HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200601plCC3701-32
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: 06/01/2020
Document dates: 5/13/2020 – 5/20/2020
Set 3 of 3
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
10
Baumb, Nelly
From:John McDowell <john@mcdowell.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 7:37 AM
To:Matthieu Bonnard
Cc:asharpe@andrewsharpe.com; Council, City; Greg Tanaka; bsmallwood@fb.com; Stefan Heck; steve
frankel; carina_chiang@yahoo.com; William Xuan; bmg890@gmail.com
Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto, CA - Businesses Reopening
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City Council:
I've lived in Palo Alto for a decade, am raising a family here, and own a home in Professorville.
I'd like to offer my support to the idea of a trial of a walkable University Ave, with socially‐distanced outdoor dining,
during the next phase of shelter‐in‐place.
Specific thoughts:
Traffic is way down
The need for social distancing is way up (so sidewalks need to be wider)
The need for feelings of community is way up (and seeing more people on the street delivers that)
Outdoor restaurant space is safer than indoor space given COVID‐19
Restaurants will need more space between patrons during COVID‐19
Other cities have tried this with good result
Fits well with the direction to a more bike‐friendly, walkable Palo Alto.
The thread on Nextdoor is almost universally positive, with 100+ comments. I've never seen a thread on
Nextdoor with such one‐sided support before
Mountain View and Menlo Park are both taking action to be ready for opening outdoor dining on their main
thoroughfare as soon as it's safe: Coronavirus: Cities across Bay Area push for outdoor dining, post‐pandemic
The time to try this is now. Please don't let Palo Alto be left behind.
John
John McDowell
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 10:54 PM Matthieu Bonnard <mpbnyc@gmail.com> wrote:
Just to add to that:
This is a global movement, a major trend that started years ago in many cities and towns, and that Covid will likely
accelerate.
https://www.dezeen.com/2020/05/07/london‐new‐york‐paris‐milan‐cyclists‐pedestrians/
11
Retailers love it because pedestrian walk into stores, cars don’t. Residents love it because pedestrians bring life and
soul, cars don’t. A pedestrian street is a lifestyle statement AND is good for business.
The beauty of this is that it can be done today at pretty much $0 cost. Removing the asphalt and repaving the street
pedestrian can happen later.
Picture below of main street in my hometown. It went pedestrian about 30 years ago. Many complained at the time,
everyone loves it today.
Let’s not let this crisis go to waste!
Best regards,
Matthieu Bonnard
12
13
On May 19, 2020, at 5:39 PM, asharpe@andrewsharpe.com wrote:
Palo Alto City Council,
If this doesn’t entail closing off University Ave. and California Ave. to automobile traffic, turning them
into pedestrian boulevards, and allowing the businesses to expand out into the street to maintain
proper distancing to conform to state guidelines, it is far too timid a plan, and doesn’t actually help the
businesses, but instead simply pays lip service to them, the lifeblood of the city. We have enormous
support for this plan from anyone who has been asked (now certainly over 100) and businesses, too.
Other cities are already doing this. We are supposed to be innovative, and we are trailing far behind.
Andrew
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/public_safety/plans_and_information/coronavirus/reopening
_safely/businesses_reopening_.asp
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Justine Burt <sustainelaine@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 9:46 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:closing downtown University Ave and Cal Ave
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 encourage you to close the downtown areas of University Ave. and California Ave to vehicle traffic for the
summer. This would allow the restaurants to open back up, albeit in a limited way, by spreading tables out into the
street at least 6' apart. Clearly we want to avoid a street fair atmosphere that brings people into close quarters and
spreads the disease, but I'm sure the City would work with the restaurants and the county public health department to
determine best practices to provide safer outdoor dining. Thank you!
Warmly,
Justine Burt
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Phyllis Munsey <pmuns@thegrid.net>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 1:12 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Greg St Claire; Mike Garcia; Barbara Gross; Jon Goldman; Kleinberg, Judy
Subject:Thoughts from owner of two buildings on Ramona St.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
I understand there may be public comment at tonights Council Meeting on the subject of restaurants’ and retails’ plights
in reopening of businesses. I am hurriedly putting together my thoughts regarding the necessity of substantial changes
required by the Covid‐19 crisis and subsequent “reopening" and it’s effects on my tenants and restaurants in downtown
Palo Alto for their very survival. I hope you have time to read this before the meeting.
POP UP PARKS We need emergency expansion of “outdoor space” for retail downtown as a means to reopen stores. Possibly temporary for the summer/fall. Without a way to change the physical structure of the city almost overnight,
then I think our city will be doomed by the inability to adjust and react to a crisis which has changed the horizon as we now know it. The new reality requires some throwing out of old perceptions and responding to needs here-to-fore never experienced by ours or any city. Any delay could be catastrophic and alter where the public
chooses to gravitate when they can finally leave their homes.
I think we need to close off some side streets in the downtown area..for example; 500 block of Ramona and maybe 500
& 600 blocks of Emerson and maybe others at other end of town. Turn them into “pop up parks” for the
summer. Have some nurseries looking for publicity help to landscape them with potted vegetation, so it becomes a
public/private venture. Restaurants and retail need desperately to be able to “spill out onto the street—in an open and
inviting manner”. You would want to create inviting/designed areas, not just blocked off streets. Without restaurants
and retail the revenue stream and health of the city will suffer greatly. I think it is something that needs to be
addressed now.
To me this need seems pretty HUGE and I’d love to think Palo Alto could respond in an out‐of‐the‐box way and lead
other peninsula cities in an ahead of the curve manner.
If, we should accomplish this, and it is popular, then farther down the road scaling back and
having “parklets” in front of some restaurants might bring the city into the 21st century and add a bit of
european sidewalk dining flair. You only have to look as far as Menlo Park or Redwood City to see that
this is a very doable concept.
Thanks for reading and considering these thoughts.
Phyllis Munsey, deLemos Properties
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 17, 2020 7:02 PM
To:Parks
Cc:Council, City
Subject:Masks at Arastradero/Foothills
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Are there any plans to put signs up at Arastradero and Foothills informing people of Palo Alto’s mandatory mask
ordinance? (i assume it is an ordinance.) Probably 90% of park users; both parks; not only do not have masks on, but
they won’t even pull their shirts over their nose/mouth when they pass you.
Deborah Goldeen, ., 94306, 321‐7375 Redacted
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:JEANETTE BALDWIN <jeanettebaldwin@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 3:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:New Face Mask Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello:
I'm hoping to get some clarification on the Face Mask rules. I work in a business that does very heavy phone traffic. Do
the phone operators need to wear their masks while on the phone? It's very difficult for the person not the other end of
the phone to hear, it's muffled.
They are at least 6 feet away from each other all the time.
‐‐
Jeanette Baldwin
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:West Bay Citizens Coalition <westbaycoalition@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 16, 2020 9:49 PM
To:Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; Alison Hicks; Anita Enander; Betsy Nash; Catherine Carlton; Cecilia
Taylor; Chris Clark; Council, City; City Clerk; City Clerk; City Clerk; City Clerk; City Clerk; City Clerk;
Darcy Paul; Debi Davis; Drew Combs; Ellen Kamei; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Glenn Hendricks; Tanaka,
Greg; Gustav Larsson; Jan Pepper; Jeannie Bruins; John McAlister; Jon Wiley; Karen Hardy; Kathy
Watanabe; Larry Klein; Liang Chao; Lisa Gilmor; Lisa Matichak; Kniss, Liz (internal); Lucas Ramirez;
Kou, Lydia; Lynette Lee Eng; Margaret Abe-Koga; Mason Fong; Michael Goldman; Nancy Smith;
Neysa Fligor; Raj Chahal; Ray Mueller; Rod Sinks; Russ Melton; Steven Scharf; Teresa O'Neill; DuBois,
Tom
Subject:MTC/ABAG Plan Bay Area 2050
Attachments:WBCC MTC-ABAG letter final.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
West Bay Citizens Coalition
Empowering West Bay communities to find
locally driven solutions to regional problems
To: West Bay City Council Members
From: West Bay Citizens Coalition
Date: May 16, 2020
CALL TO ACTION: We urgently request that your City Council take immediate action to stop MTC/ABAG from continuing
with the Plan Bay Area 2050 process until they follow the legally required mandate to address publicly the huge and
growing jobs‐housing imbalances in the six cities of Silicon Valley. And, If MTC/ABAG refuses to work with you, you will
have no choice but to refuse to accept the RHNA allocations they assign your city.
Honorable Council members:
In the midst of the unprecedented COVID‐19 lockdown with all its disastrous consequences — some of which will
significantly impact future planning for the Region — MTC/ABAG is nonetheless rushing ahead to assign RHNA numbers
to our cities this summer. Most importantly, the RHNA allocations for your city are being derived from their aggressive
jobs and housing forecasts in priority development areas without any input from the affected communities. These RHNA
allocations will not be valid because they have not complied with California Code 65584 to address the issue of the
intraregional imbalance in the jobs/housing ratio that has created the serious impacts of unmanaged growth.
We have never needed fair, effective, and thoughtful regional growth planning as much as we do today. Our very
lifestyle and the quality of that lifestyle depend on it. It is essential that we have a planning process for our future in
which everyone who is critically impacted by this growth can take part in decisions that affect them deeply. That said,
MTC/ABAG, the most important regional planning operation that addresses the future growth of jobs and housing for
each Bay Area city, lacks any effective participation by local citizens and governments. Instead of local constituent input,
MTC/ABAG’s Plan Bay Area 2050, is based on an in‐house model that is driven by jobs growth in already jobs‐rich areas
... a model that has been proven to be profoundly wrong!
2
To properly and fully serve your constituents, we believe that it is imperative that you contact MTC/ABAG and insist
that they stop action on Plan Bay Area 2050 until: (a) the shelter‐in‐place order is completely lifted and we fully
understand the impacts of the pandemic on the future of the Region, and (b) there has been an opportunity for full
community participation in the planning process and its resultant model. This imperative includes requiring that
MTC/ABAG work with your Council and citizens, in accordance with California Code 65584 (d)(3), to formulate a realistic
model to alleviate the growth issues and extreme intraregional jobs/housing imbalance caused by Plan Bay Area
2040. MTC/ABAG will clearly fail again if they work in isolation without your thoughtful, sensitive community input.
In MTC/ABAG’s past planning, their model led to concentrated job growth in a limited number of cities in the West Bay,
while producing significant requirements for new housing that cannot be afforded or met, together with tens of
thousands of new long‐distance commuters on already crowded highways. Moreover, it failed to move jobs growth to
the East Bay and San Jose which can more easily accommodate that growth.
The current Plan Bay Area process has completely failed to prevent the current massive intraregional imbalances in the
cities of the West Bay, especially among the cities of Silicon Valley. These exaggerated imbalances have caused severe
problems throughout the Bay Area, including:
1. Escalating land costs and the highest housing costs in the country;
2. An annual double‐digit increase in traffic congestion with our streets and highways beyond reasonable
capacity;
3. Growing wealth inequality;
4. Dislocation of families, especially those with young children; and
5. Imposition of significant lifestyle changes on extant residents.
Increasingly, citizens in the West Bay are demanding to understand the full impacts of new policies and to know the
costs of full mitigation! And, specifically, they are asking for an opportunity to have open public discussions of goals and
real input to resulting policy decisions. The global COVID‐19 pandemic has and will continue to affect planning
profoundly ‐‐ many assumptions will need rethinking!
Please do not let unelected agencies like MTC/ABAG and Big Business usurp your rightful roles as the focus and
driving influence of effective and balanced local zoning and spending decisions. You are rightly the voice of the people
that these plans will impact, and in the spirit of rightfully serving the citizens of your respective communities, we urge
you to join with other West Bay City Council members to form a caucus that will accept nothing less than requiring
MTC/ABAG to make fair, balanced, and realistic improvements in the intraregional growth, jobs, and housing issues.
For the West Bay Citizens Coalition
Greg Schmid
westbaycoalition@gmail.com
Attachment: WBCC letter to MTC/ABAG, February 28, 2020
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Menlo Park, Mountain View,
Palo Alto, Saratoga, Sunnyvale… and growing
West Bay Citizens Coalition
Empowering West Bay communities to find
locally driven solutions to regional problems
Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Palo Alto,
Redwood City, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale… and growing
February 28, 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Commission
Board of Directors
375 Beale Street San Francisco, California Association of Bay Area Governments
Executive Committee
375 Beale Street, Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Board and Committee Members:
The West Bay Citizens Coalition (WBCC) is writing to provide you notice of serious deficiencies in the methodology and processes used to promulgate Plan Bay Area 2050. The fact that HCD and MTC/ABAG proceeded to develop the 2050 Plan without a critical analysis of the flaws in the methodology and processes of the 2040 Plan is frankly inexcusable in view of its
blatant inaccuracies.
We wrote to you and testified at public hearings asking you to promote an open discussion of alternative measures described in the Government Codes to avoid the disastrous forecasting errors of Plan Bay Area 2040. You ignored our pleas for a thorough analysis of the Plan Bay
Area 2050 methodology and the processes outlined in the Codes.
FAILURE OF MTC/ABAG AND HCD TO COMPLY WITH RELEVANT STATUTES Accordingly, we wish to provide notice that we, the members of the WBCC, find HCD and
MTC/ABAG have failed in their statutorily mandated duty to “improve intraregional jobs-
housing imbalances.” HCD and MTC/ABAG failed to faithfully adhere to the requirements of the following sections of the relevant Government Code when promulgating Plan Bay Area 2050 to the resulting severe detriment of the West Bay Area:
1. Section 65584 (d) (3) of the California Government Code states that the Regional Plan
process of the regional government body shall cooperate with the relevant state agencies and the public, pay special attention to the local jobs-housing imbalances, and look for incentives that will “promote an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing.”
2
MTC/ABAG failed to cooperate with the public and failed to “pay special attention to the local jobs-housing imbalance.” The Regional Plan process specifically failed to fully address incentives that could “improve the interrelationship between jobs and housing.”
