Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-06-17 City Council Emails701-32 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: 6/17/2024 Document dates: 6/10/2024 – 6/17/2024 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Margaret Heath To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Tonight is the Night - Join Us Date:Monday, June 17, 2024 12:33:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone and Council Members, Below is what happens when a formal lobbying organization has dedicated paid staff with thetime and resources to organize an overwhelming large and loud attendance in council chambers. Deceptively boosted with non-residents, and no way to differentiate between thetwo. With elections coming up and council chambers appearing to be filled with potential Palo Alto voters, I urge you to keep in mind this lobbying group passionately represent a desire, whichsome of you may also hold, but which is not necessarily in the best interests of Palo Alto residents or our business community as a whole. Sincerely,Margaret Heath College Terrace ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Palo Alto Forward <info@paloaltoforward.com> Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 9:56 AMSubject: Tonight is the Night - Join Us To: < Friend -- Tonight - Advocacy, Art, & Pizza OK friends -- we need to get a large group to attend the City Council hearing tonight as partof our Homes for Everyone? YES! campaign. We have have five amazing members who will speak about the importance of housing forour schools, economy, equity goals, transportation, and climate. ** WE NEED YOUTHERE TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR THESE SPEAKERS BY HOLDING OUR SIGNSIN THE AUDIENCE! ** Here is the timing and more details are here: 5:30 - 6:00 -- chat with artist Kirti Bassendine about her art work related to housing instability currently on display City Hall 6:00 - 6:30 -- assemble with signs in Council chambers for public comment 6:30 - 7:30 -- celebrate with your friends with pizza in King Plaza, we'll provide thepizza and drinks Email us at info@paloaltoforward.com with any questions or to volunteer to help. Why this action? Why tonight? The city has an adopted a goal of adding 6,000 homes that are affordable to low income,middle income, and higher income households. Homes for Everyone! YES? means implementing policies to meet ALL of our housing goals. We are falling very short on those 6,000 units and need to do more - something we wrote about in our recent Housing Element comment letter to the state. We need to show oursupport and give Council the courage to act bravely on housing-related issues, from renter protections to project approvals! See you tonight! I'll bring the signs:). Palo Alto Forward This email was sent to maggi650@gmail.com. To stop receiving emails, click here. on Facebook. Created with NationBuilder, the essential toolkit for leaders. From:Allie H To:Council, City Subject:Concerning 6/17 Agenda item #31 Date:Monday, June 17, 2024 11:55:44 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I write as a concerned parent of school-aged children who are both walkers and cyclists in ourcommunity. I would like to state my unequivocal support in favor of No Right Turn onRed Restrictions. I feel privileged to live in Palo Alto, where, by-in-large, I feel that mychildren are relatively safe. Nonetheless, one of my biggest fears and concerns as a parent is their safety while riding their bikes and walking due to distracted drivers. Studies show adramatic increase in distracted driving and related pedestrian/cyclist fatalities. As you are well aware, we've had several instances of children being hit, injured and killed in Palo Alto duringschool commute hours, which coincide with rush hour times. As a parent and community member, there is no greater loss than losing a child too soon. No amount of right turns orsaving a few minutes for cars to get to work can justify the loss of life and safety for the children of our community. As a mother and commuter, I urge the city council to adopt theproposed restrictions to ensure the increased safety of our community. All of us know that distracted driving is not going away any time soon, if ever. We live in an increasinglydistracted world (1 in 10 drivers admit to getting in a car accident while on their cellphone), which our very own Silicon Valley is responsible for. The least we can do is try tominimize the resulting bodily injury and loss of human life. We know that El Camino is one of the most dangerous sites (labeled a "high collision corridor") in Palo Alto, particularly forcyclists. The proposed restriction is a no-brainer. Please adopt the proposed No Turn on Red restriction. Thank you for your time and consideration of this urgent matter. Alexandra Horevitz, LCSWNixon Elementary Parent From:Aram James To:Jeff Moore; Lewis james; Raymond Goins; Rose Lynn; Sean Allen Subject:The Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA) came into existence in 2003 after Bich Cau Thi Tran was shot and killed by San Jose police Officer Chad Marsh… Date:Monday, June 17, 2024 10:59:03 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From the archives of aram james JAMES AND KONDA: THE TIME HAS COME FOR A POLICE CRIMES UNIT The Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA) came into existence in 2003 after Bich CauThi Tran was shot and killed by San Jose police Officer Chad Marsh… James and Konda: The Time Has Come for a Police Crimes Unit https://search.app/y8jF8QBiSiDxZFFb8 From:Penny Proctor To:Council, City; City Mgr; Parks; Administrative Services Subject:Eleanor FY 2026 Restroom - Thank You!! Date:Monday, June 17, 2024 10:55:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. > Dear Members of the City Council, Finance Committee, and City Staff, > > Thank you all so very much for the recommendation that a restroom be added to Eleanor Pardee Park in FY 2026! Wonderful! It is desperately needed, and we are grateful. > > Penny Proctor > Community Gardener > Greer Road From:Daniel Hulse To:Council, City Subject:Public comment for #31: ECR Bikeways Date:Monday, June 17, 2024 10:21:55 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I live in the Del Medio neighborhood of Mountain View and I often bike to parts of Palo Alto.One thing that is apparent to anyone who bikes in the area is that El Camino Real is a massive, gaping hole in our bike network because it is so central and so dangerous. To fix this, I really hope that you will accept city staff's recommendation to move ahead withbike lanes on El Camino. These lanes will immediately improve safety on El Camino for all uses, including driving, biking, walking, taking transit. Some people have said some bad things about these lanes in the past that are untrue: 1. First is that they are unneeded because there are "parallel routes" like the Park bike boulevard. However, these parallel routes are not especially visible and aren't going toserve the destinations on El Camino itself. Which is one of the reasons why people already cheat death and ride on the sidewalk. Another reason is that El Camino is amajor transit corridor for the 522/22, which has a good amount of users who take their bikes on the bus. Without bike lanes, the "last mile" bike connection for these users isinherently unsafe. Finally, given how much of this corridor is being improved, people biking from adjacent cities like Mountain View will have an expectation that the bikeinfrastructure of El Camino will be as good as anywhere else. If their bike lane disappears suddenly, Palo Alto will have made their situation more dangerous, not lessdangerous. 2. Another untrue thing is that the bike lane could make biking more dangerous somehowbecause people will ride it. Besides missing the point that increasing bike mode-share is inherently good for the climate, the point itself is untrue because the level of safetyprovided by this facility is relatively good, has been improved from its original form, and has many opportunities to get better in the future. There are several projects andsources of funds from the state and VTA level to improve bike safety on this corridor in the future. It is also clear that Caltrans has become a partner that is amenable to furtherimprovements after the repaving project is completed. However, Palo Alto doesn't act now, they may miss out on these further safety improvements and remain stuck with theinherently unsafe status quo. 3. Finally, it's untrue that bike lanes will hurt small business owners. Palo Alto has one ofthe highest bike transportation mode shares in the country, and these improvements will unlock new markets who previously would be unable to frequent El Camino businesses.Furthermore, the El Camino corridor is not set in amber, and is in fact set for increases in both residential and commercial density. Bike lanes will help businesses better servethese growing *local* markets in the future, as opposed to people who might be driving in and creating traffic in the process. I really hope that you will agree to remove parking on El Camino. If we get this right, it will be possible to use El Camino to bike from Santa Clara to Millbrae on a single continuous,high-quality, comfortable, and safe bike corridor. Thank you for doing your part to make it happen. Sincerely,Daniel Hulse From:Palo Alto ForwardTo:Council, CitySubject:Tonight is the Night - Join UsDate:Monday, June 17, 2024 9:56:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. City -- Tonight - Advocacy, Art, & Pizza OK friends -- we need to get a large group to attend the City Council hearing tonight as partof our�Homes for Everyone? YES!�campaign.� We have have five amazing members who will speak about the importance of housing forour schools, economy, equity goals, transportation, and climate. **�WE NEED YOUTHERE TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR THESE SPEAKERS BY HOLDING OUR SIGNSIN THE AUDIENCE! ** Here is the timing and more details are here: 5:30 - 6:00 -- chat with artist Kirti Bassendine about her art work related to housinginstability currently on display City Hall 6:00 - 6:30 -- assemble with signs in Council chambers for public comment 6:30 - 7:30 -- celebrate with your friends with pizza in King Plaza, we'll provide thepizza and drinks Email us at info@paloaltoforward.com with any questions or to volunteer to help. Why this action? Why tonight? The city has an adopted a goal of adding 6,000 homes that are affordable to low income,middle income, and higher income households. Homes for Everyone! YES? meansimplementing policies to meet ALL of our housing goals. We are falling very short on those 6,000 units and�need to do more�- something�wewrote about in our recent�Housing Element�comment letter�to the state. We need toshow our support and give Council the courage to act bravely on housing-related issues, fromrenter protections to project approvals! See you tonight! I'll bring the signs:). Palo Alto Forward This email was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. To stop receiving emails, click here. on Facebook. Created with NationBuilder, the essential toolkit for leaders. From:Zafarali Ahmed To:Council, City Subject:Public comment for #31: ECR Bikeways Date:Monday, June 17, 2024 9:33:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, What a historic night! I want to thank you and the ad hoc committee for the impressive workover the last 10 weeks. You have worked tirelessly with City Staff, Consultants, VTA, Caltrans, PA TMA in an impressively short time period to really up the safety of the Caltransplan. Thank you for this transformative leadership! I urge you to go ahead with this plan to remove parking to make space for the bikeways with utmost enthusiasm. Improvements that are not possible in this plan due to right of wayrestrictions should be funded and prioritized for the 2025 City Bike Plan. Parking removal ensures we have daylighting to improve sightlines along the entire corridor: at intersections,driveways and bus tops. This makes mixing zones more manageable until the next iteration of improvements can be made (for example in Walnut Ave in Fremont). I cannot wait to have a safe route to access: Real International Produce to get my groceries. Tofu House and Red Hot Wok to have an Asian feastThe Avis Car rental to pick up a car for road trips. The Village Flower shop to brighten up my home with flowersOneMedical to improve my access to healthcare Coupa Cafe and Fambrini's for a coffeeDowntown Los Altos without a massive detour. Thank you once again for voting for a transformative future,Zafarali Ahmed From:Shashwat To:Council, City Subject:Say NO to Meadow/Charleston Underpass Date:Monday, June 17, 2024 7:17:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning, I’m joining my fellow community members in letting our leaders know how much wevehemently oppose the underpass option at Meadow & Charleston. Our family has been living in Palo Alto for 20 years and on Roosevelt Circle for 15+ years. We are proud Gunn, JLS, & Fairmeadow alumni who have always felt like the council hasdone right by the citizens of Palo Alto. Any discussions of moving forward with the underpass option will change how all of us in the Fairmeadow & Greenmeadow communities view the mayor & city council, especially whenthere’s an alternative in the hybrid option that costs less and doesn’t involve property acquisitions. The hybrid model is the one we can all get behind, and I hope you make the right decision bystopping any further advancement of the underpass in tomorrow's meeting. Thank you! From:Patrice Banal To:Burt, Patrick; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Lauing, Ed; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Veenker, Vicki; Council,City Subject:REJECT CHARLESTON UNDERPASS, SUPPORT HYBRID Date:Monday, June 17, 2024 12:27:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council, I thank the council, rail committee, XCAP, and the Planning Department for their work over the past seven years. I am asking the council to keep the goal of Grade Separation focused on moving traffic, not families. Any plan that utilizes Eminent Domain and forced property acquisitions is NOT an option for Palo Alto. To this point, Please reject the Charleston Underpass with a Roundabout alternative – as it relies on 30 partial and complete property acquisitions, effectively banishing citizens from their homes and communities while causing financial andemotional devastation to impacted families. The Underpass Option is an unsafe convoluted maze for bikes, pedestrians, andstudents to navigate. It is exceedingly expensive, environmentally aggressive, and unethically places the burden of progress disproportionately on the citizens in Southern Palo Alto. Conversely, the Hybrid option offers a safer, less invasive, less expensive, and genuinely equitable grade separation solution that supports a unified city where citizens can rely on ethical governance that does not strip citizens of their propertyrights, community, or investment. We currently have, at best, only 5% of the engineering firmed up. Given all theunknowns we face-finances, ridership, Caltrain relations, timelines, physical constraints, additional litigation costs, and knowing that Caltrain will become the Lead Implementing agency on this project, it is in our collective best interest to endorse the least invasive solution. One with no risk of increased property takes. PRICING: The Underpass is estimated to cost $850m, while the Hybrid is estimated tocost $480m. Mayor Stone said that he "must do what is best for all 64,000 Palo Altans," Considering the pricing differences in the Hybrid and Underpass projects, and the city's financial challenges, moving forward with an option that strips some citizens of their property while burdening all citizens with an extra $400m in debt is fiscally irresponsible for an inferior project. SAFETY-The Underpass is too hard to navigate, and students will opt to share the road with cars, while the Hybrid solution does not risk lives. WATER ENVIRONMENTAL/FLOOD ZONES The Hybrid is safely 12 feet above groundwater levels, while the Underpass is 6 feet BELOW current groundwater levels, causing environmental and safety concerns. EQUITY—The Hybrid is the most equitable solution for all Palo Altans as it doesnot require ANY property acquisitions, . Please endorse the Hybrid option as the preferred grade separation solution for Southern Palo Alto so that more engineering studies can proceed. Please reject the Charleston Underpass and Roundabout and do not invest anymore money or time in this dangerous, expensive engineering nightmare. Thank you, Patrice Fester From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu;shanetta.anderson@hecmservicing.cloud; boardmembers; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net; fred beyerlein;Leodies Buchanan; David Balakian; beachrides; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; cramirez.electriclab133@gmail.com;Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; dallen1212@gmail.com; eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson;George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; SallyThiessen; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; kfsndesk; Kevin.Nower@bestbuy.com;MY77FJ@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; maverickbruno@sbcglobal.net; merazroofinginc@att.net; MarkStandriff; Mayor; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; newsdesk; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry;tsheehan; vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu Subject:Fwd: Nvidia"s new Ptnership with Cisco Date:Monday, June 17, 2024 12:25:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jun 17, 2024 at 12:16 AMSubject: Fwd: Nvidia's new Ptnership with Cisco To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sunday, June 16, 2014 To all- This partnership with Cisco will be good for both Cisco and NVDA. It is big news. This AM, KCBS AM SF was detailing how the inclusion of AI will improve the next I- Phone. Glad I own some AAPL. It has been in the doldrums for months. Don't miss this: Nvidia’s NEW PARTNERSHIP Will Send the Stock SOARING SOON (youtube.com) More on the Nvidia-Cisco partnership. Don't miss this even if you can't understand it: Thespeaker here is Jonathan somebody, big-shot from Cisco. Guess we are supposed to know who he is. The Cisco NVIDIA AI Network is here! (youtube.com) More discussion about Nvidia when they didn't even know about the Cisco partnership: Cathie Wood Just BLEW Everyone’s Mind. AGAIN With New Nvidia StockPredictions (youtube.com) More discussion of NVDA. Nobody says to stay clear of it. After the split on Friday, June 7, 2024, NVDA c. at $120.888. One week later, on Friday, June 14, 2024, NVDA c. at$131.25, a gain of 8.57% in a week. NEW: TD Cowen DOUBLES DOWN on Nvidia Stock (youtube.com) A Tesla vid: The robotaxi will be unveiled on August 8, 2024: Tesla Robotaxi is Coming! (Elon Musk Shocks The World) (youtube.com) L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:ej taylor To:Clerk, City Subject:Charleston Road underpass and roundabout Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 9:32:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To whom it may concern - My 80 year old mother’s house is one of the two consistently proposed to be acquired, demolished and turned into a roundabout no one wants and no one even knows how to use. Instead of enjoying her twilight years, my mother is worried she won’t have a house to live in. A house, that, incidentally, she spent 40 years making a home. And garden she took from a dead lawn to an amazing ecosystem. It’s filled with fruit trees and a variety of other plant species that she personally planted. Plants that attract various wildlife, pollinators, insects and birds. Such a shame to lose that to a project that will do the opposite. Sure, this project might take years to get going but how cruel to add this stress and anxiety over a maybe/maybe not eminent domain situation to my mother’s later years. Not to mention that this mess is lowering our property values - which is starting to feel like it might be an intentional choice. The underpass and the resulting roundabout are not wanted or needed. Please find another, less destructive solution! ~ ej Taylor Sent from my iPhone From:Marisa Reyes To:Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie;Transportation; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Grade Separation Meadow/Charleston Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 8:53:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I was born and raised in Palo Alto, and am a Gunn Alumni. I have 3 children - 2 recent Gunn grads, andmy youngest just completed his freshman year at Gunn. All my kids rode/ride their bikes across Almadaily to/from school. I appreciate all the efforts that have gone in over the years to consider different solutions for gradeseparation, and appreciate that these solutions are thoughtful, optimized designs. While the grade separation project will not affect my children, I still have concerns about the Underpasssolution, which will create a complicated homebound bike route from Gunn, requiring students tomaneuver across W. Charleston on a bridge and awkwardly rejoin the bike path. Because of this, I worrythat some students will choose to go with the cars on the underpass which is more direct but way moredangerous. I believe the Hybrid solution with a standard 4-way traffic light at Alma and Charleston issimpler, safer, and makes more sense for teens. Separately, the Underpass design with the redirection of traffic through a traffic circle in order to maketurns at Charleston is unnecessarily complicated, and the Meadow intersection is also similarlycomplicated and restrictive. While it can reduce congestion at those intersections for through traffic, it willsimply encourage more speeding and worsen the congestion at other intersections like Oregon andEmbarcadero, etc. By grade separating the trains from cars and people, the Hybrid solution shouldalready provide improvement over current and future anticipated congestion. Finally, the Underpass solution costs substantially more, and impacts 33 families in our neighborhood.Why would we choose that over the simpler, safer, and less expensive Hybrid solution? I strongly urgethe City Council to move forward with the Hybrid solution. Thank you for your time,Marisa Reyes From:Marisa Reyes To:Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie;Transportation; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Grade Separation Meadow/Charleston Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 8:53:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I was born and raised in Palo Alto, and am a Gunn Alumni. I have 3 children - 2 recent Gunn grads, andmy youngest just completed his freshman year at Gunn. All my kids rode/ride their bikes across Almadaily to/from school. I appreciate all the efforts that have gone in over the years to consider different solutions for gradeseparation, and appreciate that these solutions are thoughtful, optimized designs. While the grade separation project will not affect my children, I still have concerns about the Underpasssolution, which will create a complicated homebound bike route from Gunn, requiring students tomaneuver across W. Charleston on a bridge and awkwardly rejoin the bike path. Because of this, I worrythat some students will choose to go with the cars on the underpass which is more direct but way moredangerous. I believe the Hybrid solution with a standard 4-way traffic light at Alma and Charleston issimpler, safer, and makes more sense for teens. Separately, the Underpass design with the redirection of traffic through a traffic circle in order to maketurns at Charleston is unnecessarily complicated, and the Meadow intersection is also similarlycomplicated and restrictive. While it can reduce congestion at those intersections for through traffic, it willsimply encourage more speeding and worsen the congestion at other intersections like Oregon andEmbarcadero, etc. By grade separating the trains from cars and people, the Hybrid solution shouldalready provide improvement over current and future anticipated congestion. Finally, the Underpass solution costs substantially more, and impacts 33 families in our neighborhood.Why would we choose that over the simpler, safer, and less expensive Hybrid solution? I strongly urgethe City Council to move forward with the Hybrid solution. Thank you for your time,Marisa Reyes From:Alan Wachtel To:Council, City Subject:Grade separation alternatives (June 18 meeting, agenda item AA3) Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 8:43:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Members of the Council: Agenda Item AA3 for your Tuesday, June 18, meeting asks you to select grade separation alternatives to advance to the preliminary engineering and environmental documentationphase. On May 7, the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), of which I'ma member, adopted by unanimous vote the following recommendation for the Meadow and Charleston crossings: "PABAC prefers the Hybrid which provides a direct route, shorter grade change than the underpass at significantly lower cost than the Viaduct or Underpass. (Note: We do not know ifthe cost of moving underground utilities was included in the estimated project cost. Also, we don’t know what the long-term maintenance costs for the pumping station may be.) TheHybrid alternative will require lower levels of local funding, with a substantial portion of capital costs covered by Regional, State and Federal sources. Pedestrians and bicyclists will besafely separated from train traffic and each other with bike lanes. It requires no acquisition of private properties; however, driveway modification may be required. "PABAC does not recommend the underpass, though we recognize this alternative completely separates foot-powered people from six lanes of fast-moving vehicular traffic onAlma Street and is the alternative that reduces motor vehicle delays at Alma. Unfortunately, the underpass also imposes out-of-direction travel and longer grade changes than the hybridalternative and viaduct require. The committee has a strong preference to minimize out-of- direction travel and longer grade change segments for foot-powered pedestrians, bicyclists andother wheeled devices like wheelchairs and strollers." The full text of this recommendation, which is not cited in staff reports, was sent to theCouncil on May 10 by PABAC chair Bruce Arthur, under the subject line "PABAC Recommendations for Rail Crossings." This text includes greater detail about the drawbacksof the underpass alternative. It also recommends beginning design work on a midtown bicycle- pedestrian rail crossing as soon as possible so construction can be completed before work onCharleston and Meadow begins; construction of an alternative bike-pedestrian crossing prior to the start of construction work on Churchill; and an additional south Palo Alto bike-pedcrossing in the vicinity of Lindero. Please see that message for more complete information on these subjects. I urge the Council to advance the hybrid alternative to the next phase of study, as the best option for bicycle and pedestrian travel. -- Alan WachtelPalo Alto From:David Taylor To:Clerk, City Subject:Regarding Charleston Rd development Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 8:05:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To whom it may concern, I hope all is well with you. I’m writing this on behalf of my Mother in Law, an 80 year old lady that has lived on Charleston Rd for over 40 years. Let’s ask why we need a roundabout Scenario 1 - Vehicles coming from Mountain View or Downtown Palo Alto on Alma want to head either up or down Charleston Rd towards the 280 or 101. Solution: 1 or 3 blocks over they can use the overpass at San Antonio Or underpass at Oregon Expressway Scenario 2 - Vehicles heading up or down Charleston Rd want to turn onto Alma Solution: Use Middlefield to San Antonio or El Camino to San Antonio I understand that these solutions may add a small amount to transit time, however, is the cost of building a roundabout and displacing families really worth it? As technology progresses, we’re only a few years away from cars driving themselves and easily