Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-05 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: 5/5/2025 Document dates: 4/28/2025 - 5/5/2025 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 701-32 From:Neilson Buchanan To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Baird, Nathan; Lait, Jonathan; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner Subject:Palo Alto Commons Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 12:24:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i There is no doubt in my mind that Palo Alto Commons provides vital, very high quality services. And there is profound need for additiional facilities as our friends and neighbors steadily age duing the next 10-20 years. Therefore, I urge you to approve the proposed expansion with strong, ENFORCEABLE conditions to monitor the intrusion of all non-resident parked vehicles in nearby residential neighborhoods. The intrusion of parking for non-resident is not limited to Palo Alto Commons. It is a multi- factor issue requiring professional planning. Who has the responsbility to fund and manage the intrusion into residential neighborhoods? This is a open question becuase neither the Office of Transportation, Planning Department or Police Department has a record of basic stewardship and attention to the Comprehensive Plan which establishes intent to promote commerce but not at the expense of residential neighborhoods. Only the City Council can set accountability for the Comprehensive Plan and budget resources appropriately. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo 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 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com From:Michael Regula To:Council, City Subject:Prioritize Street Safety, Reduce Car Speeds, Reflect on the Response Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 12:11:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, A tragedy took place in Palo Alto on May 1 as Dr. Caroline Sigman was killed by a car driver while walking near the intersection of Forest and Lincoln avenues. A second crash occurrednear Channing Avenue and Middlefield Road in which, fortunately, no one was injured. Dr. Sigman's death will be one of nearly 40,000 deaths in the United States that will happen due tomotor vehicles in 2025. Both crashes occurred near my neighborhood. I walk and bike those streets frequently. It could have been me. It does not have to be this way. There are impactful infrastructure solutions that can beimplemented in our community today and ensure that everyone is safe in and on our streets. Palo Alto's bike and pedestrian plan thankfully laid out several excellent options, from curbextensions to pedestrian refuge areas and many more. There are dozens of reasons to prioritize these infrastructure changes. Unfortunately, safety reasons have come head on to ourcommunity yet again. I also ask you all to reflect on how the community response would be different if this tragedy involved a bicycle, an e-bike, or an e-scooter. I do not think it is far-fetched to think that therewould be calls for bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters to be banned on Palo Alto's streets. Cars can travel 2-3 times faster and also weigh at least 10 times more than bicycles, e-bikes, and e-scooters. Driving a car is the very first example most of us give to our kids when talking about risk. We all know that cars are far too dangerous for our community yet our response to carinjuries and deaths is mostly thoughts and prayers. The best thing you can do to remember our neighbor is to prioritize safe streets for all in Palo Alto. Please take a moment today to remember the life of Dr. Sigman and ask yourself howyou can ensure this does not happen again in our community. Mike Michael Regula University South ResidentEmail: michaeljregula@gmail.com From:Amie Ashton To:Council, City Subject:The Commons Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 12:11:18 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Mayor Lauing & City Council, I am writing in support of The Commons expansion, adding 16 beds for the most infirm of seniors in our community. Putting the beds in a central location allows family members to easily visit and caretakers to easily access. We need more facilities like this in Palo Alto given our rapidly aging population and the tremendous need for the kind of intensive care The Commons provides. Council gave it an initial OK severalyears ago and it has been slowly moving through the Palo Alto Process ever since. Staff supports project approval. A daylight plane is included to maintain separation from the property line. The building is overparked for what is required by city code. Asmuch as many of us wish it weren't true, a person or business does not own the street or the street parking spaces as their private property. That space is shared public right of way. How many of us have garages that are unusable for vehicle parking necessitating that we park our cars on the street? I would guess a fair share. Further,until state, federal or local resources are dedicated to the important task of caring for an aging population, we only have private companies to do the work. This is the reality of our political and social situation. This project is another reason why we need better/updated zoning to facilitateprojects we want. PD and PHZ zonings are complicated beasts that do not make for good faith in the public process, something we need to be building to create the city we want. Our city will have to deal with a lot of changes in the upcoming years. Moving forward with clarity, compromise, compassion, and understanding is how we get the best outcome. Thank you, Amie Ashton From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Council, City; cityofpaloalto@service.govdelivery.com Cc:City Mgr; Dave Price Subject:Enough with the Utility Rate Hikes / PA"s budget Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 12:09:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor and Council Members As advised by PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) I'm commenting before your Wedsdeadline on: 1) Please start to limit the constant and excessive utility rate hikes! See below for PAN's statement. 2) Note there's a relationship between 4-figure utility bills and the decline in shopping and sales tax revenues. Even without pricey "retail consultants" you should be able to see that. Note also that Palo Alto's proportion of senior citizenskeeps rising and CPAU is taking an disproportionate share of their fixed incomes. 3) Stop the wasteful spending on consultants with no local knowledge and the plan to replace parking on Middlefield with 24-hour bike lanes -- an idea rejected 8years ago as too dangerous for bikers and too harmful for residents and those onneighboring side streets who'd be inundated with overflow parking from ADUs which aren't required to provide parking, parents picking up/dropping off their kids at all the Middlefield schools and all the service people -- cleaners, gardeners,painters, delivery vans, etc. -- who will be forced to lug their equipment for blocksto avoid jaywalking! 3A) THIS ALSO AFFECTS EMERGENCY VEHICLES who need to park infront of our homes during emergencies! 3B) Stopping all traffic near schools for non-residential traffic for 15-90 minutes would cause horrendous problems for all the commuters on Embarcadero coming for 101!! How much would that cost and is that the best use of our limited police This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. This is their first mail to some recipients. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast resources? 4) Stop wasting money on non-local consultants with no local knowledge and/or awareness that the above was widely rejected 8 years ago due to massive residential outcry from school leaders, parents and residents after a neighbor alerted us to theplans to sneak this through -- with no outreach or warning from the city -- based onerroneous and costly information like Josh Mello's flawed and costly 3 models, parking surveys taken at off hours and other deceptive nonsense. 5) Start providing community outreach about plans directly in front of our homes. This is the second time we learned of the plans to eliminate Middlefield parking from an alert neighbor and not from the city's hugecommunications staff, consultants etc. If that doesn't make us "stakeholders"what does???? 6) Response time matters for emergency vehicles and the city's ambitious andcostly plan to slow traffic all over the city to "eliminate fatalities" willINCREASE fatalities as it slows emergency vehicles all over town. I won't bore you with all the other examples of city waste like external "retailconsultants" who recommend sleeping pods and can't manage to locate former PAretailers who moved to Los Altos, Sharon Heights and Menlo Park. Once again. LOCAL KNOWLEDGE MATTERS; stop using consultants who keep recycling their one-size-fits all recommendations to their entire client base regardless of localvalidity! Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach Palo Alto Neighborhoods oppose the proposed 34% natural gas rate increasestarting July 1st on residents for the basic needs such as cooking and winter heating. This includes the majority of renters. Meanwhile the largest and least efficient residential customers would get a gas rate cut in direct contradiction to our climate action goals. The city says gas rates are only going up 13% because they’recombining two different rates and applying a one-time $73 rebate—money taken from funds that were supposed to permanently reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The overall average gas rate increase on all gas customers is only 5%. However, the consultant used different methodologies than his predecessor at the same company for the last study making the biggest changes discretionary. If you also think a 34% increase on your basic household natural gas usage is excessive and would prefer a 5% increase this year then I encourage you to write tothe city council before Wednesday. From:Nia Porter To:Council, City; Kallas, Emily Subject:Palo Alto Commons public comment for May 5 City Council meeting Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 10:00:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and other City Council Members, Thank you for visiting my backyard at 4080 Wilkie Way. I have appreciated that you have come to see for yourself what it has been like for me to grow up with the huge Palo Alto Commons building behind me. As a young girl, I have felt that having so many strangers staring at me felt frankly, well, creepy. If they add 16 more units and 2 offices, including one that will be less than 11 feet from my back fence, then our loss of privacy would be that much worse. When I invite friends over to study or celebrate my birthday in the backyard, I have hesitated, because I was worried they would feel the same way. In school our teachers give us rules that we need to follow for the greater good of the entire classroom or school. I have spoken at multiple City meetings during the development of this project. I have discovered that Palo Alto Commons has not followed the rules for daylight plane, setbacks, reports for prioritizing local residents, parking its construction vehicles and vans, etc. It has also not honestly explained that its staff tell workers and visitors to park in the neighborhood. In addition, I agree with all comments submitted already from Kevin Ji. Since you are the City Council, you have the authority and responsibility to make Palo Alto Commons follow all the rules, as everyone should, for the benefit of the neighbors in the broader community. My long-time neighbor and middle school teacher, Mrs. McDaniel, remembers when the company originally promised they would not expand further, and she supported the project to help seniors because of that promise. Now she has moved out because of the expansion plans. We have talked with the company Wellquest about ways to reduce the impact. I recommended to put more units on the front or to increase the distance of new units from our back fence. Wellquest said that would cost more. I also recommended taller and more dense screening trees. I’m glad that Wellquest finally agreed to plant evergreen instead of deciduous trees behind the fences of neighbors who prefer evergreen. I would still prefer to see taller older trees be planted right away and a greater number of trees. Finally, I recommended that painting the back green, similar to the color of leaves, could allow the building to blend in better. Charlene from Wellquest said to us at a PTC meeting that would be fine. It should not cost Wellquest any extra. But the new plan still shows the back is blue. That seems like such a simple change, so I hope they will consider it. Of course, I understand that seniors, such as my grandparents, need to have health care and other services when they are going through difficult times. Therefore, please vote for the Planning and Transportation Commission’s recommendation for Palo Alto Commons to add 9 interior living units, to remove the 7 units on the back of the building, and to move the offices farther from our back fence. Thank you for reading my comments. Sincerely, Nia Porter Resident of 4080 Wilkie Way since 2007 From:Mona He To:Council, City Cc:Kallas, Emily; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Opposition to Palo Alto Commons Expansion and Objection to the Expansion be Exempt From CEQA Date:Monday, May 5, 2025 1:51:31 AM Attachments:Letter Brief to PA Planning Commission.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable City Council Members, My name is Mona He, and I reside at 4040 Wilkie Way. I am writing to express my strongopposition to the proposed expansion of Palo Alto Commons. I respectfully urge the Council to vote against this project in its current form. The expansion, as proposed, is deeply flawedboth in process and in substance, and it fails to respect the interests and well-being of the Wilkie Way community. 1. Disregard for Council Guidance and Community Impact During the August 8, 2023 City Council meeting, Palo Alto Commons was explicitly asked tofocus its expansion along El Camino Way to minimize the impact on Wilkie Way residents.Despite this, the revised plan places most new units along Wilkie Way, citing cost savings.Prioritizing financial convenience over community livability is unacceptable. Wilkie Wayresidents should not be forced to absorb the consequences of a corporation’s profit-drivendecision-making. 2. Improper Claim of CEQA Exemption The project’s claim of exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) isinappropriate. Our legal counsel outlined this in a detailed letter submitted to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) on December 9, 2024, which remains applicable as nomeaningful changes have been made to the plan. The environmental impacts of this expansion must be thoroughly and transparently reviewed. The letter is attached in this email 3. Dismissal of PTC Recommendations At its final meeting on December 12, 2024, the PTC recommended that the 9 units alongWilkie Way be removed from the plan. This recommendation was ignored entirely. Suchdisregard demonstrates not only a lack of respect for the city’s planning process, but also abelief that community and commission input can be bypassed or overridden. 4. Long Standing Pattern of Neglect and Poor Neighborhood Relations Palo Alto Commons has been an inconsiderate neighbor for years. Parking overflow continuesto spill onto Wilkie Way, with visitors and employees regularly parking at Wilkie Way. Noise disturbances persist, and the building’s bright blue exterior—despite neighborhood objections—remains visually intrusive. These issues have been raised consistently without meaningful response, eroding community trust. 5. Unmet Commitments Under Ordinance 3775 The proposed Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures—such as carpooling andcommuter incentives—are not new. They were required under Ordinance 3775, issued onOctober 26, 1987, and have never been implemented. If existing commitments have beenignored for nearly four decades, how can we trust that new promises will be fulfilled? 6. Ongoing Ordinance Violations and Lack of Transparency The City has received a formal code enforcement complaint (Case ID: 6747006). One of themis regarding violations of Section 3(d), which requires annual reporting on occupancy, staffing, and parking usage. These reports have not been provided since the ordinance wasissued for almost forty years. Without reliable data, how can the City determine whether an expansion is warranted or justified? Data-driven decisions require transparency andaccountability, both of which are lacking here. 7. Violation of Daylight Plane and Height Regulations The current proposal violates Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.150(e) "Sites sharing any lot line with one or more sites in any RE, R-1, R-2, RM or any residential PC district shall be subject to a maximum height established by a daylight plane beginning at a height of ten feet at the applicable side or rear site lines and increasingat a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the side or rear site lines until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district", which governsheight restrictions for developments adjacent to residential properties. The planned second andthird story units along Wilkie Way exceed the allowable height under the daylight planerequirement, directly impacting our privacy and neighborhood character. 8. Support for Senior Housing—But Not at a few Residents’ Expense I support the City’s commitment to senior housing. However, it is neither fair nor sustainable for Wilkie Way residents to carry the entire burden for this expansion. Palo Alto Commons, asa for-profit corporation with substantial resources, has the means to redesign the project along El Camino Way—even if that comes at a higher cost. Responsible development must considerboth community needs and long-term neighborhood integrity. 9. Broken Commitments to Step-Up Design Palo Alto Commons originally committed to a “step-up” design along Wilkie Way to reducethe impact on adjacent residents. This approach was intended to preserve privacy andminimize the sense of mass and scale facing single-family homes. However, the currentexpansion plan completely abandons that commitment, instead proposing a solid wall ofconstruction that fills in the entire step-up area. This is a clear violation of past assurances. Werespectfully ask that Palo Alto Commons honor its original promise and keep the step-updesign to reduce the negative impact on Wilkie Way residents. In conclusion, this proposal reflects a pattern of disregard for city direction, communityfeedback, and legal compliance. I respectfully urge the Council to deny this expansion unless the plan is fundamentally restructured to: Honor prior city and PTC recommendations, Comply with existing ordinances and environmental review, and Demonstrate genuine accountability and transparency. Thank you for your attention and for considering the voices of residents most directlyimpacted by this development. Sincerely,Mona He 4040 Wilkie WayPalo Alto, CA J. Randall Toch 408.947.2492 randy.toch@hogefenton.com Silicon Valley Office | 55 South Market Street, Suite 900, San Jose, California 95113-2324 phone 408.287.9501 fax 408.287.2583 www.hogefenton.com December 9, 2024 Via E-Mail only (planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org) Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Meeting Date: December 11, 2024 Agenda Item: 2 Project Description: Proposed Zoning Amendment and Architectural Approval for Palo Alto Commons Subject Property: 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto, California Report #: 2410-3649 Our Clients: Mona He and Grace (Yan Feng) Wang Objection to Proposed Categorical Exemption of Project under CEQA Dear Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission: This law firm represents Mona He and Grace (Yan Feng) Wang who own single story residences on Wilke Way. The residences are adjacent to the real property situated at 4075 El Camino Way, Palo Alto (the “Subject Property”). For the reasons stated in this letter, Ms. He and Ms. Wang object to the proposed categorical exemption of the project under CEQA, and oppose the project itself in its current form. The project under consideration by the Commission as Agenda Item No. 2 is defined in the staff report for the December 11, 2024 Planning & Transportation Commission Meeting (the “Staff Report”) under the heading “PROJECT DESCRIPTION” as follows: “an amendment to the existing PC Zone District (PC-5116) . . .” (the “Project”).1 I. The Project is a proposed Zoning Amendment which would alter multiple aspects of the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. (It is not a mere application for a permit to allow minor physical alterations to an existing facility.) The California Environmental Quality Act Requires Environmental Review of Proposed Zoning Amendments. 1 See City of Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report, Item No. 2, Page 2 of 10 (Packet Pg. 11) Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission December 9, 2024 Page 2 The categorical exemption from environmental review under CEQA that is suggested by staff for the Project is inapplicable to the proposed Project. We carefully reviewed the relevant documentation posted by staff regarding the Project, including, without limitation, the document dated October 9, 2024, entitled “Memorandum”, which David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. prepared (the “Powers Memo”). In brief, the Powers Memo improperly concludes that the requested zoning change application, which is a legislative activity, is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15301. However, 14 C.C.R. Section 15301(e)(2), which is relied upon by the authors of the Powers Memo, applies, by its express terms, only to proposed construction projects, and not to legislative activity.2 This inconsistent line of reasoning applied by the Powers Memo and by City staff is false, incorrect, misleading, and, if adopted by the City of Palo Alto would likely be entirely unlawful. Accordingly, the City of Palo Alto (the “City”) must conduct an environmental review prior to adopting a zoning ordinance, which according to the Staff Report, will modify each of the following aspects of the City of Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance.3 • The provided units would increase by 16 units; •The allowed lot coverage and floor area would increase to accommodate the approximately 6,890 square foot addition; •The minimum setback would decrease from 8 feet to 6 feet for the southwestern property line adjacent to Goodwill; and •The parking ratio provided would reduce from 0.46 spaces per unit (1.16 spaces per 2.5 beds) to 0.41 spaces per unit (1.01 spaces per 2.5 beds), as no additional spaces are being provided. However, this is consistent with the standard code requirement for this use, which is one space per 2.5 beds.” (Emphasis Added.) Proposed Zoning Amendments (and General Plan Amendments) are “Projects” as defined in CEQA. In connection with the foregoing, 14 C.C.R. Section 15378 states, in pertinent part, as follows: (a)“Project” means . . . any of the following: [¶] (1) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency including but not limited to . . . enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, and the adoption and amendment of local General Plans or elements thereof . . . (Emphasis added.) 2 The Powers Memo also asserts, without explanation, attribution, or legal authority of any kind whatsoever, that a 13% increase in intensity of use is somehow “negligible” for purposes of CEQA. (Powers Memo, Pg. 12) 3 See City of Palo Alto Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report, Item No. 2, Page 6 of 10 (Packet Pg. 15) Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission December 9, 2024 Page 3 And, Public Resources Code Section 21080 states, in pertinent part, as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in this division, this division shall apply to discretionary projects proposed to be carried out or approved by public agencies, including, but not limited to, the enactment and amendment of zoning ordinances, the issuance of zoning variances, the issuance of conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps unless the project is exempt from this division. (Emphasis Added.) The Powers Memo asserts that the Project (which is an application for a zoning change) is exempt from environmental review under CEQA pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15301, which provides, in pertinent part, as follows: Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. The types of “existing facilities” itemized below are not intended to be all-inclusive of the types of projects which might fall within Class 1. The key consideration is whether the project involves negligible or no expansion of use. [¶] Examples include but are not limited to: . . . (e) Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than: [¶] (1) 50 percent of the floor area of the structures before the addition, or 2,500 square feet, whichever is less; or [¶] (2) 10,000 square feet if: [¶] (A) The project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and [¶] (B) The area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive. (Emphasis Added) Clearly and unequivocally, a proposed zoning amendment that is intended to alter municipal laws relating to zoning restrictions, including, without limitation, reducing property line setback requirements and altering sightlines, ambient light, noise patterns, roadways, traffic, floor area ratios, intensity of use, and reduction of parking requirements, could, and very likely would, have profound environmental impacts, as well as civil and criminal ramifications. The foregoing cannot simultaneously be considered just a “minor alteration of an existing structure” that happens to be located in a zoning district that already permits the intended use. In the current application, the proposed use is expressly prohibited under the existing zoning, hence the need for the requested zoning amendment. If the state legislature had intended for zoning amendments and general plan amendments to be exempt from environmental review, it could and would have included such legislative activities in the list of statutorily exempt types of projects. Similarly, if the Secretary for Resources had intended for zoning amendments to be categorically exempt from environmental review, the Secretary for Resources would have included such projects in the list of categorical exemptions authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21084, which are published in 14 C.R.C. Section 15300, et seq. Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission December 9, 2024 Page 4 The conclusion is clear and unmistakable. Proposed zoning amendments are specifically INCLUDED in CEQA by statute, because they have great potential to cause significant environmental impacts. Accordingly, the narrow criteria of the categorical exemption set forth in 14 C.C.R. Section 15301, which relate solely to proposed minor alterations to an existing building, without a change of use, do not apply to this proposed Project, which is a proposed zoning amendment that would change multiple aspects of the permitted uses of the Subject Property and would allow activities on the Subject Property that are currently prohibited. Accordingly, environmental review is mandated by CEQA and must be conducted in accordance with applicable laws prior to enactment of any proposed modification of the existing PC Zone District (PC-5116). II. Potential Significant Environmental Impacts Result from the Project. Phase 1 of the development of the Subject Property was approved in the late 1980’s through adoption of a Planned Community zoning ordinance (City of Palo Alto Ordinance No. 3775). At that time, potential environmental impacts were discussed and mitigated through the use of a terraced building design in which each higher floor was recessed further from property lines, and this design mitigation was incorporated into the applicable zoning ordinance. Multiple members of the community participated in that negotiation and remember the developer’s promises that the design would not be altered. And, Phase 2 of the development of the Subject Property was approved in the early 2010’s through adoption of a second Planning Community zoning ordinance (City of Palo Alto Ordinance No. 5116). And, the terraced design was carefully maintained at that time. However, the developer has now come to the City with a proposed Phase 3, which would disregard the very same environmental mitigations that were incorporated into the prior design in order to be able to alter the use of the Subject Property in a manner that was expressly prohibited at each prior phase. Nevertheless, the Powers Memo claims that these requested zoning changes, which would greatly expand the permitted uses of the Subject Property, are merely a “minor alteration” to the Subject Property that cannot possibly result in an environmental impact, and are therefore exempt from environmental review under CEQA. However, given the fact that the previously approved environmental mitigations would be eliminated upon approval of the current Project, it is apparent that the proposed Project would result in significant environmental impacts, per se. A review of the public comment for the Project revealed that there was a proposed alternative design in which the existing facility would be built upwards over the existing third floor rather than outward over the first and second floors. This proposal potentially mitigates some of the resulting environmental impacts to a less than significant level, while achieving the benefits of the same proportional increase in intensity of use. However, the developer apparently rejected that mitigation proposal as not economically acceptable. The upshot is that the developer desires to be permitted to cause an environmental impact in order for the developer to be able to benefit financially. This is precisely the type of environmental cost vs. economic benefit analysis that CEQA is intended to cause to be disclosed to the decision makers prior to deciding upon approval of a proposed project. Additionally, public comment reveals that the facility is already short of available parking, which results in inconvenience to the residents and neighbors, and causes additional Honorable Members of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission December 9, 2024 Page 5 neighborhood traffic. A further reduction in parking capacity proposed by the application combined with elimination of entire parking areas to be used for staging during construction will only exacerbate the traffic problems that have not been reviewed and mitigated. Allowing improvements on the second and third floors to encroach closer to property lines will increase noise and ambient light emitted towards neighborhood properties. The additions will also have an adverse impact on the existing daylight plane in violation of Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.38.150(e). And, finally, it is our understanding that the facility, as presently configured, may currently be operating in violation of the applicable conditions of approval of Ordinance 3775 and/or Ordinance 5116, and that numerous complaints have been made to code enforcement with respect to such violations. If the Subject Property is, in fact, currently out of compliance with applicable zoning and/or use permits, then it should not be eligible to receive additional concessions until all such violations have been remedied. The foregoing are just some examples of the many potential significant environmental impacts that might occur as the result of approval of the Project and the proposed development. III. Conclusion. We urge this commission to follow applicable law and refer the matter to staff to prepare a full environmental review as required in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. After an appropriate environmental review has been completed, this commission will be better able to make a recommendation to the City Council that is in compliance with the commission’s legal responsibilities. Such a recommendation should properly take into consideration possible alternative designs, further mitigations, and/or, if appropriate, adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding any significant environmental impacts arising from the Project. Alternatively, the proposed Project must be denied. If you have question about any of the above, or if we can provide you with any other documents or information, please contact the undersigned. Very truly yours, HOGE, FENTON, JONES & APPEL, INC. J. Randall Toch Of Counsel JRT/ns cc: Clients Emily Kallas – Project Planner (via email only: emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org) Sean A. Cottle From:Leif Erickson To:Council, City Cc:Leif Erickson Subject:Please approve 16-unit expansion for Palo Alto Commons Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 10:02:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers,I usually speak to the Council on behalf of our teens in Palo Alto, but in this case I speak as an advocate for our senior population, and I don't mean high school seniors.With our population now tipped with more residents over 60 than those under 18, and 20 percent of the city's population now 65 or older, I believe safe and well-serviced seniorhousing should be one of our community's priorities. Any decision you make is a balance of trade-offs. What should help you make a choice likeapproval for the 16-unit expansion at Palo Alto Commons, is this understanding of the growing needs of seniors in our community.With this goal in mind, to add on to existing housing and services makes more sense than that starting from scratch at another location.As president of the Palo Alto/University Rotary Club, I have seen the value of the Palo Alto Commons solution for the housing needs of our seniors. Our Rotary Club has had a longrelationship with the Commons - one of our members volunteered as a long time board member and one Rotary member is a current resident, with perhaps more headed there incoming years. Recent speakers have shared a broader perspective on the need for a variety of solutions for affordable housing needs in our community.Some of the Wilkie Way residents raise concerns about parking on their street, but the additional Commons elderly and memory care residents would not be drivers, and staffingincrease is only anticipated to be 1-1/2 staff members. With the new El Camino bike lanes removing El Camino street parking city-wide, creative solutions for side street parking will beengaging the attention of City Council and Planning staff in a broader context, rather than project by project.I appreciate that Commons expansion planners have met four times with neighborhood residents to listen and respond and adapt the plans to respect their requests - again seeking thebalance that will best address our broader community. Please choose to balance your decision with the housing needs of our seniors in mind. Thank you, Leif -- Leif Erickson cell: 408-406-0005 From:Andie Reed To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons, 5/5/25 Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 6:41:47 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 Council Members: I am Andie Reed and I live in Old Palo Alto, not a direct neighbor of the project, but sharethe plight. I agree with the Planning and Transportation Commission to limit this expansionto units that don’t infringe on neighbors. To reiterate, 9 of the 16 proposed units face backyards and windows of Wilkie Wayneighbors, who are rightfully incensed that the decreased daylight plane negates theirpreviously hard-won agreements, by in-filling the very light and air and privacy rights thatthey had previously been assured would be protected. Please note that these units do not reduce Palo Alto’s housing needs as per our RHNAobligations. This is an assisted living and memory care operation offering a very high-levelof care; 3 meals, personal care, general supervision and safety, and social services,recreation and medical access. It’s a business, a highly valuable business, an importantniche, but Well-Quest, the owner-operator of both Palo Alto Commons and Avant, also has agoal to make a profit. I supported a close relative in a similar place for 10 years before she passed away recently,and I can attest to how many employees, contractors, outside services and deliveries comeand go daily, not to mention guests and medical support personnel who visit residents. It’sa very busy operation, not a condo complex. Which leads me to parking. Page 7 states that the “property contains a sufficient number ofspaces for the expanded use”, but close neighbors' lived experience and documentationproves, even without expanding, that cars affiliated with the applicant take up availableWilkie Way parking. Palo Alto Commons has a history of non-compliance with their originalTDM and Conditions of Approval. The new TDM in this application provides assurance thatparking on adjacent streets will be discouraged going forward. I ask you, on what basisdo we take this as a likely outcome? Perhaps a more valid analysis would include the wholeproperty; Avant, independent senior housing, shares the same ownership and 2-1/2 acresite with Palo Alto commons. Anyone can use either property's parking spaces. The catchis that only 15 of the total 89 parking spaces are ungated. You have to call the front deskto get into the other 74 spaces behind locked gates. Seriously, most in-and-out servicesaren’t going to do that; they’ll park anywhere, including adjacent streets. Additionally, PCs are required to provide a public benefit in return for advantages nototherwise permitted. This expansion is a new addition to the PC, but the applicant is notoffering any new public benefit in their request for an expansion, sucking up air and lightfrom their neighbors and exacerbating an already bad parking situation. The report statesthat merely adding more units is a Public Benefit, but if that were true, why did theyprovide public benefits originally in 1989 and again in 2011, when the Avant was built? For these reasons, I hope you will strongly consider the PTC alternative that allows growththat doesn’t step on long-time neighbors. Thank you all for your hard work on behalf of the City of Palo Alto. -- Andie Reed Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809 From:Jennifer To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 6:20:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto Council members, I would like to express my support for the decision the PTC made on December 2024, and that is NOT approving the units to be built against the backyards of Wilkie Way residents. Thecurrent tiered structure was a result of a compromise made 38 years ago between the Common's and the residents. The tiered structure has already caused some loss of sun lightand loss of privacy for those residents. Back then the residents agreed to this sacrifice because the Common's had committed to build this way. The same residents could not have imagined38 years later the Common's would renege on this promise/commitment. The new proposed units would cause the residents to lose most of their sunglights and privacy. This is totallyunethical and unacceptable and maybe even illegal, given that this commitment was documented. In addition, the Common's has been in code violation for the past 38 years. Also they have not provided adequate parking, causing many cars over flowing to the neighborhood. On paper, it may appear that they have sufficient number of parking spaces but in reality thoseparking spaces are either blocked or difficult to reach, therefore the number of parking spaces is very misleading and grossly overstated. They claimed to have implemented programs tosolve the parking issue but when talking to some staff there, they have not heard of such programs. In addition, the Common's claimed to have implemented valet parking, but manytimes we didn't see a valet person on site. The Common's is exhibiting signs of offering solutions, but only temporarily, as a method to gain approval for their project and only to renege later once they have achieved their goals. They can not be trusted. They need to be held responsible for their proposed solutions on a permanent basis and there should be some kind of monitoring and material punishment if theyare caught in violation. Thanks, Jennifer From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:May 5, 2025 City Council Meeting, Item #5:2470 Embarcadero Road Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 5:21:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. MAY 5, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5 2470 EMBARCADERO WAY, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 008-03-072 Nay 4, 2025 I urge you to remove this item from your agenda and take noaction on it until you abide by the California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEQA) and evaluate the project of which thisagenda item is a segment that you are prohibited fromevaluating separately because that would be a violation ofCEQA. The proposal in this agenda item seeks to do the same thingthat the proponents of the Measure E site did when theyidentified a parcel of land to be developed without identifyingthe specific project to be built on the land, and withoutabiding by CEQA. The Measure E proponents could ignore CEQA when they chose theacreage to be developed, because ordinances adopted by votersthrough the initiative process are exempt from CEQA. The City Council is not exempt from CEQA. The CEQA project required would identify what needs to beconstructed, would evaluate a preferred location andalternatives to that location, and in a situation wheremultiple parcels might be acquired would consider a differentpreferred project for each combination of the parcels, as wellas alternatives to each of those parcel combinations. At the August 21, 2023 Council meeting the Council considered astaff report to "Explore Purchase of Property Contiguous to theRegional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) to Meet Currentand Future Needs of the RWQCP"(file:///C:/Users/PaloAlto%20Patron/Downloads/mini-packet_City%20Council%20Regular%20Meeting_20250504233645021.pdf. The Council took the following action at that meeting: MOTION: Council Member Lauing moved, seconded by Council Member Burt to directstaff to: 1. Explore the purchase of property contiguous to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant(RWQCP) to meet current and future space needs and if purchase not available, explore long-term lease options as secondary; 2. Explore funding options to enable purchase of one or more of the three properties contiguous to the RWQCP; and 3. Return to Council with recommendations for purchase of property contiguous to theRWQCP and to report on the stormwater infiltration and potential use of the 5-acres of the Measure E site. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 The parcel that is the subject of this agenda item waspurchased in 2020 together with one of the parcels that was thesubject of the August 21, 2023 Council action. That parcel is located at the corner of Embarcadero Way andEmbarcadero Road and has the address 1900 Embarcadero Road andthe Assessor's Parcel Number 008-03-071. The staff report for that 2023 agenda item indicated that thetwo parcels were acquired for $72.7 million which is the sameamount reported by the Bay Aea News Group in December 2020. I have not had the opportunity to review the deed of transferto confirm that amount, but the assessed value of those twoparcels for the past three years is online, and those valuesare $64.2 million (2022), $65.5 million (2023), and $69.5million (2024). You are prohibited from discussing or acting in Closed Sessionon the planning issues that apply to any City use, ownership,or lease of the property at 2470 Embarcadero Way. Therefore, you need to disclose the proposed use of theproperty and evaluate the environmental use of the property inOpen Session at a future Council meeting before going intoClosed Session to discuss the lease price and terms of payment. Having a Closed Session now would be a prejudicial abuse ofdiscretion and a violation of CEQA, and would jeopardize theapproval of any future proposed project on the site. Herb Borock From:Annette Glanckopf To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Expansion Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 5:01:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Council Members: This note is in support of the comments sent by Andie Reed. I ask you to accept the PTC recommendations. Please scale back the proposed expansion of Palo Alto Commons to 7 units for the following reasons: * The expansion will violate the set-backs for privacy and air space originally agreed on in the initial plan with onerous consequences for Wilkie Way residents. *The Palo Alto Commons operation has a history of non-compliance with theirConditions of Approval with respect to parking. Cars and transit vans currently spill out to Wilkie Way. Currently the project is under parked, and the proposed project with make it even worse. * The 13 older homes whose backyards border the operation, have organized andheld many meetings with City decision-makers, and have attended ARB and PTC meetings over the past couple of years, and so far, neither the applicant nor City staff is amenable to mitigating these issues. * The parent company, Well Quest has profit as a goal. This new units proposed bythis profit-making organization do not constitute “housing” per Palo Alto Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and are not housing for the general public; they are very expensive units providing extensive personal services to their users and PROFIT to the owners..* This isn't "housing" for the general public but provides a very high level of services at a very dear price. thanks for considering my comments.Annette Glanckopf This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. This is their first email to you. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Hamilton Hitchings To:Council, City Cc:Nose, Kiely; Kurotori, Alan; Clerk, City Subject:PAN Opposition to 34% residential gas rate increase including renters Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 3:48:34 PM Attachments:PAN Opposition to Gas Rate Increase Letter to Finance Committee for 2025-5-7 Meeting v6.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Finance Committee, Palo Alto Neighborhoods opposes the proposed 34% average gas rate increase on residents who rely on gas for basic needs such as cooking and winter heating - despite the overall average gas bill rising only 5%. Disproportionately Impact Tier 1 Residential Customers Affects all renters in individually metered apartments, where the majority of renters live. An average Tier 1 household (26 therms / month) would see its bill jump 34%— from $38 to $51 per month—driven by a 49% hike in the Tier 1 rate and a 15% hike in the monthly service charge. Tier 2 heavy users get a 10% rate cut—undermining climate goals. Large commercial customers face about a 7% bill increase, far below the 34% imposed on basic‑use households. Misuses $1.6 million in Cap‑and‑Trade Proceeds The proposal spends these climate funds on a one‑time $73 credit instead of on lasting electrification programs for homes and small businesses. Flawed Cost-of-Service Analysis (COSA) Shifts Costs Unfairly Improper PG&E benchmark: PG&E’s CPUC‑regulated tariffs cannot dictate local rates—and PG&E already charges small businesses about 40% less per therm than residential customers. Cost shift: Citing “seasonal variability,” the current consultant adopts a new, discretionary methodology—unlike his predecessor’s at the same firm—that moves infrastructure costs from small businesses onto households. This message needs your attention This is a personal email address. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast Cuts small‑business and master-metered landlord service fees from $157 to $29, shifting costs so basic‑use residents face a 34% hike. Raises residents’ share of the General Fund Transfer, ignoring Measure L’s voter‑approved Net Plant formula. There is precedent for reconsideration Davis overturned a COSA‑based water‑rate plan (Measure P) and later adopted a structure better aligned with community goals. Our recommendations 1. Remand the current study and rate design to the Utilities Advisory Commission for an equitable, climate‑aligned FY 2027 revision. 2. Hold FY 2026 increases to a uniform, Proposition 26‑compliant 5% while commissioning a new COSA. 3. Preserve the $1.6 million in Cap-and-Trade funds for permanent emission-reduction projects. Hamilton Hitchings on behalf of Palo Alto Neighborhoods This letter was approved by unanimous vote at the most recent PAN meeting on May 1st, 2025 The attached PDF also includes footnotes Dear Finance Committee, Palo Alto Neighborhoods opposes the proposed 34% average gas rate increase on residents who rely on gas for basic needs such as cooking and winter heating -despite the overall average gas bill rising only 5%. Disproportionately Impact Tier 1 Residential Customers ●Affects all renters in individually metered apartments, where the majority of renters live. ●An average Tier 1 household (26 therms / month) would see its bill jump 34%—from $38 to $51 per month—driven by a 49% hike in the Tier 1 rate and a 15 % hike in the monthly service charge. ●Tier 2 heavy users get a 10% rate cut—undermining climate goals. ●Large commercial customers face about a 7 %bill increase, far below the 34 % imposed on basic-use households. Misuses $1.6 million in Cap-and-Trade Proceeds ●The proposal spends these climate funds on a one-time $73 credit instead of on lasting electrification programs for homes and small businesses. Flawed Cost-of-Service Analysis (COSA) Shifts Costs Unfairly ●Improper PG&E benchmark:PG&E’s CPUC-regulated tariffs cannot dictate local rates—and PG&E already charges small businesses about 40% less per therm than residential customers. ●Cost shift:Citing “seasonal variability,” the current consultant adopts a new, discretionary methodology—unlike his predecessor’s at the same firm—that moves infrastructure costs from small businesses onto households. ●Cuts small-business and master-metered landlord service fees from $157 to $29, shifting costs so basic-use residents face a 34% hike. ●Raises residents’ share of the General Fund Transfer,ignoring Measure L’s voter-approved Net Plant formula. There is precedent for reconsideration Davis overturned a COSA-based water-rate plan (Measure P) and later adopted a structure better aligned with community goals. Our recommendations 1. Remand the current study and rate design to the Utilities Advisory Commission for an equitable, climate-aligned FY 2027 revision. 2. Hold FY 2026 increases to a uniform, Proposition 26-compliant 5%while commissioning a new COSA. 3. Preserve the $1.6 million in Cap-and-Trade funds for permanent emission-reduction projects. Thank you. Hamilton Hitchings on behalf of Palo Alto Neighborhoods This letter was approved by unanimous vote at the most recent PAN meeting on May 1st, 2025 Footnotes 1)34% tier 1 residential gas rate increase for FY2026 . The city’s 2025 utility rate increase communication to the public claims a 13% gas rate increase but this is after combining both tier 1 and tier 2 residential userand. To calculate the 34% increase we take the input numbers from the finance packet for the April 15th, 2025 meeting: a) 21.6% rate increase for FY2026 combined for tier 1 and tier 2 - table 13 b) Tier 1 monthly service charge would increase from $16.93 per month to $19.52 a 15% increase - table 11 c) Tier 1 average therms per month is 26 - table 4-4 d) Tier 1 rate increase from $0.8229 per them to $1.2274, a 49% rate increase per therm - table 12 e) Average tier 1 therm cost per month is (FY2025 - $21.395, FY2026 $31.912) f) Total average tier 1 bill goes from FY2025: $38.325 to FY2026: $51.432 representing a 34.2% increase for tier 1 customers 2) How many apartments are individually vs master metered: a)https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/reports/uac-informational-reports/ 2017-informational-reports/11-01-2017-uac-meeting/info-item-overview-of-palo-alto-demographics-and-building- profiles-served-by-cpau_ew-edited.pdf - table C1 page 6 b) 56% (6,136) apartments were individually metered total in FY2017 (26% of total gas connections) c) 26,086 (section A narrative) * 42% apartments = 10,956 apartments total as of FY2017 d) 44% (4,820) apartments behind gas master meter assuming none were all electric as of FY2017 e) 707 master-metered connections, either as multi-family or commercial gas accounts in 2017. It is in a landlords interest to have tenants pay the utilities so expect large properties and new ones to be multi-metered as its best business practices. f) The percent of master-metered gas units have very likely declined since 2017. 3) Tier 2 rate per therm would decrease from $2.1 to $1.9 per therm at 10% reduction - table 12 finance packet 4) PG&E SMB customers are 40% less per them than residential NON-Care customers a)PG&E SMB (G-NR1) Rate:The estimated bundled rate for small commercial customers was around $1.739 per therm (based on projections from late 2024/early 2025). Assumes 7-m summer + 5-mo winter b)PG&E Non-CARE Residential Rate:The bundled rate effective January 1, 2025, was $2.885 per therm. Does not count PG&E CARE residential low income discounted customers about 31%. c)PG&E CARE Residential Rate:The bundle rate effective Jan 1st, 2025 is $2.275, 21% lower. d)Difference:the residential rate is ≈ $1.15 more per therm, or ~66 % higher than the SMB rate for the same first-tier usage band. e) This represents roughly a 66% higher cost per therm for PG&E Non-CARE residential customers compared to the estimated rate for PG&E SMB customers. Business rates are 40% lower. f)https://www.pge.com/tariffs/assets/pdf/tariffbook/GAS_SCHEDS_G-NR1.pdf From:Lily Lee To:Council, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Palo Alto Commons public comment - Agenda item 14, May 5, 2025, City Council Mtg Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 3:44:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members, I have lived at 4080 Wilkie Way since 2003. I support more services for seniors. I have enjoyed sidewalk chats with Palo Alto Commons patients over the years. In addition, however, Palo Alto Commons has harmed our quality of life already, and expansion would make that worse. Thank you to all the City Council members who have visited my backyard to understand better the current conditions and the proposed expansion. As you saw, the current building dominates our backyard. We have no privacy. Patients and staff walk back and forth in common space facing our backyard with floor-to-ceiling windows. Its lights at night are bright. Our children and I feel uncomfortable spending time in our backyard. The building’s shade has killed almost all plants except invasive weeds. When we refinanced many years ago, the appraiser subtracted $50,000 from the value of our home due to then-current impacts of Palo Alto Commons. Now, many years later, the reduction would likely be much higher. Parking is limited, and traffic is unsafe for children going to school. We accepted the impacts of Palo Alto Commons when we moved in. For many years, we wanted to live with a positive neighborly relationship with Palo Alto Commons. Our neighbors on Wilkie Way told us that the company promised that they would not expand. Now, however, these the company has gone back on its word. If this building expands, then all the above impacts would be even worse. Some of our longtime neighbors, beloved local PAUSD teachers, have moved out due to this anticipated expansion. We want to bequeath our home to our children, so they might raise our grandchildren in this neighborhood that we have loved. However, now I worry even more about about the greater loss of value of what we might be able to give them. Furthermore, Palo Alto Commons has not acted in good faith to work with the City Council, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and residents for many years. It has violated many City requirements. It has violated its Planned Community Ordnance for almost 40 years. It has failed to prioritize Palo Alto residents and report annually on compliance. It has violated parking requirements by repeatedly parking construction vehicles and transport vans where they should not 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 be located. It has misrepresented the true extent of parking impact on its neighbors. I wonder if this company will in the future continue to violate requirements and to renege on past promises. During this development process, Palo Alto Commons has failed to respond meaningfully to change its plans in spite of clear direction for the City Council to seriously consider constructing on the front of the building. This company has also ignored the PTC direction to cut plans for 7 rear- facing units. Palo Alto Commons claimed to respond to neighbors by reducing the number of residential units from 18 to 16, but only by looking at the fine print did we discover that its architects simultaneously quietly added 2 new offices that actually are even closer (less than 11 feet) to the back fences of 2 neighbors. I recommend exploring moving these offices to the front of the building or to an interior location. In spite of repeated opposition from neighbors and the PTC, the current plan continue to violate the1987 daylight plane. The daylight plane encroachment has in fact increased since the original plan presented to the City Council previously. Palo Alto Commons is a private company that profits from harming neighbors. It is not providing any below-market-rate units, so only patients with significant resources can afford it. The community benefits it claims to provide are minimal. Palo Alto Commons has not even followed through on its verbal commitment to a no-cost recommendation from multiple neighbors to paint the back of the building a green color that would blend in with foliage. We supported senior housing, so we did not oppose the Avant expansion, in spite of its multiple violations of usual requirements. However, now we saw that the Avant has created more significant problems than anticipated. Learning from that lesson, we cannot support impacts from 16 new units and 2 new offices. Please vote to follow the PTC recommendation for 9 interior units only so that seniors can have more services, while complying with City requirements and reducing exacerbation of existing neighborhood impacts. Please eliminate the 7 rear-facing residential units, and move the offices or at least increase the setbacks of the 2 offices so they are no longer less than 11 feet from our back fence. Please also insist on enforcement of new and existing and future parking plans. To be fair to all developers, the City Council should compel developers to follow City requirements and to respond meaningfully to City Council members, who are elected to represent residents, and to PTC members, who are appointed by the City Council. Thank you very much for considering my comments. Sincerely, Lily Lee 4080 Wilkie Way From:Husam Hammad To:Council, City Cc:The-Vu Nguyen; Husam Hammad Subject:Invitation to 24th Annual Palestinian Cultural Day Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 2:37:47 PM Attachments:Palestinian Cultural Day Resolution Example2025.