Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-04-04 City Council Emails
From:Camille Townsend To:Council, City; senator.becker@senate.ca.gov Subject:No to encryption of police radio communications Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 12:22:35 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from camillet@aol.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members: I am in agreement with Senator Becker and our local newspapers. The public should have access to these police radio communications. Our local police communications should be in both the spirit and the law of free access. If this matter comes before you tonight, the argument for open access strongly outweighs arguments for limiting access. Senator Becker has thoughtful approaches to the issue. Hopefully you will vote consistent with this approach. Thank you for your service. Best regards, Camille Townsend "Becker bill would restore public access to police radio communications.” Even better, would be for local agencies not to limit public access to our media and others. From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Ending Encryption is WAY PAST DUE / Effective Policing Is Desperately Needed Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 11:31:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello. Did you see the PA Daily Post's Police Blotter last week where the paper printed a protest over the many omissions reported by PAPD to call attention to the shameless lack of reporting of the crimes? And the next day it corrected the incomplete reporting of a crime by PAPD? Do you bother to read the Diana Diamond blog and the PA Online articles and comments about the police and the taxpayers' anger at the poor performance of PAPD? The only possible reason they insist on encryption is to hide their failures to police this city effectively. Do you ever compare the police blotter with the numerous reports of crimes on NextDoor where people are asking what happened at particular locations, why there were 6 cop cars near their homes, why multi-car accidents we've SEEN are never reported? Many of these questions about what happened are NEVER answered? (Feel free to ask me for specific examples I've personally witnessed.) Do ever wonder what good it does to report a crime several days AFTER it occurred and THEN ask the public for help in identifying the perps? Who remembers the white car they saw 3 days ago and which direction it went?? It's utterly laughable. The failure of the City Manager and the City Council to end encryption is very serious and needs to be remedied at a time when crime is REALLY increasing, where residents' security cameras can be a big help in catching criminals. Please end this travesty now and let the chief of police know we're all watching his run for sheriff and telling all of our friends in neighboring towns what a disaster this has been. Dave Price isn't the only one tired of being stonewalled. We ALL want transparency from our city leaders. Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach From:Kang, Danielle To:Council, City Subject:Public Letter from Doug Bloyd Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 10:26:06 AM Attachments:Doug Bloyd (04.04.22 Public Comment).pdf image001.png image002.png Good morning City Council, We have received a public letter from Doug Bloyd today, as attached, for tonight’s general public comment item. He is hoping to speak in-person, but in case he is unable, he is providing his statement now. On his behalf, I am relaying his appreciation for your care and reflection on his letter. Please let me know if you have any questions and I will be happy to answer. All the best, Dani Danielle Kang Administrative Associate III | Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 P: 650.329.2159 | E: Danielle.Kang@CityofPaloAlto.org CITY Ci.iikK'S OFFICE 22 APR -4 AM 10: 20 4-4-2022 Council Members, My name is Doug Bloyd. I am a waterfowl hunter, and a resident of Santa Clara County. California State laws, enforced by the California State Lands Commission and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, clearly state that it is legal for waterfowl hunters to hunt on the navigable San Francisco Bay waters that flood in and ebb out of Palo Alto's Baylands Nature Preserve. However, Palo Alto City leaders recently chose to exercise their jurisdictional authority to overrule these State laws, thereby criminalizing waterfowl hunting on the navigable San Francisco Bay waters within the Baylands Nature Preserve. Waterfowl hunters are now facing hefty fines and likely jail time if if they unwittingly wander into the City of Palo Alto's newly established "No Hunting Zone". I am here today to request that the City Council fully fund and prioritize the posting of new "No Hunting" signs (that also reference the penal codes the city will be enforcing) along the entire Bay side perimeter of the City's new "No Hunting Zone" at the Baylands Nature Preserve. Most waterfowl hunters that enter your city limits come from the Bay side of the "No Hunt Zone" in their boats. This is why it is extremely important for the City of Palo Alto to leave no doubt in the public's mind where the Bay side border of the "No Hunt Zone" begins. The California Waterfowl hunting season historically begins at the end of October. Please take steps to make sure the signs are in place before then. Thank you for your time, and I hope you give my thoughts consideration. Doug Bloyd 408-396-1963 From:Sheri Furman To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan Subject:Council April 4 Agenda Item 15 Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 6:08:31 PM Attachments:Town Hall Meetings PAN.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please find our letter to Council regarding Agenda Item 15 that includes CouncilPriority of Town Hall meetings. Thank you. Dear Mayor Burt and Council Members, We are writing regarding Agenda Item 15 - Council Priority of Town Hall meetings. As we’ve said before, it is NOT community engagement if it is driven solely by the City. To make the Town Halls as effective as possible, PAN once again suggests that you work directly with the neighborhood leaders. In the memo Meghan Horrigan-Taylor sent out at the end of the day Friday (which, by the way, is rather late to expect feedback), she asked for feedback from the leaders. To this end, here are our comments and suggestions. In response to Neighborhood Town Hall Goals and Format (pages 224-225 of staff report) Note that the definition of a Town Hall is “an event at which a politician or public official answers questions from members of the public.” As opposed to a Community Meeting where a project or issue is presented and public comment made. Work with Neighborhood leaders to find an appropriate time and location for the meetings The proposed schedule includes the third Thursday at 5:30 p.m.-7 p.m. in the months of May, August, September, October, November and December as the schedule of the neighborhood town hall meetings. • We don’t believe it is necessary to try and fit in all Town Halls this year. Some neighborhoods have more pressing issues and challenges than others. • We suggest spreading the town halls out, and have them every other month, starting after council break. • We recommend any town halls start at an appropriate time of day for residents, such as 6:30 PM. A 5:30--7:00pm timeframe simply excludes too many people, particularly those with jobs. • Work with each neighborhood grouping to see what works best for both them and council attendees. • Work with neighborhoods to see what meeting places are available in their area, rather than having people have to travel across town. • Finally, consider holding a hybrid meeting, the way City Council does. Many people are still wary of attending group meetings. Please Use Our Proposed Neighborhood Groupings Note that the neighborhoods described in the city’s suggestions are real estate designations, not actual neighborhoods. Including Nextdoor groupings is misleading as many of these are a single block or an apartment complex within a neighborhood, or not a neighborhood at all, such Embarcadero-Bayshore. Proposed PAN Neighborhood Groupings There does not need to be an equal number of households in each grouping. Rather the organization should be based on commonality, particularly due to location. Given this, there are eight logical groups. 1. Crescent Park, Duveneck/St. Francis, Community Center, Triple El 2. Downtown North, University South, Sand Hill Corridor 3. Old Palo Alto, Southgate, Leland Manor 4. College Terrace, Evergreen, Mayfield, Ventura, Palo Alto Central 5. Midtown (including the areas refered to as South of Midtown and St. Claire Gardens), Palo Verde 6. Barron Park, Barron Square, Greenacres I, Greenacres II, Palo Alto Orchards, Monroe Park 7. Greenmeadow, Greendell, Walnut Grove, Fairmeadow, Charleston Meadows, Charleston Garden, Charleston Village, Adobe Meadow, Meadow Park, Greenhouse 8. Palo Alto Hills, Esther Park, Miranda And by the way, in the document Palo Alto Neighborhood Areas that Meghan sent to the neighborhood leaders, Monta Loma, which is listed on page 5, is actually in Mt. View. Also we recommend 8 town hall meetings, not 6, due to the commonality of issues that we know of among neighborhoods. Two examples to illustrate this: the issues in Midtown ARE NOT ALIGNED to those of Ventura. College Terrace does not face the same issues as Old Palo Alto.or Triple El. Partner with Neighborhood Associations as Co-sponsors • Have neighborhoods distribute the town hall to their lists • Have one or two of the neighborhood leaders be the moderators. • Work with neighborhood leaders to select topics of interest to their area. The staff report suggested (page 224) that: "We would work with Palo Alto Neighborhoods representatives in six identified areas of Palo Alto on the specifics of each neighborhood town hall.” Please use the neighborhoods on the Palo Alto Neighborhoods site. • We suggest more time be allocated for questions. Having neighbors talk about their concerns, is preferable to having staff talk to issues not of interest. City-proposed Town Hall agenda would include: • City Updates (30 minutes) - generally 2-3 updates • Neighborhood Representative Community Items (30 minutes) - 2-3 items* • Community Questions and Comments (30 minutes) Our preferred format for these initial Town Halls would be: • Introductions and explanation of meeting format – (10 minutes) by neighborhood leader • City Updates (20 minutes) – perhaps a brief overview of the four city priorities • Neighborhood Representative Community Items (10 minutes) -- 2-3 items* • Community Questions and Comments (50 minutes) City Suggested Council Participation (page 225) “City Council feedback on their participation at the neighborhood town hall meetings varied. Staff is seeking clarification as to City Council role and attendance. “While there are several options for participation, a few options were discussed at the study session. As noted in the staff report, the neighborhood town halls are envisioned to be hosted by Councilmembers. This format would seek Councilmember assignments to the meetings with two Councilmembers involved with the planning and attending each neighborhood town hall, as well as the Mayor. Alternatively, previous town hall events pre-pandemic was posted pursuant to the Brown Act and all City Council Members attended.” Our preference These meetings should be co-hosted by the Councilmembers and the neighborhood leader(s). Otherwise, it gives the appearance of the city controlling the agenda. Thank you for considering our concerns. Becky Sanders and Sheri Furman PAN Co-chairs From:Heidi Yauman To:Vines Rodriguez, Anya Subject:Fw: Re: In-person visit Date:Friday, April 1, 2022 11:00:19 AM Attachments:Crittenden police report.pdf fake-court-case (3).pdf Habeas Corpus Cary Andrew Crittenden Civil Grand Jury Public Guardian (3).pdf MC 410 YAUMAN C1493022.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. dear anya vines rodriegas tom henning believe you are dangerous why did arlene peterson steal papers from boris feldman Sent: Friday, April 01, 2022 at 10:16 AM From: "Heidi Yauman" <heidi.yauman@usa.com> To: "Lara, Rosalinda" <Rosalinda.Lara@ssa.sccgov.org> Cc: cwelshlaw@gmail.com Subject: Fw: Re: In-person visit dear rosalinda tom henning comes to meeting to make sure you dont hurt me Sent: Friday, April 01, 2022 at 9:51 AM From: "Heidi Yauman" <heidi.yauman@usa.com> To: "Lara, Rosalinda" <Rosalinda.Lara@ssa.sccgov.org> Cc: cwelshlaw@gmail.com Subject: Fw: Re: In-person visit dear rosalinda susan daviswas nice tp me too but she got mixedup with fraud by robert rocco so tom henning is invited to any meeting and cary tooi from heidi yauman ps i lost my visa card so order me a new one. Sent: Friday, April 01, 2022 at 9:35 AM From: "Heidi Yauman" <heidi.yauman@usa.com> To: "Lara, Rosalinda" <Rosalinda.Lara@ssa.sccgov.org> Cc: cwelshlaw@gmail.com Subject: Re: In-person visit dear rosalinda i lost my visa card and needf a new one if you camt reach me contact cary he is my advocate the lawyers come tomorrow and tom henning is afraid that you will hurt me and that you and anya did fraud and he wants to go to court pleaase get me a new visa card maybe robert dacvid steele the cia man died did yoiu find out why this man looks like judge manoukian and i hope you have a nice day from heidi yauman Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:21 AM From: "Lara, Rosalinda" <Rosalinda.Lara@ssa.sccgov.org> To: "Heidi Yauman" <heidi.yauman@usa.com> Subject: In-person visit Hello Heidi, I went on 3/22/22 @ 1:30 pm to Starbuck for our meeting but you were not there I waited and drove around for 30 minutes but nothing. I really need to see you to let try this again. Let’s meet on 3/29/22 @ 10:30 a.m. again at Starbucks. Hope to see you there. Thank you, Rosalinda Lara Deputy Public Guardian/Conservator Office (408) 755-7634 Fax (408) 755-7950 From:Heidi Yauman To:Lara, Rosalinda Cc:cwelshlaw@gmail.com Subject:Fw: Re: In-person visit Date:Friday, April 1, 2022 10:17:17 AM Attachments:Crittenden police report.pdf fake-court-case (3).pdf Habeas Corpus Cary Andrew Crittenden Civil Grand Jury Public Guardian (3).pdf MC 410 YAUMAN C1493022.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. dear rosalinda tom henning comes to meeting to make sure you dont hurt me Sent: Friday, April 01, 2022 at 9:51 AM From: "Heidi Yauman" <heidi.yauman@usa.com> To: "Lara, Rosalinda" <Rosalinda.Lara@ssa.sccgov.org> Cc: cwelshlaw@gmail.com Subject: Fw: Re: In-person visit dear rosalinda susan daviswas nice tp me too but she got mixedup with fraud by robert rocco so tom henning is invited to any meeting and cary tooi from heidi yauman ps i lost my visa card so order me a new one. Sent: Friday, April 01, 2022 at 9:35 AM From: "Heidi Yauman" <heidi.yauman@usa.com> To: "Lara, Rosalinda" <Rosalinda.Lara@ssa.sccgov.org> Cc: cwelshlaw@gmail.com Subject: Re: In-person visit dear rosalinda i lost my visa card and needf a new one if you camt reach me contact cary he is my advocate the lawyers come tomorrow and tom henning is afraid that you will hurt me and that you and anya did fraud and he wants to go to court pleaase get me a new visa card maybe robert dacvid steele the cia man died did yoiu find out why this man looks like judge manoukian and i hope you have a nice day from heidi yauman Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:21 AM From: "Lara, Rosalinda" <Rosalinda.Lara@ssa.sccgov.org> To: "Heidi Yauman" <heidi.yauman@usa.com> Subject: In-person visit Hello Heidi, I went on 3/22/22 @ 1:30 pm to Starbuck for our meeting but you were not there I waited and drove around for 30 minutes but nothing. I really need to see you to let try this again. Let’s meet on 3/29/22 @ 10:30 a.m. again at Starbucks. Hope to see you there. Thank you, Rosalinda Lara Deputy Public Guardian/Conservator Office (408) 755-7634 Fax (408) 755-7950 From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Steve Levy Subject:March 25 Bay Area Economic Update Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 9:22:42 AM Attachments:Mar 25, 2022 Economic Update.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Bay Area Economic Update and Outlook—March 25, 2022—Bay Area Economy Continues Recovery but Still Lags the Nation The Bay Area added 24,500 jobs in February and outpaced the nation in job growth over the past 12 months but still lags the state and nation in job recovery since April 2020. The highlights: Bay Area jobs increased by 6.4% between February 2021 and 2022 compared to a 4.6% increase in the nation and 6.8% gain in California. The Bay Area unemployment rate in February 2022 was 3.4% compared to 2.7% in the pre-pandemic low. Venture capital funding reached a record $105.4 billion in 2021 up from $49.8 billion in 2020 March 2022 brings major crosscurrents to the global, national and regional economy with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, rising interest rates amidst continuing high inflation, the easing of COVID cases and related activity restrictions and the ongoing Bay Area challenges of housing, transportation and competitiveness. Bay Area jurisdictions have been given large increases in their housing goals for the next eight years as a result of state legislation and policy to reduce overcrowding and increase affordability. Each jurisdiction is in the process of updating their Housing Elements in 2022 to meet state and regional policy goals and requirements 1 Bay Area Economic Update and Outlook—March 25, 2022—Bay Area Economy Continues Recovery but Still Lags the Nation The Bay Area added 24,500 jobs in February and outpaced the nation in job growth over the past 12 months but still lags the state and nation in job recovery since April 2020. The highlights: • Bay Area jobs increased by 6.4% between February 2021 and 2022 compared to a 4.6% increase in the nation and 6.8% gain in California. • The Bay Area unemployment rate in February 2022 was 3.4% compared to 2.7% in the pre-pandemic low. • Venture capital funding reached a record $105.4 billion in 2021 up from $49.8 billion in 2020 • March 2022 brings major crosscurrents to the global, national and regional economy with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, rising interest rates amidst continuing high inflation, the easing of COVID cases and related activity restrictions and the ongoing Bay Area challenges of housing, transportation and competitiveness. • Bay Area jurisdictions have been given large increases in their housing goals for the next eight years as a result of state legislation and policy to reduce overcrowding and increase affordability. Each jurisdiction is in the process of updating their Housing Elements in 2022 to meet state and regional policy goals and requirements. The Bay Area Outpaced the Nation in Recent Job Growth 4.6% 6.8% 6.4% 0.0% 1.0% 2.0% 3.0% 4.0% 5.0% 6.0% 7.0% 8.0% 9.0% U.S.California Bay Area Job Growth February 2021--February 2022 2 Bay Area jobs increased by 6.4% between February 2021 and February 2022 outpacing the national 4.6% growth rate. The region still lags the nation and state in the percentage of jobs recovered since April 2020 as a result of the large job losses in 2020. By February 2022 the region had recovered 75.8% of the jobs lost between February and April 2020. This is a lower recovery rate than the state and nation, though the region has closed the gap in recent months. The Bay Area added 240,300 jobs in the past year led by a gain of 95,000 in the San Francisco metro area though SF has recovered just 71.4% of the jobs lost between February and April 2020. The San Jose metro area added 58,900 jobs and by February 2022 had recovered 79.7% of the jobs lost between February and April 2020. The Oakland metro area added 57,000 jobs. Metro Area Feb 20 Apr 20 Feb 21 Feb 22 % Recovered Oakland 1,201.9 1,003.6 1,103.7 1,160.7 79.2% San Francisco 1,204.7 1,017.9 1,056.2 1,151.2 71.4% San Jose 1,172.5 1,011.4 1,080.9 1,139.8 79.7% Santa Rosa 211.1 171.9 188.5 202.1 77.0% Napa 75.3 57.3 65.6 71.2 77.2% Vallejo 143.3 121.5 129.9 136.2 67.4% San Rafael 117.2 91.8 103.6 107.5 61.8% Bay Area 4,126.0 3,475.4 3,728.4 3,968.7 75.8% Source: EDD, seasonally adjusted data 90.7%87.2%75.8% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% U.S.California Bay Area Jobs Recoverd by February 2022 as % of Losses 3 Unemployment Rates Fell to 3.4% in the Region in February 2022 from 6.7% in February 2021. The lowest rates were in the San Rafael metro area (2.7%) followed by the San Francisco and San Jose metro areas (2.9%) in February 2022. Metro Area Feb 20 Apr 20 Feb 21 Feb 22 Oakland 3.0% 14.6% 7.5% 3.9% San Francisco 2.2% 12.5% 6.0% 2.9% San Jose 2.6% 12.4% 5.8% 2.9% Santa Rosa 2.8% 15.4% 7.1% 3.4% Napa 3.2% 17.8% 8.8% 4.1% Vallejo 3.9% 15.7% 8.6% 5.1% San Rafael 2.4% 12.1% 5.4% 2.7% Bay Area 2.7% 13.7% 6.7% 3.4% Source: EDD The number of unemployed residents has fallen sharply from the April 2020 high and from February 2021 to 138,800 in February 2022. But 90,000 Workers Have Not Rejoined the Workforce Since February 2020 Residents who are not in the labor force are not counted as unemployed. As a result, the number of unemployed residents can decline while some are still prevented by choice or lack of child care or work in industries that have not fully recovered. 114.5 543.5 265.0 138.8 0.0 100.0 200.0 300.0 400.0 500.0 600.0 Feb 20 Apr 20 Feb 21 Feb 22 Bay Area Unemployment (Thousabds) 4 Metro Area Labor Force (Thousands) Metro Area Feb 20 Apr 20 Feb 21 Feb 22 Oakland 1,402.2 1,332.2 1,341.9 1,381.5 San Francisco 1,043.3 978.0 957.2 1,012.2 San Jose 1,087.7 1,039.8 1,034.9 1,074.4 Santa Rosa 256.0 241.0 235.8 246.3 Napa 72.5 66.3 66.9 67.0 Vallejo 207.5 200.4 201.2 203.1 San Rafael 137.9 123.5 128.7 133.7 Bay Area 4,207.1 3,981.2 3,966.6 4,118.2 Source: EDD Industries Were Affected Differently Three sectors—Manufacturing, Transportation and Warehousing, and Information—exceeded pre-pandemic job levels in February 2022 and Professional and Business Services was close to full recovery. On the other hand, the Leisure and Hospitality sector recovered only 64.7% of lost jobs by February 2022 though travel and tourism are now picking up again. The Government sector still has fewer jobs now than in April 2020. The Construction and Education and Health Services sectors have also recovered most of the jobs between February and April 2020. San Francisco Bay Area Jobs Apr20-Feb 22 Feb 20 April 20 Feb 21 Feb 22 Job Change % Of Feb-Apr Loss Construction 215,600 152,300 201,000 207,100 54,800 86.6% Manufacturing 364,500 339,600 355,600 370,000 30,400 122.1% Wholesale Trade 115,500 103,800 105,200 106,100 2,300 19.7% Retail Trade 330,800 258,800 304,500 313,500 54,700 76.0% Transp. & Warehousing 112,100 99,500 109,500 115,800 16,300 129.4% Information 242,400 238,800 244,700 254,400 15,600 433.3% Financial Activities 201,900 190,800 190,200 194,700 3,900 35.1% Prof& Bus Serv. 798,300 740,600 758,100 795,500 54,900 95.1% Educ & Health Serv. 636,400 563,600 605,000 627,700 64,100 88.0% Leisure & Hosp. 441,200 208,500 256,100 359,000 150,500 64.7% Government 488,500 471,800 451,300 464,900 -6,900 -41.3% 5 Total Non- Farm 4,093,000 3,468,700 3,695,400 3,939,800 471,100 75.5% Source: EDD not seasonally adjusted Housing Permits Rebound to 2019 Levels in 2021 Housing permit levels were up 35.5% in 2021 over 2020 levels and equaled permit levels in 2019. This year all Bay Area cities are required to update their Housing Elements to meet greatly increased regional and local jurisdiction housing goals. Below is a link to a report released on March 18th that I prepared at the request of the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to help residents understand and engage in their city’s Housing Element update process. Although the report focuses on five Midpeninsula cities—Cupertino, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale—it has broad applicability for other communities. The report is part of an engagement effort led by SV@Home with local partners. https://www.siliconvalleycf.org/sites/default/files/publications/Housing_Report_20 22.pdf Residential Building Permits Alameda 2019 6016 Contra Costa 2019 2802 2020 3762 2020 2768 2021 5665 2021 3923 Marin 2019 216 Napa 2019 249 2020 100 2020 228 2021 253 2021 408 San Francisco 2019 3343 San Mateo 2019 1546 2020 2192 2020 987 2021 2951 2021 1291 Santa Clara 2019 5030 Solano 2019 1203 2020 3574 2020 1697 2021 4938 2021 1247 Sonoma 2019 2278 Bay Area 2019 23183 2020 1816 2020 17124 2021 2522 2021 23198 % Change 21 vs 20 35.5% 21 vs 19 0.1% Source: CHF and CIRB 6 From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: scan Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 6:53:47 AM Attachments:20220331063203843.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From :Allan Seid Subject: Support Letter-Renew Contract of Dr. Thuy Ngugen Source: San Jose Mercury News, 3/31/22 THE MERCURY NEWS » THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 2022 Foothill -De Anza board must reinstate Nguyen Foothill -De Anza Commu- nity College District Board owes its tax -paying supporters an explanation for their deci- sion to notrenewthe contract of Foothill College President Thuy Nguyen. We expect more than vague comments accom- panied by a faculty resolution. A local newspaper published an editorial opinion: "To me, it looks like her ouster was a coup organized in the faculty lounge." Student leaders, alumni and local organizations such as NAACP and Asian Law Alliance support President Nguyen. As longtime partici- pants involved with, education social justice and equity is- sues, we feel disappointed and angry at the board's ill-advised decision. President Nguyen is nation- ally acclaimed for achieve- ments in racial equity, student empowerment and COVID-19 emergency response. She is the first Vietnamese American col- lege president in the country. We call on the board at on - day's meeting to reinstate President Nguyen. I also urge community members to attend the meeting. — Allan Seid Palo Alto From:Tran, Joanna To:Henshall, Eric Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Eggleston, Brad; Gaines, Chantal Subject:Aircraft noise hearing Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 4:08:27 PM Attachments:image008.png image010.png image011.png image013.png image014.png image015.png Aviation Noise Testimony of the City of Palo Alto.pdf image001.png Importance:High Hello Mr. Henshall, Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments for a congressional hearing on aircraft noise. Please see attached for the letter addressed to Congresswoman Eshoo from the City of Palo Alto, with the subject line: Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in Addressing Community Concerns Written Testimony of the City of Palo Alto. Regards, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Henshall, Eric <Eric.Henshall@mail.house.gov> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 8:16 AM To: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Aircraft noise hearing Good morning, Please see the attached letter from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo regarding an opportunity to submit comments for a congressional hearing on aircraft noise. I apologize for the short notice, but if the city would like to submit official comments for the hearing record, you can send them to me by March 30th. Individual residents wishing to submit comments may do so here: https://eshoo.house.gov/aircraft-noise-comment-submission-form. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Eric Henshall Senior Legislative Assistant | Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) Phone: (202) 225-8104 | Website CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100 March 30, 2022 The Honorable Anna G. Eshoo United States House of Representatives Washington, D.C. 20515 Transmitted via email Subject: Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in Addressing Community Concerns Written Testimony of the City of Palo Alto Aviation Subcommittee of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Dear Representative Eshoo, The City of Palo Alto, California appreciates your leadership in addressing the ongoing concerns of our community regarding airplane noise. We thank you for this opportunity to submit this testimony as part of the official record of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing entitled Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in Addressing Community Concerns. Palo Alto is located approximately 20 miles from San Francisco International Airport (SFO) and home to approximately 66,000 residents. Because of our location beneath the busy flight corridor for aircraft using not only SFO but also San Jose Mineta International Airport (SJC) and several much smaller general aviation airports such as Palo Alto Municipal (PAO), our residents are acutely aware of the problem of noise from aircraft overflights. The impact of overflights has been seriously exacerbated by the advent of the FAA’s NextGen and Metroplex airspace changes since 2015. Although the City and its community organizations have actively and aggressively engaged with the FAA and other aviation stakeholders in seeking productive and practical solutions to mitigate the impact of aircraft overflights, we regret that no progress has been made in reducing aircraft noise. In fact, the advent of the COVID-19 pandemic (and accompanying reduction in air traffic) has provided the only relief from overflight noise in the last many years. Since 2015, the FAA has continued to route more aircraft arrival paths over the City of Palo Alto and has failed to engage meaningfully with the community to seek ways to reduce either aircraft noise or flight track concentration, or both. The FAA has consistently shown a lack of transparency and timeliness and has exhibited no real willingness to collaborate with affected communities to address the noise impacts wrought in the implementation of NextGen. Prior reauthorization legislation for the last several decades has included mandates for FAA to conduct myriad studies and repeatedly to reexamine its approach to noise issues. Regrettably, these mandates have only delayed implementation of new policies and practices that must be implemented expeditiously and have given FAA the fig leaf to hide behind when faced with demands for immediate action. The forthcoming FAA reauthorization legislation provides a welcome opportunity for Congress to say that there have been enough studies. Congress should provide explicit direction to the FAA on the importance of transparency and creativity in engaging with local communities to direct the agency to implement measures to reduce annoyance from aircraft overflights. To that end, we request that the Subcommittee include the following provisions in its draft of the reauthorization bill. 1. Noise Policy. FAA has not updated its national noise policy in more than a generation and continues to rely on data and reporting metrics that date from the 1970s (see next comment). FAA needs to update that policy and, in doing so, seek input from independent experts who understand the importance and difficulty of balancing operational imperatives against community impacts. Congress should direct FAA to adopt a new national noise policy within one year, after thorough nationwide solicitation of feedback from affected communities and all other stakeholders in the national aviation system. 2. Noise metric and threshold. The FAA has rigidly adhered to its single day-night average metric (DNL) for reporting noise impacts and its 65 dB DNL threshold for what it considers to be a significant noise impact for purposes of environmental review. FAA believes that it is statutorily mandated to use a single, one-size-fits-all metric and threshold for all purposes. The FAA’s Neighborhood Environmental Survey (published in early 2021) has shown what the residents of Palo Alto have known for decades: the FAA’s threshold is outdated and the metric does not adequately report the impacts on aircraft overflights. Instead of seeing the release of the Survey as an opportunity to start afresh with a new approach to reporting noise impacts, FAA has asserted that more studies are needed, assuring that the agency will not independently pursue meaningful changes in its policies for years, perhaps decades. While any issue can be studied to death, we believe that the time has come for Congress to direct action. FAA should be directed, within 24 months, to develop a new metric and a new impact threshold that reflects the results of the Survey and the reality that many communities like Palo Alto that are adversely affected by overflight noise are not considered to be adversely affected by FAA’s current metric and threshold. The new metric and threshold should be based not only on the results of the Neighborhood Environmental Survey but on experience from the dozens of communities nationwide that are suffering under the impacts of NextGen flight tracks. 3. Overflight Impact Reporting. In addition to the importance of a new metric and threshold for reporting noise impacts more generally, FAA needs to understand that the impact of overflights is often not just a problem of noise energy but also a problem of frequency. A small handful of overflights may generate little community concern but hundreds of flights with the same noise level could well prove intolerable. A noise energy metric – especially an averaging metric – does not adequately capture the impact of frequency. The concentration of flight tracks, one of the benefits of NextGen, also concentrates impacts. Congress should require that FAA develop, within 24 months, a new metric for reporting the frequency of overflights (those above a defined de minimus noise threshold) and changes in such frequency and that, upon adoption of the metric, the agency use that metric in reporting the effects of changes in flight tracks. 4. Responsiveness. One of the recurring themes in Palo Alto and other communities affected by aircraft overflights is that FAA is non-responsive and takes years to study and evaluate options to address noise impacts, all the while the impacts continue or increase. Congress should direct a precise deadline for the agency to address (and resolve, to the extent practical) community concerns about overflight noise when those concerns are conveyed by a local government like the City. 5. Advanced Community Feedback. One recurring theme in flight track changes is FAA’s penchant for conducting a perfunctory community outreach effort and then, only after implementation, to engage in broader efforts to understand the impacts of its actions when there is community outrage. This approach has not only resulted in dozens of lawsuits nationwide over the legal adequacy of FAA’s environmental analyses (and several legal losses for the FAA), but has also seriously undermined confidence in the agency. The City supports the recommendation in the GAO September 2021 Report on Aircraft Noise, in which the authors stated, “The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration should update guidance to incorporate additional communication tools that more clearly convey expected impacts, such as other noise metrics and visualization tools related to proposed PBN implementation.” FAA should use, in all appropriate fora – for NEPA analyses, Part 150 analyses and in analyses mandated by myriad other federal statutes – alternative metrics and alternative thresholds when local expectations dictate. Such flexibility would be productive in demonstrating to the public that FAA understands the implications of the Neighborhood Environmental Survey and is sensitive to community concerns. It further would demonstrate that the agency intends to address the implications of that study immediately rather than engage in a process which could take years to reach a single nationwide approach. Congress should direct FAA to engage in a robust community engagement process (and environmental review) before proposing any significant change in flight tracks. 6. Transparency. Designing flight tracks is complex and mapping of flight track impacts is likewise complicated. But the FAA makes little or no effort to educate the community about flight track locations, frequency of use, and on-the-ground impacts in language that is understandable and accessible. Congress should direct that FAA produce maps, analyses and other data about new flight tracks in advance of implementation that are readable by an ordinary resident using common, publicly available software (like Google Earth), at a scale that allows understanding of impacts at a neighborhood level. 7. Balancing. FAA has asserted the changes in flight tracks – especially those implemented as part of its NextGen initiative – will improve aircraft efficiency and will benefit the national airspace system. While that is undoubtedly true in many instances, FAA believes that it does not have the statutory mandate to balance those efficiencies with community impacts. In essence, the NextGen initiative considers only safety and efficiency, not environmental impacts. FAA should be statutorily mandated to balance community needs and impacts and to demonstrate that any proposed changes in flight tracks are optimally designed to balance safety and efficiency with noise impacts. FAA should be required to report, in a simple, understandable manner, the safety and efficiency benefits and how the balancing of those benefits against impacts has been optimized. The agency’s environmental documentation must include a balancing analysis that shows that the agency has adopted the optimal balanced approach, not just an approach that maximizes efficiency and safety. 8. Environmental Review. FAA makes liberal use of categorical exemptions under NEPA and other tools to minimize or eliminate environmental review. FAA should be required to conduct a public Environmental Assessment on flight track revisions whenever requested by an affected local government. FAA should be required to solicit views of affected local governments as part of the planning process for any new flight track sufficiently in advance and with sufficient information that the local government can make an informed decision whether to formally request preparation of an Environmental Assessment. 9. Congressional Oversight. In the last decade, several special and ad-hoc Congressional studies and committees have been convened to examine the impacts of aircraft overflights. In early 2016, Congresswomen Speier and Eshoo and Congressman Farr formed their own Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals, representing these three Congressional Districts. The need to create the committee is evidence enough that the affected Members understood that FAA was not adequately informing the community and addressing the very real impacts of NextGen on the South Bay communities. To be blunt, even after this committee issued its report in late 2016, FAA did not act for years and, even after that delay, refused to implement the thoughtful, balanced solutions that the committee developed. There is no reason why getting a final FAA response should have taken this long, especially given the best efforts to engage with the FAA by affected communities, the Santa Clara Santa Cruz Roundtable, and our Members of Congress. Congress should establish a special oversight committee whose responsibility is to oversee FAA implementation of the recommendations made here and the noise-related mandates in the new reauthorization legislation. The City of Palo Alto appreciates this opportunity to present our recommendations on legislative language for the forthcoming FAA reauthorization legislation. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact City Manager Ed Shikada at ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org. Respectfully, Patrick Burt Mayor, City of Palo Alto cc: Palo Alto City Council From:Bruce McLeod To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Castilleja: Fehr and Peers parking study Date:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 3:42:14 PM Attachments:Castilleja parking study comments PTC 032922.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from mcleod.bruce@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please consider the attached comments on this report. Thank you Bruce McLeod 1404 Bryant Street Palo Alto,CA City of Palo Alto March 29,2022 Planning and Transportation Commissioners 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 1310 Bryant Street; Castilleja Expansion Project Fehr and Peers neighborhood parking study 23 July, 2021 1. In the parking overview (p. 3), Senior Lot B is described as having 26 spaces and primarily used by seniors driving to school. The number of these spaces occupied by the school vans is not listed although it is significant and effectively reduces the parking available to Seniors, forcing these students to park off site. 2. Re: Table 1 (p. 5) a. The school frontage along Bryant between Embarcadero and Kellogg lists 14 spaces. Given the three Castilleja driveways this is an unrealistic. Parked cars regularly restrict visibility from the driveways to cars and bikes using Bryant. No monitoring at non-peak hours. b. The school frontage of Kellogg between Bryant and Emerson shows 20 available spaces. Since most of the block near Emerson is restricted for school buses, this is unrealistic. There are also no curb restrictions at either the Bryant/Kellogg corner or the Castilleja driveways. Parked cars regularly restrict visibility and access to the school. No monitoring at non-peak hours. 3. The onsite parking analysis cites an average of 80% usage of the 89 onsite parking spaces and concludes “therefore, on average, it is easy to find parking at the school (p. 8).” Yet, there are consistently Castilleja vehicles parked during the school day on the non-frontage streets surrounding the school. Why is that if it is easy to park on campus. 4. Fehr and Peers in their analysis of the non-frontage parking conclude that the factors driving increases on those streets during school hours may be attributable to a variety of non-school factors. They neglect to mention the school factors that are driving some of this parking. First, and probably foremost, is that the school publishes a map of the surrounding neighborhood with curb areas in red (neighbors unfriendly to the school and likely to complain) and green (neighbors who are supporters and will not complain). This is particularly true for the following areas: the South side of Kellogg between Bryant and Waverley, the east side of Bryant between Kellogg and Churchill, and both sides of Waverley between Embarcadero and Churchill. It is especially galling to have the report suggest that Gamble Garden events could be adding vehicles since the garden has ample parking for their ongoing visitors and only impacts the neighborhood a few times each year for large events. 5. Finally, Castilleja’s leadership) has consistently stated that the school identifies and monitors staff and student vehicles (Nanci Kauffman reiterated this publicly to the PTC. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are no stickers, tags, or any identification of vehicles that would allow neighbors (or Fehr and Peers, for that matter) to identify Castilleja vehicles parked on the street. Their “monitoring” extends only to the frontage sides of the street and is limited to notices on parked vehicles to “register with the school.” Castilleja treats the parking along their frontage as a right. A right to which no other school in the City is entitled. Fehr and Peers has obfuscated the true impacts of Castilleja’s parking in the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration, Bruce McLeod, 1404 Bryant Street Palo Alto From:Annette Glanckopf To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja Date:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 12:47:44 PM Attachments:Comments to PTC on Castilleja on March 30.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning Commission Members: See my attached comments on Castilleja Annette Glanckopf Midtown Resident Comments to PTC on Castilleja on March 30, 2022 I would like to add my comments to the discussion about Castilleja. It is time to end the discussion about this project that has gone on for years, with hundreds of hours for staff, applicant, residents and supporters with much misinformation and inaccuracies leading to frustration by each stakeholder group. This issue is not about woman’s education, it is about a school that has continually violated the CUP enrollment numbers and has built 47,000 sf over code with no code enforcement. The issue is about profit. Every new student will add $50-60K more revenue per year for the school. Just 100 new students, would provide at least $5,000,000 more per year – with no tax benefit to Palo Alto. Castilleja’s proposed oversized building and garage will very negatively affect the neighborhood with severe environmental consequences and traffic nightmares. Palo Alto has high environmental goals; however, this project will do more in environmental damage than the positive benefit of years of residents converting to electricity. The concrete production alone is energy intensive. Concrete production accounts for 7% of all GHGs. Construction will require truckloads of debris and dirt removal, plus the hundreds of trips with new materials, including concrete trucks spewing pollution. Embarcadero is already a traffic nightmare. Construction will cause additional jam ups with stalled cars, particularly when students are arriving and departing, and could create safety hazards for bikers, especially on the bike boulevard. Additionally, traffic, looking for a faster path, will flow through surrounding neighborhoods and affect their quality of life. As for my recommendations, I would like to see the redevelopment: • Omit the garage (or provide the smallest garage option). If a garage is built, count the proposed underground parking square footage in determining floor-area ratio. • Do not cut down the established trees. Castilleja needs to come up with a plan that doesn’t remove beautiful trees that delight the eye, shade the street and remove CO2 from the air. Let’s respect the goal of Palo Alto as a tree city. • Allow only a small increase in students. I do not support the phased future enrollment of 540 from their current enrollment in an R1 neighborhood, As many have cited before, only ¼ of students come from Palo Alto. There is no benefit to our community for Castilleja to expand so dramatically. • Design with more modest multiple buildings, not the proposed monolith. Finally, I am opposed to the new GFA definition for below grade parking facilities in the R-1 zone for non-residential properties, called out in the staff report (starting on page 35). This will apply to all non-residential uses conditionally allowed in R1 neighborhoods throughout the city. Plus it will encourage development of these properties and negatively affect neighborhoods abutting these properties, most notably Midtown. Why give the school a variance for their benefit? Their proposed plans will wreak havoc on the environment and community, not only for the neighbors, but for any driver or biker on Embarcadero, and nearby streets to which traffic will migrate. Thinking about the environment -- really everyone in Palo Alto will be affected. Why should this project have specific zoningdefinitons created for them which will affect other neighborhoods by allowing extra development opportunities for other non- residential properties in R1? From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: Thuy Nguyen Date:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 8:21:28 AM Attachments:ALA LETTER.