer term bike plan and sustainable transportation goals.
There are two tremendously important considerations: 1. The 2012 Bike and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP), Everett Avenue is called out as a bike
boulevard through Downtown North. This is a crucial piece of the bike network, connecting the Palo
Alto Transit Center to Crescent Park, Menlo Park (The Willows) and other points north. As Lytton becomes increasingly dominated by car and bus traffic (like left turning vehicles) it has become more
and more treacherous and hostile for bicycles and pedestrians to use Lytton. Maintaining Everett
Avenue as a bicycle boulevard is in PA’s bike network should be a top priority to encourage cycling. The no-left turn barrier proposed in Alternative 7A and 7B may prevent future bike traffic along
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 3:21 PM
3
the corridor and doesn’t do much to improve the current pedestrian experience. As you review the
transportation element next week, you may also want to rethink a prohibition of traffic signals north of Lytton. Pedestrian and bicycle access and safety at the Everett and MIddlefield intersection should be prioritized.
2. The potential movement of all modes of transportation at all times of the day. Middlefield is unique because it is a major commuter thoroughfare about 3 hours a day, but also a major neighborhood
arterial the other 8-10 daylight hours and on weekends. Improvements should help safely move the
greatest number of PEOPLE along and across Middlefield. It is admirable to try creating a safe bike corridor along Middlefield (7A), but neither 7A and 7B properly considers all car, bike and pedestrian
use cases, particularly ACROSS Middlefield. It’s possible that the lack of safe crossings across
Middlefield prevent more people from walking or biking to Downtown Palo Alto, the Transit Center or Stanford Shopping Center, and those are sustainable transportation modes we should encourage,
especially during off-peak non-commute hours when it is safer to do so, like for afternoon school
commutes.
In April 2015, in partnership with Palo Alto Libraries and Island Press, I had the pleasure of hosting Mike
Lydon, the author of Tactical Urbanism and the Tactical Urbanism Guide to Palo Alto to speak to a group of 60 people at Mitchell Park Library. Mike provided a lot of inspiration on how our public sphere, particularly streets
and roads, can be made more people friendly. Many of the images and thoughts I share today come from his
talk two years ago and the work it has inspired. With your leadership, I hope Palo Alto can add to these important roadway safety design ideas with a beautiful, safe and functional Middlefield North corridor.
Elaine Uang Kipling Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 5:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Amie Ashton <aashton@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 4:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Middlefield Road - Option 7A
Dear City Council,
I am writing you as a resident of 236 Middlefield Road and daily bicycle commuter. I support Option 7A,
which includes bicycle paths for Middlefield Road. I am most interested in:
The traffic-calming benefits
Increased safety for all
Lessened noise from slower cars (again, the traffic calming)
Being able to bike on the street and not on the sidewalk
Provision of a vital link between Menlo Park's bike lanes and the Everett Avenue bicycle boulevard
I bike to work/take Caltrain everyday. Further, my husband and I have committed to doing all of our trips under 5 miles by bike. Thanks to Palo Alto's bicycle infrastructure, the area's retail and services, and my bicycle trailer
- this is possible. I look forward to a bike lane right in front of my house to facilitate even more trips by bike!
For these reasons, I support Option 7A and (if I get to wish) I would love to see even more robust
pedestrian/bicycle crossings at Middlefield Road than the option proposes. Thank you for your service to all of us!
Amie Ashton
1
January 17, 2017
Dear Mr. Mello and Councilmen:
On behalf of our dental offices, I wanted to thank you for putting our cause on the
agenda for the Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting on December 14th,
2016. It was important for us to get a feel for the concerns of the residents and
Councilmen. The meeting allowed us to better understand the underlying need for
the Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) program.
As local dental offices, we would like to share some of the concerns with respect to
the number and type of parking permits (1) and proposed boundaries/methodology
utilized (2) in the Evergreen/Mayfield area and other areas within the City of Palo
Alto. We would like to re-address some of the concerns with regards to the unique
nature of our healthcare establishments (3). Finally, in good faith, we would like
propose some ideas to amend the proposed RPP program to better serve our
community going forward (4).
1) Number and Type of Permits
a) Evergreen Pilot Program is Significantly More Restrictive- The initial
Downtown Palo Alto pilot program included not only more permits, but
also transferable permits. We feel that as we gather more data with
possible opt out of the Mayfield neighborhood, we will run into the issue
of far too few permits available for our offices within year 1 of the
program.
b) There is No Estimate of the Employee Count- Without knowing how many
employees there are in total we do feel that the proposed method of
permit distribution would be ineffective. We strongly believe that the
total number of employees in need of permit exceeds 125 allotted and we
should re-assess distribution and implementation of the allotted permits.
This should not affect occupancy rate which stays constant.
c) The 125 employee- only permits will hurt our offices- We feel that we need
to take into account employers and other factors before accepting this
proposal. Prioritizing low income workers and otherwise wait-list based
first-come-first-serve methodology can result in the following issues
detrimental to our offices:
i) Inability to sustain our offices- Healthcare offices will be left
without any parking permits due to inability to move up the
waitlist and not having low-income workers who qualify for
permits. This will cause attrition of our highly skilled and difficult
to recruit workforce. Under the current system healthcare
workers will classify as lowest priority employees.
ii) Inability to hire new employees- Without transferable permits,
should employees with permits leave, they have taken up a permit
2
that won’t be up for renewal until end of calendar year and as such
cannot be offered to prospective employees.
iii) Together we can make this a better proposal- Having spoken to
many employers in our field, we have found out that the permit
cost is not as much of an impediment as is the availability of
permits and ability to purchase them going forward. If we work
together we can make this a cost neutral and more efficient
program going forward without losing essential services going
forward.
2) Boundaries and Methodology Factors:
a) El Camino centerline inclusion is not warranted- El Camino if included in
the program will be a significant limitation for the employers. It appears
that this boundary was not proposed nor endorsed by the residents nor
occupancy surveys (see below- directly taken from the Planning and
Transportation Commission memo), but it was included in the program
nonetheless and will further impact our offices.
b) Survey while comprehensive presents significant omissions- Response rates
aside, we believe that while the survey was fairly comprehensive,
numerous factors were overlooked:
i) Construction- The amount of construction that resulted in
neighborhood congestion during the past summer and fall was not
accounted for.
ii) The Stanford Factor- Many Stanford students, faculty and staff who
live remotely choose not to pay to park at Stanford and park in the
streets of Evergreen neighborhood instead. As the Town and
Country Mall has imposed stricter regulation on parking in recent
years we have seen an influx of Stanford affiliates who continue to
3
park throughout the day and have likely affected blocks closest to
El Camino.
iii) Large Size Vehicles- Campers, trailers, and other
utility/construction vehicles continue to park for an extended time
especially on El Camino. This has had a substantial effect on the
parking needs pushing many employees into the neighborhood.
Due to laxity in regulation and enforcement, very little could be
done to expedite their removal or prevent their mere relocation
down the street.
3) Unique Nature of Healthcare Providers:
a) Our dental community represents first responders- We are nationally
considered as essential providers and serve as first responders in the
event of natural disasters or other regional crisis and are expected to
provide care as needed. All of our offices are equipped to accommodate
our community if needed.
b) Our numbers are slowly decreasing- We have not grown in numbers nor
size of our offices since 1950s and provide services mostly to Palo Alto
residents on regular and emergency basis. In fact, the high cost of real
state has already driven some of the healthcare providers out of Palo Alto.
With consistent number of long term employees we have not contributed
to the parking problem as defined in the RPP. Most of us are not accepting
new patients and for those of us who are, the wait can be in excess of
months for general and specialist care. The latter illustrates the support
of our community and the need for our services.
c) We are not centrally located- Location of our offices does not contribute to
the parking distribution concern. Most of our offices are located on
outermost boundaries of the designated districts far away from areas of
high congestion, but affected by inclusion therein. We have compiled
video footage of the areas surrounding our offices in the morning hours.
d) We are not regulated like other businesses- Unlike other businesses we are
highly regulated and cannot increase costs at will or pass them onto our
patients. We ask our highly skilled teams to travel great distances to
allow us to provide some of the best general and specialist care in the
State and nationwide. To attract employees we pay some of the highest
salaries in the Bay Area and nationally. In absence of optimal public
transit infrastructure, if left without permits we will lose critical members
of our teams which will affect care we provide and our ability to remain
in Palo Alto.
e) Our business practices are neighborhood friendly- Our locations are
regulated by zoning as business. No other business is likely to bring in
fewer employees or traffic whether it is a start-up, a restaurant or other
service establishment. Most other businesses will work longer hours and
if in food/ entertainment sector on weekends and could impose
unforeseen burden on the type of neighborhoods we are typically located
in, again often farther away from commercial zones in residential sectors.
4
f) Our offices help reduce neighborhood traffic- Most of our offices offer
parking to patients slightly short of the amount of spaces that would be
needed by our employees. As such we take a large number of cars off the
streets and prevent congestion in the neighborhoods we are located in.
The latter has been the cornerstone of any parking or traffic regulation
program implemented in California over the last decade.
4) Our Proposal to Councilmen Regarding the RPP
We propose implementing some or all of the following measures to better
accommodate healthcare offices as well as our community during the “pilot”
phase of the program in the Evergreen/Mayfield Area and RPP program in
Palo Alto going forward.
a) Allow our offices to continue to purchase permits- Ensure transferrable
employee permits for healthcare workers and ability to continue to
purchase such permits irrespective of the 125 designated permits for 1
year until further surveys are conducted or additional infrastructure built
to predictably support additional parking. Having transferrable permits
will ensure that each of our offices can purchase the number of permits
required for employees at any one time, which is by average half of all
employees for each office. Most dental and healthcare practices have
part-time employees who work alternate days or shifts and are not in the
office at the same time and hence are not taking parking spaces at the
same time.
b) Institute stricter regulations on construction time- During 2016, in our
neighborhood alone, multiple construction projects lasting in excess of 6
months at a time caused what we believed to be an incredible burden on
local parking environment and much of the expressed concern by the
residents. The City should limit either the duration of projects as is
commonly done in New York or number of projects per block, which is
common practice across many cities in California.
c) Institute stricter camper rules- campers take an incredible amount of
space and are often vacant. The City cannot continue to accommodate
vehicles of this type at the expense of residents and businesses
d) Exclude El Camino from the Evergreen RPP program
e) Amend RPP resolution so that future programs require a thorough
business as well as resident survey and joint meetings to ensure we can
achieve best outcome for both parties involved
f) Regulate NEW businesses- Provide stricter restrictions on NEW business
moving into the area to better plan for parking needs. We understand
that business is a core fabric of Palo Alto, but improper planning of large
start-ups, grocery stores, etc, can impose incredible burden on our
parking situation
g) Institute stricter regulation on new construction- Provide stricter
residential development rules if not already in place to provide
designated minimum number of parking spots for new construction.
5
h) Halt decrease in permits until further investigation and data- Amend all
RPP resolutions for Palo Alto to prevent decreases in permits until the
aforementioned conditions have been met and further infrastructure has
been provided to address the need. Elimination of non-resident parking
in a city the size and vitality of Palo Alto is unprecedented in the Bay Area.
Treating all businesses with a same broad brush stroke whether they are
or are not a new source of parking congestion will result in the loss access
to local care as more health care providers move out of the city.
i) If concerns in this document cannot be addressed, or if the council is
uncertain about the deleterious effects of its implementation on health
care offices we recommend the Council to postpone the implementation
of the program until additional data is gathered.
Respectfully yours,
Palo Alto Dental Community
Prepared by Dr. Stan Bjelajac and Dr. Reza Riahi
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:bencooper88 . <bencooper88@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2017 8:31 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:parking in Evergreen
I don't live in Palo Alto. But, I work on California Ave. Please don't restrict the parking around California Ave.
as permit program. It hurts the employees that work here.
Ben
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:42 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Daniel Bartsch <dcbartsch@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page
Dear Council,
Regarding the January 23 5:00 council meeting and the RPP for Evergreen Park.
I am disabled and medical harm from cold precludes my attendance of meetings in cold weather for much of the
year so
hope that you will weight this communication equal to that of able bodied who are able to attend.
A portion of Evergreen Park has a demographic that is aging and a part of that demographic has the need to
have home helpers drive
to us and have a parking space. Of late this has become very difficult. The aged employers of these workers
are increasingly having to
pay the workers to drive around for a very long time to find parking. I believe under ADA law that the disabled are entitled to equal access without extra cost, hassle, or time.
The filling of the neighborhood with business related parking may be violating our access to prompt home
health and home help care for the
disabled and therefore the ADA. An annual fee for home help parking for the disabled is unfair and is also probably unfair for all residents. The fee of less than 200 dollars for business is by comparison trivial for those
businesses that are now giant multinationals here in Palo Alto who may lobby and propagandize against the
residents in a subtle talented and unfair way funded with their large purses, or by hints of lucrative favoritism.
Under the proposed RPP trial the neighborhood may continue to be a parking lot in the service of for profit businesses while disadvantaging
the already disadvantaged aging population who are no longer in the stage of income earning life and trapped by
zero interest rate policies. That situation is unfair and so the RPP should endeavor to correct the situation to
allow unfettered access to parking for the natives who have been paying taxes and fees for many years.