2. Section 65584.04 (d) (e) requires that the data considered shall include “each member jurisdiction’s existing and projected jobs and housing relationship…as well as an estimate based on readily available data, of projected job growth and projected housing growth during the planning period.”
WBCC’s membership includes City Council Members, Mayors and other elected and appointed officials from the West Bay Area cities. We are uniquely qualified to testify that MTC/ABAG did not address troubling local jobs-housing imbalances emerging in the West Bay by offering local options for individual cities working to achieve a better jobs-housing balance.
3. Section 65584.01 (b) mandates cooperation among the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), the Department of Finance (DOF), and the regional council of governments (MTC/ABAG). For example, HCD’s housing projection “shall be based upon population projections produced by the Department of Finance and
regional forecasts used in preparing the regional transportation plans, in consultation
with each council of government.” There was no effective public discussion of the troubling intensity of job growth in the West Bay and lack of job growth in Oakland and San Jose and other East Bay cities.
Failure is predictable if your projections failed to address readily available relevant data that have been repeatedly shared at public meetings. 4. Further, 65584.01 (c) (1) (F) requires that HCD “should consult with the council of governments…who shall provide data assumptions from the council’s projections…on the relationship between jobs and housing, including any imbalance between jobs and housing”. Ultimately, HCD must make a written report to the council of governments that determines “whether the methodology furthers the objectives listed in subdivision (d) of Section 65584” (i.e., “promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing”). (65584.04 (i))
While HCD does consult with local communities on the zoning requirements for the number of affordable housing units, neither HCD nor MTC/ABAG carried out a public discussion about the appropriate number of new jobs or new housing units needed by new workers – instead those numbers were developed through in-house models that allow for
housing and commercial space to compete “in profitable locations.” Thus, we are rightly concerned that the flawed forecasts of Plan Bay Area 2040 will be replicated in the 2050 Plan.
3
5. Section 65584.04 (d) of the Code specifies that “public participation and access shall
be required in the development of the methodology of the allocation of regional housing needs”. MTC/ABAG held a series of public meetings but failed to provide any current data that tracks new jobs and new housing in jobs-rich areas. Their analysis in looking at
alternative such as city sponsored “jobs-caps” consisted of using their own model that tracks “the profitability of new office space” and concluding that caps were not to be considered because they “might push some jobs out of the Bay Area” (based on a “1990 American Planning Journal” article).
6. Finally, Section 65890.5 requires HCD to prepare and publicly distribute a Guidebook that would present “methodologies for measuring the balance of jobs and housing” and identifying “incentives which local, regional and state agencies may offer the private sector to encourage developments which will facilitate an improved balance between employment generating land use and residential land use.” HCD failed to prepare and publicly distribute this Guidebook. Thus, there are few options for any serious exploration of alternatives within HCD’s and ABAB’s methodologies for measuring the balance of jobs and housing. Similarly, there is no serious consideration of other types of
incentives that other regional and local governments may be using. This failure contravenes the legislature’s mandate to prepare a range of forecasts that local governments may consider. The damages to the West Bay caused by the deficient and inaccurate methodology and processes of Plan Bay Area 2040 are legion. WBCC hereby provides HCD and MTC/ABAG with notice
of some of the most obvious and incontrovertible damages caused by the huge and growing intraregional jobs-housing imbalance in the West Bay and the critical consequences of that imbalance.
The current Plan Bay Area 2040 is based on a jobs-driven model. It starts with a regional job growth projection that seeks to concentrate growth in jobs-rich priority development areas.[1] It
has asserted that a rapid growth of new jobs would be spread in urban centers around the Bay Area while an effective transit system could make these job centers flourish effectively.
Through the first eight years of the Plan (2010-2018), the result has been quite the opposite: very rapid job growth has been concentrated in a dramatically narrow band of West Bay cities. (The West Bay includes the city of San Francisco, the six cities that have been associated with Silicon
Valley – Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Cupertino, and all the San Mateo County cities that touch on Highway 101 between San Francisco and Menlo Park).
The original intention of Plan Bay Area was to concentrate job growth in the three big cities of the Bay Area—San Francisco, San Jose and Oakland and in the original Silicon Valley area.
While San Francisco and the neighboring Silicon Valley cities would be the fastest growing job center, together San Jose and Oakland would create about half as many new jobs each year as the West Bay.
4
In practice, during the first eight years of the Plan 2010 – 2018, the West Bay has added well
over SEVEN TIMES the number of jobs as San Jose and Oakland over the first seven years of the Plan (Table 1).
Table 1 The Projections in the Plan Haven’t Worked (average annual job growth)
Projected Actual
(2010-2040) (2010-2018)
West Bay 19,857 36,815
Oakland/San Jose 7,717 4,970
Source: Plan Bay Area: Strategy for a Sustainable Future (July 2013), “Employment Growth by Jurisdiction;” and
Census Bureau, ACS Factfinder (Advanced search on B08601)
In actuality, over the eight years from 2010 to 2018 San Francisco and the cities of the West Bay have created about two and a half times the number of new jobs compared to the rest of the
whole Bay Area. Half of those new jobs have been filled by commuters crossing the Bay or
travelling along the narrow and congested pathways from the south.
The rapid job growth in a relatively constrained strip of land bounded by mountains on one side and the Bay on the other has resulted in severe problems: land and housing costs are the highest in the country, congestion is escalating, there are disturbing inequalities in incomes, family
workers are commuting longer distances, overloaded regional transit systems need major
upgrades, and commute times are increasing. We are facing new challenges in our ability to create a sustainable future and the functioning of local democracy is under challenge.
TEN PROBLEMS THAT MUST BE ADDRESSED
There are at least ten major economic, financial and societal problems that flow from the concentrated job growth and increased congestion engendered by the serious imbalances we have
identified:
LAND PRICES
The rapid expansion in business growth in jobs-rich areas has driven up the cost of land and the share of land costs in total housing prices. A recent Federal Reserve study has tracked land cost escalation in 46 metro areas around the country. They found that in the 46 metro areas, land’s
share of home value accounted for 51% of total market value of home prices. The highest share
was in the San Francisco metro area where over 88% of the market value of a home was accounted for by land. The San Jose metro area was a close second with 82%. [2]
In general the cities in California were well ahead of the rest of the country in land price share. This is clearly driven by the aggressive expansion of office space in the West Bay.
5
HOUSING PRICES
Home prices in San Francisco and in the San Jose Metro area are now the highest in the country. The same is true of rental rates for apartments (Table 2).
Table 2 The Bay Area has the most expensive housing in the Country (Metro Areas)
Median Housing Prices (Thousands of Dollars) Monthly Rentals (Dollars/Month) San Francisco 955 3448
San Jose 1,230 3547 Los Angeles 652 2955 Seattle 491 2232 Boston 468 2391 New York 440 2419
Washington DC 407 2172 Austin 310 1700 Dallas 244 1641 Zillow, February 2019 Prices are especially high in the job-rich cities of the West Bay. But the rate of increase is just as high in the surrounding communities that feel the commuting effects from the centers of job
growth (Table 3). The housing price impact has spread to every part of the Bay Area.
Table 3 Increase in Housing Prices Throughout the Bay Area (annual percent increase in
median family home prices, 2010-2018)
The Core Silicon Valley 6 11.4 San Francisco 10.2
Surrounding Communities San Jose 10.1 Milpitas 12.9 Fremont 10.3 Hayward 10.4
Oakland 12.9 Concord 10.4 Source: siliconvalleymls.com
6
INCOME INEQUALITY
Highly paid new workers are taking the existing housing that is being offered on the markets as
well as the new housing being built. A recent study by Brookings showed that of all US Metro areas that San Francisco had the largest income gap between the 95th and 20th percentiles other than the New York area. While the San Jose Metro area income gap was slightly lower, it was growing at the second highest rate in the country in recent years (just behind Honolulu).[3]
A recent Census Bureau report noted that the income gap between the 90th and the 50th
percentiles were growing at about the same rate as the gap between the highest and the lower income groups.[4]
CONGESTION
More people commuting longer distances have crowded local freeways on both sides of the Bay. The time spent in congested traffic conditions throughout the Bay Area has been growing almost
10% per year since 2010.[5]
TRANSIT OVERLOAD
The key to dealing with the growing number of commuters is to get them onto public transit. Three transit systems serve commuters to the West Bay: BART, Caltrain and the VTA. While transit ridership on these lines grew though the 1990s and 2000s, over the last three years, both
BART and Caltrain have found their ridership leveling off and even dropping a bit from 2016 to 2018.
The Santa Clara County transit system that services San Jose and the five Silicon Valley cities (VTA) has had a 14% fall in ridership over those three years.[6] The costs of maintaining current service much less any planned expansion has escalated rapidly, making quick
improvements slow and costly.
IMPACT ON FAMILIES
As we move toward greater densification, congestion has raised the issue of family living in the Bay Area. Denser apartment buildings near jobs serve workers well, but they are not ideal for families with children. Clearly San Francisco with its dense housing and nineteenth century
transportation system is already an outlier. It has the lowest ratio of children between the ages of five and seventeen as a share of the total population of any city in the country—just under the ratio of other dense cities built up before the automobile like New York and Boston.
But there are also troubling signs of changes in other cities in the West Bay. The share of the population between the ages of five and seventeen has fallen by 30 to 50% faster in Palo Alto
and Redwood City than in California as a whole and more than twice as fast in Santa Clara and Daly City. [7]
7
TAX BURDEN ON RESIDENTS
Rapid growth in jobs and workers leads to dramatic increases in infrastructure costs. This includes a wide range of items from worker housing, transit improvements, offsetting increased congestion, improved roadways, police, health responses, schools and recreation facilities. The vast majority of local infrastructure funding is paid by residents, not by businesses. Residents
pay through higher property taxes, parcel taxes, sales taxes, and gas taxes.
For example, the base tax for all local government (cities, counties, schools, community colleges) is the Property Tax. Prop 13 has shifted a major share of that tax from business to residents. In the mid-1980s, commercial properties and residences in Santa Clara County paid roughly the same share of the property tax. In 2018 despite the rapid growth in new jobs in the
county, property taxes paid by residents was 62% and it was 38% for commercial properties. [8]
Furthermore, at least three quarters of all new transportation funds for the Bay Area come from local and regional sources that fall primarily on individual residents such as gas taxes, sales taxes, parcel taxes and property taxes.[9] Most of these are regressive taxes with middle and lower income people paying a larger share of their income for such taxes.
DON’T KILL SILICON VALLEY
Silicon Valley emerged as a dynamic center of tech innovation partially because of its unique features of mobility both of talented workers and ideas flowing easily from place to place. Historical observers have pointed to two features of the Valley that were critical to its success: a very high rate of people changing jobs and the lack of large dominant firms that could capture
new ideas as they emerged.[10]
The emergence of very large companies and the densification jobs within the Valley is challenging the traditional mobility of workers and ideas that lie at the basis of Silicon Valley’s unique success.
If you look at the nine-county Bay Area as a whole, there is a rough balance between jobs and
employed residents. However the West Bay jobs-rich “sub-region” is severely out of balance.
The West Bay “sub-region” that includes San Francisco, the six cities of the original Silicon Valley—Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Cupertino, and Santa Clara—and the connecting cities in San Mateo along Highway 101.
When Plan Bay Area 2040 was created, the West Bay already had a base ratio of about 1.4 new
jobs for every new employed resident (1.4:1). But in the years since 2010 this ratio has increased dramatically. Between 2010 and 2018, the West Bay has added well over 250,000 new jobs. These new jobs accounted for 65% of the new jobs added in the entire nine county Bay Area although the West Bay accounts for only 26% of the total Bay Area population.
From 2010 to 2018, this critical ratio of new jobs to new employed residents has risen dramatically in the West Bay while it has fallen in neighboring cities and counties (see Table 4).
8
Table 4 Ratio of New Jobs to New Employed Residents (2010-2018) Location - city or county Ratio of new jobs to new employed residents
Nine County Bay Area
1:1 West Bay
2.1:1 San Francisco 2:1 San Mateo (along Hwy 101)
Silicon Valley (6 Cities)
1.1:1
3.3:1 (Menlo Park, Palo Alto, Mt View) 6.1:1 Oakland 0.2:1
San Jose 0.4:1 Alameda County (not including Oakland) 0.3:1 Contra Costa County 0.4:1 Source: US Census Bureau, data.census.gov The data clearly show a growing concentration of jobs in a single part of the Bay Area, the West Bay. Moreover, while the West Bay has created twice the number of new jobs forecasted by Plan Bay Area 2040, the two large cities, San Jose and Oakland combined, created forty percent fewer
jobs than it forecasted.
SUSTAINABLE GROWTH GOALS
With the dramatic increase in commuters coming into the job-rich West Bay, the number of cars on the road, the distance traveled, and the longer time spent in congested traffic all mean a rise in harmful emissions. It is essential that we develop an effective public transportation system that
will minimize the pollution, but it is hard to deal with our current problems when we keep adding longer-distance commuters.
An increasing share of workers with families will continue to live in suburban communities. Further, increased water needs from the growing number of office buildings and new worker
housing (especially those with families) means that the Bay Area’s chronic water shortages will
be exacerbated as changes in climate impact the limited sources of water that the Bay Area depends upon.
THE FUTURE OF LOCAL DEMOCRACY
The greatest threat of all is the increasing pressure to usurp local government control over
zoning. A number of bills have been passed or are being debated in the state legislature that
would override local zoning authority on housing density. While regional cooperation on creating healthy balances between new jobs and housing is essential, this should be done through working together, not from having regional solutions imposed by state legislators. This destroys the very essence of local government—the ability of individuals to participate directly in
decisions that affect the daily family life of their communities.
9
LET’S MAKE SURE THAT PLAN BAY AREA 2050 WORKS
The planning process used in the formulation of Plan Bay Area 2040 has not been effective in preparing us to deal with today’s overriding issue of job concentration in a geographically bounded area. In fact, it has completely missed the impacts of the exacerbated jobs/employed resident imbalances in the West Bay. Jobs are expanding there at almost twice the annual
average projected in the Plan (and 35% less than projected in the major cities of San Jose and
Oakland).