navigating around all kinds of bottlenecks in our road systems. Please ask yourself, if this is to be your legacy, can you live with displacing so many families and spending so much tax payers money on a short term solution to a problem that probably won’t even exist in a few years, that’s if it’s even exists now. Best Regards, David Taylor From:Catherine Wu To:Council, City Subject:Removal of Parking Spaces on El Camino Real - Oppose Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 7:59:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I strongly oppose removal of parking spaces along El Camino Real. My family has worked at or owned businessesalong El Camino Real off and on since the 1970s. These are small family businesses with people looking to buildsomething in Palo Alto. Taking away the access to these spaces will be detrimental. Much of the unilateral removalof parking spaces on busy corridors comes from organized bike coalitions that ignore how removal of these spacesaffects those who do not fit into young fit bodies. They ignore those with children, those with elderly people to carefor, and those with physical impairments who cannot just hop onto a bike to ride to these businesses or walkmultiple blocks to said businesses. As someone who works in the service industry, taking away these spaces alsoignores those who support these small businesses - such as truck drivers who deliver food ingredients or officesupplies or business equipment. Amazon, UPS and FedEx drivers are still going to park illegally to get their jobsdone, which creates a dangerous situation for both cars and bicycles, especially when vehicle lanes are decreased inquantity and width. So many of these businesses were barely hanging on during the pandemic - anyone who actually lived in this areaand knows these businesses knows this. Don’t disrupt the lives of many to acquiesce to the few. Those who followed similar parking space removal changes in other cities such as in San Francisco, have seen howsmall businesses fell one by one and in its place empty storefronts - which already plague certain sections of ElCamino Real - popped up along with blight. Caltrans can’t even be bothered to repave or fix potholes that have plagued El Camino Real up and down thepeninsula for five years, maybe more. They literally are painting new white lines into the potholes. Additionally many of these businesses are owned by minorities who tend not to speak up and are not spoken for. Asper usual the transportation planners seem to utilize little time for public comment and awareness and bully in theirown agendas without consideration of small local business owners. These issues for increasing safety andtransportation need further study and community engagement. Please reject the removal of parking spaces. Catherine Wu From:Robert Neff To:Council, City Cc:Neff, Robert Subject:I Support Complete Streets CalTrans proposal on ECR at 6/17 Meeting Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 7:15:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 6/16/2024 Honorable Members of Palo Alto City Council, I write regarding the proposed complete streets improvements to El Camino Real. I think the recently formed Ad Hoc committee has done an outstanding job working with CalTrans to improve the ECR plans beyond what was proposed earlier, particularly in measures to create safer crossings along the corridor. Removing parking near crossings, removing free right turns at key intersections, and other adjustments will make crossing safer and more comfortable. The latest lane width reductions should slow automobiles, and make the street safer for all as well. I support implementing the current version of the plans developed with CalTrans, for better safety and comfort down the street, and better bicycle and pedestrian access to businesses on ECR. But I think there are a lot of unknowns about the impacts of removing parking, including both where and when the free parking on ECR is being used, and then on the availability of other parking to replace those spaces if they are removed. How could I expect a member of city council to vote for this plan, without having a parking removal study available to describe the impacts? PABAC wrote to council in January, recommending at least a parking survey, but that was not requested by council, or advanced by city staff, then, or triggered much earlier in this process by the earlier Complete Streets communications from CalTrans. So I think a best option at this point is to proceed with the CalTrans bike lanes and crossing improvements plans, excepting specific locations where mitigation options for parking removal cannot be identified. City staff can work to minimize this list before paving begins. For example, here is a list of proposed locations for further study, based on a parking occupation survey done by me. Three caveats: 1. Other locations may be identified with a professional survey. 2. No analysis of the ability to mitigate these parking spaces is done. For example, Stanford visitors could pay for parking at Stanford instead of parking near Churchill. Paly student drivers could drive their bikes. 3. A separate analysis of business parking is in this presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1A5mOhz8k4XWYwVLcuKUvEr1qgyk- 0ViQ6sFw3_k2U-U/edit?usp=sharing organized by volunteers Ken Kershner and Katherine Dumont. A key finding is a 9:1 ratio of off-street parking spaces to on- street spaces. Blocks / Side Max Number / Occupancy across 10 surveys (unless noted.) Notes PAMF to Embarcadero (W)15 / 58%Campers, and Stanford daytime users. Embarcadero to Churchill (W) 60 / 85%Overnight and Stanford daytime users. Embarcadero to Churchill (E) 61 / 87%Daytime Parking (Paly) Cambridge to Park/Serra (E) 47 / 80% combined peak. **Daytime weekday/wkend California to Soccer Park (W) 17 / 95%Day and night. New housing development. Ventura to Los Robles to Driscoll (W) 24 / 70% avg night Night parking near Buena Vista, Apartments and Vista Ct. Vista to Los Robles (E)16 /82% Avg. daytime Avg weekday parking. Charleston to Dinahs Ct (W)15 / 80%Observed on a weekday morning. ** Not all at the same time. Business daytime parking near Leland. Unrestricted parking Stanford to Oxford. Sunday parking from Oxford to Cambridge observed. This survey is described here, based on 10 drives up and down ECR on weekdays, weekends, daytime and nighttime. Details are at this link, including an overview/summary, data analysis, and links to raw data and links to example parking surveys used in Los Altos and Santa Clara: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mVOq6in1BoVAOaXQgHIdF1tieVL4vXsRqu3hEtRo- Hg/edit?usp=sharing The first version of this was shared with you, PTC and Transportation staff on March 25. Thank you for your service to the city of Palo Alto. Sorry to take so long to write this. – Robert Neff Emerson near Loma Verde robert -at- neffs.net 650-804-1245 From:Ann Balin To:Council, City Subject:Retain parking on the ECR Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 6:34:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone, Vice-Mayor Lauing and Council Members, Is safety a priority for this council regarding the proposed bike lanes for the El Camino Real — a highway? Why hasn’t the public been informed concerning mitigating safety requirements from CALTRANS? I argue that the mitigating if any safety measures provided by CALTRANS should be discussed FIRST and made public before removing parking on the El Camino Real. Should the council weaken the parking permit programs you will put pressure on neighborhoods. Now with several Builders’ Remedy projects we will have bottlenecks contributing to unsafe conditions for cyclists and pedestrians. The city engaged the consultants Fehr & Peers who ascertained that CALTRANS failed to address the dangerous high-speed conditions that are prevalent on the highway. They noted that these conditions would pose significant RISKS to vulnerable road users. The consultants cited that friction from driveways and buses were perilous. I have spoken with other Palo Altans who agree that putting bike lanes on the El Camino Real is folly and hazardous. Alternative routes exist including Park Boulevard. The El Camino Real is not the Champs-Élysée. What is going on here? Many residents question the council’s goals. Is pressure from a lobbying concern of cyclists and CALTRANS pushing the council to ignore the needs of Palo Altans? Is it because we are in campaign season? Is it because the council wants to appear ‘progressive' and green? Has the council factored the data to see just how many cyclists are residents? How many Palo Altans want this corridor for cyclists, EV bikes, EV scooters, and skate boarders? Two of our intersections are grade F including Page Mill and Embarcadero at the El Camino Real. Why didn’t the city do a survey of the businesses regarding this monumental proposition? The Bike Coalition informs the city and residents that everything is copacetic with the businesses. Kushner at the February 29th meeting said that it was a myth that retailers would lose business should parking be eliminated. In other words these lobbyists did their own survey. Are they not biased? Frankly, when you speak with the dentists, restaurant owners and others they are not in accord with the Bike Coalition lobby. One responsible and professional city council member did in fact go to speak with business owners. You must support Palo Alto’s community and retain parking on the El Camino Real. Respectfully, Ann Lafargue Balin From:Neeraj Gupta To:Council, City; Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims,Julie; Transportation Subject:Proposed Grade Separation Project Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 6:17:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed Underpass project at the intersection of Charleston and Alma road, which involves the acquisition of properties that could significantly devalue our community. As a resident of Palo Alto since 2008 and a parent with two children within the PAUSD, I am deeply concerned about the potential negative impacts this project could have on our community. The proposal to acquire properties and implement the Underpass solution raises several concerns that must be addressed. Firstly, the uncertainty surrounding which properties will be acquired creates unnecessary anxiety and disruption for residents. This ambiguity also poses a risk to property values in the affected areas, which is alarming for all homeowners, including myself. Furthermore, the Underpass solution could severely impact both bike and pedestrian traffic as well as car traffic in our city. Palo Alto prides itself on being a pedestrian and bike-friendly community, and any project that complicates these modes of transportation would be detrimental to our quality of life. Specifically, the Underpass solution is concerning because it may create safety hazards for children, including my daughter, biking home from Gunn High School and could potentially increase traffic congestion in the area. Instead of pursuing the Underpass solution, I strongly urge the City Council to consider the Hybrid solution, which has been proposed as a viable alternative. Not only is the Hybrid solution $400 million less expensive, but it also offers a simpler and safer approach for both cars and pedestrians. Importantly, this alternative does not involve the acquisition of any homes, thereby avoiding the negative impact on property values and community stability. I believe that supporting the Hybrid solution aligns with our city’s values and long-term interests. It ensures that we maintain our commitment to sustainable transportation options while also prioritizing the safety and well-being of our community members, especially our children. In conclusion, I respectfully request that the Palo Alto City Council reconsider the proposed project at Charleston Road and instead endorse the Hybrid solution. By doing so, we can protect the integrity of our neighborhoods, enhance our transportation infrastructure, and preserve the unique character that makes Palo Alto such a wonderful place to live. Thank you for considering my perspective on this important matter. Sincerely, Neeraj Gupta 3711 Starr King Cir Palo Alto, CA, 94306 From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angel, David; Angie Evans; Baker, Rob; Cait James; Cecilia Taylor; Council,City; Daniel Kottke; EPA Today; Ed Lauing; Enberg, Nicholas; GRP-City Council; Greer Stone; Human RelationsCommission; Jeff Moore; Josh Becker; Karen Holman; Marina Lopez; Michelle; Zelkha, Mila; Pacific GrovePD;Raymond Goins; Robert. Jonsen; Roberta Ahlquist; Rosen, Jeff; Salem Ajluni; Sally Lieber; Sean Allen; SupervisorOtto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Tim; Tim James; Tom DuBois; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Perron,Zachary; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Figueroa, Eric; Tannock, Julie; kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; walter wilson Subject:Hundreds of students walk out of Stanford commencement over war in Gaza Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 6:11:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hundreds of students walk out of Stanford commencement over war in Gaza https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/06/16/hundreds-of-students-walk-out-of-stanford-commencement-over-war-in-gaza/ From:Sharmila Sigdel To:Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie;Transportation; Council, City Subject:Please vote for HYBRID option for Charleston/Meadow grade separation Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 5:38:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am a resident of 50 Roosevelt Circle and I'm writing to strongly support the hybrid option for grade separation at Charleston and Meadow, and to urge you to abandon the underpass optioncompletely. The hybrid option offers a balanced and considerate solution that addresses our community's needs without the severe negative impacts associated with the underpass option. The underpass option, which involves taking properties and reducing lot sizes, presents significant drawbacks, including loss of property, community disruption, and lastingconstruction impacts for affected residents and the broader community. Additionally, the underpass option is detrimental to our cherished trees, which we consider our family of ages.This option would displace families, disrupt established neighborhoods, and harm the natural environment we hold dear. In contrast, the hybrid option does not require the taking of privateproperties, thereby preserving the integrity and value of residential lots and protecting our beloved trees. I firmly believe that the hybrid option is the best choice for our city, preserving the interests of our residents while achieving the necessary infrastructure improvements. I urge you to endorsethe hybrid option and to completely abandon the underpass option, which poses too great a risk to our community's well-being. Sincerely, Sharmila Sigdel 50 Roosevelt Cir, Palo Alto, CA From:Margaret Heath To:Council, City Subject:Parking on El Camino Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 5:32:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone and Council Members, I urge you NOT to remove parking along El Camino. Unfortunately the city manager and hisstaff did not conduct any meaningful outreach to include either notification or a comprehensive survey of all the businesses along El Camino as to how they will be impactedif street parking is removed. I know because my dentist near the corner of El Camino and Park knew nothing about this proposal. He and the other medical practitioners and retail in therelatively new building need their private parking lot for patients and customers. Requiring all their staff to park on El Camino. Probably pretty typical of El Camino businesses even if theyhave some limited private parking. Relying on hearsay by dedicated bicycle lane proponents that 80% of the El Camino businesses have adequate alternative parking is an insult to those businesses. As well as theneighbors living on nearby streets. Recently, a similar situation in San Francisco has so severely impacted businesses the new dedicated bicycle lane that replaced parking is/has beenremoved. Apparently, the argument that lost customers will be replaced by bicyclists is just wishful thinking. Then there is the safety aspect. With all the traffic that needs to travel along El Camino, themany intersecting streets and driveways, as well as buses and electric bicycles, who are these dedicated bicycle lanes going to be safe for? Certainly not safer than the existing situation where the majority of bicycle accidents occurfrom broadside contact at the many street and driveway intersections, which a dedicated bicycle lane won't change. And which will only get more and more unsafe with all the newdriveways with additional vehicles to be added in the next few years because of the many new apartment buildings in the pipeline. With almost certainly more apartment buildings anddriveways to come in future. All requiring vehicles to cut across bicyclists whether there is a dedicated bicycle lane or not. Proponents of replacing all the parking along El Camino with dedicated bicycle lanes arelooking at this through blinkered eyes. Filling the council chambers and no doubt your mail with passionate support for their own position. Unable to accept that there are some situationswhere replacing parking with dedicated bicycle lanes is not in the broader public interest. But you are elected to see the bigger picture. In addition, for almost twenty years, Palo Alto's vision for El Camino has been to promote awalkable boulevard. But there needs to be something to walk to. Without street parking most of the small businesses and restaurants along El Camino know that it doesn't take much brainsto predict that in a few years there will be few remaining businesses and restaurants along El Camino to bicycle to, let alone to walk to. I ask all of you, even the most dedicated bicycle advocates serving on council, to weigh up ifyou can really find in good conscience that replacing all the El Camino parking between San Antonio and Sand Hill with dedicated bicycle lanes will be safe for adults and especiallychildren to use, as well as serve the interests of the majority of residents and businesses that you represent. Sincerely, Margaret Heath2140 Cornell Street From:Jordan Fester To:Patrice Banal; Michael Wessel; Council, City Subject:Grade Separation at Charleston and Meadows Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 5:26:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. City Council Members, My family's multi generational home is the ONLY home I have ever known. It is where I was raised, attended schools from Preschool Family through Gunn, where our neighbors rallied to support us when my Dad passed while I was in kindergarten; it is our safe space and our launch pad. Now, my family and many of our neighbors on Charleston Road could lose our homes, communities,and financial stability if you vote to move forward with the Charleston Underpass and traffic circle for Grade Separation in Southern Palo Alto. The Underpass which involves over 30 partial and full property acquisitions is an expensive, divisive, unsafe and over engineered option that does not warrant the time or monetary investment for further studies and should be rejected by the council this week. The council repeatedly said they did not want to use forced (negotiated) property acquisitions for grade separation, Please stand on your words. Using eminent domain in Southern Palo Alto in the name of progress would never happen in Northern Palo Alto, this is neither equitable nor ethical. The Fair Market Value sales price can NOT truly compensate for all of the economic, social, and emotional losses we will face. Please approve the Hybrid option as the preferred solution to move forward with and study more in depth. It is a safer, less aggressive, less expensive, and more equitable solution for ALL PALO ALTANS as it does not require any property acquisitions. As a recent Gunn graduate who bicycled to school daily, I have serious concerns about the unwieldy flow of the bike and ped lanes in the underpass design.They are so steep and severe that they are an unsafe option, and Gunn students will assuredly opt to ride in the road with car traffic rather than use them which ultimately makes the Underpass a dangerous option. Finally, as a former PAUSD student impacted by the tragic suicides in our communities, I would ask Council members to please refrain from politicizing mental health struggles and teen suicides.Grade separation is necessary, AND so is a comprehensive mental health network for Palo Alto students, this in no way means that citizens that are anti property acquisitions for grade separation are insensitive to teen suicides and to imply this is unethical and bad politics. Please endorse the Hybrid option as the preferred grade separation solution to move forward for Charleston road. Please reject any option that would include property acquisitions. Thank you for your time and efforts. Jordan A Fester Gunn 2022 Seattle University 2026 From:David Ndeto To:Burt, Patrick Cc:Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Transportation; Council, City; contact@paloaltoonline.com; gsheyner@embarcaderopublishing.com Subject:Grade Separation - Meadow/Charleston property acquisition Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 5:14:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Councilmember Burt, Congratulations on your announcement to seek another 4 years on the City Council. Palo Altoneeds trusted council members who honor their word and prioritize the best interests of our community. At the council meeting last week, regarding the grade separation options forMeadow/Charleston, you addressed homeowners “cause for concern” by saying “we don’t have any knowledge yet as to which properties“ would be acquired. What we have, you continued, “is a conceptual design, a 5% design. It’s really a proof of concept … a worst case scenario”. Authorizing a move forward, you’re asking the communityto trust the committee and council with finding the best case scenario. However, by saying you don’t have any knowledge yet, you’re really saying every property owner in the Meadow and Charleston area of South Palo Alto could potentially face futureacquisition if the grade separation underpass proposal progresses. That said, no rational property owner would invest in home improvements or renovations without certainty aboutwhich properties will be fully or partially acquired. This uncertainty will significantly reduce the overall property values in the area. If this was not your intention and you do know which houses will be impacted, your statementwas merely an attempt to appease a growing angry public while pushing your agenda forward. So, which is it, Councilmember Burt? Are you a council member who keeps his word, or a typical politician who tells people what they want to hear to advance their agenda? Have youunintentionally misled your constituents, or are you conspiring to lower property values for cheaper acquisitions? All Palo Altans deserve a clear and honest answer. David Ndeto242 East Charleston 8086333379 Cheers, David Ndeto8086333379 From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Baker, Rob; Burt, Patrick; Council, City; Daniel Kottke; EPA Today; EdLauing; Emily Mibach; Greer Stone; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; KEVIN JENSEN; KalomaSmith; Karen Holman; Linda Jolley; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Zelkha, Mila; Bains, Paul; Raymond Goins; Rosen,Jeff; Salem Ajluni; Sally Lieber; Sean Allen; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Tom DuBois;district1@bos.sccgov.org; editor@paweekly.com Subject:ISRAEL’S NEW AIR WAR IN THE WEST BANK: NEARLY HALF OF THE DEAD ARE CHILDREN Nearly 20 years after the Second Intifada, the Israeli military has resumed airstrikes in the West Bank — and killed 24 children. Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 5:05:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ISRAEL’S NEW AIR WAR IN THE WEST BANK: NEARLY HALF OF THE DEAD ARE CHILDREN Nearly 20 years after the Second Intifada, the Israeli military has resumed airstrikes in theWest Bank — and killed 24 children. https://theintercept.com/2024/06/12/israel-west-bank-airstrikes-drones-palestinians-killed-children/ From:Alan Wachtel To:Council, City Subject:Proposed El Camino Real bikeways (June 17 meeting, agenda item 31) Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 5:03:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Members of the Council: Agenda Item 31 for your Monday, June 17, meeting includes a discussion of the Caltrans project to replace existing parking on El Camino Real with bikeways and, among other things,approval of a resolution supporting the removal of on-street parking for this project. On May 7, the Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), of which I'ma member, adopted by unanimous vote a resolution advising the City Council to: 1. Remove parking on El Camino Real and utilize the space for appropriate bikeways viaCaltrans Paving Project EA 04-4J89U after modifications compatible with the Safe Systems approach 2. In the longer term, further expand the city’s bicycle network and work with regionalpartners to expand transit coverage and frequency, with the goal of reducing parking needs along El Camino 3. Work with Caltrans to improve the El Camino Real bikeway design around majorintersections, roadway sections with limited width, and bus stops in follow-up projects. The full text of this resolution, including the findings that precede these recommendations,was sent to the Council on May 10 by PABAC chair Bruce Arthur, under the subject line "PABAC Motion Calling for Bicycle Lanes on El Camino Real in Palo Alto," where youshould be able to find additional detail. PABAC's recommendation does not seem to have been cited in staff reports for this item. It's important to note that this resolution endorses theconcept of bikeways on El Camino, rather than any particular design, which was still under development. As the staff report mentions, the Council ad hoc committee met on May 16 with City staff, Caltrans staff, VTA staff, consultant firm Fehr & Peers, and biking advocate stakeholders,including representatives of PABAC (I was one) and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, to review the design to that point. Since then, however, Fehr & Peers has provided additionalrecommendations, both for the key issue of bus stops and for the El Camino bikeway design itself, presented in a memo dated June 5 and included in your packet (Attachment A, PacketPg. 771). The staff report asks the Council to consider transmitting this memo to Caltrans for a response to the suggested changes. That would be appropriate, but since the design changes proposed are both material and substantial, it is important that the Council ad hoc committee continue its work and thatbicycle advocate stakeholders, including PABAC, be given the opportunity to review and comment on these proposals and any revised designs before their final adoption. PABAC has already expressed concern, for instance, about certain features, such as two-stage turn queueboxes, that appear frequently in Fehr & Peers's drawings. The Council meeting, of course, is not the place to discuss these technical details. Suitableopportunities need to be arranged before the plans can be considered complete. --Alan Wachtel Palo Alto From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Council, City Subject:Item 31 JUST SAY NO TO BANNING PARKING ON EL CAMINO REAL Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 5:01:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, Just say no to Caltrans' proposal to ban parking on both sides of El Camino which will obviously destroy the 60 businesses there. Tell them you won't even consider this plan until they FINALLY REPAVE EL CAMINO which for years has cost us $$$$$ in new tires and expensive car repairs. Tell them to get their PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!! In San Francisco, merchants have gone on 30-day hunger strikes to protest the replacement of parking with bike lanes, If the city's going to destroy retail businesses without even bothering to do outreach to these businesses, at least save us some money and cancel the contracts with allthe "retail consultants" and save us a few million dollars a year so you don'thave to keep raising our utility rates! At least put this to a vote so you can see how outraged the community is! Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angel, David; Baker, Rob; Bill Newell; Binder, Andrew; Cecilia Taylor;Council, City; Daniel Kottke; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Enberg, Nicholas; Jay Boyarsky; Josh Becker; Gardener,Liz; Lotus Fong; Raymond Goins; Reifschneider, James; Robert. Jonsen; Rosen, Jeff; Sheriff Transparency;Perron, Zachary; editor@paweekly.com; Figueroa, Eric; Tannock, Julie; kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Foley,Michael; swright@embarcaderopublishing.com Subject:The Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA) came into existence in 2003 after Bich Cau Thi Tran was shot and killed by San Jose police Officer Chad Marsh… Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 4:21:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA) came into existence in 2003 after Bich CauThi Tran was shot and killed by San Jose police Officer Chad Marsh… James and Konda: The Time Has Come for a Police Crimes Unit https://search.app/ai5dPcPuDnWiuvE5A From:Peggy E. Kraft To:Council, City Subject:Grade Separation at Charleston Road Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 4:16:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I have been able to speak with most of you in person or by Zoom recently and I appreciate your taking the time. As you know I am against the underpass proposal for grade separation at Charleston road. I am against it because it has a roundabout and it has enhanced bike lanes which will require the city to take at least two homes and 28 partial properties on just the East side of Charleston alone. I have spoken in favor of the Hybrid plan instead of the Underpass because it does not require the taking of our Palo Alto Residents property. The Hybrid proposal is also flawed so it is my hope that the City Council will have both proposals moved forward for further design assessment in the hopes that you can encourage the engineers to come up with better and less flawed designs. Regarding the Underpas proposal I have two ideas that I would like you to ask the engineers to consider if this plan is moved forward. One solution is to keep the Underpass proposal but without the roundabout and the enhanced bike lanes. As the plan is now the underpass leaves Alma at the same grade level but drops Charleston below the train track. With this plan the roundabout is added on East Charleston so that cars traveling on Alma (North or South) can turn onto East Charleston and continue East or go through the roundabout and go West under the tracks. I believe that the engineers should consider one or two variations of the underpass option which I list below. 1) Do not have any stop lights on Alma for people to turn onto East Charleston to then go East or West. This eliminates the roundabout completely. Instead the traffic that wants to turn could continue onto San Antonio to go East or West. This also removes stop lights on Alma and thus allows the North/South traffic on Alma to flow more smoothly and quickly. So with this idea all East/West traffic on Charleston moves smoothly and all North/South traffic on Charleston moves smoothly. The only change is that traffic wanting to turn East or West on Charleston will take San Antonio instead. I have stated previously to all council members that there is never any traffic backed up to go east or west on San Antonio even at rush hour. 2) If they insist on the roundabout then make it a ONE LANE roundabout instead of a two lane. This would also move traffic more smoothly as cars would not be coming into the circle from two lanes and then try to maneuver to where they want to exit the roundabout. Also remove the enhanced bike/pedestrian lane from the design. The street is already properly striped with a bike lane and a sidewalk. There is no need to remove property from 28 Palo Alto residents homes to enhance what is already working and safe. I hope that you will pass my ideas onto the committee that will do the Preliminary Engineering Review. Thank you, Peggy Kraft Mumford Place From:Jeffrey Hook To:Council, City Subject:Don"t rob Peter to pay Paul with ECR bike lanes Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 4:08:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Councilmembers,Once again, city staff is pulling in the wrong direction. They are recommending encroaching on Evergreen Park RPP to allow ECR business employees to park in ourneighborhood de-prioritizing Park Blvd as the main bicycle route between Palo Alto and MountainView. I align with the long term climate and pollution goals of the City. The Comprehensive Planstrongly supports reduction of car trips. From the Sustainability-Mobility section: Road transportation represents the largestpercentage of Palo Alto’s existing carbon footprint– and a congestion headache!Replacing a portion of vehicle trips with active transportation modes, such as walking,biking, and transit, is critical to reducing emissions in the transportation sector. Palo Altohas a strong biking community and multiple transit options, making it easy for residents to choose low- or zero-carbon transportation options. Car trips account for a huge percentage of greenhouse gas emissions, pollution from tire wear,noise and congestion. Rather than encroaching on neighborhood safety and quiet, keep parking permit programs as they are. If necessary, provide subsidies to ECR businesses toallow their employees to commute by bike or public transportation. For example, ECR businesses are very close to CalTrain stations; bicycles are a perfect way to cover the "extramile". There is no need to go backward in order to move forward. Keep the gains we have made in safety and quiet in Evergreen Park by making NOmodification to the RPP. Prioritize Park Blvd as the preferred bicycle route between Palo Alto and MountainView. If bike lanes are added to ECR, that is a bonus provided by CalTrans, and in no way is causefor the City to undermine its own programs to address climate change. Don't let the Staff run the City! Be accountable to the residents and to our planet. Sincerely, Jeffrey Hook resident, Evergreen Park neighborhood in Palo Alto From:Aram James To:Afanasiev, Alex; Binder, Andrew; Council, City; Ed Lauing; Enberg, Nicholas; Human Relations Commission;KEVIN JENSEN; Kaloma Smith; Karen Holman; Raymond Goins; Reifschneider, James; Robert. Jonsen; SalemAjluni; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Perron, Zachary; Lee, Craig; editor@paweekly.com; Figueroa, Eric;kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Foley, Michael; swright@embarcaderopublishing.com Subject:Watch "Tasers Forum Aram James" on YouTube Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 4:05:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From the archives of Aram James on Tasers 2014 https://youtu.be/zxRyBZjY46s?si=KDAX1MLHqlnRIQnK From:Rebecca Sanders To:Council, City Subject:June 17 - Item 31 - Bike Lanes Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 3:58:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone and City Council Members: Thank you for your service and for taking up this matter of bike lanes on El Camino. I love to ride my bike but I oppose this current offered plan: 1. This will hurt the already embattled small businesses along ECR who have very little offstreet parking and rely on ECR to provide the extra parking they need. 2. I think it's a terrible idea to roll back residential parking permit programs in Evergreen, Mayfield & Southgate neighborhoods whose residents worked for years to negotiate withemployers along ECR to limit employee parking in the neighborhoods, by providing a certain number of parking permits to small business owners. If the parking on ECR is eliminated, thesmall businesses will need to recapture that parking in the neighborhoods. We should first be of service to the folks that live and work near ECR and not passersby. 3. Won't this de-emphasize/cancel the program to make Park Boulevard the preferredbike route from Mountain View to Peers Park - a route that we have been promisedwould be shorn up, but which never happened? A really good path already exists thatcould be made better for way less cost that building bike lanes on ECR. Why theduplication of effort here? 4. Finally, it's terribly inconsiderate that items that affect neighborhoods are often put late atnight on the agenda. Why is that the case? Why can't our policy be to encourage participation rather than discouraging it? Please consider in August putting items of great public interestearlier in the evening. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. Becky Sanders Ventura Neighborhood From:Ann Balin To:Council, City Subject:Funding for Palo Alto Fire Stations Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 3:41:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone, Vice-Mayor Lauing, & Council Members, It was my neighbor and former President of the College Terrace Residents’ Association now Treasurer, James Cook, who walking in the neighborhood observed smoke coming from a house in upper College Terrace on Bowdoin Street. He ran up to the home and helped an elderly resident out to safety. He was the first responder not the Hanover Street Station. Stanford responded but the Hanover Street Station was hamstrung because the station is not fully staffed. This station serves the hills, Foothills Park and the flats. How can fires be put out if there are only two fire personnel available? There MUST be three fire fighters in order for the fire engine to legally leave the station to combat fires. Again, how can this station’s fire fighters go west to put out fires when there are not personnel to board a fire truck? The Diablo Winds (North Winds) are blowing and Palo Alto needs to have our fire stations fully staffed. You the council need to step up and authorize funding to keep residents safe. This is not solely a College Terrace issue. Stanford Research Park and CPI are known for hazardous chemicals that would require an immediate response from our Palo Alto fire stations including Stanford. There have been hazardous leaks from CPI that have impacted residents in Barron Park. The council needs to have ALL of our fire stations fully staffed. Therefore address this timely issue by providing necessary funding to enable firefighters to perform their duty to safely support residents. Respectfully, Ann Lafargue Balin From:Pria Graves To:Council, City; Stone, Greer Cc:Public Works Public Services Subject:Tree removal at 388 Cambridge Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 3:01:21 PM Attachments:IMG_1050.tiffIMG_1051.tiff CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone and Council Members - I was terribly disgusted to see tree removal signs on the four lovely mature trees in front of the construction project at 388 Cambridge. These trees provide shade for pedestrians, cyclists and even parked cars! Plus they’re big enough to be removing significant carbon from our air. Please pause this devastation for reconsideration. This is NOT the direction Palo Alto should be going. We need to protect the wonderful urban forest we have, not chop trees down for “improved” sidewalks. PLEASE! Pria From:Margaret Heath To:Council, City Subject:Hanover Fire House staffing Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 3:00:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone and Council Members. I am writing to urge you to provide the resources to fully staff the Hanover Fire House 24hours. It should go without saying that the number one responsibility of a city is the safety of the citizens. Especially as minutes and seconds can make all the difference as to how serious afire becomes, especially in older homes without sprinkler systems. I was dismayed to learn recently an attic fire in upper College Terrace spread to become a more serious fire because of the extra minutes it took the Stanford Fire Department to arrive.And could have been fatal but for the quick thinking of a nearby resident who fortunately noticed the fire and was able to get an elderly disabled person out of the house before the firetrucks arrived. Especially as of all the Fire Stations in Palo Alto Hanover is the only firehouse with direct access to Page Mill Road leading directly into the foothills. We all know that only a few yearsago the Santa Cruz mountain fires were only just stopped at Skyline short of the upper boundary of Foothill Park. Unfortunately, we also know that wildfires are becoming more frequent and the fire seasonmuch longer. It may only be a matter of time before another fire jumps Skyline. Or a fire starts in the Palo Alto foothills, as it did when nine houses burned on Page Mill andArastradero in the mid 1990's before it was brought under control. And that was with a fully staffed Hanover Fire Station. Since then many more houses have been built up and downPage Mill Road. Of all your budget priorities, I urge you to put the safety of your city residents before all other responsibilities. Prioritize the immediate 24 hour staffing of the Hanover Fire Station, alongwith round the clock staffing for all the other Palo Alto fire stations. Sincerely, Margaret Heath 2140 Cornell Street From:Leila Sharif To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Burt, Patrick; Clerk, City; Tanaka, Greg; Lythcott-Haims,Julie; Transportation; Veenker, Vicki Subject:Objection to the Palo Alto Grade Separation Plan Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 2:59:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear council members of Palo Alto city, I am Leila Sharif, the owner of the house at 3787 Starr King Cir, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Me, my husband, my daughter, my son, and my mother have been living in this house since 2017. My kids went to PAUSD schools (JLS, Terman/fletcher, andGunn) and I have been volunteering in PAUSD schools for years. I am a USPS Federal employee in the Mountain View office, which is the closest USPS office to our house. The grade separation project, as currently planned, will have a significant negative impact on my property especially as our backyard is very narrow. Through thisprocess we will most likely lose all of our backyard which makes living in thishome as a family of 5 impossible. We love our backyard. Having moved from Canada, it was important for us to find a home that has diverse and plentiful plants and outdoor areas. We have put lots of effort into upkeep of the backyard. Aside from planting various flowers and succulents throughout the years, our favorite partof the outside area is our beautiful and wonderful mature Mulberry tree. This huge tree is amazing. It blocks off most the sun in the hot summer days and provides amazing shade where we can hangout and have family dinners under. Through this proposal, our lovely tree will die. Our house will be incomplete without thisprotector tree that overlooks our beautiful house. I am asking the city to reconsider its positions on taking away not just our beautiful land that we have worked years into building but also the beautiful homes of our neighbors that surely are upset by these decisions. Let Palo Alto maintain its beautiful natural history through thelandscapes we love and adore. Thank you for listening to my concerns, Dr. Leila Sharif-Hassanabadi pen_spark From:Leila Sharif To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed; Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Burt, Patrick; Clerk, City; Tanaka, Greg; Lythcott-Haims,Julie; Transportation; Veenker, Vicki Subject:Objection to the Palo Alto Grade Separation Plan Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 2:59:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear council members of Palo Alto city, I am Leila Sharif, the owner of the house at 3787 Starr King Cir, Palo Alto, CA 94306. Me, my husband, my daughter, my son, and my mother have been living in this house since 2017. My kids went to PAUSD schools (JLS, Terman/fletcher, andGunn) and I have been volunteering in PAUSD schools for years. I am a USPS Federal employee in the Mountain View office, which is the closest USPS office to our house. The grade separation project, as currently planned, will have a significant negative impact on my property especially as our backyard is very narrow. Through thisprocess we will most likely lose all of our backyard which makes living in thishome as a family of 5 impossible. We love our backyard. Having moved from Canada, it was important for us to find a home that has diverse and plentiful plants and outdoor areas. We have put lots of effort into upkeep of the backyard. Aside from planting various flowers and succulents throughout the years, our favorite partof the outside area is our beautiful and wonderful mature Mulberry tree. This huge tree is amazing. It blocks off most the sun in the hot summer days and provides amazing shade where we can hangout and have family dinners under. Through this proposal, our lovely tree will die. Our house will be incomplete without thisprotector tree that overlooks our beautiful house. I am asking the city to reconsider its positions on taking away not just our beautiful land that we have worked years into building but also the beautiful homes of our neighbors that surely are upset by these decisions. Let Palo Alto maintain its beautiful natural history through thelandscapes we love and adore. Thank you for listening to my concerns, Dr. Leila Sharif-Hassanabadi pen_spark From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Wagner, April; Bill Newell; Binder, Andrew; Braden Cartwright; Cait James;Council, City; Daniel Kottke; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Enberg, Nicholas; Jensen, Eric; Friends of Cubberley;GRP-City Council; Human Relations Commission; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Kaloma Smith; KarenHolman; Holman, Karen (external); Lewis james; Linda Jolley; Lotus Fong; Zelkha, Mila; Palo Alto Free Press;Raymond Goins; Reifschneider, James; Robert. Jonsen; Roberta Ahlquist; Salem Ajluni; Sally Lieber; Sean Allen;Sheriff Transparency; Shikada, Ed; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Tom DuBois; Vara Ramakrishnan; Perron,Zachary; Figueroa, Eric; Tannock, Julie; kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Foley, Michael Subject:The Minneapolis Cop Who Beat Him Pleaded Guilty. He Still Fears the Department Won’t Change. Jaleel Stallings was swept up in the chaos of protests over George Floyd’s murder. The outcome changed his life. Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 2:44:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The Minneapolis Cop Who Beat Him Pleaded Guilty. He Still Fears the Department Won’t Change. Jaleel Stallings was swept up in the chaos of protests over George Floyd’s murder. The outcome changed his life. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2024/06/16/police-minneapolis-beating-jaleel-stallings From:Hassan Abolhassani To:Council, City Subject:Support for Hybrid solution for Charleston grade separation Date:Sunday, June 16, 2024 12:44:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Palo Alto city council, I am Hassan Abolhassani resident at 3787 Starr King Cir, Palo Alto, CA 94306. I would like to raise my voice in support for Hybrid solution because it is 400M lessexpensive, simpler for car and bike/pedestrians, less dangerous for kids biking home from Gunn, and does not impact ANY homes. I am not sure why underpass solution was considered and is under discussion. I hope you hearmy voice and others and vote in favor of hybrid solution. Thank you Hassan Abolhassani 3787 Starr King Cir, Palo Alto, CA 94306 650-338-9015 From:Annette Glanckopf To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Bike lanes on El Camino Real Date:Saturday, June 15, 2024 8:05:53 PM Attachments:letter to counicl on bike lanes - v2.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone and Council, I am very concerned about bike lanes on El Camino. See my attached letter for my detailed comments. Palo Alto has spent countless hours putting together a bicycle plan. Let's stick to what we have thoughtfully developed. Thank you Annette Date: June 14, 2024 Subject: Bike Lanes on El Camino To: Palo Alto City Council Re: Item 31 on Council Agenda for 6/17/24Repaving El Camino Dear Council Members. Bike lanes do not belong on El Camino Real. I ask you to reject the plan to do so. My concern is small business vitality and safety (bikes/pedestrians/vehicles). Palo Alto has gone to great lengths to provide safe bike routes–on Park Boulevard as well as Bryant–which closely parallel El Camino. CalTrans is holding Palo Alto hostage by demanding bike lanes on a transit corridor in order to repave El Camino Real (ECR), which is sorely needed. Don’t give in to the pleas of the avid bike community speakers, who are mostly from other cities and not Palo Alto. Bike lanes on ECR – a state highway - are not in the best interest of the entire community. Retail: This will be the “nail in the coffin” for the many small businesses on El Camino, who depend on close- by parking or in front of their establishment. If it is too difficult to park, people just will find other places to go. Ironically this is just at a time when the city is trying to encourage more retail, especially small independently owned businesses. Yes, some of these businesses do have parking lots, but is it sufficient? I think not, especially for those customers (elderly, disabled) who want to park in front of the establishments. Even Sundance, which has a parking lot, is concerned about the loss of ECR parking. Taking out a huge number of parking spaces in a major mistake. Small retail is truly the “silent majority”. They won’t show up at council; they aren’t represented by the Chamber. If their businesses fail, they will simply disappear–and “we” will lose more local retail. Parking: Caltrans counts 600 vehicle parking spots on ECR, but hasn’t identified where these vehicles should/could go. The neighborhoods? ECR parking is also used as dwelling spaces. I understand that at least 41 spaces serve as dwelling spots for some of our neighbors. There are at least 50 parking spots on El Camino on the side of Paly. Again, where are those cars going to go? The Southgate Neighborhood? Town and Country Center, which currently lacks sufficient parking? Additionally, as we continue to build on this busy corridor, residential parking on ECR will be also be eliminated. Where will they park? In the adjacent neighborhoods? Safety: With the numerous curb cuts, driveways, and streets on ECR, bike lanes are a recipe for disaster, especially with distracted drivers, speeders in a hurry, buses and trucks, as well as numerous traffic lights. Also inexperienced youth bikes. Note that on Park Blvd, there are only a handful of lights and fewer driveways, streets, etc. to hamper bikers. This Park Blvd alternative route already has bollards (Ventura and near Mollie Stone’s) for bike safety. This route is much safer and FASTER as well. ECR accident reports show that a large majority of serious and fatal accidents between cars and bikes are broadsides, indicating that these accidents occurred when bikes were crossing ECR. This plan does not at all address this real and known fact. Let’s not say “Yes” to bike lanes on every street, especially high traffic state highways as ECR. Let’s use the 2012 bike plan that was so carefully constructed, Finally let's consider the greater good. The daily car, bus, and truck traffic is significant on ECR–in the high thousands–while bike traffic would be in the hundreds at best. Should we inconvenience the far greater number of ECR users and businesses when there are alternative routes for cyclists that are faster and safer. Please take a strong stand against CalTrans and refuse bike lanes on El Camino. Annette Glanckopf, Midtown resident From:Annette Glanckopf To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Bike lanes on El Camino Real Date:Saturday, June 15, 2024 8:05:44 PM Attachments:letter to counicl on bike lanes - v2.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone and Council, I am very concerned about bike lanes on El Camino. See my attached letter for my detailed comments. Palo Alto has spent countless hours putting together a bicycle plan. Let's stick to what we have thoughtfully developed. Thank you Annette Date: June 14, 2024 Subject: Bike Lanes on El Camino To: Palo Alto City Council Re: Item 31 on Council Agenda for 6/17/24Repaving El Camino Dear Council Members. Bike lanes do not belong on El Camino Real. I ask you to reject the plan to do so. My concern is small business vitality and safety (bikes/pedestrians/vehicles). Palo Alto has gone to great lengths to provide safe bike routes–on Park Boulevard as well as Bryant–which closely parallel El Camino. CalTrans is holding Palo Alto hostage by demanding bike lanes on a transit corridor in order to repave El Camino Real (ECR), which is sorely needed. Don’t give in to the pleas of the avid bike community speakers, who are mostly from other cities and not Palo Alto. Bike lanes on ECR – a state highway - are not in the best interest of the entire community. Retail: This will be the “nail in the coffin” for the many small businesses on El Camino, who depend on close- by parking or in front of their establishment. If it is too difficult to park, people just will find other places to go. Ironically this is just at a time when the city is trying to encourage more retail, especially small independently owned businesses. Yes, some of these businesses do have parking lots, but is it sufficient? I think not, especially for those customers (elderly, disabled) who want to park in front of the establishments. Even Sundance, which has a parking lot, is concerned about the loss of ECR parking. Taking out a huge number of parking spaces in a major mistake. Small retail is truly the “silent majority”. They won’t show up at council; they aren’t represented by the Chamber. If their businesses fail, they will simply disappear–and “we” will lose more local retail. Parking: Caltrans counts 600 vehicle parking spots on ECR, but hasn’t identified where these vehicles should/could go. The neighborhoods? ECR parking is also used as dwelling spaces. I understand that at least 41 spaces serve as dwelling spots for some of our neighbors. There are at least 50 parking spots on El Camino on the side of Paly. Again, where are those cars going to go? The Southgate Neighborhood? Town and Country Center, which currently lacks sufficient parking? Additionally, as we continue to build on this busy corridor, residential parking on ECR will be also be eliminated. Where will they park? In the adjacent neighborhoods? Safety: With the numerous curb cuts, driveways, and streets on ECR, bike lanes are a recipe for disaster, especially with distracted drivers, speeders in a hurry, buses and trucks, as well as numerous traffic lights. Also inexperienced youth bikes. Note that on Park Blvd, there are only a handful of lights and fewer driveways, streets, etc. to hamper bikers. This Park Blvd alternative route already has bollards (Ventura and near Mollie Stone’s) for bike safety. This route is much safer and FASTER as well. ECR accident reports show that a large majority of serious and fatal accidents between cars and bikes are broadsides, indicating that these accidents occurred when bikes were crossing ECR. This plan does not at all address this real and known fact. Let’s not say “Yes” to bike lanes on every street, especially high traffic state highways as ECR. Let’s use the 2012 bike plan that was so carefully constructed, Finally let's consider the greater good. The daily car, bus, and truck traffic is significant on ECR–in the high thousands–while bike traffic would be in the hundreds at best. Should we inconvenience the far greater number of ECR users and businesses when there are alternative routes for cyclists that are faster and safer. Please take a strong stand against CalTrans and refuse bike lanes on El Camino. Annette Glanckopf, Midtown resident From:pennyellson12@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:RE: El Camino Real Repaving (Agenda Item 31) Date:Saturday, June 15, 2024 4:18:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, RE: El Camino Real Repaving (Agenda Item 31), I am writing as an individual to ask you to: support No Right Turn On Red Restrictions recommended in Attachment E by Caltrans and/or by city staff. As you support bike lanes along ECR for strong and confident bicyclists, please also incorporate wayfinding signage from ECR at multiple locations to quieter parallel bike routes, especially Wilkie-Park Bicycle Boulevard, for people who are not comfortable riding in areas like ECR with high auto volumes and speeds. support Fehr & Peers-recommended improvements to the 5/20/2024 Caltrans ECR Repaving plans, especially at school commute crossings. direct staff to continue working with Caltrans to improve safety of the proposed bikeways, especially ECR school commute crossings direct staff to engage in Caltrans-led planning for the ECR corridor for August 2024 with a strong focus on school commute crossing safety Many individual community members and groups, including the city’s Safe Routes to School PTA partners together with the Palo Alto Council of PTAs Executive Board, have come together to identify improvements to create safer El Camino Real crossings for users of all ages and abilities, including people who cannot or choose not to drive a car. These road users include hundreds of PAUSD school children who have to cross the State Highway Route 82 each school day to get to: Palo Alto High School Henry M. Gunn High School Ellen Fletcher Middle School Frank Greene Middle School Escondido Elementary School Juana Briones Elementary School Barron Park Elementary School The report points to ECR intersections in Palo Alto that frequently are used by youth school commuters. Current safety challenges young people face at these intersections cannot be understated. ECR crossings are long. Young people of shorter stature and with shorter legs scurry to cross as many as seven lanes of heavy motor vehicle traffic with no pedestrian refuge at most ECR intersections. Parked cars can obstruct driver views of young people of shorter stature and a shorter person’s view of a car. Both drivers and pedestrians can be distracted by the very high levels of activity and stimuli at ECR intersections. From the report, No Right Turn on Red restrictions eliminate conflict between right-turning vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists traveling through an intersection. Multiple studies validate the effectiveness of this low-cost, high-reward safety measure. Without this restriction, right turning drivers look to the left to find a gap in traffic and may not look for people on foot or on bicycles coming from the right… This treatment is a best practice at locations where there is high pedestrian activity, school activity, older road users, and bicycle facilities.12 Current Allowed Right Turns On Red at ECR school route intersections present unnecessary risk for people on bikes and on foot, especially youth and people with disabilities or in wheelchairs who tend to be slower moving and less visible. Staff and the PTAs have offered strong data-based arguments regarding bike/ped collisions at these intersections. Consistent with Council’s recent decision to adopt the Safe System Approach, No Right Turn on Red Restrictions slow speeds and reduce points of conflicts. Speed is the major factor in severe injury and death in traffic collisions. You can make a decision to save lives and reduce injury collisions now. Please support No Right Turn On Red Restrictions recommended in Attachment E – all those recommended by Caltrans and/or by city staff. Again, please: support No Right Turn On Red Restrictions recommended in Attachment E by Caltrans and/or by city staff. As you support bike lanes along ECR for strong and confident bicyclists, please also incorporate wayfinding signage from ECR at multiple locations to quieter parallel bike routes, especially Wilkie-Park Bicycle Boulevard, for people who are not comfortable riding in areas with high auto volumes and speeds. support Fehr & Peers-recommended improvements to the 5/20/2024 Caltrans ECR Repaving plans, especially at school commute crossings. direct staff to continue working with Caltrans to improve safety of the proposed bikeways, especially ECR school commute crossings direct staff to engage in Caltrans-led planning for the ECR corridor for August 2024 with a strong focus on school commute crossing safety Thank you for considering my comments and for your support of Safe Routes to School. Families and children depend on your prioritization of their safety on public streets in Palo Alto. With gratitude, Penny Ellson Virus-free.www.avg.com From:Barbara Ann Hazlett To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; Tanaka,Greg Subject:Churchill Rail Crossing - Support the Partial Underpass Date:Saturday, June 15, 2024 2:42:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: If the Palo Alto City Council back tracks on its first choice for dealing with the Churchill rail crossing, namely the partial underpass, then its backup position is the closure of Churchill Ave. (one of only three east/west conduits in the north part of Palo Alto). The issue of eminent domain is a difficult one. But let's be absolutely clear about the impact of a closure of Churchill. A Churchill closure would essentially result in eminent domain to the hundreds of residents and homes near and along Embarcadero. As became clear during the years of rail crossing analysis, XCAP and Council meetings, a Churchill closure would result in dumping 10,000 more cars a day onto Embarcadero. There would be serious impacts to driveways, increase in air and noise pollution and delays in emergency response times, where minutes can make the difference between life and death. And how about the isolation this closure would impose on the Southgate neighborhood? Simply put, where is the fairness, where is the equity of degrading life for hundreds for the benefit of a few? Council has made its decision based on years of debate, input and analysis, now please stick to it. Best Regards, Barbara Hazlett Emerson St. Palo Alto, CA From:Shannon Griscom To:Council, City Cc:Shannon Close Griscom Subject:Bathroom at Eleanor Pardew Park Date:Saturday, June 15, 2024 7:44:55 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members: as you consider bathrooms at the various parks, please know that Eleanor Park is a verylarge area, including the public gardens. Many generations use the park, with no bathroom facilities. As a result,parents take their children behind bushes and trees to relieve themselves. The Council is overdue in making sure thatall of who use the park can use a bathroom. In this wealthy community, it is shocking not to have bathrooms at all ofthe parks. I have lived in Palo Alto since 1965, paying taxes, and firmly ask that you provide these services.Sincerely,Shannon Close Griscom815 Melville Ave.Palo Alto, CA 94301508-237-1883 From:Philip L Ritter To:Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Council,City; Transportation; Clerk, City Subject:grade separations at Charleston and Meadow Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 11:22:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear council members and involved city officials, I only recently had a chance to read over the 5/23/24 Rail Meeting document, which does help me in understanding some of the options. We have lived in Palo Alto for 53 years and in Fairmeadow for 42 years, and I have long been a frequent cyclist, commuting to Stanford by bicycle for over 35 years. Of the two sets of options presented for our area, I would greatly favor the hybrid options for several reasons. The underpass options appear to be considerably more expensive. They take away more property (including parts of the historic Fairmeadow and Greenmeadow neighborhoods) impacting many people in our area. And the underground options would be more complex for bicyclists along the heavily traveled route to Gunn high school (we have a grandson who commutes by bike from Loma Verde to Gunn). The underpass options would likely make Alma more like Central Express Way and Charleston more like Embarcadero, two changes that would affect the character and livability of our neighborhood. I would not be opposed to either an aqueduct or underground railroad, two options which appear to be now off the table. Thus, of the remaining options, I would support the hybrid but not the underground options. Philip Ritte 3618 Bryant St From:Philip L Ritter To:Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Council,City; Transportation; Clerk, City Subject:grade separations at Charleston and Meadow Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 11:22:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear council members and involved city officials, I only recently had a chance to read over the 5/23/24 Rail Meeting document, which does help me in understanding some of the options. We have lived in Palo Alto for 53 years and in Fairmeadow for 42 years, and I have long been a frequent cyclist, commuting to Stanford by bicycle for over 35 years. Of the two sets of options presented for our area, I would greatly favor the hybrid options for several reasons. The underpass options appear to be considerably more expensive. They take away more property (including parts of the historic Fairmeadow and Greenmeadow neighborhoods) impacting many people in our area. And the underground options would be more complex for bicyclists along the heavily traveled route to Gunn high school (we have a grandson who commutes by bike from Loma Verde to Gunn). The underpass options would likely make Alma more like Central Express Way and Charleston more like Embarcadero, two changes that would affect the character and livability of our neighborhood. I would not be opposed to either an aqueduct or underground railroad, two options which appear to be now off the table. Thus, of the remaining options, I would support the hybrid but not the underground options. Philip Ritte 3618 Bryant St From:Michael Regula To:Council, City Subject:Support ECR Bike Lanes Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 6:29:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Mayor Stone and City Council Members, I support removal of vehicle parking to implement protected bike lanes on El Camino Real aswell as all the recommendations made by the volunteers on the SVBC local team and El Camino Real 2030 Campaign to ensure that these bike lanes are successfully implemented. Climate Change has been at the forefront of the city council's 2024 agenda. Moving forwardwith this project would demonstrate the city's commitment to this priority. As a center of innovation, Palo Alto has the opportunity to take the lead yet again, this time in human-friendly, sustainable city design. Thank you for your service to this community and for leading the way in making El Camino safe for bikes! Michael RegulaUniversity South Neighborhood Resident From:Melissa Oliveira To:Council, City Cc:Lara Anthony Subject:Item 31: Please Support "No Right Turn on Red" on El Camino School Crossings Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 5:05:30 PM Attachments:SRTS Letter to Palo Alto City Council_ ECR Children"s Safey Prioritization.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing, and Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you on behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs Executive Board as the PTA Council Chairs for Safe Routes to School, to express our support for the prioritization of the safety of the thousands of children who walk and bike to school daily in our city. In connection with Agenda Item 31, the El Camino Real Bikeway Project, the PTA Council Executive Board strongly encourages the City to adopt the No Right Turn On Red restrictions at the El Camino Real intersections frequently used by Palo Alto children to get to school. These are identified by City staff in the Council Staff Report Agenda Packet on page 763 and Attachment E (page 808), and also listed on the Attachment hereto for convenience. SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL Safe Routes to School is a partnership among the City of Palo Alto, PAUSD, and community members working through school PTAs, whose mission is to reduce risk to students en route to and from school and to encourage families to choose healthy, active, sustainable alternatives to driving solo more often. Safe Routes to School has produced Walk and Roll suggested school routes (“Recommended School Routes”) to all PAUSD schools (for example, Palo Alto High School). Years of data, research and management have gone into determining which routes are safest for children biking and walking to and from each Palo Alto school to inform the Recommended School Routes. The percentage of students walking and biking to Palo Alto schools is among the highest in the nation, with over 50% of all PAUSD students biking to school by the time they reach middle school. El Camino Real is a heavily-trafficked main vehicle artery running through the giant web of Recommended School Routes, which, unfortunately, thousands of our children must cross every day to get to school. ADDITIONAL NO RIGHT TURN ON RED RESTRICTIONS NEEDED ON EL CAMINO We commend the City and Caltrans for taking measures to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on El Camino Real. That said, we strongly encourage the City of Palo Alto, in partnership with Caltrans, to add No Right Turn On Red restrictions at the additional intersections recommended by City staff in the Attachment to better protect the thousands of children that need to cross El Camino Real to get to school every day. Those include the following El Camino Real Recommended School Route intersections: Arastradero Rd./W. Charleston Rd., Los Robles Ave./ El Camino Way, Matadero Ave./Margarita Ave., Stanford Ave., Maybell Ave./El Camino Way, Cesano Ct./Los Altos Ave., Cambridge Ave., Curtner Ave., Ventura Ave.; as well as the following additional intersections heavily used by students, families, cyclists and pedestrians: Page Mill Rd./Oregon Expwy, Park Blvd./ Serra St., Churchill Ave., Galvez St./Embarcadero Rd., and California Avenue, as specified on the Attachment. Without No Right Turn on Red restrictions, right-turning drivers look to the left to find a gap in traffic and may not look for people on foot or on bicycles coming from the right. In particular, children crossing on bike or on foot may not be seen due to their height. It is critical that we have No Right Turn on Red restrictions on our Recommended School Routes where children must cross such a busy thoroughfare as El Camino Real. COLLISIONS & FATALITIES ON EL CAMINO REAL Currently we do not have No Right Turn On Red restrictions on El Camino Real Recommended School Route intersections. Between 2012 and 2022, there were 46 reported collisions on the Recommended School Route intersections with El Camino Real. This averages out to about 4-5 collisions at El Camino Recommended School Route intersections per year. 79% of those collisions involved bicycles, and 22% involved pedestrians. Intersection # Collisions 2012-2022 Cambridge 6 Charleston/Arastradero 6 Los Altos/Cesano 3 Los Robles 3 Matadero 5 Maybell 5 Stanford 13 Ventura 2 Curtner 3 Total 46 Additionally, tragically, there was a student fatality at the El Camino and California Avenue intersection in 2020. While this intersection is not on a recommended school route, the California Avenue business district is a popular and important destination for students and families and accordingly we strongly recommend the addition of a No Right Turn On Red restriction at this intersection. With Caltrans’ El Camino Real Bikeway Project, the City has an opportunity to make an enormous impact on public safety generally and the safety of our children by adding No Right Turn On Red restrictions on our Recommended School Routes and other heavily used bicycle and pedestrian El Camino Real crossings. The PTA Council Executive Board strongly urges the City to adopt No Right Turn on Red Restrictions at all of the locations specified on the Attachment. Thank you for your tremendous efforts to improve the safety of our community along the El Camino Real corridor, and particularly for prioritizing the safety of our children on their way to school each day. Best regards, Lara Anthony & Melissa Oliveira Palo Alto PTAC Safe Routes to School Chairs, for and on behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs Executive Board El Camino Intersection Location Recommended School Commute Route Staff/Caltrans Recommended Approaches for Adding No Right Turn on Red Signage *Note missing directions indicate that a turn restriction is not feasible or requested for that approach. Arastradero Rd/ W Charleston Rd Y N, S, W Los Robles Ave/ El Camino Way Y N, S, E, W Matadero Ave/ Margarita Ave Y N, S, E, W Stanford Ave Y N, S, E, W Y N, S, E, W Maybell Ave/ El Camino Way Cesano Ct/ Los Altos Ave Y N, W Cambridge Y (Pedestrians only) N, S, E, W Curtner Avenue Y (Pedestrians only) W Ventura Avenue Y N California Ave N (2020 student fatality location) S, E Page Mill Rd/ Oregon Expwy N N, S Park Blvd/Serra St N N, S, E, W Churchill Ave N N Galvez St/ Embarcadero Rd N W From:City Mgr To:Council, City Cc:Executive Leadership Team; ORG - Clerk"s Office Subject:City.Council Bundle 6/13 Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 4:54:11 PM Attachments:RE Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing brownouts.msgFW Crosswalk - Campers - CalTrans Buses - Other Large Vehicles - Large City Electrical Box.msgHomeless Encampment in Mitchell Park.msgRE Suspicious activity - lack of response.msgimage001.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage009.png Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in the City.Council inbox through June 13. Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Matt Bryant To:Council, City Subject:Item 31 - Supporting Bicycle lanes on El Camino Real Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 1:28:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor Stone and Esteemed City Council Members, As the father of two kids who ride bicycles to Gunn High School/Fletcher Middle School andas a Palo Alto cyclist, I am writing you to support the addition of bicycle lanes on El Camino Real in Palo Alto, and I support the Palo Alto staff's safety recommendations. I appreciate the new bicycle lanes, leading pedestrian intervals, and no right turn on redrestrictions at key Safe Routes to Schools intersections along El Camino Real. I support the City of Palo Alto working with CalTrans to make bicycling and pedestrian safetyimprovements along the El Camino Real corridor. No matter how you look at this, the CalTrans project adding bicycle lanes on El Camino Real is the right thing to do. It gives a safer passage for bicyclists and pedestrians traveling on ECR,it allows safer crossing for pedestrians and bicyclists across ECR, it improves access to schools (Paly, Keys) and parks (El Camino park, Mayfield soccer complex, Paly tennis/soccer,Stanford IM fields) located on ECR, it improves Safe Routes to Schools that cross ECR, it improves access to businesses on ECR including Stanford shopping mall, Cal Ave, and manyother businesses, and it improves the environment by increasing bicycle and pedestrian traffic rather than motor vehicles. Thank you for making El Camino Real safe for bicyclists and pedestrians! I look forward tocelebrating the El Camino Real safety improvement project upon completion. Best regards, Matt Matthew D. Bryant, PharmD415-846-1239 drmattbryant@gmail.comwww.linkedin.com/in/drmattbryant From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; boardmembers; bballpod;bearwithme1016@att.net; fred beyerlein; Leodies Buchanan; David Balakian; beachrides; Cathy Lewis; Council,City; cramirez.electriclab133@gmail.com; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; dallen1212@gmail.com;eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov;huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Sally Thiessen; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli;karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; kfsndesk; Kevin.Nower@bestbuy.com; MY77FJ@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; maverickbruno@sbcglobal.net; merazroofinginc@att.net; Mark Standriff; Mayor; nick yovino;news@fresnobee.com; newsdesk; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; tsheehan;vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu Subject:Fwd: New Ca. State plan for home owners insurance Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 12:35:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, Jun 14, 2024 at 12:15 PMSubject: Fwd: New Ca. State plan for home owners insurance To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Friday, June 14, 2024 To all, especially to California home owners- This says it shows a map where coverage will improve. Then, no map, at least here. Here's where California could push insurers to cover more fire-risk homes (archive.is) This is good information too about the new State plan. At least there's a map: California-Department-of-Insurance-Presentation-on-Insurance-Commitments-in-Wildfire-Distressed-Areas.pdf We'll all get a hike of some sort in our home owner's insurance this summer or fall, but at least fewer of us will get cancelled than has been the plan before this week. State Farm said amonth ago that they would cancel 70,000 policies this summer, 40,000 of them on apartment buildings and 30,000 on houses. Of course, State Farm insures a million homes in California,so a small percentage. When people get cancelled they have been going to the State "FAIR" plan, insurance of last resort, and it can be $6,000 per year or something horrible like that. This new plan will meana lot fewer people will have to go to that, but all will pay more. If I get cancelled, I'll sell and move to Munchen, I think. Live with two German girls. Wahrscheinlich, mein Deutsch schnell verbessen wurde. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Fred Balin To:Council, City; UTL-Customer Service; Burke Robinson Subject:Re: Public Safety Hazard and Unfinished Utility Crew Work Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 11:02:03 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Burke, Thanks for this information Going through an email account I do not use often. Best way to reach via email is via fbalin@gmail.com . For text/cel phone use 650-520- 4879. Best, Fred On Friday, May 10, 2024 at 01:16:53 PM PDT, Burke Robinson <burkerobinson@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City of Palo Alto Utilities and Palo Alto City Council, Six weeks ago a utility crew installed a new support cable on utility pole #0758 between 2341 and 2361 Columbia Street, Palo Alto. They did not finish the job they started. They have left behind two older, nonfunctional cables that need to be removed and recycled. Several neighbors and I are concerned about the significant equipment weight on this pole that is causing it to lean enough that it may already be a public safety hazard. Attached are photographs to illustrate our concern. Please have someone contact me about this situation as soon as possible. Regards, Burke Robinson 2361 Columbia St 650-823-4980 ================================= From:Ann Pianetta To:Council, City Subject:Bikes on El Camino Real Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 10:39:12 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council: I want to put my two cents in about bike lanes on El Camino Real even though it may be too late. What is the matter with people! Here are the reasons NOT to allow bike riders on this dangerous street. 1. El Camino Real is actually Highway 82. HIGHWAY, not a street but a 6 lane highway. People travel anywhere from 35 to 50 mph. Don't you think that is too much for a bike rider to deal with? 2. The condition of the road is absolutely awful -- FULL of potholes and wear and tear. This makes for dangerous driving and the ruining of your car. For someone on a bike it is especially dangerous because the edge of the highway is not maintained. There is plenty of debris that get pushed over to the edge by cars. 3. When you open this highway up to people on bikes that will include children. How would you like to see a 7-year old riding down this street, having to manage all the big intersections and cars making right turns? 4. Bike riders over the age of 18 are not required to wear a helmet. I don't know why because to me that would only make sense. Bicycles are considered vehicles. Motorcyclists have to wear a helmet. It is the law. 5. What is the law for skateboards (electric or not), bikes (electric or not) and scooters (electric or not)? Should these things be in the bike lane. Are they considered vehicles? Should they wear helmets? 6. Bicyclists are more prone to not follow the law in stopping for lights and stops signs. They are often looking at their phones -- especially the teenagers and young adults. 