The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2025-04-07 City Council EmailsDOCUMENTS 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: 4/7/2025 Document dates: 3/31/2025 - 4/7/2025 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Kat Snyder To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment: Urgent - please oppose AB 306 Date:Monday, April 7, 2025 11:10:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, On behalf of 350 Bay Area Action and of myself as a resident, I want to inform you of a concerning bill that very quickly passed through the State Assembly and is on its way to theSenate. AB 306 purports to be a housing bill that, by freezing state and local building codes for at least 6 years, will lead to faster, cheaper housing construction. Most everyenvironmental group, including ones that advocate for dense, infill housing, opposes the bill. This bill stops local reach codes from going into effect - including the ones city staff has already worked on that would have gone into effect January 1st, 2026. It blocks our localability to ask for more energy efficiency when new technologies come on the market. It blocks our local ability to streamline processes like we did with our heat pump installation programs. For these reasons and more I urge you to fill out this form to sign this opposition letter fromGreen Cities California specifically designed for local governments. Sincerely, ~Kat SnyderPalo Alto Resident 350 Bay Area Action, Clean Energy Legislative Team From:Clerk, City To:Council, City Subject:Voicemail Message - Quiet Zones Date:Monday, April 7, 2025 10:57:17 AM Attachments:VoiceMessage.wav Good morning City Council, We received the attached voicemail this morning relaying support for Quiet Zones. Thank you, City Clerk’s Office From:holzemer/hernandez To:Council, City Subject:Item 17, Support for SB 457 Date:Monday, April 7, 2025 10:35:50 AM Dear Council Members, Tonight you can send an important message to Sacramento and our state legislators by supporting and sponsoring State Senator Josh Becker's SB457. I believe this critical legislation to ensure that residents still have a voice in how land use issues are decided and their thoughts are not ignored by those who wish to destroy local control. I urge the Council to support and be a sponsor of this "common sense" legislation and help Senator Becker in getting this Bill passed. Vote "yes" on supporting SB 457! Terry Holzemer 2581 Park Blvd. #Y211 Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Marie-Jo Fremont To:Council, City Subject:Item 18: Please protect our city from light pollution - City Council Meeting April 7, 2025 Date:Monday, April 7, 2025 10:25:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, Other cities such as Brisbane and Cupertino have already adopted sensible lighting ordinances. Palo Alto also needs to adopt a strong and thoughtful lighting ordinance to reduce unnecessary energy consumption, improve the residents’ quality of life, and protect the natural habitats. Please direct staff to: Retain the current protection of waterways Incorporate the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendations, including: Making the ordinance applicable to all lighting fixtures and systems (new or replacements) Implementing a “lights-out” curfew to prevent unnecessary nighttime lighting Reducing the light trespass allowance to 0.1 foot-candle (not 0.5 foot- candle, which is so much brighter and unnecessary) Thank you for your leadership and commitment to making our city healthier and more sustainable. Marie-Jo Fremont From:Tom To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Monday, April 7, 2025 8:46:05 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Thomas Patterson 318 Leland Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Clerk, City To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:FW: please vote for the dark skies Date:Monday, April 7, 2025 8:43:56 AM Attachments:image.png Good morning City Council, Forwarding the below public comment letter that was received to our inbox. Thank you, City Clerk’s Office From: Rani Fischer <ranifisc@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 7, 2025 8:37 AM To: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Shani Kleinhaus <shani@scvbirdalliance.org> Subject: please vote for the dark skies CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Council, I am a resident of Sunnyvale with a cautionary tale. About five years ago, I had light from a half mile away pouring into my living room all night from the lights illuminating an office building for aesthetic purposes. I asked the City of Sunnyvale to stop them, but they couldn't because Sunnyvale's lighting ordinance did not apply to non-residential areas, and this light was from an office park. I wrote a letter to the Mercury News. https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx? guid=55302a53-7199-4e48-b529-824f2aff25d9&appcode=SAN252&eguid=35e4c100- 7292-4da7-afaa-794640fd5fca&pnum=24# It worked in that the Fortinet building lowered the angle of its light so that it did not affect me, and subsequently the birds flying overhead as much. I drove around last night and was happy to see that the Fortinet building had no facade lighting on it anymore. Light pollution is a major problem, as you can see from this photograph of the South Bay I took from the top of Mt. Hamilton at 10pm two years ago. It's hard to change light bulbs, as funny as that sounds. It's easy to create an ordinance for future projects, but to make a dent in the current lighting situation takes energy and courage. The good thing about fighting light pollution is that the solutions are not expensive: changing to dimmer light bulbs, unscrewing every other light bulb on a street, or simply flipping the switch off. If you create a strong ordinance that addresses current lighting, then other cities will follow because they look to Palo Alto as a leader. Thank you for your dedication to the health and beauty of your city and for taking the time to consider dark skies. Sincerely, Rani Fischer Chair of the Environmental Advocacy Committee Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker; Raymond Goins via Alignable Cc:Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Lotus Fong; Zelkha, Mila; Lori Meyers; Gennady Sheyner; Sheree Roth; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Jeff Hayden; Emily Mibach; Dave Price; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; h.etzko@gmail.com; Reckdahl, Keith; Reckdahl, Keith; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Barberini, Christopher; Perron, Zachary; Afanasiev, Alex; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley, Michael; Don Austin; Yolanda Conaway; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Gerry Gras; GRP-City Council; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Rosen, Jeff; Jay Boyarsky; Baker, Rob; Figueroa, Eric; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Friends of Cubberley; Palo Alto Free Press; Bains, Paul; Kaloma Smith; Tom DuBois; Holman, Karen (external); cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Raymond Goins; Council, City; Ed Lauing; editor@almanacnews.com; editor@paweekly.com; Wagner, April; Mickie Winkler; Enberg, Nicholas; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; BoardOperations; boardfeedback@smcgov.org Subject:Re: Cory Booker on the genocide in Palestine some thoughts by Aram James Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 9:26:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. On Sat, Apr 5, 2025 at 4:31 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Love CORY Booker (CB)-but what does he have to say about the ongoingholocaust/genocide in Gaza, the West Bank & Lebanon? A friend text me to ask if CB would address the Israeli/U.S. sponsored genocide during his marathon talk on the Senate floor: Here was my answer: Part 1: I doubt that CB wants to address the issue of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, a genocide which is sponsored by the U.S. and Israel. Someone likeCB, who may run for president again, is unlikely to want to provoke the anger of AIPAC and other pro-Zionist white-wing lobby groups. These groups will likely contribute toCB’s future campaigns if he chooses to remain silent on this matter. CB, silent and obedient with his first loyalty to the outlaw state of Israel. Part 2: Indeed! The American public must be made aware of the true facts. The Israelis areextraordinarily fearful of the truth- thus their frantic efforts to crack down on free speech and academic freedom at colleges and universities across this country. Free Speech BeDamned! Our Institutions of higher learning are now -like our congress-Israeli-occupied territory. Shameful that our American democracy is being destroyed in the name ofprotecting the terrorist state of Israel. From:Avroh Shah To:Council, City Subject:Item 18: Please protect our city from light pollution Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 9:15:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, I hope you are doing well. My name is Avroh Shah, and I am a member of the Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition (PASCC). I am writing to you in regards to agenda item #18 on the4/7 City Council meeting. I have never been able to see the milky way in Palo Alto, and was hopeful that the dark sky ordinance would be strong enough for me to see some more stars.However, after reading through it, I am doubtful. I was concerned that the proposed ordinance only applies requirements to future buildings and major remodels, exempting current structures. As someone who has always deeply valued theaccessible nature preserves that surround Palo Alto, I was also concerned by the sheer volume of light spillage that this ordinance would allow and I am worried about the impacts of lightpollution in our nature preserves. I do support this ordinance, but I believe that it could be much, much stronger; specifically, it could apply towards current commercial buildings, andimpose a lights-off curfew on them too. Seeing the stars shouldn't be a luxury. Warmly, Avroh From:Deborah Goldeen To:Council, City Subject:660 University Ave. Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 8:29:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. In case you all haven’t caught wind of it, council chambers will be filled tomorrow with people who have dedicated themselves to bringing an end the housing mandates and the builders remedy that goes with them. I’m betting council will have to listen to an hour or more of public comment. I don’t have it in me to add to that misery. But if you all are considering putting City of Palo Alto staff and resources into the fight to undo SB’s 9&10, how on earth does the city justify its failure to approve 660 University? This sets a new record of hypocrisy for the city. The developers already went way above and beyond to accommodate city requests. This last refusal was nothing more than the neighbors don’t want it. When you’ve got the city gung ho for a lawsuit against the state and at the same time failing to approve good projects that are not seventeen stories tall, why is it you all feel you are deserving of respect? Deborah Goldeen, Birch St., 94306 From:Leonard Schwarz To:Council, City Cc:Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; lydiakou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 6:16:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is inexcusably out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to comply with a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five yearsago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating a cell tower 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Leonard Schwarz From:Eileen McLaughlin To:Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Burt, Patrick; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;Council, City Cc:Carin High; Gail Raabe; Renzel, Emily; LaRiviere, Florence Subject:Comments, Dark Skies Ordinance, Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 5:24:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. April 6, 2025 Mayor Ed Lauing Members of the Palo Alto City Council Transmitted by email RE: Item 18, 04/07/2025, Dark Skies Ordinance Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of Council: The Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge is pleased that you are considering a city-wide ordinance to implement Dark Skies priorities in Palo Alto. It is an action that will provide multiple benefits across the City including reduced disruption of circadian rhythms and health of both the community and wildlife. Citizens Committee wishes to draw your attention to a significant omission. Nowhere does the ordinance specify protection of wildlife in the ecological spaces on which they depend: creeks, parks and particularly the Baylands. Parks provide eco-niche habitats throughout the city. Creeks do as well and are major wildlife corridors for nocturnal and fish species. The Baylands can be characterized as a treeless landscape naturally exposed only to moonlight. Species native to that habitat include nocturnal foragers such as the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse. For them artificial illumination is deadly. The City has substantial public service operations adjoining the Baylands. Each of these have lighting needs that must be provided. The ordinance reinforces that the City do so in accordance with city-wide illumination standards. Unfortunately as the operations adjoin the Baylands and as the ordinance lacks any wildlife protection, Baylands wildlife will be put at particular risk. Under Exemptions (Draft Ordinance, p.3, Section 2 (d)5) the airport is given broad authority to elect exemptions for “operations” sans any operation-specific designations. We agree that certain lighting requirements of airport operation are critical for providing safe landings, takeoffs, taxiing and to fulfill FAA requirements. But the airport services and its property serve numerous non- flight operations (maintenance, training, materials storage, vehicle parking) where more typical dark skies lighting standards can and should apply. It is uniquely significant that the airport has shoreline wetlands within its own boundaries. Other than its Embarcadero Road frontage, it is surrounded by wetlands which include those present in the golf course. All of these wetlands serve shoreline wildlife nocturnally for foraging, nesting, roosting and mobility. As it is for humans, wildlife circadian rhythms and essential behaviors are disrupted by artificial lighting which also introduces excessive exposure to nocturnal predators. The airport, golf course, Geng Road recreation facilities, the RWF, the City facilities on East Bayshore Road and any other operations adjoining the Baylands need to implement wildlife-protective dark skies rules that eliminate, as much as possible, light trespass. Wetlands to be protected include the Duck Pond, Harbor Marsh, Baylands soughs, the Emily Renzel wetlands, the Palo Alto Flood Basin and those lands within the golf course and airport properties. For the same reasons, the wildlife corridors and eco-niches of creeks and parks require like protection from light trespass. Citizens Committee urges you to improve the Dark Skies Ordinance to include specific requirements to protect wildlife and their habitats in the City of Palo Alto. Respectfully, Eileen McLaughlin Board Member Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge CC: Carin High, Co-Chair, CCCR Gail Raabe, Co-Chair, CCCR From:Carl Thomsen To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed Subject:Proposed new lighting ordinance (18.40.250). Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 3:41:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am writing to voice my objection to the new proposed lighting ordinance. I apologize for sending a second email on this topic but I reviewed the proposal in more detail and also went outside at night to observe the lighting situation. I did not drive around the entire city but what was clear to me from the area I did observe was that the major source for light “pollution” in the residential neighborhoods was the streetlights. I didn’t see any support documents showing what the actual benefits this ordinance would be in terms of reduction in “light pollution”. If this doesn’t have any significant benefit other than a feel good “we’re saving the environment” then it shouldn’t be adopted. I would assume that the committee proposing this ordinance reviewed actual arial photos of Palo Alto at night to document the current source of the light pollution and this ordinance is a result of those reviews. If not, this is the proverbial “the emperor had no clothes”. I am quite sure that in terms of dark sky goals that the light from household windows, cars on the streets (including 101 adjacent to Palo Alto, streetlights, and buildings that keep there lights on all night for safety or other purposes contribute significantly more to light pollution than what this ordinance tries to address. Great headlines that Palo Alto has adopted the recommendations of the International Dark Light organization but no noticeable reduction on “light pollution”. Another consideration is that the City of Palo Alto has a priority providing more housing. This is one more ordinance impacting the cost of building housing in the City. You may say this doesn’t have any or a minimal impact but it’s one more regulation to require review and compliance. Each “minor” impact on the housing cost adds up over time if not in actual material and build costs, then in design time, approval time and inspection time. Small incremental changes add up and discourage contractors from even wanting to build in an area with excessive codes. Finally, I noted in the proposed ordinance that “public facilities may be granted for adjustments to the regulations in the ordinance to ensure efficient operation, maintenance, safety, and security”. For what reason would public facilities be excluded from an ordinance and private facilities and properties not be given the same exclusion. Isn’t it equally important that private properties are granted exceptions for “efficient operation, maintenance, safety, and security”. Light pollution is light pollution whether it comes from a public or private building. This is a great example of government exempting themselves from laws that everyone else has to follow. Do as I say, not as I do. It’s a clear example of why citizens have lost confidence in the political system. Well, I haven’t lost confidence in our local leadership and hope you will seriously consider the issues I have raised. For all of the above reasons I strongly recommend a no vote on this light pollution ordinance. Sincerely, Carl Thomsen 1701 Edgewood Drive From:Magic To:Council, City; Ed Lauing; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com;Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Lydia Kou Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 3:23:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing andthen-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. With appreciation, David Schrom From:jfleming@right-thing.net To:Council, City Cc:Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 12:45:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Altocontinues to comply with a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating a cell tower 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they needto be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming From:Annette Herz To:Council, City Subject:Please protect our city from light pollution Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 11:10:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto Councilmembers, My Name is Annette Herz, I am a local resident and CA certified naturalist, who understands the link between our biodiversity and our own human well-being ! Please strengthen the proposed Dark Sky Ordinance !!! Please ask city staff to Apply the ordinance to newly installed or replacement lighting fixtures on existing structures, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Set appropriate lights-out (curfew) requirements for outdoor lighting to prevent unnecessary night-time lighting. Prohibit light spillage into homes, parks, and open spaces. You have the power to help save us ! Thank you, Annette From:Darlene Yaplee To:Council, City Cc:Darlene E. Yaplee Subject:Item 18: Please Protect Our City from Light Pollution Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 9:45:09 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing and Honorable Members of the City Council, I vividly remember years ago being on a plane where one side allowed smoking and the other did not—and on other flights, smokers were seated in the back while non-smokers were in front. These arrangements, though well-intentioned, failed to prevent smoke from drifting throughout the cabin. That experience has always stayed with me, and it’s a powerful analogy for light pollution: without meaningful, comprehensive protections, the effects spill over and harm everyone. This is why it’s so important that Palo Alto adopts a strong lighting ordinance. To be effective, it must address the true nature of light pollution—how it spreads beyond property lines and affects neighborhoods, ecosystems, and the night sky. Some have raised concerns about enforcement. But in many cases, including this one, the value of an ordinance lies in setting a clear standard and guiding behavior—even when daily enforcement is not the primary mechanism. Neighboring cities like Brisbane and Cupertino have already adopted thoughtful lighting ordinances. Palo Alto should be a leader in this space as well—helping reduce unnecessary energy consumption, protect wildlife habitats, and preserve the quality of life for residents. I urge the Council to: Direct staff to incorporate the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendations, including: Broad applicability to newly installed and replacement lighting fixtures and systems A meaningful “lights-out” (curfew) requirement to prevent unnecessary nighttime lighting A reduced light trespass allowance to 0.1 foot-candle Ensure continued protection of our waterways, recognizing their ecological and community value Thank you for your consideration and your commitment to making Palo Alto a healthier, more sustainable city. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Sincerely, Darlene Yaplee From:Liz Price To:Council, City Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 7:43:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council members, I am writing in support of ten new firefighter positions and a new fire truck. Fire is an increasing and deadly threat in our changing world, and we need to be prepared. To not take such crucial preventive measures is to court disaster as we have seen so tragically inother parts of our country and the world. Sincerely, Liz Price From:Suzanne Jacobs To:Council, City Cc:Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please support the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 1:01:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Let's keep cell towers at a safe distance. Suzanne JacobsSouth Court, Palo Alto From:Lyn Heideman To:Council, City Subject:Please strengthen the proposed “Ordinance Updating Lighting Standards” Date:Sunday, April 6, 2025 12:13:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Councilmembers, I am so grateful that I moved to Palo Alto almost 20 years ago. And I am so proud of all that Palo Alto and the state of California have done to set a model for sustainable living and protecting the health of people, wildlife, and the environment. I have read “Attachment A - Draft Ordinance Updating Lighting Standards (PAMC Section 18.40,” which was posted online in late March. I very much appreciate all that you’re doing and am writing to encourage you to strengthen the ordinance. The ordinance should also apply to newly installed or replacement lighting fixtures on existing structures. > Under the current ordinance, all properties are subject to a standard limiting light trespass to no more than 0.5 foot-candles at the property line. The proposed ordinance, however, applies this restriction only to new buildings, major remodels, and lighting systems that require a permit. The result? Existing properties would no longer be subject to any enforceable limits on light trespass. > This change removes an important safeguard that currently protects all residents from excessive and disruptive lighting. Citywide light trespass limits help to ensure that all residents--regardless of when their home was built or last renovated--are protected from intrusive lighting. To prevent unnecessary night-time lighting: (1) set appropriate lights-out requirements for outdoor lighting and (2) prohibit light spillage into homes, parks, and open spaces. > Let’s not lose sight of the reasons for the “dark skies ordinance” and ensure we meet those commitments: human health, nature and wildlife, reduced energy use, and restoring the beauty of the night. > Studies show that artificial light at night disrupts sleep, hormone regulation, and overall health. It’s linked to increased risks of certain cancers, diabetes, heart disease, and mood disorders. > Light pollution also disrupts the natural environment. Artificial light at night interferes with animal movement: for example, it disorients migrating birds, leading to exhaustion, disrupted navigation, even often deadly collisions with buildings. It also throws off the timing of key ecological processes and behaviors: it alters feeding, mating, and nesting behaviors; when migration or nesting starts; or when flowers bloom and pollinators emerge. > Light pollution wastes energy. Light pollution is contrary (1) to sound sustainability principles and (2) to the purpose of dark skies of using light only where/when it is needed and at the lowest level needed. >.Light pollution steals the beauty of the night from us, of experiencing our world in darkness: the stars, the moon, the sounds of night-time animals, the stillness. Thank you very much for your consideration, Lyn Heideman From:Celia Boyle To:Council, City Cc:Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo: changes to the wireless ordinance Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 10:25:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone: Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Celia Boyle, Jay Hopkins and all the people of Barron Park :) From:Ken Joye To:Council, City Subject:Stanford hospital nurses housing Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 10:24:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I recently read this article: On call with nowhere to go: Stanford nurse chooses ‘van life’ between shifts in pricey Palo Altohttps://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/stanford-hospital-nurses-housing-20228712.php Would that suggest to you as it does to me that Palo Alto should re-zone the entire Stanford Research Park (SRP) to be mixed-use, so that Stanford could begin converting parcels fromcommercial office/R&D to mixed commercial/residential? Can you envision as I do a portion of the SRP devoted to Stanford Hospital nurses sleeping in their vans? That is, zoning which would allow Stanford to create a dedicated space forovernight employee parking? I am sure that this is more complicated than I can imagine, but at the same time believe that the current situation demands a response from us. thank you for your service,Ken Joye Ventura neighborhood From:Ken Joye To:Council, City Subject:BPTP update Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 10:07:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. On 26 February 2025, the PTC heard a presentation on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP) update [Staff Report #2412-3947]. I do not know when that topicwill come before you, but want to send you my thoughts on the current “Recommendations” phase of this project. When staff and consultants present this plan to you, please focus on the following points: (1) the current materials include a project list and a prioritization framework among other things; that prioritization framework is based upon the CHRP Report 803 ActiveTrans PriorityTool (APT). The APT lists 9 criteria yet only 2 of those are included in the prioritization framework. It would seem imperative to include Constraints as a third element in theprioritization framework, given the stated intent "to determine appropriate criteria and metrics to prioritize recommendations and network routes.” Should we prioritize programs over facilities (cost:benefit)? Should we prioritize traffic diversions over more expensive facilities? (2 traffic diversions (traffic filtering) are a defining feature of the Ellen Fletcher bicycle boulevard (Bryant St), yet only 5 of 25 BLVD_* projects feature diversions in the PTC projects list (3) the Proposed Network Development Criteria lack any “attributes” for the SRP, StanfordHospital or the central Stanford campus, though those are all major employment centers; more generally, the BPTP should address those commuting within, into and out of our city (e.g.,how will our network connect to the Bay Trail or the North Bayshore employment center?) (4) the Bicycle Network Update map fails to show Loma Verde as an potential crossing of the rail tracks, though it does show crossings at both Everett and Seale; given the South Palo AltoBike/Ped Connectivity project, that is a significant omission (5) our approved Housing Element suggests that the San Antonio Rd corridor will be the site of major residential development, yet that is not marked as a Pedestrian District as is the ElCamino Real neighborhood commercial center (also identified as a growth area in the Housing Element) (6) the Recommended Bicycle Facility Map fails to show Park Blvd as an existing bicycleboulevard, though it was designated as such by City Council (see: Staff Report #5285 (11/12/2014)) (7) for the prioritization framework pedestrian scoring, are Marguerite or SRP shuttles considered or only VTA/SamTrans/ACTransit? (8) Staff Report #2412-3947 omits any discussion of VMT vs LOS, if we currently design ourroad network focused on the former that should be explicit (9) some very specific pedestrian policies to consider adopting in the BPTP are: mandate "road verge" rather than rolled curbs on high residential density streets; lengthen signal timingat intersections crossed by high numbers of older pedestrians; require any ornamental sidewalk materials meet the same durability standards as typical concrete sidewalks I am glad to see that both "Walk and Roll for Private Schools” and “Safe Routes to Work,Shopping, Downtown, Community Services and Parks” were listed in Attachment D of Staff Report #2412-3947 thank you for your service,Ken Joye Ventura neighborhood, Palo Alto From:Lissy Bland To:Council, City Subject:Boulware Park - This Is Open? Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 6:00:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I have two granddaughters that have been waiting for the Boulware Park playground to reopen for months. As of Saturday, April 5th, it’s still closed. Why? The playground has lookedcomplete to my untrained eye for a quite a while. My understanding is that the city has declared the contractor in compliance with the (latest) March 31st deadline and given weeks him to complete a punch list. Why is the playground still closed? When will it open? The playground was supposed to beopen well before Christmas and Hanukkah. Easter and Passover are around the corner. It’s still not open. I’m sure that there are many other families that will also be disappointed if theplayground is closed for the holidays. Lissy Bland From:Diane McCoy To:Council, City Subject:Please protect our city from light pollution Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 5:21:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto Council Members. My name is Diane McCoy. I am a 47 year resident of Palo Alto. I taught Special Education and First Grade at El Carmelo School for 37 years. Now retired, I am a volunteer for Environmental Volunteers, SCVBA, Avenidas and the PAHS PAWS program. I am so grateful to have these opportunities in our city. I also greatly and almost daily enjoy the Palo Alto Baylands, Byxbee Park, RenzelWetlands, Foothills Park and my neighborhood park, Eleanor Pardee Park. I treasure these spaces. Because these places, along with my neighborhood, is of such value I am writing to ask you to strengthen the proposed Dark Sky Ordinance: -Please apply the ordinance to newly installed or replacement lighting fixtures on existing structures, as recommended by the Planning Commission. -Set appropriate lights-out (curfew) requirements for outdoor lighting to prevent unnecessary night-time lighting. -Prohibit light spillage into homes, parks, and open spaces. Thank you, Diane McCoy Greer Road, Palo Alto From:Carl Thomsen To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed Subject:Proposed new lighting ordinance (18.40.250) Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 4:30:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed new lighting ordinance (18.40.250). Due to prior commitments, I will not be able to attend the Council meeting on Monday and express my concerns and objection to this proposal in person, so I am writing this email to document my opinion. I hadn’t seen anything about this new ordinance until just a few days ago. We live along the San Francisquito Creek on Edgewood Drive with our fence directly adjacent to the creek. We have lighting in the front and back of our house that goes on at night to help protect us from a home or car robberies. We installed this lighting many years ago at the recommendation of the Palo Alto police department after we did have a home invasion. We regularly read about auto break-ins in our area. Fortunately, we have only had one auto break- in while our car was in our driveway. We have a front light and a front camera to deter potential criminals. Without the lighting, the camera would be pretty useless. The proposal notes that many cities have adopted Dark Sky ordinances but there is no indication if these are urban or rural locations. I found 6 cities listed when I searched for cities with dark sky ordinances plus Malibu mentioned several times. What came up on my search was lots of information from the International Dark Sky Association on how to draft ordinances. The fact that this ordinance only applies to new construction or major remodels seems like an easy way to get this passed without really considering the implications. It’s proverbial kicking the can down the road. If this is important to the city priorities, then why not have it apply to all existing dwellings? I would imagine there would be a lot more input from citizens of Palo Alto if that were the case. I for one would much rather see the City of Palo Alto enforcing existing traffic laws than spending any time and money enforcing or mediating issues related to a Dark Sky initiative (not to mention the time and money already spent discussing and drafting this proposed ordinance). We are part of a large urban area, not a rural community. Let’s focus on urban issues like roads, sidewalks, robberies, speeding and safe streets to name a few. The City of Palo Alto has limited resources; let’s not spend any more time or money on this proposal. I believe these proposed changes to the lighting ordinance will negatively impact our safety. I strongly urge a no vote on the proposal. Sincerely, Carl Thomsen 1701 Edgewood Drive From:Aram James To:Veenker, Vicki Cc:Council, City; Raymond Goins; Yolanda Conaway; Don Austin; Reckdahl, Keith; Ed Lauing; Josh Becker; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; Jay Boyarsky; Bains, Paul; Jeff Rosen; Roberta Ahlquist; Lotus Fong; h.etzko@gmail.com; Dave Price; Gerry Gras Subject:Stanford students get visas revoked University says it does not know the reasons for revocations Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 1:38:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Stanford students get visas revoked University says it does not know the reasons for revocations https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2025/04/05/stanford-students-get-visas-revoked/ From:Tom Fountain To:Council, City Cc:Cha, Kelly Subject:Opposition to Proposed Lighting Ordinance Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 1:13:27 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Honorable City Council Members, I am a resident of Palo Alto and am writing to register my objection to the proposed lightingordinance scheduled for first reading on Monday, April 7, 2025. While the intent behind the proposed ordinance is laudable in seeking to protect the environment through lighting standards, the ordinance as drafted is overly restrictive. Ihighlight the following: Applicability of the ordinance: Highly restrictive lighting codes are most appropriate for sensitive ecosystems. The Architectural Resource Board (ARB) was correct inrecommending we regulate areas differently based on the environment’s light sensitivity. Staff’s conclusion that such differentiation is “unnecessarily complicated”fails on its face. Even a cursory reading of our municipal codes shows that we frequently differentiate based on hundreds of dimensions, certainly including the type ofarea. Highly restrictive code such as contained in this proposed ordinance are only applicable to the rural areas and not to the urbanized center. This ordinance should beapplied to the area west of Junipero Serra Blvd as originally intended. If such differentiation is too “complicated” as claimed by Staff, I submit that at a minimum weshould follow the ARB’s recommendation to differentiate between residential and commercial buildings, with the restrictions proposed in this ordinance most appropriatefor commercial projects. Insufficient security and safety protections: The proposed ordinance fails to adequately prioritize and protect the safety and security of Palo Alto residents inurbanized areas. The limitations on hours of operation, light output, requirements for motion sensors, and requirements that each controller be “fully programmable” are toorestrictive to provide adequate safety for some residents facing acute threats. I have unfortunately been the frequent victim of crime, or had my house threatened, by thegrowing unhoused population residing next to my home. Effective lighting is my most effective method of safeguarding my property and family. Moreover, the inability toprovide sufficient safety lighting around pools, walkways, and driveways (given hours, output, etc.) creates unfair personal risk. In a proposed ordinance that goes to greatlengths to allow “special” conditions for even an airport, how is there no accommodation for a basic front porch light? Do we just expect that no child or guestwill ever arrive late? Unintended consequences: As acknowledged by Staff in the report, lighting ordinances are fraught with peril from unintended consequences. One such unintendedconsequences is the likely neighbor disputes. I’ll offer my own experience as an example, but having talked with many fellow residents, it is clear I am not alone. I have unfortunately faced countless complaints filed against my home by neighbors foreverything from “we don’t like a [traditional] house style” to “I eyeballed the property line and the surveyor is wrong.” Having invested tens of thousands of dollarsresponding to these baseless claims, not a single one has ever been upheld. You don’t believe we will face constant neighbor complaints about a whole raft of perceivedlighting violations? Responding to and investigating these complaints will be a waste of city resources. This is exactly why such an ordinance is too extreme for an urbanizedarea. The unintended consequences likely extend to many other situations. For instance, this ordinance appears to prohibit even temporary colored holiday lights. Theproposed ordinance is too restrictive and too limiting for an urbanized setting. Impact on housing development: We can likely all acknowledge our state (and region) faces a desperate need for greater housing production and better affordability. WhileStaff concludes the impact on development is low, I ask the City Council to consider the cumulative impact of our many similarly restrictive requirements already in effect (withyet more under consideration). Each and every “special” requirement unique to Palo Alto drives up the cost of living and drives down the availability of housing. Many“low” individual impacts cumulatively create a “high” impact on new housing production. Is there any wonder housing is so expensive and likely unaffordable for ourchildren? In a time of such crisis, must we further reduce the availability and quality of housing in our area? Again, the immediate cure is simple. Apply the ordinance to thesensitive areas and/or limit it to commercial properties. Technical failures: The proposed ordinance is incompatible with the city’s Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate lightingrestrictions for homes in areas east of Junipero Serra Boulevard. As advocated elsewhere throughout this letter, we should rescope this ordinance to the areacontemplated originally by the Comprehensive Plan and where it applies most – the light sensitive areas in the foothills. For the foregoing reasons and others cited in prior correspondence with the Planning &Transportation Committee and City Staff, I oppose the lighting ordinance update and ask you to redirect Staff to better address these issues. Sincerely, /s/Tom Fountain From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:I join with pro housing groups across California in opposing SB457 Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 12:30:06 PM Attachments:Oppose SB457.docxYIMBY SB 457 - Oppose.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing and council members, I join with YIMBY Action and pro housing groups across California in writing Senator Becker to oppose SB457. Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Hon. Josh Becker Senate State Capitol, Room 1021 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear Senator Becker (Josh), I am writing to join with authentic pro housing groups from all across California in opposing SB457. Provisions in this bill, outlined by Yimby Action, will allow local jurisdictions to deny existing housing applications at a time when the state desperately needs more, not less, housing to support equity and environmental goals and provide more customers for our struggling local businesses. Besides codifying ant—housing provisions, SB457 will lead to a waste of staff and council time and associated costs including probable legal costs in defending almost certain lawsuits. Moreover, legislation designed to mitigate negative impacts of SB457 was recently approved and needs time to see the impacts. If you or the committee are worried about the application at 80 Williow in Menlo Park, I believe there must be narrower approaches than s statewide invitation to deny housing applications. As a regional economist, I do not believe 80 Willow is a viable application given the large office vacancy rate, the lagging Bay Area job market and the poor location of the site for access. I believe SB457 points us in the wrong direction for meeting important state goals. Thank you for your consideration, Steve Apr 1, 2025 Hon. Josh Becker Senate State Capitol, Room 1021 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Oppose SB 457 Dear Senator Becker, On behalf of YIMBY Action, we respectfully oppose SB 457, which proposes to alter the deﬁnitions and timelines around “deemed complete” housing applications and housing element compliance in ways that threaten to undermine the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and reduce accountability for local jurisdictions. YIMBY Action is a network of over 50,000 pro-housing activists ﬁghting for more inclusive housing policies. Our vision is an integrated society where every person has access to a safe, aﬀordable home near jobs, services, and opportunity. We ﬁght for 1 better housing policies because we want to reduce poverty, end homelessness, eliminate racial segregation, create jobs, and stop climate change. This bill makes two concerning changes to existing housing law. First, it weakens the HAA by redeﬁning “deemed complete” in a way that retroactively strips protections from builder’s remedy projects that ﬁled preliminary applications but have not yet received ﬁnal approval by January 1, 2026. This change is contrary to the intent of SB 330 and will disrupt a signiﬁcant number of ongoing projects, creating unnecessary uncertainty and opening the door for bad-faith disapprovals. Second, SB 457 undermines the housing element law by deeming housing elements “substantially compliant” on the date of local adoption—before the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) has completed its independent review. This eﬀectively sidelines HCD’s role and incentivizes local governments to adopt inadequate housing elements without fear of immediate consequence, gutting a critical mechanism for state enforcement. California’s housing crisis demands stronger tools for accountability—not rollbacks that embolden obstruction. SB 457 would enable more cities to sidestep their obligations under state law, delaying or outright denying urgently needed housing. For these reasons, we must respectfully oppose SB 457. Sincerely, YIMBY Action advocates for welcoming communities where everyone can thrive. yimbyaction.org 2 Laura Foote YIMBY Action, Executive Director Sarah Bell East Bay YIMBY, Volunteer Lead David Watson Mountain View YIMBY, Volunteer Lead Mike Chen Northern Neighbors, Volunteer Lead Jeremy Levine Peninsula for Everyone, Volunteer Lead YIMBY Action advocates for welcoming communities where everyone can thrive. yimbyaction.org 3 Robert Fruchtman San Francisco YIMBY, Volunteer Lead Rafa Sonnenfeld Santa Cruz YIMBY, Volunteer Lead Adrian Covert Santa Rosa YIMBY, Volunteer Lead Kevin Buchanan SLOCo YIMBY, Volunteer Lead Jane Natoli Grow The Richmond, Volunteer Lead YIMBY Action advocates for welcoming communities where everyone can thrive. yimbyaction.org 4 Cassandra Douglas Ventura County YIMBY, Volunteer Lead Andrew Slocum YIMBY Los Angeles, Volunteer Lead Ilya Gurin South Bay YIMBY, Volunteer Lead Ryan O’Connell Napa-Solano for Everyone, Volunteer Lead YIMBY Action advocates for welcoming communities where everyone can thrive. yimbyaction.org 5 From:Nat Fisher To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly Subject:cell towers Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 12:19:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five yearsago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begunmodifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, sevendays a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Natalie Fisher 736 Ellsworth Place Palo Alto Natalie From:Susan Thomsen To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed Subject:Proposed “Dark Sky” Ordinances: Updating Section 18.40.250 (Lighting), Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 9:17:11 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of Palo Alto, It has just come to my attention via an email from a neighbor that a proposed new lighting ordinance will be before the Council on Monday, April 7, that will impact all residents of Palo Alto and that comprehensive input to the City of Palo has been given by the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter. I do not believe the City of Palo Alto adequately informed me about the ordinance. It appears that members of the Audubon Society and Sierra Club must have been informed as they certainly were able to give a lot of input into the contents of the ordinance. It seems to me that as a resident of Palo Alto, at the very least, I should have received a mailer about this ordinance. I also believe a community meeting should have been called to get residents’ input as the updates to the lighting ordinance clearly would affect their properties. Because I only learned about this ordinance 3 days before the scheduled meeting, I am unable to attend the meeting because of a prior commitment. I would like to go on record as opposing the proposed “Dark Sky” Ordinance Updating Section 18.40.250 because it protects wildlife at the expense of Palo Alto citizens. This past fall I wrote to you in opposition to creating a wildlife corridor in our backyard because we live along San Francisquito Creek and when we first moved into our house, a man entered our yard via the creek and proceeded to knock down our side door while my kids and I were getting ready for school and work. When I met eyes with the man when he was outside our glass door, he proceeded to break it down. Luckily, our deadbolt allowed us time to get out the front door, but the police told me the man was most likely after me. At the time the Palo Alto police would not come into our house until they had a dog unit with them. I will never forget that incident even though it occurred in 1981. At the time we were told that outside lighting, an alarm, and a dog were the best deterrents This message needs your attention The subject has non-English characters. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast to criminals and now the City of Palo Alto is proposing to control security lighting at the expense of the security of us citizens. I implore you to reconsider the proposed updating of the new lighting ordinance 18.40.250 requiring shielding of security lights and timers of 5 minutes on light sensors. We live in a neighborhood by the San Francisco Creek that needs all the deterrents possible to add to our feeling of safety including good lighting. The safety of Palo Alto citizens should be your first priority. Sincerely, Susan Thomsen 1701 Edgewood Drive Palo Alto, California From:Julia Weber To:Council, City Subject:SB 457 Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 9:03:33 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.Dear City Council, Please endorse the bill in Sacramento that will close the loopholes that would let the project at Sunset Magazine’s old site be built. The prevention of that project should be top most priority . I support a project that fits with existing heights and masses. Julia Weber and Jeff Weber 3325 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, Ca 94306 Sent from my iPad From:susan chamberlain To:Council, City Subject:Please sponsor SB 457 - Strengthen State Housing Law Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 8:26:42 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to sponsor SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please take a strong stand on this legislation by sponsoring SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Thank you, Susan Chamberlain From:Sharleen Fiddaman To:Council, City Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 7:47:06 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, Stone: Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Altocontinues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: · Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; · Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; · Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and · Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begunmodifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, sevendays a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Sincerely,Sharleen Fiddaman Virus-free.www.avast.com From:Aram James To:Gerry Gras Cc:Council, City; Sean Allen; Pat M; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Figueroa, Eric; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Barberini, Christopher; Foley, Michael; Enberg, Nicholas; Wagner, April; Afanasiev, Alex; Robert.Jonson@shf.sccgov.org; Bains, Paul; Jeff Rosen; Lee, Craig; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; GRP-City Council; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Clerk; Henry Etzkowitz; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Human Relations Commission; Raymond Goins; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; h.etzko@gmail.com; Lori Meyers; Shikada, Ed; Sheree Roth; Binder, Andrew; editor@paweekly.com; Dave Price; Baker, Rob; Roberta Ahlquist; Roberta Ahlquist; Gardener, Liz; Linda Jolley; Lotus Fong; Jeff Conrad; josh@joshsalcman.com; John Burt; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Doug Minkler; Dana St. George; Damon Silver; Kaloma Smith; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; Palo Alto Free Press; Burt, Patrick; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Blackshire, Geoffrey; Jasso, Tamara; Donna Wallach; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; BoardOperations; Friends of Cubberley; Mickie Winkler; Liz Kniss; Daniel Kottke; Yolanda Conaway; Don Austin; Sameena@Secure-Justice.org; ladoris cordell; Paul Bains; Dennis Upton; Rowena Chiu; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Rodriguez, Miguel; frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Patrice Ventresca; Jensen, Eric; Vara Ramakrishnan; mark.turner@morganhill.ca.gov; yolanda; KEVIN JENSEN Subject:Re: It is time to address the unacceptable rise of hate and bigotry in Morgan Hill with a firm and unequivocalvoice. On March 7, 2025, a Muslim family in our commu… Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 2:17:23 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 4/5/2025 Hi Gerry, It is hard to know where police chief Andrew Binder stands as a human being onthe ongoing hate crimes in his apparent hometown of Morgan Hill. I am not impressed by his cop’s uniform; I could care less about the military nazi uniforms' trappings of authoritarianism these characters wear. I would prefer that if we have to have police that they do not feel it necessary to wear, parade around in, thesehideous outfits at all. Just let me know who you are behind that uniform, AndrewBinder. I'm hoping beyond hope that in your hometown, you have stood up and spoken up against the attacks on Muslim members of your community and that nasty symbol of hate, the Nazi's swastika. The example set by the people ofBillings, Montana, in response to hate crimes in their community was terrific.Thanks to Gerry for sharing that most compelling article. More questions for Andrew Binder to follow. Best regards, Aram James On Sat, Apr 5, 2025 at 12:10 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: It is time to address the unacceptable rise of hate and bigotry in Morgan Hill with a firm andunequivocal voice. On March 7, 2025, a Muslim family in our commu… Source: Morgan Hill Times | Morgan Hill, San Martin, CA https://search.app/9LYgtm9eLS8pAnEY6 Shared via the Google app From:Gerry Gras To:Aram James; Binder, Andrew Cc:Council, City; Sean Allen; Pat M; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Figueroa, Eric; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Barberini, Christopher; Foley, Michael; Enberg, Nicholas; Wagner, April; Afanasiev, Alex; Robert.Jonson@shf.sccgov.org; Bains, Paul; Jeff Rosen; Lee, Craig; Sarah Wright; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; GRP-City Council; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Clerk; Henry Etzkowitz; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Human Relations Commission; Raymond Goins; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; h.etzko@gmail.com; Lori Meyers; Shikada, Ed; Sheree Roth Subject:Re: It is time to address the unacceptable rise of hate and bigotry in Morgan Hill with a firm and unequivocalvoice. On March 7, 2025, a Muslim family in our commu… Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 12:37:10 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from gerrygras@earthlink.net. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] good letter. too bad it was not written by the newspaper staff. are other bay area cities much different? if so, i wonder what is special about Morgan Hill. ... i remember some years ago there was a racist attack in some city,probably in Montana, where many of the people in the city displayedsigns indicating their support for the ones attacked. ... here is the story, plus some advice about how to confront hate: https://www.niot.org/blog/how-10000-menorahs-helped-town-defeat-hate gerry On 4/5/25 00:10, Aram James wrote: > It is time to address the unacceptable rise of hate and bigotry in > Morgan Hill with a firm and unequivocal voice. On March 7, 2025, a> Muslim family in our commu…>> Source: Morgan Hill Times | Morgan Hill, San Martin, CA> https://search.app/9LYgtm9eLS8pAnEY6> > Shared via the Google app From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew Cc:Council, City; Sean Allen; Pat M; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Figueroa, Eric; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Barberini, Christopher; Foley, Michael; Enberg, Nicholas; Wagner, April; Afanasiev, Alex; Robert.Jonson@shf.sccgov.org; Bains, Paul; Jeff Rosen; Lee, Craig; Sarah Wright; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; GRP-City Council; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Clerk; Henry Etzkowitz; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Human Relations Commission; Gerry Gras; Raymond Goins; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; h.etzko@gmail.com; Lori Meyers; Shikada, Ed; Sheree Roth Subject:It is time to address the unacceptable rise of hate and bigotry in Morgan Hill with a firm and unequivocal voice.On March 7, 2025, a Muslim family in our commu… Date:Saturday, April 5, 2025 12:11:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. It is time to address the unacceptable rise of hate and bigotry in Morgan Hill with a firm andunequivocal voice. On March 7, 2025, a Muslim family in our commu… Source: Morgan Hill Times | Morgan Hill, San Martin, CA https://search.app/9LYgtm9eLS8pAnEY6 Shared via the Google app From:Art Liberman To:Council, City Cc:Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Wireless Ordnance needs update Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 9:32:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i ; Council Members: You will have a meeting on April 21 to review and discuss the wireless ordinance. Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo entitled "Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Altocontinues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, or an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. In this case, cell towers like this, which operate 24/7, must be located at a much further distance than this. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Arthur D Liberman From:Deborah GoldeenTo:City MgrCc:Council, City; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Police; Bulbuk, LeslieSubject:NOT ebikesDate:Friday, April 4, 2025 7:27:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I was able to tale two pictures of these youth without being noticed. This picture was taken around 6pm, Friday April 5th. The second picture has FOUR youths on “bikes.” All four of these youths are riding MOTORCYCLES. Becuase the state was sloppy in it’s initial regulatation legislatation, it’s difficult to distinguish between a class two, a class three ebike and an electric motorcycle or electric off road dirt bike. People taking advantage of this ignorance is not uncommon. The “bikes” these youths are riding, if they are ridden as bicycles on public streets, are illegal not only because they are motorcycles/dirt bikes, but they also, I believe, exceed power limits in state law. After I took this picture, the youths took off, full speed, through the ped-bike underpass, beeping their horns to tell people to get out of their way. I called and reported the incident to dispatch. They brushed it off. This kind of flagrant and dangerous violation of law is not uncommon. Most of the time I can’t get a picture. Today I was on foot and they didn’t notice me. Are there plans to try and curtail this phenomena? Also, can someone please explain to me why it’s still legal for youths under sixteen to ride a class TWO ebike? If I’m not mistaken, Marin County is about to enact a law making that illegal. Any plans to do that here? Deborah Goldeen, Birch St., 94306 > > > > > > From:Raymond Goins To:Aram James Cc:Sean Allen; Paul Joseph; mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov; district1@sanjoseca.gov; District2@sanjoseca.gov; District3@sanjoseca.gov; District4@sanjoseca.gov; District5@sanjoseca.gov; district6@sanjoseca.gov; District7@sanjoseca.gov; district8@sanjoseca.gov; District9@sanjoseca.gov; District10@sanjoseca.gov; Jeff Rosen; Dan Okonkwo; Brandon Pho; Robert Handa; Robert Salonga; Kiet Do; LaMonica Peters; eddie.aubrey@sanjoseca.gov; dwight.white@sanjoseca.gov; Jack Molmud; Sara Stinson; damian.trujillo@nbcuni.com; Richard Konda; Richard Hobbs; Wendy Greenfield; Carla Torres; Raj Jayadev; Jose Valle; Cynthia Longs; Pat M; William Armaline; Rose Lynn; Seher Awan; James Staten; mike braxton; Michael Pati; theresa.diola@gmail.com; Michael Ybarra; lasha heard; Candice Brooks; Ed Lauing; Shikada, Ed; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; Stump, Molly; editor@paweekly.com; Lauing, Ed; ladoris cordell; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Bains, Paul; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley, Michael; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; sharon jackson; Lee, Craig; Barberini, Christopher; Enberg, Nicholas; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; Dana St. George; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; cromero@cityofepa.org; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Veenker, Vicki; Gerry Gras; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; gstone22@gmail.com; Gennady Sheyner; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Figueroa, Eric; Jensen, Eric; Sarah Wright; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Palo Alto Free Press; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Kaloma Smith; Daniel Kottke; GRP-City Council; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.gov; Bill Newell; Bill Johnson; editor@almanacnews.com; Lydia Kou; Liz Kniss; Greg Tanaka Subject:Re: Complaint Regarding Excessive Use of Force by San Jose Police Department on January 10, 2025 Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 7:16:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you Aram for sharing , leadership should lead by example and just philosophy Raymond Lee Goins On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 6:33 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:4/4/2025 Hi folks: This is the same department (SJPD) that Palo Alto Police Chief Andrew Binder, who is now apparently living in Morgan Hill, 40 miles from Palo Alto, came from. How invested in PaloAlto is a chief who lives 40 miles from the town he claims to care about? Can we reasonably expect Binder to be available to lead first responders 24/7 in a mass shooting incident orother major catastrophe? You be the judge! A police chief living 40 miles from the city he oversees turns the idea of community policing on its head. Time for a change in leadershipanyone Sincerely, Aram James P.S. Please checkout this brutal & extraordinarily violent video of the SJPD in action. ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com> Date: Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 4:45 PMSubject: Complaint Regarding Excessive Use of Force by San Jose Police Department on January 10, 2025To: Paul Joseph <Paul.joseph@sanjoseca.gov>, <mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov>, <District1@sanjoseca.gov>, <District2@sanjoseca.gov>, <District3@sanjoseca.gov>,<District4@sanjoseca.gov>, <District5@sanjoseca.gov>, <district6@sanjoseca.gov>, <District7@sanjoseca.gov>, <district8@sanjoseca.gov>, <District9@sanjoseca.gov>,<District10@sanjoseca.gov>, Jeff Rosen <JRosen@dao.sccgov.org>, Dan Okonkwo <dokonkwo@dao.sccgov.org>CC: Brandon Pho <brandon@sanjosespotlight.com>, Robert Handa <robert.handa@nbcuni.com>, Robert Salonga <rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com>, KietDo <kiet.a.do@gmail.com>, LaMonica Peters <lamonica.peters@fox.com>, <eddie.aubrey@sanjoseca.gov>, <dwight.white@sanjoseca.gov>, Jack Molmud<jmolmud@kron4.com>, Sara Stinson <sstinson@kron4.com>, <damian.trujillo@nbcuni.com>, Richard Konda <rkonda@asianlawalliance.org>, RichardHobbs <richhobbs@msn.com>, Wendy Greenfield <wgestrella@aol.com>, Carla Torres <xicanamagic@hotmail.com>, Raj Jayadev <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org>, Jose Valle<jvalle1800@gmail.com>, Cynthia Longs <cynthia@siliconvalleydebug.org>, aram james <Abjpd1@gmail.com>, Pat M <p.marshall81@ymail.com>, William Armaline<warmali@yahoo.com>, Rose Lynn <roselynn95035@yahoo.com>, Seher Awan <firebrand.dr@gmail.com>, James Staten <jamesastaten@gmail.com>, mike braxton<mbraxton2021@gmail.com>, Michael Pati <michael.pati@gmail.com>, theresa.diola@gmail.com <theresa.diola@gmail.com>, Michael Ybarra<dr.michaelcybarra@gmail.com>, lasha heard <heardlasha22@gmail.com>, Candice Brooks <brookscandicel14@gmail.com> April 4, 2025 To: San Jose Police Chief Paul Joseph, Mayor Matt Mahan, San Jose City Council Members, City Manager, District Attorney JeffRosen, State Attorney General Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Jose Police Auditor Eddie Aubrey From: Sean Allen - President, San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP Video of San Jose PD Beating Young Man on January 10, 2025 On April 1, 2025, a video was sent to the San Jose Silicon ValleyNAACP, showing three San Jose police officers using unnecessary and unlawful force against a member of the public.The video lasts approximately one minute and 29 seconds. Here’s a summary of what is depicted. It’s important to note that the person who recorded the video wasin such close proximity to the incident that the sounds of the officers’ keys can be heard as they ran and engaged in physicalactivity. You can also hear the clanging of one officer's baton while it remained on his duty belt, as well as the officers' radiotransmissions. When the video begins, it is clear that two officers engage the community member with physical force. There are no audible de-escalation attempts or verbal commands heard. The first officer to make contact (referred to as Officer #1) mounts thecommunity member, while the second officer (Officer #2) initially approaches the citizen’s legs but then turns to threatenthe person recording, with his hand on his gun, approximately 6.5 seconds into the video. At around 11 seconds, Officer #1 calls thecitizen an “asshole.” Officer #2 continues to instruct the person recording to get back in the car, his hand still on his firearm untilabout 15.5 seconds into the video. During this time, there are still no verbal commands from Officer #1, who is on top of thecitizen, now rolled onto his stomach. At about 20 seconds in, Officer #2 radios in a comment about the “driver.” You can hearthe citizen say “hit me,” but Officer #1 does not demand compliance. At approximately 29 seconds, a voice says, “Right here, Mike,get his ass,” and a third officer enters the frame, throwing a series of four to five punches to the citizen’s upper torso. It is suspectedthat this third officer's name is Mike. Notably, both Officer #1 and the suspected Officer Mike encourage the use of forceagainst the citizen, despite a clear duty to intervene and prevent such actions. At around 39 seconds, Officer #1 strikes the citizenwith a knee to the torso, holding him down while punching him in the face with his right hand, with Officer Mike (Officer #3)assisting in restraining the citizen's upper torso. The citizen is unable to prevent these strikes. At about 47 seconds into the video, Officer Mike can be seenpushing the citizen’s face into the ground while Officer #1 maintains a knee on the citizen's back, and Officer #2 also holdshim down. At approximately 57 seconds, a fourth officer arrives and draws his firearm, approaching the person recording. Thenecessity for drawing a firearm appears unwarranted, as the three officers present did not draw their weapons, and there was nothreat posed by those recording the incident. A bystander can be heard questioning, “Why are you drawing your weapon?” ataround one minute and eight seconds into the video. Meanwhile, bystanders call for de-escalation and criticize the officers forescalating the situation. At about one minute and 25 seconds, it’s evident that Officer #2 has his knee on the back of the citizen’s neck while handcuffinghim. At the end of the video, Officer Mike approaches a young African American male. In the background, you can hear othervoices identified as juveniles. It is alleged that the same officer used excessive force on one of the juveniles, causing injury to hishearing, which required medical attention. In this entire incident, the citizens and juveniles involved, who are of African ancestry, experienced violations of their rights.This reflects a pattern and practice consistent with the San Jose Police Department's history of disproportionate use of forceagainst people of color, specifically those of African descent. It is crucial to analyze this incident in light of California laws regarding the use of force. California Penal Code 835(a) states: 1. The authority to use physical force conferred on peace officersmust be exercised judiciously, with respect for human rights and dignity, acknowledging the sanctity of every human life. Everyperson has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law.2. Peace officers must use deadly force only when necessary to defend human life, evaluating each situation based on particularcircumstances and utilizing other resources and techniques if safely feasible.3. The decision to use force requires careful evaluation, reflecting the gravity of that authority and ensuring compliance with thelaw and agency policies. Moreover, I want to highlight the policies of another law enforcement agency within the county, which has morecomprehensive use of force policies that align with Penal Code 835(a). The policy states: 1. Description: Personal body weapon strikes consist of forcefulstrikes using hands, fists, forearms, elbows, feet, knees, or shins. 