HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200525plCC1 701-32
DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE:
LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE
MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS
ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES
ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES
Prepared for: 05/25/2020
Document dates: 5/6/2020 – 5/13/2020
Set 1 of 5
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Nancy D. Wagner <nancydwagner@comcast.net>
Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 2:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Covid 19 and Masks
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I don’t understand why Palo Alto has not yet mandated that people working or patronizing essential businesses wear
face coverings/masks.
Today, when I asked the House of Bagels manager why no one in the store ‐ including all of the workers ‐ were NOT
wearing face masks, he said it was optional. Basically not required, so they’re not bothering. The risk of the Covid 19
pandemic and spread of the virus in the community is far from over.
And yes, it’s my option to take my business elsewhere and not bother picking up any essentials in Palo Alto. I
understand that Santa Clara County has made face masks optional, but the City of Palo Alto can do better. I urge the
Council to MANDATE this basic community safety measure now.
Nancy
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:michael nierenberg <nierenberg@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 7, 2020 3:18 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Face Mask Mandate
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
I understand the Council is considering making wearing face masks a mandate. As a physician and
resident I oppose making wearing masks a mandate, though I am not opposed to promoting wearing
masks appropriately. Here are my reasons:
1. Masks are only partially effective at best and like all PPE must be used correctly or they can
actually increase risk. Masks need to fit and be worn correctly; not loose and dangling or just over the
mouth. Disposable masks need to be just that… disposed of regularly. I see many people using them
over and over. Touching them with contaminated hands just spreads infection. Cloth masks need to
be washed regularly or again they are a source of infection. How are you going to mandate this or
check on it? Masks can also give a false sense of security. Rather than a mandate, I would suggest
focusing on education regarding PPE so it will be effective.
2. As I understand it, masks would not need to be worn when exercising but would otherwise be
mandated. What is exercise? Is walking your dog exercise? How about yoga? Just sitting alone in a
park with no one around is not exercise, but it is safe in terms of spreading infection. Rather, masks
should be worn when you cannot easily maintain a safe distance from others. Stores, banks, post
office, outside gatherings if people are moving about, etc. They need to be used when needed; and
not when not! Wearing face masks for prolonged periods of time can in fact cause facial skin
problems thus causing one problem to prevent another.
3. Lastly, mandating means “enforcement”. The police and other “enforcers” have enough to do
already without checking if masks are soiled, reused, or worn incorrectly. Just seeing a mask on
someone is not enough as noted in point #1. I bicycle around Palo Alto every day and the vast
majority of people with or without masks are respectful of distancing. In stores the vast majority
already are wearing masks. So why “fix” something that isn’t broken? Again, we need more education
and less laws and mandates. Frankly I can name numerous laws and mandates already on the books
or proposed that aren’t enforced or marginally enforced at best: Gas leaf blowers, idling your car, J-
walking, fires on no-burn days, cars left unattended on the streets for months, etc. Do we really need
another mandate?
Thank you for your time and attention. I would urge that you please not MANDATE; but rather
EDUCATE.
Respectfully,
Michael A. Nierenberg, MD
2
Clinical Professor of Medicine
Stanford University
_____________________________________________________This e-mail message and any
attachment(s) transmitted with it are intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. This
message may be privileged and/or confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not
review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please
notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.Thank you...
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Tim Diebert <tdiebert04@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 7:12 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:tdiebert04@gmail.com
Subject:Upcoming decision about requiring the wearing of masks in Palo Alto.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I've been a resident of South Palo Alto for the last 32 years, and I would like to offer my opinion about the proposed
requirement that face masks be worn in public in Palo Alto.
The COVID‐19 pandemic has taken a toll on everyone. The County of Santa Clara Health Department has done a great
job in these 'interesting' times, including rational, science based decisions. Since the County doesn't require masks in
public, I really wonder why the City Council thinks they know better. What science is this being based on? The County
already requires the wearing of masks when visiting 'essential businesses', so what is to be gained by the City adding a
requirement. When I'm out doing errands to 'essential businesses' (bank, Post Office, drug store, getting food), I see
very few people out, and those who are out, are maintaining social distancing as required by the County Order. If you
are concerned about the parks and open space, require them there. Please don't require me to wear a mask when I'm
walking in my neighborhood, where I might see 5 people who are maintaining social distancing.
Thank you for listening.
Tim Diebert
If you remain calm in the midst of great chaos, it is the surest guarantee that it will eventually subside.
Julie Andrews,
actress, singer, writer
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:James ODonohue <odonohue@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 8:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please require masks in public
Attachments:Please require masks.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
May 8, 2020
Dear Palo alto City Council,
I have practiced medicine for over 30 years, and I am writing to support the proposal to require mask wearing in
public where close interaction is possible.
There are still many unknowns about the coronavirus, but the vast majority of scientists and medical practitioners
agree on the basics. The virus is primarily spread between people during close contact, often via small
droplets produced by coughing, sneezing, and talking, and probably also by aerosols generated while breathing and
talking. See references below.
The vast majority of scientists and medical practitioners also agree that wearing masks prevents the spread of the
coronavirus. Every medical practitioner wears a mask at work when dealing with a respiratory infectious disease.
Although an N95 mask may be optimal, the simple ear loop medical mask can reduce the spread of aerosols three
fold, and can reduce the spread of small droplets by 25 fold. See references below.
The vast majority of scientists and medical practitioners also agree that over half of all active coronavirus infections
are asymptomatic, or show minimal symptoms, so that those carrying and spreading the virus do not know that they
are carrying and spreading the virus, and therefore a danger to the most at risk members of our community.
I hope the city council will be guided by the science and the data, and not be swayed by the loudest voices, which
too often are politically motivated and dangerously misinformed or misled.
Best regards,
James O’Donohue, M.D.
Palo Alto
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591312/
https://www.healthline.com/health/cold-flu/mask
Redacted
May 8, 2020
Dear Palo alto City Council,
I have practiced medicine for over 30 years, and I am writing to support the proposal to require mask
wearing in public where close interaction is possible.
There are still many unknowns about the coronavirus, but the vast majority of scientists and medical
practitioners agree on the basics. The virus is primarily spread between people during close contact,
often via small droplets produced by coughing, sneezing, and talking, and probably also by aerosols
generated while breathing and talking. See references below.
The vast majority of scientists and medical practitioners also agree that wearing masks prevents the
spread of the coronavirus. Every medical practitioner wears a mask at work when dealing with a
respiratory infectious disease. Although an N95 mask may be optimal, the simple ear loop medical
mask can reduce the spread of aerosols three fold, and can reduce the spread of small droplets by
25 fold. See references below.
The vast majority of scientists and medical practitioners also agree that over half of all active
coronavirus infections are asymptomatic, or show minimal symptoms, so that those carrying and
spreading the virus do not know that they are carrying and spreading the virus, and therefore a
danger to the most at risk members of our community.
I hope the city council will be guided by the science and the data, and not be swayed by the loudest
voices, which too often are politically motivated and dangerously misinformed or misled.
Best regards,
James O’Donohue, M.D.
1321 Waverley St., Palo Alto
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591312/
https://www.healthline.com/health/cold-flu/mask
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Virginia Van Kuran <virginia@vankuran.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 12:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Urge the Council to NOT Approve Emergency Services Order Requiring the Wearing of Face
Coverings to Slow the Spread of Covid-19
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
City Council Members,
I am a 71 year old resident of Palo Alto (with no underlying conditions). I appreciate all the careful steps the city has
taken to follow the County Guidelines, State Guidelines and the Federal Guidelines. I think those are sufficient and we
should not add another layer of guidelines. Personally I wear the cotton mask made by my neighbor whenever I am out.
I’m impressed with all of the precautions all the stores I shop at ‐ Grocery, Pet and Pharmacy have taken. Everyone
shopping in the store is already wearing masks.
I fear a backlash from our very conscientious Palo Alto citizens if you enact this additional order.
Regards,
Virginia Van Kuran
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Redacted
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Barton Wells <bwells@3hc.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 7:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Face coverings
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
You have got to be kidding me that Palo Alto is considering making face coverings mandatory. Do you even know that
people pass out due to carbon dioxide poisoning when doing strenuous (and sometimes not strenuous) activity w/
certain face masks (especially those that have some volume of air within them)? Do you also know the numbers of cases
of COVID‐19 locally? The last two days, 3 people died in the entire Bay Area from COVID‐19 and related causes. Do you
know how many died of heart disease each of those days? 44! And that happens everyday of every year, but you aren’t
doing anything about that.
Please, please, please get some balanced thought in making decisions. I feel that no one in government is thinking
about the side effects of everything being implemented. People will die from enforced face masks, no doubt. Will
people die from not having face masks? There really is no compelling data on that.
If there is a probable cause situation, like when there is an indoor gathering of people in an enclosed space for an
extended period of time, well then that is a different case. But a better solution is to not allow such large indoor
gatherings until you are willing to move beyond the current idea that zero lives should be lost to COVID‐19 (that society
does not have for any other condition).
While I do not support a fast opening up of absolutely everything (though there is a serious lack of outside‐the‐box
thinking here), as of Thursday, May 7th, there are 70 confirmed hospitalized cases of confirmed COVID‐19 in all of Santa
Clara County, and only 32 of those in ICU. And the numbers of each of those have be falling and falling without required
face masks. I do not believe that a legal case could be made that there is evidence that face masks are required to fix a
problem for the common good.
Just please think.
Barton Wells,
Palo Alto resident for 30 years
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:David Goldberg <david.goldberg@ymail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 10, 2020 12:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Face Covering Order
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
For the first time in my 30 years of living in Palo Alto, I've been moved to write a letter to the council. This is in response to reading the City of Palo Alto
Coronavirus Daily Report of May 8, which mentioned a face covering order. I presume the thinking is that even though there is no reliable science supporting face coverings, the precautionary principle suggests enacting an ordinance anyway. I found a number of counter arguments to this thinking in an informative report
from the New Zealand Ministry of Health. It mentions the precautionary principle in support of coverings, but it also mentions numerous risks and pitfalls of
requiring masks, including some studies suggesting that requiring face coverings might actually have a negative effect.
I am skeptical of the need for a city-wide face ordinance, since businesses are free to require them, and many have already done so. But if the city does consider a city-wide face ordinance, I hope that it will be very clearly and narrowly drafted to only cover situations where social distancing is not possible, and thus minimize
unintended negative consequences. I know the council wants to do everything possible to mitigate the effects of Covid-19, but sometimes doing nothing is better
than doing something. A face ordinance might be one such thing.
David Goldberg
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:yvonne charles <yvonne.thtf@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 9, 2020 5:56 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Face covering considerations
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine and the rest of the Palo Alto City Council,
I suspect the state of California and the rest of the country will at some point decide facial coverings are necessary when
we are out in public. I have a few concerns about this. To be clear, I agree completely that everyone should wear them
when on public transit or inside a business. My concern is solely based on wearing them outside.
Personally, I find it hard to breathe when wearing a covering. Especially now due to fewer emissions, I'm grateful to be
able to breathe cleaner air. The health impacts of breathing cleaner air were well documented in Beijing some years ago
(Olympics). My daily walks will be much less enjoyable if I have to wear a mask. The air is fragrant with blossoming
flowers, important to my well being.
Several loved ones have told me wearing masks make them claustrophobic. They have to emotionally gear up for
grocery shopping. Requiring them to wear a mask will result in some people not taking safe, physically distant walks that
are so important to mental and physical health.
I've also noticed that some people who used to maintain physical distance no longer do so when wearing masks. The
recommendation of both mask and physical distance is forgotten when a facial covering is worn, even when that
covering is barely adequate or has been reused multiple times.
Last, and very important, I keep reading concerning details about abuse during shelter in place. Facial coverings will
literally mask bruises. Ever since I first read about this, I've been scared for children. Then it also occurred to me that
suddenly not being able to see a smile would affect all children (adults too) detrimentally. Without a kind face on
display, we may be denying those in abusive situations of a source of refuge. The new level of neighborliness has been a
highlight of shelter in place for me. We can keep safe and be even safer the longer we put off wearing masks when
outside.
I'm sending this email now because I know you'll be voting soon on this matter. Thank you for reading my thoughts.
I hope you all stay safe and well.
‐‐
yvonne
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 6:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Changes to Downtown parking in-lieu program
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
fyi
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:40 PM
Subject: Re: Changes to Downtown parking in‐lieu program
To: Shikada Ed <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, <philip.kamhi@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: David Schrom <david@ecomagic.org>, Paul & Karen Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>, Neilson Buchanan
<cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>, Norm Beamer <nhbeamer@yahoo.com>, J T Gusilin <jguislin@gmail.com>, Beth Guislin
<beth.guislin@gmail.com>, Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com>, Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>, Carol Scott
<cscott@crossfieldllc.com>, Terry Holzemer <holz@sonic.net>, Kendra Fadil <kendrafadil@gmail.com>, Christian Pease
<cgpease2016@gmail.com>, City Council <city.council@cityofpalo.org>, Gennady <gsheyner@paweekly.com>
Dear City Manager and City Council,
‐1: as stated in this article https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/05/05/palo‐alto‐to‐reopen‐tennis‐courts‐restore‐
access‐to‐nature‐preserves
Mr. Kamhi is spearheading an effort to "divert cars from three existing bike
boulevards". EvergreenParkMayfield wants to ask you to add Stanford Ave to this list of streets for
traffic calming. Covid19 or not, every day people take short cuts to race down Stanford Ave to Cal Ave (Uber, Lyft,
delivery services, etc.).
We raised the issue of cut‐thru‐traffic to Cal Ave through Stanford Ave many times in the past. We hope this time you
will act and do something.
There will be no safe bike blvd on Park Blvd when constant cut‐through car traffic feeds into Park blvd (at intersection of
Stanford Ave).
Also proper signage (coming from or crossing El Camino onto Stanford Ave, as well as on El Camino and Park Ave) should
be posted, something like "Evergreen Park Neighborhood, not thru traffic to Cal Ave".
‐2: Our RPPs are essential for the safety and the liveliness of our neighborhoods. So is their enforcement. The discussion
by Mrs. Kniss et al. about suspending/reversing the enforcement of RPPs, eliminating any permit fees (which are
ridiculously low anyways) will make things even worse. The argument of the biz community that suspending
enforcement is important for them makes zero sense ‐ since they have plenty of parking available EVERYWHERE. They
don't even need to get into our neighborhood, they can conveniently park in front of their business.
‐3: You have not replied yet to our request about the phase out of business parking permits in our neighborhood, once
the Cal Ave garage is completed.
thank you
2
Wolfgang Dueregger
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 6:30 PM Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgangdueregger@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Council and City Manager,
‐1: We all would appreciate more transparency and proper public discussion of issues of this magnitude.
‐2: I fully support the concerns in below email. Similar consideration must be given to the Evergreen Park /Mayfield RPP
zones as well as other RPPs that are in place.
‐3: The new garage on Cal Ave will be completed very soon. Will this garage then be used for commercial parking
around Cal Ave so that no more business parking permits will be sold in our neighbor hood streets?
Wolfgang Dueregger
On Fri, May 1, 2020 at 3:07 PM Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote:
Please table any action which eliminates or reduces the parking in-lieu fees. The staff report is
inaccurate, incomplete and does not consider impact upon a square mile of residential properties
adjacent to the University Avenue commercial core.
There is no way that thousands of citizens have had time to change their personal priorities to
understand a massive change in development policies. Emergency conditions of the virus threat
should not apply to this staff recommendation for Council action.
