Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-05-31 City Council Emails
701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 05/31/2022 Document dates: 05/23/2022 – 05/31/2022 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Allan Seid To:DENNIS LEE Subject:Fwd: Scan 5/30 Date:Tuesday, May 31, 2022 11:10:42 AM Attachments:Seid 5.30.22.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Happy Post-Memorial Day ! Allan Channing House News June 2022 Volume 36 No. 3 DR. ALLAN SEID: PHYSICIAN, ACTIVIST, AUTHOR "It was a lifetime peak experience," replied Dr. Allan Seid, when asked what it was like for him to open a carton and see copies of his book in print at last, eight years after he had been asked to write it. The book, Asian Americans Building a Better Nation With Courage and Community Involvement, represented a commitment honored and a promise kept. How had it all begun? What spurred a comfortably retired Chinese American doctor to spend years of his life writing a book? Allan said, "In 1965, partway through my psychiatric residency at Stanford, I made an appointment with the chairman of the Sociology Department and told him I needed additional insight to be an effective therapist for Asian - Pacific clients." (At that time, Allan's dream was to return to Chinatown in San Francisco and work with immigrants.) The professor understood Allan's dilemma and he invited the chairmen of the Anthropology and Behavioral Science Departments to design a special two-year plan of study that would meet Allan's needs and culminate in a master's degree. Allan's supervisor helped him find work at a small psychiatric clinic he shared with two other doctors and, after Allan completed his residency, even invited Allan to join them as a partner. Accepting the invitation would postpone Allan's intention to return to Chinatown but would allow him to work half time in the clinic and finish his cross-cultural master's degree. Allan's heart was in practicing community psychiatry, so he also accepted a part-time position with the San Jose City Health Department. This second job gave him financial security for his wife and baby and a chance to practice community health among low-income clients of diverse racial and cultural backgrounds. In the 1970s, appropriate social services for low-income Asian immigrants and refugees did not exist. Asian immigrants from rural areas, who did not speak English, faced overwhelming obstacles in a fast-moving, incomprehensible new culture. Allan and his wife Mary, moved by their desire to provide services and advocacy, and to engage others in their mission, co-founded the agency Asian Americans for Community Involvement (AACI). The agency expanded quickly following the end of the Vietnam War as refugees from Southeast Asia were relocated to San Jose. Over more than forty years AACI grew from a small, struggling non-profit to one with a multi -million -dollar budget serving thousands of people. By 1980, AACI was a thriving non-profit agency serving the Bay Area, but Allan was keenly aware that it was just one agency in one California county. In June 1980, presidential candidate Ronald Reagan announced clearly the cuts he would make in social services, education and mental health funding if he were elected. Allan saw that the only way to win the larger battle for social justice for Asian Americans was to build a coalition of Asians. Small separate advocacy groups for Japanese, Koreans, Filipinos, Pacific Islanders and so on would never have enough power to be effective. ACCI was instrumental in the founding of Asian Pacific Advocates for California (APAC), the first -ever, state-wide, pan -Asian coalition. APAC has since evolved into a national organization. Allan grinned widely when he said, "Illinois has a chapter of APAC, and there are people in Illinois who have never seen an Asian. New Jersey has a coalition, and there's even one in Maryland!" In 2014 the board of AACI invited Allan Seid to write the history of the agency. He accepted the challenge, confident that the sixty cartons of archival materials he had donated to the agency would meet his research needs —decades of board meeting minutes, grant proposals and other documents vital to the history of AACI. Imagine his horror when he discovered that all had been discarded. Fortunately he found materials he had kept and local newspaper archives yielded much infotniation. The book has been completed. Asked what he expected his book to accomplish, Allan smiled. "It's a legacy. It shows what a few dedicated people can accomplish, a map of the strategies we tried. Everyone can see the results. I'm happy, really happy. It's done and now I'm looking forward to spending time with my grandchildren." Mary Anne Simpson 111 11 irl 11 AAA AAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA, NEW IN THE LIBRARY Asian Americans Building A Better Nation With Courage And Community Involvement, By Dr. Allan Seid. An important new book by Dr. Allan Seid, our Channing House neighbor, is now in the Channing House library. It is an inspiring history of his efforts, with the invaluable help of his wife, Mary Chan Seid, to meet the health and social needs of the Asian and Pacific American communities in Santa Clara County and, eventually, farther afield. Born in San Francisco, as a fourth -generation American, and trained as a psychiatrist at Stanford Medical Center, Allan describes himself as "always an activist in the face of injustice." In that pursuit, he has created and nurtured three major organizations. Initially, concerned about issues of community mental health, he took the lead in establishing Pathway House in San Jose, a residential rehab program for recovering addicts. Subsequently, he founded two major organizations, Asian Americans for Community Involvement (AACI) in Santa Clara County, and Asian Pacific American Advocates of California (APAAC). In the book, Allan describes in detail the many areas in which, through organization, advocacy, and legislation, these organizations have succeeded in offering hope and relief to people, many of whom have been citizens for four or five generations, yet have been objects of prejudice and targets of rage, racial and ethnic denigration, and humiliation. Serving these communities became Allan and Mary's life work. Theirs has been a strong partnership and an inspiration to the dedicated people who have worked with them. Always modest, Allan gives credit to those many effective partners, describing in detail their research, plans, and strategies. You will read how they succeeded in getting Asian Americans appointed to county boards and commissions, in having California textbooks revised to rid them of ethnic slurs and negative historical references, and in winning a 2 From:Dutt, Sangita To:Council, City Subject:Public Comments - Castilleja Postcards Received Via Mail Date:Tuesday, May 31, 2022 10:32:14 AM Attachments:Castilleja Postcards Attachment 4_Redacted.pdf image001.png image002.png image004.png image005.png image006.png image007.png Castilleja Postcards Attachment 3_Redacted.pdf Castilleja Postcards Attachment 2_Redacted.pdf Castilleja Postcards Attachment 1_Redacted.pdf Good morning, The Clerk’s office received public comments through the mail for Castilleja school project. Thank you, Sangita Dutt Administrative Assistant Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 P: 650.329.2363 sangita.dutt@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org grant to establish an Asian -American Women's Domestic Violence Crisis Shelter. As an example, after many years' effort, in 1992 AACI was able to purchase a large facility that offers all of its services under one roof: general mental health services, adult and pediatric medical clinics, juvenile justice/probation assistance, support services for AIDS -infected populations, and drug/alcohol/gambling/LGBTQ specialty counseling. AACI's strategy for meeting community needs is a holistic one. It is a center embedded in the community, and it has served as a model throughout California. I was honored to review this book, written by a man I have long admired. To discover more about this remarkable citizen and his accomplishments, you will want to read it yourself. For an impressive summary of Allan's career, don't miss "About the Author" by Nancy Flowers on page 313. If you can't wait to get the library copy, Allan will be selling copies during the month of June at cost. Just put a note in his mail cubby #734 with a check for $40. You have a treat in store. Karen Morrison RETU ADORES f� / SCO I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because... I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because... CaS-Oeja s me of fi e few szkook �4 7 Cc fea 400 leq c ' es 0 tL r iris "D f i /id 11/le it voice � )/(4 be POIA r'e Itadeis ✓V1 cue sou 5 d ejeYYe -4 IT" oppr-k{��� J, a 41/m url ue l ll1lilf llllhilllj„I1h1jh,1u11111ihilll)ijIthIf1)llr)ll'Iulil1l' RETURN ADDRESS: n /} :r n9 net., o " MAIL:. Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 ., jle11)114lliE�� tllli�11Ii1lllllllt CA 940 PM L isCO I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its cam us because... \l‘,,e (Ai rec+a.�e b2n.eA f Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto. CA. 94301 RETURN ADDRESS, SAN CTSCQ 1/ MAY iO12PM I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its 11 campus because... d, ° vZ dikag ,At ,J)ti _ Q CA'940~' 'Y 3 • ti 7: n7 1 P 00008 c MAILED Office of the Clerk Please Cistribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 1illl i„11111,1111i,11,1111,1,1,,11i„I„11,111111,1111,11111lllh 17 MAY 202 I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because... /Y1 42 '>'►i,,Zi1j Li.m.44yr°ttn/{ r R' ,', ,f riff 121e yv/ D Id em c i-oG Ly , j D h- 75'us• CA 940 PM2 L Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 943 a-2S3i50 lllilliilidwill"Illililil11,1f41111,i1i,1,,,11ti1li,l,jl, RETURN ADDRESS: I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because... V-`ll ( -l--1na t uywlti ' r1-ui- I�O? � �.,� A1-44 Sec - 4,1,4 be- ►,oh>A$ Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto. CA. 94301 RETURN DDRESS: I support Castilleja's propo-r- to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because... C4S6iti, ) 1A 0- nc 6 - e0.1u ("Yil c 04(), j1 .91- strtzei4761 w 174 0144, 1,�, ,mo . �C. L-.3-, C - I I I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because... C (a SSog_77 ms 17l6yei 1- kelvoi (Apdartoel p, to l r'c -t r n La fe S Ch c2)J /M rao So Sd ^t dt (a / ��� . Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 CA 940 PM 5 L Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 PaG . C - s43 Ot—.c5315�_=. of l 1111'1,11111111111111i1111j1l1ti1)11"11fi1)"ill I support Castilleja's proposal t4 increase enrollment and modernize its campus because... W -E_ '\Wl_ nc)art C.0 (5-51.13t1\64e_ ,rY,J(s yin l e s 41. I/ likVs..0111:0 1 A Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 R'7 I support Castilleja's proposal to increase enrollment and modernize its campus because... Office of the Clerk Please distribute to all City Council Members 250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor Palo Alto, CA, 94301 llIi1.I,'I11'11111I1'I1-I I11TiIli Ilil itili11111I i' l til k From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board; CHOpinion CHOpinion Subject:Fwd: Scan Date:Saturday, May 28, 2022 4:20:46 PM Attachments:Sied528.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Subject:: AAPI VICTIM SERVICES UNIT ESTABLISHED IN SAN FRANCISCO Source: San Francisco Chronicle 5/28/22 From: Allan Seid Boudin. starts AAPI victim services unit. By Lauren Hernandez San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin has announced a new Asian American Pacific Islander Unit as part of the District Attorney's Office's Victim Services Division in an effort to better serve the city's historically underserved community, authorities said. Boudin said that the new unit's director, Paul Lam, will "ensure all AAPI victims of crime receive the services and, support they need," add- ing that district attorney's. officials acknowledge the .. broader Asian American Pacific Islander commu- nity has been historically underserved in the city. "I am proud of the work of our office to ex- pand services to our AA - PI cominunityincluding through increasing lan- guage access and support for AAPI crime victims," Boudin said." "I will also continue to advocate for greater access for all vic- tims to trauma recovery clinicians so that all crime survivors have the sup- port they need to heal." Boudin is facing a re- call election on June 7. The announcement of the new victim services unit comes during a time when San Francisco and the Bay Area have seen a surge of anti -Asian violence since the start of the pandemic. Reports of local . incidents of discrim- ination and xenophobia, and violent assaults have been part of a recorded nationwide rise in hate crimes against Asian Americans. In April 2021, Asian American community advocates pressed offi- cials in San Francisco to do more to assist victims 01 racist attacks anu w explore solutions, and better collaboration, across various city de- partments. Lauren Herndndez (she/her) is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: lau ren. hrnandez@ sfchronicle.com Twitter: @ByLHernandez A4 ( SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE AND SFCHRONICLE.COM From:Rob Nielsen To:Council, City; Planning Commission; HeUpdate; Lait, Jonathan; Wong, Tim Cc:mathew@siliconvalleyathome.org; housingelements@hcd.ca.gov Subject:Housing element: Groundtruthing report on California Ave and College Terrace, part 2 Date:Friday, May 27, 2022 3:21:47 PM Attachments:CalAve_CollegeTerrace - Part2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Here is a second groundtruthing report on the Palo Alto housing element covering sites in the greater California Ave area. Thank you for your time and attention. Best regards, Rob Nielsen Housing element groundtruthing: California Ave and College Terrace, Part 2 May 27, 2022 Dear Palo Alto City Council, Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Committee, Palo Alto Housing Element Working Group, Jonathan Lait, Tim Wong Scott O’Neil and I recently toured proposed sites in the California Ave area and College. We also added a few nearby sites covered by the Caltrain Station strategy (within 0.5 mi. of the station). With invaluable assistance from staff, the working group has identified approximately 75 sites in this area accounting for 663 net new units of housing, including 10 sites to support 280 units of much-needed lower-income housing (see my report of May 13, 2022). However, to ensure that the identified housing has a realistic chance of being developed, based on an accurate accounting, we point out several sites with errors or constraints to consider, including parcels with errors in their baseline data. Our discussion here covers these topics: existing residential units and multi-parcel sites. A separate report, distributed on May 13, covers the 10 lower-income sites in this area. A third report will come later. Undercounts of existing residential units, commercial site 576 Cambridge Ave, APN 137-01-075, 6 market-rate units This commercially zoned site is used by an insurance agency. It is listed in the site inventory as having no residential units. It has eight. Specifically, there are three apartments on the second floor: 584, 588, and 592 Cambridge, as well as a second building in the rear of the lot with five units on Yale, as shown below. All eight of these addresses are identified on the county parcel maps.1 (City parcel maps2 show five of them, which is much closer to the actual number than zero.) Today’s actual number is even two more than what is envisioned for this site’s upzoned capacity under the Caltrain strategy. Undercounts of existing residential units, residential sites This area has many properties already zoned for multi-unit residential use, some of which are not fully built out to their maximum density. A portion of these are included in the site inventory, either under the Multi-Family Allowed (MFA) strategy using the allowable current density (as adjusted at 80% for 1 https://www.sccassessor.org/index.php/apn-redirect?ApnValue=13701075 2 https://opengis.cityofpaloalto.org/parcelreports/ realistic capacity) or under the Caltrain Station strategy with their density bumped up. Citywide, the current inventory (April 6 edition) has 44 such sites accounting for a net yield of 166 units. Unfortunately, as shown below in Appendix 1 starting on p. 7, we came across several errors in the baseline data. In all cases, these are undercounts. Such undercounting has two possible effects, both leading to overoptimistic yield estimates: 1) the number of units added to the inventory is overcounted by the magnitude of this error or 2) it may no longer feasible for the owner to carry out such an upgrade. An example of the latter problem would be a property in which the owner must actually tear down four units, instead of the assumed one unit, in order to build five or six new units. Of the 12 sites in this coverage area that are stated to have existing residential units, six have undercounts. This 50% error rate represents progress from the 90% rate in my report of March 1, 2022, (in response to which 22 of 66 applicable sites were removed) but still needs improvement. Since these errors all fall on the side of overestimating realistic capacity and don’t seem to be going away, we suggest the working group make a compensating adjustment such as adding 83 units (50% of 166) to the buffer. Existing units Address APN Inventory Groundtruthing 355 College Ave 124-32-001 1 2 267 College Ave 124-28-019 1 3 255 College Ave 124-28-021 1 2 2041 Alma St 124-19-054 2 4 2155 Alma St 124-19-108 2 3 102 Colorado Ave 132-25-047 2 4 Total undercount: 9 units We also covered these six sites with existing residential units and found no counting errors: • 417 College Ave, APN 124-32-026 • 371 College Ave, APN 124-32-031 • 325 College Ave, APN 124-280-13 • 466 Grant Ave, APN 124-33- 037 • 106 Rinconada Ave, APN 124-19-001 • 114 Rinconada Ave, APN 124-19-0023 3 Currently for sale as MLS# ML81892509 Multi-parcel sites and site entanglements Sites for which the main parcel is not in the inventory, but inseparable secondary parcels are included, continue to be a problem. We found three such instances covering four inventory parcels. Yale St, APN 137-01-078, 4 moderate-income units This parcel provides access from Cambridge Ave to parking for three dentists and a business outsourcing group on 2345 Yale St (APN 137-01-086). The Yale St site is not in the site inventory. These businesses are required to provide a certain amount of parking for their own needs and those of their customers. If the housing were built on the entire lot as envisioned, the businesses would become out of compliance with these obligations. APN 137-01-078, a parking lot on Cambridge Offices at 2345 Yale directs customers to parking on Cambridge This is a constraint on the building of housing and needs to be addressed. We suggest this site be kept off the inventory or its yield reduced to a value that works within this constraint. 2137 El Camino Real Palo Alto, APN 124-31-058, 7 moderate-income units This parking lot is one of four related parcels near the intersection of El Camino Real and College Ave. The other parcels (124-31-081, -082, and -055) contain a church, yoga center, school, and associated administrative offices. None of them are included in the site inventory. If the envisioned housing were built, these entities would become out of compliance with their obligation to provide a minimum amount of parking. 2137 El Camino Real, a parking lot Reserved uses Church adjoins parking lot School and other buildings (from College Ave) We suggest that this parcel too be removed from the site inventory unless this constraint can be removed. 404 Sheridan Ave, APN 132-36-025, 4 market-rate units (near) Ash St, APN 132-36-024, 3 market-rate units (far) After Sunday services These two parcels provide parking for the faith-based institution across the street at 398 Sherman Ave (APN 132-36-092, not in site inventory). They enable the institution to meet its parking obligations. Since the main parcel is not in the inventory, we believe this one should not be either. As with other faith-based institutions, we suggest that staff communicate with them as to the current parking needs and feasibility of using some of that land for housing. Other multi-parcel sites These multi-parcel sites were covered in the report on lower-income housing in the California Ave area, distributed on May 13. • 150 Grant Ave, APN 124-29-020 • 3197 Park Blvd, APN 132-26-076 • Park Blvd, APN 132-32-043 Appendix 1: Residential sites with undercounts 355 College Ave, APN 124-32-001, 5 additional market-rate units (total of 6) Baseline data shows one unit, but there is a second unit in the rear right 267 College Ave, APN 124-28-019, 3 additional market-rate units (total of 4) This building has three parking spaces, three mailboxes (267-269-271), and stairs leading to an upstairs residence. It is listed at one unit in the site inventory. 255 College Ave, APN 124-28-021, 3 additional market-rate units (total of 4) Baseline data shows one unit, but there is a second unit in the rear. 2041 Alma St, APN 124-19-054, 6 additional market-rate units (total of 8) 2041 Alma (rightmost 15’ belongs to flag lot in rear) Although the site inventory states the existing unit count at two, the city’s parcel map shows four unique addresses (2037-39-41-43).4 Our own observations and research (covering parking spaces, 4 https://opengis.cityofpaloalto.org/parcelreports/ collection bins, and the presence of each address on online rental ads) correspond with the latter number. 2155 Alma St, APN 124-19-108, 3 additional market-rate units (total of 5) There are three existing units, not two. 102 Colorado Ave, APN 132-25-047, 4 additional market rate units (total of 6) There are three units on Alma (2501, 2503, and 2501) as well as one on Colorado. Inventory has two. From:mark weiss To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Pat Burt Subject:Fwd: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 8:51:40 PM Attachments:Sept 25 2013 Notice of Noncompliance and Request to Abate.pdf Dec 20 2013 City Letter Providing for Revocation of CUP.pdf Oct 25 2013 Letter from Castilleja to Palo Alto.pdf 18.76. Permits and Approvals.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. As someone who has lived in this community since 1974, and had considerable support in my City Council campaign, I concur with Rebecca Eisenberg in that the needle should be at revocation of the conditional use permit and or condemnation of the property and NOT capitulation by staff and Tanaka and Cormack to the pressures mounted by the small group of elites and bad askers. Tsk tsk. Mark Weiss Bryant Street Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: May 24, 2022 at 8:26:00 PM PDT To: Mark Weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Subject: Fwd: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Subject: Fwd: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Lydia Kou <lydiakou@gmail.com>, Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>, City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Shikada <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com>, <kya.Ohlone@gmail.com>, Pat Burt <pat@patburt.org>, Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com <tom.dubois@gmail.com>, Filseth, Eric (Internal) <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Shikada <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, Curtis Smolar <csmolar@gmail.com>, Alison Cormack <alisonlcormack@gmail.com>, <greg@gregtanaka.org> Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and -- despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo-alto-looks- to-scale-back-castillejas-growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under-delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that ( ../?•'') PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CITY OF 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor PALO Palo Alto, CA 94301 ALTO 650.329.2441 September 25, 2013 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Nanci Z. Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE AND REQUEST TO ABATE Dear Ms. Kauffman: The City is in receipt of your letter dated August 15, 2013 regarding the City of Palo Alto's request for a conditional use permit conformance report at Castilleja School ("School"). The City shares your focus to resolve the school's conformance issues as quickly and responsibly as possible and to improve your automobile parking and traffic management programs. Enrollment Violation After reviewing the School's conformance report it Is evident that the School is not in conformance with the Conditional Use Permit requirement that the maximum enrollment be 415 students (Conditional Use Permit 00 -CUP -23, November 2, 2000), The School has provided enrollment Information to the City that illustrates non-conformance with the use permit enrollment for twelve consecutive years beginning with the 2002-2003 school year.1 Over this twelve year period, the School has exceeded enrollment as follows: School Year Students 2000- 01 391 2001- 02 414 2002- 03 416 2003- 04 418 2004- 05 416 2005- 06 424 2006- 2007- 07 08 427 427 2008- 09 432 2009- 10 431 2010- 11 434 2011- 2012- 12 13 437 450 2013- 14 448 In the current school year there are 33 students enrolled above the maximum allowed. Based upon the pattern of student enrollment that exceeds the maximum allowed, the City has concluded that the School has been in violation of the occupancy limit in its use permit for the years 2002-03 through the present. 1 The City does not accept Average Daily Enrollment as the basis for conformance with the conditional use permit, in that that the conditional use permit specifically states, "415 students". There Is no provision in the use permit to deduct student absences from the total enrolled students figure. In any event, data contained within the August 15 report demonstrates that by the school's measure of maximum enrollment as Average Daily Enrollment (identified as an Incorrect measurement by the school), Castilleja has not conformed with the use permit since the 2009-2010 school year. CltyOfPailoAfto.org Printed with soy•hased inks on 1005 recycled paper processed without chlorine. Request for Abatement In accordance with the CUP, the City hereby notifies the School that it is in violation of the CUP's enrollment limit of 415 students and that the School must take immediate action to begin correcting this violation. As stated in our August 5 letter, the City recognizes the hardship involved with an immediate demand to bring enrollment down to 415. Accordingly, the City instead will require a two -fold approach to compliance. First the School shall immediately implement a robust and exemplary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program during these interim years of enrollment reductions. This TDM program would require performance standards, regular monitoring and enforcement penalties. The TDM program would be required to reduce automobile trips to the lesser of (1) 385 drop-off trips or (2) the number of baseline drop-off and pick-up trips originally estimated in the original 2000 CUP as adjusted by the CUP -required TDM measures. The City requests the School submit for City's review and approval a TDM program within 30 days of this letter. The City would expect this plan to be implemented over the current school year and would expect to see traffic reduced to the baseline level by the end of the 2013-14 school year. To ensure effectiveness, the City will require routine monitoring and achievement of targets for at least one year. Thereafter, the City will require the City to submit birannual TDM monitoring reports to the City for review and approval. All City costs of monitoring and enforcement will be borne by the School. In addition to the TDM implementation, the City will also require an attendance reduction to 415 enrolled students through natural attrition and voluntary measures, such as acceptance of fewer new incoming students (Attendance Reduction Plan). Please provide the Attendance Reduction Plan to the City for approval within 30 days of this Notice. If the plan involves multiple years, provide annual performance metrics that can be verified by the City. If the School Is not able to meet the TDM goals and enrollment reduction by the dates set forth in the City -approved TDM Plan and Attendance Reduction Plan, the City reserves its right to initiate CUP revocation proceedings. Penalties for Nonconformance In light of the above non-compliance, the City will assess the School penalties in the amount of $500/day for each instructional day that the School has violated the maximum enrollment. As the City is only permitted to go back three years in assessing penaltiesz, the City has calculated the amount due as follows: 600 days x $500 = $300,000.00, based upon the start of the 2010-2011 school year, including 180 days of instruction per year, and concluding within the current school year on October 25, 2013, the due date for submittal of the School's TDM program. Please remit this sum to the City within 30 days of this letter. As stated in our August 5, 2013 letter to you, the City will apply these administrative fines for the monitoring of the TDM program, assisting in mitigating the traffic and parking impacts of the School on the immediate neighborhood, and ensuring z The City's practice is to treat CUP violations as statutory violations. Under State law, these types of violations allow a three year recovery period, (CCP Section 338.) 2 compliance with other conditions of approval. These fines may also be used, in part, to develop TOM programs throughout the City as directed by the City Council. With respect to fines for future violations after October 25, 2013, the City will consider waiving such fines upon a showing of effective and continuing transportation demand management programs. Request for Supplemental Information Regarding Additional Possible Violations. In addition to the primary area of non-conformance the school has provided statements indicating the status of conformance with the use permit conditions of approval. The City will require additional information, as outlined In Attachment A to this letter, to validate these conformance claims. The requested information contains items such as the latest versions of the Parking Management Plan, the parent/student handbook, and the Transportation Demand Management plan. The City is requesting data, if available, regarding carpooling rates, shuttle use and operations, student parking permits, and an accounting of previous community meetings and attendance data. This information shall be submitted to the City no later than October 25, 2013. Finally, the City will conduct unannounced, on -site inspections of the school grounds to determine the effectiveness of security staff and daily parking and traffic management, and off -site automobile parking conditions. The City willalso inspect and confirm that the school conforms to the previously approved site improvements. The results.of the inspections and the analysis of the requested additional information may form the basis of further corrections that the school shall make in order to conform to the existing use permit. Further Enforcement Proceedings Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.110 (b)(1) if the noncompliance is not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified in the notice of noncompliance, the Director of Planning may issue an order to show cause why such a permit or approval shall not be revoked, suspended or modified. An order to show cause shall be set for a public hearing before the Director. Thank you for your cooperation with this matter. Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions. Steven Turner Advance Planning Manager Attachment cc. James Keene, City Manager Aaron Aknin, Interim Director, Planning and Community Environment Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Mindie S. Romanowsky, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Fiegel LLP 3 such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R-1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment -- continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its tax records suggest thatit is profitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merely aspirational, of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over-enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencing these municipal code penalties, which amount to $500-$5000per day per violation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happy to provide you the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents have been discussing with their attorneys. There is athird party cause of action plus attorneys fees under the false claims act, for example, among other state laws thataddress this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq. Principal & Founder Netskink Positive Impact Investments Private Client Legal Services www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg rebecca@privateclientlegal.com ( ../?•'') PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CITY OF 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor PALO Palo Alto, CA 94301 ALTO 650.329.2441 September 25, 2013 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Nanci Z. Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE AND REQUEST TO ABATE Dear Ms. Kauffman: The City is in receipt of your letter dated August 15, 2013 regarding the City of Palo Alto's request for a conditional use permit conformance report at Castilleja School ("School"). The City shares your focus to resolve the school's conformance issues as quickly and responsibly as possible and to improve your automobile parking and traffic management programs. Enrollment Violation After reviewing the School's conformance report it Is evident that the School is not in conformance with the Conditional Use Permit requirement that the maximum enrollment be 415 students (Conditional Use Permit 00 -CUP -23, November 2, 2000), The School has provided enrollment Information to the City that illustrates non-conformance with the use permit enrollment for twelve consecutive years beginning with the 2002-2003 school year.1 Over this twelve year period, the School has exceeded enrollment as follows: School Year Students 2000- 01 391 2001- 02 414 2002- 03 416 2003- 04 418 2004- 05 416 2005- 06 424 2006- 2007- 07 08 427 427 2008- 09 432 2009- 10 431 2010- 11 434 2011- 2012- 12 13 437 450 2013- 14 448 In the current school year there are 33 students enrolled above the maximum allowed. Based upon the pattern of student enrollment that exceeds the maximum allowed, the City has concluded that the School has been in violation of the occupancy limit in its use permit for the years 2002-03 through the present. 1 The City does not accept Average Daily Enrollment as the basis for conformance with the conditional use permit, in that that the conditional use permit specifically states, "415 students". There Is no provision in the use permit to deduct student absences from the total enrolled students figure. In any event, data contained within the August 15 report demonstrates that by the school's measure of maximum enrollment as Average Daily Enrollment (identified as an Incorrect measurement by the school), Castilleja has not conformed with the use permit since the 2009-2010 school year. CltyOfPailoAfto.org Printed with soy•hased inks on 1005 recycled paper processed without chlorine. Request for Abatement In accordance with the CUP, the City hereby notifies the School that it is in violation of the CUP's enrollment limit of 415 students and that the School must take immediate action to begin correcting this violation. As stated in our August 5 letter, the City recognizes the hardship involved with an immediate demand to bring enrollment down to 415. Accordingly, the City instead will require a two -fold approach to compliance. First the School shall immediately implement a robust and exemplary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program during these interim years of enrollment reductions. This TDM program would require performance standards, regular monitoring and enforcement penalties. The TDM program would be required to reduce automobile trips to the lesser of (1) 385 drop-off trips or (2) the number of baseline drop-off and pick-up trips originally estimated in the original 2000 CUP as adjusted by the CUP -required TDM measures. The City requests the School submit for City's review and approval a TDM program within 30 days of this letter. The City would expect this plan to be implemented over the current school year and would expect to see traffic reduced to the baseline level by the end of the 2013-14 school year. To ensure effectiveness, the City will require routine monitoring and achievement of targets for at least one year. Thereafter, the City will require the City to submit birannual TDM monitoring reports to the City for review and approval. All City costs of monitoring and enforcement will be borne by the School. In addition to the TDM implementation, the City will also require an attendance reduction to 415 enrolled students through natural attrition and voluntary measures, such as acceptance of fewer new incoming students (Attendance Reduction Plan). Please provide the Attendance Reduction Plan to the City for approval within 30 days of this Notice. If the plan involves multiple years, provide annual performance metrics that can be verified by the City. If the School Is not able to meet the TDM goals and enrollment reduction by the dates set forth in the City -approved TDM Plan and Attendance Reduction Plan, the City reserves its right to initiate CUP revocation proceedings. Penalties for Nonconformance In light of the above non-compliance, the City will assess the School penalties in the amount of $500/day for each instructional day that the School has violated the maximum enrollment. As the City is only permitted to go back three years in assessing penaltiesz, the City has calculated the amount due as follows: 600 days x $500 = $300,000.00, based upon the start of the 2010-2011 school year, including 180 days of instruction per year, and concluding within the current school year on October 25, 2013, the due date for submittal of the School's TDM program. Please remit this sum to the City within 30 days of this letter. As stated in our August 5, 2013 letter to you, the City will apply these administrative fines for the monitoring of the TDM program, assisting in mitigating the traffic and parking impacts of the School on the immediate neighborhood, and ensuring z The City's practice is to treat CUP violations as statutory violations. Under State law, these types of violations allow a three year recovery period, (CCP Section 338.) 2 compliance with other conditions of approval. These fines may also be used, in part, to develop TOM programs throughout the City as directed by the City Council. With respect to fines for future violations after October 25, 2013, the City will consider waiving such fines upon a showing of effective and continuing transportation demand management programs. Request for Supplemental Information Regarding Additional Possible Violations. In addition to the primary area of non-conformance the school has provided statements indicating the status of conformance with the use permit conditions of approval. The City will require additional information, as outlined In Attachment A to this letter, to validate these conformance claims. The requested information contains items such as the latest versions of the Parking Management Plan, the parent/student handbook, and the Transportation Demand Management plan. The City is requesting data, if available, regarding carpooling rates, shuttle use and operations, student parking permits, and an accounting of previous community meetings and attendance data. This information shall be submitted to the City no later than October 25, 2013. Finally, the City will conduct unannounced, on -site inspections of the school grounds to determine the effectiveness of security staff and daily parking and traffic management, and off -site automobile parking conditions. The City willalso inspect and confirm that the school conforms to the previously approved site improvements. The results.of the inspections and the analysis of the requested additional information may form the basis of further corrections that the school shall make in order to conform to the existing use permit. Further Enforcement Proceedings Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.110 (b)(1) if the noncompliance is not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified in the notice of noncompliance, the Director of Planning may issue an order to show cause why such a permit or approval shall not be revoked, suspended or modified. An order to show cause shall be set for a public hearing before the Director. Thank you for your cooperation with this matter. Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions. Steven Turner Advance Planning Manager Attachment cc. James Keene, City Manager Aaron Aknin, Interim Director, Planning and Community Environment Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Mindie S. Romanowsky, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Fiegel LLP 3 PLANW•1NC L COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CITY OF 250 Hamilton Aver.ie 5 F',. or PALO ALTO Palo Alto CA 94301 650 329 24.71 December 20, 2013 Nanci Z. Kauffman Bead of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: City Response to October 25, 2013 Letter from Castilleja School Dear Ms. Kauffman: The City is in receipt of your letter dated October 25, 2013 in response to the September 25, 2013 Notice of Noncompliance and Request to Abate issued by the City of Palo Alto. The City appreciates the work of Castilleja School (School) staff to address the issues. The intent of this letter is to provide the City's response to the items contained in the October 25 letter and communicate the appropriate next steps to resolve the school's conformance issues. As described in the September 25, 2013 letter to Castilleja School, the City will require a two -fold approach to compliance with the use permit. The first approach includes the immediate implementation of a robust and exemplary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program during the interim years of enrollment reductions. The City's response to the proposed TDM program is provided below, The second approach includes a requirement for an attendance reduction to 415 enrolled students through natural attrition and voluntary measures, such as acceptance of fewer new incoming students. Enrollment Reduction Plan The City acknowledges the spirit of your proposed Enrollment Reduction Plan, but we feel it does not initiate reductions soon enough. As stated in our September 25, 2013 letter, the School must take immediate action to correct the enrollment violation, beginning in the 2014-2015 school year. Although the City will not specify specific reduction actions, we believe there are strategies such as attrition that can be used to reduce enrollment beginning immediately. Under this scenario, students who leave the School prior to graduation would not be "back -filled" with new students. The School may wish to consider this and other means to begin enrollment reductions in the 2014-2015 school year. Please provide a revised Attendance Reduction Plan to the City for approval within 30 days of this letter. As previously stated in the September 25, 2013 letter, if the plan involves multiple years, provide annual performance metrics that can be verified by the City. Transportation Demand Management Plan The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, as described in the October 24, 2013 memorandum prepared by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates describes the elements of the proposed TDM plan. The elements of the TDM plan appear to be generally adequate in a qualitative sense, but there is no quantitative estimate of the trip reduction effects for each of these elements. The CltyOfPpU. ,Alta.arg Printed with soy -based miss on 100% recycled paper rsrocessed without ch cr,r e intent of the TDM plan is to reduce vehicle trips to a level that would be generated by 385 students, based upon a baseline year 2000 trip generation estimate provided by Fehr & Peers dated October 21, 2013 on behalf of Castilleja School. A revised TDM plan shall include trip reduction estimates that would meet the 385 student measurement. In addition to the quantitative trip reduction estimates, the TDM plan shall also describe the monitoring plan to assess the success of the TDM plan. As stated in the September 25, 2013 letter, The City would expect the TDM plan to be implemented over the current school year and see traffic reduced to the baseline level by the end of the 2013-14 school year. To ensure effectiveness, the City will require routine monitoring and achievement of targets for at least one year. Thereafter, the City will require the School to submit bi-annual TDM monitoring reports to the City for review and approval. All City costs of monitoring and enforcement will be borne by the School. Conditional Use Permit Revocation If the School is not able to meet the TDM goals and enrollment reduction by the dates set forth in the City -approved TDM Plan and Attendance Reduction Plan, the City reserves its right to initiate CUP revocation proceedings. Payment of Penalties for Nonconformance The City has received an adjusted payment of $265,000 which reflects each instructional day that the School has violated the maximum enrollment for the past three years. As stated in our August 5, 2013 letter to you, the City will apply these administrative fines for the monitoring of the TDM program, assisting in mitigating the traffic and parking impacts of the School on the immediate neighborhood, and ensuring compliance with other conditions of approval. These fines may also be used, in part, to develop TDM programs throughout the City as directed by the City Council. With respect to fines for future violations after October 25, 2013, the City will consider waiving such fines upon a showing of effective and continuing transportation demand management programs. Amendments to the Conditional Use Permit The City will consider any future application request for amendments to the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to be incomplete until the school can demonstrate an effective TDM program and an Enrollment Reduction Plan that describes the enrollment targets over time, concluding with an acceptable end date achieving a maximum of 415'students. The City does not recommend submitting a CUP amendment request before the 2015-16 school year. The school will need to demonstrate that it can comply with the requirements of the September 25, 2013 Notice of Noncompliance and Request to Abate. Please respond to the City's request for a revised enrollment reduction plan and a more specific TDM plan by January 20, 2014. The City appreciates the School's efforts over these past six months and expects that with your continued focus and efforts, the School will be able to meet the requests we have outlined in this letter. Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions. Sincerely, F.0.601.a.4.41 Steven Turner Advance Planning Manager 2 cc. James Keene, City Manager Hillary Gitelman, Director, Planning and Community Environment Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Mindie S. Romanowsky, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel LLP MEMORANDUM DATE: October 25, 2013 TO: Steve Turner, City of Palo Alto FROM: Nanci Kauffman, Head of School, Castilleja School RE: Castilleja School Response to City of Palo Alto Letter, dated September 25, 2013, Enrollment Reduction Plan CC: James Keene, City Manager Aaron Aknin, Interim Director, Planning and Community Environment Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Mindie S. Romanowsky, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel LLP Below is an outline of Castilleja School's proposed enrollment reduction plan to address the City of Palo Alto's letter of September 25, 2013. • Castilleja will continue to implement its robust TDM plan to meet the City -imposed goal of reducing the traffic impact levels to that of 385 students, as prescribed by the 2000 CUP. • To ensure the impacts are reduced per the 2000 CUP, the school requires sufficient time to study, implement and monitor the efficacy of the TDM Plan. This will occur between August 2013 and December 2014. • As stated in the City's letter of August 5, 2013, whereby the City informed Castilleja that it would need to apply for a new use permit, Castilleja intends to apply for an amended CUP no later than January, 2015 on the condition that the TDM Plan succeeded in reducing trip impacts to the 2000 CUP level. • Should the TDM plan fail to reduce the school's traffic impact to levels of the 2000 CUP, Castilleja will reduce enrollment to 415 students, as follows: Academic Year 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Enrollment 448 440 432 424 415 18.76.050 De sign Enhance m ent Exception (DEE) Ch. 18.76 – Page 1 (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007) Chapter 18.76 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Sections: 18.76.010 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 18.76.020 Architectural Review 18.76.030 Variance 18.76.040 Neighborhood Preservation Exception 18.76.050 Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) 18.76.060 Reserved 18.76.010 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (a)Purpose The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide for uses and accessory uses that are necessary or desirable for the development of the community or region but cannot readily be classified as permitted uses in individual districts by reason of uniqueness of size, scope, or possible effect on public facilities or surrounding uses. (b)Applicability (1)A conditional use permit may be granted for any use or purpose for which such permit is required or permitted by the provisions of this title; or (2)Any expansion in the building size or site area of an existing conditional use shall necessitate the amendment of the conditional use permit. Denial of an application for amendment of a conditional use permit does not constitute a revocation of the original conditional use permit. (3)No application for a conditional use permit is necessary for existing uses which were lawful conforming permitted uses and which were rendered conditional by reason of rezoning or changes to this title, provided that any expansion in the building site or site area of such a use shall be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. (c)Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a conditional use permit, unless it is found that the granting of the application will: (1)Not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (2)Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). (d)Conditions In granting conditional use permits, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, 18.76.020 Architectural Revie w (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007)Ch. 18.76 – Page 2 to secure the purposes of this title, and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. (e)Application Review and Action Applications for conditional use permits shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process). (Ord. 4826 § 117 (Exh. 2 (part)), 2004) 18.76.020 Architectural Review (a)Purpose The purpose of architectural review is to: (1)Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; (2)Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3)Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; (4)Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5)Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. (b)Applicability No permit required under Title 2, Title 12 or Title 16 shall be issued for a major or minor project, as set forth in this section, unless an application for architectural review is reviewed, acted upon, and approved or approved with conditions as set forth in Section 18.77.070. (1)Exempt Projects. Single-family and two-family residences do not require architectural review, except as provided under subsections (2)(C) and (2)(D). (2)Major Projects. The following are “major projects” for the purposes of the architectural review process set forth in Section 18.77.070, and are subject to review by the architectural review board: (A)New construction, including private and public projects, that: (i)Includes a new building or building addition of five thousand square feet or more; or (ii)Is not exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Section 21000 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code); or (iii)Requires one or more variances or use permits and, in the judgment of the director, will have a significant effect upon the aesthetic character of the city or the surrounding area; (B)Any multiple-family residential construction project that contains three or more units; 18.76.050 De sign Enhance m ent Exception (DEE) Ch. 18.76 – Page 3 (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007) (C)Construction of three or more adjacent single-family homes or duplexes; (D)In the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP), properties on which two or more residential units are developed or modified, except when one of those units is a “second dwelling unit,” as described in Section 18.10.140(d); (E)Any project using transferred development rights, as described in Chapter 18.87; (F)A master sign program, pursuant to Chapter 16.20; (G)Signs that do not meet all applicable design guidelines adopted by the city council or do not conform to a previously approved master sign program; (H)Signs requiring a sign exception pursuant to Chapter 16.20; (I)Any minor project, as defined in subsection (3), that the director determines will significantly alter the character or appearance of a building or site. (3)Minor Projects. The following are “minor projects” for the purposes of the architectural review process set forth in Section 18.77.070, except when determined to be major pursuant to subsection (2)(I): (A)New construction, including private and public projects, that involves a new building or building addition of fewer than 5,000 square feet, and which is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (division 13 of the Public Resources Code, commencing with section 21000); (B)Signs that meet all applicable guidelines and conform to any previously approved master sign program; (C)Landscape plans, fences, exterior remodeling, and design of parking areas, when not part of a major project; (D)Any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13. (E)Minor changes to the following: (i)Plans that have previously received architectural review approval; (ii)Previously approved planned community district development plans; (iii)Plans that have previously received site and design approval; (iv)Previously approved plans for projects requiring council approval pursuant to a contractual agreement, resolution, motion, action or uncodified ordinance; (v)Existing structures requiring council site and design approval or approval pursuant to a contractual agreement, resolution, motion, action, or uncodified ordinance. As used in this subsection, the term “minor” means a change that is of little visual significance, does not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improvements, is not proposed for the use of the land in question, and does not alter the character of the structure involved. If the cumulative effect of multiple minor changes would result in a major change, a new application for Architectural 18.76.020 Architectural Revie w (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007)Ch. 18.76 – Page 4 Review approval of a major project, Site and Design approval, Planned Community District approval, or other applicable approval is required. (F)Any changes to previously approved plans requiring architectural review as a minor project as part of the conditions of a permit or approval. (c)Preliminary Review For the purpose of securing the advice of the architectural review board prior to making an application for the board’s recommendation on a project, an applicant, upon paying a preliminary application fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule, may bring a design before the board for preliminary review. If the applicant wishes to proceed with the project, he or she must then file an application and pay a regular application fee. The comments of the architectural review board members during a preliminary review shall not be binding on their formal recommendation. (d)Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that: (1)The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2)The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (3)The design is appropriate to the function of the project; (4)In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character; (5)The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; (6)The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; (7)The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; (8)The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; (9)Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept; (10)Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; (11)Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project; (12)The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; 18.76.050 De sign Enhance m ent Exception (DEE) Ch. 18.76 – Page 5 (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007) (13)The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; (14)Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; (15)The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and building design: (A)Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (B)Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (C)Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (D)Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; (E)Use sustainable building materials; (F)Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (G)Create healthy indoor environments; and (H)Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. (16)The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a). (e)Conditions In granting architectural review approval, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, to secure the purposes of this title, and to: (1)Promote the internal integrity of the design of the project; (2)Assure compatibility of the proposed project’s design with its site and surroundings; (3)Minim ize the environmental effects of the proposed project; provided, however, that the architectural review board’s sole responsibility with respect to the storage of hazardous materials is to require compliance with Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage). (f)Application Review and Action Applications for Architectural Review shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.070 (Architectural Review Process). 