2. Force event: Personal body weapon strikes are authorized inreactive or planned response events. 3. Resistance type: Personal body weapon strikes are onlyauthorized in response to assaultive or life-threatening resistance and to prevent substantial self-harm.4. Special instructions: Unless deadly force is authorized, employees are prohibited from striking a person with a personalbody weapon in the head, neck, spine, kidney, or groin. Different departments within the same county have varying policies regarding the use of force. However, the largestdepartment in the county recognizes that striking certain areas with personal body weapons could be fatal. In reviewing thevideo, it is evident that Officer Mike strikes the citizen multiple times in the upper torso while he is being held down, at best,passively resistant. Officer #1 then knees the citizen in the torso and punches him in the face while he is restrained. This use offorce is inconsistent with Penal Code 835(a). Close-fisted strikes to the head, torso, and spine, like those used in this incident, could cause great bodily injury or death andrequire immediate assessment from a medical professional. The video does not show that medical care was offered or provided.Additionally, officers are mandated to request medical care after a use of force event. If medical care was not provided, the SanJose Police Department failed to uphold its duty of care. This incident reveals clear violations of state laws regarding excessive use of force and unlawful application of force,specifically violations of Penal Codes 835(a), 149, and 245, as well as federal statutes (18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation ofRights Under Color of Law concerning assault under color of authority) and violations of the United States Constitution,including the Fourth Amendment. The San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP demands a thorough investigation into this incident for administrative and criminalviolations at both the state and federal levels, along with complete accountability and transparency regarding this matter. Thank you for your time, Sean Allen - President San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP References: - Performance Protocol - Disparity of Force - California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 835a | FindLaw- California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 149 | FindLaw - California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 245 | FindLaw- Civil Rights Division | Statutes Enforced by the Criminal Section- 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Sean Allen Cc:Paul Joseph; mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov; district1@sanjoseca.gov; District2@sanjoseca.gov; District3@sanjoseca.gov; District4@sanjoseca.gov; District5@sanjoseca.gov; district6@sanjoseca.gov; District7@sanjoseca.gov; district8@sanjoseca.gov; District9@sanjoseca.gov; District10@sanjoseca.gov; Jeff Rosen; Dan Okonkwo; Brandon Pho; Robert Handa; Robert Salonga; Kiet Do; LaMonica Peters; eddie.aubrey@sanjoseca.gov; dwight.white@sanjoseca.gov; Jack Molmud; Sara Stinson; damian.trujillo@nbcuni.com; Richard Konda; Richard Hobbs; Wendy Greenfield; Carla Torres; Raj Jayadev; Jose Valle; Cynthia Longs; Pat M; William Armaline; Rose Lynn; Seher Awan; James Staten; mike braxton; Michael Pati; theresa.diola@gmail.com; Michael Ybarra; lasha heard; Candice Brooks; Ed Lauing; Shikada, Ed; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; Stump, Molly; editor@paweekly.com; Lauing, Ed; ladoris cordell; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Bains, Paul; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley, Michael; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; sharon jackson; Lee, Craig; Barberini, Christopher; Enberg, Nicholas; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; Dana St. George; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; cromero@cityofepa.org; Raymond Goins; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Veenker, Vicki; Gerry Gras; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; gstone22@gmail.com; Gennady Sheyner; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Figueroa, Eric; Jensen, Eric; Sarah Wright; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Palo Alto Free Press; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Kaloma Smith; Daniel Kottke; GRP-City Council; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.gov; Bill Newell; Bill Johnson; editor@almanacnews.com; Lydia Kou; Liz Kniss; Greg Tanaka; h.etzko@gmail.com; Doug Minkler; Mickie Winkler; josh@joshsalcman.com; John Burt; Friends of Cubberley; Paul George @ PPJC; George for Palo Alto; Blackshire, Geoffrey; Jasso, Tamara; Human Relations Commission; Karen Holman; Tom DuBois; ladoris cordell; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Don Austin; Yolanda Conaway Subject:Re: Complaint Regarding Excessive Use of Force by San Jose Police Department on January 10, 2025 Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 6:37:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. On Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 6:33 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: 4/4/2025 Hi folks: This is the same department (SJPD) that Palo Alto Police Chief Andrew Binder, who is nowapparently living in Morgan Hill, 40 miles from Palo Alto, came from. How invested in Palo Alto is a chief who lives 40 miles from the town he claims to care about? Can we reasonablyexpect Binder to be available to lead first responders 24/7 in a mass shooting incident or other major catastrophe? You be the judge! A police chief living 40 miles from the city heoversees turns the idea of community policing on its head. Time for a change in leadership anyone? Sincerely, Aram James P.S. Please checkout this brutal & extraordinarily violent video of the SJPD in action. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>Date: Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 4:45 PM Subject: Complaint Regarding Excessive Use of Force by San Jose Police Department onJanuary 10, 2025 To: Paul Joseph <Paul.joseph@sanjoseca.gov>, <mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov>,<District1@sanjoseca.gov>, <District2@sanjoseca.gov>, <District3@sanjoseca.gov>, <District4@sanjoseca.gov>, <District5@sanjoseca.gov>, <district6@sanjoseca.gov>,<District7@sanjoseca.gov>, <district8@sanjoseca.gov>, <District9@sanjoseca.gov>, <District10@sanjoseca.gov>, Jeff Rosen <JRosen@dao.sccgov.org>, Dan Okonkwo<dokonkwo@dao.sccgov.org> CC: Brandon Pho <brandon@sanjosespotlight.com>, Robert Handa<robert.handa@nbcuni.com>, Robert Salonga <rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com>, Kiet Do <kiet.a.do@gmail.com>, LaMonica Peters <lamonica.peters@fox.com>,<eddie.aubrey@sanjoseca.gov>, <dwight.white@sanjoseca.gov>, Jack Molmud <jmolmud@kron4.com>, Sara Stinson <sstinson@kron4.com>,<damian.trujillo@nbcuni.com>, Richard Konda <rkonda@asianlawalliance.org>, Richard Hobbs <richhobbs@msn.com>, Wendy Greenfield <wgestrella@aol.com>, Carla Torres<xicanamagic@hotmail.com>, Raj Jayadev <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org>, Jose Valle <jvalle1800@gmail.com>, Cynthia Longs <cynthia@siliconvalleydebug.org>, aram james<Abjpd1@gmail.com>, Pat M <p.marshall81@ymail.com>, William Armaline <warmali@yahoo.com>, Rose Lynn <roselynn95035@yahoo.com>, Seher Awan<firebrand.dr@gmail.com>, James Staten <jamesastaten@gmail.com>, mike braxton <mbraxton2021@gmail.com>, Michael Pati <michael.pati@gmail.com>,theresa.diola@gmail.com <theresa.diola@gmail.com>, Michael Ybarra <dr.michaelcybarra@gmail.com>, lasha heard <heardlasha22@gmail.com>, CandiceBrooks <brookscandicel14@gmail.com> April 4, 2025 To: San Jose Police Chief Paul Joseph, Mayor Matt Mahan, SanJose City Council Members, City Manager, District Attorney Jeff Rosen, State Attorney General Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office,San Jose Police Auditor Eddie Aubrey From: Sean Allen - President, San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP Video of San Jose PD Beating Young Man on January 10, 2025 On April 1, 2025, a video was sent to the San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP, showing three San Jose police officers usingunnecessary and unlawful force against a member of the public. The video lasts approximately one minute and 29 seconds. Here’sa summary of what is depicted. It’s important to note that the person who recorded the video was in such close proximity to the incident that the sounds of the officers’ keys can be heard as they ran and engaged in physicalactivity. You can also hear the clanging of one officer's baton while it remained on his duty belt, as well as the officers' radiotransmissions. When the video begins, it is clear that two officers engage the community member with physical force. There are no audible de-escalation attempts or verbal commands heard. The first officer to make contact (referred to as Officer #1) mounts thecommunity member, while the second officer (Officer #2) initially approaches the citizen’s legs but then turns to threatenthe person recording, with his hand on his gun, approximately 6.5 seconds into the video. At around 11 seconds, Officer #1 calls thecitizen an “asshole.” Officer #2 continues to instruct the person recording to get back in the car, his hand still on his firearm untilabout 15.5 seconds into the video. During this time, there are still no verbal commands from Officer #1, who is on top of thecitizen, now rolled onto his stomach. At about 20 seconds in, Officer #2 radios in a comment about the “driver.” You can hearthe citizen say “hit me,” but Officer #1 does not demand compliance. At approximately 29 seconds, a voice says, “Right here, Mike,get his ass,” and a third officer enters the frame, throwing a series of four to five punches to the citizen’s upper torso. It is suspectedthat this third officer's name is Mike. Notably, both Officer #1 and the suspected Officer Mike encourage the use of forceagainst the citizen, despite a clear duty to intervene and prevent such actions. At around 39 seconds, Officer #1 strikes the citizenwith a knee to the torso, holding him down while punching him in the face with his right hand, with Officer Mike (Officer #3)assisting in restraining the citizen's upper torso. The citizen is unable to prevent these strikes. At about 47 seconds into the video, Officer Mike can be seenpushing the citizen’s face into the ground while Officer #1 maintains a knee on the citizen's back, and Officer #2 also holdshim down. At approximately 57 seconds, a fourth officer arrives and draws his firearm, approaching the person recording. Thenecessity for drawing a firearm appears unwarranted, as the three officers present did not draw their weapons, and there was nothreat posed by those recording the incident. A bystander can be heard questioning, “Why are you drawing your weapon?” ataround one minute and eight seconds into the video. Meanwhile, bystanders call for de-escalation and criticize the officers forescalating the situation. At about one minute and 25 seconds, it’s evident that Officer #2 has his knee on the back of the citizen’s neck while handcuffinghim. At the end of the video, Officer Mike approaches a young African American male. In the background, you can hear othervoices identified as juveniles. It is alleged that the same officer used excessive force on one of the juveniles, causing injury to hishearing, which required medical attention. In this entire incident, the citizens and juveniles involved, who are of African ancestry, experienced violations of their rights.This reflects a pattern and practice consistent with the San Jose Police Department's history of disproportionate use of forceagainst people of color, specifically those of African descent. It is crucial to analyze this incident in light of California laws regarding the use of force. California Penal Code 835(a) states: 1. The authority to use physical force conferred on peace officersmust be exercised judiciously, with respect for human rights and dignity, acknowledging the sanctity of every human life. Everyperson has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law.2. Peace officers must use deadly force only when necessary to defend human life, evaluating each situation based on particularcircumstances and utilizing other resources and techniques if safely feasible.3. The decision to use force requires careful evaluation, reflecting the gravity of that authority and ensuring compliance with thelaw and agency policies. Moreover, I want to highlight the policies of another law enforcement agency within the county, which has morecomprehensive use of force policies that align with Penal Code 835(a). The policy states: 1. Description: Personal body weapon strikes consist of forcefulstrikes using hands, fists, forearms, elbows, feet, knees, or shins. 2. Force event: Personal body weapon strikes are authorized inreactive or planned response events. 3. Resistance type: Personal body weapon strikes are onlyauthorized in response to assaultive or life-threatening resistance and to prevent substantial self-harm.4. Special instructions: Unless deadly force is authorized, employees are prohibited from striking a person with a personalbody weapon in the head, neck, spine, kidney, or groin. Different departments within the same county have varying policies regarding the use of force. However, the largestdepartment in the county recognizes that striking certain areas with personal body weapons could be fatal. In reviewing thevideo, it is evident that Officer Mike strikes the citizen multiple times in the upper torso while he is being held down, at best,passively resistant. Officer #1 then knees the citizen in the torso and punches him in the face while he is restrained. This use offorce is inconsistent with Penal Code 835(a). Close-fisted strikes to the head, torso, and spine, like those used in this incident, could cause great bodily injury or death andrequire immediate assessment from a medical professional. The video does not show that medical care was offered or provided.Additionally, officers are mandated to request medical care after a use of force event. If medical care was not provided, the SanJose Police Department failed to uphold its duty of care. This incident reveals clear violations of state laws regarding excessive use of force and unlawful application of force,specifically violations of Penal Codes 835(a), 149, and 245, as well as federal statutes (18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation ofRights Under Color of Law concerning assault under color of authority) and violations of the United States Constitution,including the Fourth Amendment. The San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP demands a thorough investigation into this incident for administrative and criminalviolations at both the state and federal levels, along with complete accountability and transparency regarding this matter. Thank you for your time, Sean Allen - President San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP References: - Performance Protocol - Disparity of Force - California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 835a | FindLaw- California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 149 | FindLaw - California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 245 | FindLaw- Civil Rights Division | Statutes Enforced by the Criminal Section- 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Sean Allen Cc:Paul Joseph; mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov; district1@sanjoseca.gov; District2@sanjoseca.gov; District3@sanjoseca.gov; District4@sanjoseca.gov; District5@sanjoseca.gov; district6@sanjoseca.gov; District7@sanjoseca.gov; district8@sanjoseca.gov; District9@sanjoseca.gov; District10@sanjoseca.gov; Jeff Rosen; Dan Okonkwo; Brandon Pho; Robert Handa; Robert Salonga; Kiet Do; LaMonica Peters; eddie.aubrey@sanjoseca.gov; dwight.white@sanjoseca.gov; Jack Molmud; Sara Stinson; damian.trujillo@nbcuni.com; Richard Konda; Richard Hobbs; Wendy Greenfield; Carla Torres; Raj Jayadev; Jose Valle; Cynthia Longs; Pat M; William Armaline; Rose Lynn; Seher Awan; James Staten; mike braxton; Michael Pati; theresa.diola@gmail.com; Michael Ybarra; lasha heard; Candice Brooks; Ed Lauing; Shikada, Ed; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; Stump, Molly; editor@paweekly.com; Lauing, Ed; ladoris cordell; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Bains, Paul; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley, Michael; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; sharon jackson; Lee, Craig; Barberini, Christopher; Enberg, Nicholas; The Office of Mayor Matt Mahan; Dana St. George; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; cromero@cityofepa.org; Raymond Goins; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Veenker, Vicki; Gerry Gras; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; gstone22@gmail.com; Gennady Sheyner; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Figueroa, Eric; Jensen, Eric; Sarah Wright; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Palo Alto Free Press; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Kaloma Smith; Daniel Kottke; GRP-City Council; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.gov; Bill Newell; Bill Johnson; editor@almanacnews.com; Lydia Kou; Liz Kniss; Greg Tanaka Subject:Re: Complaint Regarding Excessive Use of Force by San Jose Police Department on January 10, 2025 Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 6:34:08 PM Attachments:Video.mov CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. 4/4/2025 Hi folks: This is the same department (SJPD) that Palo Alto Police Chief Andrew Binder, who is now apparently living in Morgan Hill, 40 miles from Palo Alto, came from. How invested in PaloAlto is a chief who lives 40 miles from the town he claims to care about? Can we reasonably expect Binder to be available to lead first responders 24/7 in a mass shooting incident or othermajor catastrophe? You be the judge! A police chief living 40 miles from the city he oversees turns the idea of community policing on its head. Time for a change in leadership anyone Sincerely, Aram James P.S. Please checkout this brutal & extraordinarily violent video of the SJPD in action. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>Date: Fri, Apr 4, 2025 at 4:45 PM Subject: Complaint Regarding Excessive Use of Force by San Jose Police Department onJanuary 10, 2025 To: Paul Joseph <Paul.joseph@sanjoseca.gov>, <mayoremail@sanjoseca.gov>,<District1@sanjoseca.gov>, <District2@sanjoseca.gov>, <District3@sanjoseca.gov>, <District4@sanjoseca.gov>, <District5@sanjoseca.gov>, <district6@sanjoseca.gov>,<District7@sanjoseca.gov>, <district8@sanjoseca.gov>, <District9@sanjoseca.gov>, <District10@sanjoseca.gov>, Jeff Rosen <JRosen@dao.sccgov.org>, Dan Okonkwo<dokonkwo@dao.sccgov.org> CC: Brandon Pho <brandon@sanjosespotlight.com>, Robert Handa<robert.handa@nbcuni.com>, Robert Salonga <rsalonga@bayareanewsgroup.com>, Kiet Do <kiet.a.do@gmail.com>, LaMonica Peters <lamonica.peters@fox.com>,<eddie.aubrey@sanjoseca.gov>, <dwight.white@sanjoseca.gov>, Jack Molmud <jmolmud@kron4.com>, Sara Stinson <sstinson@kron4.com>,<damian.trujillo@nbcuni.com>, Richard Konda <rkonda@asianlawalliance.org>, Richard Hobbs <richhobbs@msn.com>, Wendy Greenfield <wgestrella@aol.com>, Carla Torres<xicanamagic@hotmail.com>, Raj Jayadev <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org>, Jose Valle <jvalle1800@gmail.com>, Cynthia Longs <cynthia@siliconvalleydebug.org>, aram james<Abjpd1@gmail.com>, Pat M <p.marshall81@ymail.com>, William Armaline <warmali@yahoo.com>, Rose Lynn <roselynn95035@yahoo.com>, Seher Awan<firebrand.dr@gmail.com>, James Staten <jamesastaten@gmail.com>, mike braxton <mbraxton2021@gmail.com>, Michael Pati <michael.pati@gmail.com>,theresa.diola@gmail.com <theresa.diola@gmail.com>, Michael Ybarra <dr.michaelcybarra@gmail.com>, lasha heard <heardlasha22@gmail.com>, Candice Brooks<brookscandicel14@gmail.com> April 4, 2025 To: San Jose Police Chief Paul Joseph, Mayor Matt Mahan, SanJose City Council Members, City Manager, District Attorney Jeff Rosen, State Attorney General Office, U.S. Attorney’s Office, SanJose Police Auditor Eddie Aubrey From: Sean Allen - President, San Jose/Silicon Valley NAACP Video of San Jose PD Beating Young Man on January 10, 2025 On April 1, 2025, a video was sent to the San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP, showing three San Jose police officers using unnecessaryand unlawful force against a member of the public. The video lasts approximately one minute and 29 seconds. Here’s a summary ofwhat is depicted. It’s important to note that the person who recorded the video was in such close proximity to the incident that the sounds of the officers’keys can be heard as they ran and engaged in physical activity. You can also hear the clanging of one officer's baton while it remainedon his duty belt, as well as the officers' radio transmissions. When the video begins, it is clear that two officers engage thecommunity member with physical force. There are no audible de- escalation attempts or verbal commands heard. The first officer tomake contact (referred to as Officer #1) mounts the community member, while the second officer (Officer #2) initially approachesthe citizen’s legs but then turns to threaten the person recording, with his hand on his gun, approximately 6.5 seconds into the video.At around 11 seconds, Officer #1 calls the citizen an “asshole.” Officer #2 continues to instruct the person recording to get back inthe car, his hand still on his firearm until about 15.5 seconds into the video. During this time, there are still no verbal commandsfrom Officer #1, who is on top of the citizen, now rolled onto his stomach. At about 20 seconds in, Officer #2 radios in a commentabout the “driver.” You can hear the citizen say “hit me,” but Officer #1 does not demand compliance. At approximately 29 seconds, a voice says, “Right here, Mike, gethis ass,” and a third officer enters the frame, throwing a series of four to five punches to the citizen’s upper torso. It is suspected thatthis third officer's name is Mike. Notably, both Officer #1 and the suspected Officer Mike encourage the use of force against thecitizen, despite a clear duty to intervene and prevent such actions. At around 39 seconds, Officer #1 strikes the citizen with a knee tothe torso, holding him down while punching him in the face with his right hand, with Officer Mike (Officer #3) assisting inrestraining the citizen's upper torso. The citizen is unable to prevent these strikes. At about 47 seconds into the video, Officer Mike can be seenpushing the citizen’s face into the ground while Officer #1 maintains a knee on the citizen's back, and Officer #2 also holdshim down. At approximately 57 seconds, a fourth officer arrives and draws his firearm, approaching the person recording. Thenecessity for drawing a firearm appears unwarranted, as the three officers present did not draw their weapons, and there was no threatposed by those recording the incident. A bystander can be heard questioning, “Why are you drawing your weapon?” at around oneminute and eight seconds into the video. Meanwhile, bystanders call for de-escalation and criticize the officers for escalating thesituation. At about one minute and 25 seconds, it’s evident that Officer #2 has his knee on the back of the citizen’s neck while handcuffinghim. At the end of the video, Officer Mike approaches a young African American male. In the background, you can hear othervoices identified as juveniles. It is alleged that the same officer used excessive force on one of the juveniles, causing injury to hishearing, which required medical attention. In this entire incident, the citizens and juveniles involved, who are of African ancestry, experienced violations of their rights. Thisreflects a pattern and practice consistent with the San Jose Police Department's history of disproportionate use of force against peopleof color, specifically those of African descent. It is crucial to analyze this incident in light of California laws regarding the use of force. California Penal Code 835(a) states: 1. The authority to use physical force conferred on peace officersmust be exercised judiciously, with respect for human rights and dignity, acknowledging the sanctity of every human life. Everyperson has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law.2. Peace officers must use deadly force only when necessary to defend human life, evaluating each situation based on particularcircumstances and utilizing other resources and techniques if safely feasible.3. The decision to use force requires careful evaluation, reflecting the gravity of that authority and ensuring compliance with the lawand agency policies. Moreover, I want to highlight the policies of another law enforcement agency within the county, which has morecomprehensive use of force policies that align with Penal Code 835(a). The policy states: 1. Description: Personal body weapon strikes consist of forcefulstrikes using hands, fists, forearms, elbows, feet, knees, or shins. 2. Force event: Personal body weapon strikes are authorized inreactive or planned response events. 3. Resistance type: Personal body weapon strikes are onlyauthorized in response to assaultive or life-threatening resistance and to prevent substantial self-harm.4. Special instructions: Unless deadly force is authorized, employees are prohibited from striking a person with a personalbody weapon in the head, neck, spine, kidney, or groin. Different departments within the same county have varying policies regarding the use of force. However, the largest department in thecounty recognizes that striking certain areas with personal body weapons could be fatal. In reviewing the video, it is evident thatOfficer Mike strikes the citizen multiple times in the upper torso while he is being held down, at best, passively resistant. Officer #1then knees the citizen in the torso and punches him in the face while he is restrained. This use of force is inconsistent with PenalCode 835(a). Close-fisted strikes to the head, torso, and spine, like those used in this incident, could cause great bodily injury or death and requireimmediate assessment from a medical professional. The video does not show that medical care was offered or provided. Additionally,officers are mandated to request medical care after a use of force event. If medical care was not provided, the San Jose PoliceDepartment failed to uphold its duty of care. This incident reveals clear violations of state laws regarding excessive use of force and unlawful application of force,specifically violations of Penal Codes 835(a), 149, and 245, as well as federal statutes (18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of RightsUnder Color of Law concerning assault under color of authority) and violations of the United States Constitution, including theFourth Amendment. The San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP demands a thorough investigation into this incident for administrative and criminalviolations at both the state and federal levels, along with complete accountability and transparency regarding this matter. Thank you for your time, Sean Allen - President San Jose Silicon Valley NAACP References: - Performance Protocol - Disparity of Force - California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 835a | FindLaw- California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 149 | FindLaw - California Code, Penal Code - PEN § 245 | FindLaw- Civil Rights Division | Statutes Enforced by the Criminal Section - 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law |U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:BoardOperations; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Otto Lee; district1@bos.sccgov.org;District2@bos.sccgov.org; Sean Allen; Pat M; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California DemocraticDelegate, Assembly District 23; board@pausd.org; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; EPA Today; Steve Wagstaffe; JeffRosen; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Hayden; Rosen, Jeff; Jay Boyarsky; boardfeedback@smcgov.org;board@valleywater.org; GRP-City Council; Council, City; Lydia Kou; gstone22@gmail.com; Greg Tanaka; VickiVeenker; Diana Diamond; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com Subject:In unprecedented payout, L.A. County will settle sex abuse claims for $4 billion Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 5:52:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. San Mateo & Santa Clara County beware!!! In unprecedented payout, L.A. County will settle sex abuse claims for $4 billion Thousands of men and women came forward to say they had been molested or raped by probation officials decades ago while incarcerated as children in the county’s sprawlingnetwork of juvenile halls and camps. Thousands more alleged sexual abuse at the now-shuttered MacLaren Children’s Center, acounty-run home for foster children that plaintiffs’ attorneys have compared to a “house of horrors.” A report found that the facility went decades without doing criminal backgroundchecks on its staff. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-04-04/in-unprecedented-payout-l-a-county-settles-sex-abuse-claims-for-4-billion From:Karin Thorne To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 5:50:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims,Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Karin Thorne From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:City Council Bundle - April 4 Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 5:39:18 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngRE Safe route for PALY students.msgRE Street musician issue.msgFW Follow-Up on Merchant Meeting Patio Zoning Discussion 310 320 California Ave.msgFW traffic light on State Route 82El Camino at Page Mill.msgFW Follow up requested list of pipeline projects.msg Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see the attached staff responses to emails received in the City.Council inbox through April 4, 2025. Respectfully, Danille Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.orgwww.cityofpaloalto.org From:Kathryn Hug To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 5:05:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and acrossthe region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provokeanti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercialprojects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Kathryn H. Hug 391 Oxford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Annette Glanckopf To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 4:31:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Council Members, Although I hate form letters, this one seems to hit the mark. I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing— not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housingproposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Annette Glanckopf Bryant Street This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker; Veenker, Vicki Cc:Jeff Rosen; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jay Boyarsky; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Figueroa, Eric; dennis burns; Perron, Zachary; Barberini, Christopher; Enberg, Nicholas; Afanasiev, Alex; Sean Allen; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; josh@joshsalcman.com; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; Zelkha, Mila; Lori Meyers; Sheree Roth; Foley, Michael; Mickie Winkler; Doug Minkler; Marty Wasserman; Marina Lopez; Cait James; Tim James; GRP-City Council; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; Dave Price; EPA Today; Emily Mibach; Jensen, Eric; Gardener, Liz; Raymond Goins; Rodriguez, Miguel; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Sarah Wright; Gennady Sheyner; DuJuan Green; Greg Tanaka; Rose Lynn; Lynn Krug; Human Relations Commission; Karen Holman; Tom DuBois; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Nash, Betsy; Jeff Conrad; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.gov; GRP-City Clerk; Vara Ramakrishnan; Rowena Chiu; Donna Wallach; Don Austin; Yolanda Conaway; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Wagner, April; Lee, Craig; cromero@cityofepa.org; Angel, David; Cribbs, Anne; Templeton, Cari; Palo Alto Free Press; Friends of Cubberley; yolanda; Pat M; Daniel Kottke; Dennis Upton; Doria Summa; Nat Fisher; Burt, Patrick; Patrice Ventresca; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov Subject:Keffiyeh-Wearing Columbia Students Were Allegedly Assaulted. A Year Later, No One Has Been Punished Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 4:26:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Keffiyeh-Wearing Columbia Students Were Allegedly Assaulted. A Year Later, No One Has Been Punished https://zeteo.com/p/keffiyeh-wearing-columbia-students-attack-what-safety?publication_id=2325511&utm_campaign=email-post-title&r=fjmzt&utm_medium=email From:promiserani To:Council, City Cc:Ed@edlauing.com; Vicki@vickiforcouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@julieforpaloalto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; Lydia Kou Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 4:24:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims,Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, sevendays a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? More info: https://ehtrust.org/health-effects-of-cell-towers-near-homes-and-schools/ Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Prerana Jayakumar From:Samuel W Brain PhD To:Council, City Cc:Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 4:01:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott-Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone: Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then- Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five years ago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) is going to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Sam Brain, Ph.D. 3737 La Donna Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306 -- Sam Brain, Ph.D., Stanford Cancer Center, 875 Blake Wilbur Drive, Stanford, CA 94305-5847. C:650-850-2127 From:Willy Lai To:Council, City Cc:Ed@EdLauing.com; Vicki@VickiforCouncil.com; pat@patburt.org; georgeglu@gmail.com; Julie@JulieforPaloAlto.com; Reckdahl, Keith; gstone22@gmail.com; Clerk, City; LydiaKou@gmail.com Subject:Please approve the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 3:59:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Councilmembers Burt, Lu, Lythcott- Haims, Reckdahl, and Stone, Please vote to approve the changes to the wireless ordinance that Mayor Lauing and then-Councilmember Kou proposed in their Fall, 2024, Colleagues Memo, a Memo cum draft Resolution titled “Restoration of subjective aesthetic standards to Palo Alto’s Wireless Communication Facilities (WCF) ordinance”. The City’s wireless ordinance is egregiously out of date. In particular, Palo Alto continues to adhere to a 2018 FCC Order regarding standards for cell tower design and siting—standards that were thrown out by the Ninth Circuit almost five yearsago. An update is more than overdue. Please: Restore Architectural Review Board review and public hearings for cell tower applications; Remove the ordinance language that OKs locating unsightly, hazardous cell towers 20 feet from a home; Prioritize locating cell towers as far as possible from homes and schools; and Require review by non-industry-aligned experts of the “technical feasibility” assertions made by cell tower applicants. All of these changes are spelled out in the Resolution that is part of the Kou/Lauing Colleagues Memo. Approving them is more urgent than ever. AT&T has begun modifying its Palo Alto cell towers so that they now emit so much radiation they need to be shut down if any worker (e.g., a Palo Alto Utilities employee, an AT&T worker) isgoing to be within 21 feet of the antennas for any length of time, no matter how short. How can it make sense for a cell tower like this to be operating 24 hours a day, seven This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast days a week, only a few feet further than that from residents’ homes? Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Willy Lai From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:SB457 Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 3:12:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing, council members and staff, Thank you Director Lait for sharing a list of applications that filed under Builder's Remedy,though some are pursuing other approaches with staff. Even so, the list contains hundreds if not more housing units including hundreds of BMR units. Since there are many ways to oppose 80 Willow (I do not support the project as proposed), there was no need to subject BR application from San Diego to our northern border unless the intent was to deny other applications. I am interested in which BR applications IN PALO ALTO that council members intend to denyif SB457 passes and is found not in conflict with state law. I find the discussion of the Willow application does not help me understand what are the intents and implications for Palo Alto where I live. thanks Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Dashiell Leeds To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;Veenker, Vicki Cc:Clerk, City; City Mgr; James Eggers; Mike Ferreira; Gita Dev; shani@scvbirdalliance.org; Cha, Kelly; director@scvas.org Subject:April 7 agenda item 18, Sierra Club and Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance comments on the draft dark sky ordinace Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 2:26:55 PM Attachments:April 7th Agenda item 18, SCVBA SCLP comments on Draft PA Dark Sky Letter.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Councilmembers, We have supported Palo Alto in its efforts to create a Dark Sky ordinance by sharing research and model ordinance language with City staff, the Architectural Review Board and Planning & Transportation Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commissioners (PTC), in their October 30th motion, made an effort to recommend strong ordinance language that reflects the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting, but the April 7th proposed ordinance has not incorporated some of the most critical PTC recommendations. Our recommendations for Dark Sky applicability, lighting curfews, and light trespass thresholds are based on adopted Dark Sky policies in California, including ordinances from Cupertino, Malibu, and Brisbane. The draft ordinance to be heard by Los Altos City Council on April 8th 2025 also includes language consistent with these recommendations. Our recommendations are reflected in the October 30th PTC motion. Please read the attached letter for our full recommendations. Sincerely, Shani Kleinhaus Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance Dashiell Leeds Conservation Coordinator Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter SAN MATEO, SANTA CLARA & SAN BENITO COUNTIES Re: City Council April 7th agenda item 18: Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter and Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance comments on the draft Dark Sky ordinance Dear Mayor Lauing and Palo Alto City Councilmembers, The Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance and the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter are organizations united by our shared commitment to the protection of the environment, nature, and open space. Context The introduction of LED lighting has induced vast improvements to energy consumption per lighting fixture (luminaire) and increased longevity of luminaires. These advances reduced the cost of lighting, resulting in more lighting overall. Furthermore, the spectrum of LED luminaires includes a high proportion of light in the blue (short wavelength) spectrum, which is harmful to human and environmental health. To prevent and reduce light pollution through the proper application of quality outdoor electric lighting, DarkSky International developed the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting1: 1 https://darksky.org/resources/guides-and-how-tos/lighting-principles/ We have supported Palo Alto in its efforts to create a Dark Sky ordinance by sharing research and model ordinance language with City staff, the Architectural Review Board and the Planning & Transportation Commission. The Planning and Transportation Commissioners (PTC), in their October 30th motion, made an effort to recommend strong ordinance language that reflects the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting, but the April 7th proposed ordinance has not incorporated some of the most critical PTC recommendations. Our recommendations for Dark Sky applicability, lighting curfews, and light trespass thresholds are based on adopted Dark Sky policies in California, including ordinances from Cupertino, Malibu, and Brisbane. The draft ordinance to be heard by Los Altos City Council on April 8th 2025 also includes language consistent with these recommendations. Our recommendations are reflected in the October 30th PTC motion. Content of this letter Our letter includes the following information, in order. A. A list of items in the October 30th PTC motion B. A summary of our recommended amendments to the April 7 draft ordinance C. A detailed background and analysis of each of our recommendations A. PTC Motion of October 30, 2024 (passed 6:0:1 with Commissioner Hechtman absent): ● Reinstate the provision that would expand applicability to projects that only include new or replacement of existing luminaires: Rejected by staff. ● Add a hardship exception provision that could consider technical feasibility, consistency with a historic structure, or financial burden: Rejected by staff. ● Change light trespass allowance from 0.5 to 0.1 foot candles (FC) throughout the ordinance: Rejected by staff. ● Reduce time limit on motion sensors from 10 minutes to five minutes: Accepted by staff. ● Add definition terminology requested by Sierra Club based on suggested best practices. Accepted by staff. ● Recommend to City Council that further outreach be done at the time of implementation, informing residents of the new regulations; and that regulations for interior commercial lighting be considered in the future. ● In addition, the PTC approval included a city-wide lights out requirements that included existing lighting (curfew). Applicability narrowed by staff. B. The following is a summary of the amendments we recommend to be made to the April 7th draft ordinance. Most of these recommendations mirror the PTC understandings and their motion of Oct 30, 2025. 1) Applicability - Follow the PTC motion of October 30th to reinstate: “(c)(3) Installation of new outdoor lighting, replacement of existing outdoor lighting fixtures, or changing the lighting type or system”. - Consistent with the October 30th PTC motion, develop a hardship exception provision that could consider technical feasibility or financial burden. 2) Curfew - Reinstate the curfew language that was presented to the PTC on October 30th: “(4)(A) Lighting Curfew. Unlike other provisions in this section, Lighting Curfew applies to all new and existing buildings and structures and luminaires, unless otherwise approved. All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 10:00 p.m., two (2) hours after close of business, or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later.” - Note: The underlined language “and luminaires” was added by us (and was not originally in the October 30th motion) to include all outdoor lighting that is not exempt from this ordinance or regulated by state code in curfew requirements. 3) Light Trespass - Implement the October 30th PTC motion to “change the light trespass from 0.5 to 0.1 foot candles at every reference throughout the ordinance” 4) Protecting Streams and Baylands - Ensure that no light trespass occurs into the Baylands Nature Preserve east of Highway 101. - Retain the protections that the current municipal code provides to riparian ecosystems section 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection “(3) Requirements Within streamside review area (g) Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream.” - If possible, include “(4) Guidelines Within Streamside Review Area (a) The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be maximized.” 5) Seasonal Lighting Apply a unique curfew to Seasonal lighting (midnight - 8AM) 6) Findings and Declarations and Purpose Language Add the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting to the Findings and Declarations and Purpose sections of the ordinance. C. A detailed breakdown of each of our recommended improvements 1. Applicability The April 7th draft restricts the applicability of the ordinance to new construction, substantial remodels, and new luminaires requiring a building permit. Without applying the ordinance to new and replacement luminaires, Palo Alto cannot effectively reduce light pollution. Over time, old lighting fixtures are likely to be replaced with new non-compliant lighting fixtures, and many new fixtures may be added that do not require a permit. This is likely to increase light pollution in the city. In addition, this is a departure from other recently adopted Dark Sky Ordinances such as Cupertino’s, Malibu’s and Brisbane’s ordinances, which include new and replacement luminaires. This is also a departure from the initial draft of Palo Alto’s ordinance (October 28th PTC draft), and a dismissal of the October 30th PTC motion. August 28th PTC draft ordinance, Applicability language “(c) Applicability. For the purposes of this Section, except as otherwise provided in Subsection 18.40.250(3)(4)(A) below, the following projects shall comply with the outdoor lighting standards and guidelines set forth in this Section: (1) All newly constructed structures and buildings (2) Substantial Remodel, as defined in Section 16.14.070 of the Code, on existing structures or buildings (3) Installation of new outdoor lighting, replacement of existing outdoor lighting fixtures, or changing the lighting type or system” (emphasis added) In the October 30th draft ordinance presented to PTC, Section (c) Applicability (3) was removed. However, PTC motioned during the October 30th meeting to reinstate that language. The October 30th PTC Motion asked staff to ● Reinstate the original language of “Section (c) Applicability (3)” from the August 28th ordinance draft, which reads as follows: “(3) Installation of new outdoor lighting, replacement of existing outdoor lighting fixtures, or changing the lighting type or system, and ● Consider a “hardship exception provision” that could consider technical feasibility, consistency with a historic structure, or financial burden. In the April 7th draft, staff has not reinstated section (c)(3) as requested. Instead, the draft April 7th ordinance proposes the following language: “(3) New installation of outdoor luminaires requiring a building permit.” Staff reasoning in rejecting the PTC motion (April 7th staff report) ● This is done “in order to reduce the enforcement and limit financial costs associated with these smaller projects”, and ● Staff considered an exception for projects facing significant financial impact from the new lighting requirements per PTC direction. However, staff determined that separating lighting costs from the entire construction cost or project valuation would be difficult for both applicants and staff responsible for verification. Furthermore, the new standards do not apply to the replacement of existing outdoor lighting or changes to the lighting type or system, which was one of scenarios that led to the concerns of financial burdens. An exception for historic resources has been added to ensure that the new standards do not impair historical integrity. Our response ● The Dark Sky ordinance, like many other regulations, does not require active enforcement. The ordinance simply provides a recourse to residents who are negatively impacted by light pollution. Furthermore, other cities that apply Dark Sky requirements to all new and replacement lighting, such as Cupertino and Brisbane, have not reported any issues with the enforcement of their standards. ● Applying Dark Sky standards to only permitted luminaires (as staff suggests in the April 7th draft) could increase the complexity of enforcement rather than reducing it. Residents cannot know whether they have recourse to complain when a light is bothering them, since they cannot know whether that nuisance lighting source was permitted. If a resident complains about nuisance lighting under the April 7th draft, staff may need to check to see whether the building in question has received any permits recently, and then check those permits to determine which fixtures were installed under that permit, and whether those fixtures are the ones causing the nuisance lighting from the complaint. The April 7th draft not only is less effective at reducing light pollution, it is also more difficult for residents to understand and is potentially more complicated for the City to enforce. ● Furthermore, if Dark Sky standards apply only to permitted lighting, then Palo Alto cannot hope to meaningfully reduce light pollution. Residents and businesses will continue to add new or replace existing fixtures with non- comforming luminaires. Unless the applicability extends to all lighting, the April 7th draft cannot stop existing property owners from installing flashing lights, strobe lights, or flood lights and other non-compliant luminaires that increase light pollution and light trespass into neighboring properties. ● Applying Dark Sky standards to all new and replacement luminaires (as was done in the October 30th PTC motion) creates a universal standard that can more easily be understood by the public and by staff. For this reason, such recommended language is commonplace in adopted Dark Sky ordinances. ● Per the October 30th PTC motion, the City can consider including a hardship exception for existing structures to provide recourse for property owners seeking to replace existing lighting. This would cover edge-cases such as certain very old multi-family buildings that may require extensive re-wiring when replacing old luminaires with new Dark Sky compliant luminaires. Proposed Amendment - Consistent with the October 30th PTC motion, reinstate applicability language as motioned by the PTC on October 30th: “(3) Installation of new outdoor lighting, replacement of existing outdoor lighting fixtures, or changing the lighting type or system” - Consistent with the October 30th PTC motion, develop a hardship exception provision for existing buildings that could consider technical feasibility or financial burden. 2. Curfew The April 7th draft lighting curfew language stems from the applicability of the ordinance and therefore applies the lighting curfew only to new and replacement luminaires that were installed under a building permit. This approach creates an inconsistent landscape where some properties remain illuminated all night long, while a relatively smaller number of properties must comply with curfew requirements. This is contrary to the Dark Sky principle of using light only when it is needed, will not achieve reductions in light pollution, and will not protect human residents or migratory birds. Furthermore, it could create confusion among residents and businesses. This inconsistent curfew landscape could present an enforcement challenge to the City, since any complaints about non-compliance will require staff to check permits and identify which specific lighting fixtures received permits and therefore must comply with the curfew. This also presents an unclear situation for residents, who can’t know whether a nuisance source of lighting must comply with the ordinance. Previous versions of Palo Alto’s ordinance (the October 30th PTC draft) contained a curfew that specifically applied to all new and existing buildings and structures. This approach is easier for residents to understand, likely easier to enforce, and more effective at reducing light pollution. At the October 30th PTC meeting, in response to Commissioners' questions, staff assured the PTC that curfew requirements apply to all new and existing buildings and structures (see the language in bold below). Oct 30th Draft Language presented to PTC, Section “(e) Lighting Standards (4) Lighting Control (A) Lighting Curfew. ”Unlike other provisions in this section, Lighting Curfew applies to all new and existing buildings and structures, unless otherwise approved. All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 10:00 p.m., two (2) hours after close of business, or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later.” This language was removed AFTER the PTC meeting, by staff in their April 7th draft. The curfew requirements in the April 7th draft are now restricted to the new applicability clause of the ordinance, limiting curfew requirements to only apply to the following: (1) All newly constructed structures and buildings, or (2) Structures or buildings proposing a Substantial Remodel, as defined in Section 16.14.070, or (3) New installation of outdoor luminaires requiring a building permit. April 7th Draft Language presented to City Council: Section (e) Lighting Standards (4) Lighting Control (A) Lighting Curfew. “All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 10:00 p.m., two hours after the close of business, or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later.” Staff reasoning and our responses ● Staff reasoning: The cost of enforcement is “unsupported based on existing staff levels.” ○ Our response: Active policing is not required or recommended. There is no support for an assumption that staff will receive many complaints, and if they do, that just proves that this ordinance is truly necessary. ● Staff reasoning: Requiring existing lighting fixtures to comply would set up an unrealistic expectation that all existing lighting would comply with the subject ordinance upon ordinance adoption. ○ Our response: Under the October 30th language, existing fixtures would need to comply with the lighting curfew, but not other provisions of the ordinance, because the curfew language has its own unique applicability clause that specifically applies to existing structures and buildings. Furthermore, the curfew language allows for lights to remain on until two hours after the close of business, or until people are no longer present, whichever is later. Businesses that are open late or receive late night foot traffic would therefore have their operations unaffected by the curfew. This sets a reasonable expectation for the public and makes the ordinance easy for them to understand. ○ In contrast, under the April 7th language, only permitted fixtures would need to comply with the curfew. This leads to situations where two identical fixtures, for two identical use cases, in two side-by-side locations, could have different curfew requirements, merely because one fixture was installed with a building permit and the other was not. This could make the ordinance incomprehensible to the public and prevent them from establishing any reasonable expectations regarding the lighting curfew. ● Staff reasoning: Mandatory motion sensors would be a cost burden for property owners, a lighting curfew without them would likely result in widespread non- compliance, increased neighbor disputes, and diminished public support for Dark Sky initiatives. ○ Our Response: Motion sensors are not mandatory in the ordinance. There exist manual options as well as automatic timer devices that can be used instead of motion sensors. Motion sensors can cost $10-50. Proposed Amendment ● Reinstate the curfew language that was presented to the PTC on October 30th, in section (e)(4) as follows: “(A) Lighting Curfew. Unlike other provisions in this section, Lighting Curfew applies to all new and existing buildings and structures and luminaires, unless otherwise approved. All outdoor lighting shall be fully extinguished or be motion sensor operated by 10:00 p.m., two (2) hours after close of business, or when people are no longer present in exterior areas, whichever is later.” - Note: The underlined language “and luminaires” was added by us (and was not originally in the October 30th motion) to include all outdoor lighting that is not exempt from this ordinance or regulated by state code in curfew requirements. 3. Light Trespass In the October 30th PTC meeting, PTC motioned to “change the light trespass from 0.5 to 0.1 foot candles at every reference throughout the ordinance.” However, Staff did not change the 0.5 foot candles (FC) requirement. This allows for light many times brighter than the full moon to trespass into adjacent properties. Staff reasoning ● “The maximum light trespass to an adjacent property is currently 0.5 foot- candle in the City’s lighting code. Staff recommends no change to this standard.” ● The PTC recommends 0.1 FC, which was adopted in nearby jurisdictions and reflects the Commission’s interest to minimize light spilling over to adjacent properties. While supporting this interest, staff is concerned that it sets up an unrealistic expectation of essentially no light spilling over to adjacent property and may result in increased complaints to the code enforcement program, taking staff from other priority cases. ● Moreover, the California Building and Safety Code stipulates a minimum illumination of 1 foot-candle for exit paths to ensure safe building egress; this standard will prevail where there is a conflict. Balancing the ordinance’s objectives with critical safety considerations, the maximum light trespass level was ultimately maintained at 0.5 foot-candle.” Our response ● Cupertino uses a 0.1 FC standard, and Brisbane has a standard of zero trespass. ● 0.5 FC as an allowable light trespass number is as much as 25 times brighter than the light from a full moon (measured at .02 FC). The threshold for impacts to snowy plovers is 0.005 FC, so even 0.1 is impactful to the natural environment. ● The City must comply with the state building code, but it can and should reduce light trespass where lighting is not mandated by state law. If it results in many complaints to code enforcement, then the ordinance is doing exactly what it is intended to do, i.e., provide better livability and environmental health in Palo Alto. 4. Protecting streams and Baylands Light at night devastates natural ecosystems. The existing ordinance recognizes this, and includes requirements and guidelines to reduce light impacts on streams. These protections are critical, yet they have been stripped from the language of the ordinance. We are aware that a new steam protection ordinance is under development in Palo Alto, but until this new ordinance is adopted, the existing protections should remain in effect, and be expanded to protect other natural resources such as Baylands ecosystems. Proposed Amendment - Ensure that no light trespass occurs into the Baylands Nature Preserve east of Highway 101. - Retain the protections that the current municipal code provides to riparian ecosystems section 18.40.140 Stream Corridor Protection “(3) Requirements Within streamside review area Proposed Amendment - Implement the October 30th PTC motion to “change the light trespass from 0.5 to 0.1 foot candles at every reference throughout the ordinance”. (g) Nighttime lighting shall be directed away from the riparian corridor of a stream.” - If possible, include the existing language: “(4) Guidelines Within Streamside Review Area (a) The distance between nighttime lighting and the riparian corridor of a stream should be maximized.” 5. Seasonal Lighting The April 7th Draft Language exempts seasonal lighting during the period of October 15th through January 15th of each year from all of the requirements of the ordinance. October 15th occurs during bird migration season. With new holiday lighting innovations that increase lighting overall, we believe that protections for migratory birds and the Dark Sky is warranted. We recommend establishing a unique curfew for seasonal lighting, rather than exempting it from curfew requirements entirely. Proposed Amendment ● Apply a unique curfew to Seasonal lighting (midnight - 8AM) 6. Add the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting to the Findings and Declarations and Purpose sections of the ordinance. These principles, from DarkSky International, are the basis for Dark Sky policy objectives, and should be included in the ordinance. As shown in the image on page 1 of this letter, these principles state that lighting should be useful, targeted, low level, controlled, and warm-colored. Proposed Amendment - Add the Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting to the Findings and Declarations and Purpose sections of the ordinance. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Shani Kleinhaus Dashiell Leeds Environmental Advocate Conservation Coordinator Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter From:pol1@rosenblums.us To:Council, City Subject:Support SB 457 Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 1:18:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly plannedprojects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects createwell-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better foreveryone. Sincerely, Stephen Rosenblum Old Palo Alto From:Daniel Hansen To:Council, City; Lauing, Ed Cc:Francois, Matthew; Lanferman, David; Lait, Jonathan; Armer, Jennifer; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Cha, Kelly Subject:Proposed Lighting Ordinance (18.40.250) Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 1:15:20 PM Attachments:Edgewood Neighbor Alliance Letter Regarding Dark Sky Ordinance.