Please table this matter until full public review and understanding can be achieved. This includes
re-examination of office market and public transit conditions by the Planning Commission.
Reference: Allow the expiration of a 1-year ban on office uses above the ground floor from
participating in the City's Downtown parking in-lieu program.
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=62107.34&BlobID=76464
Neilson Buchanan
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 3:47 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Neilson Buchanan
Subject:MAY 11 COUNCIL MEETING: Action Item #8 - Do not let the ban on in-lieu fees expire
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members; City Manager:
In Action Item #8 you have before you a poorly written and almost data free staff report that
recommends letting the ban on in-lieu fees expire for downtown commercial development above
ground floor. The report makes speculative claims with no supporting data, for example, that “This
ban may actually discourage home building,” No data or analysis are provided to support this
statement and others.
But even more striking is the comparison of the the approach by the City of Palo Alto compared to
the County of Santa Clara when it comes to efforts to reduce the traffic burden on modern life.
Palo Alto’s recommendation would encourage non resident serving businesses on upper floors of
downtown buildings and increase traffic in an already congested area that lacks sufficient
commercial parking.
In contrast, the County of Santa Clara is exploring ways to reduce commercial traffic - see below.
“This is a really exciting opportunity that we have,” Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors President Cindy Chavez said. “The coronavirus outbreak and shelter-in-place
mandate have forced companies to devote time and money to make large-scale,
commute-free work operational during the past seven weeks. Now is the time to
expand and sustain this blueprint in Santa Clara County.”
Carl Guardino, president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents
major technology firms, said businesses embrace the concept.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/04/coronavirus-made-telework-necessary-santa-clara-
county-to-explore-ways-to-keep-it/
This is particularly critical given that one of the credible scenarios about our new normal predicts
that more people will avoid public transportation and commute as SOV drivers.
In lieu parking fees simply provide commercial enterprises a way to avoid one cost of doing
business in a way that negatively impacts near-by residential neighborhoods. In an effort to address
the problem of too many commercial vehicles in downtown created over the past decades, Palo
2
Alto has had to enact a series of RPP programs, which are now under threat from business
champions on the City Council.
If Council is serious about building more housing, then focus on doing that through programs that
encourage residential building, not giving more financial breaks to commercial development.
Please VOTE NO on letting this ban on in-lieu fees expire.
Sincerely,
John Guislin
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 9, 2020 5:15 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Jocelyn Dong; Gennady; Dave Price; Emily Mibach
Subject:May 11 530pm Council Agenda Item #8 In Lieu Fees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I am extremely disappointed to see staff recommendation for eliminate the ban on in lieu fees for
commercial development.
Incentives for housing should continue to be top priority for Council and Staff.
In lieu fees do not account for the land value in city garages and parking lots. Therefore, in lieu fees
do not reflect full cost charged to a developers. Furthermore, current city in lieu policy grants parking
entitlement in perpetuity far beyond the long-term useful life of garages and surface lots.
The new Office of Transportation should be tasked to report on how in lieu fees aggravate the parking
shortages noted by downtown merchants. This professional analysis would cure the endless debates
for the past 20 years and eliminate kicking the parking can down the road.
The current health crisis should not be an excuse to prioritize commercial office development over the
city's high priority for housing. The fog of virus is being used like the fog of war. Most experts feel
that office space in our region will be "in oversupply" for the next 24 months due to social distancing,
work-at-home and reduced workforces in most businesses.
Now is the time to call upon the Planning and Transportation Commission with the support of a
professionally managed Office of Transportation. There is no reason to weaken city development
policy with a bypass of the PTC.
The most rational policy is to extend the current in lieu fee policy for these commercial office
properties.
Neilson Buchanan
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Redacted
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org>
Sent:Saturday, May 9, 2020 7:39 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:May 11 Council Meeting, Item 8 (In Lieu Fees)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
It's unwise to adopt a policy that increases the financial incentive to build office space when (a) it's unclear that such a
move will be needed once the COVID‐19 emergency abates, and (b) office space should be discouraged in favor of
housing anyway.
Please renew the temporary ban on commercial‐project participation in the in‐lieu parking program.
Best,
Allen Akin
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 10, 2020 12:11 PM
To:City Mgr; Council, City
Subject:keep ban on in-lieu fees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine, City Council Members, City Manager Shikada:
Thank you for all the hard work and unexpected heavy lifting you are facing during this
devastating COVID time.
In reviewing the agenda for Monday's meeting, #8 stands out as an important item that
may slip by during the pandemic. The in-lieu fees have historically been a theoretical
solution that has not realized actual benefits, and which encourages commercial and
office space to the detriment of housing. Although the staff report is very helpful and
thorough, there continues to be no data provided to show that in-lieu fees have been
successful for the intended purpose of easing the parking problem downtown.
The goal of the ban, to research ways to encourage and promote housing development,
shouldn't be discarded because of COVID or because there hasn't been sufficient staffing
and appropriate PTC involvement to study it. The impact on costs or savings is
speculative at best.
Please don't make a hasty decision. Keep the ban on in-lieu fees in place.
Respectfully,
Andie Reed
‐‐
Andie Reed CPA
Palo Alto, CA 94301
530-401-3809
Redacted
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 10, 2020 7:55 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Re: MAY 11 COUNCIL MEETING: Action Item #8 - Do not let the ban on in-lieu fees expire
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Member and City Manager:
I write to ask you to reject the City staff’s recommendation that the ban on in‐lieu fees be allowed to expire. The
justification for such a recommendation is unclear, and the current situation is far too uncertain to take such an action.,
The City previously banned the practice of allowing developers of commercial office space to pay a one‐time fee in lieu
of including sufficient parking in their developments. The City quite rightly rejected such fees as totally inadequate to
compensate for the negative consequences of inadequate parking. These negative consequences include, but are not
limited to, the encroachment of employee parking into residential neighborhoods simply to increase developer profits
for additional commercial office space that we do not need.
Now is not the time to allow this ban to expire. All signs at present point to increased automobile commuting into Palo
Alto as people shun crowded public transportation for fear of contracting the coronavirus. We need to ensure the City
remains in compliance with the comprehensive plan that states that business should be encouraged, but not at the
expense of the qualify of residential life.
The argument for letting ban expire that has been made the City staff makes no sense and no data is presented to
support it. One argument is that no one is building commercial space right now anyway. I fail to see how this supports
letting the ban expire, unless the provision of a gratuitous give‐away to developers to encourage them to build
commercial spaces is the goal. Yet, the staff recommendation cites the need to encourage housing as the reason for
letting the ban lapse. I do not see any rationale laid out that would explain exactly how allowing developers to pay an
inadequate one‐time fee in lieu of providing sufficient parking will spark the creation of more housing.
I also do not see how allowing the ban to continue would do anything to assist in balancing our now compromised
budget. Clearly, developers should be providing parking as part of their projects. The City should not bear the burden of
paying for garage space, nor should residents bear the burden of employee encroachment into their neighborhoods
simply to provide more profit to developers.
Now is not the time to allow the ban to lapse. I ask you to continue the ban, at least until we have more visibility into
how construction and commuting patterns evolve as business reopen amid a continuing contagious viral
threat. Continuing the ban has no negative consequences that have been documented, and it can always be removed at
a later date. Allowing it to lapse can potentially cause great harm that will be difficult to undo. The Council should not
be taking such chances for no apparent gain.
Carol Scott
Resident of Evergreen Park
Carol Scott
Sent from my iPad
5
On May 8, 2020, at 3:47 PM, John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> wrote:
Council Members; City Manager:
In Action Item #8 you have before you a poorly written and almost data free staff
report that recommends letting the ban on in-lieu fees expire for downtown
commercial development above ground floor. The report makes speculative claims
with no supporting data, for example, that “This ban may actually discourage home
building,” No data or analysis are provided to support this statement and others.
But even more striking is the comparison of the the approach by the City of Palo Alto
compared to the County of Santa Clara when it comes to efforts to reduce the traffic
burden on modern life.
Palo Alto’s recommendation would encourage non resident serving businesses on
upper floors of downtown buildings and increase traffic in an already congested area
that lacks sufficient commercial parking.
In contrast, the County of Santa Clara is exploring ways to reduce commercial traffic -
see below.
“This is a really exciting opportunity that we have,” Santa Clara County Board
of Supervisors President Cindy Chavez said. “The coronavirus outbreak and
shelter-in-place mandate have forced companies to devote time and money to
make large-scale, commute-free work operational during the past seven
weeks. Now is the time to expand and sustain this blueprint in Santa
Clara County.”
Carl Guardino, president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which
represents major technology firms, said businesses embrace the
concept.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/04/coronavirus-made-telework-necessary-
santa-clara-county-to-explore-ways-to-keep-it/
This is particularly critical given that one of the credible scenarios about our new
normal predicts that more people will avoid public transportation and commute as
SOV drivers.
In lieu parking fees simply provide commercial enterprises a way to avoid one cost of
doing business in a way that negatively impacts near-by residential neighborhoods. In
an effort to address the problem of too many commercial vehicles in downtown
created over the past decades, Palo Alto has had to enact a series of RPP programs,
which are now under threat from business champions on the City Council.
6
If Council is serious about building more housing, then focus on doing that through
programs that encourage residential building, not giving more financial breaks to
commercial development.
Please VOTE NO on letting this ban on in-lieu fees expire.
Sincerely,
John Guislin
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:Amie Ashton <aashton@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 10, 2020 8:44 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:KILL THE GARAGE!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council,
Please completely de-fund and cancel the downtown garage as part of the budget changes being
considered. We don't need the downtown garage when a TMA can be so much more effective at
reducing parking demand at a fraction of the cost. Working from home will continue at a higher level
after the pandemic, as will biking and walking around town. We really do not need an antiquated
garage (NO CITY IS BUILDING GARAGES ANYMORE), especially at the ridiculous cost.
The parking in-lieu fee should fund the TMA The 5.2 million available when the garage is cancelled
should go to the bike ped/planning and projects to reduce our stubbornly high GHG emissions.
Thank you,
Amie Ashton
Car-free Downtown Resident
--
8
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kathy Jordan <kjordan114wh@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 10, 2020 9:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:writing to object to proposal not to require parking for commercial office space
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To all:
I write to object to staff's suggestion not to require parking for commercial office space development and to
give developers an in lieu payment option instead.
Mass transit use has been declining despite massive public investments. It has not reduced vehicles as a
commuting mode of transportation. Owning an automobile is one of the most effective means to combat
poverty for lower income groups.
But for Americans in poverty—those for whom a car-free lifestyle is a matter of economic necessity—the
costs of adopting or abandoning different modes of transportation may be a more complicated judgment.
A new study in the Journal of Planning Education and Research offers a glimpse into why. It shows that,
over the past 50 years, owning a car has been among the most powerful economic advantages a U.S.
family can have.
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/02/car-ownership-climate-change-driving-poverty-
economic/582091/
A recent UCLA public transit study (https://www.its.ucla.edu/transit/) summarizes by saying,
"California is counting on public transit to help meet its ambitious goals to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions and traffic congestion. Yet despite large public investments in bus and rail service, the state’s
transit ridership is on the decline."
Using mass transit is currently a health hazard, and will remain so until a vaccine or cure for the novel
coronavirus is discovered.
According to researchers live coronavirus particles can survive anywhere from three hours to
seven days on surfaces, depending on the material.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo emphasized the lifespan of the novel coronavirus in the air and on
surfaces while describing the challenges facing the city's massive public transport system during the
novel coronavirus pandemic.
"The virus can live up to 72 hours on plastic surfaces and stainless-steel surfaces," Cuomo said in a
press conference Friday. "Just think about this from a transit point of view or from your car point of view.
It can live on a pole in a bus or on a seat in a bus for up to 72 hours."
Business Insider: Novel coronavirus can live for 72 hours on bus and subway surfaces - Business
Insider.
https://www.businessinsider.com/novel-coronavirus-can-live-on-bus-and-subway-surfaces-2020-4
9
The City of Palo Alto, facing large potential deficits, should not and need not subsidize developers, just to face
huge expenses later to build parking garages to make up the un parked deficit.
Please reject this proposal.
Thank you.
Best,
Kathy Jordan
10
Baumb, Nelly
From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, May 10, 2020 10:09 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Neilson Buchanan; Paul & Karen Machado; John Guislin; Carol Scott; David Schrom; Chris Robell;
Christian Pease; Irene Au; Tim Mealiffe; Terry Holzemer; Jeff Levinsky
Subject:May 11 Council Meeting Action Item #8 developer in-lieu fees expire
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council, City Manager:
In Action Item #8 the report recommends letting the ban on in-lieu fees expire for downtown
commercial development above ground floor. The report makes speculative claims with no
supporting data, that “This ban may actually discourage home building.” Show us the data to
support this claim.
But even more striking is the comparison of the approach by the City of Palo Alto compared to the
County of Santa Clara when it comes to efforts to reduce the traffic burden on modern life.
Palo Alto’s recommendation would encourage non-resident-serving businesses on upper floors of
downtown buildings and increase traffic in an already congested area that lacks sufficient
commercial parking.
In other words, getting crammed software companies into downtown and Cal Ave, when - as we
have seen during the past 8 weeks - most software companies (incl. conservative Wall Street firms)
started to embrace remote work. So no more need for more office space! There is already a need for
LESS office space!
Did anybody in City Council proclaim during the past 2 years that we need "low income housing"
or was it just a lip service to get elected?
All those council members who were so strongly supporting housing during the campaign and
thereafter, where is the logic that more office space will solve this problem? Especially that money
is now more scarce than before? What will cut it is to move existing software companies OUT OF
commercial core and repurpose those offices to low income housing. And those "displaced"
workers won't be sad, since they will be working from home in the future. See below what our
county is actually thinking about remote work.
“This is a really exciting opportunity that we have,” Santa Clara County Board of
Supervisors President Cindy Chavez said. “The coronavirus outbreak and shelter-in-place
mandate have forced companies to devote time and money to make large-scale,
11
commute-free work operational during the past seven weeks. Now is the time to
expand and sustain this blueprint in Santa Clara County.”
Carl Guardino, president of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, which represents
major technology firms, said businesses embrace the concept.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/05/04/coronavirus-made-telework-necessary-santa-clara-
county-to-explore-ways-to-keep-it/
This is particularly critical given that one of the credible scenarios about our new normal predicts
that more people will avoid public transportation and commute as SOV drivers.
It would be bizarre to encourage building more office space - when there is no longer a need for it
PLUS suck in more traffic than our saturated streets can handle anyways.
If Council is serious about building more housing, then focus on doing that through programs that
encourage residential building, not giving more financial breaks to commercial development.
We are a residential town, not an office park. We want an environmentally friendly and balanced
approach to housing, traffic and parking.
We urge you to vote NO on letting this ban on in-lieu fees expire.
Sincerely,
Wolfgang Dueregger
12
Baumb, Nelly
From:jaclyn schrier <jaclyn@schrier.net>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 8:46 AM
To:Council, City; Council, City
Subject:*Keep* ban on in lieu fees for commercial development
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
CIty Council Members:
Please *keep* the ban on in lieu fees for commercial development in place. We do *not* need to encourage more
office development. We *need* to encourage more housing development.
Thank you.
jaclyn schrier
Palo Alto
Redacted
13
Baumb, Nelly
From:Christian Pease <cgpease2016@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 9:35 AM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Cc:Christian Pease
Subject:Reject Agenda Item#8
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members and City Manager,
I write concerning Item#8 on the agenda for this evening's city council meeting.