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo alto Mayor and City Council, On Saturday, May 17, 2025, the Santa Clara County Supervisor Otto Lee and the Palestinian Heritage Committee are co-sponsoring the 24th Annual Palestinian Cultural Day tocelebrate Palestinian culture and contributions to our community. This event will take place atthe County Plaza (70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, Ca 95110) from 12 p.m. to 1:30 p.m. We invite you to join us in celebrating the rich culture and heritage of the Palestinian people.This event continues the County’s tradition of recognizing its diverse community members.Please RSVP to Husam Hammad at husam@pacbell.net In honor of the Palestinian Cultural Day, we also invite you to present a proclamation,resolution or a message of celebration from your district. As an example, we have enclosed acopy of the proclamation the Board of Supervisors presented last year in honor of this event. If you are unable to attend, we would be happy to present the proclamation on your behalf.Please mail your proclamation to: Office of Supervisor Otto Lee, 70 W. Hedding Street., East Wing - 10th Floor, San Jose, CA 95110. Thank you for your consideration of this invitation, and we look forward to seeing you at the event. Sincerely, Husam Hammad WHEREAS, Palestinians trace their roots back to the Canaanites, who inhabited the land west of the Jordan River and the Dead Sea; WHEREAS, Palestinians primarily speak Arabic and most profess either a Christian or Muslim faith; WHEREAS, Palestinian culture is presented through books, poetry, music, proverbs, and handicrafts made with cross-stitch embroidery patterns that often display ethnic or regional identity and honor a rich cultural legacy from centuries past that are important symbols of Palestinian culture; WHEREAS, Palestinians have embraced for over 2,000 years core values such as love of family, commitment to education, hospitality, and reverence for land, and they now share these values with the residents of Santa Clara County; WHEREAS, Palestinian residents of Santa Clara County now number approximately 30,000 and have made major contributions to the County in the fields of business, engineering, law, and medicine, as well as through their cultural talents in the areas of poetry, literature, dance, and music; and, WHEREAS, Palestinians living in Santa Clara County will hold the 24th annual Palestinian Cultural Day that honors the local Palestinian community and its contributions to the County’s civic life as well as the historical and cultural contributions of Palestinians throughout the world. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara does hereby proclaim May 17, 2025 as PALESTINIAN CULTURAL DAY to celebrate Palestinian culture, traditions, and peoples both here in Santa Clara County and around the world. PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the Board of Supervisors, County of Santa Clara, State of California, on this Sixth Day of May, Two Thousand and Twenty-Five by unanimous vote. From:Jeff HoelTo:UACCc:Hoel, Jeff (external); Council, CitySubject:COMMENTS -- 05-05-07 UAC meeting -- Item 3 -- FTTPDate:Sunday, May 4, 2025 2:15:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Commissioners, Below is a copy of the staff report for Item 3 on UAC's 05-07-25 agenda ("Fiber Rates and Packages"), to which I have added my COMMENTS (paragraphs in red beginning with ### ). Thanks. Jeff -------------------Jeff Hoel731 Colorado AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94303------------------- PS: I will not be able to attend the meeting, unfortunately. ============================================================================= 05-07-25: UAC meeting agenda:https://cityofpaloalto.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=17424 * Item 3: Utilities Advisory Commission Finance Subcommittee Recommends the Commission Recommend City Council Approve the FY 2026 Fiber Rates and PackagesACTION ### I hope the UAC commissioners can take advantage of this ACTION item to tell Council what they really think. 6:55PM -- 7:35PM ### 40 minutes is not a lot of time. Staff: Dave Yuan, Utilities Strategic Business Manager ============================================================================= STAFF REPORT --- page 1 --- Utilities Advisory CommissionStaff Report From: Kiely Nose, Interim Director UtilitiesLead Department: Utilities Meeting Date: May 7, 2025Report #: 2407-3228 TITLE Utilities Advisory Commission Finance Subcommittee Recommends the Commission Recommend City Council Approve the FY 2026 Fiber Rates and Packages RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) advance a recommendation that Council approve the Fiber Rates and Packages for the City of Palo Alto to provide fiber broadband internet. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff is recommending the Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC) advance a comprehensive rate range and service package for Council to consider and authorize to support the continued implementation of the City’s Fiber-to-the-premises (FTTP) project pilot area of approximately 1,000 homes. The proposed broadband services and rates are based on extensive market research, evaluation f ### of customer needs and competitive benchmarks. The rate range and service package allows flexibility to structure rates for special promotions, ### Many successful municipal FTTP networks don't have special promotions. Rather, they take pride in saying that their customers like the fact that they don't have to search for special deals. service packages, and other means to be competitive in offering fiber services to our pilot customers. A well-defined and adaptable rate structure for fiber internet services is essential for the success of the FTTP project.Recognizing the evolving and competitive marketplace, staff will continue to learn from this initial phase and incorporate new service delivery strategies. Staff continues to advance the City’s electrical grid modernization projectand Palo Alto Fiber together, saving time, creating efficiencies and reducing costs. Staff presented the fiber rates and packages to the UAC Budget Subcommittee. ### This year, Commissioners Croft, Gupta, and Phillips served on the UAC Budget Subcommittee.https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Utilities/Utilities-Advisory-CommissionAs far as I know, the public doesn't know what staff presented there or what was discussed. The subcommittee unanimously approved the proposed fiber rates structure and product offerings. BACKGROUND On December 19, 2022 Council directed staff to proceed with the fiber backbone, a phased FTTP infrastructure build approach, and a hybrid business model for providing fiber internet services. Work continues to advance inseveral areas to launch a pilot service area including development and implementation of a new Operations Support System/Business Support --- page 2 --- System (OSS/BSS) [1 ], engineering design and construction planning, material procurement, marketing, service delivery, and the strategic allocation of staffing resources through either hiring external expertise or training andassigning internal personnel to support these efforts. On June 19, 2023, Council approved the FY 2024 CIP Budget with the new FTTP project “FTTP”, and Grid Modernization for Electrification Project “Grid Mod”. The approval of the Grid Mod project accelerated efforts to alignelectric and fiber construction, which impacted FTTP construction. ### Is this saying that FTTP construction was delayed by having to coordinate with Grid Mod? Deployment continues to minimize utility engineering pole make-ready work, pole replacements, noise disruption, and construction activity in neighborhoods. Following the June 2023 Council approval of the FY 2024 CIP Budget for the FTTP project, staff has been actively laying the groundwork for implementation. ### Is this saying that no part of the FTTP project has been implemented so far? Has any part of the new backbone network been implemented so far? Activities include leveraging existing contracts and resources, securing the necessary approvals and permits to install a new fiber data hut, ### How many necessary approvals and permits remain to be obtained to install the new fiber data hut? Of these, how many must be obtained from an entity other than the City itself? Can they be expedited? and establishing the operational frameworks and workflows required to support future service areas. These efforts are proceeding in parallel with the ongoing pilot program aimed at optimizing the alignment of fiber deploymentwith the City’s grid modernization initiatives. ANALYSIS In February 2025, the City retained Brightscape Networks ### Brightscape Networks https://www.brightscapenetworks.org/why.brightscape.html#originIt's a subsidiary of CENIC, the Corporation for Education Network Initiatives in California.https://cenic.org/Since Palo Alto isn't exactly building an educational network, why are they looking to a CENIC subsidiary for advice? /GoMo, ### GoMo Consultinghttps://rocketreach.co/gomo-consulting-profile_b778a560c51be3a8GoMo is based in Seattle, WA. It employs 2 people. One is Tom George.https://rocketreach.co/tom-george-email_15349803 ### Who recommended these consultants? What's happened to Magellan? fiber industry experts, to analyze the residential broadband coverage, competitive landscape, and potential service offering with the pilot area along with an operational assessment. In March 2025, Brightscape provided asummary of their market review of the pilot area, which revealed a duopoly between two major wireline incumbent providers Xfinity and AT&T, with Xfinity holding 100% coverage ### I suppose this means that Xfinity's coverage in Palo Alto is 99.5 percent or greater. But it's certainly possible to find unpassed premises on FCC's broadband map.https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/location-summary/fixed?version=jun2024&location_id=061401c9-fd6c-4028-a5b8-a2bfd18fe9dd&addr1=2600+COLUMBIA+ST+BLDG+2&addr2=PALO+ALTO%2C+CA+94304&zoom=15.13&vlon=-122.151041&vlat=37.416431&br=r&speed=250_25&tech=2(FCC's broadband map lets you specify technology (e.g., "cable") and speed (e.g., 250/25 Mbps). Green dots indicate covered premises. Red dots indicate premises not covered.) ### (The FCC broadband map relies on data provided by the ISPs.) via cable (offering speeds up to 2 Gbps ### It's important to pay attention to both upload speeds and download speeds. ### In Palo Alto, Xfinity can offer speeds up to 1200/35 Mbps in most places and 2000/200 Mbps in a few places.https://broadbandmap.fcc.gov/location-summary/fixed?version=jun2024&lon=-122.150582&lat=37.416675&addr_full=2600+Columbia+Street%2C+Palo+Alto%2C+California+94304%2C+United+States&zoom=15.00&vlon=-122.134167&vlat=37.422606&br=r&speed=1000_100&tech=2(Here's what the map looks like, specifying cable technology and 1000/100 Mbps, which excludes Xfinity's 1200/35 Mbps coverage.) with data caps and contracts) and AT&T covering 89% with symmetrical fiber (FTTH) options up to 5 Gbps without data caps or contracts. Brightscape recommended Palo Alto offer symmetrical speeds ranging from 500 Mbps to1 Gbps, ### What was the rationale for this recommendation?-- Why wouldn't it make sense to offer a slower speed for people who ask for rate assistance?-- Why wouldn't it make sense to offer higher speeds for people who want them (since the 10-Gbps infrastructure can support it)? focusing on a few plans to offer at competitive, contract-free rates with no data caps. They highlighted the need to address challenges in serving multi-family residents where incumbents have a long-standing presence andpartnerships which limit competition. With two major incumbent providers in the pilot area, the City would need to overcome the hurdles of new customer acquisition, such as switching aversion - when subscribers express dissatisfaction with their current internetservice provider, the perceived hassle of switching may prevent them from taking action. To overcome challenges like this, through staff recommendations Palo Alto Fiber can provide basic services which are easy to understandand competitively priced, with marketing and outreach that differentiates our services from other providers, such as being a locally available municipality they can speak to in person. ---------- [1] Operations support systems (OSS) manage telecom network infrastructure, ensuring reliable operations through functions like fault management and service assurance. Business support systems (BSS) streamline customer-facing activities, such as billing, subscriptions, and customer relationship management, to improve customer experiences. Together, OSS and BSS enhance telecom operations by connecting efficient network management withseamless customer interactions. --- page 3 --- To optimize deployment within this competitive landscape, staff recommends an initial offering focused on simple, easy to understand and fulfill service packages. Staff also recommends approval for a range of rates andpackages which can be easily adapted. This strategic approach offers several key advantages. First, limiting the number of core packages simplifies the initial deployment and provisioning processes, allowing staff to grow in-house expertise while relying on contracted services to concentrate on efficient installations and customer onboarding. Second, it reduces complexity in our customer support efforts and marketing and outreach, enabling us toclearly communicate the value proposition of each plan and focus on providing services. In a market where customers are often overwhelmed by numerous offerings, simplicity and transparency can be a significant differentiator.With a well-defined range for the rates and packages, staff can quickly adapt offerings to target different customer segments. Staff recommends UAC adopt the following range of rates for Council consideration and approval the below range for the rates: ### What's the intent of the ranges specified? Will the high-end price apply unless there's a promotional special? Residential Service Plan Pricing Comments 500 Mbps - Rate Assistance Up to $30 Monthly; Free installation and router ### How many homes would qualify for this rate assistance? How would this program affect the financial viability of the FTTP network? ### Would it make sense to specify rate assistance as the discount from standard pricing, e.g., up to $45 monthly? 500 Mbps Up to $75 Monthly; Free installation and router 1 Gbps Up to $95 Monthly; Free installation and router ### I assume that the "router" mentioned here is the thing that allows the customer to connect to the CPE (FTTP customer premises electronics) via Wi-Fi while inside the premises. ### Many municipal FTTP networks charge extra for this feature. This kind of Wi-Fi is notorious for requiring additional customer service. ### Some municipal FTTP networks also charge even more to provide extra Wi-Fi equipment within the premises to make sure that Wi-Fi coverage within the premises is reliable throughout. 2 Gbps Up to $175 Monthly; Free installation 5 Gbps Up to $265 Monthly; Free installation ### I have the impression that most of the City's costs for providing an FTTP connection are for infrastructure and operations and customer service, NOT for bandwidth. So, could the prices for 2 Gbps and 5 Gbps be reduced? Commercial Internet Service Plan Pricing Comments 500 Mbps Up to $125 Monthly; Free installation and router 1 Gbps Up to $185 Monthly; Free installation and router 2 Gbps Up to $195 Monthly; Free installation 5 Gbps Up to $295 Monthly; Free installation Additional Equipment Pricing Comments Calix GigaSpire Up to $5 Monthly Calix Blast Mesh Extender Up to $5 Monthly Calix Gig Wan Port Up to $600 One time purchase ### I guess this means that Palo Alto has selected Calix as its OLT/ONT vendor. Right? Has the City executed a purchase order with Calix yet? --- page 4 --- Other Service Offerings Pricing Comments Fixed Wireless - 100 Mbps Up to $75/Month Monthly; Free installation and router ### I don't understand what this item is. Whatever it is, why is it only 100 Mbps? (Symmetrical?) Protect IQ Up to $10/Month Network level security to protect against malicious threats and intrusions. Experience IQ Up to $10/Month Advanced parental controls with content access and usage schedules Smart Home - Calix Up to $10/Month Tools to manage and secure including features like network security, parental controls, and smart home automation. Smart Biz - Calix Up to $30/Month Suite of features to support small businesses. Smart MDU - Calix Up to $10/Month per subscriber Calix solution for MDU's that ads### adds? features like community wide managed Wi-Fi for the complex. Commercial Dedicated 1 Gbps Internet Access (DIA) Up to $1,500/Month 1 Gbps Dedicated Internet Access (DIA) service to deliver dedicated bandwidth, reliable, high-performance connectivity, and throughput consistency. ### What infrastructure is required to support this dedicated internet access (DIA) product? Commercial Dedicated 10 Gbps Internet Access (DIA) Up to $7,500/Month 10 Gbps Dedicated Internet Access (DIA) service to deliver dedicated bandwidth, reliable, high-performance connectivity, and throughput consistency. ### What infrastructure is required to support this? Other Contract Terms Data Allowance - Unlimited Month to month contract term FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT This report is for discussion purposes ### Not exactly. It's in support of an ACTION item. so there is no resource impact. Based on UAC and Council input, staff will recommend Council approve fiber internet rate ranges and packages. With necessary approvals, rates would be included in the June 16, 2025 Councilbudget adoption. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT On November 2, 2022, the UAC unanimously recommended to build fiber backbone and FTTP under a phased approach with existing funds. The UAC expressed the goal of building FTTP is to provide ubiquitous or citywidehigh-speed internet access to all residents and businesses in Palo Alto. If financially self-sustaining, and deemed successful, the first phase of FTTP can become a springboard to a citywide FTTP deployment. --- page 5 --- On December 19, 2022, City Council directed staff to proceed with the Fiber Expansion Plan to implement the Fiber Rebuild project and Phase 1 of the Fiber-to-the-Premises (FTTP) project without debt financing. Included in theCouncil’s motion was to a) maximize number of homes and businesses passed; b) consider promotional rates to increase take rate; c) define leading indicators and metrics to determine success; and d) recommend Councilaccelerate expansion if metrics are positive, including a potential bond to streamline construction and compress construction time as much as feasible. On June 19, 2023, the City Council approved the FY 2024 CIP Budget for the new FTTP project, and Grid Modernization for Electrification Project. The approval of the electrification project accelerated efforts to alignelectrification and fiber construction, which impacted the Fiber Expansion Plan. Staff is deploying a pilot to determine how to align the grid modernization project and projects under the Fiber Expansion Plan to help minimize utilityengineering pole make-ready work, pole replacements, noise disruption, and construction activity in neighborhoods. The pilot design was recently modified to streamline construction, and is currently undergoing materialpurchasing before starting fiber construction. ### When can fiber construction begin? ### When can the FTTP hut at the Colorado Electric Substation be installed? -- When can the concrete slap for the hut be poured? -- When can the substation's fence be modified to accommodate access to the hut? Since that time, staff has engaged UAC at their public meetings, and taken community input on various aspects of the staff’s work to date. Additionally, a project website is live and offers information and status updates on thiseffort. Project updates will continue to be provided at http://www.PaloAlto.gov/PaloAltoFiber ### As far as I can see, the latest "Palo Alto Fiber Project Status" provided by this web page was 11-07-23. ### Six months ago, staff said they hoped the first FTTP customers could begin being served in June 2025. What does staff say they hope now? ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The UAC’s recommendation for a rate and package is not a project requiring California Environmental Quality Act review, because it is an administrative governmental activity which will not cause a direct or indirect physicalchange in the environment. ATTACHMENTSAttachment A: Presentation AUTHOR/TITLE:Kiely Nose, Interim Director of UtilitiesStaff: Dave Yuan, Utilities Strategic Business Manager ============================================================================= 0507-25: 12-month rolling calendar:https://www.paloalto.gov/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/utilities-advisory-commission/archived-agenda-and-minutes/agendas-and-minutes-2025/05-may/05-07-25-rolling-calendar.pdf Here are the FTTP-related items:* May -- UAC -- Fiber Rates/Packages and FTTP Update* June -- Finance Committee -- Fiber Rates/Packages* June -- City Council -- Fiber Rates/Packages ### Will the Finance Committee and City Council get an "FTTP Update" when the "Fiber Rates/Packages" item is considered? From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:4075 El Camino Way Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 1:36:31 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ! Dear Mayor Lauing, Please accept the staff recommendations and approve the additional units. This is one of many projects, past and future, where council will deal with opposition from neighbors. One of the complaints raised about 4075 El Camino Way is hypocritical and embarrassing tome. You will hear from residents, all of whom I believe live in homes built by for profit developers, complain that the proponent here is a for profit entity. This is a non valid complaint The more difficult issue is that there may be some inconvenience to some neighbors. On the one hand residents do have the right to voice their perspective to council. On the other hand if council either rejected or downsized to make infeasible housing when neighbors complained, we will not get much housing built. Our history on this is not good as council members know with regard to mixed use, primarily market rate projects, which comprise by far the largest share of housing identified as in our pipeline. I will be interested to see how council handles this and upcoming housing projects. Stephen Levy This message could be suspicious The sender's email address couldn't be verified. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast From:Petersen, Joe To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Sauls, Garrett; Perez-Ibardolasa, Val; Gerhardt, Jodie; Colleen Petersen; Chikashige Nii; Tran, Vickie; Planning Commission; ptc@caritempleton.com; ptc@allenakin.com; forest@voteforest.org; Armer, Jennifer; Yang, Albert; Lait, Jonathan; Mindie S. Romanowsky; Council, City Subject:RE: Objection to Comments - 3886 Magnolia Drive #25BLD-00025 Date:Sunday, May 4, 2025 8:06:48 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mr. Shikada, I write to request your prompt attention to a narrow—but important—permitting disputenow pending in the Planning & Development Services Department. My wife and I areseeking approval for a small, aging‑in‑place remodel of our lawfully permitted single‑familyhome in Barron Park (which was built long before Barron Park was annexed by Palo Alto).That remodel entails lowering an upstairs closet in our primary bedroom andaccommodating some displaced utilities under an existing roof line over a permitted“rumpus room.” The project does not enlarge the building envelope, add floor area, orreplace any space that is “damaged or destroyed.” Despite the modest scope, the Director has repeatedly and steadfastly invoked Palo AltoMunicipal Code § 18.70.100 to require that we “remove all non‑conformities” dating back tothe 1940s construction of the house—effectively forcing a teardown. This position is neitherconsistent with past practice nor supported by the Code itself. Three key points: 1. § 18.70.100 is being applied inconsistently. I know for a fact (and will demonstrate in litigation if litigation cannot be avoided) that the City selectively invokes Section 100. Such ad‑hoc enforcement undermines confidence in the City’s permitting process and in fact is an invitation to corruption. 2. § 18.70.100 does not apply on its face. Section .100 is expressly triggered when “additions or enlargements are made to replace damaged or destroyed portions of a non‑complying structure.” We are not replacing fire, flood, or earthquake damage—only modernizing interior space to meet accessibility needs. The more specific and directly relevant provisions— §§ 18.70.080 and .090—control here, as they have for decades and our plan was meticulously designed to comply with these provisions. 3. The current stance puts the City at significant legal and fiscal risk. By conditioning a permit on removal of long‑grandfathered features without statutory authority, the City is interfering with vested property rights. Such overreach invites challenges under both the California and U.S. Constitutions (regulatory‑takings jurisprudence), as well as under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and the Housing Accountability Act, which limit a local agency’s ability to down‑zone or impose new standards mid‑stream. Litigation would consume scarce staff time and potentially subject the City to attorneys’ fees. Requested path forward · Clarify to staff that § 18.70.100 is reserved for true replacement of damaged or destroyed space, and that routine interior remodels fall under §§ 18.70.080/.090 asthey have for decades. Direct Planning leadership to apply a consistent, written threshold for invoking Section 100 in a manner that is consistent with the City’s housing goals. Prioritize small aging‑in‑place projects in recognition of the City’s Comprehensive Plan goal to enable residents to remain in their homes through all life stages, thereby advancing both equity and sustainability objectives. The relief we seek is modest: the ability to improve safety and accessibility in our longtime home without being compelled to demolish legally built, character‑defining portions of the structure. Timely intervention will spare everyone protracted appeals and public controversy, restore trust in the permitting system, and align City practice with the letter of its own ordinances. I am happy to meet at your convenience to discuss this matter. Thank you for your attention. Respectfully,    Joseph Petersen Palo Alto homeowner Joseph Petersen JPetersen@ktslaw.com Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 1302 El Camino Real | Suite 175 | Menlo Park, CA 94025 T 650 614 6427 | M 917 859 9680 | F 650 644 0570 Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP 3 Times Square | New York, NY 10036 T 212 775 8715 | M 917 859 9680 | F 212 775 8815 My Profile | vCard * Admitted in California and New York Confidentiality Notice:This communication constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18U.S.C. Section 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. This transmission, andany attachments, may contain confidential attorney-client privileged information and attorney work product. If you are not the intendedrecipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLYPROHIBITED. Please contact us immediately by return e-mail or at 404 815 6500, and destroy the original transmission and itsattachments without reading or saving in any manner. ***DISCLAIMER*** Per Treasury Department Circular 230: Any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including anyattachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the InternalRevenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein. From:Aram James To:Reckdahl, Keith; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; SteveWagstaffe; Perron, Zachary; Foley, Michael; Figueroa, Eric; editor@paweekly.com; Dave Price; Human RelationsCommission; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Jeff Conrad; Nash, Betsy; Drekmeier, Peter; dcombs@menlopark.gov;city.council@menlopark.gov; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Dave Price; EPA Today; Jay Boyarsky;Robert.Jonson@shf.sccgov.org; Baker, Rob; Barberini, Christopher; board@pausd.org;boardfeedback@smcgov.org; BoardOperations; Sean Allen; Pat M; Jeff Rosen; Josh Becker; Jessica Speiser,Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23;assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Jensen, Eric; Lee, Craig; Afanasiev,Alex; Enberg, Nicholas; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Palo Alto Free Press; Friends of Cubberley; Liz Kniss; Holman,Karen (external); Tom DuBois; Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Burt, Patrick; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov;Reifschneider, James; Wagner, April; Yolanda Conaway; Don Austin; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Daniel Kottke;dennis burns; Dennis Upton; DuJuan Green; Emily Mibach; Diana Diamond Subject:The Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA) came into existence in 2003 after Bich Cau Thi Tran was shot and killed by San Jose police Officer Chad Marsh… Date:Saturday, May 3, 2025 8:52:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From the archives of Aram James & Richard Konda The Coalition for Justice and Accountability (CJA) came into existence in 2003 after Bich CauThi Tran was shot and killed by San Jose police Officer Chad Marsh… https://search.app/bvVwtWcpNHjpA8TQA Shared via the Google app From:Maria Rimmel To:Council, City Subject:Thank You! Date:Saturday, May 3, 2025 1:46:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good afternoon, I am a Palo Alto resident and wanted to thank the City of Palo Alto for the kind gesture to fly the flags at half-staff honoring the memory of His Holiness Pope Francis. As a Catholic I found this to be a thoughtful and caring way to honor our beloved PopeFrancis who not only led the Catholic Church but inspired the world to strive for peace and have compassion for those on the margins. Sincerely, Maria Rimmel From:Kevin Ji To:Kallas, Emily Cc:Council, City Subject:4075 El Camino Way Zoning Comparison Table (Attachment D) Date:Saturday, May 3, 2025 12:22:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Emily, I noticed that this time, the staff zoning comparison table does not include the CN comparisonas it did in almost every other version of the staff report. Can you help me understand why this is? Thanks, Kevin From:City Mgr To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:Executive Leadership Team; City Mgr; Clerk, City Subject:City Council Bundle - May 2 Date:Friday, May 2, 2025 5:03:19 PM Attachments:RE Proposed plans to add bike lanes and remove some cars from Middlefield.msgFW 3935 Duncan Place height - follow up from another neighbor.msgimage001.pngimage002.pngRE City Council Meeting RE; BikePedestrian Plan Update..msgFW Request for Traffic Camera on El Camino Near Emek Beracha Synagogue.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 May 2, 2025. Respectfully, Danille Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources|Transportation(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.orgwww.cityofpaloalto.org From:Sheri Furman To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Item 14 on Monday 5: PAN Agrees with PTC Majority Date:Friday, May 2, 2025 5:01:47 PM May 2, 2025 Subject Line: Palo Alto Commons Item on Monday 5: PAN Agrees with PTC Majority Dear Mayor Lauing, Vice Mayor Veenker and Council Members: Thank you for your consideration of the impacts to the neighborhood from theproposed Palo Alto Commons expansion. This letter contains our views and those of all the members of PAN who voted to forward this to you at our May 1st meeting. The question before you is whether Palo Alto Commons, an assisted living andmemory care operation, should expand in a manner that takes away the air, light, andprivacy of the residents on Wilkie Way. Nine of the 16 additional units proposed forthe Commons would overwhelm the backyards and rear window views of theseresidents. When the project was originally built many years ago, the residents agreedto substantial but limited intrusions – but now that compromise is threatened. These issues were brought up during the prescreening and at the ARB meetings andthe PTC meetings, but the applicant made very minimal changes. The last PTCmeeting resulted in a 3-2-2 vote to approve 7 of the 16 additional units and not allowthe rear units that would greatly impact the Wilkie neighbors. The PTC pointed outthat Palo Alto Commons can still build the additional units by placing them in otherlocations that would not create new impacts on Wilkie residents. The 13 older homes whose backyards Palo Alto Commons borders have organized,held many neighborhood meetings and attended ARB and PTC commissionsmeetings over the past couple of years. Please pay attention to these residents’concerns. Also, do not be distracted by claims that reducing the number of units will affect PaloAlto’s housing needs. These units do not constitute “housing” per Palo Alto RegionalHousing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and are not housing for the general public.Rather, they are very expensive units operated by a for-profit entity called Well Quest(the parent company of Palo Alto Commons) and not a local business. Another critical issue is parking, which frequently overflows from Palo Alto Commonsinto the adjacent neighborhood. Wilkie residents have provided photos and videos,as well as documented conversations with people who park on their crowded street(employees, service workers, and visitors), that proves Palo Alto Commons’ need for parking vastly overwhelms its onsite spaces. Even the transit vans for Palo AltoCommons often park on Wilkie Way! This incursion will only worsen under theproposed expansion. The very generic TDM associated with this applicationpromises to “discourage” cars from Palo Alto Commons from parking on Wilkie andsurrounding streets, but that has not been the case for the past decades. Theoperation has a history of non-compliance with their Conditions of Approval, per thestaff report and the neighbors. You are no doubt aware that it’s unclear which, if any,TDMs in Palo Alto are successful. Please keep that in mind as you deliberate overthis project’s proposed TDM and the likelihood it will be observed. Thank you very much for your attention to these matters Respectfully, Sheri Furman, PAN Co-Chair Becky Sanders, PAN Co-Chair Palo Alto Neighborhoods From:Penny Brennan To:Council, City Subject:NO on Palo Alto Commons Expansion Date:Friday, May 2, 2025 2:58:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I urge you to vote NO on Palo Alto Commons Expansion. The proposed project represents a dramatic, further incursion into the backyards and homes of Wilkie Way residents by a for-profit business enterprise located outside of our community. Palo Alto Commons already towers over the backyards of individuals who live on Wilkie Way. It blocks natural sunlight from the trees, gardens, and homes of Wilkie Way residents, intrudes on their privacy, and, as a 24/7 business enterprise, is an ongoing source of noise and nighttime light pollution for them. The proposed Palo Alto Commons Expansion will only exacerbate these conditions. The proposed expansion will worsen the current parking crisis on Wilkie Way. The crisis has been caused by operation of the Palo Alto Commons business. The cars of Palo Alto Commons residents, visitors, and employees routinely fill available parking spaces on Wilkie Way leaving Wilkie Way residents no way to park in front of their own homes. Associated vehicle and foot traffic render the Wilkie Way homes an island amid the busy Palo Alto Commons business enterprise. Although Palo Alto Commons may claim to have done so, it has not made good faith efforts to effectively address the parking crisis on Wilkie Way. Predictably, the proposed Palo Alto Commons Expansion will make the Willkie Way parking crisis worse, and Palo Alto Commons will do little or nothing to resolve it. Some claim that the Palo Alto Commons Expansion is beneficial because it adds more housing for health- challenged elders in our community. I note that by virtue of its price-point (which is in line with its web-page branding as "Luxury Senior Living in Palo Alto, California"), and its apparent lack of financial accommodations for low-income elders (such as the HUD-assisted housing program at Lytton Gardens, Palo Alto), Palo Alto Commons is a housing alternative only for wealthy health-challenged elders in our community. Palo Alto Commons' profits from housing these wealthy elders are flowing to WellQuest, a for- profit company headquartered in Salt Lake City, Utah. WellQuest is investing nothing to promote better health and quality of life of Palo Alto residents. In closing, please, I urge you to vote NO on the Palo Alto Commons Expansion. The expansion will inflict further harms on Wilkie Way residents, provide housing for only a select few (wealthy) elders, and send profits from care of these elders out of Palo Alto and into the coffers of an out-of-state, for-profit corporation. An expanded Palo Alto Commons will do nothing to give back to the Palo Alto community. Sincerely, Penny Brennan, PhD Ventura Neighborhood From:Deborah Goldeen To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Date:Friday, May 2, 2025 12:36:37 PM I sympathize with the residents of Wilkie Way who will be negatively impacted by an expansion of Palo Alto Commons. Every time a modest tract home gets torn down in my neighborhood and replaced with a multi-story, 3,500 plus square foot, single family residence, I feel it. It’s awful. But I feel confident in the general understanding that basing decisions on the pretext that property owners have the right to insist that nothing ever changes is not only bad management, but also morally irresponsible. All the unhappy residents of Wilkie Way plus a cohort of likeminded people will be showing up on Monday to kvetch to the council. I’m sorry I do not have their ear and cannot work to dissuade them taxing the time and patience of the council. But I don’t have to add to the burden. Even though I feel strongly that the Palo Alto Commons should be allowed to proceed without further ado, I won’t address the council in person. If I had a magic wand, Wilkie Way would be narrowed and the residents could be pacified by the addition of another 250 square feet of property. I know. Not gonna happen and they will suffer, but not as much as the suffering that will result from not allowing Palo Alto Commons a very modest and carefully planned expansion. Deborah Goldeen, Birch St., 94306 From:Daniel Pei To:Council, City Subject:Please Protect Wilkie Way Residents – Palo Alto Commons Expansion Date:Friday, May 2, 2025 8:01:31 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members, I’m writing to ask that you deny Palo Alto Commons’ current application and ensure that the daylight plane, privacy, and livability of the Wilkie Way residents are protected. Approving this kind of expansion—especially one that disregards original setbacks and addsto long-standing parking issues—sets a troubling precedent. It tells other businesses that community impact can be overlooked. Palo Alto Commons serves an important role, but the proposal needs to meet current buildingstandards and meaningfully address neighborhood concerns around privacy, congestion, and compliance. Please require them to come back with a more balanced plan. Sincerely, Daniel Pei From:yanfeng wang To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lu, George; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Reckdahl, Keith; Stone, Greer;Veenker, Vicki Subject:meeting on 5/5/2025 Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 9:36:04 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Ed Lauing, Dear Patrick Burt, Dear George Lu, Dear Julie Lythcott-Haims, Dear Keith Reckdahl, Dear Greer Stone, Dear Vicki Veenker, For about 50 years, it (Commons) has existed here as a commercial estate. The building covers about 90% of the land, three floors high, 10 ft to the fence. Now he ignores the PTC's Code, ignores the law, looks up at the sky, gloriously declared to the government officials and the citizens that it is a residential estate, and then submitted an intrusion addition plan. Please deny Palo Alto Commons its current application and ensure that the daylight plane and privacy are protected for the residents who live on Wilkie Way. When one business gets away with this kind of expansion it only encourages other businesses to do the same. Please ask Palo Alto Commons to come back with a proposal that meets our current building standards and addresses daylight plane, parking congestion and privacy. Thank you, Yanfeng Wang Ventura Neighborhood From:e2huang.sd@gmail.com To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 7:21:34 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members: Please deny Palo Alto Commons its current application and insure that the daylight plane and privacy are protected for the residents who live on Wilkie Way. When one business gets awaywith this kind of expansion it only encourages other businesses to do the same. Please ask Palo Alto Commons to come back with a proposal that meets our current building standards andaddresses daylight plane, parking congestion and privacy. Thank you. E. HuangVentura Neighborhood From:Adam Schwartz To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Commons - please support on May 5! Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 3:24:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. i To the Palo Alto City Council: I write in strong support of building 16 new homes at the Palo Alto Commons, and I urge you to approve the necessary code changes. This is item #14 on the agenda for the upcoming May 5 meeting of the CityCouncil. This is personal for me. My wife and I have lived in Palo Alto for ten years and raised our kids here. My mother lives 3,000 miles away. At age 83,she increasingly needs my assistance, and she wants to move to the Bay Area. But our community is suffering from a housing shortage and extraordinarily expensive homes. We need to increase the supply here of homes for all kinds of people, including for assisted care and memory unitsin elder housing. Sixteen new homes at Palo Alto Commons would be a great start. I live in the shadow of Channing House. They are great neighbors. If theywanted to add 16 units, or 160 units, I would quickly sign a petition in support building new homes around the corner from me. Sincerely, Adam Schwartz 523 Channing Ave. 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:Liz Gardner To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Stone, Greer; Ed Lauing; Lauing, Ed; Veenker, Vicki; Team JulieforPaloAlto;pat.burt@cityofpalto.org Cc:Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Vargas-Aguilera, Elisa; Hartley, Craig; Le, Quang Subject:Re: Related Mayfield Place -- No Hot Water Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 2:27:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear et al, I am writing to first share that the hot water has been resolved at Related Mayfield Place. Thanks to the code enforcement team Elisa Vargas-Aguilera and Craig Hartley we now have sufficient hot water for cleaning, health and safety. Yet. Because of the months and months of it being a low temperature, I am now reporting with this communication a health and safety consequence of the prolonged remedy. Several weeks after that was finally repaired ( months of workand persistence on my part) there was brown water coming from all faucets at 8 pmon Thursday April 16. We as tenants were not informed by any management or door notice that they were back washing the system and we should or could not run water in our homes. In fact we had no idea why the water was brown with blackflux. Families could not bathe, cook or wash dishes. Additionally, because of air in the pipes for months and no code level hot water there is now a terrible and growing outbreak of maggot flies laying eggs andhatching on the first floor lobby, community room, laundry and household units.There are also eggs hatching with flies in all the drains and around the rodent traps on the ground floor. Related has had pest control on site shooting foam into our unit's drains. Yet. Thehatchings and infestation continues to grow (see attached image). There are rodent traps all over the ground floor area which are heavy with rain water and smell of rotting rat remains. They are coming by without a 24 hour notice to enter. Importantly not informing residents to not use their water for up to an hour after thedrain treatment. I am requesting code enforcement return to the property. Our property shared neighbor, Fambrinis Cafe is also drawing the flies/rodents since from the immensepopularity of their waffle making business is creating an over abundance of wet waste and garbage. Which is stored overnight in a very tiny, undersized, trash room. I believe this infestation is occurring in all the household drains and must be addressed immediately in and around the property. The main lobby is where we pass through to get to our homes with our children,groceries. It is really upsetting that a Billion Dollar corporation running is running such a poor operation under the Low Income Tax Credit Building bracket. It is unhealthy. Additionally and again with my impetus, the management secured a debri bin on Friday April 25 for two days and on the generosity of the city program. The bin over filled (see attached) in a matter of hours. I am reporting this as the bin itself fora 70 unit multi-family apartment was an insufficient size. As well, the managementand Fambrini's Care were dumping their own generated debris in it, like broken sinks and broken appliances in it.This was taking up precious room I understood was for resident use only. Many Thanks to the City for following up with the unhealthy fly infestation. Sincerely, Liz GardnerPalo Alto On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 7:27 PM Liz Gardner <gardnerjaqua@gmail.com> wrote:Dear City Manager Shikada, I would like to report that as of this evening Related Mayfield Place est., 2017 boilers are out of service. As of 6pm tonight the water went cold after months andmonths of attempts to have Related Mayfield management fix and service to cleanout valves and replace temperature regulators. There is no notice on the door for service to be restored. Gratefully, your city code enforcement staff have been on site a couple of weeksago. They came in to two units to measure temperatures and investigate the problem. This has been an ongoing with the property since October of 2024. Quit literally, the boilers were replaced in December of 2022.. Now the watertemperature has become so bad again there is no hot water for family residents,babies, disabled, elderly, Fambrini's outdoor dining, Vista Center for the Blind. This is unacceptable. This is affecting our use of the shared laundry facility, forthe health of residents to wash, clean or bathe. I continue to boil water on the stove top. Sincerely, Liz GardnerPalo Alto From:noam itzikowitz To:Council, City Subject:Request for Traffic Camera on El Camino Near Emek Beracha Synagogue Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 1:17:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, My name is Noam Itzikowitz, and I’m a student at a school located inside the Emek Beracha synagogue on El Camino Real. I’m writing to ask if you could consider installing a trafficcamera at the pedestrian crossing near the synagogue. There is a light there that only turns red when someone presses the button to cross, but many drivers either don’t notice it or ignore it. My friends and I cross there every day on our way toschool, and we’ve had several close calls with cars not stopping. There are also many younger kids who use that crosswalk, and it feels dangerous. I believe that adding a traffic camera would help keep drivers more alert and make thecrossing safer for everyone. I’d love to hear your thoughts, and I really appreciate you taking the time to consider this request. Thank you for your help in keeping our community safe. Sincerely,Noam Itzikowitz 408-688-1431 From:Jessica Kellogg To:Council, City Subject:Save the Date: Santa Clara County Superior Court’s 2025 Legislators’ Day 9/25 Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 12:19:20 PM Attachments:Legislators Day 2025- RSVP.pdf City of Palo Alto Council.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council, In honor of National Law Day celebrated every May 1st, we would like to invite you to the Santa Clara County Superior Court’s 2025 Legislators’ Day scheduled for September 25, 2025. This year’s Law Day theme “Out of Many, One” recognizes the core values of our Constitution which bridge our differences to bring us together as a united nation. At Legislators’ Day, we invite you to see how our Court seeks to serve your constituents in the many issues they face in their daily lives, including, but not limited to, mental health, juvenile justice, dependency and youth in the foster care system, juvenile justice and rehabilitation efforts, drug treatment court, criminal justice, civil disputes and more. You will have the opportunity to observe first-hand how the Court is utilizing technology and remote proceeding to provide greater access to the court process. You will also see some of the challenges faced by judges due to limited resources, increased case load, and more complex cases. Over lunch, we will have an opportunity to discuss important issues facing both of our branches, including securing trust from the public, ensuring separation of powers, and protecting the rule of law. We invite you to stay for the entire day, but to accommodate your busy schedule we will schedule a separate morning and afternoon session for court observations, with both overlapping the lunchtime conference. September 25, 2025 Family Justice Center, 201 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Morning session: 10am-12:00pm Lunch 12-1:30pm Afternoon session: 1:30-3:00pm We want this to be an opportunity for you to not only obtain a greater understanding of the inner workings of our branch, but to see how your legislative actions come to life in court. We encourage you to inform us of specific areas of interest to you so that we can best pair you with that court for observation. Because our staffing and calendars can shift over time, a final schedule will be sent as the date gets closer. For now, we simply ask that you block either the morning or afternoon session (or both). Please register today using this link: https://sugeni.us/VFcm Sincerely, Hon. Julie Emede Hon. Julia Alloggiamento Presiding Judge Chair, Legislative Liaison Committee Superior Court of California Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara County of Santa Clara COURT OBSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES Criminal (Public Safety) Hall of Justice 190 W. Hedding Street Mental Health Court (Competency, Sexually Violent Predators, Not Guilty by Reason Insanity, etc) Hall of Justice 190 W. Hedding Street Juvenile Justice (Juvenile Delinquency) 840 Guadalupe Parkway Drug and Mental Health Treatment Courts Family Justice Center 201 N. 1st Street Juvenile Dependency (Foster Care Youth) Family Justice Center 201 N. 1st Street Family Court Family Justice Center 201 N. 1st Street Probate (Conservatorships/Adoptions) Downtown Superior Courthouse 191 N. First Street Civil Downtown Superior Courthouse 191 N. First Street Small Claims Downtown Superior Courthouse 191 N. First Street Legislators Day September 25, 2025 RSVP This special event is designed to provide elected officials with an in- depth understanding of our court system, address pertinent issues, and foster valuable discussions. www.scscourt.org Family Justice Center Courthouse 201 North First Street San Jose, CA 95113 Location Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara 191 North First Street San José, California 95113 (408) 882-2700 Chambers of H O N . JULIE A. EMEDE , P r e s i d i n g Judge May 1, 2025 Dear Palo Alto City Council, In honor of National Law Day celebrated every May 1st, we would like to invite you to the Santa Clara County Superior Court’s 2025 Legislators’ Day scheduled for September 25, 2025. This year’s Law Day theme “Out of Many, One” recognizes the core values of our Constitution which bridge our differences to bring us together as a united nation. At Legislators’ Day, we invite you to see how our Court seeks to serve your constituents in the many issues they face in their daily lives, including, but not limited to, mental health, juvenile justice, dependency and youth in the foster care system, juvenile justice and rehabilitation efforts, drug treatment court, criminal justice, civil disputes and more. You will have the opportunity to observe first-hand how the Court is utilizing technology and remote proceeding to provide greater access to the court process. You will also see some of the challenges faced by judges due to limited resources, increased case load, and more complex cases. Over lunch, we will have an opportunity to discuss important issues facing both of our branches, including securing trust from the public, ensuring separation of powers, and protecting the rule of law. We invite you to stay for the entire day, but to accommodate your busy schedule we will schedule a separate morning and afternoon session for court observations, with both overlapping the lunchtime conference. September 25, 2025 Family Justice Center, 201 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Morning session: 10am-12:00pm Lunch 12-1:30pm Afternoon session: 1:30-3:00pm We want this to be an opportunity for you to not only obtain a greater understanding of the inner workings of our branch, but to see how your legislative actions come to life in court. We encourage you to inform us of specific areas of interest to you so that we can best pair you with that court for observation. Because our staffing and calendars can shift over time, a final schedule will be sent as the date gets closer. For now, we simply ask that you block either the morning or afternoon session (or both). Please register today using this link: https://sugeni.us/VFcm Sincerely, Hon. Julie Emede Hon. Julia Alloggiamento Presiding Judge Chair, Legislative Liaison Committee Superior Court of California Superior Court of California County of Santa Clara County of Santa Clara COURT OBSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES Criminal (Public Safety) Hall of Justice 190 W. Hedding Street Mental Health Court (Competency, Sexually Violent Predators, Not Guilty by Reason Insanity, etc) Hall of Justice 190 W. Hedding Street Juvenile Justice (Juvenile Delinquency) 840 Guadalupe Parkway Drug and Mental Health Treatment Courts Family Justice Center 201 N. 1st Street Juvenile Dependency (Foster Care Youth) Family Justice Center 201 N. 1st Street Family Court Family Justice Center 201 N. 1st Street Probate (Conservatorships/Adoptions) Downtown Superior Courthouse 191 N. First Street Civil Downtown Superior Courthouse 191 N. First Street Small Claims Downtown Superior Courthouse 191 N. First Street From:Susan Kemp To:Council, City Subject:No on Palo Alto Commons Expansion adversely affecting Wilkie Way neighbors Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 12:09:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Lauing and City Council Members: Please deny Palo Alto Commons its current application and insure that the daylight plane and privacy are protected for the residents who live on Wilkie Way. When one business gets away with this kind of expansion it only encourages other businesses to do the same. Please ask Palo Alto Commons to come back with a proposal that meets our current building standards and addresses daylight plane, parking congestion and privacy for the residents of Wilkie Way. Thank you. Susan Kemp Ventura neighborhood resident From:CeCi Kettendorf To:Council, City Subject:Re: Establishment of a Palo Alto Fire District Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 10:47:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Per my previous email: I want to correct my assignment of Menlo Park Fire District to the correct evaluating agency. Menlo Park is evaluated by SMCFU.CeCi. Kettendorf 3719 Grove AvenuePalo Alto,Ca. 94303 On Thu, May 1, 2025 at 9:48 AM CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council;Palo Alto must establish a Fire District managed by a Fire Board to ensure public safety. We must change the city charter to do so, via a ballot initiative. Surrounding cities foster strong stewardship of public safety. For example,i n comparing Menlo Park and Palo Alto, we are comparing apples and apples. Both cities shareroughly the same socio-economics, population size and emergency response burden. Menlo Park's fire department is under the stewardship of the MENLO PARK FIREDISTRICT. Their FIRE BOARD meets monthly to review the past months operations, to evaluate policy and procedures and implement changes, to hear from their firefighters, andto plan for the future needs for responsible fire protection. They have an abundant Reserve Fund intended to address unforeseen emergencies. They have a fund for maintenance of fire engines, fire houses and firefighter staffing. They bow to OSHA standards and Federal law. They have a high rating with the county, via LAFCO. They are forward thinking,planning for future needs to maintain a state-of-the-art fire response. The stated mandate of the Menlo Park Fire District is to establish best practices to ensure the safety of the city. Palo Alto has none of the aforementioned. In stark contrast, the city manager of Palo Alto soley controls the fire response of the PAFD because he controls the money allocation. PaloAlto's fire chief is an at-will employee who answers wholly to the city manager. All funding needs and requests stop at the city manager's desk. All funding requests of the PAFD arethen presented by the city manager to the city council, or, not at all. As an example, the City Manager is not likely to tell Council that mandatory overtime is a significant reasonfor the high firefighter attrition over the past decade, nor that the PAFD is in crisis need of staffing. The Council remains unaware of problems therein.As a result of the City Manager's control, the PAFD is run on a greatly reduced skeleton crew of brave firefighters who are flogged with mandatory overtime, who are driving 16year old fire engines which are stored in outdated fire houses, two of which are closed. Palo Alto is in violation of federal law via the Department of Labor, and OSHA regulations andrecommendations. We receive a poor rating in multiple areas in the LAFCO report. We have two fewer engines and thirty fewer fire fighters than 13 years ago. There is no fund toreplace engines, hire firefighters or remodel five of seven failing fire stations, one of which is 63 years old. The final blow to us as residents is the lame proposal to open Fire Station 4 using cross staffing and 12 hour overtime shifts. Really? Cross staffing failed at FS 2 when an enginewas unable to answer a house fire because the firefighters were out on the ambulance. Cross staffing endangers the public; so sayeth the firefighters repeatedly at public meetings; you have heard them speak. They say we need 10 positions created to open FS4 but CityManager Shikada simply will not and will never throw a dollar after firefighter positions. Palo Alto needs to give fire management to a FIRE BOARD with a stated mandate to firstly, protect the residents, rather than to save money. Please don't hire yet another consultant to explore this issue. Ask three of Mr. Shikada's 13assistants to examine all the surrounding fire districts and create a master for structuring a Palo Alto Fire District based on the success of surrounding communities. They can workwith contacts I can provide you, of residents who are presently exploring the governance of the surrounding fire districts.We are considering promoting a ballot measure to this end. Please show us you are concerned with our safety by embracing this build of a Palo Alto Fire District. You can bethe agent asking for this change to our charter . You will receive a resounding vote of confidence from the residents of Palo Alto for doing so.CeCi Kettendorf 3719 Grove AvenuePalo Alto,Ca. 94303 650-493-0804 From:CeCi Kettendorf To:Council, City Subject:Establishment of a Palo Alto Fire District Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 9:49:09 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council; Palo Alto must establish a Fire District managed by a Fire Board to ensure public safety. Wemust change the city charter to do so, via a ballot initiative. Surrounding cities foster strong stewardship of public safety. For example,i n comparingMenlo Park and Palo Alto, we are comparing apples and apples. Both cities share roughly the same socio-economics, population size and emergency response burden. Menlo Park's firedepartment is under the stewardship of the MENLO PARK FIRE DISTRICT. Their FIRE BOARD meets monthly to review the past months operations, to evaluate policy andprocedures and implement changes, to hear from their firefighters, and to plan for the future needs for responsible fire protection. They have an abundant Reserve Fund intended toaddress unforeseen emergencies. They have a fund for maintenance of fire engines, fire houses and firefighter staffing. They bow to OSHA standards and Federal law. They have ahigh rating with the county, via LAFCO. They are forward thinking, planning for future needs to maintain a state-of-the-art fire response. The stated mandate of the Menlo Park Fire Districtis to establish best practices to ensure the safety of the city. Palo Alto has none of the aforementioned. In stark contrast, the city manager of Palo Altosoley controls the fire response of the PAFD because he controls the money allocation. Palo Alto's fire chief is an at-will employee who answers wholly to the city manager. All fundingneeds and requests stop at the city manager's desk. All funding requests of the PAFD are then presented by the city manager to the city council, or, not at all. As an example, the CityManager is not likely to tell Council that mandatory overtime is a significant reason for the high firefighter attrition over the past decade, nor that the PAFD is in crisis need of staffing. The Council remains unaware of problems therein. As a result of the City Manager's control, the PAFD is run on a greatly reduced skeleton crewof brave firefighters who are flogged with mandatory overtime, who are driving 16 year old fire engines which are stored in outdated fire houses, two of which are closed. Palo Alto is inviolation of federal law via the Department of Labor, and OSHA regulations and recommendations. We receive a poor rating in multiple areas in the LAFCO report. We havetwo fewer engines and thirty fewer fire fighters than 13 years ago. There is no fund to replace engines, hire firefighters or remodel five of seven failing fire stations, one of which is63 years old. The final blow to us as residents is the lame proposal to open Fire Station 4 using crossstaffing and 12 hour overtime shifts. Really? Cross staffing failed at FS 2 when an engine was unable to answer a house fire because the firefighters were out on the ambulance. Crossstaffing endangers the public; so sayeth the firefighters repeatedly at public meetings; you have heard them speak. They say we need 10 positions created to open FS4 but City ManagerShikada simply will not and will never throw a dollar after firefighter positions. Palo Alto needs to give fire management to a FIRE BOARD with a stated mandate to firstly,protect the residents, rather than to save money. Please don't hire yet another consultant to explore this issue. Ask three of Mr. Shikada's 13assistants to examine all the surrounding fire districts and create a master for structuring a Palo Alto Fire District based on the success of surrounding communities. They can work with contacts I can provide you, of residents who are presently exploring the governance ofthe surrounding fire districts. We are considering promoting a ballot measure to this end. Please show us you areconcerned with our safety by embracing this build of a Palo Alto Fire District. You can be the agent asking for this change to our charter . You will receive a resounding vote ofconfidence from the residents of Palo Alto for doing so. CeCi Kettendorf3719 Grove Avenue Palo Alto,Ca. 94303650-493-0804 From:Henry Etzkowitz To:Paul Wouters; paul bundy; Fumi Kitagawa Phd; Plaast; Panagiotis Ketikidis; Council, City; Carol Kemelgor; CarolKiparsky; Irina Dezhina; Ian.irwin@sbcglobal.net Subject:Fwd: SUNY stands tall Date:Thursday, May 1, 2025 7:30:35 AM Attachments:200-09-1_defense_of_higher_education.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Henry Etzkowitz <h.etzko@icloud.com>Date: April 30, 2025 at 5:31:54 PM PDTTo: Mark Granovetter <mgranovetter@gmail.com>, Laleh Raeisy <raeisylaleh@gmail.com>, Roseline Rasolovoahangy <emma-roseline@stanfordalumni.org>, Sue Rosser <srosser@sfsu.edu>, Rosa Caiazza <rosa.caiazza@uniparthenope.it>, Rabii Outamha <outamha.rabii@gmail.com>,Christiane Gebhardt <christiane.gebhardt@t-online.de>, 翁默斯<mosi@zjut.edu.cn>, James Sefe Dzisah <jdzisah@ug.edu.gh>, Helen LawtonLawton-Smith <h.lawton-smith@bbk.ac.uk>Cc: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, Office of the Provost<provost@stanford.edu>, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@rebecca4water.com>, Mariza Almeida <mariza.almeida@unirio.br>, Maria Slowey<maria.slowey@dcu.ie>, Alex Etzkowitz <a.etzko@gmail.com>, Janice Ovadiah <jovadiah@aol.com>Subject: SUNY stands tall Hi Mark Inspiring to see faculty academic political leadership, a decidedly recessive “gene” in a era of Presidential/provestorial preeminance, recuperating in a morebureaucratic mode, the Harper, Eliot, Meikeljohn, Wilson, Butler era of presidential leadership expressing institutional personality. Recall several years on SUNY Senate on behalf of Purchase, starting in the Boyer administration, when it was mainly a foil for his ruminations. It was a twice yearly tour of SUNY campuses, and cross disciplinary conversations but itcan’t recollect any contribution to academic advancement. In one Of SUNY’s periodic financial downturns that you will recall from a higher perch than mine, Iwas able to use a crisis that engendered a series of social science division emergency meetings to get Dean John Howard (Stanford Sociology PhD tosupport institution of an interdisciplinary major in the arts and social sciences, bridging a gap that had frustrated liberal arts students, attracted to a school with astellar arts reputation but whose professional arts degrees, with their auditions and portfolios for admission, by design, precluded sociology and other non arts students from all but a few “arts for non artists” electives. A unique “Sociologyand Photography” course that I taught with the Professor of Photography, John Cohen, (also musician, a member of Pete Seeger’s New Lost city Ramblers, whoperformed at Hudson River festivals and Carnegie Hall, thiugh not at Purchase to my recollection. My qualification was a sabbatical year as a student at theinternational Center of photography. Only Senate academic leadership I have experienced was at Washington University in 1969 when Barry Commoner took the lead in calling a specialsession of the faculty senate to discuss the university’s response to US involvement in south east Asia. Recall tortured, heartfelt statements by scientiststrying to balance between their opposition to the war and the scientific advances that emanated from their military funded grants. Having been welcomed bydepartmental chair Alfred McClung Lee to participate as an equal in Brooklyn college sociology department meetings, despite marginal status as a part timegraduate student instructor, I introduced a motion, when discussion appeared to be circular and repetitive, to take the academic “teach in” movement to thecommunity, offering departmental e.g mimeograph machines, to publicize jointly organized events. A university-industry-labor coalition was authorized. Barrybrought in the Teamsters who had supported his iconic pathbreaking Center for the Biology of Natural Systems, housed in a Union provided trailers in back of thebiology building. The Hardy salt company and other modest sized firms represented industry in strategy meetings, culminating in a teach in held atteamster headquarters with Daniel Ellsberg featured speaker. https://www.sunyufs.us/uploads/1/1/6/9/116933050/200-09- 1_defense_of_higher_education.pdf Sent from my iPhone University Faculty Senate | H. Carl McCall Building | 353 Broadway, Albany, New York 12246 TO: SUNY University Faculty Senate FROM: Executive Committee, Governance Committee, and Graduate and Research Committee RE: Defending, Protecting, and Advancing Foundational Principles and Functions of New York State and United States Higher Education DATE: April 26th, 2025 (200th UFS Plenary) LOCATION: SUNY Oneonta NUMBER: 200-09-1 VOTE: For: 39 / Against: 2 RATIONALE WHEREAS recent and escalating actions by governmental bodies threaten foundational principles and functions of New York State and United States higher education, including • the autonomy of campus governance; • the integrity of scientific and other research; • the cultivation of freedoms of thought, inquiry, speech, expression, and association; • the provision of educational programs and services to all students in the safest and most supportive environment possible; and WHEREAS the federal government and aligned political actors have targeted individual institutions with legal, financial, and political incursions designed to undermine their public mission, silence dissenting voices, and exert improper and often unlawful control over campus governance and academic inquiry; and WHEREAS some of these actors have demonstrated or signaled a willingness to censor curricula; rescind approved research funding and restrict research; target teachers, scholars, students, and administrators; and disappear, detain, and deport anyone they declare to be an enemy of the state, in an effort to nullify free speech and due process rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution; and WHEREAS institutions of higher education in New York State—public and private, large and small—share a longstanding commitment to academic freedom, democratic governance, civic responsibility, and the pursuit of knowledge, truth, and wisdom for the public good, and have provided education and opportunity to generations of New York residents; and WHEREAS New York State is home to a diverse and nationally respected higher education ecosystem that serves over one million students and employs over one hundred thousand professors, researchers, doctors, nurses, professionals, and staff whose work supports innovation, critical inquiry, social mobility, community engagement, and public health; and WHEREAS the preservation of one institution’s integrity is the concern of all, and an infringement against one campus or state university system should be considered an infringement against all; and WHEREAS a growing host of governance bodies and professional associations have passed resolutions and statements, circulated petitions, and issued statements and open letters calling 2 for collective action to defend, protect, and advance academic freedom, shared governance, and other foundational principles and functions of higher education1; and WHEREAS similar resolutions have been approved or are being prepared by multiple SUNY and CUNY campus governance bodies, the CUNY University Faculty Senate Executive Committee has released a statement to this effect, and the United University Professions (UUP) Delegate Assembly recently also passed a similar resolution; and WHEREAS SUNY UFS should do everything in its power to bring together higher education governance bodies, unions, administrations, boards, foundations, professional associations, students, parents, alumni, and donors to define what it means to price, fund, staff, and govern colleges and universities as public goods: to transform our students’ and patients’ lives and future prospects and serve our communities and states as • generators of knowledge, creativity, and innovation; • seedbeds for health and human flourishing; • catalysts for sustainable communities and ecosystems; • foundations for democracy; • platforms for civic engagement; • engines of economic and workforce development; • pathways to the middle class and beyond; • magnets for population growth and private investment; and • anchors of community; RESOLUTION THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the SUNY University Faculty Senate (SUNY UFS) charges President Landa to invite every member and constituent of SUNY UFS to read and reflect on the materials listed and linked in the UFS Academic Freedom Resources 2025 (attached) and to consider signing onto the growing list of petitions, open letters, and statements that align with their values regarding the defense, protection, and advancement of academic freedom, shared governance, and other foundational principles and functions of higher education; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that SUNY UFS charges President Landa to convey UFS’s appreciation, commendation, and support of actions to defend, protect, and advance academic freedom, shared governance, and other foundational principles and functions of higher education recently taken by the signatories of the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) “Call for Constructive Engagement”; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that SUNY UFS charges President Landa to invite Chancellor King, United University Professions President Fred Kowal, SUNY Faculty Council of Community Colleges President Candice Vacin, and SUNY Student Assembly President Gio Harvey to join and/or appoint designees to a joint working group with SUNY UFS that aims to develop recommendations for proactively advancing and protecting academic freedom, shared governance, and other foundational principles and functions of higher education on every SUNY campus and across SUNY; and 3 FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that SUNY UFS urges Chancellor King, SUNY System Administration, and the SUNY Board of Trustees to steadfastly maintain their refusal of anticipatory compliance to unlawful Executive Orders and any other forms of political pressure that attempt to override and undermine the • academic expertise and professional judgment of the faculty; • rigor and integrity of established shared governance systems and processes; • leadership, autonomy, and democratic accountability of campus and system administrations and boards; at every SUNY institution and across SUNY; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that SUNY UFS urges Chancellor King to continue his public commitment to • defending academic freedom, lawful political speech, the academic integrity of research and teaching, and established shared governance systems at every SUNY institution and across SUNY; • protecting all SUNY hospitals and health science centers in the face of proposed federal funding cuts; • protecting all of SUNY’s international students and employees and affirming their valuable contributions to SUNY; • protecting and advancing the SUNY system’s principled commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion, notably including those non-binary, trans, and intersex members of our academic community; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that SUNY UFS urges Chancellor King to reach out to potential allies to coalesce two academic mutual defense compacts—the first a “University of the State of New York Alliance” with the City University of New York, willing New York State signatories of the AAC&U “Call for Constructive Engagement,” and the Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities; the second a “Public Good U Alliance” with willing public college and university signatories of the AAC&U call and other willing state university system heads—to defend higher education in New York State and the United States, facilitate the mobilization of institutional resources—including legal counsel, governance experts, public affairs professionals, faculty governance leaders, research capacity, and media and government relations—and coordinate unified and vigorous responses to attacks on their foundational principles and functions, including but not limited to • legal representation and, where appropriate, countersuit actions on behalf of targeted students, faculty, and staff; • filing of amicus briefs, publication of expert testimony, and other legal interventions; • public communication strategies to counter misinformation and defend academic principles and functions, such as rapid-response preparation of research and public-education initiatives; • legislative advocacy and coordinated policy engagement at the state and federal levels; • development of collaborative strategies and frameworks to diversify funding streams beyond the federal government; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that SUNY UFS calls on Chancellor King and the SUNY Board of Trustees to urge the Governor of the State of New York—working with the Attorney General of the State of New York, the New York State Comptroller, the Division of Budget, 4 the Board of Regents, the governing boards of all colleges and universities in the state, and the Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities—to commit meaningful funding to a “University of the State of New York Defense Fund” that should be used to: • provide all necessary legal support to students, faculty, and staff in any institution of higher education in New York State who are personally targeted and attacked by authorities of the federal government for their political affiliation, participation in established shared governance bodies, exercise of their academic freedom, or exercise of their constitutional rights; • engage in legal actions against the federal government to defend the integrity, principles, functions, and federal funding of higher education in New York State; • replace any funding losses to colleges and universities resulting from federal attacks on higher education in New York State; and FURTHER BE IT RESOLVED that SUNY UFS calls on all SUNY campus governance bodies to speedily pass resolutions aligned with ours, and invites the SUNY Faculty Council of Community Colleges, SUNY Student Assembly, CUNY University Faculty Senate, the National Council of Faculty Senates, and other higher education governance bodies; the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the Association of Public & Land- Grant Universities, and other professional associations; the Professional Staff Congress-CUNY and other unions; and all friends and good-faith partners of SUNY to do the same. 5 BACKGROUND 1The United University Professions Delegate Assembly April 2024 resolution informed this resolution, along with those from the governance bodies of Rutgers University, the University of Massachusetts Amherst, the University of California, Indiana University- Bloomington, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Michigan State University, and the University of Michigan. In addition, statements, letters, and petitions from concerned faculty and campus community members at the University of California at Berkeley, the University of Michigan, University of Chicago, New York University and a growing host of higher education institutions and associations were consulted in the development of this resolution. ACADEMIC FREEDOM RESOURCES 2025 [compiled by SUNY University Faculty Senate Governance Committee, March 2025; updated by SUNY UFS Executive Committee, April 2025] Table of Contents ACADEMIC FREEDOM RESOURCES 2025 Table of Contents Organizations New York State-United University Professions Agreement SUNY Memoranda, Policies, and Statements SUNY University Faculty Senate (SUNY UFS) SUNY Faculty Council of Community Colleges (SUNY FCCC) CUNY University Faculty Senate (CUNY UFS) Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) African American Policy Forum (AAPF) American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) American Association of University Professors (AAUP) American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) American Federation of Teachers (AFT) American Library Association (ALA) American Political Science Association (APSA) Association of American Universities (AAU) Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities (APLU) Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Coalition for Action in Higher Ed (CAHE) European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) PEN America Professional Staff Congress-CUNY (PSC-CUNY) The Royal Society Zinn Education Project Articles and Books Statements, Letters, Blog Posts, Videos, and Podcasts Open Letters, Petitions, and Events University/Governance Body/Professional Association/Union Actions Organizations New York State-United University Professions Agreement ● 2022-26 State-UUP Agreement SUNY Memoranda, Policies, and Statements ● Memorandum to Presidents (December 1989) ● State University of New York Policies of the Board of Trustees (April 2024) ● SUNY Board of Trustees and SUNY Chancellor Statement (November 2019) SUNY University Faculty Senate (SUNY UFS) ● Academic Freedom Toolkit 2023 (October 2023) SUNY Faculty Council of Community Colleges (SUNY FCCC) ● Position Statement on Academic Freedom Faculty Council of Community Colleges (October 2014) ● Faculty Council of Community Colleges White Paper on Academic Freedom (October 2014) ● Faculty Council of Community Colleges Resolution on Academic Freedom Protection for Faculty Participation in Shared Governance (2016-2017) CUNY University Faculty Senate (CUNY UFS) ● CUNY UFS Letter Regarding Hunter College (February 2025) ● Together We Stand (April 2025) Academic Freedom Alliance (AFA) ● AFA Statement on the Deportation of Noncitizen Scholars and Students - Academic Freedom Alliance (March 2025) African American Policy Forum (AAPF) ● Freedom Summer - African American Policy Forum American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) ● Academic Freedom and Civil Discourse in Higher Education: A National Study of Faculty Attitudes and Perceptions (2025) ○ Full Report ● A Call for Constructive Engagement | AAC&U (April 2025) American Association of University Professors (AAUP) ● AAUP Condemns Trump Administration’s Punitive Weaponization of Federal Grant Funding at Columbia (March 2025) ● Against Anticipatory Obedience | AAUP (January 2025) ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL. (March 2025) ● American Association of University Professors v. Rubio | Knight First Amendment Institute (March 2025) ● The Assault on Columbia University: aaup@cu - Campaigns ○ Columbia AAUP Statement on Academic Freedom in the Current Crisis (December 2023) ○ Cowardice and Capitulation: Columbia Has Sacrificed Its Own Students to Authoritarianism | AAUP (March 2025) ○ Joint Statement of AAUP Chapters Regarding the Ongoing Crisis at Columbia University (March 2025) ● Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom | AAUP ● Rudy Fichtenbaum, Risa L. Lieberwitz, and Jennifer Ruth, Collective Bargaining for Academic Freedom and Its Enforcement: Guidebook for AAUP Chapters (2025) ● Governor Should Withdraw CUNY Interference | AAUP (February 2025) ● Legislative Threats to Academic Freedom: Redefinitions of Antisemitism and Racism | AAUP (March 2022) ○ Full Report ● Manufacturing Backlash: Right-Wing Think Tanks and Legislative Attacks on Higher Education, 2021–2023 | AAUP (May 2024) ○ Full Report 2 ● New AAUP Statement on Institutional Neutrality (February 2025) ● Protecting an Independent Faculty Voice: Academic Freedom after Garcetti v. Ceballos | AAUP (2023) ○ Full Report (November-December 2009) ● Resources on Academic Freedom | AAUP ● Threats to Student Protest Are Antithetical to the Mission of Higher Education | AAUP (March 2025) American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) ● Firewall For Freedom: Campus Resolution Toolkit | American Civil Liberties Union (April 2025) American Federation of Teachers (AFT) ● AFT Launches $1 Million ‘Real Solutions for Higher Education’ Campaign | American Federation of Teachers (July 2024) ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL. (March 2025) ● Defending Academic Freedom (Summer 2024) ● Randi Weingarten, “Academic Freedom, Democracy, and the Role of Faculty Unions,” Academe (Spring 2025) ● Randi Weingarten, “Higher Education Under Attack” (April 2025) American Library Association (ALA) ● Academic Freedom | ALA American Political Science Association (APSA) ● April 8, 2025 Statement on the Academic Freedom and Independence of U.S. Institutions of Higher Education (April 2025) Association of American Universities (AAU) ● Academic Principles: A Brief Introduction (April 2013) ● Meeting the Moment Facing America’s Research Universities (March 2025) ● Statement of AAU President Barbara R. Snyder Regarding the Cancellation of $400 Million in Federal Contracts and Grants to Columbia University (March 2025) ● Statement of Barbara R. Snyder, AAU President, on Harvard’s Refusal to Surrender Its Independence or Relinquish its Constitutional Rights (April 2025) Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges (AGB) ● Academic Freedom and Freedom of Speech - AGB ● Board Responsibility for Institutional Governance (January 2010) ● Frederick P. Schaffer, A Guide to Academic Freedom (April 2011) Association of Public & Land-Grant Universities (APLU) ● Free and Open Academic Inquiry and Debate on Our Campuses is Essential to Our Democracy and National Well-Being - APLU (March 2022) Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) ● CAUT Statement on Academic Freedom in Times of Conflict (November 2023) 3 Coalition for Action in Higher Ed (CAHE) ● National Day of Action for Higher Education European Association for Research on Learning and Instruction (EARLI) ● EARLI STATEMENT THREATS TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM (March 2025) Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) ● Academic Freedom | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (March 2025) ● Columbia caves to feds — and sets a dangerous precedent (March 2025) ● Angel Eduardo, Harvard’s resistance to Trump is a model for US universities | The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (April 2025) ● Sarah McLaughlin, Should the government punish you for allegedly ‘undermining’ American diplomacy? (March 2025) PEN America ● Columbia University’s Concessions Strike at Core Principles of Academic Freedom and Self-Governance - PEN America (March 2025) ● NY Governor Hochul’s Interference in CUNY Job Posting Is A Threat to Academic Freedom - PEN America (February 2025) ● The Perilous State of Academic Freedom and Free Expression in Education - PEN America (February 2024) ○ Full Report Professional Staff Congress-CUNY (PSC-CUNY) ● Academic Freedom - PSC CUNY ● PSC Letter Academic Freedom at Hunter 2-26-25 (February 2025) The Royal Society ● Statement on academic freedom in the science community (2020) Zinn Education Project ● Teach Truth - Zinn Education Project Articles and Books Note: See SUNY University Faculty Senate, Academic Freedom Toolkit 2023 for other articles and books. ● Timothy Reese Cain, Establishing Academic Freedom: Politics, Principles, and the Development of Core Values (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012) ● Matthew W. Finkin and Robert C. Post, For the Common Good: Principles of American Academic Freedom (Yale, 2011) ● Jairo I. Fúnez-Flores, “The Coloniality of Academic Freedom and the Palestine Exception,” Middle East Critique 33.3 (July 2024) ● Larry Gelman, “Professionalization as the Basis for Academic Freedom and Faculty Governance,” AAUP Journal of Academic Freedom, Vol. 1 (2010) ● Marjorie Heins, Priests of Our Democracy: The Supreme Court, Academic Freedom, and the Anti-Communist Purge (NYU, 2013) 4 ● Timothy Kaufman-Osborn, The Autocratic Academy: Envisioning Rule within America’s Universities (Duke, 2023) ● Valerie Johnson, Jennifer Ruth, and Ellen Schrecker, eds., The Right to Learn: Resisting the Right-Wing Attack on Academic Freedom (Beacon, 2024) ● Michael Mauer, “Protecting Academic Freedom Through Collective Bargaining: An AAUP Perspective,” Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy, Vol. 14 (March 2023) ● Jalil Bishop Mustaffa (2017). Mapping violence, naming life: a history of anti-Black oppression in the higher education system, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 30:8, 711-727, DOI: 10.1080/09518398.2017.1350299 ● Cary Nelson, No University Is an Island: Saving Academic Freedom (NYU, 2010) ● David Rabban, Academic Freedom: From Professional Norm to First Amendment Right (Harvard, 2024) ● Henry Reichman, Understanding Academic Freedom, 2nd ed. (Johns Hopkins, 2025) ● Ellen Schrecker, No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities (Oxford, 1986) ● Keith Whittington, You Can’t Teach That! The Battle Over University Classrooms (Polity, 2025) Statements, Letters, Blog Posts, Videos, and Podcasts University Presidents/Board Members/Regents ● Christina Paxson: Principles upholding Brown’s academic freedom (March 2025) ● Christopher Eisgruber: The Cost of the Government’s Attack on Columbia - The Atlantic (March 2025) ● In defense of our institutional independence (April 2025) ● The Promise of American Higher Education - Harvard University President (April 2025) ● Michael Roth: It’s Time for Universities to Stand Up to Trump (March 2025) ● Michael Roth: No Time for Appeasement - by Charlie Sykes (March 2025) ● Statement on Academic Freedom – Roth on Wesleyan (February 2023) ● Staying True to Our Guiding Principles: Leadership Notes - Northwestern University (March 2025) Faculty/Governance/Union/Professional Association ● Academic Freedom Beyond the Borders – CUNY University Faculty Senate (April 2025) ● Letter to Governor Hochul on Academic Freedom in CUNY and SUNY (3_10_2025).pdf (March 2025) ● Statement in Support of Palestine Studies and Academic Freedom at Hunter College (March 2025) ● Five Columbia Political Scientists (March 2025) ● A Statement from Constitutional Law Scholars on Columbia | ACADEME BLOG (March 2025) ● Faculty Letter Calls for Interuniversity Defense of Higher Education | ACADEME BLOG (April 2025) ● Jim Millward, Open Letter (March 2025) ● Our History Has Always Been Contraband w/Dr. Robin D.G. Kelly and Dr. Keeanga-Yamahtta Taylor (July 2023) ● Union of Concerned Scientists: Losing Academic Freedom Is Too High a Price (April 2025) ● University of Chicago AAUP (2025) ● We Are Higher Ed 5 Open Letters, Petitions, and Events ● National Day of Action for Higher Education (April 2025) ● New England Scholars Speak (March 2025) ● Open Letter on Threats to Free Expression (March 2025) ● Speaking Out for Democracy and US Higher Education (March 2025) ● We Are Higher Ed: Links to Letters, Statements, and Petitions ● We Must Leverage the Strength of Our Institutions and Stand Together (March 2025) University/Governance Body/Professional Association/Union Actions Governance Bodies ● Hunter Mutual Defense Resolution (April 2025) ● Rutgers University Resolution to Establish a Mutual Defense Compact for the Universities of the Big Ten (April 2025) ● University of California Academic Council Statement: The Defense of the University (April 2025) ● University of Massachusetts Amherst Mutual Academic Defense Compacts: Public & Land-Grant Universities (April 2025) ● University of Michigan University Senate Motion #041725-1 Resolution to Establish a Mutual Defense Compact for the Universities of the Big Ten (April 2025) Professional Associations/Unions ● AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY PROFESSORS and AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL. (March 2025) ● American Association of University Professors v. Rubio | Knight First Amendment Institute (March 2025) ● Legal Filings Submitted by AAU, APLU, ACE, and Universities Contesting Cuts to Energy Research (April 2025) Universities ● Harvard Counsel Letter (April 2025) ● Upholding Our Values, Defending Our University (April 2025) ○ Harvard Funding Freeze Order Complaint or Harvard Constitutional and Title VI Complaint (April 2025) ● Tufts University: University Declaration for Rümeysa Öztürk (April 2025) 6 From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker; Veenker, Vicki; Josh Becker; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader for California DemocraticDelegate, Assembly District 23; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Ed Lauing; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl,Keith Cc:planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Dana St. George; Gerry Gras; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Rosen; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; Cribbs, Anne; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Templeton, Cari; Emily Mibach; Zelkha, Mila; Dave Price; Braden Cartwright; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council; Nash, Betsy; Binder, Andrew; dcombs@menlopark.gov; Reifschneider, James; Human Relations Commission; h.etzko@gmail.com; Bill Newell; Mickie Winkler; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Burt, Patrick; Sean Allen; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Patrice Ventresca; Palo Alto Free Press; Wagner, April; Afanasiev, Alex; editor@paweekly.com; editor@almanacnews.com; Shikada, Ed; Ruth Silver Taube; Tom DuBois; Holman, Karen (external); Kaloma Smith; Senator Becker; Steve Wagstaffe; Donna Wallach; Don Austin; Yolanda Conaway; yolanda; Tim James; Vara Ramakrishnan Subject:Meanwhile, Spain, Belgium and Latin American states highlight the illegality of Israel"s ban on humanitarian aidas World Court hearings enter second day Date:Wednesday, April 30, 2025 8:49:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Saudi Arabian envoy asks ICJ to condemn Israel's'hideous conduct' in Gaza Meanwhile, Spain, Belgium and Latin American states highlight the illegality of Israel's banon humanitarian aid as World Court hearings enter second day Source: Middle East Eyehttps://search.app/2qNnyCuawhuQBjCs9 Shared via the Google app From:Alice SmithTo:Council, CityCc:letters@padailypost.com Subject:Fwd: [pan: 3353] Fwd: Rinconada library hours expansion Date:Wednesday, April 30, 2025 6:14:05 PMAttachments:image003.pngimage004.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage002.pngimage001.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Not having Rinconada Library open is not what Palo Alto residents value: we want our libraries to be open and available . Alice Schaffer Smith850 Webster Street #520Palo Alto, CA 94301650 283 2822 ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Dana <danawong1@gmail.com>Date: Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 11:01 PMSubject: [pan: 3353] Fwd: Rinconada library hours expansionTo: PAN <paneighborhoods@googlegroups.com> Libraries are the one thing that we as residents can appreciate from our taxes. These are ridiculous hours and they claim no one uses the library in the evenings.My children used the Rinconada Library plenty when they were at Paly and the library didn't close until 9pm. The meeting rooms were so helpful. The current Rinconada hours are 10am-6pm (12pm to 8pm on Thursdays). All library hours They claim that the City Council needs to approve longer hours. Dana WongTriple El Neighborhood ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Kanth, Gayathri <Gayathri.Kanth@paloalto.gov>Date: Tue, Apr 22, 2025 at 9:11 PMSubject: Rinconada library hours expansionTo: Wong, Dana <danawong1@gmail.com>Cc: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@paloalto.gov> Hello Ms. Wong, Thank you very much for your feedback regarding expanding Rinconada library’s open hours. I’m responding on behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada. Rinconada library’s current library hours were established by balancing the needs of various patron groups and available staffing resources. Prior todetermining library hours, the library evaluated the hourly visitor count of all the libraries. Our analysis revealed that even prior to the pandemic, theRinconada library evening visitor count was significantly lower than its morning visitor count. As a result, the library prioritized morning and afternoon hoursover evening hours. I appreciate your comments about teens and their need for spaces to connect, engage and collaborate with each other. Both the Mitchell Park and Rinconadalibraries have been popular after school destination for teens. Library staff, supported by the Teen Library Advisory Board, organizes many popular events andactivities for teens. The library also hosts several exclusive teen events after the library is closed. Further expanding Rinconada library evening hours would, however, require additional staffing that need to be approved by the City Council. Thank you again for your feedback. I look forward to continuing to expand teen services as staffing and resources are available. Best regards, Gayathri Kanth Gayathri Kanth Library Services Director Library Department (650) 329-2668 | gayathri.kanth@paloalto.gov https://library.cityofpaloalto.org -- > Only members of this Group may post messages (anti-SPAM measure).--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Palo Alto Neighborhoods" group.To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to paneighborhoods+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.To view this discussion visithttps://groups.google.com/d/msgid/paneighborhoods/CA%2BOmUgo8L89Y1xweCPgnHevg%2BsJ52CFBHdt%2BER7hnejRgXY%2BZw%40mail.gmail.com. -- Alice From:Aram James To:Vicki Veenker; Veenker, Vicki; Josh Becker; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Jessica Speiser,Educational Leader for California Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23; Lauing, Ed; Reckdahl, Keith;Reckdahl, Keith Cc:Gardener, Liz; Liz Kniss; board@pausd.org; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Conrad; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Hayden; Gerry Gras; Dana St. George; Angel, David; Dave Price; Gennady Sheyner; Kaloma Smith; Council, City; Cribbs, Anne; Templeton, Cari; Anna Griffin; board@valleywater.org; BoardOperations; boardfeedback@smcgov.org; Bill Newell; Zelkha, Mila; Burt, Patrick; Patrice Ventresca; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Friends of Cubberley; Pat M; Sean Allen; Damon Silver; Rodriguez, Miguel; Mickie Winkler; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; Wagner, April; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Figueroa, Eric; Human Relations Commission; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Palo Alto Free Press; Foley, Michael; Vara Ramakrishnan; Ruth Silver Taube; Tom DuBois; Holman, Karen (external); Freddie.Quintana@sen.ca.gov; Donna Wallach Subject:Deprivation by Design”: Israel Intensifies Mass Killing Campaign in Gaza With Starvation and Daily Strikes Date:Wednesday, April 30, 2025 1:19:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Forwarded this email? Subscribe here for more Become a paid subscriber to gain access to our private Discord server, subscriber- only AMAs, chats, and invites to events. “Deprivation by Design”: IsraelIntensifies Mass Killing Campaign inGaza With Starvation and DailyStrikes The scale of killing in Gaza is almost impossible to track as the Israelimilitary bombs and starves Palestinian civilians with impunity. RASHA ABOU JALAL AND SHARIF ABDEL KOUDDOUS APR 30 READ IN APP Palestinians carrying the bodies of their family members killed in Israeli airstrikes for burial. April 28, 2025. (Photo by Ali Jadallah/Anadolu via Getty Images) GAZA CITY—Three generations of the al-Khour family were wiped out when Israel bombed their family home in the al-Sabra neighborhood in central Gaza at dawn on April 26. The elderly patriarch of the family, Talal al-Khour, his wives, daughters, sons, and grandchildren were all killed in the attack. A total of twenty- two people—including twelve children—perished, their bodies blown apart and buried under the rubble. "The airstrike occurred at dawn while we were asleep. Suddenly, we woke up to a blast that felt like an earthquake. We rushed into the street and found that the five-story home of the Al-Khour family had turned into a pile of rubble,” Mohammad Al-Ajla, a 37-year-old neighbor who helped retrieve the bodies, told Drop Site News. "As soon as the dust from the strike cleared, neighbors began trying to rescue members of the family. The recovery operation continued for eight straight hours. We saw bodies everywhere. There were children without heads." With the help of residents in the area, Civil Defense teams were able to retrieve fifteen of the bodies, which were later buried together in a mass grave. The remaining bodies remain trapped under the debris. Emergency rescue crews were forced to dig through the wreckage with their bare hands as a result of Israel denying the entry of equipment into Gaza and deliberately targeting the little machinery available, according to the Civil Defense spokesperson, Mahmoud Bassal. "We could hear the cries of the wounded trapped under the rubble, but we were helpless to reach them. Over time, the screaming faded, and we no longer knew whether they were still alive or had been killed,” Bassal told Drop Site. "Many lives could have been saved, but the ongoing blockade and the denial of essential tools eliminated every possible chance for rescue.” Since Israel resumed its scorched earth bombing campaign on March 18, Gaza has been transformed into a desert of death, in which rubble and ruin form the backdrop for an unceasing campaign of mass killing. The Israeli military has carried out multiple airstrikes and shelling across the enclave on a daily basis, pounding homes, displacement camps, cafes, hospitals, charity kitchens, so-called “humanitarian zones,” and other civilian sites. The scale of the attacks is almost impossible to track. On Wednesday alone, three residential buildings in the Nuseirat refugee camp were bombed; one of the strikes killed six members of one family, including three siblings, all children. In a nearby building, eight people in a single home were killed. In Jabaliya, at least three people from the same family, including two young girls, were killed in Israeli artillery fire. On the coast, west of Gaza City, a fisherman was killed while pulling his boat ashore. In western Khan Younis, an overnight drone strike on a tent killed six people, including children. This is not a comprehensive list and does not even cover a 24-hour period. Over two days last week, the Israeli military also targeted and bombed over 30 bulldozers and other pieces of heavy machinery. Some of them had been donated during the “ceasefire” to clear rubble, repair critical infrastructure, and rescue people after airstrikes, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). Drop Site News is reader-supported. Consider becoming a free or paid subscriber. Upgrade to paid The scenes emerging from across Gaza, from Rafah in the south to Beit Hanoun in the north, are staggering in their horror. Children blown apart across rooftops or while riding their bikes; dead bodies strewn across a cafe, some still seated, slumped in their chairs; corpses wrapped in white body bags lined up alongside one another; suicide drones crashing into tents housing sleeping families; screaming parents and wounded children scattered in the streets. “The massacres do not stop. We are being slaughtered from vein to vein,” Al Jazeera correspondent Anas al-Sharif said in a social media post. At least 2,300 Palestinians have been killed over the past six weeks alone—the equivalent of over fifty people killed every day. Over 740 of the dead are children, the Director of the Information Unit at the Ministry of Health in Gaza, Zaher Al- Wahidi, told Drop Site. Since the start of the war, more than 2,180 families have been entirely annihilated—with all members killed—while more than 5,070 families have lost all members except for one surviving individual, according to the Government Media Office. The relentless assault comes as Israel has imposed a policy of forced starvation on Gaza’s two million residents, sealing off Gaza completely and denying the entry of all food, fuel, medicine and other humanitarian goods since March 2—by far the longest blockade since the beginning of the war. More than 65,000 children in Gaza have been hospitalized with severe malnutrition, according to a statement this week by the Government Media Office. Israel has made it clear that the intensifying military assault and the ongoing blockade are explicitly aimed at bringing Hamas to its knees. Negotiations for a ceasefire appear deadlocked with Israel scrapping crucial elements of the original three-phase deal signed by Hamas and Israel in January, and now pushing for Hamas to formally surrender, disarm, and exile its leadership as a condition to end the genocide. Israel’s defense minister has reiterated that the denial of food, medicine, and other aid is being used to collectively punish the Palestinians of Gaza. "No humanitarian aid is about to enter Gaza,” Israel Katz said, announcing that “preventing humanitarian aid from entering Gaza is one of the main pressure levers." Using starvation as a weapon of war has had a devastating effect. Last week, the UN warned that Gaza “is now likely facing the worst humanitarian crisis in the 18 months since the escalation of hostilities in October 2023.” The World Food Program recently announced that it had run out of food. “The situation is at a breaking point,” the organization said in a statement. Food prices have risen by 1,400 percent. With no remaining supplies of flour or fuel, Gaza’s bakeries have stopped functioning and remaining stocks of food are being rapidly depleted. The flour that is available is often insect-infested. Families are increasingly resorting to mixing crushed macaroni with flour to make bread and allocating just one piece of bread per family member per day. With shortages of cooking gas and firewood, families are forced to burn plastic and other waste to cook the little food they have. People are foraging for wild plants and eating sea turtles that have washed ashore in order to survive. The UN last week said it identified 3,700 children suffering from acute malnutrition in March—now up to 80% from the month before. A total of fifty-three children have died of malnutrition since the war began. The heads of twelve major aid organizations issued a joint statement last week warning that “Famine is not just a risk, but likely rapidly unfolding in almost all parts of Gaza,” and characterizing the situation in Gaza “one of the worst humanitarian failures of our generation.” Over the past few weeks, the Israeli military has bombed the al-Ahli Hospital and the Al Durrah Paediatric Hospital, both in Gaza City; the Nasser hospital in Khan Younis and the Kuwaiti Field Hospital in Mawasi; and massacred fifteen emergency workers and first responders. The hospitals that are still standing are barely functioning, with severe shortages of medicine, equipment and doctors. Meanwhile, the Israeli military continues to squeeze Palestinians onto smaller tracts of land within Gaza. About 70 percent of Gaza has been designated as “no- go” zones or placed under displacement orders. Over the past six weeks, roughly 420,000 Palestinians have been displaced yet again, with no safe place to go. “This is deprivation by design,” the acting head of office for OCHA, Jonathan Whittall, said in a statement. “Land is being annexed from the north, from the east, from the south of the strip as forces advance…Gaza is being starved, it’s being bombed, it’s being strangled. This looks like the deliberate dismantling of Palestinian life.” Leave a comment Upgrade to paid A guest post by Rasha Abou jalal I am Rasha Abu Jalal, a journalist from the Gaza Strip. I work in several media outlets covering Palestinian political, humanitarian and social issues. I am a permanent member of the judging committee for the annual Press House Award. Subscribe to Rasha Become a Drop Site News Paid Subscriber Drop Site News is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber today. Upgrade to paid A paid subscription gets you: Access to our Discord, subscriber-only AMAs, chats, and invites to events, both virtual and IRL Post comments and join the community The knowledge you are supporting independent media making the lives of the powerful miserable You can also now find us on podcast platforms and on Facebook, Twitter, Bluesky, Telegram, and YouTube. LIKE COMMENT RESTACK © 2025 Drop Site News, Inc.Drop Site News Inc., 4315 50th St. NWSte 100 Unit #2560, Washington, DC 20016 Unsubscribe From:Patricia L Devaney To:Council, City; planning.commision@paloalto.gov Subject:Proposed plans to add bike lanes and remove some cars from Middlefield Date:Wednesday, April 30, 2025 12:12:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Transportation leaders and City Council members, I was surprised and disappointed to learn that Palo Alto Transportation planners were taking a major transportation proposal to the City Council for approval without first informing and meeting with those Palo Alto residents most likely to be affected by the proposed actions. That is, I understand that a proposal to add bike lanes and remove some parking spaces from Middlefield Road is going to the City Council for approval without first informing and discussing the proposed actions with the Palo Alto residents, especially those who will be most affected. That process lacks the transparency that we have come to expect from our City leaders. A single article in the Palo Alto Weekly is not a sufficient way of informing the public. Therefore, I ask that a public meeting be widely announced and held before City Council is asked to vote on the proposal. My concerns are primarily those related to safety. The number of cars and trucks driving on Middlefield has increased a lot in recent years, as has the speed with which drivers drive. There have been an increasing number of auto accidents with cars crossing Middlefield at such intersections as Lincoln. How can adding more bikes to Middlefield not make the street even more dangerous? Why are we not looking for more bike lanes on less traveled roads such as Webster or Waverly? Safety is also an issue for cars trying to get in and out of their driveways on Middlefield. It’s already hard enough to get through auto traffic to get out of/into my driveway safely. Adding more bikes to the road just increases that danger. Also, where will we put our recycling bins for weekly pickup? Furthermore, the proposed actions will put pedestrians in more danger. This includes people 65 or older (true for 20% of Palo Alto residents) walking across Middlefield to TheaterWorks and children going with their parents or nannies to the park, Children’s Museum, pool, theater, and tennis courts, etc. How about their safety among people flying by on their bikes? I really think that residents and parents need to be better informed of these plans and have a chance to provide input before the proposed actions are approved. Thanks for considering this request. Sincerely, Patricia Devaney 680 Melville Ave (on the corner of Middlefield) Palo Alto, CA devaney@stanford.edu <mailto:devaney@stanford.edu> H: 650-324-8213 C: 650-867-2088 From:Judith Lippe To:Council, City Subject:Property at Middlefield Road & Loma Verde Date:Wednesday, April 30, 2025 9:46:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Please give an update on the shopping area on Middlefield Road & Loma Verde. This area is a blight on our community & potentially another fire hazzard since the debris from the original fire is still on site. Please let us know when we can expect some movement on this project. It seems there could be pressure put on the parties involved by the city for allowing such a dangerous eyesore to continue to just sit there. In addition the services (restaurant etc.) are sorely missed as well as the tax revenue they provided to the city. Would appreciate an update. Thank you, Judith Lippe From:matt@evolutionaryteams.com To:fridaysforfuturepaloalto@gmail.com; palo-alto@fridaysforfutureusa.org Subject:FFF Follow Up – April 25 (Week #172) Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 3:06:32 PM Attachments:image007.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. i MAY DAY! See details below for the upcoming May Day actions, as well as others. Friday we celebrated the many recent energizing actions: the Earth Day climate rally organized by PASCC and the rallies and bannering events organized by Indivisible. There is so much energy in our community now! Rick performed the land acknowledgment reminding us that we are on unceded Muwekma Ohlone land and that we bear the responsibility of caring for our land, community and environment. Thank you, Rick. We each shared: Ingrid is alarmed that Act Blue is under investigation; Robin is entertained by the many creative political cartoons; Brigitta was amused that hackers took over the audio at local crosswalks; George’s sister is afraid to drive her Tesla; Rick is sending letters to college presidents to encourage them to stand with Harvard and resist the Trump regime; Matt recounted attending Cirque du Soleil’s ecology- focused ECHO performance and how the ghost-white animals reminded him of the ghost-white coral on over 80% of global reefs now. David P. encourages us to support Pramila Jayapal’s Resistance Labs to build the resistance movement. Thanks, everyone, for sharing this important information! MAY DAY! Yes, there will be plenty of action this Thursday May 1. Join the Indivisible rally at the Tesla Showroom at Stanford Shopping Center from 4 to 6PM. Also check out the rally at 500 Castro St. in Mtn. View from 6 to 7PM. Rumor has it Joan Baez will make an appearance at the Mtn. View event. See you on the streets this Thursday! (and Wednesday 4-6PM, and Friday 12-1PM, and Saturday 1:30-3:30PM). Justin wants to take down Tesla. He is alarmed that the City of Palo Alto is considering a RoboTaxi deal with Tesla. He encourages us all to give this idea two-thumbs down. Meanwhile, more details are being released on the fatal Cybertruck crash and explosion that asphyxiated three Piedmont students. Thanks, Justin, for encouraging us to keep these dangerous vehicles off of our city streets. On Saturday, Pamela showed off her new sign and fashionable dress for a rainy-day rally. Justin reminded us: Rain or Shine, Justice is on Our Minds! The Raging Grannes performed Tiny Hands Street Theater. Thanks to Pamela, Justin, Cindy, Robin, the Grannies David P. and everyone for showing up at Saturday’s Takedown Tesla Rally! Avroh encouraged us to attend the Palo Alto Unified School District meeting on Tuesday April 29. If you missed it, please send an email to the board asking that they please incorporate climate action and sustainability into the Palo Alto Promise. There is so much that PAUSD could be doing to minimize our community’s impact on the climate.: lowering carbon emissions by electrifying everything – fleet, buildings This message needs your attention Some Recipients have never replied to this person. Mark Safe Report Powered by Mimecast and pools; minimizing food waste; creating more vegetarian and vegan food options; planting more trees, etc. Take a minute and write the school board at board@pausd.org Thank you, Avroh, for leading this charge! Carol reports progress on lining up speakers for the Friday May 9 Stand Up For Science and Sanity rally in Lytton Plaza. She also launched a new website for these actions. The Raging Grannies and the Mitchell Park Band are looking forward to entertaining the crowd. Thanks, Carol, for organizing these important rallies! Hilary was inspired to create a music play list for upcoming rallies. She also encourages us to sign up with Indivisible Palo Alto Plus here: https://indivisiblepaloaltoplus.org/ You can follow IPA+ on BlueSky: @indivisiblepaplus.bsky.social. Thanks, Hilary, for your organizing and for the rally music! Dave C. is organizing a number of bannering actions further up the peninsula. You can get more details here: Belmont: Thursday 5/1 at 4PM: https://www.mobilize.us/indivisible/event/782219/ Belmont: Saturday 5/3 at noon: https://www.mobilize.us/indivisible/event/782475/ Menlo Park: Thursday 5/1 at 4PM: https://www.mobilize.us/indivisible/event/782453/ He also encourages us to tell our representatives to vote no on AB942. Thanks, Dave, for everything you are doing! Instagram is doing their best to take down any posts by people organizing a general strike. This is an important movement and may be our best chance to activate 3.5% of the population to stand up to the oligarchy. You can learn more about it here: https://generalstrikeus.com/ This Friday we take to our downtown streets. Reportedly, the Grim Reaper will be there trying to take the soul of our democracy. Let’s make sure he doesn’t get it! Keep Up the Fight! R-E-S-I-S-T! Upcoming Events Friday, May 2, Noon to 1:00: Climate March! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall and take to the streets for a slow march through downtown Palo Alto. Friday, May 2, 6PM: Pizza My Heart; pizza and networking event for Stanford students interested in activism. Every Wednesday, 4 to 6PM: Palo Alto Protests Elon Musk’s Illegal Government Takeover on Wednesdays at the Tesla Showroom, 4180 El Camino Real. https://www.mobilize.us/mobilize/event/764602/ Every Saturday, 4 to 6PM: Palo Alto Protests Elon Musk’s Illegal Government Takeover on Wednesdays at the Tesla Showroom, 4180 El Camino Real. https://www.mobilize.us/mobilize/event/764602/ Friday, May 9, Noon to 2:00: Stand up for Science and Sanity and Climate Strike! –– We meet at Lytton Plaza for the rally. Friday, May 16, Noon to 1:00: Climate Strike! –– We meet at King Plaza in front of Palo Alto City Hall. Palo Alto City Meetings: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/City-Clerk/City-Meeting- Groups/Meeting-Agendas-and-Minutes Climate Community Center: https://climatecommunitycenter.org/ Peninsula Peace and Justice Center calendar: https://peaceandjustice.org/events-calendar/ Photos and Videos of Recent Actions Last week’s pictures: https://photos.app.goo.gl/HB2druizNJkdUWGp7 What We Are Reading/Watching/Listening to: Matt recorded a new climate song. Check it out here: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/L_JAOHNRfFM Instagram is doing their best to take down any posts by people organizing a general strike. This is an important movement and may be our best chance to activate 3.5% of the population to stand up to the oligarchy. You can learn more about it here: https://generalstrikeus.com/ Reporting by Democracy Now! here Commentary by The Majority Report: here Commentary by Richard Wolff: here Heat Pump Water Heater and Home Electrification Program Update As of:3/31 2/28 1/31 1/8 HPWH full-service interest list signups 1333 1323 1307 1277 Site assessment agreements (SAA) sent 1333 1323 1307 1277 Signed SAAs 1013 1093 1075 1050 Completed site assessments 1023 1013 996 973 Installations Total Full Service HPWHs installed 414 402 393 383 Total DIY HPWH installed 115 114 98 103 Total Emergency HPWH installations 19 18 11 9 Total HPWHs installed 548 534 502 495 Target Installations 1000 1000 1000 1000 Monthly Installation Rate Monthly Installation Rate 14 32 7 16 Target Monthly Installation Rate 83 83 83 83 Follow Fridays For Future Palo Alto: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fridaysforfuture_paloalto/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Fri4Future_PA YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@FridaysForFuturePaloAlto Email notifications of FFF Palo Alto events: https://mailchi.mp/c8c130127345/join-fridays-for-future-palo-alto You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in supporting climate action in Palo Alto. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please let me know. Matt Schlegel Schlegel Consulting 650-924-8923 Author: Teamwork 9.0 Website: evolutionaryteams.com YouTube: youtube.com/channel/UCLkUMHuG4HVa831s9yeoZ5Q From:Kevin Ji To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:4075 El Camino Way Comments With Attachments Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:25:09 AM Attachments:City Council Attachments 14.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Mahea, Emily has let me know that there was an issue with my public comment for 4075 El Camino Way, an agendized item for 5/5. I've gone ahead and split them into smaller chunks. Hopefullythey can get aggregated back into one larger comment. Below is my text comment, and the attachments might be in separate emails, replied to this one. In addition, I was wondering if you could let me know how much time I get for speaking onbehalf of a group? I want to submit a presentation and want to make sure that there is enough time for each slide. Sincerely, Kevin Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons. This letter outlines serious concerns regarding ongoing code violations and patterns of irresponsible behavior that should be fully considered before any further action is taken. The issues outlined here speak not only to noncompliance with existing agreements, but to a troubling disregard for neighborhood integrity and public trust. Illegal Behavior The Palo Alto Commons has a long history of failing to comply with city regulations and the terms of its original Planned Community (PC) ordinance approved in 1987 (PC-3775). These are not minor oversights—they are foundational requirements meant to safeguard the quality of life for nearby residents and ensure a fair, transparent relationship between developers and the City. Specific violations include: 38 + Years of PC Ordinance Violation: Since its original PC ordinance approved in 1987, the Palo Alto Commons has failed to comply with the requirements set out in the original PC (PC3775, Attachment A) in two fundamental ways. Failure to Prioritize Palo Alto Residents: Section 3(a)(9) of the ordinance clearly states that preference must be given to residents of Palo Alto and their families. This measure was meant to ensure that our community benefits from the services and housing offered. Yet, there is no evidence that this stipulation has been honored in practice. Lack of Required Annual Reporting: Section 3(d) mandates that the operator submit annual reports detailing occupancy levels, staffing patterns, and parking usage. This data is essential for monitoring compliance and assessing community impacts. These reports have not been submitted. Insufficient Parking: Section 3(b)(2) requires a minimum of 55 on- site parking spaces. However, the most recent parking study indicates only 52 spaces are currently available. This ongoing shortfall directly affects neighborhood congestion and quality of life. Even more troubling is that these violations have been documented in the staff report and in a filed complaint (#16747006), yet no enforcement action has been taken. This lack of accountability erodes public confidence in the City’s oversight mechanisms. Parking Violations: The Palo Alto Commons have committed numerous parking related violations: Blocking Visitor Parking with Equipment (Attachment B): Construction and maintenance equipment often blocks designated visitor spaces, including those in the underground garage, further reducing accessibility. This occurred for several months. Misuse of Handicap Spaces (Attachment C): The Commons’ shuttle routinely occupies handicap spots and reserves them with cones when not in use—an inappropriate and potentially unlawful practice. This has occurred for several months and continues to occur. Parking in No Parking Zones (Attachment D): The shuttle van is frequently seen parked in zones marked for no parking. This behavior, noted even in the parking study, indicates a disregard for basic parking laws. Overflow onto Public Streets (Attachment E): The facility’s lack of adequate parking has forced employees and visitors to park illegally across the street on El Camino Way. Only the Palo Alto Commons has illegal parking in front of it. This is also incredibly dangerous for bikers, as parked cars illegaly blocks the bike lane. Municipal Code Violations: The proposed Palo Alto Commons expansion violates the Municipal Code in several ways: Daylight Plane Encroachment: The proposed expansion violates Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.38.150, which requires buildings adjacent to R-1 zones to follow a daylight plane to preserve neighbor access to light and air. Ignoring this regulation directly harms adjacent homeowners. Design Incompatibility: The proposal eliminates prior architectural step-backs, which were designed to reduce visual bulk and preserve neighborhood character. This conflicts with PAMC Sections 18.16.090(b)(4) and 18.13.060(b)(2)(B), which govern appropriate density transitions and context-sensitive design. Bad Neighbor Behavior Beyond legal violations, the Commons has consistently demonstrated disregard for its residential neighbors and the spirit of community-based planning. Rather than being a cooperative presence, it has become a source of tension due to the following behaviors: Abandonment of Original Agreements (Attachment F): The original PC approval was contingent on a lower density design with a step-back architectural transition to respect the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. The proposed expansion disregards these commitments and would impose a larger, more intrusive building on the community. As early as 1978, the El Camino Way area was actually “downzoned to protect the neighbors from over intrusion”. The original developer in 1986 promised that the building would have “comparable density and mass” and proposed a “1-2-3 step-up closest to the property line” as a compromise. Persistent Parking Burdens: Since 1986, neighbors have expressed concern over parking shortages caused by the Commons. These issues remain unresolved nearly four decades later: Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie (Attachment G): While the Palo Alto Commons claims to have enough parking on site, their bus will often park on Wilkie. Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking (Attachment H): When not on Wilkie, the Palo Alto Commons Bus and Van will take up visitor parking, causing visitors to park on nearby streets. Commons Staff Parking in Neighborhood (Attachment I): Numerous residents have observed staff members from the Palo Alto Commons parking along Wilkie Way and adjacent residential streets. Staff are easily identifiable by their uniforms—scrubs and badges bearing the facility’s logo. When approached, some staff have candidly shared that they were instructed by management to park in the neighborhood due to the lack of available spaces on-site. While neighbors are sympathetic to the staff, who are clearly left without sufficient alternatives, the resulting strain on street parking has led to significant disruption and frustration. Residents have also been informed that a dedicated off-site staff parking lot was previously available but has since been eliminated by the operator, further exacerbating the issue. Additional Therapists Parking: Per the Palo Alto Commons’ own parking policy, these people are asked to park on the neighborhood streets. This directly contradicts assurances that parking is sufficient on-site. Visitors Parking: Numerous people we know have told us that they park in our neighborhood to visit the Palo Alto Commons. In fact, when the phone number was dialed, it used to recommend visitors park on Wilkie. Vice Chair Chang of the PTC had this experience, as described in the 6/12/24 PTC meeting. Misleading Information on Parking: Past presentations to the PTC and ARB claimed underutilization of parking. However, the current parking study reveals that all spaces are already in use. No additional parking is proposed for the new development, compounding the problem. Inconsistent Valet (Attachment J): In the new parking study attached in the staff report, the Palo Alto Commons stated that they have a valet helping reduce parking issues. While valet parking is purportedly offered, in practice the stand is frequently unstaffed. There is also no one depicted on page 4 of the parking study. In addition, most of the time, there is no valet. For example, when Mayor Lauing came to visit, there was no valet. Misleading Landscape Information: The ARB asked the Palo Alto Commons to work with the neighbors on the landscaping. Most of the neighbors wanted evergreen trees, specifically, Italian cyprus, and have stated this on the record. However, the Palo Alto Commons continues to plan on planting deciduous trees. In addition, their landscape architect told us that Italian cyprus do not grow in this region, despite one neighbor having them in her backyard. Diminished Public Benefit: When the project was originally built, the developers made an “in-lieu contribution of $205,200” (Attachment A) in 1987 dollars ($588,688 in 2024 dollars) When building the Avant, there was a $100,000 contribution to Avenidas (Attachment K, PC5116). Yet the public benefit this time is “2 small trees”, “space for both recycling and compost bins”, and “bike parking” (Attachment L). They claim that the primary public benefit is more housing, but this project does not qualify for RHNA housing. Conclusion The Palo Alto Commons has repeatedly violated the terms of its original development agreement, ignored City ordinances, and shown disregard for the neighborhood that surrounds it. To approve an expansion under these circumstances would not only reward noncompliance, but would also set a dangerous precedent for future developments throughout the city. Our community depends on the integrity of its planning process. If a project fails to honor prior commitments, meet regulatory standards, or respect its neighbors, it should not be allowed to grow further at our expense. I respectfully urge the City Council to deny the proposed expansion until all existing violations are rectified and meaningful accountability is established. Sincerely, Kevin Ji 4072 Wilkie Way ATTACHMENT A PC3775 (Original 1987 PC) ATTACHMENT B Construction Equipment in Parking Spaces over Several Months From:Kevin Ji To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way Comments With Attachments Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:25:09 AM Attachments:City Council Attachments 24.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Here is the second of 4 attachments. Sincerely, Kevin On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:40 PM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Mahea, Emily has let me know that there was an issue with my public comment for 4075 El CaminoWay, an agendized item for 5/5. I've gone ahead and split them into smaller chunks. Hopefully they can get aggregated back into one larger comment. Below is my textcomment, and the attachments might be in separate emails, replied to this one. In addition, I was wondering if you could let me know how much time I get for speaking on behalf of a group? I want to submit a presentation and want to make sure that there isenough time for each slide. Sincerely, Kevin Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons. This letter outlines serious concerns regarding ongoing code violations and patterns of irresponsible behavior that should be fully considered before any further action is taken. The issues outlined here speak not only to noncompliance with existing agreements, but to a troubling disregard for neighborhood integrity and public trust. Illegal Behavior The Palo Alto Commons has a long history of failing to comply with city regulations and the terms of its original Planned Community (PC) ordinance approved in 1987 (PC-3775). These are not minor oversights—they are foundational requirements meant to safeguard the quality of life for nearby residents and ensure a fair, transparent relationship between developers and the City. Specific violations include: 38 + Years of PC Ordinance Violation: Since its original PC ordinance approved in 1987, the Palo Alto Commons has failed to comply with the requirements set out in the original PC (PC3775, Attachment A) in two fundamental ways. Failure to Prioritize Palo Alto Residents: Section 3(a)(9) of the ordinance clearly states that preference must be given to residents of Palo Alto and their families. This measure was meant to ensure that our community benefits from the services and housing offered. Yet, there is no evidence that this stipulation has been honored in practice. Lack of Required Annual Reporting: Section 3(d) mandates that the operator submit annual reports detailing occupancy levels, staffing patterns, and parking usage. This data is essential for monitoring compliance and assessing community impacts. These reports have not been submitted. Insufficient Parking: Section 3(b)(2) requires a minimum of 55 on-site parking spaces. However, the most recent parking study indicates only 52 spaces are currently available. This ongoing shortfall directly affects neighborhood congestion and quality of life. Even more troubling is that these violations have been documented in the staff report and in a filed complaint (#16747006), yet no enforcement action has been taken. This lack of accountability erodes public confidence in the City’s oversight mechanisms. Parking Violations: The Palo Alto Commons have committed numerous parking related violations: Blocking Visitor Parking with Equipment (Attachment B): Construction and maintenance equipment often blocks designated visitor spaces, including those in the underground garage, further reducing accessibility. This occurred for several months. Misuse of Handicap Spaces (Attachment C): The Commons’ shuttle routinely occupies handicap spots and reserves them with cones when not in use—an inappropriate and potentially unlawful practice. This has occurred for several months and continues to occur. Parking in No Parking Zones (Attachment D): The shuttle van is frequently seen parked in zones marked for no parking. This behavior, noted even in the parking study, indicates a disregard for basic parking laws. Overflow onto Public Streets (Attachment E): The facility’s lack of adequate parking has forced employees and visitors to park illegally across the street on El Camino Way. Only the Palo Alto Commons has illegal parking in front of it. This is also incredibly dangerous for bikers, as parked cars illegaly blocks the bike lane. Municipal Code Violations: The proposed Palo Alto Commons expansion violates the Municipal Code in several ways: Daylight Plane Encroachment: The proposed expansion violates Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.38.150, which requires buildings adjacent to R-1 zones to follow a daylight plane to preserve neighbor access to light and air. Ignoring this regulation directly harms adjacent homeowners. Design Incompatibility: The proposal eliminates prior architectural step-backs, which were designed to reduce visual bulk and preserve neighborhood character. This conflicts with PAMC Sections 18.16.090(b)(4) and 18.13.060(b)(2)(B), which govern appropriate density transitions and context-sensitive design. Bad Neighbor Behavior Beyond legal violations, the Commons has consistently demonstrated disregard for its residential neighbors and the spirit of community-based planning. Rather than being a cooperative presence, it has become a source of tension due to the following behaviors: Abandonment of Original Agreements (Attachment F): The original PC approval was contingent on a lower density design with a step-back architectural transition to respect the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. The proposed expansion disregards these commitments and would impose a larger, more intrusive building on the community. As early as 1978, the El Camino Way area was actually “downzoned to protect the neighbors from over intrusion”. The original developer in 1986 promised that the building would have “comparable density and mass” and proposed a “1-2-3 step- up closest to the property line” as a compromise. Persistent Parking Burdens: Since 1986, neighbors have expressed concern over parking shortages caused by the Commons. These issues remain unresolved nearly four decades later: Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie (Attachment G): While the Palo Alto Commons claims to have enough parking on site, their bus will often park on Wilkie. Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking (Attachment H): When not on Wilkie, the Palo Alto Commons Bus and Van will take up visitor parking, causing visitors to park on nearby streets. Commons Staff Parking in Neighborhood (Attachment I): Numerous residents have observed staff members from the Palo Alto Commons parking along Wilkie Way and adjacent residential streets. Staff are easily identifiable by their uniforms—scrubs and badges bearing the facility’s logo. When approached, some staff have candidly shared that they were instructed by management to park in the neighborhood due to the lack of available spaces on- site. While neighbors are sympathetic to the staff, who are clearly left without sufficient alternatives, the resulting strain on street parking has led to significant disruption and frustration. Residents have also been informed that a dedicated off-site staff parking lot was previously available but has since been eliminated by the operator, further exacerbating the issue. Additional Therapists Parking: Per the Palo Alto Commons’ own parking policy, these people are asked to park on the neighborhood streets. This directly contradicts assurances that parking is sufficient on-site. Visitors Parking: Numerous people we know have told us that they park in our neighborhood to visit the Palo Alto Commons. In fact, when the phone number was dialed, it used to recommend visitors park on Wilkie. Vice Chair Chang of the PTC had this experience, as described in the 6/12/24 PTC meeting. Misleading Information on Parking: Past presentations to the PTC and ARB claimed underutilization of parking. However, the current parking study reveals that all spaces are already in use. No additional parking is proposed for the new development, compounding the problem. Inconsistent Valet (Attachment J): In the new parking study attached in the staff report, the Palo Alto Commons stated that they have a valet helping reduce parking issues. While valet parking is purportedly offered, in practice the stand is frequently unstaffed. There is also no one depicted on page 4 of the parking study. In addition, most of the time, there is no valet. For example, when Mayor Lauing came to visit, there was no valet. Misleading Landscape Information: The ARB asked the Palo Alto Commons to work with the neighbors on the landscaping. Most of the neighbors wanted evergreen trees, specifically, Italian cyprus, and have stated this on the record. However, the Palo Alto Commons continues to plan on planting deciduous trees. In addition, their landscape architect told us that Italian cyprus do not grow in this region, despite one neighbor having them in her backyard. Diminished Public Benefit: When the project was originally built, the developers made an “in-lieu contribution of $205,200” (Attachment A) in 1987 dollars ($588,688 in 2024 dollars) When building the Avant, there was a $100,000 contribution to Avenidas (Attachment K, PC5116). Yet the public benefit this time is “2 small trees”, “space for both recycling and compost bins”, and “bike parking” (Attachment L). They claim that the primary public benefit is more housing, but this project does not qualify for RHNA housing. Conclusion The Palo Alto Commons has repeatedly violated the terms of its original development agreement, ignored City ordinances, and shown disregard for the neighborhood that surrounds it. To approve an expansion under these circumstances would not only reward noncompliance, but would also set a dangerous precedent for future developments throughout the city. Our community depends on the integrity of its planning process. If a project fails to honor prior commitments, meet regulatory standards, or respect its neighbors, it should not be allowed to grow further at our expense. I respectfully urge the City Council to deny the proposed expansion until all existing violations are rectified and meaningful accountability is established. Sincerely, Kevin Ji 4072 Wilkie Way ATTACHMENT C Cone Reserving Handicap Spot for Palo Alto Commons Bus ATTACHMENT D Palo Alto Commons Vehicles Illegally Parking From:Kevin Ji To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way Comments With Attachments Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:23:50 AM Attachments:City Council Attachments 34.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Here is the third of 4 attachments. Sincerely, Kevin On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:41 PM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Here is the second of 4 attachments. Sincerely, Kevin On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:40 PM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote:Hi Mahea, Emily has let me know that there was an issue with my public comment for 4075 El Camino Way, an agendized item for 5/5. I've gone ahead and split them into smallerchunks. Hopefully they can get aggregated back into one larger comment. Below is my text comment, and the attachments might be in separate emails, replied to this one. In addition, I was wondering if you could let me know how much time I get for speakingon behalf of a group? I want to submit a presentation and want to make sure that there is enough time for each slide. Sincerely, Kevin Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons. This letter outlines serious concerns regarding ongoing code violations and patterns of irresponsible behavior that should be fully considered before any further action is taken. The issues outlined here speak not only to noncompliance with existing agreements, but to a troubling disregard for neighborhood integrity and public trust. Illegal Behavior The Palo Alto Commons has a long history of failing to comply with city regulations and the terms of its original Planned Community (PC) ordinance approved in 1987 (PC-3775). These are not minor oversights—they are foundational requirements meant to safeguard the quality of life for nearby residents and ensure a fair, transparent relationship between developers and the City. Specific violations include: 38 + Years of PC Ordinance Violation: Since its original PC ordinance approved in 1987, the Palo Alto Commons has failed to comply with the requirements set out in the original PC (PC3775, Attachment A) in two fundamental ways. Failure to Prioritize Palo Alto Residents: Section 3(a)(9) of the ordinance clearly states that preference must be given to residents of Palo Alto and their families. This measure was meant to ensure that our community benefits from the services and housing offered. Yet, there is no evidence that this stipulation has been honored in practice. Lack of Required Annual Reporting: Section 3(d) mandates that the operator submit annual reports detailing occupancy levels, staffing patterns, and parking usage. This data is essential for monitoring compliance and assessing community impacts. These reports have not been submitted. Insufficient Parking: Section 3(b)(2) requires a minimum of 55 on-site parking spaces. However, the most recent parking study indicates only 52 spaces are currently available. This ongoing shortfall directly affects neighborhood congestion and quality of life. Even more troubling is that these violations have been documented in the staff report and in a filed complaint (#16747006), yet no enforcement action has been taken. This lack of accountability erodes public confidence in the City’s oversight mechanisms. Parking Violations: The Palo Alto Commons have committed numerous parking related violations: Blocking Visitor Parking with Equipment (Attachment B): Construction and maintenance equipment often blocks designated visitor spaces, including those in the underground garage, further reducing accessibility. This occurred for several months. Misuse of Handicap Spaces (Attachment C): The Commons’ shuttle routinely occupies handicap spots and reserves them with cones when not in use—an inappropriate and potentially unlawful practice. This has occurred for several months and continues to occur. Parking in No Parking Zones (Attachment D): The shuttle van is frequently seen parked in zones marked for no parking. This behavior, noted even in the parking study, indicates a disregard for basic parking laws. Overflow onto Public Streets (Attachment E): The facility’s lack of adequate parking has forced employees and visitors to park illegally across the street on El Camino Way. Only the Palo Alto Commons has illegal parking in front of it. This is also incredibly dangerous for bikers, as parked cars illegaly blocks the bike lane. Municipal Code Violations: The proposed Palo Alto Commons expansion violates the Municipal Code in several ways: Daylight Plane Encroachment: The proposed expansion violates Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.38.150, which requires buildings adjacent to R-1 zones to follow a daylight plane to preserve neighbor access to light and air. Ignoring this regulation directly harms adjacent homeowners. Design Incompatibility: The proposal eliminates prior architectural step-backs, which were designed to reduce visual bulk and preserve neighborhood character. This conflicts with PAMC Sections 18.16.090(b)(4) and 18.13.060(b)(2)(B), which govern appropriate density transitions and context-sensitive design. Bad Neighbor Behavior Beyond legal violations, the Commons has consistently demonstrated disregard for its residential neighbors and the spirit of community-based planning. Rather than being a cooperative presence, it has become a source of tension due to the following behaviors: Abandonment of Original Agreements (Attachment F): The original PC approval was contingent on a lower density design with a step-back architectural transition to respect the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. The proposed expansion disregards these commitments and would impose a larger, more intrusive building on the community. As early as 1978, the El Camino Way area was actually “downzoned to protect the neighbors from over intrusion”. The original developer in 1986 promised that the building would have “comparable density and mass” and proposed a “1-2-3 step-up closest to the property line” as a compromise. Persistent Parking Burdens: Since 1986, neighbors have expressed concern over parking shortages caused by the Commons. These issues remain unresolved nearly four decades later: Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie (Attachment G): While the Palo Alto Commons claims to have enough parking on site, their bus will often park on Wilkie. Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking (Attachment H): When not on Wilkie, the Palo Alto Commons Bus and Van will take up visitor parking, causing visitors to park on nearby streets. Commons Staff Parking in Neighborhood (Attachment I): Numerous residents have observed staff members from the Palo Alto Commons parking along Wilkie Way and adjacent residential streets. Staff are easily identifiable by their uniforms —scrubs and badges bearing the facility’s logo. When approached, some staff have candidly shared that they were instructed by management to park in the neighborhood due to the lack of available spaces on-site. While neighbors are sympathetic to the staff, who are clearly left without sufficient alternatives, the resulting strain on street parking has led to significant disruption and frustration. Residents have also been informed that a dedicated off-site staff parking lot was previously available but has since been eliminated by the operator, further exacerbating the issue. Additional Therapists Parking: Per the Palo Alto Commons’ own parking policy, these people are asked to park on the neighborhood streets. This directly contradicts assurances that parking is sufficient on-site. Visitors Parking: Numerous people we know have told us that they park in our neighborhood to visit the Palo Alto Commons. In fact, when the phone number was dialed, it used to recommend visitors park on Wilkie. Vice Chair Chang of the PTC had this experience, as described in the 6/12/24 PTC meeting. Misleading Information on Parking: Past presentations to the PTC and ARB claimed underutilization of parking. However, the current parking study reveals that all spaces are already in use. No additional parking is proposed for the new development, compounding the problem. Inconsistent Valet (Attachment J): In the new parking study attached in the staff report, the Palo Alto Commons stated that they have a valet helping reduce parking issues. While valet parking is purportedly offered, in practice the stand is frequently unstaffed. There is also no one depicted on page 4 of the parking study. In addition, most of the time, there is no valet. For example, when Mayor Lauing came to visit, there was no valet. Misleading Landscape Information: The ARB asked the Palo Alto Commons to work with the neighbors on the landscaping. Most of the neighbors wanted evergreen trees, specifically, Italian cyprus, and have stated this on the record. However, the Palo Alto Commons continues to plan on planting deciduous trees. In addition, their landscape architect told us that Italian cyprus do not grow in this region, despite one neighbor having them in her backyard. Diminished Public Benefit: When the project was originally built, the developers made an “in-lieu contribution of $205,200” (Attachment A) in 1987 dollars ($588,688 in 2024 dollars) When building the Avant, there was a $100,000 contribution to Avenidas (Attachment K, PC5116). Yet the public benefit this time is “2 small trees”, “space for both recycling and compost bins”, and “bike parking” (Attachment L). They claim that the primary public benefit is more housing, but this project does not qualify for RHNA housing. Conclusion The Palo Alto Commons has repeatedly violated the terms of its original development agreement, ignored City ordinances, and shown disregard for the neighborhood that surrounds it. To approve an expansion under these circumstances would not only reward noncompliance, but would also set a dangerous precedent for future developments throughout the city. Our community depends on the integrity of its planning process. If a project fails to honor prior commitments, meet regulatory standards, or respect its neighbors, it should not be allowed to grow further at our expense. I respectfully urge the City Council to deny the proposed expansion until all existing violations are rectified and meaningful accountability is established. Sincerely, Kevin Ji 4072 Wilkie Way ATTACHMENT E Illegal Street Parking from Overflow Visitor Parking Parking on El Camino Way on the right side is illegal and only occurs in front of the Palo Alto Commons. ATTACHMENT F 1986/1987 Public Meeting Notes ATTACHMENT G Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie Attachment H Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking From:Kevin Ji To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Kallas, Emily Subject:Re: 4075 El Camino Way Comments With Attachments Date:Tuesday, April 29, 2025 7:23:39 AM Attachments:City Council Attachments 44.