This has had serious consequences for the whole region. The methodology for Plan Bay Area 2050 must confront these imbalances and assure effective public discussion on planning for our future. MTC/ABAG missed the opportunity to confront the existing problems and offer
pathways to resolving the most important issues by holding effective public forums.
We suggest three key methodological steps as critical for the planning process:
1. End the jobs-based model
MTC/ABAG base their population and housing projections for each community in the Bay Area on a model that starts with an aggressive regional job projection. The original job projections
were based on maintaining the local share of a national BLS job projection by industry. The
projections of jobs, population and housing for each community were then produced internally (based on their own consultants’ work, their own Technical Advisory Committee and their own self-appointed advisory groups).
Once approved, the job growth starting point could not be lowered or even examined by
subsequent CEQA processes. (Plan Bay Area 2040 is currently operating under a jobs growth
number that was generated in 2011 and will continue in effect until 2022. During that time period, no lower regional job projection number could be considered (although a higher one can be).[11]
The model seriously under-estimated the high job growth numbers in one specific jobs-rich
area—the West Bay. That has been a key cause of the problems discussed above. The process
would be much improved by having a range of job growth options explored upfront both in the region as a whole and in key sub-regions, like the West Bay.
This would allow the modeling process to compare impacts of a range of jobs and population projections for the region as a whole, as well as key sub-regions. It would foster the exploration
of the impact of alternative job growth projections on land costs, housing costs, congestion,
income inequality, infrastructure needs and sustainability goals.
The initial methodology must allow communities to explore job growth and housing growth together upfront, including potential regional imbalances. This would allow public discussion of the consequences of a more moderate and balanced jobs and housing growth throughout the Bay
Area and in special regions and the range of impacts on their communities.
10
2. Provide realistic options for balanced growth
MTC/ABAG has suggested a process that should be at the core of planning for Bay Area 2050. Horizon’s Perspective Paper: The Future of Jobs (May 2019) identified a few Priority Strategies that would help. One was particularly suited to the problems of the West Bay. It was Priority Strategy L3: “Office Development Limits in Jobs-Rich Communities”. This strategy stated that
cities that have a job/housing ratio of over 2:1 merited special attention. [12]
But Table 4 pointed out that the entire West Bay was adding jobs at well over a 2:1 ratio over the period 2010-2018. Thus the entire West Bay qualifies as an area that is job rich, with a transit system that is at full capacity and difficult commutes over restricted bridges or crowded north-south roadways. Between 2010 and 2018 this area added over 250,00 jobs with half of them
coming from outside the area using crowded commute corridors.
This has created the list of critical issues that affect the whole Bay Area. There is no easy transit solution available. Denser housing is limited because the land cost in the fastest growing job centers is so high that developers will not build housing in mixed zone areas unless they are granted mandates to build even more offices than housing units. (Note: a thousand square feet of
office space can house between four to six workers while a similar space for housing would fit a
single apartment with access and common spaces that would on average house fewer than 1.5 workers. The job space clearly offers a higher return.)
This means that this huge regional imbalance must be addressed in the updated Plan. A critical component of the Plan’s methodology has to be to explore incentives that offer alternative
growth paths in this major jobs-rich area. This should include exploring the consequences of
moderate and balanced growth of both jobs and housing with a dynamic and adapting transit system that grapples with today’s existing problems of imbalance and congestion.
Clearly, job limit discussions have to engage the whole of the jobs-rich area—in this case the West Bay.
There are really two critical tasks that should be included in the new methodology: working
carefully to craft incentives for a balanced growth of jobs and housing in the West Bay while at the same time creating credible incentives for jobs to grow in San Jose, Oakland and the urban areas in other parts of Santa Clara, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties.
The incentives that MTC/ABAG uses to allocate job growth around the Bay Area (profitability
in Priority Development Areas in jobs-rich areas with promised transit solutions) have not
worked. We need to explore balanced job/housing growth in the West Bay and clear incentives to add jobs in cities like Oakland and San Jose and other mid-level cities on the East and South Side of the Bay.
3. Open the process to engage a diverse set of those affected
Job growth has an impact on each of the problem areas we discussed above. The only road to an
effective planning process is to grapple with this complex set of interrelationships in the modeling process and that each of the key parties affected has a chance to observe and comment
11
on those relationships. Elsewhere MTC/ABAG has introduced the notion of an iterative
model.[13]
An effective iterative model would look not just at the impacts of transit on housing but the impact of jobs on community life. By far, the biggest imbalance is on the jobs and employed resident side and any effective policy has to grapple with the consequences of shifting that jobs to housing ratio. But, of course, the way the model is currently set up, there can be no
examination of alternative lower job growth numbers in specific regions during the course of the RHNA period.[14]
Obviously the most effective way of lowering housing prices in the jobs-rich West Bay would be to lower the job growth number which is pushing up land and housing costs and forcing longer distance commuting. A good effective reiterative model could explore how much housing prices
and congestion might be affected if the jobs growth number was lowered in jobs-rich areas. Thus, a jobs cap or limit through the West Bay would be one effective way of dealing with the whole slew of problems that have cropped up over the last eight years.
The Regional Body involved (MTC/ABAG) has no direct authority over land use matters in the individual cities. But they do have substantial incentives that they could use to shift the site of
new growth. They could provide affordable housing funds for those communities that fostered balanced jobs and housing growth. They could build transit systems that would provide effective service linking homes and jobs outside the West Bay. By limiting the growing number of long-distance commuters, they would be providing the most effective way of cutting harmful emissions and wasted time in congestion.
The approved methodology needs to explicitly examine the consequences of critical decisions on job growth for each of the ten challenges mentioned above. Participation in the process should include all parties affected. Make this happen—get a Bay Area Plan that allows an effective reiterative planning process with diverse public inputs.
Based on this data, MTC/ABAG must acknowledge that the methodology and processes of Plan
Bay Area 2040 are seriously flawed. We believe that if MTC/ABAG continues to use these flawed methodology and processes, Plan Bay Area 2050 will encourage aggressive job growth in jobs-rich areas such as the West Bay that will only serve to aggravate the existing problems and fail to present serious alternatives for focused job growth that offer a more balanced and sustained outcome.
We look forward to your prompt written response to our concerns, the data we have presented and realistic alternatives for future balanced jobs-housing growth dicussions in the West Bay. Sincerely,
Greg Schmid Freddie ParkWheeler For the West Bay Citizens Coalition
12
cc:
California State Assembly California State Senate California Governor [1] ABAG Resolution 02-19. [2] Morris A. Davis and Michael G. Palumbo, Federal Reserve Board, Staff Paper 2006-25, Washington DC). [3] Berube, Alan, “Income Inequality in cities and metro areas: An update” Brookings: Metropolitan Policy Program, 2016, Appendix X). [4] Glassman, Brian, U.S. census Bureau, “Income inequality among Regions and Metropolitan Statistical Areas: 2005 to 2015”, SEHSD Working Paper Number: 2017-41). [5] Horizons, Vital Signs “Bay Area: Time spent in Congestion”) [6] BART, Caltrain and VTA operating statistics. [7] Data taken from California Department of Education, School Profiles, and California Department of Finance, E-5. Population Estimates for Cities and Counties, 2011-2019. [8] Santa Clara County, County Assessors 2018-2019 Annual Report, page 14. [9] MTC, Plan Bay Area 2040, Draft EIR, April 17, 2017,p 1.2-13. [10] Annalee Saxenian, “Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128”, Harvard University Press, 1994 and Martin Kenney, ed. “Understanding Silicon Valley: The Anatomy of an Entrepreneurial Region”, Stanford University Press, 2000). [11]MTC, Plan Bay Area 2040, Final EIR, July 10, 2017, Master Response #6, p 2-16. [12]MTC, Regional Advisory Working Group, June 4, 2019, Agenda Item 3, Attachment B, page 2 of 17. [13]MTC, Regional Advisory Working Group, June 2, 2019, Agenda Item 2, Draft Methodology, page 2-4 of 13. [14] MTC, Plan Bay Area 2040, Final EIR, July 10, 2017, Master Response #6, p 2-16.
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sue Dinwiddie <sued@daise.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 17, 2020 5:21 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:RE: Deadline for the Cities to respond on the MTC/ABAG adopted Growth Geographies.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Honorable Council,
Considering the previously unimagined impacts of COVID‐19 on future housing needs, we urge you to take time for
public input rather than rushing to meet the May 31 time line. Conditions and budgets have changed radically in the last
two months. It seems judicious to get public input to calculate how earlier assumptions might have changed.
Respectfully,
Sue and Ken Dinwiddie
Wind in the Strings
Harp and Flute Music for All Occasions
Sue and Ken Dinwiddie
Home: 650‐325‐3033
Cell: 650‐867‐0308
windinthestrings.com
sued@daise.com
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 3:01 PM
To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:MTC/ABAG assignment of housing needs numbers
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members and City Manager,
It appears that MTC/ABAG is proceeding with its process of assigning "housing needs" to various
cities. Unfortunately, the Council and the City Manager have not agreed to hold a public study session or a
discussion about MTC/ABAG's Plan Bay Area 2050 and Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) ‐‐ unlike
many other cities in our region.
While we do have a lot to do in terms of revising our city budget, the deadline for responding to the proposals
by MTC/ABAG is May 31 ‐‐ roughly a short two weeks from now. Mayor Fine has stated previously (with
respect to proposed State legislation) that he does not believe that residents and local governments such as
the one he leads can be trusted to make these kinds of decisions, but I strongly disagree with this view.
Residents of Palo Alto deserve to hear and participate in a discussion of the numbers likely to be assigned to
Palo Alto by this unelected agency. I urge you to make the MTC/ABAG proposals widely known and available
to the Palo Alto community and to provide a forum where the proposals, likely implications and suggestions
for improving them can be discussed. The City Council should respond to MTC/ABAG and reflect the concerns
and ideas of its residents.
Transparency in local governmental affairs is very important to me.
Sincerely,
Carol Scott
Resident of Evergreen Park
‐‐
Carol Scott
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Geri <geri@thegrid.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2020 7:39 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Geri Mc Gilvray; Mike Bechler
Subject:WALGREENS
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear City Leaders,
After the arson, the new downtown Walgreens was finally built, quite oversized, TERRIBLY unattractive, full of junk
products, junk drinks, shoddy, shoddy stuff, things that did not hold your feet in....
and,
a bottle of water on a hot day was WAY more than Whole Foods!
I saw people shoplifting in there sometimes.
What I miss are all the unique shops, and GOOD Restaurants, which included a soup or a salad, like MIYAKI, GOOD
EARTH, CHEESE CAKE FACTORY, ( atmosphere mattered) and the little food court places with casseroles. , and really
good cooks!
University Cafe was okay.... not cheap, but pleasant.
The food was better than the greasy, over salted and sugared foods University now. And, everything tastes like bacon!
I MISS THE LITTLE JEWLRY store with Alice.
I have to go to MV or RC for a reasonably priced delicious meal.
Anyway, Walgreens might NOT be such a loss!
Geri Mcgilvray
Everyday Safety and Walkability
Sent from my iPhone
Ps, I posted TWO FREE.
art lesson videos on U TUBE.
YESTERDAY. Now I have to learn how to access my art lessons!
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2020 12:44 PM
To:Fine, Adrian
Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; board@pausd.org;
health@paloaltopta.org; 'Ann Protter'; brucewphillips@gmail.com; 'NTB'; jsglenn@stanford.edu
Subject:Public Letters to Council Disappear, Part V
Dear Mayor Fine,
I was pleased to receive yesterday’s email from Administrative Associate III Vinh Nguyen. In it he reports that, in the future, emails received from the public will be added on a weekly basis to the online Public Letters set for the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) in advance of its
meetings, and also that the set will be updated just before each meeting occurs. That the
Commission recognizes its responsibility to residents on this score is welcome news. I’m guessing you had something to do with this change, and to the extent you did, I thank you.
I hope you will instruct the City Clerk’s office to handle residents’ emails to City Council in the same
way. As things stand, according to City Clerk Minor, her office withholds residents’ emails that arrive later than eleven days before the Council meeting for which they are intended, even though other elements of the Council “packet” are routinely updated during that same eleven day window. (According to Ms. Minor, withheld emails are included in the packet for a subsequent
Council meeting—at which point, of course, the issue addressed by the emails will have already been
considered and voted upon by Council.)
To ensure there is transparency in the government you head, I hope you will insist that the City
Clerks’ Office follow the lead of the Planning and Transportation Commission and install a process for dealing with emails to City Council that doesn’t play fast and loose with communications from residents who express a point of view with which City Staff disagrees.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 10:37 AM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review
Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; board@pausd.org;
health@paloaltopta.org; 'Ann Protter' <ann.protter@gmail.com>; brucewphillips@gmail.com; 'NTB'
3
<aarmatt@gmail.com>; jsglenn@stanford.edu
Subject: RE: Public Letters to Council Disappear, Part IV
Good morning Ms. Fleming,
Thank you for your email. We are always seeking ways to improve our procedures and ensure public participation. I
generally post the public comment packet online a few days before the meeting to ensure that I capture as many public
comments as possible. I also distribute physical copies of the full public comment packet at the meeting as well, but that
is no longer possible due to the Shelter in Place order. Your comments are valuable to me and I take your concerns
seriously. Moving forward I will post the public comments online on a weekly basis instead of all at once.
I want to emphasize that no emails were “withheld” by PTC staff. The record will show that the April 29th public
comment packet contains all comments received up to that meeting date with no missed emails (I have not touched that
packet since the meeting, so everything you see on there is an accurate representation of what was made available prior
to April 29th meeting), and the May 13th pubic comment packet contains all comments received up until now. No emails
were missed during that time frame. The same can be said of all PTC meetings before that as well. If there were any
missed emails, it is due to human error and not on purpose.
