Agenda packet — Palo Alto City Council, August 8, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

1 City Council
Special Meeting
Monday, August 8, 2022
5:00 PM
Council Chamber & Virtual

AMENDED AGENDA
Amended agenda items appear in red below.

Pu
rsuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person.

HOW TO PARTICIPATE

VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION
CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/362027238) Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833
The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streame d to Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org.

TIME ESTIMATES
Time estimates are provided as part of the Council's effort to manage its time at Council meetings. Listed times are estimates only and are subject to change at any time, including while the meeting is in progress. The Council reserves the right to use more or less time on any item, to change the order of items and/or to continue items to another meeting. Particular items may be heard before or after the time estimated on the agenda. This may occur in order to best manage the time at a meeting or to adapt to the participation of the public.

REVISED PUBLI C COMMENTS
Public Comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to city.counc [email protected] and
will be provided to the Council and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are refere ncing in your email subject line.

Po
werPoints, videos, or other media to be presented du ring public comment are accepted only by email to city.cle [email protected] at least 24 hours prior to the mee ting. Once received, the City Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the speci fied item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. 2 Specia l Meeting August 8, 2022
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspec
tion at www.CityofPaloAlto.org.

CALL TO ORDER
SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY (5:00 PM – 5:25 PM)

1. Appreciation for State Senator Josh Becker for Securing $2 m illion for Newell Bridge Replacement Project

2. Select Applicants to Interview for the Human Relations Commission AA1. Sibling City Update from Mayor John Hamilton, Bloomington, Indiana

AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS
PUBLIC COMMENT (5:25 – 5:45 PM)
Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Council reserves the right to limit the duration of Oral Communications period to 30 minutes.

CONSENT CALENDAR (5:45 – 5:50 PM)
Items will be voted on in one motion unless removed from the calendar by three Council Members.

3. Adoption of a Resolution Establishing FY 2023 Property Tax Levy for General Obligation Bonds (Measure N Libraries)

4. Approval of the Rail Committee Charter and Workplan for 2022-23 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS (5:50 – 6:10 PM)

ACTION ITEMS
Include: Reports of Committees/Commissions, Ordinances and Resolutions, Public Hearings, Reports of Officials, Unfinished Business and Council Matters.

5. Approval of Appointment and Employme nt Agreement with Andrew Binder as Chief of Police (6:10 – 6:45 PM)

6. Adoption of an Ordinance Approving the Police Department's Military Equipment Use Policy Under AB 481 Continued to a future meeting AA2. Adoption of Resolutio ns: (1) Placing a Business Tax on the November 2022 Ballot; (2) Placing a Me asure Affirming the Natural Gas Utility Transfer on the November 2022 Ballot; and (3) Establishing Advisory Spending Guidelines for Business Tax Proceeds (6:45 PM – 8:15 PM).

Supplemental Information Added.

AA3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI -JUDICIAL. 1033 Amarillo Ave [22PLN - 00016]: Request for a Preliminary Parcel Map With Exceptions to Subdivide a 20,787 Square Foot R -1 Property Into Two (2) Lots, Where Lot 1 Will be 10,668.50 Square Feet and Lot 2 Will be 10,118.77 Square Feet. Exception is for Minimum lot Width and Q&A
Q&A
Public Letters
Public Letters
Presentation
Presentation
3 Sp ecial Meeting August 8, 2022
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for publi
c inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org.

Maximum lot Size. Z oning D istrict R-1 Single Family Res idential. (8:15 – 9:30 PM). Supplemental Information Added.

7. D
iscuss and Provide Comments on the City's Draft Comment letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and Authorize the Mayor to Send a Comment Letter to the CHSRA on the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the California High Speed Rail segment be tween San Francisco and San Jose, Which Traverses Palo Alto. (9:30 – 10:15 PM)

8. Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California Cities Annual 2022 Conference, to be held September 7- 9 in Long Beach, CA Continued to August 15, 2022

COUNCIL MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS
Members of the public may not speak to the item(s)

ADJOURNMENT

INFORMATION REPORTS
Information reports are provided for informational purposes only to the Council and the public but are not listed f or action during this meeting’s agenda.

8. Investment Activity Report for the Fourth Quarter, Fiscal Year 2022

9. Fiscal Year 2022 Annual Evaluation Report for the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdictional Program for Public Information on Flood Preparedness and Awareness, and the Resulting Community Rating System Flood Insurance Discounts

10. City Council Recess Report

OTHER INFORMATION
Standing Committee Meetings
Policy
& Services Committee Meeting August 9, 2022 - Canceled
Publi
c Comment Letters
Sc
hedule of Meetings
4 Sp ecial Meeting August 8, 2022
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for publi
c inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org.

AMENDED AGENDA ITEMS
Items that have been added/modified from the original publication of the agenda are listed below. Any corresponding materials are appended to the end of the initial packet. If full items have been added to the Agenda, they will be denoted with a number staring with AA, meaning Amended Agenda item.

6. Adoption of an Ordinance Approving the Police Department's Mi litary Equipment Use Policy Under AB 481 Continued to a future meeting

8. Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California Cities Annual 2022 Conference, to be held September 7- 9 in Long Beach, CA Continued to August 15, 2022
AA1. Sibling City Update from Mayor John Hamilton, Bloomington, Indiana AA2. Adoption of Resolutions: (1) Placing a Business Tax on the November 2022 Ballot; (2) Placing a Measure Affirming the Natural Gas Utility Transfer on the November 2022 Ballot; and (3) Establishing Advisory Spending Guidelines for Business Tax Proceeds (Continued from 8/1/22). Supplemental Information Added.

AA3. PUBLIC HEARIN G / QUASI -JUDICIAL. 1033 Amarillo Ave [22PLN - 00016]: Request for a Preliminary Parcel Map With Exceptions to Subdivide a 20,787 Square Foot R -1 Pr operty Into Two (2) Lots, Where Lot 1 Will be 10,668.50 Square Feet and Lot 2 Will be 10,118.77 Square Feet. E xception is for Minimum lot Width and Maximum lot Size. Zoning District R-1 Single Family Residential. (Continued from 8/1/22). Supplemental Information Added.

AA4. PUBLIC HEARING : Adoption of a Resolution Confirming the Weed Abatement Report and Ordering the Cost of Abatement to be a Spe cial Assessment on the Respective Properties Described Therein This item has been continued and will be re-noticed for a future meeting. 5 S pecial Meeting August 8, 2022
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for publ
ic inspection at www.CityofPaloAlto.org.

PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
M
embers of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone.

1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to [email protected].

2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom -based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.

A. You ma y download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in- browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer.

B. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak.

C. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.

D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.

E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.

3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the
teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B-E above.

4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed be
low. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long yo u h
ave to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and ti
me limit allotted.

C
LICK HERE TO JOIN Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14621)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 8/8/2022 Report Type: Special Orders of the Day

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Appreciation for State Senator Josh Becker for Securing $2 million for Newell Bridge Replacement Project
From: City Manager
Lead Department: City Manager

This item has no written report.
1 Packet Pg. 5

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14579)
Office of the City Clerk
City Council CAO Report

Meeting Date: 8/8/2022 Report Type: Special Orders of the Day

Title: Select Applicants to Interview for the Human Relations Commission
From: Lesley Milton, City Clerk

Recommendation

Direct Staff to schedule interviews with selected applicants for one vacancy on the Human Relations Commission.

Discussion

Boards and Commissions are established as advisory bodies to the City Council, made up of community volunteers that provide essential feedback on matters of importance to the community. The City Clerk’s office advertises and recruits for vacancies, the Council considers the applications, interviews desired candidates, and makes recommendations for appointment for the open positions.

Commissioner Patti Regehr resigned from the Human Relations Commission on May 31, 2022 . As such, the current vacancy staff is requ esting to be filled is:

• One (1) position on the Human Relations Commission, with term expiring March 31, 2023

A total of 6 applications have been submitted during the recruitment period.

Scheduling Interviews

During the last several recruitments, the City Council has elected to interview all qualified applicants for respective Boards and Commissions. It is at the discretion of the Council to determine if they wish to continue the past practice, interview all candidates, or identify and provide direction on a select cohort of applicants to continue to the interview processes.

Interviews of the selected applicants will be scheduled for a future Special City Council meeting date to be determined.
2 Packet Pg. 6

Page 2 ends

Membership Requirements

Per PAMC 2.22.010, The Human Relations Commission requires each member of the commission to have Palo Alto residency.

Human Relations Commission: One position
Term ending March 31, 2023
• Palo Alto Residency
• APPLICANTS:

1. Donald Barr

2. Katie Causey

3. Sunita de Tourreil

4. Tracy Alejandra Navichoque

5. Chitra Sharma

6. Kat Snyder

Public Outreach

Palo Alto Municipal Code 2.16. 060 requires public notification regarding vacancies of the Commissions as follows, “The City Clerk shall exercise their discretion in choosing the method of advertisement that will most effectively reach potential candidates. ” Based on the September 14, 2021 Policy & Services Committee meeting report (available here ) regarding Board and Commission Member demographics and community
representation the City Clerk’s office expanded recruitment effort s through additional means to “most effectively reach potential candidates”.

The Human Relations Commission special recruitment invited applications from June 10 , 2022 t hrough July 27, 2022 through the new online application process. The vacancy was a dvertised through various methods in partnership with the Communications team. This included paid and digital print advertisements in the Daily Post and Palo Alto Weekly ; via the City’s website and social media channels; in physical locations of the Palo A lto Libraries and Community Centers; and distributed by e -mail and through the City subscription-based notification lists.

ATTACHMENTS:
• Attachment2.a: HRC - All Applications_Redacted (PDF)
2 Packet Pg. 7
Human Relations Commission
Application
Submission date: 15 July 2022, 1:40PM
Receipt number: 8
Related form version: 3
Personal Information
Name Donald Barr
Address
City
Postal Code
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Do you have any relatives or members of your
household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto,
who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term
applied for?
Yes
1 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 8
Fair Political Practices
California state law requires board/commission members to file a disclosure of financial interests (
Fair Political Practices Commission
,
Conflict of Interest
,
Form 700
).

Do you/your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to:

1. Engage in business with the City;

2. Provide products or services for City projects; or

3. Be affected by decisions of this Board or Commission? No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your
spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Human
Relations Commission?
City Website
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Read the code, and check only ONE option below:

I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to
the City’s website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact.

I have read and
understand my rights under Government Code
Section 6254.21.

I may revoke this permission at any
time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City
Clerk.

Alternate Contact Information - Address
Alternate Contact Information - Phone Number
Alternate Contact Information - Email
2 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 9
Personal and Job Experience
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional
registration.
(621 characters max)
MD - University of California, San Francisco
1973
PhD - Sociology, Stanford University
1993
Licensed physician in California, 1974 - present
Faculty, Stanford University, 1993 - present, teaching
courses on U.S. Health Care Policy and on Racial and
Social Inequality in Health.

Employment Information
Company/Employer Name
Stanford University
Occupation
Professor of Pediatrics, and of Education (by
courtesy)
Is your Company/Employer your current one or last?
Current Employer
Please describe your involvement in community
activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.
(1242 characters max)
For more than 2 decades I have been involved in
developing affordable housing in Palo Alto and in
providing services to the homeless. I founded the
Community Working Group and led the non-profit
organization in the development of the Opportunity
Center in Palo Alto, which provides housing, social
services, and medical care to the homeless. I also led
the organization's effort in developing the affordable
housing facility at 801 Alma in Palo Alto. I served on
the Board of the organization for more than 10 years. I founded the nonprofit organization that is now the
Peninsula Healthcare Connection (PHC), and currently
serve as Board Secretary. PHC is a federally certified
(lookalike) health clinic that provides medical services and social services support to the currently homeless
and to the formerly homeless who have been placed
in housing. For the past year I have also served on the Board of Directors of Avenidas, the senior services
agency in Palo Alto. I have also worked for more than
two decades at Stanford to reduce racial inequalities
in access to medical school. With my support, a
substantial number of former Stanford students from
under-represented racial minorities have become
successful health care professionals.
3 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 10
Application Questions

1. Why are you interested in serving on the
Human
Relations Commission and what experience would you
bring to the position?
(1518 characters max)
The Palo Alto community is facing a number of
challenges, some as a result of the pandemic and
some unrelated to the pandemic. Seniors – those age
65 or older – are one of the groups most affected by
these challenges. As a member of the Board of
Directors of Avenidas, I have committed to addressing
the personal and social needs of seniors in Palo Alto.

Issues such as social isolation as a result of the
pandemic and rising costs of housing have impacted
the lives of a number of senior residents of Palo Alto.

As a member of the HRC I would work both to learn
about and to address these issues. As I have also
been working for many years to support the homeless
population in our community, I would also address the
needs of this population as a Commissioner. As a
member of the HRC I would build on my experience
addressing the needs of seniors and of the homeless
to work to understand and to support the needs of all
members of our community, with a focus on the
needs of socially and economically disadvantaged
populations.
4 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 11

2. Please describe an issue that recently came before
the Commission that is of particular interest to you and describe why you are interested in it.
(1449 characters max)
Archived video meetings are available from the
Midpen Media Center
.

As part of the May 24 meeting, the HRC established a
series of “ad hoc sub-committees” to address issues
that are part of the 2022-23 HRC Work Plan. I note that the membership of the sub-committee on
“Housing/Homelessness – Advocacy” was “TBD”,
which I take to mean to be determined. As a
Commissioner, I would hope to play a role in this
important public health issue. Through my work in
support of the homeless, I am aware that there are a
number of groups in the population we consider
homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. These
include the recently housed, the unhoused who come
to the Opportunity Center for services, and the
unhoused who remain isolated and do not seek
services. It is important to learn more about these
populations through collaboration with both County
agencies and community organizations that focus on
the needs of these populations.

I also note that, in identifying the issues to be
addressed by the HRC ad-hoc committees, the social
and economic needs of the population of seniors in
our community were not included. I would advocate to
establish an ad-hoc committee to assess and address
the needs of seniors. In this role I would work to
collaborate with Avenidas in addressing this issue.
5 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 12

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you
like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve,
and how would you help in the process?
(1656 characters max)
As I have indicated in my response to the earlier
questions, I would like the HRC to focus on
understanding and supporting the needs of seniors
and of the homeless. A key step in this process would
be to gather data from other governmental agencies
and from community groups on the social, economic,
and health care needs of these groups. The
Commission can then suggest to the City Council and
the City government steps that might be taken to
address these needs. As an additional goal, I would
encourage the HRC to address the needs of another
group in our community: workers in the retail and
service sectors of our community. It would be
important to learn about the typical wages and
income of these workers, and where their income
places these workers on the spectrum of housing
affordability (e.g., moderate-income, low-income,
very-low-income). As the City Council continues to
consider options for expanding housing in our
community, including the housing needs of workers
will be essential. The HRC could play a central role in this process.

4. Human Relations Commission Members work with
the documents listed below.

If you have experience with
any of these documents, please describe that
experience.

Experience with these documents is not
required for selection.
(690 characters max)
Human Services Needs Assessment (2020)
Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program
Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2017) I have no personal experience with any of these
documents. As a member of HRC, I would read each
of these documents to learn about the issues they
address.

If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Tall Tree-2006.pdf
6 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 13
Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

View the
Boards and Commissions Handbook
.

Yes
Signature
Name of signatory: Donald A Barr
Link to signature
Date Completed
07/15/2022
7 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 14
Select FILE --> PRINT to print this story.

News - Wednesday, February 1, 2006
Education, housing activists win 'Tall Tree' awardsHonors planned for Barbara Spreng, Donald Barr, Children's Health Council, Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center
by Jay Thorwaldson
School-leadership activist Barbara Spreng and advocate for the homeless Donald Barr, M.D., have been named 2006 recipients of the Tall Tree Award by the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce.

The Children's Health Council has been cited as outstanding non-profit organization and the Palo Alto-based Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center as outstanding business, due to its support for community programs.

The awards will be presented Wednesday, April 5, at the 26th annual Tall Tree Awards dinner, this year at the Crowne Plaza Cabana hotel in Palo Alto.

Spreng will receive the award for "outstanding volunteer" for her years of work on behalf of Palo Alto schools, including key roles in raising funds, and for her community and education work generally.

The array of organizations for which she has worked include the Palo Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC), Palo Alto Foundation for Education, Adolescent Counseling Service - she served terms as board president of all three organizations. She also has been active with Palo Altans for Government Effectiveness, Leadership Midpeninsula, the Foundation for a College Education and others. "Barbara personifies the meaning of 'outstanding volunteer,'" Mayor Judy Kleinberg said in a nomination letter. "She has unselfishly, and with little recognition, devoted her talents and time to a broad cross-section of organizations committed to improving the quality of life for children and families in Palo Alto."
Spreng also has worked as a child advocate for Kids in Common, a Silicon Valley children's advocacy organization, where she helped create an immunization program for underprivileged children in the region.

Nancy Shepherd, another former PTAC president, noted that "Few presidents have ever served during a parcel-tax campaign, let alone two in one year! Her service leadership style contributed directly (to) the development and final success of these campaigns." Dr. Barr, named "outstanding professional," was founding president of the Community Working Group on Homeless Services beginning in 1998 after a flood shut down a small drop-in center. He spearheaded the creation of the Opportunity Center, now under construction on Encina Avenue between the Palo Alto Medical Foundation and Town & Country Village Shopping Center. "Don's devotion to responding creatively, in this very tangible way, to the problem of homelessness in our community is unprecedented," the Rev. Jeffrey Vamos of the Community Working Group board - which nominated Dr. Barr - said of his leadership. "Don has been the key factor in the creation of this $24 million facility," which will be "a lasting legacy to our whole community," the Rev. Vamos said.

He noted that Dr. Barr has performed without pay the duties of a CEO in the complex, often challenging development of the center. "He has performed this service in addition to his duties as a professor of sociology at Stanford - where he has also received the Dinkelspiel Award for his outstanding work - and his work as a practicing physician at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation," he said.

The Children's Health Council, for just over a half century, has provided diagnostic, treatment and counseling services for children and families facing the challenges of learning disabilities and emotional and speech problems, ranging from autism to dyslexia, depression to hyperactivity disorders.

It also operates the Esther B. Clark School for young persons aged 7 to 17 who are unable to function in public or private school systems, typically transitioning them back into regular schools within a year or two. The school is named for the late Esther Clark, one of the first women pediatricians on the Peninsula and an early partner with the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. The CHC was initially founded to address needs of children stricken with polio, but evolved to include a range of complex medical problems and their side effects.

2.a
Packet Pg. 15
The Lockheed Martin Advanced Technology Center (ATC), in the Stanford Research Park, is comprised of more than 700 persons engaged for the past half century in research and development for Lockheed Martin Space Systems.

The ATC community activities have included being a founding community leader in "Palo Alto Green," the city-wide effort to create a more sustainable environment through use of renewable energy. The company executed the first renewable power purchase nationally by a leading defense and aerospace contractor.

The firm has donated to scores of local and regional organizations, directly and through an employee-giving program. In the past year, it has contributed to Habitat for Humanity, Committee for Green Foothills, Community School for Music and Arts, Resource Area for Teachers, the Marine Science Center, Camp Anytown, Junior Achievement, Teach for America, the Arts Council of Silicon Valley and the California League of Conservation Voters - in addition to other programs.

Editor Jay Thorwaldson can be reached at [email protected].

Find this article at:
http://www.paloaltoonline.com/weekly/story.php?story_id=132

2.a
Packet Pg. 16
Human Relations Commission
Application
Submission date: 14 June 2022, 10:54PM
Receipt number: 4
Related form version: 3
Personal Information
Name Katie Causey
Address
City
Postal Code
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Do you have any relatives or members of your
household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto,
who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term
applied for?
Yes
1 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 17
Fair Political Practices
California state law requires board/commission members to file a disclosure of financial interests (
Fair Political Practices Commission
,
Conflict of Interest
,
Form 700
).

Do you/your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to:

1. Engage in business with the City;

2. Provide products or services for City projects; or

3. Be affected by decisions of this Board or Commission? No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your
spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Human
Relations Commission?
Email from the City
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Read the code, and check only ONE option below:

I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home
address, phone numbers, and email address from the
attached Board and Commission Application prior to
posting to the City’s website.

I am providing the
following alternate information and request that the
following contact information below:

Alternate Contact Information - Address
Alternate Contact Information - Phone Number
Alternate Contact Information - Email
Personal and Job Experience
2 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 18
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional
registration.
(621 characters max)
I was born and raised in Palo Alto where I have lived
my entire life I attended PAUSD for my entire K-12
education
I graduated from the George Washington University in
2017 with a Bachelor’s in Women’s Studies where my
program primarily focused on looking at community
issues and different approaches to resolve them (for
example: addressing discrimination, harrassment,
intersectional approaches resolving conflict between
communites with complex history between eachother,
etc.).

Employment Information
Company/Employer Name
Palo Alto Forward
Occupation
Community Engagement Manager
Is your Company/Employer your current one or last?
Current Employer
3 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 19
Please describe your involvement in community
activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.
(1242 characters max)
I’ve been a member of the American Association of
University Women since 2017 and have been hired as
community advocate for them to speak on issues
such as addressing sexual harassment in schools.

In 2019 I assisted the Palo Alto Recreation Foundation
with their fundraising and community outreach.

Since I was a teenager I have actively volunteered in
Palo Alto and the Bay Area.

Between 2019 - 2020 I served on the Fund
Development Council for the Junior League of San
Francisco which supports a variety of programs in the
Bay Area including those used in Palo Alto. I was also
awarded by them for my volunteer work in the
community and my leadership.

I’ve worked on a variety of local campaigns and in
2020 ran for PAUSD Board of Education.

From the end of 2021 until last month I worked as an
Organizer for the Palo Alto Renters’ Association
primarily helping tenants in Palo Alto facing eviction
during the pandemic.

I am currently a student completing the necessary
coursework to become eligible for a Master’s in
Bioengineering.

Between 2018 - 2020 I served as Chair for the League
of Women Voters Palo Alto Committee to End Gun
Violence, I also supported their Climate Change
Committee.

Application Questions
4 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 20

1. Why are you interested in serving on the
Human
Relations Commission and what experience would you
bring to the position?
(1518 characters max)
I've been interested in serving on the Human Relations
Commission the last several years, as I stated before
my undergraduate degree was in Women's Studies
and how my program worked was we would look at
the history of different communities and identities,
and each week we would get an example based on a
real case of an issue in a community (mediating a
conflict, discrimination, harassment, etc.) and we
would discuss the different interest groups and
perspectives involved, and how to solve the issue
from both a lens of community action and also policy
change.

I've brought that perspective to a work with a
variety of nonprofits in the area and I've heavily
volunteered in the community since I was a teenager.

The Human Relations Commission covers a very
broad range of subjects I'm highly interested in.

I also
can say from running for office I know how to be open
and seek feedback from a wide range of community
members in Palo Alto. I'm also a young LGBT+
women someone who grew up in this community and
I currently balance multiple jobs and being a student,
a huge reason I haven't applied to this commission
sooner is a 4 year unpaid position is a big
commitment, but this was the perfect timing of I know
I can commit to the next 9 months.
5 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 21

As an Organizer at the Palo Alto Renters' Association I met with members of the Human Relations
Commission to give feedback on the impact of renters
protections in Palo Alto based on my last 6 months of
working with tenants.

While there's a very wide range
of subjects the Human Relations Commission covers
that I am interested in, housing is such a critical issue and evictions are happening now.

As someone who
grew up here working as an organizer, the impact of
evictions are horrific they rip our community apart I've seen first hand what happens in Palo Alto when
someone faces eviction whether their a single parent
just trying to keep their kid in the local schools or
they're elderly on social security and have lived in this community for decades.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you
like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve,
and how would you help in the process?
(1656 characters max)
While this appointment is only for 8-9 months I would
love to help the Human Relations Commission in any
manner possible in furthering their work to support
independent investigation of the hate crimes that have
occurred the last several years, as their occurrence
has been deeply unsettling.

If this was 9 months
where we had an unlimited amount of time and
resources I would love to work to further support our
LGBT+ youth in Palo Alto whether through a pride
celebration or youth community resources.
6 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 22

4. Human Relations Commission Members work with
the documents listed below.

If you have experience with
any of these documents, please describe that
experience.

Experience with these documents is not
required for selection.
(690 characters max)
Human Services Needs Assessment (2020)
Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program
Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2017) NA
If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

View the
Boards and Commissions Handbook
.

Yes
Signature
Name of signatory: Katie Causey
Link to signature
Date Completed
06/14/2022
7 of 7

2.a
Packet Pg. 23
Human Relations Commission
Application
Submission date: 13 June 2022, 8:57PM
Receipt number: 3
Related form version: 3
Personal Information
Name Sunita de Tourreil
Address
City
Postal Code
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Do you have any relatives or members of your
household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto,
who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term
applied for?
Yes
1 of 5

2.a
Packet Pg. 24
Fair Political Practices
California state law requires board/commission members to file a disclosure of financial interests (
Fair Political Practices Commission
,
Conflict of Interest
,
Form 700
).

Do you/your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to:

1. Engage in business with the City;

2. Provide products or services for City projects; or

3. Be affected by decisions of this Board or Commission? No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your
spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Human
Relations Commission?
Email from the City
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Read the code, and check only ONE option below:

I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home
address, phone numbers, and email address from the
attached Board and Commission Application prior to
posting to the City’s website.

I am providing the
following alternate information and request that the
following contact information below:

Alternate Contact Information - Address
City Hall HRC contact address (my home address
should not be listed)
Alternate Contact Information - Phone Number
650-796-5287
Alternate Contact Information - Email
[email protected]
2 of 5

2.a
Packet Pg. 25
Personal and Job Experience
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional
registration.
(621 characters max)
I have a graduate degree in Science, worked in
medical research for many years, became an
entrepreneur and have my own business for nearly 20
years. I served on the HRC for a partial term, like the one I am applying for, I trained to be a Court
Appointed Special Advocate in the early 2000s, for
children in the foster system.

Employment Information
Company/Employer Name
Happy Chocolate Experiences, LLC
Occupation
entrepreneur
Is your Company/Employer your current one or last?
Current Employer
Please describe your involvement in community
activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.
(1242 characters max)
HRC Fall 2020-Spring 2021
Palo Alto Girls Softball Assistant and Head Coach
Application Questions

1. Why are you interested in serving on the
Human
Relations Commission and what experience would you
bring to the position?
(1518 characters max)
I served a partial term in 2020-2021, and I learned a lot about how the organization works, the kind of grant
work we do, and how we can make sure all voices are
heard. I am interested in serving again, because it is
my main way to engage and do my civic duty, as I am
not a citizen of this country (by choice) and yet I feel I owe my community my engagement, and it deserves
alternate points of view that come from being raised
in another country, with parents who were nationals
of yet two other countries.
3 of 5

2.a
Packet Pg. 26

I remain interested in all issues relating to bringing
compassion and kindness to all of our neighbors. An
ongoing issue that remains on my radar, is to do with
the unhoused, the cost of housing and ensuring that
post-Covid we are able to enable folks who are
struggling to be able to have the support needed to be
able to keep finding more opportunity, not less.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you
like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve,
and how would you help in the process?
(1656 characters max)
I believe that a national reckoning is necessary and
underway, to rectify inequities and economic and
racial injustices, and Palo Alto needs to do its part. It's leaders and our community have a responsibility to
see where we have historically fallen short, and
continue to fall short, and take an honest and humble
look at how our systems (housing, policing, parks and
recreation) are not serving all. We must be the
innovative leader, showing how we take Silicon Valley
principles and apply them to community problems.