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Here is the fourth of 4 attachments. Sincerely, Kevin On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:42 PM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote: Hi, Here is the third of 4 attachments. Sincerely, Kevin On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:41 PM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote:Hi, Here is the second of 4 attachments. Sincerely, Kevin On Mon, Apr 28, 2025 at 6:40 PM Kevin Ji <kevinji2021@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Mahea, Emily has let me know that there was an issue with my public comment for 4075 ElCamino Way, an agendized item for 5/5. I've gone ahead and split them into smaller chunks. Hopefully they can get aggregated back into one larger comment. Below is mytext comment, and the attachments might be in separate emails, replied to this one. In addition, I was wondering if you could let me know how much time I get for speaking on behalf of a group? I want to submit a presentation and want to make sure that there isenough time for each slide. Sincerely, Kevin Dear Mayor Lauing and Members of the City Council, I am writing to express my strong opposition to the proposed expansion of the Palo Alto Commons. This letter outlines serious concerns regarding ongoing code violations and patterns of irresponsible behavior that should be fully considered before any further action is taken. The issues outlined here speak not only to noncompliance with existing agreements, but to a troubling disregard for neighborhood integrity and public trust. Illegal Behavior The Palo Alto Commons has a long history of failing to comply with city regulations and the terms of its original Planned Community (PC) ordinance approved in 1987 (PC-3775). These are not minor oversights—they are foundational requirements meant to safeguard the quality of life for nearby residents and ensure a fair, transparent relationship between developers and the City. Specific violations include: 38 + Years of PC Ordinance Violation: Since its original PC ordinance approved in 1987, the Palo Alto Commons has failed to comply with the requirements set out in the original PC (PC3775, Attachment A) in two fundamental ways. Failure to Prioritize Palo Alto Residents: Section 3(a)(9) of the ordinance clearly states that preference must be given to residents of Palo Alto and their families. This measure was meant to ensure that our community benefits from the services and housing offered. Yet, there is no evidence that this stipulation has been honored in practice. Lack of Required Annual Reporting: Section 3(d) mandates that the operator submit annual reports detailing occupancy levels, staffing patterns, and parking usage. This data is essential for monitoring compliance and assessing community impacts. These reports have not been submitted. Insufficient Parking: Section 3(b)(2) requires a minimum of 55 on-site parking spaces. However, the most recent parking study indicates only 52 spaces are currently available. This ongoing shortfall directly affects neighborhood congestion and quality of life. Even more troubling is that these violations have been documented in the staff report and in a filed complaint (#16747006), yet no enforcement action has been taken. This lack of accountability erodes public confidence in the City’s oversight mechanisms. Parking Violations: The Palo Alto Commons have committed numerous parking related violations: Blocking Visitor Parking with Equipment (Attachment B): Construction and maintenance equipment often blocks designated visitor spaces, including those in the underground garage, further reducing accessibility. This occurred for several months. Misuse of Handicap Spaces (Attachment C): The Commons’ shuttle routinely occupies handicap spots and reserves them with cones when not in use—an inappropriate and potentially unlawful practice. This has occurred for several months and continues to occur. Parking in No Parking Zones (Attachment D): The shuttle van is frequently seen parked in zones marked for no parking. This behavior, noted even in the parking study, indicates a disregard for basic parking laws. Overflow onto Public Streets (Attachment E): The facility’s lack of adequate parking has forced employees and visitors to park illegally across the street on El Camino Way. Only the Palo Alto Commons has illegal parking in front of it. This is also incredibly dangerous for bikers, as parked cars illegaly blocks the bike lane. Municipal Code Violations: The proposed Palo Alto Commons expansion violates the Municipal Code in several ways: Daylight Plane Encroachment: The proposed expansion violates Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.38.150, which requires buildings adjacent to R-1 zones to follow a daylight plane to preserve neighbor access to light and air. Ignoring this regulation directly harms adjacent homeowners. Design Incompatibility: The proposal eliminates prior architectural step-backs, which were designed to reduce visual bulk and preserve neighborhood character. This conflicts with PAMC Sections 18.16.090(b)(4) and 18.13.060(b)(2)(B), which govern appropriate density transitions and context-sensitive design. Bad Neighbor Behavior Beyond legal violations, the Commons has consistently demonstrated disregard for its residential neighbors and the spirit of community-based planning. Rather than being a cooperative presence, it has become a source of tension due to the following behaviors: Abandonment of Original Agreements (Attachment F): The original PC approval was contingent on a lower density design with a step- back architectural transition to respect the surrounding R-1 neighborhood. The proposed expansion disregards these commitments and would impose a larger, more intrusive building on the community. As early as 1978, the El Camino Way area was actually “downzoned to protect the neighbors from over intrusion”. The original developer in 1986 promised that the building would have “comparable density and mass” and proposed a “1-2-3 step-up closest to the property line” as a compromise. Persistent Parking Burdens: Since 1986, neighbors have expressed concern over parking shortages caused by the Commons. These issues remain unresolved nearly four decades later: Palo Alto Commons Bus on Wilkie (Attachment G): While the Palo Alto Commons claims to have enough parking on site, their bus will often park on Wilkie. Palo Alto Commons Vehicles in Visitor Parking (Attachment H): When not on Wilkie, the Palo Alto Commons Bus and Van will take up visitor parking, causing visitors to park on nearby streets. Commons Staff Parking in Neighborhood (Attachment I): Numerous residents have observed staff members from the Palo Alto Commons parking along Wilkie Way and adjacent residential streets. Staff are easily identifiable by their uniforms —scrubs and badges bearing the facility’s logo. When approached, some staff have candidly shared that they were instructed by management to park in the neighborhood due to the lack of available spaces on-site. While neighbors are sympathetic to the staff, who are clearly left without sufficient alternatives, the resulting strain on street parking has led to significant disruption and frustration. Residents have also been informed that a dedicated off-site staff parking lot was previously available but has since been eliminated by the operator, further exacerbating the issue. Additional Therapists Parking: Per the Palo Alto Commons’ own parking policy, these people are asked to park on the neighborhood streets. This directly contradicts assurances that parking is sufficient on-site. Visitors Parking: Numerous people we know have told us that they park in our neighborhood to visit the Palo Alto Commons. In fact, when the phone number was dialed, it used to recommend visitors park on Wilkie. Vice Chair Chang of the PTC had this experience, as described in the 6/12/24 PTC meeting. Misleading Information on Parking: Past presentations to the PTC and ARB claimed underutilization of parking. However, the current parking study reveals that all spaces are already in use. No additional parking is proposed for the new development, compounding the problem. Inconsistent Valet (Attachment J): In the new parking study attached in the staff report, the Palo Alto Commons stated that they have a valet helping reduce parking issues. While valet parking is purportedly offered, in practice the stand is frequently unstaffed. There is also no one depicted on page 4 of the parking study. In addition, most of the time, there is no valet. For example, when Mayor Lauing came to visit, there was no valet. Misleading Landscape Information: The ARB asked the Palo Alto Commons to work with the neighbors on the landscaping. Most of the neighbors wanted evergreen trees, specifically, Italian cyprus, and have stated this on the record. However, the Palo Alto Commons continues to plan on planting deciduous trees. In addition, their landscape architect told us that Italian cyprus do not grow in this region, despite one neighbor having them in her backyard. Diminished Public Benefit: When the project was originally built, the developers made an “in-lieu contribution of $205,200” (Attachment A) in 1987 dollars ($588,688 in 2024 dollars) When building the Avant, there was a $100,000 contribution to Avenidas (Attachment K, PC5116). Yet the public benefit this time is “2 small trees”, “space for both recycling and compost bins”, and “bike parking” (Attachment L). They claim that the primary public benefit is more housing, but this project does not qualify for RHNA housing. Conclusion The Palo Alto Commons has repeatedly violated the terms of its original development agreement, ignored City ordinances, and shown disregard for the neighborhood that surrounds it. To approve an expansion under these circumstances would not only reward noncompliance, but would also set a dangerous precedent for future developments throughout the city. Our community depends on the integrity of its planning process. If a project fails to honor prior commitments, meet regulatory standards, or respect its neighbors, it should not be allowed to grow further at our expense. I respectfully urge the City Council to deny the proposed expansion until all existing violations are rectified and meaningful accountability is established. Sincerely, Kevin Ji 4072 Wilkie Way ATTACHMENT I Palo Alto Commons Staff in Neighborhood ATTACHMENT J Inconsistent Valet There is often no one at the valet stand. There is often no valet at all. ATTACHMENT K Avant Public Benefit (PC5116) ATTACHMENT L Current Public Benefit (6/12/24 PTC Packet Page 182) From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Veenker, Vicki; Palo Alto Free Press; Jessica Speiser, Educational Leader forCalifornia Democratic Delegate, Assembly District 23 Cc:Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; assemblymember.berman@assembly.ca.gov; Council, City; Reckdahl, Keith; Kaloma Smith; Reckdahl, Keith; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Gennady Sheyner; Donna Wallach; Don Austin; Yolanda Conaway; Rowena Chiu; planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.0rg; ParkRec Commission; Ed Lauing; Shikada, Ed; Lauing, Ed; Ruth Silver Taube; board@pausd.org; board@valleywater.org; jay.boyarsky@da.sccgov.org; BoardOperations; Dana St. George; Gerry Gras; Zelkha, Mila; Templeton, Cari; Emily Mibach; Bill Newell; Dave Price; Pat M; Sean Allen; Damon Silver; Rodriguez, Miguel; Raymond Goins; Human Relations Commission; dennis burns; DuJuan Green; Figueroa, Eric; Foley, Michael; Enberg, Nicholas; Barberini, Christopher; yolanda; EPA Today; Diana Diamond; Vara Ramakrishnan; Mickie Winkler; Wagner, April; Jeff Conrad; Lee, Craig; cromero@cityofepa.org; Lotus Fong; Marina Lopez; Cait James; Tim James; Salem Ajluni; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Gardener, Liz Subject:Mob of Orthodox Jewish men chased Brooklyn woman after mistaking her for protester against Israeli securityminister Date:Monday, April 28, 2025 10:22:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mob of Orthodox Jewish men chased Brooklyn woman after mistaking her for protesteragainst Israeli security minister Source: PBS NewsHour https://share.newsbreak.com/cu8w23lp?s=i0 From:Pat Roberts To:Council, City Subject:South Palo Alto Bikeways Demonstration Project Date:Monday, April 28, 2025 2:35:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. City Council, I hope the City Council with the cooperation of the Department of Transportation will do all it can to identify funds so that the South Palo Alto Bikeways Demonstration Project can stay onschedule so that students bicycling to and from Fairmeadow and JLS schools can do so in the safest way possible. I live near Greene Middle School and the bike paths on Middlefield Road and NorthCalifornia Ave that are protected by bollards have helped tremendously by providing a safer bike route for students. I urge you to fund the South Palo Alto Bikeways Demonstration Project to provide safer bikeroutes for the Fairmeadow and JLS students without delay! Thank you, Patrick Roberts857 Southampton Drive View this email in your browser. Visit us on www.lwvpaloalto.org, Facebook, and Instagram. May VOTER April 28, 2025 In this Issue Message from our President LWVPA Updates LWVPA Annual Meeting Watch Recording - Lunch with League Speaker Event New Citizens' Ceremonies Are Back! Sort of... From:LWV Palo Alto VOTERTo:Council, CitySubject:LWVPA May VOTER: Annual Meeting in May, the League Speaks Out, and MoreDate:Monday, April 28, 2025 2:22:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Subscribe to our Google Calendar Board Meeting Highlights Advocacy Report Events by Other Leagues Film Screening - Stripped for Parts: American Journalism on the Brink LWVC Biennial Convention 2025 The League Speaks Out League Declares US Facing a Constitutional Crisis League Joins Coalition Challenging Unlawful Anti-voter Executive Order LWVUS Opposes EPA Deregulations California League Opposes AB 85 Law Enforcement: Cooperation with Immigration Authorities Thank You to Our League Volunteers! Message from our President Welcome to Kristin Abbott, Julie Shields, and Kathryn Schmidt, who joined or renewed League membership this month and who also answered the interest questionnaire on the membership portal. If you have a moment, navigate to ChapterSpot membership portal on our website and answer the questionnaire. Let us know how you might like to be involved in our League. These are trying times for democracy. LWVUS just announced that our country is "in a constitutional crisis.” Our checks and balances, rule of law, right to due process, and free and fair elections are under direct threat from the Trump administration’s disregard of congressional authority and defiance of Supreme Court orders. On May 1, the League will launch a new initiative to mobilize 8.5 million voters between now and November 2026 to preserve our democratic institutions. Our annual meeting will be held on May 18, 1-3 pm at the Palo Alto Baylands Golf Links. We will approve amended bylaws, our budget and our program for 2025-2026, and elect new board members. All members are urged to attend to vote and get to know us. Light refreshments will be served. Thank you for joining our “Lunch with League” on April 23, featuring Adam Dawes, CEO of Embarcadero Media. The loss of local news outlets across the country has had an insidious effect on democracy, contributing to polarization and a decline in trust in government. Local news publishers throughout the country faced steep decline in advertising revenue and dramatic changes occurred in the Bay Area news landscape. Watch the recording in this newsletter if you missed the excellent talk. What can you do to meet the threat to democracy? Consider joining our board support teams (communication, events, membership); our voter services team; observer corps; our social policy, representative government, or natural resources interest groups; or our board. Contact erikabuck@gmail.com. You will meet new friends, use your skills and develop new ones, and help make democracy work. - Lisa Ratner, Advocacy Chair & Co-President LWVPA Updates LWVPA Annual Meeting Sunday, May 18, 2025 1:00 pm - 3:00 pm Baylands Golf Links 1875 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 Guest Speaker: Randy Tsuda CEO, Alta Housing "Why Housing is More Important than Ever" We are excited to invite all members to join our 2025 Annual Membership Meeting! We welcome you to come at 1:00 pm to enjoy a light snack and socialize with fellow members. The meeting will begin at 1:30 pm. Members will first hear from our guest speaker, Randy Tsuda, CEO, Alta Housing, on the importance of housing. Members will then accomplish the following objectives of the meeting: Approve a 2025-2026 budget Approve changes to the bylaws Adopt our top program emphases for 2025-2026 (Palo Alto) and for 2025-2027 (California) Elect new officers, directors, and a nominating committee The Annual Membership meeting is the most important gathering of the League year. Your participation is critical to help shape the important work that we do for the coming year. It's also a great opportunity to connect with fellow League members in-person. Your early registration is most appreciated to help us plan. We look forward to seeing you there! Agenda 1:00 pm: Arrival and Socializing 1:30 pm: Welcome and Introductions Register Now 1:45 pm: Guest Speaker: Randy Tsuda, CEO, Alta Housing 2:15 pm: Membership Meeting Call to Order 2:45 pm: 2025-2026 Board Meeting Call to Order (open to all members) 3:00 pm: Adjournment About Guest Speaker Randy Tsuda has been the CEO of Alta Housing (formerly Palo Alto Housing) since 2018. Under Randy’s leadership, Alta Housing has expanded to over 1,000 units, housing more than 2,500 residents, with a reach stretching from San Jose to San Mateo. In addition to providing its residents with well-maintained, safe housing, Alta also offers supportive services to its residents. Before joining Alta, Randy was the Mountain View Community Development Director for over 10 years. His career spans experience in the non-profit, private, and public sectors, including real estate, city planning, affordable housing, and economic development. He has worked on projects that received awards from the American Planning Association, American Society of Landscape Architects, and in May 2018 received the “Bringing It Home” award from SV@Home, a policy and advocacy organization focused on increasing affordable housing. Randy frequently speaks about housing and has been a lecturer at Stanford University and San Jose State University. Watch Recording - Lunch with League Speaker Event About forty Leaguers joined us on April 23 to hear Adam Dawes, CEO of Embarcadero Media (Palo Alto Weekly, Palo Alto Online, the Almanac, Mountain View Voice, Redwood City Pulse and more). Adam described how the internet has eliminated traditional revenue streams for local journalism, causing a decline of 44% of advertising revenue since 2019, and how hedge funds have taken over local news outlets, maximizing profits for investors at the expense of the communities. Facing many challenges, Embarcadero Media became a nonprofit in the beginning of 2024. It (thankfully) continues to cover local government, news and entertainment in our community. Adam stressed that this nonprofit model relies on robust community fundraising. He made a well-received plea for the community to help. Watch the recording HERE. New Citizens' Ceremonies Are Back! Sort of ... During Covid, the in-person New Citizens’ ceremonies at Heritage Theatre in Campbell were cancelled in favor of a ceremony in a parking lot without much fanfare and without any tabling for voter registration. In January, the ceremonies resumed, only to be cancelled in March in favor of the parking lot procedure. LWV of Palo Alto was scheduled to help with voter registration at the April ceremony and we didn’t want to give up on having some kind of presence to welcome new citizens and remind them to register to vote. So Liz Jensen and Kathy Miller showed up on Wednesday, April 23rd with their signs. They stood on the corner near the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) office and waved and gave thumbs up to the new citizens as they drove off. The response was terrific: Lots of smiles and returned waves and thumbs up. Some folks even asked for a picture of Liz and Kathy, or posed for a selfie with them. We don’t know how long USCIS will continue with what one new citizen called a “Taco Bell” type ceremony, but Liz and Kathy plan to recruit volunteers to hold signs and encourage voter registration at the planned event in September. And we will be encouraging the other Santa Clara County Leagues to do the same when it’s their turn. LWVPA April 2025 Board Meeting Highlights The April board meeting focused on the upcoming 2025 Annual Meeting with much appreciation to Ellen Smith for working on proposed bylaws changes and the Budget and Nominating Committees for their good work. We look forward to hearing from Randy Tsuda and seeing members on May 18! Approved Motions: To approve draft bylaws changes and recommend to membership. To approve draft 2025-26 budget and recommend to membership. To approve nominating slate and recommend to membership. To approve the 2025-26 Program and recommend to membership. To approve the consent calendar including March minutes and a letter to the City Council regarding the Fair Chance Housing Ordinance. Our next Board Meeting is on Tuesday, May 27. All members are welcome to join the meeting by emailing contact@lwvpaloalto.org. - Megan Swezey Fogarty, Secretary Advocacy Report Local Advocacy Housing. The Board sent a letter to the City Council supporting the Fair Chance in Housing Ordinance, which would prevent landlords from considering relevant convictions older than two years in rental decisions. The Council requested that staff continue to work on the look back date for considering prior convictions. Local Campaign Finance Reform. LWVC is a co-sponsor of SB 42, California Fair Elections Act, which would allow all cities in California to implement public financing of local elections. Nancy Neff, one of our LCFR team leaders, has been gathering signatures for SB 42 at the Tesla demonstrations in Palo Alto this month and has assembled a team of signature gatherers through the Clean Money Campaign (a League allied organization). Climate / Natural Resources. On March 27, Mary O’Kicki, co-chair of Climate/Natural Resources committee, moderated the LWVC’s Climate Interest Group Zoom webinar with Tom Steyer speaking on the Climate Crisis and how local action is critical. State Advocacy LWVC sought to intervene in a lawsuit filed by Congressperson Darrell Issa that aims to block mail-in ballots from being counted after Election Day because those voters might not vote for him. The League argued that Issa’s lawsuit could wrongfully disenfranchise tens of thousands of voters who use mail-in ballots (80% of Californians vote using mail-in ballots), impeding the mission of the League to boost voter engagement and prevent voter disenfranchisement. National Advocacy LWV announced a “constitutional crisis” based on Trump’s flagrant disregard for congressional authority, checks and balances, and defying a Supreme Court order to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back home. The rule of law and free and fair elections “are under direct and sustained threats.” A federal judge in Arizona temporarily blocked the U.S. Election Assistance Commission from implementing a provision in the President’s Executive Order adding a requirement to show a passport or similar document proving citizenship when registering to vote via the Federal Form prescribed by Congress. While the case proceeds, this injunction preserves the status quo where would-be-voters already affirm under penalty of perjury that they are US citizens on the federal form. - Lisa Ratner, Advocacy Chair & Co-President Events by Other Leagues LWV Santa Clara County Civic Engagement Program Presents: Film Screening and Q/A with Producer/Director Stripped for Parts: American Journalism on the Brink Tuesday, April 29, 2025 Noon - 2 pm (Zoom) 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? This film will only be shown on this date - it will not be available via our YouTube channel - so register to watch now. Register Now LWVC Biennial Convention 2025 June 17-22, 2025 Via Zoom & YouTube Registration is Now Open Every two years, the California membership gathers at the LWVC Convention to craft our policy priorities for the next two years, to enlighten each other by sharing our successes and learnings, to inspire a new generation of League leaders, and to celebrate our shared passion for making California a well-governed and vibrant state. This year, our Convention will be held virtually from June 17 to 22, with workshops throughout the week. We will focus on bringing League members together to learn, share, and energize our membership as we continue to work toward strengthening democracy. More information is available at lwvc.org/convention. Members are encouraged to attend the convention either as an observer or a delegate. Email contact@lwvpaloalto.org if you are interested in learning more. We hope to see you there! The League Speaks Out League Declares US Facing a Constitutional Crisis On April 17, Celina Stewart, CEO of the League of Women Voters, and Dianna Wynn, president of the League of Women Voters, declared that the United States is in a constitutional crisis and announced a new initiative to use the power of voter engagement to protect and preserve our democratic institutions. “It has now been 87 days since the start of the Trump administration. From the flagrant disregard for congressional authority and governmental checks and balances to defying Supreme Court orders to bring Kilmar Abrego Garcia back home, one thing is abundantly clear: our country is in a constitutional crisis.” Starting May 1, the League will launch the Unite and Rise 8.5 initiative to mobilize 8.5 million voters using the power of voter engagement to defend the foundational principles that have sustained our democracy — checks and balances, the rule of law, and free and fair elections. Read the LWVUS statement here. League Joins Coalition Challenging Unlawful Anti-voter Executive Order The League of Women Voters has joined a coalition of voting rights organizations to file a lawsuit in US District Court challenging President Trump’s unlawful executive order on voting. The order attempts to seize the power to set voter registration rules from Congress and the states. Key provisions of the order could disenfranchise millions of eligible voters, particularly voters of color, women voters, naturalized citizens, voters with disabilities, voters with low incomes, and first-time voters. “This executive order is a dangerous and unprecedented abuse of power — one that threatens to make it more difficult for American voters, particularly women voters, to participate in our elections,” said Celina Stewart, chief executive officer of the League of Women Voters of the United States. See the press release here. LWVUS Opposes EPA Deregulations The League of Women Voters has signed onto a statement opposing the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) plan to eliminate air quality standards for smog, soot, and mercury, and carbon pollution limits on power plants, vehicles, and coal waste. The Trump Administration has announced their intention to destroy over 50 years of lifesaving progress to protect our air, water, and land. Their effort to eliminate these protections is a threat to all of us and a direct assault on the most vulnerable. See the joint statement and the full list of signatories here. California League Opposes AB 85 Law Enforcement: Cooperation with Immigration Authorities The Trump Administration has invoked a cruel and inhumane policy, deporting hundreds of Venezuelans under an archaic 18th-century wartime law and denying them due process. This blatant disregard for fundamental rights reminds us why we must stay vigilant here in California. LWVC strongly opposes AB 85, a bill introduced by Assemblymember Bill Essayli (Corona) that would require local law enforcement to notify federal immigration authorities when undocumented individuals complete their sentences, and to share information about transfers and holds. AB 85 is a broad and vague mandate that would apply to anyone with a felony conviction, including low-level and nonviolent offenses and those who have already completed their sentences, creating a sweeping policy that could lead to harmful consequences for many individuals and undermine trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, making our communities less safe. See the full letter to Assemblymember Essayli here. Thank You to Our League Volunteers! April 20-26 was National Volunteer Appreciation Week. As an organization built on the dedication and hard work of volunteers, we want to thank you. From registering voters in our community and speaking up at town halls to managing the League’s website or encouraging candidates to fill out our voter guides, every League volunteer is critical to our mission of empowering voters and defending democracy. We hope you take this moment to celebrate yourself and your friends at the League. We could not do this work without you! 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 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.