Again, I thank you for your comment and your continued engagement with the PTC. Your suggestions and comments
help us understand what the public need and expect from their local government and we will continue to improve our
procedures to meet those needs. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to us if you have any further comments or
suggestions.
Kind regards,
Vinh Nguyen | Administrative Associate III
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2218 | E: Vinhloc.Nguyen@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2020 9:16 AM
To: Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review
Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; board@pausd.org;
health@paloaltopta.org; 'Ann Protter' <ann.protter@gmail.com>; brucewphillips@gmail.com; 'NTB'
<aarmatt@gmail.com>; jsglenn@stanford.edu
Subject: Public Letters to Council Disappear, Part IV
Dear Mayor Fine,
I see you have been copied on a second email sent to me by Administrative Associate III Vinh Nguyen of the Planning Department. In it, Mr. Nguyen reports that residents’ emails regarding City Manager Shikada’s cell-tower-related cost cutting recommendations are now included in the Planning
Commission’s Public Letters Set for May 13th. I am delighted.
Please be aware, however, that these emails were added only after I brought their absence to your
attention. There was no letter set at all for the May 13th Planning and Transportation Commission
meeting until yesterday, or at least no letter set accessible by the public. I know because I checked
4
the Planning and Transportation Commission’s website the previous evening (next time I’ll take a screen shot).
Once again, I urge you to take steps to ensure that City Staff acts in good faith. And once again I
remind you, transparency in government is a cornerstone of democracy—and in the case of the public record, a matter of law. Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 2:10 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review
Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; board@pausd.org;
health@paloaltopta.org; 'Ann Protter' <ann.protter@gmail.com>; brucewphillips@gmail.com; 'NTB'
<aarmatt@gmail.com>; jsglenn@stanford.edu
Subject: RE: Public Letters to Council Disappear, Part III
Good afternoon Ms. Fleming,
Those comments are included in the public comment packet for the PTC May 13th meeting.
The direct link to the May 13 packet can be found here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76619
Our public comment packets are always posted on the PTC website here:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/ptc/default.asp
I try to include all comments, even the ones received on the day of the meeting. My prior email was in response to your
statement: “Please note that many of the emails sent to Council were also cc’ed to the Planning and Transportation
Commission, yet not one of them has appeared in a Public Letter Set for the Commission.” I was pointing out that all
comments received prior to the April 29th PTC meeting were indeed included in the April 29th PTC public comment
packet. All comments received after the April 29th PTC meeting are included in the May 13th public comment packet.
Please let me know if I have missed any other public comments in those packets.
Kind regards,
Vinh Nguyen | Administrative Associate III
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2218 | E: Vinhloc.Nguyen@cityofpaloalto.org
5
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2020 12:43 PM
To: Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review
Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; board@pausd.org;
health@paloaltopta.org; 'Ann Protter' <ann.protter@gmail.com>; brucewphillips@gmail.com; 'NTB'
<aarmatt@gmail.com>; jsglenn@stanford.edu
Subject: Public Letters to Council Disappear, Part III
Dear Mayor Fine,
I see that you were copied on the email sent to me by Administrative Associate III Vinh Nguyen. In it he responds to my email to you reporting on City Staff’s failure to include in the packets sent to the Planning and Transportation Commission copies of the emails residents had written to City Council
regarding City Manager Shikada’s cell-tower-related cost cutting recommendations that are on Council’s agenda for this week.
It is difficult to know what to make of what Mr. Ngyuen says. Hence I will simply point out that the emails residents sent to the Planning and Transportation Commission after April 29th—but well before the Planning and Transportation Commission’s meeting scheduled for tomorrow, May 13—are not in the Public Letters Set for that meeting. In other words, these emails are being improperly withheld, just as they were improperly withheld from the public in City Council’s packet for this week.
I hope residents can count on you, as the Mayor of Palo Alto, to put an end to this practice and to ensure that City Staff acts in good faith when it comes to maintaining the public record. To repeat, transparency in government is a cornerstone of democracy.
Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
From: Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2020 4:28 PM
To: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review
Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; board@pausd.org;
health@paloaltopta.org; ann.protter@gmail.com; brucewphillips@gmail.com; 'NTB' <aarmatt@gmail.com>;
jsglenn@stanford.edu
Subject: RE: Public Letters to Council Disappear
Dear Ms. Fleming,
6
Thank you for your email. The most recent Planning & Transportation Commission meeting occurred on April 29th. Many
of the public comments you referenced were sent in after that meeting which is why it was not included in our recent
Commission public comment packet. Below is a link to the April 29th public comment packet. You will find that it includes
all public comments received by the Commission during that time frame, including some comments relating to cell
tower applications:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76422
Kind regards,
Vinh Nguyen | Administrative Associate III
Planning & Development Services
250 Hamilton Ave | Palo Alto, CA 94301
P: 650.329.2218 | E: Vinhloc.Nguyen@cityofpaloalto.org
From: Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net>
Sent: Saturday, May 9, 2020 4:13 PM
To: Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Architectural Review
Board <arb@cityofpaloalto.org>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; board@pausd.org;
health@paloaltopta.org; ann.protter@gmail.com; brucewphillips@gmail.com; 'NTB' <aarmatt@gmail.com>;
jsglenn@stanford.edu
Subject: Public Letters to Council Disappear
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine, I wish to call your attention to what appears to be either incompetence or misconduct on the part of City Staff. Specifically, in the Public Letters Set prepared for Monday May 11th’s City Council
meeting, Staff failed to include many of the emails residents sent to you and your colleagues—emails
objecting to City Manager Shikada’s proposal that Palo Alto “cut costs” 1) by decreasing cell tower application requirements—costs that are in fact covered by the applicants, not the city—and 2) by reducing code enforcement. For the record, these letters also do not appear in any previous letter set.
I know this because I was copied on many of the emails on this issue that were sent to City Council. Appended below you will find four thoughtful emails on the subject, none of which were included in the Public Letters Set.
Please note that many of the emails sent to Council were also cc’ed to the Planning and
Transportation Commission, yet not one of them has appeared in a Public Letter Set for the Commission. This is by no means the first time residents’ emails to Council have disappeared without ever seeing
the light of day. I am writing in the hope that you will see that it is the last. As you know, letters to
City Council are both part of the public record and systematically made available to the public for review because the transparency in government that is a cornerstone of democracy demands it.
7
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely,
Jeanne Fleming
Jeanne Fleming, PhD
JFleming@Metricus.net
650-325-5151
Four of the Letters to Council Omitted from the Public Letters Set:
1. From Ann Protter
From: Ann Protter <ann.protter@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 4, 2020 10:57 PM
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: City Manager Shikada and Cell Tower Review Process
Dear City Council Members,
On Sunday council member Tanaka held an office hour regarding the City Manager's suggestion to cut back on the cell
tower application review process. There were a number of us on the call, all of whom expressed disappointment and
dismay at this suggestion.
As I thought about it afterwards I realized how angry I was at the suggestion that we skimp on the cell tower review
process.
This is hardly a big budget item.
We ‐‐ as a community ‐‐ have spent long years coming up with a review process. To sweep it aside is a clear end run. I
would wager Mr. Shikada prefers to keep the process out of the public eye. We residents don't.
All of us reiterated our horror at the thought of cell towers being allowed a mere 20 feet from our bedrooms. Clearly
this is a contentious issue, one that ought to get its due in the approved process. To remove that to make someone's
job easier is a travesty.
Lastly, thank you council member Tanaka for allowing us residents an opportunity to speak with you directly. It was
appreciated.
Ann Protter
2. From Bruce Phillips
From: BWP <brucewphillips@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 12:16 PM
To: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org
8
Cc: JFLEMING@metricus.net
Subject: Architectural Review of cell tower
Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and
Tanaka:
I lived next to a cell tower planned near the Waverley and Loma Verde intersection. While I am
pleased that our neighborhood may finally receive better cell connection, I am not pleased that
this ugly addition will block views when a two‐story is built here. I don't like paying for communal
benefit without compensation.
Via a neighborhood organizer, I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that,
in the interests of cost‐cutting, the council amend Palo Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” cell
tower application processing, which would include eliminating the Architectural Review Board
from the review process.
As I understand it, this fails to save money for Palo Alto. The companies pay for the applications
and pay for staff time spent on these applications. Moreover, reduced cell tower application
requirements would undermine the siting and design criteria approved, as I am told, by the City
Council unanimously four months ago, following a three‐year effort.
I am also against reducing code enforcement employees with respect to the installation of the cell
towers, and I also wonder abut the wisdom of this in general.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Bruce W. Phillips
3. From Nina Bell
From: NTB <aarmatt@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 1, 2020 12:48 PM
To: City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Proposal regarding cell tower application requirements and cutting Code Enforcement
Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,
The proposal being put before you, to decrease the cell tower application requirements, makes absolutely
no sense
when it's the telecom company applicants themselves who are the ones who cover these costs. Rather than
draining
the City coffers, the application fees will be adding to them! Such a proposal seems totally
counterproductive.
Redacted
9
It makes one wonder what is the real motive behind such a proposal?
And, as for cutting the budget for Code Enforcement, that puts at risk the safety and well being of all Palo
Alto's citizens.
Clearly under the current situation there needs to be budget cuts but they need to be done wisely and with
the best interest
of the residents of Palo Alto. Cutting Code Enforcement is definitely not one of them.
Such a cut is made particularly egregious when one pauses to look at the enormous salaries and
compensation packages some
on the senior executive team receive. They have the benefit of the City's largess while the citizens get the
shaft? Something feels very,
very wrong. A voluntary salary cut of those executives' compensation packages would go a long way toward
funding Code Enforcement
personnel to protect the citizens of the City they serve. We all have to step up. Are the City's senior
executive staff willing to do their part,
following the example set by the senior Stanford administrators who are taking pay cuts from 5 to 20%?
Please do not approve the proposal to decrease the cell tower application requirements. And for the safety
and well being of the citizens
of Palo Alto, the people you serve, funding for Code Enforcement can not be cut.
Sincerely,
Nina Bell
Los Palos Ave
4. From Jeffrey Glenn
From: Jeffrey S. Glenn <jsglenn@stanford.edu>
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2020 5:08 PM
To: City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org
Cc: Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org; Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org; ARB@cityofpaloalto.org;
board@pausd.org; city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Cell towers in residential neighborhoods
Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Council Members Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou and Tanaka,
I understand that City Manager Ed Shikada has recommended that, in the interests of cost‐cutting, you amend Palo
Alto’s municipal code to “scale back” on cell tower application processing—a scale‐back which would include eliminating
the Architectural Review Board from the review process.
I am writing to urge you not to take this step. Why? Quite simply, because it fails to save money for Palo Alto. It is the
companies that file applications to install cell towers, not Palo Alto, that pay for staff time spent on these
applications. In other words, our city won’t save money by “scaling back” application processing requirements, only the
applicants will.
Moreover, Mr. Shikada’s recommendation is bad public policy. The reduced cell tower application processing
requirements he is calling for are sure to undermine the thoughtful siting and design criteria you on City Council
unanimously approved only four months ago—undermine them by making it easier for telecommunications companies
to install cell towers next to residents’ homes.
10
The City Manager’s recommendation is at best ill‐informed, and, at worst, an end run around the provisions of the
December, 2019, Wireless Resolution, a Resolution that was the result of a three‐year‐long effort by our community and
a great deal of work by, among others, you on City Council.
I am also writing to urge you—should you decide to follow another of Mr. Shikada’s recommendations, namely, that you
reduce the number of code enforcement employees—to stipulate that no reduction in code enforcement or compliance
personnel may be taken that jeopardizes the safety and well‐being of the people of Palo Alto, in particular with respect
to the installation of cell towers consisting of hundreds of pounds of high‐voltage, radiation‐emitting equipment near
residents’ homes.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Jeffrey S. Glenn, M.D., Ph.D.
Professor of Medicine and Microbiology & Immunology
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Director, Center for Hepatitis and Liver Tissue Engineering
Stanford University School of Medicine
CCSR Building, Rm. 3115A
Stanford, CA 94305‐5171
U.S.A.
email:jeffrey.glenn@stanford.edu
tel (office): (650)725‐3373
tel (lab): (650)498‐7419
fax: (650)723‐3032
pager: (650)723‐8222; ID# 23080
Redacted
11
Baumb, Nelly
From:Judy Kleinberg <Judy@paloaltochamber.com>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 12:05 PM
To:Shikada, Ed
Cc:Council, City; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan
Subject:Reboot and Recover Webinar
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Ed,
This is our upcoming free webinar to help businesses reopen with sanitation protocols in place. This is the first
effort of our Reboot and Recover initiative and will be next Wednesday, May 27th, from 9:30‐10:15 a.m.
Registration information: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/webinar‐preparing‐to‐re‐open‐guidelines‐for‐
sanitation‐and‐disinfection‐tickets‐105597488932
I hope you'll include this on your website and in your newsletters coming up.
Thank you.
Webinar: Preparing to Re-open:
Guidelines for Sanitation and
Disinfection
A detailed review of sanitation guidelines, disinfection
protocols and best practices for re-opening in Phase 2 of
the COVID-19 response.
www.eventbrite.com
Judith G. Kleinberg, JD
President
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce and Chamber Foundation
Palo Alto, CA. 94301
Tel: 650‐324‐3121
Direct: 650‐300‐6040
www.paloaltochamber.com
Redacted
12
Baumb, Nelly
From:Daryl Savage <darylsavage@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 1:29 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Kaloma Smith; vhs101@yahoo.com
Subject:Fwd: Non-resident alternative to HRC open seats
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Councilmembers,
I am resending this suggestion to loosen application restrictions to enable non‐residents to apply to HRC vacancies. I'm
hoping this can be addressed in an upcoming Council meeting when the HRC is on the agenda.
Please see email below.
Thank you.
