HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200608plCC9701-32
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: 06/08/2020
Document dates: 5/13/2020 – 5/20/2020
Set 9 of 10
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:Steve Raney <steve@paloaltotma.org>
Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 6:28 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Star-Lack, Sylvia; Kamhi, Philip; Nose, Kiely; Kruti Ladani
Subject:expand PATMA to Cal Ave?
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council,
Thank you for the PATMA parking lot motion. Please consider Councilmember Cormac's comment, "I’m very excited
about extending the TMA to Cal Ave. I've asked for this in the past."
The current COPA-PATMA funding agreement restricts PATMA to serve only downtown, and we request that Council take action to remove this restriction in the next funding agreement. The success of our California Avenue pilot has attracted merchants in that district to our Board. We look forward to helping more merchants recover from shelter-in-place with the lifting of this geographical restriction.
Regards, ‐ PATMA
On Thu, May 21, 2020 at 11:58 AM Steve Raney <steve@paloaltotma.org> wrote:
Palo Alto Transportation Management Association 355 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301, www.paloaltotma.org
Dear Council,
This letter outlines our 40% lower funding request for FY21, totaling $453,000, our unique position to support the local service economy during reopening after shelter-in-place, and an innovative bicycle commute
program that will recycle city funds into local businesses, further supporting economic recovery. In addition, we request the City of Palo Alto (COPA) allow the TMA to serve Cal Ave businesses and commuters. We have proven the demand for our programs via a Cal Ave pilot, resourcefully utilizing $100,000 in private sector
funding.
The TMA is very grateful for the City’s generous FY20 TMA funding of $750,000. Shelter-in-place has changed our need for funds for FY21. Due to Public Health Orders, current demand for TMA services is low. We have proven capability to remove 446 cars per day, 386 from downtown and 60 from Cal Ave. Our FY21
budget request uses the City’s end-of-year economic recovery scenario to ramp up to removing 446 vehicles in June 2021, growing at 4% per month from July-Dec 2020 and then at 12% per month from Jan-June 2021.[1] Hence, we request a $641,000 budget for July ‘20 through June ‘21. Applying $187,500 of unused
FY20 funds, our “net budget request” is $453,000, a 40% reduction from FY20.
This request assumes the TMA will be allowed to serve the California Avenue Business District. The current COPA-PATMA funding agreement restricts PATMA to serve only downtown, and we request that Council take action to remove this restriction in the next funding agreement. The success of our California Avenue pilot has
6
attracted merchants in that district to our Board. We look forward to helping more merchants recover from shelter-in-place with the lifting of this geographical restriction.
The TMA is an essential part of helping Palo Alto businesses recover. Council has requested special support for hard-hit local service and small businesses. The TMA will accelerate economic recovery by providing Palo Alto with a competitive hiring advantage over cities without TMAs. Perceived employee risk starts when commuters leave their home, not just when they enter their office. In addition to providing transit and
ridesharing programs, the TMA will guide employers on safe return-to-workplace practices that increase employee confidence. The TMA’s groundbreaking federally-funded social equity research found indications that rehiring service workers will be unusually difficult because recently-idled workers will move out of the Bay
Area.
Finally, we are developing a bicycle commute program that will allow us to partner with local businesses to recycle public funds back into the local economy. This first-in-the-world pilot with software partner CashByCycling will provide daily incentives for verifiable active mode commutes, up to $599 per year.
Geofenced location tracking will confirm both direct-to-work bike, e-bike, e-scooter, and e-skateboard commutes and bike-to-transit-to-work commutes. Within 60 seconds, incentive dollars may be redeemed for iPhone/android vouchers tethered to individual local merchants that have capable “fintech point-of-sale
terminals.” Local incentive tethering causes program funds to be injected back into the local economy, creating a multiplier effect while supporting a contactless form of commuting post-COVID. This program is expected to cost one-half to one-quarter of many commute alternatives, and one-eighth of a stall in a parking
structure.
Our CY2019 Annual Report - google doc will appear as a consent item in an upcoming Council packet. In CY2019 we lowered our hourly labor costs significantly, to one-half of other Bay Area TMAs. We decreased our management overhead percentage-of-expense down to 10.5%. We reduced the cost of our annual
commute survey by 40% while tripling the number of responses and increasing program adoption by 30%. The TMA generated $164,000 in non-City funding in CY2019 and will continue to pursue additional revenue.
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,
PATMA Board of Directors
Brad Ehikian, Premier Properties
Amit Patel, Westin
Cal Ave restaurateur Zareen Kahn
Matthew Weinberg, Amazon/A9
Carmel Moyal, Palantir PATMA Staff
Steve Raney
Kruti Ladani
_________________________________________ 1. SJSU’s Mineta Transportation Institute expects transit ridership to snap back to 75% of normal and 100% by twelve months after recovery. We expect service worker ridership to come back more rapidly than “choice riders.” We have published commute predictions (Medium article, Palo Alto Weekly article), and we
expect the SOV rate to increase.
7
Baumb, Nelly
From:carole/steve eittreim <eittreimcs@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 2:40 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, Does Palo Alto have a Safe Storage of Firearms Ordinance in Palo Alto? I would strongly support it. Please refer to San Mateo County's Safe Storage Ordinance, with the exception of the penalty which
should be civil rather than criminal to avoid disproportionately affecting people of color. The wording
is critical in order to save the most lives. Fortunately the many towns on the Peninsula that have now adopted Safe Storage have all agreed on the same principles (with the more recent towns having adopted civil and not criminal penalties). This ordinance needs to apply to all homes, and to all firearms. Firearms need to be locked up (or disabled with a trigger lock) in ALL homes, even if a child
does not live there because the point of this ordinance is to prevent ALL unauthorized users from
gaining access to the firearm. It is not just children who routinely access firearms (that they are not authorized to use) and then use those firearms to harm themselves or others. In addition, "Safe Storage" means the firearm must be locked in a DOJ-approved secure storage device or disabled with a trigger lock and not left up to a person's discretion of what they feel is safe.
Thank you for considering this issue and for all the work you do to keep Palo Alto safe for our children and citizens.
Sincerely, Caroleann Eittreim
Palo Alto, Ca 94303 650-856-6977
Redacted
8
Baumb, Nelly
From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 1:50 PM
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Council, City; Kamhi, Philip; Hur, Mark; Baird, Nathan; Allen Akin; Carol Scott; Wolfgang Dueregger;
Chris Robell; Fred Balin; Taylor Brady; Paul Machado; Norm Beamer; Michael Hodos; Jan
Merryweather; Sallyann Rudd; Malcolm Roy Beasley; Leslie Caine; Hamilton Hitchings; Rebecca
Sanders; Jeff Levinsky; Furman, Sheri; Marion Odell; Tricia Dolkas; Jerry Smith; Bruce Heister; Nancy
Adler; Meg Barton; Harris Barton; Elaine Meyer; Mary Dimit; David Kwoh; Fred Kohler; KJ Chang; J T
Gusilin; Jeff Greenfield; Monica Yeung Arima; Ray Dempsey; Janine Bisharat; Fred Bisharat; Susie and
Gary Hornbeek; Lauren Burton; Lora Smith; LaNell Mimmack; Jim Mimmack; Mike Griffin; Lait,
Jonathan; Clerk, City; Geetha Srikantan; Hetterly, Jennifer; Holzemer/hernandez; Karen Machado; Ted
Davids
Subject:Planning Commission Study Session May 27: RPPs
Attachments:Resident Input for RPP Study Session - PTC 5-27-2020 (1).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss and refine RPPs. Attached is a report from neighborhood
leaders who were able to collaborate since receiving the staff report on Friday evening. We are in the
process of expanding our outreach to neighbors who have not been available during the holiday weekend. We look forward to Wednesday study session and future work with staff, PTC and Council.
Neilson Buchanan Palo Alto, CA 94301
650 329-0484
650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com
Redacted
1
Resident Input for RPP Study Session
Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting
May 27, 2020
Introduction
The study session on parking to be held by the Planning and Transportation Commission on
May 27, 2020, is an important first step for a more rational and effective parking policy and
practice for all of Palo Alto. We appreciate Staff, Commissioners and Council members
undertaking this complex issue during a difficult period in Palo Alto’s long history of solving
difficult problems.
We also appreciate the opportunity to provide input to the study session as included in this
document. We are resident leaders from the RPPs in Downtown, Evergreen Park and Old Palo
Alto who have collaborated over the Memorial Day weekend. Other neighborhoods are being
contacted and invited to contribute to these principles and recommended actions.
Key Principles to Guide Action
The following key principles are important to residents and should be used to guide any policies
and practices with respect to the creation and management of Residential Permit Programs.
1. The values expressed in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan are paramount. City policies
must be guided by the goal to “promote commerce but not at the expense of residential
neighborhoods.” This policy provides clear guidance that the quality of life in residential
neighborhoods is to be respected.
2. RPPs have a strong and well-established basis for ensuring neighborhood quality. The
council and citizens have immense power to design the details of commercial parking
loads on residential neighborhoods. Here are two important citations:
Supreme Court excerpt from Arlington v Richards (1977) No. 76-1418
“To reduce air pollution and other environmental effects of automobile
commuting, a community reasonably may restrict on-street parking available to
commuters, thus encouraging reliance on car pools and mass transit. The same
goal is served by assuring convenient parking to residents who leave their cars
at home during the day. A community may also decide that restrictions on the
flow of outside traffic into particular residential areas would enhance the quality
of life thereby reducing noise, traffic hazards, and litter.”
California Vehicle Code 22507:
(a) Local authorities may, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit or restrict the
stopping, parking, or standing of vehicles, including, but not limited to,
vehicles that are six feet or more in height (including any load thereon)
within 100 feet of any intersection, on certain streets or highways, or
2
portions thereof, during all or certain hours of the day. The ordinance or
resolution may include a designation of certain streets upon which
preferential parking privileges are given to residents and merchants and
merchants adjacent to the streets for their use and the use of their guests,
under which the residents and merchants may be issued a permit or
permits that exempt them from the prohibition or restriction of the
ordinance or resolution. With the exception of alleys, the ordinance or
resolution shall not apply until signs or markings giving adequate notice
thereof have been placed. A local ordinance or resolution adopted pursuant
to this section may contain provisions that are reasonable and necessary to
ensure the effectiveness of a preferential parking program.
(b) An ordinance or resolution adopted under this section may also authorize
preferential parking permits for members of organizations, professions, or
other designated groups, including, but not limited to, school personnel, to
park on specified streets if the local authority determines that the use of
the permits will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and
merchants in the area.
3. The phrase “not at the expense of residential neighborhoods” establishes a long-term
objective of no all-day, non-resident employee permit parking in residential areas
whether achieved by RPPs or through concerted and effective actions taken to eliminate
commercial demand for parking in residential areas. The goal is not how much parking
in neighborhoods we can allocate to commercial interests for their own private gain, but
instead is to ensure commercial entities provide for their own needs so as not to
impinge on residential neighborhoods. 1
Indeed, the first RPP in Palo Alto (i.e., College Terrace) and the most recent RPP (i.e., Old
Palo Alto) have demonstrated that this standard is workable and should not change. To
the extent possible, this is the standard toward which other neighborhoods would like
to move.
We note that residential neighborhoods will continue to carry the short-term, 2-hr load
for residents, their guests, residential service providers, and other two-hour parking by
anyone and especially by customers of retail businesses, restaurants and medical and
dental offices, who may park anywhere in residential neighborhoods.
1 Residential parking programs have been characterized by some as attempts to “privatize a public asset.” This is
completely backwards. Developers and other commercial interests are required to pay for many of their own
infrastructure costs, and adequate parking or meaningful alternatives to commuting by car are not qualitatively
different. When Palo Alto sells parking in a residential neighborhood to a private business that neglected to provide on-site parking for its employees, the City is subsidizing a private business using a public asset. When the City sells parking rights (via $100,000 ‘in lieu’ fees, which do not factor in land costs) to a business that is then
allowed employee parking in a taxpayer-funded parking garage in perpetuity, it is arguably also allowing the
privatization of public assets.