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, Please see the attached letter submitted on behalf of the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance regarding the Proposed Lighting Ordinance (18.40.250). Best regards, Daniel Hansen April 4, 2025 VIA E-MAIL [City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org; Ed.Lauing@CityofPaloAlto.org] Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed “Dark Sky” Ordinances: Updating Section 18.40.250 (Lighting), Amending Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28, and Section 18.40.230 of Title 18 and New Outdoor Lighting Regulations (18.40.140) Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the Palo Alto City Council: We, the Edgewood Neighborhood Alliance, are writing in objection to the proposed “Dark Sky” Ordinance updating Section 18.40.250 (Lighting), amending Chapters 18.10, 18.12, 18.28, and Section 18.40.230 of Title 18 and New Outdoor Lighting Regulations (18.40.140) as they apply to properties on Edgewood Drive. We have four primary concerns: Safety and Security. The proposed ordinance does not sufficiently take into account the requirements for safety and security of Palo Alto residents in the urbanized areas, particularly those residing along San Francisquito Creek. Inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan. Application of the proposed ordinance to residents in the urbanized areas east of Junipero Serra Boulevard is inconsistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Lack of Community Outreach. The City has failed to conduct adequate outreach to impacted residents, such as holding a community meeting and soliciting residential feedback by mailer. The Planning and Transportation Commission’s (PTC) recommended process to inform residents after implementation is backwards. Unintended Consequences. The proposed ordinance will result in unintended consequences including creating a platform for neighbors and environmental activists to harass homeowners and distracting police and code enforcement officers from meaningful duties. I.Safety and Security Edgewood Drive is Unique The characteristics of San Francisquito Creek along Edgewood Drive are unique in that on the other side is East Palo Alto, which has no barriers to access to the creek, no meaningful creek Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 2 regulation, and limited resources for enforcement. There is literally nothing preventing people from entering the creek from the East Palo Alto side. As a result, Palo Alto homeowners along Edgewood Drive, and the larger neighborhood, contend with – and have for years – homeless encampments, noise, trash, human waste, trespass, fire risk and crime. Encampments and Crime. It is unfortunate but San Francisquito Creek has become an area favored for encampments, likely due to the ease of access to the creek from the East Palo Alto side. Attached at Exhibit A are some of the emails and pictures sent to then Mayor Stone and others regarding encampments last summer and fall as well as pictures of other prior encampments. People living in these encampments chop down trees, pollute the creek with garbage and human waste, make noise (including screaming) and, most alarmingly, burn open fires. San Francisquito Creek in this area is bounded by eucalyptus trees, which are notoriously flammable, and thus our neighborhood is one errant ember away from a fire disaster. As you will see in the attached emails, then Mayor Stone acknowledged our “immediate safety concerns” and that this was an “urgent issue.”1 Just last week an encampment, this time on the Palo Alto side of San Francisquito Creek, was erected and later removed by Palo Alto police. We thank former Mayor Stone for his prompt response and directing the chief of police to respond. Apart from encampments, the creekside properties on Edgewood Drive have been the subject of burglaries, trespass, loitering, etc., from the criminal element originating from the creek. Many of our homes have been burglarized, trespassed and had items stolen. A few of the many police reports are attached at Exhibit B. These describe burglaries, attempted burglaries, prowlers and other events. Last October, Palo Alto police arrested a man for attempted murder for beating another man with a golf club in San Francisquito Creek.2 On October 29, 2024, a homeless man jumped a back fence of a creekside home on Edgewood Drive and tried to steal a container of fuel. He was intercepted by the homeowner and then Palo Alto Police. Among other things, we have witnessed car burnings on Woodland Ave and routinely hear gunshots from the East Palo Alto side. Residents have found bullets in their swimming pools and yards.3 Palo Alto has previously recognized the unique circumstances of properties on Edgewood Drive. The City’s fence ordinance, for example, allows 10-foot fences on Edgewood along the creek for security and privacy. See PA Code 16.24.020(d). Also, the City implemented overnight parking restrictions in response to residents of the apartment complexes on Woodland Avenue in 1 Email dated October 2, 2024 from Greer Stone to Eliza Edelman. See Exhibit C. 2 See news article at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Police-Department/Police-Arrest-Suspect-in- Golf-Club-Attack 3 Palo Alto has not followed through on its plan to have a centralized crime mapping site, which would be helpful for our security. The Comprehensive Plan provides, “S1.4.1 Make data available to maintain an accurate, up to date, and complete real-time local crime mapping function to promote neighborhood safety.” Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 3 East Palo Alto crossing the Newell bridge and parking along Edgewood Drive and neighboring streets. See PA Code 10.51 et seq.4 Lighting is Essential for Safety and Security. Lighting in our backyards and surrounding areas is the primary and key deterrent to crime and unhoused individuals jumping our fences. We need the ability to light our yards and fencing areas including the tops of fencing, and keep the lights on. We also need the ability to keep a front porch light on. Why the ordinance does not include a specific exception for porch lighting, like it does for “street numbers,” is baffling.5 Our children need to be able to see a door is clear of trouble from a distance at all times. The proposed ordinance would only allow security lighting “when necessary to protect persons or property.” Who decides what is “necessary?” It would further require motion sensors on all security lighting and limit the amount of light that can shine over fences. Motion sensors, however, have limited reach, do not always work, can be tricked or bypassed and can be tripped by animals or birds, creating false alarms. A limit of 0.5 candles of “light trespass” over a fence is insufficient (as well as confusing as no one knows what 0.5 candles means). Our primary security fencing faces East Palo Alto for which there are no adjacent properties. Thus light extending over that fencing in the interests of safety should not be an issue. And our neighbors understand and appreciate the need for lighting of rear and side yards and porches. Edgewood Drive Homes Should be Exempt. The homes along Edgewood Drive should be exempt from the proposed ordinance due to their unique circumstances and safety requirements or, at minimum, be exempt from the limitations on security, timing and side lighting. Safety is the City’s paramount duty to its residents and properties along Edgewood are particularly vulnerable. II.The Proposed Ordinance is Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does not contemplate adopting “dark sky” ordinances to urbanized residential homes. Policy N-7.5, on which the staff and environmental groups rely, states in its entirety the following: Policy N-7.5 Encourage energy efficient lighting that protects dark skies and promotes energy conservation by minimizing light and glare from development while ensuring public health and safety. Policy N-7.5 says to “encourage energy efficient lighting.” There is no authorization to implement ordinances or restrict development. Consistent with this policy, the City should look 4 Non-permitted cars are still regularly parked along Edgewood at night because the City’s police enforcement of the parking ordinance is virtually non-existent. 5 The exception in 18.40.250(e)(4)(D)(i) for “building entrances” applies only for timing control and is unclear if it includes homes and porches. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 4 for ways to encourage use of energy efficient lighting (such a tax rebates), not compel it by regulation. The other reference from the Comprehensive Plan cited by staff is Program N7.5.1. This Program states that “All development in the foothill portion of the Planning Area (i.e., above Junipero Serra Boulevard) should visually blend in with its surroundings and minimize impacts to the natural environment. As such, development projects should: … Include exterior lighting that is low-intensity and shielded from view.” Thus, the most the Comprehensive Plan contemplates for building restrictions on lighting is for development west of Junipero Serra Boulevard. Application of the proposed ordinance to the urbanized areas east of Junipero Serra is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and thus the City lacks authority to adopt it. It is black- letter law that a city’s adoption of zoning and development ordinances must be consistent with its comprehensive plan.6 Limiting lighting in residential housing is not a top priority for the City Council. City staff readily admit that the proposed lighting ordnance “does not directly relate to any of the key actions of the Palo Alto Sustainability Climate Action Plan (S/CAP).” The City has bigger issues to tackle, such as housing, encampments and safety. III.Lack of Community Outreach. The City has not conducted adequate outreach to potentially impacted residents. The PTC recommended that community outreach be conducted after implementation of the ordinance. That is absurd and backwards. Community outreach and input should be solicited before the ordinance is adopted, not after it is implemented. It is troubling that City staff directly solicited input from the Audubon Society and Sierra Club on the ordinance,7 but did not do so from Palo Alto residents. City staff did not send out written mailers of the proposed ordinance or hold community meetings with residents, like it has with the proposed “creek corridor” ordinance. All staff did was post it under a usual agenda item 6 “The propriety of virtually any local decision affecting land use and development depends upon consistency with the applicable general plan and its elements.” (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 570.) A city’s general plan is effectively the “constitution for future development” in the community, and any zoning ordinance or other subordinate land use action must be consistent with the general plan. (Lesher Communications, Inc. v City of Walnut Creek (1990) 52 Cal.3d 531, 540, 545-546 [zoning amendment that was inconsistent with the general plan adjudged to be void ab initio].) In order to be deemed “consistent,” the zone change must actually be “compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses, and programs specified in the general plan.” (Napa Citizens for Honest Government v. Napa County Board of Supervisors (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 342, 378-79 [county abused its discretion in adopting a specific plan that permitted development without “definite affirmative commitments to mitigate” impacts to traffic and housing contrary to policies and objectives set forth in its general plan].) 7 Staff writes in the mini-packet, “In addition, staff have engaged with representatives from the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter to solicit their input on the proposed ordinances.” Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 5 on the City’s byzantine website and trust that residents are savvy enough to find it and understand how it impacts them. Then, to dampen impact, residents are limited to a 3-minute statement at a public hearing. Residents should get equal or more access to staff and floor time than the Audubon Society and Seirra Club. The process follow by staff is clearly inadequate given the circumstances. Further, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended against extending the proposed lighting ordinance to residential homes. The ARB got it right. Why the PTC chose to ignore the ARB’s recommendation is unclear and unsupported. In the interest of fairness and transparency, and in view of the scope of the proposed ordinance and the rejection by the ARB, the City Council should direct staff to solicit residential input, including sending a direct mailer and holding community meetings, and have the ordinance reconsidered by the newly constituted PTC. We witnessed the same overreach by the PTC last October with respect to the proposed “Bird-Friendly Ordinance,” which is scheduled to be considered by the Council in May. The ARB unanimously rejected application of the ordinance to residential homes because of the burden and expense on homeowners and lack of available commercially made windows. The PTC, however, ignored the ARB’s position and recommended extension of the ordinance to residential properties within 300 feet of a natural creek. The PTC did this in response to the request of Ms. Kleinhaus of the Audubon Society (who was sitting with City staff and invited to speak by a commissioner), and without any commissioner inviting, hearing from or considering homeowners’ concerns and without any scientific evidence that the ordinance would protect species of birds living in Palo Alto. We, along with our lawyers at Rutan & Tucker, will be responding to the proposed Bird- Friendly Ordinance in due course. We trust that in the meantime the City Council will reject the PTC’s misdirected recommendations here and revert the proposed lighting ordinance for further and direct community input and reconsideration by the PTC. IV.Unintended Consequences. The proposed ordinance has unintended consequences that require it be reconsidered and streamlined. Apart from putting our families are risk, the ordinance with its detailed and technical specifics will create a platform for neighbors and environmental activists to harass homeowners and distract police and code enforcement officers from their meaningful duties. If the proposed ordinance is adopted, it is easy to envision people or groups complaining to the city police, fire department and code enforcement personnel. They could also use this ordinance as a proxy to harass each other. Here are some examples: -When abutting residential use, “no spillover of lighting to adjacent properties shall be allowed.” Complaint: the light is spilling over. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 6 -All light sources “shall have a correlated color temperature of 2,700 Kelvin or less.” Complaint: the color temperature of a light is too high. -No more than “420 lumens shall be allowed for permitted non-shielded outdoor lighting.” Complaint: the light is too intense. -The “maximum outdoor light intensity on a site shall not exceed an average value of 5 foot-candles.” Complaint: the light density is too high. -Low voltage luminaires “may not direct light towards the public right-of-way.” Complaint: the plant light is directed at the sidewalk. -Security lighting may be provided “when necessary to protect people or property.” Complaint: the lighting is unnecessary. -Security lighting shall “extinguish after no more than five minutes” after activation. Complaint: the lighting stays on too long. -Security lighting cannot “trespass above 0.5 foot-candle onto an adjacent or nearby property.” Complaint: the light trespasses too much into other property. The Council should think carefully before turning the neighborhood into to a complaint factory. An ordinance of this nature should be introduced slowly over an extended period of time to avoid unintended consequences. It is clear from the language that the draft ordinance was intended to apply to commercial buildings, not residential homes. The City should start with commercial buildings and parking lots and move to residential properties later. This will allow the City and staff time to monitor its impact on safety and use of enforcement resources and benefits versus burdens. If the proposed ordinance proceeds, it should apply only to new construction. If it applies to existing homes or replacement lights, the impact to residents would be immense, expensive and confusing. Sincerely, EDGEWOOD NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE By, its representative, _____________________ Daniel Hansen Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 7 cc: Matthew D. Francois, Rutan & Tucker, LLP David Lanferman, Rutan & Tucker, LLP Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning & Development Services Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director of Planning & Development Services Kelly Cha, Senior Planner Ed Shikada, City Manager Molly Stump, City Attorney Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 8 Exhibit A Emails and Pictures Regarding Encampments 1 From: Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2024 11:20 AM To: Code Enforcement <codeenforcement@cityofepa.org>; Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Fatima Khan <fkhan@cityofepa.org>; Diana Tran <dtran@cityofepa.org>; Jay Farr <jfarr@cityofepa.org>; Clean City <cleancity@cityofepa.org>; Darryl Hall <dhall@lifemoves.org> Cc: Subject: Re: Woodlawn UPDATE Hello Darryl, I'm sorry to bother you on a Sunday, but there were some loud screaming of woman crying going on around Woodland area of the creek bank. A man yelling at "Karvina" (was what we can capture). There seems to be something violent going on there. We started hearing loud yelling (fighting?) voices between a man and a woman during the day yesterday. And this morning (a few minutes ago), clearly crying sobbing sound is heard. We cannot see what is going on due to branches obscuring, and people are probably under the tarp. Would you or your folks be able to help this woman soon? On Monday, August 5, 2024 at 11:20:53 AM PDT, Darryl Hall <dhall@lifemoves.org> wrote: Good morning team I’m at the Woodland Ave. A male client responded The client refused to come out and talk to me and said he needs no service Darryl Sent from iPhone Darryl Hall 650-730-4840 Dhall@lifemoves.org 1 From: Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2024 7:31 PM To: Cc: Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Subject: Re: Creek Encampments Endangering PA Home Owners Good evening, everyone. Thank you for bringing this serious issue to my attention and for sharing the video. Since receiving this information yesterday, I’ve been actively reaching out to staff and other officials to understand the jurisdictional complexities and coordinate an effective response. After speaking with the SFCJPA Executive Director, Palo Alto’s Fire and Police Chiefs, and the Mayor of East Palo Alto, it’s clear the encampment falls under EPA’s jurisdiction. However, just because EPA has jurisdiction doesn’t mean Palo Alto shouldn’t do everything we can to help mitigate the risks to our residents and your properties. I spoke with the EPA Mayor again this evening, and we both agreed that this is an issue our cities should tackle together, with EPA taking the lead given the encampment is in their jurisdiction. We’re currently organizing a meeting between our city managers and police chiefs to explore how Palo Alto can assist in clearing these encampments. I’m optimistic that, with the necessary political will, we can address this issue promptly. Thank you again for bringing this to my attention. I’m committed to working with all our partners to resolve this and will keep you updated on our progress. Best, Greer Greer Stone Mayor City of Palo Alto Phone: 650-575-0405 E-mail: Greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org 1 From: Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 8:49 PM To: Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@cityofpaloalto.org>; Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Subject: Re: Creek Encampments Endangering PA Home Owners Update: as we’ve feared for months, and have been warning about, tonight there is a FIRE in the creek behind our homes! The Menlo Park Fire Department is responding now. Please act with urgency to clear the encampment. 1 From: Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Thursday, October 3, 2024 9:38 AM To: Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Subject: Re: Creek Encampments Endangering PA Home Owners Good morning, . Thank you for that additional information and context. That’s helpful information to have while I speak with city staff members and our regional partners. I had a follow up discussion with Margaret Bruce yesterday, she’s the executive director of the SFCJPA, a regional body that I vice chair. We recently facilitated a Homeless Encampments Working Group. That group has met twice to discuss various issues associated with homeless encampments. Going forward, it will be a standing item on the regular monthly managers/executives meeting to ensure opportunities to share best practices and information.The issues the group has discussed so far are practices and policies regarding clearing homeless encampments and sharing maps to help figure out jurisdictions when homeless encampments are reported. My understanding of the jurisdictional issue here is complicated. Most of the creek is in private ownership, but in some places, there are easements for flood control maintenance, and there are some county or city-owned areas as well. It's a complex quilt of jurisdictions. I will continue to engage in discussions with staff and regional partners and I will update you as I get more information. Looking into funding opportunities from the state is also a possibility, given that Governor Newsom announced that he will be providing $1 billion in Encampment Resolution funding. I will look into possibilities of Palo Alto seeking some of those funds to help with this growing concern. Be well, Greer Greer Stone Mayor City of Palo Alto Phone: 650-575-0405 E-mail: Greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org 2 On Oct 2, 2024, at 9:54 PM, wrote: Dear Mayor Stone, Thank you for your thoughtful and considered response. We are very encouraged to hear that you will make it a priority to follow up with all the agencies involved to develop a collaborative plan that restores safety to our neighborhood. This is the type of attention and action we've been asking for a very long time, and we so appreciate your understanding and willingness to engage and help. To aid in your effort, the other people that we've been in contact with that are acutely aware of the situation besides Kevin Lewis (who was the point person working with the EPA Mayor and City Attorney) are Diana Tran and Fatima Khan (Environmental Services) and Jay Farr (Public Works Supervisor), as well as Lenin Melger, Code Enforcement Officer. As to offering services to the campers - the team sent Daryl Hall from LifeMoves on 8/5/2024 down into the creek to talk to the person living in the encampment (there are more now) and offer him aid and services. He reported that, "they male client refused to come out and talk to me and said that he needs no services." I believe this was one of several attempts made to offer aid. I understand that Governor Newsome has acknowledged the problem our state is facing with regard to encampments and has offered funds to local municipalities to take action and clean up encampments like this one. Thank you again for making this a priority and being willing to work to address this important issue. Best regards, 1 From: Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 2:52 PM To: Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Nose, Kiely <Kiely.Nose@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Subject: Re: Creek Encampments Endangering PA Home Owners Dear , Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns, and I truly appreciate the care and detail you've provided in your email. I understand the deep connection you have to Palo Alto as a lifelong resident and the seriousness of the situation affecting your family, neighbors, and community. The safety and well- being of our residents are top priorities, and I hear your concerns about the encampments in the creekbed behind your home. Homelessness is a complex and challenging issue that requires coordination across multiple agencies and jurisdictions. As you’ve described, the creek lies between Palo Alto and East Palo Alto, which means that cooperation between our two cities, along with the Santa Clara Valley Water District and other regional agencies, is crucial to address this problem effectively. I understand your frustration about the lack of progress and the buck-passing that you’ve encountered. It is unacceptable for residents to feel unsafe in their own homes and neighborhoods, and it is essential that we take action. I will personally ensure that this issue is raised at the appropriate level with both Palo Alto and East Palo Alto officials, as well as the relevant departments involved. I understand you’ve already had contact with Kevin Lewis, Public Works Supervisor in East Palo Alto, and I will make sure that we follow up with him to understand the scope of their efforts and to coordinate Palo Alto’s role in resolving this situation. I will also request that our Public Safety and Public Works teams coordinate closely with East Palo Alto officials to ensure a comprehensive and sustainable response that prevents further encampments from being set up in this area. In addition to addressing the immediate safety concerns, we will also be mindful of finding longer-term solutions for the broader issue of homelessness in our region. It’s important that we not only focus on enforcement but also support services and resources for those who need help in transitioning out of homelessness. Thank you again for bringing this urgent issue to our attention. I will make it a priority to follow up with all the agencies involved to develop a collaborative plan that restores safety to your neighborhood. I will keep you and your neighbors informed of any developments as we work to resolve this. 2 Please don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any further concerns or additional information that might assist in this process. Be well, Greer Greer Stone Mayor City of Palo Alto Phone: 650-575-0405 E-mail: Greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org 1 From: Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 12:38 PM To: greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org; ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org; kiely.nose@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Subject: Creek Encampment photos Here are the photos taken today of the encampments behind our home at Edgewood Dr, in Palo Alto. It is in front of Woodland Ave, East Palo Alto. Unfortunately the video is too large to send. I'm happy to show you in person if you'd like to come over and see for yourselves. Best regards, 2 3 4 This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam. 1 From: Sent: Wednesday, October 2, 2024 12:24 PM To: ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org; kiely.nose@cityofpaloalto.org; greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Lenin Melgar <lmelgar@cityofepa.org>; Kevin Lewis <klewis@cityofepa.org>; Subject: Creek Encampments Endangering PA Home Owners Dear Mayor Stone and City Manager Shikada, My name is , and I am a life-long Palo Alto resident. I was born at Stanford Hospital, was raised in Palo Alto on Greenwood Ave., and after going away for college and starting a family of my own moved back to raise my own family here. , and my family and I live up the street on Edgewood Drive. It's been a lifelong dream of mine to be able to give my children the privilege of growing up in Palo Alto - such a SAFE, open-minded, educated community. However over the past few years, Palo Alto doesn't feel like the idyllic place I grew up in. We live on Edgewood Drive, and our backyard butts up onto the creek. In the past few years, a group of unhoused individuals have taken over the creekbed behind our house and my neighbors and have set up encampments that are dangerous and threatening our homes and safety. They have gone largely unchallenged. As you can see from the photos and videos I took just this morning, they have created elaborate structures-trashed the creekbed, have propane tanks and fires regularly, throw trash and litter and feces into the creek, and often have loud arguments and fights that make my children fearful and come inside, unable to feel safe in our own backyard. Several of our homes - including mine - have been broken into an burglarized from people gaining access to our homes through the creek. Our neighbor this summer was harassed and physically threatened by the creek dwellers behind their home. WE NEED YOUR HELP TO CLEAN UP THE CREEK, AND ERADICATE THE ENCAMPMENTS THAT ARE MAKING US UNSAFE. The encampment I'm writing about is in the creek behind my home at: Edgewood Dr, Palo Alto and in the creek in front of: Woodland Ave, East Palo Alto We have been reaching out to agencies in Palo Alto (Public Works, code enforcement, Police), and East Palo Alto (public works, police, code enforcement) and the Sillicon Valley Water District, and all anyone ever does is PASS THE BUCK. The group we've been in the most contact with that actually returned my calls and has observed the situation first hand on the ground is Kevin Lewis, Public Works Supervisor, East Palo Alto. At one point over the summer, he told me they were contacting a company to come through and clean out the encampments. He said it is expensive and they could only afford to do it once, and will need help and cooperation from Palo Alto moving forward. I'm BEGGING you to please work together to clean up the encampments, and return a sense of safety to residents on BOTH sides of the creek. We are unable to 2 take care of this pressing issue ourselves as citizens and are relying on our government officials to intervene and take care of pressing safety concerns when they occur for their constituents. Please, please take action. I have copied my concerned neighbors that also have encampments in the creek behind their homes, as we are ALL invested in seeing progress on this issue. Thank you in advance for your help. Best regards, This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam. This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam. 1 From: Tess Byler <tbyler@sfcjpa.org> To: Cc: Denean Ni <dni@sfcjpa.org>; Miyko Harris-Parker <mhparker@sfcjpa.org>; Margaret Bruce <mbruce@sfcjpa.org> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 at 09:56:58 AM PDT Subject: Creek encampment and trash Woodland Ave area Good morning, Thank you for contacting us again. We do not have enforcement powers, but coordinate with our member entities. It is very frustrating because when one area is cleared, the encampment moves to another area of the creek. I do know that this encampment has been brought to the attention of the City Manager. I will inquire about an action plan- the individual did not want to move to a shelter, so there may be a basis for removal in addition to the water quality concerns. Certainly the creek is a dangerous place to be during winter storms. We will be in the creek in this area next week and will inspect from the creek bed. Thanks, Tess Byler, PG, CHG San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority Original message: ************************************************************************* Hi - It's not just a trash, illegal dumping, but dwelling on the creek, with "development" of the bank dirt, campfire, equipment, etc. visible from backside of properties Edgewood (3 houses) - on the EPA side of the bank. Along Woodland Ave. Details of whom we've been working with recorded on: Given the issue is right at the cusp of the two cities and two counties, we're not sure who else can help. There's a lot of debris and bank digging / deforming happening, not to mention human waste into the creek. Hope you give this some attention to get the issue addressed. Thank you. *Please note my new work cell phone: 650-304-4998* Tess Byler, Certified Hydrogeologist CA #928 Stormwater QSD CA #25311 Senior Project Manager San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority 750 Menlo Avenue, Suite 250 2 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Direct line: 650/643-1454 This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam. This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam. 5 On Jun 10, 2024, at 8:39 AM, wrote: Hello Gerald, The progress this person is making on the encampment unimpeded is alarming and very concerning. From our discourse, we understood you were taking action to remove the encampment, and clean up the creekbed. Please let us know when we can expect this to happen. Thank you, On Jun 9, 2024, at 1:46 PM,> wrote: Hi Gerald, There is definitely someone living there now. They're dug stairs down the side of the creek. One picture shows jeans and other clothes strewn about the creek. The other picture shows large water storage tank and bins and bags filled with clothes (and if you zoom in to the left of the white water tank you can see someone partially obscured by the trees. I am growing more concerned about this site. What timeframe can we expect action? 6 On Thu, May 30, 2024 at 4:35 PM > wrote: Hi Gerald, It appears the pallet work in the creek is continuing. Now it is in the creek and appears to be trying to obstruct the creek flow. See the attached photo. This is getting more concerning. Please update us with your plans for addressing this problem. 