7. Finally, what about the buses? How will they manage pulling over to pick up/drop off passengers? Adding bike riders would create a recipe for disaster. What should really be considered is putting buses along that line if you are going to remove all parking. I think removing parking is a big mistake. Buses can maneuver around parked cars. If you want to help the bicyclists why not put in a separate roadway next to the train tracks? It could only be for bikes. That would be safer for them. Please don’t cave in to the bicyclists. They have plenty of pathways to use when biking. Sincerely, Ann Pianetta 3815 La Donna Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Elizabeth Rahn To:Council, City Subject:BICYCLE LANES ON EL CAMINO Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 10:19:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To Whom it Concerns: I live in Cupertino. If these new bike lanes for El Camino Realare like the ones in Cupertino with a low barrier divider,please consider the following: The barriers restrict a driver's ability to pull over foran emergency vehicle. I had a firetruck with flashinglights come up behind me, and I quickly tried to pull overto the side of the road to let them pass. My front tire hitthe barrier scrapping my tire rims and knocking out myalignment. I ended up being a momentary obstacle. Two teenage boys in the barrier bike lane are riding singlefile. The front rider is talking over his shoulder to theboy behind him, and hits the barrier. He falls off his bikeinto the road and quickly afterward the second boy hits thedowned bike and also spills into the road. I had to slam onmy brakes to avoid hitting two teenagers laying in the roaddirectly ahead of me. I suggest no low barriers, just paint something. Bikers do needprotection on busy roads. Elizabeth Rahn From:mike.forster@knowledgewise.com To:Council, City Subject:Caltrain grade separations - A Viaduct is the best approach Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 9:12:23 AM Attachments:Palo Alto - Caltrain Viaduct Grade Separations - Mike Forster v5.pdf Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. June 14, 2024 Palo Alto City Council Attached is an updated presentation advocating that a Viaduct is the best approach for Palo Alto grade separations. This presentation is also at the Dropbox folder linked below, in case the City email system filters out attachments. https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/xzlgm834doc5dvw66u07w/h? rlkey=13pmev0m6y8hebi2v4mnud6es&dl=0 Mike Forster, Evergreen Park 420 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 464 0425 mike.forster@knowledgewise.com Palo Alto: Caltrain Viaduct Grade Separations Mike Forster June 2024 v5 Mike.forster@knowledgewise.com www.knowledgewise.com First version submitted to Palo Alto City Council: 2018 mikefors ter.net/cPalo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct Grade Separations - Mike Forster – June 2024 v5 1 Palo Alto Online, June 14, 2023 Palo Alto architect Joe Bellomo's vision for high-speed rail http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2009/11/27/arch itect-calls-for-design-contest-for-high-speed-rail Viaduct Grade Separations over Palo Alto Ave, Churchill, Seale, Meadow, Charleston Conceptual Design Solves and Avoids Many Issues www.knowledgewise.com mike.forster@knowledgewise.com 2Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct Grade Separations - Mike Forster – June 2024 v5 Palo Alto Station: Move platforms south to between Hamilton and Homer Ch a r l e s t o n San Antonio Station (unchanged) Stanford Station (elevated or abandonded) Cal Ave Station (unchanged) Viaduct over Palo Alto Ave – Plan with Menlo Park Ch u r c h i l l Pa l o A l t o A v e Sea l e Ped/Bike traffic signal across Alma, short grade-level tunnel under viaduct Pee r s Pa r k Palo Alto Ave solves issues for: * Palo Alto Ave * Creek * Trestle Plan with Menlo Park, Atherton, Redwood City Churchill Avenue unchanged avoids: * Private property acquisition * Ped/bike tunnel residential and parking impacts on Churchill and Alma to Kellogg * (Odd) T-intersection * Diverting traffic to Embarcadero * Under-street utilities impacts * Future sea level rise, flood impacts Seale ped/bike crossing traffic signal avoids: * Private property acquisition •Long, less safe tunnel •Residential, parking impacts on Seale, Alma Meadow and Charleston Avenues unchanged avoids: * Private property acquisition * Residential and parking impacts on Alma, Meadow, Charleston, and nearby properties * Likely traffic congestion from roundabout * Under-street utilities impacts * Future sea level rise, flood impacts Viaduct Grade Separations – Viaduct is the Better Solution www.knowledgewise.com mike.forster@knowledgewise.com 3Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct Grade Separations - Mike Forster – June 2024 v5 Criteria Alternatives >> V V Hybrid: Raise Tracks Lower Roads Viaduct: Churchill, Meadow, Charleston (PA Ave) Simplicity Very Complex Simple Maintain or Improve East/West Connectivity for All Transportation Modes Mixed Results Maintains Maintain or Reduce Traffic Congestion Mixed Results or Worse Maintains Pedestrian/Bike Circulation: Clear, Safe, Separate from Auto Traffic TBD depending on design Maintains Support Continued Rail Operations, Improvement Presumed OK Presumed OK Finance Cost with Feasible Funding Sources TBD TBD Operational Reduce Rail Noise and Vibration (Study, July 2020)Slight Reduction Significant Reduction Construction Noise and Vibration (Study, July 2020)Moderatoe to Severe Moderate Timeframe of Construction (Study, July 2020)4 years 2 years Minimize Visual Changes Both options similar Both options similar Maintain or Improve Access to Neighborhoods, Parks, Schools, etc.Maintains Maintains Minimize Right-of-Way Acquisition by Eminent Domain Impacts many properties No property acquisitions Minimize permanent impacts on driveway access, parking, street safety Major impacts No impacts Minimize Disruption and Duration of Construction (Study, July 2020)Major disruptions Minimal disruptions Avoid Sea Level Rise / Groundwater Incursion (Study, January 2024)Some risk No risk Overall Cost TBD TBD Criteria based on Appendix E, City Council Staff Report, Meeting Date 9/5/17. Expanded criteria and evaluation by Mike Forster. Vibration/Noise Study, July 2020: https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Noise-Vibration-Comparative-Analysis-Report.pdf Sea Level Rise Study, January 2024: https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Attachment-C-Sea-Level-Rise-Assessment-1.pdf Viaduct Grade Separations - Dollar and Personal Cost Savings Over Hybrid Alternative •Raising the Caltrain tracks a little more should be a low incremental cost increase. •Compared with the hybrid lower road / raise tracks a little cost. •Cost avoidance from not lowering roadways at all. •Cost for acquisition of private properties for expanded road footprint. •Cost to lower the roadways and reconfigure nearby roadways and intersections •Cost of changing utilities under the roadways. •Likely cost of adding pumps for lowered roadways – •Avoids introducing a permanent maintenance and operational issue. •Simpler solution, likely shorter timeframe, which likely means lower cost. •Risk avoidance due with simpler viaduct approach. •Simplicity reduces risks of surprises, cost and schedule overruns of complex hybrid approach. •Reduces period of disruption during construction. •Most or all construction contained with existing Caltrain right-of-way. •Avoids personal costs for families of affected homes. •Loss of part or all of a property. •Loss of driveway length and street parking; reduction of driveway access and safety. •Avoids likely legal quagmire. •Avoids likely lawsuits by homeowners over eminent domain. 4www.knowledgewise.com mike.forster@knowledgewise.com Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct Grade Separations - Mike Forster – June 2024 v5 Viaduct Grade Separations – Burlingame: Viaduct www.knowledgewise.com mike.forster@knowledgewise.com 5 •In 2020, the City considered a conceptual design for a hybrid approach •In 2022, the City chose a viaduct approach: fully elevates tracks, does not lower roads •https://burlingame.org/DocumentCenter/View/2932/Presentation-Slides---Virtual- Community-Meeting-July-13-2022-PDF •https://www.caltrain.com/media/33194/download August 2023 Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct Grade Separations - Mike Forster – June 2024 v5 Proposed Broadway grade separation Proposed Cadillac Way underpass Similar to Seale with a ped/bike traffic signal Viaduct Grade Separations – San Bruno, Redwood City, Menlo Park www.knowledgewise.com mike.forster@knowledgewise.com 6 •San Bruno: Viaduct-like - as built: •Minimal road lowering at San Bruno Ave •Minimal or no road lowering at San Mateo Ave •Little or no impact on nearby properties •Redwood City: Viaduct over 3 crossings •Recent plans (on hold) include a viaduct over 3 northern crossings •Menlo Park: Reconsidering the Viaduct approach after community feedback •In 2022 (post-covid), included the viaduct among other study options Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct Grade Separations - Mike Forster – June 2024 v5 San Bruno Avenue San Mateo Ave Visually Attractive Examples of Viaduct Grade Separations •Elevated tracks do not have to be berms that might divide cities. 7 (Images from Google Earth / Streetview) Montessoro, Italy Paris, France - Bercy Sunnyside, NY Paris, France – Blvd. St. Jacques Union City, CA – Kennedy Park - BART www.knowledgewise.com mike.forster@knowledgewise.com Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct Grade Separations - Mike Forster – June 2024 v5 Berlin, Germany – SPUR 2017 Palo Alto / Menlo Park / Atherton / Redwood City: Viaduct Grade Separations - Coordination 8 Berkshire Avenue PALO ALTOMENLO PARKATHERTONREDWOOD CITY Atherton Station (abandoned) Menlo Park Station (elevated) Palo Alto Station California Avenue Station (elevated) Base map: Google Maps Route and annotations: Mike Forster San Antonio Station (unchanged) Palo Alto / Menlo Park: Viaduct routed slightly west near Stanford Park Hotel (away from El Palo Alto) A coordinated plan would have significant benefits: •Continue Palo Alto viaduct north from Palo Alto station through Menlo Park and Atherton into Redwood City •Flexibility in Palo Alto / Menlo Park border options at Alma / Palo Alto Ave and San Francisquito Creek www.knowledgewise.com mike.forster@knowledgewise.com Palo Alto – Caltrain Viaduct Grade Separations - Mike Forster – June 2024 v5 From:Steven Baker To:Council, City; jennifer.davis@cityofpaloalto.org; paloaltocompliance@hdlgov.com Subject:City of Palo Alto: Please stop threatening your citizens Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 8:33:56 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi,I keep receiving threatening physical mail claiming I am suspected of operating a business in the city of palo alto. It looks like an official stamped palo alto document, coming from "Cityof Palo Alto Compliance Division". I have gotten multiple of these and ignored them, because I do not operate a business in the city AND there is no way to respond other than paying theregistration fee and registering a business, which I don't have. Why is the city sending these to me with no way to say "I do not operate a business, stop threatening me"? This is coming from this outside firm the city has contracted with called HdL Companies(unless this is a scam?) The latest note I received was even scarier as it says "Final Request for Compliance". I will copy the text of the note below so you can see how it claims to represent the city. This is especially confusing because on the city website it says "The City of Palo Alto does notissue business licenses and there is no requirement to have one" on this page here. Here is the text of the mail: CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY OF PALO ALTO COMPLIANCE DIVISION 8839 N CEDAR AVE #212 FRESNO, CA 93720 PHONE (650) 521-5944 HD30606A AUTO SCH 5-DIGIT94304 7000002392 00.0006.0237 798/1 STEVEN BAKER GOOGLE 2671 SOUTH CT PALO ALTO CA 94306-2462 FINAL REQUEST FOR COMPLIANCE Account No. :23514136 June 06, 2024 Re: Palo Alto Business Registration and Tax Dear Business Owner: The HdLCompanies has been retained by the City of Palo Alto to assist businesses and property owners in becoming compliant with the City's Municipal Code as it relates to Business Registrationand Taxes. All information obtained during the review will remain strictly confidential and be used for the City's administration of Business Registration and Taxes. It has come to ourattention that you are conducting business in the City of Palo Alto and the City would like welcome you to the business community. However, our records indicate that your businessmay not be compliance with the City's Business Registration and Tax requirements, Please be advised that a business must be registered with the City prior to conducting business withinthe City per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 4.60. • If you do not hold a valid Business Registration Certificate in the City of Palo Alto please complete the attached application andmail to the return address listed in the top left corner of this letter. You may also submit your application by email at PaloAltocompliance@hdIgov.com or by fax to (909) 348-0465. • Youcan apply online to expedite the process at: paloalto.hdgov.com • If you currently have a valid Business Registration Certificate in the City of Palo Alto please contact the Compliance Division at PaloAltocompliance@hdigov.com and include the account number listed in thisletter. Sincerely, City of Palo Alto Compliance Division From:Jack Farrell To:Council, City Subject:University Avenue Letter of Comment Date:Friday, June 14, 2024 6:15:50 AM Attachments:680 University Ave.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, Please find attached Yimby Law's letter of comment on the 660/680 University Avenue project proposal. Sincerely, Jack Farrell he/him Research Attorney 267-218-1147 Virus-free.www.avast.com From:Larry Alton To:Council, City Subject:Traffic on Hawthorne Avenue Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 11:37:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear council members and city manager,There is no law enforcement on the no right turn onto Hawthorne Avenue from southbound traffic on Middlefield. There is a steady stream of cars going down Hawthorne past Johnson Park in the mornings disobeying the traffic sign which says no right turn onto Hawthorne Avenue. Quite a fewof these cars are speeding and very noisy going past the children in the Park and residences on Hawthorne in spite of the roundabouts on Hawthorne. Please ensure our laws on these violations are adequately enforced. Penalties for ignoring this law would be easy to enforce and a significant revenue source for our city. Please also consider speed bumps on Hawthorne Avenue. Best Wishes, Larry Alton 453 Hawthorne Avenue650-387-6814 From:Joseph Yoon To:Council, City Subject:City Council (June 17) Agenda Item No. 31 Comment Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 8:36:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, No.I oppose the enactment of this agenda item. Sincerely, Joseph Yoon From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:Executive Leadership Team; ORG - Clerk"s Office Subject:Council Consent Questions: 6/17/24 and 6/18/24 Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 6:39:17 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage002.png Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links for the amended agenda and staff responses to questions submitted by Council Member Tanaka: June 17 Amended Agenda Staff Responses 15, 19, 25, 27 June 18 Amended Agenda Staff Response 4, 5 Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Diane McCoy To:Council, City Subject:Re: Airport Alternative choices/options Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 4:02:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council Members. I have been a resident of Palo Alto since 1978. I was a full time teacher in the Palo Alto Unified School District for 35 years. I am now retired and am a volunteer for Environmental Volunteers (EV) and Santa ClaraValley Audubon Society (SCVAS) for the past 6 years. I am very concerned about the potential negative and harmful educational and environmental impacts that several of the alternative choices in the Palo Alto Airport project might have onthe Palo Alto Baylands, specifically the Duck Pond, the Duck Pond Loop Trail and the trail going from the Lucy Evans Interpretive Center to San Francisquito Creek. Alternatives 4 and 5 are especially concerning, requiring the Duck Pond to be filled in and thesurrounding marsh to be destroyed. Each year, for many years, the Environmental Volunteers and SCVAS provide student field trips and community nature walks in those areas. Most students/schools are Title 1 schoolsthat are served. This past year EV had Palo Alto Baylands field trip experiences for 391 students andcommunity nature walks there for 242 people, all ages. In addition, this past year EV had 2,210 visitors to the weekly museum cart/displays at theDuck Pond. Also in addition SCVAS had field trip experiences for 603 students and community events,walks and trips for 750 people, all ages. Added up that comes to ……. 4,196 People exploring, learning about and enjoying this precious space. Add to this total the number of students that participant in the City’s Park and Recreation field trips, the city’s Baylands Summer Programs and the countless runners, walkers, bikers, dogwalkers, photographers, kayakers and hikers that enjoy and use this space throughout the year, on their own, with friends, families and other community groups (i.e. Meet Up Men’sSaturday group, Palo Alto Art League groups). It provides close access to nature’s restorative to the well being of both body and mind, so needed and appreciated.The young people, the students, their future, in particular, deserve your careful consideration in safeguarding and protecting this area of nature and wildlife, now in these days, more thanever. Show the wisdom the Palo Alto City Council used in 1962, not selling marsh land to developers and in 1986 when Palo Alto residents were allowed to vote to discontinue dredgingand instead restore the marsh land in front of the EcoCenter building. This allowed over 150 bird species to recover and protect their yearly migration route. Progress is in preservation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,Diane McCoy Palo Alto Residentdianemccoy10@comcast.net From:Humphrey, Sonia Cc:LAFCO Subject:Notice - Adopted LAFCO Budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 3:35:21 PM Attachments:image001.png Notice - Adopted FY2025 LAFCO Budget.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: County Executive, City and Special District Managers, Other Officials/Staff and Stakeholders: Please see attached memo regarding Adopted LAFCO Budget for Fiscal Year 2024-2025. Thank you, Sonia Humphrey, LAFCO Clerk LAFCO of Santa Clara County 777 North First Street, Suite 410 San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4709 From:Salazar Casillas, Marcela on behalf of Clerk, City To:Council, City Subject:FW: Support new homes at 660 University Ave! Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 3:32:48 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png image002.png Hello City Council, Please see the email below. Kindly, Marcela Casillas Administrative Associate III (temp) Office of the City Clerk (650) 329-2571 Marcela.casillas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Heather Stewart <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2024 3:13 PM To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Support new homes at 660 University Ave! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk, I am writing to express my enthusiastic support for the proposed housing project at 660 University Ave in downtown Palo Alto. This project will be a tremendous asset to the community and the region as a whole. I am a homeowner and live less than a mile from this proposed project. I strongly support more housing density in Palo Alto. I would like to see our political leaders take action to make Palo Alto more sustainable and inclusive with more housing stock, improve housing choice for residents and newcomers, and bring more vibrancy to downtown. Not building more housing (multimillion dollar single family homes don’t count) is not an option. The addition of 63 units to the area is a beacon of hope in addressing Palo Alto's pressing housing shortage. The project's proximity to downtown amenities, including Caltrain station and ample bike parking, makes the project an attractive place to live, while promoting environmental sustainability. Moreover, I am particularly impressed by the project's commitment to inclusivity. Setting aside 20 percent of the units for lower-tiered affordable housing showcases a dedication to providing opportunities for individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds to thrive in the community. By prioritizing affordable housing and urban development, we can create more sustainable and inclusive communities for everyone. It is necessary for Palo Alto to expand housing options and accommodate the needs of a growing population and I urge you to take action by supporting this project with no further delay. I look forward to witnessing the short term and long term positive impacts that this project will have on Palo Alto and the surrounding community. Thank you. Heather Stewart heatherlstewart87@gmail.com Palo Alto, California 94301 From:matt@evolutionaryteams.com To:palo-alto@fridaysforfutureusa.org Subject:FFF Follow Up – June 7 (Week #126)Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 12:50:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. We marched! Eight of us – George, Casey, Robin, Rick, Juan, Carol, Ian and I – wound our way through Palo Alto’s downtown streets lined with diners. Wewere encouraged by many, and two separate groups of diners broke into applause! We attracted lots of attention and many passersby took pictures. Jim Colton ofPro Bono Photos memorialized the event with these beautiful photos: https://www.probonophoto.org/2024/7Jun24PA-ClimateMarch Thanks, Jim and all, foranother successful march! Michelle stopped by, thanked us for our climate activism, and let us know about a vigil she holds each Saturday at 5PM at Town & Country for the Children ofGaza. We must demand peace to protect kids and to allow us to devote more energy to addressing the climate crisis and preserving a future habitable planet forour kids. More details about the vigil here: https://www.instagram.com/vigil4gaza/ We appreciate your activism, Michelle. Kadir produced another emotionally impactful Green Mic video about the effects of war on the climate crisis. Check it out here: https://youtu.be/hZBi2aAyjSwThank you, Kadir! Anu and Kat Kid Adventure celebrated World Ocean Day with a Plastic ARTivist Art Installation, raising awareness about plastic pollution in our oceans. Check out the installation which runs through August 1 at Rinconada Library. More info here: https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7-bBFjPgSI/ and here:https://www.instagram.com/p/C74dcz4v3EP/ Thanks, Anu! Diane shared an update on the Heat Pump Water Heater Program (see below). The installation rate reached 44 per month, the second highest monthly ratesince the program started. It’s great to see the program’s promotional efforts paying off. I am seeing lots of Synergy trucks around my neighborhood, which is veryencouraging. Thanks, Diane! This Friday we return to discussing the videos that Ingrid recommended (see links below). Come tell us which one made an impact on you. Keep Up the Fight and See You Friday! Roger Hallum’s final episode on his Designing the Revolution podcast series on the importance of transcendence to build a movement community: https://music.youtube.com/podcast/h6EnT0icv7o Climate One podcast: https://www.climateone.org/listen-watch/podcasts The Great Simplification with Nate Hagens (podcast): https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/ Follow Fridays For Future Palo Alto: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fridaysforfuture_paloalto/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Fri4Future_PA YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@FridaysForFuturePaloAlto Email notifications of FFF Palo Alto events: https://mailchi.mp/c8c130127345/join-fridays-for-future-palo-alto You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in supporting climate action in Palo Alto. If you no longer wish to receive these emails Matt Schlegel Schlegel Consulting 650-924-8923 Author: Teamwork 9.0 Website: evolutionaryteams.com Blog: evolutionaryteams.com/blog/ Linked In: linkedin.com/in/mattschlegel/ Twitter: twitter.com/EvoTeamMatt Instagram: instagram.com/MattSchlegel6 Facebook: facebook.com/mattschlegel.77 YouTube: youtube.com/channel/UCLkUMHuG4HVa831s9yeoZ5Q Enneagram Quiz: www.EnneaSurvey.com From:Raymond Wang To:Council, City Subject:Parking on El Camino Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 12:40:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, I'm writing because I saw a notice that a bike lane would be added to the street to reducetraffic collisions with bikers. While I do appreciate the importance of this measure, I feel like it would make it significantly harder for me to patronize businesses that are adjacent to thestreet. Has there been any thought or consideration in how we could add bike lanes while preserving street parking? Thank you for your time,Raymond From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; boardmembers; bballpod;bearwithme1016@att.net; fred beyerlein; Leodies Buchanan; David Balakian; beachrides; Cathy Lewis; Council,City; cramirez.electriclab133@gmail.com; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; dallen1212@gmail.com;eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov;huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Sally Thiessen; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli;karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; Kevin.Nower@bestbuy.com; MY77FJ@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com;maverickbruno@sbcglobal.net; merazroofinginc@att.net; Mark Standriff; Mayor; nick yovino;news@fresnobee.com; newsdesk; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; tsheehan;vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu Subject:Fwd: SB9 struck down for 5 So. cal communities Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 11:07:07 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 10:54 AMSubject: Fwd: SB9 struck down for 5 So. cal communities To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Thursday, June 13, 2024 To all--------EXTREMELY IMPORTANT! This is life and death. A judge in So. Cal has struck down SB9 for five communities. Fresno and Palo Alto should now proceed as they did. This development warrants the expenditure of big publicmoney on lawyers to get the same result. Many towns in California need to sieze this opportunity to save the livability of their communites, to save the property rights of theircitizens. If SB9 stands, it means the end of home ownership for millions of Californians because their homes will become unlivable. California law that ended single-family zoning struck down for 5 cities - Los Angeles Times (archive.is) Every home owner in California should now beseech their local government officials,Mayors and City Councils to do what happened here. We have a way here to save our homes. Very few items that come before local officials in California are more important than this one. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Lythcott-Haims, Julie To:Clerk, City; Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly Subject:Message from person who made outbursts at Council meetings Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 10:59:54 AM Message: Hello, I owe you and the City Council an apology! TO ALL MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL and THE CITY CLERK -------- By M__ (last name kept private). Sent via Julie L.H --------------- Dear City Leaders and City Clerk, I wish to express my most sincere apology forthe two outbursts which I made in the past two months at City Hall. These come from a place that I do not fully control. I have rational, caring thoughts for thecommunity but am since over 30 years treated for an illness which gets the better of me. Being bi-polar, having the lack of full control at times shows itself as adifficult handicap to live with. My Monday outburst about some "Constitutional" matter was largely exaggerated by my mood swing and mental hysteria. I thenproceeded to express rude and vulgar words and gestures and only hours later felt terribly embarrassed, sad and wishing that the event had not occurred. I want tostress my regret and trust that this will not happen again!! Sincerely, M___ Julie Lythcott-Haims Council Member, City of Palo Alto From:Edouard Lafargue To:Council, City; Mesterhazy, Rose Cc:Gold, Audrey; Jules; Veronique Lafargue Subject:Support for No Turns on Red Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 9:11:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, Audrey Gold recently told us about the No Turns on Red initiative that will be presented atthe city council meeting on June 17th. I wanted to add our family's support to this project, as it look like it has the potential to significantly improve pedestriand and bike safety. As you know, our son Paul was killed in 2020 by a truck driver at an intersection on ElCamino Real as he was biking home and was crossing the street using the pedestrian crossing, like most children do in order to get more protection while crossing intersections. A Traffic improvement plan that clearly: - Prevents turning on red - Gives pedestrian and vulnerable road users ample time to cross ... would go a long way to prevent more unecessary deaths, which unfortunately continue happening on a routine basis in Palo Alto, apparently to no one's great alarm apart from thefamilies of victims. I want to attract your attention to the fact that pedestrian crossing lights on El Camino real as set in a way that does not give time to pedestrians to cross the road in time before thoselights start blinking red or turning red altogether. This is a very real safety concern that could easily be addressed, by prioritizing the life of vulnerable road users over the speed and flow oftraffic that seems to take all precendence in decisions so far. Thanks again for bringing this initiative before the city council. We will not be able to attend due to travel, but i am hoping that it will result in improved safety and quality of life foreveryone in Palo Alto, With regards, Edouard, Véronique and Jules Lafargue From:Charlie Weidanz To:Council, City Subject:Information Reception & Application for Leadership Palo Alto 2024-2025 Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 8:34:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. LPA Information Reception 2024-2025 Leadership Palo Alto 2024-2025 Information Reception Join us for an informational reception and learn about our Leadership Palo Alto Program. Light refreshments served. Thursday, June 20, 2024 5:30pm to 7pm Location: The Avant 4041 El Camino Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 >Register Online Leadership Palo Alto 2024-2025 Apply Participants will graduate ready to re-imagine and reshape our community with21st-century leadership skills. Topics include: Local, Regional and State Government Education Arts & Culture Environment & Sustainability Housing & TransportationHealth & Wellness & More >Learn More and Apply Online Here Applications are Due July 31 Contact Charlie@paloaltochamber.com for more information. This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe clickhere. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:Audrey Gold To:Council, City Subject:Item 31: Please support No Right Turn on Red on El Camino school crossings Date:Thursday, June 13, 2024 8:25:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable City Council members, I passionately urge you to vote to support No Right Turn on Red on El Camino on the schoolcommute crossings at your meeting on Monday June 17th. For more than 15 years I have been an active volunteer for Safe Routes to School and this is one of the most remarkable opportunities to make meaningful change that I've seen. I personally knew the student Paul Lafargue who was tragically killed in March 2020. Twoyears later another student in Mountain View lost his life in a similar collison. If there had been a No Turn on Right in place it may have saved their lives. Please support the No Right Turn on Red now -- don't delay or postpone this importantdecision. Regards, Audrey GoldSafe Routes to School volunteer and long time PTA member No Right Turn on Red restrictions eliminate conflict between right-turning vehicles and pedestrians and bicyclists traveling through an intersection. Multiple studies validate the effectiveness of this low-cost, high-reward safety measure. Without this restriction, right turning drivers look to the left to find a gap in traffic and may not look for people on foot or on bicycles coming from the right. In particular, children crossing in such a scenario may not be seen due to their height relative to larger vehicles. From:Maria Cristina Abilock To:Council, City Subject:El Camino Real bikeway and No Turn on Red Date:Wednesday, June 12, 2024 10:16:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, My name is Maria Abilock and I have been a resident of Palo Alto for almost 40 years. I ride abicycle as my primary mode of transportation to work, for errands, and as recreation. I am writing to express my support for two agenda items coming up at City Council on June 17. The first item is the proposed bikeway on El Camino Real. Any project that providesmore safety protections and visibility for bicyclists is a great project. While I probably wouldn't use El Camino as extensively as a bike boulevard, there is a time and a place forriding stretches of El Camino to reach certain businesses, schools, and Stanford. I really appreciate the dashed green lanes for high visibility awareness of conflict zones and thebuffered curbs between motorists and the bike lane. Removing parking along El Camino is a great step towards reducing the priority of parked cars over cyclists' access to roads. The second item is the No Right Turn on Red signage along El Camino, particularly alongschool commute cross streets. Two of my son's friends have been hit at El Camino by right turning drivers not properly stopping and checking for cyclist traffic when they had red lightsand the cyclists had green lights. It is a problem. The no right turn on red LED panels at Middlefield and Charleston have been really effective. I appreciate them as a cyclist and as adriver. Thank you for your service to our community. With appreciation, Maria From:John Guislin To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:editor@paweekly.com; Gennady Sheyner Subject:Traffic Congestion is back but ignored by city officials Date:Wednesday, June 12, 2024 5:38:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Council: A few years ago there was considerable focus from city leaders to reduce commute traffic with plans for shuttles with remote parking, increased downtown parking fees, TMA programs andtargets for reducing SOV (single occupancy vehicle) trips. It seems that is all forgotten now with pressure from the business community to "save downtown from decay" by reducingparking fees and avoiding any talk of traffic reduction. I live on a residential arterial and every morning and every afternoon the traffic backs up for blocks, hindering driveway egress and making even crossing the road at the crosswalkproblematic. The picture below is from June 12 at 5pm looking southwest on Middlefield Road, but it could be almost any day and any residential arterial near downtown. This congestion is bad for everyone. It creates more pollution, wastes time, lowers productivity, sours moods, hinders emergency vehicle progress and makes life more stressfulfor drivers, pedestrians, bikers and residents. The public transportation systems that exist today are inadequate and commuters are affirming this fact with low passenger rates. Will we wait for another "Carmageddon" event like in 2016 ( PA Weeklyarticle: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2016/12/16/gridlock-frustrates-local-drivers- and-residents/ )before elected officials and staff make finding solutions a priority? I urge all council members to make mitigating traffic congestion a priority and to engage with residents so we can provide input and support. John Guislin From:Rebecca Ward To:PAO Planning; Council, City Subject:Re: Correction: Community Survey and Upcoming Public Meeting Date:Wednesday, June 12, 2024 4:46:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, Since this is labeled a long range plan, the City should be looking more broadly at the airport’sfuture. The City should survey to determine whether residents actually feel they get any benefits from the Airport and whether there are better uses for the land that benefit morepeople (e.g., expanding the Baylands Nature Preserve). Further, the survey and the options listed do not discuss or quantify the heath risks, inequality, or the climate and other costs ofsustaining or expanding the airport in its current location. The survey doesn’t even include the option for “none of the above” For these reasons and more, the City should redesign the survey and look more broadly at theairport’s future. Rebecca Ward Old Palo Alto On Jun 12, 2024, at 5:21 PM, Palo Alto Airport <paoplan@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote:View as Webpage June Update Community Input Survey The City has launched a survey to collect community input on alternatives. These alternatives will be on display at City Hall the week of 6/17. Please follow the link below to participate in the survey. SURVEY LINK Upcoming Community Engagement   5th Public Meeting Announced The fifth public meeting will take place at the Baylands Cafe (Baylands Golf Links, 1875 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303) on June 20, 2024 from 6:00 – 8:00pm. Read More What is next? The project team will collect community input on the various alternatives to further refine them. The alternatives and the process to develop them will then be presented to Council in the fall.    Palo Alto Airport | 1925 Embarcadero Road | Palo Alto, CA 94303 US Unsubscribe | Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Constant Contact From:Mark Shull To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:PAO at the Center of the National Debate on Leaded Aviation Gas Date:Wednesday, June 12, 2024 4:34:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, I am writing to challenge the validity of the City survey on the future of PAO. It is so constrained and misleadingthat it is essentially a directed result, not a survey. The City of Palo Alto purchased the airport from Santa Clara County, at great cost, to control how it mightbe used and developed. This was against a backdrop of San Carlos becoming a commercial field as Surf Airmoved in and the view that the City would be a better steward of growth than the County. The exact opposite has happened. Santa Clara County has become the national leader in moving toeliminate the use of leaded gas, which on-the-ground EPA studies at regional airports, including PAO, showsome of the highest lead levels in the nation among students in East Palo Alto. These studies were onlypossible because of Congressional leadership in the South and East Bay during the first part of the BidenAdministration. As a result of this effort by Santa Clara County, Congressional representatives and legal help from Stanford,the County run airports in Santa Clara county are excluded from the requirement in the new FAAReauthorization that requires GA airports that take FAA funding to continue to sell leaded gas. Residents have long pushed Palo Alto to begin the process of stopping the sale of leaded gas, now it is too late. This leaves one choice -- stop taking FAA funding. This is the 6th option that many of us asked the city toinclude, but it did not. All five options the city listed come with the following FAA requirements, about which thecity, even as the airport owner, has absolutely no control: The continued sale of leaded gas, and it impact on EPA No control of hour of operations; no curfews No control of the numbers of operations No control of what size planes use the airport No ability to limit the entry of commercial operators Moreover, the City is sleep walking into the center of the national debate over how long general aviation is going to be allowed to continue to use leaded gas. Lobbyists have long been able to block EPA studies on the health effects of lead in AvGas. But, the EPA recently studied this and in our back yard.. And, it was Santa Clara County, the former owner of PAO, that spearheaded this breakthrough. And if you want to know Palo Alto's centrality in the national debate, this recent piece in The Hill is a good example. https://thehill.com/opinion/congress-blog/4165287-congress-poised-to-mandate-continued-sales-of- leaded-aviation-gasoline/ The city and PAO are well positioned as the poster child in the effort to force the FAA and Congress to eliminate leaded gas in general avaition once and for all. Constrained survey's like this are part of the GA lobby's playbook, which itself starts with, stress medical and emergency uses -- the Stanford Helicopter in our case. The Stanford Helicopter can be anywhere; it's a helicopter. But, unlike almost all, if not all fixed wing planes at PAO, the helicopter uses jet fuel, not gasoline. And, continuing to sell jet fuel at PAO is going to draw a fast-growing part of the GA high-performance market, small single-pilot jets. And, PAO can't keep them out, especially if it extends and upgrades its runway. Moreover, the largest users of leaded gas are not older aircraft, but the newest high-performance Cirrus (which PAO bragged to the Palo Alto Online are in abundance at PAO) and Pilatus aircraft (which is driving the need for a longer studier runway and the aircraft Surf Air flies into San Carlos.) Yes, these new and very expensive planes can technically fly on unleaded gas, but at a huge cost in performance. And nobody buys an extremely expensive high-performance airplane and then throttles its performance back. (People don't buy Porsche's to drive them like aHonda.) And with the new FAA authorization, both the hot rods at PAO and the older planes will continue to useleaded gas, regardless of its health effects on EPA, because federal law says they can, and because Palo Alto did notfollow the lead of Santa Clara County and act when it could. I urge the City Council to study the PAO issue broadly, to listen to citizens who have been working on this issue foryears and consider the 6th option, which is to stop accepting FAA money and begin the process of gaining theability to manage PAO responsibly, as the County of Santa Clara has already done at the airports it manages. Mark Shull Frankly the airport is ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Palo Alto <support@opengov.com>Date: Tue, Jun 11, 2024 at 9:02 AM Subject: Announcements from the City of Palo Alto for 06/11/2024To: <shull.mark@gmail.com> Updates from the City of Palo Alto about Open Town Hall Is this email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser. Help inform the Palo Alto Airport alternatives that will bepresented to City Council for their consideration. Jun 10, 2024 02:53 pm | The City of Palo Alto The Palo Alto Airport’s Long Range Facilities and Sustainability Plan (LRFSP) is a planning process using guidance from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The LRFSP will result in a blueprint, based on the goals listed below, for long term improvements at the Palo Alto Airport in alignment with City initiatives such as the Sustainability and Climate Action Plan, the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, and annual City Council Priorities. A new survey is available to gain the communities’ feedback to help identify a preferred alternative to be documented in the LRFSP. The preferred alternative could be one of the alternatives presented, a combination of elements from different alternatives, or something completely different. No decisions on the preferred alternative have been made at this point. The survey is open now through July 15. Take the survey here. In addition, the City is hosting an open house style community meeting on June 20, 6 p.m. at the Baylands Golf Links Cafe. Other Helpful Resources Palo Alto Airport Long-Range Facilities and Sustainability Plan Read More Copyright © 2024 OpenGov, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you participated on the City of Palo Alto - Open City Hall website. Our mailing address is: OpenGov 955 Charter Street Redwood City, CA 94063 Add us to your address book unsubscribe from this list | update subscription preferences From:Palo Alto ForwardTo:Council, CitySubject:Stay home tonight but gather your strength for 6/17 - our night of advocacy (and pizza)!Date:Wednesday, June 12, 2024 1:26:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. City -- 600 University - No Hearing Tonight For anyone attending the Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting tonight(Wednesday) in support of 660 University Avenue, the item has been pulled from the agendaand will not be heard. We will let you know when it is rescheduled. A huge THANK YOU to everyone who wrote to PTC on this item. There are well over 100pages of support letters from you lovely people!!!! These letters give our decision makersthe confidence to approve more housing in our community. 6/17 - Night of Advocacy (and Pizza) If you are still excited to attend a hearing (aren't we all)...... Join us at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, June 17th at City Hall. we will gather as a group to tellCouncil we support HOMES FOR EVERYONE? YES!. We'll also meet artist Kirti Bassendine, the 2023 King Artist-in-Residence, focusing ondiverse under-served communities residing and/or working in Palo Alto and experiencingsocio-economic or housing instability. Her work is currently on display in City Hall. Here is the timing: 5:30 - 6:00 -- chat with artist Kirti Bassendine about her work with local residents6:00 - 6:30 -- assemble with signs in council chambers for public comment6:30 - 7:30 -- celebrate with your friends at King Plaza in front of City Hall, we'llprovide the pizza and drinks See you there! 6/13 - Bookclub! We have a few spots left at our Bring Your Own Chair Bookclub meeting on June 13th at6:00 p.m. We'll meet in the public open space (formerly street) in front of 414 CaliforniaAvenue. We are reading Happy City by Charles Montgomery. Snacks and drinks will be provided. Feel free to come by even if you didn't read the book totalk about how well-designed urban spaces make us happier and healthier. RSVP here: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/byo-chair-bookclub-tickets-893942184137?aff=oddtdtcreator Volunteer with Us Our Homes for Everyone? YES! campaign is in full swing. We are looking for volunteers tohelp with everything from tabling to events to leading coffee meet ups. Sign up here to volunteer or email us at info@paloaltoforward.com. Palo Alto Forward This email was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. To stop receiving emails, click here. on Facebook. Created with NationBuilder, the essential toolkit for leaders. From:gel@theconnection.com To:Council, City Subject:[SUSPICIOUS MESSAGE] Grade Crossings Date:Wednesday, June 12, 2024 12:57:36 PM This Message contains suspicious characteristics and has originated outside your organization. Hello City Council, We need to eliminate the rail grade crossings in in Palo Alto. There are no easy solutions. Each solution will have people upset. For Churchill, there would be no clear path through, just a partial. For Meadow and Charleston, lots of digging and loss of property or homes. There is one solution that has been discarded and I believe should be discussed again and thoroughly vetted. The elevated track solution would have many positive aspects. Churchill, Meadow and Charles would each have a clear path, no digging or loss of property. However Caltrain won't allow the elevated tracks on their right-of-way. The solution then is to put above Alma. The downside would be the view for folks on Alma. Cost may also be a factor. I believe the High Speed Project has a lot of elevated tracks. We could use the same design here in Palo alto and this would save engineering costs. What we need is 3D images of what this would look like. Also we would need updates on the cost for this solution. Thank you, Gary Lindgren 585 Lincoln Ave. Palo Alto CA 94301 650-326-0655 Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. Chinese proverb Be Like Costco…do something in a different way Don’t trust Atoms…they make up everything Fortune Favors The Brave A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever said. The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small. So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative. The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours. It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to prove you have made the world a better place. Amos Tversky From:Salazar Casillas, Marcela on behalf of Clerk, City To:Council, City Subject:FW: Please support new homes at 660 University Ave without delay! Date:Wednesday, June 12, 2024 10:57:05 AM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png image002.png Hello City Council, Please see the email below. Kindly, Marcela Casillas Administrative Associate III (temp) Office of the City Clerk (650) 329-2571 Marcela.casillas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Dylan O'Connell <noreply@adv.actionnetwork.org> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2024 10:17 AM To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Please support new homes at 660 University Ave without delay! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto Palo Alto City Clerk, I am writing in support of the proposed housing project at 660 University Ave. As a nearby resident, I am excited about the positive impact this development will have on my community. Its location is ideal, and this is a small but critical step towards the city's sustainability goals. I am troubled by how long this project has been in the pipeline, and I do not want it to be stuck a day longer than it needs to—we badly need more housing, and we need it fast. I strongly urge you to support this project. Thank you! -Dylan O'Connell Dylan O'Connell dylan.potter.oconnell@gmail.com Mountain View, California 94040 From:Yahoo Mail.® To:David Meiswinkle Cc:jsan1017@comcast.net; michaeldiamond@comcast.net; J.B. Hockersmith; Michael Springmann; Dr. Ana Maria Mihalcea Subject:Declaration is posted on our web site: Date:Wednesday, June 12, 2024 10:46:20 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. FOR ALL GREAT WORK ON THIS DECLARATION David, Joe and Mike D. should bring ya'll a PULITZER POSTING EVERYWHERE :) Frank Agamemnon On Wednesday, June 12, 2024 at 12:51:02 PM EDT, David Meiswinkle <drmeiswinkle@aol.com> wrote: WE are live. The Declaration is posted. Link is: https://nationalarm.org/declaration- who-un-wef/ Dave From:Charlie Weidanz To:Council, City Subject:Please Join Us - June Chamber Mixer & Business Networking Event Date:Wednesday, June 12, 2024 10:04:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto Chamber Mixer ad We are delighted to invite you to the June Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce Mixer at Buca Di Beppo! There will be food, drinks, engaging discussion, and plenty of networking opportunities with local business professionals! Tuesday, June 25, 2024 5:30 PM – 7 PM Buca Di Beppo 643 Emerson St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Food & Beverages provided by Buca Di Beppo. We look forward to seeing you there! Members: FREE Non-Members: $25 >Register Online This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe clickhere. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:Janet St Peter To:Council, City Subject:California Avenue Tunnel and proposed Seale Ave. Tunnel Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 5:48:29 PM Attachments:The California Avenue bike3.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hello, I tried to speak at the City Council meeting last night about the California Ave. Tunnel, but the clerkonly read “tunnel" on my form so I was excluded from the the non-agenda talks. Attached are my comments that I tried to reduce to one minute: While my minute talk is about feeling unsafe in the Cal. Ave Tunnel, one can extrapolate what theproposed Seale Ave. Tunnel might be like. Especially with the number of Paly students (on bikes and walking) using an enclosed tunnel, withno supervision. Also, in an enclosed tunnel, people are in very close proximity of each other. During the pandemic the City posted a sign outside the Cal Ave. Tunnel that masks should be worn. Think about enforcingthat. A new development is electric bikes that are now speeding through the Cal. Ave Tunnel. The city needs to monitor the Cal. Ave Tunnel by someone in plain clothes to see what’s happeningon a day to day basis, especially during school start and stop times. Problems need to be recognizedand solutions found, BEFORE another unsafe tunnel is created. Sincerely,Jan St. Peter2139 High St. The California Avenue bike/pedestrian Tunnel needs to be patrolled to enforce the Palo Alto Municipal Code 10.64.130 that states: Bicyclists Must Dismount When Others Are Present. As a pedestrian, it’s impossible to feel safe when bicyclist are zooming through the tunnel. I live two blocks from the Tunnel, but rarely use it. I wonder how many other people in my neighborhood feel this way? Green Middle School starts at 8:30 am and ends between 2-4 (depending on the day). Pity the person who has to use the tunnel to catch a train during these times. I’ve been that person, stuck clinging to the side of the tunnel as dozens of 11 to 13 year old’s race by on their bikes. It’s scary. The High Schoolers then follow with the same behavior. There are those bicyclist who mind the rules and I thank them. However, unless there is come consequence to the bad behavior it will continue. From:GP Jones To:Council, City Subject:Quarry Road extension near transit center - roadway options Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 12:04:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I posted this to Palo Alto Online: I am in favor of this. However, I have a suggestion and request for consideration. Is it possible that this section could be made to look not so much like a road? By that I mean, is it possible to create a durable (esp for busses) “roadway” that was permeable and green? Not unlike what many driveways are becoming nowadays? Could the roadbed be segments of slabs with 2-3″ gaps between which have drip irrigation lines at the bottom and dirt and (tough) plants above? The volume of traffic has to be quite low (compared to a real road such as El Camino), so the green could presumably stay green. And, yes, it has to be save for pedestrians. I’m sure that someone with the knowledge and design experience could come up with some viable alternatives. I hope that something like this can be considered, rather than just “building a road.” I won’t make me not in favor. But it just seems like we do not have to do it w/o thinking about (reasonable, safe, durable, friendlier, prettier, …) alternatives. Thanks, -carl jones From:Salazar Casillas, Marcela on behalf of Clerk, City To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:FW: CA Avenue underpass Date:Tuesday, June 11, 2024 10:05:49 AM Attachments:image001.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.png Hello City Council, Please see the email below from Paul Pitlick, related to the June 10th, 2024, City Council Meeting Item #13. Kindly, Marcela Casillas Administrative Associate III (temp) Office of the City Clerk (650) 329-2571 Marcela.casillas@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Paul T Pitlick <ppitlick@stanford.edu> Sent: Monday, June 10, 2024 8:18 PM To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jan <jst.pete@gmail.com>; barbaramillen@gmail.com Subject: CA Avenue underpass CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To whom it may concern, I considered speaking at the Oral Communications this afternoon, but I realized that using words in the absence of a picture would probably not be helpful. The current CA Avenue underpass is not well-designed for combined bicycle / pedestrian usage (my wife, Jan St. Peter wanted to discuss that). While the addition of the railroad underpass 10 or 15 years ago was of some benefit to North-bound rail passengers, I would suggest that it could be improved with the addition of a tunnel under Alma from the exit of the new railroad tunnel. Specifically, I drew a solid red line between Alma and the train tracks (which is now a trench). The dotted red line would be the tunnel under Alma (to Jerry Bowden Park), and the 2nd solid line would be another trench up to CA Avenue. The solid blue line would be the ramp to the train stop. Paul Pitlick From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; dallen1212@gmail.com;alumnipresident@stanford.edu; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; Cathy Lewis; Council, City;cramirez.electriclab133@gmail.com; eappel@stanford.edu; fred beyerlein; Scott Wilkinson;George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; JoelStiner; jerry ruopoli; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; kfsndesk; Kevin.Nower@bestbuy.com; MY77FJ@gmail.com;margaret-sasaki@live.com; maverickbruno@sbcglobal.net; merazroofinginc@att.net; Mark Standriff; Mayor; nickyovino; news@fresnobee.com; newsdesk; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; tsheehan;vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov Subject:Fwd: Illegal ADUs Hope your neighbor doesn"t bld Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 4:50:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 4:40 PM Subject: Fwd: Illegal ADUs Hope your neighbor doesn't bldTo: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Mon, Jun 10, 2024 at 4:19 PMSubject: Illegal ADUs Hope your neighbor doesn't bld To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Monday, June 10, 2024 To all, and especially to home owners: Hope your moron neighbor doesn't build one right over your back fence. Loud Mexicanmusic day and night, drunkeness run wild, drug use, orgies, shootings, Newsom will put convicted rapists, child molesters, murderers, drug dealers in these and subsidize their rent,big, loud Pit Bulls, people climbing over your fence to get at you and yours, frequent break-ins of your house, people parking on your driveway and front yard, trash thrown over your fenceconstantly, liquor bottles all over your property, all because Newsom signed SB9 into law taking local zoning away from local governments. When their natural gas explodes, it will takeyour home with it. Arm up if they build these near you. Or work to get SB9 repealed and Newsom sent to oblivion. He ought to be recalled. A half hearted measure will be on the Nov. ballot to do that if they get enough signatures. California homeowners are building thousands of illegal ADUs (archive.is) Three groups got it passed: The big developers in New York and LA, the building tradesand the real estate industry. A lot of lettuce was spread around Sacto to accomplish that. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Boatwright, Tabatha To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:2024 Open House Booth Judge Invitation Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 4:13:27 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage006.pngNew Map v6 052924.png Honorable Mayor and Council Members We would like to cordially invite you to attend this year’s event and participate as a booth judge. This year the ballots have been adjusted to reflect the criteria and still allows room for comments. Members of my team will be stationed at the Welcome Booth and ready to hand you the clipboard, map, ballot, and lanyard identifying you as a judge for your journey. The map (attached although not yet finalized) has been revised to assist you in locating the booths with ease. This map includes booth numbers that will correspond with the ballot sheets. Note: the judging is anonymous, and the ballot box will be at the Welcome Booth. When you have completed your “tour” please drop them off on your way out. Please let me know if you will be able to attend this year’s Open House as a Booth Judge. TABATHA BOATWRIGHT Utilities Management Analyst City of Palo Alto Utilities Department 250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301 O: 650.496.6965 M: 408.966.0838 E-mail: Tabatha.Boatwright@cityofpaloalto.org Join me at the 2024 MSC Open House www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis To:Council, City Cc:Shweta Bhatnagar; Adina Levin; Ellson, Penny; Nadia Naik Subject:June 10th meeting, Item 12 comment Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 4:02:58 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am here to support the staff recommendation to put an ordinance on the ballot in November to undedicate the parkland for direct bus access to Quarry Road as long as the plan includesimproved north-south bike connectivity to the train station. This is a very important and relatively inexpensive way to dramatically improve bus travel times for what are mostly short connections to other transit services. There will be manyplaces now within a 10 minute bus ride of the station. It is important though, especially as we are using parkland to do this, that we improve the pedestrian and bike flows through the parkand from Quarry Road to the train station. There should be an agreement from Stanford and Caltrain that this can be and incorporated into construction plans. It is important enough that Iwould support making the approval in the ballot measure contingent on inclusion of this improvement. I would also like to remind everyone that there is still unspent money from the $50 millionallocation in the 2000 VTA Measure A for a New Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Center, whose scope included "upgrading transit facilities" for VTA, SAMTRANS, DumbartonExpress and the Stanford Marguerita and Palo Alto shuttle services. This project was put on hold at the time that the California High Speed Rail Authority was contemplating a station inPalo Alto but as that is no longer on the table, work on an improved station area can obviously begin. I would also note that in the original spending plan, funds for this project were neverintended to be spent until now anyway. Below is the specific language in the official ballot language: "Construct a New Palo Alto Intermodal Transit CenterIn partnership with the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University, design and construct a new parkway and underpass for University Avenue fromthe campus to downtown Palo Alto to improve bicycle, pedestrian and transit access to the campus, Palo Alto Caltrain station and downtownPalo Alto. Upgrade passenger facilities at the historic Palo Alto Caltrain station, upgrade transit facilities for VTA, SAMTRANS, DumbartonExpress and the Stanford Marguerita and Palo Alto shuttle services." Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this exciting project. Regards, Elizabeth Alexis Virus-free.www.avg.com From:Drew Hudacek To:Council, City Subject:Hudacek letter re: Churchill Grade Separation Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 2:20:01 PM Attachments:2024 06 10 City Council Letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.     Drew & Bre e Hudacek 109/109A Coleridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301      June 10, 2024    Via Email: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org    Palo Alto City Council  c/o ‐ Office of the City Clerk, City of Palo Alto  City Hall, 7th Floor  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301  Greer Stone, Mayor  Ed Lauing, Vice Mayor   Patrick Burt, Council Member  Julie Lythco‐Haims, Council Member   Lydia Kou, Council Member  Greg Tanaka, Council Member  Vicki Veenker, Council Member      Dear City Council,  My wife and I have owned our home for almost twenty years at the corner of Coleridge and Alma; 109 and 109A.  We  have recently been made aware of the poten al taking of land along Alma associated with the proposed Churchill grade  separa on alterna ve.  We understand the need for study and the idea of the greater good in public policy decisions.   We went into the recent Rail Commi ee mee ng looking to learn and understand what considera ons are being  weighed.  It became clear to us that there is a be er alterna ve.  In our previous communica ons, we noted the environmental considera ons of building this alterna ve, the safety  aspect, the issue of property rights and maybe most importantly, the fact that the taking of land along Alma reduces  possibly the only land in the City of Palo Alto which our housing policy iden fies as poten al for affordable and  a ainable housing.  Palo Alto in fact waves discre onary design review in this corridor in the hopes that it will speed the  crea on of more housing at both Affordable and a ainable levels.  What became clear to us in the last mee ng, however, is that the Churchill grade separa on, as all large projects, solves  many exis ng and future perceived issues and causes many more.  Any project of this scale and magnitude will do so.  It  is part of a three‐grade crossing package including East Meadow and Charleston and has many future chapters including  being chosen, being designed, being funded and having the property acquisi on completed.  These are long and  complicated processes and the $500MM budget for the three will certainly balloon by the me all three are completed if  in fact they are built at all.   The reality, however, is that the Churchill crossing and the possibility of grade separa ng is, by Palo Alto’s own admission,  the third of three priority crossings.  It is not even clear if it is needed.  Add to that the fact that Sunnyvale and Mountain  View and others are well ahead of us in line for local funding such as VTA Measure B funds and federal funding.  It is  impossible to know if this project will ever get funding.      Drew & Bre e Hudacek 109/109A Coleridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301  Instead, an alterna ve exists that solves many problems and causes others but does not require hundreds of millions of  dollars or property acquisi on.  This is of course closing the Churchill Crossing to vehicular traffic and leaving it at grade  for bike and ped crossings if desired.    The discussions and materials around the Churchill grade separa on that have been prepared to date are confusing at  best.  Many of the images and renderings do not match the text descrip ons.  Many of the members of the design teams  and even City representa ves or consultants have not inspected the site or done much in the way of community  outreach of which we are aware.  What is clear is that closing the Churchill crossing to vehicular traffic is the solu on.  It  saves hundreds of millions of dollars and years if not decades of uncertainty for the community.  We encourage you to  adopt this as the preferred alterna ve for the Churhill crossing.    The Churchill grade separa on project seems to be an answer to a ques on that nobody is asking.    Best,    Drew & Bre e Hudacek  415.706.0763            From:Andrew Hudacek To:Council, City Subject:Hudacek letter re: Churchill Grade Separation Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 2:18:42 PM Attachments:2024 06 10 City Council Letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. City Council, Please find enclosed a letter addressing the decision to study the Churchill Grade Separation. Please select an alternative to close the existing crossing to vehicular traffic. Thank you, Drew & Brette Hudacek109/109A Coleridge Avenue 415.706.0763     Drew & Bre e Hudacek 109/109A Coleridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301      June 10, 2024    Via Email: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org    Palo Alto City Council  c/o ‐ Office of the City Clerk, City of Palo Alto  City Hall, 7th Floor  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301  Greer Stone, Mayor  Ed Lauing, Vice Mayor   Patrick Burt, Council Member  Julie Lythco‐Haims, Council Member   Lydia Kou, Council Member  Greg Tanaka, Council Member  Vicki Veenker, Council Member      Dear City Council,  My wife and I have owned our home for almost twenty years at the corner of Coleridge and Alma; 109 and 109A.  We  have recently been made aware of the poten al taking of land along Alma associated with the proposed Churchill grade  separa on alterna ve.  We understand the need for study and the idea of the greater good in public policy decisions.   We went into the recent Rail Commi ee mee ng looking to learn and understand what considera ons are being  weighed.  It became clear to us that there is a be er alterna ve.  In our previous communica ons, we noted the environmental considera ons of building this alterna ve, the safety  aspect, the issue of property rights and maybe most importantly, the fact that the taking of land along Alma reduces  possibly the only land in the City of Palo Alto which our housing policy iden fies as poten al for affordable and  a ainable housing.  Palo Alto in fact waves discre onary design review in this corridor in the hopes that it will speed the  crea on of more housing at both Affordable and a ainable levels.  What became clear to us in the last mee ng, however, is that the Churchill grade separa on, as all large projects, solves  many exis ng and future perceived issues and causes many more.  Any project of this scale and magnitude will do so.  It  is part of a three‐grade crossing package including East Meadow and Charleston and has many future chapters including  being chosen, being designed, being funded and having the property acquisi on completed.  These are long and  complicated processes and the $500MM budget for the three will certainly balloon by the me all three are completed if  in fact they are built at all.   The reality, however, is that the Churchill crossing and the possibility of grade separa ng is, by Palo Alto’s own admission,  the third of three priority crossings.  It is not even clear if it is needed.  Add to that the fact that Sunnyvale and Mountain  View and others are well ahead of us in line for local funding such as VTA Measure B funds and federal funding.  It is  impossible to know if this project will ever get funding.      Drew & Bre e Hudacek 109/109A Coleridge Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301  Instead, an alterna ve exists that solves many problems and causes others but does not require hundreds of millions of  dollars or property acquisi on.  This is of course closing the Churchill Crossing to vehicular traffic and leaving it at grade  for bike and ped crossings if desired.    The discussions and materials around the Churchill grade separa on that have been prepared to date are confusing at  best.  Many of the images and renderings do not match the text descrip ons.  Many of the members of the design teams  and even City representa ves or consultants have not inspected the site or done much in the way of community  outreach of which we are aware.  What is clear is that closing the Churchill crossing to vehicular traffic is the solu on.  It  saves hundreds of millions of dollars and years if not decades of uncertainty for the community.  We encourage you to  adopt this as the preferred alterna ve for the Churhill crossing.    The Churchill grade separa on project seems to be an answer to a ques on that nobody is asking.    Best,    Drew & Bre e Hudacek  415.706.0763            From:Roger Pierno To:Council, City Subject:Grade Separation at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 1:43:18 PM Attachments:Message to City Council re Caltrain Grade Separation.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, Please see my attache PDF with comments on the subject grade separation. Best regards,Roger Pierno College Terrace June 10, 2024 Subject: Caltrain Grade Separations at Meadow Drive and Charleston Road Dear City Council Members, I will keep this message short and to the point. First let me congratulate the Rail Committee in reaching the correct conclusion to not recommend the trench option. The trench is the worst of all the proposed options regarding cost, environmental impacts, engineering challenges, and on-going maintenance while providing marginal benefits to track neighbors over other options. After a thorough review of the documents and with the priorities for the choice of grade separation method being the one with the lowest cost that effectively separates the vehicles and pedestrians from the trains, I believe the hybrid option for both Meadow Drive and Charleston Road stands out as the superior options above all others. The hybrid option is the lowest cost option and causes essentially no disruption to traffic flows relative to the existing conditions. The hybrid option has minimal impacts to private property, unlike the underpass option which will have the City tied up in court for years. With a careful analysis of the Summary of Evaluation you all will no doubt see that the hybrid option is the best option. Therefore, I recommend that the City Council advance only the hybrid option for Meadow Drive and Charleston Road to initial engineering design and to withhold advancement of the underpass options at this time to save money since the underpass is inferior and will not likely to be the final design choice. Respectfully, Roger Pierno College Terrace From:Bruce Arthur To:Council, City Subject:PABAC Motion to the City Council regarding Palo Alto Link for 2025 Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 1:33:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee met on Tuesday June 4th, 2024, and passed the following motion: RE: Operating Budget (See p. 201) PABAC is concerned about the $900,000 proposed for Palo Alto Link in the FY 2025 budget and going forward, $1,160,000 next year, when the one-time Clean Air Grant period is over. The Palo Alto Link program is building demand for on-demand car service, duplicating services offered by UBER, Lyft and other companies. The program builds dependence on a very low cost on-demand car service that does not appear to be fiscally sustainable. Though programs supporting carshare are in the Comp Plan, those Programs were laid out to be subordinate to Goals that relate to reduction of safety, traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions impacts. How does the Palo Alto Link program achieve those goals? Palo Alto Link may be undermining mode shift to walking, bicycling, and bus transportation. This has not been sufficiently studied. We share the City School Traffic Safety Committee’s concerns that Palo Alto Link at school sites (and elsewhere in the city) may cannibalize bus, walking and bicycle trips, creating dependence on car trips where we have worked hard to build independent transit and foot-powered road users. In addition, it is adding car trips to streets—some shared, but mostly not shared, if one counts the solo trips drivers make to pick-up points. VTA bus service costs the city nothing. Reduction in farebox recovery has caused VTA to reduce bus service in the past, including for instance, the VTA88 that once served Gunn HS. Today Gunn is served by the replacement VTA288 bus route that runs only a few times each school day. As a result, the VA Hospital has less bus service as well. The VTA288 ridership has not been fully restored post-pandemic, and we wonder if subsidized Palo Alto Link car trips may be part of the problem. This has not been sufficiently studied. We urge Council to give further study to: • the effect of Palo Alto Link on bus transit use and farebox recovery at Gunn High School • the effect of Palo Alto Link on active foot-powered modes shift. • The safety impacts of increased car trips to school sites and on school routes. The motion passed with 5 in favor, 4 opposed, and 4 abstentions. Alan Wachtel Yes Art Liberman Abstain Bill Zaumen Abstain CHAIR Bruce Arthur No Cedric de la Beaujardiere No VICE CHAIR Eric Nordman Yes Jane Rosten Abstain Kathy Durham Abstain Ken Joye No Nicole Rodia Yes Paul Goldstein No Penny Ellson Yes Robert Neff Yes Steve Rock Absent Bruce Arthur Chair of The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee From:Bruce Arthur To:Council, City Subject:PABAC Motion to the City Council regarding Palo Alto Link for 2025 Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 1:32:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Here is a draft of what I plan to send. To the City Council. Please review and let me know if there are any mistakes. Regarding Penny’s request to add Sylvia’s numbers, I do not have those. And I think we should stick to the text that we reviewed and voted on. — Bruce BEGIN DRAFT The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee met on Tuesday June 4th, 2024, and passed the following motion: RE: Operating Budget (See p. 201) PABAC is concerned about the $900,000 proposed for Palo Alto Link in the FY 2025 budget and going forward, $1,160,000 next year, when the one-time Clean Air Grant period is over. The Palo Alto Link program is building demand for on-demand car service, duplicating services offered by UBER, Lyft and other companies. The program builds dependence on a very low cost on-demand car service that does not appear to be fiscally sustainable. Though programs supporting carshare are in the Comp Plan, those Programs were laid out to be subordinate to Goals that relate to reduction of safety, traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions impacts. How does the Palo Alto Link program achieve those goals? Palo Alto Link may be undermining mode shift to walking, bicycling, and bus transportation. This has not been sufficiently studied. We share the City School Traffic Safety Committee’s concerns that Palo Alto Link at school sites (and elsewhere in the city) may cannibalize bus, walking and bicycle trips, creating dependence on car trips where we have worked hard to build independent transit and foot-powered road users. In addition, it is adding car trips to streets—some shared, but mostly not shared, if one counts the solo trips drivers make to pick-up points. VTA bus service costs the city nothing. Reduction in farebox recovery has caused VTA to reduce bus service in the past, including for instance, the VTA88 that once served Gunn HS. Today Gunn is served by the replacement VTA288 bus route that runs only a few times each school day. As a result, the VA Hospital has less bus service as well. The VTA288 ridership has not been fully restored post-pandemic, and we wonder if subsidized Palo Alto Link car trips may be part of the problem. This has not been sufficiently studied. We urge Council to give further study to: • the effect of Palo Alto Link on bus transit use and farebox recovery at Gunn High School • the effect of Palo Alto Link on active foot-powered modes shift. • The safety impacts of increased car trips to school sites and on school routes. The motion passed with 5 in favor, 4 opposed, and 4 abstentions. Alan Wachtel Yes Art Liberman Abstain Bill Zaumen Abstain CHAIR Bruce Arthur No Cedric de la Beaujardiere No VICE CHAIR Eric Nordman Yes Jane Rosten Abstain Kathy Durham Abstain Ken Joye No Nicole Rodia Yes Paul Goldstein No Penny Ellson YesRobert Neff YesSteve Rock Absent Bruce ArthurChair of The Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee From:Patricia Judge Tamrazi To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Batchelor, Dean; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Tanaka,Greg; Veenker, Vicki; Clerk, City Subject:Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing brownouts Date:Monday, June 10, 2024 12:50:54 PM Attachments:image003.pngimage010.pngimage001.pngimage004.pngimage005.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Shikada, Following up again because I have not heard back from you yet regarding any of the manyHEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES caused by Utilities (a growing list, as I speak to moreCPAU employees and contractors). 1. Will you commit to PAYING FOR DAMAGE done to my house by Utilities' welldocumented gross negligence? 2. When will the KNOWN LOOSE NEUTRAL be fixed? Aside from being inappropriate and puzzling in intent, the distinction you were trying todraw regarding the article I sent to you previously in your email last Monday is incorrect. You commented, "The article you attached refers to neutral issues in buildings, which isdistinct from the utility’s side." Did you read the article? The article specifically discussesloose neutrals on the UTILITY SIDE and states that (1) they need to be fixed, (2) theyare a safety risk (fire hazard, shock risk), and (3) they will damage electronics connectedto them. Here is a YouTube video of a lineman IN THE DARK locating and fixing a loose neutral, inresponse to a customer calling in flickering lights in their home. This illustrates that looseneutrals are fixed on an emergency basis by utilities - that is industry standard. ByCPAU's own admission, the loose neutral was discovered at least in March (I believeFebruary) and still not fixed (it's now June). It's been at least 3 months and not fixed. The video also has technical information regarding how to find the source of the bad neutral,which seems like it would be helpful to your Utilities Department. It is not acceptable to just leave the loose neutral. It needs to be fixed. (I cannot believe Ieven have to say that.) Trish Tamrazi650-208-4802 On Thu, Jun 6, 2024 at 10:13 AM Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Mr. Shikada, I am relieved to see that there are contractors inspecting the power poles in myneighborhood today. The tree trimmers told me that the trees were very overgrown as compared to when they trimtrees for PG&E - this is in line with what CPAU employees have told me: that CPAUmaintenance standards fall below PG&E maintenance standards. Would it be a goodidea to call Davey Tree Service and get on the same schedule as PG&E? Now that the trees are trimmed, will CPAU be able to find and fix the loose neutral in myneighborhood, that was first discovered at least in March (and, in talking with CPAUlinemen, I believe February)? I have been told that this is a very dangerous condition thatshould be a priority to fix. What is being done to improve maintenance, so that it is in line with industry safetystandards? Thank you, Trish Tamrazi650-208-4802 On Tue, Jun 4, 2024 at 1:56 PM Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote:Dear Mr. Shikada, I was relieved to see crews trimming the trees around the overhead electrical wires today,as that has been a concern first flagged to me by a lineman in February (almost 4 monthsago). I look forward to your answers to the other outstanding concerns. Trish Tamrazi On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 2:38 PM Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com>wrote:Dear Mr. Shikada, My answers and questions in response to you are below in RED, ALL CAPS. I am copying the City Council, so that they can be kept in the loop. I know that youhave told multiple of them, many times, that my issues have been taken care of - I havealso seen you write that in an email. That is totally untrue, as now supported by the"Loose Neutral" graph showing a significant safety issue identified at least in March (Ibelieve February) and JUST LEFT (highly negligent). And the loose wire still remainsto this day! I am simply asking for SAFE AND RELIABLE POWER (and clean water) to my houseand the houses in my neighborhood. This is the bare minimum that a utility shouldprovide - and CPAU is not doing it. No resident should ever have to push this hard. Please also could you provide an update on your progress on the overarching HEALTHAND SAFETY ISSUES / SOLUTIONS, listed in my previous email, which have beenflagged repeatedly for many months now? I look forward to answers to my questions below in response to your email, as well. Thank you, Trish Tamrazi650-208-4802 On Mon, Jun 3, 2024 at 1:48 PM Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Ms. Tamrazi, Following up on your most recent message below, I’d like to confirm a few items: 1. Staff has offered to coordinate an independent electrician review conditionsinside your home. I understand that they are awaiting your confirmation toproceed. I CONSULTED MULTIPLE ELECTRICIANS TO CONFIRM THATTHERE WERE NO ELECTRICAL ISSUES INSIDE OF MY NEWLY-REWIRED HOUSE, WHEN CPAU DENIED FOR WEEKS THAT MYSEVERE FLICKERING LIGHTS HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH POORPOWER SUPPLY TO MY HOUSE, EVEN AFTER MY NEIGHBORSCALLED INTO THE EMERGENCY LINE FOR THE SAME ELECTRICALISSUES AND WERE BLOWN OFF. THEN IT WAS REVEALED THATCPAU HAS NOT PROVIDED SAFE OR RELIABLE POWER TO MYHOUSE, AS DATA HAS REVEALED (1) SEVERE BROWNOUTS AND (2)VOLTAGE SWINGS FROM A LOOSE NEUTRAL - BOTH OF WHICH AREKNOWN TO DAMAGE FIXTURES AND ELECTRONICS. PLEASE,COULD YOU CONFIRM THAT FIXES / REPLACEMENT COSTS FORANY DAMAGE FOUND INSIDE MY HOUSE WILL BE PAID FOR BYTHE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND/OR CPAU?2. Staff is reviewing the neutral issue, with the understanding that this does notpose a risk to your home. The article you attached refers to neutral issues inbuildings, which is distinct from the utility’s side. A loose wire connection onthe utility line might be involved, so staff is troubleshooting. In the meanwhile,they have rerouted your electric supply to avoid the suspectedconnection. THIS ABSOLUTELY POSES A RISK TO MY HOME, AS ITPOSES A RISK TO MY NEIGHBORS. TO KNOW OF A LOOSE WIREAND JUST LEAVE IT IS HIGHLY NEGLIGENT. THE ARTICLE IATTACHED WAS FOR THOSE RECEIVING THE EMAIL WHO MAY NOTBE WELL-VERSED IN ELECTRICITY, SO THEY CAN UNDERSTANDTHE RISKS OF A LOOSE NEUTRAL. ANYONE INVOLVED WITHUTILITIES KNOWS THAT A LOOSE WIRE ON THE UTILITY'S SIDE ISALSO DAMAGING AND DANGEROUS, SO I WILL GIVE YOU THEBENEFIT OF THE DOUBT ON WHATEVER DISTINCTION YOU ARETRYING TO DRAW WITH YOUR STATEMENTS HERE AND NOTCOMMENT FURTHER. 3. In response to your new request, staff is reviewing tree clearance in thearea. WHEN WILL THE TREES BE TRIMMED? I WAS TOLD BY YOUROWN EMPLOYEES THAT IT IS OVERDUE. PLEASE DO NOTCHARACTERIZE THIS AS *MY* NEW REQUEST - IT IS YOUR OWNEMPLOYEES' OLD REQUEST, WHICH THEY CHARACTERIZED TO MEAS AN EMERGENCY AND WHICH SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN IGNORED,AS THEY WERE IGNORED WHEN TRYING TO FIX MY POOR POWERSUPPLY ISSUES BACK IN FEBRUARY WHEN FIRST IDENTIFIED. Sincerely, --Ed Ed Shikada, City Manager ICMA Credentialed Manager (650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 31, 2024 8:10 AMTo: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: Batchelor, Dean <Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City Mgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia<Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed <Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Lythcott-Haims, Julie <Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stone, Greer<Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg<Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki<Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing brownouts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Shikada, I guess you are responsible for addressing CPAU's negligence, until a majority of theCity Council decides to address it. When will the loose neutral in my neighborhood be fixed? For those not familiarwith this being an EMERGENCY: https://www.luminsmart.com/blog/the-dangers-of-floating-neutral-2262 When will the overgrown trees in my neighborhood be trimmed, so they do notinterfere with overhead electrical wires? The City employee I spoke with last weeksaid he was VERY WORRIED and that he was suggesting to management this bedone directly after the Memorial Day holiday (i.e., this week - he saw it as anemergency). A lineman told me back in February (almost 4 months ago) that he wasalso VERY WORRIED, but nothing has been done. Overarching are the following HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES / SOLUTIONS: 1. Emergency line and customer service not properly staffed / trained(lack knowledge to do their jobs; Dean Batchelor, in February, and TommMarshall, in April, both agreed with me on the phone that this is a real issue)- training and oversight needed. 2. Employees not empowered to diagnose and fix problems whenidentified - boots on the ground should be empowered, not supervisors whodo not understand problems (this is per CPAU's own employees). 3. CPAU maintenance standards fall below PG&E's / industry standards(this is per CPAU's own employees - see loose neutral and overgrown treeissues above). 4. Contractors must abide by the City's own stated steps of performance -training and oversight needed. (This is the dirty water / water meter swaplawsuit.) What actions are being taken to address these issues? Especially urgent areKNOWN FIRE RISKS not being fixed. Thank you, Trish Tamrazi 3409 Greer Rd. 650-208-4802 On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 6:27 PM Patricia Judge Tamrazi<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council, in your capacity as regulator of the Utility, On May 16, a City engineer sent the chart below to me, showing that a LOOSENEUTRAL was discovered in my neighborhood in MARCH and NOT FIXED. This is a very well known FIRE RISK. It will blow out appliances and make lightsflicker. This is HIGHLY negligent to know of a LOOSE NEUTRAL and just LEAVEIT. (I believe this dates back to February and is why a lineman came to my door as awhistleblower and also why dispatch called me to go plead my case for a "properfix" - I believe Utiltiies' "Band-aid fix" was that egregious. Leaving a loose neutralwould be it.) Compounding this is the fact that there is 1 fire truck for all of South Palo Alto. Is that really accurate, as reported? It's unbelievable - but so is leaving a looseneutral unaddressed! Utiltiies turned off power to "investigate" the loose neutral last Thursday (May 23). I directly asked on Friday (May 24) and got a roundabout answer (a non-answerreally) today (May 28), suggesting to me that the LOOSE NEUTRAL has NOTBEEN FIXED. My conversations with the linemen on Thursday were concerning. Do you have anexperienced crew that can be sent out here? Maybe can you consult withPG&E? The engineer with whom I have been corresponding has "EIT" after his name in hisemail signature. Does that mean "Engineer in Training"? Is there someone moreexperienced who can head this and get it fixed? As a reminder, my electrical problems (which a loose neutral would cause) werefirst reported to CPAU on January 24. It is now May 28. It has been 125 days,and my issues are unresolved. In addition, 2 City employees now have told me that they are worried aboutovergrown trees crowding the overhead lines (1 in February and 1 last week). Again, this is highly negligent and a well known FIRE RISK. Since there is only 1fire engine down here - even more reason to address any known fire risks! Overarching are the following HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES /SOLUTIONS: 1. Emergency line and customer service not properly staffed / trained(lack knoweldge to do their jobs; Dean Batchelor, in February, and TommMarshall, in April, both agreed with me on the phone that this is a realissue) - training and oversight needed. 2. Employees not empowered to diagnose and fix problems whenidentified - boots on the ground should be empowered, not supervisorswho do not understand problems (this is per CPAU's own employees). 3. CPAU maintenance standards fall below PG&E's / industrystandards (this is per CPAU's own employees). 4. Contractors must abide by the City's own stated steps ofperformance - training and oversight needed. (This is the dirty water /water meter swap case.) Could you please let me know what actions are being taken to address theseissues? Especially urgent are KNOWN FIRE RISKS not being fixed. Thank you, Trish Tamrazi 3409 Greer Rd. 650-208-4802 On Wed, May 15, 2024 at 9:15 AM Patricia Judge Tamrazi<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council, My lights continue to FLICKER here at 3409 Greer Rd. I have called commercial electricians to see about installing something to regulatethe power coming into my house - estimates are $30,000 to do so. Is thissomething the City will pay for, since Utilities is unable to provide safe andreliable power to my house? My flickering lights were first reported to CPAU on January 24, I first wrote toyou on February 9 - today is May 15. As you know, I have tried pretty mucheverything to get this taken seriously and fixed. No success. Tomm Marshall has acknowledged this is an issue on CPAU's side, but it has notbeen fixed. He said that a "neutral issue" was discovered when my house wasconnected to the NEW transformer, so (rather than fixing it), they put myhouse on the OLD transformer nearby. Flickering continues. Please let me know, will you pay for the regulator to be put on my house? Thank you, Trish Tamrazi 650-208-4802 On Mon, Apr 1, 2024 at 9:01 PM Patricia Judge Tamrazi<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council, I last wrote to you on March 27 and still have not received an answer. The onlytime I received a substantive answer was when I expressed my displeasure atnot being able to purchase an EV (being afraid that my neighborhood wouldburn down or that my young children were in danger didn't strike a chord withyou). So, here's more about that EV: Here are photographs of the two places in my garage where I had planned forEV chargers: Last week, I purchased a gas powered car to replace the old car which wastotaled after being stolen from in front of my house here in Palo Alto. Attached please find video of my lights flickering on the evening of March 28. This is visual evidence of why I cannot have an EV: CPAU fails to provide safeand reliable electricity to my home. My flickering lights were first reported to CPAU on January 24. Afterstruggling with CPAU for over 2 weeks, I first reached out to you regardingthis issue on February 9, after I was told by CPAU's own employees that Ineeded to advocate for a "proper fix" to our issues and was met with athreatening environment when I did so in person to CPAU's supervisingemployee. I truly thought you would help me, but I am still waiting. Our flickering continues. We now have multiple problems with the electronics in our home, all of whichare new since we just finished renovating in late 2023. For example (and this isnot all-inclusive), our bathroom fans act up (turn on and off randomly andunexpectedly) and the ice in our Sub-zero is stuck together (suggesting that it isnot regulating its temperature properly). My family is suffering because of your unresponsiveness. I spend countlesshours trying to navigate how to get my city government to respond to me sothat I can get safe and reliable power to my house. My business issuffering, my young children are suffering, and I have developed health issues. It is your responsibility to oversee CPAU, isn't it? Your constituents aredepending on you. I close this 8th email to you as I have most of the emails that came before it: Iwelcome any thoughts you have on this matter. Trish Tamrazi 3409 Greer Rd. 650-208-4802 On Wed, Mar 27, 2024 at 9:27 AM Patricia Judge Tamrazi<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council, I have not heard from Dean, nor from Ed, since being told by Ed on March 5that Dean will be calling me and that Ed would join if needed. That was over 3 weeks ago. Episode 1 of The Invisible Shield premiered on PBS last night. I recommendyou watch it. I found it inspiring to see the amazing impact properly fundedand functioning public health systems can have, as well as the negativeeffects that flow from cutting funding and letting those systems fall intodisrepair. A lesson, perhaps, for your management of the UtilitiesDepartment? I'm sure by now you have heard of the contamination of some houses'drinking water that was caused by the contractor the city hired to swap outwater meters. When are you planning on warning residents of the error andhelping them to clean up the mess? This is a public health issue!!! As youremain silent, citizens have been drinking contaminated water! In the same vein, I am still waiting on you to notify my neighbors of thedamage your poor power supply has done to their homes. I first suggestedyou do this in my email below on February 21. By the way, I have connected with a woman across town - a mom with yourchildren and a lot on her plate - who has had flickering lights as well as adishwasher and refrigerator that have gone out. My understanding is that sheis patiently waiting for someone to come out to her house to check it out. Iimagine I do not need to state this to you, as you are the regulators of theUtility and must know - but just in case: utilities companies generally treatflickering lights as an emergency! Another thing is that, after following up, the city's response to my PublicRecords Request is still woefully unresponsive. I am simply trying to gatherinformation to fix the power supply to my house! It is the city's legal duty torespond fully. The city did, however, produce 2 emails which are sickening: 1. Prior to anyone providing me any real assistance or response, Deanforwarded my desperate email pleading for help and expressing mygeneral displeasure with the mismanagement in Palo Alto to CatherineElvert, who I gather from a Google search is a PR professional, withthe note “Here you go !!!” Were you getting your talking points inorder, rather than focusing on helping your citizens??2. 1 hour AFTER my THIRD desperate email pleading for help (emailstamp on my email shows, "date: Feb 12, 2024, 2:05 PM"), Ed sent anemail (email stamp on Ed's email shows: "Sent: Monday, February 12,2024 3:16 PM") to multiple City of Palo Alto email addresses statingthat Dean has spoken to me a couple times (NOT TRUE!!!!!) and “Noneed for further prompting. Thanks all!” NOTHING HAD BEENADDRESSED. I close this 7th email to you as I have most of the emails that came before it:I welcome any thoughts you have on this matter. Trish Tamrazi 3409 Greer Rd. 650-208-4802 On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 4:50 PM Patricia Judge Tamrazi<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Ed, Thank you for your note, however, I must be very clear: Iwould much rather have a responsive, caring, and ethical city government,than bring any thieves to justice. The stress from having our car stolen from in front of our house pales incomparison to the stress and anguish we have experienced as a family ingetting the run around from CPAU and then being ignored by City Hall, asI try to get safe and reliable power delivered to the houses in myneighborhood. Regarding the electrical issue: I should never have been this involved orhave had to push so hard. This is too much to ask from citizens. It is noway to run a utility. But, to continue down that path: logically, shouldn'tthe transformer also be replaced on the "secondary pole," where looseconnections were also found? If that was the "proper fix" on the first poleclimbed (i.e. PG&E minimum maintenance standards), wouldn't it also bethe "proper fix" on the second? This is, of course, putting aside that perhaps this is a long-standing issue,not unique to my block, which has harmed many along the way. Trish Tamrazi 3409 Greer Rd. 650-208-4802 On Tue, Mar 5, 2024 at 12:28 PM Shikada, Ed<Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Dear Ms. Tamrazi, I am so sorry to hear about your car being stolen. I can only imaginehow this has impacted you and your family. While understandingnothing can make up for such a violation, I hope the thieves are quicklybrought to justice. Regarding your electrical issue, I have spoken to Director Batchelor andunderstand he will be calling you to follow up. I’m sorry to hear thattheir replacement of the electrical transformer did not resolve theproblem. I will stay in touch with him and happy to join a call as heworks with you on next steps. Sincerely, --Ed Some people who received this message don't often get email from patricia.judge@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Ed Shikada, City Manager ICMA Credentialed Manager (650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Patricia Judge Tamrazi <patricia.judge@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 4, 2024 9:27 AMTo: Batchelor, Dean <Dean.Batchelor@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly<Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burt, Patrick<Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia<Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lauing, Ed<Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lythcott-Haims, Julie<Julie.LythcottHaims@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stone, Greer<Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg<Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Veenker, Vicki <Vicki.Veenker@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City Mgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City<city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Plea to PROPERLY fix issues causing brownouts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of theorganization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Good morning, City Council, On Thursday night, our car got stolen from in front of our house here inPalo Alto. It looks like it's totaled. When we completely rewired thehouse last year, we future proofed to accommodate an EV charger - 2actually. However, CPAU is unable to provide safe and reliable powerto our house. Because of this, to our great disappointment, we cannot replace our gas powered car with an EV. My husband is a physician - if he gets a call in the middle of the nightthat someone is bleeding to death and needs an intervention, and his EVdidn't charge - well, that's a big problem! City Council - I see your talking points on electrification (I'm all forelectrification). You know that your electrical infrastructure can'tsupport it. This is the real world effect of your decisions: a family that wantedto go electric cannot. You remain silent, as I plead for your help, dating back to my firstemail to you on February 9. We are now on March 4. As for my flickering lights here at 3409 Greer Rd. - the latest workingtheory from CPAU is that it is caused by an air compressor at atheoretical construction site nearby. (1) That's a laughable theory. (2)My lights flicker evenings and weekends - which CPAU engineers havebeen told. Is the cause the 2 EVs charging in every driveway + anoutdated electrical infrastructure that cannot support it? I put in a Public Records Request related to my power issues. (a) Theresponse was a day late. (b) The response was blatantly incomplete. I believe the public policy reasoning behind municipal utilities falling outside of regulation is (i) elected officials, who serve as the utlity'soversight, will be responsive (mine - you - are silent) and (ii) there areprotections such as the Public Records Request (my city obviouslydisregards its legal duties). In speaking with utilities attorneys last week, one stated: Whenmunicipal utilities are good, they're really great. But when they're bad,it's abysmal. I understand that you let Tesla jump ahead of the rest of the city in thegrid update. Maybe Elon Musk's words will resonate with you then - hesaid that the world will face supply crunches in electricity andtransformers next year. What does that result in? Flickering lights. City Council - Could you please take steps to make our municipalutility "really great," instead of "abysmal"? Your constituents aredepending on you. I welcome your thoughts. Trish Tamrazi 3409 Greer Rd. 650-208-4802 On Wed, Feb 21, 2024 at 9:24 AM Patricia Judge Tamrazi<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote: Good morning, The lights continue to flicker here at 3409 Greer Rd. I still have notheard anything substantive from anyone except for Dean. City Manager Shikada and City Council - you are the regulators of theUtilities Department, correct? Why have I still not heard back fromany of you with anything substantive? (The vast majority of you, Ihave not heard anything at all.) I still have not received any answer - is this a fire risk? I am worried -I have 2 small children - I have expressed this and no one seems tocare! The transformer that I have been told supplies power to my house was switched out on February 15. On February 14, the UtilitiesDepartment climbed another pole nearby (described to me as my"secondary pole") and found loose connections, which I've been toldwere tightened. That's 2 out of 2 poles with loose connections. Isroutine maintenance being done? Are there loose connections all overthe city? My lights continue to flicker - are other loose connectionscausing this? The "secondary pole" with loose connections would explain theproblems the neighbors have experienced on that side of my house:(1) one neighbor's refrigerator went out and she had to go buy a newone last weekend, (2) another neighbor had flickering lights (Idiscovered this by overhearing him over the fence speaking tosomeone about his panel), (3) a third neighbor had an outdoor lightthat was malfunctioning (she described it as "acting weird"). Theseare the things that I have heard only in passing - surprisingly,everyone has complete trust in Palo Alto Utilities and does not blamethe poor power supply they are receiving. These 3 houses are inaddition to the 6 houses experiencing poor power supply issues fromthe other pole (one of which went through 3 refrigerators in January). So that's 9 houses total with issues - and I imagine there are more! As an aside, shouldn't you disclose to your citizens these issues afteryou discover them? Shouldn't you inform them that they have beenreceiving poor power supply and educate them on the damage that has possibly (or likely) been done to the appliances and electronics withintheir home? I thought CPAU is supposed to do better than PG&E? On February 14, I received a call from an engineer to get my story toanalyze the data collected by the load logger on my house. He wasunaware that mine was not the only house with flickering lights! How is communication that bad?! As a reminder, the morning ofFebruary 9 was when I first emailed all of you to escalate this issue -at that time we had 5 houses total with confirmed flickering lights. The engineer was not informed that it was not just my housewith flickering lights - I had to explain to him then send him notes! On February 14, I was told that the wrong load logger had been on myhouse since February 7. It was switched for the correct one, which Iwas told would get better data. Trish Tamrazi 3409 Greer Rd. 650-208-4802 On Mon, Feb 12, 2024 at 2:05 PM Patricia Judge Tamrazi<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote: Hello again, everyone, As an update since my emails on Friday: My lights continue toflicker after Thursday's "Band-Aid fix," as described by CPAU employees. Over the weekend, I discovered a 6th neighboringhouse with flickering lights. My understanding is that flickering lights are a sign of possible firerisk, as they are often caused by loose connections that may arc. Since I did not receive an answer from any of you on Fridayregarding whether my neighbors and I are at risk for fire, despitemy desperate plea, I called the Fire Department this morning toask. I have been told that they are looking into it. I talked with Dean this morning, after I spoke with the FireDepartment, and he is looking into the issue. I do appreciate hiscall. I still do not understand why CPAU's standard practice falls belowPG&E standards or how that is acceptable? The Metering Department has been out to pull the load logger frommy house and put a new one. I understand they're analyzing thedata. Why not just change out the transformer, as PG&E would do? Further, there seems to be no effective regulation of CPAU. I think you all (with the exception of Dean and perhaps the City Attorney)are responsible for oversight, but I have not heard anythingsubstantive from any of you. Quite honestly, I now feel incredibly unsafe here in Palo Alto. Does maintenance of the gas infrastructure also fall below PG&Estandards? There is something up on the pole on Greer as I walk my childrento school that makes a lot of noise. Is it a transformer? Does thenoise mean it's old and in disrepair? I know if a transformerexplodes, my children and I should not be under it, as we will beharmed by the oil inside falling on us. Do I have to reroute ourwalk to keep us safe? I trusted CPAU, and although I noted thesound every time I walked under it, I didn't think twice aboutwalking under it. Now, I do think twice. The problems aren't just with the Utilities Department. OnDecember 19, the garbage cans were not collected in my cul-de-sac. My elderly neighbor phoned daily, and the cans were notcollected until December 23, after my second elderly neighbor inthe cul-de-sac called on December 22 (so it took 3 days of calling,plus it seems like it wasn't taken seriously until there was a secondhousehold calling). After my experience with Utilities, I was sureto apologize to my neighbor for not calling as well - I had neverheard of anything like this! Recology always comes out the nextday, whenever there is an issue. We just spent 2 years lovingly renovating our Eichler - it's ourdream house and we intended for it to be our "forever home." We moved here from Redwood City for the schools and also to besurrounded by a community of safety-oriented individuals(something that became especially important in the pandemic). Iam devastated to learn that CPAU standards fall below PG&Estandards. We are now considering moving, but it would be verydifficult for us to do so financially. I appreciate hearing any thoughts you may have? Trish Tamrazi 3409 Greer Rd. 650-208-4802 On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 1:30 PM Patricia Judge Tamrazi<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote: Hello everyone, I know you're all busy and it's Friday, but I really do think this isurgent. Can someone please get back to me? I have 2 small children in my home, and I am worried about thesafety of the electricity being supplied to my home and the homesaround me. Am I at risk for fire? I've asked this to CPAUmultiple times, with no answer. Am I safe to stay in my homeover the weekend? I am lucky enough to have a very close family friend who is aretired PG&E lineman. His partner has been in the hospital, Ihave just found out, so we were only just able to reach him latemorning today. He said that PG&E would have changed out thattransformer - that's what Tito said he is opting not to do and the 2other employees at CPAU told me I should "plead my case" for. I had no idea what the standard is, until now. I am new to Palo Alto, having only owned my home for a little over 2 years, but my understanding from fellow residents is thatCPAU is better than PG&E. Then why isn't CPAU doing theminimum that PG&E would do? As you can tell from my email below, I had already lost faith -given prior interactions - that CPAU was fixing our problems. Iwasn't sure, though - maybe not replacing a transformer was afix, which is why I emailed you. Now, I have an opinion from aknowledgeable source that the transformer should have been replaced. After learning that CPAU is possibly not meeting standardpractice - and having not heard back from anyone with higherauthority - I contacted the California Public Utilities Commissionand was disheartened (to say it lightly) to hear that they onlyadvocate for customers of shareholder owned utilities - i.e., notCPAU. I was advised that I need to appeal to the City - which, Ithink, is all you. Is there anyone else, or any other entity, to protect CPAUcustomers when there is evidence that a standard is not beingmet? Am I reaching out to the wrong people for help? Am I at risk for fire? Should I call the Fire Department and ask? What does a "Band-Aid fix" versus a "real fix" mean, in terms ofsafety? Should I leave my home? Are my neighbors safe? Trish Tamrazi 3409 Greer Rd. 650-208-4802 On Fri, Feb 9, 2024 at 6:46 AM Patricia Judge Tamrazi<patricia.judge@gmail.com> wrote: Good morning, Dean, I'm at my wit's end and writing to you, copying the CityManager, City Attorney, and City Council, asking you toplease ensure that my ongoing and severe electrical issues at3409 Greer Road are fixed by CPAU. At least 4 of myneighbors are experiencing these same issues (5 houses total). I have been told by 2 CPAU employees that we are receiving a"Band-Aid fix," not a real fix. I am considering filing a lawsuit, given how grossly negligent and, frankly, abusive, my interactions with CPAU have been. But - at this time - my focus is on getting the electrical serviceto my house and my neighbors' houses properly fixed. Attached please find results from my smart meter, pulledyesterday, February 8, showing severe brownouts to my homeat 3409 Greer Rd. This smart meter was put on my house onFebruary 7. As you'll see, one brownout lasted 1 hour 9minutes, which I have been told is "insane." For those on theemail without an electrical background, here is a quick primeron the seriousness of brownouts. I'm also attaching a video of one light fixture at my house,illustrating the severity of the flickering lights that I firstreported to CPAU on January 24. (Please excuse the paint job- we just finished completely renovating the inside and don'thave the nice weather yet to paint the outside. That is anew light fixture, installed last year.) As reported to CPAU,this has been happening throughout my entire house, and wealso heard exhaust fans throughout the house slowing downand speeding up. My next door neighbor had the sameexperience. From January 24 to the time this data was looked at by CPAUyesterday, February 8, CPAU employees have denied that thereare any issues on CPAU's side. Shockingly, they continued todeny this, even after being formally informed of 4 more houseswith flickering lights. Until yesterday afternoon whenthey finally looked at the smart meter data from my house,various CPAU employees kept telling me to call an electrician,which I did (multiple, in fact). As an aside, 1 week into my ordeal, one neighbor called CPAU dispatch reporting flickering lights and was told to call backwhen the flickering got worse. Every knowledgeable person Ihave talked to - with the exception of one CPAU employee -has thought that was absolutely reckless, most laughing indisbelief. Linemen came out yesterday to rectify the situation, but I wastold by 2 individuals within CPAU that they were doing a "Band-Aid fix," not a real fix. I was told by one well-meaningCPAU employee that I should walk around the corner to wherethe linemen were working and find a big guy with a bald headnamed Tito to "plead my case" for a real fix. That in itself isone of the craziest things I've ever heard! Tito did not seem very receptive to this (rightfully so becausewho am I as a homeowner to tell him how to do his job?), so,shaken up, I went home and called the City Manager's office,pleading for an advocate. Ingrid, the administrative assistant, took down my story andmy information, and I have received attempted help from AlexGonzalez, Utilities Supervisor. Alex even worked on my issueinto the evening. However, Alex is not in charge of the correctdivision of CPAU to address my issue. This illustrates acontinued lack of understanding of my issue, at best, andperhaps a continued lack of willingness to rectify my issue. That is why I'm reaching out to you. Can you help? With best regards, Trish Tamrazi 3409 Greer Rd. 650-208-4802