3
4. Until such time as this long-term goal can be achieved, the limits on all-day parking non-
resident permits to commercial employees should be negotiated with the affected
residential community. Different communities may have different schedules for moving
toward the goal of elimination of the need for employee parking permits.
Indeed, there has been a history of RPP development in Palo Alto with substantial work
done by affected residents to document neighborhood needs and to propose workable
solutions. Appendix A illustrates the often-times arduous process by which real
progress has been made. Resident collaboration is key to any successful efforts to
protect neighborhood quality of life.
5. Until such time as no employee, non-resident permits are sold in residential
neighborhoods, quality standards that take into account the multiple dimensions of
“quality of life” in neighborhoods will be critically important for evaluating the degree to
which life in these neighborhoods is negatively impacted by commercial intrusion. We
appreciate Staff efforts to bring quality standards up for an open discussion.
However, the Staff report2 mentions only one type of “quality” standard, i.e. capacity
utilization. This reduces the quality of life in neighborhoods to a single dimension of
how many parking spaces on average are available for parking. Such capacity standards
are appropriate for commercial parking lots that have as their primary objective
providing as much parking as possible, but are wholly inadequate and inappropriate for
residential neighborhoods that are more than simply an inventory of parking spaces.
Again, the objective should NOT be to maximize the amount of employee parking that
can be squeezed into a neighborhood.
6. RPPs, like other City services, should not be judged solely by whether or not they are
self-sustaining in a monetary sense and should never be discontinued predicated on lack
of funding. There are always smarter trade-offs if the city is short of funds (e.g., increase
the ticket price of an RPP violation above $50, etc.). Residents expect that the city will
not apply dichotomous thinking and use budget challenges as an excuse as to why they
cannot prevent residential neighborhoods from becoming commercial parking lots.
We support all efforts by the City to engage in actions to increase the efficiency with
which RPPs are managed and to reduce costs which do not harm the essential mission
and purpose of the RPPs, including the proposed automated license plate reading
technology.
2 Planning and Transportation Commission, Staff Report #10873, “Study Session to Review and Discuss the FY 20-
21 Parking Work Plan Including Policy Options for the Residential Preferential Parking Program,” submitted by
Philip Kamhi.
4
Recommended Immediate Actions:
With these principles in mind, we make the following recommendations for immediate action.
1. Capitalize on the opportunity to improve parking practices by developing a plan to move
non-resident permits sold in Evergreen Park and Mayfield to the new public California
Ave. garage, in line with a target of zero such permits in these neighborhoods. The
previous addition of parking spaces along El Camino Real to the Evergreen Park and
Southgate RPPs already provides sufficient parking spaces for businesses located along
El Camino Real.
The reallocation of permits cannot wait as once practices and habits are established for
the new garage, a new ‘status quo’ will be in place that will be extremely difficult to
change. The Staff report lists this item only as “Complete Schedule TBD.” (item 28)
2. Proceed immediately with the LRP and new parking management system for
neighborhoods as well as the commercial districts to reduce the costs of RPP
management.
3. The successful RPP for Old Palo Alto should be permanently added with no changes to
other proven RPP programs when it comes up for review in November.
4. Disclose any expected impact on neighborhood parking and traffic that might be caused
by commercial district “parklets” that require the elimination of some parking capacity
to allow businesses to use sidewalk space for their operations. The City must clearly
state the expected duration of such “parklets” prior to their approval and
implementation. Affected neighborhoods should be consulted and options for reducing
the negative impact on neighborhoods be considered.
5. Establish a timeline to apply technology currently applied to RPPs to both University
Avenue and California Avenue commercial districts. This includes the Permit
Management System and modern enforcement technology.
6. Develop a timeline to implement modern signage technology in all garages in
Downtown and California Avenue. Without signage indicating available parking spaces,
commercial district parking utilization will be sub-optimal especially at night and mid-
day if parklets reduce parking capacity.
5
Recommended Medium Term Actions:
1. The City must clearly and transparently state its goals for any parking program.3 Until
we agree on a set of objectives, we cannot design a system to meet them nor agree on
actions to take. In addition, the City must clearly and transparently state the
assumptions on which its proposed actions depend, i.e., assumptions regarding
increased housing that is under-parked, construction of additional commercial office
space that is under-parked, commuting patterns, plans for alternative, i.e., non-auto,
means of transportation, etc.
Staff must develop a set of standards against which to measure the impact of parking
loads on residential neighborhoods. Capacity utilization is not, and should not be, the
sole measure of quality of life. The success of an established RPP should not be
measured by high permit sales and occupancy levels. The goal of an RPP is to lower
occupancy levels and improve other quality of life indicators. RPP continuation should
not be contingent on occupancy levels nor the number of residential permits AFTER the
program is put in place.
2. Pricing policies are critically important. The City should publish the current fee
schedules for all RPPS and establish updates that encourage parking in commercial
garages and discourages commercial parking in residential neighborhoods. The City
should develop a timeline to present integrated pricing policies for residential
neighborhoods and commercial zones. In particular, we support the following
statement in the staff report to the PTC:
“Consider increasing the cost of an RPP employee parking permit so that it
is greater than the cost of a reserved space in a garage or lot, in order to
incentivize parkers to choose off-street parking over on-street parking.”
3. City staff should be responsible for measuring and managing any increase in the parking
load generated by ADUs, Airbnb, and new housing that is under-parked. Policies for the
inclusion of residents of under-parked housing developments must be developed and
explicitly stated. The currently being constructed “car-lite” development on the corner
of Oregon Expressway and El Camino Real was approved with the understanding that
residents would not be eligible for RPP permits.
4. In situations such as the Downtown RPP that experiences substantial intrusion of non-
resident permit parking, the City should develop a reduction program to systematically
reduce non-resident permits by 10% per year over a 5 to 8-year time period. When City
3 One recent Staff report to the City Council notes an objective to “maximize the available parking” in residential
neighborhoods. It is unclear exactly what is meant by that statement, but if this refers to maximizing the parking
that occurs in neighborhoods, it appears to be antithetical to protecting the quality of life in those areas.
6
parking garage capacity is available and/or new garages built, reduction of non-resident
permits can be accelerated.
5. Reconsider efforts directed toward transportation demand management programs.
TDM reforms can be deferred due to budget and staffing constraints, but it is important
to be on record that all past Council and Staff TDM efforts have been purely aspirational
and political fluff. TDMs must hold property owners and tenants accountable with
carrots and sticks.
6. Since transportation and traffic are top priorities of the City Council, the Office of
Transportation should outline its ability to address neighborhood traffic in FY 2020-21
and FY 2021-22. This summary should be available during the mid-year review of FY
2020-21 budgets.
7. The PTC and City Council should embrace a thorough review of commercial parking
demand created by City ordnances and by the unwritten application of parking
“benefits” granted to Parking Assessment Districts. The discriminatory privileges of PAD
commercial properties versus non-PAD properties needs the light of day. The City
Council should schedule a study session in 2020 to understand and disclose the
unwritten privileges granted to property owners within Parking Assessment Districts.
8. For over ten years, Staff and Council have failed to respond to residents’ pleas that
lower income workers deserve access to advantages of publicly-owned and operated
city garages and surface lots. If the Council sincerely wants to give support to struggling
businesses and employees of goods and services retailers, a new pricing policy can easily
be adopted. Denying lower income workers access to commercial core parking is
inappropriate in light of the steep curve of business recovery.
9. With respect to automatic renewal of all permits in residential and commercial areas,
the City must create a verification process for proof of employment and
income. Gaming of permits has commenced and may increase.
10. As under-parked housing is added within commercial districts, what is the policy for
those residents and guests to be denied or given reliable access to parking within the
district itself? What is City policy governing commercial tenants being priced out of
their on-site parking? Examples are hiding in plain sight now.
Attachment B. It is a current list of parking exceptions, exemptions and variances
allowed for commercial and housing development. This is small sample of parking-lite
incentives. The theory is that public transportation is available and acceptable to the
majority of workers in Palo Alto. The sustainability goals are laudable but unproven.
11. Many new housing developments within the commercial cores do not provide sufficient
on-site parking. There is a pattern of excluding these residents from commercial core
7
parking and acquiring resident permits. Owners and tenants of these housing
properties have rights to buy residential parking permits to park anywhere in the
RPP. Should the commercial cores be taken out of the RPP boundaries and compete for
available parking in the core? There is a pattern of renters being denied parking
privileges or being priced out.
12. The Downtown RPP zones should be aligned with physical and long-established
neighborhoods. Currently, Zones 4 – 8 extend beyond the downtown business core and
cross Middlefield Road into the Crescent Park neighborhood. These zones should be re-
aligned with both commercial and neighborhood boundaries, and all of Crescent Park
should be resident only parking.
13. On residential blocks where the city has eliminated on-street parking (e.g. some blocks
of University, all of Middlefield, and likely more) the city should ensure residents of
these blocks get a minimum of two free parking permits to be used near their homes.
The Bigger Picture Awaits
Two mega trends may become obvious within a year. First, what are the assumptions
regarding the degree to which the Palo Alto workforce will take public transportation? Can Palo
Alto’s bias for higher paid workers rely on the assumption of substantial use of public
transit. This may not mean a return to heavy SOV, but it does suggest major changes in private
transit.
Second, work-from-home may be substantial and permanent on the Peninsula and South
Bay. This may result in a surplus of Class A office space and property tax reassessment. Within
a year we could see negative impact on city property tax receipts. There may be an opportunity
to convert office buildings to housing and rethink housing in Stanford Research Park.
Respectfully Submitted:
Allen Akin, Professorville
Neilson Buchanan, Downtown North
Wolfgang Dueregger, Evergreen Park
John Guislin, Crescent Park
Paul Machado, Evergreen Park
Chris Robell, Old Palo Alto
Carol Scott, Evergreen Park
1996 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
1996
January 2010
History of RPP in Palo Alto
Council will set RPP rules
April 1, 2018
July 2014
July 2017
How the Can was Kicked Down
the Road
Feb. 26, 2018
New RPP year begins
Stakeholder Group 1st meetingMarch 20, 2013
Downtown RPP Trial begins
October,2015
College TerraceResident OnlyRPP Implemented
More discussions with residents & businesses2012 -2013Professorville RPP DOA2011-2012
Professorville RPP halted in favor of Parking Mgmt Strategies
July 2012
PA Weekly Editorial
Kicking the can down the road -again DTN Stakeholder Group halted
Phase 2 of Downtown RPP beginsApril,2016
Residential areas near downtown surveyed for RPPNo action taken
Crescent Park No Overnight Parking TrialAugust 2013
2nd Year Downtown RPP Non-resident permits reduced but still exceed demandApril 2017
Audit by residents reveals permits oversold by @250
November 2012
Evergreen Park petitions for RPPlike College Terr.
July 2015
College Terrace RPP
Professorville RPP
Downtown RPP
Evergreen Park RPP
Crescent Park No Overnight Parking
April 2017
Evergreen Park RPP launches
ATTACHMENT A
Source: Presentation to Palo Alto City Council by Neilson Buchanan and John Guislin, February,2018, p. 2
ATTACHMENT B
Staff Report ID #11042
Planning and Transportation Commission
Meeting Parking Adjustments
May 27, 2020
Packet Pages 88-91
20200407 Ord Amending 18.52 and 18.54 5
(9) Motorcycle parking shall not count towards the vehicle parking
requirements outlined in Tables 1 and 2.
[. . .]
SECTION 5. Section 18.52.045 (Minor Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities) of Chapter
18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby added as follows:
18.52.045 Minor Adjustments to Existing Parking Facilities
The following minor adjustments may be made to existing parking facilities that are
intended to remain in substantially the same form after restriping.
(a) Accessibility and EVSE-related equipment. For sites with existing development, the
number on-site parking spaces may be reduced to the minimum extent necessary to: (1)
achieve state or federally mandated accessibility requirements or (2) permit installation
of electrical utility equipment required for EVSE. A maximum of 10% of the existing
automobile parking stalls, or one stall, whichever is greater, may be removed pursuant
to this section. The loss of a parking space is not permitted to accommodate EVSE itself.