We are leaders at thinking outside of the box, and
daring greatly. We can do this with more than tech,
we can also lead the way in fostering a more inclusive
and welcoming community that is a tight knit group of
folks who are stronger together. We can show that
inclusion leads to so much more than the sum of its
parts. None of this needs to be a pure sacrifice, we
can all grow and be better by being better together.
4 of 5

2.a
Packet Pg. 27

4. Human Relations Commission Members work with
the documents listed below.

If you have experience with
any of these documents, please describe that
experience.

Experience with these documents is not
required for selection.
(690 characters max)
Human Services Needs Assessment (2020)
Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program
Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2017) I believe I worked with the Human Services Needs
Assessment and some other guidelines used for doing
the CBDG grants and helping with the granting of
emergency funds.

If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

View the
Boards and Commissions Handbook
.

Yes
Signature
Name of signatory: Sunita de Tourreil
Link to signature
Date Completed
06/13/2022
5 of 5

2.a
Packet Pg. 28
Human Relations Commission
Application
Submission date: 26 July 2022, 3:46PM
Receipt number: 12
Related form version: 3
Personal Information
Name Tracy Alejandra Navichoque
Address
City
Postal Code
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Do you have any relatives or members of your
household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto,
who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term
applied for?
Yes
1 of 6

2.a
Packet Pg. 29
Fair Political Practices
California state law requires board/commission members to file a disclosure of financial interests (
Fair Political Practices Commission
,
Conflict of Interest
,
Form 700
).

Do you/your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to:

1. Engage in business with the City;

2. Provide products or services for City projects; or

I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home
address, phone numbers, and email address from the
attached Board and Commission Application prior to
posting to the City’s website.

I am providing the
following alternate information and request that the
following contact information below:

Alternate Contact Information - Address
Alternate Contact Information - Phone Number
Alternate Contact Information - Email
Personal and Job Experience
2 of 6

2.a
Packet Pg. 30
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional
registration.
(621 characters max)
Bachelors Degree in History from Northwestern
University
Master's Degree in Public Diplomacy from USC
Employment Information
Company/Employer Name
Stanford University
Occupation
Program Manager
Is your Company/Employer your current one or last?
Current Employer
Please describe your involvement in community
activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.
(1242 characters max)
Volunteer at the Boys and Girls Club of the Peninsula
Application Questions
3 of 6

2.a
Packet Pg. 31

1. Why are you interested in serving on the
Human
Relations Commission and what experience would you
bring to the position?
(1518 characters max)
Although I have only lived in Palo Alto since January
of 2020, I am keen to serve and contribute to my
community. As a first generation American who first
learned to speak Spanish, I have constantly seeking
ways to make equity a priority for all, especially when it comes to language and translation. My current work
revolves around human rights and ensuring that our
right to privacy and free expression are protected in
digital spaces. I would like to contribute my fresh
perspective and dedication equality. Most of my work
in this space has been through volunteer positions but
I would like to complement that work with discussions
about policy. I am currently a program manager at
Stanford and can bring organizational, management,
and analyst skills to the commission. I have also lived and worked abroad (Turkey, Uruguay, and
Guatemala) so I am willing seeking to integrate
worldly perspectives. In the past, I served as an
education manager for the Los Angeles World Affairs
Council and also as an arts educators for several art
museums, where I was tasked with focusing on
integration and equity for all demographics and
learning abilities.

I would like to work and learn about all topics but am
keen on contributing to the reduction of hate speech
in our communities. I am particularly interested in this topic because my employment explicitly deals with
the nuances of freedom of speech and considers the
negative impacts of hateful discriminatory speech and
its adverse effects on communities. This topic was
explicitly debated during the March 10, 2022 meeting.

I would also like to work on human rights specific
projects.
4 of 6

2.a
Packet Pg. 32

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you
like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve,
and how would you help in the process?
(1656 characters max)
My goal is to ensure that all persons can participate
equally.

Moreover, I would like to contribute to the
promotion of community awareness and
understanding. The pandemic has isolates us greatly.

As a relatively new community member, I would like
to sponsor more neighbor initiatives so that we can
interact with one another. My goal is to oil the wheels of conversation. When we speak to one another, we
can put in place a better practice of listening! When
we listen, we can better understand one another. I
would also like to use the robust park system in Palo
Alto as a medium through which we can apply some
of the commission's laudable goals.

Secondly, I live next to two elderly neighbors. While I help day to day with groceries and some digital
literacy, I would like to consider policies that could
assist our aging neighbors at a city wide level.

4. Human Relations Commission Members work with
the documents listed below.

If you have experience with
any of these documents, please describe that
experience.

If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

View the
Boards and Commissions Handbook
.

Yes
5 of 6

2.a
Packet Pg. 33
Signature
Name of signatory: Tracy Navichoque
Link to signature
Date Completed
07/26/2022
6 of 6

2.a
Packet Pg. 34
Human Relations Commission
Application
Submission date: 17 June 2022, 5:43AM
Receipt number: 6
Related form version: 3
Personal Information
Name chitra sharma
Address
City
Postal Code
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Do you have any relatives or members of your
household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto,
who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term
applied for?
Yes
1 of 5

2.a
Packet Pg. 35
Fair Political Practices
California state law requires board/commission members to file a disclosure of financial interests (
Fair Political Practices Commission
,
Conflict of Interest
,
Form 700
).

Do you/your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to:

1. Engage in business with the City;

2. Provide products or services for City projects; or

I give permission for the City of Palo Alto to post to
the City’s website the attached Board and
Commission Application intact.

I have read and
understand my rights under Government Code
Section 6254.21.

I may revoke this permission at any
time by providing written notice to the Palo Alto City
Clerk.

Alternate Contact Information - Address
Alternate Contact Information - Phone Number
Alternate Contact Information - Email
2 of 5

2.a
Packet Pg. 36
Personal and Job Experience
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional
registration.
(621 characters max)
MS Pharmaceutical Sciences - worked in the Biotech
industry for over 25 years and have a mindset to work
towards better governance and compliance in public
health for communities.

Have been part of the PTA at Duveneck and Palo Alto
High School, and volunteered heavily in the school
district for the last 11 years.

Am the block disaster coordinator and also helped
neighbors widely during Covid, esp those with
preexisting conditions and vulnerabilities.

Am actively engaged as a parent leader in the BSA
Troop 57 Boy Scout troop in Palo Alto.

My life goal is to volunteer and give back to my
neighbors and community.

Employment Information
Company/Employer Name
gCompliance, Inc.

Occupation
Scientist
Is your Company/Employer your current one or last?
Current Employer
Please describe your involvement in community
activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.
(1242 characters max)
1989-1992 Built a audio book library with recorded
books for the visually handicapped in Bombay, India
1992-1994 Raised funds for natural disasters such as
floods and earthquakes in the world for the school of
Internally affairs, UConn , CT
1995-1999 Served a non-profit to assist poor children
gain scholarships.
2000-2004 Worked to raise money to serve Breast
cancer
2013 Raised money and walked 39.2 miles for Breast
cancer awareness.
2006-2017 Active volunteer in PAUSD schools,
Duveneck PTA and PALY PTA-2022 Parent leader in
BSA Boy Scouts of America Troop 57
3 of 5

2.a
Packet Pg. 37
Application Questions

1. Why are you interested in serving on the
Human
Relations Commission and what experience would you
bring to the position?
(1518 characters max)
I want to work on actionable items on the city’s
community planning and help my community

Castelija school building issue

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you
like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve,
and how would you help in the process?
(1656 characters max)
I would like to streamline homelessness and see how
best to svt

4. Human Relations Commission Members work with
the documents listed below.

If you have experience with
any of these documents, please describe that
experience.

If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.
4 of 5

2.a
Packet Pg. 38
Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

View the
Boards and Commissions Handbook
.

Yes
Signature
Name of signatory: Chitra Sharma
Link to signature
Date Completed
06/17/2022
5 of 5

2.a
Packet Pg. 39
Human Relations Commission
Application
Submission date: 26 July 2022, 3:45PM
Receipt number: 13
Related form version: 3
Personal Information
Name Kat Snyder
Address
City
Postal Code
Cell Phone Number
Home Phone Number
Email Address
Are you a Palo Alto resident? Yes
Do you have any relatives or members of your
household who are employed by the City of Palo Alto,
who are currently serving on the City Council, or who are Commissioners or Board Members?
No
Are you available and committed to complete the term
applied for?
Yes
1 of 8

2.a
Packet Pg. 40
Fair Political Practices
California state law requires board/commission members to file a disclosure of financial interests (
Fair Political Practices Commission
,
Conflict of Interest
,
Form 700
).

Do you/your spouse have an investment in, or do you or your spouse serve as an officer or director of, a company doing business in Palo Alto which you believe is likely to:

1. Engage in business with the City;

2. Provide products or services for City projects; or

3. Be affected by decisions of this Board or Commission? No
Excluding your principal residence, do you or your
spouse own real property in Palo Alto?
No
How did you learn about the vacancy on the Human
Relations Commission?
Other: watching HRC and City Council meetings
Consent to Publish Personal Information on the City of Palo Alto Website Read the code, and check only ONE option below:

I request that the City of Palo Alto redact my home
address, phone numbers, and email address from the
attached Board and Commission Application prior to
posting to the City’s website.

I am providing the
following alternate information and request that the
following contact information below:

Alternate Contact Information - Address
Alternate Contact Information - Phone Number
Alternate Contact Information - Email
[email protected]
Personal and Job Experience
2 of 8

2.a
Packet Pg. 41
Please list your relevant education, training, experience, certificates of training, licenses, and professional
registration.
(621 characters max)
User Experience Researcher/Designer, Catalina Labs,
Palo Alto, CA, 2016-2017
User Experience Researcher, Go Live Labs,
Sunnyvale, CA, 2016
M.A. Psychology, Cognition and Perception UT Austin,
2014 (PhD Coursework)
B.S. Symbolic Systems, Stanford University, 2006
Educated in PAUSD 1990-2002
Peace Ambassador Training (one evening, July 2020)
via San Jose Peace and Justice Center. Learned de-
escalation tactics useful for march and rally
organizers.

Poll Monitor Training (one evening, before each
volunteer day) via Asian Law Caucus - Northern
California chapter
Employment Information
Company/Employer Name
Ashworth College, HVAC certification program
Occupation
student
Is your Company/Employer your current one or last?
Current Employer
3 of 8

2.a
Packet Pg. 42
Please describe your involvement in community
activities, volunteer and civic organizations, including dates and any offices held.
(1242 characters max)
- 350 Palo Alto Steering Committee Member, March
2022-present. Helped organize the 2022 Earth Day
event co-sponsored by the City of Palo Alto.

Organized an upcoming demo of an induction
cooktop powered by an electric vehicle at the Sept
25th Midtown Ice Cream Social.
- Palo Alto Against ICE, head of Ordinance
Committee, 2019-2020. The primary goal was to
research whether to and how to pass a city ordinance
that prohibits the city from contracting with any
companies that pass information to ICE. We also ran
actions such as public comment campaigns against
allowing Palantir to co-sponsor any city cultural
events, and a protest rally in front of Palantir that got covered in Business Insider.
- Volunteer Poll Monitor - Asian Law Caucus -
Northern California chapter. November 2020 general
election, monitored 4 precincts in San Francisco. June
2022 primary election, monitored 4 precincts in
Stanislaus County.
- Co-op Director, Laurel Housing Co-op, Austin, TX,
2008-2009 Ran a 60 person housing co-op as well as
managing a team of house officers. Ran house
elections and weekly house meetings.
- Board Member (and Finance Subcommittee
Member), College Houses Board of Directors, Austin,
TX, 2008-2009
Application Questions
4 of 8

2.a
Packet Pg. 43

1. Why are you interested in serving on the
Human
Relations Commission and what experience would you
bring to the position?
(1518 characters max)
This particular slot only runs through March and it
leaves the Climate Emergency workplan item without
any commissioners. I’ve attended the HRC meetings
for the past 3 years, I’ve watched every S/CAP
meeting, and I’m a steering committee member of 350
Palo Alto. I believe I’m well positioned to start work on the HRC and also to help head the Climate Emergency
item.

Participating in city government meetings has taught
me the scope of different committees/commissions
and of the standard deliverables from one body to
another. Getting from ideas to action involves
understanding the city process and how different
suggestions create different administrative burdens. I
also learn some of the latest city work on
electrification through my weekly 350 Palo Alto
meetings, which gives me more context for the city's
plans around the climate emergency and can help me
make recommendations that are better scoped for the
city.

My graduate psychology background helps me digest
and summarize the latest research about racial
trauma and effective healing interventions. We need
to use every tool in our toolbox to help provide
healing and create community resiliency as hate
crimes only continue to increase.

My work in cognitive psychology, and user experience
research and design, is especially pertinent when
designing for communities with disabilities or other
marginalized communities. I would also be well-
equipped to read through that research and bring that
knowledge to the table when designing new policies.
5 of 8

2.a
Packet Pg. 44

I have followed the national conversation around
policing, racism, and criminal justice reform since
Trayvon Martin was killed in 2012, but that was mostly
educating myself on the latest academic research
around the subject. After the death of George Floyd, I
made a promise to myself to get actively involved in
these issues at a city level because I can best make a
difference at the local level. I followed the 8 Can't Wait conversations through the HRC, City Council and
various other city forums at the time. I gave comment
where I thought appropriate - around changes in
police policy, around the first amendment right to
protest, and around the press' role in police oversight.

I even read through academic papers around police
policy reform and pulled out an actionable
suggestion, which the HRC's then Vice Chair Valerie
Stinger forwarded to City Council.

Over time and with experience, I'm learning to hone
my recommendations to better interface with city
government and I have also gradually gotten a wider
sense of the number of departments and bodies that
could and should be considered stakeholders in these
issues. I am committed to strengthening the city's
process around improving police policy as informed
by a wide variety of community, academic research,
and criminal justice perspectives.

3. If you are appointed, what specific goals would you
like to see the Human Relations Commission achieve,
and how would you help in the process?
(1656 characters max)
Note: Because of the short timeframe, I would first
ask the HRC to help me scope and prioritize the
following ideas
Climate Change: develop a disability-inclusive plan for public safety power shutoffs, wildfires, and floods.
- Collect and summarize background research on
what people across the spectrum of disability need
from emergency services.
- Interview a range of disability activists, disability organizations, people with disabilities, and caregivers 6 of 8

2.a
Packet Pg. 45
(when applicable) on their emergency services needs
and the barriers to meeting them.
- Seek out partnerships with governmental and non-
governmental organizations that help provide
emergency services to people with disabilities. Include any relevant stakeholders around our city's
emergency services in this conversation.
- Start a conversation around whether any of the
organizations from the previous bullet point should be
invited to apply for HSRAP grants, including the
Emerging Needs fund.

Hate Crimes:
- Flesh out trauma-informed interventions for victims
of Hate Crimes
- Partner with a community group that holds
bystander intervention trainings and create an
advertising campaign to urge Palo Alto residents to
complete the training
Police Reform:
- The HRC's review of 8 Can't Wait (as directed by City Council) was triggered by a national tragedy. Going
forward, it makes sense to create objective criteria for triggering a review of police policy by the City Council - and/or by the HRC, when applicable. I would
recommend that the HRC, in co-operation with
relevant stakeholders, draft a set of criteria for City Council to review.
7 of 8

2.a
Packet Pg. 46

4. Human Relations Commission Members work with
the documents listed below.

If you have experience with
any of these documents, please describe that
experience.

Experience with these documents is not
required for selection.
(690 characters max)
Human Services Needs Assessment (2020)
Muni Code 9.72 – Mandatory Response Program
Community Services Element of the Comprehensive Plan (2017) I am familiar with the Human Services Needs
Assessment document as that shows up during HRC
meetings. I am not familiar with the other two, but feel confident I could use them to fulfill my duties.

If you'd like to provide any additional documents, please upload below.

Please confirm that you have read the Boards and
Commissions Handbook.

View the
Boards and Commissions Handbook
.

Yes
Signature
Name of signatory: Katherine "Kat" Snyder
Link to signature
Date Completed
07/26/2022
8 of 8

2.a
Packet Pg. 47

City of Palo Alto (ID # 13999)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 8/8/2022 Report Type: Consent Calendar

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Adoption of a Resolution Establishing FY 2023 Property Tax Levy for General Obligation Bonds (Measure N Libraries)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Administrative Services

Recommendation
Adopt a resolution (Attachment A) approving the establish ment of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 property tax levy of $8.16 per $100,000 in Assessed Value (AV) for the secured and utility tax roll and $9.26 per $100,000 in AV for the unsecured tax roll for the City of Palo Alto's Measure N General Obligation (GO) Bond Library Bonds (First and Second Series).

Background
On November 4, 2008, City voters passed Measure N which gave the City authority to issue a maximum amount of $76 million of General Obligation bonds (the "Bonds") for capital improvements to the Mitchell Park, Downtown, and Rinconada (formerly Main) libraries and to construct the Mitchell Park Community Center . The City successfully sold the Bonds in two series to provide $76 million in funds for the design and construction costs. Both Standard and Poor's (S&P) and Moody's awarded their highest credit ratings, Triple A, to both series of Bonds which was affirmed by Standard and Poor’s and Moody’s in March 2021.

On March 1, 2016, Council approved the decommissioning of the Library Bond Oversight Committee and accepted a financial report showing approximately $3.0 million in project savings ( CMR: 6632) . In addition, bond premium of $3.1 million could be used to redeem and/or defease bonds. On June 6, 2016, Council authorized the use of $6.1 million of the Series 2010A & 2013A GO Bonds to defease and/or retire a portion of outstanding bonds and to pay associated redemption costs ( CMR: 6993). To maximize savings to property owners the longest bonds were paid off; total savings of $11 million were realized which includes $4.9 million in interest savings over time. Of the $11 million, $5.4 million will be saved through FY 2040 while $5.6 million will be saved from FY 2041 through FY 2044.

On March 2, 2022, Council approved the refinancing of the Series 2010A and 2013A outstanding principal of $40.6 million and $13.6 million respectively (CMR: 13438) on page 12 of link). The Series 2010A was refinanced as a tax -exempt bonds and Series 2013A was partially refinanced as taxable bonds. The tax reform bill passed by Congress and signed into law on 3 Packet Pg. 48

City of Palo Alto Page 2

December 22, 2017 prohibits the issuance of tax -exempt advance refunding bonds during the (ten-year) call protection period. The call pr otection period has passed on the Series 2010A Bonds, but it has not passed for the Series 2013A Bonds. The portions of the Series 2013A bonds or $2.1 million in principal, that had realized savings were refinance d. In total, a net present value savings of $4.5 million or 10.6 percent was realized. The cash savings is $6.4 million and average annual debt service savings over 18 years is $356 thousand. In the Council refinancing approval CMR the total cash savings was estimated at $7.5 million , however, the interest rate rose before the refinancing occurred due to the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) raising the federal funds rate by 0.25 percent on March 16, 20 22. This was the first FOMC rate increase after 17 consecutive meetings, since March 2020. There are three GO Bonds outstanding, the portion of the tax -exempt Series 2013A bonds that were not refinanced, the tax -exempt Series 2022A bonds that refinanced the Series 2010A bonds, and the taxable Series 2022B bonds that partially refinanced the Series 2013A bonds. Standard and Poor's (S&P) affirmed their highest credit ratings, Triple A, to both the issuer or City of Palo Alto’s General Fund credit rating and the long -term rating on the City’s GO Bonds outstanding in May 2022.

As of July 1, 2022, principal amount of $48.7 million is outstanding on the GO Bonds.

Discussion
Debt service payments on these Bonds are paid through ad valorem taxes on all taxable land and improvements (both secured and unsecured assessment roll) within the City. An ad valorem tax is a tax based on the assessed value of real estate (land, buildings and other structures) or personal property (e.g. airplane, business machinery, etc.) . Staff is seeking Council approval of the attached resolution (Attachment A) which authorizes th e placement of an ad valorem property tax levy in the amount of $0.00816 per $100 or $8.16 per $100,000 in AV for the secured tax roll; and $0.00926 per $100 or $9.26 per $100,000 in AV for the unsecured tax roll. In comparison, prior year’s secured and un secured tax levy was $9.26 and $9.56 respectively, per $100,000 of AV.

The assessment rate for FY 2023 is decreasing for both the secured and unsecured property taxes. The rate decreases are attributable to the rise in the Secured AV for properties throughout Palo Alto by 6.4 percent, an increase of $2.7 billion and the decrease in the annual debt service payments due to the lower interest rate realized due to the June 2022 refinancing.

In addition, the rise in AV during FY 2023, due to property sales a nd new construction, resulted in excess collections which further reduced the FY 2023 annual assessment.

As for the unsecured property taxes, per the County of Santa Clara’s methodology, the prior year’s secured tax rate becomes this year’s unsecured tax rate as a result this rate won’t benefit from the coming year’s AV increase and prior fiscal year’s refinancing until FY 2024. However, it did benefit from the Secured AV increase that occurred in FY 2022.

3 Packet Pg. 49

City of Palo Alto Page 3

With the new assessment for FY 2023, a house wi th an assessed value of $1.0 million, for example, would see an annual assessment of $81.60 on their property tax bill. In comparison, in FY 2022, a $1.0 million home had an assessment of $92.60.

Resource Impact
The bond issuances result in a 2023 calendar year debt service expenditure of approximately $4.11 million and Council approval of the attached resolution will result in ad valorem tax levy revenue of $3.82 million with the $0.30 million difference attributable to available funds on hand. As outlined in the Discussion section of this report, the secured and unsecured property owners will see a levy of $8.16 and $9.26, respectively, per $100,000 of AV on their FY 2023 property tax statement.

Stakeholder Engagement
This levy was reviewed and approved the voters in Palo Alto as part of the November 2008 election.

Environmental Review
There is no environmental review required for this report.

Attachments:
• Attachment3.a: Attachment A: Resolution Establishing FY 2022-23 Property Tax Levy
3 Packet Pg. 50
1 Attachment A

Not Yet Approved

Resolution No.

Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Establishing Fiscal Year 2023 Property Tax Levy of $8.16 Per $100,000 of Secured and $9.26 Per $100,000 of Unsecured Assessed Valuations for the City’s General Obligation Bond Indebtedness
(Measure N Library Projects)

R E C I T A L S

A. At the City of Palo Alto’s (“City”) general election held on November 4, 2008, more than two-thirds of voters approved Measure N, authorizing the issuance of general obligation bonds in the amount not to exceed $76,000,000 (the “Authorization”) to fund construction of a new Mitchell Park Library and Community center and renovation and improvements to Downtown and Main libraries.

B. Pursuant to the Authorization, the City issued two series (Series 2010A and 2013A) of general obligation bonds in June 2010 and June 2013 that yielded $75.8 million for project needs. In June 2022, the Series 2010A was refinanced with a tax-exempt Series 2022A and the Series 2013A was partially refinanced with a taxable Series 2022B. As a result, there are three general obligation bonds series outstanding, the Series 2013A portion that wasn’t refinanced and the refinanced Series 2022A and 2022B bonds.

C. The City is obligated to levy ad valorem taxes on all property within the City subject to taxation by the City, without limitation on rate or amount (except with respect to certain personal property which is taxed at limited rates), for the payment of the debt service on the Bonds.

D. The City is obligated to direct the County of Santa Clara to collect such ad valorem taxes in such amounts and at such times as is necessary to ensure the timely payment of debt service on the Bonds.

E. The amount of the annual ad valorem tax levied by the City to repay the Bonds is determined by the relationship between the assessed valuation of taxable property in the City and the amount of debt service due on the bonds.

The Council of the City of Palo Alto RESOLVES as follows:

SECTION 1. Pursuant to the Authorization, an ad valorem property tax is hereby established to be levied on all land and improvements in the City of Palo Alto during Fiscal Year 2023 in the amount of $0.00816 per $100 in assessed value for the secured and utility tax roll and $0.00926 per $100 in assessed value for the unsecured tax roll based

3.a
Packet Pg. 51
2 Attachment A

Not Yet Approved

on the calculations set forth in the attached Exhibit "A".

SECTION 2. The City’s Director of Administrative Services shall cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be delivered to the Auditor of the County of Santa Clara for entry in the assessment book of the respective sums in dollars and cents, to be paid as established by this Resolution.

SECTION 3. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary.

INTRODUCED AND PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

ATTEST:

City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:

Assistant City Attorney City Manager

Director of Administrative Services

3.a
Packet Pg. 52
A) Assessed Valuations (AV )
1 ) 2022-23 Taxable Secured Assessed Valuation (AV) 44,434,380,962 $ 2 ) 2022-23 Taxable Unsecured A V 2,088,552,009$
3 ) Less: Estimated Delinquenc y 0.00% - $
4 ) Net Taxable Unsecured AV 2,088,552,009$
5 ) Total Assessed Valuation (AV ) 46,522,932,971$
B) Tax Levy Requiremen t
5 ) 2023 Calendar Year Debt Service Payments
2013 (Tax-Exempt) GO Bonds - February 1,2023 234,650.00 $ 2013 (Tax-Exempt) GO Bonds - August 1, 2023 739,650.00 974,300.00 6 ) 2022A (Tax-Exempt) GO Bonds - February 1,2023 1,076,093.75 $ 7 ) 2022A (Tax-Exempt) GO Bonds - August 1, 2023 1,965,875.00 3,041,968.75 8 ) 2022B (Taxable) GO Bonds - February 1,2023 52,750.00 $ 9 ) 2022B (Taxable) GO Bonds - August 1, 2023 42,200.00 94,950.00 10 ) Total Calendar Year 2023 Debt Service Payments 4,111,218.75 11 ) Excess Funds on Hand Applied Toward Debt Service (300,000.00) 12 ) Sub-total 3,811,218.75
13 ) Santa Clara County Administration Fee (0.25% of Principal & Interest) 9,528.05 14 ) Total 2022-23 Annual Debt Service Requirement 3,820,746.80 C) Secured and Unsecured Tax Rate
15 ) 2022-23 Unsecured Tax Rate per $100 of Unsecured AV (Prior Year's Secured Tax Rate) 0.00926 $ 16 ) 2022-23 Unsecured Tax Rate per $100,000 of Unsecured AV 9.26 $ 17 ) 2022-23 Estimated Revenue from Unsecured AV (line 4 divide by 100 times by line 12) 193,399.92 $ 18 ) 2022-23 Estimated Revenue from Secured AV (line 11 minus line 13) 3,627,346.88 19 ) Total 2022-23 Annual Debt Service Requirement 3,820,746.80 $ 20 ) 2022-23 Secured Tax Rate per $100 of Secured AV (line 14 divided by line 1*100) 0.00816 $ 21 ) 2022-23 Secured Tax Rate per $100,000 of Secured AV (line 14 divided by line 1 times 100,000) 8.16 $ Exhibit A
City of Palo Alto
General Obligation (GO) Bonds, Election of 2008, Series 2013, 2022A and 2022B Tax Rate Calculation Based on 2022-23 Assessed Values

3.a
Packet Pg. 53

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14468)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 8/8/2022 Report Type: Consent Calendar

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Approval of the Rail Committee Charter and Workplan for 2022 -23 From: City Manager
Lead Department: Transportation Department

Recommendations
Rail Committee and Staff recommend that the City Council approve the Rail Committee Charter including its Guiding Principles and the Rail Committee Workplan for 2022-23.