Additional reasons for reverting parking back to mostly residents have been well known for decades. Increased
crime due to the crowd anonymity effect. Air and noise pollution.
Further reasons are less well known. The city is parking and building itself into a non economic bubble. It has
been popular to assume for past one hundred years that busts will soon be followed by a business cycle recovery but that depends on the Federal Reserve which is now a very debt damaged 100 years old being able to pump up
yet another bust. This time around we have the following data from FRED the federal Reserve
website. Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product | FRED | St. Louis Fed
"Federal Debt: Total Public Debt as Percent of Gross Domestic Product" Approximately
105% of GDP.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:42 AM
2
My message should not be too long. You can look up derivatives, buy back bubble of bonds
and stocks, Baltic Dry index charts, bond rates, FOREX currency charts and all other major
balance sheet indicators and see that there is a massive global bubble that will pop soon
that is larger than any mere business cycle. The FED is in a corner.
Palo Alto should again become a leader in environmental, residential, and business
sustainability and the Evergreen RPP is but one area to show some real leadership.
Thank You.
Daniel Bartsch
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:42 AM
3
Carnahan, David
From:Norman Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 7:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Parking
I see that Alex Austin is demanding that the employees of his company should have free parking in
the nearby neighborhoods. His company is an example of the trend to jam employees into
commercial spaces designed for less dense occupancy, without any attention paid to the load that places on city services, including parking. Zoning and policies re Conditional Use Permits should take this trend into account. In any event, there is no excuse for a company in that area not being
fully aware of the parking permit proposals, and neither that nor his demand for free parking should
delay implementation of that proposal.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:42 AM
4
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 22, 2017 5:00 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:January 23, 2017, Council Meeting, Item #13: Evergreen Park -- Mayfield RPP Program
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
January 22, 2017
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
JANUARY 23, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #13
EVERGREEN PARK -- MAYFIELD RPP PROGRAM RESOLUTION
Dear City Council:
The proposed parking program would be overwhelmed by requests for permits
from future development that increases either the number of residential
units or the number of employees in the area unless the ordinance
implementing the program prohibits residents and employees in those
increased developments from obtaining permits.
For example, the proposed 60-unit residential development at 2755 El
Camino Real claims that it would not need the required number of on-site
parking spaces, but under the proposed program "each resident living
within the Evergreen Park - Mayfield RPP may receive up to three annual
permit stickers as well as up to two transferable annual permit hangtags",
for a total of five parking permits for each resident, rather than each
residence. (See last two lines of Packet Page 276.)
(See also VTA Site Prescreening for 2755 El Camino Real in the September
12, 2016, staff report (ID # 7152) at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/53711.)
If there were only one resident in each of the proposed 60 residences at
2755 El Camino Real, then those residents could obtain 300 parking
permits.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:42 AM
5
The overnight parking occupancy surveys showed a total of 362 total on-
street parking spaces in Mayfield, of which 230 were not being used by
neighborhood residents. (See first full paragraph on Packet Page 270.)
Ignoring the fact that residents may need to park on the street during the
day, the number of parking permits that would be available to the
residents of the proposed project at 2755 El Camino Real would be over 96%
of the total number of on-street spaces in Mayfield, and over 130% of the
spaces vacant at 11:30 pm.
Similarly, new development of employee generating uses would increase
competition for the limited number of employee parking permits, when those
new developments should be taking responsibility for employee parking on-
site.
These potential problems for allocation of both residential and employee
permits can be mitigated by amending the proposed ordinance to require
projects that increase the number of residential units or increase the
gross floor area of non-residential units to provide all of the their
parking on-site for projects that file an application after May 16, 2016,
the date the City Council directed city staff to implement a Residential
Preferential Parking program in the Evergreen Park area.
Another mitigation to consider is to add additional floors for parking at
the parking structures at 275 Cambridge Avenue and 475 Cambridge Avenue
before installing Rooftop Solar Installations on those City garages.
I had previously requested staff to notify me on a timely basis of the
staff level decisions on the City Garage Solar Projects, but when I
accessed the City's online Building Eye website today, I noticed that a
staff level decision had been made for the parking structure at 445 Bryant
Street, although I was never notified of the decision.
According to the Building Eye website, applications for the rooftop solar
projects at 275 Cambridge Avenue and 475 Cambridge Avenue were resubmitted
on November 15, 2016, and only the project at 275 Cambridge Avenue was
ready for decision on January 20, 2017, but no staff level decision had
yet been made for either project.
I am sending a separate letter to staff to remind them of my request for
notification.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:42 AM
6
Carnahan, David
From:Alex Austin <alex@branch.io>
Sent:Sunday, January 22, 2017 10:13 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:URGENT: Regarding California Avenue Parking Proposal Vote on Monday, Jan 23rd
Hello Council Members,
I own a technology business that employs 85 people who put in full days of from 8 am to 7 pm regularly in our location on California Avenue. I recently became aware of a proposal to completely eliminate parking options
from around California Avenue and was completely in shock. Let me first describe to you the current state of
parking without this restriction, so you understand how incredibly harmful this will be.
The current parking options around California Avenue are severely limited. There are two: 1. You can wait 1.5 - 2 years to receive a parking permit that allows you to park in the 2 hour limit areas
2. You park in the Evergreen neighborhood where there is no time limit where it's still about a 5-10 minute walk
to the office, but definitely bearable.
Less than 5 people at our office have actually received a parking permit (option 1 above) and a majority are in various states of the queue, so the majority of the office, including myself, park in the Evergreen neighborhood.
The issue with parking in the neighborhoods is that it gets completely full by around 8:45 am, forcing you to
drive farther and farther away. When the new Visa office opened we were terrified after we heard there was
only 100 parking spots under the building to support 300 new people. The situation has only become worse.
In fact, it's so hard to find parking for our employees that the more risk-tolerant have resorted to a new,
internally-built system where employees park in the 2 hour spots closer to Cal Ave without a permit, and one
person is assigned to watch the lot for the meter maid. As soon as the meter maid enters the lot, an alarm is
sounded in the office so people have time to run out and move their cars to a new spot before tickets are doled
out. A New York Times reporter visited the office to document this system for a new article he is working on about the quality of the infrastructure in California's most technologically forward-thinking city.
With the above in mind, you can see how bad it is without the proposed two hour restriction. If this was enacted,
many hundreds of employees would have no realistic parking option in this area, likely resulting in high
turnover. It would just not be practical to operate a business in the area under this new proposal.
Our employees regularly buy breakfast, lunch and dinner on California Avenue as well as support the local
exercise and office supply businesses. We often bump into friends from other local business in the area who
also frequent these locations. It's a beautiful area to work, and with the growing quality of restaurants in the
area, we like to refer to it as the "new University Avenue". Parking restrictions such as the proposed will significantly hamper the development of this street as many businesses look elsewhere to operate.
I'd appreciate that some more diligence was done on the effect of this parking proposal before considering it.
Thanks for you time.
Alex Austin
MSEE, Stanford, 2009
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 3:21 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Marilyn mayo <marilynmayo@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 3:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Evergreen Park RPPP
Dear Council Members,
I encourage you to vote YES & support Evergreen Park's prolonged efforts to get relief
from ever-increasing parking congestion. We residents attended staff workshops over
the past year. The staff, in turn, met with with Cal Ave commercial interests and blended
the residential/commercial viewpoints into the current RPPP. The Evergreen Park voted
to accept this plan. It is a compromise. Everyone getting something; no one getting
everything they wanted.
Please support this RPPP without last minute changes. Let's start the plan & re-evaluate
it in 6 months. Don't allow it to unravel before it begins.
Thank you,
Marilyn Mayo
404 Oxford Ave
Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 3:21 PM
2
Carnahan, David
From:Irene Au <irene.au@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 2:19 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:In support of Evergreen Park RPPP
Dear City Council,
I am writing to support Evergreen Park's bid for a Residential Parking Permit Program and ask that you vote in
favor of the program. The RPPP will provide much needed relief from overcrowded parking conditions and worsening traffic
conditions which have to date resulted in safety issues.
That said, the RPPP needs to provision for more even distribution of parking across the district. Otherwise, cars will cluster around streets closest to California Ave, and will not solve any of the problems for the people most impacted by the current situation (particularly those living on Oxford, Ash, and College Ave). Similar to
Downtown, we need to have a full phase-out of employee parking over 5-10 years.
College Terrace has had an RPPP for many years and it is absolutely mystifying why neighborhoods in such close proximity should be treated so differently.
I'd also like to call out the Palo Alto Weekly for their terrible, biased reporting of the situation. If you are
hearing complaints from merchants recently, it is only because the Weekly has gone around stoking the ire of
merchants because *they* feel threatened about losing parking for their own staff. The proper way to address the parking issue around Cal Ave is for the City to (1) build more parking offered by
the City; (2) require and enforce aggressive TMA / TDM programs; (3) allow employee permits to be
transferred among employees. Please don't let Evergreen Park become a parking lot for the business district. In
doing so, you would gravely destroy a gem of a neighborhood. Since there are newcomers to City Council, I have pasted my comments from previous meetings about
Evergreen Park's need for an RPPP below for context.
I regret that I won't be able to join the City Council meeting tonight due to child care and early morning work commitments. I appreciate your consideration and the hard work Sue Ellen Atkinson, Josh Mello, and Hillary
Gitelman have done to date on the RPPP. We have been clamoring for years about traffic and parking
problems, and we'd like to see proper action taken tonight.
Best, Irene Au (also representing Chi-kwan and Bernadette Au)
410 & 416 Oxford Ave
WHAT IT MEANS TO LIVE IN EVERGREEN PARK WITH NO RPPP
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 3:21 PM
3
Over the past several years, the parking situation in the neighborhood has escalated to an untenable, unlivable
situation. I live on Oxford Ave and have witnessed how impossible it is for my family members, friends, and
colleagues to find parking during the day.
I chose to live in Evergreen Park because of the walkability of the neighborhood. We try to do the right thing
by having dense housing (my household is a multigenerational household of 6 on an R2 lot), and we walk and
bike as much as possible. The kids bike to school. Their father bikes to work in Mountain View. We have four
drivers at this one residence.
Inevitably we do have to leave the house during the day, and we have to drive. For some things there is just no
way around it, especially for my father, who at 70 has only one operable lung.
We come back from running errands or from work, and there is no place to park. We have four drivers in the household and several apartment buildings all along College, Ash, and across from us on Oxford. Each
apartment has one parking space but most have two drivers and cars. Residents need to park on the
streets. Employees along California Ave exacerbate the parking situation.
I myself am deeply entrenched in the tech community and have long embraced the rise of the tech industry in our community. I have several friends who work in offices around the California Ave area, and I have invested
in some companies who have offices right here. I joined a startup three blocks from my house partly because
they were just three blocks from my house. I also teach yoga at Avalon Yoga Center on California Ave.
No one wants people to park in the residential streets. Of course the residents don’t want it, but neither do the workers or the patrons on Cal Ave. We all want sustainable, predictable parking that doesn’t reach into the
residential streets. But until you force the issue, they are going to continue parking here.
My father, with one operable lung and in ailing health, often has to park as far as four blocks away when he
comes home from the grocery store.
I get woken up at 1 or 2 am at night by the man who parks his car across the street from my house as he is
leaving work to go home.
We see cars parked in front of fire hydrants. We have a photo of this at this website: http://tinyurl.com/EPcantpark.
Cars constantly block driveways. I had a neighbor who had to call the police to help her deal with a car
blocking her driveway; they ended up helping her negotiate her way out of her driveway by driving over the
curb and around the tree in her front yard to get out. I was later mortified to learn about this because it turns out that it was my friend who had inadvertently blocked her driveway while she stopped by my house. And now
she is afraid to come over.
This parking problem has made us even more isolated from our neighbors, friends, and community.
But most importantly, this is a safety issue. A few neighbors' cars have gotten hit by day time parkers who
speed off and have no relationship with or regard for the people who live here. My own car was hit by a driver
negotiating the crowded street. Cars troll up and down the streets in our neighborhood looking for parking. I
almost got run over last Thursday morning as I walked to my 7:00 am yoga class and witnessed a man speeding
through a stop sign on College Ave towards El Camino. People walking and biking through the neighborhood are at risk which scares me to death when I think about my kids riding their bikes to school.
City of Palo Alto
COLLEAGUES MEMO
May 02, 2016 Page 1 of 4
(ID # 6905)
DATE: May 2, 2016
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Council Member Filseth, Council Member Holman, Council Member
DuBois, Council Member Schmid
SUBJECT: COLLEAGUES' MEMO FROM COUNCIL MEMBERS DUBOIS, FILSETH,
HOLMAN AND SCHMID REGARDING THE CREATION OF AN EVERGREEN PARKING
PERMIT PROGRAM
Goal:
Provide immediate parking relief to the non-commercial area of Evergreen Park.
