Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-08-01 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: 08/01/2022 Document dates: 07/25/2022 – 08/01/2022 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Ted O"Hanlon To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Foley, Emily Subject:8/1/22, Action Item 9, 1033 Amarillo Ave, Prelim Parcel Map Date:Monday, August 1, 2022 11:23:51 AM Attachments:LTR - Palo Alto City Council - 1033 Amarillo Ave - 7-28-2022.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from tedohanlon@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 and City Councilors, In advance of our item tonight for the request of a Preliminary Parcel Map for the property at 1033 Amarillo Avenue, please accept the attached memorandum from our land use council. In short, we agree with the findings and recommendations as written in the Planning Staff Report and Draft Land Use Action. Thank you in advance for the consideration of this request. Best Regards Ted --- Ted O'Hanlon tedohanlon@gmail.com 415.317.5070 mobile/text CA DRE #01868277 John Kevlin jkevlin@reubenlaw.com July 28, 2022 Delivered Via Email Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 1033 Amarillo Avenue Hearing Date: August 1, 2022 (Agenda Item #9) Dear Mayor Burt and City Councilors, Our office represents American Pacific International Capital, Inc. (“Project Sponsor”), the sponsor of a proposed subdivision of the existing parcel at 1033 Amarillo Avenue (the “Proposed Subdivision” and the “Property”). No other development is proposed in conjunction with the Proposed Subdivision, and any potential entitlement would be pursued subsequent to its approval. Approval of the Proposed Subdivision would allow for the rational redevelopment of the Property into family-sized homes while maintaining the existing density of four dwelling units. We are requesting the City Council’s support for the Proposed Subdivision, based on the justifications outlined in this letter. A. Project Sponsor Supports Staff Recommendation Planning Department staff is recommending approval of the Proposed Subdivision with an exception from the maximum lot size and minimum lot width requirements. As outlined in the staff report, the Proposed Subdivision would subdivide an irregularly-large lot, and even though the resulting lots will be slightly larger than the maximum lot size (by 118 and 668 square feet, respectively), the resulting lots will be much more in conformance with the maximum lot size requirement than the existing 20,787 square foot lot. Further, the resulting lot widths will be only 7 feet smaller than the minimum lot width of 60 feet, which is consistent with the other lots on this block. In order to ensure development of the Property after the Proposed Subdivision that preserves pedestrian safety and comfort, Planning Department staff is recommending a condition of approval that a covenant of easement be placed on the resulting parcel maps that ensures shared driveway and utility access between the two resulting lots once they are redeveloped. The Project Sponsor is in support of this condition and is prepared to work with staff to ensure the easement is written in a way that does not negatively impinge on future development of the Property. As such, the Project Sponsor is fully supportive of the Planning Department’s recommendation of approval and associated conditions. Palo Alto City Council July 28, 2022 Page 2 /Volumes/reubenlaw/Shared/R&A/696610/LTR - Palo Alto City Council - 1033 Amarillo Ave - 7-28-2022 Final.docx B. Project Sponsor Intends to Redevelop Property Using Palo Alto’s Zoning and ADU Regulations During the entitlement process for the Proposed Subdivision, there has been much discussion – and concern – about the potential use of SB-9 subsequent to this approval. This would have the potential of subsequently subdividing the two new lots into four lots and constructing up to 8 units on the Property, with no discretion or input from the City. For multiple reasons, the Project Sponsor has no intent of using SB-9, and, rather, intends to develop the resulting lots using the City’s well-established ADU program. The result would be two lots with a primary dwelling unit and an ADU (and potentially a JADU), for a total of 4-6 units at the Property. It is unlikely the Project Sponsor can waive their rights under SB-9, in particular, as a condition of approval. However, there are multiple reasons why the Project Sponsor has no intent to pursue an SB-9 project subsequent to the Proposed Subdivision, including: • SB-9 requires existing units to be vacant for three years. All four cottages are currently occupied by renters and the Project Sponsor would need to vacate them and to forgo three years of market rent before they could proceed with an SB-9 project. • SB-9 requires that the owner sign an affidavit declaring their intent to occupy one of the resulting units for three years post-construction. The Project Sponsor is an international real estate development firm, and the ownership has no interest in living in a unit that is redeveloped at the Property. • SB-9 limits resulting units to just 800 square feet. Palo Alto’s interim SB-9 ordinance restricts units constructed on a lot split pursuant to SB-9 to a maximum of 800 square feet. This is well below the desired size for the primary dwelling units on the Property once subdivided. Alternatively, Palo Alto’s existing zoning and established ADU program provides the development standards and reliability that the Project Sponsor needs to move forward. This would result in a R-1 zoning-compliant primary residence on each of the new lots, plus an ADU (and potentially a JADU). C. Proposed Subdivision Fulfills Findings for Lot Size, Lot Width Exceptions The staff report provides findings to grant an exception from the lot size and lot width requirements of the Planning Code. This is clearly a situation that is eligible for such an exception. The Property is a hugely over-sized lot (more than double the maximum lot size), the only way the Project Sponsor can reasonably develop the Property consistent with other, standard-sized lots is pursuant to the very small exceptions being requested here. The Proposed Subdivision will result in lot sizes that are much closer to conformance with the code requirement, and the resulting lot Palo Alto City Council July 28, 2022 Page 3 /Volumes/reubenlaw/Shared/R&A/696610/LTR - Palo Alto City Council - 1033 Amarillo Ave - 7-28-2022 Final.docx widths are well within the standard widths of lots on this block. The appropriateness of these exceptions is underscored by the two comparable projects granted exceptions by the City Council in 2021. In short, the Proposed Subdivision very clearly fulfills the criteria required for the requested exceptions. D. Conclusion We appreciate the City Council’s consideration of the Proposed Subdivision, and its approval will allow for a reasonable, contextual redevelopment pursuant to Palo Alto’s existing zoning regulations and the standard City review process. Based on this, we respectfully request the City Council’s support of the Proposed Subdivision. Sincerely, REUBEN, JUNIUS & ROSE, LLP John Kevlin From:Malcolm Jenkins To:Council, City Subject:Addiction Support for BIPOC in California Date:Monday, August 1, 2022 9:38:13 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from malcolm@liveanotherday.org.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Team, My name is Malcolm and I'm an internet mental health activist. My fight is focused on making culturally competent resources for people of color more freely available online. A record 107,000+ people died of overdoses last year. People of color were disproportionately affected. This was largely due to the lack of access to high-quality, evidence-based treatment. I'm grateful that you've created such a helpful collection of resources on your page at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community-Services/Human- Services/Information-and-Referral-formerly-Family-Resources. Your dedication to the community is an important part of the solution! However, I didn't see anything that focuses on substance abuse for people of color in California. This resource lists the top treatment centers based on online reviews and accreditations, and provides extensive information for people of color *and* their allies: Live Another Day - Features culturally competent resources for people of color and an editorially curated list of the top-rated rehab centers in California. I would recommend adding this page to your existing collection of resources on the City of Palo Alto website. Finding competent care has never been more important and access to this information could potentially save lives. What are your thoughts on including this resource on your page? In solidarity, Malcolm Jenkins (they/them) Recovery Advocate Live Another Day P: 678-366-4290 E: malcolm@liveanotherday.org "Love takes off masks that we fear we cannot live without and know we cannot live within." -James Baldwin From:Andie Reed To:Council, City Subject:Business Tax Date:Monday, August 1, 2022 8:16:30 AM 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: As Palo Alto plans ahead for federal stimulus dollars stopping at the end of thesecond year, which is upon us, and city budgeters remind us there’s seriousconcern about running out of money, now is absolutely the time to look atwhere revenues come from and is the burden fairly shared among all sectors. Thanks to City Council members for coming up with a fair and sensible tax onlarge businesses to right the ship. Are businesses paying their fair share? Why do virtually all other cities in theBay Area have a business tax and we don’t? Why should only property owners,hotel visitors and anyone purchasing goods in town be the majority taxcontributors to the City’s coffers? Do those payers reflect the spectrum ofusers of city services? I was surprised to learn that employees exceed residents in a ratio of 10 to 7,yet residents pay the bulk of property taxes collected by the city (almost70%). Additionally, many large, high-tech e-businesses who aren’t movingwidgets out the door can get around paying the sales tax that downtownretailers collect and pay. Shouldn’t all businesses be participating equitably inunderwriting the costs to run the city where they are based? The City of Palo Alto provides the magical name, where gloriously tree-linedstreets and a lovely, walkable downtown sits in the heart of Silicon Valley; anaddress where venture capitalists can charm investors. And yet, up to now,there’s been no price put on the costs our city incurs to host thissignificant commercial footprint. Despite self-serving, deep-pocketed conglomerates of large businesses' threatsto flood the city with disinformation to discourage the ballot measure and swaythe vote on this issue, please pass it. This decision needs to be up to theresidents. This is a new Palo Alto and we have to face our current fiscal woes by tappingall those who benefit from city services but aren't currently picking up the tab. Thanks, Andie Reed -- Andie Reed CPA Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809 From:Kelly Nolan To:Council, City Subject:Were you able to see your plaque preview of your press in PALO ALTO WEEKLY? Date:Monday, August 1, 2022 6:00:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Hello LaDoris Hope you were able to view the proof of the plaque below. I’ve made it easier for you to order by loading all your shipping info into the link below. Let me know your color preference; mahogany & gold, black &silver or Lucinda option, Are you okay with the layout? LaDoris, if you have any questions or need any assistance placing an order I'm happy to help. Publication: PALO ALTO WEEKLY Date: May 06, 2022 Subject: Lifetimes of Achievement. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell Price: $219 (wood plaque add $38) Click Here to view your plaque. Shipping is an additional 10% on the above price but I can give you a FREE SHIPPING if you use code BC10. Celebrating your great news, Kind regards, Kelly Nolan Account Manager That’s Great News 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 any 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. CustomerID (12054829) {"iid":"35538645","cid":"12054829","oid":"6508697709"} Sky Posse Palo Alto July 31, 2022 Palo Alto City Council @City.Council@cityofpaloalto.org Dear Council, Thank you for holding a study session on Airplane Noise. We would like to reiterate Council’s priorities for 2022 - Economic Recovery, Climate Change, Housing, and Community Health and Safety. Public speakers and requests from citizens during Council’s Priority setting off site was largely to address noise and air quality health concerns. Noise, and particularly night and early morning jet noise, have serious quality of life and productivity repercussions. Thus, the impact on the well being of current and future residents is significant to Palo Alto’s resilience - especially for families with our older and youngest residents, and to many who increasingly want to work from home.When the FAA rolled out the Nextgen program in 2014 the response from Palo Alto residents and neighboring communities was swift and unequivocal - noise from poorly designed Nextgen procedures is "brutal" and "unbearable.1" The FAA's quest2 to reduce separation between incoming planes meant air traffic was shifted lower and concentrated over communities. While the FAA and airports have focused on obscuring noise problems, and spend more time highlighting Nextgen "benefits,' in actuality the partnership between FAA and the airline industry is expensive and dysfunctional with benefits that cannot be traced.During a May 2021 Update3 to Congress on Nextgen, the Inspector General plainly stated that the FAA's original benefits analysis was based on “optimistic assumptions.” In the same hearing, it was made clear that Congress has yet to identify a baseline to understand Nextgen benefits or any metrics because the program was launched with none. Environmental costs have not been quantified, and we already know that the FAA's assumptions about noise are wholly flawed. In 2016, the FAA began to tell Congress that noise is a “shared responsibility”with local governments.4 In truth, the FAA has sole responsibility for noise assessments as required by NEPA in order to determine appropriate mitigation measures .The agency has also failed to improve community outreach in spite of testifying to Congress about their efforts, which takes decades to implement and inadequately serve the public or not at all.Lately, the FAA brings industry folks to talk at Roundtables about how airlines and community interests are “aligned,”ignoring public complaints about noise,health, and environmental issues.In almost nine years of observation, the FAA’s community outreach ultimately misleads the 4 FAA Report to Congress on Lessons Learned from Nextgen Projects 3 May 18, 2021 Air Traffic Control Modernization Update Roundtable 2 New FAA Procedures Reduce Separations at Major Airports 1 Petition to Elected Representatives - Reduce Aircraft Noise over Palo Alto and Neighboring Communities Sky Posse Palo Alto public, policy makers, and regularly reinterprets laws as is happening with the 2018 Ombudsman law.5 This law was initiated by quiet skies grassroots groups for the FAA to communicate with community groups, but the money to fund this law is not being used for its intent. Please consider in your study session,Status of National and Regional Airplane Noise Initiatives,the following three Sky Posse requests:1) address the jurisdictional and legal issues that prevent progress; 2) explore a city jet noise complaints app, 3) address the unanimous Select Committee recommendations that can help the MidPeninsula. 1.Jurisdictional and legal issues of FAA’s Community Outreach Policies and Practices ASK TO PACC: Please task the City Attorney to explore and propose a petition for rule change 6 with the FAA about FAA’s Community Outreach practices to address the interests of actual communities by recognizing the current dysfunction of the FAA partnership with airports in managing noise concerns.The City needs to engage advisors who have a strong environmental practice, in government ethics and compliance, and not advisors that derive most of their profits from airports. The most problematic issue about FAA’s Community Outreach is the idea of using airports and airport roundtables as the regulator’s public outreach representatives. While airports are regulated by federal laws, they are owned and operated by cities and counties whose interests are in conflict with the interests of communities impacted by Nextgen. And the stakeholders that profit from airports carry no accountability for issues outside their jurisdiction. As profit-making businesses, airports cannot speak for communities and should not be “one” with the FAA or treat the public as the FAA Western Administrator called the public - “external stakeholders.”The FAA is wrong to try to outsource their noise responsibilities while fighting the public in court, to ignore noise. The SCSC Roundtable and its eventual demise is a case study where a “seat” at the table for Palo Alto also did not help. Funded with our local tax dollars, the SCSC was launched with an agreement between the FAA and Members of Congress who decided what the regional table could or could not talk about.In San Diego, an airport community table initiative seems proud to say that they begin work with communities with an understanding that airport capacity issues are off the table. This is not at all consistent with what the FAA says it wants to do -share responsibility, and it’s an illustration that the FAA is regressing from the first time their leadership met with us in Palo Alto CIty Hall, or is deeply misguided in carrying out its job as a regulator. In 2016, when airports were not leading community discussions, and with the FAA at the table, citizens did put capacity up for discussion.Please see the unanimous Select 6 https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/rulemaking-process#rulemaking 5 https://quietskiesconference.org/2018-reauthorization Sky Posse Palo Alto Committee Recommendation 3.4, on balancing airport capacity and impacts on health. This was a process that involved 12 members and 12 alternate high level elected officials from Santa Clara, San Mateo, and Santa Cruz Counties in nearly 20 meetings over six months. The growth projections from 2016 need review in light of the IG’s comments. Recent airline cancellations are not because of new traffic growth: Capacity Limitations The Select Committee understands that the growth in air traffic for the Bay Area is projected to increase by approximately 2 percent per annum. While overall capacity limitations have not been reached at San Francisco International Airport, the availability of additional daytime flight capacity is limited, and it is anticipated that future traffic growth can only be accommodated during nighttime hours. The impact of additional flights during overnight hours is significantly greater to those on the ground, and requires stricter nighttime regulations to avoid sleep interference, as discussed further in Item 2.4 in this Report (Overnight Flights).Longer term, increased traffic levels may necessitate implementation of capacity limitations, such as longer in-trail spacing between aircraft or assigned gate slots. Recommendation:The Select Committee believes these capacity issues should be considered by any successor committee, as recommended in Item 3.1, Recommendations 1 and 2, in this Report (Need for an Ongoing Venue to Address Aircraft Noise Mitigation). (Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain) The Select Committee also had something to say about “who makes recommendations to whom” and aptly described the FAA’s process as “fundamentally backwards.” Who Makes Recommendations to Whom In the face of widespread concern about aircraft noise over portions of three counties, the Select Committee was empaneled to provide recommendations to Members of Congress on appropriate measures to eliminate or mitigate noise where practicable. The Committee members understood and accepted that assignment, and this Report represents the Committee’s best effort to offer such recommendations. That being said, the mitigation of aircraft noise is a highly technical matter. The Committee was wholly comprised of (elected) lay people. Charging a group of elected lay people with the responsibility for making recommendations in this area seems less than ideal, particularly when the FAA has the requisite expertise and responsibility to manage aircraft traffic in the public interest. Simply put, notwithstanding the FAA’s good faith effort to provide technical expertise to the Committee,the Committee’s view is that the process is fundamentally Sky Posse Palo Alto backwards – the FAA should be going to Members of Congress and their affected constituencies with proposals for review and comment, not the other way around. Recommendation: Should a similar process be employed here or elsewhere in the country in the future, the Select Committee recommends that, to the greatest degree possible, the FAA be charged with the responsibility for identifying and proposing solutions to mitigate noise concerns, and that community groups and elected officials be consulted for review and comment, and to offer additional suggestions. (Vote: __12__ Aye, __0__ Nay, __0__ Absent or Abstain) Any rule change to address the FAA's Community Outreach practices must review how NEPA is being abused; environmental effects of Nextgen and all FAA actions are subject to NEPA disclosure and potential mitigation agreements before implementation,which the FAA evades. Please see our Special Report,The Role of Local Officials in FAA’s NEPA Practices. 2.Explore a new City jet noise complaints app ASK TO PACC: Building on Santa Cruz citizen Adam Worrall’s http://stop.jetnoise.net app that shares anonymized data with airports, academics, citizen researchers, please explore establishing a new City jet noise app. City complaint numbers exist for abandoned vehicles, shoreline noise, fireworks, etc. Reporting aircraft noise requires something like a smart phone app that can identify specific flights and elevations in order to have meaningful data to be collected, archived, and shared in a way that is considerate of the various parties that can use the information. Citizen noise reporting fulfills a communication role that goes beyond airport uses and they need to be handled better than the Airport/FAA status quo. SFO has been working to replace Adam’s app, but with unreasonable constraints. Mayor Burt will recall that prior to Nextgen, impacted citizens did not have contact with SFO’s noise office. Council’s reaction to resident concerns when we approached Council in April 2014 was - how could there be a problem if there aren’t any complaints at SFO? Our early observations, in 2014, about noise complaints to the airport are described here. Citizen reporting data is best managed independently from federal and airport contractors who have conflicts of interests with FAA and airport business - and as has been proven by Adam’s innovation done at his own personal expense.Palo Alto is affected by three international airports and other GA airports, including its own - all with different and cumbersome systems. Our area counts on brilliant researchers and engineers who can advise on a City app. Please work with community experts to modernize the various data and information systems that inform you and for future leaders. Sky Posse Palo Alto 3.Implement the Select Committee’s Unanimous Recommendations ASK TO PACC: Please take the responsible parties of Nextgen national infrastructure to task for implementing the unanimous recommendations of the Select Committee relying on lawful cumulative impacts analysis or fair data capture (not just looking at the footprint of one plane) and relevant metrics. There are several, and these should be considered in GBAS assessments.. ●Southern Arrivals – rec. 2.5.5 to assess a procedure for Southern Arrivals that does not “simply result in noise shifting” ●Flights from the North – rec. 2.2. to utilize the so-called East leg (over the Bay) as much as possible" Recommendation 2.5.5 follows Sky Posse advocacy for a Full Length of the Bay route to have aircraft at high altitudes when going over populations,and with noisy descents over water. The FAA has for too long been neglecting the SC process and its own two offers to the Select Committee for night time noise reduction for the MidPeninsula - voluntary programs and/or what FAA leadership described as infrastructure changes such as a new route. Please note that new route or flight path development is only as good as their eventual appropriate and balanced usage. The FAA recently presented in LA about “Option B” processes7 to address usage which is critical and does not need to wait for the work with GBAS. The Select Committee was formed in response to citizen complaints with the support of elected representatives, to address Nextgen noise. Private citizens devoted thousands of hours to the effort, working with the FAA and members of Congress at their direction, on their terms. In the end, the FAA ignored the committee's recommendations, effectively thumbing their noses at the entire effort. We expect better, and need PACC to be more proactive in advocating to reduce air traffic noise impacting Palo Alto neighborhoods. Thank you, Sky Posse Palo Alto 7 https://www.lawa.org/-/media/lawa-web/environment/lax-community-noise-roundtable/noise_manage ment_presentations/2022/7-20-22-faa-n-downwind-option-b-presentation.ashx From:Sky Posse Post To:Council, City Subject:Airplane Noise Study Session Date:Monday, August 1, 2022 12:10:35 AM Attachments:7.31.22 Draft Comments for PACC study session.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from skypossepost@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please find attached a letter with 3 asks for PACC consideration regarding airplane noise. From:Brown Jonathan To:Council, City Subject:Comments on Agenda Item #3 278 Lambert, 3040 - 3250 Park, 3201-3225 Ash & 200 - 404 Portage Prescreening Study Session: Report on Negotiations Between the City Council Ad Hoc and the Sobrato Organization and Prescreening for Development Agreement and R... Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 10:43:19 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jbrownie2218@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, Thank you for giving the citizens of the Ventura a chance to comment on Agenda Item #3 (Prescreening Study Session) for your August 1, 2022, meeting. I am a proud Venturan who has lived on Fernando Avenue for nearly 20 years. Hopefully you will give us more chances to engage and listen to our input. I oppose the deal in its current form (to the extent it has been described to the public). Particularly given all of the hype the City has generated over the Fry's Site for many years, surely we can do better—more and better-planned housing that includes BMR throughout, not just in a ghetto off to the side; full and contiguous creek renaturalization and parkland commensurate to the added density (rather than widening Ventura’s parkland deficit with this checkerboard proposal); no offices and limited retail that serves those living in the community; and a safe bikeable, walkable community zone where cars are directed to main thoroughfares away from the site and existing neighborhoods rather than through them. 1. The land is zoned for housing and was only ever allowed for retail and office under exceptions which have netted the landowner tremendous profits. In this time of extreme housing shortages in our area, the City would be abdicating its responsibility not to let the exceptions expire and enforce the housing-only zoning of this area. 2. What grounds does Sobrato have to file a lawsuit? Sure, anyone can sue over any claim they can imagine, but the City has not explained why it should not be able to prevail easily in a case where it is trying to enforce existing zoning for housing. If the City refuses to stand its ground more firmly that this site should be predominantly for housing, the housing advocates have shown no hesitation to bring a lawsuit of their own. The City seems to be inviting a lawsuit in which it would lose by trying to avoid a lawsuit that it should win. 3. Palo Alto has said time and again that it needs to correct its office-to-housing imbalance which is currently skewed towards too much office and not enough housing. Incredibly, the proposed deal exacerbates the imbalance by allowing for more office space. At best, it kicks the can down the road by accepting in lieu fees of the kind that have been proven to be mostly hollow over the years. 4. Creek renaturalization and more open space is desperately needed in Palo Alto. But the proposal preserves R&D and other uses of land directly in the path of what should be the creek renaturalization area. Renaturalization won't work in checkerboard fashion, and it makes no sense to have a parking structure so far from the buildings it is intended to serve. Lambert should be dead-ended on both sides of the creek, something that would help the creek, connect open space, and help to calm traffic in an area where cars frequently exceed the speed limit. 5. Please consider the good work that the citizens of Ventura and others did on the NVCAP Committee to develop a plan that envisioned a beautiful new community with affordable housing, parks, some retail and open space. 6. The cannery building is an important piece of Palo Alto history. But that does not mean that it should be preserved in its current form for all time. The land has a higher purpose and should be converted to housing. An appropriate acknowledgement of the history of the site can be made in various forms on the site, but this old building needs to be recycled just like the cans it used to produce. 7. Traffic needs to be studied much more closely. This proposal appears to favor more through car traffic and fewer safe pedestrian, bike and scooter routes. The impacts to existing Ventura residents of cut-through traffic and office commuters are significant. Thank you. Jonathan Brown From:Angela Dellaporta To:Council, City Subject:Item #2 August 1, 2022: Fry’s Site Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 7:56:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members I see much to commend the Portage Avenue/Fry’s Site proposal being considered today. The naturalization of the creek is an excellent development, as is the increase in open/park space. It looks as if a bike lane could lead from Boulware Park through the open space at this new development, which would also be a welcome feature. However, I am dismayed that the City Council is having to sacrifice Palo Alto’s standards — and indeed any chance at creativity — in order to avoid the unnamed litigation referred to in the proposal. Surely there are some better alternatives, especially since the site is zoned purely for residential use? I am dismayed the city is having to make a choice between adequate open/park space and a bit of BMR space. And I’m dismayed that the BMR units must be segregated from the non-BMR units. I am dismayed that the Cannery area is largely to become R&D space, when it could become a welcoming area for residents to congregate, buy food, create and buy art, take lessons, etc. (See below for an example of what is possible, built by the city of Santa Cruz in some old warehouses.) It’s not that I want to eliminate the R&D — I just think it should be more limited. What kind of a city do we really want to be living in? Do we want a Palo Alto that is predominantly offices? Where it’s necessary to drive a car to take care of any errand, or to go out to lunch? Do we want to be locked into a past that allows offices to reign supreme? Or do we want Palo Alto to be vibrant, creative, focused on residents ad welcoming to a wide variety of people? As City Council Members, you ought to create the Palo Alto you want to see. You have the leverage. What do you choose? Thank you, Angela Dellaporta Below, please see photos from a small group of wineries, gastropubs, bike shops and gift shops built in a couple of old warehouses in north Santa Cruz. Bustling and fun, these places attract a wide variety of patrons, encourage bike riding, and promote local artisans. From:Kimberley Wong To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Comments regarding Fry"s site Item No 2, for the August 1, 2022 City Council Meeting Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 7:00:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and City Council Members, As many of you may know, I am a proponent of saving and restoring historic resources that have woven themselves into the fabric of Palo Alto history. Thomas Foon Chew's Cannery is one of those buildings that played a significant part in the development of Palo Alto as a city as one of the 3 largest canning companies in the SF Bay Area aside from Del Monte and Libby. Back in the day the canning company grew to about 1000 workers and was the city's largest employer. We understand that companies such as Sobrato need to be profitable, yet there are ways to create a thriving business and at the same time honor those entrepreneurs who developed the land and businesses before them. If somehow they could save the impressive shell of the cannery building, build microhousing within the walls above with retail and offices below, all walks of life could be served. An open space in the center could become a vibrant courtyard with restaurants and live music, like the Oxbow market of Sonoma. And in turn, the rental income they can reap with these apartments, retail and offices would make it worth their efforts. Plus Sobrato will gain a great reputation by serving the needs of lower income workers who work in Palo Alto who cannot afford to live here and helping small business owners who need a boost to start their businesses. There are many examples of how this combination of micro apartments, retail and offices can work. In Providence Rhode Island a project called The Arcade has worked well with this arrangement. And up and down the Bay Area Peninsula developers are building out many apartment complexes with retail and community spaces below. As new business models reduce the need for going into work since the beginning of the pandemic we as a society and community should focus on developing more affordable housing, community spaces and less office spaces. Please honor our forefathers that built this great city, preserve what has been deemed historic, and build to serve the needs of the community. This in turn will reap tidy profits while the spaces created will develop into a vibrant, thriving and prosperous mecca of sustainable living. Thank you, Kimberley Wong, Granddaughter of Sam Ying Mock, one of the first chinese entrepreneurs to operate a Chinese run restaurant, City Cafe, in downtown Palo Alto starting in 1905 From:Karen Holman To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:Agenda Item 2, Monday Aug 1 comments Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 6:48:30 PM Attachments:Cannery Study session comments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Please find attached comments for the item referenced. Thank you. Karen Re: City Council Meeting August 1, Item 2 340 Portage Avenue prescreening and initial DA (development agreement) terms Honorable Council members, Thank you, staff, and Sobrato for all the effort regarding the predominant portion of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP). What is before the Council appears to accomplish several things associated with the goals of the NVCAP, however, there is much left to be known as to what is actually being accomplished. The staff report invites public input, but there is not enough information provided to provide informed even initial comments due to the questions that the report raises. I try to provide organized questions and comments below so as to be useful in your asking your own questions and providing answers. And apologies for the length. The hope this will be a useful resource going forward. • The report should present the vision and goals of the NVCAP in the body of the report so a view of what is being accomplished can be compared to those guiding principles set forth by Council and that guided the working Group for approximately two years’ work. Providing a number of links is useful for digging deeper into issues but does not replace the transparent and useful information essential and central to commenting on such a significant proposal. • The staff report says the terms of the Processing and Tolling Agreement would avoid a lawsuit. Also, Table 1: Summary of Negotiated Terms and Obligations, first bullet says “settlement agreement for no litigation”. What latitude does the City have? What are the terms of the Agreement beyond what is indicated basically in the staff report and what latitude does the City have to deviate from them should significant issues be identified during community review and CEQA analysis? In other words, what is the City committing to at this stage on properties that have been central to an extensive NVCAP public process that included City staff and Sobrato? • The Cannery property which also includes the Ash building is eligible for the CA Register ,yet the review process indicated does not include the City ‘s Historic Resources Board (HRB) which serves as the City’s public forum for review of historic projects and potential impacts and successes of proposals. Why is the HRB not included in the process? • The staff report indicates that “actions related to the development agreement application are subject to CEQA. It is expected that an EIR would be drafted according to CEQA.” This could be read that the development agreement will not be subject to CEQA but any resulting project applications would be. Please clarify. Also, as presented, there will be 5 separate parcels; it is unclear whether all would be evaluated as one development agreement under CEQA. Since all 5 parcels are part of one planning effort and development agreement, we believe that all need to be considered together to avoid “segmenting” according to CEQA. Please clarify the CEQA process that will take place. • Demolition of a 84,000 sq ft of the Cannery for 74 townhouses---what professional preservation analysis was done to demonstrate whether the existing building could be adaptively reused for housing as demonstrated in other communities? What at least preliminary analysis was done to identify if this action is a significant impact to the Cannery Building/property or not? This is a large element of the proposal, and understanding (or not) whether this is a significant impact is central to the consideration. Why is “renovate” as opposed to “restore” used, especially given the historic significance of the property? • It is not clear why the PC (Planned Community Zone) is being resurrected as opposed to developing specific zoning standards and uses for the parcels identified such as was done for SOFA I. Using the PC seems to leave much undetermined and difficult to analyze. • What is the makeup of the 74 units meaning size of units, number of bedrooms, height, etc? How was 74 units determined? • Sobrato entertained a mini-Target during the NVCAP process. Online indications are that mini- Targets are 15,000 square feet. Please explain how/why the retail sq ft is now 2,600 sq ft? How will the no-profit rent “anticipated” be determined? Does that translate to at no cost or a below market rate or…? A Table needs to be prepared to demonstrate comparatively what is there now and what would be there according to the preliminary plans. For instance, the community is losing retail 84,000 sq ft and gaining approx. 12,000 sq ft of R&D. A Table needs to be prepared to demonstrate comparatively what is required of Sobrato with what is being offered. For instance, a) how much land is required per code for parkland vs 2.5 acres proposed and b) number of affordable housing units required as compared to what is being offered by way of land and money and how many units can be delivered with those offerings. As a note, the value of the land presented in the staff report deviates from what was published in the Mercury in February 2021, $15M/acre vs $6m/acre per the City. Clarification on this would also be appreciated. A Table needs to be prepared to demonstrate comparatively the annual fiscal impacts vs advantages for both the City and Sobrato. For instance, what tax dollars is the City forgoing by conversion of Audi site to R&D and loss of retail space (including potential retail space as a portion of Fry’s) as compared to the annual income produced by the continuation of R&D and additional R&D. Lastly, any proposal of this size and significance requires careful planning. That was the purpose of the NVCAP Working Group. Many in the Working Group and community spoke of the importance and significance of Thomas Foon Chew ‘s Cannery. He was a remarkable individual who impacted literally thousands of lives and livelihoods in Palo Alto and the Peninsula. When it comes to historic properties (CEQA determinations are for properties, not just buildings), care needs to be taken when planning what happens on an historic property, which in this case includes the Cannery and the Ash address which was previously housing that served the Cannery workers. For instance, putting a housing development or parking structure on the property needs to be planned and designed such that any impacts are minimized, avoided or mitigated so as not to negatively impact the historic status of the Cannery due to location, design, size, etc. Three recommendations: 1) Sobrato’s and the City’s architect/s for projects on the site whether they are inside or outside the historic buildings simply must be preservation architect/s. This is also true of additional buildings that will/may occupy the site. There is a phrase that is used when an architect not trained in the preservation discipline tries to develop plans that satisfy the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards…they just never get there, because it is not their discipline. 2) Respect the individual and broad implications of the Cannery property by changing the name of the street that leads to the Cannery from Portage to Thomas Foon Chew Cannery Way (as example). Simply read the Page & Turnbull report to gain a better understanding of the significance of this one man who, as an immigrant, became an industry leader in the world. 3) The City and/or Sobrato could appropriately honor and respect Mr. Chew as well as the importance of the Cannery property by adding the property to the CA and Palo Alto Historic Registers. Neither requires owner consent, but there is little reason to think Sobrato would oppose listing given the Secretary of Interior’s Standards, as mentioned in the staff report, apply with or without such listings. I doubt anyone anticipates getting all they want in any proposal. This is surely no exception. But knowledge always leads to better outcomes with fewer surprises and less upset. Respectfully submitted, Karen Holman From:Aram James To:Winter Dellenbach; Roberta Ahlquist; Human Relations Commission; darylsavage@gmail.com; Dennis Upton; Kaloma Smith; epatoday@epatoday.org; melissa caswell; Gennady Sheyner; Foley, Michael; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Council, City; Betsy Nash; Cecilia Taylor; Shikada, Ed; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky Subject:Petition to fire Zack Perron Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 5:39:38 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://chng.it/t8VmknwT7S Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Perron, Zachary; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Binder, Andrew; Joe Simitian; chuck jagoda; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; Greer Stone; Jay Boyarsky; Rebecca Eisenberg; Raj; Josh Becker; Figueroa, Eric; Foley, Michael; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; ladoris cordell; Cindy Chavez; Sajid Khan Subject:Petition · Fire Palo Alto PD Capt. Zach Perron · Change.org Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 5:35:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://chng.it/t8VmknwT7S Sent from my iPhone From:Sheri Furman To:Council, City Subject:Council Agenda item #9: 1033 Amarillo Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 3:52:45 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sheri11@earthlink.net. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and Council Members, I respectfully ask you to deny the Request for a Preliminary Parcel Map with Exceptions toSubdivide a 20,787 square foot R-1 property into two lots. I concur with the majority PTC decision to deny the request “because of the uncertainty ofthe outcome and because not all the findings can made specifically finding #2 of the ParcelMap findings and findings #2 and #4 of the exception findings.” My concerns include: Granting an approval without knowing what the final building project would be. The potential loss of the existing 4 one-story cottage cluster housing. If redevelopment occurs, the existing moderately priced housing will certainly bereplaced by expensive market rate housing. Whereas the existing housing fits nicely in the surrounding environment, it could potentially be replaced by up to eight buildings, due to a potential future split of thetwo lots into two additional parcels each. The Comp Plan explicitly supports retention of moderately-priced housing and also supports retention of cottage clusters. If you approve this lot split, you don’t know what the resulting development will be,essentially providing the applicant a blank check. By rejecting the lot split, you are asking the applicant to come back to the City with aspecific project, and as Commissioner Reckdahl suggested, maybe some more units withperhaps guaranteed affordability on some of the units. Please carefully consider the consequences—both intended and unintended—of approvingthis request. Given the increasing strict state laws, one can never assume current rules willbe allowed in the future. Hence, it is best to spell out now what you believe is mostappropriate for the property in question. Thank you, Sheri Furman Midtown From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Binder, Andrew; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Pat Burt; Burt, Patrick; Maloney, Con; Cody@salfenlaw.com Subject:I believe a racist city council will Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 3:47:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. support a racist police chief to promote there agenda on August 8th. You can have all the education in the world Andrew, but you can’t escape the legacy of your past. Albert Hopkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace Sent from my iPad From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Pat Burt; Burt, Patrick; Council, City; Milton, Lesley; Binder, Andrew Subject:The man with the plan and a George Wallace mentality Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 3:45:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://twitter.com/PAFreePress/status/1553872109604069376?s=20&t=xyqfoOqO0wDfASZSJgN9KA “[I]t is a prized American privilege to speak one’s mind, although not always with perfect good perfect taste on all public institution.” Bridges v. California, 314 U.S. 252,270. Mark Petersen-Perez Editor-in-chief Palo Alto Free Press Reporting from Nicaragua From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; Winter Dellenbach; Joe Simitian; epatoday@epatoday.org; Jeff Rosen; chuck jagoda; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Jay Boyarsky; Jethroe Moore; Rebecca Eisenberg; Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Raj Subject:Fire Zack Perron petition Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 3:19:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.change.org/p/palo-alto-police-department-fire-palo-alto-pd-capt-zach- perron/psf/promote_or_share Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Josh Becker; wilpfpeninsulapaloalto@gmail.com; Cindy Chavez; Joe Simitian; Human Relations Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Council, City; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; chuck jagoda; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew; Greer Stone; Raj; Figueroa, Eric; Jethroe Moore; Planning Commission Subject:Gov. Candidate Advisor: Jewish People Don"t Belong In Our Movement Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 3:03:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Scary shit!!! https://youtu.be/E1zjhpXTR2o Sent from my iPhone From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Binder, Andrew; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Pat Burt; Burt, Patrick; Maloney, Con; Cody@salfenlaw.com; ladoris cordell; Milton, Lesley Subject:I believe a racist city council will Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 2:53:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. support a racist police chief to promote there agenda on August 8th. You can have all the education in the world Andrew, but you can’t escape the legacy of your past. Albert Hopkins http://www.paloaltohistory.org/albert-hopkins-beating.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Wallace Sent from my iPad From:Elaine Johnson To:Council, City Subject:Public comment for 8/1 North Ventura study session Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 2:02:33 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from elaine@swagman.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. ________________________________ Dear City Council, I am a homeowner at 251 Chestnut Avenue in Ventura and wish to share comments for the 8/1 North Ventura study session about redevelopment of the former Fry’s area. —First, for future council meetings and notices sent to neighborhood homeowners, I’d like to request that you include a link to a succinct summary of the issues to be discussed, in language that people who are not involved in city planning can understand. I received a postcard about the meeting and wish I had a clearer understanding about what is on the table. I have waded through past council minutes and Palo Alto Weekly articles to educate myself and try and understand the issues. —Specifically, would you please address at the 8/1 meeting: • What does “prescreening for development agreement and rezoning” mean for this site? • What are the “negotiated terms” being considered? • If the zoning is currently RM-30 and GM, what is being considered? —My neighbors are telling me that City Council has already worked out a deal with Sobrato about the former Fry’s site but is now asking for public comment. If there truly is an opportunity to share input, here are my thoughts: • I support Alt 3B to provide more BMR housing and more open space at the former Fry’s site. • As a city and as a neighborhood, we do not need ANY more office space or R&D space. We have blocks and blocks of commercial spaces sitting empty. More and more people are working from home. If the only reason we are supporting office space is to incentivize benefits and housing, then we need a more creative funding solution. • I support overriding the historic nature of the old cannery at 340 Portage and demolishing it in order to achieve the maximum amount of housing in the space. We can honor the history of the cannery and the architect with public signage. • I am in favor of naturalized creek restoration. • Whatever is built in the space, please, please do not underpark the area. People have cars and they need a place to put them. It is wishful thinking that the proximity to CalTrain means people won’t own cars. If you do not plan for parking, then people will clog the neighborhood streets with their cars. Thank you for taking my comments. Sincerely, Elaine Johnson From:Neera Sodhi Narang To:Council, City Subject:Comments regarding Redevelopment of Fry"s site: Item #2, 8.1.22 Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 1:58:23 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from neera.sodhi@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and City Council Members, I wish to raise some concerns after reviewing the most recent plans for redevelopment of the Fry's site. 1. I'm concerned about the fact that negotiations proceeded after the threat of a lawsuit from Sobrato - other developers will be paying close attention and I'm sure will hope to achieve their goals in a similar way in the future. 2. Palo Alto needs more affordable housing, not overpriced townhomes - the fact that below market housing is not the main priority is a major missed opportunity for the current iteration of the plan. I would propose using the existing site for market-rate townhomes to instead accommodate affordable housing, and in turn be able to dedicate more of the proposed BMR housing site to additional green space which could be appreciated by both the on-site residents and our local ventura community. 3. Ventura is the most densely developed part of Palo Alto, and is still the site of future development goals for the city. Having adequate green space is essential to helping our section of town continue to thrive and promote a healthy lifestyle. I'm glad to see that there is greenspace being planned, but worry that improvements such as creek naturalization will take decades - I would like to make sure that existing plans include immediate implementation of park space etc while linking to these longer term goals. respectfully, Neera Narang (Fernando Ave, Ventura) From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Milton, Lesley; ladoris cordell Cc:Pat Burt; Burt, Patrick; Bains, Paul; Human Relations Commission; Diana Diamond; darylsavage@gmail.com; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Stump, Molly; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Tony Ciampi; Cody@salfenlaw.com; Maloney, Con; Reifschneider, James; Sean Webby; Sue Dremann; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Jonsen, Robert; Rebecca Eisenberg; Wagner, April; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner Subject:Total systemic failure….So much for the police auditors reports and recommendation thats a failure as well…..Screenshot 2022-07-31 at 12.22.08 PM Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 11:30:18 AM Attachments:Screenshot 2022-07-31 at 12.22.08 PM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Mark Petersen-Perez Editor-in-chief Palo Alto Free PressRecording from Nicaragua From:Paul Machado To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Lydia Kou; Stone, Greer; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Subject:If you will sue Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 10:56:27 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from plmachado@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. First, I agree with this community letter.............. Dear Mayor Burt and Council Members: We the undersigned of the Ventura Neighborhood Association object to the current proposal for development of the Fry’s site, citing the following reasons: 1. The demolition of 1/3 of a significant historic resource, of unique importance to Asian-American history. The cannery’s very size is part of its historic value. The NVCAP working group evaluated alternatives that would preserve the entire building. 2. The property is zoned for housing, yet the proposal is office intensive. The whole point was to build as much housing there as possible, sunsetting the commercial uses as promised by previous Councils 3. Segregating the below market rate housing from the market rate housing violates the core principles that Palo Alto has strived to achieve over many decades. Completely unnecessary and undesirable, segregation smacks of city-backed redlining. 4. By caving to the threats of a lawsuit, the City only encourages other developers to use the same bully tactics. 5. This proposal falls far short of the vision that many NVCAP volunteers had for the Fry's site.. The proposal converts a community-oriented auto repair building into non-community-serving offices - that's another step in the wrong direction. We end up with more R&D office space than currently exists at a time when what we need is housing. This can't be the best option. The public isn't going for this. We hope you will do better by us. Please give the public time to submit alternatives. One example, suppose the applicant were willing to give up something in exchange for preserving R&D. Since they have no right to tear down any of the cannery building due to its significance anyway, we could let them keep 2/3 R&D and have the rest be a community center or some other public benefit. We could put housing and a garage elsewhere on the site. That’s just one idea. Please keep iterating until we find something that we can all cheer for. Sincerely, Ventura Neighborhood Association Members Becky Sanders Scott Van Duyne Gary Mahany Susan Kemp Chris King Christopher Jette Pearlin Yang Jamila Rufaro Caleb Hauser Carla Wray Second, I know my mother and many other mothers worked in the cannery during the season and this bonus money was critical to many working class families. The cannery was at the heart of the Mayfield community. Third, my kindergarten teacher at Mayfield grammar school, Mrs. Burt, taught the importance of our history and how we owe much to those who came before us, and that their contributions to our community should be treasured. Fourth, threats of lawsuits should not be allowed to dictate public policy making those with unlimited resources be above the law and the rest of us subject to the city's rules and regulations. Thank you all for your service to our city and for your careful consideration of this matter. Paul Machado From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Stump, Molly; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Brian Welch Cc:Council, City; Tony Ciampi; Wagner, April; James Aram; Binder, Andrew; Afanasiev, Alex; Maloney, Con; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Pat Burt; Burt, Patrick; ladoris cordell; Milton, Lesley; Shikada, Ed; Diana Diamond; Sean Webby; Sue Dremann; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner Subject:SCHMIDLIN v. CITY OF PALO ALTO Screenshot 2022-07-31 at 4.24.50 AM Date:Sunday, July 31, 2022 3:51:39 AM Attachments:Screenshot 2022-07-31 at 4.24.50 AM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ This was the work of your predecessor Gary Bomb but you picked off on his legacy of litigating police brutality case’s and a assorted violations of other atrocities against the citizenry and visitors of Palo Alto. As I mentioned earlier, you were very clever and shrewd in the Tony Campi in settling for only $35,000. Now I could be wrong. Ladoris Cordell she officiated behind closed doors now I remember… “Here comes the Judge” TV program “laugh in” Row Martin ? Anyway I’ll need to do more research on that one. But, please correct me if the credit should be attributed to someone else. But Tony’s constitutional rights were grossly violated by the poster woman of the Palo Alto Police Department April Chan Wagner Mark Petersen-Perez Editor-in-chief Palo Alto Free PressReporting from Nicaragua From:Aram James To:robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Tannock, Julie; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Pat Burt; Reifschneider, James; Figueroa, Eric; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Foley, Michael; Bains, Paul; Pat Burt; ladoris cordell; Council, City; Planning Commission; chuck jagoda; Joe Simitian; Winter Dellenbach; Jeff Rosen; Jethroe Moore; Greer Stone; Jay Boyarsky; Enberg, Nicholas; Josh Becker; Rebecca Eisenberg; Sajid Khan; bnunez brnservices.com; Diana Diamond; Cindy Chavez; Perron, Zachary; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Raj; Cecilia Taylor; Alison Cormack; Braden Cartwright; Emily Mibach; Betsy Nash; Dave Price Subject:In New York, Yonkers Promises Police Reform. Can It Be Done? | The Marshall Project Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 11:01:51 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Mayor Burt: et al —-please check this NPR series out. We can all learn from it even the cops suing over the BLM mural. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2022/07/14/we-spent-a-year-following-a-troubled-police-force-listen-to-what- we-learned-about-reform Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Shikada, Ed; Joe Simitian; Winter Dellenbach; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Greer Stone; Jethroe Moore; Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Figueroa, Eric; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:It’s Crushing”: The Lasting Trauma of the Exonerated Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 6:05:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.  Closing Argument This week's art is by Ryan Austin Lee. Full work below. DONATE BY JAMILES LARTEY If there’s one story of wrongful conviction that most people know, it’s that of the Exonerated Five. The New York City teens, all Black or Latino, were convicted in the 1989 rape of a Central Park jogger, and incarcerated for six to 14 years each before another man confessed. Few people remembered that there was a sixth defendant on that indictment: Steven Lopez, who had accepted a plea deal for a lesser charge before trial and served about three years in prison. Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg finally exonerated Lopez this week. It’s a powerful reminder that even in cases that would seem to be under a microscope, wrongful convictions are shot through the criminal system, and for the innocent, there’s rarely a simple path to exoneration, or back to life on the outside. “It’s PTSD that all of us in this sort of fraternity suffer,” Herman Atkins told NBC News, in a story this week about the lasting trauma of Black men convicted of crimes they didn’t commit. Black Americans make up half of all exonerees, despite being only about 13% of the nation’s population. In 2000, DNA evidence cleared Atkins of a rape conviction. Even two decades later, he told NBC News, he’s constantly seeking to establish alibis, hoarding receipts and staring into security cameras, just to avoid being wrongfully accused of a crime again. “Being in prison when you know you shouldn’t be there is hard to describe. It’s crushing,” Atkins said. “You are fearful of death almost every second, conditioned in ways that bring on paranoia and anger.” A study released last month of 59 exonerees — researchers said it was the largest study of its kind — found that 80% experienced at least one serious traumatic event while incarcerated. More than half of exonerees showed significant signs of PTSD, higher than the reported rate among combat veterans. Money is another challenge for people who have spent years removed from the labor market on the outside. Under Ohio law, Charles Jackson was entitled to about $52,000 per year for the 28 years he spent wrongfully incarcerated. He said the sum will help him to take care of his mother and siblings, but also said it’s only a “first step.” “I don’t think they can ever make it right,” Jackson said after a court earlier this month declared he had been wrongfully imprisoned. Jackson’s lawyers argued that police lied and made up evidence used to convict him for a 1991 murder, and also withheld exculpatory evidence from prosecutors and from Jackson’s defense. “They mess your whole life up, your family’s lives, and then it takes a long time to get yourself together,” Jackson said. There are two routes for exonerees to receive cash compensation. The first is what’s called “no-fault statutory compensation.” That’s when the law sets an amount to be paid per year of incarceration. This requires no trial, and no admission of wrongdoing by the state. According to the Innocence Project, 38 states, along with the federal government and the District of Columbia have laws like this, with the most common amount set at $50,000 per year. A report from the National Registry of Exonerations found that only about 41% of exonerees in states with compensation laws have actually received money. The second avenue for compensation is through civil trials, where exonerees may win verdicts or settlements by proving misconduct or civil rights violations by government officials. These can yield much larger payouts, but can take years and are not guaranteed. Last week, a Chicago City Council committee approved a $6.75 million settlement for Norman McIntosh, eight years after his murder conviction was vacated. McIntosh had spent nearly 15 years in prison. In his case, officials said, police relied on three witnesses who recanted and said they falsely identified McIntosh. Back in February, Bloomberg Law reported that some investors are now seeking to “buy” these cases from exonerees. Similar to companies that buy structured settlements — if you’ve watched daytime television, you probably have their commercial jingles stuck in your head — financiers offer recently exonerated people cash now, in exchange for a big cut of their likely restitution. Behind many exonerations are acts of police misconduct, prosecutorial misconduct, or both. In New York City this week, a group of law professors published new complaints against 17 city prosecutors, “highlighting behavior that in many cases sent innocent people to prison,” The New York Times writes. The professors argue that historically, prosecutors who engage in misconduct — even when recognized by other prosecutors or by a judge — are rarely subject to public discipline. The professors had to fight in court just to post their complaints publicly, giving a sense of how insulated from scrutiny prosecutors generally are. Lastly, any discussion of exonerations is a good time to resurface this 2021 article in the Atlantic on what Elizabeth Bruenig called our “dangerous obsession with innocence” as it relates to the death penalty. She argues this preoccupation has “created a legal exoneration infrastructure suited to a relatively small number of inmates, leaving little room for the broader range of death-row occupants just as much in need of help.” THE BEST OF THE MARSHALL PROJECT [CENSORED] In the 11th edition of News Inside, our print publication distributed in jails and prisons, we’re tackling topics of drugs, violence and sex — and hoping the content screeners don’t censor us. TMP Context: Do you have what it takes to be a prison censor? The Marshall Project Be The Change. Part three of our series on the Yonkers police department, in partnership with NRP’s Embedded, digs into why there are so few Black officers, and why the ones who are there often feel the cards are stacked against them. They miss the real me. A recent ride to a public clinic gave Jose Armendariz a quick break from jail. But he couldn’t escape the fear and judgment of other patients. He explains in the latest installment of our “Life Inside” series. Each week, Closing Argument highlights the work of an artist with personal experience ofincarceration. This piece is by Ryan Austin Lee. Jamiles Lartey is a New Orleans-based staff writer for The Marshall Project. Previously, he worked as a reporter for the Guardian covering issues of criminal justice, race and policing. Jamiles was a member of the team behind the award-winning online database “The Counted,” tracking police violence in 2015 and 2016. In 2016, He was named “Michael J. Feeney Emerging Journalist of the Year” by the National Association of Black Journalists. Want less email? Update your preferences. Have Feedback? Reply to this email with your thoughts. This email was sent to abjpd1@gmail.com why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences The Marshall Project · 156 West 56th Street · Suite 701 · New York, NY 10019 · USA From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:August 1, 2022 Council Meeting, Item #10: Proposed Tax Measures and Spending Guidelines Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 5:50:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ​Herb BorockP. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94302 July 30, 2022 Palo Alto City Council250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94302 AUGUST 1, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #10PROPOSED TAX MEASURES AND SPENDING GUIDELINES Dear City Council: A trial court has ruled that the General Fund needs to refundto gas utility customers $12.6 million. The City is appealing the court's decision and if the Cityprevails, the Natural Gas Utility Transfer ballot measure wouldnot be needed. Although the City has set aside funds to pay the courtjudgement, attorney's fees, and court costs if the plaintiffprevails, the ballot measure would allow the City to transferfunds from the Gas Utility to the General Fund where all moneysin the General Fund are fungible, and a court could easilydetermine that the proposed ballot measure would violate theprohibition against future ratepayers paying the refunds thatare due past ratepayers. It makes more sense to me for the City to express its intentthat any refunds due ratepayers, plus attorney's fees and courtcosts, be paid from the proceeds of the other proposed ballotmeasure for a business license tax. That way, the City could not be accused of taxing futureratepayers to pay the refunds due past ratepayers. Also, the City can then implement its policy of converting gasappliances to electric appliances that would require the City aset a higher tax rate from a decreasing revenue stream to raisethe $7 million a year the City would be authorized to collectif the ballot measure is adopted. The Advisory Spending Guidelines for Business Tax Proceedsappear to be based on arguments that received more supportduring polling rather than on what purposes need new taxrevenue. For example, affordable housing is defined as housing formoderate-income earners, when the City's deficit in meeting itsRegional Housing Needs Assessment quotas is primarily for low-income and very-low-income earners, and the resolution languageshould be changed to reflect that fact. Also, the need to fund grade separations is said to be based onmaintaining traffic flow, bicycle and pedestrian mobility, andsafety because that language polls well, when the real need forgrade separations is to facilitate more development that willgenerate more commuters who primarily travel alone in theircars and will need more grade separations because the existinggrade separations' commute traffic is at the capacity of thoseroads. The grade separation language is combined with the other usesin the resolution because the drafters believe voters will passall of them together, even though the grade separation languagemight not pass if it is submitted separately to the voters. If the grade separation language remains, I will vote againstthe tax measure. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock From:pennyellson12@gmail.com To:Council, City Cc:Planning Commission Subject:FW: Urgent Request From PABAC to City Council re: Caltrans El Camino Real Repaving Project Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 3:50:55 PM Attachments:4J89U_ Fact Sheet_3.15.22.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Also resending this letter (pasted below) because Council has been on break and urgent action on a letter from Council is requested by PABAC. PABAC has received no reply. PTC is cc’d for their information. Thank you for your service to our community. Penny Ellson, 2022 Chair, Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee From: pennyellson12@gmail.com <pennyellson12@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 10:23 AM To: 'City Council' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: 'Art Liberman' <art_liberman@yahoo.com>; 'PABAC' <PABAC@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Urgent Request From PABAC to City Council re: Caltrans El Camino Real Repaving Project Honorable Mayor Burt & City Council, Your urgent action is requested by the Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) with regard to Caltrans’ El Camino Real (SR82) Repaving Project. El Camino Real (SR82) repaving planning has been underway for a number of years and construction is scheduled to begin in 2023. At PABAC’s request, our March 1, 2022 meeting included a 3-page report of requests city staff has made to Caltrans with regard to bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements that might be incorporated in the planned repaving process. (See Attachment B, p.15 of 38 on the March 1 PABAC agenda here https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/transportation/bicycling-walking/pabac/pabac- meeting-2022/3_1_2022-pabac-agenda-packet.pdf ). There is no Caltrans web page on the Palo Alto portion of this project, so the public cannot find information about what is being proposed, current project status, project timelines, project review/approval process. At PABAC’s request, staff reached out to Caltrans for a project status update, and Caltrans offered only an Updated Fact Sheet with very limited information which was presented at PABAC’s April 5 meeting. (See attached pdf.) According to this sheet, environmental documents are complete, design completion was scheduled for Spring 2022, construction should begin Summer 2023 and end Fall 2024. Though the Fact Sheet says design will be complete Spring 2022, City staff has not yet seen 95% plans, nor have they received notice of a specific date when they will. PROJECT FACT SHEET EA #4J89U (Project ID: 0416000023) Project Type: In-House (SHOPP) DESCRIPTION: This project proposes to cold plane and overlay existing AC pavement, repair localized failed AC pavement, repair localized failed PCC pavement along SR 82 from 0.5 mile north of SR-237 to Sand Hill Road. This pavement conservation project also proposes to upgrade the existing non-standard ADA curb ramps with new ADA curb ramps in compliance with the American Disability Act (ADA) and California Complete Street Act. PURPOSE & NEED: Purpose: The purpose of this project is to preserve and extend the life of existing pavement and improve ride quality and to upgrade existing pedestrian facilities to comply with current ADA Standards and to improve safety, access and mobility for pedestrians at signalized intersections on the State Highway System Need: The project is initiated to meet the requirements of Capital Preventive Maintenance (CAPM) program to improve ride quality, to comply with current ADA standard, and to improve safety, access, and mobility of pedestrians at these locations. PROJECT SCOPE: • Cold plane and overlay existing AC pavement, • Repair localized failed AC and PCC pavement. • Upgrade the existing curb ramps to new ADA compliant curb ramps. • Repair curbs and gutters. • Upgrade APS (Accessible Pedestrian Signal) at the crosswalks • Upgrade drainage inlets. • Upgrade pavement delineations per MUTCD. CURRENT STATUS: Project is in Design (PS&E) phase. Project Manager: Eunmi Choi Design Manager: Son Ly COUNTY: SANTA CLARA (ROUTE 82 – Pavement Rehabilitation and ADA Improvements) (Post Miles:18.2/26.4) SCHEDULE: Milestone Status Dates (A = Actual) or (T = Tentative) Environmental Documents Spring 2020(A) Design Complete Spring 2022 (T) Begin Construction Summer 2023 (T) End Construction Fall 2024 (T) FUNDING: Construction Capital: $33.86 M Funding through SHOPP El Camino Real carries high volumes of motor vehicle traffic, including the city’s only VTA bus lines with ten-minute headways. It presents a challenging barrier to hundreds of school commuters who use multiple k-12 school routes that cross the multi-lane, fast-moving state highway and to others who walk and bike across and along SR82. As El Camino Real repaving happens only about once every thirty years, using this repaving opportunity to address existing hazards is important. Some of the highest collision intersections in the city are on El Camino Real. Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) asks you to please write a letter to Caltrans re: the El Camino Real (SR82) Repaving project requesting a project web page with: 1. current plans, 2. project status, 3. project timelines, 4. and the review/approval process, including a timely way for local resident comments to be incorporated into Caltrans plans. Thank you for considering our request. Sincerely, Penny Ellson, Chair, Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee Art Liberman, Vice Chair, Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee This email has been checked for viruses by AVG antivirus software. www.avg.com From:pennyellson12@gmail.com To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board Cc:Liberman, Art Subject:Request from PABAC for opportunity to review future bicycle/pedestrian projects like California Avenue/Ramona Street Closure Extension Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 3:42:32 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from pennyellson12@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Resending this (pasted below) because I know City Council has been on break, and PABAC has received no reply. Copying PTC and ARB because they are mentioned herein. I hope you all are returning refreshed from a relaxing month off. Thank you for all you do. Penny Ellson 2022 Chair, City of Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) From: pennyellson12@gmail.com <pennyellson12@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, June 8, 2022 11:06 AM To: 'City Council' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: 'Art Liberman' <art_liberman@yahoo.com>; 'PABAC' <PABAC@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Request from PABAC for opportunity to review future bicycle/pedestrian projects like California Avenue/Ramona Street Closure Extension Honorable City Council, On behalf of the Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), we write to request that future bike/pedestrian projects like the California Avenue/Ramona Street Closure extension item are provided adequate time for review by appropriate committees, boards, and commissions. This bicycle/pedestrian project was not reviewed by PABAC, Planning & Transportation Commission, or the Architectural Review Board before it came to City Council. PABAC requested a review, but we were told that staff could not have materials ready for review in time for our meeting that preceded the agendized Council Action Item. While we understand that your recent decision on this item will result in only temporary changes, signs that tell bicyclists to dismount and walk on California Avenue are a problem. This street provides a direct route for hundreds of bicycle commuters from the train station to SRP, as well as for cyclists who use the Cal Ave tunnel to commute from Mountain View and other parts of Palo Alto to SRP and Stanford University. While you considered the concerns of retailers and restauranteurs in your deliberations, consideration must also be given to the community of bicycle riders and bicycle commuters. Diversion of bikes to parallel streets where you have directed motor vehicles adds time and risk to a bike commute and creates a nuisance. Some bicyclists will simply ignore the sign (as they do now), and this will contribute to a perception that bicyclists are rule breakers. While we understand, appreciate, and share your intent to protect pedestrian safety, there are alternative solutions that should have been considered. We ask that adequate time is built into the schedule for these citizen committees to have opportunity to review the next iteration of this project before permanent proposals for these areas are reviewed by City Council. Thank you for considering our comments. Sincerely, Penny Ellson, Chair, Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee Art Liberman, Vice Chair, Palo Alto Pedestrian & Bicycle Advisory Committee Virus-free. www.avg.com From:Dan Kostenbauder To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 10: Business Tax Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 2:42:35 PM Attachments:2022 08 01 City Council meeting submission--general fund revenue per resident.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from dkostenbauder@svlg.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, Attached is a memo regarding the proposed business tax that compares the general fund revenue per resident of Palo Alto to that of a number of neighboring cities. Best regards, Dan Kostenbauder Dan Kostenbauder Vice President, Tax Policy 650.454.7708 | dkostenbauder@svlg.org Connect with us: Twitter | LinkedIn | Facebook From Dan Kostenbauder, VP Tax Policy, Silicon Valley Leadership Group To Palo Alto City Council Re Proposed Business Tax The Palo Alto business community has been concerned about the Council’s approach to the proposed business tax. From the start, the City Council has been considering a business tax that is disproportionately higher than the business taxes in neighboring communities. For example, the business tax based on headcount that the City Council of Mountain View placed on the 2018 ballot was expected to raise about $6 million. The City Council of Santa Clara just voted to put a business tax on the November 2022 ballot that they estimate would raise about $6 million, with a cap of $350,000 for any one taxpayer. Sunnyvale has a cap on the tax that any one business would pay of less than $14,000 and San Jose has a cap of less than $167,000. All four of those cities have populations greater than the population of Palo Alto. The Palo Alto City Council has been considering a business tax that would impose a significantly higher tax burden on Palo Alto businesses without a cap on the amount any particular business would pay. In addition, the Council has never been very clear about the intended use for additional tax revenue. The current draft resolution establishing advisory spending guidelines seems to be based on polling information rather than any analysis of the City’s needs. Another way of looking at the fiscal situation in Palo Alto is to compare the general fund revenue per resident of Palo Alto with other neighboring cities. The list below makes it clear that Palo Alto should have sufficient funds to take care of the City’s basic needs and that any new tax burden imposed on Palo Alto businesses should be for a specific purpose rather than just adding more tax revenue to the general fund. The general fund revenue per resident of San Francisco is $7,806, but this amount includes revenue from the County of San Francisco as well as the City of San Francisco. Because San Francisco reports city and county revenue and spending together, it cannot be compared directly with the cities below in San Mateo, Santa Clara or Alameda counties. The list below shows the general fund revenue per resident for a number of cities in the Bay Area. The resident number is from the U.S. Census Bureau as of July 1, 2021, which is the most recent number available. The general fund revenue is the FY 21-22 revenue from city council websites. There clearly are differences among the many cities listed. Nevertheless, the Palo Alto general fund per resident is significantly higher than the next closest city and double or even triple the level of many others. In view of this, the City Council should provide a much stronger justification for needing additional revenue that it has to this point. There are three tables below. The first lists general fund revenue per resident. The second lists the population, general fund revenue and general fund revenue per resident in ascending order of population. The third provides URLs for the U.S. Census Bureau and the city website pages that show general fund revenue. General Fund / City Resident Palo Alto $3,096 Santa Clara $2,249 Burlingame $2,228 Redwood City $1,966 Menlo Park $1,931 Mountain View $1,796 South San Francisco $1,698 Los Altos $1,645 San Jose $1,613 Foster City $1,577 Cupertino $1,529 Los Gatos $1,453 San Carlos $1,532 Milpitas $1,399 San Mateo $1,389 Campbell $1,337 San Bruno $1,195 Sunnyvale $1,184 Morgan Hill $1,156 Daly City $1,094 Gilroy $1,052 East Palo Alto $1,048 Belmont $1,042 Fremont $1,033 U.S. Census Bureau 2021-22 Budget General Fund / City Pop. Est. 1 July 2021 General Fund Revenue Resident Belmont 27,225 $28,376,338 $1,042 East Palo Alto 28,847 $30,221,450 $1,048 San Carlos 30,034 $46,016,100 $1,532 Burlingame 30,106 $67,076,422 $2,228 Los Altos 30,700 $50,511,068 $1,645 Menlo Park 32,475 $62,703,307 $1,931 Foster City 32,517 $51,277,019 $1,577 Los Gatos 32,538 $47,264,203 $1,453 San Bruno 42,275 $50,519,441 $1,195 Campbell 42,745 $57,130,551 $1,337 Morgan Hill 45,342 $52,400,000 $1,156 Gilroy 58,101 $61,137,064 $1,052 Cupertino 58,622 $89,647,891 $1,529 South San Francisco 64,251 $109,076,478 $1,698 Palo Alto 66,680 $206,452,000 $3,096 Milpitas 79,066 $110,639,648 $1,399 Mountain View 81,516 $146,412,000 $1,796 Redwood City 81,643 $160,498,556 $1,966 Daly City 101,243 $110,777,898 $1,094 San Mateo 102,200 $141,967,845 $1,389 Santa Clara 127,151 $286,025,931 $2,249 Sunnyvale 152,258 $180,233,743 $1,184 Fremont 227,514 $235,048,000 $1,033 San Jose 983,489 $1,586,737,216 $1,613 Censu s link-- > U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Cupertino city, California; Palo Alto city, California; Santa Clara County, California City page(s) of city budget website: Belmont p 46 https://www.belmont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/20567/637847607 557470000 East Palo Alto p 44 https://www.cityofepa.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/finance/page/4 321/adopted_fy_2021-22_budget_updated.pdf San Carlos p13 1 https://www.cityofsancarlos.org/home/showdocument?id=6809&t=63784831 3397355170 Burlingame p 83 https://cms6.revize.com/revize/burlingamecity/FY%202021-22%20Budget.pdf Los Altos p 74 https://user-ddhj25y.cld.bz/Recommended-FY-2022-2024-Operating-Budget- and-CIP Menlo Park p 20 https://beta.menlopark.org/files/sharedassets/public/administrative- services/documents/finance/menlo-park-fiscal-year-2021-22-budget.pdf Foster City p 91 https://www.fostercity.org/sites/default/files/fileattachments/financial_servic es/page/3521/fy_2021-2022_final_budget.pdf Los Gatos p 16, 23 https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/28129/8-Financial- Summaries-Section San Bruno p 45 https://www.sanbruno.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2052/6121SpecialMeeti ng?bidId= Campbell p 51 101 - General Fund | FY 2022 Adopted Budget (07-01-21) (cleargov.com) Morgan Hill p 2 http://www.morgan-hill.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/41162/Budget-in-Brief- FY-2022-23--2023- 24?bidId=#:~:text=The%20Recommended%20FY%202022%2D23,million%20in %20revenues%20and%20expenditures. Gilroy p 13, 51 https://www.cityofgilroy.org/DocumentCenter/View/12223/Fiscal-Year-2022- and-2023-Adopted- Budget#:~:text=The%20City's%20budget%20for%20all,and%20%24131.7%20m illion%20in%20FY23. Cupertino p 16, 43 https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/29685/63763513 0686500000 South San Francisco p 4 https://city-south-san-francisco-ca-budget-book.cleargov.com/3080/funding- sources/city-wide-revenues-by-type Palo Alto p 8,17, 89 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/administrative- services/city-budgets/fy-2022-city-budget/adopted-budgets/operating- budget_web.pdf Milpitas p 96 https://www.milpitas.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/FY21-22-Adopted- Budget-Final-7.21.21-1.pdf Mountain View p 139 https://www.mountainview.gov/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=3630 2 Redwood City p 87 https://webapps.redwoodcity.org/files/pws/main/Adopted-Budget-21-22- final.pdf Daly City p 46 https://www.dalycity.org/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/636 San Mateo p 31 https://www.cityofsanmateo.org/DocumentCenter/View/85547/Adopted- Budget_FY-2021-22?bidId= Santa Clara p 3 https://www.santaclaraca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/75166/637679 245601830000 Sunnyvale p 51, 56 https://www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/916/63781988 8266200000 Fremont p 70 https://www.fremont.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/1089/6378062347 81324065 San Francisco p 12, 18 https://sfcontroller.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Budget/AAO%20FY2021 -22%20%26%20FY2022-23%20-%20FINAL%2020210730.pdf San Jose p 12, 18 https://www.sanjoseca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/78387/63769888 2045100000 From:Rebecca Sanders To:Council, City Subject:Why the Cannery Matters - August 1, 2022, Item #2 Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 2:36:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Burt and City Council Members: Here are a few reasons why it is important to preserve this historically significant Cannery. 1. The three canneries Thomas Foon Chew http://vasonabranch.com/packing_houses/index.php? title=Bayside_Canning_Company founded, built and operated are still standing in one form or another? Alviso https://www.sanjose.org/bayside-cannery, Isleton https://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/asian_american_and_pacific_islander_heritage/Isleton-Chinese-and-Japanese- Commercial-Districts.htm and Palo Alto http://vasonabranch.com/packing_houses/index.php?title=Sutter_Packing 2. Thomas Foon Chew is considered a significant — perhaps the first — Chinese-born entrepreneur in Santa Clara Valley’s history. 3. There was a railroad spur and a trolley that served the cannery; 4. Palo Alto and Mayfield were a college town with no industry. Thomas Foon Chew brought industry to Palo Alto. 5. Thomas developed asthma so it was deemed appropriate for him to move to Los Gatos His children were the first Asian American to graduate from Los Gatos High School (it appears to be the case!). 7. Chinese Exclusion Act threw a lot of folks into turmoil, but Mrs. Chew was able to smuggle in potential brides for her son. If Each time the son refused to marry the prospective bridge, they went to work at the Cannery. It is significant that TFC not only succeeded but became wealthy in the face of racism. in 1943 Chinese war brides were allowed to immigrate in 1961 under Kennedy 105 Chinese immigrated to the US in 1965 Under Johnson more Chinese immigrated to the US 8. The house that the family lived in in Los Gatos is still there, 9. Thomas died at the age of 42. 10. Thomas invented an asparagus sorter 11. Thomas was once known as the asparagus king 12. Not only were Chinese employed by Thomas Foon Chew, but later Portuguese and Italian immigrants 13. Other Chinese entrepreneurs of significance in the Valley: Joe Shoong ended up founding the Dollar Store. See page 8 of this PDF http://apaliyla.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/9/3/13937794/150_years_of_chinese_lives_in_the_santa_clara_valley.pdf 14. Thomas Foon Chew employed a Chinese American who although graduate of Stanford was unable to find gainful employment commensurate with his degree because of racism. I know I am not alone in wanting the legacy of Thomas Foon Chew to be celebrated and his extraordinary story told. Can't we find a way to save the Cannery? While there is R&D in one portion, why not devote some of it to a Community Center with a space devoted to sharing this inspiring story and preserving a significant part of the City's and the Valley's history. Thank you, Becky Sanders Ventura Neighborhood From:Rebecca Sanders To:Council, City Subject:Re: Item # 2, August 1, 2022 Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 2:13:52 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rebsanders@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 and Council Members: We the undersigned of the Ventura Neighborhood Association object to the current proposal for development of the Fry’s site, citing the following reasons: 1. The demolition of 1/3 of a significant historic resource, of unique importance to Asian-American history. The cannery’s very size is part of its historic value. The NVCAP working group evaluated alternatives that would preserve the entire building. 2. The property is zoned for housing, yet the proposal is office intensive. The whole point was to build as much housing there as possible, sunsetting the commercial uses as promised by previous Councils 3. Segregating the below market rate housing from the market rate housing violates the core principles that Palo Alto has strived to achieve over many decades. Completely unnecessary and undesirable, segregation smacks of city-backed redlining. 4. By caving to the threats of a lawsuit, the City only encourages other developers to use the same bully tactics. 5. This proposal falls far short of the vision that many NVCAP volunteers had for the Fry's site.. The proposal converts a community-oriented auto repair building into non- community-serving offices - that's another step in the wrong direction. We end up with more R&D office space than currently exists at a time when what we need is housing. This can't be the best option. The public isn't going for this. We hope you will do better by us. Please give the public time to submit alternatives. One example, suppose the applicant were willing to give up something in exchange for preserving R&D. Since they have no right to tear down any of the cannery building due to its significance anyway, we could let them keep 2/3 R&D and have the rest be a community center or some other public benefit. We could put housing and a garage elsewhere on the site. That’s just one idea. Please keep iterating until we find something that we can all cheer for. Sincerely, Ventura Neighborhood Association Members Becky Sanders Scott Van Duyne Gary Mahany Susan Kemp Chris King Christopher Jette Pearlin Yang Jamila Rufaro Caleb Hauser Carla Wray From:Jeff Hoel To:UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, City Subject:08-03-22 UAC meeting -- Item VII.3 -- FTTP Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 2:00:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Commissioners, On 08-03-22, UAC will consider, as Item VII.3, the "Preliminary Internet Survey Results and Financial Business Models for Palo Alto Fiber." Agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and- minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/08-03-2022/08-03-2022-agenda-and-packet.pdf Staff report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and- minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/08-03-2022/08-03-2022-id-14582-fiber.pdf I continue to support municipal citywide FTTP for Palo Alto. Please see further comments below. Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- ###################################################################################################################### COMMENTS: 1. Item VII.3 is agendized as a discussion item, so UAC can't vote on what its advice to Council is. That's not good. 2. The staff report says (PDF page 1) "Staff seeks input from the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) ...." But UAC's primary job is to advise Council, not to provide "input" to staff. 3. Has UAC's Fiber Subcommittee been active since it was re-created on 05-04-22? (See UAC 05-04-22 minutes, PDF page 4.) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and- minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2022/05-04-2022/05-04-2022-uac-final-minutes.pdf If so, what has it done? 4. The staff report is 25 pages, but 23 of the 25 pages are just presentation slides. Presentation slides are not a substitute for a "real" staff report. 5. When the presentation slides (PDF pages 3-25) are printed, information near the right margin is cut off. 6. The report (PDF page 1) predicts that there will be a joint study session with Council and UAC on 09-19-22. Previously, that was predicted to be 08-08-22. Presumably, Council will not make any "go/no-go" decisions at the 09-19-22 study session. When might Council make "go/no-go" decisions? 7. It would be better if responses for the residential and business surveys were reported separately. 8. So far, staff hasn't explained that if a person makes a $50 deposit towards FTTP now, it will count toward a future FTTP purchase that all customers will have to make. 9. The report says (PDF page 5) that the fiber engineering design is 90% complete, and will be 100% complete in the August/September timeframe. But staff has not yet given Council an opportunity to decide -- and UAC an opportunity to advise -- what the architecture will be (active Ethernet or PON), and where the huts will be located. Don't these decisions affect the fiber engineering design? I think active Ethernet will stand the test of time better than PON. 10. Apparently the City sent out 21,925 messages inviting people to take a survey (PDF page 6). Is that the final count? How did the City determine where to send these messages? There are roughly 30,000 premises in the City, so I guess about 73 percent of all premises were invited. Does staff know how many people responded who were not invited via email message? 11. As of 07-20-22, there were 3,177 survey responses (14.5 percent of those invited) (PDF page 6). The survey closes at the end of July (PDF page 1). I suppose the 09-19-22 staff report will say how many survey responses there were by the end of the survey. 12. As of 07-20-22, 672 people made a $50 deposit (PDF page 6). Is that good, bad, or indifferent? 13. The staff report did not contain a complete list of the questions asked, for both the residential and business surveys, and flowcharts defining which questions were skipped depending on the responder's answers to previous questions. 14. Several slides reported results for certain questions (PDF pages 7-12). Is that for the residential survey? 15. Although the number of survey responses was 3,177 (PDF page 6), the number answering each question varied: * price: 2,820 (PDF page 7), * ISP: 2,853 (PDF page 8), * other services: 1,510 (PDF page 9), * TV: 2,587 (PDF page 10). * satisfaction: 2,474 (PDF page 11). In each case, I would like to have seen separate line items reporting a) how many people chose not to answer the question, and b) how many people weren't even asked the question. 16. For several slides (PDF pages 7-12), the data presented in the bar charts doesn't always agree with the numerical data. For example, the bar for Etheric (PDF page 8) is bigger than the 0.2 percent it represents. 17. One slide (PDF page 7) reported on what people are paying per month for internet service. But it didn't report on how fast the service is -- for both downloads and uploads. Also, was any attempt made to find out whether the price was a special deal price or an everyday price? 18. Re the slide about who the provider is (PDF page 8), I would like to have seen AT&T's results reported for DSL and FTTP separately. Ditto for Sonic. (Is Sonic always using AT&T's wires?) Also, I would like to have seen who the "other" providers were. (How many people wrote in the name of their "other" provider, as requested?) 19. One slide (PDF page 9) asked about other services provided by the internet ISP. Only 1,510 people answered this question. Why so few? Did people choose not to answer the question? Or did the survey choose not to ask the question? Did people think that not answering the question was equivalent to answering "none of the above"? 20. One slide (PDF page 12) mentioned reliability, as being less important to survey responders than price and speed. But did the question really capture what's going on? How many responders upgraded speed to keep from being disconnected from Zoom meetings? 21. Re the slide about price vs performance (PDF page 19), do all products shown feature symmetrical speeds? I note that for residential 1 Gbps (symmetrical) service, the City's pricing ($80-$95) would be on the high side, compared to some famous municipal FTTP networks. * Chattanooga, TN: $67.99/mo. https://epb.com/campaigns/residential-internet/?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgN-trryX- QIVk8LCBB1aggdFEAAYASAAEgLj0fD_BwE * Longmont, CO: $69.95/mo, https://mynextlight.com/residential/ or $59.95/mo after 12 mo, or $49.95/mo for charter members. https://mynextlight.com/terms-conditions/ * Fort Collins, CO: $59.95/mo -- plus $9.95/mo if you also want wireless connectivity within the home. https://fcconnexion.com/residential/residential-internet-service/ * Sandy, OR: $59.95/mo. https://www.ci.sandy.or.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/finance/page/5121/master_fee_schedule_update_april_2022.pdf * Loveland, CO: $74.95/mo. https://www.lovelandpulse.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020_12.16-Pulse-Residential-Pricing.pdf * Ammon, ID: $64.00/mo (estimate) -- $22.50/mo (for 20 years) to finance building the infrastructure + $16.50 for operating the network + $25 to the ISP for 1 Gbps service. https://www.ammonfiber.com/learn-more.html * UTOPIA (Woodland Hills): $50.00/mo, plus $1500 up-front. https://www.utopiafiber.com/woodland-hills-residential-pricing/ 22. Also (PDF page 19), I was a little annoyed that staff chose to say that the 600 Mbps (symmetrical) product was the "Standard" product. Why not call it something more innocuous, like "Sliver"? Since 2010, Google Fiber has been telling the world that the "standard" internet product is 1 Gbps (symmetrical). The "famous" FTTP municipal networks listed above all have a 1 Gbps (symmetrical) product. Also, for these networks, the next tier down is slower than 600 Mbps (so that it doesn't compete with the 1 Gbps product). * Chattanooga, TN: 300 Mbps. * Longmont, CO: 100 Mbps. * Fort Collins, CO: None. * Sandy, OR: 300 Mbps. * Loveland, CO: 30 Mbps. * Ammon, ID: 100 Mbps (Actually, since this is an open access network, it's up to the ISPs to decide what the products are.) * UTOPIA (Woodland Hills): 250 Mbps (Again, since this an open access network, it's up to the ISPs to decide what the products are.) 23. Also re the slide about price vs performance (PDF page 19), most municipal providers say that for commercial products, pricing depends on lots of factors, so it is not easily summarized, as the slide seems to have done. 24. I'm not sure I'm reading the sensitivity analysis slide correctly (PDF page 23). Is the debt financing shown? From:Aram James To:Joe Simitian; Enberg, Nicholas; Jeff Moore; Shikada, Ed; Roberta Ahlquist; Josh Becker; bob nunez; Perron, Zachary; Tony Dixon; darylsavage@gmail.com; Betsy Nash; Cecilia Taylor; GRP-City Council; Stump, Molly; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Council, City; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org; Winter Dellenbach Cc:ParkRec Commission Subject:Police SVU Veteran Fired For Using The N-Word On Radio Call Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 10:28:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://youtu.be/oOwP-0qUs2Q Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Perron, Zachary; Shikada, Ed; Pat Burt; Winter Dellenbach; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Planning Commission; Binder, Andrew; Tannock, Julie; robert.parham@cityofpaloalto.org; Figueroa, Eric; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Foley, Michael; chuck jagoda; Joe Simitian Subject:Re: Police SVU Veteran Fired For Using The N-Word On Radio Call - YouTube Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 10:03:46 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPhone > On Jul 30, 2022, at 9:28 AM, Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com> wrote: > >  > https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oOwP-0qUs2Q > > > Sent from my iPhone From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Shikada, Ed; Pat Burt; Burt, Patrick; Bains, Paul; Human Relations Commission; Diana Diamond; darylsavage@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Stump, Molly; Sean Webby; Maloney, Con; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; Milton, Lesley Cc:Council, City Subject:On elder abuse Screenshot 2022-07-30 at 10.37.54 AM Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 9:42:06 AM Attachments:Screenshot 2022-07-30 at 10.37.54 AM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ In memory of my sweet mother BTW I complain about this event to HRC Sent from my iPhone Available onApp Store Mobile Tickets or paper tickets Paper Tickets Open the email attachment or download here About this event Monday, August 1, 2022 from 7:45 AM to 9:30 AM (EDT) Cheryl's Place 4683 South Old US Highway 23 From:Kevin Rinke for Governor To:Council, City Subject:Reminder for Kevin Rinke Meet and Greet at Cheryl"s Place Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 4:45:51 AM Attachments:391913161817-4193857919-ticket.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Find events My Tickets Your event Kevin Rinke Meet and Greet at Cheryl's Place is coming up soon! Monday at 7:45 AM Organized by Kevin Rinke for Governor Don't forget your tickets Questions about this event? Contact the organizer Brighton, MI 48114 Add to my calendar: Google · Outlook · iCal · Yahoo map This email was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Eventbrite | 535 Mission Street, 8th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94105 Copyright © 2022 Eventbrite. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy Kevin Rinke Meet and Greet at Cheryl's Place From:Eventbrite To:Council, City Subject:Your Tickets for Kevin Rinke Meet and Greet at Cheryl"s Place Date:Saturday, July 30, 2022 1:06:52 AM Attachments:391913161817-4193857919-ticket.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Eventbrite Mollie, you've got tickets! Eventbrite Keep your tickets handy Go to My Tickets Kevin Rinke Meet and Greet at Cheryl 3 x Tickets Order total: Free Monday, Augus 1, 2022 from 7:45 AM to 9:30 AM (EDT) Add to Google · Outlook · iCal · Yahoo Cheryl's Place 4683 South Old US Highway 23 Brighton, MI 48114 View on map View event details Kevin Rinke for Governor Follow Quesions about this event? Contact the organizer Order Summary Order #4193857919 - July 30, 2022 Mollie Koehlinger 1 x General Admission Free Mollie Koehlinger 1 x General Admission Free Mollie Koehlinger 1 x General Admission Free View and manage your order online Printable PDF tickets are attached to this email Contact the organizer for any quesions related to this purchase. This order is subject to Eventbrite Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, and Cookie Policy. Eventbrite This email was sent to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Eventbrite | 535 Mission Street, 8th Floor | San Francisco, CA 94105 Copyright © 2022 Eventbrite. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy From:Aram James To:michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Human Relations Commission; chuck jagoda; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Planning Commission Subject:Video: San Jose K-9 bites man’s throat for 1 minute re-igniting police dog concerns Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 7:56:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.ktvu.com/news/video-san-jose-k-9-bites-mans-throat-for-1-minute-re-igniting-police-dog-concerns Sent from my iPhone From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: Two to stand trial in death of elderly Asian American man attacked in Oakland Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 7:55:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> Date: Fri, Jul 29, 2022 at 5:41 PM Subject: Two to stand trial in death of elderly Asian American man attacked in Oakland To: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/07/27/judge-orders-two-to-stand-trial-in- death-of-elderly-asian-man-who-was-attacked-robbed-in-oakland/? campaign=sjmnpeninsula&+utm_email+=5471747C047CF4F134FEE503FE&g2i _eui=sqnKQBf51kRyOuCrHJAwNHEFBT0TrrOE&g2i_source=newsletter&lctg =5471747C047CF4F134FEE503FE&active=yesP&utm_source=listrak&utm_me dium=email&utm_term=https%3a%2f%2fwww.mercurynews.com%2f2022%2f0 7%2f27%2fjudge-orders-two-to-stand-trial-in-death-of-elderly-asian-man-who- was-attacked-robbed-in-oakland%2f&utm_campaign=bang-sjmn-nl-peninsula- headlines-nl&utm_content=automated Judge orders two to stand trial in death of elderly Asian American man who was attacked, robbed in Oakland One defendant charged with home invasion robbery Nate Gartrell July 28, 2022 at 5:40 a.m. OAKLAND — Two men have been ordered to stand trial on charges of murdering 75-year-old Pak Ho during a March 2021 robbery in Oakland, a crime that added to concern over violence targeting Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. Teaunte Bailey, 27, and Demetrius Britton, 57, also known as Elbert Britton, were ordered to stand trial after a preliminary hearing before Judge Scott Patton. Both men have pleaded not guilty and a trial date has not yet been set. Ho, a widower who lived in the neighborhood where he was attacked, was out for a daily walk around 7 a.m. on March 9, 2021, when he was beaten. Authorities allege Bailey punched Ho, knocking him to the ground, and that Britton acted as a getaway driver. Britton’s attorney, David Briggs, argued there wasn’t enough evidence to issue a holding order against his client. The lone eyewitness to the attack who testified said she couldn’t identity either man but gave a very general description, saying that both men were Black and one appeared to be in his 50s, while the other appeared much younger. Ho’s credit card was found in Britton’s possession, according to Oakland police testimony. He also allegedly identified himself in a gas station surveillance video that showed him and Bailey hanging out the same day as the homicide. A woman who witnessed the attack, Bianca Posada, testified that she rushed to help Ho but didn’t get a look at either suspect’s face. Ho died at a hospital from his injuries two days after the attack. “He was lying on the ground. I could see some blood coming from where his head was and he couldn’t speak,” Posada testified. “His eyes were open but he wasn’t talking. He was just laying there.” Additionally, Bailey was ordered to stand trial on charges of a home invasion robbery targeting a 72-year-old Oakland man three weeks earlier. The victim in that case testified that the robber went through a dresser in his home and took a packet of red envelopes that are known as hóngbāo, used as traditional gifts during Chinese New Year. He said the robber demanded money but he pretended not to understand English. Bailey was wearing a GPS ankle monitor during both incidents, thanks to a court order in San Francisco where a judge released him in a pending robbery case. He had been arrested in April 2020 after a vehicle pursuit by San Francisco police that ended with a crash near the Treasure Island exit on the Bay Bridge. He was released Feb. 8, 2021, just a month before Ho was killed. The attack came amid nationwide concerns over anti-Asian violence, including hate crimes that stemmed from misplaced blame over the COVID-19 pandemic. Neither Bailey nor Britton are charged with targeting Ho due to his race but the crime was cited by local activists as an example of violence affecting Asian Americans. A month before Ho was killed, District Attorney Nancy O’Malley announced the formation of a task force to combat crimes targeting the Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) community. Bailey was arrested the same day as the attack on Ho, after he allegedly commandeered a woman’s car and attempted to drive away from pursuing officers. The woman testified Bailey approached her in a McDonald’s drive-thru, ordered her to drive away from police, and that she had never met or seen him before. Britton was arrested later that week, after police located him at a home on the 3700 block of Martin Luther King Way, surrounded the residence, and ordered him to come outside. From:rhea.angelranch@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:Dangerous Train Crossing Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 5:47:29 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rhea.angelranch@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members: My friend Julie Zurcher killed herself last Saturday at the Meadow/Alma train intersection by stepping onto the tracks. Other people have also killed themselves at this particular intersection. It seems like a popular place for suicides. I’d like the city council to consider adding more security measure there including human patrolling. It might prevent some suicides. Thanks so much for your consideration. Sincerely, Rhea Sampson Virus-free. www.avg.com From:Smith, Robert M. To:Council, City Cc:Cox, Karen; Valento, Tony Subject:Agenda Item No. 10: Placement of Business Tax Proposal on November Ballot [KLG-USE_Active01.FID1139496] Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 4:38:30 PM Attachments:Letter to City of Palo Alto_USE_Active01_312977789_3.PDF Some people who received this message don't often get email from robert.smith@klgates.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see the attached letter submitted on behalf of Maxar Technologies. Thank you for your consideration. Robert M. Smith Partner K&L Gates LLP 925 Fourth Avenue, Suite 2900 Seattle, Washington 98104 Phone: (206) 370-5743 Fax: (206) 370-6271 Pronouns: he/him Robert.Smith@klgates.com www.klgates.com This electronic message contains information from the law firm of K&L Gates LLP. The contents may be privileged and confidential and are intended for the use of the intended addressee(s) only. If you are not an intended addressee, note that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this message is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please contact me at Robert.Smith@klgates.com.-5 312977789.2 July 28, 2022 City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Agenda Item No. 10: Placement of Business Tax Proposal on November Ballot Dear Mayor Burt and City Councilmembers: This letter concerns the City’s efforts to establish a business tax and submit the proposed tax for a vote as part of the November 2022 ballot. As further detailed herein, we strongly oppose the proposed business tax. While we understand the City’s desire to raise revenue, this proposal will have a significant impact on City businesses; will create disincentives for businesses to occupy leasable square footage in the City, thereby slowing the City’s economic recovery and job growth; and can further increase consumer prices and costs at a time when inflation is at record highs. The City’s proposed tax has not been thoroughly evaluated, particularly the long-term impacts of imposing a “forever tax” and potential negative economic consequences associated with losing tax revenue from real estate taxes and sales taxes should businesses leave the City as a result. The City’s tax proposal has a greater economic impact on most City businesses as compared to its neighbors and is ill-designed to be commiserate with the nature and size of the taxed companies. At a time where California is on the brink of a significant recession, high inflation, significant supply chain and staffing shortages, and where local companies are already facing some of the highest rental rates in the nation, this is the wrong time for the City to foist its budgetary difficulties on the backs of local businesses that are struggling to remain in operation. Maxar Technologies enables government and commercial customers to monitor, understand and navigate our changing planet; deliver global broadband communications; and explore and advance the use of space. Maxar supports the critical missions of the U.S. military and NASA, among others. Our California team members work on some of the nation’s most critical satellites, spacecraft systems, robotics and payloads, turning visions into missions. Our company fits within Palo Alto’s focus on technology, research and development, and innovation. Our Palo Alto facilities occupy more than 276,000 square feet of leased space at an annual cost of more than $26 million. Our Palo Alto operations focus on designing and manufacturing satellites and spacecraft, employing a taxpaying workforce with annual gross pay of more than $150 million. We currently have 1,200 employees that work at our facility located at 3875 Fabian Way in the Bayshore Corridor Employment District. Maxar also has California facilities in San Jose and Pasadena. Our engagement in the Palo Alto community is not only limited to our work. We engage in an annual Toys for Tots campaign; have coordinated fundraising drives in partnership with the American Cancer Society to raise thousands of dollars to treat breast cancer; organize an annual car show and fundraiser that has generated thousands of dollars for the Make a Wish Foundation; donate to the Second Harvest Food Bank and Giving Tree; and we are currently looking to expand our partnership with the local homeless organization Life Moves. During the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, we put our technology to work to produce personal protective equipment for health care workers, including production and 312977789.2 delivery of 5,000 face shields in April 2020 to medical, dentistry, and senior care facilities throughout Northern California. We value our engagement in the Palo Alto community and want to continue to be part of the city, but we are very concerned about the City’s proposed imposition of a business tax as furt her outlined below. Therefore, we respectfully request that the City reconsider its proposal and find another source of revenue that does not significantly penalize local businesses and kill economic growth and recovery. A. The Tax Penalizes the Utilization of Office, Manufacturing, Retail and Industrial Space and is not related to the Size or Revenue of the Company Because the tax is based upon the square footage utilized by the taxed business, it disincentivizes the utilization of office, manufacturing, research, retail, and industrial space. This is particularly discouraging given the number of vacant spaces within the City that remain unoccupied or underutilized after the City has reopened from COVID-19 shutdowns. Basing the tax upon square footage will create an incentive for companies to minimize their operational footprint, which is already a consideration for many companies given the pivot to remote working. This means less people working within the City, which would result in less sales tax revenue and less utilization of City restaurants and retail businesses. This is particularly onerous for manufacturing, industrial, and research and development facilities, that often require substantial amounts of square footage that are disproportionate to their revenue stream or economic impact. For example, our company builds large satellites, robotics, and spacecraft systems that require a significant amount of square footage. The same is true for many of Palo Alto’s research facilities. Basing the business tax on the square footage of the company’s operation will penalize these important sectors of the City’s economy and may encourage