Executive Summary
The Rail Committee and Staff worked to develop the Rail Committee Charter including the Rail Committee G uiding Principles and the Rail Committee Work plan for 2022 -23. The W orkplan includes the delegation of additional items within the Rail Committee scope associated with rail crossings as follows:
• Policy Items: Review grade separation selection criteria for any revisions • Bicycle and Pedestrian Items: Advance the planning and selection of new east -west bike/ped rail crossings , including consideration of whether the City should move forward on specific crossings before the upcoming Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is finished.
• Funding Items: Seek/Obtain funding for Palo Alto rail crossing projects and new east - west bike/ped rail crossings
The Rail Committee and staff recommend the City Council approval of the Rail Committee Charter and its Workplan.

Background and Discussion
With the re -initiation of the Rail Com mittee in April 2022, one of the tasks was to review the guiding principles and the committee workplan.

Rail Committee Charter & Guiding Principles

The rail committee charter and guiding principles provide for the framework and guidance to the Rail committee in performing, reviewing, conducting, and directing staff for work related to rail related infrastructure projects. The proposed update to the Committee charter in Attachment A would reflect anticipated work of the Committee in 2022 and 2023, and primarily includes the following:
4 Packet Pg. 54

City of Palo Alto Page 2

• Reviewing the mobility including bicycle and pedestrian across the Caltrain corridor; • Advocating for funding for Palo Alto grade separations; • Monitoring activities of the California High Speed Rail Authority and Caltrain; • Monitoring other relevant activities in the rail corridor such as San Francisquito Bridge along the Caltrain Corridor;
• Recommending specific comments/actions to the full Council

The Rail Committee and staff discussed the Rail Committee Charter that includ es the guiding principles at its June 15, 2022, meeting. The 2014 Rail Committee charter including the guiding principles was updated to reflect the current workplan related to the upcoming rail -related projects. The Charter was further worked upon by the Rail Committee Ad -hoc member s as directed by the committee. The updated draft of the Rail Committee Charter is included in Attachment A.

Rail Committee Workplan
The Rail Committee Workplan for 2022 -23 was developed in coordination with the rail committee with input from the community and members of the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP). The committee worked to refine the workplan at its May and June meeting s. The workplan for 2022 -23 was finalized by the committee on June 15, 2022. The detailed Rai l Committee Workplan for 2022-23 is included in this report as Attachment B.

The Rail Committee Workplan includes various elements related to the rail corridor. These items were previously in the rail charter and includes activities related to grade sepa rations and other items relevant to rail corridor, such as advocating for funding and monitoring activities for California High Speed Rail and Caltrain. With the re-initiation of the rail committee, the review the work associated wit h additional studies di rected by the council involving geotechnical study, review of construction technologies, refinement of the partial underpass/underpass alternatives of the grade separation , and outreach to key stakeholders would fall within the scope of Rail Committee. Add itionally, Council directed rail committee to include the following elements:

1. Review of the guiding principles and criteria

2. Pursue with Caltrain the reduction in areas in Palo Alto being considered for four tracks

3. Facilitate and engagement with Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) and Stanford on all grade crossings

4. Engage with Caltrain through the Local Policy Makers Group (LPMG) and staff to design alternatives and construction methods preferable to Palo Alto.

However, the workplan prepared by the Rail Committee will need the delegation of the following items to the Rail Committee's purview by the City Council:

Policy Items
• Review grade separation selection criteria for any revisions

4 Packet Pg. 55

City of Palo Alto Page 3

Bicycle and Pedestrian Items
• Advance the planning and se lection of new east -west bike/ped rail crossings, including consideration of whether the City should move forward on specific crossings before the upcoming Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan is finished.

Funding Items
• Seek/Obtain funding for Palo Alto rail crossing projects • Seek/Obtain funding for new east-west bike/ped rail crossings

The Rail Committee approved its Charter and Workplan for 2022 -23 with the consensus approval of the committee. Therefore, Rail Committee and Staff recommend that th e City Council approve the Rail Committee Charter including its guiding principles and Rail Committee Workplan for 2022-23

Resource Impact
The work involved in performing actions included in the Rail Committee Workplan for 2022-23 is generally associated with the grade separation projects. However, there may be some elements in the Workplan that involve other approved Capital Improvement Projects. Any project(s) resulting from the discussions at the Rail Committee will require City Council approval and direction. There is no financial impact at this time.

Stakeholder Engagement
The Rail Committee meetings are open to the public and therefore provide the community with opportunities to provide comments to the rail committee and the City . In 2022, these meetings were held on April 20, May 18, and June 15.

Environmental Review
The recommendation in this report does not constitute a project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and is therefore not subject to environmental review.

Attachments:
• Attachment4.a: ATTACHMENT A - Rail Committee Charter and Guiding Principles • Attachment4.b: ATTACHMENT B - Rail Committee Proposed 2022-23 Workplan 4 Packet Pg. 56
Rail Committee Charter
Proposed Draft August 9, 2022

Preamble
The City of Palo Alto supports transportation and urban design solutions for the Caltrain corridor that are compatible with community values and that complement the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan.

The Caltrain corridor has long been a physical constraint to east‐west movement in Palo Alto, and the current grade crossings create traffic congestion and pose safety and noise challenges that will get worse as the frequency of train service increases. As a result, the City actively participates in planning for the rail corridor, and supports changes that improve and do not exacerbate impacts to the Palo Alto community.

Purpose of the Committee:

The formation and purpose of the Rail Committee has changed over the years. In 2008, California voters pass Proposition 1A, the Safe, Reliable High‐Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century, authorizing issuance of $9.95 billion of general obligation bonds to partially fund a statewide high‐speed rail system. In 2009, the City Council created an ad hoc High Speed Rail Sub‐ Committee (which later became a standing committee and was renamed the High Speed Rail Committee) to swiftly be able to respond to the California High Speed Rail project planned for the Caltrain line. The Council also adopted a set of Guiding Principles which allowed the Committee to take a variety of actions in the name of the City without action of the full Council.

The Committee subsequently updated its Guiding Principles in 2010 and 2011 to address project changes. In 2012, Caltrain approved their Electrification Project and in 2013, the High Speed Rail Authority and Caltrain signed a Memorandum of Understanding for operations along the Caltrain corridor. As such, in 2013 the Committee was re‐named the Rail Committee to reflect the focus of issues related to Caltrain and High Speed Rail’s agreement to operate a “blended system” on the Caltrain corridor.

In 2015, the Rail Committee was re‐established with the goal of advancing the City’s objectives regarding grade separations. In 2016, Santa Clara County Voters Passed Measure B which includes $700 million for grade separations along the Caltrain Corridor. Work on grade separations continued in 2017 and 2018.

In 2019, Caltrain began work on it’s business plan while the City Council voted to further advance grade separation work through a series of community meetings and the formation of a Community

4.a
Packet Pg. 57
Advisory Panel (CAP) and then an Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) which provided their final report to the City Council in 2021.

The City Council’s Rail Committee was re‐established in 20222015 to further analyze and advance grade separated crossings for all modes of travel (bicycles, motor vehicles, transit, and pedestrians). While the Committee in the past has focused on High Speed Rail, Caltrain grade separations and electrification will be the essential focus of the Committee for 2017‐2018.

A detailed timeline of the City’s work on the Rail Corridor from 2008‐2021 is available at:
https://connectingpaloalto.com/timeline/
Guiding Principles

1. Palo Alto seeks to improve east‐west connectivity, traffic circulation, pedestrian and bicycle movements, safety, and the noise environment along the Caltrain corridor.

2. Palo Alto strongly supports Caltrain and the improved commuter rail service that will come as a result of modernization (including electrification).

3. Palo Alto will continue to work with Caltrain to ensure that all potential impacts of modernization are addressed and adopted mitigation measures are implemented.

4. Palo Alto supports Caltrain as the lead agency for all system improvements in the Caltrain corridor.

5. Palo Alto has long had concerns about the potential impacts of High Speed Rail and believes that the project should be terminated. If the project proceeds, CHSRA should provide funding for affected cities to analyze potential impacts and needed infrastructure.

6. Palo Alto believes that CAHSRA must coordinate with Caltrain as the lead agency and should fund the study and construction of any potential passing tracks and, if needed, grade separations or modifications to grade separations and should not commence service until they are complete.

7. Palo Alto will advocate strenuously for its fair share of County Measure B funding for grade separations and actively seek additional funding from Caltrain, CAHSRA, Santa Clara County, VTA, MTC, State, Federal, and other external funding sources.

8. Palo Alto supports the use of the Context Sensitive Solutions process for High Speed Rail and grade separations and will structure a CSS process to engage the community in selection of a preferred grade separation alternative for the corridor.

9. Palo Alto seeks modernization of freight operations onin the corridor and will seek flexibility from the UPRR to pursue desired improvements in the Caltrain corridor.

10. Palo Alto will work cooperatively with neighboring communities with respect to HSR and Caltrain issues of mutual concern, including grade separations, through efforts such as the Caltrain Local Policy Maker Working Group (LPMG).

4.a
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment B

DRAFT RAIL COMMITTEE 2022-23 WORKPLAN

Focus Issue Planned Rail Committee Activities Anticipated Timeframe A. Advance the planning and
design of preferred rail
crossing alternatives
• Review grade separation selection criteria for any
revisions
• Receive progress reports and review consultant
engineering studies as work proceeds
• Monitor and engage with Caltrain on San Francisquito
Bridge rehabilitation
• Consider the Comprehensive Plan, the Bicycle and
Pedestrain Transproation Plan, the 2012/2013 Rail Plan, and the SCAP plan in the review of grade separation
election criteira.
• Additional studies will take up to a year, dependent on start date and other criteria (such as any holds for 4
tracks info etc.)
B. Seek/Obtain funding for
Palo Alto rail crossing
projects
• Support for new funding opportunities and grants
• Monitor and engage with Caltrain, VTA, MTC, CAHSR, and other State/Federal funding/legislation
• City has advocated for funding opportunities and
applied for grants
• This is an ongoing task
C. Seek changes to rail design
criteria/technical standards
in order to reduce costs and
uncertainty to Palo Alto
crossing projects
• Advocate Caltrain review and revision of design
criteria/technical standards through LPMG
• Monitor and engage on HSR final EIR/EIS
• Letters to Caltrain sent regarding 4-tracks and key
design standards
• LPMG receiving regular updates on Caltrain grade
separation study
D. Advance the planning and
selection of new east-west
bike/ped rail crossings
• Receive updates and provide feedback on new crossings as Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP)
Update proceeds
• Rail Commmittee to work in parallell with BPTP update process for planning and prioritizing these new east-west bike/ped crossings.
• BPTP project is scheduled with procurement for
Request for Proposals in Summer, project to continue
into 2023
E. Seek/Obtain funding for
new east-west bike/ped rail
crossings
• Engage VTA for use and prioritization of Measure B Grade Separation funds for bike/ped crossings
• Letter sent to VTA requesting Measure B fund eligibility – awaiting VTA full response
• Staff reviewing Embarcadero/Alma near-term options &
prior CIP project end of life consideration of
Embarcadero-Alma project.
• Major funding applications will follow BPTP location
selection

4.b
Packet Pg. 59
Focus Issue Planned Rail Committee Activities Anticipated Timeframe F. Explore establishment of
quiet zones at Palo Alto
Avenue and elsewhere as
applicable
• Receive updates and provide feedback on quiet zone
study for Palo Alto Avenue
• TBD, pending Menlo Park’s bids/contract award
G. Engage Palo Alto
community in all rail
planning activities
• Receive presentations from outside agencies
• Receive information from additional community
engagement including (PAUSD, Stanford, PABAC, CSTSC,
community design experts)
• Following additional meetings, which are scheduled to occur in Summer/Fall
H. Engage with regional and
state agencies
• Participate and provide updates:
o Caltrain Local Policy Makers Group (LPMG) Delegated
to Rail Committee
o VTA Board
• Ongoing

4.b
Packet Pg. 60

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14575)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 8/8/2022 Report Type: Action Items

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Approval of Appointment and Employment Agreement with Andrew Binder as Chief of Police
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Human Resources

Recommendation

The City Manager recommends that the City Council approve the appointment of Andrew Binder as Chief of Police and his employment agreement (Attachment A).

Background

The Palo Alto City Charter and Municipal Code establish the City Manager as the appointing authority for all officers, department directors, and employees under the City Manager’ s control. The City Charter and Municipal Code additionally specify that the City Manager’s appointments of department heads are subject to approval of the City Council 1. Employment terms or benefits not included in the Council -approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel require City Council approval.

The Chief of Police position became vacant because of the retirement of Robert Jonsen announced earlier this year. The Palo Alto Police Department is one of fourteen departments in the City of Palo Alto and is supported by 125.5 FTE (86 sworn) and has an annual FY 2021 -22 General Fund budget of $40 million. The Department is organized across eight divisions: Field Services, Technical Services, Investigations, Traffic Services, Park ing Services, Police Personnel Services, Animal Services, and Administration. The Department responds to 55,000 calls for service annually with an average current response time of 6:30 for emergency calls.

Discussion

The City Manager re commends approval of the appointment of Andrew Binder to the position of Chief of Police 2. Binder’s law enforcement experience includes serving eighteen years with

1 Palo Alto Municipal Code 2.08.020 Approval of city manager's appointments. 2 Department Director responsibilities are specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code as follows: 2.08.170 Police department.
5 Packet Pg. 61

City of Palo Alto Page 2

the City of San Jose in addition to more than seven years in Palo Alto. In Palo Alto, Binder held several co mmand level executive leadership roles; progressing within the department from Lieutenant to Captain, and two years of experience as Assistant Chief, before serving in his current capacity as Acting Chief of Police since June. Binder holds a Criminal Justi ce Administration degree from San Jose State University and a Master's Degree in Criminal Justice from Arizona State University. He has also completed the FBI National Academy for Law Enforcement Managers, the POST Executive Development Course, the Stanfor d Local Government Summer Institute, and Leadership Palo Alto.

Binder was selected as a result of an extensive search that attracted nationwide interest among executive and qualified public safety leaders , conducted by the City’s Human Resources Department with assistance by Teri Black & Company. The City began recruitment for the Chief of Police in January 2022 when Chief Robert Jonsen announced his plans to retire in the summer of 2022. The City’s outreach strategy was to reach highly qualified and ded icated public safety leaders who align with the diverse and forward-thinking Palo Alto community. The City invested in advertising with 10 executive public safety sites, relevant government and affinity group -focused job boards, the City of Palo Alto’s web site with a dedicated page, and direct mailing outreach to 200 top safety leaders nationwide. In addition, the City Manager also conducted direct personal outreach to highly respected regional chiefs. This outreach resulted in 1,386 individuals viewing the job posting and 12 qualified public safety leaders submitting a cover letter and resume. For context, this volume of views is high, and th e number of candidates is typical for this type of position.

The selection and screening process included:
1) Experience, education, and training review of submitted candidate materials and phone screen of best -qualified applicants by consultant and Human Resources staff.
2) Multiple panel interviews that included residents, local business, faith, education , and other o rganizations, City leadership staff, public safety unions and police chiefs from other Bay Area cities. More details are provided in the Stakeholder Engagement section below.
3) Final interviews conducted by the City Manager with the top candidates.

Binder will be an “At -Will” employee, which means he will serve at the pleasure of the City Manager and can be terminated or asked to resign at any time. His initial annual salary will be $295,484 which is within the Council -approved salary range for the Police Chief position. The employment agreement includes 24 weeks of severance, which is commensurate with other highly responsible executive positions. The agreement also adjusts Binder’s annual vacation accrual to 200 hours annually in recognition of his prior years of service as a public safety officer. All other benefits offered are consistent with the Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel.

Binder’s appointment will be effective on August 9, 2022. 5 Packet Pg. 62

City of Palo Alto Page 3

Resource Impact

The Police Chief p osition is included in the FY 2023 Adopted Budget. No budget modifications or additional funding are necessary.

Policy Implications

This recommendation is consistent with existing City policies.

Stakeholder Engagement

In March, community engagemen t for the selection of the next Chief of Police began, and included a listening session hosted by the Human Relations Commission on March 10 , 2022 with City Manager Ed Shikada, and the two community listening sessions host ed by City Manager Shikada on March 19 and 31, 2022. The input received, and other feedback gained via a web input form and direct emails to the City Manager also helped to inform the process.

Themes heard from the community include transparency, accountability, and the importance of making community connections. The City’s recruitment brochure and candidate profile for the Chief of Police included themes from the community engagement process.

To review all the online feedback received through this process, a dedicated webpage was set up for the selection process of the Chief of Police and can be accessed at www.cityofpaloalto.org/policechiefselection.

The panel interview process consisted of 16 stakeholders including residents, local business, faith, City Executive Leadership s taff, public safety unions and Police Chiefs from Bay Area cities. Panelists included Don Austin, Superintendent, PAUSD; Lt. Ben Becchetti, Labor (PMA); Geo Blackshire, Palo Alto Fire Chief; Agt. Christopher Correia, Labor (PAPOA); Chantal Cotton Gaines, P alo Alto Deputy City Manager; Winter Dellenbach, Community Member; Erica Escalante, President, Buena Vista Residents Association; Annette Glanckopf, Team Leader, Palo Alto Emergency Services Volunteers; Hamilton Hitchings, Community Member; Meghan Horrigan-Taylor, Palo Alto Chief Communications Officer; Chris Hsiung, Mountain View Police Chief; David Mineta, CEO, Momentum for Health; Daryl Savage, Human Relations Commission (former chair); John Shenk, CEO, Thoits Brothers; Kaloma Smith, Human Relations Com mission Chair; and Shawny Williams, Vallejo Police Chief.

Environmental Review

This employment agreement is not a project for purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore no environmental review is required.

Attachments:
• Attachment5.a: Attachment A: Employment Agreement, Chief Binder 5 Packet Pg. 63
1 EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT

BETWEEN CITY OF PALO ALTO
AND

ANDREW BINDER

THIS AGREEMENT is between the City of Palo Alto, a municipal corporation and chartered city (“City”) and Andrew Binder (“Binder”). It is effective on the latest date next to the signatures on the last page.

This Agreement is entered into on the basis of the following facts:

A. City, acting by and through its City Manager, wishes to employ Binder as its Police Chief, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Charter of the City of Palo Alto (the "Charter").

B. Under chapter 2.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Police Chief is appointed by the City Manager with the approval of the City Council. Notwithstanding any provision of the City of Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, the Police Chief serves on an at-will basis, with no expectation of continued employment, and with no right to pre-or post-separation due process or appeal.

C. Binder desires to be employed by the City as its Police Chief, subject to the terms and conditions in this Agreement, the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Charter, the Palo Alto Merit System Rules and Regulations, and all other applicable laws, resolutions, and policies.

D. The City and Binder wish to establish specific terms and conditions relating to compensation and benefits and related matters.

BASED UPON THE FOREGOING, THE CITY AND BINDER AGREE AS FOLLOWS:

1. Employment. The City appoints Binder as its Police Chief for an indefinite term to begin on August 9, 2022 (“Employment Start Date”). Except as otherwise provided herein, Binder’s employment with the City shall be governed by the City Council-adopted Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time.

2. Duties of the Police Chief. Binder will perform the duties established for the Police Chief by the Palo Alto Municipal Code, by direction given by the City Manager, and as otherwise provided by law, ordinance, or regulation. Binder agrees to comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations applicable to or associated with these duties.

2.1. Full Energy and Skill. Binder will devote his full energy, skill, ability, and productive time to the performance of his duties.

5.a
Packet Pg. 64
2 2.2. No Conflict. Binder will not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or otherwise, which is actually or potentially in conflict with or which interferes with the performance of his duties. Binder acknowledges that he is subject to the various conflict of interest requirements found in the California Government Code and state and local policies and regulations.

2.3 Permission Required For Outside Activities. Binder will not engage in any employment, activity, consulting service, or other enterprise, for compensation or not, without written permission of the City Manager.

3. Salary. While performing the duties of Police Chief, Binder will receive a base salary within the range provided in the City Council-approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. Binder will receive an initial gross base annual salary of Two Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand Four Hundred and Eighty-Four Dollars ($295,484), beginning on the Employment Start Date, and subject to increases or changes approved by Council in the Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees. This amount is subject to authorized or required deductions and withholding, prorated and paid on City's regular paydays. Binder is an exempt employee under applicable wage and hour law and his base salary shall be compensation for all hours worked. The City agrees that the amount of Binder's base annual salary will not decrease, except as part of a permanent decrease that is consistent with the Fair Labor Standards Act.

4. Benefits, Allowances and Obligations. Binder will be eligible for, and shall receive, all regular benefits (i.e., health insurance, PERS contributions to the extent paid by the City, etc.) and vacation, sick leave, and management leave, as are generally provided to management employees under the City Council-approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time. In addition, Binder will assume all obligations and make all regular contributions (i.e., employee assumption of a portion of the employer PERS contribution) as are generally required of management employees under the City Council- approved Compensation Plan for Management and Professional Personnel and Council Appointees, as it currently exists and may be changed from time to time.

5. Additional Benefits and Allowances. In addition to the benefits specified in section 4, Binder will receive the following additional benefits and allowances:

5.1 Severance. If Binder is terminated or asked to resign, he shall, upon execution of a release of all claims against the City, be eligible for a severance payment equivalent to twelve (12) weeks of salary and benefits. The amount of the severance payment shall increase by twelve (12) weeks, to a total of twenty-four (24) weeks, on August 9, 2023. No severance shall be paid if Binder is terminated for serious misconduct involving abuse of his office or position, including, but not limited to, waste, fraud, violation of the law under color of authority, misappropriation of public resources, violence, harassment, or discrimination. If Binder is later convicted of a crime involving such abuse of his position, he shall fully reimburse the City as set forth in Government Code section 53243.3.

5.a
Packet Pg. 65
3 5.2 Vacation Leave Upon Start of Employment. In recognition of his prior public service, Binder will be credited with vacation leave at the rate applicable to an employee with nineteen or more years of continuous service, currently a rate of 200 hours annually, prorated and credited according to the City’s normal procedures.

6. Duration of Employment. Binder understands and agrees that he has no constitutionally protected property or other interest in his employment as Police Chief. Binder waives any and all rights, if any, under the Merit System Rules and Regulations, including without limitation, the right to pre-or post- disciplinary due process. Binder understands and agrees that he works at the will and pleasure of the City Manager and that he may be terminated or asked to resign at any time, with or without cause.

Binder may terminate this agreement (terminating all employment) upon 30 days written notice to the City Manager.

7. Miscellaneous.

7.1. Notices. Notices given under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be either: a) served personally; or b) sent by Email (provided a hard copy is mailed within one (1) business day); or c) delivered by first-class United States mail, certified, with postage prepaid and a return receipt requested; or d) sent by Federal Express, or some equivalent private mail delivery service. Notices shall be deemed received at the earlier of actual receipt or three (3) days following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices shall be directed to the addresses shown below, provided that a party may change such party's address for notice by giving written notice to the other party in accordance with this subsection.

CITY: Attn: City Manager
250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phone: (650) 329-22280
Fax: (650) 328-3631

BINDER: Andrew Binder
250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301

7.2. Entire Agreement/ Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire understanding and agreement between the parties as to those matters contained in it, and supersedes any and all prior or contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties. This Agreement may be amended at any time by mutual agreement of the parties, but any such amendment must be in writing, dated, and signed by the parties and attached hereto.

5.a
Packet Pg. 66
4 7.3. Applicable Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to the laws of the State of California. Venue of any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the proper court in Santa Clara County.

7.4. Severability. In the event any portion of this Agreement is declared void, such portion shall be severed from this Agreement and the remaining provisions shall remain in effect, unless the result of such severance would be to substantially alter this Agreement or the obligations of the parties, in which case this Agreement shall be immediately terminated.

7.5. Waiver. Any failure of a party to insist upon strict compliance with any term, undertaking, or condition of this Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, undertaking, or condition. To be effective, a waiver must be in writing, signed and dated by the parties.

7.6. Representation by Counsel. Binder and the City acknowledge that they each did, or had the opportunity to, consult with legal counsel of their respective choices with respect to the matters that are the subject of this Agreement prior to executing it.

7.7. Section Headings. The headings on each of the sections and subsections of this Agreement are for the convenience of the parties only and do not limit or expand the contents of any such section or subsection.

BINDER CITY OF PALO ALTO

Andrew Binder City Manager

Date: Date:

Approved as to Form:

Chief Assistant City Attorney

5.a
Packet Pg. 67

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14446)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 8/8/2022 Report Type: Action Items

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Adoption of an Ordinance Approving the Police Department's Military Equipment Use Policy Under AB 481
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Police

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt an ordinance (Attachment A) approving the Palo Alto Police Department Military Equipment Use Policy in accordance with AB 481.

Background
Assembly Bill 481 (Attachment B) was adopted by the Californ ia Legislature and approved by Governor Gavin Newsom in September 2021 . It went into effect on January 1, 2022. AB 481 is designed to increase community awareness and oversight over the possession and use by local police departments of certain types of equipment that AB 481 labels as “military” equipment. It requires the City Council to provide both authorization and oversight of the equipment used.

The law , codified in California Government Code sections 7070 through 7075, requires law enforcement agencies to produce a military equipment use policy that identifies and describes:
each type of military equipment; its authorized use; fiscal impact; rules/laws that govern use of such equipment; training required; and mechanisms to ensure compliance with the policy . (See Gov. Code section 7070(d)). The City Council is required to approve the policy for the Department to continue using this equipment. Additionally, the law requires an annual report and annual review by the governing body for continued use of the equipment. AB 481 requires every local law enforcement agency in California to post its proposed military equip ment use policy no later than May 1, 2022. The law also requires at least a 30 -day period for public comment on the proposed policy before the governing body discusses the proposed policy in a public meeting.

Police agencies across the state have developed similar policies to comply with this new law.

The Department’s proposed policy describes the equipment that has already been in the Department’s possession. The Department does not anticipate adding any new equipment. The Department does not possess any equipment that is atypical for the region. Palo Alto possesses fewer types of this equipment than many other Bay Area agencies.

Discussion
6 Packet Pg. 68

City of Palo Alto Page 2

Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance approving the proposed Military Equipment Use Policy to ensure that the Palo Alto Police Department will continue to have access to each of its existing pieces of qualifying equipment, and to affirm the corresponding policies and procedures applicable to maintenance and use of the equipment.

On Apr il 28, 2022, the Police Department launched a new web page (viewable at www.cityofpaloalto.org/PAPDequipment ) dedicated to AB 481. This web page include s a link to a Medium article posted by the City on the same day explaining the new law, a link to the proposed policy, and a web form to collect community input about the draft proposed policy.

Since the web page launched on April 28, 2022, the Police Department has received one response from the community via the web form. The response is attached (Attachment C).

AB 481 defines the term “military equipment” to include many pieces of equipment that are designed exclusively for, and commonly used by, local law enforcement agencies throughout the United States. While the Palo Alto Police Department possess es some equipment as defined by AB 481, the types of equipment possessed by the Palo Alto Police Department have been possessed for years (in some cases decades) and are all designed specifically for a law enforcement (not military) application. Under AB 481, military equipment is defined as: drones and robots; command and control vehicles; military-grade vehicles for breaching (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles ( MRAP) and Humvees) ; vehicle s propelled by tracks; weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles; explosive rams, slugs, or breaching devices; any .50 caliber or larger weapon or ammunition; any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles; “flashbang” grenades and explosive breaching tools, “tear gas ,” and “pepperballs”; Taser Shockwave, microwave weapons, water cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD); 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag ,” rubber bullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons; any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight. (See Gov. Code section 7070(c)).

For each type of qualifying equipment possessed by the Palo Alto Police Department, the possession and use o f that equipment was already governed by applicable Department policy, various statutes, and state and federal case law before the state enacted AB 481. Personnel of the Palo Alto Police Department meet or exceed all California Peace Officer Standards & Training (POST) training requirements that apply to the qualifying equipment.