18.76.030 Variance (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007)Ch. 18.76 – Page 6 (g)Phased Projects and Enforcement of Approval Conditions An application for a phased project may be submitted and a specific development schedule may be considered and approved. In no event, however, shall such a development schedule exceed five years from the original date of approval. Approved project plans and conditions of approval imposed through the architectural review process shall be enforceable as approved unless the application is revised or withdrawn in accordance with this title. (h)Architectural Review Approval Prior to Demolition No building demolition, except for tenant improvements or where necessary for health and safety purposes (as determined by the director), shall be permitted on any site requiring architectural review approval, until such architectural review approval is granted by the director, including review of subsequent conditions by the architectural review board, where required. (Ord. 4966 § 1, 2007: Ord. 4964 §§ 19, 20, 2007: Ord. 4959 § 1, 2007: Ord. 4826 § 117 (Exh. 2 (part)), 2004) 18.76.030 Variance (a)Purpose The purpose of a variance is to: (1)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 (2)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. (b)Applicability Variances may be granted to the following: (1)Site development regulations (except limitations on residential density and size of establishment) and parking and loading regulations (except those accessible parking regulations mandated by state and/or federal law and contained in Chapter 18.54) applicable within any district established by this title (Zoning); (2)The special requirements that apply to site development and parking and loading regulations applicable within any district established by this title (Zoning), except provisions which restrict expansion of grandfathered uses that are subject to the special requirements of a specific zoning district. Special requirements in any district do not include special provisions and exceptions as set forth in Chapters 18.40 and 18.42 except for the location of accessory buildings; (3)The requirements of Title 20 (Precise Plans); 18.76.050 De sign Enhance m ent Exception (DEE) Ch. 18.76 – Page 7 (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007) (4)The requirements of Chapter 16.24 (Fences) except Sections 16.24.040 (Fences at Intersections) and 16.24.070 (Prohibited Fences); (c)Findings – General Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a variance, unless it is found that: (1)Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A)The personal circumstances of the property owner, and (B)Any 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. (2)The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and (3)The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), and (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. (d)Findings – Flag Lot In addition to the above-listed findings, in the case of a flag lot, neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a variance, unless it is found that: (1)The granting of the application will not disrupt established neighborhood character and aesthetics, and will not affect the health of the residents by significantly blocking out light and air; (2)The granting of the application will not result in excessive paving, parking, potential traffic conflicts on busy streets, street tree removal or loss of private landscaping; (3)The granting of the application will not negatively impact the privacy and quiet enjoyment of adjoining single-family residences, for both indoor and outdoor use. (e)May Not be Granted for Unauthorized U se A variance shall not be granted for a parcel that authorizes a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulations governing the subject property. 18.76.040 Neighborhood Pre s ervation Exception (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007)Ch. 18.76 – Page 8 (f)Conditions In granting variances, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title (Zoning). (g)Application Review and Action Applications for variances shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process). (Ord. 4826 § 117 (Exh. 2 (part)), 2004) 18.76.040 Neighborhood Preservation Exception (a)Purpose The purpose of the neighborhood preservation exception is to foster retention of existing single-family structures and to maintain the existing historic and general character of neighborhoods in the neighborhood preservation (NP) combining district. (b)Applicability For properties within the neighborhood preservation (NP) combining district, a neighborhood preservation exception may be granted to site development regulations (except limitations on residential density), parking regulations, and special setback requirements of Title 20 (Precise Plans). (c)Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a neighborhood preservation exception unless it is found that: (1)The granting of the application will facilitate the preservation of an existing residential structure on the same property and will be of benefit in maintaining the existing historic and general character of the surrounding neighborhood; and (2)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. (d)Conditions In granting neighborhood preservation exceptions, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed as deemed appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title. (e)Application Review and Action Applications for neighborhood preservation exceptions shall be reviewed as set forth in Section 18.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process). (Ord. 4826 § 117 (Exh. 2 (part)), 2004) 18.76.050 De sign Enhance m ent Exception (DEE) Ch. 18.76 – Page 9 (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007) 18.76.050 Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) (a)Purpose The purpose of a design enhancement exception is to permit a minor exception to zoning regulations when doing so will: (1)Enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact on surrounding properties; or (2)Enable the preservation of the architectural style of existing improvements on the site. (b)Applicability (1)Design enhancement exceptions may be granted to the site development and parking and loading requirements otherwise applicable under this title (Zoning), as part of the architectural review process, when such exceptions will enhance the appearance and design of commercial and multiple-family development and other development subject to architectural review. (2)Items for which design enhancement exceptions may be granted include, but are not limited to, dormers, eave lines, roof design, bay windows, cornices, parapets, columns, arcades, fountains, art, ornamentation, atriums, balconies, trellises, moldings, balustrades, stairs, entry features, and other minor architectural elements and design features. (3)Generally, design enhancement exceptions are limited to minor changes to the setback, daylight plane, height, lot coverage limitations, parking lot design and landscaping configuration, and additional flexibility in the required proportion between private and common open space. (4)No design enhancement exception shall be granted under this section that would increase floor area, decrease the number of required parking spaces, decrease the amount of required on-site landscaping, or decrease the required open space. (c)Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a design enhancement exception unless it is found that: (1)There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district; (2)The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); and (3)The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. 18.76.060 Re s erved (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007)Ch. 18.76 – Page 10 (d)Conditions In granting design enhancement exceptions, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title. (e)Application Review and Action Applications for a design enhancement exception shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.070 (Architectural Review). (Ord. 4826 § 117 (Exh. 2 (part)), 2004) 18.76.060 Reserved Editor’s Note: Former Section 18.76.060, Home improvement exception (HIE), derived from Ord. 4826 § 117 (Exh. 2), was repealed by § 38 of Ord. 4869. From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:Lydia Kou; Greer Stone; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Andie Reed; kya.Ohlone@gmail.com; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Aram James; Roberta Ahlquist; Curtis Smolar; Alison Cormack; greg@gregtanaka.org Subject:Fwd: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 4:05:52 PM Attachments:Sept 25 2013 Notice of Noncompliance and Request to Abate.pdf Dec 20 2013 City Letter Providing for Revocation of CUP.pdf Oct 25 2013 Letter from Castilleja to Palo Alto.pdf 18.76. Permits and Approvals.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and -- despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo-alto-looks-to-scale- back-castillejas-growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under-delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R-1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money - - and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment -- continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its tax records suggest that it is profitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merely aspirational, of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over-enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencing these municipal code penalties, which amount to $500-$5000 per day perviolation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happy toprovide you the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents have been discussing with their attorneys. There isa third party cause of action plus attorneys fees under the false claims act, for example, among other state laws that address this kindof problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq. Principal & Founder Netskink Positive Impact Investments Private Client Legal Services www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg rebecca@privateclientlegal.com 415-235-8078 ( ../?•'') PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CITY OF 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor PALO Palo Alto, CA 94301 ALTO 650.329.2441 September 25, 2013 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL Nanci Z. Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: NOTICE OF NONCOMPLIANCE AND REQUEST TO ABATE Dear Ms. Kauffman: The City is in receipt of your letter dated August 15, 2013 regarding the City of Palo Alto's request for a conditional use permit conformance report at Castilleja School ("School"). The City shares your focus to resolve the school's conformance issues as quickly and responsibly as possible and to improve your automobile parking and traffic management programs. Enrollment Violation After reviewing the School's conformance report it Is evident that the School is not in conformance with the Conditional Use Permit requirement that the maximum enrollment be 415 students (Conditional Use Permit 00 -CUP -23, November 2, 2000), The School has provided enrollment Information to the City that illustrates non-conformance with the use permit enrollment for twelve consecutive years beginning with the 2002-2003 school year.1 Over this twelve year period, the School has exceeded enrollment as follows: School Year Students 2000- 01 391 2001- 02 414 2002- 03 416 2003- 04 418 2004- 05 416 2005- 06 424 2006- 2007- 07 08 427 427 2008- 09 432 2009- 10 431 2010- 11 434 2011- 2012- 12 13 437 450 2013- 14 448 In the current school year there are 33 students enrolled above the maximum allowed. Based upon the pattern of student enrollment that exceeds the maximum allowed, the City has concluded that the School has been in violation of the occupancy limit in its use permit for the years 2002-03 through the present. 1 The City does not accept Average Daily Enrollment as the basis for conformance with the conditional use permit, in that that the conditional use permit specifically states, "415 students". There Is no provision in the use permit to deduct student absences from the total enrolled students figure. In any event, data contained within the August 15 report demonstrates that by the school's measure of maximum enrollment as Average Daily Enrollment (identified as an Incorrect measurement by the school), Castilleja has not conformed with the use permit since the 2009-2010 school year. CltyOfPailoAfto.org Printed with soy•hased inks on 1005 recycled paper processed without chlorine. Request for Abatement In accordance with the CUP, the City hereby notifies the School that it is in violation of the CUP's enrollment limit of 415 students and that the School must take immediate action to begin correcting this violation. As stated in our August 5 letter, the City recognizes the hardship involved with an immediate demand to bring enrollment down to 415. Accordingly, the City instead will require a two -fold approach to compliance. First the School shall immediately implement a robust and exemplary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program during these interim years of enrollment reductions. This TDM program would require performance standards, regular monitoring and enforcement penalties. The TDM program would be required to reduce automobile trips to the lesser of (1) 385 drop-off trips or (2) the number of baseline drop-off and pick-up trips originally estimated in the original 2000 CUP as adjusted by the CUP -required TDM measures. The City requests the School submit for City's review and approval a TDM program within 30 days of this letter. The City would expect this plan to be implemented over the current school year and would expect to see traffic reduced to the baseline level by the end of the 2013-14 school year. To ensure effectiveness, the City will require routine monitoring and achievement of targets for at least one year. Thereafter, the City will require the City to submit birannual TDM monitoring reports to the City for review and approval. All City costs of monitoring and enforcement will be borne by the School. In addition to the TDM implementation, the City will also require an attendance reduction to 415 enrolled students through natural attrition and voluntary measures, such as acceptance of fewer new incoming students (Attendance Reduction Plan). Please provide the Attendance Reduction Plan to the City for approval within 30 days of this Notice. If the plan involves multiple years, provide annual performance metrics that can be verified by the City. If the School Is not able to meet the TDM goals and enrollment reduction by the dates set forth in the City -approved TDM Plan and Attendance Reduction Plan, the City reserves its right to initiate CUP revocation proceedings. Penalties for Nonconformance In light of the above non-compliance, the City will assess the School penalties in the amount of $500/day for each instructional day that the School has violated the maximum enrollment. As the City is only permitted to go back three years in assessing penaltiesz, the City has calculated the amount due as follows: 600 days x $500 = $300,000.00, based upon the start of the 2010-2011 school year, including 180 days of instruction per year, and concluding within the current school year on October 25, 2013, the due date for submittal of the School's TDM program. Please remit this sum to the City within 30 days of this letter. As stated in our August 5, 2013 letter to you, the City will apply these administrative fines for the monitoring of the TDM program, assisting in mitigating the traffic and parking impacts of the School on the immediate neighborhood, and ensuring z The City's practice is to treat CUP violations as statutory violations. Under State law, these types of violations allow a three year recovery period, (CCP Section 338.) 2 compliance with other conditions of approval. These fines may also be used, in part, to develop TOM programs throughout the City as directed by the City Council. With respect to fines for future violations after October 25, 2013, the City will consider waiving such fines upon a showing of effective and continuing transportation demand management programs. Request for Supplemental Information Regarding Additional Possible Violations. In addition to the primary area of non-conformance the school has provided statements indicating the status of conformance with the use permit conditions of approval. The City will require additional information, as outlined In Attachment A to this letter, to validate these conformance claims. The requested information contains items such as the latest versions of the Parking Management Plan, the parent/student handbook, and the Transportation Demand Management plan. The City is requesting data, if available, regarding carpooling rates, shuttle use and operations, student parking permits, and an accounting of previous community meetings and attendance data. This information shall be submitted to the City no later than October 25, 2013. Finally, the City will conduct unannounced, on -site inspections of the school grounds to determine the effectiveness of security staff and daily parking and traffic management, and off -site automobile parking conditions. The City willalso inspect and confirm that the school conforms to the previously approved site improvements. The results.of the inspections and the analysis of the requested additional information may form the basis of further corrections that the school shall make in order to conform to the existing use permit. Further Enforcement Proceedings Pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.110 (b)(1) if the noncompliance is not abated, corrected or rectified within the time specified in the notice of noncompliance, the Director of Planning may issue an order to show cause why such a permit or approval shall not be revoked, suspended or modified. An order to show cause shall be set for a public hearing before the Director. Thank you for your cooperation with this matter. Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions. Steven Turner Advance Planning Manager Attachment cc. James Keene, City Manager Aaron Aknin, Interim Director, Planning and Community Environment Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Mindie S. Romanowsky, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Fiegel LLP 3 PLANW•1NC L COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CITY OF 250 Hamilton Aver.ie 5 F',. or PALO ALTO Palo Alto CA 94301 650 329 24.71 December 20, 2013 Nanci Z. Kauffman Bead of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: City Response to October 25, 2013 Letter from Castilleja School Dear Ms. Kauffman: The City is in receipt of your letter dated October 25, 2013 in response to the September 25, 2013 Notice of Noncompliance and Request to Abate issued by the City of Palo Alto. The City appreciates the work of Castilleja School (School) staff to address the issues. The intent of this letter is to provide the City's response to the items contained in the October 25 letter and communicate the appropriate next steps to resolve the school's conformance issues. As described in the September 25, 2013 letter to Castilleja School, the City will require a two -fold approach to compliance with the use permit. The first approach includes the immediate implementation of a robust and exemplary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program during the interim years of enrollment reductions. The City's response to the proposed TDM program is provided below, The second approach includes a requirement for an attendance reduction to 415 enrolled students through natural attrition and voluntary measures, such as acceptance of fewer new incoming students. Enrollment Reduction Plan The City acknowledges the spirit of your proposed Enrollment Reduction Plan, but we feel it does not initiate reductions soon enough. As stated in our September 25, 2013 letter, the School must take immediate action to correct the enrollment violation, beginning in the 2014-2015 school year. Although the City will not specify specific reduction actions, we believe there are strategies such as attrition that can be used to reduce enrollment beginning immediately. Under this scenario, students who leave the School prior to graduation would not be "back -filled" with new students. The School may wish to consider this and other means to begin enrollment reductions in the 2014-2015 school year. Please provide a revised Attendance Reduction Plan to the City for approval within 30 days of this letter. As previously stated in the September 25, 2013 letter, if the plan involves multiple years, provide annual performance metrics that can be verified by the City. Transportation Demand Management Plan The Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, as described in the October 24, 2013 memorandum prepared by Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates describes the elements of the proposed TDM plan. The elements of the TDM plan appear to be generally adequate in a qualitative sense, but there is no quantitative estimate of the trip reduction effects for each of these elements. The CltyOfPpU. ,Alta.arg Printed with soy -based miss on 100% recycled paper rsrocessed without ch cr,r e intent of the TDM plan is to reduce vehicle trips to a level that would be generated by 385 students, based upon a baseline year 2000 trip generation estimate provided by Fehr & Peers dated October 21, 2013 on behalf of Castilleja School. A revised TDM plan shall include trip reduction estimates that would meet the 385 student measurement. In addition to the quantitative trip reduction estimates, the TDM plan shall also describe the monitoring plan to assess the success of the TDM plan. As stated in the September 25, 2013 letter, The City would expect the TDM plan to be implemented over the current school year and see traffic reduced to the baseline level by the end of the 2013-14 school year. To ensure effectiveness, the City will require routine monitoring and achievement of targets for at least one year. Thereafter, the City will require the School to submit bi-annual TDM monitoring reports to the City for review and approval. All City costs of monitoring and enforcement will be borne by the School. Conditional Use Permit Revocation If the School is not able to meet the TDM goals and enrollment reduction by the dates set forth in the City -approved TDM Plan and Attendance Reduction Plan, the City reserves its right to initiate CUP revocation proceedings. Payment of Penalties for Nonconformance The City has received an adjusted payment of $265,000 which reflects each instructional day that the School has violated the maximum enrollment for the past three years. As stated in our August 5, 2013 letter to you, the City will apply these administrative fines for the monitoring of the TDM program, assisting in mitigating the traffic and parking impacts of the School on the immediate neighborhood, and ensuring compliance with other conditions of approval. These fines may also be used, in part, to develop TDM programs throughout the City as directed by the City Council. With respect to fines for future violations after October 25, 2013, the City will consider waiving such fines upon a showing of effective and continuing transportation demand management programs. Amendments to the Conditional Use Permit The City will consider any future application request for amendments to the existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to be incomplete until the school can demonstrate an effective TDM program and an Enrollment Reduction Plan that describes the enrollment targets over time, concluding with an acceptable end date achieving a maximum of 415'students. The City does not recommend submitting a CUP amendment request before the 2015-16 school year. The school will need to demonstrate that it can comply with the requirements of the September 25, 2013 Notice of Noncompliance and Request to Abate. Please respond to the City's request for a revised enrollment reduction plan and a more specific TDM plan by January 20, 2014. The City appreciates the School's efforts over these past six months and expects that with your continued focus and efforts, the School will be able to meet the requests we have outlined in this letter. Please contact me as soon as possible if you have any questions. Sincerely, F.0.601.a.4.41 Steven Turner Advance Planning Manager 2 cc. James Keene, City Manager Hillary Gitelman, Director, Planning and Community Environment Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Mindie S. Romanowsky, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel LLP MEMORANDUM DATE: October 25, 2013 TO: Steve Turner, City of Palo Alto FROM: Nanci Kauffman, Head of School, Castilleja School RE: Castilleja School Response to City of Palo Alto Letter, dated September 25, 2013, Enrollment Reduction Plan CC: James Keene, City Manager Aaron Aknin, Interim Director, Planning and Community Environment Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney Mindie S. Romanowsky, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel LLP Below is an outline of Castilleja School's proposed enrollment reduction plan to address the City of Palo Alto's letter of September 25, 2013. • Castilleja will continue to implement its robust TDM plan to meet the City -imposed goal of reducing the traffic impact levels to that of 385 students, as prescribed by the 2000 CUP. • To ensure the impacts are reduced per the 2000 CUP, the school requires sufficient time to study, implement and monitor the efficacy of the TDM Plan. This will occur between August 2013 and December 2014. • As stated in the City's letter of August 5, 2013, whereby the City informed Castilleja that it would need to apply for a new use permit, Castilleja intends to apply for an amended CUP no later than January, 2015 on the condition that the TDM Plan succeeded in reducing trip impacts to the 2000 CUP level. • Should the TDM plan fail to reduce the school's traffic impact to levels of the 2000 CUP, Castilleja will reduce enrollment to 415 students, as follows: Academic Year 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Enrollment 448 440 432 424 415 18.76.050 De sign Enhance m ent Exception (DEE) Ch. 18.76 – Page 1 (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007) Chapter 18.76 PERMITS AND APPROVALS Sections: 18.76.010 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 18.76.020 Architectural Review 18.76.030 Variance 18.76.040 Neighborhood Preservation Exception 18.76.050 Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) 18.76.060 Reserved 18.76.010 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) (a)Purpose The purpose of a conditional use permit is to provide for uses and accessory uses that are necessary or desirable for the development of the community or region but cannot readily be classified as permitted uses in individual districts by reason of uniqueness of size, scope, or possible effect on public facilities or surrounding uses. (b)Applicability (1)A conditional use permit may be granted for any use or purpose for which such permit is required or permitted by the provisions of this title; or (2)Any expansion in the building size or site area of an existing conditional use shall necessitate the amendment of the conditional use permit. Denial of an application for amendment of a conditional use permit does not constitute a revocation of the original conditional use permit. (3)No application for a conditional use permit is necessary for existing uses which were lawful conforming permitted uses and which were rendered conditional by reason of rezoning or changes to this title, provided that any expansion in the building site or site area of such a use shall be subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit. (c)Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a conditional use permit, unless it is found that the granting of the application will: (1)Not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience; (2)Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). (d)Conditions In granting conditional use permits, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, 18.76.020 Architectural Revie w (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007)Ch. 18.76 – Page 2 to secure the purposes of this title, and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining properties and in the general vicinity. (e)Application Review and Action Applications for conditional use permits shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process). (Ord. 4826 § 117 (Exh. 2 (part)), 2004) 18.76.020 Architectural Review (a)Purpose The purpose of architectural review is to: (1)Promote orderly and harmonious development in the city; (2)Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city; (3)Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements; (4)Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas; and (5)Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other. (b)Applicability No permit required under Title 2, Title 12 or Title 16 shall be issued for a major or minor project, as set forth in this section, unless an application for architectural review is reviewed, acted upon, and approved or approved with conditions as set forth in Section 18.77.070. (1)Exempt Projects. Single-family and two-family residences do not require architectural review, except as provided under subsections (2)(C) and (2)(D). (2)Major Projects. The following are “major projects” for the purposes of the architectural review process set forth in Section 18.77.070, and are subject to review by the architectural review board: (A)New construction, including private and public projects, that: (i)Includes a new building or building addition of five thousand square feet or more; or (ii)Is not exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Section 21000 et seq. of the California Public Resources Code); or (iii)Requires one or more variances or use permits and, in the judgment of the director, will have a significant effect upon the aesthetic character of the city or the surrounding area; (B)Any multiple-family residential construction project that contains three or more units; 18.76.050 De sign Enhance m ent Exception (DEE) Ch. 18.76 – Page 3 (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007) (C)Construction of three or more adjacent single-family homes or duplexes; (D)In the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP), properties on which two or more residential units are developed or modified, except when one of those units is a “second dwelling unit,” as described in Section 18.10.140(d); (E)Any project using transferred development rights, as described in Chapter 18.87; (F)A master sign program, pursuant to Chapter 16.20; (G)Signs that do not meet all applicable design guidelines adopted by the city council or do not conform to a previously approved master sign program; (H)Signs requiring a sign exception pursuant to Chapter 16.20; (I)Any minor project, as defined in subsection (3), that the director determines will significantly alter the character or appearance of a building or site. (3)Minor Projects. The following are “minor projects” for the purposes of the architectural review process set forth in Section 18.77.070, except when determined to be major pursuant to subsection (2)(I): (A)New construction, including private and public projects, that involves a new building or building addition of fewer than 5,000 square feet, and which is exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (division 13 of the Public Resources Code, commencing with section 21000); (B)Signs that meet all applicable guidelines and conform to any previously approved master sign program; (C)Landscape plans, fences, exterior remodeling, and design of parking areas, when not part of a major project; (D)Any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13. (E)Minor changes to the following: (i)Plans that have previously received architectural review approval; (ii)Previously approved planned community district development plans; (iii)Plans that have previously received site and design approval; (iv)Previously approved plans for projects requiring council approval pursuant to a contractual agreement, resolution, motion, action or uncodified ordinance; (v)Existing structures requiring council site and design approval or approval pursuant to a contractual agreement, resolution, motion, action, or uncodified ordinance. As used in this subsection, the term “minor” means a change that is of little visual significance, does not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improvements, is not proposed for the use of the land in question, and does not alter the character of the structure involved. If the cumulative effect of multiple minor changes would result in a major change, a new application for Architectural 18.76.020 Architectural Revie w (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007)Ch. 18.76 – Page 4 Review approval of a major project, Site and Design approval, Planned Community District approval, or other applicable approval is required. (F)Any changes to previously approved plans requiring architectural review as a minor project as part of the conditions of a permit or approval. (c)Preliminary Review For the purpose of securing the advice of the architectural review board prior to making an application for the board’s recommendation on a project, an applicant, upon paying a preliminary application fee, as set forth in the municipal fee schedule, may bring a design before the board for preliminary review. If the applicant wishes to proceed with the project, he or she must then file an application and pay a regular application fee. The comments of the architectural review board members during a preliminary review shall not be binding on their formal recommendation. (d)Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant architectural review approval, unless it is found that: (1)The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; (2)The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site; (3)The design is appropriate to the function of the project; (4)In areas considered by the board as having a unified design character or historical character, the design is compatible with such character; (5)The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designated land uses; (6)The design is compatible with approved improvements both on and off the site; (7)The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community; (8)The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the function of the structures; (9)Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project and the same are compatible with the project’s design concept; (10)Access to the property and circulation thereon are safe and convenient for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles; (11)Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project; (12)The materials, textures, colors and details of construction and plant material are appropriate expression to the design and function and whether the same are compatible with the adjacent and neighboring structures, landscape elements and functions; 18.76.050 De sign Enhance m ent Exception (DEE) Ch. 18.76 – Page 5 (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007) (13)The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the various buildings on the site; (14)Plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance; (15)The project exhibits green building and sustainable design that is energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be utilized in determining sustainable site and building design: (A)Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation; (B)Design of landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects; (C)Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle and transit access; (D)Maximize on site stormwater management through landscaping and permeable paving; (E)Use sustainable building materials; (F)Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy and water use; (G)Create healthy indoor environments; and (H)Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. (16)The design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a). (e)Conditions In granting architectural review approval, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, to secure the purposes of this title, and to: (1)Promote the internal integrity of the design of the project; (2)Assure compatibility of the proposed project’s design with its site and surroundings; (3)Minim ize the environmental effects of the proposed project; provided, however, that the architectural review board’s sole responsibility with respect to the storage of hazardous materials is to require compliance with Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Storage). (f)Application Review and Action Applications for Architectural Review shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.070 (Architectural Review Process). 18.76.030 Variance (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007)Ch. 18.76 – Page 6 (g)Phased Projects and Enforcement of Approval Conditions An application for a phased project may be submitted and a specific development schedule may be considered and approved. In no event, however, shall such a development schedule exceed five years from the original date of approval. Approved project plans and conditions of approval imposed through the architectural review process shall be enforceable as approved unless the application is revised or withdrawn in accordance with this title. (h)Architectural Review Approval Prior to Demolition No building demolition, except for tenant improvements or where necessary for health and safety purposes (as determined by the director), shall be permitted on any site requiring architectural review approval, until such architectural review approval is granted by the director, including review of subsequent conditions by the architectural review board, where required. (Ord. 4966 § 1, 2007: Ord. 4964 §§ 19, 20, 2007: Ord. 4959 § 1, 2007: Ord. 4826 § 117 (Exh. 2 (part)), 2004) 18.76.030 Variance (a)Purpose The purpose of a variance is to: (1)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 (2)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. (b)Applicability Variances may be granted to the following: (1)Site development regulations (except limitations on residential density and size of establishment) and parking and loading regulations (except those accessible parking regulations mandated by state and/or federal law and contained in Chapter 18.54) applicable within any district established by this title (Zoning); (2)The special requirements that apply to site development and parking and loading regulations applicable within any district established by this title (Zoning), except provisions which restrict expansion of grandfathered uses that are subject to the special requirements of a specific zoning district. Special requirements in any district do not include special provisions and exceptions as set forth in Chapters 18.40 and 18.42 except for the location of accessory buildings; (3)The requirements of Title 20 (Precise Plans); 18.76.050 De sign Enhance m ent Exception (DEE) Ch. 18.76 – Page 7 (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007) (4)The requirements of Chapter 16.24 (Fences) except Sections 16.24.040 (Fences at Intersections) and 16.24.070 (Prohibited Fences); (c)Findings – General Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a variance, unless it is found that: (1)Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in this title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. Special circumstances that are expressly excluded from consideration are: (A)The personal circumstances of the property owner, and (B)Any 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. (2)The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property, and (3)The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning), and (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. (d)Findings – Flag Lot In addition to the above-listed findings, in the case of a flag lot, neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a variance, unless it is found that: (1)The granting of the application will not disrupt established neighborhood character and aesthetics, and will not affect the health of the residents by significantly blocking out light and air; (2)The granting of the application will not result in excessive paving, parking, potential traffic conflicts on busy streets, street tree removal or loss of private landscaping; (3)The granting of the application will not negatively impact the privacy and quiet enjoyment of adjoining single-family residences, for both indoor and outdoor use. (e)May Not be Granted for Unauthorized U se A variance shall not be granted for a parcel that authorizes a use or activity that is not otherwise expressly authorized by the zone regulations governing the subject property. 18.76.040 Neighborhood Pre s ervation Exception (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007)Ch. 18.76 – Page 8 (f)Conditions In granting variances, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title (Zoning). (g)Application Review and Action Applications for variances shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process). (Ord. 4826 § 117 (Exh. 2 (part)), 2004) 18.76.040 Neighborhood Preservation Exception (a)Purpose The purpose of the neighborhood preservation exception is to foster retention of existing single-family structures and to maintain the existing historic and general character of neighborhoods in the neighborhood preservation (NP) combining district. (b)Applicability For properties within the neighborhood preservation (NP) combining district, a neighborhood preservation exception may be granted to site development regulations (except limitations on residential density), parking regulations, and special setback requirements of Title 20 (Precise Plans). (c)Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a neighborhood preservation exception unless it is found that: (1)The granting of the application will facilitate the preservation of an existing residential structure on the same property and will be of benefit in maintaining the existing historic and general character of the surrounding neighborhood; and (2)The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. (d)Conditions In granting neighborhood preservation exceptions, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed as deemed appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title. (e)Application Review and Action Applications for neighborhood preservation exceptions shall be reviewed as set forth in Section 18.77.060 (Standard Staff Review Process). (Ord. 4826 § 117 (Exh. 2 (part)), 2004) 18.76.050 De sign Enhance m ent Exception (DEE) Ch. 18.76 – Page 9 (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007) 18.76.050 Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) (a)Purpose The purpose of a design enhancement exception is to permit a minor exception to zoning regulations when doing so will: (1)Enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact on surrounding properties; or (2)Enable the preservation of the architectural style of existing improvements on the site. (b)Applicability (1)Design enhancement exceptions may be granted to the site development and parking and loading requirements otherwise applicable under this title (Zoning), as part of the architectural review process, when such exceptions will enhance the appearance and design of commercial and multiple-family development and other development subject to architectural review. (2)Items for which design enhancement exceptions may be granted include, but are not limited to, dormers, eave lines, roof design, bay windows, cornices, parapets, columns, arcades, fountains, art, ornamentation, atriums, balconies, trellises, moldings, balustrades, stairs, entry features, and other minor architectural elements and design features. (3)Generally, design enhancement exceptions are limited to minor changes to the setback, daylight plane, height, lot coverage limitations, parking lot design and landscaping configuration, and additional flexibility in the required proportion between private and common open space. (4)No design enhancement exception shall be granted under this section that would increase floor area, decrease the number of required parking spaces, decrease the amount of required on-site landscaping, or decrease the required open space. (c)Findings Neither the director, nor the city council on appeal, shall grant a design enhancement exception unless it is found that: (1)There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district; (2)The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d); and (3)The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. 18.76.060 Re s erved (Supp. No. 13 – 10/1/2007)Ch. 18.76 – Page 10 (d)Conditions In granting design enhancement exceptions, reasonable conditions or restrictions may be imposed if appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this title. (e)Application Review and Action Applications for a design enhancement exception shall be reviewed and acted upon as set forth in Section 18.77.070 (Architectural Review). (Ord. 4826 § 117 (Exh. 2 (part)), 2004) 18.76.060 Reserved Editor’s Note: Former Section 18.76.060, Home improvement exception (HIE), derived from Ord. 4826 § 117 (Exh. 2), was repealed by § 38 of Ord. 4869. From:Carla Befera To:Council, City Subject:Parking at private schools Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 7:53:58 PM Attachments:School Density 2019 chart.pdf Matrix comparing CUPs _3.1.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. We believe a fair question is: Why does Castilleja feel it cannot abide by restrictions that have been accepted by other private schools in this area? Many other schools (including seven private schools on the Peninsula which serve only women) continue to do very well with much stricter rules regarding traffic, parking, and events. Here is a list of other private schools on the Peninsula and their policies related to parking: A sample of other schools: Notre Dame HS San Jose All-girls school founded in 1851, 670 girls. No driving to school policy. Students, staff, parents are required to use public transit and off- site parking. Harker Originally an all-boys school founded in 1893 in Palo Alto. Now four campuses, 2040 students. Offers bus system, shuttle program, off-site “kiss & ride” lot for pickup and drop off. Limited to 12 events per year (outside school hours) Of note, Harker asked for modifications in 2018. The City of San José reviewed the application and conducted an independent traffic analysis. A public hearing was held with the San José Planning Director on Nov. 13, 2019 and the application was approved. An appeal of that decision was filed. Numerous meetings were held between the neighbors, the City and The Harker School to resolve concerns. Amendments were made and the permit was approved by the City Council at their March 10, 2020 meeting. All of the documents related to this project are posted for public record. Their new Good Neighbor policy is here. Stratford at Garland A comparable private school in a Palo Alto R-1 neighborhood, 483 kids on 10 acres. CUP requirements: No evening events allowed. No on-street parking permitted. Amplified sound only allowed 5x/year between 8am-5:30pm All faculty, staff, student parking and drop-offs shall occur on premises. Stratford @ Crestmoor Private school in similar R-1 neighborhood, 250 kids on 10 acres. CUP requires: No evening events except parents nights 4x/year – all parking onsite. No on-street parking permitted. No outside use of buzzers, bells or loud speakers. All faculty, staff, student parking and drop-offs shall occur on premises. Pinewood High School: Similar private school in R-1 neighborhood, perhaps more comparable as it is a High School. Note they split into three campuses to accommodate growth – plus the Activities Center on Fabian. HS is 300 kids on 7 acres. CUP requires: No evening courses or events permitted, only 12 events/year No on-street parking permitted. Amplified sound only allowed 5x/year between 8am-5:00pm Nueva: Pre-K – 12th. 930 students. Originally in Menlo Park, moved to two campuses in Hillsborough (42 acres) and San Mateo (Bay Meadows). No on-street parking permitted. Major commitment to keep cars away from campus. The school provides Caltrain Passes to Upper School students and faculty and staff. More than 70% of High School students take the train. Event parking is at the San Mateo County Event Center parking lot next door. Video on how their kids get to campus: https://vimeo.com/243919175 Crystal Springs Upland: 6th – 12th. On 10 acres. 542 students. No on-street parking permitted. Offers private bus service with routes from Los Altos, Menlo Park, Woodside, from BART in Colma, from Caltrain. School partners with rideshare companies Zum and KidzJet. Does not have parking onsite. Attached are a couple of charts which give a snapshot of density as well as other comparisons such as events, faculty, parking, sound, summer school, etc. And there are some quick graphs on how Castilleja is an outlier among Peninsula schools here. It bears repeating that other local high schools (private or public) are situated on major thoroughfares (El Camino, Arastradero) and on acres of land (Paly at 44, Gunn at 49, Menlo at 31 – vs Castilleja at 6) which provide ample room for parking, on-site drop-offs, and isolation that protects neighbors from noise. Castilleja has none of those buffers. Castilleja wants the equivalent of a Costco on one small residential block, with all its access via neighborhood streets, and not nearly enough room to park its students/staff/visitors. Thank you for consideration. - Carla Befera ACREAGE ENROLLMENT DENSITY Castilleja (current)6 434 72 Castilleja (allowed by CUP)6 415 69 Castilleja (proposed)6 540 90 Pinewood - Los Altos 7 300 43 Stratford - Palo Alto 10 482 48 Stratford - San Bruno 10 250 25 Palo Alto High School 44.2 1994 45 Gunn High School 49.7 1885 38 Menlo School 31 795 26 Hillbrook - Los Gatos 14 414 30 JLS Middle School 26.2 1205 46 Nueva School K-8 & HIgh School 36 713 20 Crystal Springs Middle & High School 10 323 32 Peninsula School 6 252 42 Sacred Heart 64 1186 19 Woodside Priory 51 385 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Menlo School Gunn High School Palo Alto High School Stra�ord, San Bruno Stra�ord, Palo Alto Pinewood, Los Altos Cas�lleja Current Allowed by CUP Cas�lleja Proposed Hillbrook, Los Gatos JLS Middle School Nueva School Crystal Springs Peninsula School Sacred Heart Woodside Priory Comparison of Student Per Acre Density - Local Public and Private Schools March 10, 2016 Matrix of CUP Conditions Included in Conditional Use Permits for Local Private Schools Castilleja School Pinewood HS Stratford @ Garland Stratford@Crestmoor Acreage 6 7 10 10 Building SqFt 160,000 (Proposes 194k + 32.5k garage) 40,000 32,000 22,000 Hours of Operation No Limitations 7:30 am – 5:30 pm 8 am – 4 pm with childcare from 7 am – 8:15 and 3:45 – 6 pm 7:00 am – 6:00 pm Approved Current Proposed Max Enrollment 415 438 540 300 482 250 Density: students/acre 69 73 90 42 48 25 Outside activities No Limitations currently placed on evening or after school events No evening courses or events permitted No evening events allowed No evening events except for Parents night not to exceed 4x/yr. Night Events No Regulations Limited to 12/year; must be over by 11 pm on weeknights and 12 midnight on Fridays & Saturdays “Scheduled evening events not permitted.” Only allowed to hold Parents Night not to exceed 4 / year. All parking shall be on site. Faculty Not Limited Shall not exceed 50 No limitation stated 23 Parking Not Controlled – faculty, staff and students park on neighborhood streets. Must be parked on campus or the 8 spaces in front of school. These 8 spaces are not on the street but on school grounds; no houses front the school All faculty, staff and student parking shall occur on the premises. Parking only on-site. Drop-offs and pick-ups must be staggered and all on-site. On Street parking Not Regulated Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Sound No Regulations Outdoor sound amplification allowed 5x per year, between 8:30am – 5pm, max 4 hours/day. Outdoor sound amplification shall only be allowed 5x /yr between the hours of 8 am – 5:30 pm. No outside use of buzzers, bells or loud speakers. Summer School No Regulations Regulated Regulated Regulated Crossing guards No Regulations N/A Required N/A From:John Kelley To:Council, City Subject:PA-PACC: I strongly urge you to approve the Castilleja Project without further delay or conditions. Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 5:24:59 PM Attachments:PA-PACC-letter to CPA re Castilleja - 2022-05-23.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from jkelley@399innovation.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Via Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Honorable Pat Burt, MayorHonorable Lydia Kou, Vice MayorHonorable City Council MembersCity of Palo Alto250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto CA 94301 Re: May 23, 2022, Special Meeting,[1] Agenda Item 13, Castilleja School Project (ID #14020)[2] --- I continue to urge you to approve the Castilleja Project, especially toadvance gender equity Please see this letter. Respectfully submitted, John Kelley John Kelley 555 Bryant St., No. 714 Palo Alto, CA 94301 jkelley@399innovation.com (650) 444-2237 May 23, 2022 Via Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Honorable Pat Burt, Mayor Honorable Lydia Kou, Vice Mayor Honorable City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 Re: May 23, 2022, Special Meeting,1 Agenda Item 13, Castilleja School Project (ID # 14020)2 --- I continue to urge you to approve the Castilleja Project, especially to advance gender equity Dear Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Burt, and City Council Members, Due to a personal conflict, I will not be able to participate in tonight’s city council meeting, but I write again for two reasons: first, to express my continued support for the Castilleja Project as described in my letter dated March 8, 2021; and second, to join in the comments expressed by Roger McCarthy, Ph.D., in his March 3, 2021 email to the City Council,3 in his comments to the City Council last year,.4 and more recently. Dr. McCarthy previously explained how the Castilleja Project is part of a far broader national conversation concerning the education of young women: Our national largely coeducational system has been failing to educate our young female secondary school students for STEM careers at a staggering scale for generations. The product of this national disgrace is found everywhere in our society. Just 16.5% of our engineers are women….Just 24% of our computing jobs are held by women, and that percentage is expected SHRINK to 22% by 2025….Our national proportion of women doctors, only 36%, is pathetic and embarrassing compared to virtually EVERY industrialized country in the world….And our slow progress to cure this problem is equally embarrassing,…. (Public Comments, at p. 54/120, footnotes omitted.) 1 See the agenda for the Meeting of the City Council: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council- agendas-minutes/2022/20220523/20220523pccsm-revised.pdf 2 See the Staff Report, “Title: 1310 Bryant Street (Castilleja School Project)…” (“Staff Report”): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council- agendas-minutes/2022/20220523/20220523pccsm-revised.pdf, 163/335 f. 3 See the “Public Comment” compilation from the March 8, 2021 Special Meeting (“Public Comments”) at p. 54/120: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80548 4 See the video recording from the March 8, 2021 Special Meeting, beginning at approximately 4:07/7:01: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0RojQJeppA 2 More recently, Dr. McCarthy has pointed out that the repeated delays of the Castilleja Project have visited an injustice on the future of young women. 5 Dr. McCarthy’s statements and assessment should be heeded. Palo Alto can and should --- finally --- do its part. Approving the Castilleja Project --- without further delays and without creating an intolerable gauntlet of burdensome conditions or future proceedings --- will not only benefit Palo Alto itself but will also voice a strong statement to the entire country to help advance gender equity in STEM, education, and leadership. I strongly urge you to approve the Castilleja Project, as currently proposed by Castilleja, without further delay, and without any further conditions. Respectfully submitted, John Kelley 5 See, e.g. Gennady Sheyner, “Residents square off over Castilleja's redevelopment plan,” Palo Alto Online, March 30, 2022, https://paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/03/30/residents-square-off-over- castillejas-redevelopment-plan From:Arthur Keller To:pwecips Cc:Council, City Subject:West Charleston Road and Fabian Way Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 4:21:43 PM Attachments:IMPROVEMENTS AND FEATURES AT FABIAN.pdf MPROVEMENTS AND FEATURES AT LOUISMONTROSE.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Staff, The temporary paint on the roadway is incorrect at Fabian Way and West Charleston Road. Westbound, there should be one lane going straight on West Charleston. Eastbound, there should be a left turn lane, and two throughlanes, one of which can turn right onto Fabian. See the attached plans from the 2021-09-09 presentation. I remind you of the improvements at Montrose and Louis Road. These are also not striped accordingly. Best regards, Arthur 13 IMPROVEMENTS AND FEATURES AT FABIAN •Dedicated left turn lane for vehicles and left turn bike box for bicyclists in the eastbound direction •New crosswalk on the east side of the intersection •Bike lanes installed on Charleston east of Fabian Way in both directions 11 IMPROVEMENTS AND FEATURES AT LOUIS/MONTROSE •New traffic signal •Bike lanes installed on Louis and Montrose •Larger median refuge islands for bicyclists •High visibility crosswalks in all 4 directions •Curb extensions at all 4 corners From:Keith Bennett To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Comments Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 4:14:49 PM Attachments:Castilleja_Council_Letter_211212.rtf Some people who received this message don't often get email from pagroundwater@luxsci.