them to move elsewhere. The tax will have a significant negative effect within the Bayshore Corridor and other employment districts. As noted in the City’s Comprehensive Plan: These districts provide thousands of local jobs, establish a customer base for many other Palo Alto businesses and generate tax revenues for the city. Because each plays a central role in maintaining the fiscal health of the City, it is important to support their long-term viability and ability to respond to changing global economic conditions. City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, at 196. The Comprehensive Plan also seeks “to balance increases in costs for business space with the need for rehabilitation and replacement of outdated space in the San Antonio Road and East Bayshore areas.” Id. Policy B-7.7. The proposed business tax is contrary to these policies, in that it will have a significant impact on the employment districts, which include many buildings with significant square footage, and will make it more costly to expand or restore outdated and underutilized space in the San Antonio/Bayshore areas when it would increase local tax liability for those businesses. The lack of connectivity between the economic impact or vitality of a business and square footage is one reason why a recent Stanford University study submitted to the City on May 18, 2022 showed that most nearby cities that have a business tax do not tax based upon the company’s operational square footage. We understand that the one city that does, the City of Cupertino, may be reevaluating their tax 312977789.2 structure. The Stanford University study concludes that based upon the City’s proposed business tax structure “the additional tax burden . . . will be placed on Palo Alto’s smaller companies such as start-ups and Main Street businesses.” B. The Tax Will Reduce Investment in the City and Make Leases Unsustainable The City’s proposed tax also will have a significant impact on lessees like Maxar. Palo Alto already has some of the highest commercial rental rates in the county. Rental rates on research and development properties within Silicon Valley reached an all-time high last quarter.1 As noted in the City’s Community Plan “commercial rents have risen precipitously in response to the demand for a Palo Alto address, driving a conversion of retail spaces to office uses and pricing out smaller stores and professional services.” Id. at 190. The City’s proposed tax operates as a pass-through cost to lessees, thereby increasing already significantly high rental rates for City businesses. According to the study conducted by Stanford University, lessees would be expected to pay more in business taxes as compared to the average of the other five nearby jurisdictions evaluated in the study.2 Because lessees tend to be more transitory than property owners, this could result in lessees seeking to relocate elsewhere, which could also reduce real estate tax and sales tax revenue obtained by the City. This is inconsistent with the City’s goal to promote its “image as a business-friendly community” and take “an active role in fostering businesses, including small start- ups, entrepreneurs, and innovative businesses.” Id. Policy B-1.2. C. The City Has Not Properly Studied the Long-Term Need or Impact of the Tax While the City has spent a lot of money on polling and public relations when it comes to consideration of the business tax, it has not properly evaluated either whether the City needs a long-term tax to generate revenue, nor the potential long-term economic consequences of such an action. Certainly there is a short-term need to generate additional City revenue given the impacts to the City and community from COVID-19 and the associated economic downturn. But the City has not made the case that the appropriate solution is a “forever tax” on City businesses. This city, and the nation as a whole, has weathered similar economic downturns over the past several decades which have been followed in many circumstances by robust revenue and economic profits. Basing the City’s needs on short -term priorities without proper economic studies that also evaluate the potential negative impacts from businesses leaving, job losses, and decreased investment, is not good public policy. The City should commission an independent study of the economic impact of the proposed tax and be transparent about not just potential revenue generated but the potential negative economic impacts as well. To the extent that the City advertises to City voters that tax revenue is going to be used for certain purposes, the draft ordinance must be revised so that the revenue is required to be used for such purposes rather than simply going to the City’s general fund. D. The Tax Will Increase Costs to City Consumers Companies are already struggling to control costs as the costs of raw materials, availability, labor shortages, and supply chain issues are driving up the costs of doing business. Some of these increased 1 https://therealdeal.com/sanfrancisco/2022/07/19/rd-lease-rates-reach-record-high-in-silicon-valley/. 2 This is still true after the City reduced the proposed per square foot tax rate as compared to the proposed tax rates evaluated in the Stanford study. 312977789.2 costs are already being borne by consumers who are facing the most significant increases in inflation in years. Significant additional costs to companies will only exacerbate these issues. Businesses simply cannot afford another large tax increase after two years of a crippling pandemic, meaning they inevitably will need to pass the cost onto the consumer to stay afloat. E. Bottom Line: This is the Wrong Time and Wrong Approach for a Business Tax City businesses are just recovering from a global pandemic that continues to disrupt our businesses, workforce, and overall economy. The country is facing significant inflationary pressures, supply chain issues, and shortages of skilled labor. Despite all of this, rental rates in Silicon Valley and Palo Alto in particular remain high, making it already difficult to continue to invest and expand within the City. The City’s proposed tax will significantly worsen these issues for local companies. We respectfully request that the City reconsider its proposed business tax and find a way to increase revenue streams without adversely affecting its own economic growth, recovery, and job creation. Thank you for your time an d consideration. Sincerely, Karen Cox Vice President Government Relations & Public Policy Maxar Technologies Inc. From:Loren Brown To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Business Tax Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 4:32:47 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from loren.brown@vancebrown.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. ________________________________ 7-29-2022 Dear City Council, On behalf of Vance Brown, Inc. (a Palo Alto Commercial General Contractor, established in 1932) and the extended Brown family (family members, employees, associates and their spouses) who are registered Palo Alto voters, I would like to share our position relating to a proposed City of Palo Alto Business tax. We are not opposed to a reasonable Business tax IF the tax imposed is proportional to our business impact within the community AND that tax is not redundant to other taxes already being collected from our business AS WELL AS considerate of our specifc type/function of business. For example, if the City wants to impose a tax that funds police and fire services, affordable housing, Caltrain crossings, etc. that tax should be equally imposed on all businesses and residents who receive benefit of those services, and not imposed upon just a segment of the total group (i.e. a certain segment of Palo Alto businesses who have no voting power) receiving the resulting benefits. Vance Brown is a commercial general contractor that constructs projects within the City of Palo Alto limits as well as beyond the City limits. Our work is largely project-based. Each construction project is assessed a very substantial amount of fees from the respective city/county where the project is based. Most of the cities/counties where we perform projects also require us to register for a business license and pay those associated fees. Thus, VBI is already paying fees, taxes and business registration fees for a huge segment of our revenue base. We are open to the City establishing a modest business license program IF the City also requires all other businesses that perform services in Palo Alto to participate in the taxation for AND the taxes imposed are commensurate with such a business licence program (and not funding unrelated revenue needs such as Caltrain crossings, affordable housing, etc.). Vance Brown, Inc. is a local business commercial construction service provider. Over the years, Vance Brown, Inc. has constructed many projects within the City of Palo Alto including: - Palo Alto High School Gymnasium - Gunn High School Library and Science Wing (B4E) - Jordan Middle School Renovation (B4E) - Nixon Elementary School Renovation (B4E - Castilleja School: Original Gym, Fine Arts Bldg, New Gym, Admin Bldg, Pool, Science Bldg Renovation, Arrillaga Bldg Renovations - Keys School Elementary School, El Camino Real campus - International School (Laura Lane and Cowper Street projects) - Pinewood School Gymnasium - Girls Middle School Renovations - Tin Pot Creamery at Town and Country Shopping Center - Palo Alto Medical Foundation (Clark Building and Parking Structure) - Winter Lodge (Clubhouse Renovations) - Avenidas (450 Bryant Street Renovations and Addition) - Channing House (Complete Building Renovation) - Mollie Stone Store Renovations (formerly Palo Alto Co-op) - Palo Alto Junior Museum Renovation - Palo Alto Commons Senior Living, El Camino Way (Original Construction and Addition) - Palo Alto Elks Lodge (Original Lodge and new Lodge) - Palo Alto Ross Road YCMA (both original construction and renovations) - Evvia Estacio Restaurant, Emerson Street - Bird Dog Restaurant, Ramona Street - Equinox Parking Structure and Pool - Fisher House (PA VA Campus) - The Hamilton (Senior Living), Byron Street - 300 University Avenue Building (Walgreens and Office Building) - 301 University Office Building (Wells Fargo Private Banking) - 540 Bryant Street Historic Renovations - 630 Ramona Building Renovations - 435 Tasso Street Office Building - 450 Lambert Street Building Renovations - 524 Hamilton Street Office Building - 611 Cowper Street Office Building - 334 Kingsley Renovations (Historic Residential project) - Summerhill Block A Condominiums (near Heritage Park) - Summerhill Block B Condominiums (near Heritage Park) - Commercial Building at Addison/Alma (formerly occupied by Anthropology) - City of Palo Alto Soccer Fields at El Camino/Page Mill Road - 3101 Park Blvd. Office Building (Occupied by WeWorks) - 1050 Page Mill Road Office Buildings - 325 Lytton Street Office Building (occupied by Heritage Bank, et al) - Geng Road Office Complex - 1755 Embarcadero Road Office Building (Occupied by Jones Day) - 3921 E.Bayshore Road (Palo Alto Conservation Center) - 3950 Fabian Street Office Building - 3885 Fabian Street Building - 3870 Fabian Street Office Building - 3430 W. Bayshore Office Building - 3495 Deer Creek Road Office Building - 1117 California Avenue Office Building - 3165 Porter Drive Renovations - 2585 E. Bayshore Building Renovations Vance Brown, Inc. has also constructed many, many projects on the Stanford Campus including Stanford Stadium, the Alumni Center, Taube Family Tennis Stadium, Sunken Diamond Renovations, Arrillaga Recreation Center, West Campus Recreation Center, Stern Hall Renovations, Toyon Hall Renovations, Lake House Renovations, Varian Physics Bldg., Escondido Village Graduate Residences, Hoover Pavilion Renovations, Parking Structures 4, 6 and 10, Ronald McDonald House, etc. (Note: many of these Stanford projects are within the City of Palo Alto sphere of influence). Clearly, there is a demonstrated long-term need for commercial construction services in Palo Alto. If the City wants the highest level of commercial construction services in its City, it needs to encourage local construction service providers (such as Vance Brown, Inc.), who truly know and understand the local market and can provide the most effective services. Businesses serving the Palo Alto community should not be disproportionately taxed or highly taxed nor should they be considered as a revenue source for community needs unrelated to their business practice or business impact on the community. Basing business taxes on gross receipts (i.e. revenues) is not fair to construction companies because 90% of those revenues are subcontract costs. We can accept a business tax based on revenues associated with our own direct labor force (which does not include subcontractor revenues) or alternatively we can accept a business tax that has different rates for direct revenues versus revenues generated on subcontractor costs. Basing business taxes on gross receipts (i.e revenues) of construction companies (or the building area that they occupy) is also not fair as all of the projects they work on is already subject to the payment of substantial fees. Basing business taxes upon building area is likewise not fair to construction companies, because a certain proportion of the activities in that space are spent on projects located outside of Palo Alto where Vance Brown is already paying project-related fees and business licence fees. Businesses do not have a direct vote in City of Palo Alto elections (i.e. no fair representation at the ballot box). It is not fair to businesses when only residents can vote and the City Council proposes and encourages its residents to impose a huge tax on the business community - where the proposed business tax also benefits the residents. We acknowledge that the City faces a revenue funding source related to Caltrain crossings, affordable housing and police/fire staffing. We do not agree that the business community should be a primary funding source for these needs. Affordable housing should be incentivized through the City’s Zoning code. Caltrain crossing costs were not caused by City of Palo Alto business sector, do not solely benefit the business sector and the business sector should not be the sole tax target to raise funding for such costs. The City of Palo Alto generates millions of dollars through its excessive utility rates imposed on both businesses and residents. The Courts have recognized this practice as illegal, yet the City continues the practice and refuses to refund the funds illegally collected. This is devious and inappropriate behavior. The City needs to stop trying to soak its residents and businesses in an effort to spend beyond its means. Rather than seek the imposition of a new business tax, the City should trim back the level of services it offers to the community to an affordable level. For a business of our size, we can live with a annual business tax of between $5,000 and $10,000. A taxation system that results in the imposition of higher taxes will drive us to leave Palo Alto and seek greener pastures. Loren Brown President From:John Richards To:Council, City Subject:letter concerning the Fry"s development Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 3:33:04 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from jcrart@sbcglobal.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. ________________________________ To Whom It May Concern, (Insert sarcastic tone) It’s a known fact, when essential workers (firefighters, teachers, etc) move into a neighborhood the housing values plummet. We are talking about professionals who can barely afford housing here. Why has the city segregated an area for below market housing? Tech workers are afraid of having bad grammar corrected by their former english teachers? Why is Palo Alto again caving on applying their zoning restrictions? These zoning rules were carefully considered over lengthy debate because needs were identified. Nothing’s changed. Now when a little pressure is put on the council, those rules get shredded? Corporate entities doing business here should play by the same rules as individual Palo Alto citizens. Sounds naive, doesn't it? If I were to go and ask for a special exemption on zoning laws, I think I’d be laughed out of city hall. -John Richards Ventura Neighborhood From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: Fw: Magnificent Classic Chinese Carving Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 10:41:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Date: Friday, Jul 30, 2022 at 10:36 AM Subject: Fwd: Fw: Magnificent Classic Chinese Carving Source:Allan Seid, Thomas Chan You may have seen this before, if not, enjoy!!! Incredible! Magnificent! One tree, four years of work and an indescribable amount of talent: that’s what it took to create this incredible masterpiece. A famous Chinese wood carver chopped down a single tree and tirelessly worked on it for over four years to make this piece. It all started out with a simple tree trunk… The carving is based on the famous Chinese painting “Along the River During the Qingming Festival.” The original artwork was created over 1,000 years ago. The piece won the Guinness World Record for the longest wooden carving and measures over 40ft (specifically, it is 12.286 meters long, is 3.075 meters tall at its highest point, and is also 2.401 meters wide). The intricate carvings of daily life in ancient China are so detailed and perfect, they could drop your jaw. It’s no surprise that this incredible work of art is drawing so much attention. It’s amazing, but not just because it’s so big, but also because it’s so incredibly detailed. That was 8,760 hours well spent. Share this awesome work with others. From:mark weiss To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Village idiot proverb Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 10:03:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Would it make more sense to people if we call it a tax on “capital” or tax on “excess wealth” and not a tax on business? Why are people like Nancy Coupal the owner of a small chain of coffeehouses even being asked her opinion on such? What people like myself and Rebecca Eisenberg are suggesting is that because of the billions and billions and billions of wealth created by venture capital firms, unicorns and publicly traded companies that those entities should do their fair share to keep our libraries open more than the equivalent of three days out of seven* or to rehire hourly staff at the Palo Alto arts center. Leadership should look at the companies from a unicorn you’ve never heard of but has raised enough money to be valued at $1 billion located in our premises to Amazon and Tesla who flirt with trillion dollar valuations, and figure out a fair way among that very small list surely less than 100 entities how to raise $100 million fairly from them annually. And they’re surely going to announce “we made X billion dollars last year and gave 10 million Palo Alto for the libraries!”, they’re not going to run to Milpitas or Lubbock. We could also tax venture capital transactions one dollar per thousand or a 10th of a percent more than 1 billion dollars starts here each year. Pat Burt reminds me of the proverb about the village idiot who doesn’t know that a nickel is worth less than a dime even though it’s larger. Yes, he does but he likes to keep the nickel. Mark Weiss In palo alto Not a billionaire, I have met three of them and I know how they think *149 of 385 possible hours, if you note that they are open somewhere from 10 AM to 9 PM but not everywhere those hours seven days…and why not? Sent from my iPhone From:Binder, Andrew To:D