It is clear the city faces difficult times and that you must bear burden of hard choices in response to the Covid19
pandemic,
However, I find no linkage or advantage to the City of Palo Alto in letting of the existing ban on accepting one‐time, in‐
lieu fees in exchange for lifting downtown commercial office development parking requirements.
The rational presented for doing so is speculative at best ‐ NO data or hard facts included. The facts of Palo Alto's long
standing, pre‐pandemic parking and congestion problems are not.
This is why City wisely rejected such fees as inadequate to compensate for the consequences of inadequate parking
which, one way or another, impose years of follow‐on cost to the city, its residents, and it's locally‐serving retail
businesses.
It almost feels as if the pandemic is being used to advance a long‐term political objective in support of favored
constituencies: Commercial office developers and real estate interests, together with their most lucrative office‐centric,
non‐retail businesses clients; the two central beneficiaries of one time, relative to true cost ‐ couch change ‐ payments.
I sincerely hope this is not the case.
In any case, the existing prohibition against one‐time, in‐lieu fees in place of required investments in adequate
commercial office building parking should remain in place.
I urge you to reject tonight's agenda Item#8.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Christian Pease
Evergreen Park
15
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jan Merryweather <jan@hamilton.com>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 11:50 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:May 11 530pm City Council Agenda Item #8 In Lieu Fees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello City Council Members,
I am writing in support of Neilson Buchanan's email (below), and in support of extending the city's current in lieu fee
policy.
I hope you and yours are staying healthy and positive.
Jan Merryweather, , 94301
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Shikada Ed <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jocelyn Dong <jdong@paweekly.com>; Gennady
<gsheyner@paweekly.com>; Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>; Emily Mibach <emibach@padailypost.com>
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2020, 05:15:09 PM PDT
Subject: May 11 530pm Council Agenda Item #8 In Lieu Fees
I am extremely disappointed to see staff recommendation to eliminate the ban on in lieu fees for
commercial development.
Incentives for housing should continue to be top priority for Council and Staff.
In lieu fees do not account for the land value in city garages and parking lots. Therefore, in lieu fees
do not reflect full cost charged to a developers. Furthermore, current city in lieu policy grants parking
entitlement in perpetuity far beyond the long-term useful life of garages and surface lots.
The new Office of Transportation should be tasked to report on how in lieu fees aggravate the parking
shortages noted by downtown merchants. This professional analysis would cure the endless debates
for the past 20 years and eliminate kicking the parking can down the road.
The current health crisis should not be an excuse to prioritize commercial office development over the
city's high priority for housing. The fog of virus is being used like the fog of war. Most experts feel
that office space in our region will be "in oversupply" for the next 24 months due to social distancing,
work-at-home and reduced workforces in most businesses.
Now is the time to call upon the Planning and Transportation Commission with the support of a
professionally managed Office of Transportation. There is no reason to weaken city development
policy with a bypass of the PTC.
Redacted
16
The most rational policy is to extend the current in lieu fee policy for these commercial office
properties.
Neilson Buchanan
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Redacted
17
Baumb, Nelly
From:Marion Odell <marionodell7@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 12:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown parking
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I support the letter from Neilson Buchanan regarding parking issues near University and California avenues. I have lived
in the downtown area for 30 years and appreciate the current parking conditions.
Marion Odell
Everett and Cowper
18
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 1:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Prioritize Housing – Continue the In-Lieu Ban on Upper Floor Offices
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members:
Please retain the ban on in‐lieu parking for upper floor Downtown offices. The ban was created to focus
downtown development on producing more housing. Such policy changes can take several years to reap
benefits due to the length of the development cycle. The staff report provides no tangible evidence that the
ban was even harmful, so why end it now? Have we accomplished all our housing goals?
Instead, please continue the ban and ask the PTC to review the policy, as was the original plan. For example,
the commission might consider adjusting the ban to allow in‐lieu parking for projects that create more housing
than jobs. Such a change would then allow upper floor offices to use in‐lieu parking when it's also a win for
housing.
Thank you,
Jeff Levinsky
19
Baumb, Nelly
From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 2:49 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In-Lieu Parking Fees
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to continue the ban on in‐lieu fees for parking. Developers should not be able to build offices
without offering sufficient parking to tenants. If this were allowed, the problem of overflow parking in residential
neighborhoods would continue and be exacerbated. If there is to be any construction downtown, it should be housing
with sufficient parking, not further office development. I think the nature of future office need is unknown at this time.
The forecast is that many people will continue to work from home until the Covid‐19 complications are fully resolved.
The exercise of going into an office on a daily basis may change permanently with the successful experience many
businesses have had with employees working from home. To take this action, which has significant repercussions on the
residents, during a time when people are not able to give sufficient attention to the actions of Council is inappropriate.
Please bring this up for consideration when people can register their views, not during a time of crisis.
Sincerely,
Beth Rosenthal, PhD
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Paul Machado <plmachado@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 1:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Priority
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I concur with below letter composed by a very knowledgeable
resident.........................................................................................
Below is a reasonable set of questions reflecting a strong consensus among experienced resident
leaders who understand deeply rooted parking issues in the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
The root problem is under-management of the public and private parking assets within the
commercial cores. For example, there is absolutely no shortage of parking after 5pm weekdays and
weekends. The issue is modern signage to the garages and then guidance to spaces within the
garages.
In my opinion City Councils and City Managers have politically mismanaged parking policy by making
certain there was no real understanding among city staff. Therefore, the commercial core/residential
neighborhood parking can was kicked down the road with advantage tipped for the landlords and
tenants of office spaces.
Looking backwards won't help. However, if developer pressures of today's council are successful in
weakening the new Office of Transportation we will lose professional staff and the opportunity to
harmonize public and private assets within the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
Wednesday's Council key decisions are the following:
1. Staffing levels in the Office of Transportation
2. Guidance systems within the city garages
3. Modern signage to find garages and surface lots
4.Parking permit managements system integrated for commercial core and neighborhoods
5. Elimination of Palo Alto TMA...its usefulness has not materialized and it is more irrelevant than
ever. Joint city TMAs could be feasible if they can achieve economies of scale.
PS it is important to remember that there is absolutely no parking shortage in downtown commercial
core after 5pm and on weekends. This unused capacity will continue for many months forward. The
problem is effective guidance to parking capacity.
Here are questions to ask staff. I have great confidence in Philip Kamhi who leads the Office of
Transportation.
2
1. When will city staff and Council reduce non resident permits authorized for sale in the
Mayfield/Evergreen Park neighborhoods? What is the new completion date for California Avenue city
garage? Its new capacity will allow a substantial reduction or actual full elimination in non-resident
parking permits of residential neighborhoods.
2. What is the city's intent to enforce permit and short-term parking "rules" in the commercial
zones? Since April 1 there is unlimited supply of free parking in all RPP neighborhoods. This means
unrestricted parking for downtown workers and Caltrain riders.
There is no incentive to buy parking permits within the California and University Avenue commercial
cores. It is easier and cheaper (zero cost) to park in the neighborhoods than move vehicles within
the time limited color zones in the University Avenue commercial core. When Caltrain riders return,
then there is incentive to park in neighborhoods especially Old Palo Alto, Downtown North and
Professorville. This will displace downtown workers, customers and residents. What happens when
Stanford employees, faculty and students return and park just off campus for free and often
convenient.
3. Why is commercial parking in the neighborhoods less expensive than the commercial cores?
Pricing differentials should be higher in the residential neighborhoods to create incentives to park in
the commercial cores and not park on residential streets. Priorities are ignored for traditional
business such as retail goods and services. Lower paid workers, especially sales tax generating
businesses, should have some access to commercial core parking.
4. In lieu fees are a bargain to developers. Developers paying in lieu fees are granted parking in
perpetuity. Most irrational is that cost of city land is not included in the calculation of in lieu fees. In
reality this is a gift of public property to developers who completely avoid land costs when they elect
in lieu fees. Thus pricing of parking is subsidized and not market driven.
5. After budget cuts, what level of parking programs will be managed by "surviving" staff in the Office
of Transportation? If the head count is reduced from 15 to 10, is the OTT a viable "organization for
one of our top priorities or just a homeless section within the Planning Department.
6. There has no parking shortage whatsoever in evenings and nights within the cores of both
downtowns. Finding parking is the problem. The mid-day Monday to Friday parking crunch is real
and a direct result of chronic under-management by city staff and Council.
Bottom line: RPPs cannot survive if enforcement is suspended for more than a few months. RPPs
took almost 20 years to establish and they cannot be silently killed without Palo Altans even knowing
what is going on!
Re-establish RPP enforcement within 90 days in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
which states city policy to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential
neighborhoods.
Thank you
3
Paul Machado
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bob Moss <bmoss33@att.net>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 2:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: May 13 City Council Meeting Parking
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Councilmembers;
While Barron Park isn't directly impacted by the type of overflow commercial and office parking that is
a problem in residential areas near downtown and California Avenue, we do get some spillover
commercial parking from offices and retail on El Camino, so we understand this problem. I fully
support the comments and questions that Neilson lists.
Regards,
Bob Moss
Dear Neighbors in DTN,
I ask you to express your opinion immediately to City Council.
As you know, the Council is making critical rationing decisions for city services. Residential parking
adjacent to the two downtowns is at risk.
Below is a long email encompassing the complex, inter-related issues necessary to protect
neighborhoods from intrusion of commercial parking.
You have two good options.
#1 Forward my email to city council and state your support. city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
#2 Compose your own opinions using the email below as a guide.
Neilson Buchanan
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Redacted
5
Cc: Shikada Ed <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Philip Kamhi <philip.kamhi@cityofpaloalto.org>; Hur Mark
<mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org>; Nathan Baird <nathan.baird@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission
<planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020, 11:14:29 AM PDT
Subject: May 13 City Council Meeting Parking
Below is a reasonable set of questions reflecting a strong consensus among experienced resident
leaders who understand deeply rooted parking issues in the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
The root problem is under-management of the public and private parking assets within the
commercial cores. For example, there is absolutely no shortage of parking after 5pm weekdays and
weekends. The issue is modern signage to the garages and then guidance to spaces within the
garages.
In my opinion City Councils and City Managers have politically mismanaged parking policy by making
certain there was no real understanding among city staff. Therefore, the commercial core/residential
neighborhood parking can was kicked down the road with advantage tipped for the landlords and
tenants of office spaces.
Looking backwards won't help. However, if developer pressures of today's council are successful in
weakening the new Office of Transportation we will lose professional staff and the opportunity to
harmonize public and private assets within the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
Wednesday's Council key decisions are the following:
1. Staffing levels in the Office of Transportation
2. Guidance systems within the city garages
3. Modern signage to find garages and surface lots
4.Parking permit managements system integrated for commercial core and neighborhoods
5. Elimination of Palo Alto TMA...its usefulness has not materialized and it is more irrelevant than
ever. Joint city TMAs could be feasible if they can achieve economies of scale.
PS it is important to remember that there is absolutely no parking shortage in downtown commercial
core after 5pm and on weekends. This unused capacity will continue for many months forward. The
problem is effective guidance to parking capacity.
Here are questions to ask staff. I have great confidence in Philip Kamhi who leads the Office of
Transportation.
1. When will city staff and Council reduce non resident permits authorized for sale in the
Mayfield/Evergreen Park neighborhoods? What is the new completion date for California Avenue city
garage? Its new capacity will allow a substantial reduction or actual full elimination in non-resident
parking permits of residential neighborhoods.
2. What is the city's intent to enforce permit and short-term parking "rules" in the commercial
zones? Since April 1 there is unlimited supply of free parking in all RPP neighborhoods. This means
unrestricted parking for downtown workers and Caltrain riders.
There is no incentive to buy parking permits within the California and University Avenue commercial
cores. It is easier and cheaper (zero cost) to park in the neighborhoods than move vehicles within
the time limited color zones in the University Avenue commercial core. When Caltrain riders return,
then there is incentive to park in neighborhoods especially Old Palo Alto, Downtown North and
6
Professorville. This will displace downtown workers, customers and residents. What happens when
Stanford employees, faculty and students return and park just off campus for free and often
convenient.
3. Why is commercial parking in the neighborhoods less expensive than the commercial cores?
Pricing differentials should be higher in the residential neighborhoods to create incentives to park in
the commercial cores and not park on residential streets. Priorities are ignored for traditional
business such as retail goods and services. Lower paid workers, especially sales tax generating
businesses, should have some access to commercial core parking.
4. In lieu fees are a bargain to developers. Developers paying in lieu fees are granted parking in
perpetuity. Most irrational is that cost of city land is not included in the calculation of in lieu fees. In
reality this is a gift of public property to developers who completely avoid land costs when they elect
in lieu fees. Thus pricing of parking is subsidized and not market driven.
5. After budget cuts, what level of parking programs will be managed by "surviving" staff in the Office
of Transportation? If the head count is reduced from 15 to 10, is the OTT a viable "organization for
one of our top priorities or just a homeless section within the Planning Department.
6. There has no parking shortage whatsoever in evenings and nights within the cores of both
downtowns. Finding parking is the problem. The mid-day Monday to Friday parking crunch is real
and a direct result of chronic under-management by city staff and Council.
Bottom line: RPPs cannot survive if enforcement is suspended for more than a few months. RPPs
took almost 20 years to establish and they cannot be silently killed without Palo Altans even knowing
what is going on!
Re-establish RPP enforcement within 90 days in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
which states city policy to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential
neighborhoods.
Neilson Buchanan
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Redacted
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:LaNell Mimmack <lmimmack@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 1:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fw: May 13 City Council Meeting Parking
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
We support Neilson Buchanan's proposals below.
From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 6:28 PM
To: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Subject: May 13 City Council Meeting Parking
Dear Neighbors in DTN,
I ask you to express your opinion immediately to City Council.
As you know, the Council is making critical rationing decisions for city services. Residential parking
adjacent to the two downtowns is at risk.
Below is a long email encompassing the complex, inter-related issues necessary to protect
neighborhoods from intrusion of commercial parking.
You have two good options.
#1 Forward my email to city council and state your support. city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
#2 Compose your own opinions using the email below as a guide.
Neilson Buchanan
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Shikada Ed <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Philip Kamhi <philip.kamhi@cityofpaloalto.org>; Hur Mark
<mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org>; Nathan Baird <nathan.baird@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission
<planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020, 11:14:29 AM PDT
Subject: May 13 City Council Meeting Parking
Redacted
8
Below is a reasonable set of questions reflecting a strong consensus among experienced resident
leaders who understand deeply rooted parking issues in the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
The root problem is under-management of the public and private parking assets within the
commercial cores. For example, there is absolutely no shortage of parking after 5pm weekdays and
weekends. The issue is modern signage to the garages and then guidance to spaces within the
garages.
In my opinion City Councils and City Managers have politically mismanaged parking policy by making
certain there was no real understanding among city staff. Therefore, the commercial core/residential
neighborhood parking can was kicked down the road with advantage tipped for the landlords and
tenants of office spaces.
Looking backwards won't help. However, if developer pressures of today's council are successful in
weakening the new Office of Transportation we will lose professional staff and the opportunity to
harmonize public and private assets within the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
Wednesday's Council key decisions are the following:
1. Staffing levels in the Office of Transportation
2. Guidance systems within the city garages
3. Modern signage to find garages and surface lots
4.Parking permit managements system integrated for commercial core and neighborhoods
5. Elimination of Palo Alto TMA...its usefulness has not materialized and it is more irrelevant than
ever. Joint city TMAs could be feasible if they can achieve economies of scale.
PS it is important to remember that there is absolutely no parking shortage in downtown commercial
core after 5pm and on weekends. This unused capacity will continue for many months forward. The
problem is effective guidance to parking capacity.
Here are questions to ask staff. I have great confidence in Philip Kamhi who leads the Office of
Transportation.
1. When will city staff and Council reduce non resident permits authorized for sale in the
Mayfield/Evergreen Park neighborhoods? What is the new completion date for California Avenue city
garage? Its new capacity will allow a substantial reduction or actual full elimination in non-resident
parking permits of residential neighborhoods.
2. What is the city's intent to enforce permit and short-term parking "rules" in the commercial
zones? Since April 1 there is unlimited supply of free parking in all RPP neighborhoods. This means
unrestricted parking for downtown workers and Caltrain riders.
There is no incentive to buy parking permits within the California and University Avenue commercial
cores. It is easier and cheaper (zero cost) to park in the neighborhoods than move vehicles within
the time limited color zones in the University Avenue commercial core. When Caltrain riders return,
then there is incentive to park in neighborhoods especially Old Palo Alto, Downtown North and
Professorville. This will displace downtown workers, customers and residents. What happens when
Stanford employees, faculty and students return and park just off campus for free and often
convenient.
9
3. Why is commercial parking in the neighborhoods less expensive than the commercial cores?
Pricing differentials should be higher in the residential neighborhoods to create incentives to park in
the commercial cores and not park on residential streets. Priorities are ignored for traditional
business such as retail goods and services. Lower paid workers, especially sales tax generating
businesses, should have some access to commercial core parking.
4. In lieu fees are a bargain to developers. Developers paying in lieu fees are granted parking in
perpetuity. Most irrational is that cost of city land is not included in the calculation of in lieu fees. In
reality this is a gift of public property to developers who completely avoid land costs when they elect
in lieu fees. Thus pricing of parking is subsidized and not market driven.
5. After budget cuts, what level of parking programs will be managed by "surviving" staff in the Office
of Transportation? If the head count is reduced from 15 to 10, is the OTT a viable "organization for
one of our top priorities or just a homeless section within the Planning Department.
6. There has no parking shortage whatsoever in evenings and nights within the cores of both
downtowns. Finding parking is the problem. The mid-day Monday to Friday parking crunch is real
and a direct result of chronic under-management by city staff and Council.
Bottom line: RPPs cannot survive if enforcement is suspended for more than a few months. RPPs
took almost 20 years to establish and they cannot be silently killed without Palo Altans even knowing
what is going on!
Re-establish RPP enforcement within 90 days in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
which states city policy to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential
neighborhoods.
Neilson Buchanan
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Redacted
10
Baumb, Nelly
From:jazzbuff@comcast.net
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 12:46 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:'Neilson Buchanan'
Subject:Parking in residential areas near downtown; parking garages; elimination of TMS
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members: I am in complete agreement with Neilson Buchanan’s comments below. I
support his recommendations and ask you to follow them, as you deliberate on budget issues.
Thank you, D.Michael Griffin 344 Poe St.
Wednesday's Council key decisions are the following:
1. Staffing levels in the Office of Transportation
2. Guidance systems within the city garages
3. Modern signage to find garages and surface lots
4.Parking permit managements system integrated for commercial core and neighborhoods
5. Elimination of Palo Alto TMA...its usefulness has not materialized and it is more irrelevant than
ever. Joint city TMAs could be feasible if they can achieve economies of scale.
PS it is important to remember that there is absolutely no parking shortage in downtown commercial
core after 5pm and on weekends. This unused capacity will continue for many months forward. The
problem is effective guidance to parking capacity.
Here are questions to ask staff. I have great confidence in Philip Kamhi who leads the Office of
Transportation.
1. When will city staff and Council reduce non resident permits authorized for sale in the
Mayfield/Evergreen Park neighborhoods? What is the new completion date for California Avenue city
garage? Its new capacity will allow a substantial reduction or actual full elimination in non-resident
parking permits of residential neighborhoods.
2. What is the city's intent to enforce permit and short-term parking "rules" in the commercial
zones? Since April 1 there is unlimited supply of free parking in all RPP neighborhoods. This means
unrestricted parking for downtown workers and Caltrain riders.
There is no incentive to buy parking permits within the California and University Avenue commercial
cores. It is easier and cheaper (zero cost) to park in the neighborhoods than move vehicles within
the time limited color zones in the University Avenue commercial core. When Caltrain riders return,
then there is incentive to park in neighborhoods especially Old Palo Alto, Downtown North and
Professorville. This will displace downtown workers, customers and residents. What happens when
Stanford employees, faculty and students return and park just off campus for free and often
convenient.
3. Why is commercial parking in the neighborhoods less expensive than the commercial cores?
Pricing differentials should be higher in the residential neighborhoods to create incentives to park in
11
the commercial cores and not park on residential streets. Priorities are ignored for traditional
business such as retail goods and services. Lower paid workers, especially sales tax generating
businesses, should have some access to commercial core parking.
4. In lieu fees are a bargain to developers. Developers paying in lieu fees are granted parking in
perpetuity. Most irrational is that cost of city land is not included in the calculation of in lieu fees. In
reality this is a gift of public property to developers who completely avoid land costs when they elect
in lieu fees. Thus pricing of parking is subsidized and not market driven.
5. After budget cuts, what level of parking programs will be managed by "surviving" staff in the Office
of Transportation? If the head count is reduced from 15 to 10, is the OTT a viable "organization for
one of our top priorities or just a homeless section within the Planning Department.
6. There has no parking shortage whatsoever in evenings and nights within the cores of both
downtowns. Finding parking is the problem. The mid-day Monday to Friday parking crunch is real
and a direct result of chronic under-management by city staff and Council.
Bottom line: RPPs cannot survive if enforcement is suspended for more than a few months. RPPs
took almost 20 years to establish and they cannot be silently killed without Palo Altans even knowing
what is going on!
Re-establish RPP enforcement within 90 days in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
which states city policy to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential
neighborhoods.
12
Baumb, Nelly
From:Larry Alton <lalton@pacbell.net>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 12:33 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Kamhi, Philip; Hur, Mark; Baird, Nathan; Planning Commission
Subject:Fw: May 13 City Council Meeting Parking I support this approach to solving parking problems
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Below is a reasonable set of questions reflecting a strong consensus among experienced resident
leaders who understand deeply rooted parking issues in the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
The root problem is under-management of the public and private parking assets within the
commercial cores. For example, there is absolutely no shortage of parking after 5pm weekdays and
weekends. The issue is modern signage to the garages and then guidance to spaces within the
garages.
the commercial core/residential neighborhood parking can was kicked down the road with advantage
tipped for the landlords and tenants of office spaces.
if developer pressures of today's council are successful in weakening the new Office of
Transportation we will lose professional staff and the opportunity to harmonize public and private
assets within the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
Wednesday's Council key decisions are the following:
1. Staffing levels in the Office of Transportation
2. Guidance systems within the city garages
3. Modern signage to find garages and surface lots
4.Parking permit managements system integrated for commercial core and neighborhoods
5. Elimination of Palo Alto TMA...its usefulness has not materialized and it is more irrelevant than
ever. Joint city TMAs could be feasible if they can achieve economies of scale.
PS it is important to remember that there is absolutely no parking shortage in downtown commercial
core after 5pm and on weekends. This unused capacity will continue for many months forward. The
problem is effective guidance to parking capacity.
Here are questions to ask staff.
1. When will city staff and Council reduce non resident permits authorized for sale in the
Mayfield/Evergreen Park neighborhoods? What is the new completion date for California Avenue city
garage? Its new capacity will allow a substantial reduction or actual full elimination in non-resident
parking permits of residential neighborhoods.
13
2. What is the city's intent to enforce permit and short-term parking "rules" in the commercial
zones? Since April 1 there is unlimited supply of free parking in all RPP neighborhoods. This means
unrestricted parking for downtown workers and Caltrain riders.
There is no incentive to buy parking permits within the California and University Avenue commercial
cores. It is easier and cheaper (zero cost) to park in the neighborhoods than move vehicles within
the time limited color zones in the University Avenue commercial core. When Caltrain riders return,
then there is incentive to park in neighborhoods especially Old Palo Alto, Downtown North and
Professorville. This will displace downtown workers, customers and residents. What happens when
Stanford employees, faculty and students return and park just off campus for free and often
convenient.
3. Why is commercial parking in the neighborhoods less expensive than the commercial cores?
Pricing differentials should be higher in the residential neighborhoods to create incentives to park in
the commercial cores and not park on residential streets. Priorities are ignored for traditional
business such as retail goods and services. Lower paid workers, especially sales tax generating
businesses, should have some access to commercial core parking.
4. In lieu fees are a bargain to developers. Developers paying in lieu fees are granted parking in
perpetuity. Most irrational is that cost of city land is not included in the calculation of in lieu fees. In
reality this is a gift of public property to developers who completely avoid land costs when they elect
in lieu fees. Thus pricing of parking is subsidized and not market driven.
5. After budget cuts, what level of parking programs will be managed by "surviving" staff in the Office
of Transportation? If the head count is reduced from 15 to 10, is the OTT a viable "organization for
one of our top priorities or just a homeless section within the Planning Department.
6. There has no parking shortage whatsoever in evenings and nights within the cores of both
downtowns. Finding parking is the problem. The mid-day Monday to Friday parking crunch is real
and a direct result of chronic under-management by city staff and Council.
Bottom line: RPPs cannot survive if enforcement is suspended for more than a few months. RPPs
took almost 20 years to establish and they cannot be silently killed without Palo Altans even knowing
what is going on!
Re-establish RPP enforcement within 90 days in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
which states city policy to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential
neighborhoods.
14
Baumb, Nelly
From:Linda Anderson <andersonlinda911@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 11:53 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: May 13 City Council Meeting Parking
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I moved to downtown north in 1984 and have lived here since. I strongly support Neilson Buchanan's
message below. Before the RPP daytime parking was a disaster. Implementation of the RPP allowed
an improvement. Your proposals will affect residential parking in several areas of Palo Alto. Effective
use of existing public spaces should be your first approach.
RPP enforcement is essential.
Linda Anderson
formerly 267 Bryant Street
Below is a reasonable set of questions reflecting a strong consensus among experienced resident
leaders who understand deeply rooted parking issues in the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
The root problem is under-management of the public and private parking assets within the
commercial cores. For example, there is absolutely no shortage of parking after 5pm weekdays and
weekends. The issue is modern signage to the garages and then guidance to spaces within the
garages.
In my opinion City Councils and City Managers have politically mismanaged parking policy by making
certain there was no real understanding among city staff. Therefore, the commercial core/residential
neighborhood parking can was kicked down the road with advantage tipped for the landlords and
tenants of office spaces.
Looking backwards won't help. However, if developer pressures of today's council are successful in
weakening the new Office of Transportation we will lose professional staff and the opportunity to
harmonize public and private assets within the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
Wednesday's Council key decisions are the following:
1. Staffing levels in the Office of Transportation
2. Guidance systems within the city garages
3. Modern signage to find garages and surface lots
Redacted
15
4.Parking permit managements system integrated for commercial core and neighborhoods
5. Elimination of Palo Alto TMA...its usefulness has not materialized and it is more irrelevant than
ever. Joint city TMAs could be feasible if they can achieve economies of scale.
PS it is important to remember that there is absolutely no parking shortage in downtown commercial
core after 5pm and on weekends. This unused capacity will continue for many months forward. The
problem is effective guidance to parking capacity.
Here are questions to ask staff. I have great confidence in Philip Kamhi who leads the Office of
Transportation.
1. When will city staff and Council reduce non resident permits authorized for sale in the
Mayfield/Evergreen Park neighborhoods? What is the new completion date for California Avenue city
garage? Its new capacity will allow a substantial reduction or actual full elimination in non-resident
parking permits of residential neighborhoods.
2. What is the city's intent to enforce permit and short-term parking "rules" in the commercial
zones? Since April 1 there is unlimited supply of free parking in all RPP neighborhoods. This means
unrestricted parking for downtown workers and Caltrain riders.
There is no incentive to buy parking permits within the California and University Avenue commercial
cores. It is easier and cheaper (zero cost) to park in the neighborhoods than move vehicles within
the time limited color zones in the University Avenue commercial core. When Caltrain riders return,
then there is incentive to park in neighborhoods especially Old Palo Alto, Downtown North and
Professorville. This will displace downtown workers, customers and residents. What happens when
Stanford employees, faculty and students return and park just off campus for free and often
convenient.
3. Why is commercial parking in the neighborhoods less expensive than the commercial cores?
Pricing differentials should be higher in the residential neighborhoods to create incentives to park in
the commercial cores and not park on residential streets. Priorities are ignored for traditional
business such as retail goods and services. Lower paid workers, especially sales tax generating
businesses, should have some access to commercial core parking.
4. In lieu fees are a bargain to developers. Developers paying in lieu fees are granted parking in
perpetuity. Most irrational is that cost of city land is not included in the calculation of in lieu fees. In
reality this is a gift of public property to developers who completely avoid land costs when they elect
in lieu fees. Thus pricing of parking is subsidized and not market driven.
5. After budget cuts, what level of parking programs will be managed by "surviving" staff in the Office
of Transportation? If the head count is reduced from 15 to 10, is the OTT a viable "organization for
one of our top priorities or just a homeless section within the Planning Department.
6. There has no parking shortage whatsoever in evenings and nights within the cores of both
downtowns. Finding parking is the problem. The mid-day Monday to Friday parking crunch is real
and a direct result of chronic under-management by city staff and Council.
Bottom line: RPPs cannot survive if enforcement is suspended for more than a few months. RPPs
took almost 20 years to establish and they cannot be silently killed without Palo Altans even knowing
what is going on!
16
Re-establish RPP enforcement within 90 days in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
which states city policy to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential
neighborhoods.
Neilson Buchanan
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Redacted
17
Baumb, Nelly
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 11:14 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Kamhi, Philip; Hur, Mark; Baird, Nathan; Planning Commission
Subject:May 13 City Council Meeting Parking
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Below is a reasonable set of questions reflecting a strong consensus among experienced resident
leaders who understand deeply rooted parking issues in the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
The root problem is under-management of the public and private parking assets within the
commercial cores. For example, there is absolutely no shortage of parking after 5pm weekdays and
weekends. The issue is modern signage to the garages and then guidance to spaces within the
garages.
In my opinion City Councils and City Managers have politically mismanaged parking policy by making
certain there was no real understanding among city staff. Therefore, the commercial core/residential
neighborhood parking can was kicked down the road with advantage tipped for the landlords and
tenants of office spaces.
Looking backwards won't help. However, if developer pressures of today's council are successful in
weakening the new Office of Transportation we will lose professional staff and the opportunity to
harmonize public and private assets within the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
Wednesday's Council key decisions are the following:
1. Staffing levels in the Office of Transportation
2. Guidance systems within the city garages
3. Modern signage to find garages and surface lots
4.Parking permit managements system integrated for commercial core and neighborhoods
5. Elimination of Palo Alto TMA...its usefulness has not materialized and it is more irrelevant than
ever. Joint city TMAs could be feasible if they can achieve economies of scale.