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council Below please find comments regarding the agenda item on May 23 regarding Castilleja expansion from Save Palo Alto's Groundwater. In addition, I have attached the letter we submitted in December, 2021. I’m Keith Bennett of Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater and a Palo Alto resident and taxpayer. I would like to summarize the written comments and oral communications related to some of the environmental impacts of this project that we’ve provided to Council in December 2021, as well as to the Planning and Transportation Commission. We estimate the CO2 emissions from concrete used for construction of the parking garage and underground pool to be 1.27 million pounds, equivalent to the amount of CO2 emitted by driving a Prius for 4.1 million miles, or the amount emitted by our household by burning natural gas for heating, water heating and cooking combined for 3,000 years. Of this, over 40% will be emitted for construction of the pool alone. Construction of the pool, with the deck 15 feet below ground surface will almost certainly encounter groundwater and require dewatering or a cutoff wall. I remind Council that current City codes do not put any restrictions on the total amount or rate of groundwater pumping. In an era of recurrent drought, this waste of water is unconscionable. The permanent underground structure significantly reduces the volume of soil capable of holding and buffering stormwater and blocks stormwater flows. Finally, I’m personally wondering what’s the benefit to Palo Alto? Castilleja does not pay property taxes and the former City land that was given to Castilleja for a playing field is now being used to construct permanent facilities and expand the school. -- Keith Bennetthttp://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission From: Keith Bennett, Ph.D. Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater Comments substantially similar to the following were presented by Mary Sylvester at the Planning and Transportation Committee meeting on December 8 for Agenda Item 4, Castilleja School CUP/Variance and Amend PAMC Chapter 18.04 GFA Definition. Summary Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater recommends the project to be modified so as to leave the pool at or slightly below ground level and to reduce the size of the garage. We have no objections to the changes proposed to the above ground buildings. 1. Construction of the underground pool (in place of the current pool at ground level) a. Is not addressed at all in either the geotechnical study or the DEIR. b. Requiring the bottom of the pool excavation to extend no more than 15 feet below ground surface would substantially avoid the impacts below including groundwater interactions. i. Unless a proper cutoff wall or sheet piling are required to minimize groundwater flows as a condition of approval, pumping and dumping of a very large amount of groundwater and associated subsidence extending well beyond the subject property should be expected. ii. Approximately 1,520 tons of concrete, resulting in nearly 550,000 pounds of CO2 emissions from the manufacture of the concrete will be needed to counteract buoyancy. 2. Impacts of the large underground garage: a. The entire surface area is impervious to water, increasing load to the stormdrains. b. The entire volume of soil removed is no longer available to store / buffer stormwater c. Approximately 2,000 tons of concrete, resulting in 720,000 pounds of CO2 emissions, will be used for the parking floor, ceiling and sides of the garage. 3. The total of 1,270,000 pounds of CO2 emitted in the manufacture of the concrete for the underground construction is significant. It is equivalent to over 3,000 years of emissions from the CO2 emitted by our use of natural gas for all water heating and cooking. Alternatively, it is equivalent to the CO2 emitted by driving a Prius getting 60 miles per gallon 10,000 miles per year for 410 years (4,100,000 miles). 4. Both Council and the PTC are reminded the current Palo Alto Dewatering Ordinance does not place any restrictions on the amount or rate of groundwater pumped and discarded, nor does it require the use of cutoff walls, even for large-scale projects, such as this. Castilleja Planning and Transportation Comments December 8, 2021 I am Keith Bennett with Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater. Our concerns are primarily with the impacts of underground construction particularly on our community groundwater, which is becoming increasingly valuable as a result of climate change and population growth. Underground construction has impacts during and after construction. These impacts should be avoided and minimized through design and construction processes. First, decisions on any underground construction need to be made based upon relevant and up-to-date geotechnical studies. The environmental impact reports must be specific for the actual project design and include accurate and current ground conditions. The geotechnical study for the DEIR for this project was prepared in 2017; the geotechnical studies have a clearly stated expiration date of 1/2020. Importantly, neither the geotechnical study nor the DEIR consider the excavation proposed for the swimming pool. Rather they only contemplate a single-level underground for the garage. This is a very material difference. The pool deck is 15 feet below ground surface and excavation for the pool will extend to approximately 26 feet below ground surface allowing for the 7.5 foot depth of the pool below the deck, 1.5 feet for pipes and pumps below the pool 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. Palo Alto building code requires contractors to dewater to at least 2 feet below the deepest excavation, and contractors invariably dewater further. Therefore, we can assume groundwater will be lowered by at least 5 feet to 30 feet or more below ground surface. Applicants often cite compliance with Palo Alto’s Dewatering Ordinance as providing necessary protections from impacts. However Palo Alto’s dewatering ordinance does not impose any, I repeat any, restrictions on the rate or total amount of groundwater pumped. Contrary to the perception of many, unless specifically required as a condition of approval, the ordinance does not require use of cutoff walls to limit groundwater waste. The extent and impacts of dewatering are significant. Based upon measurements in Old Palo Alto with similar soils, groundwater will likely be lowered by 5 feet or more for many months, likely over an area extending 500 feet from the construction site, and 2 feet or more over a circle of ½ to 1 mile in diameter, and tens of millions of gallons of a valuable resource will be discarded. Castilleja is on the border of area of the high recharge zone for deeper aquifer levels that Palo Alto uses for our emergency potable water supply, so pumping groundwater here reduces aquifer recharge. It is well-known that lowering the groundwater table results in permanent subsidence. For the alluvial fan soils typical of Old Palo Alto, typical subsidence is about 1% of the amount of groundwater lowered, which corresponds to ½” or more for this project. I have clearly observed and documented such subsidence from residential dewatering at my house from basement construction 100’s of feet away, as well as associated permanent damages. Furthermore, groundwater is a source of soil moisture especially for trees, as soils above the water table are moistened by water wicked-up through the soil, and mature tree roots grow down into the moist soil zones. Palo Alto S/CAP has clearly stated a goal of reducing GHG dramatically by 2030. An often overlooked environmental impact of underground construction in high groundwater areas is the greenhouse gas emissions from the concrete used. Appendix A provides a summary of the calculations used to estimate CO2 emissions from this project. For a pool of the size indicated, approximately 1,520 tons (750 cubic yards) of concrete will be needed just to counteract buoyancy. To prevent the structure from floating up, Palo Alto’s building code requires the building to be heavier than the water it is displacing for the highest anticipated groundwater level. Although an accurate geotechnical estimates are needed for design, based upon measurements taken during storms and geotechnical reports for other properties, I estimate the design will require prevention of buoyancy for groundwater rising at least 9 feet above the bottom of the excavation (to 17 feet below ground surface). To be conservative in our estimates of the pool impacts, in this calculation, we have assumed the project can be designed so that the concrete (400 tons, 200 cubic yards) used for the pool deck counteract buoyancy. Additionally, about 2,175 tons (1,075 cubic yards) of concrete is required for the floor, roof and walls of the garage, for a total of 3,695 tons. The manufacture of concrete releases roughly 360 pounds of CO2 per ton of concrete. The CO2 emissions for this underground construction are therefore approximately 1,330,000 pounds. Let’s put some perspective on this number. Palo Alto is strongly encouraging residents to replace their gas- burning ranges and hot water heaters with electric. We use 36 therms per year of natural gas for hot water. Burning 1 therm of natural gas results in the emission of about 11.7 pounds of CO2, so annual consumption of natural gas for heating and hot water emits is about 420 pounds. The CO2 emitted for this proposed underground construction of the pool is equivalent to the amount we emit due to cooking and hot water heating in 3,167 years. Retrofitting 317 residences with all electric water heaters would offset these emissions over 10 years. Assuming a cost of $10,000 per retrofit, the cost would be $31.7 million. Or, for another way to look at it, I could drive a Prius getting 60 miles / gallon for 10,000 miles a year for 410 years. Or, 100 commuters to Castilleja could drive 50 miles round trip for 200 days / year for 4 years. This is a lot of CO2 to relocate an existing ground-level pool and build underground parking. Low-carbon concrete modestly reduces, but does not eliminate GHG emissions from concrete. This large underground construction increases the load on our stormwater management system. Approximately 80% of stormwater is absorbed by soil, then flows over time to the Bay. This buffering system both filters the runoff and reduces load on our stormdrain system, and is a motivation for Valley Water and the City of Palo Alto to encourage and require rain gardens, permeable pavement and other features for capture stormwater. The proposed playing field is entirely impervious, and moreover, the soil for absorbing groundwater permanently removed. Underground construction is very expensive – in fact, in presenting their proposals for new high-density housing, Stanford explicitly stated they intend to use above ground parking and increase building heights due to costs; and buoyancy is not a concern for their projects. In summary, construction of the pool underground has many impacts on groundwater and greenhouse gas emissions. The underground garage excavation is not as deep and likely will not directly impact groundwater during construction, however the loss of soil for absorbing stormwater and greenhouse gas emissions are significant. At a minimum, an updated and comprehensive DEIR is needed, but more importantly we suggest the applicant seriously consider design alternatives, including ways the need for parking could be ameliorated through quality transportation demand management. Appendix A Calculations of CO2 emissions from concrete and equivalencies Estimated concrete required for placing the swimming pool underground Pool dimensions: 60 x 77 x 7’ Pool excavation: (allowing for side walls, drainage, slab for mass, etc.): 81’ x 67’ x 11’ = 57,024 ft3 Typical “summer” groundwater level: 25 feet below ground surface (bgs) Design groundwater level (maximum expected during the project lifetime): 17 feet bgs Design groundwater rise above bottom of excavation: 26’ – 17’= 9’ Estimated minimum weight of concrete and steel used for construction of the pool, pool deck and underground walls to counteract buoyancy: 81’ x 67’ x 9’ x 62.4 lbs/ft3 = 3,047,800 lbs. (1,520+ tons) CO2 emissions from the manufacture of concrete: 180 kg/metric ton = 18% of concrete weight (embedded CO2 emissions from steel are higher on a weight basis). Estimated CO2 emissions from pool: 3,047,800 x 18% = 548,600 lbs. Estimated CO2 emissions from concrete used in the underground parking (A) Area of garage: 20,000 ft2 (estimated) (B) Thickness of concrete: 6” for top + 6” for floor = 1 foot. (C) Volume of concrete for floor and ceiling: A x B = 20,000 ft3 (D) Perimeter of garage: 600 ft. (E) Depth of garage (bottom of concrete): 15+ feet (F) Estimated thickness of concrete used for sides (including allocation for internal supports): 1 foot (G) Total volume of concrete (sides and supports): D x E x F = 9,000 ft3 (H) Total volume of concrete for garage: C + G = 29,000 ft3 (I) Weight of concrete: 150 lbs/ft3 (J) Total weight of concrete: H x I = 4,350,000 lbs (2,175 tons) Equivalency calculations (A) CO2 emitted from burning natural gas: 11.6 lbs / therm (B) Amount of natural gas used by us for water heating (tankless) and gas range: 36 therms / year (C) CO2 emitted by us for hot water: A x B = 420 lbs. (D) CO2 emitted burning gasoline: 19.6 lbs / gallon (E) Gasoline required to drive 10,000 miles @ 60 miles / gallon: 10,000 / 60 = 167 gallons (F) CO2 emitted driving 10,000 miles: D x E = 3,270 lbs. From:Ravinder Sethi To:Council, City Subject:Re: public utilities easements question - 4228,4224, 4216,4214 Manuela Date:Saturday, May 28, 2022 9:47:35 AM Attachments:image009.png image012.png image013.png image014.png image016.png image017.png image002.png image004.png image008.png image011.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from ravis.sethi@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Dear Council members, I received an automated reply to the request I made weeks ago. I have waited since then to see if there is any response to my request. It is an urgent matter. I have also approached the state senator of the area and the assemblyperson. They have both agreed to push this issue of encroachments and "prescriptive easements" and update the law to discourage abusive behavior by some homeowners. I think the city needs to do its part by adopting a policy to not issue permits for utilities that go through somebody else's property. I understand that Morgan Hill has a policy that requires survey and identification of encroachments before sales happen. I earnestly request that the City of Palo Alto not ignore this issue and call it a private matter. The encroachments are a serious issue given the value of properties and the city needs to take responsibility to create a harmonious and non-abusive behavior by its inhabitants, and avoid costly legal battles. best regards On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:31 AM Ravinder Sethi <ravis.sethi@gmail.com> wrote: Honorable Mayor and Council Members, I am forwarding you the conversation series on my requested objection to you issuing a permit to my neighbor at 4224 Manuela Ave for a garage conversion, as its sewer line goes through my property. We just bought our property at 4228 Manuela Ave and discovered this encroachment. We are pursuing all legal means to rid of this encroachment, but your granting a permit for garage conversion further complicates the matter, as now essentially two dwellings sewer will go through our property. I want to register a formal protest and complain that by allowing this additional living unit sewer to go through my property, you are encouraging a rogue behavior that happened during the previous owner's possession of the property. City seems to want to wash their hands by saying that it is a private matter, but is it? City should not encourage encroachment behaviors at all. All permits should demand that any structure and utility lines do not cross outside of one's own property and should demand a certification from the owner to that effect, and make such notifications available to the neighbors to make objections. I would strongly urge you to adopt this policy. I would appreciate it if I could personally come and present to you in the council meeting to help affect that change. I would be willing to obtain necessary signatures from neighborhoods to convince you to make such a policy. best regards ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Reich, Russ <Russ.Reich@cityofpaloalto.org> Date: Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:12 AM Subject: RE: public utilities easements question - 4228,4224, 4216,4214 Manuela To: Ravinder Sethi <ravis.sethi@gmail.com> Cc: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@cityofpaloalto.org> Hello Ravinder, Please see the email links below to contact the mayor and the City Council as you requested. Please note this information is also located on our website. I have also provided the link to the City’s website for you below . In addition, I have also included for you the email contact for the Planning Director. Please feel free to reach out to them. When you do, it may be helpful for you to cite any codes, laws, or policies that you believe the neighbor may be in violation of, as I am not currently aware of any inappropriate actions or rogue behavior related to your neighbor’s permit request. If you are aware of any codes, laws, or policies that the neighbor has violated, such that we may be able to take action, please let me know. City Council & Mayor city.council@cityofpaloalto.org City Website https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Home Department Head Jonathan Lait Planning Director pdsdirector@cityofpaloalto.org Best, Russ Reich Development Services Permit Manager Planning and Development Services You don't often get email from ravis.sethi@gmail.com. Learn why this is important (650) 617-3119 | russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Ravinder Sethi <ravis.sethi@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2022 8:48 AM To: Reich, Russ <Russ.Reich@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Hoyt, George <George.Hoyt@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: public utilities easements question - 4228,4224, 4216,4214 Manuela Hi Russ, Thanks for your reply. I respectfully disagree with your assertions. Can I please get emails for the mayor and the councilman responsible? It is unconscionable that the city seems to be encouraging rogue behavior that neighbors are perpetrating. best On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 5:03 PM Reich, Russ <Russ.Reich@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Ravinder, I don’t administer what sewer lines are where and who owns what and there is no City process to register an objection to this. This is not a discretionary permit affording the opportunity for any kind of objection. If an adjacent property owner has illegally located a sewer line under your property you would need to handle this matter privately between you and that other property owner. The City will not intervene. As far as the permit goes, if the adjacent neighbor has an existing sewer line that provides a viable code compliant connection for his dwelling unit, then we have no cause to hinder his permit. If the existing sewer line is not legal, then you would need to document this, but we have no cause to question it. What I gather from the emails is that the plans propose to use the existing sewer line rather than to place a new one on/under your property. If there is no issue with the existing line, and they are doing no work on your property, then we have no cause to intervene. Russ Reich Development Services Permit Manager Planning and Development Services (650) 617-3119 | russ.reich@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Ravinder Sethi <ravis.sethi@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 4:43 PM To: Reich, Russ <Russ.Reich@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Fwd: public utilities easements question - 4228,4224, 4216,4214 Manuela You don't often get email from ravis.sethi@gmail.com. Learn why this is important Hi Russ, I understand that my neighbor in 4224 Manuela is asking for a garage conversion into ADU, and will be connecting to the sewer lines that run through my property. I would like to register a protest/objection to it, as I would like Mr Habib to relocate all of his sewer lines through his own property underneath hs driveway. Please let me knwo how I can register this objection formally thanks ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Ravinder Sethi <ravis.sethi@gmail.com> Date: Mon, May 9, 2022 at 3:28 PM Subject: Re: public utilities easements question - 4228,4224, 4216,4214 Manuela To: Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@cityofpaloalto.org> Hi Ahmad Yes, the marked sewer connection is outside of our property line, however, their sewer line travels through our property line to connect to what you are showing. Please see attached images. I want 4224 Manuela owner, Mr habib to relocate the sewer lines going through my property to where they travel underneath his own driveway area. Therefore, I would like to register a formal objection to his garage conversion permit which proposes to connect to the sewer line that goes through my property. Please let me know how to do that formally. Also, please notice the copy of the survey record that I have questions on. The PUE is exclusively shown in the driveway on the right in your picture and on the survey record ( this driveway belongs to 4216 Manuela house, flaglot, APN 175-01-068 ). What I need to know quickly is if these easements are for water line, electrical line, sewer line and are meant for both 4224 Manuela and 4216 manuela houses? In other words, is that the space where Mr Habib of 4224 manuela ave house were supposed to locate their utility lines? Please let me know clearly. Thanks best On Mon, May 9, 2022 at 2:55 PM Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Ravi, I looked into this and 4224 has their sewer line in the driveway as indicated by the “sewer cleanout” in the image below. They have a permit (under review) to convert their garage to a living unit which will connect to the same sewer line. Those plans show no encroachments into your property. Regarding the easements – I can’t say reliably what they are for since I don’t have the documents that describe them in detail. In this context, it is possible that the PUE has a City water meter, or electrical box, communication facilities, etc. Let me know if you have any questions. Regards From: pwecips <pwecips@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 1:43 PM To: Kumar, Ajay <Ajay.Kumar@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Chun, Pamela <Pamela.Chun@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Thurman, Christina <Christina.Thurman@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Mokhtar, Ahmad <Ahmad.Mokhtar@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: pwecips <pwecips@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Fw: public utilities easements question - 4228,4224, 4216,4214 Manuela Hello, This email is from Mr. Ravi who also left the voicemail earlier that I forwarded. Please review. Thank you, Anu From: Ravinder Sethi <ravis.sethi@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 9, 2022 1:40 PM To: pwecips <pwecips@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: public utilities easements question - 4228,4224, 4216,4214 Manuela You don't often get email from ravis.sethi@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. HI, We are the recent owners of 4228 Manuela Ave., and after survey we discovered that 4224 Manuela owner has encroached on our property to put sewer lines and extend his driveway. We went to the city office at Hamilton to see if he had taken any permits for the sewer line. Did not find any. We looked at the record of the survey (7th dec 2004) that you have at the city under "oakhill tract no 2" record, and found something interesting. We have the following questions: 1. Record of Survey shows Public utility easement on the driveway area for 4216 Manuela, Lot 14, APN 175-01-068. It mentions PUE OR DOC/s: 16898398, 17876160, 3681010. What are these easements for specifically? water, electrical and sewer? and is this easement to supply public utilities for both 4216 Manuela (APN 175-01-068). and 4224 Manuela (175-01-081), the wtwo flag lots? 2. Do you have any maps, plans, or permits etc that shows where the sewer lines are for 4224 Manuela house ( APN 1715-01-081) I would appreciate your help -- Ravi Sethi -- Ravi Sethi -- Ravi Sethi -- Ravi Sethi -- Ravi Sethi -- Ravi Sethi From:Alice Smith Subject:Amanda Gorman: NY Times editorial page today . Her poem. Worth reading. Date:Saturday, May 28, 2022 9:19:42 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from alice.smith@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 11 Hymn For the Hurting Amanda Gorman Everything hurts, Our hearts shadowed and strange, Minds made muddied and mute. We carry tragedy, terrifying and true. And yet none of it is new; We knew it as home, As horror, As heritage. Even our children Cannot be children, Cannot be. Everything hurts. It's a hard time to be alive, And even harder to stay that way. We're burdened to live out these days, While at the same time, blessed to outlive them. This alarm is how we know We must be altered — That we must differ or die, That we must triumph or try. Thus while hate cannot be terminated, It can be transformed Into a love that lets us live. May we not just grieve, but give: May we not just ache, but act; May our signed right to bear arms Never blind our sight from shared harm; May we choose our children over chaos. May another innocent never be lost. Maybe everything hurts, Our hearts shadowed & strange. But only when everything hurts May everything change. AMANDA GORMAN is a poet and the author of "The Hill We Climb," "Call Us What We Carry" and "Change Sings." ICHE_OLDBERG u d • From:Allan Seid To:DENNIS LEE Subject:Fwd: Why AAPI Voters Are Important - APIAVote Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 10:28:31 AM Attachments:apia-logo-rgb.png icon-growth-chart-red.png icon-vote-red-bright.png icon-speech-red-bright.png icon-economic-red.png apia-logo-check-rgb.png apia-logo-white.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> Date: Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:25 AM Subject: Why AAPI Voters Are Important - APIAVote To: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> https://apiavote.org/how-to-vote/why-aapi-voters/? link_id=5&can_id=01bd83120f69d6050440eaf9ab31350d&source=email-happy-asian- american-pacific-islander-heritage-month-learn-more-about-the-link-between-democracy- building-and-racial-equality-were-hiring-and-much-more- 2&email_referrer=email_1555331&email_subject=become-a-national-voter-registration- day-2022-partner-why-aapi-voters-are-important-learn-more-about-voter-id-and-more M e n u WHYAAPIVOTERSAREIMPORTANT F a s t e s t G r o w i n g P o p u l a t i o n I n t h e p a s t t w o d e c a d e s , A s i a n A m e r i c a n s h a v e b e c o m e o n e o f t h e f a s t e s t g r o w i n g r a c i a l o r e t h n i c g r o u p s i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . B e t w e e n 2 0 0 0 a n d 2 0 1 9 , t h e A s i a n p o p u l a t i o n i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s g r e w b y 8 1 % , a n d t h e p o p u l a t i o n i s p r o j e c t e d t o p a s s 3 5 m i l l i o n b y 2 0 6 0 . N a t i v e H a w a i i a n s a n d P a c i f i c I s l a n d e r s w e r e t h e t h i r d - f a s t e s t g r o w i n g g r o u p , g r o w i n g b y 6 1 % f r o m 2 0 0 0 t o 2 0 1 9 . T h e i r p o p u l a t i o n i s p r o j e c t e d t o p a s s 2 m i l l i o n b y 2 0 3 0 . W h i l e t h e l a r g e s t A A P I p o p u l a t i o n s c o n t i n u e t o b e i n s t a t e s l i k e N e w Y o r k , C a l i f o r n i a , T e x a s a n d H a w a i i , o t h e r s t a t e s a c r o s s t h e c o u n t r y h a v e s e e n t h e i r A A P I p o p u l a t i o n s m o r e t h a n d o u b l e o v e r t h e l a s t t w o d e c a d e s . N e v a d a h a s s e e n a f u l l 1 6 7 % i n c r e a s e i n t h e A A P I p o p u l a t i o n s i n c e 2 0 0 0 . A r i z o n a g r e w b y 1 5 7 % , a n d N o r t h C a r o l i n a b y 1 5 4 % i n t h a t s a m e p e r i o d . W e S h a p e E l e c t i o n s T h e A s i a n A m e r i c a n a n d P a c i f i c I s l a n d e r ( A A P I ) e l e c t o r a t e i s a f o r m i d a b l e c o m m u n i t y w i t h t h e p o w e r t o s h a p e a n d i n f l u e n c e e l e c t i o n s d o w n t h e t i c k e t t h r o u g h o u t t h e c o u n t r y . T h e 2 0 2 0 p r e s i d e n t i a l e l e c t i o n s a w h i s t o r i c v o t e r t u r n o u t b y t h e A A P I e l e c t o r a t e . A A P I v o t e r s h a d t h e h i g h e s t g r o w t h o f a n y r a c i a l g r o u p i n 2 0 2 0 , w i t h a 4 7 % i n c r e a s e . T h i s m i l e s t o n e h a p p e n e d d e s p i t e a r i s e o f a n t i - A s i a n h a t e a n d v i o l e n c e , a n d a g l o b a l p a n d e m i c t h a t s h u t d o w n t h e U S e c o n o m y . H o w e v e r , i t d i d n o t h a p p e n o v e r n i g h t . T h i s w a s a r e s u l t o f d e c a d e s o f p o p u l a t i o n g r o w t h , c o o r d i n a t e d o r g a n i z i n g , a n d s t r a t e g i c i n v e s t m e n t s t o e n c o u r a g e A A P I s t o r e g i s t e r a n d v o t e a t t h e s a m e l e v e l s a s o t h e r c o m m u n i t i e s . I n t h e l a s t t h r e e p r e s i d e n t i a l c y c l e s , a p p r o x i m a t e l y 6 2 0 , 0 0 0 n e w A A P I v o t e r s e n t e r e d t h e e l e c t o r a t e , w i t h e l i g i b l e A A P I v o t e r s i n v a r i o u s s t a t e s m a k i n g u p m o r e t h a n 5 % o f t h e s t a t e ’ s e l e c t o r a t e , i n c l u d i n g C a l i f o r n i a , H a w a i i , I l l i n o i s , M a s s a c h u s e t t s , M i n n e s o t a , N e w J e r s e y , N e w Y o r k , N e v a d a , O r e g o n , V i r g i n i a , T e x a s a n d W a s h i n g t o n . I t i s i n c r e a s i n g l y c l e a r t h a t c a n d i d a t e s a n d e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s m u s t u n d e r s t a n d o u r g r o w i n g p o l i t i c a l p o w e r a n d a d d r e s s i s s u e s i m p o r t a n t t o o u r c o m m u n i t i e s . R e p r e s e n t a t i o n M a t t e r s T h e d e c i s i o n s m a d e b y p o l i c y m a k e r s a n d o u r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a t a l l l e v e l s o f g o v e r n m e n t i m p a c t s o u r d a y - t o - d a y l i v e s – f r o m h o w m u c h f u n d i n g l o c a l s c h o o l s g e t t o p o l i c i e s a r o u n d c r i m e p r e v e n t i o n a n d g u n s a f e t y . A A P I v o t e r s a r e i m p o r t a n t b e c a u s e o u r v o i c e s i n t h e p o l i t i c a l a n d p o l i c y d i s c o u r s e m u s t r e f l e c t o u r p r i o r i t i e s a n d n e e d s . H o w e v e r , i f A A P I s a r e n ’ t a t t h e t a b l e o r i n p o s i t i o n s w h e r e t h e y c a n i n f l u e n c e p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s , o u r n e e d s a n d v o i c e s a r e i g n o r e d o r f o r g o t t e n . A A P I s a r e a l s o t h e m o s t u n d e r r e p r e s e n t e d i n o f f i c e – m a k i n g u p j u s t 0 . 9 % o f e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s i n t h e U S – d e s p i t e b e i n g o v e r 6 % o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n . I t i s i m p o r t a n t t h a t A A P I v o t e r s s e e m o r e r e f l e c t i v e l e a d e r s h i p s o t h e y u n d e r s t a n d t h a t o u r r e p r e s e n t a t i v e d e m o c r a c y i n c l u d e s a n d w o r k s f o r t h e i r b e s t i n t e r e s t , a n d t o e n s u r e t h a t t h e i r n e e d s , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e m o s t v u l n e r a b l e p o p u l a t i o n s , a r e a d d r e s s e d w i t h c u l t u r a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g a n d i n t h e l a n g u a g e s t h e y a r e p r o f i c i e n t i n . I m p a c t f u l E c o n o m i c S t r e n g t h T h e g r o w t h o f A A P I i n f l u e n c e a n d p o w e r e x t e n d s b e y o n d t h e p o l i t i c a l s p h e r e , i n t o a l l a s p e c t s o f A m e r i c a n s o c i e t y . F o r e x a m p l e , A A P I s a r e i n t e g r a l t o t h e s u c c e s s o f t h e A m e r i c a n e c o n o m y — C e n s u s d a t a s h o w s t h a t i n 2 0 1 9 a l o n e , t h e A A P I c o m m u n i t y e a r n e d m o r e t h a n $ 7 8 3 . 7 b i l l i o n i n i n c o m e , p a i d m o r e t h a n $ 1 6 7 . 9 b i l l i o n i n f e d e r a l i n c o m e t a x e s a n d a l m o s t $ 7 2 . 5 b i l l i o n i n s t a t e a n d l o c a l t a x e s . A p r e - p a n d e m i c N e i l s o n s t u d y p r o j e c t e d t h e c o l l e c t i v e b u y i n g p o w e r o f A s i a n A m e r i c a n s t o r e a c h $ 1 . 3 t r i l l i o n i n 2 0 2 2 . A A P I s a s p r o f e s s i o n a l s , b u s i n e s s o w n e r s , s e r v i c e p r o v i d e r s , c o n s u m e r s , a n d a c t i v e m e m b e r s o f A m e r i c a ’ s e c o n o m y p l a y a n i m p o r t a n t r o l e i n s h a p i n g t h e f u t u r e o f o u r c o l l e c t i v e c o m m u n i t i e s . T h e d e c i s i o n s m a d e b y t o d a y ’ s l e a d e r s m u s t r e f l e c t t h e g r o w i n g n e e d s a n d r o l e s o f A A P I s i n A m e r i c a n s o c i e t y , b e g i n n i n g w i t h a p p r e c i a t i n g t h e p o w e r o f o u r v o t e s . A s i a n a n d P a c i f i c I s l a n d e r A m e r i c a n V o t e ( A P I A V o t e ) i s t h e n a t i o n ’ s l e a d i n g n o n p a r t i s a n n o n p r o f i t d e d i c a t e d t o e n g a g i n g , e d u c a t i n g , a n d e m p o w e r i n g A s i a n A m e r i c a n a n d P a c i f i c I s l a n d e r ( A A P I ) c o m m u n i t i e s t o s t r e n g t h e n t h e i r v o i c e s a n d c r e a t e i m p a c t . F o r 1 5 y e a r s , A P I A V o t e h a s b e e n a t t h e f o r e f r o n t o f a r i s i n g m o v e m e n t t o e n s u r e A A P I s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d a n d h e a r d , l e a d i n g t o h i s t o r i c v o t e r t u r n o u t a n d a d v a n c i n g e q u i t y f o r A A P I c o m m u n i t i e s . S T A Y C O N N E C T E D R e c e i v e i m p o r t a n t e m a i l u p d a t e s . SUBSCRIBE S U P P O R T O U R W O R K D o n a t e O n l i n e V o l u n t e e r P a r t n e r O r g a n i z a t i o n s Q U I C K L I N K S E l e c t i o n I n f o r m a t i o n b y S t a t e E l e c t i o n B a s i c s W h y A A P I V o t e r s C O N T A C T & C O N N E C T 1 6 1 2 K S t . N W , S u i t e 6 0 0 W a s h i n g t o n , D C 2 0 0 0 6 ( 2 0 2 ) 2 2 3 - 9 1 7 0 i n f o @ a p i a v o t e . o r g M e d i a r e q u e s t s : m e d i a @ a p i a v o t e . o r g © 2 0 2 2 A P I A V o t e . A l l r i g h t s r e s e r v e d . P o l i c i e s a n d A c c e s s i b i l i t y . W e b s i t e b y F i r e s i d e D i g i t a l . From:Scott O"Neil To:Council, City; Planning Commission; HeUpdate Subject:Report: Housing Element Fabian/E-Meadow/Bayshore Groundtruthing Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 12:06:07 AM Attachments:967FB09DE1DD4FE3AB80713113A2E6EE.png E0C418B60CEF4EEE861D4B3AAF8ED450.png 08C4465574704C229F8200B26111BC6B.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. Dear Palo Alto City Council; Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Committee; Palo Alto Housing Element Working Group; and City Staff: March 30, 2022 Dear Palo Alto City Council; Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Committee; Palo Alto Housing Element Working Group; and City Staff: I am writing today to share Housing Element ground-truthing results about various sites in South Palo Alto around East Meadow Circle, Bayshore, and Fabian. Many of these sites comprising 297 units are categorized as low-income sites because the acreage is high, but with the low-income designation comes a heightened degree of scrutiny with respect to site suitability. The city must prove a substantial likelihood of development. Several of these sites fail that test. Additionally, a series of lots at the corner of Fabian and Charleston comprising 48 units of moderate income housing should be disallowed. The city recently rejected housing at this site, and the facts around that rejection create a strong case that housing here will not be feasible at the envisioned density. Google-Owned Sites Around East Meadow Circle, Google has engaged in a pattern of land acquisition that indicates intent to establish a campus. This has been documented by the media. Specifically, Google owns 1020, 1035, 1036, 1053, 1076, 1085 on East Meadow Circle. These sites are largely contiguous. Google has started to move into some of them, and Google has contributed $1 million toward the construction of a pedestrian bridge nearby. I have previously made the Housing Element Working Group aware of this pattern of facts, both in oral public comment, and in written communication. If Google has provided a letter demonstrating interest in housing development for these sites, then the city should say so, but we do not believe that to be the case. As things stand, the city does not have substantial evidence of housing development. In fact: it has substantial evidence for future allowed office development. The city should allow housing on these sites and others, but because it cannot meet the substantial evidence threshold it cannot count them as low-income sites in the inventory at a probability of development of one hundred percent. We suggest 5% is a more likely development probability. Displacement Baseline For many areas in this part of Palo Alto, the streets themselves are being used for workforce housing. This is true in ROLM and light industrial areas such as East Meadow Circle, but not true in areas with residential development. This pattern is likely due to the city’s complaint-based parking enforcement policy, with residents reporting parked housing while businesses focus on business. This use of the curb is housing. If these areas convert to residential, as the city claims, then the housing use of the curb will cease as residents call in complaints. The city should therefore account for the displaced housing by counting it as baseline in the Housing Element inventory. We walked the area on 5/21 and found 7 RVs. See photos attached. It is unlikely that any are there for long-term storage, because it is difficult for owners to keep an eye on them there and make sure they are not ticketed and towed. It is more likely that ‘7’ units is an undercount, because there are at least as many long-term parked cars in the area, which are also frequently used as workforce housing in Palo Alto. One RV was audibly running a generator as we passed. If the city does not want to account for lost vehicular housing in its baseline, then it has another possible approach. It can legalize long-term parking throughout the city. That would guarantee that these units do not become displaced. But if the city is not going to take such measures to prevent RV displacement, then it should account for the loss of this housing as it plans for the conversion of the surrounding areas to a use that will generate complaints and displacement. Sites Available for Lease Similarly, sites that are currently listed for lease cannot meet the substantial evidence threshold. The site owner is demonstrating an intent for a contrary use that is likely to persist throughout the planning period. There are many such sites being counted in the inventory for housing in the inventory. 3350 W. Bayshore (126 low income) 3500 W. Bayshore (44 low income) 3600 W. Bayshore (66 low income) 3940 Fabian (40 low income) 3960 Fabian (21 low income) 846 Charleston/3997 Fabian, 5 lots, 48 moderate income FOR LEAF Fult Bvil&�M19 Arail3bla 14 000 s f peem�rriech�R.&R Spuee r Jeff Fcsrrar 530.521.0608 This applies to APNs: 127-37-001 (7 moderate) 127-37-002 (7 moderate) 127-37-003 (8 moderate) 127-37-005 (12 moderate) 127-37-007 (14 moderate) There are two additional APNs that are contiguous with these (127-37-004 and 1237- 37-006), and are under the same control. They should all be considered together, and might yield different analysis when the structures are combined with the lots. We know they have common control because a 2020 PHZ proposal considered them together. The Council denied this proposal, and the applicant clearly is not going forward with height reductions and other changes demanded by the City Council. Denying housing on a given site via discretionary review means it is particularly unlikely this site will redevelop as housing. We know that the allowed use is incompatible with economically feasible housing because it didn’t redevelop under city rules. We know that discretionary review will not suffice for this specific site because the owner effectively reached impasse with the Council.. The HE inventory is using densities far lower than the PHZ proposal, which was rejected. The city does not have as high a burden of proof as they would for the lower-income sites, but taken together, these points demonstrate that there is an overwhelming case that this specific site will not produce housing in the 6th cycle. Which brings us to a broader point. This project should be addressed in the city’s constraints analysis, as it is a clear data point showing one case where the city’s height and density limits have defeated redevelopment into housing, and how far they would need to change to make that housing feasible. There are many other sites on the inventory that are equally unlikely, for similar reasons. See Robert Chun’s recent letter making this case. - 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 - RVs on East Meadow Circle on 5/21 2 RVs 2 RVs 3 RVs. From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:Aram James; Council, City; Portillo, Rumi; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Human Relations Commission; Vara Ramakrishnan; Rebecca.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org; Dave Price; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Pat Burt; Greer Stone; Lydia Kou Subject:Rebecca Tanner"s response to my email (see the photo after the words) Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 4:58:38 PM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear all: Looks like Ms. Tanner is blocking communications from my law firm's email address? (See below.) She probably should change that in case the City Council approves the illegal and overreaching Castilleja application tonight. If City Council approves Castilleja's illegal CUP application as the City Staff recommend, then Ms. Tanner - and many others who will have approved the Castilleja application in violation of State and Federal law - will likely be receiving future emails from me and/or (other) attorneys representing community members against Palo Alto City Council, each and every one of its Council members individually and jointly as a governing body (several state statutes including the Brown Act provide both for third party causes of action, in addition to personal liability of individual elected leaders).... but only, I guess, if she is not worried about a default ruling, given that these kinds of lawsuits often lead to similarly situated individuals attempting to offload liability to each other. You may think that Palo Alto's elected and appointed leaders would be immune from lawsuits should it violate state and federal law (and its own local laws) by approving Castilleja's application. But you would not be, as stated above. Well, then - you may ask - why did the royally screwed over people who used to live in the President Hotel not sue when they had extremely valid causes of action against the City and its leaders? The answer to that is simple: AJ Capital had PAID OFF every single resident with a settlement agreement when it illegally evicted them. Those settlement agreements included (as they always do) a non-disclosure agreement (NDA), and a Release of any and all rights to sue any party based on the eviction -- in addition to payments ranging from generous to extravagant (says the grapevine). Because every person harmed by the City and AJ Capital already had been compensated for their harm, they did not sue and could not, per the agreements they signed, sue. In the case of Castilleja, however, Castilleja seems to have paid off the wrong people -- Jonathan Lait and others in his Planning Dept.. and maybe Molly Stump and others on her team. But Castilleja did not make any offers of settlement with the people who will be immediately, directly, and irreparably harmed by their oversized, environmentally hazardous, and illegal crusade to build an underground cement skyscraper in a residential R-1 zoned block! (Now who is hostile to single family homes, Tom Dubois? I mean, putting a profitable yet non-tax-paying commercial venture on the site of 55 R-1 residentially zoned homes is not just "wanting to destroy single family neighborhoods -- it is LITERALLY destroying a single family neighborhood by placing a commercial business serving approximately 200 employees and 550 students in the place where 55 families would have lived!! If you truly believed in single family neighborhoods, you would protect THIS single family home neighborhood rather than destroy it.) And if you think that these community members will decide not to exercise their rights under local, state, and federal law the first time a big construction truck emits carbon-dioxide toxic fumes into their properties, the first time that the toxic fumes and waste materials harm their right to quiet (and non-poisonous) enjoyment in their privately-owned homes, and the first time one of the numerous trees that Castilleja plans to kill THIS SUMMER comes crashing down ... even before the deafening sounds of construction equipment that will make attempting to live in their homes impossible from 7 am to 8 PM...... Well, I am guessing that you have another think coming. See you soon! I have a date fighting to protect a single family neighborhood tonight, from the destruction that Palo Alto's appointed leaders seek to do to it, and to the majority of the families, including seniors and young children, who live there. Even though this is a fight worth taking on, I am baffled by the fact that a "pro- residential" City Council would make me, and so many others, get up there to beg you to keep our residential neighborhoods RESIDENTIAL, despite what billionaire interests want you to do with it. Best, Rebecca 415-235-8078 PS. I hope that this wasn't "mean"!! ;-) -- Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq. Principal & Founder Netskink Positive Impact Investments Private Client Legal Services www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg rebecca@privateclientlegal.com 415-235-8078 On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 3:25 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear Aram (and all): Thank you for distributing the Post's article from a couple years ago, discussing the attacks made by Councilperson Dubois on 5 candidates running for City Council. I had emailed Mr. Dubois directly about his commentary, asking him if we could discuss by phone, but he did not respond (I still would be open to this, however!). And unfortunately I did not see this Daily Post article when it was published, in part because of the fact that, although the Post interviewed the other 4 candidates for their reactions, it did not reach out to me. Here is the Daily Post article: https://padailypost.com/2020/10/03/councilman- assails-five-challenges-but-they-say-his-critique-is-riddled-with-inaccuracies/ Here is Council member Dubois's criticism of 5 candidates, including me: https://www.votedubois.com/palo_alto_values Specifically, Mr. Dubois said the following about me directly: "In addition to these three, Rebecca Eisenberg has repeatedly called the men and women that make Palo Alto such a safe place, racist." Had the Daily Post asked me for my response, I would have said one or more of the following: 1. I not even once have called any man or woman that makes Palo Alto a safe place, including any police officer (which I think is to whom he was referring) racist. You can read everything I ever wrote, and listen to anything I ever said (in fact, please do!) and I dare you to find one instance, let alone "repeated" instances. This is due to the following: A. I was raised never to criticize people, but rather to criticize ACTIONS. This is one of the most fundamental beliefs of my Jewish faith. (Feel free to interview my mother on this point.) B. I would not have called officers racist because I do not believe that the institutional bias found in the PAPD (as well as in most/all police departments) is due to "bad apples." It is due to institutional bias, including unconscious bias in the criminal laws, unconscious bias in criminal law enforcement, and unconscious bias in the way that many non-black people, including many police officers, often assume that black people present in white-majority neighborhoods are acting shady or causing a danger. (Sometimes that bias is conscious, but the result is the same). This is why I push for a more diverse peace-keeping authority, as well as the disarming of officers in all situations that do not involve violent crime (e.g. traffic stops and mental health disturbances, among many others). These problems are not due to 'bad apples,' but due to more historic, entrenched bias that often is unconscious. 2. If these men and women were making Palo Alto a safe place, I would not criticize the actions of the police force. I -- and countless others -- criticize the fact that the PAPD makes Palo Alto a safe place only for SOME people, but not for ALL people. Until Palo Alto is safe for all, it is irrational to consider Palo Alto "safe," and therefore the actions I criticize are specifically ones that make Palo Alto dangerous for some people here - mostly BIPOC, LGBTQia+, and other minorities, as well as in many cases, women. 3. It's strange to me that there are some people, let alone in elected leadership! -- who, despite all evidence to the contrary, continue to deny that the PAPD - like many/most other PDs in the US -- has a historic problem with excessive force that detrimentally impacts BIPOC folks. I would have urged Tom Dubois to read the Daily Post more regularly, as the Post does a particularly good job of documenting police brutality, usually needing to file public records act requests because the PAPD, under direction of the City Council, still refuses to hand over evidence of violent actions, even though disclosure of that information is mandatory under California state law. Perhaps if Mr. Dubois would act to compel the PAPD to comply with state disclosure mandates, then Mr. Dubois would have a better understanding of the nature and extent of excessive force, mostly against people of color, here in our home town. 4. Finally, I would have been thrilled to share some of the resources I check in order to stay updated on the national crisis of police violence. Here are some of my favorite online resources (in addition to a list of books about disparate impact and anti-racism I would be happy to share as well): https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?nid https://mappingpoliceviolence.us https://mappingpoliceviolence.org Reading these three resources, one learns the following, for example: - In 2021, 1045 people were shot and killed by the police. - Of the people killed by police, black people were three times as likely to be shot and killed by the police as white people in the same circumstances. - These numbers represent only the people shot, not the people killed by police in other ways, e.g. tasers, dogs, and foot on neck, amongst others. (Source: Washington Post) - Most killings by police begin with traffic stops, mental health checks, domestic violence, non- violent offenses and where no crime was alleged. - Only 1 in 3 police killings began with an alleged violent crime (Source: Mapping Police Violence) - During the same period - 2021 - only 73 police officers were killed feloniously. - This number includes all means of killing, not just guns. (Source: FBI database of police deaths: https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/le/leoka) That means that during the same year, the police killed 1045 people by gunshot alone, and 73 officers were killed by any means. And: the numbers of people killed by police is RISING, while the number of police killed is FALLING. (Source for trending: FBI database, see above.) In sum, while the statement made about me by Mr. Dubois was inflammatory, hostile, and inaccurate, I 100% stand by the position that there is a problem of institutional racism in police enforcement in the United States, and the actions of Palo Alto's Police Department - like virtually all other police departments - indicate institutional bias via a history of excessive force that mostly harms people of color, especially African Americans, and a shameful record of lack of compliance with disclosure laws as well as a hostility towards transparency and accountability. Until all people in Palo Alto can feel safe, I do not believe that the current law enforcement system is performing adequately. Thanks for asking! It sure would be nice to have more than 2 minutes every now and then to make my point clearly so that others would not put words in my mouth that I never would say. Just ask my mom. PS - Tom, I would love to discuss these issues with you more in person or by phone. I believe that we share values in wanting everyone in our town to feel welcome, safe, and protected. I think we can achieve that with a meaningful look into what systemic improvements we can make quickly, and which systemic improvements we can make over time, starting with looking at innovative and successful approaches made by similar cities, and meeting with the leaders of those cities to discuss (which is far more likely to result in actionable data than another survey, right?). There is so much we can do together to improve the quality of life for all folks in Palo Alto, and sometimes even small changes can yield monumental improvements. Thanks again, Best, Rebecca 415-235-8078 PPS As to the claim that I said I wanted to "eliminate single family neighborhoods in Palo Alto during endorsement interviews." I respond: Council Member Dubois: there is a legal and factual difference between eliminating a ZONING category and eliminating a type of building. For example, the neighborhood where our house and tenants live in San Francisco -- Noe Valley -- is zoned almost entirely R-2, including my own single family house there. That said, virtually every R-2 lot in Noe Valley contains a single-family home, even though we all have the legal right to put another home on the lot. Opening up the POTENTIAL for other types of housing has NOTHING in common with "eliminating single family neighborhoods" or even tearing down single-family homes. Throughout our country, including in many parts of California, single family home neighborhoods are comprised of lots zoned for one or two homes. This misunderstanding of basic property and land use law also infects the City's understanding of laws like SB-9, which actually give rights to property owners, not to the state. SB-9 tells homeowners that they now are *allowed* to put a second home on, or subdivide, their property, but it does not FORCE them to do so. All the hand-wringing about SB-9 is misplaced. It gives zero rights to the state, only to the homeowners. And due to its passage, people privileged and wealthy enough to own homes in Palo Alto -- like you! -- now have even more wealth because it is overwhelmingly true that homes zoned R-2 are more valuable than homes zoned R-1. If anything, you own the state legislature for this nice gift of increased property rights! It is doubtful that this law would have passed if it did not have that aspect. PPS Tom Dubois: is there a way to take down a tweet that attacks you, threatens you with rape, encourages others to commit violence against you, and otherwise threatens you? If so, can you please let me know? Rape threats is a normal response to being a woman running for office with ideas and thoughts. It also is a common response to a woman being a syndicated columnist, which I also was. I would love to know if there would be a way to end rape threats against me, because I would welcome that. Otherwise, I'm usually stuck with the mean, hostile, and sometimes threatening tweets that (mostly) men like to make at me on Twitter. (I do sometimes take down hostile Facebook comments, which is a control built into the interface! It's really not too much to ask that if a person wants to attack me or threaten me, they can do that on their own facebook page, not on mine. My 85 year old parents look at my facebook page and they would freak out if they saw something like that on my page! ) So I found that criticism puzzling and would love to hear more. Best - rle On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:09 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: > > FYI: > > From the archives of the Daly Post -if I don’t agree with u I just delete your post. This is a guy who only listens to himself verbal attack or no attack -not fit for public office? > > > > https://padailypost.com/2020/10/03/councilman-assails-five-challenges-but-they-say- his-critique-is-riddled-with-inaccuracies/ > > > Sent from my iPhone From:John Hanna To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 2:56:52 PM Attachments:image007.png image009.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from jhanna@hanvan.