7 On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 8:32 AM, > wrote: Good morning Gerald, I'm writing this morning with an update, that because none of the construction materials have been cleaned up since we met, the individual moved the material two doors down and this weekend constructed a dwelling as pictured in the creek at Woodland Ave. , opposite Edgewood. We are very concerned about this development. The neighbors to my right have also sent me photos of more material dumped in the creek behind their house as well. This situation needs to be addressed immediately as there is currently a dramatic escalation of encampment activity going on in this area of the creek. After our conversation, I was told that the City of East Palo Alto would be sending a crew over to the creek last Friday 5/24/24 to clean up the materials that were being dumped there. No action was taken. Please follow through and get this cleaned up ASAP, and help keep our neighborhoods safe. Thank you, Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council April 4, 2025 Page 9 Exhibit B Police Reports CONTROLLED DOCUMENT PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT DO NOT DUPLICATE CONTROLLED DOCUMENT PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT DO NOT DUPLICATE CONTROLLED DOCUMENT PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT DO NOT DUPLICATE Case number 23-03046 Officer T. Chang On one summer morning of 2023, one middle age (35~40) white male jumped over the private property on Edgewood Drive back fence from the San Francisquito creek. He walked across that property's backyard towards the property building, spotted by the owners, then hurried over to jump over the side yard fence to Edgewood Drive. The creek was dry. After the property owner met eyes with him, prowler hurried over through the side yard to climb and jump over the front yard fence to access Edgewood Drive. Owner confronted the prowler as he shouted back to exchange some words. He walked towards Newell Road once on Edgewood Drive. Case Number 23-02704 Officer D. Amani Summer of 2023. One prowler jumped over the back fence of the property on Edgewood Drive from the San Francisquito Creek side, at least twice that day per video camera on the property. It is unclear how often he's been jumping over the fence to that or other properties prior to that day. He was seen on another video clip to have also climbed in and walked around the yard in the morning. As he was jumping over the driveway gate from inside our yard to Edgewood Drive that evening, he was spotted by neighbors who were walking their dog. The neighbors notified us and we then called the police about this intrusion. Our camera showed that he had taken our garden shears during the time he was in our yard earlier that same morning. Unclear if other items in the yard were taken. From:Chris Lillios To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 - Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 12:20:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Chris Lillios 225 Fulton St Palo Alto, CA This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Beth Guislin To:Council, City Subject:Please endorse SB457 Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 11:44:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am a long-time Palo Alto resident. Please endorse SB457. Thank you. Ramona Guislin Middlefield Rd. From:Anne Email To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 10:26:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo resident I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely,Anne Zoucha McGee 1290 Dana Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Sent from my iPad This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Reid Kleckner To:Council, City Subject:SB 457 is not a priority for our city Date:Friday, April 4, 2025 9:01:29 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Council members, I was disappointed to hear that our city council and staff are spending time considering sponsoring SB 457. Regardless of how one feels about the builder's remedy, for Palo Alto, thisbill is litigating the past. This bill has no forward-looking impact on any of the city's 2025 priorities: Implementing Housing Strategies for Social & Economic Balance Climate Action & Adaptation, and Natural Environment ProtectionEconomic Development & Retail Vibrancy Public Safety, Wellness & Belonging I urge you to vote no or abstain from any vote on sponsoring this bill at the state level. Now that our city has an approved Housing Element, sponsoring this bill has no impact on our city,so far as I'm aware, and we shouldn't be spending our scarce attentional resources on it. To focus on the merits of the proposed bill, as I understand it, it removes the accountability mechanism from the HE process without replacing it with anything. Cities can self-approvetheir plans, and block home building in their community to further exacerbate income inequality in the otherwise great state of California. The builder's remedy is controversial,imperfect, and admittedly unpopular, but it is bad governance inconsistent with the housing abundance agenda to remove an accountability mechanism with no replacement. I amdisappointed in our state senator Josh Becker for proposing this bill. Thanks, Reid From:Scott O"Neil To:Council, City Subject:SB 457 Sponsorship Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 10:56:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i City Councilmembers, If Sen. Becker wanted to write a narrow bill targeting “flagrant fouls”, he could have, but he did not. SB 457 would instead functionally end the builder’s remedy, statewide, in three different ways.[1] So that is the debate we must have –not one about a single application in Menlo. Indeed, if SB 467 were a bill that narrowly targeted outliers like Willow, I would not comment. It is better strategy for the pro-housing movement to let Willow be neutralized. But here we are. Unfortunately, I do not know the minds of the Council well enough to be sure that there aren’t four votes for whom the end of the builder’s remedy in Malibu is a feature and not a bug, no matter how much litigation the transition triggers. I hope there aren’t, and the debate reflects the stakes and merits, and that Palo Alto does not sponsor the bill. But if there are four or more votes in favor, then I want to suggest this is a rare time when a protest vote may be effectual. If this bill does win sponsorship on Monday, then that does not decide the law –but the vote tally will help frame the debate in Sacramento that does. Let me be blunt: if you vote to sponsor this bill, you cannot stop your name from being used to promote it. It would be true that you voted to give Sausalito all the tools it needs to roll back their upzoning, renege their sixth cycle housing commitments, and then rest easy knowing they can avoid accountability under the builder’s remedy. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Instead, I respectfully ask that you use your vote to send the strongest possible message to Sacramento that compliance with state housing law ought to continue to matter in unincorporated Orange County, and everywhere else. Thank you. -Scott O’Neil P.S. [1] These are the overbroad ways the bill assaults the builder’s remedy throughout California: Cities already abuse completeness determinations up and down the state, so letting a city-attested incompleteness determination influence BR applicability gives them tremendous power. Developers would know an application can be “incomplete” however long a city needs while seeking compliance. In combination with the self-certification provisions, no developer would try. A city could self-adopt an Element to clear their deemed-incomplete builder’s remedy applications. A city could say an application had not “Incurred substantial liability in good faith reliance upon the local agency approval.” Those words mean whatever a city wants them to mean unless a developer wants to face years of carrying costs litigating "substantial”. If anyone wants you to believe this is a bill about 80 Willow, I respectfully ask you to read the very short set of changes while asking yourself what in that text could restrict application to a project like 80 Willow. From:John Selling To:Council, City Subject:SB457 Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 6:16:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and acrossthe region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislationauthored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law byclosing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly plannedprojects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Elementto build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused,like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provokeanti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. My home isliterally in the shadow of the tower in NE Palo Alto. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to planfor housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects createwell-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercialprojects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart,reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better foreveryone. Sincerely,John Selling, 678 Hawthorne Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Binder, Andrew Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Council, City; Dave Price; Lotus Fong; EPA Today; DuJuan Green; Jeff Conrad; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.gov; Gennady Sheyner; Yolanda Conaway; Donna Wallach; Don Austin; board@pausd.org; Figueroa, Eric; Foley, Michael; Palo Alto Free Press; Dana St. George; Gerry Gras; Barberini, Christopher; Ed Lauing; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: CJA’s No Tasers for the Sheriff’s Department Coalition Meets with BOS Member Margaret Abe Koga April 2,2025 Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 5:22:11 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. On Thu, Apr 3, 2025 at 1:31 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: From:Aram James To:Gardener, Liz; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Barberini, Christopher; Enberg,Nicholas; Afanasiev, Alex; Rodriguez, Miguel; Damon Silver; Council, City; Human Relations Commission;planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Baker, Rob; WILPFPeninsula Palo Alto; Doug Minkler; Dana St. George; Gerry Gras; Tim James; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; EPAToday; cromero@cityofepa.org; Lee, Craig; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; rabrica@cityofepa.org; dennisburns; DuJuan Green; Tom DuBois; Kaloma Smith; GRP-City Council; Perron, Zachary; Daniel Kottke Subject:San Jose settles excessive force suit for after police dog refused to let go of man’s throat The plaintiff will receive $1.6 million as part of the settlement Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 5:15:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of theorganization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. San Jose settles excessiveforce suit for after policedog refused to let go ofman’s throat The plaintiff will receive $1.6 million as part of the settlement https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/04/02/san-jose-settles-excessive-force-suit-after-canine-dog-refused-to-let-go-of-mans-throat/ From:karendrohde@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:Please Strengthen the Proposed Dark Sky Ordinance Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 5:00:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Ed Lauing and Palo Alto Council Members, My name is Karen Rohde and I know several of you. My husband and I have lived in Palo Alto for 30 years and raised our two daughters here. I am a member of the Santa Clara Valley Bird Alliance, Past President of the Rotary Club of Palo Alto, and President Elect of the Woman’s Club of Palo Alto. I care about our community and am very concerned about the loss of habitat and the pollution (including light pollution) that impacts the other creatures, with whom we share this environment. My husband and I have been supporters of DarkSky International for many years. Light pollution disrupts wildlife (and significantly impacts birds who do most of their migrating at night), impacts human health, wastes money and energy, contributes to climate change, and blocks our view of the stars. I am writing to ask you to strengthen the proposed Dark Sky Ordinance for our city. Please include the following responsible lighting practices: Apply the ordinance to newly installed or replacement lighting fixtures on existing structures, as recommended by the Planning Commission. Set appropriate lights-out (curfew) requirements for outdoor lighting to prevent unnecessary night-time lighting. Prohibit light spillage into homes, parks, and open spaces. I appreciate your consideration of this request. I hope you will ensure our community practices support the natural environment that allows us to call this place “home.” Warm regards, Karen Rohde 3360 Thomas Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94303 +1-650-867-3215 Sent from Outlook From:julianneasla@sonic.net To:Council, City Subject:in support of SB467 Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 3:48:54 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from julianneasla@sonic.net. Learn why this isimportant Dear City of Palo Alto Council members I urge you to support Senator Becker’s SB467. It will help ameliorate some of the worst parts of the “Builders Remedy”. The Builders Remedy emboldened H17 to propose a truly monstrous development at the former Sunset Magazine site called “Willow Park”. This project if built will adversely affect and harm both communities on either side of the creek. I attended the February 22nd Community Meeting. I agree with Julie Lythcott-Haims that housing is needed, but that the Willow Park development is not the answer. It would actually create a net loss of housing because of the huge amount of office space proposed as compared to housing. If passed SB457 will help us repel projects such as that proposed by H17. Thank you Julianne Adams Frizzell Landscape Architect 1175 Channing Ave Virus-free.www.avg.com From:Ken Horowitz To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Building Apartments in California Costs More Than Twice What It Costs in Texas Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 3:37:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. FYIKen Horowitz 525 Homer AvePalo Alto, CA 650-464-8959 Sent from my iPad Policy Currents | Web version Policy Currents THE NEWSLETTER FOR POLICY PEOPLE APRIL 3, 2025 Photo by Mike Blake/Reuters Building Apartments in California Costs More Than Twice What It Costs in Texas A new RAND study finds that the cost of building multifamily housing in California is 2.3 times higher than in Texas and 1.5 times higher than in Colorado. Our researchers analyzed more than 140 completed projects in the three states. They found that California was the most expensive for multifamily housing production in every cost category they considered. What explains this difference? It’s largely driven by state and local policies that contribute to long permitting and construction timelines, as well as higher local development fees. The time to bring a project to completion in California is more than 22 months longer than the average time required in Texas. And municipal impact and development fees average $29,000 per unit in California, compared with less than $1,000 in Texas and $12,000 in Colorado. The researchers also identified actions that could help lower production costs and increase housing affordability in California. For instance, California could adopt a policy similar to Texas state law that requires local jurisdictions to approve or deny a proposal for a housing development within 30 days. Other policies— synchronized rather than sequential inspections, for example—could also help lower costs by reducing construction timelines. For decades, California has ranked second only to Hawaii in housing and rental costs, and the state has seven of the 10 most expensive metropolitan areas in the nation. Learning lessons from other states could help California address its long- standing housing crisis. Read more Taiwan Needs a New Playbook As Taiwan faces uncertain security commitments from a new U.S. administration and increased assertiveness by China, its strategic dilemma is worsening. Taipei is responding— boosting defense spending and exploring a trade and investment deal with Washington—but is it doing enough? The short answer, say RAND's Jude Blanchette and Gerard DiPippo, is no. The island’s old playbook will no longer work. “Taiwan must do more for its own defense and resiliency, and fast.” Read more WVU and RAND Launch Partnership Focused on WorkforceNeeds This week, West Virginia University and RAND announced an innovative collaboration focused on workforce development and education. Faculty and students at WVU will work alongside RAND researchers to identify workforce trends and solutions—with a specific focus on apprenticeships, career pathways, and technical education. This partnership will “provide a model for how to harness the power of policy research and analysis to serve the needs of such an important part of the country,” says RAND president and CEO Jason Matheny. Read more RAND Recommends In Education Week, RAND's Elizabeth Steiner discusses the importance of defining quality when it comes to teachers' instructional materials: “There’s a real need to think with practitioners about what curriculum-aligned professional learning actually means.” RAND Europe researchers highlight lessons from South Korea that could help the United Kingdom remain a serious player in outer space. RAND's Wendy Troxel has a few tips for how to deal with brain fog during menopause: improve sleep quality, get regular exercise, and build positive social connections. Events Innovations in Veteran Suicide Prevention Thursday, April 17, 2025 – Online Town Hall on RAND's Survey of State Maternal Health Initiatives Thursday, April 17, 2025 – Online Policy Lab: Mapping the Use of High-Quality Instructional Materials Wednesday, April 30, 2025 – Online RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. Privacy policy Unsubscribe Manage your subscriptions RAND. 1776 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401-3208. RAND® is a registered trademark. From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Bill Newell; Jeff Rosen; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Michelle; Rodriguez, Miguel; Damon Silver; Yolanda Conaway; Don Austin; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; Rosen, Jeff; Sarah Wright; Dave Price; Angel, David; Lori Meyers; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Sheree Roth; h.etzko@gmail.com; Ed Lauing; Reckdahl, Keith; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Emily Mibach; Dana St. George; board@valleywater.org; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; John Burt; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Bains, Paul; Braden Cartwright; EPA Today; Shikada, Ed; editor@almanacnews.com; Ruth Silver Taube (rsilvertaube@scu.edu); editor@paweekly.com; Figueroa, Eric; Jensen, Eric; Lewis james; Tim James; Wagner, April; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Friends of Cubberley; Palo Alto Free Press; Greg Tanaka; Rose Lynn; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Daniel Kottke; Gardener, Liz; Gerry Gras; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Dave Price; Jeff Conrad; Council, City; GRP-City Council; city.council@menlopark.gov; Nash, Betsy; Taylor, Cecilia; Raymond Goins; Raj Jayadev; rabrica@cityofepa.org; Gennady Sheyner; Doug Minkler; Perron, Zachary; Rowena Chiu; Barberini, Christopher; josh@joshsalcman.com; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Burt, Patrick; George for Palo Alto; Donna Wallach; Marty Wasserman; Foley, Michael; Mickie Winkler; Zelkha, Mila; Jeff Hayden; Roberta Ahlquist; Roberta Roth; Baker, Rob Subject:Jewish Students Chain Themselves to Columbia Gates to Protest ICE Jailing of Mahmoud Khalil Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 3:23:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Jewish Students Chain Themselves to Columbia Gates to Protest ICE Jailing of MahmoudKhalil https://www.democracynow.org/2025/4/3/ice_students_immigrants_mahmoud_khalil From:Thomas Rindfleisch To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 2:50:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. The Menlo Park project is especially troubling in that it is within a 100-year flood zone for San Francisquito Creek and may include a multilevel underground parking structure that would extend well below the bottom of the stream bed. These can cause serious hydrological problems that would endanger the stability of the tower structure. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Tom Rindfleisch 31 Tevis Pl, Palo Alto From:Laura L. Breyfogle To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 2:02:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and acrossthe region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislationauthored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Elementto build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Laura Breyfogle 754 Palo Alto Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Tim O"Konski To:Council, City Subject:My support SB457 Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 1:28:24 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park (that is next to the county line creek!), and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Tim O'Konski / Palo Alto resident and homeowner for more than 42 years From:Augusta Belle Charles LLC To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 1:15:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto property owner who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Property owner 465 Ruthven Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Henry Etzkowitz To:Palo Post; Braden Cartwright; Rebecca Eisenberg; Brian Good; Cari Templeton for Council; Council, City; Office ofthe Provost; Marty Wasserman; Avroh Shah; Hannah Lu; Ellen Fox; Sarah Wright; Jim Hersh; Lotus Fong Subject:City might hire… Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 12:06:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Suggest place paramedics on Harley’s to further improve response time. Indeed, a modified sidecar could move all but the most heaviest to emergency room more quickly. Discussed this idea with pumper and ambulance crews outside of Stanford’s library recent evening where they had responded to what turned out to be a non event. Female crew member said she would be happy to ride Harley motorcycle medical response. We also discussed poor response time to Oak Creek Apartments, wood structure relatively far. from nearest Alma station. At Rivian state of city event reviewed learning from LA conflagration with department member. If winds, department will be unable to cope here, Iike there. Firebreaks in advance essential. San Francisco had to wait for the Army Corps of Engineers to arrive and create them to gain control of the post quake fire. If act now, still time to create one along San Antonio, moving 2k housing+ to Stanford Shoppng Center Parking Garages on pillars, inserted. Henry Etzkowitz Palo Alto Neighbors for Environmental and Social Justice Visiting Scholar Department of Sociology Stanford University Sent from my iPhone From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Jean Eisberg Subject:list of pipeline projects Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 12:01:14 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing, council members and staff, I saw in the State of the City speech reference to a pipeline of over 2,000 housing units. And I thank the Mayor for reminding us that we had fewer than 500 permits issued in the first two years of our RHNA. Can someone provide the list of these applications/projects including --which are BR applications --How many units are BMR units including how many in the BR projects As a resident and economist, I do not support the current Willow application nor do I think it is feasible with high office vacancies and the project's terrible location. But the Becker bill if passed will apply to Palo Alto as well and I want to understand the possible loss of units here and the intent of council members to deny BR projects in Palo Alto if the bill passes Thanks Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Adam Dohner To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 9:51:55 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely,Adam Dohner 320 Guinda St. Palo Alto, 94301 From:Preeva Tramiel To:Council, City Subject:Dark Skies over Palo Alto Date:Thursday, April 3, 2025 9:24:56 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Please strengthen the Dark Sky Ordinance. We deserve good health and a view of the stars!Preeva Tramiel, 767 Addison Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 659-208-3580 Sent from my phone, excuse brevity and typos and autocorrect This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Arthur Keller To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 9:22:57 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from arthur@kellers.org. Learn why this isimportant Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Arthur Keller 3881 Corina Way From:Christy Junkerman To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 9:02:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across th= e region, I=E2=80=99m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation au= thored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing= loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city=E2=80=99s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing= Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misu= sed, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 1= 7-story project at Mollie Stone=E2=80=99s, it damages public trust and coul= d provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to pla= n for housing and helps ensure that the Builder=E2=80=99s Remedy projects c= reate well-planned housing=E2=80=94not severely oversized developments or c= ommercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto=E2=80=99s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart,= reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyo= ne. Sincerely, Anne C. Junkerman 565 Chaucer Street Palo Alto, Ca 94301 From:Brigitte Gassée To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 8:38:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and acrossthe region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislationauthored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law byclosing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly plannedprojects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Elementto build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused,like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provokeanti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to planfor housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects createwell-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercialprojects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart,reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better foreveryone. Sincerely, Brigitte and Jean-Louis Gassee 459 Ruthven Ave - Palo Alto 94301 Sent from my iPhone From:Ms Dawn Billman To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 8:34:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Kindly, Dawn Billman 1450 University AvenuePalo Alto CA 94301 This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Shannon Rose To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 -- Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 8:33:20 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Shannon Rose McEntee Shannon Rose McEntee From:Michael Henehan To:Council, City Subject:SB 457 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 8:21:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Michael Henehan 119 Webster Street Palo Alto From:Virginia Smedberg To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — a Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 7:46:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who definitely supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. However, when state housing laws are misused, as in the proposed 39- story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. It also can result in really badly designed developments, whose effects are impossible to reverse. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing; it also helps ensure that projects using the Builder’s Remedy actually create well-planned housing— not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals, which is what they all-too-often propose. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, virginia smedberg 441 Washington Ave Palo Alto EARTH without ART is just EH From:Tim Lindholm To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 3:32:30 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Tim Lindholm218 Middlefield Rd, Palo Alto 34 year resident From:Margie Stehle To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 3:31:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Margaret Stehle 853 Garland Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Jean Eisberg Subject:Positive zoning change in top tier college town from the Mar 22-28 Economist Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 3:30:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. FYI "RESTORED QUEEN ANNE houses sell for more than $10m in Cambridge, a small city across the Charles River from Boston. Victorians, brick rowhouses and triple-deckers (three-storey homes, with an apartment on each floor) are all very dear. Rent is high, too. Low-income residents are decently served by public and subsidised housing. But middle-income renters and buyers are mostly locked out of finding a home in Cambridge. That looks set to change thanks to the city council passing a bold new ordinance last month. The measure ends century-old single-family zoning and represents a significant turn in urban land use policy. It will allow six-storey residential buildings citywide, including areas where only single-family homes were permitted. Accessory dwellings, a cottage or granny flat built on the same lot as a single-family home, will also be permitted. “Yimbys”, activists who say “yes in my backyard” to development, are thrilled to seesensible planning in one of the most dense cities in America. They argue that housingshortages are caused by overregulating what can be built and where. These rules add tocosts and can discourage development. The city council deleted scores of pages ofrequirements. Burhan Azeem, a council member, calls Cambridge’s reform the most comprehensive citywide zoning change in the country. The old rules were so restrictive that only 350 new units were expected to be built by 2040. Mr Azeem says the new, easier rules will encourage mid-size and smaller property developers. The city was “becoming a barbell society,” says Mr Azeem. The poor got help and the wealthy lived well, but teachers cannot afford to live there. One former resident says he and his wife, both white-collar workers, were advised by their real-estate agent to move to the Midwest. Cambridge has one of America’s lowest rates of children as a percentage of the population because young families leave for cheaper places. “One of the biggest signs that something was going wrong,” says Mr Azeem, is “when you can’t create space for the next generation.” Cambridge is not alone in embracing yimbyism. Christopher Elmendorf of the University of California, Davis, points to Minneapolis, America’s first major city to end single-family zoning. New development tended to be built where flats were already permitted. Mr Elmendorf thinks “in the right environment, it can totally work.” That means sound policy, good timing (tariffs on lumber and steel are bound to hurt construction) and the willingness of people to welcome change. William Fischel, emeritus professor at Dartmouth College, is encouraged. “People arewaking up to the fact that land use regulation has something to do with housing costs”. Buthe is worried about powerful historic conservationists. Even in the People’s Republic,Cambridge’s nickname, NIMBYs, or “not in my backyard”, locals who resist new development, may cause trouble. Many are progressive and understand there is a housing crisis, but they love the charm of their neighbourhoods. “The minute someone tries to put a six-storey building in a residential zone that has historically been no higher than 35 feet, there’s going to be immediate negative pushback,” says David Clem, who kick-started biotech development in Cambridge’s Kendall Square (now an economic engine for the state). He predicts it will take a while before the bold move results in new housing. Mr Azeem says the historical commission can only delay projects until they do a historical study. As The Economist went to press the city council and the commission were in talks" From:Lai Wong To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 3:23:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Subject: Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Lai Wong 241 Fulton St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 —---------------------------------- From:Carolyn Godfrey To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 3:07:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Carolyn Godfrey 211 Middlefield Road From:Sue Dinwiddie To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 2:03:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Sue A. Dinwiddie 543 Jackson Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 —---------------------------------- Sue Dinwiddies.dinwiddie@icloud.com 650-867-0308 From:Judy Grinberg To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 1:53:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Forgot my name ! ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Judy Grinberg <judygrin@pacbell.net>To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Sent: Wednesday, April 2, 2025 at 01:45:43 PM PDTSubject: Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Judy Grinberg From:catherine_hamilton@comcast.net To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 - Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 1:52:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Catherine and Ralph Bredenberg 1126 Hamilton Ave. From:jkg0910-milt@yahoo.com To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 1:46:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, From:Judy Grinberg To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 1:45:57 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:John Selling To:Council, City Subject:SB457 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 1:00:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and acrossthe region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislationauthored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law byclosing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly plannedprojects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Elementto build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused,like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provokeanti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. We who live in northeastern Palo Alto are literally in the shadow of thistower which will dramatically negatively affect our lives. Please endorse SB457. Thanks, John Selling 678 Hawthorne Ave Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone From:Heike Fischer To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 12:46:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39- story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. Sincerely, Heike Fischer 120 Cowper St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Charles L Junkerman To:Council, City Subject:SB457 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 12:33:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely,Charles Junkerman 565 Chaucer Street Palo Alto 94301 From:Jesus Villa To:Council, City Subject:INVITE: Cirque du Soleil ECHO San Jose Premiere | April 10 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 12:31:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi there, Hope you’re doing well! We are excited to announce that Cirque du Soleil is making its way back to San Jose! On behalf of Cirque du Soleil, we would like to extend an invitation to the Mayor, Vice Mayor, and City Council Members guest to attend the premiere of ECHO on Thursday, April 10th under the Big Top located at the Santa Clara Fairgrounds. They are of course each welcome to bring a guest. Fueled by the power of change, the hope of the youth, and the value of empathy, ECHO follows an inquisitive young woman named FUTURE as she wanders into a fantasy world that explores our sacred bond with animals and nature. Cirque du Soleil’s 20th Big Top show brings bold new visuals and a unique aesthetic on tour, ECHO invites audiences on a journey through a universe of color, wonder, and infinite possibilities. Please let us know if they’re interested in attending. Thank you for your time and we look forward to hearing from you! All the best, Jay Villa Publicist Lobeline Communications www.lobeline.com Los Angeles - New York - Chicago - Houston - Toronto D: (323) 529-3484 Privacy Notice: This e-mail, and any files transmitted with it, are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Nothing in this e-mail is intended to constitute a waiver of a privilege or the confidentiality of this message. Any dissemination, copying or use of this information by anyone other than the designated and intended recipient(s) is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify me immediately by reply and delete and destroy this message and information immediately. From:Aram James To:Barberini, Christopher; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Wagner, April; Enberg, Nicholas;Afanasiev, Alex; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Rodriguez, Miguel; Foley, Michael; Julie Lythcott-Haims;ladoris cordell; Sean Allen; Pat M; Richard Konda; Robert.Jonson@shf.sccgov.org; Josh Becker;assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Human Relations Commission;planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; Jeff Conrad; JeffRosen; Jay Boyarsky; Jose Valle; board@pausd.org; BoardOperations; Bains, Paul; Bill Newell; Dana St. George;Gerry Gras; Doug Minkler; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Baker, Rob; Roberta Ahlquist; Lori Meyers; sharonjackson; Gennady Sheyner; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; MGR-Melissa StevensonDiaz; Pacific GrovePD; Liz Kniss; Linda Jolley; Gardener, Liz; Shikada, Ed; Ruth Silver Taube; dennis burns;DuJuan Green; Council, City; GRP-City Council; city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov;Kaloma Smith; Palo Alto Free Press; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto Subject:San Jose settles excessive force suit after police dog refused to let go of man’s throat Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 12:28:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. San Jose settles excessive force suit after police dog refused to let go of man’s throat https://www.mercurynews.com/2025/04/02/san-jose-settles-excessive-force-suit-after-canine- dog-refused-to-let-go-of-mans-throat/ From:Kelly Traver To:Council, City Subject:SB457 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 12:26:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto Councilmembers, I am very grateful to Josh Becker for putting forth SB457 in order to protect both Menlo Park and Palo Alto from disastrous Builders Remedy projects like the one proposed at 80 Willow Rd. Please unite in support of this and protect our town from a monstrosity like this in our backyard. Thank you, Kelly Traver 678 Hawthorne Ave, Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone From:Mayra Azanza To:Council, City Cc:Garima Agarwal Subject:Safe route for PALY students Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 11:53:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I am writing to express my deep concerns as a mother of two PAUSD students—one a juniorat Palo Alto High School (Paly) and the other a fifth grader at Escondido Elementary, who will eventually attend Paly. My family has lived in this district for eight years, and I vividlyrecall when physical crossing booths were in place at the railroad crossings on Churchill and Charleston. These booths played a critical role in ensuring safety and saving lives.Unfortunately, they were removed with the promise that cameras and technology would provide equivalent protection. Tragically, this promise has not been fulfilled. The recent loss of a Paly student at theChurchill crossing underscores the inadequacy of our current infrastructure. This devastating incident highlights the urgent need for significant safety improvements. Specifically, we needeither an overpass or underpass at Alma and Churchill to prevent further tragedies. While these long-term solutions are being considered, temporary safety measures must beimplemented immediately. Along with a group of concerned parents (one of whom is CC'd here), I have several ideas to address these pressing issues. We would greatly appreciate the opportunity to discuss themwith you. Please let us know your availability for a meeting. Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Mayra Azanza From:Roy Stehle To:Council, City Cc:Roy Stehle Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 11:34:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Roy Stehle853 Garland DrivePalo Alto, CA 94303-3606 P.S. My use of a passed-on message should not decrease my intent and feelings on this issue. From:Sun Ve To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 11:17:12 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and acrossthe region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislationauthored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law byclosing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly plannedprojects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Elementto build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused,like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provokeanti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to planfor housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects createwell-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercialprojects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart,reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better foreveryone. Sincerely, Sunitha Velpula1494 Pitman ave., Palo Alto, CA-94301 From:S S To:Council, City Subject:Please Support SB 457 — Fair, Effective Housing Policy Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 11:15:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and acrossthe region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislationauthored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law byclosing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly plannedprojects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Elementto build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused,like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provokeanti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to planfor housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects createwell-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercialprojects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart,reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better foreveryone. Sincerely, Srikanth Yella Singanamala 1494 Pitman ave, Palo Alto, CA-94301 From:Peter Coughlan To:Council, City Subject:quiet zone for Churchill crossing Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 10:58:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I’m a long time resident of Palo Alto —27 years and counting. In all that time I’ve lived within earshot of the Alma / Churchill street crossing — first in a duplex on Alma Street, thenin a house whose property abuts the tracks on Mariposa Avenue. Over those years I’ve watched train (and car) traffic increase, and I’ve been part of a number of efforts on the part ofthe city and local residents to do something about what I’ll call the “human/rail” interface. I was recently notified about a renewed effort to consider Quiet Zones at grade crossings — an elegant and low-cost solution to tackle the noise pollution problem. I’d like to propose that, for the cost of additional studies about grade crossings, we could havethis solution installed in as little as one year. (I’m told that the Quiet Zone initiated by Menlo Parkwith Palo Alto could be leveraged to accelerate adoption across all of Palo Alto’s gradecrossings.) I understand there remains the issue with safety, and in particular student suicides, and see that the city has already implemented more effective communication and safety-net protocols thatmay help to avoid suicide clusters. The truth is that we cannot make a causal link between sounding of train horns at crossings and suicide rates. And as for warning cars, improved gatesand timing can prevent cars from stopping on the tracks. Most importantly, solving the sound pollution problem does not prevent the city from exploring grade crossings. Rather, it shows that the city is taking realistic action (especiallyconsidering uncertainties around matching grants from Washington), and doing so quickly. You are most welcome to visit my property if you’d like to experience the train blasts up close and personal. Thanks for the hard work the council undertakes on behalf of our beautiful city, and thanks forconsidering this approach to make our city a bit closer to perfect! Peter Coughlan 1527 Mariposa Avenue650-384-5790 From:Neilson Buchanan To:Council, City Subject:SB457 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 10:51:17 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, Please make certain your advice to Sen Becker includes encouragement to write andnegotiate a bill which is legally sustainable. Thank you for publicly addressing this self-imposed conundrum. -- Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant StPalo Alto CA 94301 650 329-0484 home650 537-9611 cell From:Roy Maydan To:Council, City Subject:SB 457 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 10:35:34 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am writing to urge that the city council support SB 457. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element. When state housing laws are misused, like in the39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progressfor years. I live in Downtown North literally on the other side of the creek from 80 Willow Road. 80 Willow Road is a disaster and Exhibit A of the flaws of Builders Remedy. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fixthat helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely,Roy Maydan131 Byron Street From:Anne Carpenter To:Council, City Subject:Urgent! Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 10:29:10 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Anne Carpenter 428 RuthvenPalo Alto, CA 94301 From:Elizabeth Lee To:Council, City Subject:SB457 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 10:09:39 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear PA City Council, Please support SB457 at the next meeting. New housing must provide new affordable housing,not create the need for more of it. It also must conform with current zoning laws and so that it doesn’t make life harder for the local residents. Thanks. Elizabeth Lee, LMFT 650 346-4071liz@funghi.com Author of The House at 844 1/2 http://goo.gl/BauAk From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com; Council, City Subject:support AND endorse SB45 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 10:04:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Council, Please support AND endorse SB457. The Willow Rd project right at the PA border is an absolute atrocity. Just do it. Thank you. Jo Ann Mandinach Palo Alto City Council is considering whether to endorse or support SB457 at their April 7th meeting. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2025/03/24/city-seeks-allies-for-effort-to- blunt-builders-remedy/ This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:K. de Sibour To:Council, City Subject:Endorsement of SB 457 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 9:48:45 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and acrossthe region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislationauthored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law byclosing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly plannedprojects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Elementto build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused,like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17-story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provokeanti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to planfor housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects createwell-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercialprojects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart,reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better foreveryone. Sincerely, Katherine de Sibour293 Bryant St Palo Alto, 94301 From:jeannie duisenberg To:Council, City Subject:Please support SB 457 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 9:47:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, As a Palo Alto resident who supports more housing in our city and across the region, I’m writing to urge you to endorse SB 457, legislation authored by Senator Josh Becker that strengthens state housing law by closing loopholes that have been exploited to advance poorly planned projects. I support our city’s efforts to develop our state-certified Housing Element to build more affordable housing. When state housing laws are misused, like in the 39-story project at 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park and the 17- story project at Mollie Stone’s, it damages public trust and could provoke anti-housing sentiment that sets back real progress for years. SB 457 protects cities like Palo Alto that are working in good faith to plan for housing and helps ensure that the Builder’s Remedy projects create well-planned housing—not severely oversized developments or commercial projects disguised as housing proposals. Please add Palo Alto’s voice in support of SB 457. This is a smart, reasonable, and limited fix that helps housing laws work better for everyone. Sincerely, Jeannie Duisenberg 1664 Channing Ave, PA 94303 From:Abello, Emmanuel Subject:Supplemental Information No. 2 - April 2, 2025 LAFCO Meeting Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 9:30:20 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The following supplemental information has been added to the April 2nd LAFCO Meeting Agenda: Supplemental Information No. 2 – Item # 5 (South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District Dissolution and Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Annexation / Sphere of Influence Amendment) – Additional Comments The agenda and related materials, including the above supplemental information, can be viewed online at: https://santaclaralafco.org/meetings/commission-meeting-2025-04-02-201500 Regards, Emmanuel Abello LAFCO Analyst, LAFCO of Santa Clara County 777 North First Street, Suite 410, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4705 | Mobile: (669) 321-9704 | www.SantaClaraLAFCO.org From:Lauren Swezey To:Council, City Subject:Please support SB457 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 8:36:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear members of the City Council, Builder’s remedy has resulted in outrageous building project proposals, such as the oneproposed for 80 Willow Road in Menlo Park. This project is an environmental nightmare. It will alter the San Francisquito Creek forever and potentially cause more serious issues with flooding in Palo Alto, turn Willow andMiddlefield roads into traffic nightmares with traffic backups into downtown Palo Alto, and utilize an enormous amount of water for which the infrastructure isn’t even available. Thehuge towers will also shade residences in Palo Alto North and North Crescent Park, and actually cause a deficit of housing since the project will add more jobs than housing. Please endorse SB457 - a common-sense bill that will keep housing policy fair and effective. Thank you, Lauren SwezeyFulton St. Palo Alto From:Catherine Whitman To:Council, City Subject:KCBS Radio taped telephone interview request Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 8:26:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Hi,I am a reporter with KCBS Radio in San Francisco and I'd like to see if a member of the City Council is available for a brief taped telephone interview this morning to talk about the LightPollution law. Please get back to me as soon as possible as I am on deadline. Thanks so much! Cathy Whitman KCBS Radio News Reporter/Editor/Producer Audacy | San Francisco 88 Kearny Street San Francisco, CA 94104 O: +1 415-765-4074 catherine.whitman@kcbsradio.com AudacyInc.com KCBS | Alice 97.3 | 95.7 The Game | ALT 105.3 | The New Q102.1 | Channel Q This message needs your attention This is their first email to your company. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Ray Dempsey To:Council, City Cc:Dempsey, Anneke Subject:SB457 April 7th meeting. Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 8:12:28 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council: We hope that the City Council supports and endorses SB457 at the April 7th meeting. This area is not Manhattanand the proposed skyscrapers proposed where Menlo Park abuts Palo Alto will have a negative effect on the entirearea. Ray & Anneke Dempsey1036 Bryant StreetPalo Alto, CA 94301 From:Bonnie Street To:Council, City Subject:SB457 Date:Wednesday, April 2, 2025 7:47:15 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please vote in favor of SP457. I am opposed to the Willow project in Menlo Park. Sincerely, Bonnie Street 1146 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto Sent from my iPhone From:Abello, Emmanuel Subject:Supplemental Information No. 1 - April 2, 2025 LAFCO Meeting Agenda Date:Tuesday, April 1, 2025 4:31:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The following supplemental information has been added to the April 2nd LAFCO Meeting Agenda: Supplemental Information No. 1 – Item # 5 (South Santa Clara County Fire Protection District Dissolution and Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Annexation / Sphere of Influence Amendment) – Additional Comments The agenda and related materials, including the above supplemental information, can be viewed online at: https://santaclaralafco.org/meetings/commission-meeting-2025-04-02-201500 Regards, Emmanuel Abello LAFCO Analyst, LAFCO of Santa Clara County 777 North First Street, Suite 410, San Jose, CA 95112 (408) 993-4705 | Mobile: (669) 321-9704 | www.SantaClaraLAFCO.org From:Frank Wiley To:Council, City Subject:Objection to Dark Sky Regulations... Date:Tuesday, April 1, 2025 2:53:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I'm sure there are a few ardent self-appointed conservationists that see this as a vital issue - but to most residents it's just a dangerous nuisance regulation that would create a good deal ofresentment if it was ever enforced.... One would hope that the city council had more important issues to discuss than trying to black-out the city at night. Frank Wiley955 Roble Ridge Rd, Palo Alto, Ca 94306 From:Liz Gardner To:Aram James Cc:Julie Lythcott-Haims; Vara Ramakrishnan; Veenker, Vicki; Reckdahl, Keith; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Jeff Conrad; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Hayden; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; h.etzko@gmail.com; Human Relations Commission; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; DuJuan Green; dennis burns; Dennis Upton; Rodriguez, Miguel; Doug Minkler; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Damon Silver; Diana Diamond; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Bains, Paul; Kaloma Smith; Holman, Karen (external); Tom DuBois; board@valleywater.org; Gerry Gras; Sarah Wright; Lotus Fong; Liz Kniss; Gennady Sheyner; EPA Today; Sean Allen Subject:Re: Cory Booker on Palestine Date:Tuesday, April 1, 2025 2:45:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, It's April 1. Interesting to note "April Fool's Day". I am not entirely sure if CB has negated his Senate responsibility and has beensilent and obedient during his marathon speech on the floor of the US Senate. My son just asked Chat GBT. Its answer. No. CB record speech on the Senate Floor has not had any reference to the ongoing Genocide in Gaza and Israel's bombing,killing and maiming of civilian Palestinians in Gaza and The West Bank, Lebanon.. Yet and in fact I heard and saw on C-Span live feed. He did read a letter a loud last night from a constituent in NJ who was fired from USAID by DOGE. In their letterthey specifically stated their call to humanity and their work with USAID. Theywere called and sent to GAZA and their work with the plight of Palestinians. My son's verbal search with Chat GBT did not pick up on this reference in a letterread by Booker last night on the Senate Floor. Censorship is infiltrated Chat GBT aswell. However there must be a transcript of Sen. Booker's ongoing speech on the Floor ofthe US Senate and the letter he read which highlights this American's work inPalestine. The Censorship is real. The silence and obedience instilled on America by APAICis real, Israel's yoke around the will of American's First Amendment rights is real. The silence on the Senate Floor is defining. Sen., Adam Schiff alludes to US University being silenced, penalized, and jailing of those speaking out in defense ofthe loss life in GAZA and our US involvement in these War Crimes in the wake ofthe Hamas October 7th massacre. Yet. When we have elected leaders, school districts, high school teachersprestigious university's and city council chamber members who are complacent bytheir silence to the suffering and are kneeling as an obedient servant to Israel's heinous ongoing crimes, we no longer have a Democracy but are a demon of silence . Liz GardnerPalo Alto On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 2:13 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 1:20 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Love CORY Booker (CB)-by aram james 4/1/2025 A friend text me to ask if CB ( in his marathon talk on the senate floor) would address the ongoing Palestine genocide: Here was my answer: Part 1: I doubt that CB wants to address the issue of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the West Bank, and Lebanon, which is sponsored by the U.S. and Israel. Someone like CB, whomay run for president again, is unlikely to want to provoke the anger of AIPAC and other pro-Zionist right-wing lobby groups. These groups will likely contribute to CB’sfuture campaigns if he chooses to remain silent on this matter. Silent & Obedient with his first loyalty to the State of Israel ??? Part 2: Indeed! The American public must be made aware of the true facts. The Israelis areextraordinarily fearful of the truth- thus their frantic efforts to crack down on free speech and academic freedom at colleges and universities across this country. FreeSpeech Be Damned! Our Institutions of higher learning are now -like our congress- Israeli-occupied territory. Shameful that our American democracy being destroyed in thename of Israel!!!! From:Jeanie T Stephens To:Council, City Cc:Jeanie Stephens Subject:Fire Station at Mitchell Park Date:Tuesday, April 1, 2025 2:21:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members,I hoped to come to tonight’s meeting to support additional resources for Station 4. However, I care for my disabledhusband and cannot leave him for long. I grew up in Palo Alto. I have lived here with my husband and our family for over 40 years. As Seniors, we gave agreat concern that fire and other support services will not be available when we need them. Three times over the last several months we have had to call for help after my husband has fallen. Luckily, he wasnot hurt, but I needed firefighters to get him off the floor. They had to come all the way from Los Altos- San Antonio road. I didn’t realize we had lost that neighborhoodsupport. The firefighters said they felt Palo Alto needed more personnel and they could not always prioritize help for“non-emergency“ situations. So my husband would lay on the floor? For how long? We also had a car fire, due to rats chewing wires, and the fire fighters were at our house promptly saving the citytree from catching. My point is that we deserve to have the support we need for a wide range of issues andemergencies. Thank you for supporting ALL of Palo Alto! Jeanie and Ted Stephens3860 Corina Way Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Julie Lythcott-Haims; Vara Ramakrishnan; Veenker, Vicki; Reckdahl, Keith; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider,James; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Jeff Conrad;board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Hayden; Josh Becker;assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; h.etzko@gmail.com; Human Relations Commission;planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; DuJuan Green; dennis burns; Dennis Upton;Rodriguez, Miguel; Doug Minkler; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Damon Silver; Diana Diamond; Perron, Zachary;Council, City; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Bains, Paul; Kaloma Smith; Holman, Karen (external); TomDuBois; board@valleywater.org; Gardener, Liz; Gerry Gras; Sarah Wright Cc:Lotus Fong; Liz Kniss; Gennady Sheyner; EPA Today; Sean Allen Subject:Re: Cory Booker on Palestine Date:Tuesday, April 1, 2025 2:13:09 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. On Tue, Apr 1, 2025 at 1:20 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Love CORY Booker (CB)-by aram james 4/1/2025 A friend text me to ask if CB ( in his marathon talk on the senate floor) would addressthe ongoing Palestine genocide: Here was my answer: Part 1: I doubt that CB wants to address the issue of the ongoing genocide in Gaza, the WestBank, and Lebanon, which is sponsored by the U.S. and Israel. Someone like CB, who may run for president again, is unlikely to want to provoke the anger of AIPAC and otherpro-Zionist right-wing lobby groups. These groups will likely contribute to CB’s future campaigns if he chooses to remain silent on this matter. Silent & Obedient with his firstloyalty to the State of Israel ??? Part 2: Indeed! The American public must be made aware of the true facts. The Israelis are extraordinarily fearful of the truth- thus their frantic efforts to crack down on free speechand academic freedom at colleges and universities across this country. Free Speech Be Damned! Our Institutions of higher learning are now -like our congress- Israeli-occupiedterritory. Shameful that our American democracy being destroyed in the name of Israel!!!! From:Aram James To:Julie Lythcott-Haims Cc:Sean Allen; Kaloma Smith; Rodriguez, Miguel; Bains, Paul; Pat M; DuJuan Green; Damon Silver; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Wagner, April; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; board@pausd.org; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; Jensen, Eric; <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Foley, Michael; Afanasiev, Alex; Figueroa, Eric; Gardener, Liz; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; Yolanda Conaway; Don Austin; GRP-City Council; Bill Newell; Roberta Roth; h.etzko@gmail.com; Lotus Fong; dennis burns; Human Relations Commission Subject:New Jersey Sen. Booker presses his marathon speech against Trump’s agenda past 20 hours and counting Date:Tuesday, April 1, 2025 1:13:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. New Jersey Sen. Booker presses his marathon speech against Trump’s agenda past 20 hours and counting https://apnews.com/article/cory-booker-new-jersey-senator-speech-ab573bb7c3c76fa107cacac7136d3823 From:Derek Gurney To:City Mgr; Council, City Subject:traffic light on State Route 82/El Camino at Page Mill Date:Tuesday, April 1, 2025 8:11:16 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I'm writing about the traffic light on El Camino Real at Page Mill. For the past 2-3 years, itgoes out when there is heavy rain. This causes a lot of disruption and even safety issues, as drivers start making dangerous maneuvers. Plus, it's embarrassing to be living in a supposedly-developed country and have this continually happen. I know this is on a State Route, so the light is a CalTrans responsibility, but I don't think they are handling the issue with sufficient urgency. I urge you to urge them to make it a priority. Yours truly, Derek Gurney From:Darren Kairis To:Burt, Patrick; Council, City Subject:Request for Review: Potential Unlawful Possession of Funds by Upwork Escrow Inc. (530 Lytton Ave, Palo Alto) Date:Tuesday, April 1, 2025 6:35:28 AM Attachments:image.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning from Chicago, I am contacting you to report what I believe to be a case of unlawful possession of funds and potentially theft by Upwork Escrow Inc., located at 530 Lytton Avenue, Suite 301, Palo Alto, CA. I am a user of Upwork’s platform and the rightful owner of funds currently held in escrow. These funds were originally associated with a specific contract that has since been closed and resolved, a refund was awarded in my favor by Upwork. But I did not authorize these funds to be redirected, reassigned, or withheld beyond their intended purpose into a separate escrow account not specificized in our terms and conditions agreement. Under California escrow law, these very specific laws state the escrow funds must be returned to the billing method provided without delay, and its been over two weeks of runaround from Upwork staff. I've attempted to speak with a Manager to resolve this issue several times with no success, I'm refused access to a supervisor or manager. Despite this, Upwork Escrow has refused to return the funds to me, and is systematically preventing me from reclaiming them and refusing to communicate with me. I have made multiple good-faith attempts to resolve this matter: I requested a refund through the platform; I contacted Upwork’s customer support multiple times; I requested escalation to a manager or account representative; I attempted to use their support chat function, which has since beendisabled for my account; All of my requests have either been ignored or met with vague, automated responses. At no point have I received a contractual explanation, legal justification, orwritten reason for why these funds are being withheld. As a result, I believe this situation may rise beyond a civil dispute and constitute: Unlawful possession of personal property; Willful obstruction of access to funds I can prove ownership of; And potentially theft or conversion, as defined by California law. I understand that many financial disputes fall under civil jurisdiction, but I respectfully request that your department review the facts of this case. At minimum, I am seeking to file a police report to document the situation,establish a paper trail, and initiate formal scrutiny of Upwork Escrow Inc.'s actions. I am happy to provide transaction records and screenshots, all written communications with Upwork, evidence of the amount and origin of thewithheld funds, and a written summary of the timeline of events. Please let me know if I may file a report electronically or in person. I sincerely appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Respectfully, Darren J. Kairis 630-217-4862 djkairis@yahoo.com From:Olga * To:Council, City Subject:Affordable housing Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 5:24:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Affordable housing is not affordable and not available. It requires well above minimum wageto qualify to live in a 2-car garage space as your entire house. It is a cruel joke - if one barely qualifies to live in one of those coffin-size apartments then annual rent hikes will put them onthe street in a few years. All truly affordable housing should be income based like section 8, not based on median income fiction as it is now when 64K is now classified as a 'very lowincome,' total insanity! Best regards, Olga Ortmann From:Evan Reade To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Eleanor Pardee Park restrooms, follow-up to ParkRec Commission meeting 3/25/25 Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 3:19:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Resending to correct City Council email address. ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Evan Reade <evanreade@aol.com> To: parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org <parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; City Council <citycouncil@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pat Burt <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; ed.lauing@cityofpaloalto.org <ed.lauing@cityofpaloalto.