PS it is important to remember that there is absolutely no parking shortage in downtown commercial
core after 5pm and on weekends. This unused capacity will continue for many months forward. The
problem is effective guidance to parking capacity.
Here are questions to ask staff. I have great confidence in Philip Kamhi who leads the Office of
Transportation.
1. When will city staff and Council reduce non resident permits authorized for sale in the
Mayfield/Evergreen Park neighborhoods? What is the new completion date for California Avenue city
garage? Its new capacity will allow a substantial reduction or actual full elimination in non-resident
parking permits of residential neighborhoods.
18
2. What is the city's intent to enforce permit and short-term parking "rules" in the commercial
zones? Since April 1 there is unlimited supply of free parking in all RPP neighborhoods. This means
unrestricted parking for downtown workers and Caltrain riders.
There is no incentive to buy parking permits within the California and University Avenue commercial
cores. It is easier and cheaper (zero cost) to park in the neighborhoods than move vehicles within
the time limited color zones in the University Avenue commercial core. When Caltrain riders return,
then there is incentive to park in neighborhoods especially Old Palo Alto, Downtown North and
Professorville. This will displace downtown workers, customers and residents. What happens when
Stanford employees, faculty and students return and park just off campus for free and often
convenient.
3. Why is commercial parking in the neighborhoods less expensive than the commercial cores?
Pricing differentials should be higher in the residential neighborhoods to create incentives to park in
the commercial cores and not park on residential streets. Priorities are ignored for traditional
business such as retail goods and services. Lower paid workers, especially sales tax generating
businesses, should have some access to commercial core parking.
4. In lieu fees are a bargain to developers. Developers paying in lieu fees are granted parking in
perpetuity. Most irrational is that cost of city land is not included in the calculation of in lieu fees. In
reality this is a gift of public property to developers who completely avoid land costs when they elect
in lieu fees. Thus pricing of parking is subsidized and not market driven.
5. After budget cuts, what level of parking programs will be managed by "surviving" staff in the Office
of Transportation? If the head count is reduced from 15 to 10, is the OTT a viable "organization for
one of our top priorities or just a homeless section within the Planning Department.
6. There has no parking shortage whatsoever in evenings and nights within the cores of both
downtowns. Finding parking is the problem. The mid-day Monday to Friday parking crunch is real
and a direct result of chronic under-management by city staff and Council.
Bottom line: RPPs cannot survive if enforcement is suspended for more than a few months. RPPs
took almost 20 years to establish and they cannot be silently killed without Palo Altans even knowing
what is going on!
Re-establish RPP enforcement within 90 days in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
which states city policy to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential
neighborhoods.
Neilson Buchanan
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell
cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Caryn Huberman <yackybooks@hotmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 10, 2020 6:06 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Keep the Ban: VOTE NO
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the City Council:
Please vote NO on letting the ban on in lieu fees expire.
We want and need more housing in Palo Alto, not yet more encouragement for yet offices.
A NO VOTE is in order.
Sincerely,
Caryn Huberman
Palo Alto, 94301
650‐326‐0600
Redacted
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Sunday, May 10, 2020 10:31 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Neilson Buchanan; Paul & Karen Machado; David Schrom; Carol Scott; Christian Pease; John Guislin;
Chris Robell; Terry Holzemer; Irene Au; Tim Mealiffe
Subject:Palo Alto RPPs
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To City Council; City Manager:
1. When will city staff and Council reduce non resident permits authorized for sale in the
Mayfield/Evergreen Park neighborhoods? What is the new completion date for California Avenue city
garage. Its new capacity will allow a substantial reduction or actual full elimination in non-resident
parking permits.
2. What is the city's intent to enforce permit and short-term parking "rules" in the commercial
zones? Since April 1 there is unlimited supply of free parking in the RPP Districts. This means
unrestricted parking for downtown workers and Caltrain riders.
There is no incentive to buy parking permits within the California and University Avenue commercial
cores. It is easier to park in the neighborhoods than move vehicles within the time limited color
zones in the University Avenue commercial core. When Caltrain riders return, then there is incentive
to park in neighborhoods especially Old Palo Alto, Downtown North and Professorville. This will
displace downtown workers, customers and residents. What happens when Stanford employees,
faculty and students return and park just off campus for free and often convenient.
Many residents paid money to City of Palo Alto to buy these permits. Why is this money no longer
being used to enforce the RPPs? If this money is no longer used for enforcing/administering the
RPPs, you owe all the residents an explanation about where this money got diverted to.
We await your response!
3. Why is commercial parking in the neighborhoods less expensive than the commercial cores?
Pricing differentials should be higher in the residential neighborhoods to create incentives to park in
the commercial cores and not park on residential streets. Priorities are ignored for traditional
business such as retail goods and services. Lower paid workers, including restaurants, should have
some access to commercial core parking.
4. In lieu fees are a bargain to developers. Developers paying in lieu fees are granted parking in
perpetuity. Most irrational is that cost of city land is not included in the calculation of in lieu fees. In
reality this is a gift of public property to developers who completely avoid land costs when they elect
in lieu fees. Thus pricing of parking is subsidized and not market driven.
5. After budget cuts, what level of parking programs will be managed by "surviving" staff in the Office
of Transportation? If the head count is reduced from 15 to 10, is the OTT available "department or
just a homeless section within the Planning Department.
3
6. There has no parking shortage whatsoever in evenings and nights within the cores of both
downtowns. Finding parking is the problem. The mid-day Monday to Friday parking crunch is real
and a direct result of chronic under-management by city staff and Council.
Bottom line: RPPs cannot survive if enforcement is suspended for more than a few months. RPPs
took almost 20 years to establish and they cannot be silently killed without Palo Altans even knowing
what is going on! This is extremely disappointing and many people are upset that city staff rushes
these decisions through without proper public input! We said it before and say it again: Be transparent
in your decisions. We will hold you accountable.
Also, casually restarting these RPPS with no experienced city staff, how is this going to work? Now is
the time to manage commercial parking for the benefit of commercial core stakeholder without massive
intrusion of commercial parking into residential neighborhoods.
Re-establish RPP enforcement within 90 days in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
which states city policy to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential
neighborhoods.
Regards
Wolfgang Dueregger
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Karen Machado <karen.machado@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 1:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: Continuation of RPPs
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council members,
Many residents of Downtown North, Evergreen Park and Mayfield, College Terrace and Southgate and other areas with
current RPPs are very concerned about insuring that they continue and are enforced even in the face of the budget cuts
you are considering. While the City may need to pursue different enforcement mechanisms but it is essential that these
programs, which many of us have fought so hard over several years to obtain, are not terminated now. We realize that
budget cuts may be needed but we hope that this current crisis will not be used as an excuse to end programs that are
vital for the quality of life of the residents of the City. It is clear that some elected leaders are using the pandemic to
further their political interests and that of their financial contributors such as the developers at the expense of the
citizens. We hope that this will not happen in Palo Alto.
Thanks for your help.
Karen Machado
I support this message from Neilson Buchanan:
Below is a reasonable set of questions reflecting a strong consensus among experienced resident
leaders who understand deeply rooted parking issues in the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
The root problem is under-management of the public and private parking assets within the
commercial cores. For example, there is absolutely no shortage of parking after 5pm weekdays and
weekends. The issue is modern signage to the garages and then guidance to spaces within the
garages.
In my opinion City Councils and City Managers have politically mismanaged parking policy by making
certain there was no real understanding among city staff. Therefore, the commercial core/residential
neighborhood parking can was kicked down the road with advantage tipped for the landlords and
tenants of office spaces.
Looking backwards won't help. However, if developer pressures of today's council are successful in
weakening the new Office of Transportation we will lose professional staff and the opportunity to
harmonize public and private assets within the commercial cores and neighborhoods.
Wednesday's Council key decisions are the following:
1. Staffing levels in the Office of Transportation
2. Guidance systems within the city garages
3. Modern signage to find garages and surface lots
4.Parking permit managements system integrated for commercial core and neighborhoods
5
5. Elimination of Palo Alto TMA...its usefulness has not materialized and it is more irrelevant than
ever. Joint city TMAs could be feasible if they can achieve economies of scale.
PS it is important to remember that there is absolutely no parking shortage in downtown commercial
core after 5pm and on weekends. This unused capacity will continue for many months forward. The
problem is effective guidance to parking capacity.
Here are questions to ask staff. I have great confidence in Philip Kamhi who leads the Office of
Transportation.
1. When will city staff and Council reduce non resident permits authorized for sale in the
Mayfield/Evergreen Park neighborhoods? What is the new completion date for California Avenue city
garage? Its new capacity will allow a substantial reduction or actual full elimination in non-resident
parking permits of residential neighborhoods.
2. What is the city's intent to enforce permit and short-term parking "rules" in the commercial
zones? Since April 1 there is unlimited supply of free parking in all RPP neighborhoods. This means
unrestricted parking for downtown workers and Caltrain riders.
There is no incentive to buy parking permits within the California and University Avenue commercial
cores. It is easier and cheaper (zero cost) to park in the neighborhoods than move vehicles within
the time limited color zones in the University Avenue commercial core. When Caltrain riders return,
then there is incentive to park in neighborhoods especially Old Palo Alto, Downtown North and
Professorville. This will displace downtown workers, customers and residents. What happens when
Stanford employees, faculty and students return and park just off campus for free and often
convenient.
3. Why is commercial parking in the neighborhoods less expensive than the commercial cores?
Pricing differentials should be higher in the residential neighborhoods to create incentives to park in
the commercial cores and not park on residential streets. Priorities are ignored for traditional
business such as retail goods and services. Lower paid workers, especially sales tax generating
businesses, should have some access to commercial core parking.
4. In lieu fees are a bargain to developers. Developers paying in lieu fees are granted parking in
perpetuity. Most irrational is that cost of city land is not included in the calculation of in lieu fees. In
reality this is a gift of public property to developers who completely avoid land costs when they elect
in lieu fees. Thus pricing of parking is subsidized and not market driven.
5. After budget cuts, what level of parking programs will be managed by "surviving" staff in the Office
of Transportation? If the head count is reduced from 15 to 10, is the OTT a viable "organization for
one of our top priorities or just a homeless section within the Planning Department.
6. There has no parking shortage whatsoever in evenings and nights within the cores of both
downtowns. Finding parking is the problem. The mid-day Monday to Friday parking crunch is real
and a direct result of chronic under-management by city staff and Council.
Bottom line: RPPs cannot survive if enforcement is suspended for more than a few months. RPPs
took almost 20 years to establish and they cannot be silently killed without Palo Altans even knowing
what is going on!
6
Re-establish RPP enforcement within 90 days in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan
which states city policy to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential
neighborhoods.
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:William Courington <billcour@sonic.net>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 10:18 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Save money by completely dropping the downtown parking garage
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Even without the current pandemic, drawing more cars downtown because parking capacity is available, leads to greater
congestion on the routes in and out.
It’s likely that one effect of the pandemic will be to reduce the density of employees in office spaces. Close extended
contact in a poorly ventilated area is the ideal venue for disease transmission. An open plan office, with adjacent
workspaces, is just such a venue. Such office arrangements, which have been a popular way to increase employee
density in expensive buildings, may disappear. Working from home at least part time is likely to continue. The result of
both changes is fewer employees traveling into downtown to work, meaning less demand for parking, less justification
for a fourth downtown garage.
I urge the Council to save another $5 million by eliminating the downtown garage project.
William Courington, Byron St.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Pat Burt <patburt11@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 11, 2020 12:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:May 11 CC Item 8: Downtown In-Lieu Parking
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I encourage you to defer this item and instead focus your attention on the great budgetary challenges we face due to
the city’s fiscal crisis. The COVID emergency should not be used as a rationalization to change policy directions on
relatively unrelated and politically driven matters.
Whether you consider this item tonight or at a later date, the following issues should be considered.
In the broad context, zoning decisions should be based on an assumption the economic downturn will be for more than
just a year or so. Key considerations before reversing the current council direction:
What type of housing do we want and where in the city do we want it? Is the Downtown still a focus area for
new housing?
If we will still want to encourage housing downtown, we undermine that plan by actions like re‐instating in lieu
parking for offices that would re‐incentivize office development and make housing projects less viable
alternatives.
Nearly all mixed‐use office/residential development has added more jobs than housing, thereby exacerbating
our jobs:housing imbalance and worsening our housing shortage. Consequently, mixed‐use projects harm rather
than help the housing shortfall.
Instead, in the coming months, the council should consider if there are additional incentives needed for
Downtown housing beyond the recent PC changes?
In the nearer term, the council and staff will want to consider new trends:
o A higher percentage of commuters may be single‐occupancy vehicle commuters due to COVID fears of
transit use.
o Office vacancies in the downtown will reduce any near‐term office project developments, but
reinstating the advantages of office development (through in‐lieu parking) will be a headwind against
housing development by retaining office as the highest ROI in the longterm.
In the February 3rd report to Council on the City’s housing Workplan, staff noted that they were unable to schedule this
item for PTC review within the Council‐directed timeframe due to staff vacancies in the long‐range planning program
and with available resources advancing other Council priorities. Why would failure to have the PTC review the policy
cause the CC policy to be reversed rather than extended until PTC and CC review?
In light of recent circumstances associated with the pandemic and economic impacts, staff recommends this ban be
allowed to expire restoring the municipal code to its prior (April 1, 2019) standard allowing all commercial uses to
continue participating in the in‐lieu parking program. There is not yet any understanding of how or whether the
economic impacts of COVID affect this policy?
The current staff report states that “Downtown Palo Alto has seen little housing development in recent years. Office
rental rates in this area are among the highest in the nation and the return on commercial office investment far
outpaces any return on residential housing. Historically, there has been little incentive for a downtown property owner
to redevelop their property into housing. Enacting the ban on commercial office spaces from participating in the City’s
in‐lieu parking program was seen, when combined with the housing policies enacted last year, as a possible strategy
to begin to tip the balance toward home production and away from office development.” In‐lieu parking is an
2
incentive for office development. Why would the city want to incentivize office downtown when we are trying to
encourage housing which otherwise has a lower ROI?
And, before the County’s shelter in place order, staff was preparing to send a draft ordinance to the PTC extending the
ban, which expires on May 1, for one year. Why would the shelter in place order obviate the need to extend the ban?
The report also states that “the ban creates uncertainty for downtown property owners and developers who are unable
or unwilling to move forward on projects until their ability to participate in the in‐lieu parking program is resolved.” The
only uncertainty is whether the ban will be rescinded, which would enable office ROI’s to return to higher levels than
residential development. This argument acknowledges that the in‐lieu ban causes property owners to consider housing
over the office, but that the prospect of overturning the ban holds back property owners from moving forward with
housing. By making the ban permanent, the city provides the clarity for the market to adjust toward housing
development.
The recent Council action to allow planned community (PC) zoning for housing projects provides the additional element
to spur housing over office. Staff told the council in February that the other housing plan changes had made housing
nearly preferable for developers over office and that adding some PC discretion would result in housing projects when
combined with the prior changes. Rescinding the ban undermines the value of the PC discretion to further incentivize
housing.
If you truly believe in adding housing downtown and balancing jobs with housing, you should continue the current
policy.