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From: Allan Seid, Richard Konda Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 7:37 AM Subject: Dr. Thuy Nguyen's Contract Renewal at FHDA College SOURCE: Asian Law Aliance, San Jose. Attached is Asian Law Alliance 's response to letter from Dr. Bernadine Fong, Acting President Foothill- De Anza Community College. ASIAN LAW ALLIANCE 991 W. Hedding Street, # 202, San Jose, CA 95126 Tel (408) 287-9710 Fax (408) 287-0864 March 26, 2022 Dr. Bernadine Fong Acting President — Foot] fongbernadine@gmail.c fongbernadine@fhda. ed Dear Dr. Fong, I have yet to receive a 1i support for President Tl was emailed to me by o directly to me? In that letter you wrote: ill College •m ter from you that is dated March 22, 2022 in response to our letter of zy Nguyen's reinstatement and contract renewal. However, that letter e of the ALA Board officers. Did you neglect to email the letter According to yo r letter of March 11, 2022, specific statements were made about the "issues of racial quity and systemic racism (which) must be addressed at Foothill College," and " eeded systemic change." Nothing could factually be further from the truth. Is Foothill College the o 1y institution without issues of racial equity and systemic racism? Your belief would be contrary to the Foothill -De Anza Community College District Board of Trustees' 2021-2022 Board Priorities that states, "the need for ongoing institutional change and why it is imperative if we are to a iminate structural racism and achieve our equity and student success goals." The Board Prior ties also state: "Through the Chancellor and Presidents, work with District constituents at al levels to identify systemic inequities and elements of institutional racism in District policie and practices and adopt strategies aimed at dismantling those oppressive structures..." The ability for a college president to recognize racial inequities and systemic racism is critic 1 first and foremost in order to identify strategies for addressing them. You also wrote: Furthermore, "hi. ignores Foothill', 1971, including t the API, Chicano ing the first dean of institutional equity" mentioned in your letter history of having had similar positions for the same purpose since e dean of multicultural affairs and three faculty directors representing (as it was called then) and Black communities. Our letter noted that thi farewell communique o] quote it again here for y In fact, the colle, "President Nguy of pressing issue Foothill College department. The and administratii homelessness, ba shared governani It is also our understandi Cabinet -level and other in creating such Cabinet Your concerns about our of Trustees and the collet and college have publicly was something the college itself thanked President Nguyen in its public November 1, 2021 — which you were Acting President at the time. We ur reference. de's own Nov. 1, 2021 farewell communique stated: en joined Foothill College in 2016 and worked on a variety from eliminating a $6 million structural budget deficit to hiring s first dean of institutional equity and creating an Institutional Equity ollege's equity efforts also involved increased diversity in faculty, staff, �e ranks. President Nguyen worked to elevate student voices around sic needs, and mental health and brought a strong student voice to e. ng that this dean of institutional equity is the first of such position at a alifornia community colleges are following President Nguyen's stead level position. letter seems more like issues you would need to address with the Board e itself— as your positions are seemingly contrary to what the Board stated. Lastly, as we noted in o October 2021 letter to the Board, this is not a perfunctory letter of support. ALA knows Pr sident Nguyen and her work on racial equity, particularly in education, even before she became he very first Vietnamese American college president in the country. Her courageous and pers stent efforts to close the equity gap for Foothill College's students of color are to be commend d and encouraged. Indeed, ALA proudly presented President Nguyen with its Community Impact Award in 2020. Sine rely 4)/cca_ Richard Konda Executive Director Cc: Judy Miner, Chancellor: minerjudy@fhda.edu Patrick Ahrens, B and Chair: ahrenspatrick@fhda.edu Laura Casas, Bo d Vice Chair: casaslaura(a7fhda.edu Pearl Cheng, Tru ee: chengpearl(cfhda.edu Gilbert Wong, T stee: wonggilbergfhda.edu Peter Landsberger, Trustee: landsbergerpeter@.fhda.edu Rachel Homayon , Student Trustee: asfc.rachelh@gmail.com Michelle Fernand z, Student Trustee: fernandezortegamichelle@fhda.edu Fatai Heimuli, AS C President: heimulifatai(afhda.edu Paula Norsell, Bo d Clerk/Executive Assistant to Chancellor: norsellpaula@fhda.edu Thuy Thi Nguyen ThuyThasbcglobal.net From:Leila H. Moncharsh To:Council, City; Planning Commission; City Mgr; Stump, Molly Subject:Castilleja Project - Planning Commission hearing on March 30, 2022 Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 10:11:34 PM Attachments:Final Letter to PTC. March 28, 2022.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from 101550@msn.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see attached LAW OFFICES VENERUSO & MONCHARSH DONNA M. VENERUSO (d.’09) 5707 REDWOOD ROAD, SUITE 10 LEILA H. MONCHARSH OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619 TELEPHONE (510) 482-0390 FACSIMILE (510) 482-0391 Email: 101550@msn.com March 28, 2022 Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja School Hearing, 19PLN-00116 EIR, Use Permits Dear Commissioners: I represent PNQL and this is in response to the Staff’s report for the March 30, 2022 hearing. Previously, I have extensively advised your commission and the City Council about the school’s request for a variance and why it was not legally available for this project. As I recall, there was further work left to perform around specifying the amount of square footage Castilleja was seeking in its application for a variance. My understanding is that this work has now been completed and the variance grant would be for 47,000 square feet, a huge amount for any cit y to grant. A small amount for, say, a setback, would be consistent with past variances granted by the City as we have shown before in correspondence and hearings. A variance for a very large amount of square footage would cause the City to realistically give up its variance ordinance as others down the road will easily argue that the ordinance was abandoned with this project. Even if the City Council made findings about special conditions for Castilleja in an effort to ward off downstream applicants’ claims that they too should be granted similar large variances, the horse would already be out of the barn. Basically, the City Council will be chipping away at its own ordinance and inviting lawsuits for similar rights as what is now contemplated here. Moreover, what does the City Council propose to do when Castilleja comes back before it in the future wanting another variance for even more square footage? Its history shows that it has an unquenchable thirst for growth and the City Council will have already made findings here that Castilleja is a “special case” deserving of additional square footage over what is legally allowable. A few additional points, some already made and some new, are below. See Packet Pages 67 - 70: SECTION 7. Variance Findings. Castilleja’s application for a variance does not satisfy the City’s variance code section 18.76.030 (c), which requires that there be “special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings …” The staff report states: Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja Project March 28, 2022 Page 2 1.Castilleja School campus is found to have special circumstances, in that the parcel is unique both in terms of size and insofar as it has historically hosted private school facilities that exceed current development standards. (packet page 67) However, the staff report does not cite the very next part of this code, namely 18.76.030(c)(1): Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration include: (A)The personal circumstances of the property owner Being a private school, wanting to expand, and being in the same location a long time are personal circumstances of Castilleja and thus, they do not meet the criteria for granting a variance. The staff report further states: ·FAR limitations and maximum lot size (19,999 sf) would not support the physical space requirement of a private school and were not created with conditionally permitted private school uses in mind; (packet page 67, bullet 1) The site clearly can support a private school, just one that is smaller. The staff report continues: ·The property is unique in many respects … many buildings were constructed before … modern development standards. (packet page 67, bullet 2) Being unique has no bearing; in fact, 18.76.030(a)(1) states, “The purpose of a variance is to: Provide a way for a site with special physical constraints, resulting from natural or built features, to be used in ways similar to other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district”; and 18.76.030(a)(2) to “Provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulations would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. ” Castilleja has been successful in this site for 100 years. They are not at a disadvantage to other properties. Some buildings were built earlier, but most, and certainly those with volumetric space (the Gym, 2006, and the Arts Building, 1998) were built after FAR rules were in effect). The City Council should deny the application for the variance. Thank you for considering my comments. Planning & Transportation Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja Project March 28, 2022 Page 3 Very truly yours, Leila H. Moncharsh Leila H. Moncharsh, J.D., M.U.P. Veneruso & Moncharsh LHM:lm cc: Clients From:Winter Dellenbach To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Council, City Subject:Questions for City Mgr to please answer for me & my Input for hiring Police Chief Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 12:34:56 PM Attachments:Questions for City Mgr to please answer for me my Input for hiring Police Chief.msg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ To: Ed Shikada, City Manager From: Winter Dellenbach Date: March 28, 2022 RE: Hiring New PAPD Chief of Police: Information needed about the Hiring Process, Assumptions, & Questions for Applicants Hi Ed - I have 6 questions about the hiring process itself. Listening sessions don’t allow back and forth to get answers to questions, so would you or someone else appropriate please answer my questions in the first section below (The Hiring Process)? I look forward to hearing you. Otherwise, my input on hiring follows - I hope it is used and useful. Sincerely, Winter Dellenbach The Hiring Process: Please give more specificity: -What will become of public input - how will it be quantified and used during hiring process? - Who or what entity is being consulted and with what expertise to ensure reaching widely diverse Applicants? -Who and what groups will be involved in the hiring process? - Is there to be a Citizen’s Selection Panel (or whatever it may be called)? - If so, this time will it be ethnically diverse and gender balanced beyond the tokenism of the past? With members reflecting the two ethnicities overwhelming subject to the attention and/or use of force/excessive force of the PAPD – Hispanics and Blacks? We see this in the Alvarez and Arevalo cases, and the arrest data below, stunning in what it seems to reveals, yet never mentioned or further analyzed. Most Recent PAPD Demographic Breakdown of Arrests By Year 2015: White (1,226), Hispanic (918), Black (818), Other (365), Asian (173) 2016: White (879), Hispanic (801), Black (589), Other (290), Asian (84) 2017: White (923), Hispanic (696), Black (597), Other (298), Asian (108) 2018: White (896), Hispanic (772), Black (586), Other (231), Asian (111) 2019: White (706), Hispanic (697), Black (488), Other (219), Asian (91) [WD 5-year Totals: White (3,734) Hispanic (3,884) Black (3,078) Other (1,403) Asian (567)] * *WD Arrests include non-residents of Palo Alto. Hiring a Chief of Police Basic Assumptions: -PAPD culture needs to continue changing if we are to reach our goals expressed in the last section of the Resolution adopted by City Council on June 8, 2020. (below) -Hiring an Applicant from within the PAPD will get us more of the same and won’t gain the trust of the public. It also precludes any chance for ethnic/race diversity as Chief. We need to hire what we need if to change, not more of what we have. - An effort must be made as never before for a diverse hire, whether successful or not. This is not a panacea, but a move toward progress. Promoting a woman to Assistant Chief would not be enough. -It is vital for an Applicant from elsewhere (depending on how far away and the size and attributes of their current Department) that they have an understanding of our City’s sensibility, culture and expectation for law enforcement. We don’t want an LAPD/LASD sensibility applied to Palo Alto. -You may be doing this? A search of an Applicant’s past press and social media, along with the Department Divisions they served in should be conducted. Perhaps some we hired in the past would not have stood up to this scrutiny had we searched then. Questions for Applicants: -What concerns do you have about policing in Palo Alto? -Have you worked in a Department with an Independent Police Auditor or Independent Citizens Police Commission? If so, were you in a position to interact and adopt Recommendations made for improvement in Police Policies? If you didn’t have either forms of oversight, how was your Department/s held accountable to the public and were you involved with it? -How will you fire officers for serious misconduct in spite of binding arbitration that can overrule your decision? -Would you make it your practice to promptly inform the public when police misconduct occurs that involves substantial injury to a person/s? -Do you endorse and uphold the commitment the City has made as stated in the below Resolution? (Should be provided each Applicant) From:Aram James To:Jeff Rosen; Sajid Khan; Jethroe Moore; Greg Tanaka; Lumi Gardner; Council, City; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; Cindy Chavez; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; Shikada, Ed; Roberta Ahlquist; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:It Took a Century to Get an Anti-Lynching Law (by Jamelle Bouie) NYT’s Sunday April 3, 2022 Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 10:20:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Sent from my iPhone From:AmyMChristel To:Council, City Subject:Egregiously low planes Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 12:15:07 PM Attachments:IMG_0249.PNG CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council Members, This low and disturbing PAO pleasure flight came within ten minutes of the last PAO low plane! 1000 ft is considered “safe minimum altitude over homes” but PAO traffic violates this rule all the time because they can get away with using our community as their takeoff/ landing path. Not what they claim on their website as “neighborly” practice. 791 ft over homes is a risk to all. The last crash landing from PAO was due to a “fueling error”, which should have us all very worried about oversight of the airport staff. I don’t want to support the maintenance of this polluting, elitist, hobbyist airport. Does City Council have anything to say about PAO, or are you ignoring the elephant in the carbon footprint room? 80% of PAO traffic stays local, circling for training and sightseeing. That’s a lot of leaded avgas burnt locally. Sincerely, Amy Christel Midtown PA Sent from my iPhone From:AmyMChristel To:Council, City Subject:Low noisy planes to PAO Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 11:56:43 AM Attachments:Screenshot 2022-04-03 at 11.51.54 AM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ This is a common occurrence over residential areas and schools. PAO does nothing about it even though this is a violation of noise abatement minimum altitude to 1500 feet. City Council should have some say over what happens at PAO or begin to shut it down by stopping grants from the FAA. It is hypocritical to say you are concerned about commercial airlines over Palo Alto when these airplanes are spewing leaded gas over all of us. Sincerely, Amy Christel Midtown PA Sent from my iPhone From:Heidi Yauman To:Lara, Rosalinda Cc:cwelshlaw@gmail.com Subject:Re: In-person visit Date:Friday, April 1, 2022 9:36:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. dear rosalinda i lost my visa card and needf a new one if you camt reach me contact cary he is my advocate the lawyers come tomorrow and tom henning is afraid that you will hurt me and that you and anya did fraud and he wants to go to court pleaase get me a new visa card maybe robert dacvid steele the cia man died did yoiu find out why this man looks like judge manoukian and i hope you have a nice day from heidi yauman Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 at 9:21 AM From: "Lara, Rosalinda" <Rosalinda.Lara@ssa.sccgov.org> To: "Heidi Yauman" <heidi.yauman@usa.com> Subject: In-person visit Hello Heidi, I went on 3/22/22 @ 1:30 pm to Starbuck for our meeting but you were not there I waited and drove around for 30 minutes but nothing. I really need to see you to let try this again. Let’s meet on 3/29/22 @ 10:30 a.m. again at Starbucks. Hope to see you there. Thank you, Rosalinda Lara Deputy Public Guardian/Conservator Office (408) 755-7634 Fax (408) 755-7950 From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:ORG - Clerk"s Office; Allen, James; Executive Leadership Team Subject:Council Consent Agenda Question for 4/4/22: Item 11 Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 5:40:52 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image002.png Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links for the amended agenda and staff response to a question from Councilmember Cormack regarding Monday night’s Council Meeting: April 4, 2022 Amended Agenda Staff response to Consent Item 11 Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Wong, Tim; Lait, Jonathan; Sheryl Klein Subject:HCD presentation Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 9:14:09 AM Attachments:image001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Last Friday I watched a presentation from senior HCD staff on Housing Element update issues and requirements. It covered all the issues Palo Alto and other cities are facing. Rather than including my summary, I encourage everyone to watch the video and the presentation slides forwarded in the email below from Alison at SV@Home. Tim, could you make sure this email is forwarded to the working group, thanks At the end of the zoom, HCD again offered to do this briefing and answer questions if asked. I strongly encourage the council, PTC and working group to accept their offer and schedule a zoom all can attend. Alison included questions that there was not enough tie to address and if Zisser responds, I will forward his replies. Steve Hi Steve, Here is the video recording, including time stamps for some of the key answers (click on the timestamp in purple to go directly to that part of the video). Slides are here: View slides Melinda Coy: Melinda.Coy@hcd.ca.gov David Zisser: David.Zisser@hcd.ca.gov Here are some of the questions we didn't have time to get to: People are starting to look at the comment/deficiency letters that you issued for SoCal jurisdictions – a lot of it looks like "show us the work". It is a lot to go through. Can you talk a little about what cities are doing to respond, what steps are they taking to move from "not there" on initial submission to compliance? Is this mostly work on paper, or actual additional engagement process? Could you speak to rezoning, it seems that cities see this as a negative? Please provide an example of how a city builds LI/VLI homes? Does HCD/CA provide subsidies to make this possible? What suggestions would you offer for Housing Element public engagement re AFFH for cities that contain only high or highest opportunity zones? (This person- from Cupertino- was trying to get at the need to analyze segregation not only at the city level but at the regional level. Cupertino has been so effective at keeping lower- income folks out that they're arguing they aren't segregated. Is there a burden for the city to do outreach beyond residents, as well as analysis? One target would be DeAnza College students and faculty.) If a local agency has 3-4 housing development project applications which are adding a significant amount of density that may meet 75% of the RHNA (sites which were not included in RHNA 5), how much more does the city need to do in terms of sites inventory? (Recommended overplanning buffer, also speaks to the need for sites to be distributed through community.) Hope that's helpful! Alison Cingolani Policy & Research Associate|SV@Home 408.785.0531 I alison@siliconvalleyathome.org Silicon Valley Is Home. Join our Houser Movement. Become a member! 350 W Julian St. #5, San José, CA 95110 Website Facebook LinkedIn Twitter From: slevy@ccsce.com <slevy@ccsce.com> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 10:28 AM To: Alison Cingolani <alison@siliconvalleyathome.org>; Mathew Reed <mathew@siliconvalleyathome.org> Subject: follow up Hi, Can you send me the slides and chat notes from the HAC? Is the video posted and is there a link? Do you have email addresses for Melinda and David? Should I invite Sheryl to join at 4pm or not needed? Steve From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Aram James Cc:Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; Enberg, Nicholas; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Tannock, Julie; Tony Dixon; GRP-City Council; Human Relations Commission; City Mgr; Council, City; City Alto; Sajid Khan; bob nunez; Shikada, Ed; Reifschneider, James; Maloney, Con; Brian Welch; darylsavage@gmail.com; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; daniel okonkwo; Diana Diamond Subject:Re: The systemic problem of the perpetually lying cop— Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 5:42:36 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Aram, If Ed the city talking horse can’t handle it….then we should defer it to another jackass here… http://barronparkdonkeys.org/donkeys/ Just a thought….. Mark Sent from my iPad On Mar 31, 2022, at 6:07 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: How does this happen. How does this escape the rigorous psychological hiring exam. The exam has to be flawed…. i.e. “The Fuse” my god….. I think Mr. Ed the talking city horse should step in and answer a few questions. If good sense doesn’t work. Then we need some good horse sense… Aram….Is that a reconocible request? Mark Sent from my iPad On Mar 30, 2022, at 11:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: I was a line public defender my entire career. This means I never managed other lawyers. Management would never have allowed me to formally train other public defenders since I was considered a “true believer” and was known for being relentless in my cross examination of police officers to the great displeasure of the judges, district attorneys, my own office and of course the cops who faced me in what some considered my endless cross examination of cops. And of course I would never stipulate to drug results or any other prosecution evidence all to the great displeasure of the DA, the courts, and my own office. Failure to stipulate of course meant that the proceedings inevitably took much longer that the production line criminal injustice system could tolerate. So, as you might guess, I became very familiar with cops lying on the witness stand almost daily. Before preliminary examinations which I handled thousands of over my career….and court and jury trials I spent obsessive amounts of time reading and rereading police reports to find any basis to impeach the cop on the witness stand and expose the officer’s habit and custom of lying under oath. Almost every criminal case has cops testilying and judges know this and DA’s know this and, with rare exception, the judges and DA’s pretend the cops are not lying and look the other way. Often I would distract the jury from the bad or very bad evidence against my clients by focusing on essentially putting the cop on trial for their numerous lies in their police reports and their previous lies under oath. I never understood why a cop would feel compelled to lie in cases where the evidence against my client was overwhelming and with their unnecessary lies and bad attitudes towards me while on the witness stand …I now had the chance to obtain a Not Guilty verdict not because my client was factually innocent…. but because the jury hated the lying cop. Moral to the story: if I was training cops to testify … I’d tell them to just tell the truth don’t let your desire to lie on the stand cause the DA to lose his or her case. For many cops in my experience they just can’t help themselves—the lying is like part of their DNA. Sad but true!! I remember after one very long trial 5-7 weeks the the lead detective for the DA out of the Santa Clara Police Department ( looked like Dennis Burns’ twin brother) was so angry about the way I treated him during cross examination, closing argument, the entire trial…that he told the DA -a decent guy( who later told me the story)-that I was so over the top as a defense attorney —that he would rather shoot me than talk to me. Of course I took this as a great compliment-knew I had upheld my constitutional duty to be a zealous unrelenting advocate with an undivided loyalty for my client. I’ve been often asked how can you do that work knowing your client may be guilty of horrible crimes. My answer is officer or ordinary citizen when you are charged with a crime or two I’m betting you will come running my way asking if I can represent you. It’s all about defending the constitution whether I’m defending a member of the Aryan brotherhood, a rogue cop, an ordinary citizen —no matter what they should all receive the full measure of the constitution. I hope this is some help. aram From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Aram James Cc:Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; Enberg, Nicholas; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Tannock, Julie; Tony Dixon; GRP-City Council; Human Relations Commission; City Mgr; Council, City; City Alto; Sajid Khan; bob nunez; Shikada, Ed; Reifschneider, James; Maloney, Con; Brian Welch; darylsavage@gmail.com; donald.larkin@morganhill.ca.gov; daniel okonkwo; Diana Diamond Subject:Re: The systemic problem of the perpetually lying cop— Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 5:07:05 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ How does this happen. How does this escape the rigorous psychological hiring exam. The exam has to be flawed…. i.e. “The Fuse” my god….. I think Mr. Ed the talking city horse should step in and answer a few questions. If good sense doesn’t work. Then we need some good horse sense… Aram….Is that a reconocible request? Mark Sent from my iPad > On Mar 30, 2022, at 11:40 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> I was a line public defender my entire career. This means I never managed other lawyers. Management would never have allowed me to formally train other public defenders since I was considered a “true believer” and was known for being relentless in my cross examination of police officers to the great displeasure of the judges, district attorneys, my own office and of course the cops who faced me in what some considered my endless cross examination of cops. >>> >>> And of course I would never stipulate to drug results or any other prosecution evidence all to the great displeasure of the DA, the courts, and my own office. Failure to stipulate of course meant that the proceedings inevitably took much longer that the production line criminal injustice system could tolerate. >>> >>> So, as you might guess, I became very familiar with cops lying on the witness stand almost daily. Before preliminary examinations which I handled thousands of over my career….and court and jury trials I spent obsessive amounts of time reading and rereading police reports to find any basis to impeach the cop on the witness stand and expose the officer’s habit and custom of lying under oath. >>> >>> Almost every criminal case has cops testilying and judges know this and DA’s know this and, with rare exception, the judges and DA’s pretend the cops are not lying and look the other way. >>> >>> Often I would distract the jury from the bad or very bad evidence against my clients by focusing on essentially putting the cop on trial for their numerous lies in their police reports and their previous lies under oath. >>> >>> I never understood why a cop would feel compelled to lie in cases where the evidence against my client was overwhelming and with their unnecessary lies and bad attitudes towards me while on the witness stand …I now had the chance to obtain a Not Guilty verdict not because my client was factually innocent…. but because the jury hated the lying cop. >>> >>> Moral to the story: if I was training cops to testify … I’d tell them to just tell the truth don’t let your desire to lie on the stand cause the DA to lose his or her case. For many cops in my experience they just can’t help themselves—the lying is like part of their DNA. Sad but true!! >>> >>> I remember after one very long trial 5-7 weeks the the lead detective for the DA out of the Santa Clara Police Department ( looked like Dennis Burns’ twin brother) was so angry about the way I treated him during cross examination, closing argument, the entire trial…that he told the DA -a decent guy( who later told me the story)-that I was so over the top as a defense attorney —that he would rather shoot me than talk to me. >>> >>> Of course I took this as a great compliment-knew I had upheld my constitutional duty to be a zealous unrelenting advocate with an undivided loyalty for my client. >>> >>> I’ve been often asked how can you do that work knowing your client may be guilty of horrible crimes. My answer is officer or ordinary citizen when you are charged with a crime or two I’m betting you will come running my way asking if I can represent you. >>> >>> It’s all about defending the constitution whether I’m defending a member of the Aryan brotherhood, a rogue cop, an ordinary citizen —no matter what they should all receive the full measure of the constitution. I hope this is some help. >>> >>> aram >>> >>> From:Ed Supplee To:Hur, Mark Cc:City Mgr; Kamhi, Philip; Council, City Subject:Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 7:00:01 PM Attachments:image053.png image056.png image048.png image050.png image055.png image059.png image061.png image063.png image069.png image073.png image075.png image079.png image081.png image087.png image090.png image092.png image094.png image097.png image101.png image103.png image109.png image111.png image115.png image117.png image121.png image123.png image127.png image129.png image131.png image134.png image136.png image139.png image141.png image145.png image147.png Mark, I have gone through this twice and I've spent literally hours beating my head against the wall of this system. When I fill out the credit card info, click on "I'm not a robot", then click the terms button I get the many pages of terms (what a waste of time) Then there is no button for me to accept the terms. Yet if I don't accept the terms I can't pay!! And I am stuck. Hello!! Is nobody home? If anybody were home or cared they would FIX THE SYSTEM. I don't need handholding. I need a system that works. I have been a designer of systems in my professional career. Whoever designed this system is an idiot. Whoever tested this system is an idiot. Whoever selected this system for Palo Alto to use is an idiot. And whoever has to now support the customer (that would be you) I feel sorry for. I'll be at my appointment on Tuesday to pay my bill. This is a complete joke. Ed From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 4:30 PM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Kamhi, Philip <Philip.Kamhi@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, On behalf of the City Manager, Ed Shikada, thank you for providing your comments and concerns regarding purchasing a residential parking permit in the Evergreen Park- Mayfield RPP district. The Office of Transportation has been working closely with Duncan Solutions to fulfill your request for RPP permits. Through email exchanges, Duncan provided an account number, and I provided instructions on ordering permits on March 22nd. In addition, I uploaded your eligibility documents on your behalf on March 28th. Duncan approved your documents the following day when you were able to pay for your order. Unfortunately, the permit system requires the user to agree to the terms of the parking ordinance and check the “I’m not a robot” before submitting payment. The screenshot below is currently on your account/checkout page: In our call earlier today at 2:04, I offered to assist you by entering your card information for payment, which you declined. I also setup an in-person appointment with you to complete this order, which you scheduled for Tuesday, April 5th, at 2:00 at City Hall. We understand your frustration with the application process. The initial creation of the account for the verification of residency tends to be the most tedious part of the program. In future sales cycles, you will simply add permits to your account and pay. Additionally, while the program starts on April 1st, there will be also be a grace period with only warnings being issued, and we will not issue any citations until at least Monday, April 18th. We plan to resolve any remaining issues, complete your order, and get you a permit well before the enforcement start date. We look forward to meeting with you and to help you complete this order. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 1:19 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Mark, As always, I could not do anything after clicking the Complete Purchase button below. When I went to the original message from the system soliciting my payment, I went through the whole process and went to complete purchase and I got an error message. I had to accept the terms first before completeimng purchase. I found the well disguised termks button below for the terms, but there was no a Accent Terms button. I am stuch again. As usual. This system has NEVER BEEN DEBUGGED. We are now getting similar comments from all our neighbors from our local comment group. Again, we can't even go to the City Hall and pay the bill!!! What do I do now? Ed From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 11:19 AM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, I am checking-in again to ask if you had any additional questions on your account/order. I see your permit request is waiting for payment (see below). Please let me know if you have any questions or have issues paying. Thank you, Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Hur, Mark Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 8:01 PM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com>; Online Issues <OnlineIssues@duncansolutions.com> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Importance: High Ed, I attached your documents and submitted your request for two virtual permits. Please see the screen shorts for confirmation at the bottom of this email Duncan Solutions – Can you please expedite this order and let Ed know when he can pay for his two virtual permits? Thank you, Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 5:05 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Fw: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Mark, I can't get to the screen that has Choose File on it. I also tried to click on Choose File below and it doesn't work. I have spent hours on this, and I can't believe I'm the only one! Anyhow attached are my and my wife's drivers licenses and the registrations for both of our cars. Can you attach them for me? Ed From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:17 PM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, I accessed your account and everything looks to be in order. I added another virtual permit for your second vehicle and reached the screen below: After clicking Check Out, I got the following page where you can upload your documents. After you upload your documents, please select next which will forward the info/order to Duncan Solutions who will review the documents, and if approved, provide payment instructions to complete your order. Please let me know if you cannot complete the steps above and I can schedule a call to discuss each step. Thank you, Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 3:46 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Mark Above is where I'm stuck. When I click check out, it just goes back to this same form. In other words I'm in a loop. How do I escape? Also how do I enter the car Registration forms? Ed 650-327-3284 From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 1:26 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Mark, I got in and ordered the items. I'm waiting 5 days to be approved. And then...... Very poor system and process. Ed From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 12:26 PM To: edsupplee@hotmail.com <edsupplee@hotmail.com>; sallysupplee@comcast.net <sallysupplee@comcast.net> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, I wanted to follow-up on my email from Tuesday. Were you able to complete your order or would you like additional assistance? Thank you, Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 6:00 PM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com>; sallysupplee@comcast.net Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, Thank you for your email. To fulfill your order, you must log in to your Duncan Solutions account at https://duncan.imageenforcement.com/PermitSites/PaloAltoPermits, not the cityofpaloalto.org site. I checked your account, and it doesn’t look like you selected a vehicle for the virtual permit: After selecting a vehicle, you will click Order Permit, and your cart should populate with your order. You will then click Check Out, which will take you to the following page, where you can upload your eligibility documents. After uploading your documents click Next, and a Duncan staff member will review your order. If approved, you will then be receive instructions to pay and complete your order. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 5:07 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Mark, My wife contacted you earlier today. I have an account (7827463). I entered my car (license SUPPLEE, a Honda Accord) and I select the one year virtual tag in Evergreen Park. It says I owe nothing. How to I pay for the permit? I (and my wife) have now done this many times. This doesn't work. I have written to Onlineissues@DuncanSolutions.com and they don't respond. I have contacted you multiple times, and you send me more instructions. They don't work. We called customer support today, and both she and we logged onto www.cityofpaloalto.org and were looking at TWO DIFFERENT SCREENS!! Are there two rev's of the same site up at the same time?! She simply didn't know what she was doing. We were told we couldn't come in and pay at City Hall. We have probably spent two hours trying to pay for two cars and can't do it. The system doesn't work. What do you suggest? I give up. Ed City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, known as the “Birthplace of Silicon Valley,” is home to 69,700 residents and nearly 100,000 jobs. Unique among city organizations, the City of Palo Alto operates a full-array of services including its own gas, electric, water, sewer, refuse and storm drainage provided at very competitive rates for its customers. www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 3:34 PM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, I checked again and I am able to access the sites. Here is a direct link to the permitting portal, https://duncan.imageenforcement.com/PermitSites/PaloAltoPermits Please create a new user account as instructed on the first page. If you have any technical questions or ordering concerns, please email Duncan Solutions at Onlineissues@DuncanSolutions.com. Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 3:30 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park In your email to me (see below) "Hello Thank you for your email." The second line of the next paragraph includes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Residents This link does not work. In the box labeled "How to get a permit" includes a link as follows: Duncan Solutions Permit Portal (see below) This does not work. If you have trouble with this, call me and we can walk through it slowly. Ed 327-3284 From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 3:22 PM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, Thank you for your email and feedback. Can you please clarify which site you are trying access, outline in your response? The very first "https://www.city......." says click here if you are a first time user. It doesn't work! I revisited the City and Duncan’s sites and both are accessible. Please try again and let me know if you still cannot access the permit portal. Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 2:55 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park The very first "https://www.city......." says click here if you are a first time user. It doesn't work! Further down below in "How to get a permit", clicking through to Duncan Solutions Permit Portal doesn't work. Do you or anybody else ever check this out before sending out garbage? Clearly nobody knows how to write a clear procedure. Help. Ed From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 9:46 AM To: edsupplee@hotmail.com <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello, Thank you for your email. Please review the attached memo and visit the parking website for purchasing tips and a link to the permitting site. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Residents Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. -----Original Message----- From: edsupplee@hotmail.com <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 2:16 PM To: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park [You don't often get email from edsupplee@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ How do I buy the permits? Can I do it on your web site? Is there an ORDER NOW button? This E-Mail has been scanned for viruses. From:Aram James To:Jeff Rosen Cc:Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; City Alto; Cindy Chavez; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Joe Simitian; supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org; City Mgr; Joe Simitian; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; ladoris cordell; Gennady Sheyner; Winter Dellenbach; Pat Burt; Human Relations Commission; Council, City Subject:Re: Truth VS. Falsehoods Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 5:46:05 PM Attachments:JR-FB-Banner.2.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hi Jeff, Any idea who is actually behind the push poll? You have two opponents can tell us which one you suspect? Or could it be a third party pretending to be one of your opponents? Aram Dear Friend, A few days ago, I received a message from a couple friends letting me know that one of my campaign opponents was conducting something they described as a push poll. Somewhat unsure of what they meant, I asked one of them, “you mean when someone calls and pretends to be asking objective questions and then begins to attack the opponent with distortions.” “Exactly!” my friend responded. I think of myself as pretty thick-skinned. So, I just told them not to worry about it and we’ll have plenty of time to tell our story. Then, not less than five minutes later, I received an email from a nice woman in Sunnyvale. She wrote Hi Jeff, I have never met you. I only read about you in the news and occasionally have seen interviews of you on local TV. All and all, you have a difficult job and I think you are doing an outstanding job. I live in Santa Clara County and am a resident of Sunnyvale. She went on to say that the anonymous caller, posing as a pollster, started making several negative comments about my record including that I had turned a blind eye to wrongdoing in the Sheriff's Office, had gone easy on police misconduct, and didn’t fully fund domestic violence programs. The facts are my Office indicted two high ranking members of the Sheriff’s inner circle on bribery charges and prosecuted and convicted three correctional officers for murdering a mentally ill inmate. The facts are my Office has prosecuted more than 50 police officers for crimes committed on and off duty including, drunk driving, excessive use of force, drug trafficking, grand theft, perjury, assault, possession of child pornography, domestic violence, rape, and murder. The facts are my Office created three Family Justice Centers throughout Santa Clara County to provide domestic violence survivors with vital services including restraining orders, emergency food and shelter, safety planning, immigration assistance, and counseling all in convenient locations. Moreover, my Office spearheaded the creation of a gold standard Child Advocacy Center to treat physically and sexually abused children with every necessary service under one roof. The fact is, year in and year out, for the last decade, under my leadership as DA, our County has the lowest crime rate of any large county in the nation and one of the lowest crimes rates in California. There were more false accusations, so I created this TRUTH VS FALSEHOODS page to show how those behind this push pol are not only unethical but just plain wrong. I encourage you to take a look. Let me end by thanking the kind woman from Sunnyvale for having my back. I am extremely proud of the incredible job that all the prosecutors, investigators, criminalists and support staff in my Office have done to promote justice and safety for everyone in our community. I may be idealistic, but I truly believe that the District Attorney’s Office should be above petty politics and cheap distortions. After all, justice demands the truth. Thank you all for your support. Jeff P.S. Please send me an email if you would like to volunteer for my campaign or sign up here. From:Henshall, Eric To:Tran, Joanna Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Eggleston, Brad; Gaines, Chantal Subject:RE: Aircraft noise hearing Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 4:12:36 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png image004.png image005.png image007.png image008.png image009.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from eric.henshall@mail.house.gov.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Joanna, Acknowledging receipt of this letter. Rep. Eshoo appreciates the City’s comments and will include them in her submissions for the official hearing record. Thanks, Eric Henshall Senior Legislative Assistant | Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) Phone: (202) 225-8104 | Website From: Tran, Joanna <Joanna.Tran@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 7:08 PM To: Henshall, Eric <Eric.Henshall@mail.house.gov> Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Eggleston, Brad <Brad.Eggleston@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Aircraft noise hearing Importance: High Hello Mr. Henshall, Thank you for the opportunity to submit comments for a congressional hearing on aircraft noise. Please see attached for the letter addressed to Congresswoman Eshoo from the City of Palo Alto, with the subject line: Aviation Noise: Measuring Progress in Addressing Community Concerns Written Testimony of the City of Palo Alto. Regards, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Henshall, Eric <Eric.Henshall@mail.house.gov> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 8:16 AM To: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Aircraft noise hearing Good morning, Please see the attached letter from Congresswoman Anna Eshoo regarding an opportunity to submit comments for a congressional hearing on aircraft noise. I apologize for the short notice, but if the city would like to submit official comments for the hearing record, you can send them to me by March 30th. Individual residents wishing to submit comments may do so here: https://eshoo.house.gov/aircraft-noise-comment-submission-form. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Eric Henshall Senior Legislative Assistant | Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) Phone: (202) 225-8104 | Website From:Scott O"Neil To:Council, City; Planning Commission; HeUpdate Subject:Report: Housing Element Faith-Based Institutions Groundtruthing Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 2:13:17 PM Attachments:17BCF3EACB0946D193EFF933C79B91F0.png D560961B1C19416290A0AD2AF68DE9A4.png 4D37FDF76C2F46A78E0AC34B8419E869.png 4938D2F1C89A4696ADE6B833174EC686.png 84C0B07F61C44C4FAEB36DD361153493.png 8CB6DF955A8247F68CDD9280EA32B52B.png 38E0F38F6C97468AA2F8BC5ADD307296.png 84496FC856C84D208B492D370A44D348.png 5371B50175BA4CE59B589E2D6C168311.png 8C1A3ADB43974B95BFA5F7646CC671BF.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from scottoneil@hotmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. March 30, 2022 Dear Palo Alto City Council; Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Committee; Palo Alto Housing Element Working Group; and City Staff: Some friends and I recently conducted a review of the “Faith-Based Institutions” site listed for consideration in the Sixth Cycle Housing Element Inventory. These sites are worth considering separately because they use an unusual strategy of planning for housing exclusively on the parking lots, and not the rest of the parcels, and also because they are often embedded in R-1 zones which is atypical of inventory sites due to the Working Group’s choice to otherwise exclude R-1 from the inventory. In the context of HCD’s guidance and realistic constraints on housing development in these areas, we find that when deeply-entrenched planning practices are considered, the city is systematically overplanning for housing on these sites. This conclusion stems from factors such as projecting that 100% of the parking will be replaced, using densities that would likely prove physically impossible under the city’s Daylight Plane and setbacks rules, and irregular parking lot dimensions. Assuming that parking is above grade (as economics would dictate for low-income housing), we believe that Mullin-density housing (30 du/acre), plus the parking Palo Alto would require for such units, plus replacement parking for the continued operation of these houses of worship, would together ultimately impinge on the daylight plane given existing setbacks. To give a quick estimate: even 800-squarefoot units with one story of replacement parking and one story of parking for residents would be four stories at 30 du/acre. This would hit the city’s 55-foot height limit. Obviously if such a structure can only be one story at the edge due to the daylight plane, then it is not four stories uniformly. We are attaching site-by-site analysis as an appendix that shows where setbacks and daylight plane start creating such physical constraints on these sites. The intent is to illustrate how the geometry of these parking lots often create multiple daylight plane/setback constraints that will reduce the buildable volume on these sites. Many of these parking lots have odd geometries that will compound the effect of these restrictions. To qualify for inclusion in the housing element, the city must commit in a binding way to change zoning for these sites to remove all physical constraints for planned housing. Palo Alto could alternatively study these sites in more detail to account for physical constraints they will not give up (i.e., setbacks, daylight plane, parking, FAR, et cetera) to determine what will be buildable on these lots, and update capacity on the inventory appropriately. One site (Cowper) needs to be recategorized to moderate because the parking lots are split into sites of less than 0.5 acres. Finally, the city should recognize that the production of low-income housing on these sites is speculative. To reflect this, the city should adopt as part of its housing element a monitoring and contingency program. If the city has permitted no housing on church sites after three years, it should commit to rezoning to create offsetting capacity elsewhere by the fourth year of the cycle. We will get to more sites soon, but we want to share our results early and often. Please send any questions. Thank you for your attention and all you’re doing on the Housing Element. -Scott O’Neil Appendix 1. Daylight Plane Site Analysis Below we will outline sites that we believe merit reconsideration of their realistic capacities under the Housing Element. We used Google satellite images to estimate location of daylight plane origins. Three sites, 2890 Middlefield Rd, 625 Hamilton Ave, and 687 Arastradero Rd, were in areas that did not seem to have a daylight plane constraint. 3505 Middlefield (36 low-income units) Big lot, but SFH on two sides, plus across the creek on a third side. Also, the presence of an office building (directly under the red pointer) surrounded on all four sides by parking lot could impose geometric constraints on where to place any housing. 1140 Cowper (14 low-income units, must become moderate) Borders SFH on one side, and across the street on two more. Parking is split up across the site, which might further reduce realistic capacity. . Furthermore, this site of 0.61 acres (per city estimate) does not meet HCD requirements for low-income housing. Development of the lot would have to be split across two distinct sites, each of less than 0.5 acres See figures on next page with Google’s default view (reducing treecover issues) and a street view from Lincoln Ave on the NE side of the lot. 2490 Middlefield Rd (11 moderate income units) Several borders and an oddly shaped lot will severely encumber realistic capacity on this site. 3149 Waverley St (16 lower income units) Favorable lot shape, but borders SFH on two sides, and across the street. 865 Stanford Ave (11 moderate income units) This lot has two subareas of parking. One is bordering SFH on two sides and a third across the street. The other is bordering SFH on one side and two more across streets. It will be highly encumbered by the daylight plane. 1985 Louis (26 lower income units) This lot has SFH on two sides, has a third border across the street, and will have its capacity further constrained by having its lot split across two sections. 1611 Standford Ave (5 moderate income units) This small parking lot borders SFH on one side. From:Ed Supplee To:Hur, Mark; Council, City Subject:Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 1:18:58 PM Attachments:image062.png image065.png image002.png image003.png image005.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image010.png image011.png image014.png image016.png image017.png image018.png image019.png image021.png image022.png image025.png image026.png image028.png image029.png image031.png image032.png image034.png image035.png image036.png image038.png image039.png image040.png image041.png image043.png image044.png Mark, As always, I could not do anything after clicking the Complete Purchase button below. When I went to the original message from the system soliciting my payment, I went through the whole process and went to complete purchase and I got an error message. I had to accept the terms first before completeimng purchase. I found the well disguised termks button below for the terms, but there was no a Accent Terms button. I am stuch again. As usual. This system has NEVER BEEN DEBUGGED. We are now getting similar comments from all our neighbors from our local comment group. Again, we can't even go to the City Hall and pay the bill!!! What do I do now? Ed From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2022 11:19 AM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, I am checking-in again to ask if you had any additional questions on your account/order. I see your permit request is waiting for payment (see below). Please let me know if you have any questions or have issues paying. Thank you, Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Hur, Mark Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 8:01 PM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com>; Online Issues <OnlineIssues@duncansolutions.com> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Importance: High Ed, I attached your documents and submitted your request for two virtual permits. Please see the screen shorts for confirmation at the bottom of this email Duncan Solutions – Can you please expedite this order and let Ed know when he can pay for his two virtual permits? Thank you, Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 5:05 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Fw: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Mark, I can't get to the screen that has Choose File on it. I also tried to click on Choose File below and it doesn't work. I have spent hours on this, and I can't believe I'm the only one! Anyhow attached are my and my wife's drivers licenses and the registrations for both of our cars. Can you attach them for me? Ed From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 4:17 PM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, I accessed your account and everything looks to be in order. I added another virtual permit for your second vehicle and reached the screen below: After clicking Check Out, I got the following page where you can upload your documents. After you upload your documents, please select next which will forward the info/order to Duncan Solutions who will review the documents, and if approved, provide payment instructions to complete your order. Please let me know if you cannot complete the steps above and I can schedule a call to discuss each step. Thank you, Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Monday, March 28, 2022 3:46 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Mark Above is where I'm stuck. When I click check out, it just goes back to this same form. In other words I'm in a loop. How do I escape? Also how do I enter the car Registration forms? Ed 650-327-3284 From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 1:26 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Mark, I got in and ordered the items. I'm waiting 5 days to be approved. And then...... Very poor system and process. Ed From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 12:26 PM To: edsupplee@hotmail.com <edsupplee@hotmail.com>; sallysupplee@comcast.net <sallysupplee@comcast.net> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, I wanted to follow-up on my email from Tuesday. Were you able to complete your order or would you like additional assistance? Thank you, Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 6:00 PM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com>; sallysupplee@comcast.net Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, Thank you for your email. To fulfill your order, you must log in to your Duncan Solutions account at https://duncan.imageenforcement.com/PermitSites/PaloAltoPermits, not the cityofpaloalto.org site. I checked your account, and it doesn’t look like you selected a vehicle for the virtual permit: After selecting a vehicle, you will click Order Permit, and your cart should populate with your order. You will then click Check Out, which will take you to the following page, where you can upload your eligibility documents. After uploading your documents click Next, and a Duncan staff member will review your order. If approved, you will then be receive instructions to pay and complete your order. Please let me know if you have any additional questions. Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 5:07 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Mark, My wife contacted you earlier today. I have an account (7827463). I entered my car (license SUPPLEE, a Honda Accord) and I select the one year virtual tag in Evergreen Park. It says I owe nothing. How to I pay for the permit? I (and my wife) have now done this many times. This doesn't work. I have written to Onlineissues@DuncanSolutions.com and they don't respond. I have contacted you multiple times, and you send me more instructions. They don't work. We called customer support today, and both she and we logged onto www.cityofpaloalto.org and were looking at TWO DIFFERENT SCREENS!! Are there two rev's of the same site up at the same time?! She simply didn't know what she was doing. We were told we couldn't come in and pay at City Hall. We have probably spent two hours trying to pay for two cars and can't do it. The system doesn't work. What do you suggest? I give up. Ed City of Palo Alto Palo Alto, known as the “Birthplace of Silicon Valley,” is home to 69,700 residents and nearly 100,000 jobs. Unique among city organizations, the City of Palo Alto operates a full-array of services including its own gas, electric, water, sewer, refuse and storm drainage provided at very competitive rates for its customers. www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 3:34 PM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, I checked again and I am able to access the sites. Here is a direct link to the permitting portal, https://duncan.imageenforcement.com/PermitSites/PaloAltoPermits Please create a new user account as instructed on the first page. If you have any technical questions or ordering concerns, please email Duncan Solutions at Onlineissues@DuncanSolutions.com. Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 3:30 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park In your email to me (see below) "Hello Thank you for your email." The second line of the next paragraph includes https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Residents This link does not work. In the box labeled "How to get a permit" includes a link as follows: Duncan Solutions Permit Portal (see below) This does not work. If you have trouble with this, call me and we can walk through it slowly. Ed 327-3284 From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 3:22 PM To: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello Ed, Thank you for your email and feedback. Can you please clarify which site you are trying access, outline in your response? The very first "https://www.city......." says click here if you are a first time user. It doesn't work! I revisited the City and Duncan’s sites and both are accessible. Please try again and let me know if you still cannot access the permit portal. Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. From: Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2022 2:55 PM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park The very first "https://www.city......." says click here if you are a first time user. It doesn't work! Further down below in "How to get a permit", clicking through to Duncan Solutions Permit Portal doesn't work. Do you or anybody else ever check this out before sending out garbage? Clearly nobody knows how to write a clear procedure. Help. Ed From: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, March 7, 2022 9:46 AM To: edsupplee@hotmail.com <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park Hello, Thank you for your email. Please review the attached memo and visit the parking website for purchasing tips and a link to the permitting site. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Residents Mark Hur Operations Lead Office of Transportation (650) 329-2520 | mark.hur@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org/parking Use Palo Alto 311 to report items you’d like the City to fix!! Download the app or click here to make a service request. -----Original Message----- From: edsupplee@hotmail.com <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, March 4, 2022 2:16 PM To: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RESIDENTIAL PARKING PERMIT: evergreen park [You don't often get email from edsupplee@hotmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ How do I buy the permits? Can I do it on your web site? Is there an ORDER NOW button? This E-Mail has been scanned for viruses. From:John Guislin To:Tanaka, Greg Cc:Council, City Subject:Campaign sign placed in violation of city code Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 10:54:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Council Member Tanaka, This morning I found one of your campaign signs placed illegally in the sidewalk strip at Middlefield and Everett - PAMC Section 16.20.100 Photo attached. You should know better given your campaign experience and it is your responsibility to ensure your campaign staff follows city codes. You may retrieve this sign by contacting me at this email or 650-305-5646. John From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bearwithme1016@att.net; beachrides; fred beyerlein; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; Scott Wilkinson; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; lalws4@gmail.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; newsdesk; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. Date:Monday, April 4, 2022 12:13:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 11:41 PM Subject: Fwd: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 10:51 PM Subject: Fwd: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 10:47 PM Subject: Fwd: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 10:31 PM Subject: Fwd: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 10:18 PM Subject: Fwd: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 9:34 PM Subject: Fwd: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 9:27 PM Subject: Fwd: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 2:43 PM Subject: Fwd: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 2:40 PM Subject: Fwd: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 2:27 PM Subject: Fwd: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 2:19 PM Subject: Fwd: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Apr 3, 2022 at 1:57 PM Subject: Edinburgh Apt. 3 beds, beautiful. Grnd floor. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sunday, April 3, 2022 To all- Don't miss this: For ~425,000 British pounds or US$557,383.00, in Edinburgh: In Ravelston Garden: Ground floor apt. Savills | Property for sale in Edinburgh, City of Edinburgh Scroll down to see Innerwick House for 5 million pounds or US$6,557,450.00: 8,000 sq. feet. Georgian house. One could sell his house in Atherton, Calif. for avg. $6 million and buy this. Long commute to Santa Clara. Savills | Property for sale in Edinburgh, City of Edinburgh One actor in Hollywood from Scotland, Craig Ferguson, says of Scotland: "It's rain and potatoes". On April 3, 2022, 1 GBP= US$ 1.31149 There are homes in Beverly Hills, Ca. that cost $60-90 million. They seem like large office complexes, but beautiful. One wealthy man takes tours of them and produces vids of what he sees. Producer Michael. See his vids on YouTube. I spoke too soon. Here is the first look at the biggest, most expensive house in the world. It has taken 10 years to build, has 105,000 sq. ft. and cost $500 million. This vid. was made recently with about a month left to go for the house to be complete. Seven swimming pools, a garage for 50 cars, a nightclub that can operate apart from the house: This is the first of probably three installments to show this house. It is in Bel Air. THE BIGGEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE HOUSE IN THE WORLD - 'THE ONE' - EXCLUSIVE HOUSE TOUR (PART 1) - YouTube Here is part 2: THE BIGGEST AND MOST EXPENSIVE HOUSE IN THE WORLD - 'THE ONE' - EXCLUSIVE HOUSE TOUR (PART 2) - YouTube It is fun to think that Warren Buffet, Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, any of the Walton children, could buy this house and never even notice the cost. The ex-spouses of Mr. Bezos and Mr. Gates could do so too. They could each buy 10 of these houses in 10 places in the world and never notice the cost. Ten would cost $5 billion, hardly noticable by any of them. And the houses would only increase in value. BTW, the Pritzker Estate in LA, house has 49,000 sq. ft. The Pritzkers are one of the richest families in the US. They own Hyatt Hotels and one of the three credit rating agencies. At my Stanford reunion in 2004 or 2009 they had a round table moderated by Charlie Rose. One panelist was Penny Pritzker who was US Secretary of Commerce (?) at the time. She has a bachelor's degree from Harvard and law degree and MBA degrees from Stanford. One male member of the family is Governor of Illinois, I believe. Before "The One" there was the Pritzker Estate. 4k footage from 12.31.19 - YouTube L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Aram James To:Diana Diamond; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Reifschneider, James; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; Rebecca Eisenberg; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Council, City; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Linda Jolley; Joe Simitian; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Cindy Chavez; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Jonsen, Robert Subject:ACLU Police abuse community ACTION MANUAL Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 8:40:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.aclu.org/other/fighting-police-abuse-community-action-manual Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Suzanne Keehn To:Council, City; Furman, Sheri Cc:Shikada, Ed; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan Subject:Re: Council April 4 Agenda Item 15 Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 7:00:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Great Letter, totally agree. Suzanne Keehn On Sunday, April 3, 2022, 06:08:19 PM PDT, Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net> wrote: Please find our letter to Council regarding Agenda Item 15 that includes CouncilPriority of Town Hall meetings. Thank you. From:Enid Pearson To:Council, City Subject:Tree Ordinance Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 6:41:37 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from enidpearson1@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council: I support the current tree ordinance. But I have just seen something that I think the City needs to do something about. I think I was on the council when this development was approved. It's on the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real, Palo Alto Square. It has big buildings and one of its requirements was that trees be planted. The developer did that. And many very nice redwoods grew quite tall. But I recently drove by and all the trees are dead. It is clear to me that they were not watered consistently. I think the Council should require that the trees be replaced with ones at least half as tall with consistent watering. This is really depressing to look at. Thanks, Enid Pearson, City Council Member 1965-75. From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City Subject:04-06-22 UAC meeting -- Item VIII.2 -- FTTP Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 6:31:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Commissioners, At your 04-06-22 meeting, you will discuss FTTP at Item VII.2. Agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities- advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/04-06-2022/04-06-2022- agenda-and-packet.pdf The staff report starts on PDF page 25 (packet pg. 22). Here are my comments: 1. The item is agendized as a discussion item, so UAC can't express its advice to Council by voting. I think that's inappropriate. Staff seeks input from UAC, which is fine, but UAC's responsibility is to be advisory to Council, not staff. 1a. Is there a UAC subcommittee for FTTP these days? And has it been active recently? 2. The staff report doesn't provide much information. Rather, it suggests that staff and consultant are working on providing that information later. That doesn't help the public now. 3. In the past year, the feds have initiated lots of programs for funding broadband networks, including municipal broadband networks. For example: https://muninetworks.org/tags/federal-funding Has staff investigated the possibility that Palo Alto's FTTP network might be partly funded by any of these programs? And, if so, what is the status of these investigations? 4. One of the things staff is supposed to be working on is what funding mechanisms should be used to fund FTTP. This report doesn't talk about that. Recall that in 2004, the City's citywide municipal FTTP effort was derailed when a problem arose with the assumed funding mechanism. 5. This report doesn't say anything more about the architecture of the network. AE or PON or some combination? (What combination?) If PON, how many premises per PON net? How many huts? Etc. 6. I continue to think that the case for doing an upgrade of the dark fiber network has not been made. If I were Council, I would insist that staff make that case. 6a. Does the 65 percent underground, 35 percent aerial split for the dark fiber upgrade correspond with where the electric wires are along the routes proposed? If not, what explains the difference? 6b. The staff report seems uncertain about what Palo Alto's spacing rules are for underground deployment of fiber conduit vis a vis other utilities. Why is that? What are the rules? And do they make sense? 6c. The question of what kind of conduit to use for undergrounded fiber was discussed at length last year at UAC's 04-21-21 meeting. (See my TRANSCRIPT here, pages 49-53. Do a browser search for "2- inch" (24 occurrences) and "4-inch" (16 occurrences).) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/public-letters-to- council/2021/06-01-21-ccm-public-letters-set-5.pdf Why has this not been resolved? Consultant John Honker said, "We think you can achieve exactly the same goals with the 2-inch, versus the 4-inch." And 2-inch is less expensive, and easier to install. I also think HDPE is better than PVC. 7. The cost estimate has risen, due in part to adding an additional 20 percent contingency on materials and labor. Is that the only reason for the increase? The total construction contingency for materials and labor is now 40 percent. Maybe the consultant can talk about how to avoid the upper range of this contingency. 8: I continue to think that a six-year build-out schedule (packet pg. 34) is not aggressive enough. Other municipalities have done better. 9. Under "Next Steps" is a proposed joint UAC/Council study session in August. Previously, I had the impression that by August, staff would bring to Council the information Council need to make a "go/no-go" decision on FTTP. Is this another schedule slip? Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- From:Bill Zaumen To:Council, City Subject:Encryption of police radios Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 5:38:16 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from bill.zaumen@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ While there is a legitimate issue regarding the public's ability to monitor what our police department is doing, some of the statements being trotted out, such as those in the Daily Post, are misleading at best. For example, editorials in the Daily Post more or less claim that the CHP does not use encryption so we should not either. What is actually going on is that digital radios do not work well for the CHP, particularly when encryption is used, so the procedures the CHP uses to protect personal information are ones they can implement given the use of analog radios. Digital radios using encryption provide very good quality as the radio signal weakens up to a cutoff point, beyond which they work poorly or not at all. The quality of an FM signal by contrast gets worse as the signal becomes weaker, but without a sharp cutoff point. The CHP, has to cover the whole state including areas such as the Sierra foothills where an officer may be in a valley, off the main road, where there is significant attenuation. Given the expense of putting in repeaters all over the state to cover every obscure road, the CHP decided to live with poor, but understandable, signal quality in a few areas, and are continuing to use analog FM radios as a result. It is worth noting that we can easily keep using encryption while providing public access: the radio signals are decrypted at the police station, so it is pretty easy to forward everything except information that should be kept private to a service such as Youtube Live. If desirable, adding a short time delay (say 5 to 15 minutes) is easy to implement and would eliminate the risk of criminal elements tracking what the police are doing while responding to a call. Using a service such as Youtube Live also provides better public access than eliminating the use of encryption in the radios: most of us don't have police-radio scanners but we do have computers and an Internet connection. Regards, Bill Zaumen 912 Clara Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:Aram James To:robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Dave Price; Bill Johnson; Council, City Subject:Silicon Valley De-Bug | James and Konda: The Time Has Come for a Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 3:24:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.siliconvalleydebug.org/stories/james-and-konda-the-time-has-come-for-a-police-crimes-unit Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Greer Stone; Pat Burt; chuck jagoda; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; City Mgr; City Mgr; Council, City; Joe Simitian; Cindy Chavez; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Alison Cormack; supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; Jethroe Moore; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Linda Jolley; Jay Boyarsky; EPA Today Cc:bob nunez; Sameena Usman; Vara Ramakrishnan Subject:From the archives of Richard Konda & Aram James -Time has come for a police crimes unit in the district attorney’s office Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 3:00:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.siliconvalleydebug.org/stories/james-and-konda-the-time-has-come-for-a-police- crimes-unit Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Aram James Cc:Greg Tanaka; Lumi Gardner; Greer Stone; Pat Burt; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; Joe Simitian; City Mgr; Council, City; Jeff Rosen; Alison Cormack; Sajid Khan; Roberta Ahlquist; Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew; Linda Jolley; Figueroa, Eric; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com Subject:Re: Hate crimes against Asians & African Americans Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 2:32:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I would be interested in knowing how much of this hatred if fueled by the police? Sent from my iPad > On Apr 3, 2022, at 3:21 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: > > https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/08/30/fbi-says-hate-crimes-against-asian-and-black-people-rise-in-the-us.html > > > Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Greg Tanaka; Lumi Gardner; Greer Stone; Pat Burt; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; Joe Simitian; City Mgr; Council, City; Jeff Rosen; Alison Cormack; Sajid Khan; Roberta Ahlquist; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew; Linda Jolley; Figueroa, Eric; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com Subject:Hate crimes against Asians & African Americans Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 2:21:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/08/30/fbi-says-hate-crimes-against-asian-and-black-people-rise-in-the-us.html Sent from my iPhone From:Yahoo Mail.® To:Honky Subject:IT"S TIME TO DRAW OUR LINE IN THE SAND AND MAKE OUR STAND Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 12:23:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I will stand guard at my door and that of my neighbor LET NO MAN TRESPASS else outta my cold dead hands https://brandnewtube.com/watch/you-must-watch-amp-share-this-the-covid19-84-genocide-of-2020- claire-edwards_hyPvw9Qeo73IxXw.html From:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Subject:PAPD annual report to Council - Use of Force Item #16 Date:Sunday, April 3, 2022 10:36:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To: City Council Members From: Winter Dellenbach Date: 4-3-2022 Item #16 PAPD annual report to Council RE: PAPD Use of Force Report, 2021 Council Members, I know you will mainly be focused on Encryption Monday. But I ask you to read this memo before the meeting, as I bet you may not have seen the Council required Police Chief’s Use of Force Report made available on 2-14-22 with the IPA Report. The report can be seen via this link, packet page 299. Winter Dellenbach https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas- minutes/2022/20220214/20220214pccsm-amended-linked-final.pdf Council Requires a Use of Force Report Twice, not Once a Year: Chief Jonsen writes in this Use of Force Report (UOF) - “This memorandum satisfies the City Council’s direction to provide an annual use of force summary which encompasses all use of force incidents…” And, “…the City now publishes an annual report on uses of force (UOF) in conjunction with the February [2022] Independent Police Auditor (IPA) report. However, City Council directed PAPD to submit a report twice a year, not annually: “Direct staff to include use of force information to the regular Supplemental Report submitted to the City Council as a cover memorandum to each IPA report”. (City Council, 11-14-2021) This unilateral decision by the PAPD to submit yearly, regardless of City Council direction should end. Recommendation: Council reiterate to the Chief and Assistant. Chief its direction that Use of Force Reports be submitted twice a year as Supplemental Reports with each IPA Report. Inadequate Reporting of Use of Force Data and Information: The primary purpose of a UOF Report is data and information on use of force. That would seem obvious. Yet here it is all crammed together into a single paragraph of text jumbled with data with a bit more information in the following paragraph. No ethnicity is assigned to the subjects of force. Use of force is given short shrift in a report of 2 ½ pages, mostly of ancillary subjects, some important, some not at all. Five of the 16 UOF incidents reported did not meet criteria set by the City Council for IPA oversight, so the PAPD provided no information about them other than force happened to someone. This is not meaningful reporting and should not be acceptable. Past UOF Reports (2015-2019) include data on annual arrests by ethnicity. Clearly the PAPD thought this information relevant because or wouldn’t have included it, though without analysis. But it shed light on which ethnicities are overwhelming more subject to arrest than others by the PAPD and there is value in that. There is no explanation for the lack of data and resulting transparency in this current UOF. Recommendations: 1.Council give direction to PAPD to produce complete UOF Reports that are focused on Use of Force data, information, and analysis and clearly written to produce an informative report. 2. Continue to include an updated 5-year chart of comparative arrest data with ethnicity of arrestees* with a good analysis. 3.A similar multi-year comparative chart should be created which includes assigned ethnicity for Use of Force incidents by type. 4.Include information on all incidents, even if not within the IPA’s oversight. * Demographic Breakdown of Arrests By Year 2015: White (1,226), Hispanic (918), Black (818), Other (365), Asian (173) 2016: White (879), Hispanic (801), Black (589), Other (290), Asian (84) 2017: White (923), Hispanic (696), Black (597), Other (298), Asian (108) 2018: White (896), Hispanic (772), Black (586), Other (231), Asian (111) 2019: White (706), Hispanic (697), Black (488), Other (219), Asian (91) [Winter’s Totals: White (3,734) Hispanic (3,884) Black (3,078) Other (1,403) Asian (567)] Council Requires a Use of Force Report, not a Consequence of Force Report: We actually don’t know how many use of force incidents occurred in 2021. Chief Jonsen writes that this report: “...encompasses all use of force incidents in which a Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force* has been completed by the Police Department. Most commonly, a Supervisor’s Report is completed when there is a visible or apparent physical injury, the subject complains of pain, or the subject alleges they were injured”. (*300.5.2 PAPD Policy Manual) While injury is sometimes a consequence of force, it’s not the same as use of force - the purpose of this report. To determine use of force incidents is not found in the in Supervisor Reports on Use of Force, but in the Use of Force Reports that must be filed by officers as referenced by the Chief in this report: The Chief notes: “The Police Policy Manual requires that all uses of force by Police Department members ‘be documented promptly, completely, and accurately in an appropriate report.’ Such reports are required to be reviewed by a supervisor and approved in writing.” (300.5 Reporting the Use of Force PAPD Policy Manual) There would be more incidents reported in 2021 if the data had been derived from officer’s use of force reports. For instance, we don’t know the extent, kind or degree of “Resistive” uses of force when people resist arrest and force is used, that doesn’t entail use of batons, TASERS, etc. And we don’t know the ethnicity of those it’s used against. This is a glaring gap in transparency and information. It also doesn’t matter if the use of force falls under the IPA’s remit – it still must be in the UOF Report. The UOF lists the uses of force included now in under the expanded oversight of the IPA, but leaves out “pointing a firearm” so was this category of use of force overlooked? Were there incidents of pointing a firearm at anyone but not reported? And note, it doesn’t involve injury so would it not reported? Recommendation: 1.Council direct PAPD to draw its data for the UOF Report from officers Reporting the Use of Force, not from Supervisor’s Report on Use of Force. 2.Council directs PAPD to include pointing a firearm in its use of force and that of the IPA’s. Minimizing Use of Force is Acceptable: It is stated that Officers responded to 42,405 calls for service in 2021. The figure is used to calculate a percentage seemingly to impress upon readers how infrequently force is used by the PAPD – 0.03% of dispatched calls. Calculating a percentage of force compared to the entire universe of service calls seems questionable to achieve meaningful insight rather than propaganda. Recommendation: The percentage calculation should be dropped from future reports, which would then have more integrity. From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:April 4, 2022 Council Meeting, Item #16: Police Radio Encryption and Demographic Data Date:Saturday, April 2, 2022 4:37:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Herb BorockP. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94302 April 2, 2022 Palo Alto City Council250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 APRIL 4, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #16POLICE RADIO ENCRYPTION AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA Dear City Council: The Police Department has installed Mobile Data Computers (MDC)in vehicles since at least 1994. The MDC is used to securely access law enforcement data bases,securely transmit messages, and automate demographic datacollection efforts. Official city documents describing the MDC system were easy toaccess from the City's website before the last major update ofthat website. Documents about the MDC system include: (1) CMR:383:03 (August 4, 2003), "Budget AmendmentOrdinance for Public Safety Mobile Data Computer Project"; (2) Adopted Budget 2001-2003, Page 265, CIP 10217,"Replacement of Public Safety Mobile Data Computer System"; (3) Police Department Policy Manual (Updated August 1,2021), Policy 448, "Mobile Data Computer Use"; and (4) Police Department Policy Manual (Updated August 1,2021), Policy 706, "Vehicle Use", Section 706.3.5: "MDC". The Police Department has a long history of collectingdemographic data. That history is summarized in CMR:298:05 (June 20, 2005). The following link to CMR:298:05 was accessedtoday: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year-archive/2005/06-june/cmr298-05.pdf. I believe the press and public can have real time access topolice communication activities while personally identifiable information can be securely transmitted via a police vehicle'sMobile Data Computer or via a Personal Communication Deviceissued by the Police Department that is governed by Policy 702 inthe Police Department Policy Manual. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock From:talley kenyon To:Human Relations Commission; City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Police Chief selection Date:Saturday, April 2, 2022 12:57:43 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from vtalleykenyon@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Neighbors and Staff, You have asked community members to share their thoughts regarding the hiring of a new chief of police. I am a member of the Palo Alto Friends (Quaker) Meeting, located in Midtown. A foundational part of our faith is the Peace Testimony, that calls for us to strive to live, individually and collectively, in a way that “takes away the occasion of all (violence) wars”. I urge the City to look for an individual who is in harmony with that testimony for their officers and the public at large and I trust that moving towards that testimony will rejuvenate everyone; individually as officers and staff and in interactions with community members. To serve as a chief and in harmony with a goal of peace will take a person who is morally brave; who has a strong inner compass that guides their words and actions every day. Such a person will then earn the trust and respect of the staff so that everyone feels empowered to act in a morally brave manner. An early step could be to inspire department members to approach their work as peace officers rather than police officers. To” police”, implies to control, keep order, and to enforce. Those words set up an “us vs. them” relationship of unequals, rather than a partnership that strives to maintain peace and safety. This built-in imbalance leads both citizens and police to perceive that interactions can turn dangerous. Interacting from a place of distrust and dis-ease deprives both officers and citizens of seeing and appreciating the humanity and special gifts each person carries within themselves. I have 2 other specific actions I hope the next chief will value and pursue. They seem disparate, yet they are in line with the changes I described above. Look at the training regimens currently in place. How much time and emphasis is spent in the area of violence, teaching how to use their weapons, teaching how to resist using those weapons, instruction to be constantly aware of potential violence, etc.? Then study the time given to non-violent responses. How to recognize and work with our normal human responses in stressful situations. How often do the officers train and practice conflict resolution techniques, so it is as easy to pull out a cool off technique as it is to pull out one of the weapons so readily at hand? Train officers to recognize and be willing to call for help to deal with mental health episodes. Second, become a community leader to look at and possibly move toward a different overall structure in Palo Alto that will enhance the relationships among all the different arms of public safety. Imagine if personnel from departments including fire, police, traffic safety, EMT, mental health, and dispatchers, trained and worked together? Imagine our entire City being served by dedicated public safety staff who personally know each other and are confident in their ability to work as teams to save lives and keep the peace. One model is nearby. Sunnyvale. It is less than 10 miles away with decades of experience with a merged Public Safety Department. Palo Alto has the ingredients needed to do this. In addition to a more caring and efficient way of keeping the peace, we are likely to save money that we can use for more services for individuals and neighborhoods that will increase everyone’s sense of belonging and safety. With hope and in peace, Talley Kenyon vtalleykenyon@gmail.com April 2, 2022 From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: Check out AACI Assists: Support an Afghan Refugee Family Today! Date:Saturday, April 2, 2022 12:00:55 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From: Allan Seid,Sarita Kohli <development@aaci.org> Date: Sat, Apr 2, 2022 at 8:56 AM Subject: Check out AACI Assists: Support an Afghan Refugee Family Today Source: AACI, Santa Clara County AACI Assists: Rebuilding Homes for Refugees Support an Afghan refugee family today! With the most recent arrival of Afghan refugees in the San Francisco Bay Area, AACI has been working tirelessly to provide culturally sensitive and trauma-informed supportive health services as they begin resettling in a new community. For families to focus on their health, it is essential to meet their most basic needs first. Many refugees have left their home country and are seeking support at AACI, coming to us with few possessions of their own. We need YOUR SUPPORT to provide essential items for these families. New household items will help refugees adjust and settle into their new homes. Click the buttons below to donate items of need to families: View Wish Lists Here Each family has a unique wish list with specific needs that ONLY YOU can fulfill! You can also donate pre-prepared kits to welcome families into their new homes with bathroom and kitchen essentials. Donate a Welcome Kit AACI's origin story dates back to the 1970s, in the living room of one of our founders. A group of Asian American community advocates saw a need to provide culturally competent services for the growing population of refugees who were arriving in the South Bay Area as a result of the wars in Southeast Asia. This time is no different. AACI remains committed to serving refugees from Afghanistan as they begin to rebuild their lives here in Santa Clara County. AACI is a qualified 501(c)(3)non-profit organization and contributions are considered tax-deductible. If you have questions about the AACI Assists program, please contact development@aaci.org. Follow Us on Social Media! Our Contact Information AACI 2400 Moorpark Ave. Suite 300 San Jose, CA 95128 (408) 975-2730 http://www.aaci.org Unsubscribe | Manage email preferences From:Burt, Patrick To:Mary Dimit; Baird, Nathan Cc:Transportation; Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Re: Downtown RPP Sign-Up Issues Date:Saturday, April 2, 2022 9:04:30 AM Mary, Thanks for your clear and valuable feedback. We have heard similar similar concerns from other residents. I know that our staff has been working with the contractor to address some of the problems and I look forward to a point-by- point response to the issues you raised. Best regards, Pat Burt. From: Mary Dimit <marydimit@sonic.net> Sent: Friday, April 1, 2022 4:56 PM To: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Downtown RPP Sign-Up Issues Some people who received this message don't often get email from marydimit@sonic.net. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Mr. Baird, I’m the person who left you a voicemail at ~2:35 pm today (4/1/2022) about the Downtown RPP permit process and did not leave my name. I waited to write until now as I still had hope earlier that it would be resolved in time.* I had not had any problems with prior iterations of online permit ordering using previous vendors/contractors.** Summary of problems encountered: · Instructions on site are not clear and do not match those on the letter & email & webpage. · Hard to get in touch with someone when one has questions. · Five-day approval review process not mentioned anywhere in informational materials and the five-day period starts again each time one attempts to make a correction after a denial. See details below.*** Which is why I called you & then wrote this email. Some suggestions for the future: · I’m not a tech person, but perhaps some type of Beta testing be required of future contracts. In-house or city staff testing might be too close to the process and may not realize how someone not familiar with an online system would navigate it. · Allow a grace period from penalties these first two weeks so those of us that have been caught in an ordering “loop” and on hold many times could finally get our permits purchased. And, on the positive side, please continue to: · Continue the Downtown RPP as it has made a definite improvement to our previous often fully parked streets. · Continue sending out letters and emails directly to prior participants. · Provide contact numbers and emails for questions. ---------------------------------- * Our neighborhood group suggested copying the City Manager & City Council when many complaints circulated earlier in March. I had thought by waiting until later in the month to apply would have allowed time to get some of the online bugs corrected. ** I am knowledgeable about the parking programs and process as I participated in the initial citizen-staff process years ago, was one of many who helped survey parking, and even spoke to the City Council on several occasions about the Downtown RPP. *** Details of problems encountered: · The main instruction miss-match error on site was encountered when first asked to upload proof of driver’s license. At this webpage, there was no request to enter additional items, such as car registration (which we had ready since it was in the City’s information we were sent). The webpage only said to add additional documents is the address on the driver’s license did not match that of the current residence. Since that did not apply, I simply added the drivers’ license & clicked on the next step. · Then found out that one cannot go back to make a correction when one realizes that instructions on a prior page may not be correct. · Then assumed that website must be correct in not asking for additional information as our car, whose license plate we had entered earlier, was the same one at that time currently participating in the program. · Five-day approval review process not mentioned anywhere in informational materials. · This made us nervous, so attempted to reach a live person on the vendor Duncan’s phone and was on hold for many minutes and for numerous attempts. · So one has to just wait to receive an email from the vendor while hoping that following the online instructions was better than thinking that the City’s letter, email, and website were correct. · Then when we received the first denial of our digital permit, we saw that it was accompanied by approval of our hanging tag, which did not make sense. · When one again attempts to reach a live person on the vendor Duncan’s phone, one is on hold for many minutes and for numerous attempts. · When one reaches a live person, they give the same answers to any question or attempt to explain the encountered problem or let them know how to correct the confusing directions. · When trying to start over, the system will not let one do that as one is told that the account already exists. Then when one re-enters all information & enters additional information the that the City’s letter, email, and website requests (although the online instructions does not request), one does not know whether that is sufficient. o Unfortunately, in the attempt to start over that they told me to do, the approved hangtag was erased. Since we are in an older condo with no garage space, this means that we now have two cars on the street all day that are currently not approved – none of in our household use our cars very often (my husband & I are retired & the other belongs to two family members who are staying with us for a few more weeks & working remotely). · Five-day approval process starts over every time one attempts to correct a prior problem. · Due to previous attempts to reach a non-helpful person at Duncan, one realizes that they just have to wait to receive an email from the vendor & hope there will not be some other issue. · Since it is already Friday afternoon on the first day we were supposed to have our permits for our car & family member’s car, we realize we are out of options. Thank you for your attention, Mary Dimit From:Yahoo Mail.® To:Honky Cc:PC USER; Teresa Dixon; David Meiswinkle; Lou Basile; Dennis Tiernan; Philip Hussa; Biotica; Biotica; BBC ONLY; Denise; Djoymorgan27; Frank Agamennon; David Slesinger; Jack Derripper; Sarah Klepner; Steve Kormandy; Teresa Dixon; George Lydakis; Alfred Magaletta (MA); Cat Watters (NY); Fran Shure; Julia Piccici (WA); June Speight; Lawrence Fine (MA); Matt Mills (NJ); Michael Zarzano (FL); Gene Laratonda (PA); Mikey Porazzo; Morgan Nowlen (OR); Phil Restino (FL); Richard Ellefritz (IL); Barbara Honegger (CA); Bill Jacoby (NY); Cayle Littlechief (HI); Gene Laratonda (PA); Richard Gage; Greta Bernhardt; Michael Zarzano (FL); Richard Gage; Richard Gage; Jerry Trudell; Thomas Moore; Paul Mineau; Tom Rodman; James Richards; Michael Atkinson; mike@911truth.org; Dan Hennen; Dwain Deets (US); Chris Gioia; John O"Malley; Priya Reddy; Michael Ryan; Jack & Barbara Connors; coderevival@yahoo.ca; F Cosmas; BBC ONLY; Chris L. Spiess; clmacgil@ucalgary.ca; Nancy Clancy; cotingas@hotmail.com; "Claire"; NICOLE; Council, City; MARGO COLEMAN; ckerwick1@yahoo.com; cldodson07@yahoo.com; FRANK SOOS; Cort Greene; connections@linkedin.com; BRIAN HALL; contactsellis@gmail.com; connor_hart@comcast.net; corky4president2002@gmail.com; Don Fredrick; coglitor@unive.it; codepinkorlando@gmail.com; cl_madison@hotmail.com; Carlos Jr Rodriguez; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; companeras1994@yahoo.com; BRIAN WILLIAM HALL; commanderlopez@gmail.com; cmchinn2005@hotmail.com; CommSocial; Amy Atkinson; ajwalker86@hotmail.co.uk; a7la_marmoor@hotmail.com; 911grassroots@gmail.com; adam.alex.c@gmail.com; acgravity@gmail.com; Amilie; ALDEE FILLEY; Annie Bunting; Adam Fligsten; Adam; BAYYENAH ABOUL-AZIZ; Rich Schultz; alandberta@gmail.com; Alan Watt; adam johnson; 911readingroom@gmail.com; aahoover@comcast.net; 911research.com@gmail.com; Ajene Washington; abolishtaxes@gmail.com; ALAIN CARPENTER; 911review.com@gmail.com; agallop@hotmail.com; abenelson@hotmail.com; Anne Johnson; Amy de Miceli Ellie; 911truthwatertown@gmail.com; emilia a; 911truthfarmer@gmail.com; 60m@cbsnews.com; "A. Caballero"; Lee Chin; 4galsandi@comcast.net; Jason Robo; steve J. Williams; alan_b.stard.m.p@westnet.com.au; A.Kafouri; "butlincat"; Adam Parrott; a_verias@yahoo.com; Jeffrey Albright; "Arthur Cristian"; adam_boulden20@yahoo.com; 2smileylee@gmail.com; Anita Barth; "Choong Kiat Yian"; alan cranford; 911tap@gmail.com; 2byrnes@bellsouth.net; animistpagan01@yahoo.com; amrita.mehta2020@gmail.com; amy.melodiarecords@gmail.com; Ali Giberson; ANNIE BASILE; amrita@sonic.net; am_bashar@hotmail.com; alibrera@gmail.com; andreisghost@att.net; anash3@msn.com; Aco Sokolovski; Victor; alexandra.bruce18@gmail.com; alstonp@juris.law.nyu.edu; alexandercopp@gmail.com; andrebwill@comcast.net; Joanne Thelma; Ani Sokol - Timisoara -- yahoo.com; Hamza; alexander_serge@yahoo.com; anitastewart@gmail.com; alexisrysdeck@yahoo.com; amnesty@amnesty.dk; amanda.frudakis@gmail.com; alia robinson; allenfl_2000@yahoo.com; amydemiceli@gmail.com; alexcopp@gmail.com; Tarek Alhawas; alexisdiaz9@gmail.com; Natural Resources Defense Fund; alien_monkey101@hotmail.com; americanvoiceradio@yahoo.com; Angie Jorgensen; Anna Anders; aliyel@hotmail.com; Ali Mallah; ameerat- alward2007@hotmail.com; ALEX PURDY; alsawy@hotmail.com; Angela Schradin; allanrees@noliesradio.org; amlacc@yahoo.com; alejandroarguelles@hotmail.com; angel@ntef-usa.org; alpizel@hotmail.com; americanoperdido@gmail.com; aliened123@yahoo.com; Angela Jack; amirbc1@hotmail.com; Amy Smith; aldyaa111@hotmail.com; Valerie Aumack; alvez_vanessa@yahoo.com; alexjames02@gmail.com; andrew lachance; aleta35; Allie Leatherman Subject:OLDIES BUT GOODIES AND WHAT SHOULD NEVER BE Date:Saturday, April 2, 2022 12:26:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. If it AIN'T happening? it OUGHTA be! https://video.wixstatic.com/video/ed83db_b6e934a35db84679aa3748802d738848/720p/mp4/file.mp4 Are WE? going to ACCEPT? this CRIMINAL ACTIVITY? AND go ALONG? with a DEATH CULT? to CONTROL the WORLD? https://www.brighteon.com/7c2b0523-07ee-4535-9dca-6dcaeb1068fe https://video.wixstatic.com/video/ed83db_b6e934a35db84679aa3748802d738848/720p/mp4/file.mp4 From:Mary Dimit To:Baird, Nathan Cc:Transportation; Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Downtown RPP Sign-Up Issues Date:Friday, April 1, 2022 4:56:38 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from marydimit@sonic.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Mr. Baird, I’m the person who left you a voicemail at ~2:35 pm today (4/1/2022) about the Downtown RPP permit process and did not leave my name. I waited to write until now as I still had hope earlier that it would be resolved in time.* I had not had any problems with prior iterations of online permit ordering using previous vendors/contractors.** Summary of problems encountered: · Instructions on site are not clear and do not match those on the letter & email & webpage. · Hard to get in touch with someone when one has questions. · Five-day approval review process not mentioned anywhere in informational materials and the five-day period starts again each time one attempts to make a correction after a denial. See details below.*** Which is why I called you & then wrote this email. Some suggestions for the future: · I’m not a tech person, but perhaps some type of Beta testing be required of future contracts. In-house or city staff testing might be too close to the process and may not realize how someone not familiar with an online system would navigate it. · Allow a grace period from penalties these first two weeks so those of us that have been caught in an ordering “loop” and on hold many times could finally get our permits purchased. And, on the positive side, please continue to: · Continue the Downtown RPP as it has made a definite improvement to our previous often fully parked streets. · Continue sending out letters and emails directly to prior participants. · Provide contact numbers and emails for questions. ---------------------------------- * Our neighborhood group suggested copying the City Manager & City Council when many complaints circulated earlier in March. I had thought by waiting until later in the month to apply would have allowed time to get some of the online bugs corrected. ** I am knowledgeable about the parking programs and process as I participated in the initial citizen-staff process years ago, was one of many who helped survey parking, and even spoke to the City Council on several occasions about the Downtown RPP. *** Details of problems encountered: · The main instruction miss-match error on site was encountered when first asked to upload proof of driver’s license. At this webpage, there was no request to enter additional items, such as car registration (which we had ready since it was in the City’s information we were sent). The webpage only said to add additional documents is the address on the driver’s license did not match that of the current residence. Since that did not apply, I simply added the drivers’ license & clicked on the next step. · Then found out that one cannot go back to make a correction when one realizes that instructions on a prior page may not be correct. · Then assumed that website must be correct in not asking for additional information as our car, whose license plate we had entered earlier, was the same one at that time currently participating in the program. · Five-day approval review process not mentioned anywhere in informational materials. · This made us nervous, so attempted to reach a live person on the vendor Duncan’s phone and was on hold for many minutes and for numerous attempts. · So one has to just wait to receive an email from the vendor while hoping that following the online instructions was better than thinking that the City’s letter, email, and website were correct. · Then when we received the first denial of our digital permit, we saw that it was accompanied by approval of our hanging tag, which did not make sense. · When one again attempts to reach a live person on the vendor Duncan’s phone, one is on hold for many minutes and for numerous attempts. · When one reaches a live person, they give the same answers to any question or attempt to explain the encountered problem or let them know how to correct the confusing directions. · When trying to start over, the system will not let one do that as one is told that the account already exists. Then when one re-enters all information & enters additional information the that the City’s letter, email, and website requests (although the online instructions does not request), one does not know whether that is sufficient. o Unfortunately, in the attempt to start over that they told me to do, the approved hangtag was erased. Since we are in an older condo with no garage space, this means that we now have two cars on the street all day that are currently not approved – none of in our household use our cars very often (my husband & I are retired & the other belongs to two family members who are staying with us for a few more weeks & working remotely). · Five-day approval process starts over every time one attempts to correct a prior problem. · Due to previous attempts to reach a non-helpful person at Duncan, one realizes that they just have to wait to receive an email from the vendor & hope there will not be some other issue. · Since it is already Friday afternoon on the first day we were supposed to have our permits for our car & family member’s car, we realize we are out of options. Thank you for your attention, Mary Dimit From:a lee To:Transportation Cc:Council, City Subject:ANOTHER BIKE DEATH !! PROTECTED BIKE LANES ON EMBARCADERO ROAD, ONE WAY STREETS DOWNTOWN Date:Friday, April 1, 2022 4:30:25 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from adrienneleeod@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. HELLO Philip Kamhi and city council folks, Another biker death has occurred! Our kids bike to school and adults would like to bike to work and shopping, but it is unsafe! “Accidents “ happen BUT we cannot sit by and do nothing to lessen the danger. We all know that slowing traffic to the speed limit as well as protected bike lanes WILL make it safer to bike. LET’S DO IT!! Why allow more deaths to occur. Kids are kids. They have kid brains, kid attention spans. Adults have distractions, large trucks with busy , rushing workers…. These 2 factors combined on the same roadway are deadly for our kids!! My petition has almost 100 signers and most live on or near Embarcadero Road OR they love to bike. https://www.change.org/ProtectedBikeLaneforEmbarcaderoRoad Adrienne Lee, OD Lee Optometrics Optometry In Palo Alto 4088874491 From:Jeanne Fleming To:Milton, Lesley Cc:Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board; chow_tina@yahoo.com; todd@toddcollins.org; wross@lawross.com Subject:California Public Records Act Request Date:Friday, April 1, 2022 4:19:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Leslie, Pursuant to my rights under the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), I ask to obtain copies of the following, which I understand to be held by the City of Palo Alto: Addresses for every operating cell tower—macro-, small cell node, or any other type—in the City of Palo Alto. For every operating small cell node cell tower in Palo Alto and every operating macro tower on City-owned property, documentation that the rental fees for the tower have been paid to the City since the tower was installed. If you have any questions about my request, please let me know. Thank you for your help. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151 From:Hugh Phillips To:Council, City Subject:I"m Voting to Keep Parklets & Ramona St Closed Date:Friday, April 1, 2022 10:01:46 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from hugh_phillips@mac.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council of Palo Alto,<BR> <BR>In anticipation of your meeting on February 28th 2022, we implore you to keep Ramona Street Closed and continue to allow parklets. I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, so please count my vote for keeping parklets & Ramona Street CLOSED for safe outdoor dining. Sent from my iPhone From:ASC Newslettter To:Council, City Subject: Friday Sale On Panel Cups Date:Friday, April 1, 2022 7:33:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Logo Complete Rapid Drug Testing & PPE Solutions I'm an image I'm an image I'm an image America's Leading Provider Of Quality Rapid Screening Products. “We Are Quality In All We Are And All That We Do!” Our famous Discover Plus Multi Panel Drug Test Cup is self-contained tamper resistant and can test up to 23 drugs. Custom configurations are available on all American Screening Corp's cups. Features Clia Waived, FDA 510K, Health Canada II & III 99% accuracy, USA Made strips and reagents Immediate Rapid Results: Read Negatives within 1 minute, positives in 5 minutes Easy to read strips with definitive lines 40+ Drug Test options 24 Month Shelf Life from Date of manufacture Results Remain Valid For Up To 1 Hour Built in Celsius/ Fahrenheit Temp Strip OEM & Private Label available Buy Now 18% Off Our Precision Plus Leading-edge Drug Test Cups stand alone with USA Made Strips & Reagents as the most accurate drug test cups in the marketplace. Use our Precision cups for your drug test needs whether its workplace, clinical, or probation, and have peace of mind because your results are 99% accurate. When you need easy, instant results, superior accuracy, at the best price choose Precision. Features CLIA Waived, FDA 510K Cleared, CE Mark, Health Canada Class 2 Shelf life is 24 months from date of manufacture Up to 99% accuracy, USA Made strips and reagents Instant Results, read negatives within 1 minute & positives in 5 minutes Includes Celsius/Fahrenheit temp strip Lock lid, no leakage Design is sturdy, durable, plastic to maintain sample volumes for lab receiving Choose from 40 different drugs, most in the marketplace OEM Private Label available Buy Now 19% Off NEED A BETTER PRICE? CALL US! (866) 526-2873 OUR LATEST BLOG POSTS What Is An Adulterated Sample? How To Detect One? Image The word “adulterate” means “presenting something poorer in quality by adding on another similar substance, typically an inferior one. How Do Date Rape Drug Tests Work? Image Date-rape drugs are substances that are used to make sexual assault easier by making the victim drowsy or unconscious. These can include alcohol and... Read More Read More Customer Service From People Who Care. (318) 798-3306 | (866) 526-2873 | sales@americanscreeningcorp.com LEARN MORE ABOUT US © 2021 - AmericanScreeningCorp.com - All Rights Reserved One-click Unsubscribe From:Owen Heagreves via Adobe Acrobat To:Council, City Subject:Ach-Remittance-0986 pdf Date:Friday, April 1, 2022 7:22:59 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from message@adobe.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Adobe Owen Heagreves (AR- neibapotts@sanfordsupply.com) has shared Ach- Remittance-0986 pdf.pdf. You can also comment on it. Open SENT BY Owen Heagreves (AR-neibapotts@sanfordsupply.com) SHARED ON 01-April-2022 07:22 AM PDT Manage Your Account | Customer Support | Forums | Terms of Use | Report Abuse Adobe, the Adobe logo, the Adobe PDF logo, and Acrobat are either registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe in the United States and/or other countries. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. Adobe, 345 Park Ave., San Jose, CA 95110 USA From:ANDREA B SMITH To:City Mgr; Council, City; Kristina Paulauskaite Subject:1619 Channing Palo Alto Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 6:24:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello all - I would like to thank the lovely City of Palo Alto and the Planning Department for allowing the GIGANTIC house being built at 1619 Channing which is located behind my small (1420 sq ft) house located at 194 Walter Hays Drive. The owners of 1619 could look into my house before when their house was a single story since the land on Channing is higher than Walter Hays Drive. Now, that the owners are building a mausoleum, small hotel, or gigantic house (whatever you want to call it), I have ZERO privacy. The neighbors WEST of the hotel have put their house on the market. They are the smarter ones. I have nowhere to go and little money to spend. Andrea Smith From:Bill Kelly To:Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Council, City Subject:Proposed Bike Path Extension Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 5:04:08 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from bill@kellys.org. Learn why thisis important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council members, As a long-standing resident of Chimalus Drive I was upset to read about the proposed Bike Path Extension. My wife and I moved into this newly constructed home in 1992, our backyard is directly connected to the proposed bike path. In the mid 1990’s the Santa Clara water district installed an underground culvert in this area, removing hundreds of trees and permanently damaging others. The tall Acacia behind our house on water district land, toppled over and is now growing sideways. While the construction was happening, we had many instances of strangers at our back fence. This proposal is a large loss of our security and well-being. When we purchased our home we had no disclosure requirements, as a result we had no Idea that our house was directly adjacent (across a short expanse of water district land) to a cyanide chemical storage facility, we only found that out after a toxic chemical release by CPI in 2005. While the city did a great job in addressing this problem the ultimate solution will come in 2030 when the Plating restrictions come into full effect, and 2040 when Stanford retakes its 99-year lease. This bike path proposal, like the impact of the CPI release, seems like another way our home has lost and will lose value unnecessarily, both quality of life and financial. Barron Park is a wonderful rural setting which we love, adding a public throughway 30 feet from our living room and where our bedrooms are located is a HUGE loss of privacy and will significantly impact the value of our homes. We expect street foot traffic, we have never envisioned that the small stretch of land behind our house would produce bike and foot traffic 24/7. Light Pollution, from proposed 24/7 lighting of the bike path is another problem, we already have significant sound pollution from CPI, adding lights directly behind our home will negatively impact our sleeping patterns. I would invite any and all council members to spend 15 minutes in my backyard to see how invasive this proposal would be. Thank you for your time, Bill Kelly 632 Chimalus Dr From:Roberta Ahlquist To:Aram James Cc:Angie Evans; Winter Dellenbach; Rebecca Eisenberg; chuck jagoda; Chris Robell; Jay Boyarsky; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; City Mgr; Council, City; Linda Jolley; Greg Tanaka; Kou, Lydia; Alison Cormack; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Binder, Andrew; wilpfpeninsulapaloalto@gmail.com; Perron, Zachary; Dave Price Subject:Re: From: Linda Jolly : Seeking land to help desperate people Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 2:18:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. This information needs to be made PUBLIC. What kind of transparency does the City provide?! Roberta On Thu, Mar 31, 2022 at 1:02 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Angie, I have in fact filed just such a public record requests at least twice. Each time the police say they are not initiating the “Tow Notices”on their own ——but are taking orders from city government authorities above the police. Of course the higher authorities deny making such an order of the police. Of course someone is being untruthful…I am hopefully either Mayor Pat Burt or council member Greer Stone will demand answers from the city —these two are the only ones on the city council in my view willing to ask the hard questions of the police, city attorney or city manager. Angie thanks so much for giving your eye witness account of seeing the “Tow Notices” being littered on the RV’s every Monday & Tuesday. We must demand this unconstitutional harassment cease. Aram Sent from my iPhone On Mar 30, 2022, at 10:30 PM, Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com> wrote: I go past the vehicles on El Camino Real every morning. They litter all the vehicles with tow notices every Monday or Tuesday like clockwork. All of the notices are in English and without much communication to the vehicle dwellers. I think a public records request to determine which City Council member requested these might be helpful. On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:04 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: FYI: PAPD again apparently tagging the most vulnerable with repeated “Tow Warnings” on RV’s up and down ECR. Police say they are doing so based on orders up above —city manager ? But the city upper management claims no such orders have been given. Somebody’s not telling the truth. Is it the PAPD? Or is it our totally lacking In Transparency City Manager? Time to tell the truth, Aram > > Federica - > > I found you at this link to the CA office of U.S. Bureau of Land Management: > https://www.blm.gov/office/california-state-office > > I am an activist seeking help for people in the area of Palo Alto, CA, who cannot afford residential housing and are being > persecuted by city government folks who don't seem to comprehend their plight. My friend Aram James is an attorney with a > high reputation in defending human rights. > > HOW YOU CAN HELP US: > Here in Palo Alto, near Stanford University, city hall is unhappy about large numbers of RVs parked on the streets. They are > constantly bombarding these RVs with threatening "Tow Warning" notices, forcing them to re-locate about every three days. > City officials seem in denial of the underlying problem: the minimum wage they have set here is far too low to allow a worker > to rent "residential" housing. (As you probably know, this is a nationwide problem.) > > My question: Is it possible that there might be federal land in the area of Palo Alto that conceivably could be used as a temporary > campsite for RVs that the city does not want on its streets? There already are two or more very small campsites of this nature > in this area and they have won public approval, but they are full up. Any parcels ranging in size from two to 10 acres would help. > This is just an initial fishing expedition, and not expecting any commitment from you. My idea is that if land might be available > then city officials might want to roll in this direction, making all parties happier and avoiding angry clashes. > > Thanks for any input you can provide > > Linda Jolley > lindajolley9@yahoo.com > 650-630-3021 From:Bill Burch To:Council, City Subject:My comments in support of Castilleja"s proposal - 3/30 PTC meeting Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 10:21:20 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from bill.burch@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council Members and staff, I had the opportunity to support Castilleja during the public comments portion of last night’s PTC meeting. Below are my notes for review and adding to the public record. With appreciation, Bill Burch 777 Marion Ave Palo Alto, CA 94303 ---------------------------- Good evening Commissioners and staff. My name is Bill Burch, and I am here to speak once again in support of Castilleja’s application for a new Conditional Use Permit. As I shared the last time I spoke with you, my family has lived in Palo Alto for over 40 years. During that time we’ve come to love and appreciate our community. A community that’s seen unprecedented change. What was once known as agriculture’s “Valley of Heart’s Delight” is now known as Silicon Valley..leading the world with innovative technology that has changed everyday life on every level. Castilleja School is only a few years younger than this City that has progressed so much. In fact, by the time Bill and Dave started working in their garage on Addison Street just a few blocks from the Casti campus, Castilleja had already had been educating young women for 31 years. But for the past 15 years, Castilleja has been frozen in time. Other schools throughout Palo Alto have been allowed to update and improve their facilities with cutting-edge science labs and updated art studios. All the while, homes surrounding the campus have been taken down to the ground and rebuilt anew with energy-efficient systems that meet Palo Alto’s sustainability goals. Castilleja, too, wants to be part of a sustainable future and its plans include net-zero energy, fossil-fuel-free operations, water reduction and reuse, and over 100 new trees. At this point, I have to ask, what are we waiting for? Like many Palo Altans, we have seen how our valley has moved from apricot groves to office parks in a relatively short period of time. I know how easy it can be to conflate change with growth. But let me stop right here. In the case of Castilleja, change does not automatically equate to growth. If anything, the school is becoming smaller, minimizing its impacts in every way possible as it updates its campus. Let’s look at this with regard to traffic. Since 2013, Castilleja has reduced daily car trips by up to 31%. This is a change, but as I said, not all change represents growth. Instead, traffic is reduced by almost one-third and, under the conditions of approval, it will need to remain at that level. It is at this reduced level that Castilleja will be expected to function in the future, no matter how many students are added. Regarding events With the plan before you, Castilleja will reduce the number of on-campus events by 30%, limit hours of operation, and work under the most restrictive CUP for any school in the region. With regard to scale Let’s begin with the Circle, the heart of campus. The new plan makes the Circle smaller..drawing activity into the center of the block, increasing the setbacks, and pulling the buildings away from neighboring homes. The redesigned rooflines will be lower and more varied, more in keeping with the scale and shape of the neighboring homes. With regard to square footage There is a lot that has been said during these hearings about the square footage, and these conversations plow deep into the weeds very quickly. I think this is because it takes real work to find a way to characterize this change as growth. But two points stand out. • First, the above-ground square footage of the new learning spaces is smaller than the count of the structures it is replacing. • Second, the proposed above-ground square footage falls well below the current permits, and applying new regulations to old permits doesn’t change that fact. These are good changes, and they do not represent growth. Castilleja has been operating as a school on this block for well over a century. The school had already been open for a year when the first Model T rolled off Henry Ford’s assembly line. It predates zoning, and it predates every single one of us attending this meeting tonight. And, it will be around long after we are all gone. This historic school is asking for permission to change, not to grow. When I hear the arguments against this proposal, I feel that many of them are based in fear. But to address those fears, please look closely at the proposal and the Conditions of Approval. First, traffic cannot increase, even as more students join the community. Fearful voices say it can’t be done, that increased enrollment equals increased traffic. If that is true, then the school will not be allowed to enroll more students and, in fact, might be required to reduce the number of students depending on traffic conditions. There is nothing to fear here. OK, let’s take a moment to hone in on the tasks given to you by the City Council last spring. Two points. Number One • The Council members asked you to find a path from 450 to 540 students in this proposal. • They did not ask you to determine another number. Number Two • The Council members asked you to find a path from 450 to 540 students in this proposal. • They did not ask you to create a new process that involves reapplying for a new CUP each year. Let me speak to this specifically. At your most recent hearing about this project, I heard some Commissioners suggest that the school should be forced to return to the City to apply for a new Conditional Use Permit each time it hopes to grow by 25 to 27 students. As someone who has experienced the “Palo Alto Process” first hand, including my Dad who served on the Council, I must express that I completely oppose this idea. It is a misuse of City resources. Our City staff and volunteers like you—Commissioners, board members, and Council members—have already spent years reviewing this proposal. The accountability measures are built-in to the conditions of approval. CUPs have never been and should not become an annual process. Certainly the length of time it has taken to review this one proves that. Within their directive to find the path to 540, the City Council members have signaled their faith in Castilleja and in you. The City Council members have clearly told you that they believe this can be done, and I wholeheartedly agree. So I ask again, what are we waiting for? I realize that we are in an era of polarizing “anti-growth” in Palo Alto. In this case, I urge you to support this project as it does not represent growth. To fulfill your mission as a Commission, you are asked to make recommendations to the City Council about the Comprehensive Plan, which (quote) “reflects community values and provides a collective vision that both guides preservation and growth and change.” (end quote). In this case your work is easy, you are overseeing change, not growth. Just positive change. Change that • opens doors • educates children • creates opportunity • improves the environment • beautifies the neighborhood • limits traffic • reduces impacts This is the good kind of change, and to love this City, to really love it, you have to follow in the footsteps of those who came before us and continue to embrace the spirit of innovation and change. What are we waiting for? Thank you. From:Kelly Nolan To:Council, City Subject:Ladoris, last chance to save your plaque, just reply to secure the deal Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 7:30:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hello Ladoris Today is the last day of free shipping on your custom press plaque for the recent article, Avenidas honors seven with ‘Lifetimes of Achievement’ awards. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell. Jump on over to the online store to view your plaque, pick your options and use free shipping code ENFS at the checkout. No time today? Just reply to this email saying 'yes' and I'll send you your acrylic Lucinda Premium plaque costing $219 with free shipping. Hit reply now and it will soon be on its way to you at: 250 Hamilton Ave, Palo Alto, 94301 If you've any extra requirements or would like more than one plaque, just let us know by email or alternatively call us on 888-239-5731 quoting ID 11775674. Celebrating your great news, Kind regards, Kelly Nolan Account Manager That’s Great News PS. There really is no risk, if you don't love your plaque, we guarantee you can return it for a prompt no quibble refund. Reply back by email today or order online to get the deal. UNCONDITIONAL 100% MONEY BACK GUARANTEE ON ALL PLAQUES A full refund if you don’t like the plaque. 4.8 Overall Satisfaction Rating That's Great News is not affiliated with PALO ALTO WEEKLY Article Avenidas honors seven with ‘Lifetimes of Achievement’ awards. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell Featured Ladoris Cordell, Palo Alto City Council Published Mar 04, 2022 View my plaque That’s Great News, 900 Northrop Rd., Wallingford, CT 06492. All Rights Reserved. Call Us: 888-239-5731 and reference Customer ID (11775674) Free shipping T&Cs i) Shipping to Continental US/Canada ii) Payment with Credit Card. All Prices are in USD If you don’t want an alert when you’re featured in the press or our offers please unsubscribe to avoid us contacting you again. View email online. {"iid":"34694565","cid":"11775674","oid":"6508535135"} From:Dave Price To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Jonsen, Robert Subject:Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 1:31:57 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from price@padailypost.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. March 31, 2022 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Police Chief From: Dave Price, Daily Post editor and co-publisher Re: Errors in City Manager report on police radio encryption The following memo is an attempt to correct the errors and misleading statements contained in the city manager's report on police radio encryption. 1. The city manager’s report (packet page 208, first paragraph) said: “Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit Personally Identifying Information (PII) and Criminal Justice Information (CJI) radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” This statement is contradicted by the Oct. 12, 2020 memo from the California DOJ’s Criminal Justice Information Services Division (CLETS). The memo states that CLETS is not requiring any agency to encrypt its radio transmissions but rather consider encryption as an alternative. On the second page of this memo, CLETS gives law enforcement agencies two options: 1. Encrypt or 2. “Establish a policy to restrict dissemination of specific information that would provide for the protection of restrict CJI (Criminal Justice Information) and combinations of name and other elements that meet the definition of PII (Personally Identifiable Information).” Encryption is not a state mandate. The Oct. 12, 2020 memo contains no such mandate. Instead, the mandate is that departments protect CJI and PII through various means, one of which is encryption. The state Attorney General's office in press release mailed to the Daily Post on Dec. 22, 2021, said: "As noted previously, the 2020 information bulletin (the CLETS memo), which was based on pre-existing federal guidelines and California law, makes it clear that law enforcement agencies may use different approaches to protect CLETS-drived information." 2. The report says that the police see “no other feasible options available” other than encryption (page 208, second paragraph). The report then refers to SB1000, a new bill introduced by Sen. Josh Becker, D-Menlo Park. SB1000 would inform departments that non-encryption options are available and require them to eliminate encryption on a certain date. If the city sticks with encryption, it will have to reverse course if SB1000 passes. 3. The report claims that if the fictional encryption mandate isn’t followed, the police could lose access to CLETS. Again, CLETS isn’t requiring the city to encrypt. The mandate is that the city must protect CJI and PPI — a requirement police departments have had to follow for decades. 4. The report claims (page 208, bullet point two) that if Palo Alto drops encryption, it will “jeopardize the city’s regional partnership with Mountain View and Los Altos.” That is misleading. Palo Alto switched to encryption on Jan. 5, 2021. Mountain View and Los Altos switched two months later, in March 2021. (https://www.mountainview.gov/news/displaynews.asp? NewsID=1691&TargetID=9 and https://www.losaltosca.gov/police/page/radio-encryption) If there was a problem with one department encrypting and the others not encrypting, how was the PAPD able to operate for the 55 days from Jan. 5, 2021 until March 1, 2021? If this claim is to be believed, what happened during those 55 days? And if interoperability between departments is vitally important, explain how Palo Alto is able to work with Menlo Park and East Palo Alto, two cities that are not encrypted? 5. Regarding bullet point three (page 208), Palo Alto won’t have to move out of the Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority (SVRIA) for a simple reason. Palo Alto is a voting member of the authority, partially funds it and gets to have a say in how it operates. Saying Palo Alto would be removed from SVRIA is as absurd as saying Palo Alto could be removed from the San Francisquito Creek JPA if it disagreed with Menlo Park over a flood control issue. This is a red herring. 6. The report (page 208, fourth bullet point) says, “Staffing impacts and risks associated with operational and financial inefficiencies lost by reverting back to unencrypted radio channel, affecting 9-1-1 dispatchers and police officers.” This paragraph is unclear, but why would dropping encryption cost the city money? That isn't explained. If the city is going to lose money by un- encrypting, then show the numbers. The report provides no figures in this regard. 7. The report (page 210) says: “The (October 2020 CLETS memo) notice states the policies can be met by either broadcasting PII and CJI information over encrypted radio channels or for agencies to establish policies that restrict the dissemination of PII and CJI information over the radio ‘if unable to implement the required technology.’ Department discussions with DOJ confirmed that agencies that had the technical capability and infrastructure in place to transmit PII and CJI radio transmissions over encrypted channels must do so, to protect confidential information.” However, the city hasn’t successfully implemented “the required technology.” Switching from reliable analog radios to problematic digital ones in 2018 has resulted in some hazards and costs the report doesn’t mention. (See “Police radio system has ‘dead spot’ — Fix could run between $1 and $3.5 million,” Daily Post, March 21, 2022, https://padailypost.com/2022/03/30/police- radio-system-has-dead-spot-fix-could-run-between-1-and-3-5-million/) The old analog system was reliable. Signals weren’t stopped by hills or buildings. But with digital, police and firefighters have discovered there’s a “dead zone” in the foothills of Palo Alto. If they try to use their radios there, they can’t get through to dispatchers. What happens if a police officer is ambushed in the dead zone, and the officer needs backup or an ambulance? Fixing that is going to cost $1 million to $3.5 million, according to SVRIA head Eric Nickel (the former Palo Alto fire chief). That wasn't mentioned in the city manager’s report. Yet the city manager is on SVRIA's board of directors. The dead zone shows Palo Alto has been unable to successfully implement digital technology in all areas of the city. Because the city hasn't successfully implemented “the required technology," it doesn't meet CLETS requirements to encrypt. The dead zone also exposes the city to civil liability from taxpayers and the unions for police and firefighters. To solve this problem, one option SVRIA and the city are considering is building a backup analog radio system. When the city switched to digital, it disabled its old reliable analog radio system that had served the community since the 1940s. It appears the purpose of switching from analog to digital was to enable the police to encrypt their transmissions. The more reliable analog system didn't have dead zones. But it didn't allow for encryption either. 8. On page 211, the report claims all agencies in Santa Clara County have converted to digital. But no mention is made of the likelihood that we would be building an analog backup system to deal with the dead zone. If the goal is to get everybody on a digital encrypted system, how does a duplicate analog system fit into that plan? 9. On page 219, it should be pointed out that all police radios have toggles or dials that allow officers to change from a main dispatch channel to a secondary “TAC” channel that allows for communications outside the main channel. Nearly every police department has one or more TAC frequencies. Every day, listeners to Menlo Park, East Palo Alto, Atherton or other San Mateo County frequencies will hear a dispatcher telling officers involved in a particular incident to “switch to the Green.” Green is the designation of the TAC frequency for southern San Mateo County. The officers have no trouble pressing a button on their handheld radios to “switch to the Green.” The report makes it sound like changing frequencies is an arduous, burdensome task too grueling and perplexing for Palo Alto’s finest. Again, a red herring. How did Palo Alto officers switch to TAC frequencies before encryption? 10. On page 211, under the heading “Further Communications with DOJ,” the report sets up a hypothetical situation where the city would willfully violate a CLETS mandate. This paragraph is unnecessary because nobody is contemplating that the Palo Alto police violate a law. The fact that Palo Alto is not currently in compliance with CLETS for failing to properly implement its technology is a concern, however. 11. On page 212, under then heading “Review of other law enforcement agencies response to DOJ,” the report makes a brief mention of the CHP policy that allows it to keep its frequencies public while obeying policies for protecting confidential information. However, the CHP alternative deserves more attention from the city, even if there is resistance from the police chief. The CHP and its officers only exchange partial information about people they contact — enough information to identify them but not enough for an identity thief to commit a crime. Here’s how it works: When a CHP officer wants dispatchers to check someone’s driver’s license number for information such as whether the license is suspended, the officer will give the license number over the radio and the dispatcher will read it back to make sure they’ve heard it correctly. When the dispatcher responds to the officer with the results of the driver’s license check, they can give either the person’s first name or last name; the driver’s license number, and the license’s status. That prevents transmission of someone’s full name and their driver’s license number at the same time. The officer in the field doesn't need the driver's full name because he is holding their license in his hand. Additional information such as address, date of birth, and physical descriptors would only be provided when requested. The CHP alternative is a simple system that doesn’t cost any money to implement and is perfectly legal. The city report dismisses the CHP alternative by stating that the city asked the CLETS for permission to move its radio transmissions back to an unencrypted status, and the CLETS denied the request. This is extremely misleading. Chief Jonsen's March 8, 2021 letter to CLETS (page 219) makes no mention of the CHP alternative. Chief Jonsen didn’t give any indication that the city would try to protect personal information if the city’s channels were unencrypted. So, of course, CLETS turned down his request. Had Jonson told CLETS that the city was going to adopt the CHP policy, which fully protects PII, it is possible he would have obtained approval to return the radio system to an unencrypted status. After all, CLETS was satisfied that the CHP was protecting personal information. It's worth noting that in his July 6, 2021 response to Jonsen, CLETS chief Joe Dominic said: "The City of Palo Alto cannot revert back to their previous system and broadcast PII on a non-encrypted channel that can be accessed by unauthorized individuals." But Dominic didn't rule out reverting to an unencrypted channel if PII is not broadcast over the channel. 