Background and Discussion:
Serious parking problems have been acknowledged in Evergreen Park for 16 years. In the 2000
Stanford General Use Permit, Stanford committed $100,000 for parking impacts starting with
College Terrace but also considering impacts on Evergreen Park and Southgate. At that time, it
was acknowledged that Evergreen Park may need to be annexed into the Parking Permit
program for the same reason that the College Terrace program was started – impacts from
Stanford University and California Avenue. In July 2007 a Colleagues memo directed staff to
use the $100,000 to initiate an assessment of a permit program in College Terrace. In
December 2009, the College Terrace Permit Parking ordinance was approved and started in
January 2010. The program has significantly reduced parking problems.
The City has no system to measure commercial parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods
so residential leaders have conducted a series of parking surveys over more than 2 years
documenting the problem and have provided data to City council and staff. Survey data for
2015 shows that the parking saturation rate on Evergreen Park residential streets is consistently
over 70 percent on weekdays.
Major new construction projects such as 2865 Park Blvd, 2650 Birch Street, 2100 El Camino,
1501 California Ave., and 385 Sherman will be coming on line soon and potentially will add
increased demand and exacerbate the already existing parking problem. In the summer of 2015
concerned residents gathered over 225 signatures (from 300 units surveyed) in Evergreen Park
requesting an RPP for Evergreen Park identical to the College Terrace program, selling permits
only to residents.
May 02, 2016 Page 2 of 4
(ID # 6905)
Evergreen Park non-commercial residential area is small, just 5 blocks by 3 blocks. Evergreen
Park is contiguous to College Terrace and has a community of interest with College Terrace
because commuter parking comes from many of the same sources. Yet unlike College Terrace,
Evergreen Park has not been granted relief from commuter parking, which now floods the
neighborhood.
Annexing Evergreen Park to the existing College Terrace RPP is the simplest, least costly, and
most expeditious solution since the College Terrace RPP has been in place for over 5 years and
efficient procedures and policies have already been established that could easily expand to
Evergreen Park.
This Council has also taken steps to support and strengthen the position of the California
Avenue merchants, and we do not want to jeopardize their ability to survive and thrive in that
protective environment. Currently, a merchant cannot share permits among its employees,
thus putting more strain on limited parking supply and adding cost to merchants who must
otherwise purchase additional permits.
Given the small area of consideration and the proximity to CalTrain and El Camino Real bus
lines, this also seems an appropriate area to test the efficacy of Palo Alto’s TDM program, and
assumptions of potential results before incorporation into the Comprehensive Plan. A number
of projects have been approved in the area with TDM programs but coincident with those
buildings being occupied the parking situation in Evergreen Park has been exacerbated.
This proposal intends to find the quickest, most efficient way to achieve success by addressing
ways to remove a large majority of commuter cars from the neighborhood.
Recommendation:
We recommend that Council direct Staff to return to Council after community outreach and not
later than the end of May with a proposal for providing the most expeditious relief to Evergreen
Park through a resident parking program which restores and enhances the quality of life in
residential neighborhoods by drastically reducing the impact of parking associated with nearby
businesses and institutional uses. Two potential actions could be:
1. Create a College Terrace-like RPP with resident only parking, either under the new RPP
ordinance or by amending the College Terrace RPP to annex the non-commercial core of
Evergreen Park, bounded by El Camino Real, Park Blvd and College Avenue. Concurrent with
adoption of the RPPP, allow merchants and personal services in the California Avenue Ground
Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits valid within the commercial
district among their own employees. Staff should recommend what type of parking can be
modified most easily in the commercial district to enable permit sharing by these users –
parking lots, garages, street parking or some combination.
May 02, 2016 Page 3 of 4
(ID # 6905)
2. Create an RPP initiated by Council under Section 10.50.040 on an accelerated timeline
for the same non-commercial core area of Evergreen Park. The RPP should provide either zero
non-resident permits or a small number (for example, ten percent) available to merchants and
personal services in the California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District. Employees of these
businesses should be enabled to share such parking permits among their own employees,
tracked by employer. (This is as opposed to the proposed unlimited daily permits in the
Downtown RPPP area). Non-resident permits in this area should decrease over time, potentially
replaced by retail employee permits in the California Ave commercial area (South of College
Ave). Concurrent with adoption of the RPPP, allow merchants and personal services in the
California Avenue Ground Floor Retail District to share existing and new parking permits valid
within the commercial district among their own employees.
Furthermore, the City should ensure that:
1. Signage Poles required for the implementation of the program be installed
expeditiously.
2. Merchants and offices in the California Avenue Business District and along El Camino
Real are notified of pending changes.
3. Ideally, if annexed into the College Terrace RPP complete the creation of the RPP in
time to allow Evergreen Park residents to enroll during the next scheduled yearly
College Terrace renewal period which occurs 8/1/16 TO 8/31/16. In any case, treat
this issue with urgency to implement a solution for the neighborhood.
Acknowledging the critical timeliness of this proposal, we request that the City Manager's
Comments include short updates on this project.
Staff Impact:
The City Manager, City Attorney, and Director of Planning have reviewed this Memorandum
and have the following comments:
On May 9, 2016, the City Council will be asked to prioritize petitions submitted by Evergreen
Park, Southgate, and two smaller (sub-neighborhood) areas for establishment of RPP districts
consistent with the process outlined in the Citywide RPP ordinance. (The Planning and
Transportation Commission will consider the petitions and provide a recommendation on April
27th.)
The Department of Planning and Community Environment has requested sufficient funds in the
FY17 budget to implement one new RPP district using the process outlined in the Citywide RPP
ordinance, which anticipates outreach to the source of parking intrusion as well as residents,
and does not pre-suppose a program with no on-street employee parking. The College Terrace
May 02, 2016 Page 4 of 4
(ID # 6905)
program was the City’s first foray into establishing an RPP zone. We continue to learn with each
new district.
Additional resources would be needed if the City were to plan for and implement more than
one RPP district per year. At the same time, the RPP programs have not been established as full
cost recovery programs. As the districts proliferate, externalities of program design need be
considered, as well as the most efficient and cost effective structure for provide parking service,
options which will be reviewed by the City Manager.
The City Attorney’s Office would be involved in analyzing legal requirements and procedures
associated with California Avenue parking structures and surface lots to determine the
feasibility of sharing of permits.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 4:05 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Sharon <sharonchin@msn.com>
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 4:04 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Mello, Joshuah; Betru, Messay
Subject:Support for Evergreen Park RPPP
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing to support Evergreen Park's bid for a Residential Parking Permit Program and ask that you vote in favor of the program.
The RPPP will provide much needed relief from overcrowded parking conditions and worsening traffic conditions which have to date resulted in safety issues.
That said, the RPPP needs to provision for more even distribution of parking across the district. Otherwise, cars will cluster around streets closest to California Ave, and will not solve any of the problems for the people most impacted by the current situation
(particularly those living on Park Boulevard near Oxford, Oxford, Ash, and College Ave). With your current proposal, residents and employees will be paying for permits and there will be no change to where these cars park = no parking relief for residents.
Similar to Downtown, we need to have a full phase-out of employee parking over 5-10 years.
Who's Using Our Streets 1. Residents
2. Employees - Stanford, businesses, part-time/hourly Please understand that those parking in our neighborhood work at Stanford, businesses (office jobs) in the California Ave business district and part time employees who work at the small businesses on California Avenue. Some park in our neighborhood for 10-12 hours at a time, and often don't leave our neighborhood till 8pm or later - leaving fewer parking options for residents returning from work, errands or carpools.
3. Caltrain riders Please note of considerable ire are the people who take the Caltrain and park in our neighborhood for multiple days in a row. I
recently had a car parked in front of our house for seven days.
4. Bicyclists!!!!
In addition to the various employee vehicles and Caltrain rider vehicles please be aware we also have much bicycle traffic - students of PAUSD, college students, commuting bicyclists. It is a beautiful thing to see all the bicyclists.
5. Pedestrians!!!! (on sidewalks of course)
Residents, employees walking to errands, lunch, breaks, meetings, etc
Safety Today I observed four cars in a 30 minute time frame entering and driving down the wrong side of Park Boulevard (between College and Oxford where northbound access is blocked), making u-turns around the concrete divider or backing up in the bike lane -- all looking for parking spots.
Residents with children cannot safely drop off/pick up for carpools, unload groceries, elderly parents, etc. It's an accident waiting to happen.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 4:05 PM
2
Young and student bicyclists are learning or don't always follow the rules of the road and can be unpredictable - residents know to go
slow and observe.
Not every resident can park in their driveway, I live on Park Boulevard and utilize street parking for these reasons: Our driveway is a bit old and rather narrow - it is difficult to park in our driveway and open doors to exit the vehicle, unload bags, etc.We do not have money to renovate our driveway. Our entire family bikes and the driveway is a thoroughfare. During school hours visitors, service workers and elderly theoretically have a spot to park (single use vehicle, opening only one side of car doors)
We park along the curb with enough space from our driveway entrance in order to provide our children with a clear line of sight when exiting our driveway and merging onto Park Boulevard. It is safer for us to make eye contact with bicyclists and see all road traffic when merging onto the road from the curb vs. from backing out of our driveway. (When backing out of a driveway, residents must watch for pedestrians, bicyclists and cars and line of sight becomes an issue with cars parked end to end along curbs.)
We have had our driveway blocked by non-neighbor vehicles creating in/out issues.
Solutions
Working to maintain the vibrancy of California Avenue and Evergreen Park - The proper way to address the parking issue around Cal Ave is for the City to 1) build more parking offered by the City 2) require and enforce aggressive TMA / TDM programs
3) allow employee permits to be transferred among employees. 4) Create more zones within the district which will effectively cap the total number of allowable cars parked per street, thus evenly
distributing the cars around the neighborhood, including at Peers Park which is underutilized during the day. 5) The City of Palo Alto should communicate directly with employers (Stanford and businesses) about education and enforcement of parking regulations as it relates to their neighbors in Evergreen Park. Caltrains should also be informed. 6. Employers of both office and hourly workers should be requested by the City of Palo Alto to communicate these regulations with
employees and remind all to be good neighbors with residents.
Moving forward, developers should not be allowed to build without creating adequate parking for tenants and employees.
Please don't let Evergreen Park deteriorate and become a parking lot for the business district. Vote in favor of the RPPP, create more parking zones within the district to distribute business district employee vehicles, and build more parking so all can live, work and enjoy the California Avenue district.
thank you,
sharon
Sharon Chin San Francisco City Guides sharonchin@msn.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 5:16 PM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Bradley Horowitz <elatable@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 4:46 PM
To:Council, City; Mello, Joshuah; Gitelman, Hillary
Subject:Evergreen Park RPPP
City Council,
I wanted you to know that I join the chorus of Evergreen Park residents in support of the Residential Permit Parking program - and ask that you vote for the program tonight. As the co-owner of two Evergreen Park homes
(410 and 416 Oxford), we are particularly impacted.
Parking conditions here are untenable for residents, and are only worsening. We expect and deserve a program
similar to that of downtown PA, where employee street parking is eventually phased of neighborhoods.
My wife (Irene Au) and I have sat through numerous proposals, debates and council meetings. We hope that
we can count on your votes to finally resolve this situation for the benefit of the greater good. Our
neighborhood deserves the same attention as adjacent neighborhoods (such as College Park and Downtown Palo
Alto) receive.
Thank you,
Bradley Horowitz
410 Oxford Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dena Seki <denaseki@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, January 20, 2017 4:54 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:100 Addison Avenue Palo Alto
I saw the Denial of a Request for Waiver of the City's Moratorium on Conversion of Ground Floor Retail for the Property at
100 Addison Avenue. I understand that the expiration of the current interim ordinance in April 2017 will allow a re-evaluation of the appropriateness of ground floor retail at this location.
I think the best use of that location would be to build an apartment building to help address the lack of housing issue in Palo Alto. This would be a great location to zone for apartments. As a neighbor to this location, I am fine with an
apartment building at 100 Addison.
Thank you, Dena and Kent Seki
1028 High Street
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2017 9:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keith Bennett <pagroundwater@luxsci.net>
Sent:Tuesday, January 24, 2017 10:23 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Bobel, Phil; roger@kohler-architects.com; Beatrix Cashmore; Nicholas Kaposhilin
Subject:900 N. California Presentation
Attachments:900_N_Cal.pdf
To the Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:
Attached please find the presentation that I presented to Council last night regarding Agenda Item 11, 900 N. California.
With the shortened speaking time limits, I did not have time to cover Slide 5, which compares the project at 900 N.
California to another
dewatering project. It is clear that the scale of this project is much
larger than any other projects, and is compounded by the very high water table level at that location. Furthermore, the
lot size is 3/4 that of the Post Office lot in downtown Palo Alto, providing a great deal of flexibility in construction
methods.
The large scale of the project combined with the high water table means that without special precautions a) the amount
of water extracted will likely be extremely high, and b) the water table will be lowered significantly over a very large
area. Slide #6 shows an area extending approximately 300 feet in all directions from the subject property, and
encompasses a large number of single family residences, which are likely built on clay soils that have never been dry, but
will be dehydrated by the proposed project. Dehydrated clays settle ‐ in this area, the settling is typically about 1/4" per
foot of dehydration; lowering the water table by 6 feet implies settling risks well in excess of 1", certainly enough to
damage property, even in the settling is temporary.