Daryl Savage
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Daryl Savage <darylsavage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, May 4, 2020 at 11:20 AM
Subject: Non‐resident alternative to HRC open seats
To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Van Der Zwaag, Minka <Minka.VanDerZwaag@cityofpaloalto.org>, Kaloma Smith <pastor@universityamez.com>,
Valerie Stinger <vhs101@yahoo.com>
Dear Councilmembers,
Thank you for considering the reduction to the number of members on the Human Relations Commission (HRC) from 7
to 5.
May I suggest one more idea for your consideration: To loosen the residency requirement for one of the seats on the
HRC. In order to do this, one seat could be open to applicants who either live, work, or worship in Palo Alto.
This adjustment would recognize that many of the people who work in small businesses and non‐profits do not live in
Palo Alto, but they are still part of our social fabric. They could contribute to the HRC.
The change to allow non‐residents to apply has the potential of enlarging the pool of applicants to the HRC and perhaps
getting more interested and qualified individuals to apply for the HRC vacancies.
Thank you for your consideration.
Kaloma Smith, HRC Chair
Valerie Stinger, HRC Vice‐Chair
Daryl Savage, HRC Commissioner
14
Baumb, Nelly
From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 2:12 PM
To:Fine, Adrian; Adrian Fine
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City
Subject:Table Talk IV
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Mr. Adrian Fine:
Here are notes to help you have a better presence.
- You become irritating when stating you've lost count of past Table Talk productions.
- Your blasé demeanor underplays the effects the pandemic has on people's lives, and makes you appear disconnected
with resident concerns and the workforce who has to work.
- When you roll your eyes to the ceiling, or your gaze wonders into left field, you come across as bored and
pretentious.
- There is always the threat of danger when approaching the public with reprimand. Directing residents to correct
strangers, for not wearing face coverings, is a poor idea. The best teacher is by example. Use greater wisdom; think
carefully before you speak.
- Learn from City Manager Ed Shikada, who evokes nothing offensive.
-Danielle Martell
Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005
16
Baumb, Nelly
From:Lily Li <lli@kranzassoc.com>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 2:44 PM
To:Administrative Services; City Mgr; City Auditor; Council, City
Subject:Check Business License
Attachments:Hasura IRS Mail #2 (2).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
Hope you had a good weekend!
We want to check with you if we have business license in Palo Alto. If we don’t, may you please instruct us
how to register a business license?
Business name: Hasura, Inc
Business address: Palo Alto, CA 94304
See our IRS registration attached. Thanks! Have a good day!
Best,
Lily Li, Consultant
KRANZ & ASSOCIATES
830 Menlo Avenue Suite 100 | Menlo Park, CA 94025
655 Montgomery St, 12th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94111
Direct: 650‐854‐4400 x 350| Email: lli@kranzassoc.com
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
Redacted
17
Baumb, Nelly
From:aster man <asterpman@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 7:40 PM
To:White, Kaela
Cc:PWD; Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Re: 417-449 East Meadow Drive
Attachments:image001.jpg
Dear Ms White,
Thanks for your email.
The street sweeper did come by last Friday. I just want to let you know that I am "horrified" to find out it took "more
than 4 weeks, numerous phone calls and a couple of emails in order to get an explanation or response from you.
This matter or my question is so trivia which should have been taken care of a month ago when I first made the call but
no one bothered to contact me! I just hope all the public work in the city are not being carried out in the same manner
or attitude!
Sincerely,
AM
On Mon, May 18, 2020, 11:55 AM White, Kaela <Kaela.White@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Dear Resident,
Thank you for your email and we appreciate that you had brought this to our attention. This morning I spoke to our
contractor regarding the street sweeping on 417‐449 East Meadow Drive. Our Contractor provided documentation that
they had swept the block last Friday 5/15/2020 at 10:18‐11:18 AM.
In response to your question regarding the street sweeping schedule. The Public Works Department organizes its street
sweeping on a bi‐weekly schedule. Street Sweeping of residential areas shall not start before 7am or continue after
4:30 pm. For 417‐449 East Meadow Drive is swept on A weeks on Fridays. I have attached the weekly schedule and
street sweeping map for your convenience. These can also be found on the City website
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/sweeping.asp . I realize that your email had come in prior to the
sweepers arrival on your block so if you have any additional questions or concerns I would be happy to assist you.
Sincerely,
18
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Kaela White | Project Manager
Public Works Department | Public Services
3201 E Bayshore Rd | Palo Alto, CA 94303
Office: 650.496.5945 | Email: Kaela.White@CityofPaloAlto.org
From: aster man <asterpman@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, May 15, 2020 8:31 AM
To: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; PWD
<pwd@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: neglected street
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Morning to all,
I would like to file a complaint about the street cleaning on our block.
417 to 449 East meadow Dr.
Please see message below:
Morning,
Will the street cleaning department not to forget our block?
It has been more than a month now that I have to call every friday to
remind the street cleaning not to miss us.
It seems to me that the more frequent that I call, the cleaning will never get done.
I hope it is not because our street is right across the street and does not have monster home
so we can be forgotten.
The cleaning vehicle used to come often when the street was packed with cars and nothing got to be cleaned. Now the
block has more visible space to clean and the cleaning does not get done.
Can someone explain the reasoning for me?
19
WE ALL PAY FOR OUR UTILITIES!!
PLEASE and we ALL ARE EQUAL!
Thanks,
Please pass on the message and make sure things get done !
AN extremely angry resident
AM
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Green, Jenae <jgreen@c-span.org>
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:52 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:30 Sec Video Request: C-SPAN Celebrates Palo Alto Students
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello Palo Alto City Council,
C‐SPAN is celebrating the winning student documentarians in our annual StudentCam competition and we are
lucky to have winners in Palo Alto! With winners in your city, we'd love for you to recognize your
young constituents and their school community's outstanding achievement by recording a short 30 second
video to say congratulations!
To help, I've attached a generic script (please feel free to make it your own) and some video examples below.
We would need your congratulatory message by May 24th to include in our social media promotion and local
press outreach. You're welcome to do one general video for all of the winners in Palo Alto.
3rd Prize - HS West
Eva Salvatierra, Sebastian Chancellor & Owen Rice 10th Grade "A Tale of Two Districts" Palo Alto High School Palo Alto, CA
Honorable Mention Sam Solomon, Sena Lee & Annika Heinemann 8th Grade "Internet Privacy"
Castilleja School Palo Alto, CA
Dominique Lashley, Cate Barrett & Giada Parigi 10th Grade "Lost Opportunities" Palo Alto High School Palo Alto, CA
Emilie Difede 11th Grade "The Climate Crisis: Food & Water Insecurity" Palo Alto High School Palo Alto, CA
2
StudentCam is C‐SPAN's annual national video documentary competition that encourages students to think
critically about issues that affect our communities and nation. Each year, since 2006, C‐SPAN partners with its
local cable television providers in communities nationwide to invite middle school students (grades 6‐8) and
high school students (grades 9‐12) to produce short documentaries about a subject of national importance.
This year, students addressed the theme, "What's Your Vision in 2020? Explore the issue you most want
presidential candidates to address during the campaign." In response, nearly 5,400 students representing 48
states and Washington, D.C., participated.
Never been part of a StudentCam ceremony? Learn more at Studentcam.org!
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to give me a call at 757‐705‐1375. Thank you again for all of
your help!
Best,
Jenae Green
‐‐
Example Congratulatory Video Script:
Hi, this is [title and name] here with some good news in the midst of these challenging times… I’m proud to
say that some of our great students right here in [city/state/district] at [school] are [1st, 2nd, 3rd, honorable
mention] prize winners of C‐SPAN’s national documentary competition, StudentCam.
C‐SPAN partners with Spectrum every year for this competition that asks students to create a short
documentary about an issue of national importance, and 5,400 students from across the country participated
this year from 44 states and Washington, D.C. to share what they are passionate about.
I am encouraged and incredibly proud of all of the hard work these students put into their films, and am happy
to represent such talented winners as their [title].
Video examples:
∙ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyYg6pmaZLA
∙ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__kNaqnxZVU
∙ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF_TYum4oxM
Jenae Green
Marketing Representative
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
400 N. Capitol St. NW l Suite 650 l Washington, DC 20001
757‐705‐1375 l jgreen@c‐span.org
@cspanbus
www.c‐span.org/community
3
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e‐mail may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected
from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this e‐mail, please notify the sender immediately by return e‐
mail, purge it and do not disseminate or copy it.
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 4:22 PM
To:Mayor; Mark Standriff; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Dan Richard; Joel Stiner; leager;
alumnipresident@stanford.edu; boardmembers; Council, City; dallen1212@gmail.com; dlfranklin0
@outlook.com; eappel@stanford.edu; Steven Feinstein; grinellelake@yahoo.com;
huidentalsanmateo; Pam Kelly; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; newsdesk; lalws4@gmail.com; Leodies
Buchanan; margaret-sasaki@live.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan;
toni.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; Doug Vagim; vallesR1969@att.net; Mark Waldrep; Daniel Zack
Subject:Fwd: Important steps to convert your PPP loan, if any, to a grant. Important.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:06 PM
Subject: Fwd: Important steps to convert your PPP loan, if any, to a grant. Important.
To: dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>,
<mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com>, <fmerlo@wildelectric.net>, <fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Tue, May 19, 2020 at 4:04 PM
Subject: Important steps to convert your PPP loan, if any, to a grant. Important.
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Tues. May 19, 2020
Dennis, David, et. al.
https://thebusinessjournal.com/dont‐forget‐to‐get‐forgiven‐take‐these‐steps‐for‐your‐ppp‐loan‐to‐become‐a‐
grant/?utm_source=Daily+Update&utm_campaign=e9be56bb7f‐
EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_05_19_09_10&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fb834d017b‐e9be56bb7f‐
71619973&mc_cid=e9be56bb7f&mc_eid=7afa3a94f3
LH
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:phyllis sherlock <phyllissherlock@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 16, 2020 1:03 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Hi density bills
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
It is unbelievable to me that you are not strongly and loudly opposing the 4 hi density bills now proposed in
Sacramento!!
They are untimely and destructive to ALL except the developers who may have undue influence to many of you!
Any of these bills will change the better character of our city and make current problems worse,!!!!
Phyllis Sherlock, PhD
Sent from my iPhone
6
Baumb, Nelly
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Friday, May 15, 2020 2:54 PM
To:Loran Harding; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein; Chris Field;
alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; beachrides; David Balakian; bballpod;
Council, City; paul.caprioglio; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; dallen1212
@gmail.com; eappel@stanford.edu; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com;
huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; steve.hogg; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; Jason Tarvin;
kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Pam Kelly; Mark Kreutzer; newsdesk; russ@topperjewelers.com; Mark
Standriff; terry; tsheehan; Tom Lang; vallesR1969@att.net; Steve Wayte; lalws4@gmail.com; leager;
Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; boardmembers;
Leodies Buchanan; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; dlfranklin0@outlook.com
Subject:Fwd: B 200 shares of Sorrento- SRNE- today. Very effective antibody.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:24 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 200 shares of Sorrento‐ SRNE‐ today. Very effective antibody.
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:21 PM
Subject: Fwd: B 200 shares of Sorrento‐ SRNE‐ today. Very effective antibody.
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Fri, May 15, 2020 at 2:05 PM
Subject: B 200 shares of Sorrento‐ SRNE‐ today. Very effective antibody.
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Friday, May 15, 2020
Fred‐ As I awoke today, KCBS said that Sorrento, SRNE, was up ~50%. By the time I B 200 shares it was up more
like 159%. I paid $6.73 and it got to $7.10 but closed back down just above my $6.73.
7
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwHNMcnQqWQDGVJkTQqdNmbCbSF
They say they have a very effective antibody which, even at low dose, disables the Corona virus and washes it out
of the system. They test millions of antibodies. This looks like a cure(!) If it is, SRNE will soar.
Co. CEO Henry Ji say it IS a cure‐ a tall claim.
https://www.fool.com/investing/2020/05/15/why‐sorrento‐therapeutics‐is‐skyrocketing‐today.aspx
Hope he's right. We'll soon find out.
L. William Harding
Fresno
8
Baumb, Nelly
From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 15, 2020 5:36 AM
To:MN Letters; letters@padailypost.com; nytimeletters - Time <letters@time.com>; DNG Letters;
letters@journalstar.com; Letters, NYT; EPC Editorial; letters@lavoice.org; Council, City; Aram James;
letters@kqed.org
Subject:Getting out of Depression
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To the editor:
Senate Majority Leader Mc Connell is right. The gov't cannot continue to pay out
all the money we need to survive. The RICH will have to bail the less wealthy out, for a
change. And they will just like they agreed to pay 100% income tax on everything over
$25K in the 30s-- to get us out of Depression, they will do their part now. It was down to
the 90% range by the 60s.
These were the most productive years in our history. And no one complained.
Everyone prospered.
If the rich don't want to pay the fair share they've been avoiding for decades, it
will be time to decide whether to (1) Eat the Rich or (2)Tax Them to Death First, and then
Eat the Rich.
Chuck Jagoda
408 373 1449
Sunnyvale CA 94085
Redacted
9
Baumb, Nelly
From:Ethan Young <ethan7young@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 14, 2020 11:43 PM
To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; council@losaltosca.gov
Subject:Planet of the Humans
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Councilman Filseth,
Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@cityofpaloalto.org May 11, 2020, 11:27 PM (3 days ago
He’s absolutely right that population growth is the critical factor, which so many oh‐so‐pc “environmental” groups are
afraid to admit because it inconveniently conflicts with some of their other cherished causes. And biomass is indeed a
corporate handout. But he’s not right that manufacturing silicon causes more emissions than it saves. And Palo Alto
Utilities actually is green, because the baseload is hydro. That’s pretty unique though.
EF
Population control; sure okay, you first councilman Filseth.
China had a fairly good run of reducing the population for a few decades. All those solar panels your city
installed across town polluted the environment significantly more than ethically produced natural gas.