To the greatest extent feasible, electrical equipment required for EVSE shall be placed in
a location that minimizes visibility from the public right of way.
(b) Substitution of bicycle parking. For sites with existing development, at least two
existing automobile parking spaces, up to a maximum of 10% of the existing automobile
parking stalls, may be replaced by long- or short-term bicycle parking facilities. A
minimum of four long-term or eight short-term bicycle parking spaces per automobile
parking space will be required. The bicycle parking spaces are to be located in the same
physical location as the automobile spaces they are replacing, which shall be near
primary entries of the building on-site or in locations that meet best practices for bicycle
parking facilities.
SECTION 6. Table 4 (Allowable Parking Adjustments) of Section 18.52.050 (Adjustments by the
Director) of Chapter 18.52 (Parking and Loading Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby
amended as follows:
18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director
[. . .]
Table 4
Allowable Parking Adjustments
4.b
Packet Pg. 88
20200407 Ord Amending 18.52 and 18.54 6
Purpose of
Adjustment
Amount of Adjustment Maximum Reduction 2
On-Site Employee
Amenities
Square footage of commercial or
industrial uses to be used for an on-site
cafeteria, recreational facility, and/or
day care facility, to be provided to
employees or their children and not
open to the general public, may be
exempted from the parking
requirements
100% of requirement for
on-site employee
amenities
Joint Use (Shared)
Parking Facilities
For any site or sites with multiple uses
where the application of this chapter
requires a total of or more than ten (10)
spaces, the total number of spaces
otherwise required by application of
Table 1 may be reduced when the joint
facility will serve all existing, proposed,
and potential uses as effectively and
conveniently as would separate parking
facilities for each use or site. In making
such a determination, the director shall
consider a parking analysis using criteria
developed by the Urban Land Institute
(ULI) or similar methodology to estimate
the shared parking characteristics of the
proposed land uses. The analysis shall
employ the city's parking ratios as the
basis for the calculation of the base
parking requirement and for the
determination of parking requirements
for individual land uses. The director
may also require submittal and approval
of a TDM program 1 to further assure
parking reductions are achieved.
20% of total spaces
required for the site
100% Affordable
Housing (4)
Based on maximum anticipated
demand; applicant may request up to a
100% reduction in parking.
Affordable Housing
Units and Single Room
Occupancy (SRO) Units
(3)
The total number of spaces required
may be reduced for affordable housing
and single room occupancy (SRO) units,
commensurate with the reduced
parking demand created by the housing
facility, including for visitors and
accessory facilities. The reduction shall
consider proximity to transit and
support services and the director may
a. 40% for
Extremely Low
Income and SRO
Units
b. 30% for Very Low
Income Units
c. 20% for Low
Income Units
4.b
Packet Pg. 89
20200407 Ord Amending 18.52 and 18.54 7
Purpose of
Adjustment
Amount of Adjustment Maximum Reduction 2
require traffic demand management
measures1 in conjunction with any
approval.
Housing Near Transit
Facilities
The total number of spaces required
may be reduced for housing located
within a designated Pedestrian/Transit
Oriented area or elsewhere in
immediate proximity to public
transportation facilities serving a
significant portion of residents,
employees, or customers, when such
reduction will be commensurate with
the reduced parking demand created by
the housing facility, including for visitors
and accessory facilities, and subject to
submittal and approval of a TDM
program.1
20% of the total spaces
required for the site.
Transportation and
Parking Alternatives
Where effective alternatives to
automobile access are provided, other
than those listed above, parking
requirements may be reduced to an
extent commensurate with the
permanence, effectiveness, and the
demonstrated reduction of off-street
parking demand effectuated by such
alternative programs. Examples of such
programs may include, but are not
limited to, transportation demand
management (TDM) programs, or
innovative parking pricing, increased
bicycle or motorcycle access, or design
solutions.1 (note: landscape reserve
requirement is deleted).
20% of the total spaces
required for the site5
Combined Parking
Adjustments
Parking reductions may be granted for
any combination of the above
circumstances as prescribed by this
chapter, subject to limitations on the
combined total reduction allowed.
a. 30% reduction of the
total parking demand
otherwise required
b. 40% reduction for
affordable housing
projects
Modification to Off-
Street Loading
Requirements
The director may modify the quantity or
dimensions of off-street loading
requirements for non-residential
development based on existing or
proposed site conditions; availability of
One loading space may
be waived
4.b
Packet Pg. 90
20200407 Ord Amending 18.52 and 18.54 8
Purpose of
Adjustment
Amount of Adjustment Maximum Reduction 2
alternative means to address loading
and unloading activity; and, upon
finding that: 1) the off-street loading
requirement may conflict with
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies
related to site design planning,
circulation and access, or urban design
principles; and 2) the use of shared on-
street loading would not conflict with
Comprehensive Plan goals and policies
related to site design planning,
circulation and access or urban design
principles; maximum reduction in one
loading space.
Restriping Existing
Parking Facilities
Existing parking facilities may be
restriped in accordance with applicable
provisions of the municipal code. The
Director may approve a reduction in the
number of required on-site parking
management objectives, make
improvements to on-site circulation, or
bring substandard parking stalls into
compliance with current design
requirements. This provision applies
only to sites with existing structures and
existing parking facilities that are
intended to remain in substantially the
same form after re-striping of the
facility.
10% of the total spaces
required for the site, or
2 spaces, whichever is
greater.
(1) See Section 18.52.050(d) below regarding requirements for TDM programs.
(2) No parking reductions may be granted that would result in provision of less than
ten (10) parking spaces on site, except for 100% affordable housing projects.
(3) No parking reductions may be granted for projects that are entitled to the
reduced parking standards in Table 1 of Section 18.52.040 for senior housing.
(4) Applies to 100% affordable housing projects and the residential component of
100% affordable housing mixed-
used herein means a multiple-family housing project consisting entirely of
affordable units, as defined in Section 16.65.020 of this code, available only to
households with income levels at or below 120% of the area median income, as
4.b
Packet Pg. 91
9
Baumb, Nelly
From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org>
Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 1:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: Today’s council meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
> On May 26, 2020, at 1:05 PM, Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> wrote:
>
>
> This meeting occurs while I’m away.
> I recommend that you have city appropriations delayed until next year when the government issues new legislation.
>
> That includes new construction but does not include finishing up complete work. In particular, we must ensure the
new construction is available for a variety of sizes when they return with a package.
>
> Best regards,
> Arthur
>
10
Baumb, Nelly
From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 12:00 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lait, Jonathan
Subject:Disturbing situation at Channing House
Attachments:timeline summary 052520.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I want to make you all aware of a very troubling situation at Channing House where a macro cell tower has been
operating since 2007 without disclosure to residents or employees until just this past week.
Please see the letter below that I sent to Dr. Cody, our county public health official, regarding the backgound. I know
this cell tower is on a senior facility that is private property, but it is nonetheless something that will be garnering
significant attention so thought you should be aware of it given it is part of our community.
If you would like to see the correspondence that Channing House management sent to residents, please let me know
and I will share with you.
I feel strongly the seniors deserve the same protections (e.g., setbacks) as the rest of us. Please let me know if you have
any ideas on how to remedy this situation.
Best regards,
Chris Robell
Old Palo Alto resident
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>
Subject: Potential Danger to Seniors
Date: May 25, 2020 at 5:34:25 PM PDT
To: sara.cody@hhs.co.santa‐clara.ca.us
Cc: Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>
Dear Dr. Cody,
First, thank you for all your efforts with Covid‐19. I’m sure you are swamped but nonetheless am hoping
to get your help with a safety concern regarding Channing House, a senior residence facility in Palo
Alto. There is a macro cell tower installed on the roof at Channing House, a senior resident facility in
Palo Alto, just above the heads of over 200 residents who live there, including my parents. Placement
atop Channing House is unique in that there are no known cell towers permitted on the premises of any
other senior residences, schools, or hospitals in the area.
Channing House sought permission from the City and entered into a lease agreement with T‐Mobile in
11
2007 whereby they allowed a macro cell tower to be installed on their roof for which they receive
monthly lease payments from T‐Mobile. Channing House has not disclosed the existence of this macro
cell tower to its occupants or prospective occupants until this week. I serendipitously learned of the
existence of the macro cell tower (through the city) in March 2019 and immediately expressed concerns
to Channing House management regarding the lack of disclosure and potential health impacts to
residents. Of note, there have been several troubling resident deaths (brain cancers, lymphoma,
suicide), specifically from Channing House residents living on higher floors near the macro cell tower just
in the couple years. My dad has suffered from a neurological condition, and his doctor (Dr. Amy Adams
at Palo Alto Medical Foundation) has not ruled out the macro cell tower as a cause of his prolonged
issue.
Several folks, including my mother and I, have been attempting to get the equipment removed to no
avail. Channing House management says they are unable to terminate the T‐Mobile lease that lasts until
2032.
As you know, there is widespread concern regarding possible health impacts of cell towers placed in
close proximity to residence, schools, and hospitals. Hundreds of residents in Palo Alto have banded
together to express concerns regarding potential health impacts and placement of proposed 5G “small
cell nodes” (which emit much less power than a macro cell tower). And, despite legal challenges
regarding placement on public right‐of‐way, the City of Palo Alto has agreed to impose some setbacks
for residences, schools and hospitals. I hope you agree that setbacks are appropriate for seniors as
well.
Senator Richard Blumenthal has said we are flying blind with respect to health and safety of 5G, and
wireless equipment needs to be proven to be safe (not the other way around). He and Congresswoman
Anna Eshoo have proposed legislation to ensure safety of 5G, but that can take awhile.
The attached timetable gives an overview of the sequence of events. And I obviously have many more
details and findings regarding potential health concerns shared with Channing House if interested.
Given lack of safety assurances by anyone, it would seem appropriate that this equipment be removed
or at least relocated to the same distance away as is in effect for schools, hospitals and non‐senior
residences. Seniors deserve the same respect and treatment.
Is this something you can help with? I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you,
Chris Robell
Cell: 650‐245‐7395
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>
Subject: Potential Danger to Seniors
Date: May 25, 2020 at 5:34:25 PM PDT
To: sara.cody@hhs.co.santa‐clara.ca.us
Cc: Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>
Dear Dr. Cody,
First, thank you for all your efforts with Covid‐19. I’m sure you are swamped but nonetheless am hoping
to get your help with a safety concern regarding Channing House, a senior residence facility in Palo
Alto. There is a macro cell tower installed on the roof at Channing House, a senior resident facility in
12
Palo Alto, just above the heads of over 200 residents who live there, including my parents. Placement
atop Channing House is unique in that there are no known cell towers permitted on the premises of any
other senior residences, schools, or hospitals in the area.
Channing House sought permission from the City and entered into a lease agreement with T‐Mobile in
2007 whereby they allowed a macro cell tower to be installed on their roof for which they receive
monthly lease payments from T‐Mobile. Channing House has not disclosed the existence of this macro
cell tower to its occupants or prospective occupants until this week. I serendipitously learned of the
existence of the macro cell tower (through the city) in March 2019 and immediately expressed concerns
to Channing House management regarding the lack of disclosure and potential health impacts to
residents. Of note, there have been several troubling resident deaths (brain cancers, lymphoma,
suicide), specifically from Channing House residents living on higher floors near the macro cell tower just
in the couple years. My dad has suffered from a neurological condition, and his doctor (Dr. Amy Adams
at Palo Alto Medical Foundation) has not ruled out the macro cell tower as a cause of his prolonged
issue.
Several folks, including my mother and I, have been attempting to get the equipment removed to no
avail. Channing House management says they are unable to terminate the T‐Mobile lease that lasts until
2032.
As you know, there is widespread concern regarding possible health impacts of cell towers placed in
close proximity to residence, schools, and hospitals. Hundreds of residents in Palo Alto have banded
together to express concerns regarding potential health impacts and placement of proposed 5G “small
cell nodes” (which emit much less power than a macro cell tower). And, despite legal challenges
regarding placement on public right‐of‐way, the City of Palo Alto has agreed to impose some setbacks
for residences, schools and hospitals. I hope you agree that setbacks are appropriate for seniors as
well.