Furthermore, the settling may be permanent, i.e. subsidence. As this property is very near the flood zone boundary,
such subsidence would increase flood risks.
Whether the dewatering is done simultaneously or sequentially, the impacts are cumulative.
In the opinion of Save Palo Alto's Groundwater, this project should only be approved with conditions that require
maintaining the groundwater level at the property boundary to 2 feet below the normal summer water table level or
higher. This was the condition imposed by San Francisco for the construction of the new Transit Terminal. The "normal"
summer water table level is 6 to 7 feet below ground surface. The current water table is higher than 4 feet below
ground surface. Proven, well‐established construction methods, such as cut‐off walls enable such construction, and
local, experienced contractors could do the work. The costs are a small fraction of the added value of the basements,
the overall sales price of the homes, or the value of the land.
‐‐
Keith Bennett
http://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org
900 N. California
What’s going to happen?
Keith Bennett, Ph.D.
Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater
January 23, 2017
Site 1: Water Table Drop (@45 and 155 feet from
property line)
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
45 '
115'
Pumping
Starts Pumping
Re-Starts
Pumping
Re-Starts
Fe
e
t
Days Since Start of Dewatering, About 31 million gallons
Stop Stop Stop
Starting water level: 10 feet below ground surface
Site 2: Water Table Drop (220 feet
from property line
Fe
e
t
Days [Dewatering started Day 16], 10.4 million gallons
-3.5
-3.0
-2.5
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
-20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Rain
Rain
Pumping stop
Distant
dewatering
start
Incomplete Water Table Recovery
Starting water level: 10 feet below ground surface
The “Enhanced Geotech Report”
(for Site 2)
Prediction: <20 gpm flow
Actual: 102 gpm
Water Pumping Rates
Water Table Drawdown
Prediction: <1 foot at 50 feet
Actual: >2 feet at 220 feet
Comparisons
900 N. California Site 2
Starting water table level 4 – 6 ft. below ground 10 ft. below ground
Normal “summer” water
level
6 – 7 ft. below ground 9 – 10 feet below ground
Water table lowering
needed at new
construction site
10 – 12 ft.
(to 16 ft bgs)
6 feet
(to 16 ft bgs)
Area of basement(s) >5,000 ft
2 ~1,600 ft2
Amount of water pumped ? 10.4 million gallons
Pumping rate ? >100 gpm avg.
Settling of soils due to
dewatering
1.5 – 3% of “virgin” clays dewatered
Possible settling on
adjacent properties
1 – 3 inches
1+ inch @300 feet
ALERT: Ground
settling risk zone
Project
Site
What if the “enhanced geotech” report is
wrong?
What’s going to happen?
Please pull this item from the consent calendar.
Thank you.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2017 9:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Linda Elkind <Linda@elkind.org>
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 5:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Bay Delta Plan
Dear Mayor and members of the City Council,
I write because I am and have always been deeply committed to restoring and preserving the ecological health
of our SF Bay and Delta and River system. The current discussions about the Bay, Delta Water Quality Control Plan offer
an opportunity to improve fresh water flows that are crucial to the health of our Delta and Rivers system.
The draft plan overstates the economic impacts of releasing more fresh water into the system. Please watch
the 9 minute slideshow to learn more.
Sincerely,
Linda Elkind
620 Sand Hill Road, Apt 116 F
Palo Alto, CA 94304
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, January 19, 2017 7:11 AM
To:jnowell@padailypost.com; Watson, Ron; Perron, Zachary; Stump, Molly; Keene, James
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Burt reflects on 18 years at city hall
Ms. Nowell
I hate it when so called journalist don't do their due diligence.. One report Pat Burt has never reviewed or questioned is
the police auditors report.
Ask him? I did, and his response was NO! Also, ask him why he never requested Mr. Gennaco (IPA) to be called before
city council as required under contract I may add, so that the citizens of Palo Alto could address audit issues and
concerns of authenticity.....
Did you know it has been purported that Mr. Gennaco had a several ghost writers???? BTW Ms. Nowell I've reviewed
every single damm report in detail. And Mr. Genanco should be brought up on fraud charges....
Mark Petersen‐Perez
Palo Alto Free Press
Sent from my iPad
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2017 4:56 PM
To:Stump, Molly
Cc:Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City
Subject:CPRA Request | PA's regulatory agreements with Lytton Gardens
Molly Stump, JD
Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Ms. Stump:
Thank you for your response and letting me know that "the city of Palo Alto has regulatory agreements with ESC that require housing be
made available on affordable terms to low income persons". Pursuant to the CPRA, I request these documents.
Sincerely,
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 2:30 PM Subject: RE: CPRA Request | Lytton Gardens of Palo Alto To: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Cc: "Scharff, Gregory (internal)" <Greg.Scharff@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Hello Dr. Martell –
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:48 AM
2
Lytton Gardens is owned and run by Episcopal Senior Communities, a private non‐profit organization dedicated to
providing housing for seniors (http://www.jtm‐esc.org/lytton‐gardens/ ). Although the City of Palo Alto has regulatory
agreements with ESC that require housing at Lytton Gardens be made available on affordable terms to low‐income
persons, the City does not have a role in managing the property and does not acquire or maintain any of the information
that you are seeking.
You might want to contact someone at ESC for more information. Please note, however, that the Public Records Act
does not apply to private non‐profits, and I do not have any information on ESC’s requirements or policies regarding
requests for information from members of the public.
Molly Stump
Molly Stump | City Attorney
City Attorney’s Office
250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301
D: 650.329.2171 | E:molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org
Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you.
This message contains information that may be confidential and
privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose
the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the
message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message.
From: D Martell [mailto:dmpaloalto@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 3:40 PM
To: Stump, Molly
Cc: Scharff, Gregory (internal); Council, City Subject: CPRA Request | Lytton Gardens of Palo Alto
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:48 AM
3
Molly Stump, JD
Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Ms. Stump:
Your intervention is required in this issue.
Due to "no responsive documents" (Palo Alto response) and "lack of records" (County response) both your
office and Santa Clara County Counsel office are unable to answer my CPRA request below.
CPRA requests are designed to be user-friendly for non-lawyers. I am not an attorney and require assistance in
locating where I can obtain the information I seek. If this data cannot be found in Palo Alto or our County,
from whom do I turn to acquire this information?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:48 AM
4
From: D Martell [mailto:dmpaloalto@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, January 09, 2017 4:41 PM To: Williams, James <james.williams@cco.sccgov.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: BOS <bos@bos.sccgov.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: CPRA request | Lytton Gardens of Palo Alto
James R. Williams, Santa Clara County Counsel
Molly Stump, Palo Alto City Attorney
Dear Mr. Williams and Ms. Stump:
To facilitate this CPRA request, please collaborate with one another to determine who maintains public records
on issues related to public housing at Lytton Gardens.
Pursuant to California Public Records Act (CPRA) (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.), I request the most recent
statistics for Santa Clara County's HUD-subsidized Section-8 Housing re Lytton Gardens Senior Independent Living Community of Palo Alto and their senior residents (62 years and older). —Please answer each following
question directly with either a number, dollar amount, or a breakdown of country of origin.
1. What is the total number of seniors that live at Lytton Gardens?
2. What is the total number of residents that receive government-subsidized housing?
3. What is the total number of government dollars spent on housing for residents?
4. What is the total number of seniors that receive government-subsidized housing who do not have full
US citizenship?
5. What is the total number of government dollars spent on housing for residents without full US citizenship?
6. What is the ethnicity and country breakdown for residents without full US citizenship?
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:48 AM
5
7. What is the average annual income for a resident with full US citizenship?
8. What is the average annual income for a resident without full US citizenship?
9. What is the average apartment rental rate?
10. What is the average out-of-pocket rent that a resident with full US citizenship pays for an apartment?
11. What is the average out-of-pocket rent that a resident without full US citizenship pays for an
apartment?
Sincerely.
Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate, 2016
dmPaloAlto@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2017 4:24 PM
To:GSheyner@paweekly.com
Cc:Council, City; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com
Subject:From the archives of Aram James re Buena Vista Mobile Home Park
http://www.siliconvalleydebug.org/articles/2015/05/18/palo-alto-enforce-largest-mass-displacement-people-
history-city
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:44 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Sunday, January 22, 2017 4:06 PM
To:Loran Harding; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; david
pomaville; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; midge@thebarretts.com;
info@superide1.com; firstvp@fresnopoa.org; Raymond Rivas; fmerlo@wildelectric.net;
hennessy; President; robert.andersen; Ann D; bmcewen; bretthedrick; lee.brand; Leodies
Buchanan; bballpod; paul.caprioglio; CityManager; Council, City; Cathy Lewis;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; Mark Kreutzer; Mark Standriff; Mayor; Doug Vagim; Steve
Wayte; Joel Stiner; Tranil Thomas; terry; Jason Tarvin; Gary Turgeon;
thomas.esqueda@fresno.gov; richard.wenzel; Mark Waldrep; Irv Weissman; nick yovino;
yicui@stanford.edu; newsdesk; kfsndesk; jboren; dwalters; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com;
popoff; boardmembers; steve.hogg
Subject:Fwd: ICYMI
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:39 PM
Subject: Fwd: ICYMI To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 1:03 AM
Subject: Fwd: ICYMI
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:40 PM
Subject: Fwd: ICYMI
To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, midge@thebarretts.com,
info@superide1.com, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:32 PM
Subject: Fwd: ICYMI
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:44 AM
2
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 9:26 PM
Subject: Fwd: ICYMI
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 4:05 PM
Subject: Fwd: ICYMI
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian
<davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, midge@thebarretts.com, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, Mark
Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>, beachrides
<beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, Paul Dictos <paul@dictos.com>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, Steve Wayte
<steve4liberty@gmail.com>, "steve.hogg" <steve.hogg@fresno.gov>, Tranil Thomas <soulja92y@hotmail.com>, esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>,
Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, CityManager <citymanager@fresno.gov>, President
<President@whitehouse.gov>, boardmembers <boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov>, Cathy Lewis
<catllewis@gmail.com>, hennessy <hennessy@stanford.edu>, newsdesk <newsdesk@cbs47.tv>, kfsndesk
<kfsndesk@abc.com>, rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com, dwalters <dwalters@sacbee.com>, fmerlo@wildelectric.net
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:56 PM Subject: Fwd: ICYMI
To: Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:23 PM
Subject: Fwd: ICYMI
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sat. Jan. 21, 2017
Dan- KCBS says this morning that Obama signed something as he left giving CHSRA until 2022 to use a
~$928 million grant from the DOT, not 2018. They added that CHSRA has said it might take until 2024 to use
the money.
Please read the expanded version of the mail below with enhancements re Calif. HSR.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:44 AM
3
LH
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:15 AM
Subject: Fwd: ICYMI
To: Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, CityManager <citymanager@fresno.gov>, esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov, "paul.caprioglio" <paul.caprioglio@fresno.gov>
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Jan 21, 2017 at 2:09 AM
Subject: Fwd: ICYMI
To: dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Dan
Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Mark Kreutzer
<mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, midge@thebarretts.com, info@superide1.com, jboren
<jboren@fresnobee.com>, bmcewen <bmcewen@fresnobee.com>, rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com, beachrides
<beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, Tranil Thomas <soulja92y@hotmail.com>
Sat. 1-21-17
To all- Parts 1 and 2 of Frontline's "Divided States of America" are excellent. I have now, this week,
watched both, twice. So 4 hours, twice. I learned something about D.C.
I strongly recommend these.
Here they are:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/divided-states-of-america/
Part 1 first ran on Tues. Jan. 17, 2017 and part 2 first ran on Wed. Jan. 18, 2017.
In part 2 you see how the even very conservative wing of the Republicans in Congress just got blown away
by the furious conservatives out in the country. They are not just Repubs, they are virtually fascists. Whatever it takes to get the attention of our government! Party Whip Eric Cantor lost his seat (!) to a professor of
education that nobody had ever heard of. Boehner was forced to resign as Speaker and from
Congress!!!!!!! "They weren't conservative enough". And it's not really a matter of these people in Congress
being conservative enough or not. The super-raw deal the American people get from their government in
comparison with the beautiful deal that the people of S. Korea, Japan and Europe get from theirs, at our expense, just finally boiled over.
And Trump was watching this meltdown of the Republican Party carefully, this show says. He is not
really a conservative Republican. He is a revolutionary. I was up early on 1-20-2017 and watched the
entire inauguration till 3:30 PM PT when the parade was over. I hope Trump is not another Hitler. It looks like
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:44 AM
4
he might be. His Slovenian wife could fill him in on what Hitler was. I agreed with most of what he said in the
inaug. speech. Obama, George W., both Clintons looked stunned and sick and that was heavily commented
upon by the media. If Trump outlaws elections, we'll know we are in real trouble with him.
As the Republicans in Congress just fell apart, Trump saw what was happening: a near revolution by the
people who had elected them. The media apparently did not see that! They are insulated in New York and
Washington with their huge salaries and they almost become part of the elected elite, even though they haven't
been elected to anything. That explains the reports a week before the election that Hillary had an 88% chance of winning and the media being totally stunned on election night when Trump won. But Trump did not set his strategy by listening to the media. He listened instead to the voters who had provoked all of the chaos in
Congress which you see detailed in the four hours of "Divided States of America". Perhaps I have helped
provoke some of that chaos myself.