China’s Infanticide Epidemic By Winter Wall
TOPICAL RESEARCH DIGEST:HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA
https://www.du.edu/korbel/hrhw/researchdigest/china/InfanticideChina.pdf
China's barbaric one‐child policy
For more than 30 years, China has upheld a strict one‐child policy. And despite the country's growing prosperity, novelist
Ma Jian discovered that ruthless squads still brutally enforce the law with vast fines – and compulsory sterilisations and
abortions
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2013/may/06/chinas‐barbaric‐one‐child‐policy
HYDRO POWER
10
Palo Alto’s effect is not even a drop in the bucket when it comes to reducing green house emissions and using renewable
energy. By using hydro as base load you can smugly claim your better than other towns but all your doing is denying
other municipalities the use of a finite amount of hydro power.
Hydro‐Electric produces 20% of California’s energy needs. This percentage will decrease dramatically over the next 20
years as California’s energy consumption sky‐rockets. Unless you build another 1,000 hydro‐electric power plants it
becomes meaningless in the grand scheme of things.
https://ww2.energy.ca.gov/almanac/renewables_data/hydro/index_cms.php
If Solar Panels Are So Clean, Why Do They Produce So Much Toxic Waste?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaelshellenberger/2018/05/23/if‐solar‐panels‐are‐so‐clean‐why‐do‐they‐produce‐
so‐much‐toxic‐waste/#7e5a700b121c
Discarded solar panels are piling up all over the world, and they represent a major threat to
the environment.
Clean energy may not be so clean after all.
A new study by Environmental Progress (EP) warns that toxic waste from used solar panels now poses a global
environmental threat. The Berkeley-based group found that solar panels create 300 times more toxic waste per
unit of energy than nuclear power plants. Discarded solar panels, which contain dangerous elements such as
lead, chromium, and cadmium, are piling up around the world, and there’s been little done to mitigate their
potential danger to the environment.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/solar‐panel‐waste‐environmental‐threat‐clean‐energy/
The Solar Industry’s New Dirty Secret
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/08/solar-industrys-new-dirty-secret/
China’s Solar Panel Production Comes at a Dirty Cost
https://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/02/chinas‐solar‐panel‐production‐comes‐at‐a‐dirty‐cost/
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Matthieu Bonnard <mpbnyc@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 10:55 PM
To:asharpe@andrewsharpe.com
Cc:Council, City; Greg Tanaka; bsmallwood@fb.com; Stefan Heck; steve frankel;
carina_chiang@yahoo.com; William Xuan; bmg890@gmail.com; John McDowell
Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto, CA - Businesses Reopening
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Just to add to that:
This is a global movement, a major trend that started years ago in many cities and towns, and that Covid will likely
accelerate.
https://www.dezeen.com/2020/05/07/london‐new‐york‐paris‐milan‐cyclists‐pedestrians/
Retailers love it because pedestrian walk into stores, cars don’t. Residents love it because pedestrians bring life and soul,
cars don’t. A pedestrian street is a lifestyle statement AND is good for business.
The beauty of this is that it can be done today at pretty much $0 cost. Removing the asphalt and repaving the street
pedestrian can happen later.
Picture below of main street in my hometown. It went pedestrian about 30 years ago. Many complained at the time,
everyone loves it today.
Let’s not let this crisis go to waste!
Best regards,
Matthieu Bonnard
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:asharpe@andrewsharpe.com
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 5:39 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Greg Tanaka; bsmallwood@fb.com; Stefan Heck; steve frankel; carina_chiang@yahoo.com; William
Xuan; bmg890@gmail.com; mpbnyc@gmail.com; John McDowell
Subject:City of Palo Alto, CA - Businesses Reopening
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Palo Alto City Council,
If this doesn’t entail closing off University Ave. and California Ave. to automobile traffic, turning them into pedestrian
boulevards, and allowing the businesses to expand out into the street to maintain proper distancing to conform to state
guidelines, it is far too timid a plan, and doesn’t actually help the businesses, but instead simply pays lip service to them,
the lifeblood of the city. We have enormous support for this plan from anyone who has been asked (now certainly over
100) and businesses, too. Other cities are already doing this. We are supposed to be innovative, and we are trailing far
behind.
Andrew
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/services/public_safety/plans_and_information/coronavirus/reopening_safely/businesse
s_reopening_.asp
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Joanies Cafe <joaniescafepaloalto@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 13, 2020 3:17 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:from Joanie's Cafe re: expanding outdoor dining & shopping
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Greetings,
We hope you are all safe and in good health.
We are writing to express our support for the idea of expanding the outdoor dining and shopping areas for customers on
California Avenue as businesses reopen with the new CDPH Covid‐19 industry guidelines. Perhaps part of California
Avenue could become a pedestrian area (free of traffic) similar to how it is set up on Sundays with the farmers market?
Weather permitting, shops could put displays of merchandise outside and restaurants could move a portion of their
dining room tables outside.
Thank you for your consideration,
Bernard Cartal
Owner, Joanie’s Cafe
Susan Allen
General Manager, Joanie’s Cafe
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Caitlin Anne Surakitbanharn <caitlin.surakit@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 15, 2020 10:45 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Closing Cal Ave for socially distanced seating!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi!
I live on Williams Street in Palo Alto ‐ just a few blocks off Cal Ave ‐ and I wanted to write in and say I totally support
making Cal Ave pedestrian only for awhile so we can let restaurants spread seating out into the street to help them open
up and get more cash flow!
This street is so vibrant and we'd LOVE to see a little return of that. I know all the restaurants will take social distancing
measures seriously and the residents of Palo Alto will as well! They've all done a great job so far, like at the Cal Ave
Farmers Market and I know we can do it!
Let's do it!
Thanks so much! Love our city :‐)
Best,
Caitlin Surakitbanharn
, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Redacted
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Hillary Thagard <hthagard@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 15, 2020 1:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Temporary Modification Of California and University Avenues
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
I have been a resident of Palo Alto my entire life. As a child, my parents exposed me to the excitement and wonder of
dining out in a restaurant. It started with Howard Johnson's and evolved to Stickney's (Town & Country), Prime Rib Inn
(El Camino) and countless others. As an adult, I am a bonafide "foodie". Most of the entertainment that my husband
and I spend our money on is dining out in restaurants.
The impact of COVID‐19 has had a devastating impact on many industries, but especially the restaurant industry. Small
local restaurants are the life‐blood of our communities. They not only employ cooks, dishwashers, bartenders and
servers, they also support local farmers, meat and poultry distributors, and winemakers. Our city and others cannot
afford to lose our restaurants, and the reduction in business due to the shelter in place orders is making that a serious
possibility. This is the time for the city to work with restauranteurs to consider creative solutions that will help them
stay in business. It is very likely that we will have to practice physical distancing for quite some time and restaurants will
be unable to get back on their feet with the reduction of interior tables.
I have recently learned of many cities working to temporarily close certain streets to enable restaurants to create
outdoor dining plazas. Just yesterday, the city of Berkeley announced that they would be moving forward with this plan
in the near future. If this were to be implemented in Palo Alto, not only would it help in keeping many restaurants open,
it would also create a new dining dynamic and a true sense of community as we come together to support local
businesses. I strongly encourage the Council to consider this proposal.
With Thanks,
Hillary Thagard
Palo Alto
Redacted
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jon Rothenberg <jonrothenberg@yahoo.com>
Sent:Sunday, May 17, 2020 11:33 AM
To:supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Council, City
Subject:dine in for restaurants
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
good morning I want authorities to allow restaurants to move tables to sidewalks right away in order to increase capacity.
Thank you
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jong Park <jgpark18@stanford.edu>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 4:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:California Avenue Pedestrian Zone
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
Thank you for all of the hard work you are doing during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Your leadership during this
time is much appreciated.
I am writing to you as a concerned resident of Palo Alto living near California Avenue. As you know, many
businesses on Cal Ave have been struggling immensely with shelter‐in‐place, just like businesses all across the
country. The Cal Ave restaurants have been hit particularly hard.
One idea to help alleviate the situation would be to designate Cal Ave as a pedestrian zone every day during
peak lunch and dinner hours, much like it is already for the weekly farmer's market on Sundays. This would
allow our restaurants to expand patio seating that can comply with social distancing policies, while also
encouraging our neighborhood residents to eat out and support our local restaurants.
Thank you for your consideration.
Best,
Jong
6
Baumb, Nelly
From:Nicolette Chun <nickichun7@icloud.com>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 10:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:University and California Ave. street closures
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I agree with neighbors who are endorsing closure of University and Cal Ave. to autos in favor of pedestrian walkways.
Not only will this offer businesses more room to socially distance, it offers pedestrians greater Covid safety as well. And
frankly, as a bike rider, these streets are over congested and dangerous. I routinely avoid them for personal safety and
believe spreading the traffic among parallel streets would decrease risks for all. Please consider this issue seriously. At
least give it a trial run during this time when we need the space the most.
Nicolette Chun
.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Nicki Chun
650‐218‐7308
Sent from my iPhone
Redacted
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:Anne Frahn <annefrahn@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 12:28 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Frahn, Harrison J; Harrison Frahn
Subject:Temporarily stopping vehicular traffic on Univ/Cal Aves
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 because, like many, I am concerned about the challenges our local restaurants are facing. I have lived in Palo
Alto for 15 years and seen how our downtowns, both California and University Avenue, have become overwhelmingly
restaurant‐centric.
When we move to the second phase of reopening, wouldn’t it be great if we closed University and California Avenue and
appropriate side streets to vehicular traffic? Let the restaurants set a few tables in front their storefronts with
appropriate social distancing, let them “borrow” the sidewalks in front of their restaurants. Let pedestrians walk down
the streets rather than the sidewalks. If we can't close these streets fully for a few months, we could consider Friday
night through Sunday night closures or some other smaller solution.
We have an obligation to do what we can to sustain our restaurants. We cannot let them fail. We’ve all read predictions
that up to fifty percent of all restaurants simply won’t recover. If they don’t survive, these streets will likely have many
vacant storefronts, sad reminders of better days.
I hope our council will consider rerouting traffic, even if just for a few months during the nice weather season, to
support our local restaurants. The cost seems low and the potential benefits not only to restaurants, but to our morale,
could be significant.
I realize you are under substantial pressure managing many challenges these days. Hope you will consider this. You will
have lots of community support. Thanks for your work on many fronts.
With Regards,
Anne Frahn
‐‐
Anne Lang Frahn
Palo Alto, California 94301
650‐283‐9353
Redacted
8
Baumb, Nelly
From:nicole garratt <nicolegarratt1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 3:26 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:University and Cal Ave -- Pedestrian only to support local businesses
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto City Council,
I hope you are staying safe. I've recently read on NextDoor a post from a neighbor suggesting that now is a great
opportunity to turn the downtown section of University Ave and Cal Ave into pedestrian only streets. It has received
overwhelming support (which is a rarity) from a number of residents (see full commentary and support for the idea
below my signature).
In the immediate term, it would help to support our local, family‐owned restaurants and allow them to abide by social
distancing guidelines. Moreover, over the longer term, it would create the downtown ambiance that we need to support
thriving businesses and restaurants in years to come.
However, if we do not make changes to support our restaurants, our downtown areas will have vacant storefronts,
negative impact on other businesses, as well as Palo Alto tax revenues as well.
As City Council members, I hope you'll consider re‐routing cars, if only during the summer/fall months, to support our
local restaurants and help our economy.
All the best,
Nicole Garratt ‐
Andrew Sharpe
Private message
View profile
, Downtown North
Wouldn't now be a good time to consider University Ave as a pedestrian-only mall?
Since restaurants will need more space to put tables farther apart, more of the street could be used. Having no cars
would mean you wouldn't have to breathe in car fumes as you enjoy lunch or dinner. We've been talking about doing
this for a long time, and now is perhaps the time to do it, to help our downtown businesses.
5 May ꞏ 22 neighborhoods in General
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
Thank
Redacted
9
Comment
131
99
See 19 previous comments
Arun Mahajan
,
Old Palo Alto
Good idea, Andrew Sharpe ! Needs to be planned out in terms of the ripple effect it would have on the neighbourhood
(more cars re-routed via parallel streets, etc).
6 May
Thank
Reply
1
The linked be displayehave been ren amed, oVerify that to the corrlocation.
See 1 previous reply
Arun Mahajan
,
Old Palo Alto
Hi Andrew Sharpe : I was thinking the same while making my comment. Yes, it is a white knuckle drive anyway. Yes,
Lytton/Hamilton as directional alternates sounds good.
10
6 May
Thank
Reply
Steve Frankel
,
Downtown North
Closing Bryant would be a difficult sell since its Bike Blvd for Palo Alto. I think it best to close University and leave the
cross streets open. That way, parking garages at High and Bryant/Florence are available, plus traffic coming into
Stanford or leaving to 101 are able to transit on Lytton and Hamilton. In addition, the parking behind the businesses on
University remain fully available. The available parking lost from University is small and easily made up compared to the
ample parking in the 2 large multilevel downtown garages and the existing lots behind the businesses. Additional
handicap can be designated in the street parking and ground level lots.
6 May
Thank
Reply
2
Margaret McCaslin
,
Crescent Park
I remember being in Copenhagen about 24 years ago and we considered writing to the Palo Alto City Council to
suggest just this. Pedestrian only areas are convivial and actually very good for business, as well as community
building. Our thought was to make Hamilton and Lytton one way streets, going in opposite directions. Then the side
streets would stay open or maybe every other one would be pedestrian only. I love this idea.
6 May
Thank
Reply
2
11
Andy Belk
,
Community Center
Great idea !
6 May
Thank
Reply
2
Keith Bennett
,
Old Palo Alto
Yes, I like this idea. And, Stanford traffic should be much less than usual.
6 May
Thank
Reply
Kimber Gaige
,
Downtown North
Yessssss, I've been saying this the entire shelter in place! It's a great time to switch over. How can we get this to
happen?