Best regards,
Pat Burt
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Loren Gordon <lilikg428@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 5:02 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Public Art Commission
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council of Palo Alto,
Good afternoon. As a citizen of Palo Alto, I would like you to consider keeping the number of members on the Public Art
Commission at seven. When making decisions about public art, it is nice to have a representation of the diverse citizens
of Palo Alto. Hiring artists that reflect our city's diverse culture requires a commission with diverse
backgrounds. Maintaining and caring for a collection of over 300 artworks is a big job. When quorum is needed for
decision making, a total of three out of five does not seem appropriate for a city of about 67,000 people. Please
consider seven commissioners appropriate for the Public Art Commission.
Kind regards,
Loren Gordon
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:A. Crichton <acrichto@pacbell.net>
Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 4:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Budget Impacts - Must Keep Crossing Guards
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I'm writing to support funding for School Crossing Guards. This critical service needs to have
continuity when the PAUSD schools open again. There cannot be a gap in keeping our children safe.
Even though I no longer have children in the PAUSD system any more, I do have experience over
many years with the Crossing Guards. They are a critical resource to keep their stretch of streets
calm and raise safety for students. I also know from personal experience walking and biking through
our community that a portion of drivers do not take ownership of driving a safe speed or obeying
traffic signs. Children do not have a broader perspective of the danger from cars and
drivers. Crossing Guards help keep our children safe in some of the most dangerous
intersections. They need to be at their positions when schools open up again. Not 2 weeks
later. Not 3 months latter. They need to be ready when kids are back to school.
I cannot imagine what might happen if the continuity for Crossing Guards did not happen. It would be
a higher cost by orders of magnitude than the savings. Out of all the Traffic Safety and Safe Routes
2 School budget line items, Crossing Guards are the most important from my perspective.
Sincerely,
Ann Crichton
Palo Alto, CA
650.291.5442
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ardan Michael Blum <ardan.michael.blum@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 6:06 PM
To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:City budget: The first cut in hard times should be less tax dollars for Mr. Frank Shikada!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine, Vice‐Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,
Palo Alto needs to lower by 200.000 dollars the city manager's salary! Frank Shikada made $403,729 in 2019, not
including pension and health benefits, according to a chart on the city’s official website. The first cut in hard times
should be less tax dollars for Frank Shikada!
It would, I believe be a moral sign of living within these hard times for Mr. Shikada to come forward and request a
reduction (for at least a year or two) of the most exorbitant salary paid to a city manager (probably) in any place on
earth.
Sincerely,
Ardan Michael Blum
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sumanth <k.sumanth@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 7, 2020 6:42 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Concerns about Newell Bridge across San Francisquito Creek
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I am a resident of Palo Alto, live on Phillips & Newell and wanted to share concerns I have with the new bridge that is
proposed to be constructed.
First of all, we are spending millions of dollars at a time when we're impacted by a terrible pandemic and the taxpayer
money should be put to a different, better use.
Secondly, the new bridge provides very little benefit to the community. The current bridge, while small is safe as cars
slow down significantly before entering the community. Without the narrow car lanes, we will see increased car traffic
with some folks speeding making if unsafe for both bike riders and children on Newell.
Finally, the construction activity itself will cause multiple issues:
1) Close traffic for over a year or longer across Newell
2) Endanger creek wildlife
3).Cause significant air, water and noise pollution
4) Require multiple permits, approvals and easements at tax payer dollars
Please reconsider as we are wasting tax‐payer dollars on a project, when during a time like this we could be using these
tax dollars to help under‐privileged folks.
Thanks,
Sumanth
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Alan Cooper <akcooper@pacbell.net>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 10:28 AM
To:editor@paweekly.com
Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Flaherty, Michelle; Alan Cooper
Subject:Letter to the editor - budget crisis
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Letter to the editor PA Weekly
All pitching in ?
I listened to a webinar yesterday by senior management of my alma mater at the University of Rochester in New York.
They are facing a $370 million deficit, and were explaining how they would cope with it. All senior administrators were
voluntarily taking a 14% to 25% salary cut (higher % for higher salary level) for the next 14 months. Faculty and staff with
salaries in excess of $60 to $100K were being put on rolling furloughs of up to two weeks at a time, with longer furloughs
on a case by case and voluntary basis. This is an organization that has been in existence since 1850 and wants to survive.
Everyone on staff there is pitching in. Shouldn't everyone on staff here pitch in too?
Alan Cooper
Palo Alto
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Diane <dianeef@comcast.net>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 11:20 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:College Terrace library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
When you consider completely closing this neighborhood branch for two years(if we are lucky) please address other
issues.
Would you also close the child care center which is housed in half of the building?
How would the building be monitored to keep this vintage facility from deteriorating with no usage? Consider the
money spent refurbishing it not so long ago.
Where do you propose people in this neighborhood go to use a public library? Driving across town and encountering
parking issues does not seem to be a thoughtful solution.
Speaking as someone who has lived here since 1967 I can recall many fights to preserve this branch. Please consider
cutting back on days or hours open instead.
Diane Finkelstein
Palo Alto CA 94306
Sent from my iPad
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:tideview <tideview@aol.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 11:47 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:College terrace library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I am outraged that closing the College Terrace Library is even being considered. This library offers an essential
service to the community. Not only is it used by school children but also by seniors like myself. Without this
library many of us would not have easy access to another site, especially if you don't drive. There are many
other viable options. Might I suggest cutting salaries of some city employees including the city manager whose
salary exceeds that of the president of the United States. This is not the first time an attempt had been made to
close this library. I strongly urge you to reconsider and do the right thing. Linda Logan
Sent from Samsung tablet
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Arianne <teher74@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 1:12 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:College Terrace Library closure
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi All - we just received news that the College Terrace Library was being closed and this is terrible
news. The neighborhood really uses the library and the residents count on it. It is the only library on
the west side of Palo Alto. It seems that the north/east side of Palo Alto has three libraries
(downtown, Rinconada and Childrens') so why are no one of those libraries that are generally
clustered in the same general area being considered for closing? Could a reduction in hours open or
days open be considered? This feels very inequitable to the residents living on the west of Palo Alto
as the north and south ends seem to be able to preserve their resources
Arianne Teherani (College Terrace Resident)
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Arun Varma <arunalejandro@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 3:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: College Terrace Library Closure
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City Council,
I grew up in Palo Alto and continue to live here ‐‐ the well‐being of the community is important to me. I'm looking over
the fiscal sustainability report, and am sympathetic to the potential $40mm tax deficit that the city faces given the
ongoing pandemic.
I want express my opposition to the proposed College Terrace library closure. The document lists the 2021 savings at
$167,000, and the cost of losing such a beautiful asset seems to provide relatively little in the way of savings. Certainly
there must be alternative options to save $167k.
‐‐
Arun Alejandro Varma
Brown University, '16
LinkedIn | Instagram
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kevin Murray <murrayhighlander@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 3:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:college terrace library - no close
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I have been a resident of Palo Alto since 1960 and College Terrace since 1966. Our CT library is critical to the cultural
landscape of our unique community. As recently retired 30 year college professor I was looking forward to volunteering
my time and expertise as an educator at this amazing resource. Would you be receptive to a fundraiser to offset the bulk
of the operating cost? Or, please the facility to our College Terrace Association for $1 dollar a year and we will run the
library at no cost to the city. Please advise. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kevin Lyle Murray
Palo Alto
Redacted
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sujata Patel <drsujatapatel@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 4:00 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:potential closure of College Terrace Library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the Palo Alto City Council:
I have been a resident of College Terrace since 2005. My family uses the College Terrace library on a regular basis. My
daughters, now ages 14 and 11, have been coming to the library since they were babies. Being able to pick up books
here saves trips across town to the other branches. Closure of this library branch will be a real blow to the College
Terrace community.
I understand that with the current economic climate, Palo Alto faces budget cuts, which will require tough decisions. I
am hoping that these cuts can be spread equally throughout the city, so that one neighborhood does not have to
experience a greater reduction in services than other parts of town. Please reconsider the proposal to close the College
Terrace library branch.
Thank you,
Sujata Patel
, Palo Alto Redacted
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:Richard Such <wrichardsuch@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 4:31 PM
To:Council, City; william.xuan@gregtanaka.org
Cc:Toiya Black; Alexis Moiseyev; Allen J. Baum; Andrea Cook Fleming; Andrew Fetter; Ann Balin; Annette
Ross; Asa Such; Becky Fuson; Bill Ross; Bonnie King; Brad Horak; Brent Barker; Brian Feldman; Burke
Robinson; Carina Chiang; Chris Saccheri; Chris Saccheri; Christopher Botsford; Colin Born; Dara
Olmsted; Deborah Plumley; Diane Finkelstein; Summa, Doria; Ed Schmitt; Eileen Stolee; Emily and
George Marshall; Eric Carlson; eric heaton; Eric Larsen; Erica Enos; Fernando Cabildo; Fred Balin; Gray
Clossman; Holly Welstein; Ingrid Shu; Irina Cross; Jack Culpepper; Jaine Reese; Cook, James F.;
Jennifer and Sebastian Doniach; Jens Jensen; Jeremy Platt; Jerry Yan; Jo Ann Mandinach; Joanne
Zschokke; Joe and Melissa Oliveira; John and Maritza Frankfurt; John Mark Agosta; Julie Good; Karen
Damian; Karen Price; Karlette Warner; Durham, KathyF; Kay Culpepper; Ken Thom; Ken Van Vleck; Kim
Raftery; Kristen Anderson; Kyle Harrison; Larry Kavinoky; Lon Radin; Louise and Aidan Roche; Maggie
Heath; Malcolm Slaney; Margaret Allen; Margit Aramburu; Margot Moiseyev; Marj Pitchon; Mary Jane
Marcus; Meredith Martin; Michael Smit; Michelle Collette; Michelle Oberman; Nancy Cassidy; Nancy
Lowe; Pat Robinson; Patricia Griffin; Patty Hartsell; Pria Graves; Richard Stolee; Richard Such; Roger
Pierno; Roland Vogl; Ron_and_Joan Tambussi; Ronda Rosner; Roswitha Remling; Ruth_and_Jerry
Consul; Sairus Patel; Sally and Whit Heaton; Samidh Chakrabarti; Sheila Bonini; Sheila Kothari; Simon
Firth; Steve Woodward; Stewart Carl; Sujata Patel; Sumitra Joy; Susan Wilson; Suzanne Doyle; Taylor
Brady; Terry and MarieLouise Fries; Toby Brookes; Tom Jack; Ulla Mick; Ute Engelke; Wendy Pang;
Zeke Herman; Zohar Lotan
Subject:College Terrace Library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
We have lived in College Terrace for more than 50 years. The branch library is a cultural institution that we have
treasured and used, it seems at least once a week, except for the couple of painful years during which it was closed for
renovation
appreciate its importance to residents of College Terrace and surrounding neighborhoods. The alternatives for us are
car rides across town to Rinconada and Mitchell Park libraries, which are increasingly difficult for seniors like
ourselves. Parents of young children also depend on the children’s section and the reading‐aloud sessions there,
including recent, English‐learning immigrants and visitors. Please do not close it, not even temporarily. The closure for
the pandemic has been hard enough.
Richard and Jane Such, Redacted
6
Baumb, Nelly
From:Meghan McKowen Rice <mmckowen79@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 4:36 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:College Terrace Library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hello City Council,
I am writing to say how much it breaks my heart to hear of the possible closure of the college terrace library. I grew up
going to that library, and have been taking my daughter there since she was a baby. I understand how incredibly difficult
these times are, however this little library is such an important part of our neighborhood and city.
I hope that if you do have to close, it can be reopened when this pandemic has ended.
Thank you,
Meghan Rice
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kim Raftery <rafterykim@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 4:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:College Terrace library closure
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Please do not close the College Terrace Library. It is a neighborhood institution that serves our
community, both young and old alike. I use it all the time to pick up books that I've put on hold.
If it is closed, I will have to drive across town to pick up and return books, as will everyone else
who uses our neighborhood library. It you truly want to reduce car traffic in Palo Alto, keeping
the College Terrace Library open is one way to do it.
Thank you for reconsidering the closure of this library.
Kim Raftery
Kim Raftery
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-776-1885
Redacted
8
Baumb, Nelly
From:Graham Dresden <gdresden@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 4:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:CT library closure
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I think that you should reconsider closing the library. I could understand decreasing the hours a bit, and/or lowering the
hours of other branches, but removing the library all together seems draconian. I read through the city report and there
seemed to be a lot of other things that could be reduced (like the annual city performance report ‐ which costs twice as
much per year as the CT library).
thanks for all the hard work during these times,
Graham Dresden
9
Baumb, Nelly
From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 4:46 PM
To:Richard Such
Cc:Council, City; william.xuan@gregtanaka.org; Toiya Black; Alexis Moiseyev; Allen J. Baum; Andrea Cook
Fleming; Andrew Fetter; Ann Balin; Asa Such; Becky Fuson; Bill Ross; Bonnie King; Brad Horak; Brent
Barker; Brian Feldman; Burke Robinson; Carina Chiang; Chris Saccheri; Chris Saccheri; Christopher
Botsford; Colin Born; Dara Olmsted; Deborah Plumley; Diane Finkelstein; Summa, Doria; Ed Schmitt;
Eileen Stolee; Emily and George Marshall; Eric Carlson; eric heaton; Eric Larsen; Erica Enos; Fernando
Cabildo; Fred Balin; Gray Clossman; Holly Welstein; Ingrid Shu; Irina Cross; Jack Culpepper; Jaine
Reese; Cook, James F.; Jennifer and Sebastian Doniach; Jens Jensen; Jeremy Platt; Jerry Yan; Jo Ann
Mandinach; Joanne Zschokke; Joe and Melissa Oliveira; John and Maritza Frankfurt; John Mark
Agosta; Julie Good; Karen Damian; Karen Price; Karlette Warner; Durham, KathyF; Kay Culpepper; Ken
Thom; Ken Van Vleck; Kim Raftery; Kristen Anderson; Kyle Harrison; Larry Kavinoky; Lon Radin; Louise
and Aidan Roche; Maggie Heath; Malcolm Slaney; Margaret Allen; Margit Aramburu; Margot
Moiseyev; Marj Pitchon; Mary Jane Marcus; Meredith Martin; Michael Smit; Michelle Collette;
Michelle Oberman; Nancy Cassidy; Nancy Lowe; Pat Robinson; Patricia Griffin; Patty Hartsell; Pria
Graves; Richard Stolee; Richard Such; Roger Pierno; Roland Vogl; Ron_and_Joan Tambussi; Ronda
Rosner; Roswitha Remling; Ruth_and_Jerry Consul; Sairus Patel; Sally and Whit Heaton; Samidh
Chakrabarti; Sheila Bonini; Sheila Kothari; Simon Firth; Steve Woodward; Stewart Carl; Sujata Patel;
Sumitra Joy; Susan Wilson; Suzanne Doyle; Taylor Brady; Terry and MarieLouise Fries; Toby Brookes;
Tom Jack; Ulla Mick; Ute Engelke; Wendy Pang; Zeke Herman; Zohar Lotan
Subject:Re: College Terrace Library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Fully agree and would gladly volunteer there. There are going to be myriad changes to our community b/c of Covid; let’s
not toss the cherished community‐building treasures of our community.
It is important that CC (and other levels of government) not use Covid as a means to an end for certain pre‐Covid
agendas. Community preservation is critical now precisely b/c of the economic jolt. And neighborhood libraries may
well be a primary resource for many Palo Altans once they reopen.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2020, at 4:31 PM, Richard Such <wrichardsuch@gmail.com> wrote:
We have lived in College Terrace for more than 50 years. The branch library is a cultural institution that
we have treasured and used, it seems at least once a week, except for the couple of painful years during
which it was closed for renovation
appreciate its importance to residents of College Terrace and surrounding neighborhoods. The
alternatives for us are car rides across town to Rinconada and Mitchell Park libraries, which are
increasingly difficult for seniors like ourselves. Parents of young children also depend on the children’s
section and the reading‐aloud sessions there, including recent, English‐learning immigrants and visitors.