Remember Trump's statement a few months before the election re "how stupid our leaders are". I thought that that would offend and turn off loads of voters. NO. It was what they were saying but most of the
politicians and the media were not listening. We are not here to enrich the 1% and the rest of the world, or to be
shipped off to hell-holes all over the world to fight endless wars.
No matter how poorly educated people are, no matter how many hundreds of channels of sports they have on
cable, no matter how fanatical they are about the NFL, no matter how many expensive smart-phones they have,
they still know when they are getting a very raw deal to enrich the 1% and the people of Europe, Japan and
Korea. Trump laid out the state of the United States in his speech on Jan. 20, and it was right on target. Four
former Presidents sitting behind him did not look happy about what he was saying.
Some analyst commented in the past couple of days that the Clinton campaign laid off visiting Wisconsin
and Michigan in the days before the election, calling it campaign malpractice. She got 2.7 million more votes in
the country than Trump did and he won by 77,000 votes in the key electoral college states that put him over the
top.
So campaign malpractice by the Hillary people, plus a hidden well-spring of fierce determination to get the
attention of the U.S. government, which had been roiling Congress since 2010 and which Trump capitalized on,
produced the election of Donald Trump.
Watch the swearing in. Chief Justice Roberts stood back about 12 feet as he administered the oath. After
Trump took the oath, Roberts had to reach out as far as he could reach, and so did Trump have to, to shake
hands. Then Trump stepped toward Roberts as they shook. Roberts then stepped back about five feet and turned
into the crowd. Trump then turned to his family and embraced them.
Why this standoffishness by the Chief Justice? If and when Trump is impeached and tried in the Senate,
Chief Justice Roberts will be the judge, if he is still Chief Justice then. He might just not like Trump and what
he stands for as well, impeached or not. BTW, Chief Justice John G. Roberts graduated summa cum laude from
Harvard College in three years. He then went on to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard Law School.
Pretty smart. Justice Kennedy graduated from Stanford and then graduated from Harvard Law School. Better than the Chief's record, those at Stanford would say.
Trump said all the stuff I have been saying, and I suspect he's been reading what I write. We deny 30
million people health care (prior to Obamacare), deny them high speed rail and good schools, gouge them into $50,000 of debt to go to college, and ruin white men with the Nazi Affirmative Action scam. We let the
corporations cancel their defined benefit pension plans and replace them with truly lousy 401-ks. The
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:44 AM
5
Republicans in Congress fight every day to destroy Planned Parenthood. Now KCBS says on Sun. Jan. 22, 2017
that the bastard Paul Ryan is trying to destroy Medicare and replace it with a voucher system. President Trump
should veto any such crap emanating from Speaker Ryan, and Ryan should be targeted for oblivion by the American people. If President Trump lets Ryan get away with this, we'll target Trump for oblivion. He pledged
not to damage Medicare and Social Security. We let the drug cos. run wild with prices and don't let Medicare
negotiate with them on drug prices. We defend S. Korea, Japan, all of Europe, all of Latin America, Saudi
Arabia, Israel, free of charge, and fight all of their wars while Germany and Japan get rich treating our
wounded. We ship all of the manufacturing jobs to Mexico and China. We refuse to enforce our southern border and the streets are running with blood in a city like Fresno, Ca. as a result. The countries we defend, free of
charge, all have HSR, free universities, wonderful health care, beautiful, rich crime-free societies and no wars to
fight. (I am hearing echoes of the Declaration of Independence as I enumerate these grievances). Today may be
the start of our fixing all of this. If I can communicate with Pres. Trump, I shall. It sounds as though I have been
getting through to him. From the north side of Trump Tower he sees the GM building a block north at 58th St. I used to work on the 23rd floor of that 50-story GM building, so we used to be neighbors, sort of.
I don't understand Trump's pledge to increase our military. $620 billion per year isn't enough for it?!! It is
more than the next 27 largest industrialized nations put together spend on their militaries!!. And it is just enough
to provide a military defense for ourselves and for the next 27 largest (free-loading) industrialized nations. You don't see a man of any importance at all in Germany who is not wearing a good Rolex and driving a new
Mercedes. It is just the understanding among the Germans, the French and the rest of the Europeans that their
job is to live the good life, vacation in the south of France for a month every summer, roll down there in their
big, new Mercedes or take magnificent high speed rail, eat in great restaurants, and sit in those sidewalk cafes in
Paris the rest of the year and watch the down-in-the-mouth American tourists walk past, often on crutches. Mighty funny.
See "American Umpire" if you can. It is excellent. See comments by Ret. Marine Gen. Mad Dog Mattis in
this, our new Secretary of Defense. It does not run here, but it is worth looking for. It questions the policy of the
U.S. bankrupting itself since 1947 to defend the entire world. General Mattis does not think much of that policy, you see in this film.
http://www.americanumpire.com/#trailer
You can see the trailer here. You get an idea as to what it's about:
http://www.hoover.org/american-umpire
Charles Rose re-ran the Trump speech tonight. We'll build roads, highways, tunnels, bridges and railroads, President Trump said re infrastructure. The last might include high speed rail. He didn't say "roadbeds". He is just enough of a revolutionary to want to put Fresno and the rest of California in touch with
Silicon Valley via HSR. This might require his degrading Jeff Denham and Kevin McCarthy politically. They
have it coming, the bastards, for fighting every day to deny high speed rail to the people of California.
Several years ago, Germany was up to 1,500 miles of high speed rail (HSR). The system in France is famous. Spain has the largest HSR network in the world. Italy has HSR. England is building a system. The
Chinese add hundreds of miles of HSR per year to their extensive system. I believe that the Russians are
building a line. Japan was first with HSR in 1964. As they all sip their cocktails at 200 mph, most of them laugh
at the thought of the people who provide their military defense, the suckers in the United States, riding
dilapidated, old Amtrak trains.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:44 AM
6
Trump, like all of those in Congress, has no doubt ridden high speed rail all over the world. He knows what
it is, and he knows what Amtrak is. This situation regarding rail is one reason the whole world thinks the
American people are a bunch of suckers. It is this situation that got Trump elected. Suckers or not, the American people know when they are being screwed by their government. President Trump should call Denham and
McCarthy to the White House and tell them that he is going to see to it that California's high speed rail system
gets the money it needs to be built forthwith. If they do not then support that, he should denounce them as
obstructionists and maybe worse.
President Trump should invite California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)Board Chairman Dan Richard
to the White House when he announces his support for high speed rail in California. The President would be
well impressed with Mr. Richard if he's never met him. If the Democrats had run Dan Richard for President in
2016, he probably would have taken the oath himself on Jan. 20. Providing the money for HSR in California
should be at the top of the infrastructure agenda of President Trump.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2017 9:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 4:25 PM
To:Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; David Balakian; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; bballpod; Irv
Weissman; midge@thebarretts.com; Mark Standriff; Mayor; lee.brand;
esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; jboren; bmcewen;
beachrides; kfsndesk; newsdesk; President; CityManager; rosenheim@kpix.cbs.com;
dwalters; francis.collins@nih.gov; Tranil Thomas; hennessy
Subject:Fwd: Neurosurgeon in Fla. has lights on car to get to stroke victims faster
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 4:02 PM Subject: Neurosurgeon in Fla. has lights on car to get to stroke victims faster
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Mon. Jan. 23, 2017
To all- Heard today on KCBS: Here is an easy fix to save a LOT of permanent grief for stroke victims, and
it can happen to any of us: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFzMrDNariY
A neurosurgeon in Florida has special lights on his car that get traffic out of his way so he can get to a
hospital faster to treat a stroke victim. Not big flashing red ones- you'll see them in the video. A stroke victim is losing 2 million brain cells per minute. The faster that clot is out of the brain, the faster
that stops. It can make a huge difference.
In California, there would soon be 10X as many of these cars as there are neurosurgeons, you think. Maybe not. The penalty should be huge if you do that.
This needs to be considered.
President Trump- Please get federal law changed to allow this throughout the U.S. Dan Richard- please forward this to Governor Brown.
Dr. Weissman at Stanford and Dr. Burns at Kaiser, please spread this story at your institutions, and beyond
in the medical community, and to the Calif. legislature.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2017 9:46 AM
2
Dr. Francis Collins at NIH- Please spread this story far and wide. You can reach every hospital in the U.S.
no doubt. Congress needs to see this too and laws need to allow this. If you can reach the State legislatures,
please do that too.
Thanks to all.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2017 9:50 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:PTAC President <president@paloaltopta.org>
Sent:Tuesday, January 24, 2017 12:42 PM
To:Mello, Joshuah; Council, City; PTAC_TSC_Chairs@yahoogroups.com
Cc:Penny Ellson
Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto PTA Council - comments on VTA's Draft of the Regional Transit Plan
Attachments:PTACvtajan2017.pdf
We wanted you to have a copy of this letter as we work together to support transportation options for our Gunn students.
Thank you,
Audrey Gold
http://ptac.paloaltopta.org/
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Audrey Gold <audreygold@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 12:25 PM
Subject: Palo Alto PTA Council - comments on VTA's Draft of the Regional Transit Plan
To: board.secretary@vta.org, PTAC President <president@paloaltopta.org> Cc: Leah Russin <leah.russin@gmail.com>, Penny Ellson <pellson@pacbell.net>, superintendent@pausd.org
Dear Ms. Fernandez and VTA Board Members,
Please read the attached letter that outlines our concerns regarding the impact of the proposed changes on
students at Gunn High School.
Sincerely,
Audrey Gold, President
Palo Alto Council of PTA's
http://ptac.paloaltopta.org/
January 22. 2017
Nuria t-·errlande7.
< ieneral Manager
Palo Alto Council
.PTIJ'
~vetychltd. OflPVOiee.
Palo Alto Council of PTAs
i'~ Churdl1ll Avenve
Palo Alto, CA 94306
\V\V\V, p<Jlo..Jltoptll.Of'9
San~1 ClarJ Valley Trall>l"'rtation Authority
3331 North First Street
San Jose. CA 95134-19()6
Dear VTA Board Members & Ms. Fcmandc-t..
'l'hc PaJo Alto <.:Ouocil of P'l'As is v.•riLing in supp<)rt of ()unn I ligh School P'l'SA 's request to V'fA to
lvork COOJX.~ratively lVith G1111n fligh School PT'S'A represe11tatii·es <ind the (~if.¥ of Palo Alto as VT11 has
done in tl1e JXlSt to 11rtderstand l0t:al tu?etis atici prc>blems tht lVe.'tt Nen11ork drcift plan n-1igl11 present.
We under$t~~nd 1ha1 Gvnn p·rsA is <:ont;.t;ti:H,'<.I Ch<..it the: propOsod 288A & ll route and limited sch(.."dt.dc
may oot serve Gunn sll.1dcnts bcfon..."-sc-hool and after-school ac~1dcmic support ~·nd extracurricular
activities schedule need~. (iwl1l JYl'S.I\ is conducting a stude.nt survey to learn n1ore about what works
for students. \Ve are. concerned lhat lhe \VT<)ng schedule 11nd/or route rnay further erode rider$hip and
lead VTA to completely cut the bus.
'l'he VrA88 is (lo itnp0nau~ eleroc.nl of Gt.inn,:; school commute u-aosp0nation rr1ode mix. Jn fact, the
City of Palo Alto is in,•csting hca,1ily in appro..1.ch str<..."C.ts to the school (including Charlcston-
Ara<\tradero, used l')y the v ·rA88) to create a rnore bicycle and pedestria.i1 frie.ndJy complete. street
Cn\'irornnenl and 10 encourage use oftr;:insit. 11 i:; unf<)rtuna1e th ... 'lt these cuts are prOp<)SCd in I.he saroe
stunn1er that the hardscapc Lmproven1cnts arc slated to be constructed.
PJ"A volwueers worki.~d in cooper<1ti<>11 lt'ith VTA <111d ("ity of Pt1lo Alto stU;ff.to sr1ve tl1e 88 li11e in 2009.
JVe v<1iue this bus ser,iicc. <ind lt1e ask VT.-1 to lvork witl1 us ag<1i1i.
\rrA enjoys strong sales tax rc;:vcnut:.."S gc:.oC1."31t:d in P<JIO Nto. Palo AILO already has relie·ved \rrA of
coverage responsibility b)• providing the City ofl,aJo Alto Shuttle to con1plc1ncnt VT.I\ routes wit11out
i1t)pactiog V'l'A ridership. l.oss oftltt!. v·rA88 \VOuld pose a significa1lt problen1 for south Palo Alto
wmsit dependent residents and Gunn High School students v.•ho rely on this bus CVCl)' day.
'lltank you foi.-eon:;idc:ring our corruncols.
Sincerely, ~
~Presidem
Palo Alto Council of PTAs
cc: bo::ird.st·c.:retary!t.!)vla.or,g
'
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2017 9:47 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 7:25 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Most people I have seen on the buses are 5 people one time on any bus
RE: Buses!