6 May
Thank
Reply
12
Andrew Sharpe
,
Downtown North
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
6 May
Thank
Reply
Stan Shore
,
Old Palo Alto
Easy to do and potentially a great idea. For a good example visit downtown Castro Street Mountain View. To do that, all
you would have to do is eliminate all downtown parking spaces. Then convert the parking spaces to out door eating
areas. Only remaining problem is we would need to build, within a few blocks, another parking garage for 100± parking
spaces. While I like the idea of completely rerouting down town vehicles, the logistics and obstacles would be very
difficult. Thus, the idea of just removing parking spaces and convert those spaces for outdoor eating. Visit downtown
Castro street in Mountain View. Stan Shore Old Palo Alto Neighbor
6 May
Thank
Reply
2
Andrew Sharpe
,
Downtown North
That's a good idea, but I do not believe it will allow sufficient distancing. Our sidewalks are already thin, and the parking
spaces are diagonal.
6 May
Thank
Reply
13
Robert Valenti
,
University South
It would change the character of the downtown. Restaurants, shops would flourish. Tax revenues to the city and county
would go up.
6 May
Thank
Reply
2
Michelle Buen
,
Old Palo Alto
Great idea !
6 May
Thank
Reply
Bob Krentler
,
Old Palo Alto
Love this idea!! I could see paris style stuff!
6 May
Thank
14
Reply
Dennis Peery
,
Crescent Park
Won’t matter what we want, city council will debate the matter for the next 5 years.
6 May
Thank
Reply
4
Kimberley Wong
,
Old Palo Alto
So true!
8 May
Thank
Reply
The linked be displayehave been ren amed, oVerify that to the corrlocation.
See 1 more reply
Curtis Mo
,
Central Menlo Park
Check out the Downtown Business Proposal thread. Significant progress on this idea there.
6 May
Thank
15
Reply
2
Andrew Sharpe
,
Downtown North
Thanks, I'll take a look. Perhaps a url would be easier for folks, if you have it handy. Do you mean one for Menlo Park,
or Downtown Palo Alto? I see that you are in Menlo Park. The problem with these proposals is that we need this *now*.
Not 5 years from now. We were able to completely change peoples' lives immediately with a few county and city orders;
this can be changed just as quickly. The businesses are drowning.
Edited 6 May
Thank
Reply
1
Lisa Van Dusen
,
Community Center
I love this idea! High time! Remember the walgreen's fire a while back? we got to try it then and it was fabulous, plus
studies/surveys have shown that retail does as well or better with a pedestrian only situation - unlike the fears of some
project. thanks for bringing this up. Now maybe share this idea with the city folks especially the city council!
6 May
Thank
Reply
1
Lisa Van Dusen
,
Community Center
16
And we can walk there - we now realize how fun it is to walk and easy for the most part.
6 May
Thank
Reply
Stefan Heck
,
Professorville
Absolutely! we have to SAVE Palo Alto downtown. Our restaurants and retail will die with 1/4 their capacity. Time to turn
Palo Alto into a lovely Florentine downtown!
6 May
Thank
Reply
6
Stefan Heck
,
Professorville
Here is the plan for how to do it. One-way circulation on Lytton and Hamilton. How do we start a campaign and petition?
6 May
Thank
17
Reply
6
Andrew Sharpe
,
Downtown North
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
6 May
Thank
Reply
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
See 4 more replies
Jane Ratchye
,
The Willows
As an avid biker, I love this idea!
6 May
Thank
Reply
1
Deb Pratt
,
Professorville
Even if you can’t ride your bike in a walking district?
8 May
18
Thank
Reply
1
The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.
See 1 more reply
Patti Frazier
,
Central Menlo
This would completely cut out the elderly who often cannot walk far. I would not support this.
6 May
Thank
Reply
1
Stefan Heck
,
Professorville
Patti - we can change the last space on each cross street to be reserved for handicapped or elderly. From there it's 1/2
block walk to any store.
6 May
Thank
Reply
3
Stefan Heck
,
19
Professorville
I suggest all of you write to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org to suggest they take the initiative to save our vibrant
downtown. Here is a specific proposal I wrote up and sent to the council prompted by this Next-door thread:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8v756nogywan5uy/Saving%20our%20vibrant%20Palo%20Alto%20downtown.pdf?dl=0
6 May
Thank
Reply
3
Andrew Sharpe
,
Downtown North
I like it. Nice job.
6 May
Thank
Reply
Marc Demas
,
The Willows
Yes and let’s do Santa Cruz in Menlo Park too
6 May
Thank
Reply
2
20
Marian Sofaer
,
Professorville
There are a lot of good ideas here.I would like to hear from the restaurant owners and city planners about the viability of
the ideas and how the traffic options compare in feasibility.
6 May
Thank
Reply
Pat Shelly
,
Downtown North
I like the idea but wonder how vendors will maintain business with compromised parking.
6 May
Thank
Reply
1
Andrew Sharpe
,
Downtown North
The same way they do now. We have a lot of garages, right next to University. Honestly, I cannot see anyone actually
getting a place to park on University right in front of where they want to go, anyway. And the question is, how will
vendors maintain business *without* compromising the small amount of parking on University, so that they can make
use of the large expanse of street in front of their establishments? Just fill their existing spaces to 1/3 capacity? They will
go out of business, because their rents have not also been cut by 1/3. Europe has been doing this for centuries.
Businesses there flourish.
Edited 6 May
Thank
Reply
3
21
Roman Kagarlitsky
,
Crescent Park
Today it'a a main transportation path, including emergency vehicles. Where would they go?
6 May
Thank
Reply
Andrew Sharpe
,
Downtown North
I just received this email from Greg Tanaka's office. They asked me to post it to this group, but as they didn't include a
zoom url, I asked him for it. When I receive it, I will also post it: From: William Xuan <william.xuan@gregtanaka.org>
Subject: Re: Wouldn't now be a good time to consider University Ave as a pedestrian-only mall? Date: Wed, 6 May
2020 21:26:57 -0700 Dear Mr.Sharpe, My name is William, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank
you for voicing out your opinion on University Avenue to the city council. I invite you to come speak with Councilman
Tanaka for a discussion about this University Avenue at his office hours. Do you have time to meet with Mr. Tanaka this
Sunday 5/10 at 2:20pm for 30 minutes? Office hours are held at Councilman Tanaka’s Zoom. If you are unable to do
Zoom, you can dial into the conversation as well. Please let me know within twenty four hours if you are able to make
the meeting. If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know. Best Regards, William P.S. Would it be
possible for you to extend this invite to the commenters on the next-door thread as well? William Xuan | Legislative Aide
Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka’s Office W: www.GregTanaka.org | D: (650) 569-1642 | E:
william.xuan@gregtanaka.org
6 May
Thank
Reply
3
Andrew Sharpe
,
22
Downtown North
He replied: Hi Andrew, Thanks for getting back to me. We’re planning on setting up a calendar event and then putting
up the Zoom id there, so have them email me (william.xuan@gregtanaka.org) instead. This is so we can track who is
going, and who isn’t, to deter Zoom bombers. Thanks, William William Xuan | Legislative Aide Palo Alto City Council
Member Tanaka’s Office W: www.GregTanaka.org | D: (650) 569-1642 | E: william.xuan@gregtanaka.org
6 May
Thank
Reply
1
The linked be displayehave been ren amed, oVerify that to the corrlocation.
See 4 more replies
Steve Frankel
,
Downtown North
That's the beauty of 1-way surrounding roads. 2-lane University vs 3-lane, 1-way Lytton and Hamilton.
6 May
Thank
Reply
1
Joseph Afong
,
The Willows
Yes, Great idea. In the past every time University Ave is closed for special events such as film festival, bike race, street
fair and even Walgreen fire street closure, I see that the community responded very positively. Your idea of allowing
restaurants to set up tables outside to allow more social distancing is an excellent one. Let;s do it on a trial basis.
Another trial we can do after the coronavirus outbreak is to close the street on the weekends. Having a walkable
University Avenue will bring back the small town community feeling to the street.
23
6 May
Thank
Reply
4
Robert Lasater
,
Coleman Place
I also think this is an excellent idea, and I tend to not support closing streets. University along here is a permanent traffic
jam (when the economy is open). It's too narrow and has to many cross streets and traffic lights. Parking is minimal, so
the loss of parking would not be missed. What about the cross streets? Emerson, Bryant, Waverly, Cowper, etc. Should
these be closed at University? Not sure that would be a good idea. But closing University as shown on the map Stefan
Heck posted makes a LOT of sense.
7 May
Thank
Reply
Brian Bulkowski
,
The Willows
The town I grew up in had a one-way "racetrack", but without the pedestrian mall in the center. The worst problem was
people loved to drive around and around in circles on a friday night, to the point where they had to pass a law saying no
more than 3 circles in an hour or something like that. But it was great for local businesses and people loved it generally.
7 May
Thank
Reply
1
Matthieu Bonnard
,
24
Old Palo Alto
Love it! In my hometown in France near Paris, main street was made pedestrian 30+ years ago. Many naysayers
complained at the time. Today, everyone loves it. Brings life, business and taxes to the city. More broadly on the subject
of mobility in Palo Alto, I want to press the city of Palo Alto to do more to 1) improve pedestrian and bike safety and 2)
make it easier to NOT drive everywhere and all the time in Palo Alto. Here is a petition. Please sign it and share if you
agree! https://www.thepetitionsite.com/141/034/512/mobility-in-palo-alto/
7 May
Thank
Reply
2
Nicole Hindley
,
University South
Yesssss!!!! Love this idea!!!
7 May
Thank
Reply
2
Steve Frankel
,
Downtown North
25
The 3rd Street Promenade is a great example of what is possible for University Ave. Google Maps includes a walking
view of 3rd Street. You can see the sidewalks were left in place, and the drive paths were cleaned and enhanced for
walking, dining and entertainment. See this Google Maps Street View: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0143976,-
118.4946356,3a,75y,315.64h,72.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sK2ir_sDywOhcAX1TvbDnfQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.co
m%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DK2ir_sDywOhcAX1TvbDnfQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps
%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D79.21991%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i
6656
7 May
Thank
Reply
2
Amy Keohane
,
Downtown North
I don’t think that will be good for emergency vehicles
7 May
Thank
Reply
Steve Frankel
,
Downtown North
Actually the bollards retract for emergency vehicles. Stanford has the same type of bollard for emergency vehicle
access on campus.
7 May
Thank
Reply
4
26
Mary Adham
,
Linfield Oaks
San Jose is also making plans to do this.
8 May
Thank
Reply
Bryan Baskin
,
Allied Arts
Awesome idea. Love it!
10 May
Thank
Reply
Leo Garramone
,
Downtown North
Great recommendation, from the station to Middlefield.
10 May
Thank
Reply
Patricia Pairman
,
University South
Great idea!
10 May
Thank
27
Reply
Barak Berkowitz
,
Old Palo Alto
At least for now so restaurants can spread tables out. It is happening all over the world. Should be Cal Ave too
10 May
Thank
Reply
1
Donna Sheridan
,
Old Palo Alto
Yes, it would be nice for Cal av; University av; and maybe Mikes (or maybe in parking lot)
1 day ago
Thank
Reply
Mike Makinen
,
Crescent Park
Maybe one way only is the way to go.
10 May
Thank
Reply
Anne Anderson
28
,
Old Palo Alto
When we can reopen to any degree it will be the perfect time to try a pilot. It may be the only way restaurants on the
street would be able to reopen. I too predict people will love it but it makes sense to allow all the businesses on the
street and neighbors in the area to weigh in on how it works for them.
12 May
Thank
Reply
2
Monte Hoskins
,
The Willows
Great idea!
6 days ago
Thank
Reply
John McDowell
,
Professorville
It’s rare to see an issue on NextDoor with so many supportive comments. It’s interesting that Berkeley is trying
something similar: https://sf.eater.com/2020/5/14/21258980/berkeley-coronavirus-covid-19-jesse-arreguin-street-
closures Does anyone know owners of the restaurants fronting University Ave? Seems like they would stand to benefit
from this but it would be interesting to get their concerns and see to what degree they’d be willing to support this. I saw
Andrew Sharpe’s message above: Councilman Greg Tanaka “is setting up another meeting this Sunday, May 17th, at
3:50. justin.qiu@gregtanaka.org is coordinating. Email him and tell him you'd like to attend, so he can put you on the list
to get the zoom link.” I hope others who can make the time help support the effort!
4 days ago
Thank
Reply
29
Maria Kleczewska
,
The Willows
Another vote in favor here!
4 days ago
Thank
Reply
Donna Sheridan
,
Old Palo Alto
Great idea...did someone take this to City Council?
1 day ago
30
Baumb, Nelly
From:Laili Javid <lailij@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:In support of closing University Ave
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Hi
I am writing to support the proposal to close university Ave to pedestrians during our COVID crisis to help businesses
serve more people and survive .
Best,
Laili Javid
31
Baumb, Nelly
From:Tami Fletcher <tami.fletcher@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:03 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:University ave.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I wanted to affirm the idea of a trial for University Ave. to be pedestrian only to allow for sidewalk dining
during the next few months. A great way to support our local businesses, encourage walking/Caltrain for
those who live locally and work through the next phase of our Covid‐19 requirements.
Thanks for considering!
Tami Fletcher
A resident of Homer Ave.
32
Baumb, Nelly
From:Vamsi Potluri <vamsipotluri@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 8:14 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cal Ave and University Ave...
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi City Council,
i am a resident of Palo Alto that lives near California Avenue. one of the nice things abut living here is the community
and the small businesses (especially the great restaurants on both cal ave and university ave).
we have been supporting them in this time of need as much as we can doing take outs... but for them to survive long
term and keep the fabric of our community as great gathering places they need any help the city can provide to survive
and advance out of this pandemic...
i strongly vote and recommend the city to consider shutting traffic on both cal ave and university ave so that the
restaurants can plan and expand their seating over to the street to practice social distancing and keep all the customers
comfortable and safe, provide the jobs to their employees that have lost their income the last few months, and also the
businesses being able to survive and keep the community together...