Please do not close it, not even temporarily. The closure for the pandemic has been hard enough.
Richard and Jane Such, Redacted
10
Baumb, Nelly
From:doria s <doriasumma@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 6:03 PM
To:Annette Ross
Cc:Alexis Moiseyev; Allen J. Baum; Andrea Cook Fleming; Andrew Fetter; Ann Balin; Asa Such; Becky
Fuson; Bill Ross; Bonnie King; Brad Horak; Brent Barker; Brian Feldman; Burke Robinson; Carina
Chiang; Chris Saccheri; Chris Saccheri; Christopher Botsford; Colin Born; Dara Olmsted; Deborah
Plumley; Diane Finkelstein; Ed Schmitt; Eileen Stolee; Emily and George Marshall; Eric Carlson; Eric
Larsen; Erica Enos; Fernando Cabildo; Fred Balin; Gray Clossman; Holly Welstein; Ingrid Shu; Irina
Cross; Jack Culpepper; Jaine Reese; Cook, James F.; Jennifer and Sebastian Doniach; Jens Jensen;
Jeremy Platt; Jerry Yan; Jo Ann Mandinach; Joanne Zschokke; Joe and Melissa Oliveira; John Mark
Agosta; John and Maritza Frankfurt; Julie Good; Karen Damian; Karen Price; Karlette Warner; Durham,
KathyF; Kay Culpepper; Ken Thom; Ken Van Vleck; Kim Raftery; Kristen Anderson; Kyle Harrison; Larry
Kavinoky; Lon Radin; Louise and Aidan Roche; Maggie Heath; Malcolm Slaney; Margaret Allen;
Margit Aramburu; Margot Moiseyev; Marj Pitchon; Mary Jane Marcus; Meredith Martin; Michael Smit;
Michelle Collette; Michelle Oberman; Nancy Cassidy; Nancy Lowe; Pat Robinson; Patricia Griffin; Patty
Hartsell; Pria Graves; Richard Stolee; Richard Such; Richard Such; Roger Pierno; Roland Vogl;
Ron_and_Joan Tambussi; Ronda Rosner; Roswitha Remling; Ruth_and_Jerry Consul; Sairus Patel; Sally
and Whit Heaton; Samidh Chakrabarti; Sheila Bonini; Sheila Kothari; Simon Firth; Steve Woodward;
Stewart Carl; Sujata Patel; Sumitra Joy; Susan Wilson; Suzanne Doyle; Taylor Brady; Terry and
MarieLouise Fries; Toby Brookes; Toiya Black; Tom Jack; Ulla Mick; Ute Engelke; Wendy Pang; Zeke
Herman; Zohar Lotan; Council, City; eric heaton; william.xuan@gregtanaka.org
Subject:Re: College Terrace Library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I agree
And i will do all I can to maintain this community asset from unnecessarily being shut down for false economies.
Very best
Doria
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 5:35 PM Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> wrote:
Fully agree and would gladly volunteer there. There are going to be myriad changes to our community b/c of Covid;
let’s not toss the cherished community‐building treasures of our community.
It is important that CC (and other levels of government) not use Covid as a means to an end for certain pre‐Covid
agendas. Community preservation is critical now precisely b/c of the economic jolt. And neighborhood libraries may
well be a primary resource for many Palo Altans once they reopen.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2020, at 4:31 PM, Richard Such <wrichardsuch@gmail.com> wrote:
We have lived in College Terrace for more than 50 years. The branch library is a cultural institution
that we have treasured and used, it seems at least once a week, except for the couple of painful years
during which it was closed for renovation
11
appreciate its importance to residents of College Terrace and surrounding neighborhoods. The
alternatives for us are car rides across town to Rinconada and Mitchell Park libraries, which are
increasingly difficult for seniors like ourselves. Parents of young children also depend on the children’s
section and the reading‐aloud sessions there, including recent, English‐learning immigrants and visitors.
Please do not close it, not even temporarily. The closure for the pandemic has been hard enough.
Richard and Jane Such,
‐‐
Doria Summa
(650) 867 7544 Mobile
Redacted
12
Baumb, Nelly
From:Roth, Emily <Emily.Roth@ucsf.edu>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 6:04 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:college terrace library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I have lived in Palo Alto for many years and this is the first time I have e‐mailed the City Council.
I am writing to voice how important the College Terrace Library is to our community and our neighborhood.
People of all generations spend time together (or on their own) at the library. It is the only community
meeting building where we can come together. I truly hope you can consider only options besides closing this
gem of a library. Perhaps opening fewer days a week would cut costs?
I think our older and younger generations thrive by spending time with the librarians and all the books at our
beloved college terrace library.
Please reconsider.
Thanks so much,
Emily Roth
College Terrace
13
Baumb, Nelly
From:Linda Faste <lindafaste@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 6:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:College Terrace Library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing this email in support of the College Terrace Library. Please keep this library open!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is a wonderful neighborhood library and many of us walk there from our home, and have done so for years.
The city remodeled this library in 2010, after thinking for a while they would close it. But neighbors and other city
residents supported this library at that time.
In fact, instead of closing the library, I would like to see the hours expanded.
Many thanks,
Linda Faste
Stanford
Redacted
14
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jenny March <jenniferelizabethmarch@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 7:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please keep the College Terrace Library open!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello City Council,
I’ve lived in evergreen park for three years and have come to deeply love the College Terrace Library. It would be a
major loss for the surrounding neighborhoods if you closed this treasured library. Please do what you can to keep it
open.
Jenny March
College Avenue
Palo Alto
15
Baumb, Nelly
From:David Millsom <david.millsom@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 7:15 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:College Terrace Library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To Whom It May Concern:
We have been plunged into crisis of shortages, disappearing jobs and personal distances.
One thing I understand well and would like to emphasize is that the most important thing to
protect in such situations is a capacity to develop new ideas and strategies for when the
crisis abates.
Our primary industry in Palo Alto and surrounds is knowledge and education. Everything else is derivative and
secondary.
Therefore, we must save and protect those places and facilities that harbor and encourage
personal development, knowledge and expertise development.
Our libraries are paramount in this.
Please do not shutter College Terrace Library.
It means and contributes importantly to our little neighborhood.
David Millsom
College Terrace
16
Baumb, Nelly
From:James Cook <jamesfelixcook@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 7:51 PM
To:Summa, Doria
Cc:Annette Ross; Alexis Moiseyev; Allen J. Baum; Andrea Cook Fleming; Andrew Fetter; Ann Balin; Asa
Such; Becky Fuson; Bill Ross; Bonnie King; Brad Horak; Brent Barker; Brian Feldman; Burke Robinson;
Carina Chiang; Chris Saccheri; Chris Saccheri; Christopher Botsford; Colin Born; Dara Olmsted;
Deborah Plumley; Diane Finkelstein; Ed Schmitt; Eileen Stolee; Emily and George Marshall; Eric
Carlson; Eric Larsen; Erica Enos; Fernando Cabildo; Fred Balin; Gray Clossman; Holly Welstein; Ingrid
Shu; Irina Cross; Jack Culpepper; Jaine Reese; Jennifer and Sebastian Doniach; Jens Jensen; Jeremy
Platt; Jerry Yan; Jo Ann Mandinach; Joanne Zschokke; Joe and Melissa Oliveira; John Mark Agosta;
John and Maritza Frankfurt; Julie Good; Karen Damian; Karen Price; Karlette Warner; Durham, KathyF;
Kay Culpepper; Ken Thom; Ken Van Vleck; Kim Raftery; Kristen Anderson; Kyle Harrison; Larry
Kavinoky; Lon Radin; Louise and Aidan Roche; Maggie Heath; Malcolm Slaney; Margaret Allen;
Margit Aramburu; Margot Moiseyev; Marj Pitchon; Mary Jane Marcus; Meredith Martin; Michael Smit;
Michelle Collette; Michelle Oberman; Nancy Cassidy; Nancy Lowe; Pat Robinson; Patricia Griffin; Patty
Hartsell; Pria Graves; Richard Stolee; Richard Such; Richard Such; Roger Pierno; Roland Vogl;
Ron_and_Joan Tambussi; Ronda Rosner; Roswitha Remling; Ruth_and_Jerry Consul; Sairus Patel; Sally
and Whit Heaton; Samidh Chakrabarti; Sheila Bonini; Sheila Kothari; Simon Firth; Steve Woodward;
Stewart Carl; Sujata Patel; Sumitra Joy; Susan Wilson; Suzanne Doyle; Taylor Brady; Terry and
MarieLouise Fries; Toby Brookes; Toiya Black; Tom Jack; Ulla Mick; Ute Engelke; Wendy Pang; Zeke
Herman; Zohar Lotan; Council, City; eric heaton; william.xuan@gregtanaka.org; Alan Gianotti; Valerie
Sarma; Berkeley Revenaugh; Derek Gurney; Todd Lincoln; Danielle Makler; Sukhi Nagesh; Alicia
Thesing; Dan Kaleba; Michael Naar; Ewen Wang; Manuel Amieva; Ross Revenaugh; Chris Makler;
WENDY COOK; Ingrid Rulifson; Hank Edson; Clara Stoen; Suzie Lincoln; Pam Morgenfeld; Jeff Stoen;
Ming-son Wang; Emily Wang; Geeske Joel
Subject:College Terrace Library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council Members,
I wholeheartedly agree with my neighbors and friends: we believe keeping the College Terrace is a way to promote
community, wonder and happiness during a time of isolation, despair and sadness.
Thank you for your consideration and good luck in your difficult decisions ahead.
Stay safe and healthy,
James Felix Cook
On May 8, 2020, at 6:03 PM, doria s <doriasumma@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree
And i will do all I can to maintain this community asset from unnecessarily being shut down for false
economies.
Very best
Doria
17
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 5:35 PM Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> wrote:
Fully agree and would gladly volunteer there. There are going to be myriad changes to our community
b/c of Covid; let’s not toss the cherished community‐building treasures of our community.
It is important that CC (and other levels of government) not use Covid as a means to an end for certain
pre‐Covid agendas. Community preservation is critical now precisely b/c of the economic jolt. And
neighborhood libraries may well be a primary resource for many Palo Altans once they reopen.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2020, at 4:31 PM, Richard Such <wrichardsuch@gmail.com> wrote:
We have lived in College Terrace for more than 50 years. The branch library is a
cultural institution that we have treasured and used, it seems at least once a week,
except for the couple of painful years during which it was closed for renovation
appreciate its importance to residents of College Terrace and surrounding
neighborhoods. The alternatives for us are car rides across town to Rinconada and
Mitchell Park libraries, which are increasingly difficult for seniors like
ourselves. Parents of young children also depend on the children’s section and the
reading‐aloud sessions there, including recent, English‐learning immigrants and
visitors. Please do not close it, not even temporarily. The closure for the pandemic has
been hard enough.
Richard and Jane Such,
‐‐
Doria Summa
(650) 867 7544 Mobile
Redacted
18
Baumb, Nelly
From:Paul DeMarinis <demarini@stanford.edu>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 7:48 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Don't close College Terrace Library!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
to the City Council members:
Please do not close the College Terrace Library.
As CT residents, my children grew up to love books and reading because of the accessibility and the down‐to‐earth scale
of this marvelous institution.
It has adequate resources to serve research needs of children well through middle school in a safe and accessible
location.
It has enough classic and contemporary literature to keep adults coming back. It is a marvel of scale and selection.
The librarians are knowledgable and accessible and everyone feels at home.
What a dismal sight a closed library is, standing like a ghost of better times past!
As one who lived through the horror of Prop 13 in the east bay i can attest to the damage that closing libraries does to
communities.
And finally, consider the employees of the Palo Alto library system. Now in the depths of a crisis from which we will
emergwe,is the time to support as many of our community as we can.
I urge to not to repeat the errors of the past; libraries have always been, and continue to be the harbingers of our
future.
Paul DeMarinis
College Terrace resident since 2008
19
Baumb, Nelly
From:Irene Hsu-Dresden <eyehsu@hotmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 7:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Objection to closing College Terrace library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Council:
I am writing to voice my concern about the possible closure of the College Terrace library. Pre‐COVID, my kids would
visit this library weekly. In fact, we have lived in CT for 11 years, and ever since my children were babies we have
routinely gone to the CT library. I really feel this is an invaluable space for the community.
Obviously, I do not know anything about the city budget, but I am confident you can cut spending elsewhere without
dismantling an essential institution of our community.
Please feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns.
Thank you,
Irene Hsu
20
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sonam Soni <sonam.soni.1970@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 7:52 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Save the College Terrace Library!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hello Council Members,
This library branch is an important and integral part of Palo Alto and College Terrace. It is heavily used and a vibrant part
of our community. The city provides very few services on this side of the city—no community center, no shuttle service,
etc—please do not take our library away.
The salaries of city staff can be cut, other services and construction can be put on hold but the library is important and
should not be closed. You have a bunch of libraries clustered together (Downtown, Children’s and Main)—cut one of
those but taking away one of the few (perhaps the only) community service on this side of town makes no sense.
Thank you,
Sonam
21
Baumb, Nelly
From:mary baron <m.baron@me.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 8:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:College Terrace Library closure
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I have lived in Stanford for 40 years and have used the Palo Alto libraries since my arrival. As a former English teacher
and the daughter of a librarian, books have long been important to me and libraries are one of the first places I have
sought out when we have moved or gone on a sabbatical. My sons have now grown but when grandchildren come to
visit or let me know what they are reading, I have headed to the College Terrace Library and their children’s collection.
Usually it is more than adequate. If not, I order and pick up selections there ‐ it doesn’t take long. To me, the library with
its small but inviting interior, solid old exterior and parklike setting is perfect. I want to be there and so, it seems, do
many others. Over the years, I have walked 5 of our 6 dogs outside, met friends there, sat on the benches or at the
picnic table, and watched the California seasons change while enjoying the prospect of getting yet more books. I use all
of the Palo Alto libraries, but this one is my favorite, not because it is the closest to me ‐ I still have to drive to reach it ‐
but because it feels most conducive to reading. It is cozy and comforting in its atmosphere while offering more than
adequate fiction and non‐fiction as well as research capabilities via computer.
I understand that the City Council must look for ways to save money, as necessitated by income lost because of the
coronavirus. But, we who use the library are also impacted by way too many changes now, emotional, physical, and
economic, and will be for so many months ahead because of the coronavirus. My hope is to see that something which
brings a sense a sense of solidarity, of positive continuity, and of peace to the community, like the College Terrace
Library, does remain. Please find some other way to start to solve budgetary problems.
Thank you,
Mary Baron
22
Baumb, Nelly
From:Kate Weber <katie.weber3@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 8:34 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:College Terrace Library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Good evening,
Like many of my neighbors, I learned with heartbreak of the City Council proposal to close the College Terrace Library.
We moved to Palo Alto last year with our then‐two‐year‐old son, and the library is one of his (and our) favorite parts of
living here. This library is the only public place that we can walk from our house, with our (now two) young children. We
see it as not only an invaluable source of education for our kids, but also a place where we can instill the value of
community services and sharing resources with neighbors. If it closed, we would need to drive to a different library
branch ‐ not only an inconvenience and an entirely different experience for us and our kids, but also a source of
additional traffic and parking congestion.