They speed by Middlefield and MARION all the time. Three people work at Walgreens that I have seen on the buses.....
a tiny jitney would do.
I feel so sorry for the drivers.
And, they have hit people.
Back and fourth for no reason all day and night with No music, and, no destination that people seem to need.
They are totally useless here.
People go to Santana Row, and the various Kaisers that I know of.
Geri mcgilvray
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2017 9:46 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 5:42 PM
To:Council, City; Planning Commission
Subject:NEW QUALITY OF LIFE METRICS FOR PALO ALTO
Attachments:Selected Pages Palo Alto 2016 National Citizens Survey.pdf
2016 Palo Alto Citizen Survey was released last week
Please note results from Palo Alto Neighborhood Area #5.
Page ii
"The average rating for all of the quality of life questions is 79
percent, primarily because only 50 percent of respondents
rated Palo Alto as an excellent or good place to retire. This is
the first year that the average fell below 80 pecent, primarily
because the average in area 5 declined significantly, from an
average rating of 84 percent in 2015 to 69 percent in 2016."
Area 5 is Southgate, Evergreen Park, College Terrace, Stanford
Research Park.
Neilson Buchanan
155 Bryant Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
The 2016 National Citizen Survey™
January 20, 2017
Office of the City Auditor
Harriet Richardson, City Auditor
Houman Boussina, Senior Performance Auditor
Deniz Tune, Performance Auditor I
CITY OF
PALO
ALTO
C IT Y OF
PALO
ALTO
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
This report presents the results of the 14th annual National Citizen Survey™ (NCS™) for the City of Palo Alto. We
contract with the National Research Center to conduct the statistically valid NCS™, which gathers resident
opinions across a range of community issues, including the quality of the community and City-provided services.
BACKGROUND
Beginning in 2014, we increased the number of surveys distributed to City of Palo Alto residents from 1,200 to
3,000, and we distributed the surveys within six geographic areas of the City. The larger sample size allowed us
to maintain statistical validity within each of the six geographic areas, as well as in the north and south areas of
the City, and report survey results for these geographic areas (see the maps on report pages 4 and 5 for a
breakdown of the north and south and the six geographic areas). The margins of error for the survey results are:
• Overall -plus or minus 4 percentage points
• North/South -plus or minus 5 percentage points
• Six geographic areas-plus or minus 10 percentage points
The survey response rate has declined gradually since we conducted the first survey in 2003, from a high of
51 percent in 2004, to a low of 25 percent in 2015. The response rate increased one percentage point, to
26 percent, in 2016. Increasing the number of surveys mailed from 1,200 to 3,000 has captured responses from
more residents, despite the lower response rate.
Survey Response Rate: 2003 through 2016
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Response Rate1 48% 51% 43% 42% 38% 36% 37% 36% 37% 27% 29% 27% 25% 26%
Number of Responses 557 582 508 495 437 415 424 6242 427 316 337 796 721 744
1 The response rate is based on the number of surveys mailed minus the number of surveys returned by the post office as undeliverable
e.g., because the housing unit was vacant.
2 1,800 surveys were mailed in 2010, which resulted in a higher number of respondents despite a slight decline in the response rate.
RESULT HIGHLIGHTS
Quality of Life
Residents generally like living in Palo Alto: 85 percent of respondents rated the overall quality of life in Palo Alto
as excellent or good, and 75 percent of respondents said it is very or somewhat likely that they would remain in
Palo Alto for the next five years. However, both of these percentages have declined over time, and this is the
second year that less than 90 percent of respondents rated the overall quality of life as excellent or good and
the first year that less than 80 percent of respondents said that they are likely to remain in Palo Alto for the next
five years.
Office of the City Auditor • 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor • Palo Alto, CA 94301 • 650.329.2667
Copies of the full report are available on the Office of the City Auditor website at:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/aud/reports/accomplishments/default.asp
Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey"'
The average rating for all of the quality of life questions is 79 percent, primarily because only 50 percent of
respondents rated Palo Alto as an excellent or good place to retire. This is the first year that the average fell
below 80 percent, primarily because the average in area 5 declined significantly, from an average rating of
84 percent in 2015 to 69 percent in 2016.
ii
The number of residents who said they are very or somewhat likely to remain in Palo Alto for the next five years
fell from 80 percent in 2015 to 75 percent in 2016. This is the first year that the average fell below 80 percent
and represents declines of one to ten percentage points in all of the geographic areas except area 5, which
increased six percentage points. The likelihood of residents in the six geographic areas remaining in Palo Alto for
the next five years ranged from 70 percent in area 4 to 82 percent in area 3.
The following tables show the results of the quality of life questions asked in the survey.
Overall Quality of Life in Palo Alto -Percent Rating Excellent or Good
Overall North
10-year results plus baseline year:
2015
88%
2014
91%
South
2013
91%
Area 1
2012
94%
Area 2
2011
92%
Area 3
2010
94%
Area 4
2009
93%
2008
91%
Palo Alto as a Place to Live -Percent Rating Excellent or Good
100%
Area 5
2007
94%
Area 6
2003
92%
80% ~ 1-----4 1-----4 1------i 11-----l ~ ~
60%
40%
20%
0%
Overall North
10-year results plus baseline year:
2015
92%
2014
95%
South
2013
92%
95% 90% 93% 87% 84% 93%
Area 1
2012
95%
Area 2
2011
94%
Area 3
2010
95%
Area 4
2009
94%
2008
95%
Area 5
2007
96%
Area 6
2003
95%
Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey™
Changes From Last Year and Over Time
• • • vii
Overall, ratings in the City were generally stable, with 111 questions rated similarly in 2015 and 2016. Results
are generally considered similar if the ratings from one year to the next if they differ by less than five percentage
points, which is statistically meaningful. Residents responded more favorably to two questions and less
favorably to 22 questions in 2016 than in 2015:
Percentage
Survey Question 2015 2016 Point Change
How safe or unsafe you feel in Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after dark (very/ 67% 74% +7%
somewhat safe)
Street repair (excellent/good) 51% 57% +6%
Availability of affordable quality health care (excellent/good) 70% 65% -5%
Overall quality of business and service establishments in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 77% 72% -5%
Recreation centers or facilities (excellent/good) 86% 81% -5%
Emergency preparedness (services that prepare the community for natural disasters or 74% 69% -5% other emergency situations) (excellent/good)
Public places where people want to spend time (excellent/good) 81% 75% -6%
Attended a City-sponsored event (at least once in last 12 months) 57% 51% -6%
Treating all residents fairly (excellent/good) 53% 47% -6%
Availability of affordable quality mental health care (excellent/good) 53% 46% -7%
Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 49% 42% -7%
Opportunities to participate in community matters (excellent/good) 76% 69% -7%
Opportunities to learn about City services through social media websites such as Twitter 75% 68% -7% and Facebook (excellent/good)
Bus or transit services (excellent/good) 49% 42% -7%
Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) (excellent/good) 59% 52% -7%
The value of services for the taxes paid to Palo Alto (excellent/good) 65% 58% -7%
How well Palo Alto government does at being honest (excellent/good) 62% 55% -7%
Recommend living in Palo Alto to someone who asks (excellent/good) 80% 72% -8%
Economic development (excellent/good) 69% 61% -8%
The overall direction that Palo Alto is taking (excellent/good) 48% 40% -8%
Overall confidence in Palo Alto government (excellent/good) 53% 44% -9%
How well Palo Alto government does at generally acting in the best interest of the 53% 44% -9% community (excellent/good)
Availability of affordable quality child care/preschool (excellent/good) 49% 39% -10%
The job Palo Alto government does at welcoming citizen involvement (excellent/good) 61% 50% -11%
Although not showing a statistically meaningful change from the prior year, residents' opinions in several areas
have improved or declined over time, which is more likely to represent real shifts in residents' perspectives.
Since 2006, the changes in responses to 39 questions have been statistically meaningful:
Executive Summary: The National Citizen Survey"' viii
Areas That Improved or Declined Over Time 2006 2016 Percentage
Percent Rating Excellent or Good Rating Rating Point Change Trend
Variety of library materials (excellent/good) 59% 82% +23% 1'
Neighborhood branch libraries (excellent/good) 73% 89% +16% 1'
Storm drainage (excellent/good) 61% 75% +14% 1'
Public library services (excellent/good) 78% 91% +13% 1'
Quality of services provided by the federal government (excellent/good) 33% 46% +13% 1'
Employment opportunities (excellent/good) 59% 70% +11% 1'
Street repair (excellent/good) 47% 57% +10% 1'
Sidewalk maintenance (excellent/good) 52% 61% +9% 1'
How safe or unsafe you feel in your neighborhood after dark (very/somewhat 79% 87% +8% 1'
safe)
Availability of affordable quality health care (excellent/good) 57% 65% +8% 1'
Quality of services provided by state government (excellent/good) 38% 46% +8% 1'
How safe or unsafe you feel in Palo Alto's downtown/commercial areas after 67% 74% +7% 1'
dark (very/somewhat safe)
Drinking water (excellent/good) 80% 87% +7% 1'
Public information services (excellent/good) 72% 78% +6% 1'
Street lighting (excellent/good) 66% 71% +5% 1'
Sewer services (excellent/good) 83% 88% +5% 1'
Street tree maintenance (excellent/good) 66% 71% +5% 1'
Gas utility (excellent/good) 82% 87% +5% 1'
Overall image or reputation of Palo Alto (excellent/good) 91% 86% -5% "' Availability of affordable quality housing (excellent/good) 11% 6% -5% "' Traffic signal timing (excellent/good) 55% 50% -5% "' Garbage collection (excellent/good) 92% 87% -5% "' Recreational opportunities (excellent/good} 83% 77% -6% "' Attended a local public meeting (at least once in the last 12 months) 27% 21% -6% "' Quality of services provided by the City of Palo Alto (excellent/good) 87% 81% -6% "' Ease of walking in Palo Alto (exce llent/good) 87% 80% -7% "' The overall quality of life in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 92% 85% -7% "' Palo Alto as a place to raise children (excellent/good) 92% 84% -8% "' Volunteered your t ime to some group/activity in Palo Alto (at least once in the 53% 45% -8% "' last 12 months)
Traffic flow on major streets (excellent/good) 39% 30% -9% "' Sense of community (excellent/good) 66% 57% -9% "' Code enforcement (weeds, abandoned buildings, etc.) (excellent/good) 61% 52% -9% "' Land use, planning, and zoning (excellent/good) 50% 37% -13% "' Bus or transit services (excellent/good) 58% 42% -16% "' Ease of travel by car in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 60% 44% -16% "' Wat ched (online or television) a local public meeting (at least once in the last 12 31% 14% -17% "' months)
Palo Alto as a place to retire (excellent/good) 68% 50% -18% "' Overall quality of new development in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 62% 42% -20% "' Ease of t ravel by public t ransportation in Palo Alto (excellent/good) 60% 28% -32% "'
The National Otizen Survey™
Figure 2: Location of Survey Recipients -Area
side
Pod ol.1
Y.1lle\·
4 North
F .ll r
O.lks
At he it on
\\'est
~lenlo
P.uk
(
~
<
I
t.rnl ord
• • • •
E.1st
P.11 0
Alto
Soor&hne
Goll lm~s
Sun
28
L
c .,
10 Survey Recipients In Palo Alto, CA --------========---------------...... Neighborhoods in Area 1: Crescent Park, Community
Center, Duveneck/St . Francis, Triple El, Embarcadero Oaks,
Leland Manor, Garland
Neighborhoods in Area 2: Midtown, St. Claire Gardens, ~
South of Midtown V
Neighborhoods in Area 3: Palo Verde, Adobe
Meadow/Meadow Park, Charleston Gardens, The
Greenhouse, Greendell, Green meadow, Walnut Grove,
Fairmeadow
5
Neighborhoods in Area 4: Ventura, Charleston Meadow~ '$:,
Monroe Park, Palo Alto Orchards, Barron Park, Green y
Pc.res, Greater Miranda, Esther Clark Park, Palo Alto Hill:
Neighborhoods in Area 5: Southgate, Evergreen Park,
College Terrace, Stanford Research Park
Neighborhoods in Area 6: Downtown North, University
South, Professorville, Old Palo Alto, Stanford West
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2017 10:38 PM
To:raj@siliconvalleydebug.org
Subject:Obama's Harvard law piece re advancing criminal justice reform ( January 2017)
FYI:
http://harvardlawreview.org/2017/01/the-presidents-role-in-advancing-criminal-justice-reform/
Shared via the Google app
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2017 9:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 8:38 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Melanie Gurunathan; A-MIKE BECHLER; Dave Price; Glanckopf, Annette
Subject:ONE THOUSAND CAR ACCIDENTS A YEAR here in Palo Alto!
Hi,
Thank you Mr Mello for your study of Middlefield.
ALL WE NEED TO KEEP HUMAN BEINGS SAFE IS SPEED ENFORCEMENT.
25 mph. Ticket over 33.
Palo Alto has disbanded our ENTIRE traffic division.
There were 8 to 10 working officers when I moved here, doing their job.
Burglaries and robberies were virtually unheard of.
Our quality of life is completely hurt by the constant speeding on Middlefield. We are never safe leaving our driveways.