In addition, many of the pieces of qualifying equipment possessed by the Palo Alto Police Department are specifically designed for the safe resolution of critical incidents, as op posed to everyday routine patrol deployment; as such, some are used exclusively by members of the specially-trained PAPD Crisis Response Unit (which includes the Special Weapons & Tactics Team and the Crisis Negotiation Team), who receive additional specia lized training in the use of the equipment. The proposed policy outlines all qualifying equipment possessed by the Department in Section “G” on page 4 of the policy. S everal pieces of qualifying equipment are designed to support community safety and criminal apprehension by:
6 Packet Pg. 69

City of Palo Alto Page 3

• Alternatives to the use of deadly force, such as less-lethal munitions and chemical agents available to properly certified and/or trained sworn officers to provide less -lethal force options to safely effectuate arrests of criminal suspects in limited situations. • Means of de -escalation, such as the long -range acoustic device intended to send messages to facilitate communications with subjects from a safe distance. • Means of gathering information without jeopardizing the safety of officer s, bystanders, and criminal suspects, such as an unmanned aerial vehicle or robot, neither of which are possessed by the Palo Alto Police Department but that may be used by a partner law enforcement agency to safely resolve a critical incident during a mutual aid event. • Command and control vehicle ( the Mobile Emergency Operations Center, or MEOC ) which serves as a mobile command post at critical incidents, disasters, or special events, as well as a backup 9 –1–1 dispatch center in the event the City’s main dispatch center is compromised or unavailable; (the MEOC is most typically operated by the City’s Office of Emergency Services).
• Diversionary devices, used exclusively by members of the Department’s SWAT team who have received specialized additional training; the equipment creates an auditory and visual diversion to facilitate the operation of tactical teams during a critical public safety incident.
• One sniper rifle with associated ammunition, used exclusively by members of the Department’s SWAT team who have received specialized additional training. While not covered by AB 481, all properly trained patrol of ficers carry standard-issue AR-15 patrol rifles that are carried locked in patrol vehicles. In both cases, rifles allow sworn officers to address threats with greater precision at a greater distance.

Per state law, the Police Department will release a pub lic report annually to discuss any actual deployments or use of the equipment, gain public input on the report, and obtain authorization from the City Council to continue its use.

AB 481 requires the City Council to consider the proposed military equipment use policy and make the following findings in approving the policy:

1. The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

2. The proposed military equipment use po licy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.

3. If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.

4. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military 6 Packet Pg. 70

City of Palo Alto Page 4

equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming u ses and ensure future compliance. (See Gov. Code section 7071(d)(1)).

Should the Council desire to approve the policy, these findings are made in the attached ordinance.

Stakeholder Engagement
The Department and the City Manager’s Communications Offi ce collaborated on public communications about this proposed policy. In addition to the dedicated webpage on this topic, and a blog post issued, information was shared via the City’s homepage news, and distributed through the City and Police Department’s s ocial media channels, Uplift Local digital newsletter. The community input portal has been active since April 28, 2022 and will con tinue to be a place for the community to comment. To date, the Police Department has received one response from the community via the web form (Attachment C).

Policy Implications
With Council approval of the proposed policy, the Police Department will co ntinue to have access to each of its existing pieces of qualifying equipment, and the corresponding policies and procedures surrounding the use of the equipment will remain in effect.

Resource Impact
There are no budget implications resulting from the a doption of this policy. Staff time will be required to prepare the annual report, which will occur within regularly assigned duties.

Environmental Review
Adoption of an ordinance approving a military equipment use policy is not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA.

Attachments
• Attachment A: Ordinance Approving City’s Military Equipment Use Policy • Attachment B: Assembly Bill 481
• Attachment C: Public Input for Proposed Policy on AB 481 Attachments:
• Attachment6.a: Attachment A: Ordinance Approving City's Military Equipment Use Policy
• Attachment6.b: Attachment B: Assembly Bill 481
• Attachment6.c: Attachment C AB481 comment 5-6-2022
6 Packet Pg. 71
*NOT YET APPROVED*
1 257_20220725_ts24
Ordinance No. _____

Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Implementing AB 481 (2021) by Approving a Military Equipment Use Policy

The Council of the City of Palo Alto ORDAINS as follows:

SECTION 1. Findings and declarations. The City Council finds and declares as follows:

1. In 2021, the California Legislature and the Governor approved AB 481, which requires the City Council to approve a “Military Equipment Use Policy” in order to acquire, use, or seek funds for t he use of certain equipment used by law enforcement. AB 481 is codified at Gov. Code section 7070 et seq.

2. The Palo Alto Police Department posted the proposed p olicy on its website on April 28, 2022 in compliance with Gov. Code section 7071.

3. The policy is attached to this ordinance as Exhibit A and is fully incorporated into this Ordinance.

4. The City Council now seeks to approve the attached Military Equipment Use Policy in compliance with AB 481.

SECTION 2. The City Council makes the following required findings in compliance with AB 481 (now codified at Gov. Code section 7071(d)(1)) as to the attached Military Equipment Use Policy:
(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
(C) The equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

SECTION 3
. The City Council hereby approves the attached Military Equipment Use Policy incorporated as Exhibit A to this ordinance.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.

The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the O rdinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional.

6.a
Packet Pg. 72
*NOT YET APPROVED*
2 257_20220725_ts24
SECTION 5. The Council finds that adoption of this Ordinance is not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA.

SECTION 6. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty -first date after the date of its adoption.

SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall be uncodified.

INTRODUCED:

PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

NOT PARTICIPATING:

ATTEST:

____________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:

____________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney City Manager

____________________________
Chief of Police

6.a
Packet Pg. 73
PAPD Military Equipment Use Policy Page 1 of 10
Palo Alto Police Department Military Equipment Use Policy

PURPOSE
This policy is provided to fulfill the obligations set forth in Assembly Bill No. 481 and establishes
guidelines for the acquisition, funding, use and reporting of “military equipment”, as the term is defined in Government Code section 7070. These obligations include but are not limited to seeking approval on specific items deemed, by statute, to be military equipment and requirements related to compliance, annual reporting, cataloging, and complaints regarding these items.

PROCEDURE
A. DEFINITIONS

1. Governing Body – The City Council of the City of Palo Alto.

2. Military Equipment – Shall have the same meaning as defined by California Government Code § 7070(c).

B. GOVERNING BODY APPROVAL

1. The Department shall obtain approval of the governing body prior to engaging in any of the following activities:
a. Requesting military equipment made available pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code.
b. Seeking funds for military equipment including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting private, local, state, or federal funds, in‐kind donations, or other donations or transfers.
c. Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily, including by borrowing or leasing.
d. Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body. e. Using any new or existing military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not previously approved by the governing body pursuant to general order f. Soliciting or responding to a proposal for, or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment.
g. Acquiring military equipment through any means not provided in a. through f.

2. In seeking the approval of the governing body, the Department shall comply with Gov. Code § 7071, which requires that the Department submit a proposed military equipment use policy, or subsequent amendments, to the City Council and the public via the law enforcement Exhibit A6.a
Packet Pg. 74
PAPD Military Equipment Use Policy Page 2 of 1 0

agency’s internet website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue.

3. The governing body must be able to make the following findings in approving the Military Equipment Use Policy as required by Gov. Code § 7071(d)(1) in order to use military equipment:

a. The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. b. The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
c. If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. d. Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.

C. MILITARY EQUIPMENT ANNUAL REPORT

The Department shall submit an annual military equipment report to the governing body that addresses each type of military equipment possessed by the Department in compliance with Gov. Code § 7072.

1. The Department shall also make each annual military equipment report publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use.

2. The annual military equipment report shall, at a minimum, include the following information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
a. A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use. b. A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.
c. The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response. d. The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report. e. The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. f. If the Department intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.

6.a
Packet Pg. 75
PAPD Military Equipment Use Policy Page 3 of 1 0

The Department will document each use of military equipment and, via administrative review, ensure compliance with this policy. Any instances of non‐compliance will be reported to the City Council via the annual military equipment report, and to the Independent Police Auditor where appropriate.

D. MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY COMPLAINTS AND CONCERNS

Pursuant to Gov. Code § 7070(d)(7), members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions by any of the following means:

1. Via web form available at www.cityofpaloalto.org/PAPDequipment

2. Via phone call to: (650) 329‐2406

3. Via mail sent to: Palo Al to Police Department
Attn: Personnel and Training
275 Forest Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
The Department is committed to responding to complaints, concerns and/or questions received through any of the above methods in a timely manner.

E. MILITARY EQUIPMENT TRAINING

Military equipment shall only be used after applicable training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training (P.O.S.T.), has been completed, unless exigent circumstances arise.

F. MILITARY USE EQUIPMENT POLICY CONTENTS

All military use equipment kept and maintained by the Department shall be cataloged in a way which addresses each of the following requirements in compliance with Gov. Code § 7070(d):

1. A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, expected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment.

2. The purposes and authorized uses for which the law enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment.

3. The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment.

4. The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use.

5. The training, including any course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before any officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military

6.a
Packet Pg. 76
PAPD Military Equipment Use Policy Page 4 of 1 0

equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy.

6. The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.

G. USE POLICY FOR SPECIFIC EQUIPMENT

Qualifying Equipment Owned/Utilized by the Department

Equipment Type: 37mm Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions ‐ CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(14)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 30 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: The 37MM Less Lethal Launcher is capable of firing 37MM Kinetic Energy and Chemical Agent Munitions. Palo Alto PD only possesses “KO1” impact baton rounds in its inventory.

Manufacturer Product Description: Sage Control Ordinance 37MM launchers are rugged, reliable, and simple to operate less lethal launchers. These launchers are light weight, versatile and used worldwide by police officers. The 37MM launcher family of products is available in single‐shot (“Ace”), double‐shot (“Deuce”), or magazine fed configurations. Palo Alto PD possesses the “Ace” and “Deuce” models.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: The 37MM Less Lethal Launchers and Kinetic Energy Munitions are intended for use as a less lethal use of force option. Kinetic energy projectiles, when used properly, are less likely to result in death or serious physical injury and can be used in an attempt to de‐escalate a potentially deadly situation.

Circumstances appropriate for deployment include, but are not limited to, situations in which:

(a) The suspect is armed with a weapon and the tactical circumstances allow for the safe application of approved munitions.
(b) The suspect has made credible threats to harm him/herself or others. (c) The suspect is engaged in riotous behavior or is throwing rocks, bottles or other dangerous projectiles at people and/or officers.
(d) There is probable cause to believe that the suspect has already committed a crime of violence and is refusing to comply with lawful orders.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of this equipment was approximately $27,000. The ongoing costs for munitions will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Use governed by applicable State, Federal and Local law, and PAPD policy, including but not limited to PAPD policy §§ 300 (Use of Force) and 308 (Control Devices and Techniques). Use will continue to be subject to an administrative Use of Force review.

6.a
Packet Pg. 77
PAPD Military Equipment Use Policy Page 5 of 1 0

Training Required: Officers must complete a department certified 37mm course as well as regular training and qualifications as required by law and policy.

Other Notes: None.

Equipment Type: Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD) ‐ CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(13) Quantity Owned/Sought: 1 Lifespan: Unknown.

Equipment Capabilities: LRAD systems are a type of Acoustic Hailing Device (AHD) used to send messages over long distances. LRAD systems produce much higher sound levels (volume) than normal loudspeakers or megaphones, and can be more narrowly directed.

Manufacturer Product Description: LRAD systems are a type of Acoustic Hailing Device (AHD) used to send messages over long distances. LRAD systems produce much higher sound levels (volume) than normal loudspeakers or megaphones. Over shorter distances, LRAD signals are loud enough to cause pain in the ears of people in their path.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: Primarily used to communicate, from a safe distance, with armed and/or barricaded subjects, for the purpose of negotiation. Can also be used in furtherance of search and rescue operations, and to communicate lawful dispersal orders.

Fiscal Impacts:

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Use governed by applicable State, Federal and Local law, and PAPD policy, including but not limited to PAPD policy § 414 (Hostage and Barricade Incidents). Use will be subject to an administrative review.

Training Required: The Palo Alto Police Department provides internal training for staff members prior to allowing them to use this equipment.

Other Notes: This equipment is maintained and operated by members of the Department’s Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT).

Equipment Type: Diversionary Devices and Chemical Agents (tear gas) and pepper balls ‐ CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(12)
Quantity Owned/Sought: 108 Lifespan: 5 years
Equipment Capabilities: Capable of creating auditory/visual distractions, and/or deploying tear gas or pepper chemical to distract potentially dangerous individuals.

Manufacturer Product Description:

The Palo Alto Police Department uses Diversionary Devices and Chemical Agents produced by Defense Technology (DT) and Combined Tactical Systems (CTS). All Chemical Agents utilized by PAPD contain CS (Orthochlorobenzalmalononitrile) or OC (Oleoresin Capsicum).

Diversionary Devices:

1. Flash‐Bang (CTS‐7290)
a. The CTS 7290 is the standard for diversionary flash‐bang devices. The 7290 produces a 165‐180db and 6‐8 million candela of light output.

6.a
Packet Pg. 78
PAPD Military Equipment Use Policy Page 6 of 1 0

2. Mini‐Bang (CTS‐7290M)
a. The Model 7290M Flash‐Bang exhibits all of the same attributes of its larger counterpart but in a smaller and lighter package. Weighing in at just 15 ounces the new 7290M is approximately 30% lighter than the 7290 but still has the same 180db output of the 7290 and produces 6‐8 million candela of light.

Chemical Agents:

1. CS 37mm Liquid Ferret Barricade Round (CTS‐3330)
a. 3330 – Liquid CS filled projectile penetrates intermediate barriers and delivers irritant agents into an adjacent room.

2. CS 37mm Liquid Ferret Barricade Round (DT‐1162)
a. The Ferret® 37 mm CS Round is a frangible projectile filled with chemical agent. Upon impacting the barrier, the nose cone ruptures and instantaneously delivers the .16 oz. agent payload inside a structure.

3. CS Flameless Tri‐Chamber (DT‐1032)
a. The design of the Tri‐Chamber Flameless CS Grenade allows the contents to burn within an internal can and disperse the agent safely with reduced risk of fire. The grenade is designed primarily for indoor tactical situations to detect and/or dislodge a barricaded subject. This grenade will deliver approximately .70 oz. of agent during its 20‐25 seconds burn time. The Tri‐Chamber Flameless Grenade can be used in crowd control as well as tactical deployment situations by Law Enforcement and Corrections, but was designed with the barricade situation in mind.

4. CS Triple Chaser Separating Canister (DT‐1026)
a. The Triple‐Chaser® CS consists of three separate canisters pressed together with separating charges between each. When deployed, the canisters separate allowing increased area coverage in a short period of time. This grenade can be hand thrown or launched from a fired delivery system.

5. CS Riot Control (DT‐1082)
a. The Riot Control CS Grenade is designed specifically for outdoor use in crowd control situations with a high volume continuous burn. . This grenade can be used to conceal tactical movement or to route a crowd. The volume of smoke and agent is vast and obtrusive. .

Smoke:

1. Maximum HC (Hexachlorethane) Smoke (DT‐1073)
a. The Maximum Smoke Grenade is designed specifically for outdoor use in crowd control situations with a high volume continuous burn. This grenade can be used to conceal tactical movement or to route a crowd. The volume of non‐irritant smoke and agent is vast and obtrusive.

Pepperball:

6.a
Packet Pg. 79
PAPD Military Equipment Use Policy Page 7 of 1 0

Less lethal launchers are designed for minimum time between launches and quick reload speed, so whether in a crowd control scenario, tactical or even Mobile Field Force situation, the PepperBall system offers flexibility, safety and security, all within one platform. Each launcher is air powered, with either carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen, or compressed air powering the launch of projectiles.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: creating explosive distractions, and/or deploying chemical agents.

Fiscal Impacts: The initial cost of the Pepperball equipment was approximately $7,920. The ongoing costs for munitions will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

The initial cost of the distraction devices and chemical agents was approximately $2,400. The ongoing costs for munitions will vary and (minimal, if any) maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use Use governed by applicable State, Federal and Local law, and PAPD policy, including but not limited to PAPD policy §§ 300 (Use of Force), 308 (Control Devices and Techniques), and 408 (Crisis Response Unit).Use of tear gas or pepper balls will continue to be subject to an administrative Use of Force review. Use of distraction devices will be subject to an administrative review to ensure policy compliance.

Training Required: A P.O.S.T. certified Control Devices and Techniques Department chemical agent and distraction device instructor provides internal training for all members of the SWAT team prior to allowing them to use flashbang grenades or tear gas. The Department provides internal training for all members prior to allowing them to use pepper balls.

Other Notes: Distraction devices and chemical agents are exclusively maintained and operated by members of the Department’s Special Weapons and Tactics Team (SWAT).

Equipment Type: Bolt Action Rifle and Ammunition ‐ CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(10) Quantity Owned/Sought: 1 owned Lifespan: Approximately 15 years Equipment Capabilities: Accuracy International rifle is capable of firing a 7.62mm/.308 cal projectile bullet.

Manufacturer Product Description: Accuracy International (AI) Accuracy Tactical bolt action rifle .308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO.

1. 20" barrel threaded 5/8x24

2. Nightforce:C622 Scope .250 MOA

3. AI Adjustable cheek piece

4. AI Two‐stage trigger

5. AI 10‐round .380 caliber magazine

6. AI Three‐position safety

Purpose/Authorized Uses: This rifle is authorized for use by a specially‐trained, SWAT marksman only and may be deployed in any circumstance where the officer can articulate a reasonable expectation that the rifle may be needed. Examples of some general guidelines for deploying the rifle may include but are not limited to:

1. Situations where the officer reasonably anticipates an armed encounter.

6.a
Packet Pg. 80
PAPD Military Equipment Use Policy Page 8 of 1 0

2. When the officer is faced with a situation that may require accurate and effective fire at long range.

3. Situations where an officer reasonably expects the need to meet or exceed a suspect's firepower.

4. When an officer reasonably believes that there may be a need to fire on a barricaded person or a person with a hostage.

5. When an officer reasonably believes that a suspect may be wearing body armor.

6. When authorized or requested by a supervisor.

Fiscal Impacts: This equipment was purchased by the Palo Alto Police Department at an initial cost of $6500.00. The ongoing costs for ammunition will vary and maintenance is conducted by departmental staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Use governed by applicable State, Federal and Local law, and PAPD policy, including but not limited to PAPD policy §§ 300 (Use of Force), 312 (Firearms), and 408 (Crisis Response Unit).Each use will continue to be subject to an administrative Use of Force review.

Training Required: In addition to CA P.O.S.T. certified patrol rifle and CA P.O.S.T. certified standard SWAT Operator training, SWAT marksmen must successfully complete a CA P.O.S.T. certified course as well as regular SWAT marksmanship training and qualifications as required by law and policy.

Other Notes: The Palo Alto Police Department does not presently have an active‐duty SWAT marksman among its staff, so there are no Palo Alto Police personnel presently authorized to use this Military Equipment.

Qualifying Equipment Owned/Utilized by Palo Alto OES

Equipment Type: Command and control vehicle – CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(5) Quantity Owned/Sought: 1 Lifespan: Approximately 20 years Equipment Capabilities: The City of Palo Alto Office of Emergency Services (OES) has a Mobile Emergency Operations Center (MEOC) vehicle.

Manufacturer Product Description: The MEOC is built on a 40’ Freightliner chassis, 2010 Model Year.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: The MEOC serves as a resource for public safety and coordinates with other such vehicles operated by other agencies. It is deployed to “all hazards” ranging from natural disasters, wildfires, crime, special events, and planned and unplanned disruptions to 9‐1‐1 and Emergency Operations Center systems and facilities.

Fiscal Impacts: The MEOC was acquired in approximately 2010 with grant funding of $300,000 and City funding of $375,000. The ongoing costs for maintenance and operation will vary and most maintenance is conducted by City staff.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: It is the policy of OES to use the MEOC in accordance with California State law regarding the operation of motor vehicles. Furthermore, since the MEOC is grant‐funded and since the MEOC is a rare resource, the City may support mutual

6.a
Packet Pg. 81
PAPD Military Equipment Use Policy Page 9 of 1 0

aid with the MEOC (for example wildfire response). Use will be subject to an administrative review to ensure policy compliance.

Training Required: The MEOC is a highly complex system. City staff are provided with requisite training and licensing, depending on their role in supporting the MEOC.

Other Notes: The MEOC is not a “military vehicle” but could support coordination with the National Guard, FEMA, and other cooperating agencies after a major earthquake or other disaster.

Qualifying Equipment known to be owned and/or utilized by law enforcement units with which the Palo Alto Police Department c ollaborates and/or participate s for law enforcement purposes

Equipment Type: Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS/Drones) – CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(1) Quantity Owned/Sought: None (outside owned) Lifespan: Various Equipment Capabilities: Remotely piloted aerial vehicles capable of providing live and recorded video images captured from aerial positions, including images enhanced by Forward Looking Infrared (FLIR) and optical zoom lenses.

Manufacturer Product Description: Various. Dependent upon the availability of mutual aid equipment and personnel at the time of need.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: UAS/Drones may be utilized to enhance the Department’s mission of protecting lives and property when other means and resources are not available or are less effective. Uses may include but are not limited to: search and rescue; suspect apprehension; crime scene documentation; tactical operations; scene security; hazard monitoring, identification and mitigation; response to emergency calls; crisis communications; legally authorized surveillance.

Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by another agency.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Use governed by applicable State, Federal and Local law, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, and PAPD policy, including but not limited to PAPD policy §§ 322 (Search and Seizure) and 352 (Outside Agency Assistance).Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations . Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to FAA altitude regulations and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., residence, yard, enclosure). Operators and observers shall take reasonable precautions to avoid inadvertently recording or transmitting images of areas where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Upon mutual aid or other request from PAPD, UAS/Drone will be operated by the deploying agency’s staff pursuant to their own policies and review.

Training Required: Prior to piloting any UAS/Drone staff members must secure an FAA Remote Pilot License and complete all training required by our FAA COA.

Other Notes: None.

6.a
Packet Pg. 82
PAPD Military Equipment Use Policy Page 10 of 10

Equipment Type: Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered ground vehicles ‐ CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(1)
Quantity Owned/Sought: None (outside owned) Lifespan: Various Equipment Capabilities: Robots are capable of being remotely navigated to provide scene information and intelligence in the form of video and still images transmitted to first responders.

Manufacturer Product Description: Various. Dependent upon the availability of mutual aid equipment and personnel at the time of need.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: To enhance the safety of potentially dangerous situations by providing first responders with the ability to capture video and still images of hazardous areas prior to, or in lieu of, sending in personnel.

Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by another agency.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Absent a warrant or exigent circumstances, operators and observers shall adhere to all applicable privacy laws and shall not intentionally record or transmit images of any location where a person would have a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., residence, yard, enclosure). Use governed by applicable State, Federal and Local law, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations, and PAPD policy, including but not limited to PAPD policy §§ 322 (Search and Seizure) and 352 (Outside Agency Assistance). Upon mutual aid or other request from PAPD, vehicle will be operated by deploying agency’s staff pursuant to their own policies and review.

Training Required: Subject to the policies of the deploying agency.

Other Notes: While the Palo Alto Police Department does not own or operate this equipment, it could be deployed to an incident within city limits.

Equipment Type: Wheeled vehicles that have a breaching apparatus attached ‐ CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(3)
Quantity Owned/Sought: None (outside owned) Lifespan: Various Equipment Capabilities: Capable of breaching doors, gates, and other points of entry; facilitating the safe transport of officers or civilians facing an armed suspect.

Manufacturer Product Description: Various. Dependent upon the availability of mutual aid equipment and personnel at the time of need.

Purpose/Authorized Uses: Breaching doors, gates, and other points of entry. Safely transporting police personnel or evacuating civilians, when facing with an armed suspect.

Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by another agency.

Legal/Procedural Rules Governing Use: Use governed by applicable State, Federal and Local law, and PAPD policy, including but not limited to PAPD policy §§ 322 (Search and Seizure) and 352 (Outside Agency Assistance). Upon mutual aid or other request from PAPD, vehicle will be operated by deploying agency’s staff pursuant to their own policies and review.

Training Required: Subject to the policies of the deploying agency.

Other Notes: While the Palo Alto Police Department does not own or operate this equipment, it could be deployed to an incident within city limits.

6.a
Packet Pg. 83
Assembly Bill No. 481
CHAPTER 406
An act to add Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, relating to military equipment. [Approved by Governor September 30, 2021. Filed with
Secretary of State September 30, 2021.]
legislative counsel’s digest
AB 481, Chiu. Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment:
funding, acquisition, and use.

Existing law designates the Department of General Services as the agency for the State of California responsible for distrib ution of federal surplus personal property, excepting food commodities, and requires the department to, among other things, do all things necessary to the execution of its powers and duties as the state agency for the distribution of federal personal surplus property, excepting food commodities, in accordance with specified federal law. Existing law, the Federal Surplus Property Acquisition Law of 1945, authorizes a local agenc y, as defined, to acquire surplus federal property without regard to any law which requires posting of notices or advertising for bids, inviting or receiving bids, or delivery of purchases before payment, or which prevents the local agency from bidding on federal surplus property.

Existing federal law authorizes the Department of Defense to transfer surplus personal property , including arms and ammunition, to federal or state agencies for use in law enforcement activities, subject to specified conditions, at no cost to the acquiring agency.

This bill w ould require a la w enforcement agenc y, defined to include specified entities, to obtain appro val of the applicable go verning body, by adoption of a military equipment use polic y, as specified, by ordinance at a regular meeting held pursuant to specified open meeting la ws, prior to taking certain actions relating to the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment, as defined. The bill would also require similar approval for the continued use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022. The bill would allow the go verning body to appro ve the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment within its jurisdiction only if it determines that the military equipment meets specified standards. The bill w ould require the governing body to annually review the ordinance and to either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for a type, as defined, of military equipment or amend the military equipment use polic y if it determines, based on an annual military equipment report prepared by the law enforcement agency, as pro vided, that the military equipment does not comply with the above-described standards for appro val. The bill w ould specify these provisions do not preclude a county or local municipality from implementing

92 6.b
Packet Pg. 84
additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.

This bill would also require a state agency, as defined, to create a military equipment use policy before engaging in certain activities, publish the policy on the agenc y’s internet website, and pro vide a cop y of the polic y to the Governor or the Go vernor’s designee, as specified. The bill w ould also require a state agenc y that seeks to continue use of military equipment acquired prior to January 1, 2022, to create a military equipment use policy.

This bill would also include findings that the changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

By adding to the duties of local officials with respect to the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment, this bill w ould impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires local agencies, for the purpose of ensuring public access to the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies, to comply with a statutory enactment that amends or enacts la ws relating to public records or open meetings and contains findings demonstrating that the enactment furthers the constitutional requirements relating to this purpose.

This bill would make legislative findings to that effect.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.

The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a)  The acquisition of military equipment and its deplo yment in our communities adversely impacts the public’s safety and welf are, including increased risk of civilian deaths, significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological well-being, and incurment of significant financial costs. Military equipment is more frequently deplo yed in low-income Black and Brown communities, meaning the risks and impacts of police militarization are e xperienced most acutely in mar ginalized communities.
(b)  The public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by state or local go vernment officials, as well as a right to participate in an y government agency’s decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment.
(c)  Decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used should give strong consideration to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and ci vil liberties, and should be based on meaningful public input.
92 — 2 — Ch. 406

6.b
Packet Pg. 85
(d) Legally enforceable safe guards, including transparenc y, oversight, and accountability measures, must be in place to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used.
(e) The lack of a public forum to discuss the acquisition of military equipment jeopardizes the relationship police ha ve with the community , which can be undermined when la w enforcement is seen as an occup ying force rather than a public safety service.