Thanks,
Vamsi Potluri
Redacted
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Amar Johal <amarjohal@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 3:31 PM
To:Fine, Adrian
Cc:Council, City
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello,
My name is Amar, I'm a local business owner in downtown Palo Alto (7‐Eleven).
This vaping ban/flavor directly impacts my business and I am ok with this ban AS LONG as this ban is pulled off the shelf
and re‐introduced including the removal of adult only stores as an exception for not only vaping products but flavored
tobacco as well.
You say this exception is to protect the 5 adult only stores form severe economic hardships, but what about us? You are
taking sales away that would have switched to a less addictive alternative at our store and since they can still buy flavor
and vapes elsewhere they are leaving us and going there.
Palo Alto is diverting sales of flavored tobacco and vaping product both deemed a health issue to a handful of 21+
retailers, and this is a big issue. Make this a level playing field, include these locations into the flavored tobacco AND
vaping ban, make a point that the city of Palo Alto is making a difference by introducing an all out ban on flavored
tobacco and vaping like many of our neighboring cities. Please reach out to me at 925‐699‐3399 if you'd like to discuss.
Thank you,
Amar
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Aleks Totic <atotic@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 6:37 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Vaping ban
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I do not understand how does council justify banning vaping, but not tobacco.
Tobacco is much more harmful than vaping.
If kids are vaping, they’ll just switch to smoking after the ban. And this will eventually lead to unnecessary deaths.
If my kid chose a mind altering substance, i hope it is a vape. Between vaping, tobacco, liquor, and drugs, vaping is the
safest option.
Aleks .‐ .‐.. . ‐.‐ ...
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:david zoumut <dzoumut@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 19, 2020 11:45 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Weiss, Julie
Subject:hookah lounge Palo Alto
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Mr. mayor and city council I was shocked last night that the hearing went from more vigorous regulations to closure, based on some opinions and testimonies from concerned parents about their under age kids purchasing vape and or tobacco products, as well as what appears to be some activists who had prepared statements. Although the market is saturated with places where they can do so, it certainly did not make me a culprit at this particular time and place. I have always put the law in place when it came to underage kids, and like I told you in my last email, i have three kids, and i share any parents concerns, however, at first and utmost it is my responsibility as a parent to know what my kids are up to, of course, we all know if our kids get in trouble it comes back to us. What if our kids got a hold of drugs, guns, or alcohol, are we going to shut all those places down and drive business owners out of business so we can protect them, if that is the case, like the council is doing now, then we mine as well close all businesses, because they put our kids in danger, emotionally that's ok, but logically and legally it is impossible to do so, we can't base our judgement on the emotions of the few or we can't function as a society in whole. and this is what is happening here, just like council Lydia kou said in one of her comments, " if we can save a couple of kids then its worth it". so ultimately, public officials can destroy businesses based on saving the kids, and let me be clear, I am, and never will be against protecting our kids, never, but this is not a logical and safe approach to do so because it destroys and tramples others peoples rights along the way, and that's not what we want to accomplish, there is always a medium where judgement can be fair and balanced. Closure of Hookah Nites and other businesses affected by this decision will put business owners in jeopardy, and today because of the pandemic COVID-19 it makes it a double jeopardy, we can't afford to lose all what we worked so hard for , and about sixteen years and see it vanish in thin air, and why, because we couldn't find a medium resolution that makes sense and is fair. I am all for more regulations and enforcement by law, so if we do our job as business owners, we still have to pay the price of others!! this is not only unfair, but doesn't make sense at all. I am proposing to keep the strict regulations, and eliminate any vape products being sold, which I don't sell, and just keep the tobacco, which is by the way contains .05% nicotine and zero tar and other chemicals that cigarettes contain. We are more than willing to obey the laws put in place, but closing our businesses is a devastating blow to us and our families, and at senior age of 61, there are no options to find a job. I urge the council to reconsider the decision at hand. Thank you for your time David Zoumut
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:david zoumut <dzoumut@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 12:03 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Hookah Nites Lounge
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
In regards to my previous email, can I please get a response to the subject matter it contains.
Thank you one again
David zoumut
Sent from my iPhone
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:madawaska2@aol.com
Sent:Monday, May 18, 2020 6:33 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Council: (Item #6) Please remove the exemptions / loopholes that would allow "adult only"
smoke shops to sell flavored tobacco and e-cigarettes
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members‐
Regarding Agenda Item #6 Tobacco Retailer Ordinance
I’d like to urge you to please pull this item from the Consent Agenda and, as you did in December, please direct Staff to mirror the
County ordinance by removing the exemptions / loopholes that would allow "adult only" shops to sell flavored tobacco and e‐
cigarettes. Oakland recently had to fix its mistake from 2017 of allowing exemptions/loopholes. Please do not make the same
mistake tonight!
Bob Gordon
member of Tobacco Free Coalition of Santa Clara County
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Amy Christel <amymchristel@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 10:34 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Flavored tobacco and vape ban
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Council Members,
I applaud the courage of Mr. Filselth, Mr. Tanaka, Ms. Kou, and Ms. Cormack in voting for the ban on flavored tobacco
and vape sales in our city. This was the right thing to do given the science of health risks and the data on targeting of a
vulnerable population of new tobacco consumers—our children and younger adults.
No amount of tax revenue from those businesses should justify the risk to the health of our population, young and old.
To those Council Members who did not support this ban, I am very disappointed in you. Macs was a business long
before vaping was a thing, and if that has become their prime revenue, I guess they moved in the wrong direction for
this community. There is absolutely no benefit to tobacco use in any form, and the council should not condone the
habit.
Sincerely,
Amy Christel
Sent from my iPad
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Peggy E. Kraft <pkraft@stanford.edu>
Sent:Saturday, May 16, 2020 11:06 AM
To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel; Council, City; Transportation
Subject:Grade separation AGAINST new underpass proposal Charleston/Alma
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Dear Community Members,
I have reviewed the material to be presented at the next XCAP meeting on May 20th. There is a presentation of a grade
separation design with an underpass at Charleston/Alma. It was designed with a two lane roundabout on Charleston
Road which I am totally against. It puts a much larger amount of traffic onto East Charleston Road because it diverts
onto East Charleston ALL of the north and south bound traffic on Alma that wants to turn west onto Charleston. This is
ADDED traffic that never used to drive on East Charleston in the past. I cannot emphasize enough that this is ADDED
traffic that we currently do not have. So our two lane residential/school/church/park corridor is now to be sacrificed for
commuters which is exactly what this south Palo Alto community spent over ten years trying to change with the
Charleston/Arrastradero calming project .I do not understand that after agreeing and funding the calming of this
corridor that the city of Palo Alto would then decide to undo this work by dumping massive amounts of new traffic onto
this residential corridor. The huge roundabout would also require the taking of private property and homes by eminent
domain and forever ruin the charming neighborhood we once had. There is a COMPROMISE which is to have the
underpass BUT NOT THE ROUNDABOUT. Our neighborhood should not have to allow access to all cars wanting to go
West on Charleston onto our residential corridor. Those cars can use other major commute corridors that already exist
for that purpose. The westbound traffic would likely be split evenly between San Antonio Road and Oregon Expressway
which are designed for this type of traffic. I also believe that even during non commute hours this roundabout design
will encourage more cars to use East Charleston because it will allow more traffic through more quickly then can flow
now. Our neighborhood advocated for the calming and preservation of this corridor for over ten years and now the city
is considering taking that away.
Another possible compromise is to have a ONE LANE ROUNDABOUT on East Charleston. They exist in other
neighborhoods in Palo Alto. This would at least cause less and slower traffic on East Charleston because it would
discourage some of the commuters from using it to turn west. I was told that it could not be designed as a one lane
roundabout because a certain amount of space/distance was needed before cars coming from the underpass and those
turning east could merge onto a one lane versus a two lane roundabout. The solution is to place the one lane
roundabout slightly farther down the corridor. At least with the one lane roundabout it would not require the taking of
private homes and property, it would keep the residential feel of the neighborhood and it would likely encourage
commuters to find other corridors to turn west on Charleston because East Charleston which would produce less and
slower traffic through the neighborhood.
Since the two lane roundabout in this design is so disruptive to our residential/school/park/church corridor and it is
unlikely they will design it with a one lane roundabout as compromise I am AGAINST THIS UNDERPASS DESIGN and am
instead going to SUPPORT THE HYBRID OVERPASS DESIGN. The overpass design would keep the train in the same exact
location and not disrupt our residential neighborhood with the taking of peoples homes and properties and adding
thousands of new cars onto our residential two lane street.
2
In summary I am AGAINST THE DESIGN FOR UNDERPASS WITH A TWO LANE ROUNDABOUT ON EAST CHARLESTON
unless they remove or design the project with a one lane roundabout and am in SUPPORT OF THE HYBRID OVERPASS
DESIGN.
Thank you for your service to our community.
Best,
Peggy
Mumford Place
Palo Alto
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:Karen Kalinsky <kalinsky@stanford.edu>
Sent:Wednesday, May 20, 2020 11:34 AM
To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel
Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed
Subject:RE: Proposal for Meadow Underpass at Train Crossing -- XCAP May 20, 2020 Agenda
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To: Expanded Community Advisory Panel (XCAP) CC: City Council, Ed Shikada, City Manager RE: Proposal for Meadow Underpass at Train Crossing Date: 5/20/2020 I would like to thank XCAP, Elizabeth Alexis, and the City Council for consideration of the additional option for an Underpass at Meadow and Charleston. I was very glad to see that AECOM's analysis and response included two quite different implementations of the underpass at Meadow versus the underpass at Charleston. This makes sense to me since Meadow is a considerably narrower street. SUMMARY: I am in favor of the proposed Meadow Underpass at Alma and the train tracks. I propose a "press to cross" bike and pedestrian crosswalk with flashing lights for E. Meadow at Bryant. I have lived on E. Meadow for 36 years and bought my home with the knowledge that we live close to the train and its associated noise. I appreciate that for all the train crossing proposals the electrified train engines and the elimination of need for train horn noise and warning bells at grade crossings will significantly reduce rail noise. Since I live on Meadow, I will respond only to the AECOM renderings for Meadow, and leave responses to the Charleston proposal to those neighbors who are more directly affected by it. A) Regarding weighing the 4 alternatives for Meadow currently on the table: Trench, Hybrid, Viaduct, Cars/bikes/peds Underpass i. I feel that the Hybrid and Viaduct options offer no advantage versus the Underpass. The Hybrid alternative would be more costly, noisier, more visually unpleasant to the residents who live close to the tracks, and require 4 years of disrupting traffic along Alma. The Viaduct option has similar impacts but at twice the cost of the Hybrid, with much greater negative visual impact; although construction period would be shorter (2 years) and much less disruptive to traffic during construction. ii. On the other hand, the Trench might do more to reduce noise and would offer considerably improved visual impact of the train traffic. However to my mind, the significantly greater cost, the extended road closures, the 6 year construction period, but most especially the long-term maintenance & drainage impacts, make this a less desirable choice for the Meadow crossing. I am seriously concerned that the local (or city-wide) taxes, fees & special assessments would be rejected by the majority of neighborhood residents. If the Trench requires right-of-way acquisition from CalTrain/Union Pacific for pumping stations, that might not even be possible. iii. If I understand correctly, the Meadow Underpass would be less costly and would require a shorter construction period than the 3 choices above, and the visual impact would be no worse than it is today. There is no getting around the fact that the trains will run more frequently. I appreciate that the Underpass has well-separate underpass lanes for bikes and pedestrians. The downside is that there would have to be property acquisition of the apartment building at 3553 Alma St, which has 14 apartments (which would be a serious impact to renters who would have a hard time finding other Palo Alto places to live), plus some driveway and sliver acquisitions. All of the proposals involve difficult trade offs and compromises. I favor the Underpass as my first choice, but hope that the planners can either find a way to avoid acquisition of the apartment building at 3553 Alma, or find replacement housing at comparable rents for these tenants.
4
B) E Meadow street crossing for bikes & pedestrians My husband and I frequently use our bikes to get around town, and appreciate the concern for the safety of cyclists as well of pedestrians for crossing E. Meadow -- when there would presumably be a more steady stream of traffic to and from the Underpass at Alma. AECOM noted the need for a safe crossing for Peds/Bikes at Ramona or Byrant and offered "e.g., a raised crosswalk with flashing beacons or a roundabout."
i. A safe crossing for bikes makes more sense at Bryant St, since Bryant is designated as a Palo Alto Bike Route and a Peninsula Bikeway. ii. A roundabout is not a very good solution (see complaints about roundabout at E Meadow and Ross Rd). A bike lane merging with a car lane into a single lane is not very safe for bikes, and while a roundabout can serve to slow cars, it offers no way to protect pedestrians crossing E. Meadow. iii. A raised crosswalk would be good for pedestrians, but not very convenient for wheelchairs, cyclists, or strollers.
iv. E. Meadow is a commute route to three public schools-- JLS Middle School, Fairmeadow Elementary School, and Gunn High School -- so there is considerable bike and ped traffic at the busy hours to/from school. The traffic light and crossing guard at Waverley provides the primary crossing point. School children going to JLS and Fairmeadow coming from the "Circles" on the South side of E Meadow, turn right and do not need to cross E Meadow since the schools are on the right side of the street. High school students (typically on bike) coming from the "Circles" would have to cross at E Meadow to turn left-- which I propose be at Bryant, which is a Bike Route.
v. I propose a "push button" crosswalk with flashing signals to cross at Bryant. We frequently bike to Mountain
View and find the "push button" crosswalks across San Antonio Rd at Miller Ave (near California St) and at Loucks Ave (near Chef Chu's) to be very safe and convenient. When a pedestrian or cyclist pushes the button, lights flash for drivers at the side of the road and in the pavement of the road along the marked crossing. An audible track is played "cross with caution, etc."
Thank you for all your efforts to include community input,
Sincerely, Karen Kalinsky
kalinsky@stanford.edu
__________________________________________________________________
Karen Isaacs Kalinsky kalinsky@stanford.edu