In the scheme of the city budget, $167,000 seems a small price to pay for an institution that is vital to the fabric of our
neighborhood and community. It would have a much smaller impact on our youth, neighborhood, and community to
postpone some minor, non‐essential infrastructure projects instead. I urge you to reconsider this proposal.
Thank you,
Kate Weber ) Redacted
23
Baumb, Nelly
From:Elizabeth Fetter <elizabethcfetter@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 8:50 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:College Terrace Library Closure
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council,
My name is Elizabeth Fetter, and I very passionately feel that the College Terrace Library should not ever be
closed.
I am a freshman at Paly and live at 2255 Wellesley St, in Palo Alto, right next door to the College Terrace
Library. To me, this library is a second home. It provides a place where I can relax, surrounded by not only
what I love, but by others who are passionate about it.
If the library closes, I, and many others in this area, will no longer have quick access to handheld books and
other reading materials. I will have to bike a minimum of three and a half miles to the closest library (Mitchell
Park), and some who live further west may even have to go as far as six miles. In a day and age where many
teens are consumed by electronics, one would think that society would be putting an even greater emphasis on
reading. Strangely, this closure would be doing the opposite. If this library closes, I know for a fact that it will
discourage so many teens and young children in my area from reading.
But, the accessibility difference is not the only dilemma my community and I would face if the library were to
close. Do not misunderstand me, I have no quarrels with the Mitchell park library or any of this cities' other
branches (although I do not understand the fairness of the College Terrace branch suffering from the backlash
of budget issues when the city recently splurged on a total remodel of the Mitchell Park branch).
In fact, from the few times I visited the other branches, I quite enjoyed my stay. What it is missing, though, is
the feeling that I matter. Because the College Terrace branch is much smaller, with every visit, one receives a
personalized experience, enhanced by one-on-one connections with the staff. I personally know every person
that works at the College Terrace branch and find immense pleasure in connecting with them and asking for
their opinions for reading recommendations. I feel that if this branch were to close and force me to another,
much larger branch, my thirst for reading would be very much quenched due to the absence of personalized
help.
The College Terrace library is not only a sanctuary where I can do one of my favorite things in the world, read,
but it is also what helped inspire my love of reading, and what continues to fuel it every day. I feel so very
strongly that if this library were to close, it would drastically reduce the amount that many students in this area
and I read, not to mention eliminating the things that make reading so enjoyable to me, like receiving
recommendations and opinions for the new series or book.
Plainly speaking, the College Terrace Library is what made me love to read and I feel that it is something my
surrounding community and I would be very much lost without.
I sincerely hope you all take this very much into consideration because if the library were to close my
devastation would be unimaginable. Thank you so much for your time.
Best,
Elizabeth Fetter
25
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sheila Kothari <sheilak@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 9:31 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:College Terrace Library Closure
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear PA City Council:
We were dismayed and shocked to hear about the proposal to close the College Terrace Library. The Library is a safe and
calm place for people to visit, read books and use the computers (as not everyone has one at home). Even with the
reduced hours, it is a popular place for College Terrace and other nearby neighborhoods residents.
We, as a family, have enjoyed the library over many years for the wonderful story time and children’s corner, and have
borrowed books and DVDs. The fact that the library is easily accessed by walking and biking is truly valuable. Some of
our seniors don’t drive and this will be a huge loss to them. Closing the library will make it necessary to drive to the
other libraries. In short, this move will make borrowing books or using the library system very onerous for many people.
Please consider this move carefully as the implications of the closure will be felt negatively by many of the residents.
Sincerely
The Kothari Family
College Terrace
26
Baumb, Nelly
From:Doris Roberts <dorislea.cdead@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 9:41 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:College Terrace Library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Sirs:
Please reconsider the proposed closure of the College Terrace Library.
The library is a valued community asset and we would be much the poorer should it no longer be available.
I hope to learn that it will remain.
Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
Doris Roberts
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPhone
Redacted
27
Baumb, Nelly
From:Brent Barker <brentgbarker@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 9:49 PM
To:Cook, James F.
Cc:Summa, Doria; Annette Ross; Alexis Moiseyev; Allen J. Baum; Andrea Cook Fleming; Andrew Fetter;
Ann Balin; Asa Such; Becky Fuson; Bill Ross; Bonnie King; Brad Horak; Brian Feldman; Burke Robinson;
Carina Chiang; Chris Saccheri; Chris Saccheri; Christopher Botsford; Colin Born; Dara Olmsted;
Deborah Plumley; Diane Finkelstein; Ed Schmitt; Eileen Stolee; Emily and George Marshall; Eric
Carlson; Eric Larsen; Erica Enos; Fernando Cabildo; Fred Balin; Gray Clossman; Holly Welstein; Ingrid
Shu; Irina Cross; Jack Culpepper; Jaine Reese; Jennifer and Sebastian Doniach; Jens Jensen; Jeremy
Platt; Jerry Yan; Jo Ann Mandinach; Joanne Zschokke; Joe and Melissa Oliveira; John Mark Agosta;
John and Maritza Frankfurt; Julie Good; Karen Damian; Karen Price; Karlette Warner; Durham, KathyF;
Kay Culpepper; Ken Thom; Ken Van Vleck; Kim Raftery; Kristen Anderson; Kyle Harrison; Larry
Kavinoky; Lon Radin; Louise and Aidan Roche; Maggie Heath; Malcolm Slaney; Margaret Allen;
Margit Aramburu; Margot Moiseyev; Marj Pitchon; Mary Jane Marcus; Meredith Martin; Michael Smit;
Michelle Collette; Michelle Oberman; Nancy Cassidy; Nancy Lowe; Pat Robinson; Patricia Griffin; Patty
Hartsell; Pria Graves; Richard Stolee; Richard Such; Richard Such; Roger Pierno; Roland Vogl;
Ron_and_Joan Tambussi; Ronda Rosner; Roswitha Remling; Ruth_and_Jerry Consul; Sairus Patel; Sally
and Whit Heaton; Samidh Chakrabarti; Sheila Bonini; Sheila Kothari; Simon Firth; Steve Woodward;
Stewart Carl; Sujata Patel; Sumitra Joy; Susan Wilson; Suzanne Doyle; Taylor Brady; Terry and
MarieLouise Fries; Toby Brookes; Toiya Black; Tom Jack; Ulla Mick; Ute Engelke; Wendy Pang; Zeke
Herman; Zohar Lotan; Council, City; eric heaton; william.xuan@gregtanaka.org; Alan Gianotti; Valerie
Sarma; Berkeley Revenaugh; Derek Gurney; Todd Lincoln; Danielle Makler; Sukhi Nagesh; Alicia
Thesing; Dan Kaleba; Michael Naar; Ewen Wang; Manuel Amieva; Ross Revenaugh; Chris Makler;
WENDY COOK; Ingrid Rulifson; Hank Edson; Clara Stoen; Suzie Lincoln; Pam Morgenfeld; Jeff Stoen;
Ming-son Wang; Emily Wang; Geeske Joel
Subject:Re: College Terrace Library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
We also strongly agree!!! We have lived here for 42 years and use College Terrace Library all the time and will do all we
can to support it!!!
Brent and Jane
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:50 PM James Cook <jamesfelixcook@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members,
I wholeheartedly agree with my neighbors and friends: we believe keeping the College Terrace is a way to promote
community, wonder and happiness during a time of isolation, despair and sadness.
Thank you for your consideration and good luck in your difficult decisions ahead.
Stay safe and healthy,
James Felix Cook
On May 8, 2020, at 6:03 PM, doria s <doriasumma@gmail.com> wrote:
28
I agree
And i will do all I can to maintain this community asset from unnecessarily being shut down for false
economies.
Very best
Doria
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 5:35 PM Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> wrote:
Fully agree and would gladly volunteer there. There are going to be myriad changes to our
community b/c of Covid; let’s not toss the cherished community‐building treasures of our community.
It is important that CC (and other levels of government) not use Covid as a means to an end for certain
pre‐Covid agendas. Community preservation is critical now precisely b/c of the economic jolt. And
neighborhood libraries may well be a primary resource for many Palo Altans once they reopen.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2020, at 4:31 PM, Richard Such <wrichardsuch@gmail.com> wrote:
We have lived in College Terrace for more than 50 years. The branch library is a
cultural institution that we have treasured and used, it seems at least once a week,
except for the couple of painful years during which it was closed for renovation
appreciate its importance to residents of College Terrace and surrounding
neighborhoods. The alternatives for us are car rides across town to Rinconada and
Mitchell Park libraries, which are increasingly difficult for seniors like
ourselves. Parents of young children also depend on the children’s section and the
reading‐aloud sessions there, including recent, English‐learning immigrants and
visitors. Please do not close it, not even temporarily. The closure for the pandemic
has been hard enough.
Richard and Jane Such,
‐‐
Doria Summa
(650) 867 7544 Mobile
‐‐
Brent Barker
Freelance Writer
650‐813‐9433
650‐388‐0927 (cell)
Redacted
29
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sheila Bonini <boniniwood@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 10:16 PM
To:Cook, James F.; Brent Barker
Cc:Summa, Doria; Annette Ross; Alexis Moiseyev; Allen J. Baum; Andrea Cook Fleming; Andrew Fetter;
Ann Balin; Asa Such; Becky Fuson; Bill Ross; Bonnie King; Brad Horak; Brian Feldman; Burke Robinson;
Carina Chiang; Chris Saccheri; Chris Saccheri; Christopher Botsford; Colin Born; Dara Olmsted;
Deborah Plumley; Diane Finkelstein; Ed Schmitt; Eileen Stolee; Emily and George Marshall; Eric
Carlson; Eric Larsen; Erica Enos; Fernando Cabildo; Fred Balin; Gray Clossman; Holly Welstein; Ingrid
Shu; Irina Cross; Jack Culpepper; Jaine Reese; Jennifer and Sebastian Doniach; Jens Jensen; Jeremy
Platt; Jerry Yan; Jo Ann Mandinach; Joanne Zschokke; Joe and Melissa Oliveira; John Mark Agosta;
John and Maritza Frankfurt; Julie Good; Karen Damian; Karen Price; Karlette Warner; Durham, KathyF;
Kay Culpepper; Ken Thom; Ken Van Vleck; Kim Raftery; Kristen Anderson; Kyle Harrison; Larry
Kavinoky; Lon Radin; Louise and Aidan Roche; Maggie Heath; Malcolm Slaney; Margaret Allen;
Margit Aramburu; Margot Moiseyev; Marj Pitchon; Mary Jane Marcus; Meredith Martin; Michael Smit;
Michelle Collette; Michelle Oberman; Nancy Cassidy; Nancy Lowe; Pat Robinson; Patricia Griffin; Patty
Hartsell; Pria Graves; Richard Stolee; Richard Such; Richard Such; Roger Pierno; Roland Vogl;
Ron_and_Joan Tambussi; Ronda Rosner; Roswitha Remling; Ruth_and_Jerry Consul; Sairus Patel; Sally
and Whit Heaton; Samidh Chakrabarti; Sheila Kothari; Simon Firth; Steve Woodward; Stewart Carl;
Sujata Patel; Sumitra Joy; Susan Wilson; Suzanne Doyle; Taylor Brady; Terry and MarieLouise Fries;
Toby Brookes; Toiya Black; Tom Jack; Ulla Mick; Ute Engelke; Wendy Pang; Zeke Herman; Zohar
Lotan; Council, City; eric heaton; william.xuan@gregtanaka.org; Alan Gianotti; Valerie Sarma; Berkeley
Revenaugh; Derek Gurney; Todd Lincoln; Danielle Makler; Sukhi Nagesh; Alicia Thesing; Dan Kaleba;
Michael Naar; Ewen Wang; Manuel Amieva; Ross Revenaugh; Chris Makler; WENDY COOK; Ingrid
Rulifson; Hank Edson; Clara Stoen; Suzie Lincoln; Pam Morgenfeld; Jeff Stoen; Ming-son Wang; Emily
Wang; Geeske Joel
Subject:Re: College Terrace Library
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
The College Terrace Library is an important part of our community and my family agrees as well and would like to support
it.
Sheila Bonini
On Friday, May 8, 2020, 09:49:31 PM PDT, Brent Barker <brentgbarker@gmail.com> wrote:
We also strongly agree!!! We have lived here for 42 years and use College Terrace Library all the time and will do all we
can to support it!!!
Brent and Jane
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 7:50 PM James Cook <jamesfelixcook@yahoo.com> wrote:
Dear City Council Members,
I wholeheartedly agree with my neighbors and friends: we believe keeping the College Terrace is a way to promote
community, wonder and happiness during a time of isolation, despair and sadness.
Thank you for your consideration and good luck in your difficult decisions ahead.
Stay safe and healthy,
James Felix Cook
30
On May 8, 2020, at 6:03 PM, doria s <doriasumma@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree
And i will do all I can to maintain this community asset from unnecessarily being shut down for false
economies.
Very best
Doria
On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 5:35 PM Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> wrote:
Fully agree and would gladly volunteer there. There are going to be myriad changes to our community
b/c of Covid; let’s not toss the cherished community-building treasures of our community.
It is important that CC (and other levels of government) not use Covid as a means to an end for certain
pre-Covid agendas. Community preservation is critical now precisely b/c of the economic jolt. And
neighborhood libraries may well be a primary resource for many Palo Altans once they reopen.
Sent from my iPhone
On May 8, 2020, at 4:31 PM, Richard Such <wrichardsuch@gmail.com> wrote:
We have lived in College Terrace for more than 50 years. The branch library is a
cultural institution that we have treasured and used, it seems at least once a week,
except for the couple of painful years during which it was closed for renovation
appreciate its importance to residents of College Terrace and surrounding
neighborhoods. The alternatives for us are car rides across town to Rinconada and
Mitchell Park libraries, which are increasingly difficult for seniors like
ourselves. Parents of young children also depend on the children’s section and the
reading‐aloud sessions there, including recent, English‐learning immigrants and
visitors. Please do not close it, not even temporarily. The closure for the pandemic
has been hard enough.
Richard and Jane Such,
--
Doria Summa
(650) 867 7544 Mobile
--
Brent Barker
Freelance Writer
650-813-9433
650-388-0927 (cell)
Redacted
31
Baumb, Nelly
From:Lucie Richter <lucie.richter@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 8, 2020 10:22 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Keep College Terrace Library open!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
Please keep all our libraries open!
Best,
Lucie
Some thoughts from Nextdoor:
"I feel strongly that the city could make prudent fiscal cuts in other areas which would allow the library to continue. The
proposed cut is $167,550. Why is Google kicking in only one million dollars for the pedestrian/bike bridge? Why not
scrap this project entirely until we are flush again? Some capital improvement projects also could be tabled excluding
safety issues as well. Why not start the business tax for the big players at this time such as Visa, Palantir and Amazon to
name a few? I do not believe it is appropriate to tax the small businesses during this crisis. Frankly, it would be 'big' of
our city manager to cut some of his pay to show solidarity as he is earning over $400,000 more than the president and
the governor. The library is a valued asset used by folks from the neighborhood, Barron Park, Evergreen, Ventura,
University Terrace (Stanford junior faculty) and others. Once you dissolve libraries you harm the community and
democracy. Today is May 8th, the day of victory. We need to band together and keep our valued amenity ‐‐ the College
Terrace Library for future generations."