Senator Richard Blumenthal has said we are flying blind with respect to health and safety of 5G, and
wireless equipment needs to be proven to be safe (not the other way around). He and Congresswoman
Anna Eshoo have proposed legislation to ensure safety of 5G, but that can take awhile.
The attached timetable gives an overview of the sequence of events. And I obviously have many more
details and findings regarding potential health concerns shared with Channing House if interested.
Given lack of safety assurances by anyone, it would seem appropriate that this equipment be removed
or at least relocated to the same distance away as is in effect for schools, hospitals and non‐senior
residences. Seniors deserve the same respect and treatment.
Is this something you can help with? I look forward to hearing from you.
Thank you,
Chris Robell
Cell: 650‐245‐7395
Channing House Macro Cell Tower
Timeline and Summary
May 24, 2020
2007 – Channing House (CH) signs contract with T-Mobile permitting macro
cell tower on roof of building housing approximately 200 seniors. There was
no disclosure to the CH residents of the existence of antennae.
2018 - present – Hundreds of Palo Alto residents express concern to Palo
Alto City Council of danger of emissions radiating from small cell nodes
throughout neighborhoods. City Council imposes restrictions on telecom
companies specifying distances away from schools, homes and hospitals.
March 2019 – CH resident discovered that we have a far more potent
installation on the top of our building where seniors live 24/7 and a staff of
about 100 is employed.
March 2019 – October 2019: Concerned residents began forwarding
information to Channing House Administration outlining research showing
potential adverse health effects from exposure to emission. That includes
cancer, autism, depression, sleep disorder, immune dysfunction, and
fertility issues. Other studies sent show the FCC permits far higher radiation
exposure than most of the rest of the world.
August, 2019 – CH Administration informed concerned residents that “The
lease was executed in 2007 with automatic 5-year renewals. The current
renewal period expires in 2022 with no opportunity for early termination.”
November 21, 2019 – CH residents presented their case to Board of
Trustees requesting building antennae be disconnected ASAP, but no later
than the renewal date in 2022. Concerned resident requested disclosure of
existence of cell towers to all residents, prospective residents and
employees of CH.
January 16, 2020 – T-Mobile made presentation to the CH Board of
Trustees.
-2-
May 22, 2020 - CH Executive Director and CEO announced to all CH
residents the decision CH Board had taken. The termination date for the
lease was now cited as March 2032 - (not 2022) which would be the earliest
date when CH could terminate the lease. CH management informed all
residents that T-Mobile is permitted to terminate the lease every five years,
but CH has no such termination right.
Further, the Board hired a wireless communication industry consultant
(Hammett and Edison) who assured CH Administration and the Board of
Trustees that the emissions are well within the guidelines set by the FCC.
However, these guidelines were set in 1996 and have not been updated.
In February 2019 at a Senate Commerce hearing, Senator Blumenthal
raised concerns on 5G wireless technology potential health risks, saying “So
there really is no research ongoing. We are kind of flying blind here as far as
heath and safety are concerned here.” Rep. Anna Eshoo and Senator
Richard Blumenthal are working to update and review these restrictions.
13
Baumb, Nelly
From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Sent:Tuesday, May 26, 2020 11:48 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:tonight's council meeting re modifcations to zoning code
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Council Members,
Tonight you will hear a staff recommendation for a proposal for “Modifications to local zoning
regulations …. [in order to] streamline application review, reducing the amount of time staff
spends on each project and with public engagement.”
This would make it easier and faster – and cheaper! – for developers to push projects through
the review process and would deny residents a chance for input. It’s an end run around our
zoning codes
We already have a problem with development fees not covering all the impacts of their
projects, from schools to roads.
Please reject this recommendation.
Sincerely,
Pat Marriott Palo Alto property owner
14
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jeffrey Brown <jbrownconnect@aol.com>
Sent:Monday, May 25, 2020 5:13 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Golf at Baylands
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
I was just informed that golf at Baylands is continuing to be restricted to individual play through June. This is an
uninformed and incredibly stupid decision. Please tell me how this decision was reached and on what data it is based.
Other courses in Santa Clara county have opened, with modifications, and allow 4 players, as is usual, in a group. Is
there a surge of corona virus cases in Palo Alto? Has the county health officer mandated this restriction? Or does the
council just not care?
Jeffrey H Brown, MD
Palo Alto, CA
Sent from my iPhone
Redacted
15
Baumb, Nelly
From:Halpern-laff Amy <amy.halpern-laff@greenmonday.org>
Sent:Monday, May 25, 2020 3:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Sustainable, safe food
Attachments:2020-4-7faithtrifold.pdf; FFACparenttrifold.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Mayor Fine and Council Memers,
I hope this finds you well.
Given the role industrial ag plays in pandemics, I hope Palo Alto will join Mountain View and other area cities in
launching some sort of educational program for all residents (individuals and organizations). It could take any form, but
people need to be able to make informed menu choices.
In case you missed this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/21/opinion/coronavirus‐meat‐
vegetarianism.html?fbclid=IwAR3AoXRAS9rD2gnwVDdouj5SbiuyKFxGFu4ktHt2GKraegGrEIVC6GAyG8k
I’m attaching brochures I created for parents and faith communities, respectively.
Respectfully, Amy Amy Halpern-Laff Director, Strategic Partnerships greenmondayus.org amy@greenmondayus.org (650) 665-0266 (text/voice)
Palo Alto
Redacted
Learn more.
sabbath@greenmondayus.org
greenmondayus.org/sunday
greenmondayus.org/shabbat
+1 (650) 665-0266 text/VM
A simple and impactful
program for your
church, synagogue, or
faith community
A values-based initiative for
communities of faith and
spirit.
On your sabbath,serve or
share foods that reflect your
values.
Stewardship
Compassion
Justice
green sabbath
HOW TO DO GREEN SABBATH YOUR VALUES IN ACTION
STEWARDSHIP
Curb Climate Change By eliminating animal products from sabbath
meals, you can greatly reduce your community’s greenhouse gas
emissions. Globally, growing animals for food emits more greenhouse
gases than the entire transportation sector.
JUSTICE
Safeguard Workers Factory farm and slaughterhouse workers, mostly
poor immigrants with limited English skills, are among our most
exploited laborers.
COMPASSION
Reduce Farmed Animal Suffering In the US, 99% of domesticated
animals are bred in factory farms, crowded, often filthy, facilities,
where animals are routinely mutilated and bred to grow unnaturally
fast and large, causing painful deformities.
Green your menus
On the day you come together
as a community, serve or share
delicious plant-based foods.
Inform your community
Educate members about the
devastating impacts of animal
agriculture on the planet,
marginalized humans, and
animals.
Resources and recipes
You’ll find everything you need
—posters, flyers, videos, book
lists, recipe sites, and more —at
greenmondayus.org/resources.
Save Land and Water Growing plants for people to eat is far less
resource-intensive than growing plants to feed animals for human
consumption.
Protect Neighborhoods People who live near factory farms endure the
constant stench of animal feces and urine stored in vast open pits and
suffer elevated rates of serious illness.
Protect Native Animals Destruction of forests and pastures to graze
livestock and grow feed for them leaves countless native animals
homeless and hungry.
info@ffacoalition.org
ffacoalition.org/parents
and the planet from the harmful
effects of factory farms.
Serve nutritious pant-based
meals your family will love!
Factory Farming Awareness Coalition
inspires and empowers individuals and
institutions to create a more just,
compassionate,and sustainable food
system.
Simply by serving plant-rich meals,you can help keep your family
healthy and the planet habitable for our children.
Prevent food-related disease
Studies show a clear link between high intake of meat and heart disease, stroke,
and diabetes.
Reduce cancer risk
Studies link dairy to an increased risk of breast, ovarian, and prostate cancers.
Avoid excess antibiotics
In the US, 80% of antibiotics are given to animals in factory farms, and most meat
is contaminated with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Get your nutrients
You can get plenty of protein, calcium, and iron from healthful plant-based foods.
Maintain a healthy weight
Plant-based foods are naturally higher in fiber and nutrient density than animal
products.
Slow global warming
Worldwide, animal agriculture emits more GHG than cars, planes, trains, and ships
combined!
Save water
Switching from a hamburger to a veggie burger − just once! − saves as much water
as a month’s worth of showers!
Conserve land
One acre of land can produce 20 pounds of beef protein or 656 pounds of soybean
protein.
Prevent pollution
As animal manure decomposes, it emits toxic fumes and runs off into rivers and
streams.
Preserve biodiversity
Rainforests, home to half the world’s species, are being destroyed, mostly to clear
land to graze cows and grow their feed.
Green your meals
Serve your family more
vegetables, fruits, whole grains,
and legumes.
ffacoalition.org/recipes-nutrition
Learn together
Discover the benefits of plant-
based meals to your family’s
health and fitness.
ffacoalition.org/learn
Educate your community
Schedule a presentation for
your PTA or parent group.
ffacoalition.org/request
16
Baumb, Nelly
From:Nat Fisher <sukiroo@hotmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 25, 2020 12:00 PM
To:Library Circulation; Library Commission; Shikada, Ed
Cc:Council, City
Subject:curbside pickup
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I read that some library has curbside pickup for books.
That sounds like a good idea to me. Will you consider doing that? One can drop off books
and then pick up books on hold at the curb.