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and members of the City Council: The time has at last come to approve the Castilleja project and put an end to this ordeal. Castilleja deserves our respect, admiration and support. While the complaints of some of the neighbors are understandable, great efforts have been made to mitigate the environmental effects about which some of them complain. In some ways many of those who complain the loudest can be likened to one who buys a home near an airport and then complains about the noise, or one who buys a home near the RR tracks and then complains when the number of trains increases. Those who suggest the School should move out of town, might consider themselves moving to a location not hear a school. Given the current state of our educational system, notably here in California, schools like Castilleja should be nurtured, encouraged and protected. To those who say that Castilleja educates too many girls who are not Palo Alto residents, I say, Isn’t that a bit selfish Please vote to approve the project. Sincerely, John Hanna John Paul Hanna, Esq. NOTE: NEW ADDRESS AS OF 1/1/22! HANNA & VAN ATTA 525 Middlefield Road, Suite 210 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Tel: (650) 321-5700; Fax: (650) 321-5639 E-mail: jhanna@hanvan.com Recognized by Best Lawyers® in America 2019 for Real Estate Law; Community Association Law; and Land Use and Zoning Law; Land Use and Zoning Law Lawyer of the Year in N. California 2019 & 2020; Best Law Firms in California, first tier rankings in 2018, 2019, 2021 & 2022. The information contained in this email may be confidential and/or legally privileged. It has been sent for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If the reader of this message is not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please reply to the sender and destroy all copies of the message. From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; fred beyerlein; beachrides; bballpod; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; dallen1212@gmail.com; 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; leager; Leodies Buchanan; Mayor; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: May 20. Former Bank of England Governor on inflation, recession, int. rates Date:Monday, May 30, 2022 5:34:18 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: Mon, May 30, 2022 at 4:06 PM Subject: Fwd: May 20. Former Bank of England Governor on inflation, recession, int. rates To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, May 29, 2022 at 10:04 PM Subject: Fwd: May 20. Former Bank of England Governor on inflation, recession, int. rates To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, May 28, 2022 at 3:47 PM Subject: Fwd: May 20. Former Bank of England Governor on inflation, recession, int. rates To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, May 28, 2022 at 1:49 AM Subject: Fwd: May 20. Former Bank of England Governor on inflation, recession, int. rates To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, May 27, 2022 at 11:33 PM Subject: May 20. Former Bank of England Governor on inflation, recession, int. rates To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Monday, May 30, 2022 To all- Here is a respected former central banker. Lord King was a Governor of the Bank of England. After all of the guessing you have heard, here is someone with experience who knows: He is not a 30 year old on Wall St. telling you what he thinks is going to unfold here with our economy and the stock market. Look where he was. He thinks we could be in for "a very unpleasant period ahead". He says that could happen if the Fed, in our case, just makes small hikes in interest rates and weak, accomodative comments about how determined they are to rein in inflation, which do not get inflation on a good downward trajectory, AND THEN they are forced, maybe in early 2023, to take Draconian actions to finally bring inflation down! He says that in the 70's the two central banks that took strong action early-on to rein in inflation were the Bundesbank in Germany and the Swiss central bank. They then had the mildest recessions. Notice that central banks really only deal with a small cluster of concepts: interest rates, employment v. unemployment rates, money supply, wages and salaries, price stability (which when it fails can be inflation), producer prices, consumer prices, agriculture prices, raw materials prices, rate of growth in the economy- which when it turns negative for two consecutive quarters, represents a recession. Industrial output, imports and exports, housing starts, sales of existing homes, mortgage rates. (Conceivably an over-simplification). Right now the US has very low interest rates (just raised from zero percent), very low unemployment, a contracting economy by 1.5% in the first quarter of 2022 (see below), high inflation, and still too much money in circulation, although they have stopped printing money now and are going to pull it back in by selling some of the $6 trillion of securities they have on their balance sheet. US GDP growth rate: United States GDP Growth Rate - 2022 Data - 2023 Forecast - 1947-2021 Historical (tradingeconomics.com) Start listening here to the former Governor of the Bank of England at the 6:00 mark and go to 14:00. The next 14 minutes are no less interesting. There, he discusses Fed action in 2020 and 2021. They cut rates to zero and printed money because the economy was being shut down due to Covid. People were not working and earning, so the government helped with easy money. Then in 2022 they got caught with a shock- Russia's invasion of Ukraine and Covid has damaged supply chains. (In the 70s it was the Arab oil embargos). Energy and food prices have spiked. Inflation has soared to 8.3%. The Fed says their target is 2%. He says the Fed should be taking stronger action now. A quarter point rate hike, a half point rate hike, and discussion of two more half point rate hikes in June and July are NOT what they should be doing. Why take the 75 basis point hikes off the table, as Chairman Powell has done? It should probably be two 75 basis point hikes in June and July at least. And more after that. If they don't do that they may have to club the economy into a recession early in 2023 when inflation has only come down to 5%. The tamer the Fed action now, the worse will be the recession when and if inflation stays high and they have to really get tough. In full: Former BoE Governor warns of a "very unpleasant period" ahead - YouTube The Bank of England is not like the Bank of America. It is their central bank. By the way, his title is Lord King. L.William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; fred beyerlein; beachrides; bballpod; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; dallen1212@gmail.com; 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; leager; Leodies Buchanan; Mayor; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; sanchezphilip21@gmail.com; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: May, 1943 The Trident Conference in Washington, D.C. Date:Monday, May 30, 2022 4:58:44 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: Sun, May 29, 2022 at 5:13 PM Subject: Fwd: May, 1943 The Trident Conference in Washington, D.C. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, May 29, 2022 at 3:56 AM Subject: May, 1943 The Trident Conference in Washington, D.C. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Monday, May 30, 2022 Memorial Day To all- I had a neighbor in Fresno, a former Marine, with a degree in History from Fresno State. One wall of his living room was covered with books on WWII. We agreed that the 19 month climb up Italy was sort of a waste. The war in Europe was up on a line from London to Berlin to Moscow. Now I learn that was also the view of the American high command, or some of them, at the 1943 Trident Conference. George Marshal was one of them. The campaign in Italy did compel the Germans to shift forces there and away from the eastern front. Ditto for their forces in France just before and after D-Day. That bleeding away of German forces from the eastern front and from France is perhaps the main justification for the long slog up the length of Italy. Stalin was pushing for a second front in 1942, and a cross-channel invasion would have been very costly at that point. So, the Americans invaded Morocco and Algeria in November, 1942 in Operation Torch (FDR said "At last we're on our way"). The ships had left England and the east coast of the US for this invasion. The British had been fighting the Afrika Korp in the east of the Med, keeping them out of Egypt and the Arabian Penninsula, helped in that by some Sherman tanks we gave them- 300 I think. The British Eighth Army pushed Rommel west and the Americans pushed the Germans east. They met in May of 1943 when they pushed the Germans and their allies up into the eastern coastal plain of Tunisia where 400,000 of them surrendered. SO, you make a huge effort in North Africa to defeat Rommel and his Afrika Korps so they cannot get the oil of the Middle East. BUT, having done that, the next "logical" step is to jump off from Tunisia for an invasion of Sicily!!. See how the whole effort in North Aftica by the British and the US led to a "logical" invasion of Sicily and Italy, when North Africa had been the problem, not so much Italy. BUT, standing in Tunisia, they then proceeded into Italy, when the war was way up on the line London-Berlin-Moscow. A cross channel invasion was not much more appealing in June of 1943 than it had been in 1942, but at the Trident Converence in May of 1943, it was agreed that the the invasion of Italy would come then and the cross channel invasion would come around April, 1944. Until then, the allies would kill Germans in Italy. In Asia, why put huge resources into Burma and China when a (costly) campaign in the Marianas would bring American power within reach of Japan. That is where the resources did in fact go. Costly island-hopping. When you look at the map of the Pacific, you can see the wheels in their minds turning and the correct strategy come into focus, like seeing a photographic film develop. As a side-note, when the B-29 Boks Car went up to Japan to drop Fatman, it hung around south of Japan for a LONG time waiting for the photographic plane to show up, wasting fuel. They finally gave up on that and proceeded with the mission. The photographic plane had in fact gotten there but at a different altitude. So in went Boks Car and its primary target was socked in. So they went to the alternate Nagasaki and it too was pretty much socked in. They saw a break in the clouds and dropped Fat Man. It fell into a valley and did not do to Nagasaki what LeMay hoped it would do. They were so low on fuel at this point that they had to land on Okinawa instead of making it down to Tinian or Guam. When LeMay got hold of the pilot, he said "You fucked up, didn't you? Trident: The Allied Plan to Win the War - Time Ghost News Flash - YouTube Another side-note: Today, May 30, 2022, KCBS-SF AM740 interviewed the Director of the National Air and Space Museum. They discussed the Navy's Top Gun program, which is a real program. He went through the program in the 80's.when he was a Navy Flight Officer. He said that he was honored to be admitted to the program because one has to be very good to get in. It is humbling because everyone in the program is as good or better than you are. He said, comparing the two Top Gun movies to the real thing, that they don't spend a lot of time playing volleyball or hanging out in bars. Too busy studying. Top Gun had its origin in disatisfaction by the Navy in some Naval Air performance in Viet Nam, compared to performance going back to WWII, he said. Top Gun has improved combat performance. He said the program was all male in the 80s. He was on the carrier USS Eisenhower and the crew then was all-male. That has changed. He said the program is very rigorous and very professional. He has no problem with the Hollywood depiction of Top Gun. The Navy co-operated very well with Hollywood in its making of the two movies. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:chuck jagoda To:Aram James; Rebecca Eisenberg; Council, City Subject:Re: Why we must have an open and transparent hiring process for Palo Alto’s next police chief Date:Monday, May 30, 2022 11:11:30 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from chuckjagoda1@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachmentsand clicking on links. Hi Aram, Rebecca, and Palo Alto City Council, I don't disagree with the reasons given to not hire Jonsen. What I notice in general, however, is the lack of a public conversation about systemic police brutality. Specifically, I refer to the individual police attacks on innocents of color involving unnecessary force, lying on reports, and an attack dog. These outbursts by white officers against innocents of color are ignored in local publications and at public Palo Alto City Council meetings. If there have been any discussions at Council meetings or in the POST, I've missed them. Is this the strategy of the City of Palo Alto? Ignore the problem and it will go away? Why can't the new chief answer a few questions: What changes in hiring, monitoring, and vetting do you intend to institute? What about self-indemnification for new hires? What do the presently working officers think? What do you intend to do about the culture of policing in Palo Alto? When? Chuck Jagoda Sunnyvale 408.373.1449 Peninsula Women's International League for Peace and Freedom Homeless/Housing Committee Virus-free. www.avast.com On Sun, May 29, 2022 at 8:57 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Sent from my iPhone On May 25, 2022, at 10:57 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: More on the damage caused by current police chief Robert Jonsen https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2022/03/18/residents-demand-more-transparency- accountability-in-next-police-chief On May 25, 2022, at 10:28 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Rebecca, You are absolutely correct. All of the warning signs that Robert Jonson would be an unmitigated disaster as Palo Alto’s next police chief were all there before he ever stepped foot in Palo Alto. See the Daily Post piece below dated 11-14 2017 for details. We must push back hard, public protests whatever actions we can take, to push No Transparency and No Democracy city manager Ed Shikada into bringing at least the three finalists for police chief before the city council and our community so the candidates can be thoroughly vetted before one of them is selected as our next chief. aram Palo Alto hires Menlo Park’s police chief November 14, 2017 12:23 am BY ALLISON LEVITSKY Daily Post Staff Writer Menlo Park Police Chief Bob Jonsen will leave the department after almost five years to serve as Palo Alto’s new police chief, Palo Alto City Manager Jim Keene announced yesterday (Nov. 13). “His deep experience in a nearby city and increasingly senior and complex assignments in all aspects of law enforcement bring extraordinary value to the position of police chief,” Keene said in a statement. “We look forward to having him join Palo Alto to lead our stellar police department.” Jonsen has been lauded by elected officials and community members, not all of whom agree with him, as approachable, charismatic and easy to work with. “He’s done a great job in Menlo Park and I think that shows. That’s why he got picked up by Palo Alto,” Menlo Park Mayor Kristen Keith told the Post. “We’ll miss him. He’s done a great job.” Jonsen is also no stranger to controversy. During his time as chief, Menlo Park police have received complaints about over-policing and racial profiling. Jonsen’s ushering in of license plate readers and Tasers in his first few months on the job raised concerns about privacy and police use of force. On Nov. 11, 2014, three Menlo Park police officers shot armed, meth-addled burglar Jerry Lee Matheny to death with their body-worn cameras turned off. And from 2011 to 2013, Jonsen was the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department station chief in Lancaster, which settled with the Justice Department on April 28, 2015, over allegations of harassment of blacks and others in public housing. “I never really cared much for him,” said Matt Henry, former president of the neighborhood association of Belle Haven, ground zero for much of Menlo Park’s violent crime and most of its complaints of over-policing and racial profiling. ‘A big mess’ Henry worked in the Antelope Valley when Jonsen was the sheriff’s station chief in Lancaster. “His reputation was horrible, the way he treated people. Not personally, but some of the policies that they had down there,” Henry said. “It was a big mess down there, and he got out just before the Justice Department came.” In a June 2013 report, the Justice Department said that deputies had showed up for inspections with as many as nine officers, sometimes with guns drawn. In 2015, Jonsen told the Post that he was brought into the station after an investigation into the abuses was already underway, and worked with his superiors to help the department become more accountable. Aram James, a police watchdog and former Santa Clara County assistant public defender, said he hoped that Jonsen would sit down with him to talk about racial profiling in Menlo Park, the dangers of Tasers and the public’s limited access to body-worn camera footage via the Public Records Act. “Is he willing to take a look at how bad that policy looks to the public?” James said. “That doesn’t make his leadership transformative in this time when there’s so much focus on police misconduct.” Transparency efforts But Jonsen says he’s ushered transparency into the department. “Since 2013, I think this department has become one of the most innovative in the region, and definitely one of the most transparent,” Jonsen told the Post yesterday. Menlo Park was one of the first cities in the region to bring in body-worn cameras, and in May 2016, the city joined the White House’s Police Data Initiative, releasing data on calls for service, traffic stops and personnel demographics on the city’s website. The police department’s policy was posted online in 2013. Jonsen also started a mindfulness and compassion training for officers, which he says should have a positive effect on police-community relations. “I think our relationships have always been really good with the community,” Jonsen said. “There have been conversations on racial profiling, and we’ve been open to the community, talking with the community about their concerns.” Body-worn camera policy After the 2014 police shooting in Menlo Park, Jonsen says he strenghened the body-worn camera policy to require officers to turn on their cameras before they arrive at a scene. The cameras were off during the shooting because it happened immediately after they arrived at the scene, not leaving them time to turn on their cameras. San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said Jonsen was “superb” throughout the investigation into the shooting. Wagstaffe, a Menlo Park resident, said that Jonsen had raised morale about policing in town and ensures that the department “does good work for their community.” Belle Haven resident Pam Jones said she was a fan of Jonsen. “He’s been really working hard to develop a good rapport with the city, and particularly here in Belle Haven. Palo Alto is very fortunate,” Jones told the Post. ‘A consummate professional’ Menlo Park Councilman Ray Mueller said he disagreed with Jonsen’s approach with license plate readers and traffic cameras. He also took issue with the city accepting $9 million over five years to hire six additional police officers, which council approved on Nov. 7. But, Mueller said, Jonsen worked through disagreement productively and without confrontation. “He’s always taken my concerns very seriously and always worked with them to be accommodating, so that we could reach outcomes that would serve the benefit of our residents,” Mueller told the Post. “He is a consummate professional and, on top of that, he’s just a really good man. I’m not surprised that we lost him, and we’re really going to miss him.” Stuart Soffer, a former Menlo Park planning commissioner and Finance and Audit Committee member, said he completed the citizens’ police academy and thought Jonsen was personable and a “great manager.” “I always thought he would make a great city manager,” Soffer said. Mueller had another idea for Jonsen’s next career move as a police chief. “I think Bob, frankly, will end up in a city even larger than Palo Alto, eventually,” Mueller said. Salary Jonsen’s salary has been set at $260,000 with a monthly housing rental stipend of $3,000 a month for 18 months. The rental stipend will “allow him to maximize the time on the job and to fully immerse himself in the Palo Alto community as he builds relationships that are key as he assumes this new position,” according to a statement by city spokeswoman Claudia Keith. Palo Alto City Council will have to confirm Jonsen as the new chief on Dec. 11 and the city will need to finalize his public safety background requirements before he starts on Jan. 9. A graduate in Occupational Studies at CSU-Long Beach, Jonsen also holds a master’s in organizational leadership from Woodbury University in Burbank. Jonsen will replace Dennis Burns, who stepped down in December after 35 years on the police force. Capt. Ron Watson, who has been serving as interim chief, did not apply for the chief’s position. Sidebar: Jonsen’s record as Menlo Park’s police chief In his nearly five years as Menlo Park’s police chief, Bob Jonsen strengthened the department’s policy on body-worn cameras and established a citizens advisory committee. He has also seen his share of controversy, including three lawsuits alleging improper actions by officers. Feb. 15, 2013 — Jonsen began at Menlo Park. Sept. 25, 2013 — Council approves Jonsen’s request to spend $127,682 for four fixed-location surveillance cameras and three automatic license plate readers that can record data on thousands of cars a day. Nov. 12, 2013 — Hiruy Amanuel sues the department, claiming that during two traffic stops (one before Jonsen started and the other after) he was harassed by officers over his prior criminal conviction. He also claimed officers directed “racist and derogatory slurs” at him. Dec. 10, 2013 — Jonsen announces he wants to work with landlords to evict known gangsters. May 13, 2014 — Council votes 3-2, with council members Peter Ohtaki and Catherine Carlton dissenting, to make it a crime for any police officer to violate the city’s surveillance data ordinance. Jonsen called the ordinance “unnecessary.” Aug. 2, 2014 — The department is sued by former cop Rolando Igno, who was fired that April by Jonsen. Igno claimed that Jonsen should not have used issues that had been resolved previously as reasons to fire him. Nov. 11, 2014 — Three Menlo Park officers shoot and kill Jerry Lee Matheny, who was confronted after a burglary. The three officers who were involved in the shooting were later cleared by District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. A Post reporter is told by witnesses at the shooting scene that they were instructed by Menlo Park police not to talk to the press about the incident. Jonsen did not return Post Editor Dave Price’s calls or emails about the gag order. Jan. 29, 2015 — Councilman Ray Mueller blasts Jonsen and Cmdr. Dave Bertini over the fact that the three officers involved in the Matheny shooting did not have their body cameras on. “The one time we needed them on, they weren’t,” Mueller said. Aug. 5, 2015 — The Post published a report by Stanford journalism student Farida Jhabvala Romero, who wrote about the number of people pulled over in Menlo Park for having a suspended or revoked license. Of those pulled over, seven out of 10 were racial minorities. Capt. Dave Bertini denied that the department was targeting minorities, but did say that low-income drivers come to the attention of officers because of mechanical failures of their cars. The city’s towing fee was $300. “If anyone were to suggest that this is going on for racial reasons I think that’s asinine and bordering on slanderous,” Bertini told Romero. May 5, 2016 — As a result of Romero’s story, council votes to reduce the towing fee to $125. Jan. 19, 2017 — Jonsen and Mayor Kirsten Keith announce that all officers will go through “mindfulness” training in order for officers to face their discomforts and overcome them, whether it be physical or emotional or even because of biases, such as race or gender, and become more “emotionally available” to the communities they serve. Feb. 16, 2017 — A Redwood City man, Francisco Guevara, sues the city, saying he spent two nights in jail despite having done nothing wrong. Guevara said he probably wouldn’t have been arrested in the first place except that a man with the same name and physical description had a warrant out for his arrest. Aug. 28, 2017 — Tim Chamberlin sues the police department, saying he had been forced to live in his car for almost a year after he was evicted by Menlo Park police from the granny unit he was renting. Chamberlin contends Menlo Park police erred by getting involved in a civil matter between the owners of the home. Nov. 7, 2017 — Council approves a $11.25 million agreement with Facebook so the company can pay for six additional officers to patrol the east side. Jonsen helped negotiate the agreement. PREVIOUS Los Altos official proposes parcel tax to renovate or rebuild library Thanks, Mark and Aram. Aram - I remember how hard you worked to open the process before Jonsen was hired. You had easily uncovered much evidence of alleged misdeeds committed by Jonsen during his previous job in Menlo Park. You had brought those matters to the attention of the City Council, by emailing, speaking out, and also publishing editorials in the press. But the City Council ignored you. Because the City Council followed the secrecy route that you and so many community members (including me) had denounced, Palo Alto chose a police chief that irreparably harmed our town's public image and significantly harmed the police force and city government's relationships with the community. During Jonsen's time in PA, our town has been sued a record amount of times, our police force has committed a record number acts leading to the perception of undue force, and has spent a record amount of money in legal fees and settlements responding to these matters (not to mention even police officers themselves filing baseless actions against the city) -- all while actual crime has continued to rise. Now Shikada wants to repeat the broken process that led to the choice of the least successful police chief in PA's recent history. I don't know about you, but I always believed the adage that a direct route to failure is to repeat the same action expecting a different result. On behalf of our community, Palo Alto deserves a better process to select a police chief that is truly a good fit for our town. Can't you hear the residents demanding transparency and accountability? Why not give that to them? Whose side are you on? Best, Rebecca On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:07 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hiring process for police chief will be secret and behind closed doors. Thanks Mark for keeping this critical conversation going. Our continued public deliberations on the issue and the staff and Castillega’s machinations—- deserve the most heightened scrutiny. aram P.S. In this morning’s Daily Post, page 4, Shikada announced the hiring process for police chief will be secret behind closed doors. We can’t let this happen. Again we must continue to push back on Staff in order to achieve any degree of transparency. The staff often appears to me to be members of a private corporation upholding the rights of the rich at the expense of those who deserve justice. On May 25, 2022, at 1:11 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I met Rebecca Eisenberg for the first time in 2018, walking our dogs, at Peers Park. I had noticed her applications to BCCs. Since that time we’ve had numerous conversations, mostly about public policy and the law. (Sometimes, baseball or music). I’ve known Molly Stump longer but not as well. She invited me to see her art-lights in her office, but changed her mind. I think she’s done a satisfactory job, over 10 years here. But Rebecca went to Stanford, and Harvard Law. Molly Pomona and Cal. All fine schools, but given our proximity to Hoover Tower, I’d wager Rebecca is correct here, and Molly wrong: Casti is bluffing, or a bad actor. We should be deliberating in public the assertions of staff. Mark Weiss In Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone On May 24, 2022, at 9:52 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: I am told that Castilleja refers to Kol Emeth instead of Etz Chayim for garage precedent. Kol Emeth is also zoned for commercial uses. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning- amp-development-services/file- migration/current-planning/forms- and-guidelines/zone-map-2021.pdf Which brings up the bad-neighborly fact that Castilleja is threatening baseless 14th Amendment claims against Palo Alto regarding the garage. Should it file such a lawsuit, it will be dismissed on summary judgment, if not sooner. It is long- established law that Zoning law does not implicate 14th amendment protection unless it was done in order to impact a protected class, including racial minorities, non- dominant religions, and women. Castilleja making this argument will be viewed even worse than Woodside claiming to be a mountain lion protection area. As an aside, it violates Palo Alto public policy that the Planning Department continues to ignore PA's sustainability goals. Failing to measure the impact of the groundwater removal and the tons of cement used in constructing the underground garage, and the increase of cars on the street from larger enrollment (as all previous measures prove), was illegal of them. Given that there is not yet a sustainability commission, the Planning Department is required to consider the public interest in its evaluations, including the irreparable harm that would be caused by millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and cement. That Jonathan Lait said with a straight face that the construction would not harm Palo Alto's progress towards sustainability and harm neighbor's quality of life is wholly bizarre. Who would argue that? And his refusal to include (1) a no-garage option and (2) an option where Castilleja moves entirely or in part (second campus) is reversible error. No one thinks that Castilleja needs a garage and can't afford a second campus. All along Castilleja said that neighbors want a garage, but neighbors would much prefer no cars on their street, and instead want SHUTTLES like all other private schools. Why would neighbors want more car trips when they could have NO car trips? Castilleja's arguments never made any sense. Regardless, if Castilleja wants a toxic, carbon-emitting, environmentally hazardous underground garage like Kol Emeth, it can! It just needs to move to an area zoned commercial, or mixed use. In fact, the Stanford Research area has numerous empty corporate campuses with enormous parking lots, none of which can currently be used for residential purposes due to toxic waste from the HP Superfund Site. But they can be used for commercial purposes, including a school. The HP Campus at 1501 Page Mill is perfect! Tesla is taking over 325,000 square feet of that campus, leaving almost 300,000 feet for Castilleja. (There are numerous other sites as well.) In the past, Palo Alto has made harmful decisions, e.g. President Hotel, out of fear of being sued. The President Hotel protected itself from lawsuit by making settlement agreements which included financial compensation along with releases of all rights to sue, so there was no motivated and harmed plaintiff to sue about the President Hotel. But here, Castilleja spent (I'm told) $12 million on lawyers, but has not made any efforts to strike financial deals with neighbors, so every neighbor and impacted community member has the right to sue, and almost certainly will sue, if Castilleja's garage is approved. And, every time that Palo Alto is sued by citizens (rather than by big businesses or the police force) IT LOSES. See, for example, the Foothills Park case, the Utilities Transfer case, and the many police brutality cases that all cost PA millions in legal fees and settlements. Castilleja is bluffing. They have money to sue, and they may sue, but they will lose even more prestige in the community if they do, and already Stanford Admissions has started admitting fewer of their students, many say. Anyway, here is one of many explanations about how zoning does not create constitutional cases, and in California, it's even legal to spot zone, if doing so is necessary to protect the community interest -- and even to preserve the natural environment. If Molly messes up this case, she should be fired. (Hopefully she is doing some rethinking of her legal advice; she seemed very agitated when she snapped at me while having a "private meeting" with Ed Shikada right after the hearing. At the time she was two feet away from Castilleja's attorneys, and Molly should know that giving legal advice in the presence of third parties destroys the attorney-client privilege and makes all of her advice discoverable, including by public records act request, which I won't file for, even though I could and maybe should.) https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2020/01/09/citys- general-plan-policies-allowing- exemptions-from-zoning- requirements-did-not-violate- fourteenth-amendment-or-result-in- spot-zoning/ Why am I so obsessed with Castilleja? Because I cannot stand it when people lie - and dislike most of all when the people and companies with the most resources use those resources to create false narratives that convince communities and individuals to act against their own interests. E.g. Trump, and others. Best, Rebecca On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and - - despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo- alto-looks-to-scale-back-castillejas- growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under-delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R- 1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment - - continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its taxrecords suggest that it is profitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merelyaspirational, of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over-enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencingthese municipal code penalties, which amount to $500-$5000 per day perviolation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happyto provide you the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents havebeen discussing with their attorneys. There is a thirdparty cause of action plus attorneys fees under the falseclaims act, for example, among other state laws thataddress this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 Rebecca Eisenberg, Esq. Principal & Founder Netskink Positive Impact Investments Private Client Legal Services www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg rebecca@privateclientlegal.com 415-235-8078 -- Chuck Virus-free. www.avast.com From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; fred beyerlein; beachrides; bballpod; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; dallen1212@gmail.com; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; 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; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Leodies Buchanan; Mayor; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Dr. Campbell May 29, 2022 Vit. D reduces autoimmune disease Date:Monday, May 30, 2022 2:08:30 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: Mon, May 30, 2022 at 1:34 AM Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell May 29, 2022 Vit. D reduces autoimmune disease To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, May 29, 2022 at 5:51 PM Subject: Dr. Campbell May 29, 2022 Vit. D reduces autoimmune disease To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Monday, May 30, 2022 To all- Dr. John Campbell details Vit. D study showing that it can reduce the chance of auto immune diseases. Big, well conducted study shows Vit. D daily causes 22% reduction in auto immune disease. AND, the UK and US governments are not trumpeting this. Why? To help the sale of expensive drugs to treat the diseases? Dr. Campbell says he does not know if that is the reason. Sound exciting to have an auto immune disease? He lists some and what they do to one. Vitamin D reduces autoimmune disease - YouTube I take 6,000 IU of Vit. D3 and 100 mcg of Vit. K-2 daily. They go together. I take that because an Israeli study about six months ago proved that persons with a high blood level of Vit. D have a better outcome if they get infected with Covid. Dr. Campbell did a video on that study. See it on YouTube. Now I am even happier to be taking the Vit. D3 and Vit. K-2. Cheaper on line. You want the M7 version of K-2. Knowledge is power. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Aram James To:Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; chuck jagoda; peninsula_raging_grannies@yahoo.com; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org; Sajid Khan; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; dennis burns; Diana Diamond; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner Cc:mark weiss; Lydia Kou; Greer Stone; Council, City; Andie Reed; Kerry Yarkin; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Curtis Smolar; Alison Cormack; greg@gregtanaka.org; Vara Ramakrishnan; Jonsen, Robert; Sean Allen Subject:Re: Why we must have an open and transparent hiring process for Palo Alto’s next police chief Date:Sunday, May 29, 2022 8:57:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Sent from my iPhone On May 25, 2022, at 10:57 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: More on the damage caused by current police chief Robert Jonsen https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2022/03/18/residents-demand-more-transparency- accountability-in-next-police-chief On May 25, 2022, at 10:28 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Rebecca, You are absolutely correct. All of the warning signs that Robert Jonson would be an unmitigated disaster as Palo Alto’s next police chief were all there before he ever stepped foot in Palo Alto. See the Daily Post piece below dated 11-14 2017 for details. We must push back hard, public protests whatever actions we can take, to push No Transparency and No Democracy city manager Ed Shikada into bringing at least the three finalists for police chief before the city council and our community so the candidates can be thoroughly vetted before one of them is selected as our next chief. aram Palo Alto hires Menlo Park’s police chief November 14, 2017 12:23 am BY ALLISON LEVITSKY Daily Post Staff Writer Menlo Park Police Chief Bob Jonsen will leave the department after almost five years to serve as Palo Alto’s new police chief, Palo Alto City Manager Jim Keene announced yesterday (Nov. 13). “His deep experience in a nearby city and increasingly senior and complex assignments in all aspects of law enforcement bring extraordinary value to the position of police chief,” Keene said in a statement. “We look forward to having him join Palo Alto to lead our stellar police department.” Jonsen has been lauded by elected officials and community members, not all of whom agree with him, as approachable, charismatic and easy to work with. “He’s done a great job in Menlo Park and I think that shows. That’s why he got picked up by Palo Alto,” Menlo Park Mayor Kristen Keith told the Post. “We’ll miss him. He’s done a great job.” Jonsen is also no stranger to controversy. During his time as chief, Menlo Park police have received complaints about over-policing and racial profiling. Jonsen’s ushering in of license plate readers and Tasers in his first few months on the job raised concerns about privacy and police use of force. On Nov. 11, 2014, three Menlo Park police officers shot armed, meth-addled burglar Jerry Lee Matheny to death with their body-worn cameras turned off. And from 2011 to 2013, Jonsen was the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department station chief in Lancaster, which settled with the Justice Department on April 28, 2015, over allegations of harassment of blacks and others in public housing. “I never really cared much for him,” said Matt Henry, former president of the neighborhood association of Belle Haven, ground zero for much of Menlo Park’s violent crime and most of its complaints of over-policing and racial profiling. ‘A big mess’ Henry worked in the Antelope Valley when Jonsen was the sheriff’s station chief in Lancaster. “His reputation was horrible, the way he treated people. Not personally, but some of the policies that they had down there,” Henry said. “It was a big mess down there, and he got out just before the Justice Department came.” In a June 2013 report, the Justice Department said that deputies had showed up for inspections with as many as nine officers, sometimes with guns drawn. In 2015, Jonsen told the Post that he was brought into the station after an investigation into the abuses was already underway, and worked with his superiors to help the department become more accountable. Aram James, a police watchdog and former Santa Clara County assistant public defender, said he hoped that Jonsen would sit down with him to talk about racial profiling in Menlo Park, the dangers of Tasers and the public’s limited access to body-worn camera footage via the Public Records Act. “Is he willing to take a look at how bad that policy looks to the public?” James said. “That doesn’t make his leadership transformative in this time when there’s so much focus on police misconduct.” Transparency efforts But Jonsen says he’s ushered transparency into the department. “Since 2013, I think this department has become one of the most innovative in the region, and definitely one of the most transparent,” Jonsen told the Post yesterday. Menlo Park was one of the first cities in the region to bring in body-worn cameras, and in May 2016, the city joined the White House’s Police Data Initiative, releasing data on calls for service, traffic stops and personnel demographics on the city’s website. The police department’s policy was posted online in 2013. Jonsen also started a mindfulness and compassion training for officers, which he says should have a positive effect on police-community relations. “I think our relationships have always been really good with the community,” Jonsen said. “There have been conversations on racial profiling, and we’ve been open to the community, talking with the community about their concerns.” Body-worn camera policy After the 2014 police shooting in Menlo Park, Jonsen says he strenghened the body-worn camera policy to require officers to turn on their cameras before they arrive at a scene. The cameras were off during the shooting because it happened immediately after they arrived at the scene, not leaving them time to turn on their cameras. San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said Jonsen was “superb” throughout the investigation into the shooting. Wagstaffe, a Menlo Park resident, said that Jonsen had raised morale about policing in town and ensures that the department “does good work for their community.” Belle Haven resident Pam Jones said she was a fan of Jonsen. “He’s been really working hard to develop a good rapport with the city, and particularly here in Belle Haven. Palo Alto is very fortunate,” Jones told the Post. ‘A consummate professional’ Menlo Park Councilman Ray Mueller said he disagreed with Jonsen’s approach with license plate readers and traffic cameras. He also took issue with the city accepting $9 million over five years to hire six additional police officers, which council approved on Nov. 7. But, Mueller said, Jonsen worked through disagreement productively and without confrontation. “He’s always taken my concerns very seriously and always worked with them to be accommodating, so that we could reach outcomes that would serve the benefit of our residents,” Mueller told the Post. “He is a consummate professional and, on top of that, he’s just a really good man. I’m not surprised that we lost him, and we’re really going to miss him.” Stuart Soffer, a former Menlo Park planning commissioner and Finance and Audit Committee member, said he completed the citizens’ police academy and thought Jonsen was personable and a “great manager.” “I always thought he would make a great city manager,” Soffer said. Mueller had another idea for Jonsen’s next career move as a police chief. “I think Bob, frankly, will end up in a city even larger than Palo Alto, eventually,” Mueller said. Salary Jonsen’s salary has been set at $260,000 with a monthly housing rental stipend of $3,000 a month for 18 months. The rental stipend will “allow him to maximize the time on the job and to fully immerse himself in the Palo Alto community as he builds relationships that are key as he assumes this new position,” according to a statement by city spokeswoman Claudia Keith. Palo Alto City Council will have to confirm Jonsen as the new chief on Dec. 11 and the city will need to finalize his public safety background requirements before he starts on Jan. 9. A graduate in Occupational Studies at CSU-Long Beach, Jonsen also holds a master’s in organizational leadership from Woodbury University in Burbank. Jonsen will replace Dennis Burns, who stepped down in December after 35 years on the police force. Capt. Ron Watson, who has been serving as interim chief, did not apply for the chief’s position. Sidebar: Jonsen’s record as Menlo Park’s police chief In his nearly five years as Menlo Park’s police chief, Bob Jonsen strengthened the department’s policy on body-worn cameras and established a citizens advisory committee. He has also seen his share of controversy, including three lawsuits alleging improper actions by officers. Feb. 15, 2013 — Jonsen began at Menlo Park. Sept. 25, 2013 — Council approves Jonsen’s request to spend $127,682 for four fixed-location surveillance cameras and three automatic license plate readers that can record data on thousands of cars a day. Nov. 12, 2013 — Hiruy Amanuel sues the department, claiming that during two traffic stops (one before Jonsen started and the other after) he was harassed by officers over his prior criminal conviction. He also claimed officers directed “racist and derogatory slurs” at him. Dec. 10, 2013 — Jonsen announces he wants to work with landlords to evict known gangsters. May 13, 2014 — Council votes 3-2, with council members Peter Ohtaki and Catherine Carlton dissenting, to make it a crime for any police officer to violate the city’s surveillance data ordinance. Jonsen called the ordinance “unnecessary.” Aug. 2, 2014 — The department is sued by former cop Rolando Igno, who was fired that April by Jonsen. Igno claimed that Jonsen should not have used issues that had been resolved previously as reasons to fire him. Nov. 11, 2014 — Three Menlo Park officers shoot and kill Jerry Lee Matheny, who was confronted after a burglary. The three officers who were involved in the shooting were later cleared by District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. A Post reporter is told by witnesses at the shooting scene that they were instructed by Menlo Park police not to talk to the press about the incident. Jonsen did not return Post Editor Dave Price’s calls or emails about the gag order. Jan. 29, 2015 — Councilman Ray Mueller blasts Jonsen and Cmdr. Dave Bertini over the fact that the three officers involved in the Matheny shooting did not have their body cameras on. “The one time we needed them on, they weren’t,” Mueller said. Aug. 5, 2015 — The Post published a report by Stanford journalism student Farida Jhabvala Romero, who wrote about the number of people pulled over in Menlo Park for having a suspended or revoked license. Of those pulled over, seven out of 10 were racial minorities. Capt. Dave Bertini denied that the department was targeting minorities, but did say that low-income drivers come to the attention of officers because of mechanical failures of their cars. The city’s towing fee was $300. “If anyone were to suggest that this is going on for racial reasons I think that’s asinine and bordering on slanderous,” Bertini told Romero. May 5, 2016 — As a result of Romero’s story, council votes to reduce the towing fee to $125. Jan. 19, 2017 — Jonsen and Mayor Kirsten Keith announce that all officers will go through “mindfulness” training in order for officers to face their discomforts and overcome them, whether it be physical or emotional or even because of biases, such as race or gender, and become more “emotionally available” to the communities they serve. Feb. 16, 2017 — A Redwood City man, Francisco Guevara, sues the city, saying he spent two nights in jail despite having done nothing wrong. Guevara said he probably wouldn’t have been arrested in the first place except that a man with the same name and physical description had a warrant out for his arrest. Aug. 28, 2017 — Tim Chamberlin sues the police department, saying he had been forced to live in his car for almost a year after he was evicted by Menlo Park police from the granny unit he was renting. Chamberlin contends Menlo Park police erred by getting involved in a civil matter between the owners of the home. Nov. 7, 2017 — Council approves a $11.25 million agreement with Facebook so the company can pay for six additional officers to patrol the east side. Jonsen helped negotiate the agreement. PREVIOUS Los Altos official proposes parcel tax to renovate or rebuild library Thanks, Mark and Aram. Aram - I remember how hard you worked to open the process before Jonsen was hired. You had easily uncovered much evidence of alleged misdeeds committed by Jonsen during his previous job in Menlo Park. You had brought those matters to the attention of the City Council, by emailing, speaking out, and also publishing editorials in the press. But the City Council ignored you. Because the City Council followed the secrecy route that you and so many community members (including me) had denounced, Palo Alto chose a police chief that irreparably harmed our town's public image and significantly harmed the police force and city government's relationships with the community. During Jonsen's time in PA, our town has been sued a record amount of times, our police force has committed a record number acts leading to the perception of undue force, and has spent a record amount of money in legal fees and settlements responding to these matters (not to mention even police officers themselves filing baseless actions against the city) -- all while actual crime has continued to rise. Now Shikada wants to repeat the broken process that led to the choice of the least successful police chief in PA's recent history. I don't know about you, but I always believed the adage that a direct route to failure is to repeat the same action expecting a different result. On behalf of our community, Palo Alto deserves a better process to select a police chief that is truly a good fit for our town. Can't you hear the residents demanding transparency and accountability? Why not give that to them? Whose side are you on? Best, Rebecca On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:07 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hiring process for police chief will be secret and behind closed doors. Thanks Mark for keeping this critical conversation going. Our continued public deliberations on the issue and the staff and Castillega’s machinations—- deserve the most heightened scrutiny. aram P.S. In this morning’s Daily Post, page 4, Shikada announced the hiring process for police chief will be secret behind closed doors. We can’t let this happen. Again we must continue to push back on Staff in order to achieve any degree of transparency. The staff often appears to me to be members of a private corporation upholding the rights of the rich at the expense of those who deserve justice. On May 25, 2022, at 1:11 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I met Rebecca Eisenberg for the first time in 2018, walking our dogs, at Peers Park. I had noticed her applications to BCCs. Since that time we’ve had numerous conversations, mostly about public policy and the law. (Sometimes, baseball or music). I’ve known Molly Stump longer but not as well. She invited me to see her art-lights in her office, but changed her mind. I think she’s done a satisfactory job, over 10 years here. But Rebecca went to Stanford, and Harvard Law. Molly Pomona and Cal. All fine schools, but given our proximity to Hoover Tower, I’d wager Rebecca is correct here, and Molly wrong: Casti is bluffing, or a bad actor. We should be deliberating in public the assertions of staff. Mark Weiss In Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone On May 24, 2022, at 9:52 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: I am told that Castilleja refers to Kol Emeth instead of Etz Chayim for garage precedent. Kol Emeth is also zoned for commercial uses. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning- amp-development-services/file- migration/current-planning/forms- and-guidelines/zone-map-2021.pdf Which brings up the bad-neighborly fact that Castilleja is threatening baseless 14th Amendment claims against Palo Alto regarding the garage. Should it file such a lawsuit, it will be dismissed on summary judgment, if not sooner. It is long- established law that Zoning law does not implicate 14th amendment protection unless it was done in order to impact a protected class, including racial minorities, non- dominant religions, and women. Castilleja making this argument will be viewed even worse than Woodside claiming to be a mountain lion protection area. As an aside, it violates Palo Alto public policy that the Planning Department continues to ignore PA's sustainability goals. Failing to measure the impact of the groundwater removal and the tons of cement used in constructing the underground garage, and the increase of cars on the street from larger enrollment (as all previous measures prove), was illegal of them. Given that there is not yet a sustainability commission, the Planning Department is required to consider the public interest in its evaluations, including the irreparable harm that would be caused by millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and cement. That Jonathan Lait said with a straight face that the construction would not harm Palo Alto's progress towards sustainability and harm neighbor's quality of life is wholly bizarre. Who would argue that? And his refusal to include (1) a no-garage option and (2) an option where Castilleja moves entirely or in part (second campus) is reversible error. No one thinks that Castilleja needs a garage and can't afford a second campus. All along Castilleja said that neighbors want a garage, but neighbors would much prefer no cars on their street, and instead want SHUTTLES like all other private schools. Why would neighbors want more car trips when they could have NO car trips? Castilleja's arguments never made any sense. Regardless, if Castilleja wants a toxic, carbon-emitting, environmentally hazardous underground garage like Kol Emeth, it can! It just needs to move to an area zoned commercial, or mixed use. In fact, the Stanford Research area has numerous empty corporate campuses with enormous parking lots, none of which can currently be used for residential purposes due to toxic waste from the HP Superfund Site. But they can be used for commercial purposes, including a school. The HP Campus at 1501 Page Mill is perfect! Tesla is taking over 325,000 square feet of that campus, leaving almost 300,000 feet for Castilleja. (There are numerous other sites as well.) In the past, Palo Alto has made harmful decisions, e.g. President Hotel, out of fear of being sued. The President Hotel protected itself from lawsuit by making settlement agreements which included financial compensation along with releases of all rights to sue, so there was no motivated and harmed plaintiff to sue about the President Hotel. But here, Castilleja spent (I'm told) $12 million on lawyers, but has not made any efforts to strike financial deals with neighbors, so every neighbor and impacted community member has the right to sue, and almost certainly will sue, if Castilleja's garage is approved. And, every time that Palo Alto is sued by citizens (rather than by big businesses or the police force) IT LOSES. See, for example, the Foothills Park case, the Utilities Transfer case, and the many police brutality cases that all cost PA millions in legal fees and settlements. Castilleja is bluffing. They have money to sue, and they may sue, but they will lose even more prestige in the community if they do, and already Stanford Admissions has started admitting fewer of their students, many say. Anyway, here is one of many explanations about how zoning does not create constitutional cases, and in California, it's even legal to spot zone, if doing so is necessary to protect the community interest -- and even to preserve the natural environment. If Molly messes up this case, she should be fired. (Hopefully she is doing some rethinking of her legal advice; she seemed very agitated when she snapped at me while having a "private meeting" with Ed Shikada right after the hearing. At the time she was two feet away from Castilleja's attorneys, and Molly should know that giving legal advice in the presence of third parties destroys the attorney-client privilege and makes all of her advice discoverable, including by public records act request, which I won't file for, even though I could and maybe should.) https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2020/01/09/citys- general-plan-policies-allowing- exemptions-from-zoning- requirements-did-not-violate- fourteenth-amendment-or-result-in- spot-zoning/ Why am I so obsessed with Castilleja? Because I cannot stand it when people lie - and dislike most of all when the people and companies with the most resources use those resources to create false narratives that convince communities and individuals to act against their own interests. E.g. Trump, and others. Best, Rebecca On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and - - despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo- alto-looks-to-scale-back-castillejas- growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under-delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R- 1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment - - continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its taxrecords suggest that it is profitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merelyaspirational, of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over-enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencingthese municipal code penalties, which amount to $500-$5000 per day perviolation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happyto provide you the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents havebeen discussing with their attorneys. There is a thirdparty cause of action plus attorneys fees under the falseclaims act, for example, among other state laws thataddress this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 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:Aram James To:darylsavage@gmail.com; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; Sajid Khan; Sean Allen; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; chuck jagoda; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Binder, Andrew; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Greer Stone; Shikada, Ed; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Figueroa, Eric; Jay Boyarsky Subject:Uvalde Police Didn’t Save Lives Because That’s Not What Police Do Date:Sunday, May 29, 2022 7:31:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://theintercept.com/2022/05/27/uvalde-texas-shooting-police-law-enforcement/ Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:darylsavage@gmail.com; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; Sajid Khan; Sean Allen; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; chuck jagoda; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Binder, Andrew; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Greer Stone; Shikada, Ed; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Figueroa, Eric; Jay Boyarsky Subject:Uvalde Police Didn’t Save Lives Because That’s Not What Police Do Date:Sunday, May 29, 2022 7:24:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://theintercept.com/2022/05/27/uvalde-texas-shooting-police-law-enforcement/ Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Jeff Rosen; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Sean Allen; Sajid Khan; Winter Dellenbach; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; Joe Simitian; Shikada, Ed; Vara Ramakrishnan; Planning Commission; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; melissa caswell; gmah@sccoe.org Subject:Police killing Date:Saturday, May 28, 2022 8:11:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/amp/San-Francisco-police-expected-to-release-new- 17204070.php Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board; CHOpinion CHOpinion Subject:Fwd: Working-Class Asian American and Pacific Islander Women Date:Saturday, May 28, 2022 5:16:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From: Allan Seid, Dirk Bennett Date: Sat, May 28, 2022 at 4:03 PM Subject: Working-Class Asian American and Pacific Islander Women Source: Center for Economic and Policy Rearch (cepr.net) https://www.cepr.net/spotlight-on-working-class-asian-american-and-pacific-islander-women- in-the-workforce/ From:Marc Strassman To:Council, City Subject:a Silicon Valley Digital Twin Date:Saturday, May 28, 2022 12:28:06 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from marcstrassman1@icloud.