SEC. 2. Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) is added to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, to read:

Chapter 12.8. Funding, Acquisition, and Use of Military Equipment
7070. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply:
(a)  “Governing body” means the elected body that o versees a la w enforcement agency or, if there is no elected body that directly oversees the law enforcement agency, the appointed body that oversees a law enforcement agency. In the case of a la w enforcement agency of a county, including a sheriff’s department or a district attorney’s office, “governing body” means the board of supervisors of the county.
(b)  “Law enforcement agency” means any of the following:
(1)  A police department, including the police department of a transit agency, school district, or an y campus of the University of California, the California State University, or California Community Colleges. (2)  A sheriff’s department.
(3)  A district attorney’s office.
(4)  A county probation department.
(c)  “Military equipment” means the following:
(1)  Unmanned, remotely piloted, powered aerial or ground vehicles. (2)  Mine-resistant amb ush-protected (MRAP) v ehicles or armored personnel carriers. However, police versions of standard consumer vehicles are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(3)  High mobility multipurpose wheeled vehicles (HMMWV), commonly referred to as Humv ees, two and one-half-ton trucks, fiv e-ton trucks, or wheeled vehicles that have a breaching or entry apparatus attached. However, unarmored all-terrain v ehicles (A TVs) and motorized dirt bik es are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(4)  Tracked armored v ehicles that pro vide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion. (5)  Command and control v ehicles that are either b uilt or modified to facilitate the operational control and direction of public safety units. (6)  Weaponized aircraft, vessels, or vehicles of any kind. (7)  Battering rams, slugs, and breaching apparatuses that are e xplosive in nature. However, items designed to remove a lock, such as bolt cutters, 92 Ch. 406 — 3 —

6.b
Packet Pg. 86
or a handheld ram designed to be operated by one person, are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(8)  Firearms of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotguns are specifically excluded from this subdivision.
(9)  Ammunition of .50 caliber or greater. However, standard issue shotgun ammunition is specifically excluded from this subdivision. (10)  Specialized firearms and ammunition of less than .50 caliber , including assault weapons as defined in Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code, with the e xception of standard issue service weapons and ammunition of less than .50 caliber that are issued to officers, agents, or employees of a law enforcement agency or a state agency. (11)  Any firearm or firearm accessory that is designed to launch explosive projectiles.
(12)  “Flashbang” grenades and e xplosive breaching tools, “tear g as,” and “pepper balls, ” e xcluding standard, service-issued handheld pepper spray.
(13)  Taser Shockw ave, micro wave weapons, w ater cannons, and the Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD).
(14)  The follo wing projectile launch platforms and their associated munitions: 40mm projectile launchers, “bean bag, ” rubber b ullet, and specialty impact munition (SIM) weapons.
(15)  Any other equipment as determined by a governing body or a state agency to require additional oversight.
(16)  Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) through (15), “military equipment” does not include general equipment not designated as prohibited or controlled by the federal Defense Logistics Agency.
(d)  “Military equipment use policy” means a publicly released, written document governing the use of military equipment by a la w enforcement agency or a state agency that addresses, at a minimum, all of the following:
(1)  A description of each type of military equipment, the quantity sought, its capabilities, e xpected lifespan, and product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment.
(2)  The purposes and authorized uses for which the la w enforcement agency or the state agency proposes to use each type of military equipment. (3)  The fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including the initial costs of obtaining the equipment and estimated annual costs of maintaining the equipment.
(4)  The legal and procedural rules that govern each authorized use. (5)  The training, including an y course required by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training, that must be completed before an y officer, agent, or employee of the law enforcement agency or the state agency is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and full adherence to the military equipment use policy.
(6)  The mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight 92 — 4 — Ch. 406

6.b
Packet Pg. 87
authority, and, if applicable, what le gally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.
(7)  For a law enforcement agency, the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints or concerns or submit questions about the use of each specific type of military equipment, and ho w the la w enforcement agency will ensure that each complaint, concern, or question receives a response in a timely manner.
(e)  “State agency” means the la w enforcement di vision of e very state office, officer, department, division, bureau, board, and commission or other state body or agenc y, e xcept those agencies pro vided for in Article IV (except Section 20 thereof) or Article VI of the California Constitution. (f)  “Type” means each item that shares the same manuf acturer model number.
7071. (a)  (1)  A law enforcement agency shall obtain appro val of the governing body, by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy at a re gular meeting of the go verning body held pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of P art 1 of Di vision 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M.

Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of P art 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable, prior to eng aging in an y of the following:
(A)  Requesting military equipment made a vailable pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(B)  Seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting pri vate, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. (C)  Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily , including by borrowing or leasing.
(D)  Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body.
(E)  Using any new or e xisting military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not pre viously approved by the go verning body pursuant to this chapter.
(F)  Soliciting or responding to a proposal for , or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment. (G)  Acquiring military equipment through an y means not pro vided by this paragraph.
(2)  No later than May 1, 2022, a la w enforcement agenc y seeking to continue the use of any military equipment that was acquired prior to January 1, 2022, shall commence a governing body approval process in accordance with this section. If the go verning body does not appro ve the continuing use of military equipment, including by adoption pursuant to this subdivision of a military equipment use polic y submitted pursuant to subdi vision (b), within 180 days of submission of the proposed military equipment use policy to the go verning body, the la w enforcement agenc y shall cease its use of 92 Ch. 406 — 5 —

6.b
Packet Pg. 88
the military equipment until it receives the approval of the governing body in accordance with this section.
(b)  In seeking the approval of the governing body pursuant to subdivision (a), a law enforcement agency shall submit a proposed military equipment use policy to the governing body and mak e those documents available on the law enforcement agency’s internet website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing concerning the military equipment at issue. (c)  The governing body shall consider a proposed military equipment use policy as an agenda item for an open session of a re gular meeting and provide for public comment in accordance with the Bagle y-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of Part 1 of Di vision 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M. Bro wn Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of P art 1 of Di vision 2 of Title 5), as applicable.
(d)  (1)  The governing body shall only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following:
(A)  The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. (B)  The proposed military equipment use polic y will safe guard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. (C)  If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to a vailable alternati ves that can achie ve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
(D)  Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance. (2)  In order to facilitate public participation, any proposed or final military equipment use policy shall be made publicly available on the internet website of the relevant law enforcement agency for as long as the military equipment is available for use.
(e)  (1)  The governing body shall review any ordinance that it has adopted pursuant to this section approving the funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment at least annually and, subject to paragraph (2), vote on whether to rene w the ordinance at a re gular meeting held pursuant to the Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act (Article 9 (commencing with Section 11120) of Chapter 1 of P art 1 of Di vision 3 of Title 2) or the Ralph M.

Brown Act (Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 54950) of P art 1 of Division 2 of Title 5), as applicable.
(2) The governing body shall determine, based on the annual military equipment report submitted pursuant to Section 7072, whether each type of military equipment identified in that report has complied with the standards for appro val set forth in subdi vision (d). If the go verning body determines that a type of military equipment identified in that annual military equipment report has not complied with the standards for approval set forth in subdivision (d), the governing body shall either disapprove a renewal of the authorization for that type of military equipment or require modifications 92 — 6 — Ch. 406

6.b
Packet Pg. 89
to the military equipment use policy in a manner that will resolve the lack of compliance.
(f)  Notwithstanding subdivisions (a) to (e), inclusive, if a city contracts with another entity for la w enforcement services, the city shall ha ve the authority to adopt a military equipment use policy based on local community needs.
7072. (a)  A law enforcement agency that receives approval for a military equipment use policy pursuant to Section 7071 shall submit to the governing body an annual military equipment report for each type of military equipment approved by the governing body within one year of approval, and annually thereafter for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The law enforcement agency shall also make each annual military equipment report required by this section publicly available on its internet website for as long as the military equipment is available for use. The annual military equipment report shall, at a minimum, include the follo wing information for the immediately preceding calendar year for each type of military equipment:
(1)  A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.
(2)  A summary of any complaints or concerns recei ved concerning the military equipment.
(3)  The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response. (4)  The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year follo wing submission of the annual military equipment report.
(5)  The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment. (6)  If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the ne xt year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment.
(b)  Within 30 days of submitting and publicly releasing an annual military equipment report pursuant to this section, the law enforcement agency shall hold at least one well-publicized and con veniently located community engagement meeting, at which the general public may discuss and ask questions re garding the annual military equipment report and the la w enforcement agency’s funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment. 7073. (a)  A state agency shall create a military equipment use polic y prior to engaging in any of the following:
(1)  Requesting military equipment made a vailable pursuant to Section 2576a of Title 10 of the United States Code.
(2)  Seeking funds for military equipment, including, but not limited to, applying for a grant, soliciting or accepting pri vate, local, state, or federal funds, in-kind donations, or other donations or transfers. (3)  Acquiring military equipment either permanently or temporarily , including by borrowing or leasing.
92 Ch. 406 — 7 —

6.b
Packet Pg. 90
(4)  Collaborating with a law enforcement agency or another state agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body.
(5)  Using any new or e xisting military equipment for a purpose, in a manner, or by a person not pre viously approved by the go verning body pursuant to this chapter.
(6)  Soliciting or responding to a proposal for , or entering into an agreement with, any other person or entity to seek funds for, or to apply to receive, acquire, use, or collaborate in the use of, military equipment. (7)  Acquiring military equipment through an y means not pro vided by this subdivision.
(b)  No later than May 1, 2022, a state agency seeking to continue the use of any military equipment that was acquired prior to January 1, 2022, shall create a military equipment use policy.
(c)  A state agenc y that is required to create a military equipment use policy pursuant to this section shall do both of the follo wing within 180 days of completing the policy:
(1)  Publish the military equipment use polic y on the agenc y’s internet website.
(2)  Provide a copy of the military equipment use policy to the Governor or the Governor’s designee.
7074. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring adequate oversight of the acquisition and use of military equipment is a matter of state wide concern rather than a municipal af fair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this chapter applies to all cities, including charter cities and shall supersede an y inconsistent provisions in the charter of any city, county, or city and county. 7075. Nothing in this chapter shall preclude a county or local municipality from implementing additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.

SEC. 3. The Legislature finds and declares that Section 1 of this act, which adds Chapter 12.8 (commencing with Section 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, furthers, within the meaning of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the purposes of that constitutional section as it relates to the right of public access to the meetings of local public bodies or the writings of local public officials and local agencies. Pursuant to paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution, the Legislature makes the following findings:

Requiring local agencies to hold public meetings prior to the acquisition of military equipment further e xposes that activity to public scrutin y and enhances public access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business.

SEC. 4. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agenc y or school district under this act w ould 92 — 8 — Ch. 406

6.b
Packet Pg. 91
result from a legislative mandate that is within the scope of paragraph (7) of subdivision (b) of Section 3 of Article I of the California Constitution.

O
92 Ch. 406 — 9 —

6.b
Packet Pg. 92
Public Input for Proposed Policy on AB 481
Submission date:
6 May 2022, 2:33PM
Receipt number:
2 Related form version:
2 Please share your thoughts with us!
I went to the Ciy site titled: New State Law: Draft
Military Equipment Use Policy, Next Steps & Ways to
Share Input. On it was a "list" of military equipment
the PAPD has. This list is useless - it is simply a list of general categories, indeed by use, but this about
about law inforcement possessiong military
weapons/equipment. Example -
less lethal weapons
as a category is mentioned, but not what the weapons
are.

Thus - no transparency, no actual information about
the heart of the matter to the public. All hat, no cattle.

This is not acceptable.

Winter Dellenbach
Optional contact information...
1 of 2

6.c
Packet Pg. 93
I went to the Ciy site titled: New State Law: Draft
Military Equipment Use Policy, Next Steps & Ways to
Share Input. On it was a "list" of military equipment
the PAPD has. This list is useless - it is simply a list of general categories, indeed by use, but this about
about law inforcement possessiong military
weapons/equipment. Example -
less lethal weapons
as a category is mentioned, but not what the weapons
are.

Thus - no transparency, no actual information about
the heart of the matter to the public. All hat, no cattle.

This is not acceptable.

Winter Dellenbach
2 of 2

6.c
Packet Pg. 94

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14601)
City Council Staff Report

Meeting Date: 8/8/2022 Report Type: Action Items

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Title: Discuss and Provide Comments on the City's Draft Comment letter to the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and Authorize the Mayor to Send a Comment Letter to the CHSRA on the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the California High Speed Rail segment between San Francisco and San Jose, Which Traverses Palo Alto.

From: City Manager
Lead Department: Transportation Department

Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council:
1) Discuss and provide c omments on the City’s draft comment letter (Attachment A) to the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) regarding the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIR/EIS) for the California High Speed Rail San Jose to San Francisco segment, which traverses the City of Palo Alto. 2) Authorize the Mayor to sign the City’s comment letter, incorporating Council’s requested revisions (if any), and to submit the letter to the CHSRA prior to its consideration for approval of the proposed project and certification of the Final EIR/EIS. 3) Discuss and authorize further actions to advance the City’s interests related to the proposed High Speed Rail project , such as designating representatives to advocate support for the City’s position with state and regional bodies.

Executive Summary
On June 10, 2022, the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) released the Final Environmental Report/Environmental Impact in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the proposed improvements of High -Speed Rail between San Francisco and San Jose. The CHSRA Board of Directors will consider approval of the proposed project and certification of the Final EIR/EIS at a two-day board hearing on August 17 and 18, 2022. If approved, certification of the EIR/EIS for the San Francisco to San Jose segment will complete environmental clearance for the California High Speed Rail in Northern California.

As a responsible agency for the proposed proje ct, which would traverse the City along the existing Caltrain tracks, the City of Palo Alto provided comments on the Draft EIR/EIS during the Draft EIR/EIS public comment period. The City’s comments on the Draft/EIS, and the Authority’s responses to those comments are included in Attachment B. City staff reviewed the Final EIR/EIS, including the responses to 7 Packet Pg. 95

City of Palo Alto Page 2

comments. Staff believe that the Authority failed to adequately identify and mitigate the impacts of the proposed project on the City. In particular, t he clear and significant impacts related to emergency response, noise, land use, and traffic warrant consideration of grade separation in the EIR/EIS. Staff prepared a draft comment letter in response to the Final EIR/EIS, which is included in Attachment A.

Background
In 2008, California passed a $9.95 billion bond measure for the High-Speed Rail (Proposition 1A) in order to connect major urban centers from San Francisco to Los Angeles. Since then, the following project milestones have occurred:

• On July 18, 2012, Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1029 authorizing the expenditure of voter - approved Proposition 1A funds and effectively initiating project construction. • On September 19, 2012 , the U.S. Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) issued a Record of Decision that approved the alignment from Merced to Fresno. This allowed construction of the Initial Construction Segment (ICS) to begin in 2013.
• On March 18, 2013 , the CHSRA Board of Directors approved an MOU with the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB) that authorized the Blended System concept for HSR in the San Francisco to San Jose project section. During the same time period California High Speed Rail Authority and Caltrain agreed to electrify the existing Caltrain corridor. The key compo nent of this blended approach is to have the two rail systems share the tracks and maintain the corridor as primarily a two -track railroad. Thus, the High -Speed Rail will primarily utilize the existing Caltrain right -of-way through urban areas. Caltrain is currently in construction for the electrification of this corridor.
• In July 2017, Caltrain broke ground to initiate construction for the modernization and electrification of the Caltrain Corridor. These improvements are anticipated to be complete by 2022 when the first electric trains are expected to arrive. In accordance with the 2014 Caltrain EIR, the full fleet of electric trains is anticipated by 2029. • In July 2020, CHSRA released the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Impact Statem ent (EIS) for the California High Speed Rail San Francisco to San Jose Project section. The City of Palo Alto provided comments on the Draft report during the public comment period (Attachment B).

On June 10, 2022, the CHSRA released the Final EIR/EIS fo r the High -Speed Rail San Francisco and San Jose Section. The CHSRA Board of Directors will consider certifying the Final EIR/EIS and approving the Preferred Alternative in this project section during its two -day board meeting on August 17 and 18, 2022. As this schedule did not allow for staff to analyze the documents and the City Council’s Rail Committee to discuss and develop recommendations on the issues, this item is being advanced for full City Council consideration. The Final EIR report and related do cuments are available on the CHSRA website.1

The Authority issued a new Notice of Preparation for the proposed San Francisco to San Jose project section in April 2016 based on substantial feedback from stakeholders encouraging a blended Calt rain

1 The Final EIR/EIS for the California High Speed Rail San Francisco to San Jose Section is available online at:
https://hsr.ca.gov/programs/environmental-planning/project-section-environmental-documents-tier-2/san- francisco-to-san-jose-project-section-draft-environmental-impact-report-environmental-impact-statement/

7 Packet Pg. 96

City of Palo Alto Page 3

and High-Speed Rail system. The preferred Alternative A (proposed project) identified in the Draft and Final EIR/EIS proposes a predominantly two-track blended system with no additional passing tracks. The project includes:
• Service at one future stat ion (Salesforce Transit Center, which would serve as a HSR station when the Transbay Joint Powers Authority completes its Downtown Extension Project) • Service at three existing Caltrain stations to be shared by HSR and Caltrain (4th and King Street [an interim station only], Millbrae, and San Jose Diridon) • Construction of the East Brisbane light maintenance facility (LMF).

Alternative B is similar to Alternative A; however, it includes a 6 -mile-long, four -track passing track between San Mateo and Redwood C ity, the West Brisbane LMF, and an aerial viaduct approaching the San Jose Diridon Station. Both Alternatives have the same alignment and facilities within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Palo Alto.

The environmental analysis concluded that Alternative A has fewer adverse visual impacts, displacements, road closures, and impacts on wetlands and aquatic habitats as well as a lower capital cost. The project alignment calls for shifts in the railroad alignment to accommodate an increased speed of up to 110 mph of high -speed trains. In addition, there are minor facilities proposed, including communication towers and train control facilities within Palo Alto.

Although staff agrees with the conclusion that Alternative A would be the environmentally superior alternative in comparison to Alternative B, City staff have repeatedly expressed concern that the EIR/EIS must include an alternative that evaluates grade separation to address the numerous significant and unavoidable impacts of the High Speed Ra il project, as identified in the EIR/EIS. In particular, staff disagrees with the CHSRA’s conclusion that the significant and unavoidable impacts under CEQA or NEPA with respect to traffic circulation and emergency response cannot be mitigated to a less th an significant level. For example, for both traffic and circulation either no mitigation has been proposed or mitigation has been proposed that improperly defers responsibility and costs to the City. To the contrary, grade separation would clearly reduce t hese impacts to a less than significant level and therefore must be analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS.

Although the Authority has stated that it would support and provide cooperation with local jurisdictions, transportation funding agencies, and state and fe deral agencies, for community -initiated grade - separation efforts over time as funding becomes available, this does not provide any specific commitment for either resources or funding despite the high-speed rail’s direct impacts, which drive the need for grade-separation. Study of grade separation as mitigation or as an alternative in the EIR/EIS is appropriate to address significant impacts. Evaluation would clearly show that this alternative would reduce impacts to a less than significant level and therefore should be constructed and funded as part of the HSR project.

Furthermore, the proposed project does not analyze the reasonably foreseeable future scenario of the blended Caltrain system with Caltrain’s anticipated growth scenario, which may include up to twelve (12) Caltrain trains and four (4) HSR trains per hour per direction, as identified in the adopted Caltrain Vision Plan. The draft comment letter identifies this deficiency in the EIR/EIS . By not analyzing this scenario, the CHSRA avoids the need to identify and evaluate the need for passing tracks, which, it is anticipated, could affect Palo Alto to accommodate Caltrain’s adopted vision plan. Failure to identify for 7 Packet Pg. 97

City of Palo Alto Page 4

this reasonably foreseeable future scenario jeopardizes the City’s planning effor ts with respect to grade separation projects as well as other land use planning efforts.

The draft letter therefore raises the concern that CHSRA must evaluate this scenario in the EIR/EIS so that the location of these tracks would be known and so that t he realistic impacts of the proposed project, along with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would be known. The significant cumulative impacts would only reinforce the need for the CHSRA to study and fund grade separation and passing tracks to reduce the impacts of the proposed HSR project.

The Authority did, however, address some of the City’s previous concerns regarding safety and noise. As outlined in the Authority’s responses to the City’s comments in Attachment B, the Authority responded with modifications to the Draft EIR/EIS by agreeing to implement four quadrant gates along the corridor, which would improve safety and help to facilitate quiet zones for at -grade crossings. The Authority also modified noise mitigation measures to require that the Authority provide technical support for local jurisdictions filing for permits from the Federal Rail Authority to establish quiet zones.

Timeline & Resource Impact
With Council’s approval, the Mayor will send a final comment letter on behalf of the City to the CHSRA prior to its two-day public hearing on the proposed project on August 17 and 18, 2022. In the draft letter in Attachment A, the City has expressed concerns regarding the proposed project’s potential impacts on City resources, including reliance on the City to initiate projects of its own (e.g. expansion of roadways, grade separation, quiet zones, etc. ) to reduce the significant impacts of the proposed project on the City.

Environmental Review
Transmittal of the City’s comments on the Final EI R/EIS for the California High Speed Rail San Francisco to San Jose segment does not constitute a project in accordance with Public Resources Code § 21065 and is therefore not subject to environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act.

Attachments:
• Attachment7.a: Attachment A: Comments on the High Speed Rail Final EIR-EIS • Attachment7.b: Attachment B: City of Palo Alto Comments on the Draft EIR and Authority Responses to Comments
7 Packet Pg. 98
[DRAFT – NOT YET APPROVED]

August 8, 2022

Northern California Regional Office
California High-Speed Rail Authority
100 Paseo De San Antonio, Suite 300
San Jose, CA 95113
Email: [email protected]

RE: The San Francisco to San José Project Section Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS)

Thank you for the including the City of Palo Alto (City) in the environmental review process for the above- referenced project. The California High Speed Rail (HSR) will have a long-lasting and far-reaching impact on the City of Palo Alto; therefore, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Final EIR/EIS as a responsible agency for the Project.

Executive Summary
The Final EIR/EIS, similar to the Draft EIR, remains seriously flawed in numerous respects, as outlined in this letter. As the City previously commented, the document fails to adequately analyze or to mitigate a variety of clear and significant impacts on the environment. The City disagrees with the Authority’s conclusion that grade separation of at grade crossings does not warrant evaluation, either as mitigation or as an alternative in the EIR, to address the clear and significant impacts on multi-modal transportation, land use, noise, and emergency response. We support the Authority’s addition of four quadrant gates, which improve pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular safety at these crossings when compared to a project that does not include four quadrant gates. However, the EIR/EIS is flawed in its conclusion that there would be no impacts on safety and, therefore, mitigation to address safety concerns would not be warranted. The City also disagrees with the Authority’s position that the cumulative impacts of this project with the adopted Caltrain Vision Plan do not warrant analysis. By not planning for this reasonably foreseeable future condition, the Authority does not properly disclose impacts in accordance with CEQA and NEPA. For example, underreporting the realistic impacts on delays for emergency responders. In addition, it avoids identification of the need for passing tracks that the City understands would be necessary in Palo Alto, among other jurisdictions, under this cumulative scenario. Avoidance of appropriate planning for this reasonably foreseeable future condition jeopardizes local planning efforts in the design of grade separation projects. Therefore, the Final EIR continues to fall short of reasonable analysis, mitigation, and public disclosure in accordance with state law.

Project Understanding
The City understands that the San Francisco to San Jose Project Section (project) would provide High Speed Rail (HSR) service from the Salesforce Transit Center in San Francisco to Diridon Station in San Jose along approximately 49 miles of the Caltrain corridor. Within the City of Palo Alto, the project would be located along 3.8 miles of Caltrain right-of-way through the middle of Palo Alto, where the existing Caltrain tracks bifurcate the City from east to west. The current project design proposes a blended infrastructure with Caltrain operations through the City. The current proposed project, as well as both Alternatives carried forward in the environmental analysis, propose two at-grade tracks through the City, mostly within the existing Caltrain right-of-way. The City understands that within Palo Alto, the project would require slight modifications (typically of less than one foot) to the tracks in several areas to straighten curves in order to support higher speeds. The project also requires the installation of two radio towers (one north of

7.a
Packet Pg. 99
[DRAFT] San Francisco to San José Final EIR/EIS Comments

Page 2 of 5 ends

Embarcadero Road and one north of West Charleston Road), four-quadrant gates at existing at-grade crossings, and either fencing or sound walls along the entire corridor within the City. The Project will provide HSR services at a downtown San Francisco station, a Millbrae station, and the San Jose Diridon Station; no station is proposed within the City of Palo Alto under the current proposed project or either of the two alternatives.

Rail Alignment, Profile, and Safety

1. The EIR concludes that there would be a significant impact related to emergency response times within several jurisdictions, including within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction at the Menlo Park/Palo Alto Boundary west of El Camino Real and North of Sand Hill Road. The impacted areas include specific land uses where response times for emergency vehicles would be particularly important, including, but not limited to, assisted living facilities. The EIR/EIS identifies SS-MM #4 which indicates that the City should implement measures to reduce impacts related to the Authority’s HSR project. Suggested measures provided in the EIR/EIS include construction of emergency vehicle and transit queue bypass lanes, modifying roadway capacity and operational improvements to facilities paralleling the rail line to improve access to adjacent grade-separated rail crossings, construction of new fire stations to reduce fire station response times in affected areas, and/or expansion of existing fire stations to reduce fire station response times in affected areas in order to reduce impacts from the Authority’s project.

Alternatively, SS-MM #4 indicates that the Authority, with agreement from the local jurisdiction, could make a one-time contribution toward a project that reduce impacts related to emergency response such as those listed above or grade separation.

The identified mitigation improperly defers the responsibility of mitigation for the HSR project to the City, both with respect to cost and implementation. It’s unclear whether any of these measures could be feasibly implemented (for example due to lack of right-of-way for expanding roadways, lack of land to build a new or expanded fire station, or with respect to funding or staffing to facilitate any of these future projects). Further, the EIR/EIS fails to analyze the associated environmental impacts of implementing such measures, improperly stating that the responsibility of preparing environmental analysis for that mitigation would fall on the local jurisdiction. The vague alternative mitigation of providing a one-time contribution toward an unspecified project for emergency response times fails to provide any realistic, concrete reduction to the identified impacts and therefore does not provide any meaningful mitigation.

Grade separation would reduce this identified significant and unavoidable impact to a less than significant level and therefore must be analyzed. As stated in the City’s previous comments on this project, if the Authority does not pursue at-grade crossings as part of an alternative or as mitigation to restore response times, the Authority must bear the full cost of restoring response times to existing conditions.

2. The EIR/EIS analyzes the effect of HSR train operations on safety for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians crossing at at-grade crossings in section 3.11, Safety and Security. The EIR/EIS concludes that, with considerations of planned safety improvements as part of the project, there would be no significant safety impacts associated with the project and that no mitigation is therefore required. While the City concurs that the addition four quadrant gates improves safety at these crossings, particularly for

7.a
Packet Pg. 100
[DRAFT] San Francisco to San José Final EIR/EIS Comments

Page 3 of 5 ends

vehicles, the City disagrees that this measure reduces the significant safety impacts from the proposed project to a less than significant level. The conclusion fails to consider other safety impacts caused by increased gate down times as well as the foreseeable risk of pedestrian collisions. For example, vehicle delays would result in extensive queueing spilling on to through lanes, which would create safety hazards near at grade crossings.