EVER.
The noise is awful!
There is ZERO law enforcement, since September 2011.
I monitored Webster. Three cars in a hour.......
MARION and MORENO are so unsafe!
In Midtown, it is like we are being punished at all hours for living south of Oregon expressway.
Rehire our traffic division,
PLEASE !
Geri MCGILVRAY
650‐328‐2416
Everyday safety and WALKABILITY, MIDTOWN, Middlefield and all Palo Alto streets.
I would like to get back to my painting.
Sent from my iPhone
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/25/2017 9:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Glynn Edwards <glynnedw@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, January 24, 2017 12:38 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Glynn Edwards
Subject:parking issues at Stanford West (SW)
Dear City Council members,
I am sure I am not the first to contact you about this issue but wanted to write to you about the impossibility of
parking in my neighborhood when I am working from home. I work at Stanford and usually work on campus;
but occasionally I need to work from home. The main problem is that they have so many long term projects going on at SW, that the 15+ painters who are here everyday each take up parking spots.
The management company (SW is owned by SU) enacted permit parking for all parking spaces in lots or
perpendicular to the street and gave each household one permit. These spaces/lots are NEVER full.
Today, and this was not the first time, I wasted a half hour driving around at lunch looking for a "legal" spot for car - i.e. parallel to the street - and ended up parking in the management's parking lot in a questionable area. IF
we were near other parking, this might not be such as issue but we are pretty isolated at SW.
I am asking you to consider granting residents of Palo Alto who reside at SW neighborhood permits for street parking - where the spots are parallel to the roads. Thank you for your consideration!
Best,
Glynn
-- Glynn Edwards | home: (650) 498-9382
969 Clark Way, Palo Alto, CA 94304
cell: (650) 521-2255 | glynnedw@gmail.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Dave Warner <dwar11@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2017 4:19 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please support the SWRCB's proposal for the Tuolumne
Dear City Council,
Thank you for your wonderful oversight of Palo Alto and addressing the myriad of issues that affect our vibrant city. As you are likely aware, the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) has been going through a
hearing and public comment process for their proposed amendment to the water quality control plan for the Bay
Delta which amongst other actions includes increasing the water flows left in the Tuolumne and Lower San
Joaquin Rivers. And as you know our city receives most of its water from the Tuolumne thanks to the SFPUC
and BAWSC. Please support the SWRCB’s proposal and encourage both the SFPUC and BAWSC to also support it.
Again as you are likely aware, the Tuolumne has suffered significant environmental damage including the wild
native salmon nearing extinction. Our wonderful Bay Area citizens have also been wonderful supporters of the Bay with last June 70% voting to tax themselves to restore the Bay’s wetlands. They would be shocked to think
that the Tuolumne could be considered to have devastation possibly in the realm of what the Los Angeles DWP
did to Mono lake and the Owens Valley.
The good news: The SFPUC has water storage to last six years and is now releasing water, water that was badly
needed by the ecosystem during the drought. On average the SFPUC captures 3x the amount of water that it
needs. We have many alternatives available to us including water recycling (used to the tune of 100 million
gallons a day in Republican Orange County) and most of all we’ve demonstrated a phenomenal ability to
conserve (30% this last drought).
So far the SFPUC has put out alarmist materials and is trying to propose a “settlements” alternative. The
SWRCB has done a rigorous scientific analysis and as much as they would like settlements to be an adequate
solution, the science wasn’t there.
Your support will help encourage the SFPUC and BAWSC to give theirs.
Thanks!
Dave Warner
754 Palo Alto Avenue
20+ year Palo Alto resident
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:48 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Gitelman, Hillary
Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2017 5:15 PM
To:Brent Han; Council, City
Cc:supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org
Subject:RE: Citywide Vapor Intrusion Policy
Hi Brent:
Thanks for your email. I just chatted with Jim Keene, our City Manager, and he wanted me to reach out to you and see if
we can find a time to get together and discuss your ideas for an updated policy or protocol regarding properties
potentially affected by TCE.
I’m somewhat familiar with Mountain View’s approach to this issue and would be happy to learn more. Why don’t we
chat when you come to the City Council meeting on Monday and find a mutually agreeable time to follow‐up? I’ll be
sitting in the front row of the audience behind Mr. Keene – see you then!
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: Brent Han [mailto:imedicineclub@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:51 PM
To: Council, City
Cc: Gitelman, Hillary; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org
Subject: Citywide Vapor Intrusion Policy
Hello,
My name is Brent, and I represent the Gunn High I-MED Club. For the past three years we have worked on the issue of groundwater contamination in Palo Alto. Our research has shown that there is a simple way for all of
Palo Alto to prevent vapor intrusion of breathable carcinogens, namely TCE, into people's homes. Palo Alto
currently utilizes vapor mitigation systems above the COE Plume in California Avenue; using the California
Environmental Quality Act, projects are reviewed on a case by case basis by the RWQCB in partnership with the City of Palo Alto. Much like Mountain View, Palo Alto can incorporate these mitigation policies into its
overall construction code so that projects above plumes can be subjected to third-party review. I have attached a
copy of Mountain View's vapor intrusion policy; the specific policies are located in the Tsuda memo, on the last
5 pages.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:48 AM
2
Next Monday we plan to speak at Oral Communications to request that City Council pass a Colleagues' Memo
to move such an amendment forward. We have also released a petition to raise awareness of this issue, and look
forward to working with the city to protect our community. Thank you for your service to Palo Alto. Respectfully yours,
Brent Han
imedgunn.com
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 8:35 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Minor, Beth
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 7:55 AM
To:Brent Han; Council, City
Subject:RE: Oral Communications TCE Slides
Good morning Brent,
We will have the slides loaded on the chambers computer, just check in with me or David Carnahan when you
arrive. Also each of you will have 3 minutes to speak, can you let me know how many there will be? Those that are
speaking will need to complete speaker cards which are located on the table when you enter the chambers, there are
also some on the ½ wall behind where I sit. If you have any further questions please let me know.
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
From: Brent Han [mailto:imedicineclub@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 7:49 AM
To: Council, City
Subject: Oral Communications TCE Slides
Good Morning,
Last week the Gunn I-MED Club notified City Council that we intended to speak up about TCE in our community, and what measures must be taken. We would like to share a few slides during Oral Communications to better explain our work, and would be grateful to have the chance to present our slides
when our representative (Brent Han) speaks.
Thank You, The i-MED Team
TCE: The Brief Story
imedgunn.com
What is TCE?
Trichloroethylene
Volatile Organic
Compound/ VOC
Industrial solvent; degreaser
Classified as carcinogen by
the EPA1
1https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id
=172&tid=30
Groundw ater Plum es
Vapor Intrusion HDPE Permeation
2016 City of Palo Alto Shallow Groundwater Map (Terradex, Inc.)
HP Superfund Site
California-Olive-
Emerson “COE”
Plume
Groundwater flows
from hills to bay
Risk of plume shifting
beyond Study Area
Source
Site
Source
Site
Source
Site
First-Encountered Groundwater A1 Zone
A2 Zone
2009
2014
Mtn. View Vapor Intrusion Policy
City flags
construction
projects over
plumes
Testing by
appropriate agency
(including HDPE
pipes)
Site-specific
vapor mitigation
and remediation
Petition
PA: Vapor Intrusion Policy
Cleanup Agencies:
Expand Study Areas
HDPE Testing
Additional indoor air testing
1. Go to imedgunn.com
2. Click Sign Petition
3. Share w/ concerned friends
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:43 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, January 22, 2017 5:24 PM
To:French, Amy; Atkinson, Rebecca
Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject:Re: Request for Notification -- City Parking Garage Solar Projects
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
January 22, 2017
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Ms. Rebecca Atkinson, Planner
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
On October 6, 2016, I requested notification of the proposed (tentative)
decision for each of the four applications for City Garage Rooftop Solar
projects.
I have never received notification for any of these applications.
Today, I reviewed the Building Eye website and noticed that applications
for three of the sites had been resubmitted on November 15, 2016, and that
the project at 445 Bryant Street had received its tentative decision and
entitlement on the same day in violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code
(PAMC).
These four projects are clearly covered by the procedures for processing
minor projects as described in PAMC Section 18.76.020(b)(3)(E)(ii):
18.76.020 Architectural Review
(b) Applicability
No permit required under Title 2, Title 12 or Title 16 shall be issued for a major or minor project, as set forth
in this section, unless an application for architectural review is reviewed, acted upon, and approved or
approved with conditions as set forth in Section 18.77.070.
(3) Minor Projects. The following are "minor projects" for the purposes of the architectural review process
set forth in Section 18.77.070, except when determined to be major pursuant to subsection (2)(I):
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:43 AM
2
(E) Minor changes to the following:
(ii) Previously approved planned community district development plans.
I renew my request for notification that appears in my letter to you of
October 6, 2016, on this subject.
If a tentative decision has been made for the project at 445 Bryant Street
as shown on the Building Eye website, or when a tentative decision has
been made on any of the other three projects (that are shown on the
Building Eye website as not yet having received a decision), please notify
me as requested by me and required by law.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
cc: Palo Alto City Council
Palo Alto City Clerk
From: herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 6, 2016 7:23 PM
To: amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org; rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Request for Notification ‐‐ City Parking Garage Solar Projects
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
October 6, 2016
Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official
Ms. Rebecca Atkinson, Planner
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
CITY PARKING GARAGE SOLAR PROJECTS ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPLICATIONS
REQUEST FOR NOTIFICATION
445 BRYANT STREET (FILE NUMBER 16PLN-00202)
275 CAMBRIDGE AVENUE (FILE NUMBERS 16PLN-00255 AND 16PLN-00278)
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/23/2017 7:43 AM
3
475 CAMBRIDGE AVENUE (FILE NUMBER 16PLN-00250)
520 WEBSTER STREET (FILE NUMBER 16PLN-00254)
Dear Ms. French and Ms. Atkinson:
Please send me notification of the Director of Planning and Community
Environment's proposed [tentative] decision for each of these projects if
the projects are treated as minor projects.
If a proposed decision has already been made, please notify me now.
If a proposed decision has not yet been made, please notify me when the
decision is made.
Also, please notify me of any hearings scheduled for any of these projects
including, but not limited to, hearings before the Architectural Review
Board, hearings regarding Conditional Use Permits (e.g., the posted notice
at 475 Cambridge indicates a Conditional Use Permit is required), and
hearings on any appeals of decisions on any applications for these
projects.
The notices posted at each of the project sites do not indicate that any
action has been taken to date.
The Building Eye site accessed from the City's website indicates that the
most recent actions for these projects have been notices of incomplete
application and in the case of 275 Cambridge an application for
Preliminary Architectural Review that followed the notice of incomplete
application for the actual project.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:49 AM
1
Carnahan, David
From:Keith Bennett <pagroundwater@luxsci.net>
Sent:Wednesday, January 18, 2017 1:45 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Bobel, Phil; Sartor, Mike; Nafziger, Mike; ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net; Esther Nigenda;
Daniel Garber
Subject:Save Palo Alto's Comments on Draft Proposal for Dewatering Regulations
Attachments:7481.doc; SavePaloAltosGroundwater_20170117.pdf
Honorable Council Member and Staff,
Thank you again for considering improvements to Palo Alto's regulations on construction dewatering. During the last year, Save Palo Alto's Groundwater has been working with contractors and otherprofessionals to
identify practical methods for underground (basement) construction in Palo Alto (including residential areas)
that conserves groundwater and reduces the impacts and risks on neighboring properties.
Attached please find our comments on the draft Staff proposal (7481), also attached for reference.
We particularly would like to call your attention to our recommendation that Staff be directed to "to investigate and test in 2017 the feasibility of an ordinance to take effect for all dewatering projects in 2018 and later. The
new ordinance should require all groundwater from construction dewatering to either be a) recharged locally
through percolation, and / or b) beneficially used at other locations at applicant’s expense. "
Such an ordinance directly addresses the main issues, whether impacts on neighboring properties, groundwater
preservation, or damage due to streetwork; is clear, enforceable, potentially reduces burdensome paperwork on applicants and inspectors. This approach allows applicants considerable latitude in means and methods to
achieve the objectives (which will likely depend on the specific situation).
The proposal for the First Phase (2017) is intended to both reduce groundwater pumping in 2017 and to gather
data for the ordinance.
Secondarily, to encourage support for the upcoming Stormwater Management Ballot Measure, we strongly recommend that Council direct Staff to investigate imposing a fee for storm drain usage if Staff recommends
continued use of the storm drains for construction dewatering in 2018 and beyond. Obviously, this is a
contingency; if Staff's recommended ordinance does not permit use of the stormdrains for disposal of
groundwater from construction dewatering, it is not necessary to develop a proposal for this fee.
We would welcome the opportunity to address your questions and concerns prior to the meeting, tentatively scheduled for Feb 13.
Please contact us (650-269-2988 or e-mail to pagroundwater@luxsci.net).
For Save Palo Alto's Groundwater
Keith Bennett, Ph.D.
Rita Vrhel, RN, BSN, CCM Dan Garber, FAIA
Esther Nigenda, Ph.D.