Natalie Fisher
17
Baumb, Nelly
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Monday, May 25, 2020 11:39 AM
To:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan; Council, City; Planning Commission; French, Amy; Lait,
Jonathan
Subject:attachment
Attachments:Item 5a 2 Attachment A Presentation v4.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
RHNA allocation criteria
Update on Regional Housing Needs
Allocation (RHNA) and Regional
Early Action Program (REAP)
ABAG Regional
Planning Committee
May 6, 2020
RHNA Update: Housing
Methodology Committee
ABAG Regional Planning
Committee
May 6, 2020
COVID-19 Pandemic + Likely Recession:
Near-Term versus Longer-Term Impacts
•RHNA: planning for ongoing need for housing at all income levels
•Requests for flexibility: delay of RHNA implementation requires action by the State
•ABAG will elevate local government concerns with state agencies and legislators
3
TODAY NEXT 1 TO 5 YEARS THROUGH 2030
PANDEMIC (LIKELY) RECESSION RECOVERY
Image Sources: CDC; Yahoo Finance; Flickr
HMC materials from March & April
•March HMC meeting:
•What we heard from community-based organizations
•Results of local jurisdiction survey
•Plan Bay Area 2050 update
•Continuing discussion of methodology factors
•Materials sent in April
•Fair housing report
•Summary of methodology options from March meeting
•Revised RHNA schedule
4
CBO outreach: what community members said
•More housing needed everywhere for everyone
•Support for additional housing in high resource areas, with concerns
•Emphasis on linking jobs to housing and getting communities that haven’t
stepped up to do more
•Housing near transit is good, but transit availability, reliability, safety and cost
are concerns
•Need for funding/financing for affordable housing, re-invest in communities
that are under-resourced and support new with resources/services
•Important to enforce RHNA plans with incentives or penalties to ensure housing 5
Local jurisdiction survey: housing and land use
•Jobs-housing fit: 85% stated their jurisdiction is imbalanced or very imbalanced
•No regional consensus about opportunities
•#1 constraint: construction costs (87% of respondents)
•Other constraints cited by a majority: availability of vacant land, funding
for affordable housing, availability of construction workforce, land
suitability, and availability of surplus public land
•Primary challenges to affordable housing: lack of local gap financing and
available land
6
Local jurisdiction survey: fair housing
•Top factors contributing to fair housing issues
•Displacement of low-income and/or person-of-color (POC) residents
•Community opposition to development
•Lack of affordable housing, especially larger units
•Land use/zoning laws
7
Methodology factors: overview
•March meeting: small group discussion to choose factors, assign weights to
create methodology options
•Staff facilitators guided members through use of online visualization tool:
https://rhna-factors.mtcanalytics.org/
8
Methodology factors: top options
9
30% Equity
●Access to High-Opportunity Areas
60% Jobs
●Jobs Proximity -Auto
●Jobs-Housing Balance
10% Hazards
60% Equity
●Access to High-Opportunity Areas
20% Jobs
●Jobs-Housing Fit
10% Hazards
10% Transit
50% Equity
●Access to High-Opportunity Areas
40% Jobs
●Jobs Proximity -Transit
●Jobs-Housing Balance
●Jobs-Housing Fit
●Future Jobs
10% Transit
Comparison of three methodology options that received most votes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Methodology factors: top options
10
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Alameda Contra Costa Marin Napa San Francisco San Mateo Santa Clara Solano Sonoma
Housing / Jobs CrescentCode Red to Address Housing NeedBalanced Equity - Job - TransportationABAG RHNA Cycle 5 (2013)Plan Bay Area 2040 (2017) Household Growth
Methodology factors: top options
11
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Bayside Big Three Inland, Delta and Coastal Unincorporated
Housing / Jobs Crescent
Code Red to Address Housing Need
Balanced Equity - Job - Transportation
ABAG RHNA Cycle 5 (2013)
Plan Bay Area 2040 (2017)
Revised RHNA timeline
12
Milestone Revised Deadline
HCD Regional Housing Need Determination Summer 2020
Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint July 2020
Proposed RHNA methodology, draft subregion shares Fall 2020
Plan Bay Area 2050 Final Blueprint December 2020
Final subregion shares December 2020
Draft RHNA methodology to HCD for review Winter 2021
Final RHNA methodology, draft allocation Spring 2021
RHNA appeals Summer 2021
Final Plan Bay Area 2050 September 2021
Final RHNA allocation Winter 2021
Housing Element due date January 2023
Dates are tentative and subject to change
RE
A
P
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
G
R
A
N
T
S
Regional Early Action Planning
Grants (REAP) Update
ABAG Regional Planning
Committee
May 6, 2020
RE
A
P
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
G
R
A
N
T
S
Deadlines & New Resources
6TH Cycle RHNA
2017 2019-2020 Summer 2020 Fall 2020 Spring 2021 Jan 2023
SB 2 Grants Direct to Local Jurisdictions 6/30/22
LEAP Grants Direct to Local Jurisdictions 12/31/23
REAP Grant to ABAG/MTC 12/31/23
HCD “Pro-Housing” Designation
Legislative
Housing
Package
Draft RHNA
Methodology to
HCD; Draft
Allocations
Proposed
RHNA
Methodology
RHND
from
HCD
Budget Act
(LEAP &
REAP)
Housing
Elements
Due
RE
A
P
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
G
R
A
N
T
S
SB 2
$24M
LEAP
$25.6M
REAP
$23.9M
Direct
Funding to
Local
Jurisdictions
Funding to
Regional
Government
State Funding to the Bay Area to plan for
housing
RE
A
P
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
G
R
A
N
T
S
REAP Basics
Background:
One-time regional funding to ABAG
To assist with implementation of
RHNA & accelerate housing
production
HCD Administration:
25% disbursement ($5.9M) to ABAG
pending contract with HCD.
ABAG must submit application for the
remaining 75% ($18M) by 1/31/2021.
Next Steps:
Spring 2020: Needs assessment
of local jurisdictions for next
Housing Element updates
Summer 2020: Program design
Fall 2020: Apply to HCD for
remaining 75%
By Early Winter 2020: Launch
new regional housing program
RE
A
P
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
G
R
A
N
T
S
ABAG/MTC
Committed to
Using REAP:
To enhance the RHNA process by
supporting the Housing Methodology
Committee and increasing engagement with
local electeds, staff, and stakeholders
To develop a new regional housing
technical assistance program
Technical assistance to jurisdictions to
develop compliant housing elements.
Technical assistance to support
community engagement strategies
related to “3 Ps” of housing: Protection,
Preservation, and Production
RE
A
P
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
G
R
A
N
T
S
What should a
regional housing
technical assistance
program look like?
Needs Assessment & Program Design
RE
A
P
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
G
R
A
N
T
S
Needs Assessment: Who We’ve Talked To
Outreach to Date:
ABAG General Assembly
League of Cities City Managers
Conference
Bay Area Planning Directors
Association (BAPDA) –Steering
Committee
Small group discussion with every
Planning Director in the Bay Area
Pre-existing county-based
Planning Directors’ meetings
Additional Outreach Planned:
Local Elected Officials via Mayors’
Conferences and League of Cities
Sub-regional Meetings (to the extent
feasible per COVID-19)
Webinars
Overview of REAP for Local Electeds
and General Public
Deep-dive on Housing Element Site
Selection process for Local Staff
Stakeholders and General Public
RE
A
P
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
G
R
A
N
T
S
Needs Assessment: What We’ve Heard
Collaborative & Cohort-Based
Approach
Knowledge sharing on policies and
best practices, site analysis and
strategies, funding, etc.
Tailored for variety of contexts
Regional Consultant Pool
Economies of scale
Reduced administrative burden on
local staff
Flexibility to craft locally-
appropriate policies and programs
Regional Coordination with HCD
Template Documents
Data Packets
Pre-Approved Site Feasibility
Analysis?
Housing Leadership Development
& Community Engagement
Data-Driven Messaging
Outreach and Education
Focus Groups and Listening Sessions
RE
A
P
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
G
R
A
N
T
S
Next step: RFP for Master Consultant
“ABAG seeks to retain a master consultant to assist with
its REAP program design, budgeting and implementation,
including the recruiting and oversight of additional
consultants.”
Proposals shall not exceed $200,000, however, proposals
may also include descriptions of additional proposed
services and pricing should additional funding become
available.
See https://MTC.bonfirehub.com for details.
Thank You
For more information contact
Gillian Adams, RHNA Manager, Regional Planning
gadams@bayareametro.gov
Heather Peters, REAP Manager, Regional Planning
hpeters@bayareametro.com
abag.ca.gov/our-work/rhna-regional-housing-needs-allocation
18
Baumb, Nelly
From:slevy@ccsce.com
Sent:Monday, May 25, 2020 11:25 AM
To:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan; Council, City; Planning Commission; French, Amy; Lait,
Jonathan
Subject:NVCAP, RHNA and Housing in Palo Alto
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear NVCAP working group members and city council and PTC members,
My two main points for NVCAP are
1) a high target for housing in the NVCAP planning area is essential for meeting our new RHNA targets
and unique among available places for a substantial increase in housing
2) Meeting our common goal to increase housing for low and moderate income residents can only be met
with some increases in density. It is the only way to get enough units and the only way to make projects
feasible.
My conversations with HCD staff indicate that they have enhanced enforcement powers but strongly prefer
that cities exercise local control to meet their housing targets.
As the process unfolds I encourage council and PTC members to consult with the planning director and city
council on these issues.
I will elaborate on these points after tying the NVCAP plan to our RHNA and housing element goals.
The language below is from the staff report for the PTC meeting on May 27, 2020 re ADUs. But the
essence applies to the North Ventura area. Both are critical pieces of the City's effort to develop a local
control plan that meets our Comp Plan and new RHNA targets.
From my professional work I know a good deal about the likely direction of new RHNA targets for Palo
Alto.
The state HCD is targeting early June for the release of the Bay Area RHNA determination letter. So it
should be known for the next NBCAP meeting in June.
Based on RHNA determinations for other regions and the new methodology that includes "catch up" for
overcrowded and cost burdened households, it is probable that the Bay Area RHNA will be 2 to 3 times
larger than the current one that Palo alto and most cities ares struggling to meet.
Based on the three options for allocating the regional total to cities (see slide 12 in the attachment) Palo
Alto will receive an above average share of the regional total as we are 1) a high amenity area and 2)
have a large excess of jobs over housing.
"ADUs provide much needed housing for Palo Altans and play a significant role in the City's efforts to meet
its Regional Housing Needs Allocation targets.
19
Staff expect ADU development will be advanced further in the upcoming Housing Element update. AB 671
requires that Housing Elements incentivize and promote the creation of ADUs at all income levels. As the
City prepares to develop and adopt an updated Housing Element (must be adopted by January 2023),
ADUs will play a large role."
There are several options before the NVCAP working group at this time. I encourage the working group to
refine and bring forward two or more substantial housing options.
It is important to remember a couple of points in developing these alternatives:
1) This is a long term plan and what particular members or landowners think is feasible in the next year to
two or three is irrelevant to the working group task or to the City's responsibility to make a best and extra
effort to make housing work.
2) The development math and the unit count math does not work without some increases in density
similar to the many beautiful 4 and 5 story buildings I see every day in my walks.
My final point is about making housing for low income residents (a major feature of the increased RHNA
totals) work in practice.
I encourage the working group to hear from staff at Alta Housing (the new name for PAH) and remember
what was needed to make Wilton Court possible. And that is getting sufficient density relative to parcel
size to make projects feasible and to maximize the number of deed restricted units associated with market
rate projects.
Stephen Levy
Director Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy
50 year resident of Palo Alto
20
Baumb, Nelly
From:Paulette Altmaier <paulette.altmaier@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, May 25, 2020 10:53 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Need to join 46 Counties in Restarting Economy: Context - Full-page Open Letter ad in MercuryNews
Attachments:Merc_DrCody_OpenLetter.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I am writing in the context of the full page Open Letter advocacy ad (pdf attached) I placed on Sat 23rd, on the back page of the Local Section of the San Jose Mercury News. I bring this up only as a mark of the extent to which I care about the cratering of our local economy.
The Open Letter highlights the key issues related to the County Health Officer's (Dr Cody's) unilateral decision to lag far behind what the State would permit based on our health metrics, which is imposing extreme financial hardship on thousands of small businesses and tens of thousands of workers in our County.
The County’s health case metrics qualify it to move to CA’s ‘Full Stage 2’, which includes in-store shopping and in-store dining, and would do much to resuscitate our local economy. I have provided key summary information below on State requirements vs our County status that shows that the County meets State requirements - by a mile.
46 Counties as of today have moved to Full Stage 2. Only Dr Cody’s unilateral insistence on indefinite delay stands in the way of reviving our economy.
Action Needed: To save our local businesses, Santa Clara County cities need to join together on an urgent, crisis time-frame to ask for Gov Newsom’s intervention to direct Cody to file the application to move to Full Stage 2. Only Gov. Newsom can change the picture in the near term.
Your urgent action is critical to save the County’s local businesses from collapse. Legislative fixes and legal remedies will take too long.
Please act - the future of our County and its cities depends on you.
---- Key Facts:
On May 18, Gov Newsom-announced new, highly reachable metrics for Counties to open up to ‘FULL stage 2’ on the State’s reopening plan, which includes in-store shopping and in-restaurant dining
Counties only need to file a Variance Attestation Form to get the green light for Full Stage 2 (See ‘County Variance’ Section at https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap/#top)
Gov. Newsom indicated that 53 of 58 counties met the state’s health case metrics to get the variance,
which are:
o 7-day case positivity rate: less than 8%
o 7-day daily average of hospitalization change: less than 5%
46 counties have moved to Full Stage 2, including San Diego on 5/21 and Orange County on 5/23. The list is here: https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/COVID-19/County_Variance_Attestation_Form.aspx
Bottom Line - across the state, county economies are reviving.
Due to a very badly-written State law, Health Officers in some counties, including our own, have asserted absolute control over every aspect of life in their counties, unchecked by local elected officials,
21
and are exhibiting tunnel vision of the most destructive kind. These health officers, including Dr Cody, are ignoring the enormous economic distress and well-documented permanent long-term health and
societal damage from their actions, and delaying reopening well beyond what the data indicates, and what the state permits.
Status in Santa Clara County:
Dr Cody has not even allowed all of ‘Early phase 2’, which includes curbside retail, reopening offices,
and Limited Services. San Mateo permitted all of these May 18. But in Santa Clara, ONLY curbside retail was allowed by Cody.