3. The City recognizes that the Authority’s implementation of four-quadrant gates as part of the proposed project in the Final EIR/EIS would assist the City in establishing a quiet zone for Palo Alto Crossings. The City also appreciates modifications to NV-MM#4 requiring that the Authority assist with the preparation of technical analysis and materials needed for local jurisdictions to file a Quiet Zone application with the Federal Railroad Administration. The City supports this requirement and appreciates the Authority’s response to the City’s comments on this matter to reduce operational noise impacts on surrounding uses. However, because approval of quiet zones is outside of the Authority’s purview and because alternative mitigation that requires construction of sound walls across most of the City’s jurisdiction would result in further impacts to aesthetics and land use, the City continues to assert that grade separation should be evaluated to reduce the identified significant impacts related to operational noise. This mitigation would be within the Authority’s purview and would eliminate the improper need for the City to provide resources and funding to mitigate the impacts of the Authority’s project.

Cumulative Impacts

4. The City reiterates the concerns raised in its previous comments that the EIR/EIS does not address the cumulative impacts of CAHSR and Caltrain service vison plans. The EIR assumes 6 trains per direction per peak hour per day, however the Caltrain Vision Plans considers up to 12 trains per direction per peak hour per day. By not analyzing the reasonably foreseeable cumulative impacts of the Caltrain Vision Plan and the proposed project, the EIR/EIS does not properly disclose the realistic delays in response times, among other environmental impacts, including but not limited to, transportation operations and safety, which may result in new or more significant impacts than those identified. The City continues to assert that impacts to all elements combined, including vehicular, bike and pedestrian safety, delays, and emergency response warrants analysis of grade separation as an alternative to the proposed project or as mitigation. Proper analysis of the reasonably foreseeable future condition would only further demonstrate the need for a comprehensive plan to address the identified impacts such as grade separation. Because passing tracks and grade separation are necessitated by the proposed project, the CHSRA must be responsible for implementation and funding of these projects. The High- Speed Rail should not commence service until these infrastructure improvements are complete.

Transportation

5. The EIR/EIS contemplates the gate close time of 40-48 seconds for peak hour for 8 trains during any weekday period. Considering the advanced preemption and gate down initiation and opening times, the times assumed in the analysis are not indicative of actual field conditions. Furthermore, there are existing gate closures due to the existing Caltrain running along this corridor. The EIR/EIS must evaluate the cumulative conditions for these gate time closures and based on the realistic delays on traffic.

Even when utilizing less conservative assumptions for anticipated gate down times, as noted above, Appendix 3.2A (Page 45, 46, 94, 95) indicates that eight of Palo Alto’s intersections would be significantly impacted. TR-MM#1 in Section 3.2, Transportation, of the Final EIR/EIS discusses site- specific mitigation identified for adverse LOS effects under NEPA. The Authority developed site-specific mitigation for the Final EIR/EIS for certain locations where adverse NEPA traffic effects were identified.

However, the Authority concludes that no feasible mitigation was identified that could address the

7.a
Packet Pg. 101
[DRAFT] San Francisco to San José Final EIR/EIS Comments

Page 4 of 5 ends

effects of any of these intersections, including: El Camino Real/Palo Alto Avenue/Sand Hill Road, Alma Street/Palo Alto Avenue, Alma Street/Churchill Avenue, Mariposa Avenue/Churchill Avenue, Park Boulevard/Meadow Avenue, Park Boulevard/Charleston Road, Castilleja Avenue/Churchill Avenue, and Wilkie Way/West Charleston Road. Therefore, the significant impacts at all of these Palo Alto intersections remain unmitigated. The related impacts on the City with respect to multi-modal transportation and the physical division of the City due to these substantial delays is unacceptable.

Grade separation would serve to address these impacts and therefore must be analyzed in the EIR/EIS.

6. Despite significantly higher train speeds, as noted in the Authority’s response to comments 1118-2530, the requirements for warning times and gate down times would not change. As the City previously asserted, this presents safety concerns in that there is reduced reaction time for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. The addition of four-quadrant gates does not address this reduction in reaction times, especially for children that may be crossing the tracks to attend one of the many nearby schools.

Therefore, the conclusion that the project would have no impact on safety is flawed. The EIR/EIS must conclude that this is a significant impact and accordingly mitigate for the impact.

7. The Authority also notes that “Caltrain is the host railroad and is responsible for compliance with all FRA safety regulations with regard to track and warning systems and would be responsible to make any adjustments in gate activation and any connection to preemption of nearby traffic signal systems.” Again, no clarity on how the Authority may change the nearby traffic signal systems is provided and there is no requirement in the EIR/EIS to coordinate with local agencies to their traffic signal system.

The EIR/EIS must be revised to address this.

Land Use

8. The City continues to assert that the EIR/EIS fails to properly identify and mitigate land use impacts within the City of Palo Alto. The analysis concludes that because these tracks are existing, the project would not physically divide an established community. However, under current conditions, the gate down times do not discourage transit across the tracks. The significant increase in gate down times and substantial increase in delays at nearby intersections as a result of the proposed project will serve to discourage transit across these tracks, effectively dividing the community in a way that the existing conditions do not. Because these impacts have not been properly identified, appropriate mitigation to reduce impacts, such as grade separation, similarly has not been identified.

Noise

9. Impact NV#1 in Section 3.4 of the EIR/EIS identifies temporary exposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise as a significant and unavoidable impact. The proposed mitigation (NV-MM#1) encourages, but does not require, daytime construction. Although the Authority’s response to comments states that some track realignments would require nighttime construction work that could exceed FRA construction noise limits at night, it’s unclear which locations these would occur, how often they may occur, and how many/what types of uses would be affected. The EIR/EIS must disclose this information. The City continues to assert that NV-MM#1 should be revised to require daytime construction given that no other measures can effectively reduce impacts to a less than significant level in accordance with the established thresholds for nighttime noise.

Historic

10. The Final EIR/EIS indicates that tree trimming of the historic Palo Alto redwood would be required. The City of Palo Alto’s Urban Forestry Division should be on site to monitor during any tree trimming work for this historic tree.

7.a
Packet Pg. 102
[DRAFT] San Francisco to San José Final EIR/EIS Comments

Page 5 of 5 ends

We appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to responses to the City’s concerns. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Philip Kamhi, Director of the Office of Transportation at (650) 329-2136 or via e-mail at [email protected]

Sincerely,

Patrick Burt
Mayor, City of Palo Alto

7.a
Packet Pg. 103
Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) San Francisco - San Jose - RECORD #1118 DETAIL
Status : Unread
Record Date : 9/9/2020
Interest As : Local Agency
First Name : Ed
Last Name : Shikada
Attachments : HSR San Francisco to San Jose Project Section EIR Comments_Palo Alto.pdf (1 mb)
Stakeholder Comments/Issues :

Dear Northern California Regional Office of the California High-Speed Rail Authority, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find attached letter regarding the City's comments to the San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS). The California High Speed Rail will have a long-lasting and far-reaching impact on the City of Palo Alto; therefore, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Draft EIR/EIS as a responsible agency for the Project.

Highest regards,
Danille
[cid:[email protected]]Danille Rice
Executive Assistant to the City Manager
(650) 329-2105 | [email protected] <mailto:[email protected] > www.cityofpaloalto.org <http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/ > [cid:[email protected]]< https://www.facebook.com/cityofpaloalto/ > [cid:[email protected]] < https://twitter.com/cityofpaloalto > [cid:[email protected]] < https://www.instagram.com/cityofpaloalto > [cid:[email protected]] < https://medium.com/@PaloAltoConnect > [cid:[email protected]] < https://www.linkedin.com/company/cityofpaloalto >

CITY OF
PALO
ALTO

OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650.329.2392
September 8, 2020
Northern California Regional Office
California High-Speed Rail Authority
100 Paseo De San Antonio, Suite 300
San Jose, CA 95113
Email: san.francisco [email protected]
RE: The San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS)
Thank you for including the City of Palo Alto in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. The California High Speed Rail (HSR) will have a long-lasting and far-reaching impact on the City of Palo Alto; therefore, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on this Draft EIR/EIS as a responsible agency for the Project.
1118-2511 Executive Summary
The Draft EIR/EIS is seriously flawed in numerous respects as outlined in this letter. Fundamentally, the document fails to adequately analyze, much less mitigate, a variety of clear and significant impacts that this project will cause to the Palo Alto community. Failure of the Draft EIR/EIS to consider the cumulative impacts of this project with the Caltrain business plan through the four at-grade crossings would pose an increased safety risk of collisions between trains and people walking, biking, and driving across these crossings. When examining impacts, the Draft EIR/EIS does not analyze the reasonably foreseeable consequences and impacts of the adopted or on-going planning efforts of other users of the corridor that are tied to the HSR project. Such a disconnect ignores the impacts related to the at-grade crossings and the additional four-tracking that may be needed within the corridor. The proposed project alternatives lead to significant impacts to emergency response, noise, and circulation. Grade separation between tracks and crossings at Meadow Drive, Charleston Road, Churchill Avenue, and Palo Alto Avenue would address the impacts related to noise with the elimination of train horns and alleviate the other safety concerns posed at-grade intersection. There is no rationale for excluding grade separations as a feasible mitigation particularly given the Federal Rail Administration's conclusion that the Palo Alto at-grade crossings are amongst the most dangerous in the State. The Draft EIR/EIS falls woefully short of any reasonable standard of environmental analysis.
1118-2512
Project Understanding
The City of Palo Alto (City) understands that, Consistent with Tier 1 decisions, the San Francisco to San Jose Project Section (Project Section or project) would provide High Speed Rail (HSR) service from the Salesforce Transit Center (SFTC) in San Francisco to Diridon Station in San Jose along approximately 49 miles of the Caltrain corridor. Within the City of Palo Alto, the project would be located along 3.8 miles of Caltrain right- of-way through the middle of Palo Alto, where the existing Caltrain tracks bifurcate the City from east to West. The current project design proposes a blended infrastructure with Caltrain operations through the City. The current proposed project, as well as both Alternatives carried forward in the environmental analysis, propose two at-grade tracks through the City, mostly within the existing Caltrain right-of-way.

CityOfPaloAlto.org
Printed with soy-based inks on 100% recycled paper processed without chlorine,

7.b
Packet Pg. 104
1118-2512 The City understands that within Palo Alto, the project would require slight modifications (typically of less one than foot) to the tracks in several areas to straighten curves in order to support higher speeds. The project also requires the installation of two radio towers (one north of Embarcadero Road and one north of West Charleston Road), four-quadrant gates at existing at-grade crossings, and either fencing or sounds walls along the entire corridor within the City. The Project will provide HSR services at a downtown San Francisco station, a Millbrae station, and the San Jose Diridon Station; no station is proposed within the City of Palo Alto under the current proposed project or either of the two alternatives.

The blended system would accommodate operating speeds of up to 110 mph for up to four HSR trains and six Caltrain trains per hour per direction in the peak period. HSR and Caltrain are the only passenger rail services that would operate in the blended system. North of the Santa Clara Caltrain Station, freight would use the same tracks as HSR and Caltrain but would operate at night with temporal separation to avoid conflicting with HSR and Caltrain operation, similar to existing conditions. 1118-2513 Rail Alignment. Profile, and Right-of-Wav
1 . As discussed further throughout this letter, the EIR/EIS shall consider an alternative or mitigation that includes grade separation of the existing at-grade crossings within the City to reduce impacts related to land use, transportation, and safety that would result from the project. Impacts under these three resources have not been fully identified and mitigated in the Draft EIR/EIS. Additionally, the Authority shall begin inter-agency conversations with the City and other relevant state, regional and local agencies with respect to fair-share funding contributions for grade separations. 1118-2514 2. The City understands that two options are provided for each of the two radio towers required within the City. For each of these two options a site located on private property (4131 Park Blvd and 100 Addison Avenue) and a site located within Caltrain right-of-way is shown. The installation of these towers requires a discretionary permit from the City of Palo Alto and may require easements and/or encroachment permits, depending on which option is selected. The City would not support the location of these towers on private property if an alternate location within Caltrain right-of-way is viable. If construction of either of these radio towers is necessary on private property, the California High Speed Rail Authority (Authority) shall contact and inform these property owners and coordinate for such needs with these property owners prior to filing for any permits from the City. 1118-2515 3. The EIR baseline operational analysis considers only six (6) trains per direction during the peak hours for Caltrain services, which requires the two tracks currently proposed. However, Caltrain's 2040 Vision Plan identifies a moderate growth scenario that calls for eight (8) Caltrain trains per direction during the peak hours and a high growth scenario that calls for twelve (12) Caltrain trains per direction during the peak hours. This conflict in corridor planning needs to be reconciled. The City understands that if eight (8) trains are proposed during the peak hours, additional passing tracks would be necessary. Based on Caltrain's adopted 2040 Vision Plan, this shall be considered a reasonably foreseeable future project and shall be analyzed under the Cumulative scenario. The location of these additional passing tracks shall be disclosed, and the impacts of these tracks must be fully evaluated. 1118-2516
Land Use

4. In the City's scoping comments dated March 31, 2009, the City of Palo Alto requested that the Authority utilize the City's CEQA thresholds in evaluating impacts on components within the City's jurisdiction.

However, the EIR/EIS established its own thresholds for land use impacts, which do not reflect the City's thresholds or the State CEQA Guidelines. As a responsible agency, the City of Palo Alto will rely on this EIR in issuing the necessary permits for construction of the project. Therefore, for the purposes of CEQA , the environmental analysis needs to evaluate impacts under land use consistent with the thresholds recommended by the state and adopted by the City of Palo Alto. This includes an analysis of:
1118-2516

whether the project w
ould physically divide and established community; and
whether the project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.
1118-2517

5. In accordance with the thresholds identified above, the EIR/EIS must analyze the impacts of HSR preemptions at at-grade crossings and the construction of a noise barrier across the City. With major educational (elementary, middle, high schools, Stanford University), employment centers, and central business districts across the train corridor, the addition of HSR preemptions for at-grade intersections and a 12-14 foot noise barrier across the majority of the tracks will significantly impact connections across the City, visually and physically dividing the community. Because these impacts have not been properly identified, mitigations measures have similarly not been identified to reduce these impacts. 1118-2518 6. In accordance with the thresholds identified above, the EIR/EIS must identify the project's conflicts with the City's Comprehensive Plan policies and Municipal Code Regulations. Land Use Section 3.13 does not identify any inconsistencies with the City of Palo Alto's policies or regulations and concludes that the projects impacts would be less than significant without the need for mitigation.

However, Appendix 2-J clearly states that the project is inconsistent with the City of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan policies and regulations with respect to noise. Table 1 of Appendix 2-J acknowledges that "Although mitigation measures would be able to reduce project noise levels, they would not reduce all levels to the standards for residential, commercial, and institutional land uses due to the limitations in noise barrier cost effectiveness, implementation (HSR cannot implement quiet zones; only local jurisdictions can), and funding (in regards to grade separations)." Land Use Section 3.13 must be revised to accurately reflect that the project would have a significant impact with respect to inconsistencies with applicable plans and policies within the City of Palo Alto. It must clearly identify the mitigation measures that would reduce that impact to the extent feasible. If mitigation does not reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the EIR/EIS must conclude, for the purposes of CEQA, that impacts would be significant and unavoidable with respect to consistency with local land use policies.
1118-2519 Noise

7. Impact NV#1 in Section 3.4 of the EIR/EIS identifies temporary exposure of sensitive receptors to construction noise as a significant and unavoidable impact. The proposed mitigation (NV-MM#1) encourages, but does not require, daytime construction. It appears to allow the construction contractor to determine the appropriate measures to limit noise but does not set a performance measure that the contactor is required to meet. It only requires reporting after the fact (annually) to the Authority, identifying measures that were implemented. NV-MM#1 should be revised to require daytime construction if other measures cannot effectively reduce impacts to a less than significant level in accordance with the established thresholds for nighttime noise. 1118-2520

8. Table 3.4-25 of the Draft EIR/EIS explains that under Impact NV#8, temporary exposure of sensitive receptors and buildings to construction vibrations, the project "would cause annoyance at nighttime to sensitive receptors within 140 feet for infrequent events and within 300 feet for repetitive equipment such as pile driving, vibratory compaction, and ongoing demolition work with jackhammers or hoe- rams." However, NV-MM#2 only appears to address potential impacts to buildings and does not address impacts to sensitive receptors that may be impacted by vibrations at nighttime. Although NV-IAMF#1 (impact, avoidance and minimization feature) is identified to reduce impacts to sensitive receptors, this measure primarily reduces noise rather than vibration. The measure does not identify performance criteria that must be met to reduce impacts on sensitive receptors to a less than significant level.

7.b
Packet Pg. 105
1118-2520 Within the City there are hundreds of sensitive receptors along this corridor, many of which are residences that would be severely impacted due to nighttime vibrations during construction. The Draft EIR/EIS must identify mitigation with clear performance criteria to reduce impacts to these sensitive receptors to a less than significant level. Mitigation shall include prohibition of nighttime construction that causes vibration if other measures cannot effectively reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Pile driving at nighttime shall be prohibited.
1118-2521 9. The analysis of both noise and vibrations needs to clearly quantify the expected level of noise and vibration that sensitive receptors would experience before and after the implementation of mitigation.

The analysis currently only provides information on the number of receptors that would be impacted before and after mitigation; not on the level of impact that those receptors would experience. 1118-2522 10. The proposed construction hours for track modifications are outside of the City's allowed construction hours, as established in Chapter 9.10 of the City's Municipal Code. Construction outside of the allowed construction hours requires a permit from the City. The City would not issue this permit for construction activities near residential areas if measures cannot be implemented to reduce impacts on receptors to a less than significant level.
1118-2523 11. Under Impact NV# 2, the Draft EIR/EIS concludes that implementation of the project alternatives would not change current practices regarding the sounding of train horns and crossing bells, but would change the amount of train horns and crossing bells sounding due to the additional trains. Additional trains will cause noise levels above existing ambient levels and in exceedance of FRA criteria, causing severe noise impacts at sensitive receptors.

The City understands that the project has analyzed two scenarios with respect to mitigation for noise associated with train horns. The first scenario assumes that quiet zones have not been established within the peninsula and identifies the location where sound walls would therefore be constructed along the corridor to reduce noise levels associated. The City understands that sound walls would be constructed along the majority of the corridor within the City of Palo Alto if quiet zones are not established at the City's existing at-grade crossings. Under the second scenario, if the City were to establish quiet zones for the City of Palo Alto through the requisite process, this would eliminate the requirement for all trains to routinely sound their warning horns when approaching at-grade crossings.

Under this scenario, the EIR/EIS shows that sound walls would therefore only be necessary in three locations with the City of Palo Alto.

The City recommends that the Authority shall consider grade separation for at-grade crossings due to safety and other reasons stated in this letter, which is feasible mitigation that would also mitigate the need for train horns and therefore construction of noise barriers across the City. However, for the interim measures until grade crossings are built the City of Palo Alto recommends the Authority to establish a Quiet Zone within the City of Palo Alto. In addition, since this process is only necessary to address impacts of the proposed project (as an alternative to noise barriers) the City of Palo Alto shall not bear the financial burden of the process to establish a Quiet Zone. The mitigation measures must require that the Authority bear any costs and to support the process of establishing a Quiet Zone for any jurisdiction that elects to pursue this alternative as well as any liabilities associated with this. 1118-2524 Transportation

12. The City has established a Local transportation Impact Analysis Policy (See Attachment A). The City requests that the Authority comply with this policy, in addition to CEQA and NEPA guidelines, in order to assess the project's local impacts within the City's jurisdiction. The analysis of intersection delays 1118-2524 that was included in the Draft EIR/EIS under Impact TR#5 shall utilize the City's significance criteria when determining whether localized impacts would occur outside of CEQA. 1118-2525 13. Section 3.2 of the Draft EIR/EIS analyzes impacts on bicycle and pedestrian access and Section 3.11 of the Draft EIR/EIS studies hazards associated with the project. However, the Draft EIR/EIS does not adequately analyze the potential hazards associated with the increase in the number of trains and increase in train speeds on school age pedestrians and bicyclists.

In Palo Alto, approximately 58 percent of students from elementary school to high school ages walked or hiked to school in 2019. Therefore, a significant number of school age children cross the train tracks at existing at-grade crossings in order to attend nearby K-12 schools (e.g. Hoover Elementary, Palo Alto High, Castilleja, etc.). The proposed four-channel crossing gate mechanism is not adequate to protect these children; this shall be identified as a significant impact with respect to safety and shall be evaluated further. Providing a grade-separated crossing would reduce impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists, including school age children.
1118-2526 14. With the addition of new trains, the proposed gate down time during peak hours will increase by almost 67% (with the addition of 4 HSR). These additional trains throughout the day reduce the time available for pedestrians and bicyclists to cross through the at-grade locations in Palo Alto (Churchill, Meadow, Charleston and Palo Alto) crossings. The impact of the proposed project on these crossing connections for pedestrians and bicyclists must be analyzed and mitigated. 1118-2527 15. Impacts TR # 1 through TR #5 identify impacts and delays on intersection operations. As explained on page 3.2.63, the project results in a 334 second increase in delays at Churchill and 187 second increase in delays at West Meadow Drive. This will severely affect signal operations and controls and thus traffic flow in the area. Although under SB 743 vehicle delays are no longer considered a significant impact under CEQA, the delay at these intersections will impact other modes of transportation such as bicyclists, pedestrians, and bus transit. Such impacts to other modes of transportation still require analysis and appropriate mitigation in accordance with CEQA. These impacts have not been properly identified and TR-MM#1 does not adequately address these impacts. 1118-2528 16. Vehicle delays would also result in extensive queueing spilling on to through lanes and may cause the need for additional storage for turning movements. Extensive queueing will create safety hazards near at grade crossings. The intersection geometry at all four at-grade crossings within the City must be studied in order to properly identify potential hazards and these impacts shall be mitigated. 1118-2529

17. With major educational (elementary, middle, high schools, Stanford University), employment centers, and central business districts across the train corridor, the addition of HSR preemptions for at-grade intersections will significantly impact all modes of transit throughout the day, causing impacts on the transportation system. These impacts have not been properly identified; therefore, mitigations measures have similarly not been identified to reduce these impacts. 1118-2530
1118-2531

18. The project proposes a change in the speed of trains from 79 mph to 110 mph. This change will reduce the reaction time for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular activities. In addition, this will impact advanced preemption timings for nearby signals. The existing signals in the vicinity, until grade separated, will need to have advanced preemption to ensure that there is adequate queue clearance, pedestrian times, track clearance and signal operation coordination. These impacts are identified generally but are not quantified and clearly explained to address such impacts. The project shall describe how these improvements will be funded and constructed. The City does not support higher speeds of trains running through urbanized area and therefore requests to use Caltrain planned speed limits or speeds that match existing speed of Caltrain service unless grade separation is proposed at crossings.

7.b
Packet Pg. 106
1118-2532 19. The analysis shall evaluate service options that include HSR operating at the same speed as Caltrain from San Jose to San Francisco and must identify the safety benefits that could be derived by running slower speed trains in an urban environment.
1118-2533

20. Due to additional delay at the intersections near the at-grade crossings, the traffic may be diverted to other parallel residential streets, thus impacting the character of neighborhood and livability of Palo Alto residents. These impacts must be identified and mitigated and shall be studied in accordance to City of Palo Alto Traffic impact policy on Traffic Infusion and Residential Environment (TIRE) (Attachment B in Exhibit A).
1118-2534 21. Under Impact TR#7, the analysis identifies that the HSR will increase the parking demand on the other Caltrain stations with increased ridership to connect to get onto HSR at other HSR stations. This increase in ridership to get to HSR transit hubs will necessitate additional parking at other existing Caltrain Stations. This must be identified and mitigated in the EIR/EIS. 1118-2535 22. Impact TR# 9 and TR#11 study permanent and continuous impacts on bus transit. However, the Draft EIR/EIS fails to recognize existing transit routes near the corridor that are impacted by project. Alma Avenue, which parallels the HSR tracks in Palo Alto, is a major road used by express bus transit. The intersections along this corridor will experience significant delays at traffic signals adjacent to at-grade crossings, which in turn, will affect express bus service. TR-MM#2 identifies the transit priority for corridors but fails to identify such impacts on Alma Avenue, and therefore fails to provide any mitigation to address this impact.
1118-2536 Public Services

23. As discussed on Draft EIR/EIS Page 3.11-60, the reduced availability of crossings will impact emergency response times. The project includes mitigation, which includes the Authority's fair share toward reducing the vehicle response time; however, impacts are still identified as significant and unavoidable.

Under CEQA, the analysis must analyze any feasible mitigation or alternatives to address impacts before identifying an impact as significant and unavoidable. An alternative or mitigation that includes grade separation for at-grade crossings must be evaluated to ensure adequate response times. If the Authority does not pursue at-grade crossings as part of an alternative or as mitigation to restore response times, the Authority shall bear the full cost of restoring response times to existing conditions. 1118-2537
Historic

24. The proposed project identifies track modifications, including horizontal alignment changes of more than 1 foot and less than 3 feet on the SPRR San Francisquito Creek Bridge, which is located approximately 10 feet west of the Historic El Palo Alto redwood tree. Track work in this location may also require relocation of OCS poles and OCS pole electrical safety zones. The EIR/EIS concludes that the project would not result in modifications to the El Palo Alto redwood, and that impacts would therefore be less than significant without mitigation. However, although the project does not propose direct removal or modifications to the tree, grading or the use of vibratory equipment for track work within 10 feet of the historic tree could result in direct or indirect impacts to the root structure. These impacts must be evaluated and mitigated to ensure that impacts to this historic landmark would remain less than significant.
1118-2538
Utilities

25. Impact PUE#2 identifies impacts associated with the relocation or removal of existing major utilities as less than significant without mitigation. However, construction activities that result in vibrations above or immediately adjacent to existing infrastructure could indirectly impact infrastructure. The City of 1118-2538
Palo Alto owns and maintains a wide variety of infrastructure that cross these tracks. The potential for indirect impacts must be identified and mitigation shall be included to require advanced coordination with the City when working in close proximity to its infrastructure as well as to verify, post- construction, that the City's infrastructure has not been damaged. 1118-2539 26. Although the analysis concludes that the Authority and service providers would work to relocate utilities on a long-term basis, the discussion identifies that temporary utility disruptions may occur.

Although applicant proposed measures are identified to reduce these impacts and provide notifications to customers, the duration of these outages is unclear. The document needs to more clearly identify the anticipated temporary impacts on utilities, including the likely duration of outages that may be necessary.
1118-2540 Trees and Vegetation

27. The proposed project plans appear to show that new wails or fence would be installed up to the edge of the existing right-of-way, with no space planned for planting vegetation screening. It is unclear to what extent existing vegetation along the right-of-way, which currently provides effective screening in some locations, would be retained or replanted. Space needs to be provided for vegetation screening, especially where the rail is within close proximity to sensitive receptors. 1118-2541 28. MM-39 states that mitigation would be provided at no more than a 1:1 ratio unless the City's ordinance provides for stricter ratios. For mitigation within the City, the project would be required to replace trees in accordance with the City's Tree Tech Manual tree value replacement standard, as outlined in the City's Tree Technical Manual, which is codified in Chapter 8 of the City's Municipal Code. The Tree Technical Manual can be found at: https://tinvurl.com/PA-Tree-Technical-Manual We appreciate the opportunity to comment and look forward to reviewing the Final EIR/EIS, including responses to the City's comments. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Philip Kamhi at (650) 329-2500 or via e-mail at [email protected] Sincerely,

Ed Shikada
City Manager
Attachments:

Exhibit A: Local transportation Impact Analysis Policy
CC:

Palo Alto City Council Members
Expanded Community Advisory Panel
Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission
Palo Alto Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee
Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Committee

7.b
Packet Pg. 107

V CITY OF

PALO ALTO

CITY OF PALO ALTO

LOCAL TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS POLICY
Senate Bill (SB) 743, adopted in 2013, required the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to prepare amendments to the CEQA Guidelines with respect to the analysis of potential transportation effects to provide an alternative metric to traffic congestion and delay at intersections (often referred to as Level of Service (LOS)). After five years of analysis and outreach, in December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency approved OPR's proposed amendments to the CEQA Guidelines requiring agencies to use vehicle miles traveled (VMT) generated by a project as the metric for transportation impact analyses under CEQA effective July 1, 2020. Under SB 743 and the revised CEQA Guidelines, LOS may no longer be used to determine whether a project may have a significant environmental impact to transportation and traffic under CEQA.

While statewide implementation of VMT analysis to replace LOS analysis is required under CEQA, SB 743 did not require changes to transportation analyses outside of CEQA, including the evaluation of regionally significant intersections under the Congestion Management Program (CMP) under a separate state law. Nor did SB 743 affect the discretion of public agencies to assess impacts on local streets and intersections for compliance with adopted plans and policies. As such, in conformance with Policy T-2.3 and Program T-2.3.1 of the City's Com prehensive Plan 2030, 1 LOS standards are adopted through this policy to analyze potential local transportation impacts of projects in Palo Alto.

I. Purpose
The purpose of this Policy is to ensure consistency in reviewing and identifying transportation effects of proposed development projects for local intersections and facilities and to determine standards for necessary remediation measures. 1 Comprehensive Plan Policy T-2.3: Use motor vehicle LOS at signalized intersections to evaluate the potential impact of proposed projects, including contributions to cumulative congestion. Use signal warrants and other metrics to evaluate impacts at unsignalized intersections.

Program T-2.3.1: When adopting new CEQA significance thresholds for VMT for compliance with SB 743 (2013), adopt standards for vehicular LOS analysis for use in evaluating the consistency of a proposed project with the Comprehensive Plan, and also explore desired standards for MM LOS, which includes motor vehicle LOS, at signalized intersections.

Policy T-2.4: Consistent with the principles of Complete Streets adopted by the City, work to achieve and maintain acceptable levels of service for transit vehicles, bicyclists, pedestrians and automobiles on roads in Palo Alto, while maintaining the ability to customize to the Palo Alto context.

Policy T-3.3: Avoid major increases in single-occupant vehicle capacity when constructing or modifying roadways unless needed to remedy severe congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists II. Level of Service (LOS) Analysis
LOS is the measurement of delay at intersections used to determine whether a project is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan and this Policy LOS is based on the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) methodology where a letter grade is assigned to an intersection operation based on the amount of delay motorists experience in traveling through the intersection. Table 1 below shows the comparison in LOS depending on whether the intersection is signalized or not.

Table 1: Level o f Service Delay - Signalized vs. Non-Signalized Intersections Level of
Service Grade Description
Signalized
Average Delay
(Sec)
Unsignalized
Average Delay
(Sec)
A Signal Progression is extremely
favorable. Little or no traffic delay.

10.0 or less 10.0 or less
B Operations characterized by good
signal progression and/or short
cycle lengths. Short traffic delays.

10.1 to 20.0 10.1 to 15.0
C Higher delays may result from fair
signal progression. Average traffic
delays.

20.1 to 35.0 15.1 to 25.0
D Congestion becomes noticeable.

Long traffic delays.

35.1 to 55.0 25.1 to 35.0
E Considered the limit of acceptable
delay.

55.1 to 80.0 35.1 to 50.0
F Level of delay is considered
unacceptable by most drivers.

Extreme traffic delays.

Greater than 80.0 Greater than 50.0
Source: Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual 2010 III. Standards for Determining Transportation Analysis

1. Within the CMP Svstem Regional CMP Analysis
Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) reports vary in scope depending on the use of the report and size of the project.

Under the purview of the California Congestion Management Program (CMP) Statute, Palo Alto must follow the methodologies presented in the VTA Transportation Im pact Analysis Guidelines fo r intersections w ithin the CM P system, to evaluate transportation effects and submit a full TIA report of all development projects that are expected to generate 100 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) or weekend peak hour trips, including both inbound and outbound trips.

7.b
Packet Pg. 108
CMP intersections within Palo Alto are listed below. A map of all CMP intersections can be found in Attachment A.
i. Middlefield Rd./Oregon Exp.
ii. Middlefield Rd./San Antonio Rd.
iii. El Camino Real/University Ave./Palm Dr.
iv. El Camino Real/ Sand Hill Rd./Palo Alto Ave.
v. El Camino Real/Embarcadero Rd.
vi. El Camino Real/Page Mill Rd.
vii. El Camino Real/Arastradero Rd./Charleston Rd.
viii. Foothill Exp./Junipero Serra Blvd./Page Mill Rd.
ix. Foothill Exp./Arastradero Rd.
x. San Antonio Rd./Charleston Rd.

2. Outside the CMP System Local Analysis
The City requires a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) report for any project that is expected to generate 50 or more net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) trips, including both inbound and outbound trips, prior to any reductions assumed for Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures. The City may also require a LTA if in its reasonable judgement a project will potentially cause a deficiency in the operation of local intersections. A LTA report must include the following:
i. Project description;
ii. Existing conditions;
iii. Site access and circulation;
iv. Vehicle trip generation (weekday AM and PM peak);
v._ _Vehicle trip distribution;
V. Vi. LOS analysis for selected study intersections: and vi. vii. Remediation measures (if proposed)
Depending on the size and layout of the project, additional elements listed below may be required by the City to include in the LTA report.
i. Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) Analysis is an analysis of new potential traffic disturbances along a local residential streets created by a project as described in the Attachment B. When a proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street that is not on a project's direct route to collector or arterial streets, the project is required to submit a TIRE analysis. ii. Queuing Analysis that identifies queues spilling beyond their current storage bays. Improvements may include lengthening storage bays to meet projected demand or roadway capacity improvements to add additional turn pockets at an intersection. The City typically takes the lead in identifying potential capacity improvements to help facilities site design.
iii. Transit Analysis for projects located along a key transit route, such as El Camino Real, a focused analysis in partnership with the VTA or other transit operators is provided to determine if off-site improvement of a project should consider additional parking stop improvements such as shelters or bus duck- outs.
iv. Bicycle and Pedestrian Circulation Study is an analysis of how the site operations may affect bicycle and pedestrian operations. Where appropriate, if a project is located along a major bicycle route in the City's Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, the project may be required to help implement a portion of the recommended facility. Additional improvements may include limiting driveway curb-cuts to minimize conflicts with pedestrians or provision of enhanced crosswalk facilities.
v. Parking Analysis is a study to determine location, use, and adequacy of the proposed parking facility. Projects should include a parking analysis under the following conditions:
a. Change in the facilities' existing design or supply; or b. Change in the existing parking management; or
c. Propose parking less than that required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52 ( https://tinvurl.com/PA-Municipal-Code ): or d. Use of parking adjustments by the Director as defined in the Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52 ( https://tinvurl.com/PA-Municipal-Code ).

When a proposed project requests a parking reduction or exception as allowed under the Municipal Code, a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan is typically required independent of the LTA. For projects in a Parking Assessment District, required payment of assessments to the District will be noted in the LTA report and included in the project's conditions of approval.

A project will provide an analysis of one or more of the above elements if the project is expected to substantially affect the identified local facilities, even if the anticipated number of new vehicle trips would not require a LOS analysis. _

7.b
Packet Pg. 109
IV. Local Transportation Impacts - Standards for Determining Transportation Consistency

1. Level of Service Standard
The City of Palo Alto's Level of Service (LOS) standard is D, which is more conservative than the CMP LOS standard of E. If the LTA shows that a development project is anticipated to cause a transportation facility (intersection or roadway) to degrade below LOS D to LOS E or F, then the project will be deemed inconsistent with this Policy.

For a transportation facility determined to have been at LOS E or F under existing and background conditions without the project, a project is said to have significant local impact if the LTA shows that the project will cause LOS to deteriorate by the following amounts:
i. Addition of project traffic increases the average delay for critical movements by four or more seconds; or
ii. Addition of project traffic increases the critical Volume/Capacity (V/C) value by 0.01 or more; or
iii. Affects a freeway segment or ramp to operate at LOS F or project traffic increases freeway capacity by one or more percent.

2. Selection of Study Intersections or Roadways
An intersection should be included in the LTA if it meets any one of the following conditions:
i. Proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any lane to any intersection movement; or
ii. The intersection is adjacent to the project; or
iii. Based on engineering judgement, City staff determines that the intersection should be included in the analysis.

Additionally, a roadway segment should be included in the LTA with a TIRE analysis if a proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street. More details on the TIRE analysis are available in Attachment B.

3. CMP Intersection Standard
A CMP intersection must adhere to the standards set by the Congestion Management Agency2 (currently LOS E), as set forth in the VTA Transportation Im pact A nalysis G uidelines. The City's standard of LOS D would apply for determining local level impacts.. Any transportation impact triggered by VTA's standard for CMP intersections would need to be addressed following guidelines established by VTA.

More information regarding mitigation measures and Multimodal Improvement Plans (MIP) are available in the VTA Guidelines for TIAs and Deficiency Plans.

4. Auto Level of Service Analysis at Unsignalized Intersections For all-way stop control, the LOS is based on the average delay. For 1- or 2-way stop control, the LOS should be based on the critical approach movement. The above standards for determining transportation consistency remain appropriate only if traffic volumes satisfy the peak hour traffic signal warrant. Meeting a peak hour traffic signal warrant does not automatically make a traffic signal an appropriate remediation measure.

5. Other Transportation Impacts
Depending on the size and layout of the project, a LTA may require analysis to evaluate other project-related effects on the transportation system. The following is a list of elements that are considered to have project-related local impacts:
i. Result in noticeable traffic effects on local residential streets defined as an increase of 0.1 or more using the TIRE methodology.
ii. Impede the development or function of existing or planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities.
iii. Increase demand for pedestrian or bicycle facilities that cannot be met by existing or planned facilities.
iv. Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of increased traffic congestion.
v. Create demand for transit services that cannot be met by current or planned services.
vi. Create the potential demand for cut-through traffic or redistribution of traffic to use local residential streets, based on the TIRE methodology described above.
vii. Create an operational safety hazard.
viii. Result in inadequate emergency access.
2The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) is the Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County.

7.b
Packet Pg. 110
V. Remediation Measures
All Local Transportation Impacts under Section VI of this Policy must be addressed through the project's adoption or use of appropriate local remediation measures, including funding their associated costs. The LTA must include proposed remediation measures and identify any potential impacts of such measures. Remediation measures shall reduce the project-related local impacts to a level without the proposed project, and should not themselves create potentially significant CEQA impacts. These remediation measures will be incorporated in the project conditions of approval and not as part of the CEQA analysis. The following is a list of potential remediation methods in priority order:

1. Projects and programs that reduce a project's vehicle trip generation, including, but not limited to Transportation Demand Management (TDM) programs, capital improvements to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facility enhancements within an influential project area.3 The following is a non-exhaustive list of potential remediation methods:
i. Provide new or upgrade existing access to, from, and through the project for pedestrians and bicyclists.
ii. Provide improvements to transit facilities or services. iii. Implement TDM programs such as flexible at-place working hours, telecommuting, carpools, shuttles, transit passes, parking cash-out, among others.

2. Multimodal operational or facility improvements including intersection operational efficiency treatments. Proposed improvements or treatments with geometric changes to an intersection are limited to features that would not likely lead to substantial or measurable increase in vehicle travel.

3. If project impacts cannot be remediated through methods 1 and 2 above, a fair share of the cost for multimodal network remediation shall be contributed to the City's transportation improvement funds.

While the remediation measures in method 1, above, should be proposed within an influential project area, methods 2 and 3 may apply outside the area. However, these proposed improvements should substantially contribute to the City's Comprehensive Plan goals in expanding the City's multimodal transportation system. By implementing or funding these types of improvements, the project would therefore be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and this Policy.
3 Area of influence of a project is defined as up to half-mile for pedestrian facilities and up to three miles for bicycle facilities, or bicycle facilities that provide a connection to the local or regional bicycle network.

Unacceptable Measures
In addition, remediation measures that will result in a physical reduction in the capacity and/or deterioration in the quality of any existing or planned transportation facilities are unacceptable. The following is a list of remediation methods that would be considered generally unacceptable without special justification, but are not limited to:

1. Roadway widening not directly related to site access and circulation, or specific conditions that reduce local impacts as a result of the project.

2. Negatively affecting a sidewalk or reducing the width of a sidewalk without substantial improvement to the overall pedestrian circulation.

3. Maintaining an existing sidewalk in the immediate vicinity that is below the current city standard.

4. Negatively affecting existing bicycle infrastructure or reducing the length of a bicycle infrastructure.

5. Maintaining existing bicycle infrastructure that is below the current city standard.

6. Eliminating a bus stop without adequate replacement or improvement to the system.

7. Encouraging neighborhood cut-through traffic (intrusion effects along local residential streets).

VI. Authority to Adopt Guidelines
The Chief Transportation Official is authorized to adopt guidelines to implement this Policy.

7.b
Packet Pg. 111

ATTACHMENT A

CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM INTERSECTIONS
O «**'***' ---------------------------
ol 4 @ m ° CM PW e"*c“"W0 0
/ ' 1 ° 0 < 5 » b i o - r z . **
4> ° 0° o „ ,
I , O ° ^ O O l< g yt OO --------------------=E P J g a - „ J ° 8 O sfv cP oI ft- Q 0 ^ . 0 0* «b °o o ° ft O <P b O’ ° >°© S o o V0® ° /
o ^ l ° o » « — l s o ff1 ® /
° V q, o° s r° . ft
\ O o 30 0-0 O C C P 8 Q o ^ O
% * t ‘■ ''0 « C 0 ° / 8 \0 8 * .,*.*,0 % k
a" “ " 1 ) 0 0 O 0 0 ^ 0 0 — <b f' o ° O
----------------------- 0 | o o 9 oO o
South County 0 # « 13 (fc Q °
8 0 — ^ \ > •
% 0 0^ ° “ C O ° \ 8
V Q O B ra o h » ti O
& o o 0 0 0
-a o® a 8 § 8 «o ® °
6 0 * £ " “ ° 6
‘ 3 ~ ...-■ - & 0\
Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program Document 2017

ATTACHMENT B

CITY OF PALO ALTO - TRAFFIC INFUSION ON RESIDENTIAL ENVIRONMENTS (TIRE) ANALYSIS Excessive vehicular speed and traffic volume on residential streets pose a major threat to quality of life. Most Palo Alto streets are bordered by residential uses, and it is the City's priority to preserve local neighborhood characteristics. Additionally, the City has designated some streets as residential arterials to recognize that they carry large traffic volumes of through-traffic but also have residential uses on both sides of the streets. The objective of this analysis is to address the desires of residents of these streets who prefer slower vehicular speeds and to determine if implementation of a project would cause a substantial change in the character of these streets.

The City of Palo Alto uses the Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) methodology to estimate residential perception of traffic effects based on anticipated average daily traffic growth. Although not required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or pursuant to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) guidelines, this methodology intends to determine new potential traffic disturbances - cut-through traffic (intrusion effects) and direct traffic (infusion effects) - along local residential streets due to a proposed development project.

For projects on a local residential street, new traffic disturbances along that specific street will likely be unavoidable. Thus, the potential infusion effects generated along a specific local residential street of which a project is proposed will be used only for informational purposes. A map of Palo Alto's local residential streets can be found in Map 1 in this attachment.

The City aims to reduce potential adverse intrusion effects along local residential streets.

Significant amount of vehicle intrusion on these streets may need to be addressed through traffic management strategies.

Traffic Infusion on Residential Environments (TIRE) Index The TIRE methodology assigns a numerical value to "residents' perception of traffic effects on activities such as walking, bicycling, and maneuvering out of a driveway on local residential streets." The TIRE index scale ranges from 0 to 5 depending on daily traffic volume. An index of 0 represents the least traffic disturbances and 5 the greatest, and thereby, the poorest residential environment. Streets with a TIRE index of 3 and above are considered to function primarily as a traffic street and exhibit an impaired residential environment. Therefore, streets with a TIRE index below 3 are better suited for residential activities.

Any projected change in the TIRE index of 0.1 or less is considered to have no noticeable effects.

A change of 0.1 would be barely noticeable, and a change of 0.2 or greater would be noticeable.

The TIRE Index can be found in Table 1 in this attachment. 2020052801
2020052801

CITY OF

PALO ALTO
i CITY OF

PALO ALTO

7.b
Packet Pg. 112
v CITY OF

PALO ALTO
I. Standards for Determining Analysis
A proposed development project expecting to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street.

II. Selection and Data Collection of Roadway Segments
Roadway segments should be included in the LTA if a proposed development project is expected to add 10 or more peak hour vehicles per any direction to a local residential street. Data collected under the TIRE methodology must be supported by 24-hour weekday traffic counts.

For projects on a local residential street including both single- or multi-family, as defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan 2030, the TIRE analysis must include the following:

1. Direct routes to the project;

2. Immediate connections to a project's direct collector or arterial streets; and

3. Based on engineering judgement, City staff determines what roadway segments should be included in the analysis.

A Palo Alto land use map can be found in Map 2 in this attachment.

III. Standards for Determining Noticeable Effect
Projected change in the TIRE index of 0.1 or more under existing and background conditions, is considered to cause noticeable effects on the character of local residential streets. These traffic effects may need to be addressed through traffic management strategies.
v CITY OF

PALO ALTO
Table 1: Traffic Infusion on Residential Environm ents (TIRE) Index TIRE Index Existing Daily
Traffic Volume
Volume to Cause +0.1
Change in TIRE Index
Volume to Cause +0.2
Change in TIRE Index
Volume
Description

1.5 29-35 6 15
Low

1.6 36-44 8 20

1.7 45-56 10 25

1.8 57-70 13 32

1.9 71-89 17 41

2.0 90-110 22 52
Moderate

2.1 111-140 29 65

2.2 141-180 40 80

2.3 181-220 52 100

2.4 221-280 65 125

2.5 281-350 79 160

2.6 351-450 94 205

2.7 451-560 114 260

2.8 561-710 140 330

2.9 711-890 170 415

3.0 891-1,100 220 520
High

3.1 1,101-1,400 290 650

3.2 1,401-1,800 380 800

3.3 1,801-2,200 500 1,000

3.4 2,201-2,800 650 1,300

3.5 2,801-3,500 825 1,700

3.6 3,501-4,500 1,025 2,200

3.7 4,501-5,600 1,250 2,800

3.8 5,601-7,100 1,500 3,500

3.9 7,101-8,900 1,800 4,300

4.0 8,901-11,000 2,300 5,300
Very High

4.1 11,001-14,000 3,000 6,500

4.2 14,001-18,000 4,000 8,000

4.3 18,001-22,000 5,200 10,000

4.4 22,001-28,000 6,600 13,000

4.5 28,001-35,000 8,200 17,000

4.6 35,001-45,000 10,000 22,000

4.7 45,001-56,000 12,200 28,000

4.8 56,001-71,000 14,800 35,000

4.9 71,001-89,000 18,000 43,000
Source: Goodrich Traffic Group
2020052801 2020052801

7.b
Packet Pg. 113

CITY O F

PALO ALTO
Mnn 1 Citv n f Pnln Altn I n rn l Rpsicipntinl Strppts

CITY OF
I f PALO ALTO
2020052801
2020052801
Source: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030
M ap 2: City o f Palo Alto Com prehensive Plan 2030 Land Use Designations Source: City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030

7.b
Packet Pg. 114
Chapter 20 Local Agency Comments
Response to Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) 1118-2511
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-GEN-4: Consideration of 2040 Caltrain Service Vision and Caltrain Business Plan, FJ-Response-GS-1: Requests for Grade Separations.

The comment asserts that the Draft EIR/EIS is inadequate as it fails to analyze and mitigate significant impacts in the City of Palo Alto. The Authority disagrees with this assertion. The Draft EIR/EIS provides sufficient information to inform the public and decisionmakers of the significant environmental effects of the project within the City of Palo Alto, and identifies mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts, when feasible.

In subsequent individual comments, the commenter raised specific concerns about the impact analysis or mitigation related to land use, socioeconomics and communities, noise and vibration, transportation, safety and security, cultural resources, public utilities and energy, and biological resources. Each of these specific comments has been addressed. Please refer to the responses to submission FJ-1118 as follows: comments 2516 through 2518 related to land use and communities; comments 2519 through 2523 related to noise; comments 2524 through 2535 related to transportation and safety; comments 2536, 2538, and 2539 related to public services and utilities; comment 2537 related to cultural resources; and comments 2540 and 2541 related to biological resources.

The comment also asserts that the Draft EIR/EIS fails to consider cumulative impacts of the Caltrain Business Plan. Please refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-GEN-4:

Consideration of 2040 Caltrain Service Vision and Caltrain Business Plan, which addresses this topic. The comment requests that the Authority consider grade separations as mitigation for project impacts. Please refer to Standard Response FJ- Response-GS-1: Requests for Grade Separations, which addresses this topic. 1118-2512
The comment summarizes information presented in the Draft EIR/EIS. The comment is noted but does not raise any specific concern regarding the conclusions or adequacy of the Draft EIR/EIS, nor did it result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS. 1118-2513
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-GS-1: Requests for Grade Separations, FJ- Response-SS-1: At-Grade Crossing Safety.

The comment asserts that land use, transportation, and safety impacts resulting from the project have not been fully analyzed and mitigated. The Authority disagrees with this assertion. Refer to Draft EIR/EIS Section 3.2, Transportation; Section 3.11, Safety and Security; and Section 3.13, Station Planning, Land Use, and Development which provide analysis of the environmental impacts of the project and identify mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, or minimize impacts, when feasible.

In subsequent individual comments, the commenter raised specific concerns about the impact analysis or mitigation related to land use, transportation, safety and security.

Please also refer to the response to submission FJ-1118, comments 2516 through 2518 related to land use and communities and comments 2524 through 2535 related to transportation and safety, which address the city’s concerns in more detail.

The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS.

California High-Speed Rail Authority June 2022
San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS Page | 20-711

7.b
Packet Pg. 115
Chapter 20 Local Agency Comments
Response to Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) - Continued 1118-2514
Please refer to Table 8-3 in Section 8.4.4, Preferred Alternative Identification, of the Final EIR/EIS, which identifies the Authority’s preferred radio communication tower sites.

In Palo Alto, the preferred radio communication tower sites are standalone radio tower 8 alternate site 2 (located southwest of the Embarcadero Road underpass of the Caltrain corridor immediately adjacent to the Caltrain right-of-way) and standalone radio tower 8A alternate site 1 (located within the Caltrain right-of-way). These locations are preferred because they would minimize additional right-of-way acquisition, which is consistent with the City’s preferences.

With respect to the process for coordinating with property owners should the acquisition of private property be required, the Authority would begin the outreach process for acquisition during the final design phase. The Authority would hold community meetings to explain the acquisition process and answer questions. Individual affected property owners would receive an official communication from the Authority and be assigned a real property agent to work with. All acquisition would be conducted in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Act (42 U.S.C. Chapter 61), as described in SOCIO-IAMF#2.

The Uniform Relocation Act establishes minimum standards for the treatment of and compensation to individuals whose real property is acquired for a federally funded project. Information about acquisition, compensation, and relocation assistance is also available on the Authority's website: hsr.ca.gov/programs/private-property/. 1118-2515
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-GEN-4: Consideration of 2040 Caltrain Service Vision and Caltrain Business Plan.

The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS. 1118-2516
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-OUT-3: Local Government Permits.

The comment states that the Draft EIR/EIS needs to evaluate impacts on land use consistent with CEQA significance thresholds adopted by the state and the City of Palo Alto. This includes (1) whether the project would physically divide an established community and (2) whether the project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Please refer to Section 3.12.4.5, Method for Determining Significance under CEQA, which identifies the first CEQA threshold mentioned by the commenter (whether the project would physically divide an established community). Please refer to Section 3.13.4.5, Method for Determining Significance under CEQA, which identifies the second CEQA threshold mentioned by the commenter (if the project would cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact). Please also refer to Appendix 2-J, Policy Consistency Analysis, which provides a policy consistency analysis for the project alternatives. The EIR/EIS includes the thresholds identified in the comment and no revisions are required.

June 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority
Page | 20-712 San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS

7.b
Packet Pg. 116
Chapter 20 Local Agency Comments
Response to Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) - Continued 1118-2517
The comment from the City of Palo Alto asserts that community division impacts associated with HSR preemptions at at-grade crossings and the inclusion of a noise barrier have not been adequately identified in the Draft EIR/EIS. The Authority respectfully disagrees with the assertion that the Draft EIR/EIS has not fully described these impacts.

In both Alternative A and B, HSR trains would use the existing Caltrain tracks. To some extent, these existing tracks already visually and physically divide the community.

Regarding the effects of HSR preemptions (gate closures) at at-grade crossings, refer to Draft EIR/EIS Section 3.12, Socioeconomics and Communities. In that section, refer to Impact SOCIO#3, which acknowledges that gate closures at the at-grade crossings could lead to greater delays to pass across such areas. Access would still be maintained and such temporary delays would not represent a physical division of the existing community.

While the project would include bicycle and pedestrian facilities to maintain all forms of transportation across and along the rail corridor, such aspects of the project are noted for the record; the CEQA conclusion does not hinge on this point.

Regarding noise barriers, refer to Draft EIR/EIS Section 3.4, Noise and Vibration. In that section, Table 3.4-21 identifies 13 locations in Palo Alto where noise barriers would be effective in reducing noise impacts. No noise barriers are proposed to be constructed across any at-grade crossings and thus would not cause or contribute to any road closures or decreased vehicle connectivity. Moreover, the Authority would not construct any noise barriers without the consent of 75 percent of all affected parties.

Several sections of the Draft EIR/EIS consider the impacts of noise barriers. Refer to Section 3.4.7, Mitigation Measures, and Section 3.15.7, Mitigation Measures, particularly AVQ-MM#4, AVQ-MM#5, and AVQ-MM#6. Please also refer to the response to submission FJ-1118, comment 2540, which addresses the visual impacts of noise barriers. The analysis in these sections support the conclusion for Impact SOCIO#3 that there would be no secondary impacts on community cohesion associated with project operations, because the recommended noise barriers would be constructed within an existing transportation corridor and would not physically divide established communities 1118-2517
or disrupt community circulation to the extent that community character or cohesion would be affected. Accordingly, impacts on communities associated with transportation, noise and vibration, or visual quality would not physically divide established communities, and therefore no mitigation associated with Impact SOCIO#3 is required.

The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS. 1118-2518
The comment states that the EIR/EIS must identify any inconsistencies with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan and determine impacts based on this analysis. As the commenter notes, Draft EIR/EIS Section 3.4.3, Consistency with Plans and Laws, and Volume 2, Appendix 2-J, Policy Consistency Analysis, provide a policy consistency analysis for the project alternatives and identify that the project alternatives would be inconsistent with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan policies and regulations with respect to noise.

However, as stated in Section 3.4.2.3, Regional and Local, of the Draft EIR/EIS, the HSR system is not subject to local general plan policies and ordinances related to noise limits or to locally based criteria concerning noise and vibration for the project alternatives. Instead, the project is subject to federal noise and vibration impact criteria (as set forth by the FRA).

The noise and vibration impact assessments were conducted following FRA methodology and criteria.

Please refer to Draft EIR/EIS Section 3.4, Noise and Vibration, Impacts NV#2 and NV#6, which identify significant and unavoidable operational impacts related to noise, even after the application of numerous mitigation measures. The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS.

California High-Speed Rail Authority June 2022
San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS Page | 20-713

7.b
Packet Pg. 117
Chapter 20 Local Agency Comments
Response to Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) - Continued 1118-2519
NV-MM#1 in Section 3.4.7, Mitigation Measures, discusses construction noise mitigation measures. NV-MM#1 requires the contractor to establish a construction noise monitoring program and implement measures to comply with FRA construction noise limits (an 8-hour Leq, dBA of 80 during the day and 70 at night for residential land use, 85 for both day and night for commercial land use, and 90 for both day and night for industrial land use) where a noise-sensitive receptor is present and wherever feasible.

Measures for minimizing construction noise would include prohibiting certain noise- generating activities during nighttime hours, but due to the constraints of working within an active rail corridor some track realignments would require nighttime construction work that could exceed FRA construction noise limits at night. As described in mitigation measure NV-MM#1, the Authority would establish and maintain in operation until completion of construction a toll-free “hotline” regarding the project construction activities and would make a reasonable good-faith effort to address all noise concerns during construction. Accordingly, even with the implementation of NV-MM#1, the Draft EIR/EIS concludes that that some construction noise impacts would remain after mitigation, and the impact would be significant and unavoidable for both project alternatives. The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS. 1118-2520
NV-IAMF#1 addresses both noise and vibration from construction. Consistent with typical construction practices contained in FTA and FRA guidelines for minimizing construction vibration, the contractor would route truck traffic away from residential streets, employ construction phasing, and use alternative construction methods to avoid the use of impact pile driving near vibration-sensitive land uses where possible. The contractor would document in a construction noise and vibration control plan how these measures would be employed to minimize construction vibration within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. Table 3.4-9 identifies the applicable FRA impact criteria that are the performance criteria the contractor must meet to avoid annoyance from construction vibration.

As identified in Table 3.4-26, NV-MM#2 would be implemented to reduce this impact to less than significant levels under CEQA. NV-MM#2 would be effective in reducing human annoyance, as well as potential building damage. Additional information on the Authority’s noise and vibration mitigation guidelines is available in Appendix 3.4-B, Noise and Vibration Mitigation Guidelines. Changes in the sequence of operations and using alternative construction methods are available vibration mitigation options that will be identified in the required vibration control plan prepared by the contractor. The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS. 1118-2521
Tables 3.4-23 and 3.4-24 in Section 3.4, Noise and Vibration, of the Draft EIR/EIS include the number of sensitive receptors that would experience moderate or severe noise impact before mitigation, with noise barriers, and with a combination of quiet zones and noise barriers. Additional detail regarding the specific noise impacts, levels, and locations before mitigation can be found in Volume 2, Appendix 3.4-A, Noise and Vibration Technical Report, in Tables 5-9 and 5-10, of the Draft EIR/EIS. Additional detail regarding the specific vibration impacts, levels, and locations before mitigation can be found in Tables 5-19 and 5-20. The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS.

June 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority
Page | 20-714 San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS

7.b
Packet Pg. 118
Chapter 20 Local Agency Comments
Response to Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) - Continued 1118-2522
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-OUT-3: Local Government Permits.

The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS. 1118-2523
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-GS-1: Requests for Grade Separations.

Regarding establishing quiet zones, please refer to Section 3.4.7, Mitigation Measures, NV-MM#4, that states quiet zones can only be legally undertaken by local jurisdictions.

The Authority cannot legally establish or require a quiet zone. However, this measure has been revised in the Final EIR/EIS to clarify that HSR would assist with the preparation of technical analysis and materials needed for the quiet zone application, which would then be provided to local communities for submittal to the FRA. 1118-2524
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-OUT-2: Consultation with Local Agencies and Consistency with Local Regulations.

The comment requests that intersections be evaluated based on the adopted Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy in Palo Alto. The Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy was adopted by the City of Palo Alto in June 2020 in conjunction with new CEQA VMT thresholds pursuant to SB 743. The Local Transportation Impact Analysis policy establishes a process for conducting transportation analysis outside of the CEQA process, specially to address compliance with the City of Palo Alto’s LOS policy. The stated purpose of the policy is to review and identify “transportation effects of proposed development projects.” The Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy standards for determining whether a transportation impact analysis is required are based on the number of net new weekday (AM or PM peak hour) trips generated by a development project. The HSR project would not add any new vehicle trips to local intersections or roadways in the City of Palo Alto. As such, the HSR project would not be required to prepare a transportation impact analysis under the standards for determining transportation analysis in Palo Alto's Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy.

The Draft EIR/EIS does, however, evaluate LOS impacts at eight intersections in the City of Palo Alto, all adjacent to at-grade crossings. As CEQA was amended in 2018 to eliminate the use of LOS as a threshold to identify significant CEQA transportation impacts, the Draft EIR/EIS addresses LOS impacts for NEPA purposes only. The Authority identified a single LOS methodology and criterion to identify adverse effects under NEPA that is applied for intersections in all jurisdictions along the corridor, and for other corridors throughout the state, to provide a fair and consistent evaluation of project impacts. As described in Standard Response FJ-Response-OUT-2: Consultation with Local Agencies and Consistency with Local Regulations, the Authority is not subject to local government general plan policies or zoning regulations. However, while the analysis of intersection delays in the Draft EIR/EIS was not based on the City of Palo Alto’s Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy, the criteria for evaluating NEPA LOS effects in the Draft EIR/EIS is based on the same LOS D standard applied in the City of Palo Alto Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy.

Please refer to Sections 3.2.4.4, Method for Evaluating Impacts under NEPA, and California High-Speed Rail Authority June 2022
San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS Page | 20-715

7.b
Packet Pg. 119
Chapter 20 Local Agency Comments
Response to Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) - Continued 1118-2524

3.2.4.5, Method for Determining Significance under CEQA, of the Draft EIR/EIS for a description of the methods and impact criteria incorporated within the transportation assessment. The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS. 1118-2525
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-GS-1: Requests for Grade Separations, FJ- Response-SS-1: At-Grade Crossing Safety.

The comment asserts that the Draft EIR/EIS does not analyze the potential hazards to school age pedestrians and bicyclists associated with increases in the number of trains and in train speeds. The comment also requests grade-separated crossings. These concerns are addressed by the standard responses referenced above.

With regard to the assertion that the Draft EIR/EIS did not address project operation effects on children, please refer to Section 3.12, Socioeconomics and Communities. In this section, Impact SOCIO#6 specifically addresses the issues raised in the comment regarding children at at-grade crossings and found that the four-quadrant gates and perimeter fencing would improve safety conditions in the corridor. As there would be no disproportionate impacts on children’s health and safety due to project operations, no mitigation is required.

The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS. 1118-2526
The comment states that the project would increase gate-down time during peak hours by almost 67 percent, and that the impact on pedestrians and bicyclists must be analyzed and mitigated. Please refer to Impact TR#17 of Section 3.2, Transportation, of the Draft EIR/EIS, which evaluates pedestrian and bicycle impacts based on whether the project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy regarding bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise materially decrease the performance of such facilities.

The gate-down time for HSR trains at at-grade crossings in Palo Alto would range from 40 to 48 seconds depending on location. The addition of eight HSR trains during weekday peak hours would not have an effect on travel by pedestrians or bicyclists in Palo Alto about 90 percent of the time during peak hours when the crossing gates are not affected by HSR trains. For pedestrians or bicyclists arriving at the at-grade crossings in Palo Alto during the times when the gate is down for an HSR train, the wait time of up to 48 seconds is not considered a significant effect. The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS.

June 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority
Page | 20-716 San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS

7.b
Packet Pg. 120
Chapter 20 Local Agency Comments
Response to Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) - Continued 1118-2527
The comment states that the Draft EIR/EIS identifies an impact at the intersections in Palo Alto and that the delay at the intersections would affect other modes of transportation including bicyclists, pedestrians, and bus transit. Regarding delay impacts on bus transit, please refer to Impact TR#5 in Section 3.2, Transportation, of the Draft EIR/EIS, which incorporates impacts on local bus transit into the analysis of vehicle congestion/delay. Local bus routes and shuttle services are part of the vehicle volumes that are evaluated to identify continuous permanent congestion/delay consequences on intersection operations. The Draft EIR/EIS indicates that adverse NEPA effects would occur at eight Palo Alto intersections adjacent to at-grade crossings including El Camino Real/Palo Alto Avenue/Sand Hill Road, Alma Street/Palo Alto Avenue, Alma Street/Churchill Avenue, Mariposa Avenue/Churchill Avenue, Park Boulevard/Meadow Drive, Park Boulevard/Charleston Road, Castilleja Avenue/Churchill Avenue, and Wilkie Way/West Charleston Road (Impact TR#5). Refer to TR-MM#1 in Section 3.2, Transportation, of the Final EIR/EIS for a discussion of the site-specific mitigation identified for adverse LOS effects; however no feasible mitigation was identified for intersections in Palo Alto that met the Authority’s policy on traffic mitigation. Please also refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-TR-1: Site-Specific Mitigation for Traffic Impacts, regarding how the Authority analyzed and is mitigating LOS impacts.

Regarding delay impacts on bicyclists and pedestrians, please refer to Impacts TR#16 and TR#17, which evaluate pedestrian and bicycle impacts based on whether the project would conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy regarding bicycle or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise materially decrease the performance of such facilities.

The gate-down time for HSR trains at at-grade crossings in Palo Alto would range from 40 to 48 seconds. For pedestrians or bicyclists arriving at the Palo Alto at-grade crossings during the times when the gate is down for an HSR train, the wait time of up to 48 seconds is not considered a significant effect.
1118-2528
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-SS-1: At-Grade Crossing Safety, FJ- Response-TR-1: Site-Specific Mitigation for Traffic Impacts.

The comment suggests that the Draft EIR/EIS should evaluate the effect of queues spilling onto through lanes, which would create safety hazards near at-grade crossings.

The intersection LOS analysis methodology employed in the Draft EIR/EIS takes into the account the effect of queues created by added gate-down time at the at-grade crossings on the operations/LOS of intersections adjacent to the at-grade crossing. This analysis is reflected in Impact TR#5 in Section 3.2, Transportation, of the Draft EIR/EIS. Refer to TR-MM#1 in Section 3.2, Transportation, of the Final EIR/EIS for a discussion of the site-specific mitigation identified for adverse LOS effects. As discussed in Standard Response FJ-Response-TR-1: Site-Specific Mitigation for Traffic Impacts, the Authority developed site-specific mitigation for the Final EIR/EIS for certain locations where adverse NEPA traffic effects were identified. However, no feasible mitigation was identified that could address the effects at the intersections of El Camino Real/Palo Alto Avenue/Sand Hill Road, Alma Street/Palo Alto Avenue, Alma Street/Churchill Avenue, Mariposa Avenue/Churchill Avenue, Park Boulevard/Meadow Avenue, Park Boulevard/Charleston Road, Castilleja Avenue/Churchill Avenue, and Wilkie Way/West Charleston Road.

The Authority will construct improvements at at-grade crossings, including four-quadrant gates where not currently present, consistent with FRA standards to address safety at all at-grade crossings. As discussed under Impact S&S#14 in Section 3.11, Safety and Security, the Draft EIR/EIS analysis found that installation of improvements to at-grade crossings, perimeter fencing, and four-quadrant gates would improve safety along the right-of-way, providing sufficient protections.

Volume 3, Preliminary Engineering Plans, of the Draft EIR/EIS reflects a conceptual level of design for four-quadrant gate applications. The design for at-grade crossings would be refined as part of the final design in compliance with all relevant engineering standards, including MUTCD and CPUC GOs, and in coordination with CPUC.

California High-Speed Rail Authority June 2022
San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS Page | 20-717

7.b
Packet Pg. 121
Chapter 20 Local Agency Comments
Response to Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) - Continued 1118-2529
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-TR-1: Site-Specific Mitigation for Traffic Impacts.

The comment suggests that the project would significantly affect all modes of transit throughout the day and that impacts have not been properly identified. Please refer to Impact TR#11 in Section 3.2, Transportation, of the Draft EIR/EIS, which addresses the effects on high-frequency bus routes that operate near the HSR stations, maintenance facilities, or cross at-grade rail crossings. Significant effects due to added vehicle traffic in station areas or added gate-down time at at-grade rail crossings are identified for nine high-frequency bus routes. TR-MM#2 mitigates the effects identified in Impact TR#11.

Local bus routes and shuttle services are part of the vehicle volumes that are evaluated to identify continuous permanent congestion/delay consequences on intersection operations in Impact TR#5. The Draft EIR/EIS indicates that an adverse NEPA effect would occur at eight Palo Alto intersections adjacent to at-grade crossings including El Camino Real/Palo Alto Avenue/Sand Hill Road, Alma Street/Palo Alto Avenue, Alma Street/Churchill Avenue, Mariposa Avenue/Churchill Avenue, Park Boulevard/Meadow Drive, Park Boulevard/Charleston Road, Castilleja Avenue/Churchill Avenue, and Wilkie Way/West Charleston Road. Refer to TR-MM#1 in Section 3.2 of the Final EIR/EIS for a discussion of the site-specific mitigation identified for adverse LOS effects; however, no feasible mitigation was identified for these intersections that met the Authority’s policy on traffic mitigation.
1118-2530
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-SS-1: At-Grade Crossing Safety.

The commenter states that the HSR train speeds would reduce the reaction time for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle activities at at-grade crossings, and that the project would affect intersections adjacent to at-grade crossings that require improvements.

FRA regulations require that at-grade crossing warning systems must provide at least 20 seconds warning time for normal train operations (49 C.F.R. Section 234.225) and require crossing gates to lower no sooner than 3 seconds after flashing light activation and to reach horizontal no later than 5 seconds before a train enters the crossing (49 C.F.R. Section 234.223). These requirements do not change for trains operating at 79 mph or 110 mph. Caltrain is the host railroad and is responsible for compliance withal FRA safety regulations with regard to track and warning systems and would be responsible to make any adjustments in gate activation and any connection to preemption of nearby traffic signal systems.

As discussed in Standard Response FJ-Response-SS-1: At-Grade Crossing Safety, the Authority would install four-quadrant gates, median channelization, and fencing, which would improve at-grade crossing safety. In addition, Caltrain is upgrading its signal system, which will improve connections between onboard train systems and wayside signal operations. Caltrain conducts periodic hazard analysis to determine when crossings will be upgraded. CPUC regulations (CPUC General Order NO. 75-D) require that traffic signals at at-grade crossings with automatic warning devices be interconnected with the automatic warning devices at locations where a diagnostic team determines that preemption is necessary (e.g., where vehicular traffic queues from traffic signal-controlled intersections exceed the Clear Storage Distance as defined in the MUTCD). Caltrain would be responsible for preemption improvements with regard to blended service operations. Caltrain will meet all state (CPUC) and federal (FRA) requirements for railroad operations and signaling. For further information about Caltrain’s existing and future plans concerning signal systems, please refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-SS-1: At-Grade Crossing Safety. The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS.

June 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority
Page | 20-718 San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS

7.b
Packet Pg. 122
Chapter 20 Local Agency Comments
Response to Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) - Continued 1118-2531
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-GS-1: Requests for Grade Separations, FJ- Response-SS-1: At-Grade Crossing Safety.

The Authority acknowledges the City’s concern regarding the higher operating speeds of trains within the Caltrain corridor as compared to existing Caltrain speeds of 79 mph. As explained in Chapter 2, Alternatives, of the Draft EIR/EIS, with implementation of the HSR project, HSR trains and Caltrain trains would operate at speeds of up to 110 mph.

Higher speeds are necessary for consistency with Proposition 1A travel time requirements for system design, which requires the HSR system to be designed to achieve maximum non-stop service times of 30 minutes between San Francisco and San Jose. Consistent with FRA safety guidelines for HSR systems with operating speeds of up to 110 mph, the blended system would install safety improvements (e.g., four-quadrant gates at at-grade crossings, perimeter fencing) to create a “sealed corridor” that would reduce conflicts with automobiles, bicycles, and pedestrians. The Draft EIR/EIS analysis under Impact S&S#14 found that installation of four-quadrant gates and median barriers consistent with FRA standards would improve safety along the right-of-way, providing sufficient protections.

The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS. 1118-2532
Please refer to the response to submission FJ-1118, comment 2531, which addresses the required design speeds needed for the project to remain consistent with Prop 1A.

Due to this requirement, slower speed trains have not been evaluated, and are not required to be evaluated, in the EIR/EIS. The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS.
1118-2533
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-OUT-2: Consultation with Local Agencies and Consistency with Local Regulations.

The comment requests that the Draft EIR/EIS transportation analysis impacts and mitigations be studied in accordance with the adopted Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy in Palo Alto. The Authority developed the methodology and significance criteria applied for the Draft EIR/EIS assessment in accordance with CEQA and NEPA guidelines. The Authority identified a single LOS criterion to identify adverse effects under NEPA that is applied for intersections in all jurisdictions along the corridor, and for other corridors throughout the state, to provide a fair and consistent evaluation of project impacts. As such, the analysis of intersection delays in the Draft EIR/EIS were not based on the City of Palo Alto’s Local Transportation Impact Analysis Policy on traffic Infusion and Residential Environment (TIRE). As described in Standard Response FJ- Response-OUT-2: Consultation with Local Agencies and Consistency with Local Regulations, the Authority is not subject to local government general plan policies or zoning regulations.

Please refer to Sections 3.2.4.4, Method for Evaluating Impacts under NEPA, and

3.2.4.5, Method for Determining Significance under CEQA, of the Draft EIR/EIS for a description of the methods and impact criteria incorporated within the transportation assessment. Please refer also to Standard Response FJ-Response-TR-1: Site-Specific Mitigation for Traffic Impacts, regarding how the Authority analyzed and is mitigating LOS impacts.

California High-Speed Rail Authority June 2022
San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS Page | 20-719

7.b
Packet Pg. 123
Chapter 20 Local Agency Comments
Response to Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) - Continued 1118-2534
As discussed under Impact TR#13, the project is expected to result in a 6.5 percent increase in Caltrain ridership due to HSR riders using Caltrain to reach HSR stations for outbound trips and for inbound riders to reach destinations not served by HSR. It is possible that increased ridership may increase demand for parking at other Caltrain stations. However, as explained in the
EIR for the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor
Electrification Project (PCJPB 2015b), Caltrain does not plan to meet unconstrained parking deman
d at its stations, particularly in the urbanized portions of the Caltrain service area. Caltrain’s 2010 Comprehensive Access Program Policy Statement emphas
izes station access by walking, transit, and bicycling over automobile access at most stations. For transit center stations like Palo Alto, access priority for autos is the lowest priority after transit, walking, and
bicycles. A parking deficit in and of itself, or the
need to find a parking space off-site, while inconvenient, is not in and of itself a signi
ficant physical impact on the environment. Some station users unaware of the parking deficits may circle while looking for parking, but experienced station users will modify their behavior to take into account the parking deficits and take alternative actions. Those actions may include arriving earlier, using other nearby stations with available pa
rking, using the kiss and ride, using parking areas further from the station, or accessing the station via other modes such as transit, biking or walking. Given Caltrain’s policy approach to station access, the increased riders generated by the increased demand for Caltrain service due to the HSR project are expected to be accommodated by modes other than personal vehicle p
arking or by behavioral shifts. As such, there
would be no significant physical impact on the environment and no requirement for mitigation. The comment does not iden
tify any inadequacies in the analysis in the Draft
EIR/EIS and no revisions are necessary.
1118-2535
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-TR-1: Site-Specific Mitigation for Traffic Impacts.

The comment suggests that the project would significantly affect bus service on Alma Avenue. While the Draft EIR/EIS does not specifically identify individual local bus service routes, impacts on local bus transit are incorporated into the analysis of intersection operations. Please refer to Impact TR#5 in Section 3.2, Transportation, which analyzes local bus routes as part of the vehicle volumes that are evaluated to identify continuous permanent congestion/delay consequences on intersection operations. The Draft EIR/EIS indicates that an adverse NEPA effect would occur at eight Palo Alto intersections adjacent to at-grade crossings, including Alma Street/Palo Alto Avenue and Alma Street/Churchill Avenue. Local bus services are incorporated into this effect on intersection operations. Refer to TR-MM#1 in Section 3.2 of the Final EIR/EIS for a discussion of the site-specific mitigation identified for adverse LOS effects.

No feasible mitigation was identified that could address the effects at the intersections of Alma Street/Palo Alto Avenue and Alma Street/Churchill Avenue. 1118-2536
Refer to Standard Response FJ-Response-GS-1: Requests for Grade Separations, FJ- Response-SS-2: Emergency Vehicle Response Times.

The comment asserts that the Draft EIR/EIS must evaluate grade separation for at- grade crossings as mitigation measures for effects to emergency response times. The Draft EIR/EIS evaluation of continuous permanent impacts on emergency access and response times due to increased gate-down time under Impact S&S#6 concluded that there would be a significant impact along the Menlo Park/Palo Alto boundary in the areas west of El Camino Real and north of Sand Hill Road, but not for other portions of the City of Palo Alto. Mitigation Measure SS-MM#4, which calls for installing emergency vehicle priority treatments related to increased gate-down time impacts, indicates that the Authority and a local agency may make a mutual agreement to have the Authority make an in-lieu payment towards other infrastructure projects, as an alternative to the listed emergency vehicle priority treatments, including nearby grade-separation projects.

June 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority
Page | 20-720 San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS

7.b
Packet Pg. 124
Chapter 20 Local Agency Comments
Response to Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) - Continued 1118-2537
The comment states that the Draft EIR/EIS must evaluate and mitigate the impacts on the root-structure from grading or the use of vibratory equipment for track work within 10 feet of the Historic El Palo Alto Tree. The El Palo Alto redwood tree is located adjacent to the Caltrain right-of-way, and the tree branches and foliage are located within 5 feet of the right-of-way. As part of Caltrain PCEP, Caltrain will be performing some limited tree trimming that an arborist has determined will not compromise the health of the tree and will be installing OCS poles along the opposite side of the tracks to minimize effects on tree roots. As part of the HSR project, minor horizontal track shifts would be required further westward, away from the tree. This would be done using track-mounted equipment that would operate along the existing Caltrain track as it adjusts track and ballast; this equipment operates in a similar way to existing train operations in the Caltrain corridor. As the track bed is already compacted and the track adjustments would be shifting track further from El Palo Alto, it is not anticipated that additional compaction or vibratory impacts beyond the existing conditions would occur.

Please refer to BIO-MM#39 of the Draft EIR/EIS, which requires the project biologist to establish environmentally sensitive areas around protected trees with the potential to be affected by construction activities. The intent of this measure is to avoid construction impacts on protected trees. Although, a 10 foot buffer will not be possible in this location, the Historic El Palo Alto Tree would be protected by the largest feasibly possible environmentally sensitive area, which would minimize root structure grading and vibratory impacts. BIO-MM#39 has been updated to reflect that locations near protected trees where a 10 foot buffer is not possible will have the largest possible buffer employed to avoid and minimize impacts.
1118-2538
The comment states that construction-related vibration could indirectly affect existing City of Palo Alto utility infrastructure in the vicinity of the project, particularly infrastructure that crosses the railroad tracks. Anticipated construction work within the city of Palo Alto is limited to minor track shifts, installation of four-quadrant gates, and standalone radio towers. These activities would not be substantial sources of construction-related vibration and therefore significant indirect vibration impacts on utilities are not expected and mitigation is not required. Any work in proximity to City- owned utilities would be coordinated with the City, and the Authority generally ensures that overall local government facilities and utilities function in a materially equivalent manner to prior to the relocations, modifications, or impact. This comment does not require any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS.
1118-2539
The issue of temporary disruptions to utilities is acknowledged and explained at length in Impact PUE#1 in Section 3.6, Public Utilities and Energy, of the Draft EIR/EIS. Impact PUE#1 states that planned, temporary interruptions of major utility service to public utility customers could occur during construction at any given location and could interrupt utility services to industrial, commercial, and residential customers. Impact PUE#1 explains that the alternatives incorporate PUE-IAMF#3, which provides for advance notification of planned temporary outages. The alternatives also incorporate PUE-IAMF#4, which further commits the Authority to coordinate with utility providers such that outages can be avoided or minimized.

Neither CEQA, NEPA, nor any other pertinent regulation require that outage durations be precisely defined or that the Authority speculate on the durations of such outages.

The Authority recognizes that outages are inconvenient to surrounding utility users, but for health and safety purposes, some temporary outages would be required. The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS.

California High-Speed Rail Authority June 2022
San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS Page | 20-721

7.b
Packet Pg. 125
Chapter 20 Local Agency Comments
Response to Submission 1118 (Ed Shikada, City of Palo Alto, September 9, 2020) - Continued 1118-2540
As shown in Table 3.4-21 in Section 3.4, Noise and Vibration, of the Draft EIR/EIS there are numerous locations where noise barriers would be considered in Palo Alto. Mature vegetation already exists outside the railway right-of-way in most potential noise barrier locations to shield views from residences and other sensitive receptors. In locations where existing landscaping is minimal, AVQ-MM#4 and AVQ-MM#5 detail landscaping mitigations along the HSR corridor. Additionally, in accordance with AVQ-MM#6 as part of the final design and construction management plan, the Authority would work with local jurisdictions to develop the appropriate noise barrier style and treatments for visually sensitive areas, to reduce the visual effect of barriers on adjacent land uses.

With respect to the commenter’s question about whether the Authority would retain or replant existing vegetation along the right-of-way, the Authority would replace removed trees based upon local jurisdictional requirements consistent with AVQ-MM#1. The comment did not result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS. 1118-2541
The comment is noted but does not raise any specific concern regarding the conclusions or adequacy of the Draft EIR/EIS, nor did it result in any revisions to the Draft EIR/EIS.

Appendix 2-I, Regional and Local Plans and Policies, of the Draft EIR/EIS includes a summary of the tree requirements in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The project would replace trees in accordance with the City of Palo Alto’s Tree Technical Manual and use the City of Palo Alto’s required tree replacement ratios if they are greater than a 1:1 ratio.

June 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority
Page | 20-722 San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS

7.b
Packet Pg. 126

City of Palo Alto (ID # 14538)
Office of the City Clerk
City Council CAO Report

Meeting Date: 8/8/2022 Report Type: Action Items

Title: Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate for the League of California Cities Annual 2022 Conference, to be held September 7-9 in Long Beach, CA
From: Lesley Milton, City Clerk

The City Council should consider attendees Council Member Cormack, Vice Mayor Kou , or Mayor Burt and designate one council member as the voting delegate and two council members as alternate voting delegates for the 2022 League of California Cities Annual Conference.

BACKGROUND:

The League’s 20 22 Annual Conference is s cheduled for September 7 -9, 2022 in Long Beach. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting scheduled for noon on Friday, September 9 at the Long Beach Convention Center. At this meeting, the League membership considers and t akes action on resolutions that establish League policy. The resolutions will be agendized for Council consideration prior to the conference.

In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, the City Council must delegate a voting delegate and could appoint up to two alternate voting delegates. At this time only Council Member Cormack and Vice Mayor Kou and Mayor Burt have expressed interest in attending.

Please find attached correspondence received from the League of California Cities.

FISCAL IMPACT:
8 Packet Pg. 127

Page 2 ends

Palo Alto City CouncilAugust 8, 2022

Palo Alto City Council
August 8, 2022