City of Palo Alto | City Clerk's Office | 1/19/2017 8:49 AM
2
http://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org
Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater Recommendations for Changes to Palo Alto’s Current
Regulations for Construction Dewatering
January 2017
We appreciate the thoughtful discussion by the Policy and Services Committee (PSC) on December 14,
2016 and its recommendations for the full Council to modify the construction dewatering pilot program
for 2017 and to enact an ordinance to take effect in 2018. We also appreciate the time and effort Public
Works has spent on this issue, in reaching out to stakeholders and in drafting their Recommendations.
Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater argues our groundwater is a valued community and environmental
resource and, equally important, groundwater preservation and underground construction need not be
mutually exclusive. Well-established, widely used, proven construction methods are available which
greatly reduce or possibly even eliminate wasted groundwater. These methods also greatly reduce
impacts on neighboring properties during the construction phase.
In light of the PSC motion, we support Staff’s subsequent recommendations as outlined in their Staff
Report (7481, attached) and request the Council to augment Staff’s recommendations, as follows:
1) First Phase (2017) Pilot program:
a) Item #1. Divide the text into two sub bullets:
i) Demonstrate a maximum 10-minute truck fill time and, for neighbors’ use, 10 gallons per
minute (gpm) concurrent water delivery from each of two (2) 100’ hoses during the two
week start up period defined in Section (3) of the Staff recommendations. Such
performance must be maintained during the entire pumping period. (added requirement to
maintain performance throughout the pumping period)
ii) Design the tank system so the storage tank is always at least one-half full during the period
of truck deliveries. (Ongoing metering of instantaneous and total flow of fill stations is
currently required) (no changes)
b) Item #1. Add a new sub bullet
Projects with discharge rates to the storm drains of less than 280,000 gallons per week are to
provide one day / week of truck service for beneficial use (same as current requirements). If
the discharge rate is greater than 280,000 gallons per week, the trucking requirement is
increased to at least two (2) days/ week of truck services for beneficial use. (new)
c) Locate meters so residents can easily read them and clearly display a phone number, which
residents can use to report problems. Clearly indicate at the site the dates permitted for
pumping. Require reported problems to be remedied within 48 hours of being reported (new).
d) Items # (2) – (6), 7 (a –c). (no changes to Staff proposal)
e) Item # 7(d). Heighten importance of the language in this item to more clearly emphasize and
encourage the use of local area watering methods by elevating it to (new) item #8.
i) Limit the extension of the pumping period for “low pumping rate” projects to a total of 6
million gallons of water extraction (corresponding to approximately 14 weeks at maximum
pumping rate; longer at lower rates). (new).
ii) Revise the language in this item so it is clearly understood by the reader to be an alternative
method to the items 1 through 7 and make it clear (as stated in the previous Section #7(d),
some City fees will be lower, and other costs may also be lower, for example the costs of the
Geotechnical Report, which would not be required.
f) We highly recommend the City develop and distribute outreach materials to educate applicants,
contractors and the Community on the benefits of groundwater and the importance of
conserving groundwater and minimizing groundwater extraction (revision of current outreach
program content).
2) Second Phase (2018) program:
Direct Staff to investigate and test in 2017 the feasibility of an ordinance to take effect for all
dewatering projects in 2018 and later. The new ordinance should require all groundwater from
construction dewatering to either be a) recharged locally through percolation, and / or b)
beneficially used at other locations at applicant’s expense.
a) The language of the City Council’s motion should make it clear the motion is being made to
support the value the community places on groundwater and to reduce or eliminate the impacts
of diverting groundwater into the City’s Strom Drain system.
b) Staff is further requested to include additional provisions in the ordinance to limit the maximum
rate to maintain the groundwater level at the property boundary to within 2 feet of the level
prior to pumping in order to limit potential adverse impacts on neighboring properties and to
minimize nuisance. Appropriate compliance verifications should be included in ordinance, such
as item #7 (b) in the Staff recommendations for the First Phase.
c) In the event Council does not approve an ordinance requiring all groundwater surfaced from
construction activities to be either percolated back into the soil or beneficially used in some
other way, then Council should direct Staff to
i) Impose a fee for storm drain usage (imposing fees for storm drain usage is likely to indirectly
help build community support for the Stormwater Management Ballot Measure), and
ii) Develop specific policies to apply in the event of multiple dewatering projects separated by
less than 500 feet during any calendar year.
3) All projects 2017 onward are to be subject to new or enhanced regulations upon approval by
Council. There should be no exemptions for projects based upon permit or project approval status.
Based on analysis of the 2016 construction season results, input from
stakeholders and previous direction from Council, staff is recommending
modifications to the dewatering requirements in two phases. The First Phase is
making relatively minor changes to the requirements which were adopted by
Council for the Calendar Year (CY) 2016 construction season. These new changes
(and the pre-existing requirements) would apply to the CY 2017 construction
season for those sites not having Building permit before Council adoption of these
changes. The Second Phase would be implemented through the ordinance
process, with a goal of being effective for the CY 2018 construction season.
Requirements under consideration for CY 2018 will be further vetted by staff,
stakeholders and Council prior to ordinance adoption. The two phases are
described below:
First Phase: Proposed changes for the CY 2017 Construction Season
1) Fill Stations: Demonstrate a maximum 10 minute truck fill time and 2
simultaneous, 100’ hose, 10 gallons per minute (gpm) deliveries (for
each hose) during the two week start up period defined below. Design
the tank system so that the storage tank is always at least one-half full.
(Ongoing Metering of instantaneous and total flow of fill stations is
currently required)
2) At the basement slab center, pump the groundwater down no deeper
than 3 feet below the depth of the slab, following the two week start-up
period. Once the slab is poured, the depth to the Center of the slab shall
be 1 foot.
3) Pump for no more than 10 weeks for residential sites. A two week start-
up period ahead of the 10 weeks is allowed. At the end of the two week
start-up period, compliance with all performance standards and water
quality standards shall be demonstrated. (Sections A1, A2 , A4, B3b, B2,
and Turbidity requirements)
4) Offer to water trees/plants on adjacent properties and do so if
requested.
5) Report on all measurements and requirements (reports due at the end
of the 2-week start-up period, then bi-weekly, and then a final report at
the end of pumping)
6) Add supplemental City contract resources to manage information,
review submittals, verify compliance and prepare public reports; and
add those costs to City permit fees (this will average to approximately
$10,000 per site).
7) Geotechnical Study Enhancements
a) Currently a Geotechnical Study is required to determine groundwater
drawdown levels and any associated impacts. The key change for CY
2017 is to require verification of the anticipated drawdown curve
with a pump test using actual wells, by the end of the 2 week start-
up period. Cone Penetrometer Tests (CPT) are also encouraged to
verify soils data. The actual pumping rates, following the two week
start-up period, shall be limited to the rates used in in the
verification. The maximum amount of water pumped over the 10
week period, (excluding the 2 week start- up period) shall be limited
to that calculated during verification. This activity will add on the
order of $10,000 to the cost of basement construction.
b) To support the work in (a) above, measure the ground water level at
a distance representative of the distance to the nearest adjacent
structure, or farthest feasible point on the subject site. This
monitoring shall be daily for the first week (including the two week
start-up period), then weekly thereafter. If drawdown results are
greater than anticipated by the Geotechnical Study, at the end of the
2 week start-up period or thereafter, submit revised a Geotechnical
Study, and any revised conclusions on impacts of the groundwater
drawdown. The cost of this activity is largely covered by the cost of
(a) above, but some additional cost will be incurred.
c) Survey and mark land elevations on adjacent structures (assuming
permission is obtained) prior to any pumping. This activity will not
add significantly to construction costs, as survey measurements are
routinely taken.
d) The Geotechnical Study and verification shall not be required if the
storm drain pumping is continuously limited to 30 gallons per minute
(gpm) following the two week start-up period. This could be
accomplished through installation of groundwater cut-off walls or
similar construction techniques; re-injection or percolation of the
water to the ground water; or beneficial use on trees and vegetation.
(These optional activities would, if implemented, add significantly to
the cost of constructing basements.) Similarly, the 10 week pumping
period can be extended if the 30 gpm flow rate is continuously
achieved following the two-week start-up period. The fee described
in 6) above would also be lowered dramatically or eliminated.
Additionally, the Contractor need only provide off-site hauling of
water sufficient to meet the needs of adjacent neighbors, as opposed
to the one-day per week requirement for 2016 .
Second Phase: Potential Calendar Year (CY) 2018 Construction Season Changes:
a) Determine whether existing wells from other sites/purposes can be
used to satisfy the groundwater monitoring requirements; utilize such
existing wells if practical.
b) Limit the groundwater level drawdown at the closest off-site
adjacent structure to 3’ .
c) Determine whether existing wells can be used to satisfy the
requirement in (c) above; if not, install a new monitoring well.
d) Potentially, require the use of groundwater cut-off walls, or other
construction methods, which will limit the pumping (following a
two week start-up period) to 30 gallons per minute (gpm) .
Resource Impact
Testing, refining and implementing the suggested measures to improve the
dewatering program will require approximately $100,000 in City contract funds. If
this approach is approved by Council, a Budget Amendment will be submitted for
Council approval. The Municipal Fee schedule will also be proposed to be
amended to allow the City to recover these costs from applicants. If approved,
staff estimates that this would increase the cost of basement construction by
approximately $10,000 per site. The Group 3 suggestions are varied and require
thoughtful review and have potentially large costs. Therefore, staff is only
recommending the analysis of three of them at this time.
Environmental Review
The 2017 recommended program enhancements are minor modifications to an
existing regulatory program designed to be protective of the environment. These
modifications are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
because there is no possibility that the modifications may have a significant effect
on the environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3)).
The Group 3 requirements will be evaluated and appropriate environmental
review prepared as specific proposals are developed.
Attachment A: February 1, 2016 CMR 6478
Attachment B: 2016 Pumping Requirements
Attachment C: April 11, 2016 CMR 6700
h-cJ'ff' ~-L-UV,rt1I .
900 N. California, I believe, will be the largest residential dewatering project
in Palo Alto,ever.
On 1/21, Keith Bennett dug a hole and measured the water table on a
property adjacent to 900 N. California. The current water table is now less
than 4 ft. below the ground. This compares to about I 0 feet below ground
surface for most of 2016's basement dewatering projects.
Based on the current water table height, the information gained from last
year's metering during dewatering, and the size of the 3 proposed
basements, Save Palo Alto's Groundwater estimates between 50-120 million
+ gallons of community groundwater will be extracted during the
construction of these basements.
Using the simplest construction methods, the majority of this groundwater
will be shunted into the storm drain at no cost to the developer.
However, using local dewatering construction methods, as presented by Dan
Garber @ the 12114 Policy and Services Committee would greatly reduce
the amount of groundwater extracted thus having less potential impact on
neighboring properties.
Keith has shown a map of the number of homes which could be negatively
impacted by dewatering.
Because dewatering will occur, an Enhanced Geotechnical Report is
required.
We urge the City Council to require completion of the Enhanced
Geotechnical Report by a local firm respected by our local Architectural
Community for their level of knowledge concerning our local soils and
water levels. And require the projections of the Enhanced Geotechnical
report be confirmed by measuring the water table draw down at the
property boundary and the pumping rate.
Murray Engineering of Los Alto and /or Romig, Inc of San Carlos are 2
firms specialize in Environmental and Ecological Services as well as Soils,
Foundations and Geotechnical reports and Solutions. Our Architectural
community respects their reports.
ICOUN22 ME~NG / a/1.1
[ ] ~ed Before Meeting
H""Received at Meeting
Last year 2 of the 3 submitted Enhanced Geotechnical Reports were
inaccurate by a factor of7. The reports UNDER ESTIMATED the amount
of community groundwater extracted by millions of gallons.
These reports also underestimated the number of gallons extracted per
minute by a factor of 10. Both underestimations did not accurately reflect
potential risks to the surrounding properties.
Those 2 Enhanced Geotechnical reports were completed by an out of State
firm lacking experience with Pa1o Alto's soils. They were essentially
worthless, except to a meet a "check off" requirement.
The Enhanced Geotechnical Report for:
762 Garland: Maximum estimated extraction was 1.9 million gallons I 10
days (18.85 gpm). Actual Metered total extraction was: 10.4 million gallons
extracted over 71 days = extraction of 102 gpm.
832 Warren: Maximum estimated extraction was: 2.1 million gallons I 10
days I (20.39 gpm) Actua] metered total extraction was: 18.6 million gallons
extracted over 74 days = extraction of 175 gpm
Total ground water extracted estimated per the Enhanced Geotechnical
reports: 4 million gallons. Actual metered total groundwater extracted: 29
million gallons
These errors are unacceptable.
Public Works stated a 2017 goal of learning from the 2016 dewatering
program's mistakes; this certainly includes no longer accepting inaccurate
Geotechnical reports.
An Enhanced Geotechnical Report which provides valuable and accurate
information rather than just meeting a City requirement is essential for all
projects requiring dewatering, especially the 3 new homes@ 900 N. Calif.
Ave.
I urge you to take into consideration the potential risks posed to the
properties around 900 N. California and pull this item from today's Consent
Calendar.
Thank you.