Martell Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Reifschneider, James; Philip, Brian; Kan, Michael; Pojanamat, Dan; Lee, David; Irwin, Daniel; Salkeld, Joshua; Jensen, Eric; Figueroa, Eric; Foley, Michael; Parham, Luis; Tannock, Julie; Ferreira, David; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Stephen.Connolly@oirgroup.com; Jeff; Supervisor Simitian; AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; Aram James Subject:RE: Congratulations Chief Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 8:31:45 AM Thank you Dr. Martell! From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, July 28, 2022 7:58 PM To: Binder, Andrew <Andrew.Binder@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Reifschneider, James <James.Reifschneider@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Philip, Brian <Brian.Philip@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kan, Michael <Michael.Kan@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Pojanamat, Dan <Dan.Pojanamat@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lee, David <David.Lee@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Irwin, Daniel <Daniel.Irwin@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Salkeld, Joshua <Joshua.Salkeld@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Jensen, Eric <Eric.Jensen@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Figueroa, Eric <Eric.Figueroa@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Foley, Michael <Michael.Foley@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Parham, Luis <Luis.Parham@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tannock, Julie <Julie.Tannock@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Ferreira, David <David.Ferreira@CityofPaloAlto.org>; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Stephen.Connolly@oirgroup.com; Jeff <JRosen@dao.sccgov.org>; Supervisor Simitian <Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>; AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Subject: Congratulations Chief CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Andrew Binder, Police Chief Palo Alto Police Department Dear Police Chief Binder: Fifteen years I've waited to congratulate you on this news. Finally!! Yours truly, Danielle Martell Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Pat Burt; Burt, Patrick; Stump, Molly; Sean Webby; Sue Dremann; Brian Welch; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Milton, Lesley; ladoris cordell; James Aram Subject:Re: We hope to hit 500k Screenshot 2022-07-29 at 6.13.36 AM Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 5:29:32 AM Attachments:Screenshot 2022-07-29 at 6.13.36 AM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ You should hire your PR person back with a rehiring bonus… Having worked in HR…you fired a key staff member? I have been involved in plant closures for IBM where they Retained their employee’s with one or two or three years service over someone with 25 or more years. You guys are freaking idiot Sent from my iPad > On Jul 29, 2022, at 6:16 AM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Sent from my iPad From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Pat Burt; Burt, Patrick; Stump, Molly; Sean Webby; Sue Dremann; Brian Welch; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Milton, Lesley; ladoris cordell; James Aram; Sue Dremann Subject:We hope to hit 500k Screenshot 2022-07-29 at 6.13.36 AM Date:Friday, July 29, 2022 5:17:01 AM Attachments:Screenshot 2022-07-29 at 6.13.36 AM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Sent from my iPad From:D Martell To:Binder, Andrew Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Reifschneider, James; Philip, Brian; Kan, Michael; Pojanamat, Dan; Lee, David; Irwin, Daniel; Salkeld, Joshua; Jensen, Eric; Figueroa, Eric; Foley, Michael; Parham, Luis; Tannock, Julie; Ferreira, David; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Stephen.Connolly@oirgroup.com; Jeff; Supervisor Simitian; AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; Aram James Subject:Congratulations Chief Date:Thursday, July 28, 2022 7:58:26 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Andrew Binder, Police Chief Palo Alto Police Department Dear Police Chief Binder: Fifteen years I've waited to congratulate you on this news. Finally!! Yours truly, Danielle Martell Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005 dmPaloAlto@gmail.com From:D Martell To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Binder, Andrew; Supervisor Simitian; anne.ream@mail.house.gov; AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; Aram James Subject:NEWS FLASH - 10th COVID case at Lytton Gardens Assisted Living building Date:Thursday, July 28, 2022 7:31:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. July 27, 2022 - Second COVID victim in a week at downtown Lytton Gardens, 649 University Avenue, Palo Alto. - No public notices posted in the Assisted Living building or on resident doors. - Social activities continue as usual. - No visitor screenings. - There are approximately 80 - 88 vulnerable souls living in the "Assisted Living" building. Do the math to reveal the number of folks showing COVID signs is 1 in 10 or 11. Take into consideration that 85% infected are carriers with no serious symptoms,and another percentage have light symptoms Also, take into account the number of folks refusing to reveal to others they're diseased so as to not be ostracized, 85% of COVID deaths are among seniors. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Date: Monday, July 25, 2022 Subject: NEWS FLASH --- 9th COVID case at Lytton Gardens Assisted Living facility To: "Council, City" <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Binder, Andrew" <Andrew.Binder@cityofpaloalto.org>, Supervisor Simitian <Supervisor.Simitian@bos.sccgov.org>, anne.ream@mail.house.gov, AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov, Bill Johnson <BJohnson@paweekly.com>, Jay Thorwaldson <jaythor@well.com>, Dave Price <price@baydailypost.com>, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> July 25, 2022: - Another Covid case at Lytton Gardens Assisted Living facility this summer. - Today's facility notice is delinquent; resident with Covid has been isolated for three days already. - No public notices posted in the facility. - Less than 45 (of about 600) residents received a notice. - When residents in the Assisted Living building requested a notice or information, they were turned away. - Social activities continue as usual. From:Claire E To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 3 for August 1st, 2022 Date:Thursday, July 28, 2022 5:26:04 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from clairee44@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 live at 271 Chestnut, one block from Lambert and just off Birch street, so quite close to the old Fry's site. I am thankful for the efforts of Sobrato and the city to create a plan for the old Frys site that maintains some of the historic building and allows for BMR housing and parkland. I do hope as part of the park planning, the city can find resources to safely restore the creek in that stretch to more of a natural state. The community resource of a small retail area is a good but smaller than ideal step. I would love to see more community space in this plan. I heard once that the nicely maintained structure in Parcel 4 might be made available for the public. I would love to see that building house a small community center, reading and or meeting room. At least a small cafe on the end of that building that could have a deck for sitting that looks out toward the park and creek. Thank you! Claire Elliott From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Executive Leadership Team; Paras, Christine Subject:Council Questions Item 1, 2 and 11: 8/1/22 Date:Thursday, July 28, 2022 5:23:53 PM Attachments:image001.png image003.png image004.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image009.png Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links for the amended agenda and staff responses to questions from Councilmember DuBois regarding Monday night’s Council Meeting: August 1 Amended Agenda Staff response to Items 1, 2 and 11 Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Planning Subject:HEU: Santa Clara County Housing Element Update - Community Workshop Materials for Review Date:Thursday, July 28, 2022 5:08:02 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from planning2@pln.sccgov.org.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi all, The July 19 and July 21 Community Workshop meeting summary notes, power point presentation, and recordings are up on the County of Santa Clara Housing Element Webpage. Thank you. From:Allan Seid To:Channing House Bulletin Board Subject:Fwd: Covid origin studies say evidence points to Wuhan market - BBC News Date:Thursday, July 28, 2022 9:41:36 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Allan Seid <allanseid734@gmail.com> Date: Thu, Jul 28, 2022 at 9:33 AM Subject: Covid origin studies say evidence points to Wuhan market - BBC News Source:BBC NEWS-7/26/22 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-62307383 Covid origin studies say evidence points to Wuhan market By Victoria Gill Science correspondent, BBC News Reuters There is a "strong association" between the early outbreak and the sale of live animals in a market, scientists say Scientists say there is "compelling evidence" that Wuhan's Huanan seafood and wildlife market was at the centre of the Covid-19 outbreak. Two peer-reviewed studies published on Tuesday re-examine information from the initial outbreak in the Chinese city. One of the studies shows that the earliest known cases were clustered around that market. The other uses genetic information to track the timing of the outbreak. It suggests there were two variants introduced into humans in November or early December 2019. Together, the researchers say this evidence paints a picture that Sars- Cov-2 was present in live mammals that were sold at Huanan market in late 2019. They say it was transmitted into people who were working or shopping there in two separate "spillover events", where a human contracted the virus from an animal. One of the researchers involved, virologist Prof David Robertson from the University of Glasgow, told BBC News that he hoped the studies would "correct the false record that the virus came from a lab". Pandemic epicentre Two years of scientific effort to understand the virus that causes Covid-19 have provided these researchers with a more informed perspective. This has enabled them to address a key conundrum in the earliest patient data: That out of hundreds of people who were hospitalised with Covid-19 in Wuhan, only about 50 had a direct, traceable link to the market. Science Early cases clustered around the Huanan market (c) Science "That was really puzzling that most cases could not be linked to the market," said Prof Robertson. "But knowing what we know about the virus now, it's exactly what we would expect - because many people only get very mildly ill, so they would be out in the community transmitting the virus to others and the severe cases would be hard to link to each other." This Covid-19 case-mapping research found that a large percentage of early patients - with no known connection to the market, meaning they neither worked nor shopped there - did turn out to live near it. This supports the idea that the market was the epicentre of the epidemic, said Prof Michael Worobey, lead author and biologist from the University of Arizona, with sellers getting infected first and setting off a "chain of infections among community members in the surrounding area". "In a city covering more than 3,000 sq miles (7,770 sq km), the area with the highest probability of containing the home of someone who had one of the earliest Covid-19 cases in the world was an area of a few city blocks, with the Huanan market smack dab inside it," said Prof Worobey. Worobey et al Live animals, including species now known to be susceptible to Covid-19, were sold in Huanan market That study also zoomed in on the market itself. The scientists created a map of the samples - swabs of fluid from drains and on market stalls - that tested positive for the virus. "Most of the positive samples clustered around the south-western side of the market," explained Prof Robertson. "And that's the location where we report species like raccoon dogs being sold. "So we have confirmation of animals we now know are susceptible [to Sars-Cov-2, the virus that causes Covid-19] were sold there in late 2019." The lab leak theory Over the last two years, the search for the origin of the deadly pandemic turned from a scientific investigation into a toxic political row. Viewers in the UK can watch this BBC documentary on the hunt for Covid-19's origins. One of the subjects of a fierce international blame game - primarily between politicians in the US and China - was a theory that the virus could have been leaked from a Wuhan laboratory, the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But that hypothesis, said Prof Stuart Neil from Kings College, "can't explain the data". "We're now as sure as we can be, based on the fragmentary evidence we do have, that this was a spillover event that happened in the market." Crowded, live animal markets, many scientists agree, provide an ideal transmission hotspot for new diseases to "spill over" from animals. And in the 18 months up to the beginning of the pandemic, a separate study showed that nearly 50,000 animals - of 38 different species - were sold at markets in Wuhan. Prof Neil said the pandemic was very likely to have been a consequence of an "unhealthy, cruel and unhygienic practice that Chinese authorities had been warned about". The major risk of being distracted by looking for someone in a laboratory to blame for all this, he added, "is that we run the risk of letting this happen again because we've focused on the wrong problem." Scientists believe another pandemic will happen during our lifetime From:Robert Murphy To:Council, City Subject:Follow Up! - Give us a chance - Estimate & Take-off Services Date:Wednesday, July 27, 2022 6:02:47 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rob@csimepestimators.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Any updates? Do you have any estimation work for us? Please let me know if you need any assistance regarding estimation work. We will be happy to assist you in a better way. Our monthly and weekly packages are also good. If you have a lot of work, don't worry, just call us and we will create your package to your specifications. You will have free time to complete all of your other tasks. We are eager to establish successful business relationships with you! Hope to hear back from you soon. Thanks. Good Day! Regards, Robert MurphyBusiness Development Manager CSI Estimation, LLC 516-856-3212 78th St Brooklyn NY 11214 www(dot)csiestimation(dot)com From:Diana Darcy To:Council, City Cc:Diana Darcy Subject:Airplane noise hurts quality of life in Palo Alto Date:Wednesday, July 27, 2022 10:53:38 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from ddarcy66@gmail.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I understand that there is a meeting this coming Monday regarding airplane noise initiatives. I urge you to please do your utmost to work to mitigate airplane noise in Palo Alto. It has become extremely disruptive to the point that it is impossible to hold conversations outside without multiple interruptions; and even when talking inside, it is necessary to close windows and doors to insure that noise does not cause interference. As you know, many large planes are flying directly over our heavily populated areas daily, at a low altitude. With the bay right nearby, it seems that it should be fairly easy to move these routes away from residential areas again. Noise pollution is a real issue and needs to be taken seriously. It negatively affects our quality of life on a daily basis. Thank you for your work to address this issue. Diana Darcy 1032 Harker Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 ddarcy66@gmail.com Palo Alto Free Press ⁦‪@PAFreePress‪⁩ The ⁦‪@PaloAltoPolice‪⁩ just cant seem to pick on some one there own size. It’s the bottom of the barrel when there targeting the #Disabled ⁦‪@abPAPD‪⁩ ⁦‪@rjPAPD‪⁩ ⁦‪@cityofpaloalto‪⁩ #ADA ⁦‪@TheJusticeDept‪⁩ pic.twitter.com/DTU8WkOqxa 7/26/22, 6:51 PM From:Palo Alto Free Press To:Council, City; Binder, Andrew; James Aram; Wagner, April; Milton, Lesley; ladoris cordell; Scheff, Lisa; Jonsen, Robert; darylsavage@gmail.com; David Angel; Human Relations Commission; Stump, Molly; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Sue Dremann; Sean Webby; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner Cc:Shikada, Ed; mark weiss; Pat Burt; Burt, Patrick; Bains, Paul Subject:Tweet by Palo Alto Free Press on Twitter Date:Tuesday, July 26, 2022 11:09:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. In accounting circles we’re “burning cash” All for a good cause…. Sent from my iPad Palo Alto's existing 4 dog parks are concentrated in the middle and southern sections of the city; none is north of Embarcadero and none is conveniently accessible to the majority of the densely populated neighborhoods of Downtown North, Crescent Park, Community Center, Professorville or Duveneck / St. Francis. Two Pocket Parks along Palo Alto Ave. These parks are already fenced where they border San Francisquito Creek and there is low traffic volume on Palo Alto Ave. From:John Guislin To:ParkRec Commission; Council, City Subject:Let"s prioritize equitable distribution of City Dog Parks Date:Tuesday, July 26, 2022 8:09:39 PM Attachments:Palo Alto Dog Parks.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Commissioners, Council Members: I am a member of the dog-owner community and a strong supporter of dog parks in Palo Alto. I am encouraged that the City is considering investing funds in our Dog Parks. However, the current proposal to spend $150k to improve/enhance one existing park - Mitchell Park - should not be our top priority and is far from the overriding intent of the city's Parks Master Plan wherein Policy 2D recommends..."The addition of dedicated, fenced dog parks distributed throughout the city." Today our dog parks are far from equitably distributed and correcting this deficit should be where we invest our efforts (see attached map). I live near downtown in the northern part of Palo Alto and we have no dog parks that we can easily walk to. The nearest is Greer Park and that is more than 2 miles from my neighborhood. Many dogs, including mine, cannot walk the 4 miles round trip to access the park . In theory, I could drive my dog there, but that is counter the the purpose of "walking the dog" and creates more automobile pollution and congestion. In North Palo Alto we have the potential for a low cost solution along Palo Alto Avenue. There are several "pocket parks" on P.A. Ave. - part of the Timothy Hopkins Creekside Park - that could readily and inexpensively accommodate dog parks (see attached map). These pocket parks are already fenced along more than half their perimeter and it is plausible that a new Dog Park could be completed at lower cost than the $150K "enhancement" for the existing Mitchell Park Dog Park. I have brought this possibility for new Dog Parks to the attention of the PRC in the past but no action has been taken. I call on the PRC Commissioners to prioritize investigating these pocket parks as a way to create at least one Dog Park in North Palo Alto. I am fully in support of ensuring we have functional and pleasant dog parks. But let's first ensure that more residents are able to access a dog park near their homes and that dog parks are distributed fairly across Palo Alto. Sincerely, John Guislin Attachment: Maps of Palo Alto showing the concentration of existing dog parks in midtown and southern Palo Alto and the Pocket Parks along Palo alto Avenue.