SCC easily meets the state case health metrics for FULL Stage 2 (see below)
Cody has provided no date for meaningful change - the May 18 changes were the most token change possible.
Bottom Line - Santa Clara is relentlessly and needlessly killing its local businesses, unlike other
counties in the state.
State Requirement SCC status
7-day case positivity rate Less than 8% Less than 1.5%
7-day daily average of hospitalization change Less than 5%Meets. Usually less than 2%
Sincerely,
Paulette Altmaier
Copyright (c)2020 The Mercury News, Edition. Please review new arbitration language here. 5/23/202Saturday, 05/23/2020 Page .B12
Paid advocacy advertisement
Dr. CODY, YOU OWE US ANSWERS
Open Letter to Dr. Sara Cody, Santa Clara County Health Officer
Dear Dr. Cody,
On March 16, you ordered the first Shelter-in-Place (SIP) for Santa Clara County. The rationale in
the Order was to "slow the spread" of COVID-19, to ensure our hospitals would not be over-run.
For the next month, as unemployment skyrocketed, and civil liberties were all but eliminated, we
cooperated. Then your SIP order was extended and made more draconian. And extended again,
with minimal modifications, through May.
Meanwhile, substantial case data has become available that indicates that a limited, clearly defined
slice of the population is at high risk, per the CDC and CA -those over 65, and those of any age
with serious cornorbidities.
County hospitals now have only about 3% of hospital beds and 6% of ICU beds occupied by
COVID-19 patients, and the 7-day average for positive cases is less than 1.5% of total tests. Only
about 100 people are hospitalized with COVID-19 in a county of 1.9 million people.
Yet your Public Health department is operating as though nothing has been learned and nothing
has changed.
Meanwhile, the economic damage from SIP is fearsome and mounting. Unemployment in California
has reached a Depression-era level of 25%, businesses are shuttering daily, families are going
hungry, and financial stress is reaching pandemic levels.
Mindful of these facts, on May 8 Governor Newsom permitted all counties to commence 'Early
Phase 2' Reopening and on May 18 provided reasonable metrics counties need to meet for FULL
Phase 2 Reopening, which allows all stores and restaurants to reopen.
Santa Clara County easily meets the state's hospitalization-trend and positive-test metrics. The
remaining criteria are based on the readiness of your Public Health Office to support reopening.
But you have not only set the bar higher than the state requires for further reopening, you are
making negligible progress towards meeting the targets which you have set, and for which you are
responsible. Your lack of performance is the sole reason SCC cannot reopen its small businesses
in a meaningful way. You are cratering our economy, and the longer your shutdown continues, the
greater and more permanent the damage becomes.
Since you are responsible for delaying reopening, you owe the people of Santa Clara County
answers to these basic questions:
• Please justify your insistence on lagging behind what the State permits, ignoring
local hardship.
Are you not aware of the need, cited by so many public health professionals and doctors, for
balance between imposing extreme long-term economic distress and the single issue you are
focused on? Poverty and stress also have significant impact on mortality and health. You claim
that "conditions haven't really changed in our county" due to the lack of "herd immunity and a
vaccine," yet everywhere else in the world it is recognized that this reasoning cannot be the
guiding principle in reopening. Other states and countries are also not seeing the "exponential
spread" you claim will occur on reopening.
• Please justify why your office has not achieved the level of testing you deem a prerequisite
to reopen, given the County is not using all its available test capacity.
SCC lags far behind other counties in meeting testing goals and has not set up an efficient,
coordinated testing network. Are County residents to lose their livelihoods because your office
is not competent to get its act together and achieve what you have deemed to be the needed
amount of testing prior to opening?
• Please justify why you still need additional weeks to hire the contact tracers you deem a
prerequisite to reopen.
Are County residents to suffer because your office lacks the creativity and needed sense of
urgency to meet your own metric, and has not aggressively leveraged the enormous resources
of Silicon Valley to achieve this goal?
•Are you willing to publicly commit to making the same financial sacrifices you are
imposing on others?
Your insistence on delay, your constantly moving goalposts, and your lack of urgency are causing
small business owners to lose their livelihoods and life savings, and countless others to face
long-term unemployment. You have a moral obligation to share the pain you are inflicting on
others by committing to permanently donate your salary and future pension towards the relief of
those you ara impoverishing. At present, you are leading from behind, totally insulated from the
impact of your own actions, and your salary and pension will be paid on the backs of the very
people you are impoverishing.
Public health officials all over the US are reopening their local economies. They are showing respect
for the financial needs, dignity, and civil liberties of Americans, and for the fact that poverty, financial
stress, and blighted futures are also killers, and have enormous long-term impacts on health and
wellbeing.
Your approach to reopening the economy and lack of execution towards targets are the cause of
continued immense hardship. You owe us answers to these basic questions.
Sincerely,
Paulette Altmaier
On Behalf of the Suffering Residents of Santa Clara County
Contact: paulette.altmaier@gmail.com
22
Baumb, Nelly
From:Omar Yacoubi <omar@omaryak.net>
Sent:Sunday, May 24, 2020 12:09 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Re: New mask ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Correction in the second paragraph—thanks!
Face shields are more effective than masks: a recent study found that surgical masks have no
effect when the user has covid-19 and coughs [4]. A face shield, meanwhile, blocks 96 percent
of droplets within 18 inches [6] because the surface is impermeable.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Omar Yacoubi <omar@omaryak.net>
Date: Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:56 PM
Subject: New mask ordinance
To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Hi!
I just heard about your new mask ordinance, and I think it’s great that you want to promote public health. However, the
ordinance is so specifically worded that it disallows the use of face shields as a proper face covering.
Face shields are more effective than masks: a recent study found that surgical masks have no effect when the user has
covid‐19 and coughs [4]. A face mask, meanwhile, blocks 96 percent of droplets within 18 inches [6] because the surface
is impermeable. I was surprised your ordinance required a permeable fabric covering, since cloth masks are 80‐97
percent ineffective, while surgical masks are typically about 50 percent effective [7].
The numbers above I have read in scientific studies, and I encourage you to review the scientific literature on the subject
and expand the ordinance to allow the use of face shields as a substitute for masks: they completely block oncoming
aerosols and droplets that represent the highest risk for covid‐19 transmission, and the user’s breath is directed
downward, onto the user’s chest and away from passersby.
Personally, I prefer a shield to a mask because it ensures proper ventilation, and it avoids direct contact of the nose and
mouth against another surface that can be contaminated by the virus, since even N95 masks don’t filter 100% of
aerosols and are ineffective against the virus itself. There are also people with disabilities who may not be able to use a
fabric mask, or are harmed by its use [9].
For your reference, below are [numbered] links I have been able to find online. Please let me know if you have any
questions, and thanks for reading!
Yours,
Omar
23
References:
[1] https://www.dezeen.com/2020/04/14/face‐shield‐coronavirus‐interview‐epidemiologist‐michael‐edmond
[2] https://www.fastcompany.com/90490440/face‐shields‐are‐even‐better‐than‐masks‐heres‐how‐to‐make‐your‐own
[3] https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=230978
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200430/face‐shields‐a‐more‐effective‐deterrent‐to‐covid#1
[4] https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/85814
[5] https://publichealth.uic.edu/news‐stories/commentary‐masks‐for‐all‐for‐covid‐19‐not‐based‐on‐sound‐data
[6] https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86273
[7] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/coronavirus‐what‐you‐should‐know‐diy‐masks‐and‐
ventilators
[8] https://www.businessinsider.com/why‐face‐shields‐may‐be‐better‐coronavirus‐tools‐than‐masks‐2020‐5
[9] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/masks‐problematic‐for‐asthmatic‐autistic‐hearing‐impaired‐people
P.S. Face masks may be made more effecitve in the future, but for now they are riskier:
https://www.fastcompany.com/90502704/scientists‐are‐racing‐to‐design‐a‐face‐mask‐that‐can‐rip‐coronavirus‐apart
24
Baumb, Nelly
From:Omar Yacoubi <omar@omaryak.net>
Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2020 11:57 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:New mask ordinance
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi!
I just heard about your new mask ordinance, and I think it’s great that you want to promote public health. However, the
ordinance is so specifically worded that it disallows the use of face shields as a proper face covering.
Face shields are more effective than masks: a recent study found that surgical masks have no effect when the user has
covid‐19 and coughs [4]. A face mask, meanwhile, blocks 96 percent of droplets within 18 inches [6] because the surface
is impermeable. I was surprised your ordinance required a permeable fabric covering, since cloth masks are 80‐97
percent ineffective, while surgical masks are typically about 50 percent effective [7].
The numbers above I have read in scientific studies, and I encourage you to review the scientific literature on the subject
and expand the ordinance to allow the use of face shields as a substitute for masks: they completely block oncoming
aerosols and droplets that represent the highest risk for covid‐19 transmission, and the user’s breath is directed
downward, onto the user’s chest and away from passersby.
Personally, I prefer a shield to a mask because it ensures proper ventilation, and it avoids direct contact of the nose and
mouth against another surface that can be contaminated by the virus, since even N95 masks don’t filter 100% of
aerosols and are ineffective against the virus itself. There are also people with disabilities who may not be able to use a
fabric mask, or are harmed by its use [9].
For your reference, below are [numbered] links I have been able to find online. Please let me know if you have any
questions, and thanks for reading!
Yours,
Omar
References:
[1] https://www.dezeen.com/2020/04/14/face‐shield‐coronavirus‐interview‐epidemiologist‐michael‐edmond
[2] https://www.fastcompany.com/90490440/face‐shields‐are‐even‐better‐than‐masks‐heres‐how‐to‐make‐your‐own
[3] https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=230978
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200430/face‐shields‐a‐more‐effective‐deterrent‐to‐covid#1
[4] https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/85814
[5] https://publichealth.uic.edu/news‐stories/commentary‐masks‐for‐all‐for‐covid‐19‐not‐based‐on‐sound‐data
[6] https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86273
[7] https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/2020/04/coronavirus‐what‐you‐should‐know‐diy‐masks‐and‐
ventilators
[8] https://www.businessinsider.com/why‐face‐shields‐may‐be‐better‐coronavirus‐tools‐than‐masks‐2020‐5
[9] https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/masks‐problematic‐for‐asthmatic‐autistic‐hearing‐impaired‐people
26
Baumb, Nelly
From:Amy Christel <amymchristel@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2020 5:29 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:5G considerations
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Council Members,
As you consider allowing multiple wireless companies to encroach on neighborhoods with more equipment, more noisy
fans, and unknown impacts on health, I ask that you proceed with caution and implement tight restrictions. Below are
standards that I believe strike the optimal balance between wireless company demands and residents' "public welfare":
No exception WCF 100‐foot setback from residential homes,
No‐exception WCF 1500‐foot setback from schools and daycare centers,
No‐exception 1,500 feet distancing between WCFs along residential streets
No‐exception maximum 45‐decibel noise levels from all WCFs.
Thank you for thinking of residents’ quality of life.
Sincerely,
Amy Christel
Midtown PA
Sent from my iPad
27
Baumb, Nelly
From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2020 1:47 PM
To:Council, City; PlanningCommission@cityofpaloalto.org; North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan
Cc:Shikada, Ed; Luong, Christine; Lait, Jonathan; Tanner, Rachael
Subject:How Will Americans Commute After Lockdowns End? - CityLab
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Palo Alto Elected Leaders and Staff,
I thought this would be of interest to you for short term and longer term planning purposes.
Thanks,
Gail Price
Barron Park
Palo Alto
https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2020/05/commute‐car‐traffic‐transit‐bike‐remote‐work‐
coronavirus/611365/
How Will Americans Commute After
Lockdowns End?
Will car traffic surge as lockdowns end, or will millions of
Americans decide to bike, walk, or work from home
permanently? Emerging research offers some hints.
Laura Bliss
@mslaurabliss
Feed
Laura Bliss is CityLab’s West Coast bureau chief. She also writes MapLab, a biweekly
newsletter about maps (subscribe here). Her work has appeared in The New York
Times, The Atlantic, Sierra, GOOD, Los Angeles, and elsewhere, including in the book
The Future of Transportation.
May 14, 2020
28
Traffic is light on Interstate 83 in Baltimore, but as lockdowns begin to lift, cars are
poised to come back. Alex Wroblewski/Bloomberg
More than zero, fewer than 45, ideally 16: Those are the number of minutes that
workers would prefer to spend commuting, according to various studies. Research
on travel behavior has consistently shown that people value the time it takes to get
from their homes to their jobs — for solitary thinking, catching up on email, or just
putting some distance, in time and space, between work and home lives.
Those preferences have been put to the test during the coronavirus pandemic, with
millions of global office workers commuting between rooms or pieces of bedroom
furniture rather than neighborhoods. Now, as coronavirus lockdowns loosen in
parts of the world, a divergent picture of the post-pandemic commute is emerging.
Peak rush-hour traffic in Shenzhen is roughly 10% over its 2019 baseline, while
congestion in Auckland, New Zealand, is creeping up every day. In North America,
gasoline demand is rising and cars are retaking the streets, while mass transit
ridership remains low and working from home is the status quo for 2020 (and
possibly onwards) at tech-forward employers such as Google, Facebook and Twitter.
Meanwhile, many cities are encouraging active commuting, opening emergency
routes for walking and biking during the pandemic; those concerned about rising
vehicle congestion, emissions, and fatalities are seeking ways to make those changes
permanent.
What will commutes look and feel like as offices reopen? Emerging research offers a
few hints.
Few commuters miss driving their cars
Given a taste of the work-from-home life, how many commuters will choose to stay
put? One online survey conducted in April and led by the University of Amsterdam
urban planning researcher Ori Rubin explored that and other questions among
workers who commuted regularly before the pandemic but are now toiling in their
abodes. Of the 1,014 surveyed, roughly half lived in the Netherlands; the rest were
split between France, Germany, the U.K. and the United States. Some 70% of
respondents had a master’s degree or higher, and they were evenly split by gender.
The results reaffirm old findings about the value of commutes, but they also indicate
that some people might shift to new travel modes if given the chance. About 69% of
respondents said that they missed some element of their commute, but their
answers varied dramatically depending on how — and how long — they traveled:
29
The longer it took to get to their jobs, the less people missed it. While 55% of car
commuters said that they didn’t miss their work journeys at all, 91% of bike
commuters said that they miss at least some parts of theirs.
Those feelings were connected to whether people planned to continue to work from
home as economies reopen. Some 69% of those who did miss their commutes want
to return to normal, while 72% of people who didn’t miss commuting at all want to
work from home more often. But 18% of that latter group, who mainly used cars,
expected that their employers would require their return to the office.
A majority of drivers admitted they don’t miss their commutes at all; only 9% of
bike commuters agreed. (Rubin, O., Nikolaeva, A., Nello-Deakin, S., & te
Brömmelstroet, M., (2020). What can we learn from the COVID‐19 pandemic about
how people experience working from home and commuting? Centre for Urban Studies,
University of Amsterdam)
According to Rubin, this subset of commute-hating drivers should draw the
attention of employers and urban planners concerned about congestion. “These are
the most eligible candidates for a mode shift,” he said. “If given the option, that’s a
substantial group that could shift to less commuting or a different adjustment” —
perhaps to biking, the most loved of all commuting modes. While responses mostly
came from the famously bike-friendly Netherlands, Rubin said that there were not
significant differences between respondents from other countries.
However, with its heavy skew towards graduate-degree-holders, this survey did not
reflect a representative swath of commuters. Additionally, feelings about working
from home are likely influenced by school closures and other pandemic-related
stressors, and could change under more normal times.
Some commuters hope to bike and walk more often
Another survey conducted in April also points to the possibility of less driving
among a certain subset. Led by Arizona State University urban planning professor
Deborah Salon, this questionnaire probed 800 workers across the U.S., many of
them concentrated in Arizona and other western states.
Since it was largely distributed through ASU’s professional networks, Salon’s survey
attracted a disproportionate number of people with graduate degrees, and
transportation researchers specifically. Readers beware: “These people are weird,”
30
said Salon, who is continuing the survey in hopes of attracting a nationally
representative sample. Any U.S. resident can take it here.
Yet the initial responses may be telling. Compared to the 50% of respondents who
said that they sometimes worked from home in the past, 68% said they foresaw
working from home more often after lockdowns ease, at least part of the time. While
that doesn’t reflect actual employer policy changes that might be coming, that 18%
change could indicate that a significant number of people will be getting off the road,
Salon said. She also believes it probably undercounts the size of the shift that could
be coming.
Expected change in daily travel among respondents. (D. Salon, Deborah Salon,
School of Geographical Sciences and Urban Planning, Arizona State University,
2020)
Overall, the desire for “normalcy” is strong: Most respondents said they expected to
see no change in their post-pandemic travel habits, no matter the modes. That
included driving, which is how the vast majority of respondents previously got to
work. Yet there were also signs of change: About 15% said they expected to rely less
on shared modes such as public transit and ride-hailing, less than 10% said they
expected to spend more time in the car, and about 20% said that they wanted to
bike and walk more often.
Salon sees that as a promising sign for sustainability-minded planners. “A lot of
cities are converting their streets to bike and pedestrian space as an emergency
measure,” she said. “Maybe cities could take this as an opportunity to say hey, if we
want to have more non-motorized travel, then maybe we could make some of those
conversions permanent.”
Prepare for hellish traffic jams
City planning interventions like those might be all the more urgent for the U.S. if one
non-peer-reviewed analysis led by Dan Work, a professor of civil and environmental
engineering at Vanderbilt University, is any indication.
Work and his colleagues measured what might happen to vehicle travel times,
should the widely held assumption that people move away from public transit and
shared rides come true. Using data from the American Community Survey for
metropolitan areas where more than 5% of commuters ride transit, they plotted the
historic relationship between average travel times and the number of vehicles on
31
the road. They then projected how travel times would change depending on the
number of people who shift to single-occupancy cars.
Unsurprisingly, the basic law of traffic — the more people on the road, the more
drawn-out the drive — held true, and to stunning effect for some areas. Dense cities
such as New York and San Francisco that are more reliant on public transit and have
lower capacity for vehicle traffic were much more sensitive to added cars, compared
to more auto-oriented cities such as Los Angeles and Atlanta. For example, if just
one in four transit and carpool commuters start to drive alone, San Francisco could
witness a 20-minute increase in daily vehicle travel times. That shoots up to a 40-
minute increase if three in four of those commuters switch.
Cities with strong transit usage are most at risk of travel-time spikes, which are
shown as one-way commute times. (Y. Hu, W. Barbour, S. Samaranayake, D. Work,
2020. Impacts of Covid‐19 mode shift on road traffic, Work Research Group.)
The analysis vividly illustrates the traffic-taming function that public transit
provides in cities, as well as the importance of keeping buses and trains safe and
available to riders in the future, Work said. Transit, as well as bicycling and walking,
allows large numbers of people to move in a limited amount of space, unlike the
alternative: “Road-building is an expensive proposition that doesn’t solve the
underlying issue of high commute times in the long term,” he said.
Yet because this study was based on historic data alone, it does not account for two
major coronavirus-era considerations: the possibility that large shares of
commuters will now work from home, and that many millions of newly unemployed
U.S. residents no longer have jobs to commute to. For them, the journey back to
work could take longer than ever.
32
Baumb, Nelly
From:Nicole Hindley <nicolesyoga@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2020 8:11 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:El Camino/Churchill intersection
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Council, More bikes and pedestrians are using the El Camino and Churchill intersection because of SIP. I use
this intersection regularly to ride my bike to Stanford with my kids. Every time I’m at the light there are
more bikes and pedestrians than ever before. I don’t think this intersection prioritizes bikes and pedestrians. The cars make a left turn into the cross walk while pedestrians are crossing! It’s a busy intersection with access to Stanford. Please, please consider updatinv this intersection
with bikes and pedestrians in mind.
Could you also make the light change faster? El Camino seems to have priority over Churchill and the cars are driving so fast and running the light.... with kids and people all around. Super dangerous.
Please consider updating the the Churchill El Camino intersection. Traffic calming at this busy
intersection is needed!! Thanks for making Palo Alto bike friendly!!! This is why we live here.
Nicole Hindley
(650) 814-0173 Palo Alto CA 94301 Redacted
33
Baumb, Nelly
From:Wolfgang Dueregger <wolfgang.dueregger@alumni.stanford.edu>
Sent:Friday, May 22, 2020 5:53 PM
To:Shikada, Ed
Cc:Carol Scott; Chris Robell; Council, City; Neilson Buchanan; Paul & Karen Machado
Subject:Car blocking driveway
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear city manager,
Somebody parked his car such that it partially blocks our driveway.it is Friday late afternoon before a long weekend.
Police has an answering Machine.
What else can we do?
This car has no biz permit. It can be anybody.
Definitely no local who lives here.
This is one of many cases we are confronted with ‐ even during covid.
We need solutions to protect us from people who don’t care about neighborhoods or even how to properly park a car.
Wolfgang Dueregger
34
35
36
38
Baumb, Nelly
From:Palo Alto Forward <palo.alto.fwd@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 22, 2020 12:47 PM
To:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan; Moitra, Chitra
Cc:Planning Commission; Council, City
Subject:NVCAP Comments regarding Alternatives
Attachments:NVCAP Alternatives .pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council Members and the NVCAP Working Group,
Palo Alto Forward (PAF) is a nonprofit organization of Palo Alto residents that envisions a more affordable,
sustainable city with improved housing and transportation options for our diverse, multi-generational residents. We believe in thoughtful planning to meet our city’s future population needs.
The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) is a rare opportunity to simultaneously address our
housing shortage and climate change goals. The 60 acres encompassing the NVCAP is ideally located next to bus, rail, bike paths, El Camino Real, and the California Avenue business district making it an ideal place to build multifamily housing.
The NVCAP is a unique opportunity area to meet the City’s existing Comp Plan goals to increase housing and will be the City’s largest opportunity to meet the higher RHNA goals that are coming--goals that address the cost burdens and overcrowding of existing residents in our region.
While we understand the economic challenges in today’s environment, the NVCAP is a plan for the future and we can provide greater flexibility in uses, densities and designs in order to meet changing conditions. With that, we ask that you consider the following criteria in evaluating NVCAP alternatives:
More housing is critical
and must include diverse housing types, including market rate and affordable homes with multifamily buildings and housing types that are affordable by design and offer opportunities for people of various
income levels to live in our city.
Subsidized affordable rentals
and homeownership options must be incorporated throughout the neighborhood.
Mixed use development should
include a balance of housing and commercial space, with flexibility for types of use within commercial spaces.
North Ventura has a large
number of underutilized parcels. In order to allow for parcel assembly and street/path reconfigurations, zoning must allow for flexibility.
39
In order for Palo Alto to
meet higher RHNA allocations in a revised Housing Element (2023-2031), the city must select viable development sites for new homes. The Ventura Neighborhood and NVCAP can be an important part of the solution.
Thank you for considering these points during the evaluation of Alternatives.
Sincerely, Palo Alto Forward Board of Directors
May 22, 2020
To: Palo Alto City Council, NVCAP Working Group
Re: NVCAP Working Group Alternatives
Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council Members and the NVCAP Working Group,
Palo Alto Forward (PAF) is a nonprofit organization of Palo Alto residents that envisions a more
affordable, sustainable city with improved housing and transportation options for our diverse,
multi-generational residents. We believe in thoughtful planning to meet our city’s future
population needs.
The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) is a rare opportunity to simultaneously
address our housing shortage and climate change goals. The 60 acres encompassing the
NVCAP is ideally located next to bus, rail, bike paths, El Camino Real, and the California
Avenue business district making it an ideal place to build multifamily housing.
The NVCAP is a unique opportunity area to meet the City’s existing Comp Plan goals to
increase housing and will be the City’s largest opportunity to meet the higher RHNA goals that
are coming--goals that address the cost burdens and overcrowding of existing residents in our
region.
While we understand the economic challenges in today’s environment, the NVCAP is a plan for
the future and we can provide greater flexibility in uses, densities and designs in order to meet
changing conditions. With that, we ask that you consider the following criteria in evaluating
NVCAP alternatives:
-More housing is critical and must include diverse housing types, including market rate
and affordable homes with multifamily buildings and housing types that are affordable by
design and offer opportunities for people of various income levels to live in our city.
-Subsidized affordable rentals and homeownership options must be incorporated
throughout the neighborhood.
-Mixed use development should include a balance of housing and commercial space,
with flexibility for types of use within commercial spaces.
-North Ventura has a large number of underutilized parcels. In order to allow for parcel
assembly and street/path reconfigurations, zoning must allow for flexibility.
-In order for Palo Alto to meet higher RHNA allocations in a revised Housing Element
(2023-2031), the city must select viable development sites for new homes. The Ventura
Neighborhood and NVCAP can be an important part of the solution.
Thank you for considering these points during the evaluation of Alternatives.
Sincerely,
Palo Alto Forward Board of Directors
40
Baumb, Nelly
From:john talley <johnraytalley@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, May 22, 2020 8:26 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Downtown Planning
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
To whom it may concern:
My name is John Talley and I am a plastic surgeon at the Palo Alto Medical Foundation in Palo Alto.
I have supported downtown businesses for many years since my arrival at Stanford in 2008.
And I would be in full support of the city converting University Ave into a walking pedestrian only street.
I have thought about this many times before Covid but now seems even more essential both for people walking and for
outdoor seating.
Thank you for your consideration of this.
John Talley
43
Baumb, Nelly
From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>
Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 2:35 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Fwd: FW: Express: MV Council picks developer for affordable housing downtown;
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
When is the PA Council going to promote and build low‐income apt housing in downtown PA?
R Ahlquist
Date: Thu, May 21, 2020 at 2:30 PM
Subject: FW: Express: MV Council picks developer for affordable housing downtown;
Some housing news:
Council picks developer to build affordable housing in
downtown Mountain View
by Kevin Forestieri / Mountain View Voice
Uploaded: Thu, May 21, 2020, 1:30 pm
Time to read: about 3 minutes
44
A new proposal would replace a downtown parking lot with a five-story affordable housing complex.
Courtesy Palo Alto Housing Corporation.
A long stretch of parking in downtown Mountain View could soon transform into a five-story
affordable housing complex, complete with retail services and no loss in parking for downtown
visitors.
Mountain View City Council members voted unanimously Tuesday to pick the nonprofit Palo Alto
Housing, which recently changed its name to Alta Housing, among a list of four candidates vying to
woo the council with development plans for the site, each with perks ranging from cafes to on-site
child care to accompany 120 affordable housing units.
45
But the deciding factor for council members was Alta Housing's flexibility on who would get to live in
the coveted homes built on the site. While other nonprofits sought to tap into county funds for
supportive housing -- geared toward the lowest-income residents and the homeless -- Alta Housing
tailored its financing plans so people who live or work in Mountain View would have priority.
"That's what I'm looking for, is flexibility to house as many Mountain View residents as we can," said
Councilman John McAlister.
Lot 12 along Bryant Street is the largest publicly owned parking lot in downtown Mountain View, and
has been a redevelopment priority for years.
The city's largest downtown parking lot, known as Lot 12, has been tagged for redevelopment for
years, with council members agreeing in 2019 that the valuable real estate should balance the city's
competing needs for affordable housing, parking and retail shops. Replacing all 160 public parking
spots currently available along Bryant Street was mandatory, and would accompany up to 120 units of
affordable housing.
What's local journalism worth to you?
Support Mountain View Online for as little as $5/month.
Learn more
46
The winning proposal by Alta Housing puts five-story apartment buildings along Bryant Street,
tapering down to three-story townhouses as it approaches existing Franklin Street homes behind the
parking lot. Public uses on the ground level, though still in flux, could include partnerships with the
Community School of Music and Arts (CSMA), Ada's Cafe or potential day care, said Randy Tsuda,
president and CEO of Alta Housing.
Behind each glossy presentation and touted amenities at the Tuesday council meeting was a deeply
complicated spreadsheet for how to pay for it all, with varying funding sources and ways to finance
construction costs starting at $73.4 million. Depending on which option the council picked, the city
could be on the hook to subsidize the project by anywhere from $2.5 million to as much as $32.1
million.
City staff's top pick, EAH housing, proposed that 40 of its units be dedicated as permanent supportive
housing, which would be eligible for funding from Santa Clara County's Measure A bond and reserved
for the chronically homeless and those with disabling conditions in need of frequent support services
from the county.
Another developer, Eden Housing, proposed tapping into Measure A funds to provide up to 26 "rapid
rehousing" units available to those who recently became homeless and need an immediate, often
short-term place to live.
Alta Housing instead offered a menu of options, two of which do not use Measure A money, instead
relying solely on city and state funding sources to finance housing for a mix of low and even middle-
income households. Tsuda said both options mean the city could give preference to applicants who
live or work in Mountain View.
47
The early proposal for Lot 12 calls for five-story apartments along Bryant Street and at-grade and
underground parking nestled behind. Courtesy Palo Alto Housing Corporation.
Stay informed
48
Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.
Sign up
Louise Katz, a resident and member of the group Livable Mountain View, said the city shouldn't
bother trying to use Measure A funds, and that the priority should be to build housing for those
struggling to live in Mountain View or weathering brutal commutes to work in the city. People who
work in retail, grocery clerks, hospital staff, teachers assistants and cleaners are all essential and
should be served by the project, she said, rather than the chronically homeless coming from
throughout the region.
"I have not heard anyone asking for housing for those on a countywide list whose qualifications were
the highest level of need based on problems and conditions that rendered them the most difficult to
house and employ," Katz said.
It remained murky at the meeting just how much control the city and nonprofit developers have over
who would ultimately live in units funded by Measure A. Though countywide applications are
permitted, targeted efforts can skew who will live in the Lot 12 apartments. Consuelo Hernandez,
acting deputy director for the county's Office of Supportive Housing, said a large majority of the
supportive housing units at the existing Eagle Park Apartments are from Mountain View, thanks to a
working partnership with local safe parking sites, the police department and city housing and
planning staff.
Councilwoman Lisa Matichak said she still had concerns about using Measure A funds and losing
control of the city's downtown affordable housing project, preferring proposals that have a Mountain
View preference for all the units.
"For me what's most important is having the ability to have 100% say on the preferences for who will
be living there," Matichak said.
Most Viewed Stories
■ Council reluctantly approves razing of 116 rent-controlled apartments
■ Santa Clara County allows for car parades in time for graduation
■ As Stage 2 of reopening begins, county has more to do to meet state requirements
■ Santa Clara County to allow curbside retail pickups starting Friday
■ Rent control committee caps rent increases at 2.9% for 2020
49
The plan is to work with Alta Housing to refine the proposed housing project through the end of
2020, with a goal of approving the project in early 2022 and completing construction by fall 2025.
From: Mountain View Online <express@mv‐voice.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2020 2:00 PM
To: express@mv‐voice.com
Subject: Express: Council picks developer for affordable housing downtown; Coronavirus tests expanded; Fire
scorches Los Altos Hills home
2 PM Thursday, May 21, 2020
Support Local Journalism
We've got a new look!
Introducing MV-Voice.com's new story-page design: We've listened to our readers'
feedback and are debuting a new look this week for our articles, with bigger photos,
new slideshows, easy-to-find links to related stories, embedded documents, videos
and more.
Top Stories
from the Mountain View Voice staff
50
Council picks developer to build
affordable housing in downtown Mountain View
BY KEVIN FORESTIERI
A long stretch of parking in downtown Mountain View could soon transform into a
five-story affordable housing complex, complete with retail services and no loss in
parking for downtown visitors.
Read More »
Fire scorches Los Altos Hills home
Thursday morning
BY BAY CITY NEWS SERVICE
A fire caused major damage to a home in Los Altos Hills early Thursday morning,
according to the Santa Clara County Fire Department.
Read More »
Free COVID-19 tests available for
all county residents at 2 new locations
51
BY BAY CITY NEWS SERVICE
COVID-19 tests are now available to all Santa Clara County residents at two new
locations in San Jose, county and city officials said Wednesday.
Read More »
Rent control committee caps rent
increases at 2.9% for 2020
BY KEVIN FORESTIERI
Mountain View's Rental Housing Committee voted 5-0 this month to set the annual
cap on rent increases to 2.9%, the lowest maximum increase allowed since the city's
rent control law took effect in 2016.
Read More »
Coronavirus central: Santa Clara
County's total of cases nears 2,500
BY EMBARCADERO MEDIA STAFF
The new coronavirus continues to take its toll on the Midpeninsula, where Santa
Clara County reported 2,492 coronavirus cases and 138 deaths as of Wednesday. San
Mateo County reported 48 new cases, raising its total to 1,738.
Read More »
52
For more top stories, go to the Mountain View Voice Home Page »
Town Square
Mountain View's Online Gathering Place
Council reluctantly approves razing of 116 rent-controlled apartments
More of Mountain View's older, rent-controlled apartments will be demolished to
make way for new ownership housing, after the Mountain View City Council voted 5-
2 Tuesday to approve a rowhouse redevelopment along Middlefield Road.
Read More »
As Stage 2 of reopening begins, county has more to do to meet state
requirements
53
As the state inches toward reopening from the COVID-19 crisis, counties are working
to meet the California Department of Public Health's criteria in order to further relax
restrictions.
Read More »
For more conversation, go to TownSquare Home Page »
View as a Web Page
Express is published by the Mountain View Voice. You received Express because
you signed up for it or it is included in your membership subscription.
We respect your privacy by never sharing, selling or renting our subscriber email
addresses.
We welcome your story tips, questions or comments.
For advertising information, contact our digital media sales manager.
Subscribe, unsubscribe or change your e-mail address/preferences
Copyright 2020 Embarcadero Media
450 Cambridge Ave., Palo Alto CA 94306
55
Baumb, Nelly
From:Dr. John Blenio, Chiropractor <john.blenio@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, May 21, 2020 2:20 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Regarding Baylands Golf Links
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I wanted to set up a tee time at Baylands Golf Links in Palo Alto yesterday and I was informed that Baylands has been
severely limited (compared to other golf courses) by the city of Palo Alto in how they can run the golf course for
customers.
It's very disappointing that you limit golf to one player at a time.
I have golfed at multiple golf courses ‐ Coyote Creek in San Jose, Spring Valley Golf Club in Milpitas, Yocha Dehe Golf
Club in Brooks, and Ancil Hoffman Golf Club in Sacramento recently. All of those courses allowed 4 people to play at
once, but they required us (golfers) to maintain social distancing, and they limited many other functions in a responsible
and effective way.
Unfortunately, that is not what the City of Palo Alto is doing for Baylands Golf Links, and it really makes the city look bad.
You are only allowing one player to play at a time. That's not how golf is or should be played, and quite honestly you are
hurting Baylands Golf Links and keeping them from generating the revenue they could if the city allowed Baylands to run
it's course the way other cities have designated golf courses to run. I had four people that wanted to go to Baylands this
coming weekend, and we decided to choose a different golf course because of you guys. You've made it too restrictive,
and it's a terrible decision by the city.
You don't need to treat Baylands like a child, nor should you be treating the public citizens like children. This is how it
comes across, and it also comes across as if the city and its leadership and representatives is on a bit of a power trip.
It's disappointing at best, and pathetic at worst.
You guys need to study what other cities are doing and allow Baylands to allow two players to play together at the least,
and considering we are all responsible enough to social distance out on the golf course, four players should be allowed
to play.
Please contact Baylands Golf Links and allow them to run their course as all other courses in the area are running theirs.
Respectfully,
Dr. John Blenio, Chiropractor
High Amplitude Health
Chiropractic and Sports Injury
San Mateo, CA 94403
Office Text: 650‐735‐1716
Redacted
56
Email: jblenio@yahoo.com
Schedule an appointment online now at:
www.chiropractorsanmateo.com