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Palo Alto City Council, Have you considered the many benefits that would accrue to the city and people of Palo Alto if they had access to an interactive, immersive, AI-powered, real-time, 3D digital twin of Silicon Valley? I asked my AI, an instance of GPT-3, to make the case for building a “Silicon Valley Digital Twin,” which it did twice, at: https://www.facebook.com/groups/781481526004963/permalink/1209407626545682/? fs=e&s=cl and https://www.facebook.com/groups/781481526004963/permalink/1209427999876978/? fs=e&s=cl It would be great if the City of Palo Alto could lead this creative process by establishing a “Silicon Valley Digital Twin Partnership” to recruit and coordinate the efforts of cities, companies, educational institutions, and individual Valley residents to design, develop, deploy, operate, and maintain a world-class Silicon Valley Digital Twin. Pleased let me know if you have any questions about this. Regards, Marc Strassman Founder Los Angeles Digital Twin Partnership Sent from my iPhone From:Ravinder Sethi To:Council, City Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received Date:Saturday, May 28, 2022 9:30:00 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from ravis.sethi@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi I did not get any specific instructions on how to join the city council meeting. I would like to make a presentation as requested before on the encroachment issues, and city's responsibility to adopt a policy not to provide utilities to any house that goes through illegal encroachment space. best On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 10:31 AM Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet. If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329‐2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting. If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification. We appreciate hearing from you. -- Ravi Sethi From:Aram James To:Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City; Lumi Gardner; Tanaka, Greg; Joe Simitian; Winter Dellenbach; Jay Boyarsky; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen Subject:Calling All Muslim High School Students! Date:Friday, May 27, 2022 7:08:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Stay In Touch With Us: Calling All Muslim High School Students Spend Your Summer Sundays with Us Every Sunday from June 5 through August 7 10:00am – 12:00pm In partnership with MCC East Bay Deadline to Apply: Sunday, May 29 Calling all Muslim high school students, spend your summer immersed in social justice and community organizing trainings through the 2022 Muslim Gamechangers Network (MGN). MGN is a 10-week training program for Muslim high school students that equips participants with the tools to critically understand their world, effectively challenge injustice, and build legacies of positive change in their communities. The program consists of weekly interactive sessions centered on themes of identity, history, social responsibility, and organizing tools, all grounded in an Islamic worldview. Apply Now Thank You for Making Muslim Day at the Capitol a Success CAIR California celebrated the 11th Annual Muslim Day at the Capitol (MDAC) with over 300 participants, attending over 60 virtual legislative meetings. Attendees engaged in meaningful dialogue with elected representatives on issues affecting our communities. While advocating for our legislative priorities throughout the week, we made progress in ensuring support for several bills: AB 1947: Freedom from Hate Crimes Act - in Assembly The bill will mandate that every law enforcement agency adopts better documentation and policies to guide officers in their response to suspected hate crimes. The bill does not mandate more policing or increase penalties for crimes. AB 2549: Ending Street Harassment - Died This bill would create a public health approach to prevent the street harassment of women and other vulnerable communities in California. The Bill would also create a multi-year statewide public education campaign about street harassment, study street harassment as a public health issue and define street harassment within a public health, not criminal, context. SB 1161: Public Transit Ridership Safety - Passed Senate, Sent to Assembly This measure will require California’s 10 largest transit districts to gather research on street harassment of women and other vulnerable communities and to develop data-driven initiatives to help prevent street harassment on public transit systems. AB 1766: California IDs for All - Passed Assembly, Sent to Senate This bill will expand access to all in obtaining a California ID, regardless of immigration status. SB 1038: Prohibition of Biometric Surveillance by Law Enforcement - Died This bill would indefinitely extend the prohibition of a law enforcement agency or law enforcement officer from installing, activating, or using any biometric surveillance system in connection with an officer camera or data collected by an officer camera. CAIR-CA also hosted three political education webinars to address our legislative priorities: California Hate Incidents & Hate Crime Standing with Immigrants MDAC What Next? MDAC continues to be a manifestation of our collective power and voice. This event would be not be possible without our community’s participation and diligence. We must continue to urge our legislative leaders to prioritize the policy platform we shared with them. Let’s tap into that power, continue our advocacy, share our learnings, and celebrate victories along the way. Donate Election Day Upcoming Mail-in ballots for the primary election on June 7 have been delivered! Check your mail to confirm receipt. Track Your Ballot What's On the Ballot? U.S. Senate Governor Lieutenant Governor Secretary of State Controller Treasurer, Attorney General Insurance Commissioner Member of State Board of Equalization State Superintendent of Public Instruction U.S. Representative in Congress State Senator State Assembly Member Other local candidates Numerous local measures Voter Guide The June 2022 CAIR-SFBA City and County Ballot Measures Voter Guide serves to empower voters on issues that impact them and assist them in making decisions at the polls. Our policy and advocacy staff apply a civil rights lens to weigh implications for how each measure could promote racial, gender, economic, and social justice in our community – especially, the most vulnerable among us. We also consider the stances of our partner organizations. If we did not take a position on a measure, we did not include it in the guide. Voter Guide News Briefs CAIR Welcome DOJ Initiatives To Address Hate Crimes CAIR Welcomes FBI Probe For Journalist Shireen Abu Akleh CAIR welcomed the U.S. Department of Justice’s newly-announced initiatives to address, prevent and report on hate crimes and hate incidents. Read More CAIR welcomed a congressional letter signed calling on the State Department and the FBI to investigate the murder of journalist Shireen Abu Akleh. Read More CAIR-SFBA 3160 De La Cruz Blvd., Ste. 110 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Donate CAIR California | 3160 De La Cruz Blvd., Ste. 110, Santa Clara, CA 95054 Unsubscribe abjpd1@gmail.com Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by nocal@cair.com From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; fred beyerlein; beachrides; bballpod; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; dallen1212@gmail.com; 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; leager; Leodies Buchanan; Mayor; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Here, in 3:31, is what I expect. This man is right Date:Friday, May 27, 2022 3:54:57 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: Fri, May 27, 2022 at 3:31 PM Subject: Fwd: Here, in 3:31, is what I expect. This man is right To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, May 27, 2022 at 3:54 AM Subject: Fwd: Here, in 3:31, is what I expect. This man is right To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Fri, May 27, 2022 at 2:16 AM Subject: Here, in 3:31, is what I expect. This man is right To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Friday, May 27, 2022 To all- Watch the Komal Sri-Kumar vid a couple of times. I don't see where he is wrong. It would take a miracle to avoid a recession, and the Fed has outlawed miracles.- L. Harding 'The Fed is in an impossible situation,' says Komal Sri-Kumar - YouTube L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Yahoo Mail.® To:Honky Subject:SOROS PANICS? LMAO SEEMS HIS PLANS ARE CRUSHED ALREADY Date:Friday, May 27, 2022 2:51:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. SOROS PANICS! Globalism May Not SURVIVE Russia’s Invasion!!! SOROS PANICS! Globalism May Not SURVIVE Russia’s Invasion!!! From:Barbara Rieder To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Proposal Date:Thursday, May 26, 2022 6:27:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor and City Council Members, Thank you for listening to our community!! While I am not directly impacted by Castilleja, I have driven through the neighborhood on an event night. I could not believe the number of automobiles parked on surrounding streets!! More than that, however, I have been deeply disturbed by the "Role Modeling Of Dishonesty" to the students!! It is not honorable to enroll more students than approved by our City; what message has that given to the students...or have the principals of the school been dishonest with their students too? Nonetheless, I participated in 2 surveys conducted by our City? In both, I expressed my rejection of the expanded plans of Castill3ja until they can demonstrate, not only to the City of Palo Alto to RESPECT and follow the CUP, but also to be honest to the student population. I am really so tired of dis-information to "get what you want"!! Respectfully, Barbara A Rieder 1728 Cowper Street From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; beachrides; fred beyerlein; bballpod; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; dallen1212@gmail.com; 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; leager; Leodies Buchanan; Mayor; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; merazroofinginc@att.net; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; sanchezphilip21@gmail.com; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Prime Minister"s Questions. Wednesday. 5-18-2022 Date:Thursday, May 26, 2022 4:50:23 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: Thu, May 26, 2022 at 4:08 PM Subject: Fwd: Prime Minister's Questions. Wednesday. 5-18-2022 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, May 26, 2022 at 4:01 PM Subject: Fwd: Prime Minister's Questions. Wednesday. 5-18-2022 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, May 26, 2022 at 2:25 AM Subject: Fwd: Prime Minister's Questions. Wednesday. 5-18-2022 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:44 PM Subject: Fwd: Prime Minister's Questions. Wednesday. 5-18-2022 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, May 25, 2022 at 9:30 PM Subject: Fwd: Prime Minister's Questions. Wednesday. 5-18-2022 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, May 19, 2022 at 3:30 AM Subject: Prime Minister's Questions. Wednesday. 5-18-2022 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Thursday, May 26, 2022 To all- This happened around 4 AM PDT (California time) on Wednesday, May 18, 2022. That is noon in London. One can see this live each Wed. early- ~4 AM in California. I often do see it and pay for it the next day. Pretty firey. They argue about the cost of living in Britain. They do not seem to be aware that 8.4% inflation in the US is going to require a big increase in interest rates in the US by the Fed and the sale of trillions of dollars of securities the Fed bought to provide money during the pandemic to the US economy. We are headed into a tough recession in the US, the stock market in New York is dropping day after day, and the UK is going to feel the effects of all of this. We are headed into a world wide recession and maybe a depression. On May 18, 2022: PMQs: Keir Starmer pisses off Boris Johnson - YouTube Now, a week later, May 25, 2022 about 37 minutes of PMQ- Prime Minister's Questions: Mr. Johnson is fired up here: Prime Minister's Questions (PMQs) - 25 May 2022 - YouTube And, immediately after that, we see Boris Johnson provide to the House of Commons his initial reaction to Sue Gray's report on the parties at No. 10 during the lockdown. You hear the reaction by the Labor Party to his remarks: 10 Minutes: Boris Johnson's embarrassing response to Sue Gray report - YouTube On Wed. May 24, 2022. And here is more vitriol from other members directed at the PM: LH- They look like a pack of wolves. He had a drink or two at some leaving parties and they want to overthrow a really good PM. MPs tear into Boris Johnson after Sue Gray Partygate report - YouTube Here, today, Thursday, May 26, 2022 the British government announces the imposition of a 25% windfalls profit tax on energy companies there. Boris Johnson had resisted it mightily, but his Tories have now passed it, with investment incentives for the E. companies. He seems pleased about the new tax with those modifications. UK Slaps Energy Companies With New 25% Tax - YouTube Here, well worth watching, is the speech, also of today, May 26, 2022, in the House of Commons by their Chancellor of the Exchequer announcing 15 billion lbs of direct help for those most vulnerable to inflation. The huge issue for weeks in the Commons has been the 9% inflation and the huge cost of living burden that has represented for the people of the UK. This direct payment scheme is announced right after the Tories do an about face and impose a windfalls profit tax on the oil companies (see video just above). Boris Johnson has resisted that for months saying, "Yes, no surprise, Labor wants to put up taxes, which is all they ever want to do". This is worth seeing!! Notice that the PM points at the Labor members at times and laughs at them. They just wanted a big windfalls profit tax on the now highly profitable energy companies. The Tories of Boris Johnson have built into theirs incentives for further investment by the E. companies. I think our members of Congress should watch this. A windfalls profit tax on E. companies with incentives for them to invest more money and with some of that money going as direct payments to the most vulnerable Americans.The idea of a windfalls profits tax on E. companies is now a very live topic in Washington, D.C.. The inflation rate in the UK is 9%, a little above our 8.3%. They are attacking their inflation with fiscal and monetary policies and with this windfalls profit tax on E. companies to pay for direct payments to those in the UK most vulnerable to high prices. Rishi Sunak unveils £15bn cost of living handout after windfall tax U-turn - YouTube L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Susan Phillips To:Council, City Subject:No on castelleja expansion Date:Thursday, May 26, 2022 4:35:58 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from susan@mrsmoskowitz.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ As a Palo Alto resident for over 45 years & owned my old Palo Alto house since 1976, please vote No! The expansion plan will cause too much traffic. The school can select a second location like Keys school. They have a second location. Please vote No! Susan Phillips-Moskowitz Tasso street Old Palo Alto From:Aram James To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Winter Dellenbach; Human Relations Commission; chuck jagoda; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Greer Stone; Sajid Khan; Planning Commission; Binder, Andrew; Jeff Rosen; Vara Ramakrishnan; Roberta Ahlquist; Sean Allen; Jonsen, Robert; Jethroe Moore; Stump, Molly; Alison Cormack; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Jay Boyarsky; Dave Price; Diana Diamond Subject:From The Mercury News e-edition - How county can fix Sheriff Department’s challenges by Sean Allen ( May 26, 2026) Date:Thursday, May 26, 2022 10:56:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ How county can fix Sheriff Department’s challenges https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=e92dff2a-bf76-4283-95ab- 2eda4aa108fd&appcode=SAN252&eguid=e4c467dc-7951-4282-bb0e-60a87e152a15&pnum=22# From:Barbara E. Lichman, Ph.D. To:Council, City Subject:Recent Developments in Aviation/Airport Law and Regulations - May 26, 2022 Date:Thursday, May 26, 2022 10:12:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. If you're having trouble viewing this email, you may see it online. Share this: Aviation & Airport | Development Law News LATEST NEWS AND ANALYSIS - AIR AND SURFACE TRANSPORTATION, ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT The CEQ Tries to “Make a Silk Purse from a Sow’s Ear” by Revising NEPA Regulations By Barbara Lichman on May 17, 2022 On May 20, 2022, the Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”) will implement revisions to current regulations governing the environmental analyses under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321, et seq., (“NEPA”). Specifically, CEQ will revise 40 C.F.R. § 1502.13, restoring detailed “purpose and need statements” in environmental impact statements (“EIS”); 40 C.F.R. § 1507.3, removing language that could be construed to limit local governmental agencies flexibility to develop and revise NEPA procedures to implement local agency specific programs; and 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1, definition of “environmental effects,” to restore the distinction between “direct, indirect and cumulative” effects. The reason for the proposed changes lies with the dueling political and environmental concepts of the immediate past and current presidential administrations. In 2017, then President Trump issued Executive Order 13807, requiring CEQ to propose certain changes to then existing regulations. In January 2020, CEQ issued the new rules, making wholesale revisions to the original regulations that limit their applicability, and became effective on September 14, 2020. Immediately thereafter, on January 20, 2021, the new Administration issued Executive Order 13990 revoking the previous Administration’s Executive Order, and requiring CEQ to review and revise all regulations implemented between 2017 and 2020, i.e., those issued during the Trump Administration, to become consistent with later Executive Order 13990. The following constitutes the results of CEQ’s efforts toward “rectifying” the limitations on previous regulations, consistent with the intent underlying the original 1978 implementing regulations. Continue Reading... Update – FAA Defies History by Approving the Closure of East Hampton Airport By Barbara Lichman on May 24, 2022 Since the publication of the above-entitled article on April 28, 2022, events have occurred that raised further questions about the immediacy of the closure of East Hampton Municipal Airport on the South Shore of Long Island, New York, owned and operated by the Town of East Hampton. Specifically, the most recent related cases are Friends of East Hampton Airport, Inc., et al. v. Town of East Hampton, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Case No. 2:15-cv-02246, and National Business Aviation Association, Inc. v. Town of East Hampton, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York Case No. 2:22-cv-02824, challenging the Town’s plans to expedite the closure, by closing the airport on the night of Tuesday, May 17, and reopening it on the morning of Thursday, May 19, as a private use airport. That plan was halted by the grant of a temporary restraining order by U.S. District Judge Joanna Seybert in 2017, and confirmed on May 17, 2022 by State Supreme Court Justice Paul Baisley. That motion for temporary restraining order was brought on the ground, among others, that the closure would violate the Airport Noise and Capacity Act, 49 U.S.C. § 47521, et seq., by providing no opportunity for enforcement of that statute after the closure. Finally, an emergency administration action, under 14 C.F.R. Part 16 was brought at the Federal Aviation Administration, FAA Docket No. 16-22-05 Notice, on largely the same ground. The Notice appears to have been accompanied by FAA’s statement that the FAA “has not reviewed or approved of [the Town’s] proposed prior permission required restrictions at the airport, if such approval is required. The FAA strongly recommends that [the Town] suspend implementation of its prior permission required restrictions framework until this matter has been considered resolved.” [Emphasis in original]. Barbara E. Lichman, Ph.D., J.D. 18400 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 800 Irvine, CA 92614-0514 (949)224-6292 www.aviationairportdevelopmentlaw.com © Barbara E. Lichman, Ph.D., J.D. All Rights Reserved. This email was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org. To ensure that you continue receiving our emails, please add us to your address book or safe list. manage your preferences | opt out using TrueRemove®. Got this as a forward? Sign up to receive our future emails. Thats Great News Call Us 888-239-5731 That's Great News is not affiliated with PALO ALTO WEEKLY From:Kelly Nolan To:Council, City Subject:LaDoris, here"s the plaque offer I promised you Date:Thursday, May 26, 2022 7:15:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. No images shown? View online Free shipping – next 7 days Lifetimes of Achievement. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell Dear LaDoris Yesterday I promised you a special offer to celebrate with a plaque of your recent press article. Here it is , if you order your press article plaque in the next 7 days we'll give you free shipping. just use code ENFS at the checkout. Start by taking a look at the choice of plaque designs. Enlarge Plaque Image Pick plaque options Use free shipping code ENFS at the checkout. Alternatively reply to this email to request we ship the plaque with an invoice or call me on 888-239-5731 quoting ID 12054829. Article Lifetimes of Achievement. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell Featured LaDoris Cordell, Palo Alto City Council Publication PALO ALTO WEEKLY Published May 06, 2022 UNCONDITIONAL 100% MONEY BACK GUARANTEE ON ALL PLAQUES A full refund if you don’t like the plaque. 4.8 Overall Satisfaction Rating Shopper Approved Reviews “I was surprise of just how speedy your service was and above all, the Plaque, is simply gorgeous !!! I am going to have 3-4 more done - working on one now.” Papa Boudreaux's Cajun Cafe & Catering "Kelly Nolan was a wonderful representative. She answered all my questions very clearly and was able to give me all the information that was asked. Customer service was amazing!" Kids First Pediatric Dentistry "I have used That's Great News for all of my plaques. They are a fantastic company and I would not ever think of going to a competitor." Adria Gross MedWise Insurance "We received great service from "That's Great News". Absolutely no complaints." Cardinal Ritter P "The plaque was very well put together and beautiful! The customer service team was amazing! They were very quick to respond, handled my concerns without any problems and were very nice. I would definitely use their services again" Medic Murder Mix hydrating holistic bug See your news on a Plaque That's Great News is not affiliated with PALO ALTO WEEKLY That’s Great News, 900 Northrop Rd., Wallingford, CT 06492. All Rights Reserved. Call Us: 888-239-5731 and reference Customer ID (12054829) 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":"35538645","cid":"12054829","oid":"6508697709"} From:Aram James To:Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; chuck jagoda; peninsula_raging_grannies@yahoo.com; Winter Dellenbach; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org; Sajid Khan; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; dennis burns; Diana Diamond; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Shikada, Ed Cc:mark weiss; Lydia Kou; Greer Stone; Council, City; Andie Reed; Kerry Yarkin; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Curtis Smolar; Alison Cormack; greg@gregtanaka.org; Vara Ramakrishnan; Jonsen, Robert; Sean Allen Subject:Re: Why we must have an open and transparent hiring process for Palo Alto’s next police chief Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 11:12:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. And yet more on Robert “Mr. Diversity” Jonson and zero back officers either in the command staff or in the ranks of the PAPD. https://www.audacy.com/kcbsradio/news/local/palo-alto-police-department-now-has-zero-black-officers Sent from my iPhone On May 25, 2022, at 10:57 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: More on the damage caused by current police chief Robert Jonsen https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2022/03/18/residents-demand-more-transparency- accountability-in-next-police-chief On May 25, 2022, at 10:28 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Rebecca, You are absolutely correct. All of the warning signs that Robert Jonson would be an unmitigated disaster as Palo Alto’s next police chief were all there before he ever stepped foot in Palo Alto. See the Daily Post piece below dated 11-14 2017 for details. We must push back hard, public protests whatever actions we can take, to push No Transparency and No Democracy city manager Ed Shikada into bringing at least the three finalists for police chief before the city council and our community so the candidates can be thoroughly vetted before one of them is selected as our next chief. aram Palo Alto hires Menlo Park’s police chief November 14, 2017 12:23 am BY ALLISON LEVITSKY Daily Post Staff Writer Menlo Park Police Chief Bob Jonsen will leave the department after almost five years to serve as Palo Alto’s new police chief, Palo Alto City Manager Jim Keene announced yesterday (Nov. 13). “His deep experience in a nearby city and increasingly senior and complex assignments in all aspects of law enforcement bring extraordinary value to the position of police chief,” Keene said in a statement. “We look forward to having him join Palo Alto to lead our stellar police department.” Jonsen has been lauded by elected officials and community members, not all of whom agree with him, as approachable, charismatic and easy to work with. “He’s done a great job in Menlo Park and I think that shows. That’s why he got picked up by Palo Alto,” Menlo Park Mayor Kristen Keith told the Post. “We’ll miss him. He’s done a great job.” Jonsen is also no stranger to controversy. During his time as chief, Menlo Park police have received complaints about over-policing and racial profiling. Jonsen’s ushering in of license plate readers and Tasers in his first few months on the job raised concerns about privacy and police use of force. On Nov. 11, 2014, three Menlo Park police officers shot armed, meth-addled burglar Jerry Lee Matheny to death with their body-worn cameras turned off. And from 2011 to 2013, Jonsen was the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department station chief in Lancaster, which settled with the Justice Department on April 28, 2015, over allegations of harassment of blacks and others in public housing. “I never really cared much for him,” said Matt Henry, former president of the neighborhood association of Belle Haven, ground zero for much of Menlo Park’s violent crime and most of its complaints of over-policing and racial profiling. ‘A big mess’ Henry worked in the Antelope Valley when Jonsen was the sheriff’s station chief in Lancaster. “His reputation was horrible, the way he treated people. Not personally, but some of the policies that they had down there,” Henry said. “It was a big mess down there, and he got out just before the Justice Department came.” In a June 2013 report, the Justice Department said that deputies had showed up for inspections with as many as nine officers, sometimes with guns drawn. In 2015, Jonsen told the Post that he was brought into the station after an investigation into the abuses was already underway, and worked with his superiors to help the department become more accountable. Aram James, a police watchdog and former Santa Clara County assistant public defender, said he hoped that Jonsen would sit down with him to talk about racial profiling in Menlo Park, the dangers of Tasers and the public’s limited access to body-worn camera footage via the Public Records Act. “Is he willing to take a look at how bad that policy looks to the public?” James said. “That doesn’t make his leadership transformative in this time when there’s so much focus on police misconduct.” Transparency efforts But Jonsen says he’s ushered transparency into the department. “Since 2013, I think this department has become one of the most innovative in the region, and definitely one of the most transparent,” Jonsen told the Post yesterday. Menlo Park was one of the first cities in the region to bring in body-worn cameras, and in May 2016, the city joined the White House’s Police Data Initiative, releasing data on calls for service, traffic stops and personnel demographics on the city’s website. The police department’s policy was posted online in 2013. Jonsen also started a mindfulness and compassion training for officers, which he says should have a positive effect on police-community relations. “I think our relationships have always been really good with the community,” Jonsen said. “There have been conversations on racial profiling, and we’ve been open to the community, talking with the community about their concerns.” Body-worn camera policy After the 2014 police shooting in Menlo Park, Jonsen says he strenghened the body-worn camera policy to require officers to turn on their cameras before they arrive at a scene. The cameras were off during the shooting because it happened immediately after they arrived at the scene, not leaving them time to turn on their cameras. San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said Jonsen was “superb” throughout the investigation into the shooting. Wagstaffe, a Menlo Park resident, said that Jonsen had raised morale about policing in town and ensures that the department “does good work for their community.” Belle Haven resident Pam Jones said she was a fan of Jonsen. “He’s been really working hard to develop a good rapport with the city, and particularly here in Belle Haven. Palo Alto is very fortunate,” Jones told the Post. ‘A consummate professional’ Menlo Park Councilman Ray Mueller said he disagreed with Jonsen’s approach with license plate readers and traffic cameras. He also took issue with the city accepting $9 million over five years to hire six additional police officers, which council approved on Nov. 7. But, Mueller said, Jonsen worked through disagreement productively and without confrontation. “He’s always taken my concerns very seriously and always worked with them to be accommodating, so that we could reach outcomes that would serve the benefit of our residents,” Mueller told the Post. “He is a consummate professional and, on top of that, he’s just a really good man. I’m not surprised that we lost him, and we’re really going to miss him.” Stuart Soffer, a former Menlo Park planning commissioner and Finance and Audit Committee member, said he completed the citizens’ police academy and thought Jonsen was personable and a “great manager.” “I always thought he would make a great city manager,” Soffer said. Mueller had another idea for Jonsen’s next career move as a police chief. “I think Bob, frankly, will end up in a city even larger than Palo Alto, eventually,” Mueller said. Salary Jonsen’s salary has been set at $260,000 with a monthly housing rental stipend of $3,000 a month for 18 months. The rental stipend will “allow him to maximize the time on the job and to fully immerse himself in the Palo Alto community as he builds relationships that are key as he assumes this new position,” according to a statement by city spokeswoman Claudia Keith. Palo Alto City Council will have to confirm Jonsen as the new chief on Dec. 11 and the city will need to finalize his public safety background requirements before he starts on Jan. 9. A graduate in Occupational Studies at CSU-Long Beach, Jonsen also holds a master’s in organizational leadership from Woodbury University in Burbank. Jonsen will replace Dennis Burns, who stepped down in December after 35 years on the police force. Capt. Ron Watson, who has been serving as interim chief, did not apply for the chief’s position. Sidebar: Jonsen’s record as Menlo Park’s police chief In his nearly five years as Menlo Park’s police chief, Bob Jonsen strengthened the department’s policy on body-worn cameras and established a citizens advisory committee. He has also seen his share of controversy, including three lawsuits alleging improper actions by officers. Feb. 15, 2013 — Jonsen began at Menlo Park. Sept. 25, 2013 — Council approves Jonsen’s request to spend $127,682 for four fixed-location surveillance cameras and three automatic license plate readers that can record data on thousands of cars a day. Nov. 12, 2013 — Hiruy Amanuel sues the department, claiming that during two traffic stops (one before Jonsen started and the other after) he was harassed by officers over his prior criminal conviction. He also claimed officers directed “racist and derogatory slurs” at him. Dec. 10, 2013 — Jonsen announces he wants to work with landlords to evict known gangsters. May 13, 2014 — Council votes 3-2, with council members Peter Ohtaki and Catherine Carlton dissenting, to make it a crime for any police officer to violate the city’s surveillance data ordinance. Jonsen called the ordinance “unnecessary.” Aug. 2, 2014 — The department is sued by former cop Rolando Igno, who was fired that April by Jonsen. Igno claimed that Jonsen should not have used issues that had been resolved previously as reasons to fire him. Nov. 11, 2014 — Three Menlo Park officers shoot and kill Jerry Lee Matheny, who was confronted after a burglary. The three officers who were involved in the shooting were later cleared by District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. A Post reporter is told by witnesses at the shooting scene that they were instructed by Menlo Park police not to talk to the press about the incident. Jonsen did not return Post Editor Dave Price’s calls or emails about the gag order. Jan. 29, 2015 — Councilman Ray Mueller blasts Jonsen and Cmdr. Dave Bertini over the fact that the three officers involved in the Matheny shooting did not have their body cameras on. “The one time we needed them on, they weren’t,” Mueller said. Aug. 5, 2015 — The Post published a report by Stanford journalism student Farida Jhabvala Romero, who wrote about the number of people pulled over in Menlo Park for having a suspended or revoked license. Of those pulled over, seven out of 10 were racial minorities. Capt. Dave Bertini denied that the department was targeting minorities, but did say that low-income drivers come to the attention of officers because of mechanical failures of their cars. The city’s towing fee was $300. “If anyone were to suggest that this is going on for racial reasons I think that’s asinine and bordering on slanderous,” Bertini told Romero. May 5, 2016 — As a result of Romero’s story, council votes to reduce the towing fee to $125. Jan. 19, 2017 — Jonsen and Mayor Kirsten Keith announce that all officers will go through “mindfulness” training in order for officers to face their discomforts and overcome them, whether it be physical or emotional or even because of biases, such as race or gender, and become more “emotionally available” to the communities they serve. Feb. 16, 2017 — A Redwood City man, Francisco Guevara, sues the city, saying he spent two nights in jail despite having done nothing wrong. Guevara said he probably wouldn’t have been arrested in the first place except that a man with the same name and physical description had a warrant out for his arrest. Aug. 28, 2017 — Tim Chamberlin sues the police department, saying he had been forced to live in his car for almost a year after he was evicted by Menlo Park police from the granny unit he was renting. Chamberlin contends Menlo Park police erred by getting involved in a civil matter between the owners of the home. Nov. 7, 2017 — Council approves a $11.25 million agreement with Facebook so the company can pay for six additional officers to patrol the east side. Jonsen helped negotiate the agreement. PREVIOUS Los Altos official proposes parcel tax to renovate or rebuild library Thanks, Mark and Aram. Aram - I remember how hard you worked to open the process before Jonsen was hired. You had easily uncovered much evidence of alleged misdeeds committed by Jonsen during his previous job in Menlo Park. You had brought those matters to the attention of the City Council, by emailing, speaking out, and also publishing editorials in the press. But the City Council ignored you. Because the City Council followed the secrecy route that you and so many community members (including me) had denounced, Palo Alto chose a police chief that irreparably harmed our town's public image and significantly harmed the police force and city government's relationships with the community. During Jonsen's time in PA, our town has been sued a record amount of times, our police force has committed a record number acts leading to the perception of undue force, and has spent a record amount of money in legal fees and settlements responding to these matters (not to mention even police officers themselves filing baseless actions against the city) -- all while actual crime has continued to rise. Now Shikada wants to repeat the broken process that led to the choice of the least successful police chief in PA's recent history. I don't know about you, but I always believed the adage that a direct route to failure is to repeat the same action expecting a different result. On behalf of our community, Palo Alto deserves a better process to select a police chief that is truly a good fit for our town. Can't you hear the residents demanding transparency and accountability? Why not give that to them? Whose side are you on? Best, Rebecca On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:07 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hiring process for police chief will be secret and behind closed doors. Thanks Mark for keeping this critical conversation going. Our continued public deliberations on the issue and the staff and Castillega’s machinations—- deserve the most heightened scrutiny. aram P.S. In this morning’s Daily Post, page 4, Shikada announced the hiring process for police chief will be secret behind closed doors. We can’t let this happen. Again we must continue to push back on Staff in order to achieve any degree of transparency. The staff often appears to me to be members of a private corporation upholding the rights of the rich at the expense of those who deserve justice. On May 25, 2022, at 1:11 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I met Rebecca Eisenberg for the first time in 2018, walking our dogs, at Peers Park. I had noticed her applications to BCCs. Since that time we’ve had numerous conversations, mostly about public policy and the law. (Sometimes, baseball or music). I’ve known Molly Stump longer but not as well. She invited me to see her art-lights in her office, but changed her mind. I think she’s done a satisfactory job, over 10 years here. But Rebecca went to Stanford, and Harvard Law. Molly Pomona and Cal. All fine schools, but given our proximity to Hoover Tower, I’d wager Rebecca is correct here, and Molly wrong: Casti is bluffing, or a bad actor. We should be deliberating in public the assertions of staff. Mark Weiss In Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone On May 24, 2022, at 9:52 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: I am told that Castilleja refers to Kol Emeth instead of Etz Chayim for garage precedent. Kol Emeth is also zoned for commercial uses. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning- amp-development-services/file- migration/current-planning/forms- and-guidelines/zone-map-2021.pdf Which brings up the bad-neighborly fact that Castilleja is threatening baseless 14th Amendment claims against Palo Alto regarding the garage. Should it file such a lawsuit, it will be dismissed on summary judgment, if not sooner. It is long- established law that Zoning law does not implicate 14th amendment protection unless it was done in order to impact a protected class, including racial minorities, non- dominant religions, and women. Castilleja making this argument will be viewed even worse than Woodside claiming to be a mountain lion protection area. As an aside, it violates Palo Alto public policy that the Planning Department continues to ignore PA's sustainability goals. Failing to measure the impact of the groundwater removal and the tons of cement used in constructing the underground garage, and the increase of cars on the street from larger enrollment (as all previous measures prove), was illegal of them. Given that there is not yet a sustainability commission, the Planning Department is required to consider the public interest in its evaluations, including the irreparable harm that would be caused by millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and cement. That Jonathan Lait said with a straight face that the construction would not harm Palo Alto's progress towards sustainability and harm neighbor's quality of life is wholly bizarre. Who would argue that? And his refusal to include (1) a no-garage option and (2) an option where Castilleja moves entirely or in part (second campus) is reversible error. No one thinks that Castilleja needs a garage and can't afford a second campus. All along Castilleja said that neighbors want a garage, but neighbors would much prefer no cars on their street, and instead want SHUTTLES like all other private schools. Why would neighbors want more car trips when they could have NO car trips? Castilleja's arguments never made any sense. Regardless, if Castilleja wants a toxic, carbon-emitting, environmentally hazardous underground garage like Kol Emeth, it can! It just needs to move to an area zoned commercial, or mixed use. In fact, the Stanford Research area has numerous empty corporate campuses with enormous parking lots, none of which can currently be used for residential purposes due to toxic waste from the HP Superfund Site. But they can be used for commercial purposes, including a school. The HP Campus at 1501 Page Mill is perfect! Tesla is taking over 325,000 square feet of that campus, leaving almost 300,000 feet for Castilleja. (There are numerous other sites as well.) In the past, Palo Alto has made harmful decisions, e.g. President Hotel, out of fear of being sued. The President Hotel protected itself from lawsuit by making settlement agreements which included financial compensation along with releases of all rights to sue, so there was no motivated and harmed plaintiff to sue about the President Hotel. But here, Castilleja spent (I'm told) $12 million on lawyers, but has not made any efforts to strike financial deals with neighbors, so every neighbor and impacted community member has the right to sue, and almost certainly will sue, if Castilleja's garage is approved. And, every time that Palo Alto is sued by citizens (rather than by big businesses or the police force) IT LOSES. See, for example, the Foothills Park case, the Utilities Transfer case, and the many police brutality cases that all cost PA millions in legal fees and settlements. Castilleja is bluffing. They have money to sue, and they may sue, but they will lose even more prestige in the community if they do, and already Stanford Admissions has started admitting fewer of their students, many say. Anyway, here is one of many explanations about how zoning does not create constitutional cases, and in California, it's even legal to spot zone, if doing so is necessary to protect the community interest -- and even to preserve the natural environment. If Molly messes up this case, she should be fired. (Hopefully she is doing some rethinking of her legal advice; she seemed very agitated when she snapped at me while having a "private meeting" with Ed Shikada right after the hearing. At the time she was two feet away from Castilleja's attorneys, and Molly should know that giving legal advice in the presence of third parties destroys the attorney-client privilege and makes all of her advice discoverable, including by public records act request, which I won't file for, even though I could and maybe should.) https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2020/01/09/citys- general-plan-policies-allowing- exemptions-from-zoning- requirements-did-not-violate- fourteenth-amendment-or-result-in- spot-zoning/ Why am I so obsessed with Castilleja? Because I cannot stand it when people lie - and dislike most of all when the people and companies with the most resources use those resources to create false narratives that convince communities and individuals to act against their own interests. E.g. Trump, and others. Best, Rebecca On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and - - despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo- alto-looks-to-scale-back-castillejas- growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under-delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R- 1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment - - continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its taxrecords suggest that it is profitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merelyaspirational, of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over-enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencingthese municipal code penalties, which amount to $500-$5000 per day perviolation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happyto provide you the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents havebeen discussing with their attorneys. There is a thirdparty cause of action plus attorneys fees under the falseclaims act, for example, among other state laws thataddress this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 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:Aram James To:Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; chuck jagoda; peninsula_raging_grannies@yahoo.com; Winter Dellenbach; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org; Sajid Khan; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; dennis burns; Diana Diamond; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Shikada, Ed Cc:mark weiss; Lydia Kou; Greer Stone; Council, City; Andie Reed; Kerry Yarkin; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Curtis Smolar; Alison Cormack; greg@gregtanaka.org; Vara Ramakrishnan; Jonsen, Robert; Sean Allen Subject:Re: Why we must have an open and transparent hiring process for Palo Alto’s next police chief Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 10:57:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. More on the damage caused by current police chief Robert Jonsen https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2022/03/18/residents-demand-more-transparency-accountability-in- next-police-chief On May 25, 2022, at 10:28 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Rebecca, You are absolutely correct. All of the warning signs that Robert Jonson would be an unmitigated disaster as Palo Alto’s next police chief were all there before he ever stepped foot in Palo Alto. See the Daily Post piece below dated 11-14 2017 for details. We must push back hard, public protests whatever actions we can take, to push No Transparency and No Democracy city manager Ed Shikada into bringing at least the three finalists for police chief before the city council and our community so the candidates can be thoroughly vetted before one of them is selected as our next chief. aram Palo Alto hires Menlo Park’s police chief November 14, 2017 12:23 am BY ALLISON LEVITSKY Daily Post Staff Writer Menlo Park Police Chief Bob Jonsen will leave the department after almost five years to serve as Palo Alto’s new police chief, Palo Alto City Manager Jim Keene announced yesterday (Nov. 13). “His deep experience in a nearby city and increasingly senior and complex assignments in all aspects of law enforcement bring extraordinary value to the position of police chief,” Keene said in a statement. “We look forward to having him join Palo Alto to lead our stellar police department.” Jonsen has been lauded by elected officials and community members, not all of whom agree with him, as approachable, charismatic and easy to work with. “He’s done a great job in Menlo Park and I think that shows. That’s why he got picked up by Palo Alto,” Menlo Park Mayor Kristen Keith told the Post. “We’ll miss him. He’s done a great job.” Jonsen is also no stranger to controversy. During his time as chief, Menlo Park police have received complaints about over-policing and racial profiling. Jonsen’s ushering in of license plate readers and Tasers in his first few months on the job raised concerns about privacy and police use of force. On Nov. 11, 2014, three Menlo Park police officers shot armed, meth-addled burglar Jerry Lee Matheny to death with their body-worn cameras turned off. And from 2011 to 2013, Jonsen was the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department station chief in Lancaster, which settled with the Justice Department on April 28, 2015, over allegations of harassment of blacks and others in public housing. “I never really cared much for him,” said Matt Henry, former president of the neighborhood association of Belle Haven, ground zero for much of Menlo Park’s violent crime and most of its complaints of over-policing and racial profiling. ‘A big mess’ Henry worked in the Antelope Valley when Jonsen was the sheriff’s station chief in Lancaster. “His reputation was horrible, the way he treated people. Not personally, but some of the policies that they had down there,” Henry said. “It was a big mess down there, and he got out just before the Justice Department came.” In a June 2013 report, the Justice Department said that deputies had showed up for inspections with as many as nine officers, sometimes with guns drawn. In 2015, Jonsen told the Post that he was brought into the station after an investigation into the abuses was already underway, and worked with his superiors to help the department become more accountable. Aram James, a police watchdog and former Santa Clara County assistant public defender, said he hoped that Jonsen would sit down with him to talk about racial profiling in Menlo Park, the dangers of Tasers and the public’s limited access to body- worn camera footage via the Public Records Act. “Is he willing to take a look at how bad that policy looks to the public?” James said. “That doesn’t make his leadership transformative in this time when there’s so much focus on police misconduct.” Transparency efforts But Jonsen says he’s ushered transparency into the department. “Since 2013, I think this department has become one of the most innovative in the region, and definitely one of the most transparent,” Jonsen told the Post yesterday. Menlo Park was one of the first cities in the region to bring in body-worn cameras, and in May 2016, the city joined the White House’s Police Data Initiative, releasing data on calls for service, traffic stops and personnel demographics on the city’s website. The police department’s policy was posted online in 2013. Jonsen also started a mindfulness and compassion training for officers, which he says should have a positive effect on police-community relations. “I think our relationships have always been really good with the community,” Jonsen said. “There have been conversations on racial profiling, and we’ve been open to the community, talking with the community about their concerns.” Body-worn camera policy After the 2014 police shooting in Menlo Park, Jonsen says he strenghened the body- worn camera policy to require officers to turn on their cameras before they arrive at a scene. The cameras were off during the shooting because it happened immediately after they arrived at the scene, not leaving them time to turn on their cameras. San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said Jonsen was “superb” throughout the investigation into the shooting. Wagstaffe, a Menlo Park resident, said that Jonsen had raised morale about policing in town and ensures that the department “does good work for their community.” Belle Haven resident Pam Jones said she was a fan of Jonsen. “He’s been really working hard to develop a good rapport with the city, and particularly here in Belle Haven. Palo Alto is very fortunate,” Jones told the Post. ‘A consummate professional’ Menlo Park Councilman Ray Mueller said he disagreed with Jonsen’s approach with license plate readers and traffic cameras. He also took issue with the city accepting $9 million over five years to hire six additional police officers, which council approved on Nov. 7. But, Mueller said, Jonsen worked through disagreement productively and without confrontation. “He’s always taken my concerns very seriously and always worked with them to be accommodating, so that we could reach outcomes that would serve the benefit of our residents,” Mueller told the Post. “He is a consummate professional and, on top of that, he’s just a really good man. I’m not surprised that we lost him, and we’re really going to miss him.” Stuart Soffer, a former Menlo Park planning commissioner and Finance and Audit Committee member, said he completed the citizens’ police academy and thought Jonsen was personable and a “great manager.” “I always thought he would make a great city manager,” Soffer said. Mueller had another idea for Jonsen’s next career move as a police chief. “I think Bob, frankly, will end up in a city even larger than Palo Alto, eventually,” Mueller said. Salary Jonsen’s salary has been set at $260,000 with a monthly housing rental stipend of $3,000 a month for 18 months. The rental stipend will “allow him to maximize the time on the job and to fully immerse himself in the Palo Alto community as he builds relationships that are key as he assumes this new position,” according to a statement by city spokeswoman Claudia Keith. Palo Alto City Council will have to confirm Jonsen as the new chief on Dec. 11 and the city will need to finalize his public safety background requirements before he starts on Jan. 9. A graduate in Occupational Studies at CSU-Long Beach, Jonsen also holds a master’s in organizational leadership from Woodbury University in Burbank. Jonsen will replace Dennis Burns, who stepped down in December after 35 years on the police force. Capt. Ron Watson, who has been serving as interim chief, did not apply for the chief’s position. Sidebar: Jonsen’s record as Menlo Park’s police chief In his nearly five years as Menlo Park’s police chief, Bob Jonsen strengthened the department’s policy on body-worn cameras and established a citizens advisory committee. He has also seen his share of controversy, including three lawsuits alleging improper actions by officers. Feb. 15, 2013 — Jonsen began at Menlo Park. Sept. 25, 2013 — Council approves Jonsen’s request to spend $127,682 for four fixed- location surveillance cameras and three automatic license plate readers that can record data on thousands of cars a day. Nov. 12, 2013 — Hiruy Amanuel sues the department, claiming that during two traffic stops (one before Jonsen started and the other after) he was harassed by officers over his prior criminal conviction. He also claimed officers directed “racist and derogatory slurs” at him. Dec. 10, 2013 — Jonsen announces he wants to work with landlords to evict known gangsters. May 13, 2014 — Council votes 3-2, with council members Peter Ohtaki and Catherine Carlton dissenting, to make it a crime for any police officer to violate the city’s surveillance data ordinance. Jonsen called the ordinance “unnecessary.” Aug. 2, 2014 — The department is sued by former cop Rolando Igno, who was fired that April by Jonsen. Igno claimed that Jonsen should not have used issues that had been resolved previously as reasons to fire him. Nov. 11, 2014 — Three Menlo Park officers shoot and kill Jerry Lee Matheny, who was confronted after a burglary. The three officers who were involved in the shooting were later cleared by District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. A Post reporter is told by witnesses at the shooting scene that they were instructed by Menlo Park police not to talk to the press about the incident. Jonsen did not return Post Editor Dave Price’s calls or emails about the gag order. Jan. 29, 2015 — Councilman Ray Mueller blasts Jonsen and Cmdr. Dave Bertini over the fact that the three officers involved in the Matheny shooting did not have their body cameras on. “The one time we needed them on, they weren’t,” Mueller said. Aug. 5, 2015 — The Post published a report by Stanford journalism student Farida Jhabvala Romero, who wrote about the number of people pulled over in Menlo Park for having a suspended or revoked license. Of those pulled over, seven out of 10 were racial minorities. Capt. Dave Bertini denied that the department was targeting minorities, but did say that low-income drivers come to the attention of officers because of mechanical failures of their cars. The city’s towing fee was $300. “If anyone were to suggest that this is going on for racial reasons I think that’s asinine and bordering on slanderous,” Bertini told Romero. May 5, 2016 — As a result of Romero’s story, council votes to reduce the towing fee to $125. Jan. 19, 2017 — Jonsen and Mayor Kirsten Keith announce that all officers will go through “mindfulness” training in order for officers to face their discomforts and overcome them, whether it be physical or emotional or even because of biases, such as race or gender, and become more “emotionally available” to the communities they serve. Feb. 16, 2017 — A Redwood City man, Francisco Guevara, sues the city, saying he spent two nights in jail despite having done nothing wrong. Guevara said he probably wouldn’t have been arrested in the first place except that a man with the same name and physical description had a warrant out for his arrest. Aug. 28, 2017 — Tim Chamberlin sues the police department, saying he had been forced to live in his car for almost a year after he was evicted by Menlo Park police from the granny unit he was renting. Chamberlin contends Menlo Park police erred by getting involved in a civil matter between the owners of the home. Nov. 7, 2017 — Council approves a $11.25 million agreement with Facebook so the company can pay for six additional officers to patrol the east side. Jonsen helped negotiate the agreement. PREVIOUS Los Altos official proposes parcel tax to renovate or rebuild library Thanks, Mark and Aram. Aram - I remember how hard you worked to open the process before Jonsen was hired. You had easily uncovered much evidence of alleged misdeeds committed by Jonsen during his previous job in Menlo Park. You had brought those matters to the attention of the City Council, by emailing, speaking out, and also publishing editorials in the press. But the City Council ignored you. Because the City Council followed the secrecy route that you and so many community members (including me) had denounced, Palo Alto chose a police chief that irreparably harmed our town's public image and significantly harmed the police force and city government's relationships with the community. During Jonsen's time in PA, our town has been sued a record amount of times, our police force has committed a record number acts leading to the perception of undue force, and has spent a record amount of money in legal fees and settlements responding to these matters (not to mention even police officers themselves filing baseless actions against the city) -- all while actual crime has continued to rise. Now Shikada wants to repeat the broken process that led to the choice of the least successful police chief in PA's recent history. I don't know about you, but I always believed the adage that a direct route to failure is to repeat the same action expecting a different result. On behalf of our community, Palo Alto deserves a better process to select a police chief that is truly a good fit for our town. Can't you hear the residents demanding transparency and accountability? Why not give that to them? Whose side are you on? Best, Rebecca On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:07 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hiring process for police chief will be secret and behind closed doors. Thanks Mark for keeping this critical conversation going. Our continued public deliberations on the issue and the staff and Castillega’s machinations—- deserve the most heightened scrutiny. aram P.S. In this morning’s Daily Post, page 4, Shikada announced the hiring process for police chief will be secret behind closed doors. We can’t let this happen. Again we must continue to push back on Staff in order to achieve any degree of transparency. The staff often appears to me to be members of a private corporation upholding the rights of the rich at the expense of those who deserve justice. On May 25, 2022, at 1:11 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I met Rebecca Eisenberg for the first time in 2018, walking our dogs, at Peers Park. I had noticed her applications to BCCs. Since that time we’ve had numerous conversations, mostly about public policy and the law. (Sometimes, baseball or music). I’ve known Molly Stump longer but not as well. She invited me to see her art-lights in her office, but changed her mind. I think she’s done a satisfactory job, over 10 years here. But Rebecca went to Stanford, and Harvard Law. Molly Pomona and Cal. All fine schools, but given our proximity to Hoover Tower, I’d wager Rebecca is correct here, and Molly wrong: Casti is bluffing, or a bad actor. We should be deliberating in public the assertions of staff. Mark Weiss In Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone On May 24, 2022, at 9:52 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: I am told that Castilleja refers to Kol Emeth instead of Etz Chayim for garage precedent. Kol Emeth is also zoned for commercial uses. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning- amp-development-services/file- migration/current-planning/forms-and- guidelines/zone-map-2021.pdf Which brings up the bad-neighborly fact that Castilleja is threatening baseless 14th Amendment claims against Palo Alto regarding the garage. Should it file such a lawsuit, it will be dismissed on summary judgment, if not sooner. It is long- established law that Zoning law does not implicate 14th amendment protection unless it was done in order to impact a protected class, including racial minorities, non-dominant religions, and women. Castilleja making this argument will be viewed even worse than Woodside claiming to be a mountain lion protection area. As an aside, it violates Palo Alto public policy that the Planning Department continues to ignore PA's sustainability goals. Failing to measure the impact of the groundwater removal and the tons of cement used in constructing the underground garage, and the increase of cars on the street from larger enrollment (as all previous measures prove), was illegal of them. Given that there is not yet a sustainability commission, the Planning Department is required to consider the public interest in its evaluations, including the irreparable harm that would be caused by millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and cement. That Jonathan Lait said with a straight face that the construction would not harm Palo Alto's progress towards sustainability and harm neighbor's quality of life is wholly bizarre. Who would argue that? And his refusal to include (1) a no-garage option and (2) an option where Castilleja moves entirely or in part (second campus) is reversible error. No one thinks that Castilleja needs a garage and can't afford a second campus. All along Castilleja said that neighbors want a garage, but neighbors would much prefer no cars on their street, and instead want SHUTTLES like all other private schools. Why would neighbors want more car trips when they could have NO car trips? Castilleja's arguments never made any sense. Regardless, if Castilleja wants a toxic, carbon-emitting, environmentally hazardous underground garage like Kol Emeth, it can! It just needs to move to an area zoned commercial, or mixed use. In fact, the Stanford Research area has numerous empty corporate campuses with enormous parking lots, none of which can currently be used for residential purposes due to toxic waste from the HP Superfund Site. But they can be used for commercial purposes, including a school. The HP Campus at 1501 Page Mill is perfect! Tesla is taking over 325,000 square feet of that campus, leaving almost 300,000 feet for Castilleja. (There are numerous other sites as well.) In the past, Palo Alto has made harmful decisions, e.g. President Hotel, out of fear of being sued. The President Hotel protected itself from lawsuit by making settlement agreements which included financial compensation along with releases of all rights to sue, so there was no motivated and harmed plaintiff to sue about the President Hotel. But here, Castilleja spent (I'm told) $12 million on lawyers, but has not made any efforts to strike financial deals with neighbors, so every neighbor and impacted community member has the right to sue, and almost certainly will sue, if Castilleja's garage is approved. And, every time that Palo Alto is sued by citizens (rather than by big businesses or the police force) IT LOSES. See, for example, the Foothills Park case, the Utilities Transfer case, and the many police brutality cases that all cost PA millions in legal fees and settlements. Castilleja is bluffing. They have money to sue, and they may sue, but they will lose even more prestige in the community if they do, and already Stanford Admissions has started admitting fewer of their students, many say. Anyway, here is one of many explanations about how zoning does not create constitutional cases, and in California, it's even legal to spot zone, if doing so is necessary to protect the community interest -- and even to preserve the natural environment. If Molly messes up this case, she should be fired. (Hopefully she is doing some rethinking of her legal advice; she seemed very agitated when she snapped at me while having a "private meeting" with Ed Shikada right after the hearing. At the time she was two feet away from Castilleja's attorneys, and Molly should know that giving legal advice in the presence of third parties destroys the attorney-client privilege and makes all of her advice discoverable, including by public records act request, which I won't file for, even though I could and maybe should.) https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2020/01/09/citys- general-plan-policies-allowing- exemptions-from-zoning-requirements- did-not-violate-fourteenth-amendment-or- result-in-spot-zoning/ Why am I so obsessed with Castilleja? Because I cannot stand it when people lie - and dislike most of all when the people and companies with the most resources use those resources to create false narratives that convince communities and individuals to act against their own interests. E.g. Trump, and others. Best, Rebecca On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and -- despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo- alto-looks-to-scale-back-castillejas- growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under- delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R-1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment -- continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax- exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and itstax records suggest that it is profitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merely aspirational,of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re- write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over-enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencing thesemunicipal code penalties, which amount to $500-$5000 per dayperviolation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happy to provideyou the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20- year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents have been discussing withtheir attorneys. There is a third party cause of action plusattorneys fees under the false claims act, for example, amongother state laws that address this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 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:Aram James To:Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; chuck jagoda; peninsula_raging_grannies@yahoo.com; Winter Dellenbach; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Jay Boyarsky; supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org; Sajid Khan; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; dennis burns; Diana Diamond; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Shikada, Ed Cc:mark weiss; Lydia Kou; Greer Stone; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Andie Reed; Kerry Yarkin; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Curtis Smolar; Alison Cormack; greg@gregtanaka.org; Vara Ramakrishnan; Jonsen, Robert; Sean Allen Subject:Why we must have an open and transparent hiring process for Palo Alto’s next police chief Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 10:28:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hi Rebecca, You are absolutely correct. All of the warning signs that Robert Jonson would be an unmitigated disaster as Palo Alto’s next police chief were all there before he ever stepped foot in Palo Alto. See the Daily Post piece below dated 11-14 2017 for details. We must push back hard, public protests whatever actions we can take, to push No Transparency and No Democracy city manager Ed Shikada into bringing at least the three finalists for police chief before the city council and our community so the candidates can be thoroughly vetted before one of them is selected as our next chief. aram Palo Alto hires Menlo Park’s police chief November 14, 2017 12:23 am BY ALLISON LEVITSKY Daily Post Staff Writer Menlo Park Police Chief Bob Jonsen will leave the department after almost five years to serve as Palo Alto’s new police chief, Palo Alto City Manager Jim Keene announced yesterday (Nov. 13). “His deep experience in a nearby city and increasingly senior and complex assignments in all aspects of law enforcement bring extraordinary value to the position of police chief,” Keene said in a statement. “We look forward to having him join Palo Alto to lead our stellar police department.” Jonsen has been lauded by elected officials and community members, not all of whom agree with him, as approachable, charismatic and easy to work with. “He’s done a great job in Menlo Park and I think that shows. That’s why he got picked up by Palo Alto,” Menlo Park Mayor Kristen Keith told the Post. “We’ll miss him. He’s done a great job.” Jonsen is also no stranger to controversy. During his time as chief, Menlo Park police have received complaints about over-policing and racial profiling. Jonsen’s ushering in of license plate readers and Tasers in his first few months on the job raised concerns about privacy and police use of force. On Nov. 11, 2014, three Menlo Park police officers shot armed, meth-addled burglar Jerry Lee Matheny to death with their body-worn cameras turned off. And from 2011 to 2013, Jonsen was the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department station chief in Lancaster, which settled with the Justice Department on April 28, 2015, over allegations of harassment of blacks and others in public housing. “I never really cared much for him,” said Matt Henry, former president of the neighborhood association of Belle Haven, ground zero for much of Menlo Park’s violent crime and most of its complaints of over-policing and racial profiling. ‘A big mess’ Henry worked in the Antelope Valley when Jonsen was the sheriff’s station chief in Lancaster. “His reputation was horrible, the way he treated people. Not personally, but some of the policies that they had down there,” Henry said. “It was a big mess down there, and he got out just before the Justice Department came.” In a June 2013 report, the Justice Department said that deputies had showed up for inspections with as many as nine officers, sometimes with guns drawn. In 2015, Jonsen told the Post that he was brought into the station after an investigation into the abuses was already underway, and worked with his superiors to help the department become more accountable. Aram James, a police watchdog and former Santa Clara County assistant public defender, said he hoped that Jonsen would sit down with him to talk about racial profiling in Menlo Park, the dangers of Tasers and the public’s limited access to body-worn camera footage via the Public Records Act. “Is he willing to take a look at how bad that policy looks to the public?” James said. “That doesn’t make his leadership transformative in this time when there’s so much focus on police misconduct.” Transparency efforts But Jonsen says he’s ushered transparency into the department. “Since 2013, I think this department has become one of the most innovative in the region, and definitely one of the most transparent,” Jonsen told the Post yesterday. Menlo Park was one of the first cities in the region to bring in body-worn cameras, and in May 2016, the city joined the White House’s Police Data Initiative, releasing data on calls for service, traffic stops and personnel demographics on the city’s website. The police department’s policy was posted online in 2013. Jonsen also started a mindfulness and compassion training for officers, which he says should have a positive effect on police-community relations. “I think our relationships have always been really good with the community,” Jonsen said. “There have been conversations on racial profiling, and we’ve been open to the community, talking with the community about their concerns.” Body-worn camera policy After the 2014 police shooting in Menlo Park, Jonsen says he strenghened the body-worn camera policy to require officers to turn on their cameras before they arrive at a scene. The cameras were off during the shooting because it happened immediately after they arrived at the scene, not leaving them time to turn on their cameras. San Mateo County District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe said Jonsen was “superb” throughout the investigation into the shooting. Wagstaffe, a Menlo Park resident, said that Jonsen had raised morale about policing in town and ensures that the department “does good work for their community.” Belle Haven resident Pam Jones said she was a fan of Jonsen. “He’s been really working hard to develop a good rapport with the city, and particularly here in Belle Haven. Palo Alto is very fortunate,” Jones told the Post. ‘A consummate professional’ Menlo Park Councilman Ray Mueller said he disagreed with Jonsen’s approach with license plate readers and traffic cameras. He also took issue with the city accepting $9 million over five years to hire six additional police officers, which council approved on Nov. 7. But, Mueller said, Jonsen worked through disagreement productively and without confrontation. “He’s always taken my concerns very seriously and always worked with them to be accommodating, so that we could reach outcomes that would serve the benefit of our residents,” Mueller told the Post. “He is a consummate professional and, on top of that, he’s just a really good man. I’m not surprised that we lost him, and we’re really going to miss him.” Stuart Soffer, a former Menlo Park planning commissioner and Finance and Audit Committee member, said he completed the citizens’ police academy and thought Jonsen was personable and a “great manager.” “I always thought he would make a great city manager,” Soffer said. Mueller had another idea for Jonsen’s next career move as a police chief. “I think Bob, frankly, will end up in a city even larger than Palo Alto, eventually,” Mueller said. Salary Jonsen’s salary has been set at $260,000 with a monthly housing rental stipend of $3,000 a month for 18 months. The rental stipend will “allow him to maximize the time on the job and to fully immerse himself in the Palo Alto community as he builds relationships that are key as he assumes this new position,” according to a statement by city spokeswoman Claudia Keith. Palo Alto City Council will have to confirm Jonsen as the new chief on Dec. 11 and the city will need to finalize his public safety background requirements before he starts on Jan. 9. A graduate in Occupational Studies at CSU-Long Beach, Jonsen also holds a master’s in organizational leadership from Woodbury University in Burbank. Jonsen will replace Dennis Burns, who stepped down in December after 35 years on the police force. Capt. Ron Watson, who has been serving as interim chief, did not apply for the chief’s position. Sidebar: Jonsen’s record as Menlo Park’s police chief In his nearly five years as Menlo Park’s police chief, Bob Jonsen strengthened the department’s policy on body-worn cameras and established a citizens advisory committee. He has also seen his share of controversy, including three lawsuits alleging improper actions by officers. Feb. 15, 2013 — Jonsen began at Menlo Park. Sept. 25, 2013 — Council approves Jonsen’s request to spend $127,682 for four fixed- location surveillance cameras and three automatic license plate readers that can record data on thousands of cars a day. Nov. 12, 2013 — Hiruy Amanuel sues the department, claiming that during two traffic stops (one before Jonsen started and the other after) he was harassed by officers over his prior criminal conviction. He also claimed officers directed “racist and derogatory slurs” at him. Dec. 10, 2013 — Jonsen announces he wants to work with landlords to evict known gangsters. May 13, 2014 — Council votes 3-2, with council members Peter Ohtaki and Catherine Carlton dissenting, to make it a crime for any police officer to violate the city’s surveillance data ordinance. Jonsen called the ordinance “unnecessary.” Aug. 2, 2014 — The department is sued by former cop Rolando Igno, who was fired that April by Jonsen. Igno claimed that Jonsen should not have used issues that had been resolved previously as reasons to fire him. Nov. 11, 2014 — Three Menlo Park officers shoot and kill Jerry Lee Matheny, who was confronted after a burglary. The three officers who were involved in the shooting were later cleared by District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe. A Post reporter is told by witnesses at the shooting scene that they were instructed by Menlo Park police not to talk to the press about the incident. Jonsen did not return Post Editor Dave Price’s calls or emails about the gag order. Jan. 29, 2015 — Councilman Ray Mueller blasts Jonsen and Cmdr. Dave Bertini over the fact that the three officers involved in the Matheny shooting did not have their body cameras on. “The one time we needed them on, they weren’t,” Mueller said. Aug. 5, 2015 — The Post published a report by Stanford journalism student Farida Jhabvala Romero, who wrote about the number of people pulled over in Menlo Park for having a suspended or revoked license. Of those pulled over, seven out of 10 were racial minorities. Capt. Dave Bertini denied that the department was targeting minorities, but did say that low- income drivers come to the attention of officers because of mechanical failures of their cars. The city’s towing fee was $300. “If anyone were to suggest that this is going on for racial reasons I think that’s asinine and bordering on slanderous,” Bertini told Romero. May 5, 2016 — As a result of Romero’s story, council votes to reduce the towing fee to $125. Jan. 19, 2017 — Jonsen and Mayor Kirsten Keith announce that all officers will go through “mindfulness” training in order for officers to face their discomforts and overcome them, whether it be physical or emotional or even because of biases, such as race or gender, and become more “emotionally available” to the communities they serve. Feb. 16, 2017 — A Redwood City man, Francisco Guevara, sues the city, saying he spent two nights in jail despite having done nothing wrong. Guevara said he probably wouldn’t have been arrested in the first place except that a man with the same name and physical description had a warrant out for his arrest. Aug. 28, 2017 — Tim Chamberlin sues the police department, saying he had been forced to live in his car for almost a year after he was evicted by Menlo Park police from the granny unit he was renting. Chamberlin contends Menlo Park police erred by getting involved in a civil matter between the owners of the home. Nov. 7, 2017 — Council approves a $11.25 million agreement with Facebook so the company can pay for six additional officers to patrol the east side. Jonsen helped negotiate the agreement. PREVIOUS Los Altos official proposes parcel tax to renovate or rebuild library Thanks, Mark and Aram. Aram - I remember how hard you worked to open the process before Jonsen was hired. You had easily uncovered much evidence of alleged misdeeds committed by Jonsen during his previous job in Menlo Park. You had brought those matters to the attention of the City Council, by emailing, speaking out, and also publishing editorials in the press. But the City Council ignored you. Because the City Council followed the secrecy route that you and so many community members (including me) had denounced, Palo Alto chose a police chief that irreparably harmed our town's public image and significantly harmed the police force and city government's relationships with the community. During Jonsen's time in PA, our town has been sued a record amount of times, our police force has committed a record number acts leading to the perception of undue force, and has spent a record amount of money in legal fees and settlements responding to these matters (not to mention even police officers themselves filing baseless actions against the city) -- all while actual crime has continued to rise. Now Shikada wants to repeat the broken process that led to the choice of the least successful police chief in PA's recent history. I don't know about you, but I always believed the adage that a direct route to failure is to repeat the same action expecting a different result. On behalf of our community, Palo Alto deserves a better process to select a police chief that is truly a good fit for our town. Can't you hear the residents demanding transparency and accountability? Why not give that to them? Whose side are you on? Best, Rebecca On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:07 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hiring process for police chief will be secret and behind closed doors. Thanks Mark for keeping this critical conversation going. Our continued public deliberations on the issue and the staff and Castillega’s machinations—- deserve the most heightened scrutiny. aram P.S. In this morning’s Daily Post, page 4, Shikada announced the hiring process for police chief will be secret behind closed doors. We can’t let this happen. Again we must continue to push back on Staff in order to achieve any degree of transparency. The staff often appears to me to be members of a private corporation upholding the rights of the rich at the expense of those who deserve justice. On May 25, 2022, at 1:11 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I met Rebecca Eisenberg for the first time in 2018, walking our dogs, at Peers Park. I had noticed her applications to BCCs. Since that time we’ve had numerous conversations, mostly about public policy and the law. (Sometimes, baseball or music). I’ve known Molly Stump longer but not as well. She invited me to see her art-lights in her office, but changed her mind. I think she’s done a satisfactory job, over 10 years here. But Rebecca went to Stanford, and Harvard Law. Molly Pomona and Cal. All fine schools, but given our proximity to Hoover Tower, I’d wager Rebecca is correct here, and Molly wrong: Casti is bluffing, or a bad actor. We should be deliberating in public the assertions of staff. Mark Weiss In Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone On May 24, 2022, at 9:52 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: I am told that Castilleja refers to Kol Emeth instead of Etz Chayim for garage precedent. Kol Emeth is also zoned for commercial uses. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning- amp-development-services/file- migration/current-planning/forms-and- guidelines/zone-map-2021.pdf Which brings up the bad-neighborly fact that Castilleja is threatening baseless 14th Amendment claims against Palo Alto regarding the garage. Should it file such a lawsuit, it will be dismissed on summary judgment, if not sooner. It is long-established law that Zoning law does not implicate 14th amendment protection unless it was done in order to impact a protected class, including racial minorities, non-dominant religions, and women. Castilleja making this argument will be viewed even worse than Woodside claiming to be a mountain lion protection area. As an aside, it violates Palo Alto public policy that the Planning Department continues to ignore PA's sustainability goals. Failing to measure the impact of the groundwater removal and the tons of cement used in constructing the underground garage, and the increase of cars on the street from larger enrollment (as all previous measures prove), was illegal of them. Given that there is not yet a sustainability commission, the Planning Department is required to consider the public interest in its evaluations, including the irreparable harm that would be caused by millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and cement. That Jonathan Lait said with a straight face that the construction would not harm Palo Alto's progress towards sustainability and harm neighbor's quality of life is wholly bizarre. Who would argue that? And his refusal to include (1) a no- garage option and (2) an option where Castilleja moves entirely or in part (second campus) is reversible error. No one thinks that Castilleja needs a garage and can't afford a second campus. All along Castilleja said that neighbors want a garage, but neighbors would much prefer no cars on their street, and instead want SHUTTLES like all other private schools. Why would neighbors want more car trips when they could have NO car trips? Castilleja's arguments never made any sense. Regardless, if Castilleja wants a toxic, carbon- emitting, environmentally hazardous underground garage like Kol Emeth, it can! It just needs to move to an area zoned commercial, or mixed use. In fact, the Stanford Research area has numerous empty corporate campuses with enormous parking lots, none of which can currently be used for residential purposes due to toxic waste from the HP Superfund Site. But they can be used for commercial purposes, including a school. The HP Campus at 1501 Page Mill is perfect! Tesla is taking over 325,000 square feet of that campus, leaving almost 300,000 feet for Castilleja. (There are numerous other sites as well.) In the past, Palo Alto has made harmful decisions, e.g. President Hotel, out of fear of being sued. The President Hotel protected itself from lawsuit by making settlement agreements which included financial compensation along with releases of all rights to sue, so there was no motivated and harmed plaintiff to sue about the President Hotel. But here, Castilleja spent (I'm told) $12 million on lawyers, but has not made any efforts to strike financial deals with neighbors, so every neighbor and impacted community member has the right to sue, and almost certainly will sue, if Castilleja's garage is approved. And, every time that Palo Alto is sued by citizens (rather than by big businesses or the police force) IT LOSES. See, for example, the Foothills Park case, the Utilities Transfer case, and the many police brutality cases that all cost PA millions in legal fees and settlements. Castilleja is bluffing. They have money to sue, and they may sue, but they will lose even more prestige in the community if they do, and already Stanford Admissions has started admitting fewer of their students, many say. Anyway, here is one of many explanations about how zoning does not create constitutional cases, and in California, it's even legal to spot zone, if doing so is necessary to protect the community interest -- and even to preserve the natural environment. If Molly messes up this case, she should be fired. (Hopefully she is doing some rethinking of her legal advice; she seemed very agitated when she snapped at me while having a "private meeting" with Ed Shikada right after the hearing. At the time she was two feet away from Castilleja's attorneys, and Molly should know that giving legal advice in the presence of third parties destroys the attorney-client privilege and makes all of her advice discoverable, including by public records act request, which I won't file for, even though I could and maybe should.) https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2020/01/09/citys- general-plan-policies-allowing-exemptions- from-zoning-requirements-did-not-violate- fourteenth-amendment-or-result-in-spot- zoning/ Why am I so obsessed with Castilleja? Because I cannot stand it when people lie - and dislike most of all when the people and companies with the most resources use those resources to create false narratives that convince communities and individuals to act against their own interests. E.g. Trump, and others. Best, Rebecca On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and -- despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo- alto-looks-to-scale-back-castillejas-growth- plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under- delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R-1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment -- continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20- year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its tax records suggestthat it is profitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merely aspirational, ofcourse.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over- enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencing these municipalcode penalties, which amount to $500-$5000 per day perviolation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happy to provide you thecode sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20- year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residentshave been discussing with their attorneys. There is a third party cause ofaction plus attorneys fees under the false claims act, for example, amongother state laws that address this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 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:Annette Hughes To:Council, City Subject:Thanks: May 23 meeting Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 7:38:50 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from silsbyhughes@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members and Staff, I attended the Council meeting on May 23, 2022, the one where the majority of the meeting was devoted to the Castilleja School project. For purposes of this letter, it is irrelevant as to which side I was there to support. The support in this letter is to all y’all. It is a daunting and mostly thankless task to hold your positions. It comes with tremendous responsibility and not concurrent glory. Yet y’all handle yourselves with aplomb and dedication. What y’all do is Serve, with the intended capital S. You serve our community, and in serving that microcosm, you serve greater humanity. Simply noting that your work was seen, noted, and duly appreciated. With thanks, Annette S. Hughes From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:Aram James Cc:mark weiss; Lydia Kou; Greer Stone; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Andie Reed; Kerry Yarkin; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Curtis Smolar; Alison Cormack; greg@gregtanaka.org; Vara Ramakrishnan Subject:Re: Kol Emeth Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 3:34:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks, Mark and Aram. Aram - I remember how hard you worked to open the process before Jonsen was hired. You had easily uncovered much evidence of alleged misdeeds committed by Jonsen during his previous job in Menlo Park. You had brought those matters to the attention of the City Council, by emailing, speaking out, and also publishing editorials in the press. But the City Council ignored you. Because the City Council followed the secrecy route that you and so many community members (including me) had denounced, Palo Alto chose a police chief that irreparably harmed our town's public image and significantly harmed the police force and city government's relationships with the community. During Jonsen's time in PA, our town has been sued a record amount of times, our police force has committed a record number acts leading to the perception of undue force, and has spent a record amount of money in legal fees and settlements responding to these matters (not to mention even police officers themselves filing baseless actions against the city) -- all while actual crime has continued to rise. Now Shikada wants to repeat the broken process that led to the choice of the least successful police chief in PA's recent history. I don't know about you, but I always believed the adage that a direct route to failure is to repeat the same action expecting a different result. On behalf of our community, Palo Alto deserves a better process to select a police chief that is truly a good fit for our town. Can't you hear the residents demanding transparency and accountability? Why not give that to them? Whose side are you on? Best, Rebecca On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 3:07 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Hiring process for police chief will be secret and behind closed doors. Thanks Mark for keeping this critical conversation going. Our continued public deliberations on the issue and the staff and Castillega’s machinations—- deserve the most heightened scrutiny. aram P.S. In this morning’s Daily Post, page 4, Shikada announced the hiring process for police chief will be secret behind closed doors. We can’t let this happen. Again we must continue to push back on Staff in order to achieve any degree of transparency. The staff often appears to me to be members of a private corporation upholding the rights of the rich at the expense of those who deserve justice. On May 25, 2022, at 1:11 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I met Rebecca Eisenberg for the first time in 2018, walking our dogs, at Peers Park. I had noticed her applications to BCCs. Since that time we’ve had numerous conversations, mostly about public policy and the law. (Sometimes, baseball or music). I’ve known Molly Stump longer but not as well. She invited me to see her art-lights in her office, but changed her mind. I think she’s done a satisfactory job, over 10 years here. But Rebecca went to Stanford, and Harvard Law. Molly Pomona and Cal. All fine schools, but given our proximity to Hoover Tower, I’d wager Rebecca is correct here, and Molly wrong: Casti is bluffing, or a bad actor. We should be deliberating in public the assertions of staff. Mark Weiss In Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone On May 24, 2022, at 9:52 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: I am told that Castilleja refers to Kol Emeth instead of Etz Chayim for garage precedent. Kol Emeth is also zoned for commercial uses. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning- amp-development-services/file-migration/current- planning/forms-and-guidelines/zone-map-2021.pdf Which brings up the bad-neighborly fact that Castilleja is threatening baseless 14th Amendment claims against Palo Alto regarding the garage. Should it file such a lawsuit, it will be dismissed on summary judgment, if not sooner. It is long-established law that Zoning law does not implicate 14th amendment protection unless it was done in order to impact a protected class, including racial minorities, non- dominant religions, and women. Castilleja making this argument will be viewed even worse than Woodside claiming to be a mountain lion protection area. As an aside, it violates Palo Alto public policy that the Planning Department continues to ignore PA's sustainability goals. Failing to measure the impact of the groundwater removal and the tons of cement used in constructing the underground garage, and the increase of cars on the street from larger enrollment (as all previous measures prove), was illegal of them. Given that there is not yet a sustainability commission, the Planning Department is required to consider the public interest in its evaluations, including the irreparable harm that would be caused by millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and cement. That Jonathan Lait said with a straight face that the construction would not harm Palo Alto's progress towards sustainability and harm neighbor's quality of life is wholly bizarre. Who would argue that? And his refusal to include (1) a no-garage option and (2) an option where Castilleja moves entirely or in part (second campus) is reversible error. No one thinks that Castilleja needs a garage and can't afford a second campus. All along Castilleja said that neighbors want a garage, but neighbors would much prefer no cars on their street, and instead want SHUTTLES like all other private schools. Why would neighbors want more car trips when they could have NO car trips? Castilleja's arguments never made any sense. Regardless, if Castilleja wants a toxic, carbon- emitting, environmentally hazardous underground garage like Kol Emeth, it can! It just needs to move to an area zoned commercial, or mixed use. In fact, the Stanford Research area has numerous empty corporate campuses with enormous parking lots, none of which can currently be used for residential purposes due to toxic waste from the HP Superfund Site. But they can be used for commercial purposes, including a school. The HP Campus at 1501 Page Mill is perfect! Tesla is taking over 325,000 square feet of that campus, leaving almost 300,000 feet for Castilleja. (There are numerous other sites as well.) In the past, Palo Alto has made harmful decisions, e.g. President Hotel, out of fear of being sued. The President Hotel protected itself from lawsuit by making settlement agreements which included financial compensation along with releases of all rights to sue, so there was no motivated and harmed plaintiff to sue about the President Hotel. But here, Castilleja spent (I'm told) $12 million on lawyers, but has not made any efforts to strike financial deals with neighbors, so every neighbor and impacted community member has the right to sue, and almost certainly will sue, if Castilleja's garage is approved. And, every time that Palo Alto is sued by citizens (rather than by big businesses or the police force) IT LOSES. See, for example, the Foothills Park case, the Utilities Transfer case, and the many police brutality cases that all cost PA millions in legal fees and settlements. Castilleja is bluffing. They have money to sue, and they may sue, but they will lose even more prestige in the community if they do, and already Stanford Admissions has started admitting fewer of their students, many say. Anyway, here is one of many explanations about how zoning does not create constitutional cases, and in California, it's even legal to spot zone, if doing so is necessary to protect the community interest -- and even to preserve the natural environment. If Molly messes up this case, she should be fired. (Hopefully she is doing some rethinking of her legal advice; she seemed very agitated when she snapped at me while having a "private meeting" with Ed Shikada right after the hearing. At the time she was two feet away from Castilleja's attorneys, and Molly should know that giving legal advice in the presence of third parties destroys the attorney-client privilege and makes all of her advice discoverable, including by public records act request, which I won't file for, even though I could and maybe should.) https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2020/01/09/citys- general-plan-policies-allowing-exemptions-from- zoning-requirements-did-not-violate-fourteenth- amendment-or-result-in-spot-zoning/ Why am I so obsessed with Castilleja? Because I cannot stand it when people lie - and dislike most of all when the people and companies with the most resources use those resources to create false narratives that convince communities and individuals to act against their own interests. E.g. Trump, and others. Best, Rebecca On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and -- despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo- alto-looks-to-scale-back-castillejas-growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under- delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R-1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment -- continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20- year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its tax records suggest that it isprofitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merely aspirational, of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over- enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencing these municipal codepenalties, which amount to $500-$5000 per day perviolation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happy to provide you the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents have been discussing with their attorneys. There is athird party cause of action plus attorneys fees under the false claims act, forexample, among other state laws that address this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 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:Aram James To:mark weiss Cc:Rebecca Eisenberg; Lydia Kou; Greer Stone; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Andie Reed; Kerry Yarkin; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Curtis Smolar; Alison Cormack; greg@gregtanaka.org; Vara Ramakrishnan Subject:Re: Kol Emeth Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 3:07:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Hiring process for police chief will be secret and behind closed doors. Thanks Mark for keeping this critical conversation going. Our continued public deliberations on the issue and the staff and Castillega’s machinations—- deserve the most heightened scrutiny. aram P.S. In this morning’s Daily Post, page 4, Shikada announced the hiring process for police chief will be secret behind closed doors. We can’t let this happen. Again we must continue to push back on Staff in order to achieve any degree of transparency. The staff often appears to me to be members of a private corporation upholding the rights of the rich at the expense of those who deserve justice. On May 25, 2022, at 1:11 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I met Rebecca Eisenberg for the first time in 2018, walking our dogs, at Peers Park. I had noticed her applications to BCCs. Since that time we’ve had numerous conversations, mostly about public policy and the law. (Sometimes, baseball or music). I’ve known Molly Stump longer but not as well. She invited me to see her art-lights in her office, but changed her mind. I think she’s done a satisfactory job, over 10 years here. But Rebecca went to Stanford, and Harvard Law. Molly Pomona and Cal. All fine schools, but given our proximity to Hoover Tower, I’d wager Rebecca is correct here, and Molly wrong: Casti is bluffing, or a bad actor. We should be deliberating in public the assertions of staff. Mark Weiss In Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone On May 24, 2022, at 9:52 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: I am told that Castilleja refers to Kol Emeth instead of Etz Chayim for garage precedent. Kol Emeth is also zoned for commercial uses. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning- amp-development-services/file-migration/current- planning/forms-and-guidelines/zone-map-2021.pdf Which brings up the bad-neighborly fact that Castilleja is threatening baseless 14th Amendment claims against Palo Alto regarding the garage. Should it file such a lawsuit, it will be dismissed on summary judgment, if not sooner. It is long-established law that Zoning law does not implicate 14th amendment protection unless it was done in order to impact a protected class, including racial minorities, non- dominant religions, and women. Castilleja making this argument will be viewed even worse than Woodside claiming to be a mountain lion protection area. As an aside, it violates Palo Alto public policy that the Planning Department continues to ignore PA's sustainability goals. Failing to measure the impact of the groundwater removal and the tons of cement used in constructing the underground garage, and the increase of cars on the street from larger enrollment (as all previous measures prove), was illegal of them. Given that there is not yet a sustainability commission, the Planning Department is required to consider the public interest in its evaluations, including the irreparable harm that would be caused by millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and cement. That Jonathan Lait said with a straight face that the construction would not harm Palo Alto's progress towards sustainability and harm neighbor's quality of life is wholly bizarre. Who would argue that? And his refusal to include (1) a no-garage option and (2) an option where Castilleja moves entirely or in part (second campus) is reversible error. No one thinks that Castilleja needs a garage and can't afford a second campus. All along Castilleja said that neighbors want a garage, but neighbors would much prefer no cars on their street, and instead want SHUTTLES like all other private schools. Why would neighbors want more car trips when they could have NO car trips? Castilleja's arguments never made any sense. Regardless, if Castilleja wants a toxic, carbon- emitting, environmentally hazardous underground garage like Kol Emeth, it can! It just needs to move to an area zoned commercial, or mixed use. In fact, the Stanford Research area has numerous empty corporate campuses with enormous parking lots, none of which can currently be used for residential purposes due to toxic waste from the HP Superfund Site. But they can be used for commercial purposes, including a school. The HP Campus at 1501 Page Mill is perfect! Tesla is taking over 325,000 square feet of that campus, leaving almost 300,000 feet for Castilleja. (There are numerous other sites as well.) In the past, Palo Alto has made harmful decisions, e.g. President Hotel, out of fear of being sued. The President Hotel protected itself from lawsuit by making settlement agreements which included financial compensation along with releases of all rights to sue, so there was no motivated and harmed plaintiff to sue about the President Hotel. But here, Castilleja spent (I'm told) $12 million on lawyers, but has not made any efforts to strike financial deals with neighbors, so every neighbor and impacted community member has the right to sue, and almost certainly will sue, if Castilleja's garage is approved. And, every time that Palo Alto is sued by citizens (rather than by big businesses or the police force) IT LOSES. See, for example, the Foothills Park case, the Utilities Transfer case, and the many police brutality cases that all cost PA millions in legal fees and settlements. Castilleja is bluffing. They have money to sue, and they may sue, but they will lose even more prestige in the community if they do, and already Stanford Admissions has started admitting fewer of their students, many say. Anyway, here is one of many explanations about how zoning does not create constitutional cases, and in California, it's even legal to spot zone, if doing so is necessary to protect the community interest -- and even to preserve the natural environment. If Molly messes up this case, she should be fired. (Hopefully she is doing some rethinking of her legal advice; she seemed very agitated when she snapped at me while having a "private meeting" with Ed Shikada right after the hearing. At the time she was two feet away from Castilleja's attorneys, and Molly should know that giving legal advice in the presence of third parties destroys the attorney-client privilege and makes all of her advice discoverable, including by public records act request, which I won't file for, even though I could and maybe should.) https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2020/01/09/citys- general-plan-policies-allowing-exemptions-from- zoning-requirements-did-not-violate-fourteenth- amendment-or-result-in-spot-zoning/ Why am I so obsessed with Castilleja? Because I cannot stand it when people lie - and dislike most of all when the people and companies with the most resources use those resources to create false narratives that convince communities and individuals to act against their own interests. E.g. Trump, and others. Best, Rebecca On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and -- despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo- alto-looks-to-scale-back-castillejas-growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under- delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R-1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment -- continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20- year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its tax records suggest that it isprofitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merely aspirational, of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over- enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencing these municipal codepenalties, which amount to $500-$5000 per day perviolation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happy to provide you the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents have been discussing with their attorneys. There is athird party cause of action plus attorneys fees under the false claims act, forexample, among other state laws that address this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 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:Aram James To:mark weiss Cc:Rebecca Eisenberg; Lydia Kou; Greer Stone; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Andie Reed; Kerry Yarkin; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Curtis Smolar; Alison Cormack; greg@gregtanaka.org; Vara Ramakrishnan Subject:Re: Kol Emeth Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 3:01:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thanks Mark for keeping this critical conversation going. Our continued public deliberations on the issue and the staff and Castillega’s machinations—- deserve the most heightened scrutiny. aram P.S. In this morning’s Daily Post, page 4, Shikada announced the hiring process will be secret behind closed doors. We can’t let this happen. Again we must continue to push back on Staff in order to achieve any degree of transparency. The staff often appears to me to be members of a private corporation upholding the rights of the rich at the expense of those who deserve justice. On May 25, 2022, at 1:11 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: I met Rebecca Eisenberg for the first time in 2018, walking our dogs, at Peers Park. I had noticed her applications to BCCs. Since that time we’ve had numerous conversations, mostly about public policy and the law. (Sometimes, baseball or music). I’ve known Molly Stump longer but not as well. She invited me to see her art- lights in her office, but changed her mind. I think she’s done a satisfactory job, over 10 years here. But Rebecca went to Stanford, and Harvard Law. Molly Pomona and Cal. All fine schools, but given our proximity to Hoover Tower, I’d wager Rebecca is correct here, and Molly wrong: Casti is bluffing, or a bad actor. We should be deliberating in public the assertions of staff. Mark Weiss In Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone On May 24, 2022, at 9:52 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: I am told that Castilleja refers to Kol Emeth instead of Etz Chayim for garage precedent. Kol Emeth is also zoned for commercial uses. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning- amp-development-services/file-migration/current- planning/forms-and-guidelines/zone-map-2021.pdf Which brings up the bad-neighborly fact that Castilleja is threatening baseless 14th Amendment claims against Palo Alto regarding the garage. Should it file such a lawsuit, it will be dismissed on summary judgment, if not sooner. It is long- established law that Zoning law does not implicate 14th amendment protection unless it was done in order to impact a protected class, including racial minorities, non-dominant religions, and women. Castilleja making this argument will be viewed even worse than Woodside claiming to be a mountain lion protection area. As an aside, it violates Palo Alto public policy that the Planning Department continues to ignore PA's sustainability goals. Failing to measure the impact of the groundwater removal and the tons of cement used in constructing the underground garage, and the increase of cars on the street from larger enrollment (as all previous measures prove), was illegal of them. Given that there is not yet a sustainability commission, the Planning Department is required to consider the public interest in its evaluations, including the irreparable harm that would be caused by millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and cement. That Jonathan Lait said with a straight face that the construction would not harm Palo Alto's progress towards sustainability and harm neighbor's quality of life is wholly bizarre. Who would argue that? And his refusal to include (1) a no-garage option and (2) an option where Castilleja moves entirely or in part (second campus) is reversible error. No one thinks that Castilleja needs a garage and can't afford a second campus. All along Castilleja said that neighbors want a garage, but neighbors would much prefer no cars on their street, and instead want SHUTTLES like all other private schools. Why would neighbors want more car trips when they could have NO car trips? Castilleja's arguments never made any sense. Regardless, if Castilleja wants a toxic, carbon-emitting, environmentally hazardous underground garage like Kol Emeth, it can! It just needs to move to an area zoned commercial, or mixed use. In fact, the Stanford Research area has numerous empty corporate campuses with enormous parking lots, none of which can currently be used for residential purposes due to toxic waste from the HP Superfund Site. But they can be used for commercial purposes, including a school. The HP Campus at 1501 Page Mill is perfect! Tesla is taking over 325,000 square feet of that campus, leaving almost 300,000 feet for Castilleja. (There are numerous other sites as well.) In the past, Palo Alto has made harmful decisions, e.g. President Hotel, out of fear of being sued. The President Hotel protected itself from lawsuit by making settlement agreements which included financial compensation along with releases of all rights to sue, so there was no motivated and harmed plaintiff to sue about the President Hotel. But here, Castilleja spent (I'm told) $12 million on lawyers, but has not made any efforts to strike financial deals with neighbors, so every neighbor and impacted community member has the right to sue, and almost certainly will sue, if Castilleja's garage is approved. And, every time that Palo Alto is sued by citizens (rather than by big businesses or the police force) IT LOSES. See, for example, the Foothills Park case, the Utilities Transfer case, and the many police brutality cases that all cost PA millions in legal fees and settlements. Castilleja is bluffing. They have money to sue, and they may sue, but they will lose even more prestige in the community if they do, and already Stanford Admissions has started admitting fewer of their students, many say. Anyway, here is one of many explanations about how zoning does not create constitutional cases, and in California, it's even legal to spot zone, if doing so is necessary to protect the community interest -- and even to preserve the natural environment. If Molly messes up this case, she should be fired. (Hopefully she is doing some rethinking of her legal advice; she seemed very agitated when she snapped at me while having a "private meeting" with Ed Shikada right after the hearing. At the time she was two feet away from Castilleja's attorneys, and Molly should know that giving legal advice in the presence of third parties destroys the attorney- client privilege and makes all of her advice discoverable, including by public records act request, which I won't file for, even though I could and maybe should.) https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2020/01/09/citys- general-plan-policies-allowing-exemptions-from-zoning- requirements-did-not-violate-fourteenth-amendment-or- result-in-spot-zoning/ Why am I so obsessed with Castilleja? Because I cannot stand it when people lie - and dislike most of all when the people and companies with the most resources use those resources to create false narratives that convince communities and individuals to act against their own interests. E.g. Trump, and others. Best, Rebecca On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and -- despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo- alto-looks-to-scale-back-castillejas-growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under-delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R- 1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R-1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis- statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment -- continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its tax records suggest that it is profitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merely aspirational, of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over-enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencing these municipal code penalties, whichamount to $500-$5000 per day perviolation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happy to provide you the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents have been discussing with their attorneys. There is a third partycause of action plus attorneys fees under the false claims act, for example, among other statelaws that address this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 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:Jim Poppy To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja TDM does not capture parking Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 2:59:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council, During the Monday meeting Mr. Lait explained that the definition of a trip was a drop off and pickup. Students and staff that drive to the school and park on the street would not trigger the counters and would avoid the TDM counting mechanisms. Please make sure the TDM includes all street parking around the school to get a more accurate count of all car traffic. Thanks, Jim Poppy Melville Avenue Sent from my iPad From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; David Balakian; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; beachrides; fred beyerlein; bballpod; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; dallen1212@gmail.com; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; 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; leager; Leodies Buchanan; Mark Standriff; Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; merazroofing@att.net; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net; Steve Wayte Subject:Fwd: Stiglitz: Raising interest rates won"t conquer inflation. Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 2:46:51 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: Wed, May 25, 2022 at 2:23 PM Subject: Fwd: Stiglitz: Raising interest rates won't conquer inflation. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, May 25, 2022 at 1:49 PM Subject: Fwd: Stiglitz: Raising interest rates won't conquer inflation. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Wed, May 25, 2022 at 4:02 AM Subject: Fwd: Stiglitz: Raising interest rates won't conquer inflation. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 9:43 PM Subject: Fwd: Stiglitz: Raising interest rates won't conquer inflation. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 2:57 AM Subject: Fwd: Stiglitz: Raising interest rates won't conquer inflation. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 2:55 AM Subject: Fwd: Stiglitz: Raising interest rates won't conquer inflation. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 2:29 AM Subject: Fwd: Stiglitz: Raising interest rates won't conquer inflation. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 2:20 AM Subject: Fwd: Stiglitz: Raising interest rates won't conquer inflation. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 2:09 AM Subject: Stiglitz: Raising interest rates won't conquer inflation. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Wednesday May 25, 2022 To all- Joseph Stiglitz at Davos: He says beat inflation by increasing the supply of stuff, not by clubbing the economy to its knees by killing demand. A depression will for sure kill demand, but do we want to go there? Raising rates will cool demand, maybe cause a recession, maybe cause something worse. Increase supply, he says. LH- But, Paul Volcker raised rates to the sky, it caused a huge recession in 1981, 1982 and 1983 THAT for sure amounted to a killing of demand, the stock market took off for a many-year run starting in the fall of 1982, and people have said that Volcker did a good job. The stock market takes off when investors see that inflation is being beaten. Maybe you do both- cool demand with higher rates and the Fed lightening its balance sheet, and do all that is possible to increase supply. Let's work on Biden to increase supply. Powell will take care of (slowing) demand. Stiglitz Says Raising Interest Rates Won't Fix Inflation Problem - YouTube Art Laffer on inflation: Art Laffer: Inflation can't stay at this level - YouTube Intel CEO at Davos on supply chain crisis: World Economic Forum: Intel CEO on Supply Chain Crisis - YouTube Yergin at Davos: German dependency on Russian energy is going to change, says the German Vice Chancellor at Davos. Seven years to license a new on-shore wind farm in Europe. Seven years. Too busy out shopping to do it any faster. Plan, at least, for a complete shut-off of Russian natural gas to Europe: Netherlands, Norway, US LNG possible alternatives. Natural gas supply is causing the most concern for industry and consumers: Yergin - YouTube L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:mark weiss To:Rebecca Eisenberg Cc:Lydia Kou; Greer Stone; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Andie Reed; Kerry Yarkin; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Aram James; Roberta Ahlquist; Curtis Smolar; Alison Cormack; greg@gregtanaka.org Subject:Re: Kol Emeth Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 1:12:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I met Rebecca Eisenberg for the first time in 2018, walking our dogs, at Peers Park. I had noticed her applications to BCCs. Since that time we’ve had numerous conversations, mostly about public policy and the law. (Sometimes, baseball or music). I’ve known Molly Stump longer but not as well. She invited me to see her art-lights in her office, but changed her mind. I think she’s done a satisfactory job, over 10 years here. But Rebecca went to Stanford, and Harvard Law. Molly Pomona and Cal. All fine schools, but given our proximity to Hoover Tower, I’d wager Rebecca is correct here, and Molly wrong: Casti is bluffing, or a bad actor. We should be deliberating in public the assertions of staff. Mark Weiss In Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone On May 24, 2022, at 9:52 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: I am told that Castilleja refers to Kol Emeth instead of Etz Chayim for garage precedent. Kol Emeth is also zoned for commercial uses. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp- development-services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and- guidelines/zone-map-2021.pdf Which brings up the bad-neighborly fact that Castilleja is threatening baseless 14th Amendment claims against Palo Alto regarding the garage. Should it file such a lawsuit, it will be dismissed on summary judgment, if not sooner. It is long-established law that Zoning law does not implicate 14th amendment protection unless it was done in order to impact a protected class, including racial minorities, non-dominant religions, and women. Castilleja making this argument will be viewed even worse than Woodside claiming to be a mountain lion protection area. As an aside, it violates Palo Alto public policy that the Planning Department continues to ignore PA's sustainability goals. Failing to measure the impact of the groundwater removal and the tons of cement used in constructing the underground garage, and the increase of cars on the street from larger enrollment (as all previous measures prove), was illegal of them. Given that there is not yet a sustainability commission, the Planning Department is required to consider the public interest in its evaluations, including the irreparable harm that would be caused by millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and cement. That Jonathan Lait said with a straight face that the construction would not harm Palo Alto's progress towards sustainability and harm neighbor's quality of life is wholly bizarre. Who would argue that? And his refusal to include (1) a no-garage option and (2) an option where Castilleja moves entirely or in part (second campus) is reversible error. No one thinks that Castilleja needs a garage and can't afford a second campus. All along Castilleja said that neighbors want a garage, but neighbors would much prefer no cars on their street, and instead want SHUTTLES like all other private schools. Why would neighbors want more car trips when they could have NO car trips? Castilleja's arguments never made any sense. Regardless, if Castilleja wants a toxic, carbon-emitting, environmentally hazardous underground garage like Kol Emeth, it can! It just needs to move to an area zoned commercial, or mixed use. In fact, the Stanford Research area has numerous empty corporate campuses with enormous parking lots, none of which can currently be used for residential purposes due to toxic waste from the HP Superfund Site. But they can be used for commercial purposes, including a school. The HP Campus at 1501 Page Mill is perfect! Tesla is taking over 325,000 square feet of that campus, leaving almost 300,000 feet for Castilleja. (There are numerous other sites as well.) In the past, Palo Alto has made harmful decisions, e.g. President Hotel, out of fear of being sued. The President Hotel protected itself from lawsuit by making settlement agreements which included financial compensation along with releases of all rights to sue, so there was no motivated and harmed plaintiff to sue about the President Hotel. But here, Castilleja spent (I'm told) $12 million on lawyers, but has not made any efforts to strike financial deals with neighbors, so every neighbor and impacted community member has the right to sue, and almost certainly will sue, if Castilleja's garage is approved. And, every time that Palo Alto is sued by citizens (rather than by big businesses or the police force) IT LOSES. See, for example, the Foothills Park case, the Utilities Transfer case, and the many police brutality cases that all cost PA millions in legal fees and settlements. Castilleja is bluffing. They have money to sue, and they may sue, but they will lose even more prestige in the community if they do, and already Stanford Admissions has started admitting fewer of their students, many say. Anyway, here is one of many explanations about how zoning does not create constitutional cases, and in California, it's even legal to spot zone, if doing so is necessary to protect the community interest -- and even to preserve the natural environment. If Molly messes up this case, she should be fired. (Hopefully she is doing some rethinking of her legal advice; she seemed very agitated when she snapped at me while having a "private meeting" with Ed Shikada right after the hearing. At the time she was two feet away from Castilleja's attorneys, and Molly should know that giving legal advice in the presence of third parties destroys the attorney-client privilege and makes all of her advice discoverable, including by public records act request, which I won't file for, even though I could and maybe should.) https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2020/01/09/citys- general-plan-policies-allowing-exemptions-from-zoning-requirements- did-not-violate-fourteenth-amendment-or-result-in-spot-zoning/ Why am I so obsessed with Castilleja? Because I cannot stand it when people lie - and dislike most of all when the people and companies with the most resources use those resources to create false narratives that convince communities and individuals to act against their own interests. E.g. Trump, and others. Best, Rebecca On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and -- despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo-alto- looks-to-scale-back-castillejas-growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under-delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R-1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment -- continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its tax records suggest that it is profitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merely aspirational, of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over-enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencing these municipal code penalties, which amount to $500-$5000 per day per violation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happy to provide you the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents have been discussing with theirattorneys. There is a third party cause of action plus attorneys fees under the false claims act, for example,among other state laws that address this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 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:MARTHA SCHWARZ To:Council, City Subject:Vote about Castilleja from a Palo Alto Family Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 1:04:27 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from martha_schwarz@comcast.net.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Castilleja is an awesome school. My 2 daughters attended the 7th and 8th grades many years ago when they still had a few boarders. It was small, the classes were small, and the teachers were truly good at their jobs. Everyone knew everyone else. However, our family would vote NO for allowing the school to add more students and more events, even though they are supposed to be monitored, let alone the traffic and noise that comes with all the extra students and their activities. Have you been traveling on Embarcadero lately when traffic has backed up to the Castilleja area because of Stanford, Paly, El Camino and the shopping center traffic? When and if the Churchill crossing is closed, that will impact traffic even more at all times. We would like the citizens of Palo Alto to be able to vote on this in all fairness, but as that doesn't seem to be plausible, our family would like to urge a NO vote for the reason that is would have the least possible impact on the residents of Palo Alto. Sincerely, The Schwarz Family 2931 Alexis Dr. From:mark weiss To:Rebecca Eisenberg Cc:Lydia Kou; Greer Stone; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Andie Reed; Kerry Yarkin; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Aram James; Roberta Ahlquist; Curtis Smolar; Alison Cormack; greg@gregtanaka.org Subject:Re: Kol Emeth Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 1:04:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I met Rebecca Eisenberg for the first time in 2018, walking our dogs, at Peers Park. I had noticed her applications to BCCs. Since that time we’ve had numerous conversations, mostly about public policy and the law. (Sometimes, baseball or music). I’ve known Molly Stump longer but not as well. She invited me to see her art-lights in her office, but changed her mind. I think she’s done a satisfactory job, over 10 years here. But Rebecca went to Stanford, and Harvard Law. Molly Pomona and Cal. All fine schools, but given our proximity to Hoover Tower, I’d wager Rebecca is correct here, and Molly wrong: Casti is bluffing, or a bad actor. We should be deliberating in public the assertions of staff. Mark Weiss In Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone On May 24, 2022, at 9:52 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: I am told that Castilleja refers to Kol Emeth instead of Etz Chayim for garage precedent. Kol Emeth is also zoned for commercial uses. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp- development-services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and- guidelines/zone-map-2021.pdf Which brings up the bad-neighborly fact that Castilleja is threatening baseless 14th Amendment claims against Palo Alto regarding the garage. Should it file such a lawsuit, it will be dismissed on summary judgment, if not sooner. It is long-established law that Zoning law does not implicate 14th amendment protection unless it was done in order to impact a protected class, including racial minorities, non-dominant religions, and women. Castilleja making this argument will be viewed even worse than Woodside claiming to be a mountain lion protection area. As an aside, it violates Palo Alto public policy that the Planning Department continues to ignore PA's sustainability goals. Failing to measure the impact of the groundwater removal and the tons of cement used in constructing the underground garage, and the increase of cars on the street from larger enrollment (as all previous measures prove), was illegal of them. Given that there is not yet a sustainability commission, the Planning Department is required to consider the public interest in its evaluations, including the irreparable harm that would be caused by millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and cement. That Jonathan Lait said with a straight face that the construction would not harm Palo Alto's progress towards sustainability and harm neighbor's quality of life is wholly bizarre. Who would argue that? And his refusal to include (1) a no-garage option and (2) an option where Castilleja moves entirely or in part (second campus) is reversible error. No one thinks that Castilleja needs a garage and can't afford a second campus. All along Castilleja said that neighbors want a garage, but neighbors would much prefer no cars on their street, and instead want SHUTTLES like all other private schools. Why would neighbors want more car trips when they could have NO car trips? Castilleja's arguments never made any sense. Regardless, if Castilleja wants a toxic, carbon-emitting, environmentally hazardous underground garage like Kol Emeth, it can! It just needs to move to an area zoned commercial, or mixed use. In fact, the Stanford Research area has numerous empty corporate campuses with enormous parking lots, none of which can currently be used for residential purposes due to toxic waste from the HP Superfund Site. But they can be used for commercial purposes, including a school. The HP Campus at 1501 Page Mill is perfect! Tesla is taking over 325,000 square feet of that campus, leaving almost 300,000 feet for Castilleja. (There are numerous other sites as well.) In the past, Palo Alto has made harmful decisions, e.g. President Hotel, out of fear of being sued. The President Hotel protected itself from lawsuit by making settlement agreements which included financial compensation along with releases of all rights to sue, so there was no motivated and harmed plaintiff to sue about the President Hotel. But here, Castilleja spent (I'm told) $12 million on lawyers, but has not made any efforts to strike financial deals with neighbors, so every neighbor and impacted community member has the right to sue, and almost certainly will sue, if Castilleja's garage is approved. And, every time that Palo Alto is sued by citizens (rather than by big businesses or the police force) IT LOSES. See, for example, the Foothills Park case, the Utilities Transfer case, and the many police brutality cases that all cost PA millions in legal fees and settlements. Castilleja is bluffing. They have money to sue, and they may sue, but they will lose even more prestige in the community if they do, and already Stanford Admissions has started admitting fewer of their students, many say. Anyway, here is one of many explanations about how zoning does not create constitutional cases, and in California, it's even legal to spot zone, if doing so is necessary to protect the community interest -- and even to preserve the natural environment. If Molly messes up this case, she should be fired. (Hopefully she is doing some rethinking of her legal advice; she seemed very agitated when she snapped at me while having a "private meeting" with Ed Shikada right after the hearing. At the time she was two feet away from Castilleja's attorneys, and Molly should know that giving legal advice in the presence of third parties destroys the attorney-client privilege and makes all of her advice discoverable, including by public records act request, which I won't file for, even though I could and maybe should.) https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2020/01/09/citys- general-plan-policies-allowing-exemptions-from-zoning-requirements- did-not-violate-fourteenth-amendment-or-result-in-spot-zoning/ Why am I so obsessed with Castilleja? Because I cannot stand it when people lie - and dislike most of all when the people and companies with the most resources use those resources to create false narratives that convince communities and individuals to act against their own interests. E.g. Trump, and others. Best, Rebecca On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and -- despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo-alto- looks-to-scale-back-castillejas-growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under-delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R-1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment -- continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its tax records suggest that it is profitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merely aspirational, of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over-enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencing these municipal code penalties, which amount to $500-$5000 per day per violation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happy to provide you the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents have been discussing with theirattorneys. There is a third party cause of action plus attorneys fees under the false claims act, for example,among other state laws that address this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 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:Lisa Robins To:Council, City Subject:Parking Behind Vin Vino Wine Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 11:17:05 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lisa@vinvinowine.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi All, The sign for permit parking was changed out for 2-hour parking on Friday last week over the slots just behind the shop. Thank you to all who helped. We are hopeful that this will make a bit of difference for us. Thought you should know you can now pull in behind the shop to pick up caseloads of wine! All my best, Lisa Lisa Robins Owner - Wine Buyer Vin Vino Wine main (650) 324-4903 cell (415) 609-9938 www.vinvinowine.com From:Hank Sousa To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 10:28:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Council Members: Here are a couple thoughts on the recent meeting focused on the Castilleja expansion: Many of us neighbors would like to see the school move off the campus during the construction period. If they do, obviously a 450 enrollment is no problem. If the school chooses to stay on the campus in portables, during construction, then enrollment should continue to decrease four students per year until 415 is reached or the project is completed. Once the whole project is complete an increase to 450 enrollment is fine. We would like to see the school stay at the 450 number for several years after the project is complete. That will let us see if traffic management is working and perhaps 450 is the pedagogically optimal number as the head of school has stated in the past. Let's see if the school can behave itself. I'd personally like to have the whole TDM process avoided. I think buses, shuttles and the 89 spaces at grade on campus and the 53 spots ringing Casti's side of the streets is enough. Have the school designate who gets to drive and park on campus and their side of the streets (Bryant, Kellogg and Emerson). Asking the school to run or participate in the TDM process is fraught with future "fudging". Surely some of you council members know the administration are just not honest brokers. Keep the events at 50. Hold non-student events off campus. The school has plenty of money to afford a few hotel ballroom events. One of our neighbors sat with Mr. Lait and relayed how easy it is for the school's financial accounting firm to provide a confirmation of enrollment, and the school now provides that. This should have been done 20 years ago, but we're grateful it is happening now. I would put Nanci on the spot about the East PA enrollment. I have seen the van that unloads the kids from EPA and typically a handful of students depart. Nanci claims 4% come from EPA , which would be closer to 16 kids. It is not particularly important to me but it just illustrates her trouble with the truth. We PNQL members and allied neighbors would have preferred the school's expansion plans be curtailed. It looks like they are still getting the extra square footage, some kind of unhealthy and unnecessary garage and a path to a 30 per cent enrollment increase. We think the whole exercise is like stuffing a size 10 foot into a size 6 shoe. However, we are appreciative of your attempting to put some teeth into limits on this expansion. We like the idea of reviewing just the enrollment piece of the CUP more often than every 20 years. Please say "no more" on this site after project completed. Many of us are old and want some peace and quiet in our golden years. Thanks, Hank Sousa 2 houses away from the school From:Kelly Nolan To:Council, City Subject:More good news about your recent press article: Lifetimes of Achievement. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell Date:Wednesday, May 25, 2022 7:15:14 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hello LaDoris Because press articles carry high credibility and authority, it makes good sense to preserve and spread your news; put your recent article on display for all your visitors to see. So I wanted to let you know there's a special offer coming tomorrow for a custom wall plaque featuring your article. We've also a new style option, HD Metal plaques for stunning image quality and finish. The HD metal production process infuses the image into the metal surface, creating a rich depth of color and lucid glass finish. Take a look at the samples here. Call me on 888-239-5731 quoting ID 12054829 for more details. If you're not interested in preserving your news then please unsubscribe below and we won't contact you again. Celebrating your great news, Kind regards, Kelly Nolan Account Manager That's Great News 888-239-5731 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 Lifetimes of Achievement. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell Featured LaDoris Cordell, Palo Alto City Council Published May 06, 2022 View my plaque All orders shipped to Canada must be paid with credit card. All prices are in USD. For additional questions please call 1-888-715-4900 and reference CustomerID(12054829). All Rights Reserved. We’ll contact you when we see you featured in a press article. 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":"35538645","cid":"12054829","oid":"6508697709"} From:Aram James To:Rebecca Eisenberg Cc:Lydia Kou; Greer Stone; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Andie Reed; Kerry Yarkin; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Curtis Smolar; Alison Cormack; greg@gregtanaka.org; Mark Weiss; Stump, Molly; Sean Allen Subject:Re: Kol Emeth Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 10:29:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Rebecca, Brilliant! But will they listen? aram I am told that Castilleja refers to Kol Emeth instead of Etz Chayim for garage precedent. Kol Emeth is also zoned for commercial uses. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp- development-services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and- guidelines/zone-map-2021.pdf Which brings up the bad-neighborly fact that Castilleja is threatening baseless 14th Amendment claims against Palo Alto regarding the garage. Should it file such a lawsuit, it will be dismissed on summary judgment, if not sooner. It is long-established law that Zoning law does not implicate 14th amendment protection unless it was done in order to impact a protected class, including racial minorities, non-dominant religions, and women. Castilleja making this argument will be viewed even worse than Woodside claiming to be a mountain lion protection area. As an aside, it violates Palo Alto public policy that the Planning Department continues to ignore PA's sustainability goals. Failing to measure the impact of the groundwater removal and the tons of cement used in constructing the underground garage, and the increase of cars on the street from larger enrollment (as all previous measures prove), was illegal of them. Given that there is not yet a sustainability commission, the Planning Department is required to consider the public interest in its evaluations, including the irreparable harm that would be caused by millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and cement. That Jonathan Lait said with a straight face that the construction would not harm Palo Alto's progress towards sustainability and harm neighbor's quality of life is wholly bizarre. Who would argue that? And his refusal to include (1) a no-garage option and (2) an option where Castilleja moves entirely or in part (second campus) is reversible error. No one thinks that Castilleja needs a garage and can't afford a second campus. All along Castilleja said that neighbors want a garage, but neighbors would much prefer no cars on their street, and instead want SHUTTLES like all other private schools. Why would neighbors want more car trips when they could have NO car trips? Castilleja's arguments never made any sense. Regardless, if Castilleja wants a toxic, carbon-emitting, environmentally hazardous underground garage like Kol Emeth, it can! It just needs to move to an area zoned commercial, or mixed use. In fact, the Stanford Research area has numerous empty corporate campuses with enormous parking lots, none of which can currently be used for residential purposes due to toxic waste from the HP Superfund Site. But they can be used for commercial purposes, including a school. The HP Campus at 1501 Page Mill is perfect! Tesla is taking over 325,000 square feet of that campus, leaving almost 300,000 feet for Castilleja. (There are numerous other sites as well.) In the past, Palo Alto has made harmful decisions, e.g. President Hotel, out of fear of being sued. The President Hotel protected itself from lawsuit by making settlement agreements which included financial compensation along with releases of all rights to sue, so there was no motivated and harmed plaintiff to sue about the President Hotel. But here, Castilleja spent (I'm told) $12 million on lawyers, but has not made any efforts to strike financial deals with neighbors, so every neighbor and impacted community member has the right to sue, and almost certainly will sue, if Castilleja's garage is approved. And, every time that Palo Alto is sued by citizens (rather than by big businesses or the police force) IT LOSES. See, for example, the Foothills Park case, the Utilities Transfer case, and the many police brutality cases that all cost PA millions in legal fees and settlements. Castilleja is bluffing. They have money to sue, and they may sue, but they will lose even more prestige in the community if they do, and already Stanford Admissions has started admitting fewer of their students, many say. Anyway, here is one of many explanations about how zoning does not create constitutional cases, and in California, it's even legal to spot zone, if doing so is necessary to protect the community interest -- and even to preserve the natural environment. If Molly messes up this case, she should be fired. (Hopefully she is doing some rethinking of her legal advice; she seemed very agitated when she snapped at me while having a "private meeting" with Ed Shikada right after the hearing. At the time she was two feet away from Castilleja's attorneys, and Molly should know that giving legal advice in the presence of third parties destroys the attorney-client privilege and makes all of her advice discoverable, including by public records act request, which I won't file for, even though I could and maybe should.) https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2020/01/09/citys- general-plan-policies-allowing-exemptions-from-zoning-requirements- did-not-violate-fourteenth-amendment-or-result-in-spot-zoning/ Why am I so obsessed with Castilleja? Because I cannot stand it when people lie - and dislike most of all when the people and companies with the most resources use those resources to create false narratives that convince communities and individuals to act against their own interests. E.g. Trump, and others. Best, Rebecca On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and -- despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo-alto- looks-to-scale-back-castillejas-growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under-delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R-1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment -- continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its tax records suggest that it is profitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merely aspirational, of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over-enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencing these municipal code penalties, which amount to $500-$5000 per day per violation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happy to provide you the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents have been discussing with theirattorneys. There is a third party cause of action plus attorneys fees under the false claims act, for example,among other state laws that address this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 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:Lydia Kou; Greer Stone; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Andie Reed; Kerry Yarkin; Pat Burt; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Lait, Jonathan; Planning Commission; Aram James; Roberta Ahlquist; Curtis Smolar; Alison Cormack; greg@gregtanaka.org; Mark Weiss Subject:Kol Emeth Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 9:52:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am told that Castilleja refers to Kol Emeth instead of Etz Chayim for garage precedent. Kol Emeth is also zoned for commercial uses. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp-development- services/file-migration/current-planning/forms-and-guidelines/zone-map-2021.pdf Which brings up the bad-neighborly fact that Castilleja is threatening baseless 14th Amendment claims against Palo Alto regarding the garage. Should it file such a lawsuit, it will be dismissed on summary judgment, if not sooner. It is long- established law that Zoning law does not implicate 14th amendment protection unless it was done in order to impact a protected class, including racial minorities, non-dominant religions, and women. Castilleja making this argument will be viewed even worse than Woodside claiming to be a mountain lion protection area. As an aside, it violates Palo Alto public policy that the Planning Department continues to ignore PA's sustainability goals. Failing to measure the impact of the groundwater removal and the tons of cement used in constructing the underground garage, and the increase of cars on the street from larger enrollment (as all previous measures prove), was illegal of them. Given that there is not yet a sustainability commission, the Planning Department is required to consider the public interest in its evaluations, including the irreparable harm that would be caused by millions of gallons of groundwater pumping and cement. That Jonathan Lait said with a straight face that the construction would not harm Palo Alto's progress towards sustainability and harm neighbor's quality of life is wholly bizarre. Who would argue that? And his refusal to include (1) a no-garage option and (2) an option where Castilleja moves entirely or in part (second campus) is reversible error. No one thinks that Castilleja needs a garage and can't afford a second campus. All along Castilleja said that neighbors want a garage, but neighbors would much prefer no cars on their street, and instead want SHUTTLES like all other private schools. Why would neighbors want more car trips when they could have NO car trips? Castilleja's arguments never made any sense. Regardless, if Castilleja wants a toxic, carbon-emitting, environmentally hazardous underground garage like Kol Emeth, it can! It just needs to move to an area zoned commercial, or mixed use. In fact, the Stanford Research area has numerous empty corporate campuses with enormous parking lots, none of which can currently be used for residential purposes due to toxic waste from the HP Superfund Site. But they can be used for commercial purposes, including a school. The HP Campus at 1501 Page Mill is perfect! Tesla is taking over 325,000 square feet of that campus, leaving almost 300,000 feet for Castilleja. (There are numerous other sites as well.) In the past, Palo Alto has made harmful decisions, e.g. President Hotel, out of fear of being sued. The President Hotel protected itself from lawsuit by making settlement agreements which included financial compensation along with releases of all rights to sue, so there was no motivated and harmed plaintiff to sue about the President Hotel. But here, Castilleja spent (I'm told) $12 million on lawyers, but has not made any efforts to strike financial deals with neighbors, so every neighbor and impacted community member has the right to sue, and almost certainly will sue, if Castilleja's garage is approved. And, every time that Palo Alto is sued by citizens (rather than by big businesses or the police force) IT LOSES. See, for example, the Foothills Park case, the Utilities Transfer case, and the many police brutality cases that all cost PA millions in legal fees and settlements. Castilleja is bluffing. They have money to sue, and they may sue, but they will lose even more prestige in the community if they do, and already Stanford Admissions has started admitting fewer of their students, many say. Anyway, here is one of many explanations about how zoning does not create constitutional cases, and in California, it's even legal to spot zone, if doing so is necessary to protect the community interest -- and even to preserve the natural environment. If Molly messes up this case, she should be fired. (Hopefully she is doing some rethinking of her legal advice; she seemed very agitated when she snapped at me while having a "private meeting" with Ed Shikada right after the hearing. At the time she was two feet away from Castilleja's attorneys, and Molly should know that giving legal advice in the presence of third parties destroys the attorney-client privilege and makes all of her advice discoverable, including by public records act request, which I won't file for, even though I could and maybe should.) https://www.californialandusedevelopmentlaw.com/2020/01/09/citys-general- plan-policies-allowing-exemptions-from-zoning-requirements-did-not-violate- fourteenth-amendment-or-result-in-spot-zoning/ Why am I so obsessed with Castilleja? Because I cannot stand it when people lie - and dislike most of all when the people and companies with the most resources use those resources to create false narratives that convince communities and individuals to act against their own interests. E.g. Trump, and others. Best, Rebecca On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 4:04 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear All: First, I want to offer my tremendous gratitude to Mayor Burt, Vice Mayor Kou, and Council Members Stone, Dubois, and Filseth. I - and many others - are grateful for the thoughtful and articulate ways that you dug deep into Castilleja's predicament, and -- despite errors and omissions made by our City Staff -- made groundbreaking progress in revealing a great deal of the truth surrounding Castilleja proposed unprecedentedly large development on lots zones R1 in the middle one of our most admired and desired (of many) residential neighborhoods in our beautiful town of Palo Alto. Your hard work made a very positive impact on our community. Speaking personally, it was monumental to feel heard and understood. This is local government at its best. In that regard, I submit my factual correction of today's (otherwise mostly great!) article in today's Palo Alto online at: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2022/05/24/palo-alto-looks-to-scale- back-castillejas-growth-plan . I also submit a few supporting documents demonstrating (1) that City Manager Keane commenced revocation hearings in 2013 and (2) that Nancy Kaufman proposed a compliance schedule (which she later disregarded); and (3) that the parties decided in 2013 that if Castilleja did not comply with its existing CUP, that its CUP would be revoked (next time for serious). I believe that you agree with my corrections, given that your questions uncovered the truth about Castilleja's violations and potentially its motivations, that we now better understand. I also offer my profound gratitude to City Council for its repeated insistence that it cannot rationally determine the impact of Castilleja's application, if approved, on the community, without a thorough Construction Plan. Given Castilleja's long history of aspirational promises and 2 decades of under-delivery on those promises, I agree strongly with your (indisputable) conclusion that we cannot simply take Castilleja's word that its unprecedented construction project in the middle of a single family home neighborhood would be "climate neutral or climate positive" and "not harmful to the community." I imagine that Castilleja's army of lawyers have already descended upon Jonathan Lait, so I hope he can respond by reminding Castilleja that without a thorough and detailed construction plan, Castilleja cannot rationally expect that its application would be approved. In particular, I am perhaps most grateful for the reminder from the Mayor (with agreement from the vice mayor and other 3 council members) that there is no precedent for a private school of Castilleja's size and density existing in a R-1 neighborhood, and there even is no precedent of a private school with Castilleja's proposed density in any neighborhood - commercially zoned (like Eytz Chayim) or not. (The reason, of course, that our Muni Code did not address an underground commercial garage in a residential neighborhood is due to the fact that such a profoundly inappropriate facility would never exist in a residential neighborhood and certainly does not exist in a R-1 neighborhood in Palo Alto. As a reminder, Eytz Chayim is NOT located in a residential neighborhood, but rather is zoned commercially. Therefore, Castilleja's constant comparisons to Eytz Chayim are wholly misplaced. Because of the potential impact of Castilleja's construction -- especially the unavoidable harm to our natural environment and to Castilleja's neighbors -- that would be caused by the construction of Castilleja's underground garage, I also also attach a legal cite to the Palo Alto Municipal Code section, which clarifies that a CUP shall not be given if it causes harm, or even inconvenience, to the community. I am extremely grateful that Council demanded a Construction Plan from Castilleja last night, and I wholly agree with Council's determination that the extent to which Castilleja's construction will impact the neighborhood cannot be measured unless and until a thorough description of that plan is provided. When Castilleja provides that plan - which should be before the next meeting if they reasonably expect resolution the matter - then I believe that City Council may find that Castilleja's construction plan will cause significant "harm and inconvenience" to the neighborhood which would render the recommendation of the CUP illegal, because per the Code, the City has no right to approve a CUP that causes harm (or inconvenience) to the neighborhood. (Fortunately, Castilleja truly does NOT need a garage. Neighbors would be FAR happier if fewer cars drove down the street -- no matter where those cars park. Castilleja should eliminate parking altogether at its campus, like Nueva and many other comparable schools, and instead, also like Nueva and most others, provide a robust system of private shuttles. This should not even cost Castilleja any money -- and would SAVE all of the construction costs of the garage! -- as most of these schools pass on the cost of the shuttle to parents, who, excited for the opportunity of their children to be able to attend such prestigious and superior schools, are happy to pay the costs. Remember, 80% of Castilleja families pay full freight tuition of almost $60,000/year, and the garage is intended to serve the cars owned by these teenage girls, so clearly those families can afford to chip in to a shuttle.) Below is my submitted correction to Palo Alto Online's mis-statement that Castilleja is now in compliance -- because as Jonathan Lait confirmed, it is still in violation of its CUP. I also correct the statement that the legal violations culminated in 2013, because as Lait confirmed, Castilleja's legal violations -- from which it benefits approximately $2 million/year in illegally gained revenues through over-enrollment -- continue today. Thank you for your consideration, and thank you again for your exceptional work on behalf of the Palo Alto Community last night! Best, Rebecca---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> Date: Tue, May 24, 2022 at 3:18 PM Subject: Castilleja article - thank you, and quick correction (with longer explanation!) To: Bill Johnson <bjohnson@paweekly.com>, Gennady Sheyner <gsheyner@paweekly.com> Cc: Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Hi Bill and Gennady - I hope you are well! It was nice to see you, Gennady, after the City Council meeting last night (although you seemed confused when I said hello? Seems reasonable as I think you were trying to catch a remaining council member). I REALLY appreciate your thorough coverage of this complicated and extremely important issue. I know you were working under an extremely tight deadline to get this article out this morning, and overall I think you did a great job, for which I am grateful. That said, there is one sentence I am hoping you can correct, because that sentence gets to the heart of how and why many of us believe that the City has been providing extraordinarily large and unprecedented special treatment to Castilleja, by allowing Castilleja to increase its annual revenues by approximately $2 million/year through intentional violation of its CUP enrollment cap - violations that have continued for 22 years, and which continue today. This is the problematic sentence: Many alluded to the school's failure in the past to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that culminated in a $285,000 fine in 2013. Which I think should be replaced with something like: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting, and which has resulted in Castilleja receiving significantly more revenue in tuition than the amount to which it is legally entitled*. (*although Castilleja is tax-exempt, it is not charitable, it lacks a public benefit, and its tax records suggest that it is profitable)(The last parts of that 'corrected version' are merely aspirational, of course.) Here is why I believe that the insinuation that Castilleja is in compliance is worthy of correction. I provide backup support, and Andie Reed, cc'd, can confirm, as she and her group of neighbors and friends have spent years gathering public records and trying to educate our leadership, and she deserves much credit for the tremendous breakthrough that happened last night when five of the city council members put Jonathan Lait and Nancy Kaufman on the seat, asking them tough questions and assessing the (often inadequate) responses. What a great night! Here is why that sentence deserves a re-write (along with later references to Castilleja's continuing violations): 1. Castilleja's violations are not in the past. As Lydia Kou and others asked, and Jonathan Lait confirmed, Castilleja still is in violation of its existing CUP -- as it has been for more than 20 years. This is a very important distinction because those of us who argue that Castilleja should be held to the same rules as other businesses and residences in Palo Alto continue to point out that Castilleja has not come into compliance with its 415 enrollment cap in more than 20 years, despite Nancy Kaufman having made numerous promises, some of them contractually binding (in my legal opinion, as well as the opinion of Jim Keane and others with whom I spoke about the matter), to come into compliance. That is a big reason that we do not believe that Castilleja should be able to increase its cap immediately to 450, as it never complied with its current cap of 415, despite having its CUP almost revoked in 2013 due to its over-enrollment. 2. Similarly, these violations did not "culminate in 2013" with the significantly reduced fine. Culmination indicates a resolution or peak, neither of which occurred in 2013 - rather, when occurred in 2013, per attached, was that the City Manager Jim Keane commenced revocation hearings, which Castilleja negotiated or bullied its way out of. And, notably, that fine was a vastly reduced figure given by Palo Alto, apparently (so I was told) in exchange for Castilleja making a promise that if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415 by 2016, Castilleja would leave Palo Alto. As a reminder, Palo Alto's Municipal Code provides for statutory damages for code violation (like virtually all similarly situated cities) at $500 per violation per day. Although these code sections provide for a two-year reachback when it is the fault of the City for not assessing the fines, in 2013, it was the fault of Castilleja that Palo Alto had not fined Castilleja. Castilleja had been intentionally understating its enrollment (Kaufman explained this as "confusion" over what is "enrollment." She claimed she had used "average daily attendance" instead of "enrollment," but the Planning Commission and Jim Keane correctly rejected her explanation. For most of the previous years. Castilleja has had between 20 and 40 students over enrollment, averaging over 30 (I can provide for you the actual enrollment numbers ultimately released by Castilleja if you like). But using a conservative 30 students over Castilleja's legal cap, that means that Castilleja has accrued statutory fines of 30 violations times $500/day = $15,000/day. Given that Castilleja describes that it is open approximately 300 days/year, means that Castilleja, under Palo Alto's Municipal Code, should have been assessed $4.5 Million a year.* (*Here is an article in the Palo Alto Weekly referencing these municipal code penalties, which amount to $500-$5000 per day perviolation: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2017/03/06/penalties-likely-to-stand-for-edgewood-owner ) (I also am happy toprovide you the code sections) $4.5 million a year may seem a high assessment for a private school (even a profitable one like Castilleja), but those fines serve a purpose. Castilleja charges almost $60,000/year and only offers (mostly partial) financial support to 20% of its students (Castilleja's website now claims 21%, but the amount of aid it provides has not gone up). This means that while Castilleja continues to be overenrolled, it benefits financially by its legal violations. For example, at 30 students over enrollment, Castilleja increases its guaranteed revenue -- apart from the donations to the school fund and capital fund that are expected of private school parents (I know this as a former private school parent myself) -- by an additional $1.8 MILLION, not including donations to its school fund and capital fund (which has raised $100 million). As community members pointed out, enforcement of the enrollment cap is the ONLY incentive that Castilleja has to comply with the law and its CUP. Castilleja has been bringing in millions of dollars illegally through over enrollment for more than 20 years, so it IS extremely material and essential for the accurate reporting of this story to make it clear that Castilleja STILL is violating Palo Alto's zoning laws (in ways beyond enrollment, e.g. providing false information re square footage, as some mentioned last) as well as Castilleja's existing CUP. What I recommend for the sentence above is the following: Many alluded to the school's 20-year failure to comply with its enrollment cap, a violation that exists to this day, as confirmed by Jonathan Lait in last night's meeting. In sum, Palo Alto's city government has allowed Castilleja to continue to benefit financially (as much as $2.4 million/year during the many years Castilleja was at 40 student over-enrollment), without any Municipal Code enforcement. Had the City enforced our muni codes against Castilleja as it does regularly against residential applicants, our General Fund would have had millions of dollars more every year. (This is the basis of one of the many causes of action against the city that residents have been discussing with their attorneys. There is a third party cause of action plus attorneys fees under the false claims act, for example, among otherstate laws that address this kind of problem). That is why it is essential to point out that Castilleja is still in violation of its existing CUP, that it never was in compliance, and that Castilleja is benefitting financially from its illegal actions. Please reach out to me if you have any questions about this. Also, I can put you in touch with a lawyer who handles municipal finance at a law firm, if you like. No matter where you stand on Castilleja's right to benefit financially from its CUP violations, I beg you to correct your article to clarify that Castilleja may have paid a reduced fine, but it never came into compliance, even though it promised it would agree to CUP revocation if it did not reduce its enrollment to 415. A few of the letters between Castilleja and the City are attached, starting with the time when Jim Keane commenced CUP revocation against Castilleja in 2013. Thank you for considering. I thought that emailing you directly would be more helpful than posting a comment on the board, given that my correction is easily confirmable, and an easy fix for you to make. Thank you again for your responsive and thorough coverage of the many issues that impact our community of Palo Alto! Best, Rebecca Eisenberg 415-235-8078 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:Aram James To:Planning Commission; Human Relations Commission; Sajid Khan; Winter Dellenbach; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; chuck jagoda; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Joe Simitian; melissa caswell; gmah@sccoe.org; Jay Boyarsky; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed Subject:Protest Berkeley Mayor"s Propaganda Junket to Israel! Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 5:39:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking onlinks. Dear Friends, Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin is just now returning from a propaganda junket to Israel. Jesse's trip came three days after the Israeli assassination of Palestinian-American journalist Shireen Abu Aqleh, and coincided with the eviction of 1000 families from the West Bank, the approval of 4000 more illegal housing units in the West Bank, and the 74th anniversary of the Nakba. Meanwhile, Berkeley's Mayor and other politicians were seen in Instagram photos and videos wining, dining, and dancing in the streets of Israeli cities from which Palestinians have been displaced or live as second class citizens. Please let Mayor Arreguin know that you can't be progressive except for Palestine!!!! Here are 3 actions concerned people can take right now: 1. Sign and circulate the petition: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdXRvScE6PRABVCiXQ8DbRxa2w_0y_R2uus2gS6pGGuZkRbhA/viewform? vc=0&c=0&w=1&flr=0 Send this link to three of your neighbors, friends or family who live in Berkeley. If you belong to a community or neighborhood group based in Berkeley, please share the petition with them; explain why you think it is important! Use the following Social Media Toolkit to post the petition & graphics on your Social Media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cYZqH1Bthz-QRten8kODHiEnFnGTssdQrN6Y5qunx-Q/edit 2. Send a personal email to Mayor Arreguin and cc The City Council If you have time, emails are a very effective way to communicate your outrage at the Mayor going on this trip. It doesn’t have to be a long email. You can pull talking points from the petition statement. Send the email to: mayor@cityofberkeley.info and copy it to: council@cityofberkeley.info 3. Attend Tuesday's Berkeley City Council Meeting (24 May) Join together with other outraged residents of Berkeley at the upcoming Berkeley City Council Meeting to demand that Jesse denounce Israel's murder of Palestinian American Journalist Shireen Abu Aqleh and apologize to Palestinian residents for his disregard for their rights and dignity. * Tuesday, May 24 @ Berkeley Unified School District: 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley * 5:30pm: Press Conference at 1231 Addison Street, Berkeley 6pm: City Council meeting - come early to add your name to public comment list OR JOIN VIRTUALLY https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84636500260 Jewish Voice for Peace is a national membership organization inspired by Jewish tradition to work for the freedom, equality, and dignity of all the people of Israel and Palestine. Become a JVP member today. Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area P.O. Box 589, Berkeley CA 94701 USA ph: 510-859-3706 bayarea@jvp.org DONATE HERE This email was sent to sajluni@yahoo.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Jewish Voice for Peace Bay Area · P.O. Box 589 · Berkeley, CA 94701 · USA From:Lian Bi To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Project Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 4:47:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi: My name is Lian Bi. I am a near neighbor of Castilleja School, and I support the project because I want: As many cars as possible below ground. A more beautiful and appealing building. Net-zero sustainable campus. Most of all, I want to see this divisive debate in my neighborhood come to an end. As this process comes to a final vote, I want to address one important issue: the variance. The school is currently permitted a certain amount of square footage under its current CUP. With the new building the school is applying for LESS square footage than it currently has. So there is an approved amount, and now the school is applying for less than that approved amount. Easy enough to approve. This site has never been used for a home—since long before R-1 zoning existed. So R-1 FAR calculations should not apply to this site. This site already has established best- practices in place, and the school will come in under that number. Absolutely approve the variance; it complies with the current practices in the City of Palo Alto. Thanks Lian Bi From:Davina Brown To:Council, City Subject:No to Castlleja School Plans Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 1:44:02 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from browntow@pacbell.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Please vote NO on the Castilleja building plans. They are not good nor honorable neighbors. The have knowingly and consistently violated their Conditional Use Permit. The violation continues even now. Castilleja is permitted to have 415 students enrolled. They have consistently had more students enrolled and lied about the numbers. Now they want even more students. Castilleja is in a residential neighborhood. They should not be allowed to expand there. It does not serve Palo Alto. It serves out of community students. There are many properties available in commercial areas if they truly feel a need to expand. Our community at this location is the wrong place for them. Vote NO. They are not to be trusted. They have proved themselves untrustworthy over the years. Save the neighborhood. Yours truly, Davina Brown, Resident From:Armand MacMurray To:NTB Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Proposed Land Swap Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 1:25:23 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from ajmacmurray@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I vote yes. :) Would it be helpful if Dad wrote an email (or letter!) supporting the right of access? Armand On Tue, May 24, 2022 at 12:56 PM NTB <aarmatt@gmail.com> wrote: Dear Mayor Burt, Vice-Mayor Kou and Council Members, It has been reported in the newspaper that a proposed land swap between the City and the PAUSD is still being considered. At stake is a portion of Cubberley that the City wants and Terman Park adjacent to Fletcher Middle School. The school district already has exclusive rights to use Terman Park during the school day. The only caveat is that, on a school day, the public has the right to walk on the paved path along the perimeter of the field. This access is extremely important to our neighborhood which is adjacent to Terman Park and to other area residents who walk through our neighborhood to go through the Glenbrook Gate and thereby have access to that perimeter path on their way to Los Altos Avenue. Therein lies the problem. If this public park, our neighborhood green space, is traded to PAUSD, the school district will then have the right to deny passage either through the Glenbrook Gate or along the paved path or both. This is not acceptable. Why is access through the Glenbrook Gate important? 1. For the seniors in our neighborhood, Terman Park’s paved path and the Hetch Hetchy bike path are the nearest open space to stroll and savor. 2. For bike commuters, access through the Glenbrook Gate and along the paved path is the safest and swiftest way to access Los Altos Ave. 3. For walkers heading to Los Altos, the Glenbrook Gate and paved path through Terman Park is a natural point of access for our neighborhood and those to the east of us. 4. For the safety of our neighborhood, access through the Glenbrook Gate is extremely important. Our neighborhood is landlocked with Arastradero as our only point of egress. Should there be a fire or other catastrophe coming from the direction of Arastradero and we need to flee on foot, the Glenbrook Gate into Terman Park and beyond is our only escape route. If it is locked, we are trapped. Bottom line, who owns Terman Park is not so much the issue but the right to have access at all times to pass through the Glenbrook Gate and to travel along the paved perimeter path definitely is. The needs of the adjacent neighborhoods to access through the Glenbrook Gate and along the paved path in Terman Park must be factored in as you move forward with your consideration of this proposal. There needs to be a clear written agreement between both parties that states that the Glenbrook Gate and the perimeter paved path will remain accessible to the public as it is now. Thank you. Sincerely, Nina Bell GreenAcres 1 From:Matthieu Bonnard To:Council, City Subject:Drought - Time for a heightened sense of urgency Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:59:18 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mpbnyc@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, While I applaud the city’ s initiatives in the field of environmental sustainability, I urge you to take bolder actions to reduce PA water consumption and change behavior of Palo Altars. Here are a few suggestions: 1. Public parks Grass and water-hungry landscaping should aggressively be replaced across all non- recreational areas in Palo Alto. 2. Private gardens: Progressive ban of front lawns for single-family housing - New construction: I was shocked to see a lush front lawn in front of a brand new house on my street (Tennyson Ave). A city "Executive Order: (or equivalent) should immediately stop that. - Existing homes: A transition period should be to established, with aggressive tax incentives to speed up upgrade to sustainable front yards. For many high-income households in PA, we know that cost is not a problem. They should lead by example. 3. Private gardens: Drip watering of plants should be mandatory, hose watering should be progressively banned and phased out Hereto, an aggressive transition period and agressive tax incentives should be implemented 4. Housing: Upgrade of indoor faucets to most water-efficient standards Same as 3. I just changed all shower heads in my home with expected savings in water consumption of up to 50%. 5. Last, is golf a morally acceptable activity in a place struck by repeat drought like Palo Alto? The answer is probably “No” for whoever thinks skiing in Dubai is wrong, even if PA public golf course is water with with reused water. I think it is time to force Palo Altans into sacrificing some confort, for the greater good of Palo Alto, and beyond. Thank you, Matthieu Bonnard From:NTB To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Land Swap Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:57:03 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from aarmatt@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt, Vice-Mayor Kou and Council Members, It has been reported in the newspaper that a proposed land swap between the City and the PAUSD is still being considered. At stake is a portion of Cubberley that the City wants and Terman Park adjacent to Fletcher Middle School. The school district already has exclusive rights to use Terman Park during the school day. The only caveat is that, on a school day, the public has the right to walk on the paved path along the perimeter of the field. This access is extremely important to our neighborhood which is adjacent to Terman Park and to other area residents who walk through our neighborhood to go through the Glenbrook Gate and thereby have access to that perimeter path on their way to Los Altos Avenue. Therein lies the problem. If this public park, our neighborhood green space, is traded to PAUSD, the school district will then have the right to deny passage either through the Glenbrook Gate or along the paved path or both. This is not acceptable. Why is access through the Glenbrook Gate important? 1. For the seniors in our neighborhood, Terman Park’s paved path and the Hetch Hetchy bike path are the nearest open space to stroll and savor. 2. For bike commuters, access through the Glenbrook Gate and along the paved path is the safest and swiftest way to access Los Altos Ave. 3. For walkers heading to Los Altos, the Glenbrook Gate and paved path through Terman Park is a natural point of access for our neighborhood and those to the east of us. 4. For the safety of our neighborhood, access through the Glenbrook Gate is extremely important. Our neighborhood is landlocked with Arastradero as our only point of egress. Should there be a fire or other catastrophe coming from the direction of Arastradero and we need to flee on foot, the Glenbrook Gate into Terman Park and beyond is our only escape route. If it is locked, we are trapped. Bottom line, who owns Terman Park is not so much the issue but the right to have access at all times to pass through the Glenbrook Gate and to travel along the paved perimeter path definitely is. The needs of the adjacent neighborhoods to access through the Glenbrook Gate and along the paved path in Terman Park must be factored in as you move forward with your consideration of this proposal. There needs to be a clear written agreement between both parties that states that the Glenbrook Gate and the perimeter paved path will remain accessible to the public as it is now. Thank you. Sincerely, Nina Bell GreenAcres 1 From:joshorenberg@gmail.com To:Council, City Cc:ashwin.rao@gmail.com; heather@neelyconsulting.com; brooke.partridge@vitalwave.com; laurenwye@gmail.com; jjf@institutionalcourage.org; sweiss8@protonmail.com; swiftmichael26@gmail.com; "Deborah Stinchfield"; sujataluther@yahoo.com; lmodarres@hotmail.com; "Afshin Daghi"; "Nancy Larson"; "James Orenberg"; adina@seamlessbayarea.org; "Adrian Brandt"; Neilson Buchanan Subject:Email for Rail Committee Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:17:11 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from joshorenberg@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Rail Committee. I just wanted to thank you for making progress on the quiet zone issue. We appreciate it very much. Also San Jose is making progress with their own quiet zone and have enforced a partial quiet zone at night for one of their intersections. See here. Take Care Josh From:Tom Shannon To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja’s Construction Mobilization Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 11:21:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and City Council members: RE: Castilleja’s Construction Mobilization I’m Tom Shannon and I live on Kellogg Ave, directly across the street from Castilleja’s Kellogg Street entrance. I have lived here for 33 years - purchasing my home when Castilleja's Kellogg Street building served as a quiet, school dormitory with little impact on our neighborhood. I have actively participated in four previous CUP amendments over the last 30 years to try and work towards solutions that would benefit both the school and the neighbors. I am now concerned about how Castilleja’s expansion will affect both the neighborhood and the enjoyment of my home. I expressed my concern to the Council last night about the possibility of Castilleja using its six acre site for both construction mobilization and school operations, a critical issue that Castilleja and the City have yet to publicly address. I would ask the City Council to question the viability of attempting to construct 120,000 sf of buildings on a six acre site while simultaneously trying to operate a school of 450 students, a staff of 100+ employees with all sorts of deliveries, activities and visitors. This plan will severely impact our immediate neighborhood bordered by Kellogg, Bryant and Emerson streets for at least three years or more. These streets are the only access points for the construction crews, the student body, the staff, deliveries, school activities, visitors and neighbors. How will all the cars and trucks navigate and park on these residential streets during construction? I would ask the City Council not to give approval for this plan. I realize it’s difficult for Castilleja to find an offsite, temporary campus but the two acre Spieker Playing Field is not a viable option while construction of the new campus is underway. This option would obviously have very severe negative impacts on our neighborhood and could create a dangerous situation navigating neighborhood streets and/or the bicycle corridor on Bryant Street. Thank you for giving this matter your consideration. Tom Shannon From:Aram James To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Winter Dellenbach; Rebecca Eisenberg; Greer Stone; chuck jagoda; Stump, Molly; Binder, Andrew; Sean Allen Subject:Time for Ed Shikada to be transparent Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 10:54:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.almanacnews.com/blogs/p/2022/03/22/questions-for-pa-city-manager-ed-shikada Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:chuck jagoda; Rebecca.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Roberta Ahlquist; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Binder, Andrew; Linda Jolley; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen Subject:APPLE HOMELESS BID FALLS SHORT https://enewspaper.mercurynews.com/? Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:20:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Follow the link below to view the article. APPLE HOMELESS BID FALLS SHORT https://enewspaper.mercurynews.com/?publink=00400ca3b_134848f Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Figueroa, Eric; Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Sean Allen; Council, City; City Mgr; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; Sajid Khan; Joe Simitian Subject:Felony cases linked to probe of cops dropped Date:Tuesday, May 24, 2022 12:14:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Follow the link below to view the article. Felony cases linked to probe of cops dropped https://enewspaper.mercurynews.com/?publink=30400ca3b_134848f Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Pat Burt; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Human Relations Commission; Dave Price; Winter Dellenbach; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Gennady Sheyner; Bill Johnson Subject:450 only after construction —only makes sense with an applicant who has in been in violation of the CPU for years Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 11:25:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Pat Burt Cc:Council, City; Alison Cormack; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Rebecca Eisenberg; Rebecca.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org; Gennady Sheyner; Bill Johnson; Sue Dremann; Diana Diamond Subject:The daily monitoring cost is the not problem the problem is allowing the applicant to go forward while already in violation of the CPU. Is the applicant above the law? Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 10:23:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Pat Burt Cc:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:Another question Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 10:11:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ 1. Why not limit the enrollment back to where it should be before enrollment violations —began …back to 2013? And only allow the initial increase after all construction completed? From:Aram James To:Pat Burt Cc:Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Council, City Subject:( slight edits)?Can the planning commissioner break down abbreviations at least once? I’m have difficulty with the answers the planning commissioner is giving seems like he is great at obfuscation…just my thoughts Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 10:06:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Subject: Can the planning commissioner break down abbreviations at least once. I’m have difficulty with the answers the planning commissioner is giving seems like he is great obfuscation…just my thoughts Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Pat Burt Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Braden Cartwright; Gennady Sheyner; Bill Johnson; Diana Diamond; Sue Dremann Subject:Question Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 10:02:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ 1. When was the last time Castillega was actually in compliance with enrollment requirements? 2013? 2. If The applicant has never been in compliance with the CPU why would we expect compliance in the future? 3. Is it true as one or two speakers testified to that in 2000 -the applicant agreed to NO future expansion? 4. If so why are we considering yet another problematic expansion? Sent from my iPhone From:Tina Kuan To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja project Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 9:59:06 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from tinakuan@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I am eager to see Castilleja’s project finally approved on May 23. It is a surprisingly contentious issue considering that both sides of this debate want the same thing, fewer cars in the neighborhood. Castilleja has done that in two ways: 1. By reducing daily trips to campus by 25–31% 2. By moving street parking below ground. As far as reducing trips, the school will continue to do this after the CUP is approved because in order to enroll more students, daily trips cannot rise above current levels. The good work the school has done on TDM will only become more comprehensive. The ARB supports this, as evidenced by their recommendation for a parking structure that meets the maximum number of car spots allotted by code. I think this is 69, which is more than the 50% your body had come up with last year. But the difference between that 50% (52 cars) and 69 cars is so negligible in the long run that I have to ask: why not? Why not add 17 more spots to the garage? That’s 17 spots that won’t have to be on the street, on the surface. That’s 17 more spots for folks un-affiliated with Castilleja. That’s 17 fewer cars taking up space on a bike-centric street. Really, it’s such a small number, but it can have such a wonderful impact. Please strongly consider a garage option with 69 cars. It’s already a significant reduction compared to Castilleja’s original plans. This is only one of many items Castilleja has compromised on, and I hope you truly recognize the efforts they’ve gone through to come up with options that preserve their ability to thrive as an institution while also benefiting the neighborhood. Support this spirit of compromise and bring this years-long process to a successful conclusion. Respectfully, Tina Kuan From:Aram James To:Pat Burt Cc:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:( slight edits)?Can the planning commissioner break down abbreviations at least once? I’m have difficulty with the answers the planning commissioner is giving seems like he is great at obfuscation…just my thoughts Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 9:54:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Date: May 23, 2022 at 9:52:06 PM PDT To: Pat Burt <pat@patburt.org> Subject: Can the planning commissioner break down abbreviations at least once. I’m have difficulty with the answers the planning commissioner is giving seems like he is great obfuscation…just my thoughts Sent from my iPhone From:Petra Wright To:Council, City Subject:Please vote yes on Castilleja’s plan Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 8:04:23 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from petrawright@me.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Rebecca Eisenberg Cc:Council, City; Portillo, Rumi; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Human Relations Commission; Vara Ramakrishnan; Rebecca.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org; Dave Price; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Pat Burt; Greer Stone; Lydia Kou Subject:Re: FCouncilman assails five candidates, but they say his critique is riddled with inaccuracies – Palo Alto Daily Post Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 4:47:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Excellent job Rebecca!! aram Sent from my iPhone On May 23, 2022, at 3:25 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com> wrote: Dear Aram (and all): Thank you for distributing the Post's article from a couple years ago, discussing the attacks made by Councilperson Dubois on 5 candidates running for City Council. I had emailed Mr. Dubois directly about his commentary, asking him if we could discuss by phone, but he did not respond (I still would be open to this, however!). And unfortunately I did not see this Daily Post article when it was published, in part because of the fact that, although the Post interviewed the other 4 candidates for their reactions, it did not reach out to me. Here is the Daily Post article: https://padailypost.com/2020/10/03/councilman-assails-five- challenges-but-they-say-his-critique-is-riddled-with-inaccuracies/ Here is Council member Dubois's criticism of 5 candidates, including me: https://www.votedubois.com/palo_alto_values Specifically, Mr. Dubois said the following about me directly: "In addition to these three, Rebecca Eisenberg has repeatedly called the men and women that make Palo Alto such a safe place, racist." Had the Daily Post asked me for my response, I would have said one or more of the following: 1. I not even once have called any man or woman that makes Palo Alto a safe place, including any police officer (which I think is to whom he was referring) racist. You can read everything I ever wrote, and listen to anything I ever said (in fact, please do!) and I dare you to find one instance, let alone "repeated" instances. This is due to the following: A. I was raised never to criticize people, but rather to criticize ACTIONS. This is one of the most fundamental beliefs of my Jewish faith. (Feel free to interview my mother on this point.) B. I would not have called officers racist because I do not believe that the institutional bias found in the PAPD (as well as in most/all police departments) is due to "bad apples." It is due to institutional bias, including unconscious bias in the criminal laws, unconscious bias in criminal law enforcement, and unconscious bias in the way that many non-black people, including many police officers, often assume that black people present in white-majority neighborhoods are acting shady or causing a danger. (Sometimes that bias is conscious, but the result is the same). This is why I push for a more diverse peace-keeping authority, as well as the disarming of officers in all situations that do not involve violent crime (e.g. traffic stops and mental health disturbances, among many others). These problems are not due to 'bad apples,' but due to more historic, entrenched bias that often is unconscious. 2. If these men and women were making Palo Alto a safe place, I would not criticize the actions of the police force. I -- and countless others -- criticize the fact that the PAPD makes Palo Alto a safe place only for SOME people, but not for ALL people. Until Palo Alto is safe for all, it is irrational to consider Palo Alto "safe," and therefore the actions I criticize are specifically ones that make Palo Alto dangerous for some people here - mostly BIPOC, LGBTQia+, and other minorities, as well as in many cases, women. 3. It's strange to me that there are some people, let alone in elected leadership! -- who, despite all evidence to the contrary, continue to deny that the PAPD - like many/most other PDs in the US -- has a historic problem with excessive force that detrimentally impacts BIPOC folks. I would have urged Tom Dubois to read the Daily Post more regularly, as the Post does a particularly good job of documenting police brutality, usually needing to file public records act requests because the PAPD, under direction of the City Council, still refuses to hand over evidence of violent actions, even though disclosure of that information is mandatory under California state law. Perhaps if Mr. Dubois would act to compel the PAPD to comply with state disclosure mandates, then Mr. Dubois would have a better understanding of the nature and extent of excessive force, mostly against people of color, here in our home town. 4. Finally, I would have been thrilled to share some of the resources I check in order to stay updated on the national crisis of police violence. Here are some of my favorite online resources (in addition to a list of books about disparate impact and anti-racism I would be happy to share as well): https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?nid https://mappingpoliceviolence.us https://mappingpoliceviolence.org Reading these three resources, one learns the following, for example: - In 2021, 1045 people were shot and killed by the police. - Of the people killed by police, black people were three times as likely to be shot and killed by the police as white people in the same circumstances. - These numbers represent only the people shot, not the people killed by police in other ways, e.g. tasers, dogs, and foot on neck, amongst others. (Source: Washington Post) - Most killings by police begin with traffic stops, mental health checks, domestic violence, non-violent offenses and where no crime was alleged. - Only 1 in 3 police killings began with an alleged violent crime (Source: Mapping Police Violence) - During the same period - 2021 - only 73 police officers were killed feloniously. - This number includes all means of killing, not just guns. (Source: FBI database of police deaths: https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/le/leoka) That means that during the same year, the police killed 1045 people by gunshot alone, and 73 officers were killed by any means. And: the numbers of people killed by police is RISING, while the number of police killed is FALLING. (Source for trending: FBI database, see above.) In sum, while the statement made about me by Mr. Dubois was inflammatory, hostile, and inaccurate, I 100% stand by the position that there is a problem of institutional racism in police enforcement in the United States, and the actions of Palo Alto's Police Department - like virtually all other police departments - indicate institutional bias via a history of excessive force that mostly harms people of color, especially African Americans, and a shameful record of lack of compliance with disclosure laws as well as a hostility towards transparency and accountability. Until all people in Palo Alto can feel safe, I do not believe that the current law enforcement system is performing adequately. Thanks for asking! It sure would be nice to have more than 2 minutes every now and then to make my point clearly so that others would not put words in my mouth that I never would say. Just ask my mom. PS - Tom, I would love to discuss these issues with you more in person or by phone. I believe that we share values in wanting everyone in our town to feel welcome, safe, and protected. I think we can achieve that with a meaningful look into what systemic improvements we can make quickly, and which systemic improvements we can make over time, starting with looking at innovative and successful approaches made by similar cities, and meeting with the leaders of those cities to discuss (which is far more likely to result in actionable data than another survey, right?). There is so much we can do together to improve the quality of life for all folks in Palo Alto, and sometimes even small changes can yield monumental improvements. Thanks again, Best, Rebecca 415-235-8078 PPS As to the claim that I said I wanted to "eliminate single family neighborhoods in Palo Alto during endorsement interviews." I respond: Council Member Dubois: there is a legal and factual difference between eliminating a ZONING category and eliminating a type of building. For example, the neighborhood where our house and tenants live in San Francisco -- Noe Valley -- is zoned almost entirely R-2, including my own single family house there. That said, virtually every R-2 lot in Noe Valley contains a single-family home, even though we all have the legal right to put another home on the lot. Opening up the POTENTIAL for other types of housing has NOTHING in common with "eliminating single family neighborhoods" or even tearing down single-family homes. Throughout our country, including in many parts of California, single family home neighborhoods are comprised of lots zoned for one or two homes. This misunderstanding of basic property and land use law also infects the City's understanding of laws like SB-9, which actually give rights to property owners, not to the state. SB-9 tells homeowners that they now are *allowed* to put a second home on, or subdivide, their property, but it does not FORCE them to do so. All the hand-wringing about SB-9 is misplaced. It gives zero rights to the state, only to the homeowners. And due to its passage, people privileged and wealthy enough to own homes in Palo Alto -- like you! -- now have even more wealth because it is overwhelmingly true that homes zoned R-2 are more valuable than homes zoned R-1. If anything, you own the state legislature for this nice gift of increased property rights! It is doubtful that this law would have passed if it did not have that aspect. PPS Tom Dubois: is there a way to take down a tweet that attacks you, threatens you with rape, encourages others to commit violence against you, and otherwise threatens you? If so, can you please let me know? Rape threats is a normal response to being a woman running for office with ideas and thoughts. It also is a common response to a woman being a syndicated columnist, which I also was. I would love to know if there would be a way to end rape threats against me, because I would welcome that. Otherwise, I'm usually stuck with the mean, hostile, and sometimes threatening tweets that (mostly) men like to make at me on Twitter. (I do sometimes take down hostile Facebook comments, which is a control built into the interface! It's really not too much to ask that if a person wants to attack me or threaten me, they can do that on their own facebook page, not on mine. My 85 year old parents look at my facebook page and they would freak out if they saw something like that on my page! ) So I found that criticism puzzling and would love to hear more. Best - rle On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:09 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: > > FYI: > > From the archives of the Daly Post -if I don’t agree with u I just delete your post. This is a guy who only listens to himself verbal attack or no attack -not fit for public office? > > > > https://padailypost.com/2020/10/03/councilman-assails-five-challenges-but- they-say-his-critique-is-riddled-with-inaccuracies/ > > > Sent from my iPhone From:gee2mag@aol.com To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja School Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 4:42:51 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from gee2mag@aol.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please deny that school from enlarging. It is a great school as are the others which have realized the need to grow. It used to be a quiet little boarding school that was perfectly acceptable in a residential neighborhood. The world has changed. Too many people, too many cars, too many events, too many trips to and fro from there have created a nuisance that needs to be purged from there. THEY NEED TO MOVE. OR SPLIT SO THERE WILL BE NO GROWTH IN THAT LOCATION. PERIOD. Other schools have done it successfully and so should Castilleja. Grace Lenhart. Palo Alto From:Douglas Charles Kerr To:Council, City Subject:Neighbor for Castilleja School Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 4:06:56 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from douglask@stanford.edu. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I write as a neighbor-Churchill Ave-and supporter of Castilleja School. The school is a nationally renowned institution and delivers girls the unique opportunity to learn in a single-sex environment and benefit from the school's outstanding leadership curriculum. More high school girls from Palo Alto should have this opportunity if they seek it. I hope to see the enrollment grow. Vocal neighbors in opposition (it’s a very small number) want there to be penalties and conditions for allowing the school to grow. That’s exactly what the conditional use permit presents! Even so, this group isn’t satisfied. It seems that no matter which way the school pivots, opposing neighbors claim Castilleja doesn't listen, that they’re too privileged to hear feedback. Look at the record. At each juncture, the school has responded with alternatives. I interpret that as the school acting in good faith, and I think you should too. The noisiest group isn’t always representative of the wider community. Please remember that as you deliberate on May 23. I am impressed that Castilleja has consistently demonstrated respect for the City and neighbors by proposing a solution that allows the school to grow without adversely impacting neighbors. Castilleja has met with neighbors over 50 times and iterated its plans meaningfully in response to the variety of opinions in the neighborhood. It's time to finally move forward. I see absolutely no traffic from the school during non-Covid times and dismiss any claim of traffic as false. The traffic I see comes from Paly students and parents dropping off their kids. But I knowingly chose to live a block within a school, so why should I complain about “traffic”? And really, if traffic from educating the next generation is the worst thing in the neighbor’s lives, then they’re leading a pretty good life, if you ask me. This argument about traffic lessening the "quality of life" perplexes me. If people are really concerned about that, they should focus on the many houses that have no occupancy. I can count at least 10 within the few blocks around Castilleja. Those are 10 empty houses that could be filled with children–families, communities– to attend the many wonderful schools in our area, including Castilleja. If you’re living in Palo Alto, your quality of life is already pretty great. Let’s count our blessings and remember this project is about providing more opportunities to children, while simultaneously improving conditions in the neighborhood. Best, Douglas Kerr Churchill Ave From:Rebecca Eisenberg To:Aram James Cc:Council, City; Portillo, Rumi; Shikada, Ed; Binder, Andrew; chuck jagoda; Human Relations Commission; Vara Ramakrishnan; Rebecca.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org; Dave Price; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Pat Burt; Greer Stone; Lydia Kou Subject:Re: FCouncilman assails five candidates, but they say his critique is riddled with inaccuracies – Palo Alto Daily Post Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 3:26:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Aram (and all): Thank you for distributing the Post's article from a couple years ago, discussing the attacks made by Councilperson Dubois on 5 candidates running for City Council. I had emailed Mr. Dubois directly about his commentary, asking him if we could discuss by phone, but he did not respond (I still would be open to this, however!). And unfortunately I did not see this Daily Post article when it was published, in part because of the fact that, although the Post interviewed the other 4 candidates for their reactions, it did not reach out to me. Here is the Daily Post article: https://padailypost.com/2020/10/03/councilman- assails-five-challenges-but-they-say-his-critique-is-riddled-with-inaccuracies/ Here is Council member Dubois's criticism of 5 candidates, including me: https://www.votedubois.com/palo_alto_values Specifically, Mr. Dubois said the following about me directly: "In addition to these three, Rebecca Eisenberg has repeatedly called the men and women that make Palo Alto such a safe place, racist." Had the Daily Post asked me for my response, I would have said one or more of the following: 1. I not even once have called any man or woman that makes Palo Alto a safe place, including any police officer (which I think is to whom he was referring) racist. You can read everything I ever wrote, and listen to anything I ever said (in fact, please do!) and I dare you to find one instance, let alone "repeated" instances. This is due to the following: A. I was raised never to criticize people, but rather to criticize ACTIONS. This is one of the most fundamental beliefs of my Jewish faith. (Feel free to interview my mother on this point.) B. I would not have called officers racist because I do not believe that the institutional bias found in the PAPD (as well as in most/all police departments) is due to "bad apples." It is due to institutional bias, including unconscious bias in the criminal laws, unconscious bias in criminal law enforcement, and unconscious bias in the way that many non-black people, including many police officers, often assume that black people present in white-majority neighborhoods are acting shady or causing a danger. (Sometimes that bias is conscious, but the result is the same). This is why I push for a more diverse peace-keeping authority, as well as the disarming of officers in all situations that do not involve violent crime (e.g. traffic stops and mental health disturbances, among many others). These problems are not due to 'bad apples,' but due to more historic, entrenched bias that often is unconscious. 2. If these men and women were making Palo Alto a safe place, I would not criticize the actions of the police force. I -- and countless others -- criticize the fact that the PAPD makes Palo Alto a safe place only for SOME people, but not for ALL people. Until Palo Alto is safe for all, it is irrational to consider Palo Alto "safe," and therefore the actions I criticize are specifically ones that make Palo Alto dangerous for some people here - mostly BIPOC, LGBTQia+, and other minorities, as well as in many cases, women. 3. It's strange to me that there are some people, let alone in elected leadership! -- who, despite all evidence to the contrary, continue to deny that the PAPD - like many/most other PDs in the US -- has a historic problem with excessive force that detrimentally impacts BIPOC folks. I would have urged Tom Dubois to read the Daily Post more regularly, as the Post does a particularly good job of documenting police brutality, usually needing to file public records act requests because the PAPD, under direction of the City Council, still refuses to hand over evidence of violent actions, even though disclosure of that information is mandatory under California state law. Perhaps if Mr. Dubois would act to compel the PAPD to comply with state disclosure mandates, then Mr. Dubois would have a better understanding of the nature and extent of excessive force, mostly against people of color, here in our home town. 4. Finally, I would have been thrilled to share some of the resources I check in order to stay updated on the national crisis of police violence. Here are some of my favorite online resources (in addition to a list of books about disparate impact and anti-racism I would be happy to share as well): https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/?nid https://mappingpoliceviolence.us https://mappingpoliceviolence.org Reading these three resources, one learns the following, for example: - In 2021, 1045 people were shot and killed by the police. - Of the people killed by police, black people were three times as likely to be shot and killed by the police as white people in the same circumstances. - These numbers represent only the people shot, not the people killed by police in other ways, e.g. tasers, dogs, and foot on neck, amongst others. (Source: Washington Post) - Most killings by police begin with traffic stops, mental health checks, domestic violence, non-violent offenses and where no crime was alleged. - Only 1 in 3 police killings began with an alleged violent crime (Source: Mapping Police Violence) - During the same period - 2021 - only 73 police officers were killed feloniously. - This number includes all means of killing, not just guns. (Source: FBI database of police deaths: https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud.gov/pages/le/leoka) That means that during the same year, the police killed 1045 people by gunshot alone, and 73 officers were killed by any means. And: the numbers of people killed by police is RISING, while the number of police killed is FALLING. (Source for trending: FBI database, see above.) In sum, while the statement made about me by Mr. Dubois was inflammatory, hostile, and inaccurate, I 100% stand by the position that there is a problem of institutional racism in police enforcement in the United States, and the actions of Palo Alto's Police Department - like virtually all other police departments - indicate institutional bias via a history of excessive force that mostly harms people of color, especially African Americans, and a shameful record of lack of compliance with disclosure laws as well as a hostility towards transparency and accountability. Until all people in Palo Alto can feel safe, I do not believe that the current law enforcement system is performing adequately. Thanks for asking! It sure would be nice to have more than 2 minutes every now and then to make my point clearly so that others would not put words in my mouth that I never would say. Just ask my mom. PS - Tom, I would love to discuss these issues with you more in person or by phone. I believe that we share values in wanting everyone in our town to feel welcome, safe, and protected. I think we can achieve that with a meaningful look into what systemic improvements we can make quickly, and which systemic improvements we can make over time, starting with looking at innovative and successful approaches made by similar cities, and meeting with the leaders of those cities to discuss (which is far more likely to result in actionable data than another survey, right?). There is so much we can do together to improve the quality of life for all folks in Palo Alto, and sometimes even small changes can yield monumental improvements. Thanks again, Best, Rebecca 415-235-8078 PPS As to the claim that I said I wanted to "eliminate single family neighborhoods in Palo Alto during endorsement interviews." I respond: Council Member Dubois: there is a legal and factual difference between eliminating a ZONING category and eliminating a type of building. For example, the neighborhood where our house and tenants live in San Francisco -- Noe Valley -- is zoned almost entirely R-2, including my own single family house there. That said, virtually every R-2 lot in Noe Valley contains a single-family home, even though we all have the legal right to put another home on the lot. Opening up the POTENTIAL for other types of housing has NOTHING in common with "eliminating single family neighborhoods" or even tearing down single-family homes. Throughout our country, including in many parts of California, single family home neighborhoods are comprised of lots zoned for one or two homes. This misunderstanding of basic property and land use law also infects the City's understanding of laws like SB-9, which actually give rights to property owners, not to the state. SB-9 tells homeowners that they now are *allowed* to put a second home on, or subdivide, their property, but it does not FORCE them to do so. All the hand-wringing about SB-9 is misplaced. It gives zero rights to the state, only to the homeowners. And due to its passage, people privileged and wealthy enough to own homes in Palo Alto -- like you! -- now have even more wealth because it is overwhelmingly true that homes zoned R-2 are more valuable than homes zoned R- 1. If anything, you own the state legislature for this nice gift of increased property rights! It is doubtful that this law would have passed if it did not have that aspect. PPS Tom Dubois: is there a way to take down a tweet that attacks you, threatens you with rape, encourages others to commit violence against you, and otherwise threatens you? If so, can you please let me know? Rape threats is a normal response to being a woman running for office with ideas and thoughts. It also is a common response to a woman being a syndicated columnist, which I also was. I would love to know if there would be a way to end rape threats against me, because I would welcome that. Otherwise, I'm usually stuck with the mean, hostile, and sometimes threatening tweets that (mostly) men like to make at me on Twitter. (I do sometimes take down hostile Facebook comments, which is a control built into the interface! It's really not too much to ask that if a person wants to attack me or threaten me, they can do that on their own facebook page, not on mine. My 85 year old parents look at my facebook page and they would freak out if they saw something like that on my page! ) So I found that criticism puzzling and would love to hear more. Best - rle On Mon, May 23, 2022 at 12:09 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: > > FYI: > > From the archives of the Daly Post -if I don’t agree with u I just delete your post. This is a guy who only listens to himself verbal attack or no attack -not fit for public office? > > > > https://padailypost.com/2020/10/03/councilman-assails-five-challenges-but-they-say-his- critique-is-riddled-with-inaccuracies/ > > > Sent from my iPhone From:Kimberley Wong To:Council, City Subject:Message to City Council regarding Castilleja expansion project and application for a new CUP : May 23, 2022 meeting Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 3:17:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. In response to Castilleja's ad in the Daily Post titled: "More Opportunity. Less Traffic. WHY NOT?" Instead, I ask you WHY? *Why should we allow Castilleja to grandfather extra square footage over allowable because more recent additions were vastly undercounted. *Why would any parent want their child to walk through an underground garage under a sewer line onto campus? *Why should we allow Castilleja even 50 events, when they held way above the CUP mandated "5 major events and several others" that have impacted residents for years! * Why should we allow Castilleja to build a greenhouse gas emitting underground garage that encroaches on utility easements? How does this “Advance Palo Alto's sustainability goals"? *And lastly, why should we allow Castilleja to channel more traffic onto the Bike Safety Boulevard and threaten the well-being of residents, casti students, and our public school children? Previously, Mayor Pat Burt asked if this was in line with the Bicycle Plan of Palo Alto. No answer was given. For the future of Palo Alto let's not shrug our collective shoulders and ask "Why Not?"... We really should be asking ourselves... WHY? Why allow them to be overenrolled, overbuilt and overconfident that they will not wreak havoc to the neighborhood with their multi year project? As the PTC suggests, let the school stay at 450 and see if they can win the favor of extra students with strict adherence to the new CUP. And it is only fair that the neighbors most affected can have input into writing a new CUP to mitigate the impacts to their lives, their homes! Kimberley Wong From:Daniel Flath To:Council, City Subject:In support of Castilleja School enrollment expansion Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 3:09:35 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from daniel.flath@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council of Palo Alto, My name is Daniel Flath, and I support Castilleja. 14 months ago, you asked for guidance on how Castilleja could reach a 540 enrollment, starting at 450. The solution is right in front of you. Opponents have demanded that Castilleja prove it can keep car trips down before adding more students. That is precisely what is proposed in the new CUP. Monitoring reports will provide data and facts that will determine the school’s enrollment. It’s already laid out as a condition of approval, so there is absolutely no need for the school to apply for a CUP amendment each time it wishes to add more students. That would be a complete waste of resources and is a poorly disguised delay tactic on the part of opponents. As a taxpayer, I do not support that. The conditions of approval for adding 25 students each school year are crystal clear, written in the proposed CUP: If there are more car trips, there will be no new students. Approve the path to 540, grant more students opportunities while keeping car trips at bay. Sincerely, Daniel L. Flath 931 Mallard Lane Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:Elizabeth Grover To:Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja"s proposed expansion Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 2:49:13 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from elizgrover@me.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I am a Palo Alto resident and with full disclosure, I am a parent of a former Castilleja student. I support Castilleja’s plans for expanded enrollment and renovation of its campus campus. Castilleja has, over the past six years, shown what I would consider to be an inordinate amount of patience, along with a willingness to try to address concerns of the opponents of its plan. The time has come for the Council to approve this project and move on. I have followed this process somewhat closely over the past several years. It does seem to me that the goal posts keep changing. Is it not true that Castilleja consulted the City of Palo Alto before designing the project and that at that time, an underground parking garage was suggested to them? Isn’t it true that the original plans were approved by the Planning Commission, based on suggestions made by the city? History aside, whatever past infractions Castilleja committed, that time has long past but it seems to me that some of it's neighbors just won’t let it go. Ultimately, I believe and it has even been publicly suggested by some neighbors that nothing will be satisfactory for these neighbors outside of the school relocating somewhere else, which is infeasible, expensive and unnecessary. That is their end goal and I believe that no amount of working with the neighbors toward an amicable solution will satisfy some of them. But let’s remember that Castilleja has existed in this location for over 100 years!! Castilleja has agreed to enrollment increases depending on remaining car trips at current levels. If this is the case, the garage will not create additional traffic and in fact I believe the garage is a perfect solution to keeping cars off the neighborhood streets. The proposed new buildings will be a leading example of sustainability (wouldn’t it be nice if all new construction in Palo Alto achieved what Castilleja has proposed?) and will at the same time, provide the school with the modernization of facilities to enhance the education of its students. I even read in the Weekly that one opponent criticized the school building a new pool because we are in a drought? Really, then perhaps Palo Alto HS and Gunn should remove their pools as well. I do not think it is fair to once again revisit the number of school events allowed at Castilleja. Isn’t it true that a large public school nearby (Palo Alto HS) has no such restrictions? I have been in the area of Churchill and Alma around the start time of Palo Alto HS or during events such as football games or college fairs and you can’t tell me that it doesn’t create a tremendous amount of traffic in the same neighborhood. School events at Palo Alto HS, which have much larger audiences, are not capped—why should they be at Castilleja, a much, much smaller school? I have read that some neighbors want Castilleja to cap enrollment and reapply to increase eventually to around 540 students. I can’t believe that the experience of the past six years shows that these neighbors would act in good faith. I think we would start this lengthy (and expensive!) process all over again. Please put an end to these negotiations and approve the project. Thank you. From:Valerie Milligan To:Council, City Subject:No on Castilleja Expansion Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 2:36:29 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from valerie.milligan5@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Too big for the neighborhood. Doesn't serve very many actual Palo Alto residents. I am so sick of this coming up again and again! Valerie Milligan 2573 Park Boulevard, U102 Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Howard Nickel To:Council, City Subject:In support of Castilleja"s enrichment and improvement Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 2:23:36 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from howienickel@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. PA City Council, Our daughter personally applied to Castilleja (Casti) and was accepted last year to 9th grade. Both her parents are public school attendees and US immigrants who are very proud of her admission to the premier women's prep school in the US. We expect that PA City Council must also be proud to have Castilleja as an integral part of the support for women past, present, and future. As a rare INCLUSIVE, SECULAR women's school in the Bay Area, Casti fills a rapidly expanding need with limited physical resources. Having such a special educational institution is as vital to women today as it was at Casti's inception in 1907. While the Bay Area has grown exponentially, Casti enrollment has not likewise increased. While our daughter was fortunate to be admitted, many young women are being shut out of the tremendous opportunity for "Women Leading, Women Learning" as Casti motto states. If ever there were a time for a Casti upgrade, now is certainly appropriate. While parking is a concern, like our daughter, many students use foot, bike, bus, or train to attend. That usage WILL increase, a point to which any current Casti student would attest. Casti women know the value of enrollment and are fully supportive of ways to extend the privilege to more women. We would hope that PA City Council would agree and, seeing Casti's value for women, work very hard to increase access to this enormously valuable resource. Please support Casti plans to further women's opportunities. NOW is the time to expand women's access to Casti Mary and Howard Nickel 650 400-4815 & 650 400-8685 From:Aram James To:Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Council, City Subject:FlFCouncilman assails five candidates, but they say his critique is riddled with inaccuracies – Palo Alto Daily Post Date:Monday, May 23, 2022 12:53:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Date: May 23, 2022 at 12:09:12 PM PDT To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Rumi Portillo <Rumi.Portillo@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Andrew Binder <andrew.binder@cityofpaloalto.org>, chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>, Human Relations Commission <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>, Vara Ramakrishnan <vara@acm.org>, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@privateclientlegal.com>, Rebecca.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: FCouncilman assails five candidates, but they say his critique is riddled with inaccuracies – Palo Alto Daily Post FYI: From the archives of the Daly Post -if I don’t agree with u I just delete your post. This is a guy who only listens to himself verbal attack or no attack -not fit for public office? https://padailypost.com/2020/10/03/councilman-assails-five- challenges-but-they-say-his-critique-is-riddled-with-inaccuracies/ Sent from my iPhone