12. On page 214, under “What was the effect of encryption,” the report should have said the media no longer knows about a news event until police have decided to reveal it in a news release, and long after witnesses have gone home. As a result, the only side of the story the public gets is the Police Department’s version. The Beta system map doesn’t say where incidents have occurred other than somewhere in a large circle encompassing several blocks, and that circle is only displayed long after the incident is over. 13. On page 215, the report gives information about Palo Alto’s unusual system reporters must use to communicate with police. Palo Alto is the only jurisdiction in the mid-Peninsula that requires the media to go to the city’s website, insert a question into a portal, and then wait for an emailed answer. The report says response to these questions have improved, though it’s not as good as it was under the prior system when a reporter could simply call a watch commander and ask a question. Emailed questions prevent the reporter from asking a follow-up question on a timely basis. Yes, the police will answer follow-ups, but the response time isn’t immediate like it would be if you’re having a conversation. As the report points out, the answers to follow-ups can take 90 minutes, not a great solution for a journalist on deadline. The emailed responses allow for the possibility that a number of city or police union officials are reviewing the answers and limiting the information the residents receive. This system seems to be costly and unnecessary. 14. The report concludes on page 215 by saying the city has to stick with encryption because alternatives “do not appear to be actionable.” One of the alternatives regards whether the council should support SB1000. The other two alternatives involve hiring more people. Yet the CHP alternative doesn’t require any additional staffing. In conclusion, the city should take the following actions: • Inform CLETS about the "dead zone" and acknowledge that it has prevented the successful implementation of digital technology. • Build the analog system to back up the digital one, and then switch to analog as soon as possible. This may be expensive, but what price are you willing to put on the life of a police officer or firefighter? • Ask CLETS for permission to switch to the CHP alternative with full PII protection. • Strongly support SB1000, which is a good government measure that calls for more transparency. Palo Alto's reputation for open government would be severely damaged if council fought SB1000 or took no position. When the debate begins in the Legislature, Palo Alto could be held out as an example of how encryption reduces transparency. Get on the right side of history now. -end- From:Aram James To:Angie Evans Cc:Winter Dellenbach; Rebecca Eisenberg; chuck jagoda; Chris Robell; Jay Boyarsky; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; City Mgr; Council, City; Linda Jolley; Greg Tanaka; Kou, Lydia; Alison Cormack; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Binder, Andrew; Roberta Ahlquist; wilpfpeninsulapaloalto@gmail.com; Perron, Zachary; Dave Price Subject:Re: From: Linda Jolly : Seeking land to help desperate people Date:Thursday, March 31, 2022 1:02:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Angie, I have in fact filed just such a public record requests at least twice. Each time the police say they are not initiating the “Tow Notices”on their own ——but are taking orders from city government authorities above the police. Of course the higher authorities deny making such an order of the police. Of course someone is being untruthful…I am hopefully either Mayor Pat Burt or council member Greer Stone will demand answers from the city —these two are the only ones on the city council in my view willing to ask the hard questions of the police, city attorney or city manager. Angie thanks so much for giving your eye witness account of seeing the “Tow Notices” being littered on the RV’s every Monday & Tuesday. We must demand this unconstitutional harassment cease. Aram Sent from my iPhone On Mar 30, 2022, at 10:30 PM, Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com> wrote: I go past the vehicles on El Camino Real every morning. They litter all the vehicles with tow notices every Monday or Tuesday like clockwork. All of the notices are in English and without much communication to the vehicle dwellers. I think a public records request to determine which City Council member requested these might be helpful. On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:04 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: FYI: PAPD again apparently tagging the most vulnerable with repeated “Tow Warnings” on RV’s up and down ECR. Police say they are doing so based on orders up above —city manager ? But the city upper management claims no such orders have been given. Somebody’s not telling the truth. Is it the PAPD? Or is it our totally lacking In Transparency City Manager? Time to tell the truth, Aram > > Federica - > > I found you at this link to the CA office of U.S. Bureau of Land Management: > https://www.blm.gov/office/california-state-office > > I am an activist seeking help for people in the area of Palo Alto, CA, who cannot afford residential housing and are being > persecuted by city government folks who don't seem to comprehend their plight. My friend Aram James is an attorney with a > high reputation in defending human rights. > > HOW YOU CAN HELP US: > Here in Palo Alto, near Stanford University, city hall is unhappy about large numbers of RVs parked on the streets. They are > constantly bombarding these RVs with threatening "Tow Warning" notices, forcing them to re-locate about every three days. > City officials seem in denial of the underlying problem: the minimum wage they have set here is far too low to allow a worker > to rent "residential" housing. (As you probably know, this is a nationwide problem.) > > My question: Is it possible that there might be federal land in the area of Palo Alto that conceivably could be used as a temporary > campsite for RVs that the city does not want on its streets? There already are two or more very small campsites of this nature > in this area and they have won public approval, but they are full up. Any parcels ranging in size from two to 10 acres would help. > This is just an initial fishing expedition, and not expecting any commitment from you. My idea is that if land might be available > then city officials might want to roll in this direction, making all parties happier and avoiding angry clashes. > > Thanks for any input you can provide > > Linda Jolley > lindajolley9@yahoo.com > 650-630-3021 From:Aram James To:robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda; Enberg, Nicholas; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Tony Dixon; GRP-City Council; Human Relations Commission; City Mgr; Council, City; City Alto; Figueroa, Eric; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Sajid Khan; bob nunez Subject:The systemic problem of the perpetually lying cop— Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 10:41:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ >> I was a line public defender my entire career. This means I never managed other lawyers. Management would never have allowed me to formally train other public defenders since I was considered a “true believer” and was known for being relentless in my cross examination of police officers to the great displeasure of the judges, district attorneys, my own office and of course the cops who faced me in what some considered my endless cross examination of cops. >> >> And of course I would never stipulate to drug results or any other prosecution evidence all to the great displeasure of the DA, the courts, and my own office. Failure to stipulate of course meant that the proceedings inevitably took much longer that the production line criminal injustice system could tolerate. >> >> So, as you might guess, I became very familiar with cops lying on the witness stand almost daily. Before preliminary examinations which I handled thousands of over my career….and court and jury trials I spent obsessive amounts of time reading and rereading police reports to find any basis to impeach the cop on the witness stand and expose the officer’s habit and custom of lying under oath. >> >> Almost every criminal case has cops testilying and judges know this and DA’s know this and, with rare exception, the judges and DA’s pretend the cops are not lying and look the other way. >> >> Often I would distract the jury from the bad or very bad evidence against my clients by focusing on essentially putting the cop on trial for their numerous lies in their police reports and their previous lies under oath. >> >> I never understood why a cop would feel compelled to lie in cases where the evidence against my client was overwhelming and with their unnecessary lies and bad attitudes towards me while on the witness stand …I now had the chance to obtain a Not Guilty verdict not because my client was factually innocent…. but because the jury hated the lying cop. >> >> Moral to the story: if I was training cops to testify … I’d tell them to just tell the truth don’t let your desire to lie on the stand cause the DA to lose his or her case. For many cops in my experience they just can’t help themselves— the lying is like part of their DNA. Sad but true!! >> >> I remember after one very long trial 5-7 weeks the the lead detective for the DA out of the Santa Clara Police Department ( looked like Dennis Burns’ twin brother) was so angry about the way I treated him during cross examination, closing argument, the entire trial…that he told the DA -a decent guy( who later told me the story)-that I was so over the top as a defense attorney —that he would rather shoot me than talk to me. >> >> Of course I took this as a great compliment-knew I had upheld my constitutional duty to be a zealous unrelenting advocate with an undivided loyalty for my client. >> >> I’ve been often asked how can you do that work knowing your client may be guilty of horrible crimes. My answer is officer or ordinary citizen when you are charged with a crime or two I’m betting you will come running my way asking if I can represent you. >> >> It’s all about defending the constitution whether I’m defending a member of the Aryan brotherhood, a rogue cop, an ordinary citizen —no matter what they should all receive the full measure of the constitution. I hope this is some help. >> >> aram >> >> From:Angie Evans To:Aram James Cc:Winter Dellenbach; Rebecca Eisenberg; chuck jagoda; Chris Robell; Jay Boyarsky; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; City Mgr; Council, City; Linda Jolley; Greg Tanaka; Kou, Lydia; Alison Cormack; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Binder, Andrew; Roberta Ahlquist; wilpfpeninsulapaloalto@gmail.com; Perron, Zachary; Dave Price Subject:Re: From: Linda Jolly : Seeking land to help desperate people Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 10:30:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I go past the vehicles on El Camino Real every morning. They litter all the vehicles with tow notices every Monday or Tuesday like clockwork. All of the notices are in English and without much communication to the vehicle dwellers. I think a public records request to determine which City Council member requested these might be helpful. On Wed, Mar 30, 2022 at 10:04 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: FYI: PAPD again apparently tagging the most vulnerable with repeated “Tow Warnings” on RV’s up and down ECR. Police say they are doing so based on orders up above —city manager ? But the city upper management claims no such orders have been given. Somebody’s not telling the truth. Is it the PAPD? Or is it our totally lacking In Transparency City Manager? Time to tell the truth, Aram > > Federica - > > I found you at this link to the CA office of U.S. Bureau of Land Management: > https://www.blm.gov/office/california-state-office > > I am an activist seeking help for people in the area of Palo Alto, CA, who cannot afford residential housing and are being > persecuted by city government folks who don't seem to comprehend their plight. My friend Aram James is an attorney with a > high reputation in defending human rights. > > HOW YOU CAN HELP US: > Here in Palo Alto, near Stanford University, city hall is unhappy about large numbers of RVs parked on the streets. They are > constantly bombarding these RVs with threatening "Tow Warning" notices, forcing them to re-locate about every three days. > City officials seem in denial of the underlying problem: the minimum wage they have set here is far too low to allow a worker > to rent "residential" housing. (As you probably know, this is a nationwide problem.) > > My question: Is it possible that there might be federal land in the area of Palo Alto that conceivably could be used as a temporary > campsite for RVs that the city does not want on its streets? There already are two or more very small campsites of this nature > in this area and they have won public approval, but they are full up. Any parcels ranging in size from two to 10 acres would help. > This is just an initial fishing expedition, and not expecting any commitment from you. My idea is that if land might be available > then city officials might want to roll in this direction, making all parties happier and avoiding angry clashes. > > Thanks for any input you can provide > > Linda Jolley > lindajolley9@yahoo.com > 650-630-3021 From:Aram James To:Winter Dellenbach; Rebecca Eisenberg; Angie Evans; chuck jagoda; Chris Robell; Jay Boyarsky; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; City Mgr; Council, City; City Mgr; Linda Jolley; Greer Stone; Greg Tanaka; Kou, Lydia; Alison Cormack; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Binder, Andrew; Roberta Ahlquist; Winter Dellenbach; wilpfpeninsulapaloalto@gmail.com; Perron, Zachary; Dave Price Subject:From: Linda Jolly : Seeking land to help desperate people Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 10:04:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ FYI: PAPD again apparently tagging the most vulnerable with repeated “Tow Warnings” on RV’s up and down ECR. Police say they are doing so based on orders up above —city manager ? But the city upper management claims no such orders have been given. Somebody’s not telling the truth. Is it the PAPD? Or is it our totally lacking In Transparency City Manager? Time to tell the truth, Aram > > Federica - > > I found you at this link to the CA office of U.S. Bureau of Land Management: > https://www.blm.gov/office/california-state-office > > I am an activist seeking help for people in the area of Palo Alto, CA, who cannot afford residential housing and are being > persecuted by city government folks who don't seem to comprehend their plight. My friend Aram James is an attorney with a > high reputation in defending human rights. > > HOW YOU CAN HELP US: > Here in Palo Alto, near Stanford University, city hall is unhappy about large numbers of RVs parked on the streets. They are > constantly bombarding these RVs with threatening "Tow Warning" notices, forcing them to re-locate about every three days. > City officials seem in denial of the underlying problem: the minimum wage they have set here is far too low to allow a worker > to rent "residential" housing. (As you probably know, this is a nationwide problem.) > > My question: Is it possible that there might be federal land in the area of Palo Alto that conceivably could be used as a temporary > campsite for RVs that the city does not want on its streets? There already are two or more very small campsites of this nature > in this area and they have won public approval, but they are full up. Any parcels ranging in size from two to 10 acres would help. > This is just an initial fishing expedition, and not expecting any commitment from you. My idea is that if land might be available > then city officials might want to roll in this direction, making all parties happier and avoiding angry clashes. > > Thanks for any input you can provide > > Linda Jolley > lindajolley9@yahoo.com > 650-630-3021 From:Kimberley Wong To:Planning Commission Cc:French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Safety Comments regarding Castilleja’s Expansion project at the 3/30/22 PTC meeting Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 9:53:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning and Transportation Commissioners, After more than 5 years of deliberation and redrafting of the Architectural plans, Castilleja is no closer to creating a safe and environmentally friendly campus. We’ve seen a lot of shuffling of square footage, parking spaces and rooflines like puzzle pieces, but the safety concerns I had initially with the project are still bothering me. The safety of students, staff, residents of Palo Alto and neighborhood still need to be addressed. 1. Building a garage endangers the environment by creating huge amounts of greenhouse gasses and threatens the underground water table during construction 2. Bringing in cars onto a Bicycle boulevard from the busy Embarcadero road and cuing cars into an underground garage increases dangers to bicyclists and drivers. 3. Asking students to walk through an underground garage under a sewer line to emerge out to the campus exposes them to environmental hazards 4. Asking students to attend classes in basement classrooms with no outside ventilation or light wells is hazardous to their physical and mental state. Commissioner Hirsh of the ARB was also very concerned with this last issue as well. The beautiful promotional video Adam Wolbach presented did not show us how massive the building was from the Kellogg side, or take us through the underground garage and its exit on Emerson, or into these basement classrooms with so called “bounced light”. As a parent of a daughter I can understand concerns that parents will have about hazards that this project poses to their girls. Rather than going with the party line to support Castilleja’s plans, I suggest parents study the plans more carefully and ask detailed questions to understand what conditions will be like in these many basement classrooms and in the garage for their daughters. To the PTC commissioners, I ask you to withhold approval of the latest plans until these safety concerns have been properly addressed. The health and welfare of all the students, parents, staff and residents should be paramount to the decisions you make on this project. Thank you, Kimberley Wong From:marcela millan To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Support for Casti project Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 9:14:41 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from marmillan@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear PTC, I am writing in support of Castilleja’s project. It’s clear that Castilleja’s Traffic Demand Management program (TDM) will be vital to their mitigating traffic once their enrollment grows. I just wanted to write to express a few points about their already successful, and ever expanding TDM program. 1. As has been well documented, the school has been very successful executing TDM results to date, reducing traffic by ~ 30% in the neighborhood. 2. It can not be said enough times: the school will not be able to increase their enrollment if traffic increases. It seems that this requirement is not discussed enough. Opponents who worry about growth or “expansion” must remember that the school will not be able to grow unless they manage the car trips. There are so many measures built into the plan to ensure compliance. 3. To illustrate the school’s agility and investment in TDM, they added new bus routes to school during the pandemic since families were uncomfortable putting students on trains. The goal of all of these shared rides is the same: keep cars and traffic from the neighborhood. Companies and other organizations in Palo Alto should all be instituting TDM measures, and Castilleja is proving to be a strong test case for successful mitigation. Going forward, it sounds like Castilleja will further expand their rideshare options, and I hope other businesses do the same. I also wanted to support the decision of the ARB who was recently in favor of a garage size that maximizes the number of underground parking spots (69 vs 52) and in favor of the garage design that preserves an additional oak tree. I appreciate your service, thank you. Marcela Millan 1094 Forest Avenue From:Aram James To:chuck jagoda; wilpfpeninsulapaloalto@gmail.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Greer Stone; Joe Simitian; Council, City; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; City Mgr; Tanner, Rachael; Binder, Andrew; Human Relations Commission; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; Cecilia Taylor; Cindy Chavez; City Mgr Subject:Why some cities are operating legal homeless camps even in the dead of winter : NPR Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 9:12:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.npr.org/2022/01/07/1070966346/why-some-cities-are-operating-legal-homeless-camps-even-in-the- dead-of-winter Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Jonsen, Robert; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Jay Boyarsky; Greer Stone; Joe Simitian; chuck jagoda; Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Figueroa, Eric; Figueroa, Eric; Pat Burt; Alison Cormack; Kou, Lydia; Cecilia Taylor; Betsy Nash; Council, City Subject:California task force: Reparations for direct descendants of enslaved people only Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 6:13:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. NewsBreak Used by over 45 million people Open APP California task force: Reparations for direct descendants of enslaved people only CalMatters I found this on NewsBreak: California task force: Reparations for direct descendants of enslaved people only Click to read the full story Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:lael@jvalley.org Cc:Lewis. james; Jack Ajluni; Salem Ajluni; Donna Wallach; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Human Relations Commission; City Mgr; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; Winter Dellenbach; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Re: JSV Statement-Terror Attacks in Israel Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 6:04:33 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hi Lael, How many Palestinian children does Israel- one of the leading terrorist states in world_ have locked up in Israeli prisons? How many unarmed Palestinians are killed by Israeli military forces every year? When will Israel stop expanding illegal settlements in Palestinians land? When will Israel join the bulk of the world in condemning the Russian attacks on the Ukraine? Aram James ( Proud Jew) Grandson of Louis Byer Fink -youngest of 19 Ukrainian Jews -graduate of Cornell U— circa 1913 Sent from my iPhone On Mar 30, 2022, at 5:02 PM, Jewish Silicon Valley <lael@jvalley.org> wrote: March 30 , 2022 Dear Community Members, Jewish Silicon Valley has been closely monitoring the ongoing violence that has occurred over the last week in Israel. Three separate heinous attacks have left eleven Israelis dead (four terrorists were also killed). Many others were injured. We extend our condolences to the families of the victims, and also pray for the safety of all of our local families in Israel. We, along with our partner agencies, will continue to watch closely for any significant updates. If you would like more information regarding the most recent news of these attacks, please read full updates released from Jewish Federation of North America's Israel office HERE. Oseh shalom bimromav hu ya’aseh shalom aleinu v’al kol yisrael v’al kol yosh’vei tevel May the one who makes peace in the high heavens, make peace upon us, for all of Israel, and for all who inhabit the earth. Jewish Silicon Valley's mission is to harness the power of community to improve lives, build bridges of understanding, and strengthen the Jewish people here, in Israel, and around the world. Jewish Silicon Valley | 14855 Oka Road, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Unsubscribe abjpd1@gmail.com Update Profile | Our Privacy Policy | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by lael@jvalley.org powered by Try email marketing for free today! From:Winter Dellenbach To:Council, City Subject:FBI Analysis Report of PAPD data compared to 75 Area Cities & Counties Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 5:52:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Council Members - I came across the below information that includes the PAPD as I was preparing a memo to you. I thought it important to share with you given our Police Chief (I assume) will be presenting his annual report on the PAPD to you. I believe it is item #16. Using the url below, you will read this is - "An analysis of arrest data voluntarily reported to the FBI by [76] city and county police departments reveals that black people are arrested more often than white people in the Bay Area. The data is from 2018 and accounts for the demographics of the cities and counties these police departments serve.” Of the 76 large and small cities and counties participating in this 2018 investigation, Palo Alto came in 3rd from highest in arrests of black people. It is appalling given all we have learned in the last years about systemic racism in policing and our wider culture. It will take you less than 10 minutes to fully absorb the information. I never remember that we were informed of this information by anyone with the City. Were you? Here is the url: https://abc7news.com/police-arrests-bay-area-systematic-racism/6243588/ Once you look at this URL site, look at PAPD’s Arrest Data below that it submitted to you last year in its Use of Force Report (the totals for all 5 years were done by me). Note there were more arrests of Hispanics than White people: PAPD Demographic Breakdown of Arrests By Year 2015: White (1,226), Hispanic (918), Black (818), Other (365), Asian (173) 2016: White (879), Hispanic (801), Black (589), Other (290), Asian (84) 2017: White (923), Hispanic (696), Black (597), Other (298), Asian (108) 2018: White (896), Hispanic (772), Black (586), Other (231), Asian (111) 2019: White (706), Hispanic (697), Black (488), Other (219), Asian (91) [Winter’s Totals: White (3,734) Hispanic (3,884) Black (3,078) Other (1,403) Asian (567)] … it is important to note that we do not have a practice of asking a criminal suspect for their race; therefore, the race of the suspect listed is the race perceived by the officer completing the arrest report. The data above includes both felony and misdemeanor arrests, either bookings or criminal citations (“cite-and-release” arrests). Unlike what was provided the FBI, this above data has never been analyzed to adjust it demographically to our City. For 5 years this data collected, then sat like an elephant in the room - nothing could be learned and nothing acted upon. What a waste. Recommendation: A next step to address systemic racism in Palo Alto will be to invest in doing or having done the right kind of sophisticated analysis of arrests, stops, and other data thought critical, so it will be useful and we know how to then act on it as needed. From:Deborah CONRAD To:Council, City Subject:I"m Voting to Keep Parklets & Ramona St Closed Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 3:25:53 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from deborahconrad@me.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council of Palo Alto, In anticipation of your meeting on February 28th 2022, we implore you to keep Ramona Street Closed and continue to allow parklets. I like dining outdoors and the feeling on Ramona Street with the half closure, so please count my vote for keeping parklets & Ramona Street CLOSED for safe outdoor dining. From:Magic To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:castilleja Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 2:06:34 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from magic@ecomagic.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council members, I write to once again express my strongly held view that the Trustees of Castilleja School have flouted the law, abused the school’s neighbors, and set a sad example of disintegrity for students of the school. I urge you to reject their dissembling, their rigid insistence upon expanding both enrollment and built space by the same amounts during the entire five and a half years this issue has been before you, and their complaints about how long they’ve been delayed. Castilleja is already overbuilt by contrast to statewide norms for school sites, and trustees have constructed and occupied more than an acre (47,000 ft2) of floorspace in excess of that allowed by code. They are proposing to nearly double the amount of underground classroom area without natural ventilation or light, flying in the face of abundant evidence of the benefits of these. School supporters apparently think that throwing money to lawyers, architects, and consultants willing to advocate for whatever they’re paid can prepare young women to lead in a world where adverse impacts of past pursuit of narrow interests are increasingly felt by all. I perceive that cosseted with wealth and status, both they and Castilleja students become ever less able to see and shed the delusion that is at the root of our predicament. Thank you for considering these views. Respectfully, David Schrom From:Leslie Wang To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:Castilleja"s modernization project Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 12:46:37 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from remleywang@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my support for Castilleja’s modernization project. As a long-time Palo Alto resident and champion of all kinds of education–public, private, single sex, coed, etc–I am left wondering why this project is still up for debate. Palo Alto constituents want this project to conclude so that we can all move forward as a community and focus on far more pressing issues like housing, climate change, and more. I support Castilleja’s project because it is a solid proposal. Years of research, revision, debate, updates, conversations, redesign, time, resources–and more–have led to a project that is ready for approval. The plan checks all the boxes. It removes cars off the street. It increases the existing canopy of trees. It will maintain current car trips and cause no new trips. The facade of the building along Kellogg has been improved to blend seamlessly with the neighborhood. While not comprehensive of every feature in the plan, each of those aspects has been intentionally designed to meet neighbors’ expressed needs while also allowing the school to operate as an well-respected institution to educate girls. Castilleja has compromised. They have listened to more than six years of neighbor’s commentary since the project first appeared on the City agenda. And at each juncture, the School has returned with plans that directly address neighborhood voices. Please support the 69 car underground garage option. Council’s direction to limit the capacity to 52 cars was completely arbitrary. With a capacity of 69 cars, the school can fulfill the number of spots required by city code AND maintain the goal of getting more cars off our streets. Adding 17 cars creates no additional traffic AND it does not affect any trees. Please support the maximum capacity. The plan you have before you addresses comments from key stakeholders: neighbors, City Council, the PTC, the ARB, citizens from throughout Palo Alto, and the Castilleja community. Now, the School needs your guidance to take them across the finish line. Thank you, Leslie Wang Lowell Avenue From:Hank Sousa To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 12:41:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Commissioners. I’m Hank Sousa and live two houses away from the school. There is an obvious, healthy solution to the parking issue and that is to shuttle in the girls that currently get dropped off and picked up. Many of the cars that arrive at the school each morning utilize the 89 parking spaces currently existing on campus. Additional school workers and students park on the school’s side of the streets which provide an additional 53 spots on Bryant, Kellogg and Emerson. We neighbors don’t use those spots as there is plenty of room for our cars on the other side of the streets. This has been a long standing gentlemen’s agreement. Moving the pool so a Costco sized building can take up one side of the 200 block of Kellogg removes too much surface parking. The school is causing a problem that doesn’t currently exist. Here’s a solution: - School keeps their existing parking lots and street parking. - Swimming pool stays where it is saving important trees. - School builds their new building with a few tweaks and enlarges shuttling program, continues to park on campus and on streets surrounding the school and shaves off 18 months from the building schedule by skipping the garage. - Many of us neighbors are ok with enrollment increasing to 450, but pause it there for a number of years. Nanci has stated in the past that 450 was the pedagogical optimum. The garage’s construction is unhealthy and if completed remains unhealthy for people inside it and neighbors breathing in the resulting carbon monoxide which would be exhausted into the neighborhood. Please keep these suggestions in mind when you consider the school’s proposed expansion. Recommend the existing parking lots be worked into the new building construction and save time and health for both neighbors and school attendees. Thank you for listening to the concerns of us who live within a couple blocks of the school. Regards, Hank Sousa 160 Melville Ave. From:Social Media Attorney Mark Fiedelholtz To:Council, City Subject:New federal social media training standards: Hidden liabilities you must know. Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 12:28:20 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mark@newsocialmedialaw.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Social Media Banner March 2022.JPG Here's Why My Online Social Media Liability Course Is So Urgent... FAILURE OF GOVERNMENTS TO COMPLY WITH NEW FEDERAL SOCIAL MEDIA TRAINING STANDARDS IS DESTROYING THE PUBLIC TRUST Even If Your Social Media Policy Holds Up In Court Or You Have Insurance, These Headlines Hurt Your Public Image And Legitimacy. Houston County Sheriff’s Office Deputy suspended after social media comment on Arbery trial 9 NY firefighters suspended over sharing of racist messages about George Floyd Granite City employee fired over post criticizing Black Lives Matter on their personal account Apologies Are Nice, But They Don't Build Public Trust. Public Trust Is Built By Educating Your Employees With My $9 Per Person Expert Social Media Liability Course. Fall River Police Department Apologizes After Facebook Post About George Floyd Lincoln Fire Chief Apologizes For Social Media Post Regarding Looters County Administrator Issues Apology For Personal Social Media Posts It's Time To Get Serious About Specialized Employee Social Media Liability Training Social Media Speech Mistakes Made by Untrained Employees Not Only Endanger Your Citizens, They Also Drive Away New Businesses And Residents From Relocating To Your Community Fire Truck.JPG City Hall.jpg Police Stories Firefighter Stories Government Stories Logo--Courts hold decision makers personally liable.JPG Courts Hold HR And Administrators Personally Liable For Inadequate Employee Social Media Liability Training See LIverman v. City Of Petersburg 844 F.3d 400 (2016) Need Proof? Here's A Cautionary Tale In the federal landmark case of Liverman v. City Of Petersburg, the police chief was held personally liable for a boilerplate social media policy and no evidence of in-depth employee training. The court ruled against Qualified Immunity for the police chief. See 42 U.S.C. traditional inadequate training liability analysis when the need for training was so obvious. Urgent Cost-Effective Online Course How To Eliminate Employee Social Media Speech Mistakes That Destroy The Public Trust (Especially Off-Duty Posts) Tablet How To Avoid Social Medai Liability.png Urgent Online Course Developed By Nationally Recognized Social Media Attorney Mark Fiedelholtz * There is a one-time portal management fee of $297 that covers your organization. Questions? Call 954-748-7698 Wellington.PNG "Mark too many public employees have paid the price for inadequate social media liability training. Upon auditing your course, our fire chief and I are making your online course mandatory for our employees. I strongly recommend this course to all public employees." Chief Tim Barfield Wellington, OH National Testimonials Introductory Group Price Of $9 Per Person Ends In 30 Days Visit My Webstie At www.AvoidSocialMediaMistakes.com Don't miss out on this unique offer to protect your public image and employees from personal liability with my expert social media liability training. Register Your Group Now Call 954-748-7698 Verbal Warnings And Written Policies Do Not Qualify As Training The U.S. Supreme Court Classifies Social Media As A "High Liability" Human Resource Topic, Not A PIO Issue. New Federal Standards Require Proof That All Employees Must Receive Outside Expert Social Media Liability Training. Supreme Court.2 PNG.PNG 2 Diagnostic Assessments To Validate If You Are In Compliance With The New Federal Social Media Training And Policy Standards Have Your Employees Take This Basic Social Media Liability Test New Social Media Training And Policy Audit Checklist The Hidden Costs Of Inadequate Employee Social Media Liability Training Untrained employees make social media speech mistakes on their personal accounts that lead to... Loss of Public Trust Loss of Legitimacy Loss of Careers Loss of Legal Fees Loss of New Business Loss of New Citizens AVOID THESE 3 BIG MISTAKES 1) Social media shouldn't be considered a PIO or Marketing issue when the U.S. Supreme Court says it is a "high liability" human resource issue. 2) It's not realistic to assume your in-house attorney can provide my type of specialized employee training on social media and policy development. 3) Do not wait for something bad to happen before making my online course mandatory for all employees. Taylorsville Sign.JPG "Mark, you course was exceptional, it took fear away from our administration on what to post and what to delete. We feel more comfortable after taking this course and you were always available to answer questions. I suggest that all public agencies take this online course.” Chief Dwayne Wheeler, Taylorville, IL Compare The Costs Pig _9 Comparison.PNG Logo Loss Of Trust. _Red_JPG.JPG When a 30 year nationally recognized digital media attorney offers his highly recommended online social media liability course for $9 per person, there is no excuse to delay or avoid making the course mandatory for all employees. List Of Recent Participants National Testimonials "Great program. Being aware of the hidden liabilities not discussed in other courses saves your public image, and big legal fees." Cindy Reid, Attorney, Town Of Davidson, NC Public Administrators And In-House Attorneys Agree, My Online Course Is Urgent And Can't Be Duplicated In-House “Mark, your social media liability course provided valuable information that will aid our personnel when engaging in social media platforms, professionally and privately at a minimal cost. This social media course reaffirmed our agency’s policy." Police Chief Jason Reid, Oak Forest Police Dept. Flower Mound Logo.png “Your class opened my eyes to the liability that lies beneath the flashy façade. I had no idea of the possible legal ramifications of simply liking a post or other hidden social media liability issues. I would highly recommend this course to every fire department across the country." Steven Ford, Flower Mound Fire Department, TX (2021) "Mark, your courses always give me new information on the hidden liabilities that other instructors overlook. No public employee should be using social media platforms without using this type of specialized training. I high recommend your social media liability training." 911 Director Mike Weaver Lancaster Co., PA The Biggest Benefit Of My Expert Programs Is That It Helps You... Social Media Policies Build Public Trust.JPG Online Social Media Liability Course Cost: $9 per person and one-time portal management fee of $297 per dept. Policy Manual.png Customized Social Media Policy Update Call us for prices at 954-748-7698 and our multiple policy discounts. Primary Social Media Policy Social Media Citizen Policy (NEW) Government Course Flyer Law Enforcement Course Flyer Firefighter Course Flyer "Great program. Being aware of the hidden liabilities not discussed in other courses saves your public image, and big legal fees." Cindy Reid, Attorney, Davidson, NC www.avoidsocialmediamistakes.com Questions? Call 954-748-7698 Social Media Background Check Policy "Mark, thanks to you, our city manager approved your Social Media Records Management Policy. We look forward to working with you again." Pat Cabrera, City Clerk, Las Vegas, NV www.socialmediapolicy.info Questions? Call 954-748-7698 Online Course And Registration Details Course Cost: $9 per person plus a one-time portal management fee of $297 per department. e offer a significant discount on the portal fee if you want to train all your employees. Course Instructor: Social Media Attorney Mark Fiedelholtz Course Outline: Click Here New Powerful "Red Flag Warning System" The course is delivered online, participants take the course on their own schedule Course Access: 24/7 access on any personal device for one year Registration: You email me the names and email addresses and then I send out course invitations. You can keep adding people during the year. Payment: You can pay by check or credit card and we accept purchase orders. Upon request I can email you a course progress report that details how many participants are actively enrolled in the course and the percentage of the course they have completed. All participants can print out certificates of completion when they are done with the course. Don't Wait For Something Bad To Happen Register All Your Employees Now! Call 954-748-7698 Now To Register Your Employees Learn More Questions? Call 954-748-7698 Public Administrators, In-House Attorneys, HR, And PIOs Agree, My Type Of Specialized Social Media Liability Training Can't Be Done In-House And Is Urgent “I wanted to commend you on your Social Media Course; members of my department, myself included, recently completed the course and we found it to be time well spent. Instruction was straight forward, to the point, easy to follow and appropriately detailed, in short, the course was well worth the time and money spent. In addition, your customer service was beyond reproach, I emailed you several times and each time you responded immediately and rectified email problems that were created on our end, but effected our course completions. Thank you for a great course and a great experience, I look forward to seeing more courses.” Ron Curtis , City Of Groveland FL (2021) “What an eye-opening course. Mark’s new strategies save your job and keep you from being sued. All public employees need this expert social media law training.” Shaun D. Jones, Public Safety Spotsylvania County, VA Full Bio Questions? Call 954-748-7698 Visit My Website At www.avoidsocialmediamistakes.com Effective Communications Inc. | 13506 Summerport Village Pkwy,, Windermere, FL 34786 Unsubscribe city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Update Profile | About Constant Contact Sent by mark@newsocialmedialaw.com From:Aram James To:Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Pat Burt; City Mgr; Council, City; Stump, Molly; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; chuck jagoda; Sajid Khan; Raj; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; Stump, Molly; Joe Simitian; Cindy Chavez; Jay Boyarsky; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Gennady Sheyner; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Winter Dellenbach; Greer Stone; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Roberta Ahlquist Subject:Marshall Project series: Mauled: When Police Dogs are weapons- Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 11:57:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Burt et al—a good series to review prior to the April 4, PAPD “Study Session “ aka one sided propaganda PR performance by our police chief, city attorney and city manager. Mayor Burt: I am counting on you to lead the city council in cross examining the city management team on the encryption issue, but also the canine issue: Of course I personally want a reversal of police radio encryption and the use of canines banned in Palo Alto except for search and rescue missions. Please try to read the Pulitzer Prize award winning series on canines as weapons ….used extraordinarily disproportionately on African Americans and people of color. Ok, Mayor Burt, I look forward to seeing your cross examination skills on display at Monday April 4th’s city council meeting. Best regards, aram https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/06/11/the-marshall-project-wins-the-pulitzer-prize Sent from my iPhone From:Jill Sturm To:Jill Sturm Subject:Let your community know the tax filing deadline approaching Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 11:01:42 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, The tax filing deadline is coming soon. Please make sure your community gets the free help they need to file their taxes to get their stimulus payments as well as the child tax credit. Tax-Aid volunteers will be meeting clients at an outdoor Curbside Tax Document Drop Off Event this Saturday April 2nd at the Red Morton Community Center in Redwood City. We will collect copies of their tax documents so that our volunteers can prepare their tax returns. Tax-Aid helps people that earn less than $58,000 a year. Our services are provided free of charge by volunteers who donate their time. Your community members need our help. Many people need to file their taxes to take advantage of the stimulus payments and child tax credits. Please help us get the word out to your constituents, clients and networks. You can find more information on our location for this weekend on our website here Flyers can be downloaded on our website in English, Spanish and Chinese from our website. Our event is also available on Facebook here Thank you for helping us spread the word. Best, Jill Sturm Executive Director Tax-Aid 235 Montgomery Street, Suite 1155, San Francisco, CA 94104 Phone and Fax: 415-229-9239 jill@tax-aid.org www.tax-aid.org/ Visit us on Facebook! www.instagram.com/taxaidfotos/ From:Jennifer Landesmann To:Council, City Subject:copy of my comment for Rep Eshoo Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 10:22:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Council, I hope that many of you and the City have contributed testimony to add to the record for the hearing - Aviation Noise and Measuring Progress in Addressing Community Concerns through Rep Eshoo's portal for accepting comments. The deadline is today, I submitted my comments and am sharing a copy of my input with you here. Best, Jennifer From:Aram James To:sean james; Lewis. james; Donette; Jean Gage Subject:California task force: Reparations for direct descendants of enslaved people only Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 10:11:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. NewsBreak Used by over 45 million people Open APP California task force: Reparations for direct descendants of enslaved people only CalMatters I found this on NewsBreak: California task force: Reparations for direct descendants of enslaved people only Click to read the full story Sent from my iPhone From:Kelly Nolan To:Council, City Subject:Free shipping on your press plaque ends tomorrow Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 7:32:14 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hello Ladoris Free shipping on your press plaque ends tomorrow I just wanted to remind you that the offer of free shipping on a custom plaque for your article, Avenidas honors seven with ‘Lifetimes of Achievement’ awards. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell ends tomorrow. Check which plaque design you want and use code ENFS at the checkout for free shipping. That's it. Celebrating your great news. Kind regards, Kelly Nolan Account Manager That’s Great News PS. Please call me on 888-239-5731 for personal service quoting your article ID 11775674 or reply to this email if you're short on time and we'll help you. UNCONDITIONAL 100% MONEY BACK GUARANTEE ON ALL PLAQUES A full refund if you don’t like the plaque. 4.8 Overall Satisfaction Rating That's Great News is not affiliated with PALO ALTO WEEKLY Article Avenidas honors seven with ‘Lifetimes of Achievement’ awards. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell Featured Ladoris Cordell, Palo Alto City Council Published View my plaque That’s Great News, 900 Northrop Rd., Wallingford, CT 06492. All Rights Reserved. Call Us: 888-239-5731 and reference Customer ID (11775674) Free shipping T&Cs i) Shipping to Continental US/Canada ii) Payment with Credit Card. All Prices are in USD If you don’t want an alert when you’re featured in the press or our offers please unsubscribe to avoid us contacting you again. View email online. {"iid":"34694565","cid":"11775674"oid":"6508535135"} From:ASC Newslettter To:Council, City Subject: Running Out Of Medical Masks? Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 7:05:20 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Logo Complete Rapid Drug Testing & PPE Solutions I'm an image I'm an image I'm an image America's Leading Provider Of Quality Rapid Screening Products. “We Are Quality In All We Are And All That We Do!” Premier - Medical Face Mask is an ASTM Level 3 face mask that features an ear loop design for simplicity and convenience. Level 3 masks are ideal for procedures where moderate to high amount of fluids and sprays are involved and require high resistance. This Level 3 face mask is lightweight and breathable designed with melt-blown polypropylene that offers protection from liquids, sprays, dust, and particulates. Buy Now 5% Off The Patriot Mask - N95 Molded Respirator is an NIOSH Approved N95 Particulate Respirator with maximum filtration and a breathable fit. The Patriot Mask meets the NIOSH inhalation procedure testing (TEB-APR STP 0007). This mask offers a secure fit and easy breathing with the molded design and bendable nose clip. Available in small and regular sizes, comes in box of 25. Buy Now 15% Off NEED A BETTER PRICE? CALL US! (866) 526-2873 OUR LATEST BLOG POSTS What Is An Adulterated Sample? How To Detect One? Image The word “adulterate” means “presenting something poorer in quality by adding on another similar substance, typically an inferior one. Read More How Do Date Rape Drug Tests Work? Image Date-rape drugs are substances that are used to make sexual assault easier by making the victim drowsy or unconscious. These can include alcohol and... Read More Customer Service From People Who Care. (318) 798-3306 | (866) 526-2873 | sales@americanscreeningcorp.com LEARN MORE ABOUT US © 2021 - AmericanScreeningCorp.com - All Rights Reserved One-click Unsubscribe From:Carla Befera To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: Castilleja discussion 3/30 Date:Wednesday, March 30, 2022 5:41:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To valued members of the Planning and Transportation Commission: My family has owned a home across the street from Castilleja since 1968, when the school was welcome as a quiet and respectful member of the neighborhood. Certainly we understand the pace of living has increased for all of Palo Alto since that time. We understand schools may ebb and flow with the times, and anyone living across from a public school expects a certain amount of happy noise and inconvenient traffic from time to time. But 75% of those attendees don’t come from outside the city. Those students walk or bike to school, for the most part, and evening and weekend events are rare. Unlike public middle or high schools in Palo Alto, Castilleja is not buffered from neighbors with extensive parking lots and playing fields and no local high school (or private business) counts on neighborhood street parking to mitigate its impact, as Castilleja proposes to do. We ask you to consider the school’s desire to modernize its buildings, but NOT to tie that authorization with an automatic increase in enrollment by 30%. The school has done nothing to prove it will honor its mitigation commitments to the City or the neighbors, and neighbors are acutely aware of how little oversight the City can provide, and how easily the monitoring measures can be circumvented. In its current proposal, Castilleja says it plans to reduce traffic by adding 30% more students - with those students (75% from out of town) dropped off (2 trips daily) and picked up (2 trips daily). The school claims it will urge the use of carpools and count all traffic, but we know that only the cars that use the school’s drop-off lanes and immediate streets will be counted - not the cars that we see every day parking a couple blocks away. It is notable that the same school leaders who claim their impacts can be mitigated were also in charge when the school’s enrollment shot past its agreed-upon 415 cap, to 450 students, and who ignored neighbors’ concerns about parking and traffic issues, even though specific mitigations were outlined in the previous CUP. To this day, the school is not back to the enrollment level it agreed upon in 2000, a number the neighbors felt it could handle - provided the school ALSO instituted parking and traffic mitigations (which were not in fact implemented until the school sought additional growth). There is discussion of setting an enrollment cap at 450 at this time, and letting the school prove it can mitigate the impacts, before allowing incremental increases. (Frankly, we would prefer the school be required to actually meet its current commitment of 415 before being allowed more, but it appears that ship has sailed.) But it would be obscene to allow the school to increase its enrollment to 540 at this time, in one fell swoop, based on metrics that are hardly measurable and which experience shows are not enforced. We thank you for your consideration. Carla McLeod From:Mary Sylvester To:ptc@cityofpaloalto.org; Lauing, Ed; doriasummer@gmail.com; Bryna Chang; Cari Templeton; Giselle Roohparvar; Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; City Attorney Subject:PTC Review of Castilleja Expansion Plan--3/30/22--CORRECTION: ONLY OPTION E PROTECTS TREE 89! Date:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 7:37:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners, City Council Members and City Staff, I am writing to make a correction on Point #3 below. It is only OPTION E THAT WILL SAFEGUARD PROTECTED OAK #89, not as I mistakenly stated on 3/28/22 that it is Option D that will safeguard #89. Please accept my apologies. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Mary Sylvester On 03/28/2022 12:07 PM Mary Sylvester <marysylvester@comcast.net> wrote: March 28, 2022 Dear PTC Chair Lauing and Commissioners, I am writing as a 44-year neighbor of Castilleja School, living 1/2 block from the entrance to the school's Emerson/Melville parking lot, who is deeply concerned about the ecological impacts of the school's expansion project and how it undermines our natural environment! Our community's environmental future is being threatened by City decision makers giving away fragile, irreplaceable natural resources to the highest bidders! Approving the Castilleja expansion project as proposed is not in our community's best interests! This letter will lay out 5 factual points about Castilleja’s Expansion Plan that all intersect and cumulatively undermine our existing City of Palo Alto’s Sustainability Goals (S-CAP): 1. Castilleja's proposed project is an Expansion Plan as the school is requesting an addition of 50,000 sq ft to the project’s allowable square footage and a 30% increase in its student population. 2. The proposed swimming pool is within the groundwater table and like the 2006 construction of Castilleja's gymnasium threatens to waste countless amounts of irreplaceable groundwater. 3. Only adoption of Option D allows safeguard Protected Oak #89. Neither Option E or a combination of Options D & E as recommended by the ARB on 3/17/22, sufficiently safeguard Tree #89. 4.It is an oxymoron to state construction of an unneeded underground garage is an "environmentally superior" option as stated by Castilleja as thousands of cubic tons of irreplaceable soil will be trucked away, the removal of which will be extremely polluting, and will be replaced with a highly carbon producing substance, cement. 5. Castilleja's traffic plan does not result in net 0 carbon impact as claimed by the school (ad: P.A. Weekly, 3/25/22). It defies belief that adding 30% more students and at least 300 additional car trips per day will meet any rational person's sense of common sense, particularly as Castilleja refuses to implement mandatory shuttling as other private schools do. INTRODUCTION Castilleja operates in a R-1 neighborhood under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP--PAMC Section 18.76.01 *e)) as it is a noncoforming use in a residential neighborhood. How long are we going to give away highly valuable public resources (e.g. natural resources ) to a very privileged school and threaten our fragile, irreplaceable natural resources and undermine the few zoning and municipal safeguards we have to protect residents? I. EXPANSION PLAN A. Square Footage Expansion Castilleja, under Palo Alto’s Municipal Code (Section 18), is allowed 81,385 sq ft. The school’s new plan requests 128,687 sq ft. The school likes to argue that it is a reduction plan because they have illegally added sq footage to their campus over the years, now amounting to 138,345sq ft, which they want to count as their baseline, not their legal base. (see Dudek study, 11/17/21). The approval of Castilleja's EIR and Variance request was based on faulty information and needs to be re-reviewed with the 2021 Dudek data in mind. B. Student Enrollment Expansion Castilleja when filing their expansion plan and request for a new CUP in 2016 argued that 438 students were their legal baseline, with the support of City staff. As a result of neighbors hiring an attorney, it was established that 415 students was the school’s legal baseline under their 2000 CUP. Consequently, 450 students as suggested by Council (4/21) and the PTC (12/21), represents a reasonable expansion. II. THE PROPOSED SWIMMING POOL THREATENS THE WATER TABLE Again we are revisiting Castilleja planning to build a structure that threatens Palo Alto’s groundwater. Based on the letter and statement of Keith Bennett of Save Palo Alto's Groundwater's of 1/19/22 (attached), we learn that Castilleja again threatens the community's irreplaceable groundwater with its proposed pool as it did in 2006 with its new gym, costing Palo Alto millions of gallons wasted water that poured into local storm drains and down neighborhood streets. “The pool deck is 15 feet below ground surface and excavation for the pool will extend to approximately 26 ft. below ground surface allowing for the 7.5 foot. depth of the pool below the deck, 1.5 feet for pipes and pumps plus an approximately 2-foot thick slab of concrete to reduce buoyancy when the pool isn’t filled. The water table at this location is about 25 feet below ground surface in autumn, rising to about 18 feet below ground surface during winter storms. We must assume groundwater will be encountered during construction, as it was in 2006 for construction of the gym. City staff has never accounted for whether a penalty was paid for the lost of such a valuable community resource! III. ONLY OPTION D WILL ADEQUATELY SAFEGUARD PROTECTED OAK #89 Castilleja's expansion project threatens Palo Alto's tree canopy and undermines our Tree Protection Ordinance, particularly Palo Alto's protected trees. Both neighbors and community residents enjoy the natural beauty of the trees on the Castilleja campus, which also offer valuable heat protection to the streets but most importantly these trees provide invaluable carbon capture. Only Option D will adequately safeguard the beautiful, healthy Protected Tree #89, not Option E or a combination of Option D and E as proposed at the recent ARB meeting (3/17/22) IV. AN UNDERGROUND GARAGE IS NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY SUSTAINABLE OPTION Underground garages are not allowed in R-1 neighborhoods except with approval of a variance (PAMC 18.10). Is there a “Substantial public interest" being served by the construction of an underground garage to justify construction of an underground garage in a residential neighborhood? The construction and operation of an underground garage undermines Palo Alto’s S-Cap goals. Removal of 60,000 cubic tons of earth (6000 truck trips) and use of cement, a carbon dense substance to produce. Castilleja's consultant, Fehr & Peers, in 2021 in conducting an audit of the school's existing parking, found that more than sufficient parking exists on campus, on the street and at the school's off-site parking location at First Prebysterian Church (Fehr and Peers, July 2021). Free underground parking only serves as a magnet for students, parents and staff to drive to campus, thereby increasing neighborhood traffic and pollution. V. ADDED TRAFFIC DOES NOT EQUATE NET ZERO CARBON Castilleja has been touting its model Transportation Demand Management Project for years. I view this as a smoke and mirrors campaign to allow students, parents and staff to drive to campus with impunity as the school plans to monitor its own behavior. It's unfathomable to believe that Castilleja can't implement mandatory shuttling for its students and staff with its existing electrical vehicles. Numerous private schools such as Nueva, Notre Dame and Harker have well-developed TDM programs that keep student/family/staff car trips out of residential neighborhoods. A transparent, verifiable TDM plan must be developed before Castilleja is granted a new CUP and Expansion Plan. At private schools such as Neuva and Notre Dame, students are not allowed to drive to campus and are encouraged to use public transportation and school transportation. CONCLUSION At a time when Palo Alto has so many pressing needs such as our natural environment, our inadequate affordable housing supply and our current financial situation, is the Castilleja expansion plan the project that the City wants to provide so many free, deleterious giveaways--uncounted extra square footage, an underground garage in an R-1 neighborhood, and destruction of trees, groundwater, soil and clean air--with NOTHING coming back for the betterment of the community? Thank you, Mary Sylvester Melville Ave. Palo Alto From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; Council, City; Doug Vagim; dallen1212@gmail.com; eappel@stanford.edu; Chris Field; Scott Wilkinson; hennessy; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; lalws4@gmail.com; Leodies Buchanan; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Royal Family arrives at Prince Philip"s memorial service Date:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 4:17:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 2:47 PM Subject: Fwd: Royal Family arrives at Prince Philip's memorial service To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 5:22 AM Subject: Fwd: Royal Family arrives at Prince Philip's memorial service To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, kfsndesk <kfsndesk@abc.com>, newsdesk <newsdesk@ksee.com>, <news@fresnobee.com>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, Mayor <mayor@fresno.gov>, dennisbalakian <dennisbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, <margaret- sasaki@live.com>, leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Daniel Zack <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, <mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com>, <merazroofinginc@att.net>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, fred beyerlein <fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net>, Sally Thiessen <sally.thiessen.jb7t@statefarm.com>, tsheehan <tsheehan@fresnobee.com>, terry <terry@terrynagel.com>, <bearwithme1016@att.net>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>, jerry ruopoli <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, Irv Weissman <irv@stanford.edu>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, <Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov>, <George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2022 at 4:14 AM Subject: Royal Family arrives at Prince Philip's memorial service To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> On Tuesday, March 29, 2022: Live: Royal Family arrives at Prince Philip’s memorial service - YouTube 44:39 Royalty from several European countries because Prince Philip had royal blood from several royal families. Senior royals depart: LIVE: Royals Depart Philip Thanksgiving Service - YouTube L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Andie Reed To:Planning Commission; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion Date:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 3:59:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Commissioners: Please refer to the pages in the 3-30-22 PTC packet for ease of following this discussion. Packet Pages 67 - 70: SECTION 7. Variance Findings A close reading of our variance laws show that Castilleja does not meet the criteria required. These pages in the staff report refer to PAMC code section 18.76.030 (c) "Findings". The bullets are arbitrary; I start with: Packet page 67, bullet 3 · The size of the campus …..disproportionately constrains the campus compared to neighboring properties. Castilleja has FAR of .51 and wants FAR of .48. The FAR of adjoining properties range from .34 to .45. No property in the vicinity and same zoning district has what Castilleja wants. In fact, no R-1 property anywhere in Palo Alto is given an FAR of .48. Per 18.76.030(c)(1)(B), a variance must not consider “[a]ny changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation.” The large size of Castilleja’s site is due to its incorporation of the 200 block of Melville in 1992, which occurred after the R-1 zone was adopted, and after the FAR rules came into effect (despite planning commissioners being told otherwise by staff). Basing the request on the lot size does not meet the legal test imposed by our municipal code. Packet page 67, bullet 4 · As recently as 2006, the school has been permitted to replace existing squarefootage in excess of current development standards through the issuance of a CUP,without the need for a variance. Castilleja should have requested a variance at the time, although it likely would have failed to qualify. The Arts Building (1998) and the Gym (2006) were both built after the FAR rules were in effect in Palo Alto. Not having obtained the correct approval in the past is a special circumstance of this owner that legally cannot be used as grounds for granting one now. Packet page 67, bullets 5 & 6 · There currently exists on the parcel 138,345SF of legal, countable building square footage (GFA). · The proposed project will reduce GFA on the site compared to existingconditions…. Both of these statements are irrelevant. The excess is not legal as (a) the volumetric portion wasn’t even disclosed and (b) the CUP was inadequate to make the other excess portions legal, as staff has admitted. The Dudek GFA study produced in Nov 2021 gave the official measurements of GFA. Proposed (128,687SF) is slightly less than existing (138,345SF) and significantly higher than allowed (81,379SF). One can qualify for a variance for excess floor area, but Castilleja does not qualify. There is no mention in the Variance rules that allow a Variance based on prior square footage. The school is requesting 47,000SF in additional gross floor area in excess of code. Packet Page 67, 2. The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with theregulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations uponother properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subjectproperty. Every site of any size, smaller and larger than Castilleja’s throughout R-1, is subject to the exact same FAR rules, so granting the variance to Castilleja would specifically provide it a special privilege and thus precludes a variance. No R-1 site in the city has an FAR of 0.48, so it is clearly a special privilege. Packet Page 68, 3. 3. The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comp Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. (packet page 68) This application is not consistent with the FAR requirements in the R-1 Zoning Ordinance, which require a FAR of .303. Packet Page 69, 4. 4. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. (packet page 69) Granting the variance is part of a larger effort to expand the campus, including the underground garage and pool, and thus helps enable these environmentally detrimental events. Castilleja has been a successful private school at this same location for 100 years. There is no qualifying criteria listed in these findings that would allow granting a Variance for floor area in excess of allowable by code. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Andie Reed Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809 From:William Kornfeld To:Kou, Lydia; Council, City; Burt, Patrick Subject:Greenbelt behind Chimalus Drive Date:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 12:20:50 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from kornfeld@kornfeld.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. A few days ago I received a leaflet under my doormat urging me to write you in opposition to the proposed Greenbelt behind Chimalus Drive. No doubt you will receive many such letters. I am writing in opposition to the position proffered by this leaflet and in support of this Greenbelt. For reasons I do not fully understand, there is a group of my neighbors who rise up in opposition whenever improvements to the City's bicycle infrastructure are proposed. Similar local opposition happened to improvements to the bike path and to traffic calming measures on Matadero Ave. to support increased bicycle traffic. Improvements to bicycle infrastructure in Palo Alto are critical. Population density within our City will undoubtedly increase in the future. As there is no space to build new roads, gridlock on our streets will increase if we do not replace more car trips with other transportation modalities. Since our climate is becoming warmer and drier and more conducive to year- round cycling, safe bicycling would seem to be at the top of that list. While car speeds on Matadero Ave. have been somewhat reduced due to the traffic calming measures, it remains a very narrow corridor with no possibility of separating vehicle and bicycle/pedestrian traffic. Increased bicycle traffic on Matadero will inevitably lead to more conflict between automobile and bicycle use. This is currently a very popular bicycle thoroughfare for children going to school and for commuters. The proposed new bicycle path behind Chimalus provides a much-needed alternative to Matadero that avoids any conflict with automobile traffic. The leaflet I received provides three reasons to oppose the proposed new bicycle path: loss of privacy for Chimalus residents, loss of security for Chiumalus residents and light pollution. While I have not seen detailed plans for this proposed path, I would think an eight foot high opaque fence or masonry wall would effectively deal with all three concerns. Sincerely, William Kornfeld Tippawingo Drive (corner of Chimalus Drive) From:Elias Schultz To:Council, City Subject:[Letter to City Council] Bike Lanes on El Camino Real Date:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 10:32:09 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from eliasbschultz@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Council, I am a resident of Palo Alto and a graduate student at Stanford university—I live right across El Camino Real from the University campus. I urge the council to take advantage of the rare opportunity to have Caltrans install bike lanes on El Camino Real through Palo Alto at no cost to town residents. El Camino is a needlessly dangerous road where cars go at very high speeds despite the world class highways nearby—namely 280 and 101. Bike lanes would provide a crucial piece of infrastructure and safety to the many Palo Alto residents who commute via bike instead of car. By far the most dangerous part of my commute is crossing El Camino, where I have almost been hit by drivers going 50+ MPH and ignoring red lights twice in just 3 months. Since the neighboring communities of Los Altos and Mountain View are opting for the bike lanes, it would be a massive benefit to connect Palo Alto bike users to those corridors, saving us time and ensuring safety while traveling to neighboring towns. Finally, the impact on parking would be minimal—my apartment complex is surrounded by parking lots that are almost completely empty everytime I pass them. This is a crucial chance to prioritize safety, accessibility, and mobility over private property storage on a historic road for free, and connecting the three towns would also encourage more people to bike and take cars off of our congested roads. Thank you for allowing me to voice this concern. Sincerely, Elias Schultz JD Candidate Stanford Law School Best, Eli From:Jonsen, Robert To:Dave Price Cc:Shikada, Ed; Burt, Patrick; Council, City Subject:RE: Police log Date:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 8:25:53 AM Hello Dave, Thanks for your e-mail, and I apologize for the delayed response but wanted to meet with staff regarding your concerns. To answer your questions: 1. Why is the log so skimpy? The Police Report Log and how it is prepared has not changed measurably in years. In fact, we have also added several communications methods over the years, and the Palo Alto community can be proud that we provide many ways to gain information about crime incidents and public safety details. While we can always improve, the public has access to more information in Palo Alto than many other communities do. There are several ways information is shared with the public including the police log; the new calls for service interactive map; Independent Police Auditor reports; news releases, social media updates, and direct Nixle/emergency alerts; and media inquiries handled by sworn personnel. The cases appear on the Police Report Log once they have been processed through our system. That process requires that the report be: 1) completed by the officer, 2) reviewed and approved by a supervisor, and 3) reviewed and approved by Records personnel as a quality control measure. There are a number of reasons that a report may not appear on the log the following day (for example, a complex investigation, an ongoing investigation where the report has not yet been completed because active follow-up is occurring, the officer had a busy shift and could not complete the report by the end of their work day, the report required correction after review by a supervisor and/or Records personnel, Records personnel are not able to get to review the reports due to low staffing, etc.). These reasons have existed for the entirety of time PAPD has produced the Police Report Log, and nothing with regards to this procedure has changed as a result of us moving to encryption in January 2021. Also, as you know, the number of reports always varies from day to day. Some days are busier than others. The number of items that appear on the Police Report Log fluctuates as a result. Once cases have been processed through our system, they always appear on the Police Report Log. 2. Why are police withholding the names of DV arrestees? Thank you for bringing this issue to our attention. We examined the log you sent and also went back several days’ worth of logs. Sometimes we have been entering the information of arrested adult domestic violence suspects, and sometimes we have not. We are still working through the transition of a new records management system and this has been identified as a training issue with our staff and is being addressed. It should not reoccur in the future and if for some reason it does, though, as always you or your staff are welcome to reach out to us and we will provide the legally releasable information to you. We continually strive to fulfill the expectations of this amazing city and I will be providing an update on some of the accomplishments of 2021 at the April 4th City Council meeting. Let me know if you have additional questions. Best, Bob Jonsen Robert Jonsen | Chief of Police Palo Alto Police Department 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 D: 650.329.2555 | E: Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Dave Price <price@padailypost.com> Sent: Friday, March 25, 2022 4:31 PM To: Jonsen, Robert <Robert.Jonsen@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Police log CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Chief Jonsen, Below is the log police sent out this morning. Apparently nothing happened in Palo Alto yesterday. Since the police switched to the new system of producing the log, the number of incidents has been dropping. This is leaving the media in the dark. It used to be that when the police radio system was unencrypted, we'd hear about incidents during the day. We'd pursue the biggest incidents, and we'd see the rest of them in the log the next day. Now we don't hear about them in real-time and we don't see them in the log any more. Further, it appears from the log sent yesterday and the one today that police have stopped identifying people arrested for domestic violence. State law (Cal. Gov't Code Section 6254(f)(1)-(2)(a)) requires police to disclose the name and other information about everyone who is arrested. DV arrestees have always been identified in the past by PAPD. 1. Why is the log so skimpy? 2. Why are police withholding the names of DV arrestees? For the last year and a half, we've been losing police transparency. Let's turn that around and put the public's right to know first. Dave Price Editor and co-publisher The Daily Post and padailypost.com 385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301 (650) 328-7700 price@padailypost.com CC: Ed Shikada, Mayor Pat Burt, Council From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: Two men stabbed multiple times while trying to help 61-year-old Asian woman being robbed in Queens Date:Tuesday, March 29, 2022 7:33:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From: Allan Seid, Steve Lee Date: Tue, Mar 29, 2022 Subject: Two men stabbed multiple times while trying to help 61-year-old Asian woman being robbed in Queens Source: Yahoo News, 3/29/22 Beware your surroundings when walking alone in NY. https://www.yahoo.com/news/two-men-stabbed-multiple-times-220442950.html From:Aram James To:Stump, Molly; City Mgr; Winter Dellenbach; Greer Stone; Rebecca Eisenberg; Clerk, City; Linda Jolley; Dave Price; Jay Boyarsky; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Jonsen, Robert; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Enberg, Nicholas Cc:chuck jagoda; Council, City; Joe Simitian; City Mgr; Kou, Lydia; Lydia Kou; Benjamin Fay; Roberta Ahlquist; Greer Stone; Alison Cormack; Figueroa, Eric; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Tannock, Julie; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Palo Alto Free Press; Chris Robell; Jonsen, Robert; Winter Dellenbach; Jay Boyarsky; Enberg, Nicholas; Chavez, Cindy; Raj Subject:Re: Response to Lydia Kou"s questions to consultant Ben Fay, given his deceptive and inaccurate responses. Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 8:09:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Hi Folks: (Molly Stump, City manager, city clerk) Pursuant to the Public Records Act: How much is attorney Ben Fay charging the city of Palo Alto for his legal advice? Per hour? Total of legal fees for advice for the business tax potential ballot measures and related matters? Aram James P.S. I thought the city of Palo Alto already has a fully staffed well paid group of assistant city attorneys in addition to City Attorney Molly Stump. Between the cost for endless polls on the whether to put one or several business taxes on the ballot and hiring outside council to assist on these issues aren’t we throwing tax payers monies down a rat hole? And let’s be honest isn’t a great percentage of any taxes collected if one or several of these tax measures passes going to be used to pay already highly paid management employees even more? And more of our taxes dollars going into an already extremely bloated police budget. And to pay for our new jail—so called public safety building -that the community was not allowed to vote on —-and is already way over budget —original cost 100 million and still climbing. Unless any taxes are specifically ear marked for housing the unhoused and for reparations to the African American community you will not be getting my vote. We have just started building the new Palo Alto Prison aka Public Safety Building —let’s halt this huge monument to the failed prison industrial complex and convert the space for housing for the many unhoused people of Palo Alto . On Mar 28, 2022, at 7:44 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Lydia, THANK YOU so much for listening to me! What a relief it is to be heard rather than ignored. That said, Ben Fay, who answered your questions (and thus is cc'd here along with the rest of those cc'd) misstates the constitutional issue (he never addresses the necessity of nexus) and also factually misrepresents the Cupertino tax. As to Constitutionality, Fay's insistence that whether tenant or landlord is tax lacks any consitutional relevance is false. First, the constitutionality of a tenant-based-square-footage tax is uncertain at best, given that there is no existing tax in California that taxes business tenants rather than their landlords - not even Cupertino - so the Constitutionaly never has been tested. Additionally, as Fay should know, the constitutionality of a tax depends on an adequate nexus, and although there may be a relationship between square-footage-occupancy in some local jurisdictions, there is none here. In fact, nowhere in the proposed materials is there an attempt to justify how and why square footage of tenant occupy has a nexus to any problem sought to be solved through taxation. Molly Stump's answers also are typically incorrect. Stump refers to East Palo Alto's tax as a precedent for your proposed tax, but EPA's tax is a parcel tax rather than a tax on business tenants, and serves to tax the asset holder rather than the lessor. Additionally, if Molly Stump were to point to Cupertino, she would be incorrect to use Cupertino as a precedent as well because Cupertino's tax is based on Business Type rather than on square footage. The nature of Cupertino's business tax is not up for debate and can be proven by looking at Cupertino's tax schedule here: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3542/637453652200270000 In Cupertinos's tax schedule, which taxes businesses based on business type, ONLY ONE category mentions size, and in that case it uses ACRES and views acreage size as a surcharge, not as the basic foundation of the tax rate. Specifically, Cupertino's tax on "Lumberyard, Building Material Yard, Junkyard, Plant Nurseries" includes a (minimal) charge of "$10.40 per year per acre of space owned, leased or rented." Describing this tax as one based on square footage misrepresents the facts, which are visible for all to see: link: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3542/637453652200270000 Additionally, on top of the business license fee, you will see that Cupertino has a range of fees that it charges businesses, in addition to the business license fee: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/finance/forms-fees. -- again proving that Cupertino does not tax businesses based on square footage the business occupies. No other examples of purported square-footage-of-occupant-based taxes are provided by Fay, Stump, or the City, and no examples of such a tax exist. It is extremely frustrating to spend so much time showing City Council the indisputable facts, just to see a consultant (or unfortunately, city staff) contradict my comments with deceptions or misrepresentations. Per my email below, there is AMPLE precedent for taxes that passed in similar communities by a landslide. Those taxes include: parcel taxes on commercial landlords, headcount taxes, and the most common and effective options: PAYROLL and RECEIPTS tax, which even Ben Fay admitted, despite his material errors in describing Cupertino's tax structure and his unfounded assurance on a tenant square footage's tax's constitutionality. Please feel free to contact me with questions. I promise to provide URLs to back every statement I make, unlike Molly Stump, Ben Fay, and Palo Alto City Staff. So you don't have to take my word for these truths. You can see for yourself. Best, Rebecca 415-235-8078 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 5:47 PM Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Regressive and Unconstitutional "Business" Tax Proposal To: chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>, City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Joe Simitian <joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org>, City Mgr <citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>, Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>, Alison Cormack <alisonlcormack@gmail.com>, <eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org>, <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com>, <julie.tannock@cityofpaloalto.org>, Sajid Khan <Sajid@votesajid.com>, Jeff Rosen <JRosen@dao.sccgov.org>, Zachary Perron <zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org>, James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>, Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>, Robert Jonsen <Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>, Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>, Jay Boyarsky <jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org>, Nicholas Enberg <nicholas.enberg@cityofpaloalto.org>, Chavez, Cindy <cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org>, Raj <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org> Reference to the EPA tax was omitted below. I inserted it and post it here as well, along with MV's and SJ's tax propositions: East Palo Alto: https://ballotpedia.org/East_Palo_Alto,_California,_Measure_HH,_Commercial_Office_Space_Parcel_Tax_(November_2018) Mountain View: https://ballotpedia.org/Mountain_View,_California,_Measure_P,_Per-Employee_Business_Tax_(November_2018) San Jose: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/finance/business-tax-registration/business-tax-rates On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 5:37 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/finance-committee/2022/20220328/20220328pfcs- report-added.pdf https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99227307235#success *THIS MEETING HAS STARTED BUT THIS ISSUE IS NOT UP YET - WILL SOON BE* Tonight, Palo Alto City Council will discuss a proposed business tax that is so regressive and so nonsensical, that no other City in California ever proposed it before. Palo Alto seeks to tax businesses according to how big their offices are, regardless of how many employees they have, how much revenue and profit is generated in Palo Alto, or how much valuable property they rent out to others. This is a tax of first impression because it is so profoundly ludicrous. In proposing this square footage tax, Palo Alto City leadership attempts to compare this proposed tax with the highly successful tax measure passed in East Palo Alto in 2018. But East Palo Alto’s tax did not tax the *tenant*. Rather, the EPA business tax was a parcel tax levied against the *owner* of the building and the landlord of the office space. This is an entirely different matter than taxing the tenant. In East Palo Alto, like in other cities with a similar business-based parcel tax, a tenant only pays the parcel tax when it owns the office building, as is the case of Amazon.com . In this way, all other cities with square footage taxes focus on the landlord, not the tenant. https://ballotpedia.org/East_Palo_Alto,_California,_Measure_HH,_Commercial_Office_Space_Parcel_Tax_(November_2018) This proposed PA tax turns this matter on its head. Instead of taxing the landlord, which is the entity that owns the income-generating asset, the tax goes against the TENANT, for whom the leases it pays are an EXPENSE not income! This would be as if the IRS taxed a family based on the amount of money they spent on groceries and rent, rather on the income the family generated. It is UNHEARD of. Only billionaire landlords like John Schenk would back a tax like this, where taxes are based on costs rather than income. Relying on public opinion for such a tax is nonsensical. You already know what happens when taxes against owners of commercial property are proposed — those taxes win big at the polls, such as the EPA ballot measure - the commercial developer parcel tax, which won by a whopping 80%. That margin is so wide that it is a waste of money to do more research. Similarly, the Mountain View business tax - https://ballotpedia.org/Mountain_View,_California,_Measure_P,_Per- Employee_Business_Tax_(November_2018) - which taxes based on headcount, targeting businesses with more than 5000 employees in order to tax Google but not tax small businesses, restaurants, or retail - passed by more than 70%. In both cases, no party even formally opposed the tax legislation. San Jose combines both a landlord tax, with the tax rate increasing as the number of units rented increases, along with an employee headcount tax, where also the tax rate rises along with the size of the business. In both cases, larger and more profitable businesses pay higher tax rates. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/finance/business-tax-registration/business-tax-rates . There is literally ZERO precedent for a city that taxes businesses based on the size of the often they rent. Every other city taxes businesses on receipts (revenues), profits, payroll, headcount, assets (for example, real estate owned and rented to businesses or residents), differences between highest paid and median employees, or a combination of the above. No city taxes based on the size of office it occupies, regardless of ownership of that office. From coast to coast, size of office is used a a deduction, but never as something taxed. Office size for businesses that rent their offices cannot possibly be taxed because they are expenses, not assets or income. Accounting 101. If Palo Alto followed the existing playbook, it would have FANTASTIC success with a business tax. Our City could propose a parcel tax against landlords who rent out more than 50,000 square feet of commercial property (in order to target the big landlords like John Schenk, while sparing the mom and pop landlords), accompanied by a per-employee tax levied against any employer with more than 5000 employees. In the best case scenario, they also should propose a tax that targets companies that have more than, say, $100 million in revenue, along with a baseline of profitability, as well as an “Overpaid executive” tax similar to the tax passed by a landslide in San Francisco, to capture the externalities created by businesses that pay their top executives more than 100 times what they pay their median worker, with higher tax rates depending on how many multiples more they pay their CEOs than the median employee. Imagine that tax levied on Tesla — it could pay for all of our affordable housing needs, plus more. Palo Alto could propose all of these taxes, and if it did, it almost certainly would succeed at the polls. The city’s own paid consultants themselves have confirmed that voters are as likely, if not more, to pass a tax proposal with multiple elements as they are a tax package with just one element, as the PACC propose now. ONLY in Palo Alto does the leadership conclude that it knows more than any and every other city. This current proposal — despite what Molly Stump may claim - as she knows herself that there has been no similar tax ever reviewed by a California court — is unconstitutional, nonsensical, regressive, and preposterous. Could it be that City leadership really does not intend to tax businesses, perhaps wanting to protect and reward some of their largest campaign contributors, many of whom work for Palo Alto’s largest and most profitable employers and commercial landowners? If that is not their intention, it certainly is the consequence of their proposed ballot measures. Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq. www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg www.winwithrebecca.com rebecca@winwithrebecca.com 415-235-8078 On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 8:44 AM chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote: To Rebecca et. al: The negligent tradition of Palo Alto city government to tolerate, cover up, and encourage the "service" of violent cops is not new, not right, not legal, and VERY expensive. I've recommended self indemnification in the past. If each new hire had to present evidence of insuring against lawsuits for misbehavior, the City and taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for their violence, anger, and injury of citizens; the Police Department wouldn't have to spend so much time covering up for violent, miscreant behavior; and citizens could feel safer on the street. I'm distressed to see no proposed solutions for reform or fixing the long standing current problem. AND doing nothing-- as is the firmly entrenched and long standing tradtion of Palo Alto-- there will be more expenses, more embarrassment, and more beaten, bitten, and beleaguered citizens. Chuck Jagoda, Member Housing/Homelessness Committee Women's International League for Peace and Freedom On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 3:48 AM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Individuals who behave with such profound indifference to the sanctity of human life cannot be trained. How do you teach an adult to have compassion, empathy, common sense, and a desire to protect rather than to injure? Criminal defendants accused of these types of actions are locked up for lifetimes, and in some cases, killed. Rehabilitation is not an offer on the table. Given this context, it is literally the smallest expectation that these officers be fired. In the private sphere - where I have worked as an employment lawyer for almost 30 years - it is no question that jobs would be lost. Only the police enjoy the privilege of virtually unrestrained violence and unquestioned bias, all without transparency and accountability. Palo Alto City Council has 100% authority to direct the police force to hand over employment records and demand the terminations of officers who harmed community members. Its inaction - supported by the recommendations of its self-serving City manager & staff - constitutes collaboration and complicity. When true justice ultimately arrives in Palo Alto, it will take down not just the violently unhinged armed officers and the white supremacist systems that enabled them, but also the city leaders that empowered and encouraged them. It may be too late for these officers to be redeemed, but I can't believe it is too late for our local leaders to change course and take the brave, high integrity actions needed to protect our communities. Best, Rebecca On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 2:55 PM Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote: Why can't these offices calm the person down, and not shoot to kill!??? One mentally ill man, and 3+ cops w/ guns! They all need better training, including the value of lives, mentaly ill or not. roberta ahlquist On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 2:20 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: FYI: Rosen complicit???? And of course Perron still with the PAPD and the IPA report on alleged use of the N word has yet to be released. Is Ed Shikada and Molly Stump complicit in the on going perron scandel https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2016/01/26/palo-alto-officer-who-used-taser-during-christmas-day- shooting-is-identified-2/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone -- Chuck From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:chuck jagoda; Council, City; Joe Simitian; City Mgr; Kou, Lydia; Lydia Kou; Benjamin Fay Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Aram James; Greer Stone; Alison Cormack; Figueroa, Eric; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Tannock, Julie; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Palo Alto Free Press; Chris Robell; Jonsen, Robert; Winter Dellenbach; Jay Boyarsky; Enberg, Nicholas; Chavez, Cindy; Raj Subject:Response to Lydia Kou"s questions to consultant Ben Fay, given his deceptive and inaccurate responses. Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 7:44:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Lydia, THANK YOU so much for listening to me! What a relief it is to be heard rather than ignored. That said, Ben Fay, who answered your questions (and thus is cc'd here along with the rest of those cc'd) misstates the constitutional issue (he never addresses the necessity of nexus) and also factually misrepresents the Cupertino tax. As to Constitutionality, Fay's insistence that whether tenant or landlord is tax lacks any consitutional relevance is false. First, the constitutionality of a tenant-based-square-footage tax is uncertain at best, given that there is no existing tax in California that taxes business tenants rather than their landlords - not even Cupertino - so the Constitutionaly never has been tested. Additionally, as Fay should know, the constitutionality of a tax depends on an adequate nexus, and although there may be a relationship between square-footage-occupancy in some local jurisdictions, there is none here. In fact, nowhere in the proposed materials is there an attempt to justify how and why square footage of tenant occupy has a nexus to any problem sought to be solved through taxation. Molly Stump's answers also are typically incorrect. Stump refers to East Palo Alto's tax as a precedent for your proposed tax, but EPA's tax is a parcel tax rather than a tax on business tenants, and serves to tax the asset holder rather than the lessor. Additionally, if Molly Stump were to point to Cupertino, she would be incorrect to use Cupertino as a precedent as well because Cupertino's tax is based on Business Type rather than on square footage. The nature of Cupertino's business tax is not up for debate and can be proven by looking at Cupertino's tax schedule here: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3542/637453652200270000 In Cupertinos's tax schedule, which taxes businesses based on business type, ONLY ONE category mentions size, and in that case it uses ACRES and views acreage size as a surcharge, not as the basic foundation of the tax rate. Specifically, Cupertino's tax on "Lumberyard, Building Material Yard, Junkyard, Plant Nurseries" includes a (minimal) charge of "$10.40 per year per acre of space owned, leased or rented." Describing this tax as one based on square footage misrepresents the facts, which are visible for all to see: link: https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3542/637453652200270000 Additionally, on top of the business license fee, you will see that Cupertino has a range of fees that it charges businesses, in addition to the business license fee: https://www.cupertino.org/our-city/departments/finance/forms-fees. -- again proving that Cupertino does not tax businesses based on square footage the business occupies. No other examples of purported square-footage-of-occupant-based taxes are provided by Fay, Stump, or the City, and no examples of such a tax exist. It is extremely frustrating to spend so much time showing City Council the indisputable facts, just to see a consultant (or unfortunately, city staff) contradict my comments with deceptions or misrepresentations. Per my email below, there is AMPLE precedent for taxes that passed in similar communities by a landslide. Those taxes include: parcel taxes on commercial landlords, headcount taxes, and the most common and effective options: PAYROLL and RECEIPTS tax, which even Ben Fay admitted, despite his material errors in describing Cupertino's tax structure and his unfounded assurance on a tenant square footage's tax's constitutionality. Please feel free to contact me with questions. I promise to provide URLs to back every statement I make, unlike Molly Stump, Ben Fay, and Palo Alto City Staff. So you don't have to take my word for these truths. You can see for yourself. Best, Rebecca 415-235-8078 ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Date: Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 5:47 PM Subject: Re: Palo Alto's Regressive and Unconstitutional "Business" Tax Proposal To: chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>, City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Joe Simitian <joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org>, City Mgr <citymgr@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>, Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>, Alison Cormack <alisonlcormack@gmail.com>, <eric.figueroa@cityofpaloalto.org>, <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com>, <julie.tannock@cityofpaloalto.org>, Sajid Khan <Sajid@votesajid.com>, Jeff Rosen <JRosen@dao.sccgov.org>, Zachary Perron <zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org>, James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>, Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>, Robert Jonsen <Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>, Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>, Jay Boyarsky <jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org>, Nicholas Enberg <nicholas.enberg@cityofpaloalto.org>, Chavez, Cindy <cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org>, Raj <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org> Reference to the EPA tax was omitted below. I inserted it and post it here as well, along with MV's and SJ's tax propositions: East Palo Alto: https://ballotpedia.org/East_Palo_Alto,_California,_Measure_HH,_Commercial_Office_Space_Parcel_Tax_(November_2018) Mountain View: https://ballotpedia.org/Mountain_View,_California,_Measure_P,_Per-Employee_Business_Tax_(November_2018) San Jose: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/finance/business-tax-registration/business-tax-rates On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 5:37 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/finance-committee/2022/20220328/20220328pfcs-report- added.pdf https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99227307235#success *THIS MEETING HAS STARTED BUT THIS ISSUE IS NOT UP YET - WILL SOON BE* Tonight, Palo Alto City Council will discuss a proposed business tax that is so regressive and so nonsensical, that no other City in California ever proposed it before. Palo Alto seeks to tax businesses according to how big their offices are, regardless of how many employees they have, how much revenue and profit is generated in Palo Alto, or how much valuable property they rent out to others. This is a tax of first impression because it is so profoundly ludicrous. In proposing this square footage tax, Palo Alto City leadership attempts to compare this proposed tax with the highly successful tax measure passed in East Palo Alto in 2018. But East Palo Alto’s tax did not tax the *tenant*. Rather, the EPA business tax was a parcel tax levied against the *owner* of the building and the landlord of the office space. This is an entirely different matter than taxing the tenant. In East Palo Alto, like in other cities with a similar business-based parcel tax, a tenant only pays the parcel tax when it owns the office building, as is the case of Amazon.com . In this way, all other cities with square footage taxes focus on the landlord, not the tenant. https://ballotpedia.org/East_Palo_Alto,_California,_Measure_HH,_Commercial_Office_Space_Parcel_Tax_(November_2018) This proposed PA tax turns this matter on its head. Instead of taxing the landlord, which is the entity that owns the income-generating asset, the tax goes against the TENANT, for whom the leases it pays are an EXPENSE not income! This would be as if the IRS taxed a family based on the amount of money they spent on groceries and rent, rather on the income the family generated. It is UNHEARD of. Only billionaire landlords like John Schenk would back a tax like this, where taxes are based on costs rather than income. Relying on public opinion for such a tax is nonsensical. You already know what happens when taxes against owners of commercial property are proposed — those taxes win big at the polls, such as the EPA ballot measure - the commercial developer parcel tax, which won by a whopping 80%. That margin is so wide that it is a waste of money to do more research. Similarly, the Mountain View business tax - https://ballotpedia.org/Mountain_View,_California,_Measure_P,_Per- Employee_Business_Tax_(November_2018) - which taxes based on headcount, targeting businesses with more than 5000 employees in order to tax Google but not tax small businesses, restaurants, or retail - passed by more than 70%. In both cases, no party even formally opposed the tax legislation. San Jose combines both a landlord tax, with the tax rate increasing as the number of units rented increases, along with an employee headcount tax, where also the tax rate rises along with the size of the business. In both cases, larger and more profitable businesses pay higher tax rates. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/finance/business-tax-registration/business-tax-rates . There is literally ZERO precedent for a city that taxes businesses based on the size of the often they rent. Every other city taxes businesses on receipts (revenues), profits, payroll, headcount, assets (for example, real estate owned and rented to businesses or residents), differences between highest paid and median employees, or a combination of the above. No city taxes based on the size of office it occupies, regardless of ownership of that office. From coast to coast, size of office is used a a deduction, but never as something taxed. Office size for businesses that rent their offices cannot possibly be taxed because they are expenses, not assets or income. Accounting 101. If Palo Alto followed the existing playbook, it would have FANTASTIC success with a business tax. Our City could propose a parcel tax against landlords who rent out more than 50,000 square feet of commercial property (in order to target the big landlords like John Schenk, while sparing the mom and pop landlords), accompanied by a per-employee tax levied against any employer with more than 5000 employees. In the best case scenario, they also should propose a tax that targets companies that have more than, say, $100 million in revenue, along with a baseline of profitability, as well as an “Overpaid executive” tax similar to the tax passed by a landslide in San Francisco, to capture the externalities created by businesses that pay their top executives more than 100 times what they pay their median worker, with higher tax rates depending on how many multiples more they pay their CEOs than the median employee. Imagine that tax levied on Tesla — it could pay for all of our affordable housing needs, plus more. Palo Alto could propose all of these taxes, and if it did, it almost certainly would succeed at the polls. The city’s own paid consultants themselves have confirmed that voters are as likely, if not more, to pass a tax proposal with multiple elements as they are a tax package with just one element, as the PACC propose now. ONLY in Palo Alto does the leadership conclude that it knows more than any and every other city. This current proposal — despite what Molly Stump may claim - as she knows herself that there has been no similar tax ever reviewed by a California court — is unconstitutional, nonsensical, regressive, and preposterous. Could it be that City leadership really does not intend to tax businesses, perhaps wanting to protect and reward some of their largest campaign contributors, many of whom work for Palo Alto’s largest and most profitable employers and commercial landowners? If that is not their intention, it certainly is the consequence of their proposed ballot measures. Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq. www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg www.winwithrebecca.com rebecca@winwithrebecca.com 415-235-8078 On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 8:44 AM chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote: To Rebecca et. al: The negligent tradition of Palo Alto city government to tolerate, cover up, and encourage the "service" of violent cops is not new, not right, not legal, and VERY expensive. I've recommended self indemnification in the past. If each new hire had to present evidence of insuring against lawsuits for misbehavior, the City and taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for their violence, anger, and injury of citizens; the Police Department wouldn't have to spend so much time covering up for violent, miscreant behavior; and citizens could feel safer on the street. I'm distressed to see no proposed solutions for reform or fixing the long standing current problem. AND doing nothing-- as is the firmly entrenched and long standing tradtion of Palo Alto-- there will be more expenses, more embarrassment, and more beaten, bitten, and beleaguered citizens. Chuck Jagoda, Member Housing/Homelessness Committee Women's International League for Peace and Freedom On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 3:48 AM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Individuals who behave with such profound indifference to the sanctity of human life cannot be trained. How do you teach an adult to have compassion, empathy, common sense, and a desire to protect rather than to injure? Criminal defendants accused of these types of actions are locked up for lifetimes, and in some cases, killed. Rehabilitation is not an offer on the table. Given this context, it is literally the smallest expectation that these officers be fired. In the private sphere - where I have worked as an employment lawyer for almost 30 years - it is no question that jobs would be lost. Only the police enjoy the privilege of virtually unrestrained violence and unquestioned bias, all without transparency and accountability. Palo Alto City Council has 100% authority to direct the police force to hand over employment records and demand the terminations of officers who harmed community members. Its inaction - supported by the recommendations of its self- serving City manager & staff - constitutes collaboration and complicity. When true justice ultimately arrives in Palo Alto, it will take down not just the violently unhinged armed officers and the white supremacist systems that enabled them, but also the city leaders that empowered and encouraged them. It may be too late for these officers to be redeemed, but I can't believe it is too late for our local leaders to change course and take the brave, high integrity actions needed to protect our communities. Best, Rebecca On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 2:55 PM Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote: Why can't these offices calm the person down, and not shoot to kill!??? One mentally ill man, and 3+ cops w/ guns! They all need better training, including the value of lives, mentaly ill or not. roberta ahlquist On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 2:20 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: FYI: Rosen complicit???? And of course Perron still with the PAPD and the IPA report on alleged use of the N word has yet to be released. Is Ed Shikada and Molly Stump complicit in the on going perron scandel https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2016/01/26/palo-alto-officer-who-used-taser-during-christmas-day-shooting-is- identified-2/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone -- Chuck From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:chuck jagoda; Council, City; Joe Simitian; City Mgr Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Aram James; Greer Stone; Alison Cormack; Figueroa, Eric; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Tannock, Julie; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Palo Alto Free Press; Chris Robell; Jonsen, Robert; Winter Dellenbach; Jay Boyarsky; Enberg, Nicholas; Chavez, Cindy; Raj; Planning Commission; Palo Alto Forward; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association Subject:Palo Alto"s Proposal to place affordable housing on a Superfund Site Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 6:12:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. All: Palo Alto City Council, especially its Mayor and Council member Stone, continue to insist that affordable housing should be built at Stanford Research Park, particularly the areas of SRP near El Camino and Page Mill. They do so despite the known and provable fact that the location they propose is on top of the epicenter of one of our country's biggest and most toxic Superfund sites. Placing low-income communities on the most polluted land is unethical, improper, and in direct violation of the State of California's demand that affordable housing be used to further equity, sustainability, and social justice. According to the Environmental Protection Agency's website at EPA.gov, that part of Stanford Research Park is so contaminated that "residential uses are prohibited." See: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0902134 Specifically: https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm? fuseaction=second.redevelop&id=0902134#Limits Activity and Use Limitations At this site, activity and use limitations that EPA calls institutional controls are in place. Institutional controls play an important role in site remedies because they reduce exposure to contamination by limiting land or resource use. They also guide human behavior. For instance, zoning restrictions prevent land uses – such as residential uses – that are not consistent with the level of cleanup. For more background, see Institutional Controls. The use of groundwater beneath the site is prohibited without additional cleanup." See also: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/lens/the-superfund-sites-of-silicon- valley.html "From its origins as a manufacturer of silicon chips and semiconductors, Santa Clara County is riddled with 23 toxic Superfund sites, more than any county in the country. " "Some of these sites, still under remediation, contain fully occupied office buildings, others are in or near parks and playgrounds. One, a former Hewlett-Packard property, is a soccer field..." -- referring to the soccer field located on the corner of Page Mill and El Camino, a photo of which is shown as the dominant graphic in this NYT article. While I fully support the use of all available land to house our most vulnerable, and I also strongly urge the City of Palo Alto to demand that Stanford and/or HP clean up the toxic waste dump that its uses created, I do not think that it is acceptable for our city leadership to use this Superfund site as the "ideal" (according to the Mayor) location for affordable housing unless and until it is cleaned up and officially declared safe for human habitation. My point of view should not be controversial. Does Palo Alto city leadership truly propose to put affordable housing on a known Superfund site declared unfit for residential uses? Best, Rebecca Eisenberg Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq. Principal & Founder Netskink Positive Impact Investments Private Client Legal Services www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg rebecca@privateclientlegal.com 415-235-8078 From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:chuck jagoda; Council, City; Joe Simitian; City Mgr Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Aram James; Greer Stone; Alison Cormack; Figueroa, Eric; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Tannock, Julie; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Palo Alto Free Press; Chris Robell; Jonsen, Robert; Winter Dellenbach; Jay Boyarsky; Enberg, Nicholas; Chavez, Cindy; Raj Subject:Re: Palo Alto"s Regressive and Unconstitutional "Business" Tax Proposal Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 5:47:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Reference to the EPA tax was omitted below. I inserted it and post it here as well, along with MV's and SJ's tax propositions: East Palo Alto: https://ballotpedia.org/East_Palo_Alto,_California,_Measure_HH,_Commercial_Office_Space_Parcel_Tax_(November_2018) Mountain View: https://ballotpedia.org/Mountain_View,_California,_Measure_P,_Per-Employee_Business_Tax_(November_2018) San Jose: https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/finance/business-tax-registration/business-tax-rates On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 5:37 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/finance-committee/2022/20220328/20220328pfcs-report- added.pdf https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99227307235#success *THIS MEETING HAS STARTED BUT THIS ISSUE IS NOT UP YET - WILL SOON BE* Tonight, Palo Alto City Council will discuss a proposed business tax that is so regressive and so nonsensical, that no other City in California ever proposed it before. Palo Alto seeks to tax businesses according to how big their offices are, regardless of how many employees they have, how much revenue and profit is generated in Palo Alto, or how much valuable property they rent out to others. This is a tax of first impression because it is so profoundly ludicrous. In proposing this square footage tax, Palo Alto City leadership attempts to compare this proposed tax with the highly successful tax measure passed in East Palo Alto in 2018. But East Palo Alto’s tax did not tax the *tenant*. Rather, the EPA business tax was a parcel tax levied against the *owner* of the building and the landlord of the office space. This is an entirely different matter than taxing the tenant. In East Palo Alto, like in other cities with a similar business-based parcel tax, a tenant only pays the parcel tax when it owns the office building, as is the case of Amazon.com . In this way, all other cities with square footage taxes focus on the landlord, not the tenant. https://ballotpedia.org/East_Palo_Alto,_California,_Measure_HH,_Commercial_Office_Space_Parcel_Tax_(November_2018) This proposed PA tax turns this matter on its head. Instead of taxing the landlord, which is the entity that owns the income-generating asset, the tax goes against the TENANT, for whom the leases it pays are an EXPENSE not income! This would be as if the IRS taxed a family based on the amount of money they spent on groceries and rent, rather on the income the family generated. It is UNHEARD of. Only billionaire landlords like John Schenk would back a tax like this, where taxes are based on costs rather than income. Relying on public opinion for such a tax is nonsensical. You already know what happens when taxes against owners of commercial property are proposed — those taxes win big at the polls, such as the EPA ballot measure - the commercial developer parcel tax, which won by a whopping 80%. That margin is so wide that it is a waste of money to do more research. Similarly, the Mountain View business tax - https://ballotpedia.org/Mountain_View,_California,_Measure_P,_Per- Employee_Business_Tax_(November_2018) - which taxes based on headcount, targeting businesses with more than 5000 employees in order to tax Google but not tax small businesses, restaurants, or retail - passed by more than 70%. In both cases, no party even formally opposed the tax legislation. San Jose combines both a landlord tax, with the tax rate increasing as the number of units rented increases, along with an employee headcount tax, where also the tax rate rises along with the size of the business. In both cases, larger and more profitable businesses pay higher tax rates. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your-government/departments/finance/business-tax-registration/business-tax-rates . There is literally ZERO precedent for a city that taxes businesses based on the size of the often they rent. Every other city taxes businesses on receipts (revenues), profits, payroll, headcount, assets (for example, real estate owned and rented to businesses or residents), differences between highest paid and median employees, or a combination of the above. No city taxes based on the size of office it occupies, regardless of ownership of that office. From coast to coast, size of office is used a a deduction, but never as something taxed. Office size for businesses that rent their offices cannot possibly be taxed because they are expenses, not assets or income. Accounting 101. If Palo Alto followed the existing playbook, it would have FANTASTIC success with a business tax. Our City could propose a parcel tax against landlords who rent out more than 50,000 square feet of commercial property (in order to target the big landlords like John Schenk, while sparing the mom and pop landlords), accompanied by a per-employee tax levied against any employer with more than 5000 employees. In the best case scenario, they also should propose a tax that targets companies that have more than, say, $100 million in revenue, along with a baseline of profitability, as well as an “Overpaid executive” tax similar to the tax passed by a landslide in San Francisco, to capture the externalities created by businesses that pay their top executives more than 100 times what they pay their median worker, with higher tax rates depending on how many multiples more they pay their CEOs than the median employee. Imagine that tax levied on Tesla — it could pay for all of our affordable housing needs, plus more. Palo Alto could propose all of these taxes, and if it did, it almost certainly would succeed at the polls. The city’s own paid consultants themselves have confirmed that voters are as likely, if not more, to pass a tax proposal with multiple elements as they are a tax package with just one element, as the PACC propose now. ONLY in Palo Alto does the leadership conclude that it knows more than any and every other city. This current proposal — despite what Molly Stump may claim - as she knows herself that there has been no similar tax ever reviewed by a California court — is unconstitutional, nonsensical, regressive, and preposterous. Could it be that City leadership really does not intend to tax businesses, perhaps wanting to protect and reward some of their largest campaign contributors, many of whom work for Palo Alto’s largest and most profitable employers and commercial landowners? If that is not their intention, it certainly is the consequence of their proposed ballot measures. Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq. www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg www.winwithrebecca.com rebecca@winwithrebecca.com 415-235-8078 On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 8:44 AM chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote: To Rebecca et. al: The negligent tradition of Palo Alto city government to tolerate, cover up, and encourage the "service" of violent cops is not new, not right, not legal, and VERY expensive. I've recommended self indemnification in the past. If each new hire had to present evidence of insuring against lawsuits for misbehavior, the City and taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for their violence, anger, and injury of citizens; the Police Department wouldn't have to spend so much time covering up for violent, miscreant behavior; and citizens could feel safer on the street. I'm distressed to see no proposed solutions for reform or fixing the long standing current problem. AND doing nothing-- as is the firmly entrenched and long standing tradtion of Palo Alto-- there will be more expenses, more embarrassment, and more beaten, bitten, and beleaguered citizens. Chuck Jagoda, Member Housing/Homelessness Committee Women's International League for Peace and Freedom On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 3:48 AM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Individuals who behave with such profound indifference to the sanctity of human life cannot be trained. How do you teach an adult to have compassion, empathy, common sense, and a desire to protect rather than to injure? Criminal defendants accused of these types of actions are locked up for lifetimes, and in some cases, killed. Rehabilitation is not an offer on the table. Given this context, it is literally the smallest expectation that these officers be fired. In the private sphere - where I have worked as an employment lawyer for almost 30 years - it is no question that jobs would be lost. Only the police enjoy the privilege of virtually unrestrained violence and unquestioned bias, all without transparency and accountability. Palo Alto City Council has 100% authority to direct the police force to hand over employment records and demand the terminations of officers who harmed community members. Its inaction - supported by the recommendations of its self- serving City manager & staff - constitutes collaboration and complicity. When true justice ultimately arrives in Palo Alto, it will take down not just the violently unhinged armed officers and the white supremacist systems that enabled them, but also the city leaders that empowered and encouraged them. It may be too late for these officers to be redeemed, but I can't believe it is too late for our local leaders to change course and take the brave, high integrity actions needed to protect our communities. Best, Rebecca On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 2:55 PM Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote: Why can't these offices calm the person down, and not shoot to kill!??? One mentally ill man, and 3+ cops w/ guns! They all need better training, including the value of lives, mentaly ill or not. roberta ahlquist On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 2:20 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: FYI: Rosen complicit???? And of course Perron still with the PAPD and the IPA report on alleged use of the N word has yet to be released. Is Ed Shikada and Molly Stump complicit in the on going perron scandel https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2016/01/26/palo-alto-officer-who-used-taser-during-christmas-day-shooting-is- identified-2/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone -- Chuck From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:chuck jagoda; Council, City Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Aram James; City Mgr; Joe Simitian; Greer Stone; Alison Cormack; Figueroa, Eric; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Tannock, Julie; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Palo Alto Free Press; Chris Robell; Jonsen, Robert; Winter Dellenbach; Jay Boyarsky; Enberg, Nicholas; Chavez, Cindy; Raj Subject:Palo Alto"s Regressive and Unconstitutional "Business" Tax Proposal Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 5:38:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/finance- committee/2022/20220328/20220328pfcs-report-added.pdf https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/99227307235#success *THIS MEETING HAS STARTED BUT THIS ISSUE IS NOT UP YET - WILL SOON BE* Tonight, Palo Alto City Council will discuss a proposed business tax that is so regressive and so nonsensical, that no other City in California ever proposed it before. Palo Alto seeks to tax businesses according to how big their offices are, regardless of how many employees they have, how much revenue and profit is generated in Palo Alto, or how much valuable property they rent out to others. This is a tax of first impression because it is so profoundly ludicrous. In proposing this square footage tax, Palo Alto City leadership attempts to compare this proposed tax with the highly successful tax measure passed in East Palo Alto in 2018. But East Palo Alto’s tax did not tax the *tenant*. Rather, the EPA business tax was a parcel tax levied against the *owner* of the building and the landlord of the office space. This is an entirely different matter than taxing the tenant. In East Palo Alto, like in other cities with a similar business-based parcel tax, a tenant only pays the parcel tax when it owns the office building, as is the case of Amazon.com . In this way, all other cities with square footage taxes focus on the landlord, not the tenant. This proposed PA tax turns this matter on its head. Instead of taxing the landlord, which is the entity that owns the income-generating asset, the tax goes against the TENANT, for whom the leases it pays are an EXPENSE not income! This would be as if the IRS taxed a family based on the amount of money they spent on groceries and rent, rather on the income the family generated. It is UNHEARD of. Only billionaire landlords like John Schenk would back a tax like this, where taxes are based on costs rather than income. Relying on public opinion for such a tax is nonsensical. You already know what happens when taxes against owners of commercial property are proposed — those taxes win big at the polls, such as the EPA ballot measure - the commercial developer parcel tax, which won by a whopping 80%. That margin is so wide that it is a waste of money to do more research. Similarly, the Mountain View business tax - https://ballotpedia.org/Mountain_View,_California,_Measure_P,_Per- Employee_Business_Tax_(November_2018) - which taxes based on headcount, targeting businesses with more than 5000 employees in order to tax Google but not tax small businesses, restaurants, or retail - passed by more than 70%. In both cases, no party even formally opposed the tax legislation. San Jose combines both a landlord tax, with the tax rate increasing as the number of units rented increases, along with an employee headcount tax, where also the tax rate rises along with the size of the business. In both cases, larger and more profitable businesses pay higher tax rates. https://www.sanjoseca.gov/your- government/departments/finance/business-tax-registration/business-tax-rates . There is literally ZERO precedent for a city that taxes businesses based on the size of the often they rent. Every other city taxes businesses on receipts (revenues), profits, payroll, headcount, assets (for example, real estate owned and rented to businesses or residents), differences between highest paid and median employees, or a combination of the above. No city taxes based on the size of office it occupies, regardless of ownership of that office. From coast to coast, size of office is used a a deduction, but never as something taxed. Office size for businesses that rent their offices cannot possibly be taxed because they are expenses, not assets or income. Accounting 101. If Palo Alto followed the existing playbook, it would have FANTASTIC success with a business tax. Our City could propose a parcel tax against landlords who rent out more than 50,000 square feet of commercial property (in order to target the big landlords like John Schenk, while sparing the mom and pop landlords), accompanied by a per- employee tax levied against any employer with more than 5000 employees. In the best case scenario, they also should propose a tax that targets companies that have more than, say, $100 million in revenue, along with a baseline of profitability, as well as an “Overpaid executive” tax similar to the tax passed by a landslide in San Francisco, to capture the externalities created by businesses that pay their top executives more than 100 times what they pay their median worker, with higher tax rates depending on how many multiples more they pay their CEOs than the median employee. Imagine that tax levied on Tesla — it could pay for all of our affordable housing needs, plus more. Palo Alto could propose all of these taxes, and if it did, it almost certainly would succeed at the polls. The city’s own paid consultants themselves have confirmed that voters are as likely, if not more, to pass a tax proposal with multiple elements as they are a tax package with just one element, as the PACC propose now. ONLY in Palo Alto does the leadership conclude that it knows more than any and every other city. This current proposal — despite what Molly Stump may claim - as she knows herself that there has been no similar tax ever reviewed by a California court — is unconstitutional, nonsensical, regressive, and preposterous. Could it be that City leadership really does not intend to tax businesses, perhaps wanting to protect and reward some of their largest campaign contributors, many of whom work for Palo Alto’s largest and most profitable employers and commercial landowners? If that is not their intention, it certainly is the consequence of their proposed ballot measures. Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq. www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg www.winwithrebecca.com rebecca@winwithrebecca.com 415-235-8078 On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 8:44 AM chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote: To Rebecca et. al: The negligent tradition of Palo Alto city government to tolerate, cover up, and encourage the "service" of violent cops is not new, not right, not legal, and VERY expensive. I've recommended self indemnification in the past. If each new hire had to present evidence of insuring against lawsuits for misbehavior, the City and taxpayers wouldn't have to pay for their violence, anger, and injury of citizens; the Police Department wouldn't have to spend so much time covering up for violent, miscreant behavior; and citizens could feel safer on the street. I'm distressed to see no proposed solutions for reform or fixing the long standing current problem. AND doing nothing-- as is the firmly entrenched and long standing tradtion of Palo Alto-- there will be more expenses, more embarrassment, and more beaten, bitten, and beleaguered citizens. Chuck Jagoda, Member Housing/Homelessness Committee Women's International League for Peace and Freedom On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 3:48 AM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote: Individuals who behave with such profound indifference to the sanctity of human life cannot be trained. How do you teach an adult to have compassion, empathy, common sense, and a desire to protect rather than to injure? Criminal defendants accused of these types of actions are locked up for lifetimes, and in some cases, killed. Rehabilitation is not an offer on the table. Given this context, it is literally the smallest expectation that these officers be fired. In the private sphere - where I have worked as an employment lawyer for almost 30 years - it is no question that jobs would be lost. Only the police enjoy the privilege of virtually unrestrained violence and unquestioned bias, all without transparency and accountability. Palo Alto City Council has 100% authority to direct the police force to hand over employment records and demand the terminations of officers who harmed community members. Its inaction - supported by the recommendations of its self-serving City manager & staff - constitutes collaboration and complicity. When true justice ultimately arrives in Palo Alto, it will take down not just the violently unhinged armed officers and the white supremacist systems that enabled them, but also the city leaders that empowered and encouraged them. It may be too late for these officers to be redeemed, but I can't believe it is too late for our local leaders to change course and take the brave, high integrity actions needed to protect our communities. Best, Rebecca On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 2:55 PM Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote: Why can't these offices calm the person down, and not shoot to kill!??? One mentally ill man, and 3+ cops w/ guns! They all need better training, including the value of lives, mentaly ill or not. roberta ahlquist On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 2:20 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: FYI: Rosen complicit???? And of course Perron still with the PAPD and the IPA report on alleged use of the N word has yet to be released. Is Ed Shikada and Molly Stump complicit in the on going perron scandel https://www.santacruzsentinel.com/2016/01/26/palo-alto-officer-who-used-taser- during-christmas-day-shooting-is-identified-2/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone -- Chuck From:Jeff Hoel To:Council, City; UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:Bob Wenzlau"s 03-07-22 message about reorganizing for S/CAP Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 5:30:46 PM Council members and Commissioners, I'd like to comment on Bob Wenzlau's 03-07-22 email message to Council, "UAC Joint Session Regarding SCAP Development and Implementation," which was published in the City's 03-14-22 Public Letters document (pages 222- 223). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/public-comment/202220314.pdf This message was mentioned by three Council members at the Joint Study Session between Council and UAC on 03- 07-22, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas- minutes/2022/20220307/20220307pccsmamendedfinal-linked.pdf but at that time, Wenzlau's message was not available to the public. Comments: 1. I'm unhappy that Wenzlau trashed UAC. I think Council could help UAC be more effective by telling UAC what Council wants. Maybe at a joint Council-UAC meeting that's all about how things are going (as opposed to one that's about S/CAP ASAP). 2. Committees that are advisory to staff are doomed to ineffectiveness if that's what staff wants. For example, take the Citizen Advisory Committee for the FTTP and Wireless Master Plans, on which I served for a time. Staff set the agendas. Staff chaired the meetings. Committee members did not have an opportunity to vote. Staff did the (cursory) minutes. There were no videos of meetings. In the beginning, meetings were not noticed and the public was not invited to attend. In creating the committee, Council erred by asking that the committee be about wireless, in addition to FTTP. Staff spent nearly all the meeting times on wireless. 3. Pick one name for the committee and stick to it. For example, the Stormwater Management Oversight Committee -- SWMOC. 4. If SWMOC wants to have an email address (e.g., SWMOC@cityofpaloalto.org), fine. 5. If SWMOC wants a Council liaison, that's up to whoever would do it. 6. If SWMOC wants videos of the meetings, fine. 7. If SWMOC wants to be advisory to Council, not staff, make a case for it. Is that what Council wants? 8. I have the impression that SWMOC's job is to make sure that tax money collected for storm drains is spent wisely and fairly. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/03/editorial-renew-stormwater-fee I don't know why people who think deep thoughts about water in general even want to serve on such a committee. 9. Who's paying for SWMOC? Is it the storm drain tax money? If so, is the money being spent wisely? 10. I was surprised to see that the City's database of Forms 700 (conflict of interest disclosures) https://public.netfile.com/pub/?aid=CPA shows no disclosures for Wenzlau earlier than 2022, and shows him "assuming office" in 2022. Also, although it calls the committee the "Storm Drain Oversight Committee," it calls the positions "commissioner." Is this just a deficiency of the database? Please see, below the "######" line, Wenzlau's message, plus my further comments (in red). Thanks. Jeff ################################################################################################ From: Bob Wenzlau To: Council, City ### A Cc to UAC would have been nice. Also, a Cc to the Stormwater Management Oversight Committee would have been nice, assuming it even has an email address. If it doesn't, that's a problem. ### The Stormwater Management Oversight Committee already has an acronym: SWMOC. This document includes Wenzlau's application to be reappointed to SWMOC. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/2021/id- 12245.pdf Here's SWMOC's work plan for 2021 (page 39): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/2021/id- 12346.pdf Subject: UAC Joint Session Regarding SCAP Development and Implementation ### So is it SCAP or S/CAP? (Google cares.) Date: Monday, March 7, 2022 2:09:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Council Members, ### It would have been nice for Wenzlau to have mentioned up-front that he is a member of the Stormwater Management Oversight Committee, so he has special interest. It would also have been nice to have mentioned either that he's writing only for himself or that he's writing for the committee. As you engage with our UAC and discuss the SCAP, I wanted to share an organizational recommendation. HOW we address our climate challenges is as important as WHAT the climate mitigation we propose. There are three suggestions to improving the HOW: 1) Utilize two advisory commissions: an energy commission and a water commission by renaming the UAC to the Energy Commission and the Storm Water Commission to the Water Commission ### There is no Storm Water Commission at the moment. There's a Stormwater Management Oversight Committee. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Watershed-Protection/Stormwater-Management-Oversight- Committee/Current-Year-Agendas-and-Minutes ### This committee is apparently sometimes called -- or used to be called -- the Storm Water Management Oversight Committee. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/storm-water-management- oversight-committee/2021-02-4-swmoc-agenda-final.pdf ### According to this report by the 2016 Storm Drain Blue Ribbon Committee, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/zzz-archive/storm-drain- blue-ribbon-committee/final-stormwater-management-report-05-16-2016.pdf "In 2002, the City Manager appointed a Blue Ribbon Committee to work with staff..." A committee working for staff is not comparable to a commission advisory to Council. ### The City's website provides an index to meetings for SWMOC that goes back only to 2017. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Watershed-Protection/Stormwater-Management-Oversight- Committee/Prior-Stormwater-Management-Oversight-Committee-Agendas-Minutes But Google can find documents older than that, for example this 07-12-02 meeting summary: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/zzz-archive/storm-drain- oversight-committee/00-archive/stormdrain-committee-meetings-agendas/summaries/sd-071202minutesrev.pdf ### The City's database of Forms 700 (statements of economic interest) calls it the "Storm Drain Oversight Committee." https://public.netfile.com/pub/?aid=CPA ### Apparently there are no videos of SWMOC's meetings. https://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ * Background. The SCAP has increased the burden on the UAC at the same time water scarcity impacts the city. Additionally, as we implement a One Water strategy, our advisory commissions associated with water are split between the UAC and storm.\committees. In my engagement with the UAC, ### At the 07-07-21 UAC meeting, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory- commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2021/07-07-2021-special/07-7-2021-uac-minutes.pdf Wenzlau spoke as a member of the public (23:40-28:24 on this video). https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-772021/ Bob Wenzlau: OK. I feel like I'm maybe becoming a little bit part of the UAC. But I wanted to just offer sort of a percipient experience working with One Water. Maybe, as background, I'm on the Storm Water Commission. And we were starting to get a taste of the One Water concept from Karin North. But, additionally, have been supporting Vice Mayor Burt on ideas of how to supplement water in Lake Boronda, up in Foothill[s] Park with either groundwater -- have supported the City of Palo Alto on understanding groundwater as a resource. Groundwater contamination. And through the work -- other work with the City -- have been involved in the purple pipe discussion. And one of the sentiments that I think leads me to think that the One Water area is extremely important is that, quite often, we're doing Whac-A-Mole. You know, there's -- Mayor Burt wants to address -- or, Vice Mayor Burt wants to address the Hetch Hetchy water use at Foothill[s] Park. And it's not integrated into, you know, ostensibly, a larger water management program. I tended to -- In the correspondence, and the reflection on this, I think it's an area that -- um -- especially with climate change -- warrants deeper consideration, perhaps more than the UAC itself can do. And I say that because water as a resource is, obviously, integral to the community's viability. It's all tied together. The purple pipe. The sewer pipe. The storm water pipe. The drinking water pipe. The groundwater resources. And surface water flows. And, to be a -- to build a management model that can support severe drought, I think we need deeper attention, perhaps, than just the UAC can do. So, I began pondering whether the Stormwater Commission could -- who has membership that's expert in -- you know, quite expert in the, you know, water domain -- Is that a venue for it? Or is it a subcommittee to the UAC a venue to really build a policy around water? Coincidentally, I added notes where I was surprised, based on work we did in Oaxaca, and extended it across -- examining Palo Alto, that, actually -- as a potential, not an actuality -- rainwater capture could be upwards of -- if you calculated the total volume -- 20 percent of the Palo Alto water use, per year. And I was sort of shocked to see that. But it led me to realized that in a One Water plan, we also would need to consider storage and distribution, and that, you know, you might generate a lot of rainwater, but you generate it probably when you don't need it. And, essentially, an integrate plan that considers distribution and storage is also important. I opted, in my reflection, to encourage more local management, rather than working on regional approaches. I think Palo Alto having its own strategy and program is -- has us more in control of our water. And, basically, you know, offered extensively these remarks to you, as you spend some time this evening on a topic that, frankly, is incredibly deep and incredibly important. And could -- I invite you to consider, a forum that could allow this to be thought of in much more depth. So, thanks for letting me make some remarks. And good luck in your deliberations. That's all. I have observed less capacity for water topics there ### I don't know what this means. (and hence less engagement when staff presents), ### Can Wenzlau cite examples? while on the storm commission which I serve, I observe deep understanding of water topics. ### But, presumably, limited opportunity to utilize this deep understanding to benefit the City. * Proposal. I suggest maintaining the two commissions, but renaming the UAC to the Energy Commission and the Storm Water Commission to the Water Commission. I would transfer the water utility topics as well as one water to the Water Commission. The Water Commission could engage both with utility and public works staff. (I would offer that waste management initially could follow water, and or adjust if we pursue energy options to allow it to return to the future Energy Commission.) ### As previously mentioned, SWMOC is not a commission. It's a committee. Upgrading it to a commission would cost resources. ### In the text of the Municipal Code, Chapter 2.23, Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-61350#JD_Chapter2.23 "water" is mentioned 23 times (if you count the 7 times "wastewater" is mentioned, and you don't count the 4 times it's mentioned in the navigation panel). So it's clear that UAC should advise Council about water and wastewater. ### Wastewater was added 10-18-10, on the recommendation of an ad hoc committee (Council Members Burt, Espinosa, and Yeh). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year- archive/2010/final-cmr-380_10-recommendation-from-council-ad-hoc-committee.pdf 2) Create an Integrated Climate Advisory Board. While climate challenges carry a proportionally greater burden on the UAC (and presumably the Energy Commission), I have found that this touches all our commissions including Planning, Water and the Human Relations Commission. Attending a joint HRC discussion, I sensed the human impact of climate, and observed any heavy lift on climate might involve the HRC. As such, I imagined a climate advisory board that might replace and or compliment ### complement the current ad-hoc that would be formed of representation of our various commissions with appropriate council representation. Such a board could have ad-hoc membership that could include the Chamber of Commerce ### The Chamber of Commerce's goals are not the City's goals. to integrate business, and even Neighbors Abroad ### Wenzlau is president of Neighbors Abroad. to introduce global best practice. All the same, I observed a lack of synchronization between the climate work and our commissions. I do know that the Council and staff are working to address this, I only sought to offer my insights given the discussion tonight. 3. Utilize Web Project Tools to Bring Efficiency and Community Resources. In other communication, I have encouraged use of the same web tools that we apply in corporations to speed project work. Climate change is a community project, and we are not tapping the capabilities in our community. I created a video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBqckqKFoNI to introduce how web tools might be applied to speed project work in climate. I watch our web business apply collaborative tools for work groups, and believe that work group tools could leverage staff and the community. Thank you for considering my thoughts on the "HOW" of recalibrating our organization structure to address both climate and the parallel issue of water. Bob -- Bob Wenzlau bob@wenzlau.net 650-248-4467 From:Jeff Hoel To:Council, City; UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 03-07-22 Council mtg -- Item 3 -- S/CAP Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 5:24:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Council Members and Commissioners, Here (below the "######" line) is a TRANSCRIPT of Council's meeting of 03-07-22, Item 3, a joint study session with the UAC about S/CAP. I have added my comments (paragraphs in red, beginning with "###"). Agenda: 03-07-22 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas- minutes/2022/20220307/20220307pccsmamendedfinal-linked.pdf Video (1:57:18-2:34:00): https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-372022/ Presentation slides: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/item- presentations/2022/20220307/20220307pptccs-agenda-item-number-3-joint-study-session-with-the-uac-regarding- scap-development-and-implementation.pdf First, some preliminary comments. 1. This is the first joint study session between Council and UAC since 11-27-17. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/city-manager-reports-cmrs/year- archive/2017/final-staff-report-id-8681_study-session-between-the-council-and-uac.pdf Historically, joint study sessions between Council and UAC were supposed to be annual (although that didn't always happen) and were supposed to be at least partly about organizational issues. Did Council think UAC was giving Council the advice it needs? Did UAC think it had the resources to do its job? Etc. The 03-07-22 joint study session was mostly about "S/CAP ASAP," so it didn't really deal with organizational issues. 2. Three Council members (Cormack at 2:12:03, DuBois at 2:24:42), and Kou (2:31:10)) mentioned an email from a member of the public advocating a major change to UAC's scope. It was published in the 03-14-22 Public Letters document, so the public didn't get to see it in time for the 03-07-22 joint study session. The email, dated 03-07-22, is from Bob Wenzlau. (See page 222 here.) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/public-comment/202220314.pdf I'll comment about it in a separate message. 3. The video suffers from lots of "micro-gaps" (which I've highlighted in yellow). So it's sometimes hard to understand what people are saying. Apparently it's a problem Zoom can have. Who on staff is responsible for how Zoom works during City meetings? What went wrong this time? Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ############################################################################################## TRANSCRIPT 1:57:18: Mayor Burt: All right. So, our next item is a Study Session with our Utilities Advisory Commission, regarding our Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Development and Implementation. And we have our UAC members participating remotely. ### The optics would have been better if Council and UAC had been in the same room. And they're coming on the screen as we speak. Welcome, everyone. I think the proper order would be to have Chair Forssell kick things off. Do we have any staff presentation before that? Mr. City Manager. 1:58:07: City Manager Shikada: Actually, I believe we do, Mayor Burt. So, Mr. Eggleston, could I ask you to comment, and get us started? [pause] Let's see ... 1:58:36: Director [of Public Works] Eggleston: I'm sorry. I was having Zoom-not-responding issues. 1:58:40: ### Slide 1 -- Intro -- S/CAP -- Joint Study Session with UAC We do have a very brief presentation. And I think Utilities Director Batchelor is actually going to kick us off with the presentation. 1:58:50: Director [of Utilities] Batchelor: Good evening, Mayor Burt, Council members, Chair Forssell, and commissioners. As we discussed in the staff report, over the past year and a half, there's been a lot of meetings between the UAC and the Council S/CAP committee on related topics of the S/CAP. In tonight's meeting, we're hoping to get some feedback from the Council on the roles of the UAC on S/CAP. Next slide please. 1:59:15: ### Slide 2 -- Objectives for Tonight There's a few different ways that the UAC could be engaged. And the questions here are intended to describe some of the ways that staff thought through the UAC could work with Council. But we're open to different ideas. A couple of these questions were around what role and responsibilities of the City Council and UAC regarding the S/CAP. Would the City Council like a UAC representative to work with the S/CAP committee and working group meetings? Or does the City Council want the UAC in a full capacity engagement, various aspects of the S/CAP consideration by the City Council on the S/CAP committees? Next slide please. 1:59:55: ### Slide 3 -- UAC discussions relevant to S/CAP Even though that the UAC hasn't been directly involved with S/CAP, they've been developing some strong backgrounds and S/CAP-related topics. Like some of the impacts on the distribution system, the gas rates. They've also been central in permitting streamlining discussions over this past year. There's also been actively advocating on how to handle upstream emissions on our natural gas, gasoline, and electricity. And, of course, some of the topics that they always we were talking about are reliability, resiliency, energy storage, and a core topic for the UAC. But they've been involved in several other activities, as you see in the slide. And in the report. Also, that was included in the report tonight, was a commissioners' memo on the electric gridification, from Commissioner Metz and Commissioner Johnston, that would like to speak to it at a later time here. So, with that, I'm going to turn it over to Director of Public Works Brad Eggleston. 2:00:54: Director Eggleston: Thanks, Dean. And, good evening, again, Mayor and Council and UAC members. Brad Eggleston, Publics Works Director. So, to add to what Dean reviewed about UAC's work, I wanted to just quickly touch on some of the work the S/CAP Ad Hoc has been doing. And then a few of the accomplishments that are expected this year. Next slide please. 2:01:19: ### Slide 4 -- S/CAP and Ad Hoc Committee Meeting Schedule So, this slide is a list of the S/CAP Ad Hoc Committee Meetings we've already held. And also the additional topic for April. Each of these meetings, we do a deep dive into the topics that are listed here. And have an in-depth discussion, with the Ad Hoc Committee, and with our working group of community members. And we also have time for public comment at each of the meetings. We get a lot of questions and answers from the public, and have some good back and forth. And we're actually able to answer lots of questions during the meetings. But we also post those Q&A and ones that we don't get to after the meetings. Along with recordings of the meetings, and meeting materials, on our Sustainability page on the City's website. ### https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/City-Hall/Sustainability Next slide. [pause] Next slide please. 2:02:20: ### Slide 5 -- S/CAP Priorities for 2022 So, in the coming months, we'll be working with four of what we're calling S/CAP working group teams, that are going to help us develop our strategy for residential building electrification. Then we will incorporate their work into the final versions of the S/CAP goals and key actions. And the three-year work plan that we've developed. And that three-year work plan will also include the utilities' programs to support electrification, as well as preparing the distribution system for electrification. One key step in all of this is that once Council is able to approve the goals and key actions, we can actually begin the CEQA review, which is one of the steps leading up to actually eventually adopting the updated S/CAP. And then, in parallel with those steps, we've completed a sea level rise vulnerability assessment, that's currently undergoing peer review. When that peer review process is complete, pretty soon, we'll be beginning development of the Sea Level Rise Adaptation Plan. And then, we're also planning a robust community engagement strategy, that we'll be seeing more of as the year progresses. So, that's some of the look- ahead. And, with that, I will turn it back to the Mayor. 2:03:45: Mayor Burt: Thank you. And we had a slide, I think, that had the three questions that were asked in the staff memo. ### Slide 2 (again) -- Objectives for Tonight Yes. So, you know, we don't have time this evening to go into the depth of discussion that this warrants. But I think if we are able to give some directions on these three questions, then that will be particularly productive. In -- I'd like to just put on the table, at the beginning, an attempt to frame some of this. And one of the reasons that I've been interested in this meeting -- And Council Member Cormack and I met with the Chair and Vice Chair of the UAC recently to explore what should be the respective roles of the UAC and the City Council S/CAP Committee, and the Council as a whole. And I'd say it's still something that we're working through. But traditionally, the UAC didn't have -- has not had the purview to look strategically at the entire Climate Action Plan, nor the authority to set goals or policies. ### Only the full Council can set goals and make policies, right? The role has been, more, looking at discrete elements and reviewing staff recommendations, and giving their valuable feedback on those. So, I think that one of the things that we've needed on our Climate Action Plan is what the Council did in the spring, which is to really tackle it, with the authority of the Council. Because, frankly, we had had four years of only small, incremental progress on it, and had been falling severely behind a path that would allow us to achieve our goal of 80 percent reduction by 2030. 2:06:10: So, now that we have the impetus of what's going on in the Ad Hoc Committee, I do think it is really timely for us to figure out how to utilize the contributions of the UAC -- in parallel, and complementary to, what we're working on with the S/CAP Ad Hoc Committee. And then, I'll just -- on your other two questions, whether we'd like a UAC representative to work with the Ad Hoc and the working group meetings, my answer would be yes. But also, to clarify that we've come to recognize that we needed to really create a series of four teams that are -- of staff, Council members, and working group members, and other domain experts from within the community, to tackle the major areas that need to coalesce by this fall, for us to come up with a really fleshed-out electrification plan. And those committees are Communications, Funding, Technology & Regulations, and then Community Scaling. And the last one really being very much fed into by how the Funding and Technology & Regulations all come together with -- to decide on what we can do, when, and how. And then -- So, participation on both the working group, but, I think, even more importantly, on the teams, is something that we should be looking at. And, lastly, on the UAC, in its -- as a full entity, engaged on various aspects of the S/CAP, I think that is a resource that we do need to take better advantage of. And I think we have to think through what would be the elements that would be most effective in how we coordinate those efforts together. 2:08:34: So, having said that, Chair Forssell, the floor is yours. 2:08:44: Chair Forssell: And thank you, staff, for putting together this quick sort of overview of the questions at hand. You know, I don't know that I have that much to add. I think these are the right questions to ask. I think the UAC has long been eager to participate in the S/CAP process. And it's just looking for some direction on how can we help? What is the best way to plug in? How can we, you know, stick to the UAC's mission, which -- Actually, Vice Chair Segal and I recently looked up in the City Charter, ### Chapter 2.23, Municipal Code: Utilities Advisory Commission. https://codelibrary.amlegal.com/codes/paloalto/latest/paloalto_ca/0-0-0-61350#JD_Chapter2.23 just to remind ourselves of the role and responsibility of the UAC. And, you know, while there's clear connection around electrification, and, you know, updating the distribution grid, and our sources of power, it's less clear that mobility/transportation is in the purview of the UAC. And so -- Yeah, I think we -- And I guess I would also add, I think the UAC doesn't want to duplicate effort that's currently being undertaken by the S/CAP working group. And so, we are -- welcome this conversation with City Council about how can we best be of service, to further the City's goals and this process. 2:10:17: Mayor Burt: Thank you. And -- Council Member Cormack. 2:10:23: Council Member Cormack: Thank you, Mayor Burt. I'm happy to make comments now. But I'm not sure what the procedure is. Were you thinking that each member of the UAC would just make a brief statement about their interest? Or were we going to leave it at the Chair's ...? 2:10:36: Mayor Burt: Well, it -- my intention was to open it up to members of the UAC. And if individual members would like to make comments, to have them go. And then have us respond. But if you'd like to ... 2:10:50: Council Member Cormack: OK, but ... 2:10:50: Mayor Burt: ... there's an S/CAP ... 2:10:51: Council Member Cormack: Perfect. That would be great. 2:10:53: Mayor Burt: ** Go ahead. 2:10:53: Council Member Cormack: So, let me just share my reactions to what's been presented so far. And, you know, I'm in agreement with most of what's been said already. There are the four working groups. The other way of thinking about it --'cause I can usually remember three things -- is, the three things that we have to do is, [1] we have to build community momentum, [2] we have to build capacity of both the grid and installation, and we have to figure out what to do with gas, and [3] we have to figure out funding. And I think it's really the middle one -- you know, as Chair Forssell was indicating -- that is where the UAC can be the most help. Build the capacity of -- You know, modernizing **ing our grid, figuring out the impact on our natural gas customers, and working through the really tough retrofits, of buildings in particular. There is some link to transportation, because chargers are there. So, that's, I think, an area that we could -- you know, that we could really benefit from being clear about what the Council expects from the UAC. In terms of the second question, having a UAC representative, I am supportive of that. And then, I think three is really, you know, a version of one. 2:12:03: I did receive an interesting email today suggesting that maybe we should be separating some of our utilities into different parts. And I think it's certainly open to question. What happens after we have our ad hoc? What are the next phase? What ** we'll spend time on that. So, I think, if UAC members have any thoughts on that, I'd appreciate it. But, for me, the building capacity that the other 4 groups were calling "community scaling." And then, of the four groups, also, the technology -- I know there's someone on the UAC with real interest in that. Thank you. 2:12:39: Mayor Burt: And I'll note that we did receive, at places, a memo from Commissioners Johnston and Metz. And I think we'd definitely welcome any comments that they have on what they've provided for us. So, would any UAC commissioners like to proceed? And **? Commissioner Metz. 2:13:09: Commissioner Metz: Ah. Yes. Good evening, Mayor. If this is a good time, I would like to summarize our commissioners' memo. And then, Commissioner Johnston would like to make a few comments. Would that work? 2:13:22: Mayor Burt: Sure. 2:13:23: Commissioner Metz: OK. You have the memo, which I think was delivered in a ** packet, probably today, possibly over the weekend. Essentially, the -- So, you have the entire memo. Let me just provide a brief summary, for **. The goal was to ensure that the utility, like a grid modernization, receives the resources it needs, to keep pace with S/CAP implementation. So, to that end -- and this is post-UAC-meeting of February 2nd -- we recommended that, as a first step, we develop the utility, and we work with them to develop a high-level roadmap for grid infrastructure modernization. I think that's a key thing. And the background of this is, you know, S/CAP, of course, is a key part of the City's -- enabling the City to obtain -- to attain its sustainability objectives. And probably the core of the whole thing is electrification -- services that are not powered by fossil fuels, especially natural gas. On the CPAU and UAC side, we had an excellent presentation February 2nd, by the utility, talking about the modifications they need. And, you know, it's pretty clear that a pretty immense amount of modernization is required to achieve the needs that -- for the electric utility under S/CAP. But it also was apparent that the utility doesn't have the staffing to administer a grid modernization program. So, there's a fundamental problem. So, what we recommended, as a first step, is, you know, immediately develop a high-level roadmap for grid modernization. And this would, you know, involve estimates of things like, you know, how much the grid needs to be upgraded, milestones and decision points. Particularly, linking milestones in the grid modernization with the link -- with the milestones in the S/CAP implementation. That seems really critical. To keep pace with S/CAP. At the same time, not spend capital money before it's needed. Also, recommending to all ** our capital costs, **, costs, H.R. requirements. 2:15:35: But also, to the point that Council Member Cormack made, on technology, thinking about ways to mitigate, or reduce, or delay expenditures. You know, there -- by -- because ** implementing advanced infrastructure, there maybe ways to reduce demand, and reduce the need for some of the distribution grid infrastructure. So -- you know, and it ** ection ** the grid, as somebody hints at a minute ago. So, it's a lot of levers that can be pulled. And we think it's especially important to look at those. So, anyway, that's a synopsis. And Commissioner Johnston might want to make a comment. 2:16:18: Mayor Burt: Thank you. Commissioner Johnston. 2:16:20: Commissioner Johnston: Thank you. Thank you, Mayor Burt and Council. I think Commissioner Metz has summarized our memo very well. I think that what we're really trying to do is underline the fact that in order to achieve the S/CAP goals, we have a lot of work to do on the grid. And that really -- to me, at least -- in a very good presentation that we got a couple of weeks ago -- We want to make sure that we can underline the urgency of planning for the grid modernization. Because it's going to take time. It's complicated. It's -- There's going to be quite a bit of expense involved. We need to get -- put together the overall plan, so that we can proceed in a logical fashion. We wanted to make sure, as a first step, that the CPAU has the resources necessary to put a plan together. And I think that Director Batchelor has got a lot of good ideas in his head. He has worked with his team. But I think they need to really get something down on paper, so that we -- everybody can look at it and proceed forward with kind of knowing where we're headed. Thank you. 2:17:44: Mayor Burt: Thank you. Director [sic] Smith. 2:17:49: Commissioner Smith: Good evening, Mayor Burt. And thank you, City Council, for the opportunity. I guess I'd like to express my interest in assisting, as much as possible, as our Chair highlighted. And to echo the concerns and comments of my colleagues with respect to the physical infrastructure itself. I think that's -- for the UAC, that seemed a logical place for us to slot in and assist as much as possible. So much of what we discuss in our meetings -- and, as you are aware -- so much of it is about the physical infrastructure itself. Not just AMI, but where do we go from AMI. And, more importantly, how do we use the data from AMI to, quite frankly, make our grid more efficient. And that played in quite well with what I would imagine would be the goals of S/CAP. So, I just want to echo my appreciation for the ask, as well as to raise my hand as a volunteer to assist, particularly when it comes to infrastructure itself. Thank you. 2:18:58: Mayor Burt: Thank you. Let's see. **. I don't see other hands at this time. One thing I would just like to follow on to the -- um -- questions and comments is that we were all aware of a presentation that a utilities engineer ### Assistant Utilities Director Tomm Marshall. made to the UAC on the prospective grid upgrade needs. And one of the things that we're really beginning to dive into as -- within these teams is what the interplay -- the nexus -- between -- a number of factors will influence how much grid upgrade, what type of an upgrade, and when. And a decision on the gr- -- on those other factors are local generation, local storage -- are both fixed and mobile. And by mobile, I mean, pending transformation of two-way charging and time-of-use charging for storage of electric vehicles. And then, advanced appliances, and smart appliances, and smart **, and how they can diminish peak load demands. Which are what -- really the principal driver on the grid upgrade needs. And so, that's one of the things that we're going to need to struggle on, and, frankly, one of the reasons that I think the ongoing engagement of UAC ** members with the S/CAP will keep those things in constant communication. Because I think these are parallel paths that intersect with one another. ### So to speak. 2:20:43: And Council Member Tanaka. 2:20:47: Council Member Tanaka: Yeah. So, I just want to thank the UAC for your work. I really appreciate it. S/CAP's really important. The work you guys are doing is great. So, thank you for that. One piece I just wanted to mention, that I was hoping you guys could think about is on the -- I really didn't see it anywhere -- is nuclear power. So, I know there's a lot of emphasis on renewables. That we want to do as much renewables as we possibly can. But the problem is, of course, that the sun doesn't always shine every day -- you know, all the time -- and the wind doesn't blow all the time either. And the nice thing about nuclear is that -- First of all, it's a big part of the U.S. energy supply. ### In 2020, the U.S. energy supply was 20 percent nuclear, and 21 percent renewables. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=48896 ### In 2019, California's energy supply was about 8 percent nuclear, provided by Diablo Canyon's two nuclear reactors, which are scheduled to shut down in 2024 and 2025. https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/2021-02/countdown-to-shutdown.pdf And in terms of safety, you know, if you look at how many people died in the worst disaster in our history -- which is Three Mile Island -- there is zero people that died. And so, you know, we're looking at global warming, and climate change, and low-carbon output, nuclear is one of the few energy sources that has NO carbon. So it's a decision today. And I think, you know, as the energy storage capability come online, we can, you know, probably do more in **. But in the meantime, I would love for the UAC to actually look at this more closely. You know, with -- the one kind of issue with nuclear now is, it's pretty expensive, because we've been doing a lot of custom nuclear power plants. Versus a lot of the modular reactors. Which is a way to greatly reduce the cost of bringing nuclear online. But anyways, so I'd love if the UAC could look at this more closely, and figure out how make this as part of the puzzle for Palo Alto, in terms of trying to reduce the amount of carbon output by the City. But in any case, I just want to thank you guys for your work. And you guys can look at this part of the puzzle as well. Thanks. 2:22:32: Mayor Burt: And Council Member DuBois. 2:22:36: Council Member DuBois: Yeah. Welcome to UAC members. Thank you guys for serving on the commission. You know, we started this S/CAP Ad Hoc last August. And, as the Mayor said, you know, the idea was really to try to **. We've been in the planning state for an awfully long time. And we've been making progress. But, again, I'm hopeful that we can start to take some concrete steps soon. And, you know, there's been a large focus on electrification. And I think having the UAC concentrate on the grid makes a lot of sense. Rather than the entire **. 'Cause I do think the elements of the S/CAP will cross commissions. It might make sense for Planning & Transportation, you know, to weigh in on transportation. ** on sea level rise. And, you know, our levees -- natural levees. And I agree. Maybe not all those things make sense for the UAC. 2:23:36: So, working group teams -- should we talk about again. And they are specifically about building electrification. And, you know -- this grid modernization, which we need to make that happen. And there's been a lot of public interest. Or a lot of interest in those working group teams, I think we should see as many people involved as possible. Including UAC members. This **, so, you know, you probably could have one or two UAC members on these different tracks. And then, obviously, I think the commission should also continue its regular work around rate changes. Just operating of our utilities. But that's kind of where my mind is. If members of the UAC are really interested, I'd be supportive of having you join one of these four working group teams, you know, as a UAC rep. And then, whether you meet as a full UAC, to review progress, I think it's something we can discuss here tonight **. And I think Council Member Cormack mentioned, there was a letter from the public that was -- threw out the idea, perhaps, shifting some of the focus. I think it's a little bit longer-term discussion. But, whether, like, our commission should focus more broadly on water across the board, and the UAC should become like the energy commission, and focus on energy. ### Would UAC continue to oversee FTTP? I see Lisa reacting to that. ### But it's not on the video. [laughs] But, yeah, again, I think that's a longer question. But there is such ** to do with grid modernization, and what we're going to do with our gas utility. It might be something we want to consider. So, thanks. 2:25:19: Mayor Burt: Thanks. Chair Forssell. 2:25:23: Chair Forssell: Thank you. I thought I would just chime in. And say thanks, Council Member Tanaka, for your thoughts on nuclear. And my understanding is, we're, in the coming year, going to start talking again about the integrated resource plan for the electric utility. So, it's good timing to see if there are nuclear options as well. And, as far as a practical matter, now that we're getting into sort of specific suggestions, I, too, think it would make a lot of sense to have a designated UAC commissioner on each of the four subcommittees -- I don't know if that's what we're calling them. And the way I would love to see it work is for them to normally participate on that subcommittee. But then there's a -- every UAC meeting, have a standing agenda item for reports -- reports for meetings and events -- so they could be reporting back to the UAC. So that the UAC could be informed of what those working groups are talking about and thinking about, and perhaps an agenda item for the UAC would suggest itself. Not necessarily. I think that would be a nice way to keep the two groups in touch with each other. 2:26:41: Mayor Burt: Thank you. Ed. I'm not seeing any other hands from either commissioners or Council members. So, let me ask -- Ohp, we have now Council Member Filseth. 2:26:56: Council Member Filseth: Sorry. Slow on the buzzer here. I think this makes a lot of sense. I think the natural sweet spot for UAC is in the middle group, which is the capacity, and how do we make sure the grid can handle it? I think as you look at the pantheon of stuff that needs to be done, and, in fact, can be done, and is useful, you know, there's way more work here than we're ever going to be near able to source. And so, we're going to have to -- you know, have to pick carefully what we put effort and resources into. And I think we just need to be cognizant, as we go through this process. I think the -- you know, the three prong -- the three prongs that Council Member Cormack summarized make a lot of sense to me. One, how are we going to pay for it? Two, how are we physically going to have infrastructure to do it? And, three, you know, how are we going to make sure that the community is actually willing to accept the things that need to be done here. Because we're going to be sort of interesting. I think we're going to have our hands full just doing those three. And so, as we go through this, and find tasks, and look to scope things, and so forth, I think we gotta be cognizant that, you know, the scope could expand fast here. And it's going to be a lot of work just to do the bare minimum. Both by community and staff. 2:28:20: Mayor Burt: Council Member Stone. And then Vice Mayor Kou. 2:28:25: Council Member Stone: Thank you, Mister Mayor. I'll be brief, because I'm just saying what my colleagues have said. First, I want to thank the members of the commission for your service, and for being a part of this study session. I agree with the Chair's recommendation of having a representative from the UAC on the various subcommittees. I think that's wise. Council Member Filseth was just talking about, this is going to be such a massive lift, we can't just leave it to S/CAP. **, you need some support of the full Council. So, how we can utilize the ** to the best of our ability, and capability is wise. But I also do agree that a particular focus on the grid appears to makes sense for the UAC. So, interested in moving in that direction. That's it. 2:29:10: Mayor Burt: And Vice Chair Segal. 2:29:14: Vice Chair Segal: Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, I just w- -- We'll, two things. One, thank you for inviting us and having the conversation. I think my colleagues would agree. It's really, really helpful We're an advisory committee. ### UAC is commission, not just a committee. We don't get the opportunity to get the full cycle feedback from you. And so, getting the direction from really, really help us focus on our jobs. And in that -- So, thank you. And in that vein, I would encourage us to have another one of these sometime, you know, whatever makes sense. I don't know if that's six months, nine months, a year, somewhere in that timeframe. So that we have another opportunity to kind of hear the big picture of what you all are thinking about. And to help us know what we should be thinking about. The S/CAP, yes. ** beyond ** Thank you. 2:30:06: Mayor Burt. Thank you. And Vice Chair Kou -- Vice Mayor Kou. Excuse me. 2:30:09: Vice Mayor Kou: Thank you for all you do. And I actually very much appreciate the commissioner memo about the electric grid modernization. One of the things, I agree with my colleagues, you know, on a direction for how to move forward. Also, what it does is, also, **ing forward to maintain confidence once this is addressed, and there's more confidence about switching over. And willingness to do so. With that, also, thanks to Vice Chair Segal for asking for another meeting such as this. I do want to ask that ** often, and it's not way long time between getting update from the commission. And so, I'd like to see -- I mean -- this is a couple of time now -- that the ad hoc committee -- Council Ad Hoc Committee -- take a look at the member of the public just did in having a different committee -- energy, water, etc. So, again, thank you for all you do, and nice see all of you. 2:31:24: Mayor Burt: Well, the Ad Hoc Committee's going to be meeting both with staff and our working group members in the next week. And I think you've given us some real additional topics to try integrate with the plan that we've been developing, which is centered around teams. I should have mentioned that we do have -- ah -- we're working on an aggressive timeline for the S/CAP. We hope, I think, that we'll be returning to Council in the fall, with a real concrete plan that has -- attempt to reconcile all of these different elements, at least high level, so we are having a short, medium, and long-term set of programs and ends to achieve a goal. We all have our work cut out for us up there. This is not something that we can borrow from predecessors on, 'cause there aren't any predecessors. There are, fortunately, a number of leading cities who also s**ing with the same issues right now, and who are willing to collaborate and share information, best practices, and I think that's going to ramp up in term. And, lastly, all of us who are working, there's always the question of what difference does a small city make? We're a drop in the bucket. in term **. And the answer really is that the small cities have led the way. And small cities have led the way in climate change, in best practices, and even provide a role in the next few years. Everybody else looks to those cities who have figured out certain things, and broken the ground. And we were one of the first cities globally to have carbon-neutral electricity. It had a huge impact. It was probably as well known outside of Palo Alto as it was inside of Palo Alto. And ** electrification is going to have a similar high-leveraged impact. We can -- So, I don't see any hands raised by anyone. So on that note, thank you very much, And we'll be following up with you, and your Chair and Vice Chair as we meet in the next week, and ** S/CAP Ad Hoc try to figure out next steps forward. Thanks again. And thank you for everything you do. 2:33:53: Chair Forssell: Thank you very much. 2:33:55: Mayor Burt: All right. So, that concludes our item number 3. 2:34:00: From:Sulev Suvari To:Council, City; Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission Subject:PTC & Castilleja School Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 5:07:27 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sulev@outlook.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commissioners, I am writing in support of Castilleja School and their desire to modernize the campus and increase enrollment. Both of these objectives will happen in a phased approach so as to minimize the impact on the neighborhood. Castilleja was founded in 1907, and has operated on its current location for more than 100 years, predating zoning laws. Since the implementation of zoning and the subsequent creation of R1 districts, Castilleja has operated under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). What puzzles me is that within this dynamic, schools are inherently treated differently than residences because they are two separate and distinct entities. For example, when evaluating Gross Floor Area and Floor Area Ratios, schools and residences abide by different regulations. This isn’t skirting the rules. The rules are simply different because residences and schools are not the same. A small and obvious example: schools serve a public interest –hundreds of children–whereas residences only serve a small handful of people. They are not the same, hence the need for a CUP. In the most recent PTC meeting of December 2021, some of you suggested that the school re-submit plans every time they wanted to increase the number of students. Going down this path of approving new CUPs with far greater regularity would be financially irresponsible and detrimental to Palo Alto’s resources. I trust we can all agree that this process has gone on far too long, so why would any of us want to extend it and manage a piecemeal approval process in the future? Especially when there are copious examples of regulations in place to cap enrollment and car trips. Castilleja’s plan has already been approved by the ARB. Twice, in fact. The latest plan was approved on March 17, at which point the ARB moved forward in the spirit of compromise. Castilleja has been responsive, it has provided multiple options, and it has patiently listened to a multitude of voices. Their project is better than it’s ever been. Please recognize these many improvements and approve their latest plan. This project has been under review for far too long; our community needs closure, and it needs to support education in all its forms. I urge you to give your support for final approval so we can put this debate to rest. Kind regards, Sulev Suvari 1413 Dana Ave sulev@outlook.com From:Eileen Brooks To:Council, City Subject:Pickleball Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 3:36:47 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from eibrooks@hotmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please consider: Extending the priority pickleball hours on the multi-use courts. Every day at 3pm, tennis players can claim the courts Re-painting the pickleball lines on the multi-use courts in a brighter color Updating the court signs to reflect the new rules Converting the multi-use courts to permanent pickleball courts Thanks! Eileen Brooks Palo Alto Resident Sent from my iPhone From:Whitney Lundeen To:Council, City Subject:Middle school sports Date:Monday, March 28, 2022 2:01:51 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from whitlundeen@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council, I am a Palo Alto resident and parent of 2 children in the PAUSD. I am writing about the middle school sports program, which have a serious problem with accessibility, inclusion, and warrant an audit of the financial practices. I am asking for the city council’s attention to the management and expenses of the middle school sports program, which is an important service for the young people of Palo alto—both for their mental and physical health. We have communicated our concerns over three seasons to Chase Hartmann and the Greene Middle School staff but have seen no movement on any of these issues. Therefore, I ask for the city council’s assistance in improving these valuable sports programs and improving access. My son is a passionate runner but he is not able to participate in Track and Field because of lack of capacity. PE is one of her favorite classes. We signed up for spring Track & Field an hour or two after it opened (I am a singe working mom and couldn’t be on at 8:30 am to sign up) and got put on the waitlist. Participation in the team is therefore limited to children with parents who can be available exactly at 8:30:01 to sign up—those with fast internet connections, great English skills, and who can navigate webpages faster than other parents. We raised this problem to our principal and the city in September but there are no solutions to this inequitable access to sports. Second, the program is unable to hire coaches and requests that parents volunteer to get their kids off the waiting list. This creates more accessibility issues. I want to volunteer more but have a younger child that is at after school care and needs someone home when he gets back. Third, both Track and Cross country are very low cost sports but I do not understand where the $20,000+ in revenue goes. The cost to participate is $335 (x 50 - 75 kids) = $16-26k. It is expecially concerning what is being spend on administration/management, since they rely on parent coaches and have been unable to successful recruit or hire a coach. Transportation to meets is provided by private parent cars. Is all this expense needed for the back office management? How are these city dollars being spent? Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards, Whitney Lundeen