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <julie.lythcotthaims@cityofpaloalto.org>; vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org <vicki.veenker@cityofpaloalto.org>; george.lu@cityofpaloalto.org <george.lu@cityofpaloalto.org>; keith.reckdahl@cityofpaloalto.org <keith.reckdahl@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; sarah.robustelli@cityofpaloalto.org <sarah.robustelli@cityofpaloalto.org>; steve.castile@cityofpaloalto.org <steve.castile@cityofpaloalto.org>; Andrew Binder <andrew.binder@cityofpaloalto.org> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025, 03:13:54 PM PDT Subject: Eleanor Pardee Park restrooms, follow-up to ParkRec Commission meeting 3/25/25 Dear Chairman Freeman; Dear Park and Recreation Commissioners: Thank you for allowing me and other members of the community to address you last Tuesday evening regarding the proposal to construct a restroom in Eleanor Pardee Park. I appreciated the opportunity to express my concerns about the proposal and to attempt to explain why I am opposed to it. However, two minutes is hardly enough time to properly address such an important, sensitive, andcontroversial topic. So please allow me to expand upon and further clarify my views. First, as I mentioned, having grown up in Palo Alto I have had the opportunity toenjoy the amazing parks and recreational facilities the early leaders of our city had the foresight to envision, fund, and create. As a child I spent innumerable hours in Bowden Park, Peers Park, Rinconada Park (where I learned to swim), Foothills Park (where I learned to paddle a canoe and appreciate nature outside a suburbansetting), the Junior Museum, and the Children's Theatre, which without question was the single most important venue of my youth. As I said at your meeting, our parks are Palo Alto's crown jewels, and great care must be taken to do no harm to them or the neighborhoods they enliven. BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT - Why I oppose constructing restrooms at Eleanor Pardee Park: History - 100+ years without one. Why now? Impact on Park - Restrooms will change this neighborhood park into a regional park. Impact on Neighborhood - Increased traffic, parking, noise, trash. Cost - $600,000 to install?! And how much to maintain on a daily basis? Public Safety - I used to be a police officer in this town. Unsupervised public restrooms result in vandalism, attract the unhoused, and worse. Process - The park's neighbors have not been adequately consulted. The so-called "survey" was flawed. Current History - Current park restrooms are often a mess to the point of being unusable. Recent Past History - I'd like to know what became of the JDDecaux restrooms downtown. Why are they gone? Could it be due to the cost and public safety issues mentioned above? Not needed - Rinconada Park, only four short blocks away, has TWO restrooms, plus the following public city-owned restrooms within yards: Junior Museum, Children's Library, Children's Theatre, Lucie Stern Community Center, Rinconada Pool, Art Center, Main Library. A Bit of History I think it is important to start this discussion with the recognition that Eleanor Pardee Park has existed in our community for over 100 years without a restroom. Even when it was modernized in 1957 and took the form we know it in today, restrooms were not added. That is because Eleanor Park (as it was known years ago) was designed and meant to be a neighborhood park, where people who lived nearby could bike or walk to enjoy its amenities. This was in contrast to the larger parks, like Rinconada, Mitchell Park, El Camino Park, and even Peers Park, andlater Greer Park, which all included restroom facilities and parking areas. This is because they were considered to be more "regional" in nature and were designed to encourage longer use by people drawn from a wider radius. All these parks had facilities to attract wider us: pools, ballparks, basketball courts, tennis courts,parking, co-located with community centers or libraries, etc. These parks also all had small recreation buildings staffed by a city employee (especially during the summer) who would supervise activities in the larger parks. If you visited these parks, particularly during the weekends, they were (and still are) surrounded byparked cars and full of groups barbecuing, picnicking, and pretty much outfitted to stay the whole day. My Concerns Impact on the park: I believe that the addition of restrooms at Eleanor Pardee Park could very well change the nature of the park from a neighborhood park to a more regionally focused park that will attract users from further afield who will stay for longer periods. This will make it more difficult for local residents and families to fully enjoy the park and may lead to additional costs for maintenance and upkeep due to increased usage of the fields and playground facilities, not to mention the costs to maintain the restrooms (see below). Impact on the neighborhood: With increased usage by visitors coming from farther afield there will be an increase in traffic, noise, and trash. As pointed out by another neighbor at last week's meeting, there are no dedicated parking facilities at Eleanor Pardee Park, unlike at larger parks including Rinconada, Mitchell, Greer, El Camino, and others. Parking on Channing Avenue which borders the south side of the park is already restricted to one side of the street to facilitate bike lanes,meaning the people who visit must park their cars across the street from the fields and playgrounds. Several times I have witnessed near tragedies as children have rushed from their cars to the park. On the Center Drive side of the park, residents are already required to endure traffic coming and going all day long and late intothe evening, and parking directly in front of their homes. Adding restrooms will potentially attract even more traffic, which will spill onto neighboring streets as visitors search for parking spaces. Further with regard to neighborhood impact, I lately visited Ramos Park to examine the restroom which was recently installed there. It is front and center, right off the sidewalk at the entrance of the park. In fact, the restroom is now the park's most prominent feature. I wonder how the residents who live across the street on EastMeadow Drive feel about this. They used to look out their front windows and see a lovely park. Now they look out and see a bathroom. Will the same fate befall the neighbors of Eleanor Pardee Park, who live on Channing or Center? Cost: Nowhere in any of the documents I have seen about the Eleanor Pardee Park restroom proposal is the cost of installing restrooms mentioned. I note that the estimate for the Ramos Park restroom was $350,000. I also read in an article in the Palo Alto Weekly dated May 13, 2024, that the cost to construct a restroom andconnect to utilities is $600.000! So I assume the ones proposed for Eleanor Pardee Park would be about the same. This is not an unsubstantial sum for the taxpayers of Palo Alto to spend, particularly during tightening economic times. But the cost does not end there. Someone needs to visit, check on, clean, and repair thesefacilities on a daily basis. Who does this? A city employee? A contractor? And how much does this continue to cost Palo Alto taxpayer each and every day? And who pays to repair damage done by those who misuse or vandalize these facilities? Palo Alto taxpayers. I raise this last point because, sadly, I must report to you that in my recent visits to examine other park restrooms at Seale, Ramos, Greer, and Rinconada parks I have found the facilities in many cases to be in a disgraceful and unusablecondition. Toilets full of waste and toilet paper; paper and garbage strewn through the restroom; at the old mens room at Rinconada Park, the urinal and one sink have been torn off the wall. (See the email and photos I sent to you on March 28, 2025, taken at Rinconada Park.) I really can honestly say I wouldn't allow my childor grandchild to use these restrooms, especially without adult supervision. How much is the city spending on a daily basis to maintain and repair these facilities? The concept of installing restrooms is admirable, but what good do these facilities do anyone if they are unusable due to the actions of those who don't respect themor use them properly. Public Safety: For a number of years I had the distinct honor of serving our city as an officer of the Palo Alto Police Department. It was my experience that restrooms at some of our public parks, especially those that were unattended like the one at El Camino Park, attracted problems that required law enforcement attention. I am very concerned, based on my experiences, that the addition of unsupervised restroom facilities at Eleanor Pardee Park will lead to incidents of loitering,vandalism, possible narcotics use and sales, and in the worst case scenario incidents of assault or other serious crimes. I also believe restrooms are likely to attract homeless individuals who will take advantage of the park's more secluded and sheltered areas to leave their belongings or to set up camp. I have in therecent past seen incidents of unhoused people taking up temporary residence in the courtyard of the Lucie Stern Community Center, literally on the benches at the front door of the Children's Theatre. It is not a stretch to imagine the same thing happening at Eleanor Pardee Park. Process: Finally, I am very concerned about the process the City is following to move forward with this project. It seems to me that the City wishes everyone to believe that this is a fait accompli. I wrote to the City Council May 19, 2024, and to you on February 17, 2025 - with a copy to the City Council and staff - to express my concerns and to request notification of any future hearings or outreach sessions. For the record, I have yet to receive a single response from any member of the Council or this Commission. As I pointed out in my letters, I get notificationsin the mail when a neighbor a block away wants to cut down a tree, but I receive NOTHING about a significant proposed action by the City on property that directly abuts mine. In addition, I am unaware that the City has conducted any organized outreach to the residents of our neighborhood. The City's parks restroom websitehas no information on the Eleanor Pardee Park proposal and no evidence of outreach to gauge neighborhood support. In contrast, the City's parks restroom website contains YouTube videos of outreach sessions conducted with neighbors of Ramos Park before that restroom was installed. I am unaware of any similarefforts to contact or consult with the neighbors of Eleanor Pardee Park. The supposed "survey" the City recently conducted that the local media seems to incorrectly believe sealed the deal and proved that support for the restrooms isoverwhelming was terribly flawed. The City representative at last week's meeting admitted as much, noting that the survey was not scientific and that there is no way to tell whether people completed it multiple times. One speaker correctly pointed out that the wording of the survey was incredibly biased and one-sided, clearlyinviting a positive response without mentioning or discussing any of the potential downsides of placing a restroom in the park. Another speaker who lives nearby the park testified that most of her neighbors, who oppose the installation of a restroom, were completely unaware of the survey. During the meeting I submitted to the Clerk a quickly and loosely organized petition signed by a number of neighbors who oppose the restrooms. Another neighbor submitted additional names electronically. These are real people, with real namesand addresses, who live near the park, and who do not want restrooms installed. At a minimum, before any future action is taken on this matter, the City must make a good faith effort to contact people on that list and all others who live within a several block radius of the park to solicit their views. These are the people who pay their taxes to maintain the park and the streets around it. They are the ones who will be most directly impacted by any significant changes that will lead to increased usage of the park. And they are the ones who vote for the leaders of our community who, one would hope, would care to hear their views before makingdecisions that could directly impact quality of life conditions in their neighborhood. Some final observations/questions: Is it really necessary to change the nature of Eleanor Pardee Park in a way that could very well have tangible negative impacts on our neighborhood? I think not. For parents who would like to take their kids to a park in this area of town with restrooms there is one located only four short blocks away! Rinconada Park now has two restrooms (although as noted above they often seem to be unusable due to vandalism and misuse, despite the costs the cityhas and continues to incur.) In addition to those two restrooms at the Rinconada playground, there are also clean, well-maintained, supervised city restrooms only steps away to the west at the Junior Museum, the Children's Library, the Children's Theatre, and Lucie Stern. To the east across the street are the Arts Center andMain Library, also with clean, well-maintained city-owned public restrooms. With regard to the gardeners who have plots a the Eleanor Pardee Park community garden, they are permitted to use city owned land with access to water andcompost for an extremely nominal fee, and they agreed to take advantage of this generous offer knowing full well that there were no restroom facilities nearby. And now they want the City to build them a restroom that may cost over half a million dollars just to begin with? Really? Conclusion As I mentioned in my opening, while the idea of installing restrooms in all parksis a commendable one, care must be taken to avoid undesired or unforeseen negative consequences. I thank the members of the Community Services team for their work on this proposal, but this isn't just about parks. It is about our neighborhood. I have seen no evidence that anyone has studied the possibleimpacts on traffic. I have seen nothing from the Police Department about incidents of crimes or calls for service (if any) in the vicinity of park restrooms. I have seen nothing from Public Works about the costs to maintain these facilities on a daily basis or to repair them when damaged, or of how many days they have been out ofservice. I think all of these issues, at a minimum, must be addressed by city staff moving forward. Thank you for your attention to my concerns. I look forward to hearing back fromyou, from Council members, and from city staff if the proposal for the installation of restrooms at Eleanor Pardee Park continues to move forward. Sincerely, Evan G. Reade cc: City Council City Manager Various neighbors View this email in your browser. Visit us on www.lwvpaloalto.org, Facebook, and Instagram. APRIL VOTER March 31, 2025 In this Issue Message from our President LWVPA Updates Lunch with League Speaker Event LWVPA 2025 Annual Meeting Board Meeting Highlights From:LWV Palo Alto VOTERTo:Council, CitySubject:LWVPA April VOTER: Join Lunch with League on April 23Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 1:38:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Subscribe to our Google Calendar Advocacy Report Events by Other Leagues and In the Community Hands Off! Palo Alto Fight Back Film Screening - Stripped for Parts: American Journalism on the Brink Celebrate National Arab American Heritage Month Message from our President Welcome to the 15 new members who joined or renewed membership in the League using our new membership system since February. We hope you follow our action alerts, and consider joining our voter services team, our issue interest groups, or even our board, as we have several open seats. Contact Erika Buck at erikabuck@gmail.com if you are interested in learning more about our board. No experience necessary, just an interest in making sure everyone can participate in a democracy protected by the rule of law. Joining means you will meet new friends, apply your skills, develop new ones, help people vote, and learn and take action on public policy issues. These are trying times for democracy. We need you to join us in Making Democracy Work. Our annual meeting will be held on May 18, from 1-3 pm at the Palo Alto Baylands Golf Links meeting room. We urge all members to come. We will have a speaker (TBA), approve updated bylaws and our program for 2025- 2026, and elect new board members. New members are urged to attend to vote and get to know us. Our activities in the past month have included a national study of the federal judiciary. Approved at the 2024 LWVUS convention, the need for the study grew out of concerns that the public perceived the Supreme Court as partisan and some justices as compromised by large gifts from people who appear before them. Together with members from LWV of Los Altos/Mountain View, we considered whether adopting term limits and enforceable rules of ethics would help reestablish the Court’s standing as a place where any person, regardless of their background or income, could receive a fair hearing. The study results from local Leagues around the country were sent to the LWVUS, which will use them as the basis for a new position on the federal judiciary. The 2024 national LWV Convention also identified the decline of local journalism as a threat to democracy. We are holding a timely event on April 23, 12-1 pm, featuring Adam Dawes, publisher of Embarcadero Media and Palo Alto Online, describing the challenges and successful efforts to establish non- profit journalism in our community. The event will be in-person at the Sobrato Center for Nonprofits, 3460 West Bayshore Rd., Palo Alto. Bring your own bag lunch or reserve one when registering. New members are especially urged to come and meet our board and committee chairs after the event. - Lisa Ratner, Advocacy Chair & Co-President LWVPA Updates Lunch with League Speaker Event Wednesday, April 23, 2025 12:00 pm - 1:00 pm Sobrato Center for Nonprofits, Redwood Room 3460 WEST Bayshore Road, Palo Alto Featuring Guest Speaker Adam Dawes CEO, Embarcadero Media Foundation Local news is in crisis: Does it have a future on the Peninsula? Local news is a cornerstone of our democracy, but it has been in crisis nationwide. At its 2024 convention, the League of Women Voters recognized that the decline of local news is a threat to democracy. Hear from Adam Dawes, CEO of Embarcadero Media, how the business has changed in recent years and how Embarcadero Media is evolving to meet these trends and preserve the Palo Alto Weekly, Almanac, Mountain View Voice, and Redwood City Pulse for years to come. Embarcadero Media serves a population of more than 500,000 people on the Midpeninsula and the East Bay's Tri-Valley by: alerting citizens of breaking news that makes people feel connected and informed on what's happening in their community; publishing in-depth and investigative reporting on complex issues; and hosting public educational events. BIO Adam was born and raised in Palo Alto and had his first experience in journalism as editor-in-chief of the Campanile at Palo Alto High School. Aside from his four undergraduate years at Harvard, he has lived on the peninsula his entire life. He attended Stanford Business School in the 1990s and worked for tech firms in Silicon Valley for more than 20 years, including 14 years at Google. He has served on the board of directors at Embarcadero Media Corp. He lives with his wife and two kids in San Carlos and loves the outdoors and enjoying the vibrant culture of the Bay Area. Please indicate on the sign-up form if you want us to order a sandwich and beverage for you (bring $10 at the door), or bring your own lunch. Register early to save your spot! Register Now LWVPA 2025 Annual Meeting Sunday, May 18, 2025 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Baylands Golf Links, 1875 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto Please mark your calendar for the most important membership meeting of the year! Stay tuned for more details and a registration link. LWVPA March 2025 Board Meeting Highlights The March board meeting focused on the upcoming Lunch with League speaker event featuring Adam Dawes (April 23), our Annual Meeting (May 18), and an education program focused on water issues. We are looking forward to the virtual LWV of California Biennial Convention June 17-22 and are pleased to have already hit our fundraising goal (thank you!). The 2025 Nominating Committee continues to build next year’s team so please let us know if you are interested in a board position! Approved Motions: Approved February meeting minutes. Our next Board Meeting is on Tuesday, April 22. All members are welcome to join the meeting by emailing contact@lwvpaloalto.org. - Megan Swezey Fogarty, Secretary Advocacy Report This past week, the President issued an unlawful executive order on voting rights which would prevent tens of millions of eligible Americans from exercising their fundamental right to vote and has the potential to interfere with the 2026 elections. The League of Women Voters and voting rights advocates have vowed to fight the order as unconstitutional. Read A Dangerous Attempt to Silence American Voters: LWV Responds to President Trump’s Anti-Voter Executive Order. LWV, the Brennan Center, NAACP and other civil rights partners sent a letter warning the Election Assistance Commission (EAC) not to comply with the order, which could interfere with 2026 elections by decertifying state vote tabulating machines. See The Commission is Not Authorized to Implement Executive Order on Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections. The order directs the EAC to change the federal mail voter registration form to require documentary proof of citizenship, such as a passport, to register to vote. The order also threatens to withhold federal funding from states if they fail to require documentary proof of citizenship and unless they stop counting mail-in ballots postmarked by but received after the Election Day. The President does not have the power to override laws passed by Congress or interfere with the bipartisan, independent EAC established by Congress. The National Voting Rights Act (NVRA) does not require documentary proof of citizenship, but only that the voter attest to citizenship under penalty of perjury. The risks for any non-U.S. citizen to vote in a federal election are serious. Our laws already effectively prevent significant unlawful voter registration and voting. Even the conservative CATO Institute has stated “Noncitizens Don't Illegally Vote in Detectable Numbers.” The order could disenfranchise millions of voters who rely on voting by mail— low-income, disabled, older, rural, and military citizens—by requiring documents that cost money and enormous amounts of effort and time to obtain. Only half of Americans have a passport. On Feb. 14, LWV demanded that Congress fight back against earlier executive orders which 1) seek to end birthright citizenship in violation of the 14th Amendment; 2) fire Inspector Generals without giving Congress a required 30- day notice; 3) dismantle federal agencies including the Consumer Protection Bureau and Department of Education; 4) reduce the federal workforce without giving workers due process; and 5) allow private citizens who have not been elected to access private, sensitive data of the American people. Read LWV Urges Congress to Exercise Its Authority. Other executive actions seek to undermine the independence of the courts, to suppress unpopular speech at universities by seizing graduate students for deportation and withholding federal funds, and to punish law firms because of the identity of their clients, undermining the rule of law, the right to free speech and the right to counsel. On April 5, LWV is joining national partners for Hands Off!, a mobilization in response to these attacks on our democracy, our basic rights, and overreach of power. Register below to join the resistance. - Lisa Ratner, Advocacy Chair & Co-President Events by Other Leagues and In the Community Hands Off! Palo Alto Fights Back Saturday, April 5, 2025 1:30 pm – 3:30pm PDT 4180 El Camino Real, Palo Alto (El Camino Real near Arastradero) On Saturday, April 5th, we're taking to the streets to fight back with a clear message: Hands off! National and local organizations are coming together across the country to organize for Hands Off!, a national mass activation in defiance of the Trump-Musk billionaire takeover. This mass mobilization day is our message to the world that we do not consent to the destruction of our government and our economy for the benefit of Trump and his billionaire allies. Alongside Americans across the country, we are marching, rallying, and protesting to demand a stop to the chaos and build an opposition movement against the looting of our country. A core principle behind all Hands Off! events is a commitment to nonviolent action. We expect all participants to seek to de-escalate any potential confrontation with those who disagree with our values. This event is sponsored by Indivisible Palo Alto Plus. Check out handsoff2025.com for more information. There is also a Hand Off! march and rally in Mountain View, 11:00 am - 1:00 pm. LWV Santa Clara County Civic Engagement Program Presents: Film Screening Stripped for Parts: American Journalism on the Brink Tuesday, April 29, 2025 Noon - 2 pm (Zoom) Register Now The loss of local news threatens democracy and communities. This film reveals the causes and consequences of the loss and lack of local journalism. Rick Goldsmith, film Producer & Director, will facilitate online conversation after the film. Hedge fund Alden Global Capital is quietly gobbling up newspapers across the country and gutting them, but no one knows why—until journalist Julie Reynolds begins to investigate. Her findings trigger rebellions across the country by journalists working at Alden-owned newspapers. Backed by the NewsGuild union, the newsmen and women go toe-to-toe with their “vulture capitalist” owners in a battle to save and rebuild local journalism in America. Who will control the future of America’s news ecosystem: Wall Street billionaires concerned only with profit, or those who see journalism as an essential public service, the lifeblood of our democracy? Celebrate National Arab American Heritage Month Stay Informed! Sign Up for LWV California & LWVUS News & Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVC Newsletter and LWVC Action Alerts Click here to sign up for LWVUS Email News (at bottom) and LWVUS Action Alerts Register Now JOIN A TEAM Learn More About Our Teams and Programs on our Website! Facebook Website Instagram Copyright © 2025 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. Questions? Please contact communications@lwvpaloalto.org. From:pennyellson12@gmail.com To:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City Subject:RE: Santa Clara County Multi-City Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing Study Virtual Public Meeting Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 12:56:12 PM Attachments:image002.png image003.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Helpful reply. Thank you, Jonathan. Penny From: Lait, Jonathan <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Monday, March 31, 2025 10:07 AM To: Ellson, Penny <pennyellson12@gmail.com> Cc: McDonough, Melissa <Melissa.McDonough@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tran, Vickie <Vickie.Tran@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Horrigan-Taylor, Meghan <Meghan.Horrigan-Taylor@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: Santa Clara County Multi-City Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing Study Virtual Public Meeting Thanks for your email, Penny, and I apologize for the delayed response. Many cities, like Palo Alto, chose not to participate in this effort because they already have an inclusionary housing requirement and an in-lieu fee for affordable housing units. Moreover, as part of our housing element implementation program requirements, the City is initiating a comprehensive nexus study of all its development impact fees and will also prepare a feasibility study of those fees for multi-family housing. To the extent there is data available that supports our work from the Planning Collaborative’s effort below, we will endeavor to incorporate that information. If you have any further questions, please let me know. JONATHAN LAIT Director Planning and Development Department (650) 329-2679 | jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: pennyellson12@gmail.com <pennyellson12@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 4:13 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: FW: Santa Clara County Multi-City Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing Study Virtual Public Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Why is Palo Alto not on this list? –Penny Ellson From: City of Mountain View <MountainView@public.govdelivery.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2025 4:06 PM To: pellson@pacbell.net Subject: Santa Clara County Multi-City Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing Study Virtual Public Meeting Announcement Santa Clara County Multi-City Inclusionary Zoning and Affordable Housing Study Virtual Public Meeting Monday, March 24, from 6 p.m. - 7 p.m. Community Planning Collaborative and Strategic Economics will host a public virtual meeting to share information about the purpose and goals of the Santa Clara County Multi-Jurisdiction Affordable Housing Study. The participating jurisdictions include the cities and towns of: Gilroy Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Mountain View Santa Clara Sunnyvale The meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 24, from 6 p.m. - 7 p.m. Please use this Zoom link to join us. Background Six jurisdictions in Santa Clara County are collaborating on an initiative to explore updates to and/or enact new affordable housing policies to be applied to newdevelopment projects. These policy studies include some combination of residential affordable housing impact fees, inclusionary requirements and in-lieu fees, andcommercial linkage fees. If implemented, the policies or policy updates will be applied to proposals for new residential and/or commercial development. The requirementswill not affect existing developments. Different jurisdictions have opted into different components of the study. Some ofthese jurisdictions currently have affordable housing ordinances in place, and some are exploring them for the first time. Strategic Economics is performing a set ofeconomic analyses to support this effort and will be recommending updates to policies for the various communities later this year. Community PlanningCollaborative is facilitating coordination between the cities and Strategic Economics. Meeting Agenda At the meeting, Strategic Economics will introduce these studies and explain how they will be used to inform policies that help produce more affordable housing in thesix jurisdictions. The policies under study include: A residential affordable housing impact fee that may be charged on new residential development to help fund affordable housing An inclusionary affordable housing policy that may require certain residential developments to offer a percentage of the new housing units at a price that is affordable to households at specific income levels. These developments also generally have the option to pay a fee in lieu of the requirement. A commercial linkage fee that may be charged on new commercial development (office, life science and R&D, hotel, industrial, and/or retail) to help fund affordable housing. Mountain View currently has an inclusionary affordable housing ordinance for new residential construction, and a commercial linkage fee for new commercial development. The City intends to use this multi-jurisdictional affordable housing program study to assess its commercial linkage fees. This email was sent to pellson@pacbell.net using govDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: City ofMountain View · 500 Castro St. Mountain View, CA 94041 The meeting will provide an opportunity for members of the public to ask questions. Meeting participants will also be invited to provide feedback on these policies via a follow-up online survey. Thank you and we hope that you can participate. Please send any questions or comments to stakeholderfeedback@strategiceconomics.com. ### SUBSCRIBER SERVICES Manage Subscriptions | Unsubscribe All | Help Virus-free.www.avg.com From:Anne Gregory To:Council, City Subject:"Palo Alto Celebrates second city-sponsored Iftar dinner" Date:Monday, March 31, 2025 12:13:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: The above-named article appeared in the March 14, 2025 issue of the Palo Alto Weekly. The City's sponsorship of this religious event appears to violate the separation of church and state andtherefore needs to cease. City money and official government support should not be provided to anyreligious organization, whether it be Islam, Christianity, the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc. If individual City Council members want to support the Islamic community on their own time, fine, butofficial city sponsorship is crossing the line. If this keeps happening I will be filing a complaint with the Freedom From Religion Foundation. Sincerely yours, Anne Gregory This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast