Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20211018plCC701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 10/18/2021 Document dates: 10/12/2021 – 10/18/2021 Public Comments Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Rita Vrhel To:Council, City Subject:submitted tree ordiance Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 10:56:24 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council Members: Please support the submitted Tree Ordinance. It was crafted by several respected Community leaders and deserves your support. In the almost 40 years i have been privileged called Palo Alto home, so many of our largertrees have been cut down or allowed to die either from neglect or because they were in the way of "progress". Our current tree trimming programs result in severe trimming harmful toour trees. Buildings should not, in my opinion, take precedence over trees. Land ownership comes with responsibility and part of that is tree maintenance. The recent death of the 350 year old oak onWebster, due to lack of trimming, was a disgrace. Buildings can be designed with the idea of "the tree stays!" Trees are not expendable. Recent Planning officials statements that trees can be removed if in the way of a building is shameful! I call your attention to the July, 2021 issue of National Geographic; the cover story called"Beating the Heat". In this excellent article, the presence of trees and their canopy along a Los Angeles artery from wealthy residential areas to the inner city are explored. The articlestated a robust tree canopy reduced heat by 15 degrees F! As climate change continues, we must protect our trees, if for no other than selfish reasons. We need that 15 degree F reduction. That, and carbon sequestration, should cause immediatesupport for suggestions to protect out trees. Please approve the proposed Tree Ordinance with some changes like protecting all trees with an 18 inch diameter as proposed by the PTC. Thank you so much. Rita C. VrhelPhone: 650-325-2298 From:carlin otto To:Council, City Subject:Tree Protection Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 10:55:08 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council During the last five years, in my neighborhood, we have lost four trees that each measured over 12 feet in circumference(45-inches in diameter). We have also had 3 large coastal oaks seriously damaged on purpose by property owners. One instance of this was done without a permitand extremely early in the morning to avoid being caught; the damage was done before the City could respond. We have lost dozens of healthy trees of many species in the 10-inch to 16-inch diameter range.One gorgeous maple and a magnificent madrone come to mind. I find this rate of loss unacceptable. We need more protectivelaws, tougher enforcement, higher fines, and clearer communication to protect our canopy. Some of of this damage in my neighborhoodhas been by developers who simply do not want to be botheredwith having to design and work around trees. They willingly pay a few thousand dollar fine justto avoid the hassle of the tree. Please increase thefine to at least $25,000 per tree.Other instances have been due to new neighbors who do not value trees the way Bay Arearesidents have in the past. They are willing to pay the fines, or prune a tree to death bit-by-bit over time,and, in one case, poison the tree (a 49.8-inch diameter redwood), wait one year for it to defoliate, then get a permit to take it down.Once the tree was gone the owner immediately sold the property to a developer. The inspector who gave permission should havecaught this and the owner should have been fined. NOTE: planting a baby tree to replace a damaged or removed adult tree is NOT an acceptable mitigation.A baby tree takes MANY MANY years to provide the benefits (eg, shade, canopy, bird haven, carbon sequestering, etc.)of an adult tree. This will not happen in my or your life time! I fully support protecting both a wider range of tree species AND protecting younger / smaller trees.Please protect all trees of any species over 8-inches in diameter. Please protect all oaks and redwoods and madronesover 7-inches in diameter !! I see no reason for Palo Alto to be THE MOST LENIENTcity in the immediate area. Why would we want East Palo Alto and Mountain View to protect their canopies more thanwe do (3.8-inches and 7.6-inches respectively for all trees)? I would also encourage (and ask) you to find ways to involve the citizens of Palo Alto in the protection of our canopy. One way to do this is to allow them to appeal any request (or already granted approval) for a tree removal. This will accomplish two things: 1. educate the requester about how much the neighbors valuethe tree, and 2. allow neighbors who love the canopy to make their case public where better decisions can be made that involve more input and information. Thank you for taking your precious time to make changes to our outdated tree canopyprotection regulations. Carlin Otto 231 Whitclem Court(Charleston-Meadows Neighborhood) From:Jean McCown To:DuBois, Tom; Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Tiffany Griego; Jean G. Snider; Jean McCown; Jessica von Borck Subject:Item 14 Re Commercial Linkage Fee Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 10:03:03 AM Attachments:Stanford Commercial Linkage Fee Ltr.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members: Attached is a letter from Stanford University regarding this evening’s discussion regarding anincrease in the commercial linkage fee. It reflects some aspects we hope you will consider with respect to businesses in the Stanford Research Park. Best Regards, Jean McCown Jean K. McCown Associate Vice President Office of Government Affairs Stanford University (650) 725 3329 Office of Government Affairs Building 170, First Floor, Stanford, CA 94305-2040 • T 650.725.3320 • F 650.725.3577 October 18, 2021 Palo Alto City Council Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 7th Floor 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members: RE: Item 14 on October 18, 2021 City Council Meeting: COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE On Oct. 18th, the Palo Alto City Council will be discussing the affordable housing commercial linkage fee feasibility study and a possible increase in the fee amount for commercial/R&D development. We are concerned with the option of adopting a $68.50 per square foot rate as it is deemed infeasible in many instances by the city’s own consultant, it is out of scale with the average fees charged in neighboring communities and does not align with the goals the Council has to maintain a vibrant economic ecosystem in the city. As stated in the staff report, the feasibility study shows smaller office projects are unlikely to be developed even at the current fee of $39.70, while more moderate projects may be only able to support an increase of up to $50 per square foot. The recommendation of $68.50 assumes a prototype analysis for projects that are 1.0 FAR. However, for example, the entire Stanford Research Park is 0.40 and 0.30 FAR and the feasibility study concludes that it is infeasible to apply such a high fee for lower FAR projects. Therefore, we believe this fee may disproportionately impact the Research Park and we encourage the City Council to consider maintaining a lower fee for projects that are less than 1.0 FAR. Please consider the consequences of setting a fee that is out of scale when compared to neighboring jurisdictions. The feasibility analysis shows most Bay Area cities have set their linkage fees within the range of $15 to $30 per square foot. Palo Alto’s neighboring city of Mountain View has fees between $26-$30, Redwood City has a fee of $20, and Menlo Park has a fee of $18. South San Francisco, a similar community focusing on R&D and the biotech industry, has set a rate of $15. A significantly higher fee is likely to discourage types of businesses that could be desirable to have in Palo Alto – such as capital-intensive businesses in a variety of research and development fields that contribute to a stable economic ecosystem. We are concerned that increased fees might result in less investment and partnership in Palo Alto. Stanford has intentionally worked to create diversity in the Research Park and has targeted businesses that are capital-intensive and that are finding innovative cutting-edge solutions to global STANFORD U N IV E RSIT Y Office of Government Affairs Building 170, First Floor, Stanford, CA 94305-2040 • T 650.725.3320 • F 650.725.3577 problems. There is competition to attract these businesses and we hope Palo Alto can be a desirable place for such businesses. We ask the Council to consider the cumulative impacts of increasing the commercial linkage fee along with the other policies the City has proposed including development caps, the push to convert commercial properties to housing, long delays for city permits and approvals, and a potential significant business tax. Collectively, they are a strong disincentive for businesses to stay or relocate to Palo Alto. We encourage the Council to create and implement policies that help promote the type of business community you would like to see in Palo Alto. Lastly, we ask that you engage more with the business community before passing the ordinance. Very little public outreach and notifications were done on this item and only one public hearing has been set. This increase in the fee will have significant impacts on small and large businesses and should have a broader engagement effort with local and potential Palo Alto businesses. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or require any additional information. Sincerely, Jean McCown Associate Vice President, Office of Government Affairs Stanford University STANFORD U N IV E RSIT Y From:Carol Gilbert To:Council, City Subject:Opinion re: 660 University Proposal Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 9:59:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Since you will be thinking about 660 University Ave. proposal on October 25th, please read this letter to the editor published Oct. 15th in the Palo Alto Weekly. There is so much wrongwith their proposal and so much that could be done that would help remediate low income housing woes here. Just want to give you things to think about especially in light of historicaldecisions. Wrong Place This letter refers to the proposal to demolish two dental buildings at the heart of University Avenue's commercial district and replace them with a four-story mixed use development. From what I have read, it proposes to provide 11 below-market units out of 73. Big whoop for our a needy population! Once again Lund Smith wants the city to put aside many building restrictions to do this. Such a building would over-shadow those around it, contribute to traffic, and in no way ameliorate affordable housing in this community. If anything should replace those buildings, it must be consistent with the senior residences around it. Let me suggest that there be a building for disabled and elderly on limited incomes. Previous councils created the problem for these residents when they sanctioned the following conversions: the Palo Alto Hotel became the Keen Hotel; Casa Olga became the Nobu; the President Hotel’s current conversion to another luxury hotel. And you know what? The first floor should be dental offices that will rent at no more than those they are replacing. If the Council cares about housing quality, affordability, and the previously dispossessed, then this is not the project and you will have other opportunities to do the right thing for this population. Carol Gilbert Palo Alto, CA 94301 Blog | COVID-19 | Racial Justice 2020 Annual Report: Creating a More Equitable Silicon Valley As a community foundation, SVCF knows the strengths and the needs of our local communities, and we translate this knowledge into strategies that influence and inspire our donors and partners to act. SVCF’s annual report highlights our work and progress toward creating a more equitable Silicon Valley in 2020. From:Silicon Valley Community FoundationTo:Council, CitySubject:Creating a more equitable Silicon Valley: SVCF"s 2020 Annual ReportDate:Monday, October 18, 2021 9:48:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. 650.450.5400 @ info@siliconvalleycf.org SVCF’s 2021 Year-End Giving Guide In our 2021 Year-End Giving Guide, we highlight nonprofits aligned with our strategic priorities, including early childhood development, financial stability, housing and safety-net services. These trusted nonprofits are advancing equity in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, and we encourage you to give generously. We hope you find this guide useful as you consider your holiday- season giving! SVCF has created additional resources to support donor and community goals as we reach the end of 2021. Check out these tips from SVCF philanthropy advisors to maximize the impact of your year- end giving. Boosting Latinx-led nonprofit leadership and infrastructure Latina Coalition of Silicon Valley (LCSV) is one of 36 inaugural grantees from SVCF’s LatinXCEL Fund. Learn about its programs advancing equity for Latina girls and women in our region and how this grant has helped LCSV shift from an all-volunteer nonprofit to hiring its first paid employee. “Nothing about us without us:" Amplifying community voices Gina Dalma, SVCF's executive vice president of community action, policy and strategy, reflects on the importance of keeping the voices of those we serve at the core of our work. Address 2440 West El Camino Real Suite 300 Mountain View, CA 94040 About Silicon Valley Community Foundation is a community catalyst for change. Copyright © 2021 Silicon Valley Community Foundation View in browser | Unsubscribe From:Megan Wheeler To:Council, City Cc:Martineau, Catherine; Holly Pearson Subject:Comment regarding Tree Protection Ordinance Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 8:59:42 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council; I am writing in reference to the proposed update to the Palo Alto Tree Protection Ordinance. Iam an environmental scientist with the San Francisco Estuary Institute, and in 2019 I completed a research project with Canopy to understand the reasons for permitted removals ofprotected trees from 2001-2018. In reviewing the arborist reports and applications submitted in this time, I saw that most removals were of trees in poor health or causing hazards, asintended by the ordinance. I believe the City would benefit from now expanding the ordinance to protect additional species of large trees, with similar provisions in place to allow removalswhen needed. Large trees, and particularly large native trees like oaks, provide numerous benefits to the local community. They create shade, provide homes and food for wildlife, and are striking andbeautiful components of an urban landscape. Unfortunately, these benefits can be quickly lost when a tree is cut down, and replacing a large, mature tree takes many years under the bestof circumstances. Based on the City's tree inventory in TreePlotter, there are over 3,000 large trees (>30 in DSH) in the city, about half of which are unprotected by the current ordinance.The provisions in place allow for protected trees to be removed if they become unhealthy or cause hazards, leaving open the option to remove any truly problematic trees while putting aguardrail in place to prevent unnecessary loss of valuable trees - but only for three species. Expanding the protections to include all large tree species, other than those that are invasive ornot well adapted to the area, is an important step to protecting the long-term legacy of past urban forestry work in the city. These large trees are an investment that benefit the communityas a whole, and their protection will help safeguard the impressive tree canopy found in Palo Alto today. About 20% of permitted tree removals in the past have been the result of construction andredevelopment, including removal due to conflicts with buildable space as well as damage caused to trees during construction. Having protections in place allows oversight of theseremovals and lets the city set conditions for replacement, both important roles in ensuring that the city's tree canopy does not decline over time. Across the country, cities are seeing a loss oftree canopy, which Palo Alto should strive to avoid through strong, but reasonable, tree protection policies. Thank you for your consideration of this important issue. Respectfully,Megan Wheeler -- Megan Wheeler, PhD Environmental Scientist Resilient Landscapes Program San Francisco Estuary Institute-Aquatic Science Center meganw@sfei.org - 619-248-9802http://www.sfei.org From:Melanie Grondel To:Council, City Cc:Melanie Grondel Subject:Tree Ordinance Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 12:01:38 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Dubois and Council Members, I am write you in support of the Tree Ordinance to protect our cherished trees. Palo Alto used to be known as the City of Trees par excellence when neighboring cities werestill neglecting the value of green space. With great concern I have followed several cases before the council that involved permission requested by an owner to build an extension of a home or school without adequate safeguardsthat the venerable trees on the property would make it past the construction phase into a healthy future. De-watering to permit construction or enlargements of buildings or homes, isextremely dangerous for trees. In every case the owner was aware of the duty to safeguard protected trees. We have lost many of our precious old trees to the preference for constructionover tree preservation. These very trees are under threat, the ones that make Palo Alto an island of green and represent the coveted value that people seek in our community. Home and building owners are very aware from the moment of purchase that they areobligated to preserve trees of a certain kind and size. These trees cannot be replaced by young trees that take generations of a human life time to grow to the size we need to provde us thebenefit of cool shade and a breath of fresh air. For the benefit of our community, whether a private home owner or an educational institution, the interest of irreplacble trees needs to winout over a building extension that can be adjusted by architectural planning. This is fast becoming a matter of urgency as the City of Palo Alto is forced to consider allowing far greater density in housing development due to a set ofCalifornia State laws that include but are not limited to SB9, SB10 and SB35. These laws permit and encourage building out parcels to the property lines with only minimal setbacks without requiring any green space for health and relaxation for residents andneighbors alike. Fully grown trees are an essential asset of a healthy neighborhood. The heat islands created by blocks of blistering hot concrete cooking in the sun, day after day, are a threat to the health of people and to the health of our environment, in short they areathreat to our community. I urge the City Council to make the proposed Tree Ordinance an essential companion to the Objective Standards for housing development and to all new building and to all updating andextensions of existing buildings and homes, in order to combat this threat to our community. Thank you for your consideration, Melanie GrondelPalo Alto, Ca From:Dimitri Gamulkiewicz To:Council, City Subject:BUILD MORE HOUSING Date:Sunday, October 17, 2021 9:50:05 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ BUILD MORE HOUSING Sent from my iPhone From:Jennifer Chang Hetterly To:Council, City Subject:October 18 Council Agenda Item 13: Tree Protection Ordinance Date:Sunday, October 17, 2021 9:25:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. October 17, 2021 To: Palo Alto City Council Re: October 18 Council Agenda Item 13: Consideration of Policy and Services Committee Recommendations to Council on the Updates to Title 8 of Municipal Code (Tree Protection), Expanding the Role of the Parks & Recreation Commission, and Elevating the Position of Urban Forester Dear Mayor DuBois and Councilmembers, I am writing in support of the Policy and Services Committee Recommendations to Council on updates to the Tree Protection Ordinance and to ask that you go one step further by directing staff to specifically prioritize native and high habitat-value tree species as appropriate replacement trees within the Ordinance. As a former Chair of the Parks and Recreation Commission that helped develop the City’s first Urban Forest Master Plan in 2015 and a member of the Natural Environment Subcommittee of the Comprehensive Plan Update Advisory Committee, I am pleased to see the City take this critical step forward in implementing the goals and policies of those important planning documents to support and expand our urban forest. In these times when biodiversity is under unprecedented threat, when climate change impacts are rapidly accelerating, and when human impacts on our environment are certain to intensify along with densification of our built environment, the need to both protect biodiversity and expand the mitigation services of our urban canopy is abundantly clear. The recommended code updates to implement the City’s no net canopy loss policy are important. However, experience in other cities shows that, without this additional protection/priority regarding replacement species, no net loss policies can lead to wholesale diminution of natives within the urban forest and substantial loss of habitat. Native trees are the fundamental scaffolding for biodiversity in our local ecology. If we protect only quantity, and not also quality, we risk losing the forest through the trees. Please make the most of this long-awaited Tree Ordinance Update to ensure that natives and high habitat-value species remain a rich part of the mix in our urban forest. Sincerely, Jennifer Chang Hetterly From:Keith Bennett To:Council, City Subject:Comments: Agenda 13, Tree Ordinance, Oct 18 Council Meeting Date:Sunday, October 17, 2021 9:13:01 PM Attachments:Tree_Ordinance_21_10_18_Keith Bennett comments.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ To Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council Please find attached a PDF document with my comments on Agenda Item 13,October 18, 2021 Council Meeting.Title: Consideration of Policy and Services Committee Recommendations toCouncil on the Updates to Title 8 of Municipal Code (Tree Protection),Expanding the Role of the Parks & Recreation Commission, and Elevatingthe Position of Urban Forester. --Keith Bennetthttp://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org Public Comment on Agenda Item 13, October 18, 2021 Title: Consideration of Policy and Services Committee Recommendations to Council on the Updates to Title 8 of Municipal Code (Tree Protection), Expanding the Role of the Parks & Recreation Commission, and Elevating the Position of Urban Forester. I am Keith Bennett and have lived in Palo Alto for more than 25 years. Although I’m speaking for myself, some of you may know me from Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater. Soil moisture provided by groundwater helps sustain trees, and protection of trees are a significant reason our members advocate groundwater protection. Residents of Palo Alto greatly appreciate our canopy and expect that City policies protect and enhance it. These objectives are incorporated in many places in the recently updated Comprehensive Plan. I personally was very surprised to see that Palo Alto’s current Tree Protection Ordinance is much weaker than those of essentially all surrounding cities, and I strongly support strengthening protection for our trees. I am fortunate to have a 150 year old palm tree, and I planted two coast oaks 25 years ago, which are now providing much needed shade from the glaring summer sun and keeping my house cooler. In addition, there are two approximately 30 year old lindens in front of my house. I decided to check to see how the Staff proposal of protecting only trees 36” diameter or larger would apply on my property. The ordinance as Staff has drafted would not protect any trees on or in front of my property. Though some of my trees are reasonably large, none are over 36” in diameter; the diameter of one linden is 13”, both oaks and another linden are 18 – 24” and the 150 year old palm slightly larger. I request Council modify the proposal to conform to the Policy and Services Committee recommendation of protection for trees 18” in diameter or larger. Trees need to first grow to 18” diameter well before they get to 36” – if we don’t protect “smaller” trees, we won’t have any larger trees. Urban forests provide many benefits - air quality, soils protection, providing environment for birds and wildlife, all contributing to making our neighborhoods pleasant for walking and living, directly contributing to making Palo Alto a place people want to live. Canopies disappear one tree at a time. Please adopt the Policy & Services recommended ordinance and amend the Staff proposal so as to protect all trees 18” in diameter or larger. Then, following amendment, pass the proposed ordinance. Thank you for your kind consideration, Keith Bennett, Palo Alto, CA From:Aliaksandr Chychykaila To:Council, City Subject:Let"s keep our car(e)free space! Date:Sunday, October 17, 2021 8:56:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I urge you to make University Avenue and Ramona Street open for pedestrians and bicycles, and closed to automobiles, PERMANENTLY. It's a matter of quality of life! Sincerely, A resident of Palo Alto Alexander Chychykaila =-Life is Good-= From:Ann Balin To:Council, City Subject:Tree Ordinance Update Date:Sunday, October 17, 2021 8:06:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and fellow council members, I am urging that you adopt the Tree Ordinance recommendations as offered by Policy and Services, Ad Hoc Committee and Staff. The canopy is part of the environmental gestalt that ensures a better carbon footprint and beautifies our city. The present ordinance is stale and now is the time to implement new standards. I have observed for many years whereby developers and property owners have heritage trees removed without consequences. The exquisite cork oak in front of Delfina pizzeria was removed even though it was healthy. This is one example of a non heritage tree but there are many instances in town where violations have occurred with the illegal extractions of healthy oaks and redwoods. The city needs to mandate enforcement of violations and increase penalties when such law breaking occurs. The Ad Hoc committee worked countless hours to contribute their thoughtful recommendations. Some include practical alternatives need be considered before a protected tree may be removed. No net canopy loss is prioritized when a protected tree must be removed is another. Streamline the application process and ensure transparency and support for appeals from nearby residents. Do strengthen the position of urban forester as this is long over due. The city’s canopy requires It is key that more trees be designated for greater protection. Habitat protection is necessary to enhance avifauna as well. I would like to see more native flora including Toyon, Buckeye, Ribes, Garry elliptic (Coast silk-tassel) and others here in the valley floor. They are drought resistant. I have two of these for over twenty years on my property save for the Buckeye and Toyon. More Mediterranean species should be included such as non fruit bearing olive trees, lavender and rosemary shrubs which are hearty and drought resistant as well. As Provence is dry you will see these species flourishing there. They do beautifully here in California. On a different note there is a destabilizing practice where some developers and or property owners will build deep basements and WASTE our ground water. Frankly, it is unconscionable that the city permits this practice. The cement manufacturing and transport contributes to harming our environment. I am referring to thousands if not millions of gallons of water decimated in our community which contributes to dropping the water table. I mention this because a lower water table is harmful to our canopy. I am impressed by the careful and thoughtful research and hard work that all of the above mentioned have dedicated to improving Palo Alto’s Tree Ordinance. I ask that you the city council ensure that this code becomes law. Respectfully, Ann Lafargue Balin From:RICH STIEBEL To:Council, City Subject:Vote NO on Smart Meters Tonight 101821o Date:Sunday, October 17, 2021 6:52:37 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The Palo Alto Weekly published an article Friday saying that the PA council will vote on approving an $18 million contract Monday night to install “smart-meters” in all PA residences. That’s too much money and too technical a project to be approved without the details being given to the public who will be affected. PA residents should be invited to give their input. If approved, the Utility Dept. would install three low-power transmitters on each residence, one each on the electric, water, and gas meters. Have these device been Underwriters Laboratories approved? The public needs to know on which frequencies these devices will transmit, how many harmonics they will generate what spurious signals and at what levels they may be emitted. What is the repair history of the model and type of transmitter system proposed? Where else has this model been installed and what were the long-termrepair results for this transmitter assembly? This proposal means hundreds of transmitters operating, in a high-rise condo/apartment building, thousands in each neighborhood. In addition, the public needs information on the 5 network poles and 10 collector radios that communicate with these home transmitters. To communicate with homes, these devices require transmitters also. Palo Altans use many RF devices, such as cordless phones, CERT FRS & MURS radios, Wi-Fi, baby monitors, amateur radios, garage and car door openers, motion detectors security systems, DirectTV systems, etc. How much interference will these devices receive? Evaluating one smart-meter transmitter is not sufficient. We need to see the data on a mesh network of hundreds of these transmitters operating simultaneously that shows no interference to any of the above devices. The concept of remote monitoring is a good idea, but the use of fiber optics to report the data would be better than an RF system. Rich Stiebel 840 Talisman Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:Deborah S Rose M.D. To:Council, City Subject:Tree protection ordinance Date:Sunday, October 17, 2021 6:24:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I am in total support of the pending tree protection ordinance. Deborah Rose 1542 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto 94303 Sent from Deborah Rose From:Anne Cribbs To:Council, City Subject:Tree Ordinance update Date:Sunday, October 17, 2021 4:53:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To: Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Counci members: Subject: Support for Tree Ordinance I am unable to attend Monday night’s City Council meeting to speak to speak favor of theupdates to the current Tree Ordinance, however I wanted to be sure that my support is registered. I am in full support of the tree ordinance updates recommended by the ad hoc residentcommittee and the Policy & Services Committee and I appreciate the work of the committees and the chart/ Local Tree Ordinance Comparison illustrating the need for Palo Alto to increaseits scope of protected trees. It is especially important is to: Designate more trees for greater protection to preserve and increase our urban canopyAdopt urban canopy management best practices including no net loss of canopy and prioritized planting of native and climate-adaptive tree species In addition, I hope the Council will approve: Formalizing a relationship for the Parks and Recreation Commission to serve as a community forum for urban forestry community issues, and advise City Council onrelated matters including the Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP) Elevate the Urban Forester position to afford increased visibility and authority necessaryto oversee the future health and expansion of our urban canopy We are all proud of Palo Alto's tree canopy and want to ensure that we continue to protect and further develop this canopy especially iin South Palo Alto. In addition, we have recognized theimportance and benefits of trees, during the recent pandemic. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Anne Warner Cribbs, Chair, Palo Alto Park and Recreation Commission. Anne Warner Cribbs OLYPresident and CEO BASOC - the bay area sports organizing committee1960 Olympian 2450 Agnes WayPalo Alto, CA 94303 Ph. 650.323.9400Fx: 650.323,9403 415.264.2067acribbs@basoc.org www.basoc.org From:Andie Reed To:Council, City Subject:Tree Ordinance, Oct 18, 2021 Date:Sunday, October 17, 2021 2:37:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor, and Council Members: Thank you for your consideration tonight of the Tree Ordinance revisions, and thanks to the Residents Ad Hoc Committee's report and the Policy and Services Committee's recommendations following up on Planning and Transportation Commission meetings in 2018. It is particularly appreciated that the staff report (Packet Pages 353 -354) summarizes and highlights some differences proposed by the Ad Hoc committee. Please emphasize that developers need to look for practical alternatives when confronted with protected trees near their proposed property site, and further support nearby neighbors' rights to know about plans before trees are removed, in time to appeal, as is currently rarely the case. Clearcut definitions of "protected" trees and straightforward steps for developers to follow will be very helpful for everyone in maintaining and improving one of Palo Alto's most desirable and historical assets, its trees; the beautiful canopy we rely on every day as we walk, bike, and drive through our city streets. Also, the Urban Forester position, primarily responsible for protecting trees, should have a higher job-duty designation in the city structure, as that will increase reporting and recommending power, giving the revised ordinance some teeth. Please confirm the proposed change that would add the Parks and Rec Commission as a forum in the review process, for increased consistency and coordination that can inform the PTC and City Council in tree deliberations. Thanks for your efforts. Andie Reed -- Andie Reed CPA 160 Melville Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301530-401-3809 From:Bev Benson To:Council, City Subject:I am for native tree ordinance Date:Sunday, October 17, 2021 12:29:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I’ve lived in Palo Alto since 1983. I have an all native and drought tolerant landscape. I never need to water. My yard is full of birds. I just had an Oak tree planted as my street tree. I’m also a member of the Native Plant Society. From:PTAC Advocacy To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Council, City; Eggleston, Brad; PTAC President; Supervisor Joe Simitian; april.roeseler@cdph.ca.gov; board@pausd.org; daustin@pausd.org; president_19_20@paloaltopta.org; rochelle.gaddi@cep.sccgov.org Subject:Re: Palo Alto Council of PTAs — Letter on Vaping Ban Enforcement Date:Sunday, October 17, 2021 10:48:23 AM Attachments:image003.pngimage004.png Dear Mr. Shikada, Thank you for your email. We appreciate the level of detail you provided. PTAC is aware of the shared roles the City and County each have with respect to this issue, which is why we addressed our letter to both. I connected with the County last week. I’ll be sure to follow up with them after they re-inspection the Raw Smoke Shop in 2 weeks. One thing I mentioned to County staff was that while PTAC may understand the shared roles of the City and County, many lay residents may not. So when they see a violation, they willinstinctively reach out to the PAPD or other city staff, instead of the County. I think its important that we (1) try to educate residents that they should report violations to the Countyand (2) make sure PAPD and city staff know that if a resident reports it to them by mistake, that city staff knows (and tells the resident) that they should forward that complaint to thecounty. With respect to #1, the county indicated that they had already sync up with their counterpart in the city and that the city website would be updated to make it clearer to residents that theyshould reach out to the county. That’s fantastic news, thank you so much for that! I’m sure the PTAC will also do its best to educate parents and residents on this topic too. With respect to #2, can you confirm whether PAPD and city staff know that they shouldforward their complaints to the county, and to let residents know that they will be doing so? I ask because there was some confusion when I made my complaint about Raw Smoke Shop. A council member told me that I should use the PAPD non-emergency hotline. I called in theevening and spoke to an officer who said he couldn’t do anything since the store was now closed. He said to call back. He didn’t mention anything about filing a complaint with thecounty. I called by the next morning and just got the voicemail box and left a voicemail. I also emailed my complaint to City Staff and to Supervisor Simitian’s office. But it wasn’t clear, even to me, whether City staff would’ve followed up or forwarded my complaint to theCounty had I not also contacted them myself. I know that a few parents told me that they had reported other violations to just the city, but did not know whether the city was following up on it — nor were they informed when theymade their complaint that they should reach out to the county. So that might be one gap that’s easy to remedy? Regarding the city’s budget. Would money for “youth decoy” checks typically be something that is separately itemized in the PAPD’s budget? I’ll have to discuss this with the rest of thePTAC, but if its a line item that might be proposed in the next budget, I could try to get PTAC as a group, and individual parents to come out and show community support for them. Thank you, Mr. City Manager for your (and your staff’s) continued time and commitment tothis public health issue and for being such an amazing partner to PTAC and parents in our community. We look forward to our continued collaboration! In partnership, Steven LeeVice President of Advocacy Palo Alto Council of PTAs On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 6:10 PM Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Dear Ms. Schmidt, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Chao, Thank you for your letter of September 29 (attached), expressing your concerns about theenforcement of Palo Alto’s Tobacco Retail Permit ordinance. Our Public Works staff has worked with the Santa Clara County Department of Public Health to provide an update about Tobacco Retail Permit (TRP) enforcement status for allretailers with a specific update about Raw Smoke Shop. As you may know, the TRP became effective September 3, 2020. The Ordinance prohibits the sale and distribution ofany flavored tobacco and electronic cigarette products which includes smoking or vaping devices, flavored vaping liquids, and flavored pipe or hookah tobacco. As a reminder of roles and responsibilities, the TRP Ordinance is part of an agreementwith the Santa Clara County Public Health Department. Under the agreement the County provides permitting services, annual enforcement checks, and responds to complaintsabout potential non-compliant stores in between annual enforcement checks. The City’s Police Department provides annual undercover “youth decoy” checks. However, due tobudget and staffing shortages, the PAPD has not been able to conduct youth decoy checks for this current year but plans to resume these when staffing resources allow. After the TRP became effective in September 2020, the County conducted inspections oftobacco retailers in November and December 2020 and again in June and July 2021. County inspectors look for items that are prohibited from sale and for compliance withsignage and administrative requirements. Stores that are inspected include “adult-only stores” and other retailers such as gas stations and convenience stores. The June summarynoted that: 1. There are 22 tobacco retailers in Palo Alto (five are classified as “adult only” tobacco retailers: Hemingway, Mac’s Smoke Shop, Raw Smoke Shop, Smokes &More, and Smokes & Vapes). 2. Most stores were in compliance with the TRP. Ten stores (a mix of adult-only and other retailers) had one or more compliance issues, most minor and correctedonsite. If violations are observed at the time of inspection, a directive for corrective action is provided along with education about the requirements. Fines are generallynot issued for a first violation of the types of compliance issues noted below. Those that were not in compliance included: · 7-Eleven (401 Waverley site), Amidron, Baylands Café, Palo Alto Arco, Palo Alto Chevron, and Valero (1963 El Camino Real site). These retailers didnot meet various administrative requirements related to signage or posting inpublic view their SCC Tobacco Retailer’s Permit or State CDFTA License.Owners were instructed to correct problems, no fines were issued, and noadditional inspections were conducted; · Raw Smoke Shop, Palo Alto Gas & Smog, and Valero (3972 El Camino Real site) did not have valid Santa Clara County Tobacco Retailer Permits and/or State CDFTA License. Owners were instructed to immediately ceaseselling all tobacco products until a valid permit was obtained and to post the permit in plain view. No fines were issued, and no additional inspections wereconducted. It should be noted that during this inspection Raw Smoke Show did not stock any prohibited items; · Mac’s Smoke Shop had flavored tobacco products and e-cigarette and vaping products for sale. The owner was instructed to immediately cease salesof flavored tobacco products and e-cigarette and vaping products. A follow upinspection is being scheduled for this business to check compliance. Raw Smoke Shop A recent complaint concerning Raw Smoke Shop on California Avenue was investigatedby the County on September 30, 2021, and again on October 5, 2021. Prohibited productswere identified, and were removed from shelves. The prohibited items for sale includedapproximately 20-30 electronic smoking/vaping products or component parts for sale,approximately 20-30 flavored nicotine products, and approximately eight boxes of flavoredtobacco wraps. Vaporizer products were also being sold that require additional time for theCounty to ascertain if they fall under the restrictions outlined in the ordinance, and so thebusiness was not directed to remove these products until the County has made thatdetermination. Another joint inspection conducted by Department of Environmental Health and Public Health will occur within two weeks to confirm compliance and to provide direction aboutthe legality of selling certain vaporizer products. The County will determine whether to issue any fines and/or penalties after completion of the additional inspection. Please know that County staff plans to reach out to you to discuss your concerns. Youwill be hearing from them soon if you haven’t already. In addition, for future reference: Public members who want to report ordinance violations can file a complaintonline at Submit a Complaint - Department of Environmental Health - County of Santa Clara (sccgov.org), or via email dehweb@cep.sccgov.org; For additional information about TRP enforcement please contact Nicole Coxe, Tobacco-Free Communities Program Manager Santa Clara CountyPublic Health (408) 793-2745, nicole.coxe@phd.sccgov.org. Thanks again for reaching out about this important public health issue. Best regards, --Ed Ed Shikada City Manager (650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: PTAC Advocacy <advocacyVP@paloaltopta.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 6:45 PMTo: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org <supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org>Cc: PTAC President <president@paloaltopta.org>; april.roeseler@cdph.ca.gov <april.roeseler@cdph.ca.gov>; board@pausd.org <board@pausd.org>; daustin@pausd.org<daustin@pausd.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; president_19_20@paloaltopta.org <president_19_20@paloaltopta.org>;rochelle.gaddi@cep.sccgov.org <rochelle.gaddi@cep.sccgov.org>Subject: Palo Alto Council of PTAs — Letter on Vaping Ban Enforcement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Dubois and Supervisor Simitian: On behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC), please see the attached letter regardingthe enforcement of the Palo Alto Vaping Ban. Sincerely, Steven Lee Vice President of Advocacy Palo Alto Council of PTAs From:Jeffrey Hook To:Council, City Subject:Adopt proposed tree ordinance; it is based on ecological principle Date:Sunday, October 17, 2021 6:43:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sunday, October 17, 2021 Honorable Councilmembers, I write to support adoption of the ad hoc resident committee tree protection ordinance recommended by the City Policy & Services Committee, to be considered by the Council onMonday, October 18. The recommended ordinance supports 7 Goals and Actions in the Sustainability/Climate Action Plan 10 Comprehensive Plan Policies and Programs 4 Urban Forest Master Plan Policies The most important aspect of this recommended ordinance is its grounding in ecologicalscience. The 2030 Comprehensive Plan refers to ecology many times. The opening pages emphasize protecting the natural ecology of the city to provide resilience to climate change. In Chapter 4, "Natural Environment", the urban forest is described to "provide ecological andhealth benefits and a source of beauty for residents". Connectivity and Ecology, Goal N-1, Policy N-1.1 "Respect the role that natural and landscaped areas within the urbanized part of the city play in a resilient ecological continuum.Policy N-1.2: "Maintain a network of parks and urban forest from the urban center to the foothills and Baylands that provide ecological benefits..." Urban Forest and Understory, Goal N-2: "A thriving urban forest that provides public health,ecological, economic, and aesthetic benefits for Palo Alto." There are many other mentions of ecology as a foundation for policy in the Comp Plan. Humans have gained tremendous knowledge about ourselves and the world we inhabit throughcenturies of scientific inquiry. The more we have learned about the natural world, the smaller the exalted role of humans has become. We once thought the Earth was a mere six thousandyears old, was the center of the universe, humans were created in God's image and given dominion over the natural world. We now know the Earth is billions of year old, is part of aplanetary system surrounding a typical star, one of billions in our local galaxy which is one of billions of galaxies. Human beings evolved only in the last ten-thousandth of the period of lifeon Earth. Nature is far stronger than we, and we are increasingly aware that we must conform our actions to respect natural laws or face extinction. The word "ecology" was coined by Ernst Haekel in 1873 to denote the scientific study of therelationships between organisms and their environment or "home" (oikos in Greek). We turned the lens on ourselves and began studying human ecology in the early 20th century. In1967 the great writer and commentator on the human condition, Lewis Mumford, wrote in "The Myth of the Machine": "All thinking worthy of the name must now be ecological". The proposed tree ordinance aligns policy with principle. I urge the Council to adopt it. Jeffrey HookResident, Evergreen Park Neighborhood From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:October 18, 2021 Council Meeting, Item #14 Date:Saturday, October 16, 2021 5:49:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ​Herb BorockP. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94302 October 16, 2021 Palo Alto City Council250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 OCTOBER 18, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #14COMMERCIAL LINKAGE FEE FEASIBILITY STUDY Dear City Council: The Commercial Linkage Fee Update Financial FeasibilityAnalysis is a developer's self-serving document that hides adeveloper's true rate of return on the developer's investmentby calculating return as the developer's yield on total costinstead of calculating return as the developer's yield oninvested capital. The typical financial analysis for a real estate developmentproject includes a cash flow spreadsheet that clearlyidentifies the large return on invested capital due to aproject being highly leveraged by having most of the total costpaid for with borrowed money. The only time I recall that a developer showed the City Councilsuch a financial analysis was when developer Jay Paul wasattempting to get Council approval for a joint project on ParkBoulevard that would include a new Police Station. When that financial analysis showed that the deal being offeredthe City was not to the City's advantage, the Council rejectedJay Paul's proposal. I have never seen a developer make that "mistake" again. The Feasibility Analysis bundles the value of land with othercost items, but the actual cost of land varies amongdevelopers. For example, the Stanford Research Park is on land that wasacquired over a hundred years ago that cannot be sold becausethe land is part of Stanford's Founding Grant. What dollarvalue should you assign to that land? Stanford would like to assume a value for the land that is thesame as the value set by the current market for developable land, but Stanford's return on investment is not based on whatit would pay for the same land today, but the price that landhad when it was first acquired. Stanford is not the only land owner and developer that has"owned the dirt" for a long time, and it is misleading todetermine the feasibility of a commercial linkage fee based ona land price that is not the true amount invested by thedeveloper who owns the dirt. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock From:Trish Mulvey To:Council, City Subject:support for Tree Protection Ordinance (#13) Date:Saturday, October 16, 2021 12:59:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto Council Members: I am very concerned that development pressures and drought conditions in the region have resulted in the loss of trees and canopy, with an associated toll on the many health, wellness, habitat, climate and air quality benefits that trees and tree-canopy provide. Please know that I strongly support the Tree Protection Ordinance as recommended by the Policy and Services Committee, and I ask Council to improve these recommendations by directing staff to provide and maintain a list of acceptable replacement tree species -- ideally primarily native trees -- that support biodiversity and prevent an infusion of non-native trees. This will help Palo Alto achieve Goal 2 of the Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan: · “Re-generated native woodland and riparian landscapes as the key ecological basis of the urban forest with focus on native species and habitat”. Over time, this mitigation framework will allow Palo Alto to: · lead the region in rewilding the city, · regenerate an ecologically resilient community, and · support birds, butterflies, beneficial insects, and other wildlife. This approach will also help to advance and implement the Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Natural Environment Element), the Urban Forest Master Plan, and the City’s Climate Action Plan. Thank you for your consideration of this request and for taking this important step to protect our trees and their canopy. Sincerely yours, Trish Mulvey 527 Rhodes Drive, Palo Alto From:J Fruchterman To:Council, City Subject:Tree Protection Ordinance Date:Saturday, October 16, 2021 11:47:03 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I am a Palo Alto resident, and want to express my support for the proposed ordinance. I’d like the Council to go further and actively advise residents by providing a list of acceptable replacement tree species, primarily native trees. Thanks! Jim Fruchterman 1850 Middlefield Road Palo Alto From:Barak Berkowitz To:Council, City Subject:Let"s keep our car(e)free space! Date:Saturday, October 16, 2021 11:43:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I urge you to make University Avenue and Ramona Street open for pedestrians and bicycles, and closed to automobiles, PERMANENTLY. It's a matter of quality of life! Sincerely, Barak Berkowitz 210 Tennyson Ave Palo Alto 94301 Barak Sent from my iPhone please excuse autocorrect errors and typos From:Gail Price To:Council, City Subject:Tree Protection Ordinance: More modifications needed : Agenda Item 13: 10/18/21 Date:Saturday, October 16, 2021 10:29:02 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council Members, I fully understand the importance of a tree protection ordinance and concur with Bob Sanner’s recommendation to greatly improve the intent and language of the ordinance. Mr. Sanner is recommending using language of the Sunnyvale tree ordinance which is a simple solution to be in conformance with State property statues. In Sunnyvale removal is allowed if the protected tree, “restricts the owner’s or a neighbor’s ability to enjoy the reasonable use or economic potential of the property. The Sunnyvale approach recognizes there are situations/ circumstances that arise which do clearly require greater flexibility to enable an owner or neighbor to address or prevent on going damage and safety risks impacting the full utilization and enjoyment of their property. Frankly, can you imagine living with the on - going damage by the roots of a protected tree which result in $125,000 worth of damage? And, the current narrow limits of the ordinance which do not really allow for a reasonable remedy? Please use your knowledge and abilities to further modify our tree ordinance to enable it to address “real world” issues facing residents. The Sunnyvale ordinance is clear and effective. As a former Sunnyvale planner, I can assure you their staff can provide further information to support our Palo Alto staff and give examples of how their ordinance has worked and been interpreted. Thank you for addressing the on-going issues emerging regarding the tree ordinance and various degrees of damage tree roots can cause. Gail A. Price Barron Park Palo Alto Sent from my iPad From:Ann Balin To:Jo Ann Mandinach Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Tree Ordinance Protection Date:Saturday, October 16, 2021 7:09:51 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Excellent! Sent from my iPhone On 15 Oct 2021, at 23:18, Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> wrote: Dear Council, In these times of drought and the perils of increased construction Ibelieve it's critical to update the Tree Ordinance Protection Plan. Every week on NextDoor we read messages decrying the removal of healthy trees during private and city projects. People want help withindividual crisis situations and -- more critically -- they want a generalmechanism for future tree protection. Residents and neighborhood groups have long complained about thecity's failure to reach out and notify us about projects/ work planned forour neighborhoods, work resulting in the closure of our streets or even work being done in front of homes. This outreach failure includes tree protection; it can and should be fixed.Communications and transparency must be improved. A procedure for timely neighbor involvement, arborist review and, if necessary, appeals is needed before, not after the trees are cut down. We need to see more trees protected. We're supposed to be the City of Trees, right? Remember the California Avenue "tree massacre" and the long blame-game? The bare ugly streetscape? Trees and good feelings take years to grow back. Besides decent communications. we also need to see the planimplemented with strict enforcement and stiff penalties/fines for violations. We've all heard realtors /developers advise prospects how to get more square footage by poisoning that pesky tree so the city willhave to condemn it before it falls down and hurts someone! Reallyenough! It's time to approve the Tree Protection Ordinance. The trees -- andour neighborhoods -- need the Tree Protection Ordinance and realprotection sooner rather than later. Sincerely,Jo Ann Mandinach1699 Middlefied Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Dilma Coleman To:clerkoftheboard@countyofnapa.org; clerk@japarliament.gov.jm Cc:cityofdp@cityofdp.com; police@mountainview.gov Subject:Fwd: Stop the Madness: Ezra and Alameda Sheriffs Gregory Aherns killed Rapper Nipsey Hussle not Eric holderjr. The crime scene was transferred to Marathon store parking lot in LA. Argue it. Louis Farakkon#1 GaslightingMinister. Date:Saturday, October 16, 2021 1:21:25 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Dilma Coleman <dhappinessforever@gmail.com>Date: Sat, Oct 16, 2021, 1:07 AM Subject: Stop the Madness: Ezra and Alameda Sheriffs Gregory Aherns killed Rapper NipseyHussle not Eric holder jr. The crime scene was transferred to Marathon store parking lot in LA. Argue it. Louis Farakkon#1 Gaslighting Minister.To: <larmstrong@oaklandca.gov>, <asmith@oaklandca.gov> Cc: <kleincouncil@sunnyvale.ca.gov>, <info@gwinnettcounty.com> Hello Armstrong, don't be fooled by fake law enforcement agents like Vallejo PD Chief Shawny Williams, Sunnyvale PD Chief Phan Ngo and others. Armstrong grabs italian oliveoil anointed the hands of Diva who chants zen buddhism,and says Catholic prayers as a way to cope stay alive in the Bay Area's most corrupt law enforcement agents Affiliated withboogaloo movement,worst Habitual santanic Vigilantes affiliated with California Governor Gavin Newsom,Former California Governor Jerry Brown,Former President Donald Trump'sand the worst Habitual santanic Vigilantes affiliated with Lucinda Southworth and Oprah Winfrey and others involved in this largest santanic cult. Diva revealed how Alameda CountySheriff Greg Aherns targeted OPD the past,current and the emergency tasks to reorganize and report the wicked ways of the old OPD homicide dept. That's what needs to be done to OPDleadership to lower the crimes. To lower crime in Oakland CA get rid of several Alameda County Sheriff Greg Aherns,arrest Oprah Winfrey,Donald Trump,Kris Jenner, JoanGrande,Carl Gulley aka Cee da Most,Virgil Vega,Solano county DA Krishna Abrams, Richard Blum Diane Feinsteins's husband and get rid of Alameda DA Nancy O'Malley. Getrid of certain OPD homicide veterans, OPD fire official ( Ghostship fires organizers Joan Grande,Lucinda Southworth, Qatari businessman Wissam Al Mana, Carl Gulley Virgil VegaFabiana Vega, Richard Blum Diane Feinsteins's husband especially his biracial son Eugene and their family) arrest Acts Full Gospel Bishop Bob Jackson and seize all things related toActs Full Gospel church buildings and other individuals affiliated with Corrupt sheriff Greg Aherns, Congresswomen Barbara Lee former SJPD chief Eddie Garcia and other SheriffsLaurie Smith in Santa Clara county and Jim Hart in Santa Cruz,CA Sheriffs. What's happening now? Vallejo PD Chief Shawny Williams isn't Shawny Williams but his identicaltwin brother who really is a deceased law enforcement agent of San Jose,CA. Diva Argues it. The Vallejo PD Chief Shawny Williams should not be a law enforcement agent. Argue it.Sunnyvale PD Chief Phan Ngo should not be police chief whereas if he don't make arrests of the murder of Rapper Nipsey Hussle was killed by Ezra and Alameda County Sheriff GregAherns. Police chief Ngo needs Diva's police report about Former President Donald Trump's being a Habitual sex offender (rapist) Habitual thief. Register Trump as an sex offender makeDonald's criminal Records recorded in the city of Sunnyvale CA. Richmond Police chief French and her husband Oakland PD officer French should be more qualified than to argue that they try to save their victimized relatives from sex slavery whereas they targeted a manGoldman. That isn't good reasoning. That's the biggest lie. The problem is that Defund the Police isn't real. Defund Catholic Charities is real. . arrest Erza and Gregory Aherns and othersin the city of Sunnyvale CA and San Jose CA. If Shawny Williams was SJPD the same year Rapper Nipsey Hussle was killed in Sunnyvale CA then SJPD should have Ezra arrestedbecause they began to fight in San Jose CA at Wingate Wyndham hotel on Cherry. Arrest Colin Kaepernick whereas Stephen Paddock was not the only shooter in las Vegas yet ColinKaepernick is a Habitual santanic Vigilantes affiliated with sadistic masochistly cult members affiliated with Donald Trump's cohorts Richard Blum Diane Feinsteins's husband and theircohorts affiliated with Wisconsin William Truchinski Meghan Markle birth father. Diva Lee's heritage is Italian Afghan Jamaican chinese whereas Diva Lee aka Diva Jobs trapped in thename Dilma Coleman is victimized by Ezra and Alameda County Sheriff Greg Aherns and others in America's santanic sadistic masochistly cult. Louis Farakkon is the#1 gaslightingMinister whereas he's been programmed to give speech towards the bottom end of american muslims who are serial killers based on Gematria santanic sadistic beliefs who seldoms actsnormal especially when he entertain homosexual men like barack obama and transgendered women like Michelle Obama who have male enlargement surgery. Diva argues that ColinKaepernick is a Habitual santanic sadistic cult leader whereas California secretary of state Shirley Weber knows the truth about those weapons that were used inside Corocan state prisonand their similar appearance and usage on Scott Peterson's wife Laci Peterson Yvette Pena, Corcoran inmate Luis Romero and especially Diva's father's sadistic masochistly attack in1992. Best regards Diva Jobs aka Diva Lee aka Dilma Coleman. From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Council, City Subject:Tree Ordinance Protection Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 11:18:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, In these times of drought and the perils of increased construction I believe it'scritical to update the Tree Ordinance Protection Plan. Every week on NextDoor we read messages decrying the removal of healthy trees during private and city projects. People want help with individual crisis situationsand -- more critically -- they want a general mechanism for future tree protection. Residents and neighborhood groups have long complained about the city's failure to reach out and notify us about projects/ work planned for our neighborhoods, workresulting in the closure of our streets or even work being done in front of homes. This outreach failure includes tree protection; it can and should be fixed. Communications and transparency must be improved. A procedure for timelyneighbor involvement, arborist review and, if necessary, appeals is neededbefore, not after the trees are cut down. We need to see more trees protected. We're supposed to be the City of Trees, right? Remember the California Avenue "tree massacre" and the long blame-game? The bare ugly streetscape? Trees and good feelings take years to grow back. Besides decent communications. we also need to see the plan implemented withstrict enforcement and stiff penalties/fines for violations. We've all heard realtors /developers advise prospects how to get more square footage by poisoning that pesky tree so the city will have to condemn it before it falls down and hurtssomeone! Really enough! It's time to approve the Tree Protection Ordinance. The trees -- and our neighborhoods -- need the Tree Protection Ordinance and real protectionsooner rather than later. Sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach1699 Middlefied RoadPalo Alto, CA 94301 From:alemmenes@juno.com To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto"s City Forest Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 6:44:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto Council Members, Our names are Ann Lemmenes and Bob Zander and we are Palo Alto residents. Development pressures and drought conditions in the region have resulted in the loss of trees and canopy, with an associated toll on the myriad health, wellness, habitat, climate and airquality benefits that trees and canopy provide. I support the Tree Protection Ordinance as recommended by the Policy and Services Committee, and ask Council to improve these recommendations by providing a list ofacceptable replacement tree species, primarily native trees, that support biodiversity and prevent an influx of non-native trees. This will help Palo Alto achieve Goal 2 of the Palo Alto Urban Forest Master Plan, “Re-generated native woodland and riparian landscapes as the key ecological basis of the urban forest with focus on native species and habitatâ€. Over time, this mitigation framework should allow Palo Alto to lead the region in rewildingthe city, to regenerate an ecologically resilient community, and to support birds, butterflies, beneficial insects, and other wildlife. This approach should also help advance and implement the Palo Alto 2030 ComprehensivePlan (Natural Environment Element), the Urban Forest Master Plan, and the City’s Climate Action Plan. Thank you for your consideration and for taking a step forward to protect our trees and canopythis will help keep our little corner of the world a more livable place for multiple species. Sincerely,Ann Lemmenes and Bob Zander ____________________________________________________________ Top News - Sponsored By Newser Capitol Officer Gave Rioter a Legal Tip: Charges Tucker Carlson Mocks Buttigieg Over Paternity Leave FDA Panel Endorses J&J Booster Shot From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:October 18, 2021 Council Meeting, Item #12: Smart Grid Technology Installation Project Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 5:22:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ​Herb BorockP. O. Box 632Palo Alto, CA 94302 October 15, 2021 Palo Alto City Council250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 OCTOBER 18, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #12SMART GRID TECHNOLOGY INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT Dear City Council: I urge you to reject the staff proposal. Before you pay for a technical solution for a customer serviceyou should first find out how the customer wants to use theservice. Instead, you are being presented with a proposal that is drivenmore by conversations between the Utilities Department andtheir selected vendor than by conversations between the CityCouncil and the public. The costs allocated to the electric, gas, and water utilitiesfor the proposed project are based on each utility's revenue,when the California Constitution requires that fees paid byutility customers to pay for a service are prohibited fromexceeding the reasonable cost of the service, unless you wantto ask for a vote of the citizens to approve the fees. A cost allocation would be better able to withstand a legalchallenge if the parts of the project for each utility (such asmeters) are charged separately to each utility, and the partsof the project that are used equally by all three utilities arecharged based on the number of meters each utility has. The desire for Smart Meters is for the electric utility. Thegas and water utilities have simply been added onto theelectric utility smart meter project. If there was no electricutility smart meter project, there would be no smart meterproject for the other utilities. Former Mayor Richard Rosenbaum told the Utilities AdvisoryCommission meeting of January 7, 2008 that it doesn't makesense for the electric utility to install smart meters, becausethe City's large commercial customers represent 85% of theelectric load and those customers are already managing demand. For a residential customer to benefit from smart meters, thecustomer needs real time information. If a customer is informed of a spike in electric demand withintwo seconds of turning on an appliance the customer can reactto that timely information. If a customer is informed a day later of hourly data that iscollected by the smart meter in 15-minute increments an hour ata time, the information from the smart meter is useless to thecustomer if the information is supposed to change customerbehavior. The amount of information that must be collected by the smartmeter utility to be useful for changing customer behavior ismagnitudes more than the data proposed to be collected by theproject recommended by staff. How much space would be neededfor the storage for a useful amount of information and how muchwould that storage cost? Staff also notes that once constructed the project would beused to implement conservation. Does that mean staff could decide to lower the voltage for theentire electric network, or for selected customers, orotherwise place restrictions on any of the three utilities? Doutility customers want the City to use an installed smart metersystem to have the ability to those things? Do utilitycustomers want the staff to have the ability to do thosethings? Herb Borock From:Aram James To:Tanaka, Greg; Human Relations Commission; Council, City Subject: Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 5:07:48 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ FYI: another form of alleged hate? > >  > > > Hi Lydia, > > This is a follow-up to our downtown chat. Thank you for the kind invitation, and extending yourself to me. During the past few weeks, I've thought about you many times, and certainly hope your stalker has vanished. I understand the stress that this situation has put you, and your family, through. Know that you and your husband remain in my daily prayers. > > Since our get-together [after detailing how I feel about receiving a death threat at Lytton Gardens], two hand- written ominous flyers, printed with large letters in bright red ink, were publicly posted on my door; one note threatened to cut off my beautiful hair. In am anxious, and have lost about twenty (20) pounds this last month. > > To no avail, I have sent many messages to management, requesting to speak to a Lytton Garden's attorney, or anyone who has authority, to stop the Asian's anti-white racial abuse I have continuously received since my HUD residency. Neglect by Lytton's staff is also a form of "abuse". LG has a legal obligation to make a police report for my being given a death threat and continually harassed, but they choose to hide and turn a blind eye. -- Note, LG's on-site Administrators are also Asians, and resident population is about 85% non-English speaking Asians. -- Staff refuses to talk to me .. about ANYTHING & EVERYTHING !! I feel like a ghost. I'm not easy to ignore, and have done my best to arrange a meeting. > > I found talking with you to be comforting, and it gave me strength. If you can make the time, I hope we can meet again and catch-up. > > Sending you positive energy, > Hugs, > -Danielle > > t: 650.856.0700 > > > From:Claire Elliott To:Council, City Subject:Support for October 18 council agenda item #13 Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 4:00:44 PM Attachments:GrE support letter for Oct 18 agenda item 13.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please include the attached letter from Alex Von Feldt, Executive Director of GrassrootsEcology in the package for the October 18 council meeting. Thank you!Claire -- Claire Elliott, Senior Ecologist 3921 East Bayshore RoadPalo Alto, CA 94303-4303Phone: 650-419-9880grassrootsecology.org October 15, 2021 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Council Members, Grassroots Ecology is a San Francisco Bay Area 501(c)(3) nonprofit based in Palo Alto that leverages the power of volunteers to create healthy lands across Silicon Valley. The purpose of our letter is to express support for the recommendations of the Policy & Services Committee and the resident ad hoc committee to better preserve and expand our urban forests and the ecosystem services they provide. Grassroots Ecology works with volunteers to plant trees and other native plants and to remove invasive plants that destroy diversity and a healthy ecosystem. We believe these efforts are critical to a sustainable and resilient community and would like to see the City of Palo Alto continue to advance these goals through modifications to the urban forestry program, its codes and manuals. One of our partner organizations, the San Francisco Estuary Institute, produced an important document, the Re-oaking Silicon Valley report. This report lays out the case for reintegrating oaks and other native vegetation within the developed landscape to restore an ecologically diverse and distinctive ecosystem to our cities. The report also shows the role that trees can play to mitigate the effects of drought and climate change, as is also laid out in Palo Alto’s Sustainability/Climate Action plan. Please help forward the goals listed above by: 1. Expediting a revision to Title 8 of the Palo Alto municipal code to be more protective of trees especially those that are locally native. 2. Formalizing a relationship that takes advantage of the Parks and Recreation Commission as a forum for the Urban Forestry program to get the pulse of the community. 3. Elevating the position of Urban Forester to allow more effective administration of the municipal code. Thank you so much for your consideration. Please feel free to contact me at alex@grassrootsecology.org if you have any questions. Sincerely, Alex Von Feldt Executive Director 3921 East Bayshore Road I Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 I 650.419.9880 I inlo@grassrootsecology.org I grassrootsecology.org From:Catherine Martineau To:Council, City Cc:Eggleston, Brad; Gollinger, Peter; Holly Pearson Subject:City Council 10/18/21, Item #13 Tree Protection Ordinance Update Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 3:13:25 PM Attachments:Canopy"s comments on Title 8_08-02-21.pdfLocal Tree Ordinance Comparison_10-14-21.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and Council Members, Thank you very much for considering the Policy and Services Committee's recommendations on updates to Title 8 of the Municipal Code (tree protection). Please find attached Canopy's letter to that committee in support of strengthening Title 8, as well as a table that compares tree ordinances in Palo Alto and surrounding communities. We look forward to attending and speaking at Monday night's meeting. Best, Catherine---------------------------------------- Catherine Martineau (she/her)Executive Director Working from homecell: 650-575-5310 website | facebook | instagram | youtube ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Holly Pearson <holly.pearson@gmail.com>Date: Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:24 PM Subject: Draft email to CCTo: Catherine Martineau <catherine@canopy.org> [Insert Subject line: ] Canopy Comments on the proposed update to the Palo Alto Tree Protection Ordinance (Title 8 draft dated 06/20/19) City Council Policy and Services August 10, 2021 Meeting August 2, 2021 Dear Council Members Kou (Chair), Stone, and Tanaka,Via email Re: Proposed Update of Palo Alto’s Tree Protection Ordinance (Title 8) Canopy believes that updating Palo Alto’s Tree Protection Ordinance is a top priority for the city. While the city’s tree canopy is mature, abundant, and vibrant, it is also at risk. Mature trees, especially native oaks, are being lost parcel-by-parcel due to development. In addition, neighborhoods face disparities in canopy cover, and climate-change impacts are already being felt. The current Title 8 provisions are not as strong as comparable requirements in surrounding communities in terms of tree protection or replacement. The reasons for protecting and planting trees are clear. Among many other benefits, trees sequester carbon, combat the urban heat island effect, cool buildings, prevent soil erosion and stormwater run-off, provide wildlife habitat, and promote walking and biking on city streets. Neighborhoods well-shaded with street trees can be up to 6-10 degrees cooler than neighborhoods without. Trees provide a substantial return on investment and, even in times of drought and budget tightening, are worth their water and maintenance. Canopy has consulted with the ad hoc group (Winter Dellenbach, Jeff Greenfield, Karen Holman, and Doria Summa) that has prepared a redlined draft with suggested revisions. We applaud their careful analysis and are generally supportive of the spirit and goals of their suggested changes. We also support many of the changes suggested by staff that are shown in the 2019 track changes draft. To highlight a few important issues, Canopy would like to see the city improve Title 8 by: ●Expanding the list of protected species in section 8.10.020. The current ordinance protects only three species, meaning that many of the city’s beautiful trees on private property are completely vulnerable to harm or removal. More native species need protection, as do desirable and substantial nonnative trees. ●Protecting more trees during development under section 8.10.050. Project applicants should be required to consider feasible alternatives that would avoid removing protected ------------------------------------------------------ Canopy comments on the proposed update to the Palo Alto Tree Protection Ordinance (Title 8)1 of 2 City Council Policy and Services August 10, 2021 Meeting 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 info@canopy.org 650 964 6110 canopy.org trees. The city should also work to prevent the two-step scenario under which applicants apply to remove protected trees and subsequently apply to develop their property, now made easier because no protected trees remain. ●Simplifying and enhancing the requirement to replace trees.When a protected tree is lost for any reason--whether on public or private property--there is loss of all of the community and environmental benefits that the tree afforded, as well as a decrease in the city’s canopy. One of the city’s Urban Forest Master Plan policies is to strive for “no net loss/increase” in the city’s canopy cover. Consistent with this policy, when a protected tree is lost, it should be replaced. Canopy supports staff’s proposed change in section 8.10.050(e)(1), which requires tree replacement under all scenarios of property development. Where a protected tree is lost in the absence of proposed development, the tree should still be replaced--on-site whenever possible. Replacement trees should then be monitored and protected so that they ultimately increase canopy cover. Thank you for devoting your time to this important issue. With both climate-change impacts and tree inequities in the daily news, Palo Alto has a great opportunity to lead by example. Please do not hesitate to contact Holly Pearson with questions or concerns. Best regards, Holly L. Pearson Board Member Chair of the Canopy Advocacy Committee holly.pearson@gmail.com Catherine Martineau Executive Director catherine@canopy.org CC Chantal Cotton Gaines, Deputy City Manager Peter Gollinger, Acting Urban Forester ------------------------------------------------------ Canopy comments on the proposed update to the Palo Alto Tree Protection Ordinance (Title 8)2 of 2 City Council Policy and Services August 10, 2021 Meeting 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 info@canopy.org 650 964 6110 canopy.org L OCAL T REE O RDINANCE C OMPARISON *Measured 54” above ground except East Palo Alto (40”), Los Altos (48”), and Redwood City (6-36”) C ITY P ROTECTED T REES - S PECIES P ROTECTED T REES – M INIMUM D IAMETER * N UMBER OF S PECIES P ROTECTED C ITATION East Palo Alto all species 7.6” all East Palo Alto Municipal Code § 18.28.040.B.2 Los Altos all species 15.3” all Los Altos Municipal Code § 11.08.040 Menlo Park oaks native to California other species 10” 15“ all Menlo Park Municipal Code § 13.24.020(5) Mountain View oaks, redwoods, cedars other species 3.8” 15.3” all Mountain View Municipal Code § 32.23.c Redwood City all species 12.1” all Redwood City Code of Ordinances § 35.1 Sunnyvale all species 12.1” all Sunnyvale Municipal Code § 19.94.030 Palo Alto ( current ) coast live oaks, valley oaks coast redwoods 11.5” 18” 3 Palo Alto Municipal Code § 8.10.020(j) Palo Alto ( proposed ) 4 native oaks, big leaf maples, incense cedars coast redwoods others except invasive species & high water users 11.5” 18” 18” all except invasive species & high water users Palo Alto Municipal Code § 8.10.020(j) ( proposed – P&S recommendation ) Prepared by Canopy - October 2021 From:Delaney Murray To:Council, City Subject:Internship Inquiry - Delaney Murray, Candidate for BA Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 3:03:06 PM Attachments:DelaneyMurrayResume2021.pdf DelaneyMurrayReferences2021.pdf DelaneyMurray2021WritingSampleBostonAffordableHousing.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To Whom is May Concern, My name is Delaney Murray: I am a junior undergraduate first-generation student at Northeastern University in Boston, MA majoring in journalism and political science with a minor in data science. For the start of January 2022, I am pursuing a full-time, in- person internship for 4-8 months, and my school provides the time-off to do so. I wanted to reach out to you directly, as I am very interested in working in the Office of the City Council in the City of Palo Alto and believe I would make an integral team member. My intention for my spring internship is to gain professional paid experience in political communications, public relations, law and legislation, and policy building and implementation. I am a published journalist, professional public speaker, and have reported in-depth on issues surrounding affordable housing and the needs of communities, campaigning and candidates, and women and social justice movements. I also have skills in data analytics and research, podcast and video producing and editing, as well with non-profit networking and large-scale event planning and fundraising. Here is my website to observe more of my work: https://delaneymurray.wordpress.com/ Attached to this email is my resume, my list of references, and a writing sample of mine. I understand that the internship programs are often part-time and on a rolling basis. That said, I hope to have the opportunity to speak with you about what I can and will bring your office, my passion for political communications and relations, and where I may best fit into the needs of your work. You may reach out to me anytime using the contact information below or on my resume. Thank you for your time and I look forward to hearing from you, Delaney Murray (she/her/hers) Candidate for BA in Journalism and Political Science Northeastern University 2024 dmurraytutoring@gmail.com murray.de@northeastern.edu (541)-622-9993 From:Bob Sanner Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto"s proposed Protected Tree Ordinance and Removal of trees Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 1:13:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto's proposed Protected Tree Ordinance and Removal of trees Palo Alto is now updating its tree ordinances. The proposed amended statute, for removal of protected trees, doesn’t comply with CA Civil Code #3479. We don’t comprehend why the City would enact something which is out of compliance “on day 1”. Among the relevant property statutes in CA, Civil Code #3479 is easily the most determinative and important, often cited by judges. Doesn't state law preempt local law? This state law says, “an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property….is a nuisance”. Six nearby cities and counties now have statutes which say protected trees can be removed for those reasons. The City’s proposed amendment is far too narrow. It ignores damage to non-primary structures, to water and sewer lines, to walkways, to flooring, to driveways, to fencing, to plants and, ironically, to other trees. Many communities have updated their codes and arein compliance with state law: the cities of Sunnyvale,San Mateo, Saratoga, Los Altos, and the counties of San Mateo and Santa Clara. Let’s implement the Sunnyvale statute. Removal isallowed if the protected tree, "restricts the owners’ ora neighbor's ability to enjoy the reasonable use oreconomic potential of the property. “ This language isconsistent with state law and with our neighboringcommunities. The roots of our neighbor’s three, large, protectedredwood trees, very close to our house, have caused$125,000 (!) damage in 5 (!) separate incidents, in justthe last 4 years. Damage (partial list) includesreplacing a long concrete walkway, the entire garagefloor, the entire driveway, all the flooring in one room,and all the plantings in the entire front yard. Some ofthese incidents would NOT qualify under the City’sproposed amendment, but ALL FIVE caused damageunder Civil Code #3479. These roots are activelygrowing, TODAY, in our front, side, and back yards,in some cases under concrete. The roots close to thetrees are on OUR property, but CAN NEVER be cut,so there will be damage to our property FOREVER. Removal was recommended by our arborist in 2017. If we were to try to sell, multiple real estateprofessionals have told us they wouldn’t be either thebuyer's or seller's agent due to the extreme risk ofbeing named in a future lawsuit by any buyer, nomatter what the disclosures say. They also tell us: ourhome’s value has been reduced by $400,000-$1,000,000. We are subjected to expensive, extensive,and recurrent repairs. Moreover, these roots have created monumental loss of home value, stress and loss of sleep. Would YOU buy this home under these conditions ? Not all protected trees should be where they are. Certain trees should be removed and replaced, with zero canopy loss! From:cusinger@yes2connect.com To:Council, City Subject:Yes2Connect: Balls for All! Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 10:48:16 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. It's easier to play wheneveryone has a ball Hi Adrian... and some good news to start your weekend! Yes2Connect provides private family disaster plans,business disaster plans, and has disaster preparation andrecovery tools for organizations, officials, businesses,families, the community, and even visitors! It's a lot easier to prepare and recover from disasters withthese tools. This community-based tool is low-cost, customizable, andhas multilingual capabilities. Free limited-time 90-day trial so you can show its power toyour community. Here are some videos about the disaster plans: Private Business Disaster Plan videoFamily Disaster Plan video Check it out, call or email me.... and then let's play ball! Carolyn UsingerYes2Connect.comcusinger@yes2connect.com925.360.9076 directConnect with me on LinkedIn About me: I develop customized tools that make it easier forbusinesses, non-profits, and government to work together.In the 1990s I published a series of Business Start-Up Kitswith the California Chamber of Commerce, customized forlocal chambers of commerce. I wrote a Guide to HiringIndependent Contractors, also published by CalChamber. In2007 with a grant from Wells Fargo Bank and the CaliforniaAssociation for Economic Development (CALED), Icreated Tools for Business Success, a customized websitewith local, state, and federal resources to start and growbusinesses. CAN-SPAM email opt-out From:UNAFFTo:Council, CitySubject:Schedule and Tickets for the 24th UNAFF LIVE!Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 10:15:40 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Schedule and Tickets for the 24th UNAFF LIVE! 24 YEARS OF PROMOTING RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS THROUGH DOCUMENTARY FILMMAKING, UNAFF (UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION FILM FESTIVAL) CELEBRATES GROUNDBREAKING DOCUMENTARIES WITH 60 FILMS FROM ACROSS THE GLOBE THAT WILL CHANGE YOUR VIEW OF THE WORLD. October 21-31, 2021 The theme is MOVING FORWARD As one of the oldest documentary-only film festivals in the United States, UNAFF bringstogether the interests in human rights advancement and cinematic achievement.The 24th UNAFF will be held in person for eleven days – six days in Palo Alto, one day inEast Palo Alto, one day in San Francisco, and three days on Stanford’s campus.UNAFF 2021 will present 60 documentaries spotlighting current events from across theglobe and will host six panel discussions, during which renowned experts will elucidatetopics such as crossing borders, reforming criminal justice, youth action for climate,mental health and sports, censorship and press, and technology and our planet. For more details, please click the following items: UNAFF Mission.Program Schedule.Ticket Information.COVID-19 Safety Policy.Supporting Human Rights Through Documentary Filmmaking. Thank you! UNAFF Team ‌ ‌ ‌ UNAFF | PO Box 19369, Stanford, CA 94309 Unsubscribe city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by info@unaff.org powered by Try email marketing for free today! From:Shani Kleinhaus To:Council, City Cc:Karen Maki; James Eggers; Linda Ruthruff; Alice Kaufman; Mike Ferreira; Barbara Kelsey Subject:Palo Alto Tree Ordinance - Item 13 on Oct 18 Agenda Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 9:38:53 AM Attachments:Group letter on Palo Alto Tree Ordinance Oct 2021.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear mayor DuBois and council members, A Tree Protection Ordinance is the most critical implementation document for the UFMP because it addresses, directly and objectively, tree protection and replacement on both privateand public lands. In the attached letter, four environmental groups express support for enhanced protections for trees in Palo Alto, for expanding the role of the Parks & Recreation Commission, and forelevating the Position of Urban Forester. At the same time, we are concerned with the proposed 15-year canopy replacement provision. We ask that mitigation in the form of tree replacement should require native tree species tosupport and regenerate quality habitat for our wildlife and biodiverse ecosystem. This approach should also help advance and implement the Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Natural Environment element), the Urban Forest Master Plan, and the City’s ClimateAction Plan. Respectfully, Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Karen Maki, Forest Protection Committee Chair,Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Linda Ruthruff, Conservation Chair California Native Plant Society Santa Clara Valley Chapter Alice Kaufman, Legislative Advocacy DirectorGreen Foothills October 15, 2021 To: Palo Alto Mayor and Council Re: Item 13: Consideration of Policy and Services Committee Recommendations to Council on the Updates to Title 8 of Municipal Code (Tree Protection), Expanding the Role of the Parks & Recreation Commission, and Elevating the Position of Urban Forester. Dear Mayor DuBois and Councilmembers, Hoesung Lee, chair of the IPCC, recently pointed out that the new IPCC report was an "important step" in the collaboration between scientific fields focusing on climate and those focused on biodiversity, stating "Climate change and biodiversity loss combine to threaten society -- often magnifying and accelerating each other". Last week, the UN Biodiversity Conference convened governments from around the world to create a new set of goals for nature over the next decade. The framework sets out an ambitious plan to implement broad-based action to bring about a transformation in society’s relationship with biodiversity and to ensure that, by 2050, the shared vision of living in harmony with nature is fulfilled. The importance of cities in providing habitat for wildlife, especially for birds and beneficial insects, has been widely recognized (UNEP15 1, IUCN 2, and IPBES 3. See also recent 3https://ipbes.net/sites/default/files/inline/files/ipbes_global_assessment_report_summary_for_policymake rs.pdf 2 https://iucnurbanalliance.org/cities-and-biodiversity-the-issues/ 1 https://www.unep.org/events/conference/un-biodiversity-conference-cop-15 (\~ SCVAS Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society . ' Santa Clara Valley Chapter CALIFORNIA NATIVE PLANT SOCIETY green _ -lfoothil s publications from SFEI4 and Bay Nature5)as cities around the globe are encouraged to adopt biodiversity and “rewilding”priorities to address our global biodiversity crisis6.Cities are considering the integration of nature-based solutions (NBS)as a strategy in urban planning to strengthen urban resilience and to slow down the decline of biodiversity.Rewilding areas in cities has become a powerful strategy to bring back butterflies, insects, birds, and wildlife. In Silicon Valley communities,development pressures and drought conditions have resulted in the loss of trees and canopy,with an associated toll on the myriad health,wellness,habitat, climate and air quality benefits that trees and canopy provide.We are therefore pleased to see Palo Alto take a step forward in protecting its trees and canopy. 1.We are supportive of the Policy and Services Committee Recommendations to Council on the Updates to Title 8 of Municipal Code (Tree Protection),Expanding the Role of the Parks &Recreation Commission,and Elevating the Position of Urban Forester.The Updates to Title 8 of Municipal Code should better protect native trees and large trees in Palo Alto. 2.The Urban Forest Master Plan (UFMP)seeks to preserve canopy (no net loss)and to promote and expand the population of native trees,oaks in particular,in Palo Alto.A Tree Protection Ordinance is the most critical implementation document for the UFMP because it addresses,directly and objectively,tree protection and replacement on both private and public lands.In a world where loss of biodiversity threatens the biological fabric of life on earth,we must use every opportunity to protect trees and to regenerate and enhance local biodiversity for all native species.We can “expand the pie”by planting tree species that provide multiple benefits such as habitat value and supporting biodiversity,so that the adverse effects of densification and drought are countered by the enrichment of habitat on public and private land in Palo Alto. 3.We are concerned with the 15-year canopy replacement goal as a stand alone requirement,since it is guaranteed to incentivize the planting of non-native,fast growing trees instead of slow growing native tree species (or other slow growing and habitat enhancing trees such as fruit trees).Our experience from similar requirements in nearby communities shows that a 15-year canopy replacement requirement encourages the planting of only a few species of trees,primarily non-native,that may never achieve their label size or provide the expected canopy benefits.Most of these trees provide little habitat value.The Tree Ordinance could instead provide a list of acceptable replacement tree species,primarily native trees,that support biodiversity in addition to all the benefits that trees provide.This will contribute to regeneration of Palo Alto’s ecological resilience for the benefit of residents, property owners, and the planet. 6 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/5/2932/htm 5 https://baynature.org/2021/02/18/what-a-city-can-do-for-nature/ 4 https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/71/2/148/6102678 a.Where space allows,we support tree replacement that selects native tree species that grow to a similar size.Native oaks trees (Valley Oak,Coast Live Oak,Blue Oak,Black oak)should be the preferred replacements for large canopy trees (of any species)that must be removed.Redwoods could be replaced with an Incense Cedar which has a similar form and stature,but is a low water use species. b.In cases where replacement tree selection is bounded by attributes which do not allow similar size replacements,we suggest that Palo Alto provide a tree species replacement list that provides residents and property owners with a list of native tree species and fruit trees that can be used to mitigate the loss of trees.This list can be expanded to include a few non-native trees of high habitat value for birds and insects.Trees with little habitat or biodiversity value (Ginkgo,for example) should be specifically discouraged. While this ordinance does not stop residents from planting non native ornamental trees,we expect that over time,this mitigation framework should allow Palo Alto to lead the region in re-oaking7 and rewilding the city,to regenerate an ecologically resilient community and to support birds,butterflies,beneficial insects,and other wildlife.This approach should also help advance and implement the Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan (Natural Environment element), the Urban Forest Master Plan, and the City’s Climate Action Plan. Like Noah,who built an ark to bring all species to a sustainable future,so we should be responsible to promote biodiversity and habitat for wildlife in our future. Respectfully, Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Karem Maki, Forest Protection Committee Chair, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Linda Ruthruff, Conservation Chair California Native Plant Society Santa Clara Valley Chapter Alice Kaufman, Legislative Advocacy Director Green Foothills 7 https://www.sfei.org/projects/re-oaking From:Allan Seid To:DENNIS LEE Subject:Fwd: [New post] USC to apologize to Japanese Americans during WWII Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 8:56:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Neighbors and Friends, More good news to spread. Allan From: AsAmNews <donotreply@wordpress.com>Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2021 Subject: USC to apologize to Japanese Americans during WWI New post on AsAmNews USC to apologize to Japanese Americans during WWII by Randall The University of Southern California will formally apologize for blocking the ability of Japanese Americans to continue their education after World War II, reports the Los Angeles Times. USC refused to recognize any course work Japanese American students completed before being herded into incarceration camps during the war. Instead students returning after were told they […] Read more of this post Randall | October 15, 2021 at 6:35 am | Tags: Asian American history, education, Japanese American History, othering, reparations, Scapegoating, xenophobia | Categories: Campus, East Asian American, Japanese American | URL: https://asamnews.com/?p=119533 Comment See all comments Unsubscribe to no longer receive posts from AsAmNews. Change your email settings at Manage Subscriptions. Trouble clicking? Copy and paste this URL into your browser: https://asamnews.com/2021/10/15/usc-blocked-efforts-by-its-japanese-american-students-to-continue- their-education-both-during-and-after-wwii/ From:Nicole Hindley To:Council, City Subject:Please Keep University closed Date:Friday, October 15, 2021 6:37:57 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Council, We live downtown and really want University Ave closed to traffic. It has made the area so much easier to walk and bike. I am also one of Addison's Safe Routes of School reps. Keeping traffic off University is betterfor the health of our community and FAMILIES. It will also make Downtown more fun and vibrant. Please reconsider!!! The city of mountain view just passed the closing of Castro street to cars. Nicole Hindley From:Tom DuBois To:Lisa Van Dusen Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Gaines, Chantal; Bruce Gee; Joanne Price; Aubrey Merriman; Amy Wright Subject:Re: Resending Fwd: Palo Alto Community Fund - Financial Commitment and Support for Project Homekey PaloAlto Date:Thursday, October 14, 2021 6:47:57 PM This is fantastic. Thank you Lisa! On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 6:23 PM Lisa Van Dusen <lvandusen@paloaltocommfund.org>wrote:CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. All: I am resending this because was informed that some recipients have not seen the emailbelow that I sent yesterday. Best, Lisa ### Dear Ed, Mayor DuBois and City Council Members, I am delighted to share that the Palo Alto Community Fund (PACF) board of directors hasvoted to provide $100,000 ($50,000 per year in 2022 and 2023) in support of the City of Palo Alto and LifeMoves’ application for Project Homekey Palo Alto (supportive interimhousing), contingent upon approval of the application by the State of California. Our letter of financial commitment and support is attached and will also be delivered in hard copy to the City Manager’s office. We are honored and eager to join this effort and applaud your bold leadership and hard workto make this project a reality, as well as to achieve functional zero homelessness in our community. With best regards, Lisa Lisa Van Dusen (she/her)Executive Director, Palo Alto Community Fund lvandusen@paloaltocommfund.org 650-690-0370 main 650-799-3883 mobile www.paloaltocommfund.org Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Lisa Van Dusen <lvandusen@paloaltocommfund.org>Date: October 14, 2021 at 12:37:07 AM EDTTo: Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org, city.council@cityofpaloalto.orgCc: Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org, amerriman@lifemoves.org, Joanne Price <jprice@lifemoves.org>, Amy Wright <awright@lifemoves.org>, BruceGee <bruce@geethree.com>Subject: Palo Alto Community Fund - Financial Commitment and Supportfor Project Homekey Palo Alto Dear Ed, Mayor DuBois and City Council Members, I am delighted to share that the Palo Alto Community Fund (PACF) board ofdirectors has voted to provide $100,000 ($50,000 per year in 2022 and 2023) insupport of the City of Palo Alto and LifeMoves’ application for ProjectHomekey Palo Alto (supportive interim housing), contingent upon approval ofthe application by the State of California. Our letter of financial commitment and support is attached and will also be delivered in hard copy to the City Manager’s office. We are honored and eager to join this effort and applaud your bold leadership and hard work to make this project a reality, as well as to achieve functionalzero homelessness in our community. With best regards, Lisa Lisa Van Dusen (pronouns she/her)Executive Director Palo Alto Community Fund lvandusen@paloaltocommfund.org Main: 650.690.0370Mobile: 650.799.3883 PO Box 50634Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:Tran, JoannaTo:Council, City; Council Agenda EmailCc:Harper, Paul; Deschamps, Jessie; Raisch, Nicholas; Gollinger, Peter; Wong, Mike; ORG - Clerk"s Office; Executive Leadership TeamSubject:Council Consent Agenda Questions for October 18: Items 6, 7, 10, and 11 Date:Thursday, October 14, 2021 6:10:45 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage004.pngimage005.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage009.png Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please find below the staff responses to questions made by Councilmember Tanaka and Councilmember Cormack regarding theMonday, October 18 Council Meeting consent agenda items: Item 6, Review and Approve a Fire Department Ambulance Subscription Program: 1) Adopt Ordinance to Establish Program and Fees, and 2) Approval of a Budget Amendment in the General Fund Item 7, Approval of Facility Interior Finishes Replacement Purchase as Approved in the CIF with Pivot Interiors in the Amount of $349,545 Project PF-02022 Item 10, Approval of Fiscal Year 2021 Reappropriation Requests to be Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2022 and Budget Amendments in Various Funds Item 11, Approval of Contract Number C21181420 with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $3,765,380 Over a Three-Year Term for Tree Pruning and Removal Services Staff responses are below: Item 6, Review and Approve a Fire Department Ambulance Subscription Program: 1) Adopt Ordinance to Establish Program and Fees, and 2) Approval of a Budget Amendment in the General Fund 1. What metrics will the fire department use to measure success for this program (e.g., customer satisfaction scores, ratio of revenue received to revenue lost, renewal rates) and when will its success be evaluated? Answer: The purpose of the program is to provide peace of mind to participants knowing that there will be no out-of-pocket costs if they are transported to the hospital in the event of a medical emergency. The Fire Department will track the number of registrations, the number of participants transported each year, and how much has been waived in co-pays. The Department currently contracts with a vendor that collects feedback surveys from all our transport patients. We expect subscription participants to express their experiences with the program in these surveys. This program will help generate revenue that supports the ambulance and emergency medical services provided to the community. To measure the program's financial sustainability, the Department will track revenue received, administrative costs, enrollment numbers, and the total loss from waivers granted to assess the net profit of the program each year. High-level emergency medical services will be provided to all those experiencing emergencies, whether subscribers or not. Item 7, Approval of Facility Interior Finishes Replacement Purchase as Approved in the CIF with Pivot Interiors in the Amount of $349,545 Project PF-02022 1. Will the new water heater (page 45) be electric? Answer: Staff has confirmed the current water heater at Elwell is electric. Since there is not much use of hot water at Elwell, the new electric water heater will be downsized to 50 gallons to reduce cost and electricity. Item 10, Approval of Fiscal Year 2021 Reappropriation Requests to be Carried Forward into Fiscal Year 2022 and Budget Amendments in Various Funds 1. Did staff identify any process improvements for the capital projects where more funding was spent than was recommended for reappropriation (page 151)? Answer: Overall, the total budget for these capital projects, over the life of the projects, have remained within the amounts presented to Council. Estimated reappropriations for capital projects are reviewed three times annually, with the third and final adjustment based on what actually occurred by June 30 of any given year. Staff in May of every year do their best in estimating which contracts will be completed by June 30 while in active procurements however, responses to procurement solicitations, timing for contract negotiation, and agenizing contracts for Council review do not always go as planned therefore causing these true-up reallocations. When the funding is not aligned with the appropriate fiscal year, sometimes a delay in award of contract may occur, therefore staff typically favor proactively reappropriating funding to not create administrative barriers to meeting project timelines. These reappropriations do not represent projects being over budget. 2. As we transition out of the Covid crisis, does staff have a plan in place to encourage eligible employees to use the Management Training Program benefits for their professional development? Answer: Human Resources does have a citywide training plan that provides an array of training and encourages professional development. Training and professional development has continued throughout the pandemic. As we emerge from the pandemic, there will be increased focus on promoting the training program benefits. However, with reduced resources, staff is finding it increasingly difficult to find the time to dedicate and engage in these available programs as they focus on maintaining the day-to-day operations and priority projects. Item 11, Approval of Contract Number C21181420 with West Coast Arborists, Inc. for a Total Not-to-Exceed Amount of $3,765,380 Over a Three-Year Term for Tree Pruning and Removal Services 1. What are possible disruptions to public life, especially to road traffic, that could arise from the undertaking of tree maintenance services by West Coast Arborists, Inc.? How does the City plan to deal with such disruptions? Answer: Tree trimming for regular maintenance of public trees has been ongoing for many years with minimal impact to public life. The process does not require road closures or traffic control unless work on an arterial road requires use of a traffic lane for safe operations. Crews are able to trim multiple trees each day so the work moves steadily through a neighborhood, rarely impacting the same block more than one day at a time. Special circumstances such as trimming University Ave or downtown trees is often scheduled for weekends or off-hours and is publicized in advance through regular city channels. 2. Which task that West Coast Arborists, Inc. would be carrying out as part of tree pruning and removal services has the most significant resource cost? Which has the smallest price tag attached to it? Answer: The highest cost item per unit in the contract is tree removal for trees 31” or larger at $2,900 each. This item only accounts for 3.3% of the total contract amount. The lowest cost item per unit in the contract is program pruning (routine) for trees 4” to 10” DBH at $100 each. This item accounts for 7.3% of the total contract. The work item with the largest portion of contract dollars is program pruning (routine) for trees 11” to 20” DBH at 18.2% of total contract dollars. 3. What characteristics of West Coast Arborists, Inc., aside from their being the lowest responsible bidder, was the reason for their initial selection? To what extent did their prior work for the City play a role in their selection? Answer: The California Public Contract Code requires that the contract be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. The bid review process first identifies the lowest bid and includes a review of the bid documents, including bid tabulations, insurance requirements, and Department of Industrial Relations registration, to verify that the bid is responsive. If the low bid is determined to be responsive, staff verifies the status of the contractor’s license and previous work history to determine that the contractor is also a responsible bidder. 4. In what ways are the details of the tree removal and pruning project being communicated to the public? Are there active outreach efforts underway? If not, why is this the case? Answer: The details regarding ongoing work by the tree trimming contractor are regularly shared on Nextdoor and Facebook when a new pruning area is started. Included in the postings are the neighborhoods included and approximate timeline for the area pruning to be completed. Thank you,Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Carolyn Chappell Lougee To:Council, City Subject:life-threatening intersections (attachments without phones, etc.) Date:Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:55:05 AM Attachments:Office of Transportation Chopped.docx Petition5 chopped.docx traffic.docx Dec 2020 reminder.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ The residents of Fulton Street (1700s, 1800s) and Seale Avenue (700s) have been trying for many years to get trafficregulations that would make 3 unregulated t-stop intersections safe for motorists and pedestrians. As the attachedletters — sent many times over many years to the Traffic Department, without success— explain, there is not asingle unregulated t-stop intersection in Old Palo Alto—luck, safe residents—but three of them just on 1700s-1800sFulton and 700s Seale. Residents have witnessed numerous near-misses, and speeding is a constant threat to oursafety now that the Embarcadero-Middlefield intersection is so crowded that motorists bypass it by taking ourresidential streets, often at great speed. We have begged the Traffic Department for help, but they have ignored our safety. We ask the City Council tointervene and help make our streets safe. Carolyn Lougee From:Carolyn Chappell Lougee To:Council, City Subject:life-threatening intersections Fulton and Seale Date:Thursday, October 14, 2021 10:49:06 AM Attachments:Petition5.docx Office of Transportation.docx traffic.docx Dec 2020 reminder.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The residents of Fulton Street (1700s, 1800s) and Seale Avenue (700s) have been trying for manyyears to get traffic regulations that would make 3 unregulated t-stop intersections safe for motoristsand pedestrians. As the attached letters — sent many times over many years to the TrafficDepartment, without success— explain, there is not a single unregulated t-stop intersection in Old Palo Alto—luck, safe residents—but three of them just on 1700s-1800s Fulton and 700s Seale.Residents have witnessed numerous near-misses, and speeding is a constant threat to our safety nowthat the Embarcadero-Middlefield intersection is so crowded that motorists bypass it by taking ourresidential streets, often at great speed. We have begged the Traffic Department for help, but they have ignored our safety. We ask the CityCouncil to intervene and help make our streets safe. Carolyn Lougee September 27, 2021 Office of Transportation City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto 94301 Can you tell me, please, why there can be a stop sign at the Byron-Oregon T-stop, which has virtually no traffic day-in and day-out, but the residents on Fulton and Seale must be denied year after year when they request regulation of their dangerous T-stops at Tennyson-Fulton, Fulton- Seale and Guinda-Seale? I, among all the residents, would really like an explanation from you as to why you are waiting for a fatality before you move on this issue that we have brought to your attention numerous times. Day in and day out, we witness near-disastrous situations at these three intersections. As I laid out in the attached letter, THERE IS NOT ONE SINGLE UNREGULATED T-STOP IN OLD PALO ALTO (OREGON-TO-EMBARCADERO, ALMA-TO-MIDDLEFIELD) BUT WE LIVE WITH DANGER FROM THREE OF THEM. Cars increasingly use our streets to cut the Middlefield-Embarcadero light. And they hurry, too fast to pay attention to other traffic movements. You claim that a rigid grid of stops and throughs determines the placement of stop signs in Palo Alto. This is untrue. Look at Fulton Street on the north side of Rinconada Park. We are fed up with the wait and the continuing danger. We would be most appreciative if you would treat our request with the seriousness owed to taxpaying Palo Alto citizens. If you will not protect our children and all our neighbors, we intend to go to the City Council with our need. On behalf of the residents of Fulton and Seale, Carolyn Chappell Lougee 1811 Fulton Street Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 321-4291 lougee@stanford.edu 1811 Fulton Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 June 22, 2020 Ms. Shahla Yazdy Project Engineer Palo Alto Office of Transportation Dear Ms. Yazdy: We have not heard from you regarding our December 2019 request for traffic controls in the Fulton- Seale neighborhood. This is an update and a reminder that we are determined to see these instituted. Since writing to you last December and meeting with you in January, I have discovered further on-the- ground evidence that the Office of Transportation has been willing—in neighborhoods other than ours— to provide security at residential intersections that call for stop signs or other traffic-calming measures even when they do not meet the two criteria you cited as determinative: (1) traffic volume and (2) the pattern of “Guard and Go.” (1) We are requesting a stop sign at the T-stop intersections of Fulton-Tennyson and Fulton-Seale. It has been alleged in the past that there is too little traffic through those intersections to justify stop signs. We are confident that the volume of traffic there is multiple-times as high as that at the Webster-Oregon T-stop and at the Tasso-Oregon T-stop, where there are stop signs. Since our uncontrolled intersections are manifestly more dangerous because of higher traffic volume, what difference does it make that they might not meet some arbitrary volume number? (2) The pattern of “Guard and Go” does not apply east of Middlefield. The residents of Fulton and Greer streets between Melville and Palo Alto (creekside) were disturbed by traffic circumventing the light at Middlefield-University. They requested traffic controls, and they now have stop signs at every single Fulton Street intersection and most of the Guinda Street intersections in that area of the city—controls that do not conform to “Guard and Go”. Our requests for controls on Seale from Middlefield to Newell and at the Fulton-Tennyson intersection have an identical rationale: these streets are dangerous because cars use them for circumventing the light at Middlefield-Embarcadero. What difference does it make if these do not conform to an arbitrary pattern that may be useful in other parts of the city? We are happy to see that our neighbors in Old Palo Alto and on Fulton downtown have the protections they deserve. We are unhappy that we cannot be similarly protected. I attach a copy of our December 2019 petition, in case it no longer resides in your files. Sincerely yours, Carolyn C. Lougee December 2019 Department of Transportation City of Palo Alto We residents of the 1700-1800 blocks of Fulton Street and the 700 block of Seale request traffic controls that will make our neighborhood safe. Background. Many residents have in the past asked the City to place stop signs, speed bumps, and/or roundabouts in our neighborhood. The City has declined on two grounds: (1) that the volume and speed of traffic were insufficient to warrant controls; and (2) that placing stop signs or other controls on Fulton and Seale would be inconsistent with the pattern of controls in the broader neighborhood. Both these responses from the City are incorrect. (1) Every day, we residents observe the excessive amount of traffic traveling too fast down our streets and near-collisions that threaten the safety of our families. The City may have some arbitrary volume number that warrants traffic controls, but our firsthand observations tell us otherwise. We live with the increasing numbers of corner-cutters hurrying—via Tennyson or Seale—to avoid the busy intersection at Middlefield and Embarcadero. It is appalling the way they speed with no cognizance of residents’ safety or their own danger from potential cross- traffic. All of this is exacerbated by the fact that GPS guidance programs like Waze and Google Maps now route cars through our streets as if they were thoroughfares designed for avoiding the stoplight at Middlefield-Embarcadero. (2) It is the absence of traffic controls on Fulton and Seale that is anomalous in the broader neighborhood, not the requested controls. To investigate the relationship, we covered, on foot and by car, the entire street grid bounded by Middlefield, Alma, Oregon, and Embarcadero plus Fulton and Seale east of Middlefield. By mapping in detail, we discovered that inside this entire area, the only unregulated intersections (without one or more stop signs) are Fulton- Tennyson, Fulton-Seale, and three other t-stop intersections running off Seale. There is no unregulated 4-way intersection other than Fulton-Tennyson. Moreover, west of Middlefield there are 26 t-stop intersections (streets that dead-end into a through cross-street)**; some of them have all-way stops, and at every one of them the ending street has a stop sign, which Fulton-Seale and 3 more t-stops up Seale do not have. The Request: Our need is for traffic controls as follows: (1) Fulton-Tennyson should have traffic controls in one or both directions. Several methods of control would be possible, including stop signs (2 or 4), speed bumps, and a roundabout. There are two intersections in the Middlefield-Alma- Oregon-Embarcadero area that bear some resemblance to Tennyson-Fulton in that they too have an intersection with a street fragment (cul-de-sac on one side). These are at Coleridge-Webster and Washington-Cowper. The former has a 4- way stop (including the exit from the cul-de-sac end). The latter has stop signs on both sides of Washington (including the exit from the cul-de-sac end) but none on Cowper. Either of these could serve as a model for Tennyson-Fulton. The Coleridge-Webster model would halt traffic on Fulton as well as on Tennyson; the Washington-Cowper model would leave through traffic on Fulton, optimally with speed bumps added on Fulton. Both models would reduce the danger of collisions and slow the traffic rushing along Fulton Street to escape the Middlefield-Embarcadero intersection. An alternate model (and perhaps the most desirable solution for Fulton-Tennyson) might be the roundabout at Fulton-Lytton, which protects the 300-400 blocks of Fulton. There appears to be as much room at Fulton-Tennyson as at Fulton-Lytton. Why, then, has Tennyson-Fulton been left open in all four directions? (2) Fulton-Seale should have one or more stop signs. The 26 t-stops in the Middlefield-Alma-Oregon-Embarcadero district all have a stop sign on the dead-ending street and some have all-way stops. These intersections are identical to Fulton-Seale. Why, if all these 26 t-stops call for stop signs, does not Fulton-Seale call for the same? (3) Traffic controls are needed to reduce traffic and slow vehicles on Seale between Middlefield and Newell. This stretch of Seale has unquestionably become a major transit alternative for Embarcadero traffic, transforming what is properly a residential street into a thoroughfare. Residents regularly witness collisions and near-collisions. Here, a possible model is the successful introduction of controls on Moreno Street in the Midtown area. When residents there complained of excessive cut-through traffic, the City installed speed bumps between Middlefield and Ross as well as a roundabout at Moreno-Ross. These two traffic controls both reduce the danger of collisions and slow the traffic rushing to escape the Middlefield-Oregon intersection. Why is Seale not entitled to similar protections? Conclusion. We trust that the city will take action to fix the problems on Fulton and Seale before they cause a grievous accident. Residents have repeatedly asked the City to regulate the traffic on our streets. The current situation is, in the words of one resident, “an accident waiting to happen.” We do not understand the City’s failure to address these dangerous situations. Resident Testimonies “An accident waiting to happen” “I've seen kids coming back from school on their bikes nearly being mown down by fast cars diverting down Tennyson or from Seale up or down Fulton, as a short-cut to bypass the traffic lights at the Middlefield/Embarcadero intersection.” “About 6 months ago, as I was driving West on Seale and making a left to my driveway on my motorcycle, a big SUV blew by me on the left side missing me by inches. I wrote to the city, related to them the incident and complained that Seale has become a major transit alternative for Embarcadero traffic and that we should either (a) have speed bumps placed on Seale between Newell and Middlefield or (b) create a small roundabout in the Fulton and Seale intersection. (Candidly, a three way stop at Seale and Fulton would also do the trick but may be perceived by some as too impactful.) The city rejected both my suggestions, saying that Seale doesn’t have sufficient traffic to warrant either of my proposed alternatives, but that the city will increase police presence on Seale. Of course, this never materialized.” “We have long been concerned about the traffic - not just volume, but speed as well. Most drivers maintain a safe speed, but maybe 10-30% go too fast. And occasionally I see them out-and-out speeding (40+ miles per hour). Between the kids, dogs, and social neighbors who sometimes cross to chat with a neighbor, having cars go that fast is too dangerous. We have contacted the city several times about this, and they even came out and did a traffic speed study. We didn’t request a specific course of action at the time (speed bumps, stop signs, etc.), and nothing came of it.” “I witnessed a horrible late night accident last year on Seale. Thank god the speeder (who was driving under the influence) didn’t hit anyone but did sideswipe several cars. A roundabout would have stopped her for sure.” “Back in 2017, I was almost broad-sided by a huge SUV that sped down Tennyson straight through Fulton Street into the cul-de-sac, where it had to slam on its breaks to do a U-turn to then speed down Fulton Street to Embarcadero.” _________________________________________ **Bryant-Oregon Ave, Bryant-Rinconada, Byron-Oregon Ave, Byron-Seale, Emerson- Oregon Ave, Kellogg-Waverley, Melville-Emerson, Nevada-High, Nevada-Ramona, Nevada-Tasso, Nevada –Waverley, Ramona-Oregon Ave, Ramona-Washington, Santa Rita-Bryant (twice), Santa Rita-Cowper, Santa Rita-High, Santa Rita-Tasso, South Court-No California, South Court-Oregon Ave, Tasso-No California, Tasso-Oregon Ave, Tasso-Seale, Washington-Bryant, Washington-Waverley, Webster-Oregon Ave Resident Signatures David Lougee 1811 Fulton Street ___________________________ dlougee@stanford.edu Resident and Contact Person 650-321-4291 ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address ___________________________ ____________________________ Resident Address 1811 Fulton Street Palo Alto, CA 94303 December 4, 2020 Ms. Shahla Yazdy Project Engineer Palo Alto Office of Transportation Dear Ms. Yazdy: It is now one year since the residents of Fulton Street submitted our latest petition for traffic controls in our neighborhood (copy attached). This action was merely the latest in a string of requests for traffic controls we have sent to you over many years. It was reinforced by my reminder letter to you dated June 22, 2020 (copy attached). We are tired of waiting for your office to answer our needs, and unless we hear from you immediately we will take our requests higher in the municipal hierarchy. Our neighborhood is an island of unregulated intersections inside areas (Old Palo Alto, Fulton across Rinconada Park, northern section of Seale) that have copious safeguards on their streets, even all-way stops at seldom crossed intersections. Once again, we ask that you not wait for tragic accidents before acting on this need. It is absolutely risible to say that the situation requires a traffic volume study before anything can be done. We are tired of waiting for you to wake up to our needs. Don’t you work for the taxpaying residents of this city? Funny, I would have thought you did. Carolyn Chappell Lougee From:Keith Ferrell To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Kamhi, Philip; Baird, Nathan Subject:Re: Southgate RPP question Date:Thursday, October 14, 2021 9:50:29 AM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.png Forgot to add the Nextdoor post: RPP enforcement confusion - incorrect notices on cars. I found a notice on my car in Evergreen Park today at 9:45 a.m.that said I was in violation of the RPP because I did not have a valid permit. In fact, I DO have a valid permit on my car (originally to expire March, 2021, but extended by the City to March, 2022). Even if I didn’t have a permit, I was still fine because the two hour window that started at 8 a.m. would not end until 10 a.m. — at least 15 minutes prior to when I discovered the notice. I called the City’s Parking Manager, and was told that this was “probably” just an “over jealous enforcement contractor” and that “it would probably get straightened out.” A very disappointing response, and a lack of urgency about poor execution of the RPP process. Particularly since apparently I was only one of many who called to inquire about such a notice. If you have no permit to park in the RPP, you do need to purchase one prior to November 1 when tickets might start to be issued. If you have a permit that was to expire in March 2021, then you DO NOT NEED a new permit — and don’t let the contractor monitoring the RPP scare you into buying one needlessly. All resident permits that were to expire in March 2021 are good until March 2022. You would think by now that Duncan Solutions, which monitors the RPP in all residential RPPS except College Terrace, and the City could this straight by now. Duncan Solutions is the same company that is designing the online permit purchasing software platform that has yet to function effectively. This is also the company that will implement the virtual permits that will be monitored via license plate recognition technology. Does not bode well. On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:49 AM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote:Ed, Here is a post on Nextdoor from a resident of Evergreen Park. It looks like their permits wereextended for an ENTIRE YEAR, from March 2021 until March 2022. Why were thoseextended for a full year? Why were they not required to purchase a new permit as we were herein Southgate? We received an extension from Oct 2020 until April 2021. Why are you notnow extending that through October 2021, which would also be a full year and also wouldcoincide to the time more closely where residents paid for a permit that was not needed due tonon-enforcement. I'm trying to figure out why the city is treating its residents this way. City council members: I would love to hear all of your thoughts on this. Ed,If you do not want to continue an email exchange, please suggest a time we can meet in personto discuss this issue. Keith On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:30 AM Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Keith – Yes, your suggestion is noted. We’ll be considering program changes over the next fewmonths, and will ensure this is in the mix. --Ed From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:54 PMTo: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City Mgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur,Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Thanks Ed, You say that you understand my expectations, yet you did not address my mainpoint/request. The city has taken money from the residents for a non-existent program. Allthat I have asked is that our permits be extended for the amount of time that the permits werenot enforced (May-Oct). I don't believe that is an excessive ask. In fact, I think it is the city'sethical and possibly legal responsibility to do so. We were charged for a service that we didnot receive. Why would the city not refund us monies that were charged? That's all I'm looking for. I've been told that the program costs money to run, yet theprogram was not being run, so that excuse does not hold water. I've also asked a simple question as to how often LAZ will patrol the neighborhood to whichI did not receive a clear response. Nate doesn't have to respond to my questions, but I will continue to press this issue untilthere is a resolution. Have you or staff explained to the council publicly that residents arebeing charged for the RPP without enforcement? In my discussions with them, they seem tothink that our permits were already extended, which they were not, for this year. It seems thatyou and the staff are intentionally misleading the council as well as not being fullytransparent with residents. Where was our notification that the program was not beingenforced? We received a letter telling us to pay the city money for permits or we wouldreceive a citation, yet nothing to tell us that the program was suspended. Do you disagree with the fact that we should expect a refund or an extension of our permits? Keith On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 4:39 PM Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, I’ve been monitoring the back-and-forth here, and at this point believe we all understandyour expectations. As I’m sure you know, we along with the entire community haveneeded to take incremental steps in preparation for a return to normalcy, while recognizingthe need to be flexible to respond to changes such as the Delta variant. The issuance ofpermits is one such step that, while recognizing that costs exceed revenue, helped ensurethat when we restarted enforcement would not become a greater bottleneck. That said, it does not appear that continuing your exchanges with staff will be helpful. Iknow that Nathan and the team are working hard to implement our parking programsefficiently and effectively, so have let him know he need not continue replying to yourmessages. Best regards, --Ed Ed Shikada City Manager (650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 12:06 PM To: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Thanks Nathan, Are you saying that the contract does not have any quantifiable metrics for LAZ in termsof how often they patrol? You state, "I believe the additional time provided to renew or purchase new permits hasbeen sufficient this time around". What do you mean by that? As I've stated MANY timesbefore, we were told back in April that we needed to purchase permits or would beticketed in May. It is now October. Exactly how long of a grace period do you feel isneeded? Now, the city is discussing moving to LPR enforcement. Why doesn't the department firstfigure out how to run the current program before moving on to a new program? We've hadthe program for, I think, three years here in Southgate and every year the city has madechanges, none of which were handled smoothly. It feels like the department does this tojustify its headcount expenditures. Invent work to feel that its budget is warranted. How about putting in the time to fix the current program? When will Southgate residents receive notice that their permits are being extended orreceive refunds for the time that the program was not being enforced? Keith On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:44 AM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, The Southgate RPP is being patrolled and noticed by our contract enforcement crews8:00am – 5:00pm Monday-Friday excluding holidays, provided by LAZ parking,formerly Serco. Noticing on cars did indeed begin in September. Live citations will commence soon, following the end of a two week grace period concluding at the end ofthis week. Crews and staff seek to ensure that coverage is adequate, fair, regular, andconsistent, although it is also expected that contract enforcement crews will alternatepatrol routes on a regular basis to eliminate predictability. While we have had some hiccups with previous attempts to restart enforcement, Ibelieve the additional time provided to renew or purchase new permits has beensufficient this time around. The RPP programs are designed to provide parkingavailability for residents. We expect with the adoption and implementation of LicensePlate Recognition enforcement beginning soon, we will be able to more closely monitorparking availability impacts in Southgate and the other RPPs. Thank you, Nate Baird Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:47 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Hur, Mark<Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Nathan, In the letter you sent to me on September 29th, you stated that warnings were beingdelivered to illegally parked cars since "at least mid September" and that "Enforcementis not confirmed to return October 1, 2021". On the city's website, it also states thatenforcement will finally begin on October 1, 2021, even though the city has beencharging residents since April. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Residents/Southgate-Residential-Parking-Permits When I contacted you today to report at least 3 cars that had been parked in Southgatewithout permits for the entire day, that did not receive a ticket, you told me that we werestill in a "grace period". I'm not sure exactly what that means, given that everything you have stated as well as what the city has said is that enforcement should have started onthe 1st of October. When I requested that someone come out to Southgate to patrol thearea, since it is obvious that the are still not doing what we are paying them to do, youtold me that you could not guarantee that someone would come out. So, what exactly isour money going towards? So far we've been told to buy a permit for a program that we were told was going to beenforced. It has not been. Yet, we were never told that the program was not beingenforced. You have told me that the program would be enforced starting October 1. Theonly way anyone would be aware of that is be going to the city's website. We weregiven no notification. Despite you telling me that and the website stating the same, theprogram is still not being enforced. What are the requirements in the contract with Duncan Solutions? How often are theycoming through our neighborhood? What is their contractual obligation? During council meetings, we continually have heard staff talk about the RPP programsnot being able to pay for themselves. How can that happen if the program is not beingenforced? Since the beginning of the RPP programs, the city has continually screwed up theprocess. When will staff do their job and provide the residents for the services we arebeing charged? How would you feel if the city deducted money from your paycheck and said it was topay for a benefit and you never received it? That's what the city is doing to its residents. Our permits need to be extended and the program needs to be enforced on a daily basis.I expect to see cars driving through the neighborhood at least a few times a day, everyday. Keith On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, Enforcement was suspended to provide relief to effects related to the Covid19pandemic. Enforcement is now confirmed to return October 1, 2021. The most recentdelay to restart was to provide residents and staff additional time to secure/providepermits. We know this has been a difficult time and appreciate your understanding aswe restart and resume regular services. The RPP programs are not designed to provideany revenue to the City, but the collected fees are necessary to provide cost recoveryfor program components, many of which were not significantly reduced despiteenforcement citations being suspended. Again, staff can potentially issue replacementof used daily permits (stamped as utilized on days where no enforcement occurred)but are unable to blanketly provide refunds. Staff have no means of verifyingeligibility for refunds otherwise. Enforcement teams have been delivering physicalwarnings to vehicle windshields since at least mid September in all districts. Thank you, Nate Baird From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 1:55 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS! PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY IS CHARGINGRESIDENTS FOR AN UNENFORCED PARKING PROGRAM. HOW IS THISACCEPTABLE? Nathan, What services have been provided for the Southgate RPP since May 1, 2021? I havebeen told there has not been enforcement of the RPP. Essentially what you are sayingis that the city told us to order permits but didn't enforce the program. If you wouldlike, I can direct you to the city document that states that the neighborhood will beregularly enforced. We were mailed letters telling us to buy permits and that enforcement would startMay 3, 2021. Why were we not mailed letters telling us that it was not beingenforced? My guess is that the city did not want us to know that they were collectingmoney with zero benefit. You can not just assume that people read the papers and city council updates. Ibelieve that is why we have always received physical notices in the past. I expect thesame to alert us that enforcement will continue. Has the city reached out to ANYONE telling them they are eligible for a refund? Please completely and full answer my questions. Thanks. On Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 1:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Thank you for your queries. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? Annual resident Southgate permits are valid through April 30, 2022 and will not beextended. Permit costs cover the provision of services provided. When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? Staff have been widely informing the public that enforcement returns October 1,2021, on the City’s web pages and in City Council updates and messaging. A shortgrace period is expected but not guaranteed. For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking theprogram was being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not,why not? Staff can potentially issue replacement used daily permits (stamped as utilized ondays where no enforcement occurred) but are unable to blanketly provide refunds.Staff have no means of verifying eligibility for refunds otherwise. Thank you, Nate Baird Parking and Shuttles Manager City of Palo Alto Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 5:40 PMTo: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Baird, Nathan<Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur, Mark<Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Coming back to this as we have yet to receive an explanation. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking theprogram was being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not,why not? Thanks Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:30 PM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Please explain the portion of the note where it says, "While we understandresidents believe they are losing value on the permits through a lack ofenforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining a program of this kind.The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program is voluntary, and you are allowed topurchase at any time of the year or when there is full enforcement." The purchase price of the permits should easily cover the cost of the programgiven that the program is not active. The program is not voluntary. If I need topark on the street, I need to buy a permit or I will get ticketed. How is thatvoluntary? We were told that we would need to buy a permit as enforcement wasgoing to start back in April/May. We have received no notice that theenforcement has ended. Why is that? TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Why are residents being asked to purchase a permitfor a program that is essentially not active? I request that all permits that havebeen purchased be extended an additional six months, given that the program hasnot been enforced for that length of time. If the enforcement does not start onOctober 1, then I request that the permits be further extended. This is what wasdone the prior year. Residents are not an ATM for the city to use when they need money. If the RPPis not being managed, what exactly are the costs? If the costs to print and trackpermits are more than the cost of the printing and inputting of the information,then something is very wrong. I would like an explanation from someone as to how this is being allowed. Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:19 PM Transportation<Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Here is the response from the parking team: On behalf of the City Manager, Ed Shikada, thank you for registering yourconcerns with the Office of Transportation. The City’s parking programs have not operated regularly due to the impacts ofCOVID. After a couple previous attempts, including in early May, the Citywill resume full enforcement on October 1, 2021. Soft enforcement withnotices/warnings will increase as the date approaches. While we understand residents believe they are losing value on the permitsthrough a lack of enforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining aprogram of this kind. The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program is voluntary,and you are allowed to purchase at any time of the year or when there is fullenforcement. We apologize if our program management has not been satisfactory over thesummer. Still, we appreciate your feedback and will take it into considerationas the program evolves, especially as we continue to negotiate the demands ofa public health emergency. Please let us know if you have any additional questions. Sarah Wilson (she, her) Administrative Assistant, Office of TransportationCity of Palo AltoTransportation@CityofPaloAlto.org(650) 329-2520 From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:36 AMTo: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Baird, Nathan<Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Mark/Nathan, Since we were required to renew our residential permits in Southgate back inApril, I would have expected enforcement to also begin shortly thereafter. Ican't remember seeing any vehicles coming through the neighborhoodchecking on permits. I've seen several cars in the neighborhood without tagsthat have been parked for weeks, others just during the day. I have even leftour car on the street several times and forgot to put a tag on it, but didn'treceive a ticket. If the city isn't going to monitor the parking situation and ticket cars that areillegally parked, then why are we paying for a permit? If the city ever looks at the cost of the RPP's around the city, I will expect thatstaff points out that one of the reasons that revenues are so low is due to thefact that cars that are parked illegally are not being ticketed. Please let me know when I can expect to see enforcement of the SouthgateRPP. Otherwise, please issue an extension or a refund on our current permits. Thanks Keith From:Keith Ferrell To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Kamhi, Philip; Baird, Nathan Subject:Re: Southgate RPP question Date:Thursday, October 14, 2021 9:49:34 AM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.png Ed, Here is a post on Nextdoor from a resident of Evergreen Park. It looks like their permits wereextended for an ENTIRE YEAR, from March 2021 until March 2022. Why were those extended for a full year? Why were they not required to purchase a new permit as we werehere in Southgate? We received an extension from Oct 2020 until April 2021. Why are you not now extending that through October 2021, which would also be a full year and also wouldcoincide to the time more closely where residents paid for a permit that was not needed due to non-enforcement. I'm trying to figure out why the city is treating its residents this way. City council members: I would love to hear all of your thoughts on this. Ed,If you do not want to continue an email exchange, please suggest a time we can meet in person to discuss this issue. Keith On Thu, Oct 14, 2021 at 9:30 AM Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Keith – Yes, your suggestion is noted. We’ll be considering program changes over the next fewmonths, and will ensure this is in the mix. --Ed From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:54 PMTo: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City Mgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Thanks Ed, You say that you understand my expectations, yet you did not address my main point/request. The city has taken money from the residents for a non-existent program. Allthat I have asked is that our permits be extended for the amount of time that the permits were not enforced (May-Oct). I don't believe that is an excessive ask. In fact, I think it is thecity's ethical and possibly legal responsibility to do so. We were charged for a service that we did not receive. Why would the city not refund us monies that were charged? That's all I'm looking for. I've been told that the program costs money to run, yet theprogram was not being run, so that excuse does not hold water. I've also asked a simple question as to how often LAZ will patrol the neighborhood to which I did not receive a clear response. Nate doesn't have to respond to my questions, but I will continue to press this issue untilthere is a resolution. Have you or staff explained to the council publicly that residents are being charged for the RPP without enforcement? In my discussions with them, they seem tothink that our permits were already extended, which they were not, for this year. It seems that you and the staff are intentionally misleading the council as well as not being fullytransparent with residents. Where was our notification that the program was not being enforced? We received a letter telling us to pay the city money for permits or we wouldreceive a citation, yet nothing to tell us that the program was suspended. Do you disagree with the fact that we should expect a refund or an extension of our permits? Keith On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 4:39 PM Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, I’ve been monitoring the back-and-forth here, and at this point believe we all understandyour expectations. As I’m sure you know, we along with the entire community have needed to take incremental steps in preparation for a return to normalcy, whilerecognizing the need to be flexible to respond to changes such as the Delta variant. The issuance of permits is one such step that, while recognizing that costs exceed revenue,helped ensure that when we restarted enforcement would not become a greater bottleneck. That said, it does not appear that continuing your exchanges with staff will be helpful. I know that Nathan and the team are working hard to implement our parking programsefficiently and effectively, so have let him know he need not continue replying to your messages. Best regards, --Ed Ed Shikada City Manager (650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 12:06 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Thanks Nathan, Are you saying that the contract does not have any quantifiable metrics for LAZ in termsof how often they patrol? You state, "I believe the additional time provided to renew or purchase new permits hasbeen sufficient this time around". What do you mean by that? As I've stated MANY times before, we were told back in April that we needed to purchase permits or would beticketed in May. It is now October. Exactly how long of a grace period do you feel is needed? Now, the city is discussing moving to LPR enforcement. Why doesn't the department firstfigure out how to run the current program before moving on to a new program? We've had the program for, I think, three years here in Southgate and every year the city hasmade changes, none of which were handled smoothly. It feels like the department does this to justify its headcount expenditures. Invent work to feel that its budget is warranted. How about putting in the time to fix the current program? When will Southgate residents receive notice that their permits are being extended orreceive refunds for the time that the program was not being enforced? Keith On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:44 AM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, The Southgate RPP is being patrolled and noticed by our contract enforcement crews 8:00am – 5:00pm Monday-Friday excluding holidays, provided by LAZ parking,formerly Serco. Noticing on cars did indeed begin in September. Live citations will commence soon, following the end of a two week grace period concluding at the end ofthis week. Crews and staff seek to ensure that coverage is adequate, fair, regular, and consistent, although it is also expected that contract enforcement crews will alternatepatrol routes on a regular basis to eliminate predictability. While we have had some hiccups with previous attempts to restart enforcement, I believe the additional time provided to renew or purchase new permits has beensufficient this time around. The RPP programs are designed to provide parking availability for residents. We expect with the adoption and implementation of LicensePlate Recognition enforcement beginning soon, we will be able to more closely monitor parking availability impacts in Southgate and the other RPPs. Thank you, Nate Baird Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:47 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Hur, Mark<Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Nathan, In the letter you sent to me on September 29th, you stated that warnings were being delivered to illegally parked cars since "at least mid September" and that "Enforcementis not confirmed to return October 1, 2021". On the city's website, it also states that enforcement will finally begin on October 1, 2021, even though the city has beencharging residents since April. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Residents/Southgate-Residential-Parking-Permits When I contacted you today to report at least 3 cars that had been parked in Southgate without permits for the entire day, that did not receive a ticket, you told me that wewere still in a "grace period". I'm not sure exactly what that means, given that everything you have stated as well as what the city has said is that enforcement shouldhave started on the 1st of October. When I requested that someone come out to Southgate to patrol the area, since it is obvious that the are still not doing what we arepaying them to do, you told me that you could not guarantee that someone would come out. So, what exactly is our money going towards? So far we've been told to buy a permit for a program that we were told was going to beenforced. It has not been. Yet, we were never told that the program was not being enforced. You have told me that the program would be enforced starting October 1. Theonly way anyone would be aware of that is be going to the city's website. We were given no notification. Despite you telling me that and the website stating the same, theprogram is still not being enforced. What are the requirements in the contract with Duncan Solutions? How often are they coming through our neighborhood? What is their contractual obligation? During council meetings, we continually have heard staff talk about the RPP programsnot being able to pay for themselves. How can that happen if the program is not being enforced? Since the beginning of the RPP programs, the city has continually screwed up theprocess. When will staff do their job and provide the residents for the services we are being charged? How would you feel if the city deducted money from your paycheck and said it was topay for a benefit and you never received it? That's what the city is doing to its residents. Our permits need to be extended and the program needs to be enforced on a daily basis. I expect to see cars driving through the neighborhood at least a few times a day, everyday. Keith On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, Enforcement was suspended to provide relief to effects related to the Covid19 pandemic. Enforcement is now confirmed to return October 1, 2021. The most recentdelay to restart was to provide residents and staff additional time to secure/provide permits. We know this has been a difficult time and appreciate your understanding aswe restart and resume regular services. The RPP programs are not designed to provide any revenue to the City, but the collected fees are necessary to provide costrecovery for program components, many of which were not significantly reduced despite enforcement citations being suspended. Again, staff can potentially issuereplacement of used daily permits (stamped as utilized on days where no enforcement occurred) but are unable to blanketly provide refunds. Staff have no means ofverifying eligibility for refunds otherwise. Enforcement teams have been delivering physical warnings to vehicle windshields since at least mid September in all districts. Thank you, Nate Baird From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 1:55 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS! PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY IS CHARGING RESIDENTS FOR AN UNENFORCED PARKING PROGRAM. HOW IS THISACCEPTABLE? Nathan, What services have been provided for the Southgate RPP since May 1, 2021? I havebeen told there has not been enforcement of the RPP. Essentially what you are saying is that the city told us to order permits but didn't enforce the program. If you wouldlike, I can direct you to the city document that states that the neighborhood will be regularly enforced. We were mailed letters telling us to buy permits and that enforcement would startMay 3, 2021. Why were we not mailed letters telling us that it was not being enforced? My guess is that the city did not want us to know that they were collectingmoney with zero benefit. You can not just assume that people read the papers and city council updates. I believe that is why we have always received physical notices in the past. I expect thesame to alert us that enforcement will continue. Has the city reached out to ANYONE telling them they are eligible for a refund? Please completely and full answer my questions. Thanks. On Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 1:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Thank you for your queries. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? Annual resident Southgate permits are valid through April 30, 2022 and will not beextended. Permit costs cover the provision of services provided. When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? Staff have been widely informing the public that enforcement returns October 1,2021, on the City’s web pages and in City Council updates and messaging. A short grace period is expected but not guaranteed. For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking theprogram was being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not, why not? Staff can potentially issue replacement used daily permits (stamped as utilized on days where no enforcement occurred) but are unable to blanketly provide refunds.Staff have no means of verifying eligibility for refunds otherwise. Thank you, Nate Baird Parking and Shuttles Manager City of Palo Alto Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 5:40 PMTo: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Baird, Nathan<Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur, Mark<Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Coming back to this as we have yet to receive an explanation. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking theprogram was being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not, why not? Thanks Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:30 PM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Please explain the portion of the note where it says, "While we understand residents believe they are losing value on the permits through a lack ofenforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining a program of this kind. The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program is voluntary, and you are allowed topurchase at any time of the year or when there is full enforcement." The purchase price of the permits should easily cover the cost of the program given that the program is not active. The program is not voluntary. If I need topark on the street, I need to buy a permit or I will get ticketed. How is that voluntary? We were told that we would need to buy a permit as enforcement wasgoing to start back in April/May. We have received no notice that the enforcement has ended. Why is that? TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Why are residents being asked to purchase a permitfor a program that is essentially not active? I request that all permits that have been purchased be extended an additional six months, given that the program hasnot been enforced for that length of time. If the enforcement does not start on October 1, then I request that the permits be further extended. This is what wasdone the prior year. Residents are not an ATM for the city to use when they need money. If the RPP is not being managed, what exactly are the costs? If the costs to print and trackpermits are more than the cost of the printing and inputting of the information, then something is very wrong. I would like an explanation from someone as to how this is being allowed. Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:19 PM Transportation<Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Here is the response from the parking team: On behalf of the City Manager, Ed Shikada, thank you for registering your concerns with the Office of Transportation. The City’s parking programs have not operated regularly due to the impacts ofCOVID. After a couple previous attempts, including in early May, the City will resume full enforcement on October 1, 2021. Soft enforcement withnotices/warnings will increase as the date approaches. While we understand residents believe they are losing value on the permits through a lack of enforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining aprogram of this kind. The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program is voluntary, and you are allowed to purchase at any time of the year or whenthere is full enforcement. We apologize if our program management has not been satisfactory over the summer. Still, we appreciate your feedback and will take it into considerationas the program evolves, especially as we continue to negotiate the demands of a public health emergency. Please let us know if you have any additional questions. Sarah Wilson (she, her) Administrative Assistant, Office of Transportation City of Palo AltoTransportation@CityofPaloAlto.org (650) 329-2520 From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:36 AMTo: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Baird, Nathan<Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Mark/Nathan, Since we were required to renew our residential permits in Southgate back in April, I would have expected enforcement to also begin shortly thereafter. Ican't remember seeing any vehicles coming through the neighborhood checking on permits. I've seen several cars in the neighborhood without tagsthat have been parked for weeks, others just during the day. I have even left our car on the street several times and forgot to put a tag on it, but didn'treceive a ticket. If the city isn't going to monitor the parking situation and ticket cars that are illegally parked, then why are we paying for a permit? If the city ever looks at the cost of the RPP's around the city, I will expect thatstaff points out that one of the reasons that revenues are so low is due to the fact that cars that are parked illegally are not being ticketed. Please let me know when I can expect to see enforcement of the SouthgateRPP. Otherwise, please issue an extension or a refund on our current permits. Thanks Keith From:Keith Ferrell To:Shikada, Ed Cc:City Mgr; Kamhi, Philip; Council, City Subject:Re: Southgate RPP question Date:Thursday, October 14, 2021 9:40:50 AM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage001.png Ed, To be clear, what suggestion was "noted"? Fairly vague response which also doesn't addressany of the actual questions. Please provide answers. Keith On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, 9:30 AM Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Keith – Yes, your suggestion is noted. We’ll be considering program changes over the next fewmonths, and will ensure this is in the mix. --Ed From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:54 PMTo: Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City Mgr<CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Thanks Ed, You say that you understand my expectations, yet you did not address my mainpoint/request. The city has taken money from the residents for a non-existent program. Allthat I have asked is that our permits be extended for the amount of time that the permitswere not enforced (May-Oct). I don't believe that is an excessive ask. In fact, I think it is thecity's ethical and possibly legal responsibility to do so. We were charged for a service thatwe did not receive. Why would the city not refund us monies that were charged? That's all I'm looking for. I've been told that the program costs money to run, yet theprogram was not being run, so that excuse does not hold water. I've also asked a simple question as to how often LAZ will patrol the neighborhood to whichI did not receive a clear response. Nate doesn't have to respond to my questions, but I will continue to press this issue untilthere is a resolution. Have you or staff explained to the council publicly that residents arebeing charged for the RPP without enforcement? In my discussions with them, they seem tothink that our permits were already extended, which they were not, for this year. It seemsthat you and the staff are intentionally misleading the council as well as not being fullytransparent with residents. Where was our notification that the program was not beingenforced? We received a letter telling us to pay the city money for permits or we wouldreceive a citation, yet nothing to tell us that the program was suspended. Do you disagree with the fact that we should expect a refund or an extension of our permits? Keith On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 4:39 PM Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, I’ve been monitoring the back-and-forth here, and at this point believe we all understandyour expectations. As I’m sure you know, we along with the entire community haveneeded to take incremental steps in preparation for a return to normalcy, whilerecognizing the need to be flexible to respond to changes such as the Delta variant. Theissuance of permits is one such step that, while recognizing that costs exceed revenue,helped ensure that when we restarted enforcement would not become a greater bottleneck. That said, it does not appear that continuing your exchanges with staff will be helpful. Iknow that Nathan and the team are working hard to implement our parking programsefficiently and effectively, so have let him know he need not continue replying to yourmessages. Best regards, --Ed Ed Shikada City Manager (650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 12:06 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Thanks Nathan, Are you saying that the contract does not have any quantifiable metrics for LAZ in termsof how often they patrol? You state, "I believe the additional time provided to renew or purchase new permits hasbeen sufficient this time around". What do you mean by that? As I've stated MANY timesbefore, we were told back in April that we needed to purchase permits or would beticketed in May. It is now October. Exactly how long of a grace period do you feel isneeded? Now, the city is discussing moving to LPR enforcement. Why doesn't the department firstfigure out how to run the current program before moving on to a new program? We'vehad the program for, I think, three years here in Southgate and every year the city hasmade changes, none of which were handled smoothly. It feels like the department does this to justify its headcount expenditures. Invent work to feel that its budget is warranted. How about putting in the time to fix the current program? When will Southgate residents receive notice that their permits are being extended orreceive refunds for the time that the program was not being enforced? Keith On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:44 AM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, The Southgate RPP is being patrolled and noticed by our contract enforcement crews8:00am – 5:00pm Monday-Friday excluding holidays, provided by LAZ parking,formerly Serco. Noticing on cars did indeed begin in September. Live citations willcommence soon, following the end of a two week grace period concluding at the end ofthis week. Crews and staff seek to ensure that coverage is adequate, fair, regular, andconsistent, although it is also expected that contract enforcement crews will alternatepatrol routes on a regular basis to eliminate predictability. While we have had some hiccups with previous attempts to restart enforcement, Ibelieve the additional time provided to renew or purchase new permits has beensufficient this time around. The RPP programs are designed to provide parkingavailability for residents. We expect with the adoption and implementation of LicensePlate Recognition enforcement beginning soon, we will be able to more closely monitorparking availability impacts in Southgate and the other RPPs. Thank you, Nate Baird Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:47 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Hur, Mark<Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Nathan, In the letter you sent to me on September 29th, you stated that warnings were beingdelivered to illegally parked cars since "at least mid September" and that "Enforcementis not confirmed to return October 1, 2021". On the city's website, it also states thatenforcement will finally begin on October 1, 2021, even though the city has beencharging residents since April. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Residents/Southgate-Residential-Parking-Permits When I contacted you today to report at least 3 cars that had been parked in Southgatewithout permits for the entire day, that did not receive a ticket, you told me that wewere still in a "grace period". I'm not sure exactly what that means, given thateverything you have stated as well as what the city has said is that enforcement shouldhave started on the 1st of October. When I requested that someone come out toSouthgate to patrol the area, since it is obvious that the are still not doing what we arepaying them to do, you told me that you could not guarantee that someone would comeout. So, what exactly is our money going towards? So far we've been told to buy a permit for a program that we were told was going to beenforced. It has not been. Yet, we were never told that the program was not beingenforced. You have told me that the program would be enforced starting October 1. Theonly way anyone would be aware of that is be going to the city's website. We weregiven no notification. Despite you telling me that and the website stating the same, theprogram is still not being enforced. What are the requirements in the contract with Duncan Solutions? How often are theycoming through our neighborhood? What is their contractual obligation? During council meetings, we continually have heard staff talk about the RPP programsnot being able to pay for themselves. How can that happen if the program is not beingenforced? Since the beginning of the RPP programs, the city has continually screwed up theprocess. When will staff do their job and provide the residents for the services we arebeing charged? How would you feel if the city deducted money from your paycheck and said it was topay for a benefit and you never received it? That's what the city is doing to its residents. Our permits need to be extended and the program needs to be enforced on a daily basis.I expect to see cars driving through the neighborhood at least a few times a day, everyday. Keith On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, Enforcement was suspended to provide relief to effects related to the Covid19pandemic. Enforcement is now confirmed to return October 1, 2021. The most recentdelay to restart was to provide residents and staff additional time to secure/providepermits. We know this has been a difficult time and appreciate your understanding aswe restart and resume regular services. The RPP programs are not designed toprovide any revenue to the City, but the collected fees are necessary to provide costrecovery for program components, many of which were not significantly reduceddespite enforcement citations being suspended. Again, staff can potentially issuereplacement of used daily permits (stamped as utilized on days where no enforcementoccurred) but are unable to blanketly provide refunds. Staff have no means ofverifying eligibility for refunds otherwise. Enforcement teams have been deliveringphysical warnings to vehicle windshields since at least mid September in all districts. Thank you, Nate Baird From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 1:55 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS! PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY IS CHARGINGRESIDENTS FOR AN UNENFORCED PARKING PROGRAM. HOW IS THIS ACCEPTABLE? Nathan, What services have been provided for the Southgate RPP since May 1, 2021? I have been told there has not been enforcement of the RPP. Essentially what you are sayingis that the city told us to order permits but didn't enforce the program. If you would like, I can direct you to the city document that states that the neighborhood will beregularly enforced. We were mailed letters telling us to buy permits and that enforcement would start May 3, 2021. Why were we not mailed letters telling us that it was not beingenforced? My guess is that the city did not want us to know that they were collecting money with zero benefit. You can not just assume that people read the papers and city council updates. Ibelieve that is why we have always received physical notices in the past. I expect the same to alert us that enforcement will continue. Has the city reached out to ANYONE telling them they are eligible for a refund? Please completely and full answer my questions. Thanks. On Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 1:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Thank you for your queries. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? Annual resident Southgate permits are valid through April 30, 2022 and will not be extended. Permit costs cover the provision of services provided. When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? Staff have been widely informing the public that enforcement returns October 1, 2021, on the City’s web pages and in City Council updates and messaging. A shortgrace period is expected but not guaranteed. For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking the program was being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? Ifnot, why not? Staff can potentially issue replacement used daily permits (stamped as utilized ondays where no enforcement occurred) but are unable to blanketly provide refunds. Staff have no means of verifying eligibility for refunds otherwise. Thank you, Nate Baird Parking and Shuttles Manager City of Palo Alto Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 5:40 PMTo: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Baird, Nathan<Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur, Mark<Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Coming back to this as we have yet to receive an explanation. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking theprogram was being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not, why not? Thanks Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:30 PM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Please explain the portion of the note where it says, "While we understandresidents believe they are losing value on the permits through a lack of enforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining a program of this kind.The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program is voluntary, and you are allowed to purchase at any time of the year or when there is full enforcement." The purchase price of the permits should easily cover the cost of the programgiven that the program is not active. The program is not voluntary. If I need to park on the street, I need to buy a permit or I will get ticketed. How is that voluntary? We were told that we would need to buy a permit as enforcement wasgoing to start back in April/May. We have received no notice that the enforcement has ended. Why is that? TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Why are residents being asked to purchase a permitfor a program that is essentially not active? I request that all permits that have been purchased be extended an additional six months, given that the program hasnot been enforced for that length of time. If the enforcement does not start on October 1, then I request that the permits be further extended. This is what wasdone the prior year. Residents are not an ATM for the city to use when they need money. If the RPP is not being managed, what exactly are the costs? If the costs to print and trackpermits are more than the cost of the printing and inputting of the information, then something is very wrong. I would like an explanation from someone as to how this is being allowed. Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:19 PM Transportation<Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Here is the response from the parking team: On behalf of the City Manager, Ed Shikada, thank you for registering yourconcerns with the Office of Transportation. The City’s parking programs have not operated regularly due to the impacts of COVID. After a couple previous attempts, including in early May, the Citywill resume full enforcement on October 1, 2021. Soft enforcement with notices/warnings will increase as the date approaches. While we understand residents believe they are losing value on the permitsthrough a lack of enforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining a program of this kind. The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program isvoluntary, and you are allowed to purchase at any time of the year or when there is full enforcement. We apologize if our program management has not been satisfactory over thesummer. Still, we appreciate your feedback and will take it into consideration as the program evolves, especially as we continue to negotiate the demands ofa public health emergency. Please let us know if you have any additional questions. Sarah Wilson (she, her) Administrative Assistant, Office of TransportationCity of Palo Alto Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org(650) 329-2520 From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:36 AMTo: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Baird, Nathan<Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Mark/Nathan, Since we were required to renew our residential permits in Southgate back inApril, I would have expected enforcement to also begin shortly thereafter. Ican't remember seeing any vehicles coming through the neighborhoodchecking on permits. I've seen several cars in the neighborhood without tagsthat have been parked for weeks, others just during the day. I have even left our car on the street several times and forgot to put a tag on it, but didn'treceive a ticket. If the city isn't going to monitor the parking situation and ticket cars that areillegally parked, then why are we paying for a permit? If the city ever looks at the cost of the RPP's around the city, I will expect thatstaff points out that one of the reasons that revenues are so low is due to thefact that cars that are parked illegally are not being ticketed. Please let me know when I can expect to see enforcement of the SouthgateRPP. Otherwise, please issue an extension or a refund on our current permits. Thanks Keith From:Bob Sanner To:Council, City; Bob Sanner Subject:Fwd: Current proposed revision of the Protected Tree Statute DOES NOT AGREE WITH STATE LAW Date:Thursday, October 14, 2021 9:00:14 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Bob Sanner <bbsanner@gmail.com>Date: Sat, Oct 9, 2021 at 10:50 PM Subject: Fwd: Current proposed revision of the Protected Tree Statute DOES NOT AGREEWITH STATE LAW To: Bob Sanner <bbsanner@gmail.com>, Tom Du Bois <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org>,<pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>, Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org>, Filseth, Eric (Internal) <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>, Kou, Lydia<lydia.kou@cityofpaloalto.org>, Stone, Greer <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>, Greg Tanaka <greg@gregtanaka.org>Cc: <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, Gollinger, Peter <Peter.Gollinger@cityofpaloalto.org>, , <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Barbara Sanner<BarbaraSan@aol.com> SUBJECT: Tree Ordinance Proposal, 10/18/21. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 13 Dear Mayor Dubois and Palo Alto City Council Members: I want to thank the staff for their work on this important subject, and I appreciate their taking the time to meet with me to discuss it in detail. The problem I have personally encountered is described further below. But it is much morethan a personal problem. While the proposed change in the City's statute 8.10.050 does move it forward from the current statute, but it does not, (in my opinion), comply with StateLaw. In the last few years a few cities and counties near Palo Alto have updated their statutes to comply with CA Civil Code #3479 . This is perhaps the most significant statute in CA asto property and is often cited by judges. For example, an appeals judge (Lussier case, 1988) wrote that it "reflect(s) values of substantial importance”. It should not be ignored orcontradicted in the proposed new City statute. The good news is Palo Alto is updating its tree codes that were last written two decades ago. Now is the perfect opportunity to comply with the State Law. STATE LAW: CA Civil Code #3479: "Anything...which is an obstruction to the free use of property, soas to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property...is a nuisance.” Sometimes locally protected trees fit this description, i.e., become a (legal) nuisance,which is why all the local cities and counties listed below my signature use similarlanguage to be compliance with #3479. PROPOSED NEW STATUTE: COPY SUNNYVALE'S Sunnyvale statute 19.94.060. Removal is allowed if the protected tree "RESTRICTS THEOWNERS' OR A NEIGHBOR'S ABILITY TO ENJOY THE REASONABLE USE ORECONOMIC POTENTIAL OF THE PROPERTY". I have had damage of $125,000 caused by my neighbor’s several protected redwood trees. This damage, caused by the tree roots, is a result of 5 separate incidents in just 5 years. This damage will NEVER stop as long as the trees remain because, by law, the large roots closestto the tree that extend into our yard cannot be cut. As long as they remain, we will ALWAYShave frequent and often significant damage to our property. We have spent hundreds ofhours over those 5 years. I am just one example of several people I know who have similar root problems, and this damage is not covered by our insurance. My wife and I are seniors, who intend to sell in the next 5-10 years to move to a retirementfacility. Would YOU want to buy our home with this on-going problem? I urge you to make the new City code compliant with state law. Please adopt the Sunnyvale language above. I trust you will carefully consider this issue and the modification I suggest above. It addressesserious problems; and, it is consistent with state law and the best practices of numerous citites and counties in our region. Signed: Robert C. Sanner Language used by other local communities to allow removal of protected trees: San Mateo County (unincorporated areas) "...allow economic or other enjoyment of the property". Code 11,082. I believe this language may date to 1977. Santa Clara County (unincorporated areas) : "....allow reasonable economic or otherenjoyment of the property". Code C16-11. City of San Mateo: "...allow reasonable economic enjoyment of the property." Code 13.40.100. Saratoga: "...for economic or other enjoyment of the property". Code 15-50.080. Sunnyvale: "...enjoy the reasonable use or economic potential of the property." Code19.94.060. Los Altos: "...for economic or other enjoyment of the property." Code 11.08. From:Aram James To:Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Binder, Andrew; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; PlanningCommission; Jeff Moore; Winter Dellenbach; Rebecca Eisenberg; Raj; Sajid Khan; Jay Boyarsky; Reifschneider,James; Perron, Zachary; chuck jagoda; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; alisa mallari tu; Binder, Andrew; TonyDixon; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Rosen; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Jonsen, Robert; Joe Simitian;paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Greer Stone Subject:If the suspect in the below incident had been a fellow cop would the negotiations have gone on until the cop suspect surrendered? You bet! Would the cops have released a crazed and weaponized vicious police canine on afellow cop? No f—king way! Date:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 9:17:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Folks: Does anyone think that if the alleged assault suspect was a cop unwilling to surrender that thenegotiations in this situation would have gone on for hours? You bet! That the police would have in an identical situation have released a crazed and viciousweaponized police canine on the suspect— if the suspect was a fellow cop? No f—king way! Aram “ No Justice No Peace” James https://local.nixle.com/alert/ https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/10/12/man-arrested-after-alleged-violent-downtown-hate-crime From:Aram James To:Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; Binder, Andrew; Greg Tanaka; Winter Dellenbach;Council, City; CA18AEima@mail.house.gov; Joe Simitian; Planning Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Jay Boyarsky;Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Greer Stone; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Jonsen, Robert; Reifschneider, James;Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Jeff Moore; chuck jagoda; DuBois, Tom; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Perron,Zachary; Dave Price; alisa mallari tu; Cecilia Taylor; Betsy Nash; Tony Dixon Subject:“News Release: Police Arrest Man for Late-Night Hate Crime Assault” from Palo Alto Police Department : Nixle Date:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 8:55:39 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ The below press release is an example of an alleged hate crime as opposite to Greg Tanaka’s unconstitutional call for a local Palo Alto Stand-Alone-Hate-Speech ordinance. Aram https://local.nixle.com/alert/9023914/ Sent from my iPhone From:Keith Ferrell To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Baird, Nathan; City Mgr; Transportation; Hur, Mark; Council, City Subject:Re: Southgate RPP question Date:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:54:40 PM Attachments:image003.pngimage002.png Thanks Ed, You say that you understand my expectations, yet you did not address my main point/request.The city has taken money from the residents for a non-existent program. All that I have asked is that our permits be extended for the amount of time that the permits were not enforced(May-Oct). I don't believe that is an excessive ask. In fact, I think it is the city's ethical and possibly legal responsibility to do so. We were charged for a service that we did not receive. Why would the city not refund us monies that were charged? That's all I'm looking for. I've been told that the program costs money to run, yet the program was not being run, so that excuse does not hold water. I've also asked a simple question as to how often LAZ will patrol the neighborhood to which Idid not receive a clear response. Nate doesn't have to respond to my questions, but I will continue to press this issue until there is a resolution. Have you or staff explained to the council publicly that residents are beingcharged for the RPP without enforcement? In my discussions with them, they seem to think that our permits were already extended, which they were not, for this year. It seems that youand the staff are intentionally misleading the council as well as not being fully transparent with residents. Where was our notification that the program was not being enforced? Wereceived a letter telling us to pay the city money for permits or we would receive a citation, yet nothing to tell us that the program was suspended. Do you disagree with the fact that we should expect a refund or an extension of our permits? Keith On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 4:39 PM Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, I’ve been monitoring the back-and-forth here, and at this point believe we all understand your expectations. As I’m sure you know, we along with the entire community have neededto take incremental steps in preparation for a return to normalcy, while recognizing the need to be flexible to respond to changes such as the Delta variant. The issuance of permits is onesuch step that, while recognizing that costs exceed revenue, helped ensure that when we restarted enforcement would not become a greater bottleneck. That said, it does not appear that continuing your exchanges with staff will be helpful. Iknow that Nathan and the team are working hard to implement our parking programs efficiently and effectively, so have let him know he need not continue replying to yourmessages. Best regards, --Ed Ed Shikada City Manager (650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 12:06 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Thanks Nathan, Are you saying that the contract does not have any quantifiable metrics for LAZ in terms ofhow often they patrol? You state, "I believe the additional time provided to renew or purchase new permits hasbeen sufficient this time around". What do you mean by that? As I've stated MANY timesbefore, we were told back in April that we needed to purchase permits or would be ticketedin May. It is now October. Exactly how long of a grace period do you feel is needed? Now, the city is discussing moving to LPR enforcement. Why doesn't the department firstfigure out how to run the current program before moving on to a new program? We've had the program for, I think, three years here in Southgate and every year the city has madechanges, none of which were handled smoothly. It feels like the department does this to justify its headcount expenditures. Invent work to feel that its budget is warranted. How about putting in the time to fix the current program? When will Southgate residents receive notice that their permits are being extended or receiverefunds for the time that the program was not being enforced? Keith On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:44 AM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, The Southgate RPP is being patrolled and noticed by our contract enforcement crews 8:00am – 5:00pm Monday-Friday excluding holidays, provided by LAZ parking, formerlySerco. Noticing on cars did indeed begin in September. Live citations will commence soon, following the end of a two week grace period concluding at the end of this week.Crews and staff seek to ensure that coverage is adequate, fair, regular, and consistent, although it is also expected that contract enforcement crews will alternate patrol routes ona regular basis to eliminate predictability. While we have had some hiccups with previous attempts to restart enforcement, I believe the additional time provided to renew or purchase new permits has been sufficient thistime around. The RPP programs are designed to provide parking availability for residents. We expect with the adoption and implementation of License Plate Recognitionenforcement beginning soon, we will be able to more closely monitor parking availability impacts in Southgate and the other RPPs. Thank you, Nate Baird Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:47 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Hur, Mark<Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Nathan, In the letter you sent to me on September 29th, you stated that warnings were beingdelivered to illegally parked cars since "at least mid September" and that "Enforcement is not confirmed to return October 1, 2021". On the city's website, it also states thatenforcement will finally begin on October 1, 2021, even though the city has been charging residents since April. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Residents/Southgate- Residential-Parking-Permits When I contacted you today to report at least 3 cars that had been parked in Southgatewithout permits for the entire day, that did not receive a ticket, you told me that we were still in a "grace period". I'm not sure exactly what that means, given that everything youhave stated as well as what the city has said is that enforcement should have started on the 1st of October. When I requested that someone come out to Southgate to patrol the area,since it is obvious that the are still not doing what we are paying them to do, you told me that you could not guarantee that someone would come out. So, what exactly is ourmoney going towards? So far we've been told to buy a permit for a program that we were told was going to be enforced. It has not been. Yet, we were never told that the program was not beingenforced. You have told me that the program would be enforced starting October 1. The only way anyone would be aware of that is be going to the city's website. We were givenno notification. Despite you telling me that and the website stating the same, the program is still not being enforced. What are the requirements in the contract with Duncan Solutions? How often are theycoming through our neighborhood? What is their contractual obligation? During council meetings, we continually have heard staff talk about the RPP programs not being able to pay for themselves. How can that happen if the program is not beingenforced? Since the beginning of the RPP programs, the city has continually screwed up the process. When will staff do their job and provide the residents for the services we are beingcharged? How would you feel if the city deducted money from your paycheck and said it was to pay for a benefit and you never received it? That's what the city is doing to its residents. Our permits need to be extended and the program needs to be enforced on a daily basis. Iexpect to see cars driving through the neighborhood at least a few times a day, every day. Keith On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, Enforcement was suspended to provide relief to effects related to the Covid19 pandemic. Enforcement is now confirmed to return October 1, 2021. The most recentdelay to restart was to provide residents and staff additional time to secure/provide permits. We know this has been a difficult time and appreciate your understanding aswe restart and resume regular services. The RPP programs are not designed to provide any revenue to the City, but the collected fees are necessary to provide cost recovery forprogram components, many of which were not significantly reduced despite enforcement citations being suspended. Again, staff can potentially issue replacementof used daily permits (stamped as utilized on days where no enforcement occurred) but are unable to blanketly provide refunds. Staff have no means of verifying eligibility forrefunds otherwise. Enforcement teams have been delivering physical warnings to vehicle windshields since at least mid September in all districts. Thank you, Nate Baird From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 1:55 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS! PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY IS CHARGING RESIDENTS FOR AN UNENFORCED PARKING PROGRAM. HOW IS THISACCEPTABLE? Nathan, What services have been provided for the Southgate RPP since May 1, 2021? I havebeen told there has not been enforcement of the RPP. Essentially what you are saying is that the city told us to order permits but didn't enforce the program. If you would like, Ican direct you to the city document that states that the neighborhood will be regularly enforced. We were mailed letters telling us to buy permits and that enforcement would start May3, 2021. Why were we not mailed letters telling us that it was not being enforced? My guess is that the city did not want us to know that they were collecting money with zerobenefit. You can not just assume that people read the papers and city council updates. I believe that is why we have always received physical notices in the past. I expect the same toalert us that enforcement will continue. Has the city reached out to ANYONE telling them they are eligible for a refund? Please completely and full answer my questions. Thanks. On Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 1:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Thank you for your queries. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? Annual resident Southgate permits are valid through April 30, 2022 and will not beextended. Permit costs cover the provision of services provided. When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? Staff have been widely informing the public that enforcement returns October 1,2021, on the City’s web pages and in City Council updates and messaging. A short grace period is expected but not guaranteed. For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking theprogram was being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not, why not? Staff can potentially issue replacement used daily permits (stamped as utilized on days where no enforcement occurred) but are unable to blanketly provide refunds.Staff have no means of verifying eligibility for refunds otherwise. Thank you, Nate Baird Parking and Shuttles Manager City of Palo Alto Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 5:40 PMTo: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Baird, Nathan<Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Coming back to this as we have yet to receive an explanation. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking the program was being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not,why not? Thanks Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:30 PM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Please explain the portion of the note where it says, "While we understand residents believe they are losing value on the permits through a lack ofenforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining a program of this kind. The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program is voluntary, and you are allowed topurchase at any time of the year or when there is full enforcement." The purchase price of the permits should easily cover the cost of the program given that the program is not active. The program is not voluntary. If I need to park on the street, I need to buy a permit or I will get ticketed. How is that voluntary? Wewere told that we would need to buy a permit as enforcement was going to start back in April/May. We have received no notice that the enforcement has ended.Why is that? TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Why are residents being asked to purchase a permit for a program that is essentially not active? I request that all permits that have beenpurchased be extended an additional six months, given that the program has not been enforced for that length of time. If the enforcement does not start on October1, then I request that the permits be further extended. This is what was done the prior year. Residents are not an ATM for the city to use when they need money. If the RPP isnot being managed, what exactly are the costs? If the costs to print and track permits are more than the cost of the printing and inputting of the information, thensomething is very wrong. I would like an explanation from someone as to how this is being allowed. Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:19 PM Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Here is the response from the parking team: On behalf of the City Manager, Ed Shikada, thank you for registering your concerns with the Office of Transportation. The City’s parking programs have not operated regularly due to the impacts ofCOVID. After a couple previous attempts, including in early May, the City will resume full enforcement on October 1, 2021. Soft enforcement withnotices/warnings will increase as the date approaches. While we understand residents believe they are losing value on the permits through a lack of enforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining aprogram of this kind. The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program is voluntary, and you are allowed to purchase at any time of the year or when there is fullenforcement. We apologize if our program management has not been satisfactory over the summer. Still, we appreciate your feedback and will take it into consideration asthe program evolves, especially as we continue to negotiate the demands of a public health emergency. Please let us know if you have any additional questions. Sarah Wilson (she, her) Administrative Assistant, Office of Transportation City of Palo AltoTransportation@CityofPaloAlto.org (650) 329-2520 From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:36 AMTo: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Baird, Nathan<Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Mark/Nathan, Since we were required to renew our residential permits in Southgate back inApril, I would have expected enforcement to also begin shortly thereafter. Ican't remember seeing any vehicles coming through the neighborhood checking on permits. I've seen several cars in the neighborhood without tags that havebeen parked for weeks, others just during the day. I have even left our car on the street several times and forgot to put a tag on it, but didn't receive a ticket. If the city isn't going to monitor the parking situation and ticket cars that areillegally parked, then why are we paying for a permit? If the city ever looks at the cost of the RPP's around the city, I will expect that staff points out that one of the reasons that revenues are so low is due to the factthat cars that are parked illegally are not being ticketed. Please let me know when I can expect to see enforcement of the Southgate RPP. Otherwise, please issue an extension or a refund on our current permits. Thanks Keith From:Shikada, Ed To:Keith Ferrell; Baird, Nathan Cc:City Mgr; Transportation; Hur, Mark; Council, City Subject:RE: Southgate RPP question Date:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 4:39:16 PM Attachments:image003.pngimage002.png Hello Mr. Ferrell, I’ve been monitoring the back-and-forth here, and at this point believe we all understand your expectations. As I’m sure you know, we along with the entire community have needed to take incremental steps in preparation for a return to normalcy, while recognizing the need to be flexible to respond to changes such as the Delta variant. The issuance of permits is one such step that, while recognizing that costs exceed revenue, helped ensure that when we restarted enforcement would not become a greater bottleneck. That said, it does not appear that continuing your exchanges with staff will be helpful. I know that Nathan and the team are working hard to implement our parking programs efficiently and effectively, so have let him know he need not continue replying to your messages. Best regards, --Ed Ed Shikada City Manager (650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2021 12:06 PM To: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Thanks Nathan, Are you saying that the contract does not have any quantifiable metrics for LAZ in terms of how often they patrol? You state, "I believe the additional time provided to renew or purchase new permits has been sufficient this time around". What do you mean by that? As I've stated MANY times before, we were told back in April that we needed to purchase permits or would be ticketed in May. It is now October. Exactly how long of a grace period do you feel is needed? Now, the city is discussing moving to LPR enforcement. Why doesn't the department first figure out how to run the current program before moving on to a new program? We've had the program for, I think, three years here in Southgate and every year the city has made changes, none of which were handled smoothly. It feels like the department does this to justify its headcount expenditures. Invent work to feel that its budget is warranted. How about putting in the time to fix the current program? When will Southgate residents receive notice that their permits are being extended or receive refunds for the time that the program was not being enforced? Keith On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:44 AM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, The Southgate RPP is being patrolled and noticed by our contract enforcement crews 8:00am – 5:00pm Monday-Friday excluding holidays, provided by LAZ parking, formerly Serco. Noticing on cars did indeed begin in September. Live citations will commence soon, following the end of a two week grace period concluding at the end of this week. Crews and staff seek to ensure that coverage is adequate, fair, regular, and consistent, although it is also expected that contract enforcement crews will alternate patrol routes on a regular basis to eliminate predictability. While we have had some hiccups with previous attempts to restart enforcement, I believe the additional time provided to renew or purchase new permits has been sufficient this time around. The RPP programs are designed to provide parking availability for residents. We expect with the adoption and implementation of License Plate Recognition enforcement beginning soon, we will be able to more closely monitor parking availability impacts in Southgate and the other RPPs. Thank you, Nate Baird Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:47 PM To: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Nathan, In the letter you sent to me on September 29th, you stated that warnings were being delivered to illegally parked cars since "at least mid September" and that "Enforcement is not confirmed to return October 1, 2021". On the city's website, it also states that enforcement will finally begin on October 1, 2021, even though the city has been charging residents since April. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Residents/Southgate- Residential-Parking-Permits When I contacted you today to report at least 3 cars that had been parked in Southgate without permits for the entire day, that did not receive a ticket, you told me that we were still in a "grace period". I'm not sure exactly what that means, given that everything you have stated as well as what the city has said is that enforcement should have started on the 1st of October. When I requested that someone come out to Southgate to patrol the area, since it is obvious that the are still not doing what we are paying them to do, you told me that you could not guarantee that someone would come out. So, what exactly is our money going towards? So far we've been told to buy a permit for a program that we were told was going to be enforced. It has not been. Yet, we were never told that the program was not being enforced. You have told me that the program would be enforced starting October 1. The only way anyone would be aware of that is be going to the city's website. We were given no notification. Despite you telling me that and the website stating the same, the program is still not being enforced. What are the requirements in the contract with Duncan Solutions? How often are they coming through our neighborhood? What is their contractual obligation? During council meetings, we continually have heard staff talk about the RPP programs not being able to pay for themselves. How can that happen if the program is not being enforced? Since the beginning of the RPP programs, the city has continually screwed up the process. When will staff do their job and provide the residents for the services we are being charged? How would you feel if the city deducted money from your paycheck and said it was to pay for a benefit and you never received it? That's what the city is doing to its residents. Our permits need to be extended and the program needs to be enforced on a daily basis. I expect to see cars driving through the neighborhood at least a few times a day, every day. Keith On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, Enforcement was suspended to provide relief to effects related to the Covid19 pandemic. Enforcement is now confirmed to return October 1, 2021. The most recent delay to restart was to provide residents and staff additional time to secure/provide permits. We know this has been a difficult time and appreciate your understanding as we restart and resume regular services. The RPP programs are not designed to provide any revenue to the City, but the collected fees are necessary to provide cost recovery for program components, many of which were not significantly reduced despite enforcement citations being suspended. Again, staff can potentially issue replacement of used daily permits (stamped as utilized on days where no enforcement occurred) but are unable to blanketly provide refunds. Staff have no means of verifying eligibility for refunds otherwise. Enforcement teams have been delivering physical warnings to vehicle windshields since at least mid September in all districts. Thank you, Nate Baird From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 1:55 PM To: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS! PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY IS CHARGING RESIDENTS FOR AN UNENFORCED PARKING PROGRAM. HOW IS THIS ACCEPTABLE? Nathan, What services have been provided for the Southgate RPP since May 1, 2021? I have been told there has not been enforcement of the RPP. Essentially what you are saying is that the city told us to order permits but didn't enforce the program. If you would like, I can direct you to the city document that states that the neighborhood will be regularly enforced. We were mailed letters telling us to buy permits and that enforcement would start May 3, 2021. Why were we not mailed letters telling us that it was not being enforced? My guess is that the city did not want us to know that they were collecting money with zero benefit. You can not just assume that people read the papers and city council updates. I believe that is why we have always received physical notices in the past. I expect the same to alert us that enforcement will continue. Has the city reached out to ANYONE telling them they are eligible for a refund? Please completely and full answer my questions. Thanks. On Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 1:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Thank you for your queries. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? Annual resident Southgate permits are valid through April 30, 2022 and will not be extended. Permit costs cover the provision of services provided. When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? Staff have been widely informing the public that enforcement returns October 1, 2021, on the City’s web pages and in City Council updates and messaging. A short grace period is expected but not guaranteed. For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking the program was being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not, why not? Staff can potentially issue replacement used daily permits (stamped as utilized on days where no enforcement occurred) but are unable to blanketly provide refunds. Staff have no means of verifying eligibility for refunds otherwise. Thank you, Nate Baird Parking and Shuttles Manager City of Palo Alto Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 5:40 PM To: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Coming back to this as we have yet to receive an explanation. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking the program was being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not, why not? Thanks Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:30 PM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Please explain the portion of the note where it says, "While we understand residents believe they are losing value on the permits through a lack of enforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining a program of this kind. The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program is voluntary, and you are allowed to purchase at any time of the year or when there is full enforcement." The purchase price of the permits should easily cover the cost of the program given that the program is not active. The program is not voluntary. If I need to park on the street, I need to buy a permit or I will get ticketed. How is that voluntary? We were told that we would need to buy a permit as enforcement was going to start back in April/May. We have received no notice that the enforcement has ended. Why is that? TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Why are residents being asked to purchase a permit for a program that is essentially not active? I request that all permits that have been purchased be extended an additional six months, given that the program has not been enforced for that length of time. If the enforcement does not start on October 1, then I request that the permits be further extended. This is what was done the prior year. Residents are not an ATM for the city to use when they need money. If the RPP is not being managed, what exactly are the costs? If the costs to print and track permits are more than the cost of the printing and inputting of the information, then something is very wrong. I would like an explanation from someone as to how this is being allowed. Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:19 PM Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Here is the response from the parking team: On behalf of the City Manager, Ed Shikada, thank you for registering your concerns with the Office of Transportation. The City’s parking programs have not operated regularly due to the impacts of COVID. After a couple previous attempts, including in early May, the City will resume full enforcement on October 1, 2021. Soft enforcement with notices/warnings will increase as the date approaches. While we understand residents believe they are losing value on the permits through a lack of enforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining a program of this kind. The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program is voluntary, and you are allowed to purchase at any time of the year or when there is full enforcement. We apologize if our program management has not been satisfactory over the summer. Still, we appreciate your feedback and will take it into consideration as the program evolves, especially as we continue to negotiate the demands of a public health emergency. Please let us know if you have any additional questions. Sarah Wilson (she, her) Administrative Assistant, Office of Transportation City of Palo Alto Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org (650) 329-2520 From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:36 AM To: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Mark/Nathan, Since we were required to renew our residential permits in Southgate back in April, I would have expected enforcement to also begin shortly thereafter. I can't remember seeing any vehicles coming through the neighborhood checking on permits. I've seen several cars in the neighborhood without tags that have been parked for weeks, others just during the day. I have even left our car on the street several times and forgot to put a tag on it, but didn't receive a ticket. If the city isn't going to monitor the parking situation and ticket cars that are illegally parked, then why are we paying for a permit? If the city ever looks at the cost of the RPP's around the city, I will expect that staff points out that one of the reasons that revenues are so low is due to the fact that cars that are parked illegally are not being ticketed. Please let me know when I can expect to see enforcement of the Southgate RPP. Otherwise, please issue an extension or a refund on our current permits. Thanks Keith From:Nelson Ng To:Nanci Kauffman Cc:Kathy Layendecker; French, Amy; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed; info@pnqlnow.org; Kim Wong Subject:Re: The Castilleja Expansion saga continues ... Date:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 2:56:46 PM Attachments:Screen Shot 2021-06-13 at 2.31.16 PM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Nanci, Thanks for the reply. I feel like we are just having circular discussions as my main point is if the traffic problem is really fixed, then you will not need a garage. As I said in my June 14th email below If Castilleja is genuinely wants to provide a solution that is good for the neighborhood, I am sure the neighbors would be willing to work with Castilleja and the City for a parking solution that is acceptable for the neighbors but without an underground garage. * Thanks for pointing out that Nueva split into two campuses when they wanted to grow andthe site where they had their original campus could not accommodate more students. Theymoved their high school to the old Bay Meadows racetrack site in San Mateo which is notzone for Single Family Home. Even then the City of San Mateo does not allow the highschool students who attend Nueva to drive to the campus. * Castilleja sits on 6 acres in a residential neighborhood. All other public schools in Palo Altoare zoned PF (public facility). Paly is on 44 acres and Gunn almost 50. Any private school inPalo Alto in R-1 zones have strict hours of operation and very limited if any evening andweekend events. * Around 75% of Castilleja's student body are from outside of Palo Alto. So I am not sure if Iunderstand this statement "We understand the important part we play in Palo Alto'seducational ecosystem". * The 2016 expansion plan was disclosed to the neighbors only a few days before it wassubmitted the City. Many neighbors like myself only learned about the details of the plan viathe City Website after the application was submitted. The protestations of neighbors after theplans were submitted in 2016 SHOWS that the school did not really reach out to vet the planwith the neighbors. Nelson On Tuesday, October 12, 2021, 02:01:59 PM PDT, Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> wrote: Dear Nelson, Thank you for sharing your perspective on our proposal. Kathy and I always appreciate feedback from neighbors as we seek ways to incorporate varied neighbor interests in our plans to support educational excellence in Palo Alto. With a 100+ year history of educating girls and young women at this location, we have watched as nearby schools have grown to accommodate Palo Alto's expanding population ofschool-aged children. We understand the important part we play in Palo Alto's educational ecosystem; anamended CUP to revitalize our campus and increase enrollment is fundamental to upholding thisresponsibility. We caution you not to conflate the availability of parking on campus with traffic. As it is clear from youremails that increased traffic is your key concern about the garage, please note that the proposed CUPensures that traffic will not increase. In other words, the garage is not designed to increase the number ofcars coming to campus nor would that be allowed. Instead, the purpose of the garage is to reduce noiseand to keep streets clear of school parking, allowing more parking for residents, many of whom now havemultiple tenants with cars. Thank you for pointing to the efforts other schools in surrounding municipalities have made to mitigatetraffic. We too have satellite parking and many shuttles, and it is our understanding that we have reducedtraffic more than any other school in the Bay Area. Some of the other schools you cite use satelliteparking to augment their ample on-campus parking. In the case of Nueva, the parking is in anunderground garage. We are sorry that you did not choose to join the conversation about our project until 2016. We have beenholding noticed neighbor meetings since we received our 1999 CUP. From 2103 until we entered the Cityprocess in June 2016, those meetings included conversations about our project, including workingsessions with neighbors. There were also opportunities during that time for neighbors to participate inmore frequent conversations with us, facilitated by Geoff Ball. Everyone who volunteered was included. As for the format of the meeting tomorrow, we reserve the first 15-20 minutes to discuss schooloperations and then spend the remainder of the hour on Q&A. We will continue to hold these meetingsvirtually as we are advised by the State and County to keep non-essential visitors to a minimum. I knowthat we all look forward to a time that the dangers of COVID are behind us and we can convene inperson. Best regards,Nanci On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> wrote: Nanci and Kathy, The recent Castilleja letter about the October 13th neighborhood meeting is a fresh reminder that the Castilleja Expansion saga continues. Since my wife Kimberley and I first learned about the Castilleja's Expansion plan in 2016, we have spent countless hours along with neighbors trying to convince Castilleja that the traffic is a great detriment to the neighborhood and if the traffic problem is really fixed, then there should not be a need for an underground parking garage as reiterated in my last email. Two weeks ago, I read about Belmont's Notre Dame's to sell its 46.3 acre campus to Stanford University. One of the many neighbors' suggestions is for Castilleja to expand beyond this 6 acre parcel set right in the middle of a Single Family Homeneighborhood. Harker, Pinewood, Crystal Springs and Nueva (all with high schools) have successful grown by expanding to multiple campuses; however, Castilleja has stubbornly insisted on jamming all 540 students into one small campus. While these schools also have successfully implemented satellite parking and drop-off with frequent shuttle service to their campuses, Castilleja still insists on building an on campus garage which will bring more traffic to the neighborhood and Palo Alto. At the June 9th 2021 semi-annual neighborhood meeting on, much of the 1 hour meeting was wasted by the school talking about its operations without much disclosure on the expansion redesign. Only a few concerned neighbors were able to speak and to ask questions within the remaining minutes of the meeting. That was not a good use of the neighbors' time. In this latest Neighborhood meeting letter, Castilleja will again talk about its operations without asking the neighborswhat is useful to discuss at the neighborhood meeting. Despite large gatherings on the Castilleja campus inundating the neighborhood as of late, Castilleja still insists on conducting this neighborhood meeting via zoom. Castilleja refuses the most concerned citizens yet another opportunity to engage in a face-to-face dialogue withCastilleja administrators. Earlier this year the City Council required Castilleja to redesign its plans. I think this is a great opportunity for Castilleja to really engage with neighbors on meaningfuldiscussions to develop a plan that is also good for the neighborhood and the City of Palo Alto. I hope for the sake of Castilleja and its students, its administrators can look beyond their myopic beliefs of only expanding within the current confines of this small campus and expand its reach of women's education broadly into the future. Nelson On Monday, June 14, 2021, 09:20:45 PM PDT, Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> wrote:  Nanci, Thanks for your reply. The point is if the traffic problem is really fixed, then there should not be a need for an underground parking garage. It doesn't make sense to build a multi-million dollar underground garage just for claiming to meet any parking requirements. The money would be much better spent on shuttling and satellite parking to further improve any traffic issue. If Castilleja is genuinely wants toprovide a solution that is good for the neighborhood, I am sure the neighbors would be willing to work with Castilleja and the City for a parking solution that is acceptable for the neighbors but without an underground garage. Thanks Nelson On Monday, June 14, 2021, 03:18:30 PM PDT, Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> wrote: Thanks again, Nelson, for clarifying your concerns. Traffic around campus has been reduced dramatically in recent years, and as you know, under our new CUP, we will be required to maintain extremely low trip counts. Additionally, the proposed trip-counting mechanisms are extremely technicaland stringent. In addition, we will be abiding by the new standards for how we provide parking for our campus. Thank you for your continued input. Nanci On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 2:49 PM Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> wrote: Nanci, Thanks very much for replying to my question on a Sunday morning. It is hard to imagine this ordeal has been going on for almost 5 years. Below is our email exchange summarized our first and only face to face personal meeting back in August 2016. As I stated during that meeting, I will be supportive of Castilleja's expansion plan if it is beneficial to the neighborhood. The parking issue is a symptom and the root cause is traffic. If the traffic issue is really resolved by various suggestions such as what I listed in my email below, thenthere will not be a parking issue. However, Castilleja continues to insist on its own interpretation by picking and choosing specific issue to drive its own agenda. Although different neighbors could be impacted differently by Castilleja, ultimately we all want to preserve the quality of life for the neighborhood. I am not sure if the following statement from your reply is a hypothetical example or actually referring to the 47 letters submitted on May 2017. Please note all the letters signed by the immediate neighbors are located within the circled area below and well within the 600 feet of Castilleja. "versus a neighbor 3 blocks away who signs a petition (47 signatures, not letters) to oppose a parking lot for fear it will bring traffic," Castilleja is located in the heart of a single family neighborhood bordered by Embarcadero and Alma. In order for us co-exist in harmony, we all need to work together to come up with sensible solutions. Please do not just keep pushing Castilleja own agenda and blindly insisting on the underground garage. Instead really work on a solution to solve the root cause of traffic. Thank you and have a nice Sunday afternoon. Nelson ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> To: Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> Cc: "klayendecker@castilleja.org" <klayendecker@castilleja.org>; Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 10:18 PM Subject: Re: Invitation to lunch with Nanci Kauffman Nanci, Thanks for the reply. We will relay this message to our concerned neighbors. We will all be looking forward to the updates based on our input. Meanwhile we will continue our efforts to protect our quality of life. Regards Nelson From: Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> To: Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> Cc: "klayendecker@castilleja.org" <klayendecker@castilleja.org>; Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 11:11 AM Subject: Re: Invitation to lunch with Nanci Kauffman Dear Nelson and Kimberley, Thank you both for taking the time to meet with us. We appreciated the opportunity to hear your concerns and we will reflect on all of them as we continue to develop our plans for Castilleja's future. Please stay tuned for more updates. Regards, -Nanci On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> wrote: Nanci and Kathy, Thanks for meeting with Kimberley and me yesterday to discuss our input for Castilleja on ways to co-exist with the neighbors. Here is the summary of our discussion. While Kimberley and I appreciate the opportunity of this face-to-face meeting, this does not change the fact that we were never briefed on the current plan prior to its submission. We had to learn about the direct negative impact to our house from the City website. We learned that the two houses across from us would be demolished and replaced with an underground garage driveway funneling traffic of 440 trips per peak hour to our front door and living room. Thanks to Nanci for clarifying the 440 trips means 220 cars minus the cars that will be parked and exited as a later time. Because we stated that we adamantly oppose the current master plan and CUP application in our previous email, I appreciated that Kathy limited the overview of the plan to the barrier at Emerson & Embarcadero and beautification of the grounds above the underground garage exit. As a way to frame the context of our input, I restated the following known facts Castilleja is located in a Single Family R1 Neighborhood Castilleja is operating under the Conditional User Permit that is granted in 2000 with a maximum of 415 student enrollment Castilleja has violated the enrollment limit for over 10 years The following is our input: Non Starter o Building an underground garage o An exit ramp for the underground garage pointing at our home o Remove/Move 168 trees especially the 120 ft Redwood and the Oak trees in 1235 and 1262 Emerson o Demolishing the 1235 and 1262 Emerson o Discussion of any plan without prior traffic study that measures the true impact of Castilleja traffic to the neighbors’ quality of life and an agreed acceptable impact target by the neighbors. o Multi year constructions to disrupt and reduce our quality of life. ·       The guiding principle to design any plan is to allow Castilleja and the neighbors to co-exist in harmony while protecting the quality of life for the neighbors and Palo Alto residents as a whole. Any proposal must have a clear description of the benefit to the neighborhood and Palo Alto City as a whole, to benefit the Palo Alto Community and stay within the confines of the R-1 zoning of the neighborhood ·       Palo Alto traffic is reaching gridlock level. Though neighbors in the past were hoping a garage will address the off street parking issue, most of us who have met in the neighborhood meeting have realized that this will not solve the problem. Traffic is getting worse and the garage will just invite more traffic to the neighborhood and the City. If your goal is as you mentioned to reduce traffic in the neighborhood, then you should not need a garage. You should redirect the budget for the underground garage toward solutions including the following to reduce traffic to Palo Alto o remote garage or lot o more shuttles and from remote garage or lot o bike/walk o train/bus ·       Current traffic study is widely inadequate by just manually counting car for one hour during school dropoff in Castilleja campus in the morning. We need to have accurate comprehensive traffic study that covers 24x7 traffic around the neighborhood with and without Castilleja in session for the following. Set up traffic cameras such as the case by Gunn High, count many days over an extensive period of time in various weather conditions, automate the counting of cars for surrounding neighborhood. o Regular class session o Summer class session o Weekday events o Weekend events ·       Castilleja presents the result of the traffic study to the neighbors and work with the neighbors to define a concrete acceptable target of the traffic impact to the neighborhood. ·       Safety: Need to collaborate with the Commission of Traffic Safety, other schools, Penny Ellson of the PA Bicycle Advisory Committee as well as those working on the plans for the Embarcadero corridor near Paly and Town & Country. They all need to be aware of the master plan of Castilleja and drastically change of flow of traffic and dedicating one east bound lane off Embarcadero at the Kingsley, Emerson, Embarcadero junction to outflowing Emerson traffic. ·       We need much better transparency of the discussion regarding the plan to avoid a repeat of not notifying impacted neighbors as in our case. This was not an acceptable approach to build a collaborative plan. o Date of Castilleja/Neighborhood meeting should be communicated at least 1 month ahead via email and Castilleja website o All materials to be presented in the Castilleja/Neighborhood meeting should be viewable via Castilleja website 2 week prior the meeting o All meeting note of the Castilleja/Neighborhood meeting should be viewable via Castilleja website 1 week after the meeting o All submission of documents by Castilleja to the City and communication from the City to Castilleja related the the current CUP application and existing CUP should be made available in the Castilleja website ·       Suggestions to welcome more feedback from the neighbors: o Provide several options of plans to present to the community before submission. Print out huge copies and allow them to view the various options just like at the Embarcadero corridor meetings. Have neighbors write on the plans for their immediate input. This should be followed up to make sure that Castilleja has made changes and "heard" the neighbors’ requests. o This will reduce the amount of iterations to the submitted plans and increase transparency between Castilleja and the neighbors o Explore large lots to park cars offsite and shuttle students in. Explore another site to have a satellite school, near 101 just as Keyes school did. We are looking forward to see how your actions will bring back a good quality of life to our Single Family Neighborhood. Nelson & Kimberley On Sunday, June 13, 2021, 09:56:31 AM PDT, Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> wrote: Dear Nelson, Thank you for your question and for the opportunity to reply. I’d be happy to explain. As you know, neighborhood input has varied over time, and different neighbors have expressed conflicting points of view. Therefore, it would be impossible to develop a project that incorporates every neighbor’s comments and concerns. What I said at the meeting was that each new iteration of the project has reflected our attempts to review and consider all neighbors’ comments, to accommodate as many as possible, while also abiding by additional requirements set forth by city staff, and also by ARB, PTC, HRB, and now, City Council. A simple example: At one time, there were neighbors who requested that all cars be removed from the street, so we proposed ample underground parking. Over time, other neighbors indicated a preference for more street parking, in favor of an underground parking structure with fewer spaces. Other neighbors have focused on concerns that the garage footprint might be too close to a heritage tree. Each iteration of the parking plan for our project has been influenced by input from key stakeholders, while also seeking to manage opposing priorities and the city requirements to park our project. City staff, commission members, and ultimately the City Council, all face conflicting input from from stakeholders, and I don’t envy the challenge of weighing one neighbor’s perspective over another’s. For example, how might we consider the voice of neighbors whose homes are across the street from the school, and who have stated adamantly that they don’t want to see a parking lot from their kitchen windows, versus a neighbor 3 blocks away who signs a petition (47 signatures, not letters) to oppose a parking lot for fear it will bring traffic, without ever knowing that no new trips is a condition of the project. Ultimately, I believe Council will do their best to make a decision that takes into account not only current perspectives, but equally important, they will make a decision that is consistent with their vision for the future of Palo Alto. Castilleja’s willingness to address current and future parking needs in the neighborhood represents an investment in Palo Alto’s future that will benefit the community and will be greatly appreciated by future homeowners. Thank you again for posing this question and for giving me a chance to share my answer. Regards, Nanci On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 2:36 PM Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> wrote: Nanci, Thanks for taking additional questions via email since you limited the June 9th Castilleja Neighborhood meeting via Zoom to just one hour. You have stated publicly a number of times that Castilleja has incorporated all of the neighbors comments and concerns into the documents for the Castilleja Expansion plan. You also repeated that when you answered our neighbor Mary Sylvester's question during the Q&A of this meeting. On May 3rd 2017, the PNQL group hand delivered signed letters from 47 immediate neighbors to Castilleja stating that the neighbors DO NOT want theunderground garage and the reason. My question is can you please let us know where is that reflected in Castilleja submitted documents for the Castilleja Expansion Project? Thanks Nelson -- Nanci Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 P (650) 470-7718 E nkauffman@castilleja.orgwww.castilleja.org Follow us on Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn Women Learning. Women Leading. For an appointment, contact: adelafuente@castilleja.org or (650) 470-7702 -- Nanci Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 P (650) 470-7718 E nkauffman@castilleja.org www.castilleja.org Follow us on Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn Women Learning. Women Leading. For an appointment, contact: adelafuente@castilleja.org or (650) 470-7702 -- Nanci Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 P (650) 470-7718 E nkauffman@castilleja.org www.castilleja.org Follow us on Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn Women Learning. Women Leading. For an appointment, contact: adelafuente@castilleja.org or (650) 470-7702 From:Jeff Hoel To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external); UAC Subject:AMI -- Smart Meters -- Part 2 Date:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 2:50:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Council members, Thanks to Council Members Kou, Tanaka, and Stone for pulling Item 5 -- which was about AMI (Advanced Metering Infrastructure) -- from the Consent Calendar of your 10-04-21 agenda. It's now Item12 on your 10-18-21 agenda as a (non-consent) action item.https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2021/10-october/20211018/20211018pccsm-linked.pdf The 10-04-21 video (0:15:13-0:19:29) https://midpenmedia.org/city-council-152-1042021/doesn't reveal why the item was pulled. (Although City Attorney Stump said that, in general, those who want to pull an item should explain to staff why they want to pull it.) The staff report for this item (PDF pages 170-342 of the 10-18-21 agenda document) is PROBABLY thesame as the 10-04-21 staff report for Item 5 (PDF pages 40-212 of the 10-04-21 agenda document)https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2021/10-october/20211004/20211004pccsm-amended-linked.pdf except for the date (10-18-21 vs. 10-04-21, the ID number (# 13513 vs. # 13460), and the report type ("Actions Items" vs. "Consent Calendar"), and a paragraph (PDF page 172) indicating that CouncilMembers Kou, Tanaka, and Stone pulled the item on 10-04-21. But I'd need a computerized filecomparison app to know for sure. What I'd prefer is that each staff report be in its own file (with its ownURL). And that, in this case, the 10-18-21 staff report be a very small document that just a) points to the10-04-21 staff report, and b) explains that the 10-04-21 agenda item was pulled. That way, you'd knowthat the content hadn't changed. --- The 10-18-21 staff report says (PDF page 174) that electric meters will (probably?) transmit once perhour, providing data about the four 15-minute intervals in the previous hour. But the customer can have"day-after" access to the information only on an hourly basis. Why not provide the 15-minute intervaldata? And why does it take so long to make it available? The same report says (PDF page 246) electricmeters will have the "functionality" to provide residential customers with access to hourly data, but somecommercial customers will have access to 15-minute interval data, and other commercial customers willhave access to 5-minute interval data. Is this saying that what customers will get is different from the"functionality" of what they could get? Why does staff think some customers should have access to dataat smaller intervals than others? Same question for water meters and gas meters, with different details. --- Thanks. Jeff -------------------Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- PS: Here's a copy of the message I sent on 10-04-21. I've taken the liberty of "fixing" the numberingscheme (highlighted in yellow). ----- Forwarded Message -----From: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>To: City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Cc: Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com>; UAC <uac@cityofpaloalto.org>Sent: Monday, October 4, 2021, 01:31:22 PM PDTSubject: AMI -- Smart Meters Council members, I'd like to comment on Item 5 of your 10-04-21 agenda, which is about AMI (Advanced MeteringInfrastructure), i.e., Smart Meters. 10-04-21 agenda (PDF pages 1-5) AND staff report (PDF pages 40-212)https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/city-council-agendas-minutes/2021/10-october/20211004/20211004pccsm-amended-linked.pdf I intended to comment earlier, but I didn't notice that a staff report was available until today. I apologize. 1. I think the item should not have been placed on the Consent Calendar. Council should have beenallowed to discuss the issues raised by UAC on 07-07-21, when they considered AMI. Also, the staffreport is huge, and considerably different from the staff report that UAC considered on 07-07-21. 2. The proposed AMI system will use a point-to-multipoint wireless network. I think this means that nosmart meter device at a premises will transmit to the collector until it is interrogated by the collector.a. Water and gas meters will report data only twice per day, to conserve battery power. Does that meanthat there could be a delay of up to 12 hours in reporting a leak? Or could the collector interrogate themeters more frequently, and the meter would respond (i.e., use battery power) only if a response isappropriate? Also, does this mean that "real-time" data for water and gas simply won't be available?b. At one time, electric meters were not going to have a battery for backup power during a power outage,but rather only a capacitor large enough for one "last-gasp" message. Is this consistent with approach oftransmitting only when interrogated? 3. Radiation: a. I don't know that I'm personally affected by radiation from wireless devices. But I'd hate to find out thehard way. I think the City has chosen a networking technology (point-to-multipoint) that minimizes theradiation risk.b. The City's opt-out policy (see below, 7.f) seems more than fair. But it's not stated in the 07-07-21 staff report for UAC or the 10-04-21 staff report to Council.c. I'm unclear about the networking technology proposed for communicating between the electric meterand an in-home gadget for displaying real-time electric use. Is it turned off unless the customer is activelyusing the information?d. The 07-07-21 staff report didn't report signal strengths in microW/cm2, but rather in Watts for thewhole radio.e. I suppose that people concerned about radiation would be more concerned about transmissions fromthe meters than transmissions from the collector (because the collector is a lot further away). 4. Privacy: a. I'm inclined to trust the City not to misappropriate information about my utilities uses.b. In other places, hackers have intercepted smart meter information being transmitted wirelessly. I don't know whether those places were using a different technology. During the 07-07-21 UAC meeting, staff said they were adhering to industry standards. But I don't know whether the other places were adhering to the same industry standards. 5. Safety: a. In other places, smart meters have started fires when they were misinstalled. I'm inclined to trust theCity not to do that.b. The 07-07-21 staff report says SOME premises will get smart electric meters where power can beshut off remotely. Could hackers use that feature maliciously? WHICH premises will get these meters? 6. Pricing: a. I'm inclined to believe that the City's plans for pricing electricity will be fair. Will CPAU give customersa choice of plans: either time-of-use (TOU) or not? 7. Other: a. When there's an electric power outage, does the smart meter stop working until power is restored? Ina previous staff report, staff proposed to use a meter that had only enough stored electric charge to makeone "last-gasp" transmission to the central office. I think the current plan (point-to-multipoint network) isfor the meter to transmit only when asked by the collector, which will be once every 15 minutes. That'sincompatible with the "last-gasp" idea, I think.b. What is the proposed data rate?c. How flexibly can the meters be programmed?d. Can the customer get real-time usage about water and gas. The 07-07-21 staff report (page 43)seems to say yes. Does this mean that these meters also have an (optional) Zigbee interface for doingthat? Note that these meters must be especially frugal with consuming electric power because they'rebattery powered.e. When PG&E first started using smart meters, some customers complained that they were billed forelectricity they didn't use. I think the problem turned out to be that PG&E sometimes couldn't read themeters, and PG&E had software that would make up use data for billing purposes. (So, for example, thesoftware said folks were using electricity during a power outage.) Hopefully, Palo Alto won't have thisproblem, or this "solution."f. Opt-out: This FAQ (07-20-21) says: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Utilities/Customer-Service/Meter-Reading/Advanced- Metering-Infrastructure-and-Smart-Grid Q: "If I do not want an advanced meter in my home, can I opt out?" A: "Yes. The City Council will be deciding how customers will be able to opt-out, without having to pay a fee to cover manual meter reading and processing costs incurred by CPAU." I was surprised. Most utilities charge a fee. I don't know what Council will actually do, or when they will actually do it. I don't know if they've read the FAQ. (Incidentally, the Q says "in my home." I think it means "near my home.") Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303------------------- From:mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu To:Council, City Subject:A Tree Needs Your Attention Date:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 2:35:56 PM Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. October 13, 2021 Palo Alto City Council A Tree Needs Your Attention An old, large redwood tree at 425 Stanford Avenue appears to be suffering from underwatering. The property changed owners in late 2020. On October 18, 2021, one agenda item is staff recommends to revise the protection of trees. One element of that is: Addition of tree death or permanent damage due to underwatering to the definition of “removal”. Perhaps the City can take some emergency action to help this tree. It would be unfortunate if the City changed these regulations just a little too late to help this tree. Thank you. Mike Forster 420 Stanford Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 650 464 9425 mike.forster@alumni.usc.edu From:Yahoo Mail.® To:Honky Subject:After VIEWING this POST on all VENUES my only question is What do you THINK about vaccines NOW ? Date:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 1:18:26 PM Attachments:Messenger covid not good.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. LOOK TO PDF AT BOTOM ONE DEAR SISTER WROTE MY SENTIMENTS EXACTLY Hi there, having been a born again Christian before who taught many to give their hearts I can see how this helps many of you, at least at times, and especially now when it seems that some things seem to be coming to fruition based on some things that have been written down. However personally I now see this no differently than the deception of the system as another way to pull the wool over our eyes. I can hear the reactions to what I am saying now. However food for thought. Free will what is it? It is the ability to make ones own choices without coercion. Coercion is when you are led to make a choice either with threat of punishment or reprisal or promise of reward which can also be protection or avoidance from suffering. Another thought God, all powerful, all knowing and yet jealous? Doubtful. Jealousy is a human construct. Heart and emotions are not the same. Justice protection. Who for? Whomever is praying I guess. Heads of churches as in ultimate, always in our proven history, monsters. The state, the pope. Who are we to obey over all things according to the bibles, government yet they break each of supposedly Gods 10 commandments. The things I see is widespread lack of gratitude, "God" gave us everything we need to live a healthy joyful life originally, food medicine surrounded by beauty. But its not enough, we want more, more, more. Wanting for heaven when this can be heaven a place to be healthy and thrive in harmony with all creation. Begging someone else to save us when we have been given everything to save ourselves. Then there is vengeance and hate. Surely the most lost deserve our love and understanding. No excuses to throw hate at those who aim to harm us. Defense yes, hate no, not if we are leading by example. Shouldn't we be saving the vulnerable including our weakened mind controlled brethren rather than sitting their feeling superior or chastising them for not seeing the truth? What about the speck or logs in our eyes? Paying tax to tyrants who spend it on destroying homes, people, ecosystems. Shopping at supermarkets that put others out of business and all of it destroying rainforests, plantations and societies everywhere. To me hell exists. Here on earth. We took heaven and transformed it into this. All of the industries we become part of make life seem easier to most. Utilizing them makes us complicit to all of the suffering, horror, devastation, death they cause. No I don't think I will take any council from these people. Most will not think about what I am saying. No different than those who do not see the deception of the vaccines. There is no rational logic, no reasoning just faith. Which really is a belief in something you can not see and have no tangible proof that it actually exists because somewhere somehow whether you realize it or not the idea was implanted in your mind. It is an unquestioning desire to follow something in the hope of quashing any fear you may have and gaining some kind of understanding of the things in this state you can not. If we were made in our creators image I postulate it would be our ability to create. With our imaginations we create so much. Most refuse to accept however, we help create and continue this one, by not using our own minds, our own ideas, our own imaginations and so we are complicit. We are the saviors and until enough of us get that, we will not be saved. Thank you though for the sentiment, that is appreciated . And of course I say to you the same thing I say to the vaccinated. I did my research and consequentially made my choice and you for whatever reason are free to make yours. Please though, do not look at me with disdain, cursing me because I did not make the same choice as you. :: / / 2:512:51 From:Keith Ferrell To:Baird, Nathan Cc:City Mgr; Transportation; Hur, Mark; Council, City Subject:Re: Southgate RPP question Date:Wednesday, October 13, 2021 12:06:14 PM Thanks Nathan,Are you saying that the contract does not have any quantifiable metrics for LAZ in terms of how often they patrol? You state, "I believe the additional time provided to renew or purchase new permits has beensufficient this time around". What do you mean by that? As I've stated MANY times before, we were told back in April that we needed to purchase permits or would be ticketed in May. Itis now October. Exactly how long of a grace period do you feel is needed? Now, the city is discussing moving to LPR enforcement. Why doesn't the department first figure out how to run the current program before moving on to a new program? We've had theprogram for, I think, three years here in Southgate and every year the city has made changes, none of which were handled smoothly. It feels like the department does this to justify itsheadcount expenditures. Invent work to feel that its budget is warranted. How about putting in the time to fix the current program? When will Southgate residents receive notice that their permits are being extended or receive refunds for the time that the program was not being enforced? Keith On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 11:44 AM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, The Southgate RPP is being patrolled and noticed by our contract enforcement crews 8:00am – 5:00pm Monday-Friday excluding holidays, provided by LAZ parking, formerlySerco. Noticing on cars did indeed begin in September. Live citations will commence soon, following the end of a two week grace period concluding at the end of this week. Crews andstaff seek to ensure that coverage is adequate, fair, regular, and consistent, although it is also expected that contract enforcement crews will alternate patrol routes on a regular basis toeliminate predictability. While we have had some hiccups with previous attempts to restart enforcement, I believe the additional time provided to renew or purchase new permits has been sufficient this timearound. The RPP programs are designed to provide parking availability for residents. We expect with the adoption and implementation of License Plate Recognition enforcementbeginning soon, we will be able to more closely monitor parking availability impacts in Southgate and the other RPPs. Thank you, Nate Baird Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:47 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Nathan, In the letter you sent to me on September 29th, you stated that warnings were being delivered to illegally parked cars since "at least mid September" and that "Enforcement isnot confirmed to return October 1, 2021". On the city's website, it also states that enforcement will finally begin on October 1, 2021, even though the city has been chargingresidents since April. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Residents/Southgate-Residential-Parking-Permits When I contacted you today to report at least 3 cars that had been parked in Southgate without permits for the entire day, that did not receive a ticket, you told me that we were stillin a "grace period". I'm not sure exactly what that means, given that everything you have stated as well as what the city has said is that enforcement should have started on the 1st ofOctober. When I requested that someone come out to Southgate to patrol the area, since it is obvious that the are still not doing what we are paying them to do, you told me that youcould not guarantee that someone would come out. So, what exactly is our money going towards? So far we've been told to buy a permit for a program that we were told was going to beenforced. It has not been. Yet, we were never told that the program was not being enforced. You have told me that the program would be enforced starting October 1. The only wayanyone would be aware of that is be going to the city's website. We were given no notification. Despite you telling me that and the website stating the same, the program is stillnot being enforced. What are the requirements in the contract with Duncan Solutions? How often are they coming through our neighborhood? What is their contractual obligation? During council meetings, we continually have heard staff talk about the RPP programs notbeing able to pay for themselves. How can that happen if the program is not being enforced? Since the beginning of the RPP programs, the city has continually screwed up the process. When will staff do their job and provide the residents for the services we are being charged? How would you feel if the city deducted money from your paycheck and said it was to payfor a benefit and you never received it? That's what the city is doing to its residents. Our permits need to be extended and the program needs to be enforced on a daily basis. I expect to see cars driving through the neighborhood at least a few times a day, every day. Keith On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, Enforcement was suspended to provide relief to effects related to the Covid19 pandemic.Enforcement is now confirmed to return October 1, 2021. The most recent delay to restart was to provide residents and staff additional time to secure/provide permits. We know thishas been a difficult time and appreciate your understanding as we restart and resume regular services. The RPP programs are not designed to provide any revenue to the City,but the collected fees are necessary to provide cost recovery for program components, many of which were not significantly reduced despite enforcement citations beingsuspended. Again, staff can potentially issue replacement of used daily permits (stamped as utilized on days where no enforcement occurred) but are unable to blanketly providerefunds. Staff have no means of verifying eligibility for refunds otherwise. Enforcement teams have been delivering physical warnings to vehicle windshields since at least midSeptember in all districts. Thank you, Nate Baird From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 1:55 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS! PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY IS CHARGING RESIDENTS FOR AN UNENFORCED PARKING PROGRAM. HOW IS THISACCEPTABLE? Nathan, What services have been provided for the Southgate RPP since May 1, 2021? I have beentold there has not been enforcement of the RPP. Essentially what you are saying is that the city told us to order permits but didn't enforce the program. If you would like, I can directyou to the city document that states that the neighborhood will be regularly enforced. We were mailed letters telling us to buy permits and that enforcement would start May 3, 2021. Why were we not mailed letters telling us that it was not being enforced? My guessis that the city did not want us to know that they were collecting money with zero benefit. You can not just assume that people read the papers and city council updates. I believe that is why we have always received physical notices in the past. I expect the same toalert us that enforcement will continue. Has the city reached out to ANYONE telling them they are eligible for a refund? Please completely and full answer my questions. Thanks. On Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 1:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Thank you for your queries. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? Annual resident Southgate permits are valid through April 30, 2022 and will not be extended. Permit costs cover the provision of services provided. When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? Staff have been widely informing the public that enforcement returns October 1, 2021, on the City’s web pages and in City Council updates and messaging. A short graceperiod is expected but not guaranteed. For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking the program was being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not, why not? Staff can potentially issue replacement used daily permits (stamped as utilized on days where no enforcement occurred) but are unable to blanketly provide refunds. Staff haveno means of verifying eligibility for refunds otherwise. Thank you, Nate Baird Parking and Shuttles Manager City of Palo Alto Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 5:40 PMTo: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Baird, Nathan<Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Coming back to this as we have yet to receive an explanation. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking the programwas being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not, why not? Thanks Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:30 PM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Please explain the portion of the note where it says, "While we understand residents believe they are losing value on the permits through a lack of enforcement, there areassociated costs to maintaining a program of this kind. The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program is voluntary, and you are allowed to purchase at any time of the yearor when there is full enforcement." The purchase price of the permits should easily cover the cost of the program given that the program is not active. The program is not voluntary. If I need to park on thestreet, I need to buy a permit or I will get ticketed. How is that voluntary? We were told that we would need to buy a permit as enforcement was going to start back inApril/May. We have received no notice that the enforcement has ended. Why is that? TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Why are residents being asked to purchase a permit for a program that is essentially not active? I request that all permits that have beenpurchased be extended an additional six months, given that the program has not been enforced for that length of time. If the enforcement does not start on October 1, then Irequest that the permits be further extended. This is what was done the prior year. Residents are not an ATM for the city to use when they need money. If the RPP is not being managed, what exactly are the costs? If the costs to print and track permitsare more than the cost of the printing and inputting of the information, then something is very wrong. I would like an explanation from someone as to how this is being allowed. Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:19 PM Transportation<Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Here is the response from the parking team: On behalf of the City Manager, Ed Shikada, thank you for registering yourconcerns with the Office of Transportation. The City’s parking programs have not operated regularly due to the impacts of COVID. After a couple previous attempts, including in early May, the City willresume full enforcement on October 1, 2021. Soft enforcement with notices/warnings will increase as the date approaches. While we understand residents believe they are losing value on the permits througha lack of enforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining a program of this kind. The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program is voluntary, and you areallowed to purchase at any time of the year or when there is full enforcement. We apologize if our program management has not been satisfactory over the summer. Still, we appreciate your feedback and will take it into consideration asthe program evolves, especially as we continue to negotiate the demands of a public health emergency. Please let us know if you have any additional questions. Sarah Wilson (she, her) Administrative Assistant, Office of Transportation City of Palo AltoTransportation@CityofPaloAlto.org (650) 329-2520 From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:36 AMTo: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Baird, Nathan<Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Mark/Nathan, Since we were required to renew our residential permits in Southgate back in April,I would have expected enforcement to also begin shortly thereafter. I can'tremember seeing any vehicles coming through the neighborhood checking onpermits. I've seen several cars in the neighborhood without tags that have beenparked for weeks, others just during the day. I have even left our car on the streetseveral times and forgot to put a tag on it, but didn't receive a ticket. If the city isn't going to monitor the parking situation and ticket cars that areillegally parked, then why are we paying for a permit? If the city ever looks at the cost of the RPP's around the city, I will expect that staffpoints out that one of the reasons that revenues are so low is due to the fact thatcars that are parked illegally are not being ticketed. Please let me know when I can expect to see enforcement of the Southgate RPP. Otherwise, please issue an extension or a refund on our current permits. Thanks Keith From:Keith Ferrell To:Baird, Nathan Cc:City Mgr; Hur, Mark; Transportation; Council, City Subject:Re: Southgate RPP question Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 10:47:13 PM Nathan,In the letter you sent to me on September 29th, you stated that warnings were being delivered to illegally parked cars since "at least mid September" and that "Enforcement is not confirmedto return October 1, 2021". On the city's website, it also states that enforcement will finally begin on October 1, 2021, even though the city has been charging residents since April.https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Transportation/Parking/Residents/Southgate- Residential-Parking-Permits When I contacted you today to report at least 3 cars that had been parked in Southgate withoutpermits for the entire day, that did not receive a ticket, you told me that we were still in a "grace period". I'm not sure exactly what that means, given that everything you have stated aswell as what the city has said is that enforcement should have started on the 1st of October. When I requested that someone come out to Southgate to patrol the area, since it is obviousthat the are still not doing what we are paying them to do, you told me that you could not guarantee that someone would come out. So, what exactly is our money going towards? So far we've been told to buy a permit for a program that we were told was going to beenforced. It has not been. Yet, we were never told that the program was not being enforced. You have told me that the program would be enforced starting October 1. The only wayanyone would be aware of that is be going to the city's website. We were given no notification. Despite you telling me that and the website stating the same, the program is stillnot being enforced. What are the requirements in the contract with Duncan Solutions? How often are they coming through our neighborhood? What is their contractual obligation? During council meetings, we continually have heard staff talk about the RPP programs notbeing able to pay for themselves. How can that happen if the program is not being enforced? Since the beginning of the RPP programs, the city has continually screwed up the process. When will staff do their job and provide the residents for the services we are being charged? How would you feel if the city deducted money from your paycheck and said it was to pay fora benefit and you never received it? That's what the city is doing to its residents. Our permits need to be extended and the program needs to be enforced on a daily basis. I expect to see cars driving through the neighborhood at least a few times a day, every day. Keith On Wed, Sep 29, 2021 at 2:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello again, Mr. Ferrell, Enforcement was suspended to provide relief to effects related to the Covid19 pandemic. Enforcement is now confirmed to return October 1, 2021. The most recent delay to restartwas to provide residents and staff additional time to secure/provide permits. We know this has been a difficult time and appreciate your understanding as we restart and resume regularservices. The RPP programs are not designed to provide any revenue to the City, but the collected fees are necessary to provide cost recovery for program components, many ofwhich were not significantly reduced despite enforcement citations being suspended. Again, staff can potentially issue replacement of used daily permits (stamped as utilized on dayswhere no enforcement occurred) but are unable to blanketly provide refunds. Staff have no means of verifying eligibility for refunds otherwise. Enforcement teams have beendelivering physical warnings to vehicle windshields since at least mid September in all districts. Thank you, Nate Baird From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 1:55 PMTo: Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation<Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS! PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY IS CHARGINGRESIDENTS FOR AN UNENFORCED PARKING PROGRAM. HOW IS THIS ACCEPTABLE? Nathan, What services have been provided for the Southgate RPP since May 1, 2021? I have been told there has not been enforcement of the RPP. Essentially what you are saying is that thecity told us to order permits but didn't enforce the program. If you would like, I can direct you to the city document that states that the neighborhood will be regularly enforced. We were mailed letters telling us to buy permits and that enforcement would start May 3,2021. Why were we not mailed letters telling us that it was not being enforced? My guess is that the city did not want us to know that they were collecting money with zero benefit. You can not just assume that people read the papers and city council updates. I believe thatis why we have always received physical notices in the past. I expect the same to alert us that enforcement will continue. Has the city reached out to ANYONE telling them they are eligible for a refund? Please completely and full answer my questions. Thanks. On Wed, Sep 29, 2021, 1:32 PM Baird, Nathan <Nathan.Baird@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Thank you for your queries. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? Annual resident Southgate permits are valid through April 30, 2022 and will not beextended. Permit costs cover the provision of services provided. When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? Staff have been widely informing the public that enforcement returns October 1, 2021, onthe City’s web pages and in City Council updates and messaging. A short grace period is expected but not guaranteed. For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking the program wasbeing enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not, why not? Staff can potentially issue replacement used daily permits (stamped as utilized on dayswhere no enforcement occurred) but are unable to blanketly provide refunds. Staff have no means of verifying eligibility for refunds otherwise. Thank you, Nate Baird Parking and Shuttles Manager City of Palo Alto Office of Transportation From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, September 27, 2021 5:40 PMTo: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Baird, Nathan<Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>;Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Becautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Coming back to this as we have yet to receive an explanation. When will we be informed that our permits are being extended? When will we be informed that the program is going to start being enforced? For those that purchased and used daily permits to avoid a ticket thinking the program was being enforced, will they be refunded the $25 daily permit fee? If not, why not? Thanks Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:30 PM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote: Please explain the portion of the note where it says, "While we understand residentsbelieve they are losing value on the permits through a lack of enforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining a program of this kind. The City of Palo Alto RPPparking program is voluntary, and you are allowed to purchase at any time of the year or when there is full enforcement." The purchase price of the permits should easily cover the cost of the program given thatthe program is not active. The program is not voluntary. If I need to park on the street, I need to buy a permit or I will get ticketed. How is that voluntary? We were told thatwe would need to buy a permit as enforcement was going to start back in April/May. We have received no notice that the enforcement has ended. Why is that? TO THE CITY COUNCIL: Why are residents being asked to purchase a permit for aprogram that is essentially not active? I request that all permits that have been purchased be extended an additional six months, given that the program has not beenenforced for that length of time. If the enforcement does not start on October 1, then I request that the permits be further extended. This is what was done the prior year. Residents are not an ATM for the city to use when they need money. If the RPP is notbeing managed, what exactly are the costs? If the costs to print and track permits are more than the cost of the printing and inputting of the information, then something isvery wrong. I would like an explanation from someone as to how this is being allowed. Keith On Wed, Sep 8, 2021 at 4:19 PM Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Mr. Ferrell, Here is the response from the parking team: On behalf of the City Manager, Ed Shikada, thank you for registering your concerns with the Office of Transportation. The City’s parking programs have not operated regularly due to the impacts ofCOVID. After a couple previous attempts, including in early May, the City will resume full enforcement on October 1, 2021. Soft enforcement with notices/warningswill increase as the date approaches. While we understand residents believe they are losing value on the permits through a lack of enforcement, there are associated costs to maintaining a program of this kind.The City of Palo Alto RPP parking program is voluntary, and you are allowed to purchase at any time of the year or when there is full enforcement. We apologize if our program management has not been satisfactory over the summer.Still, we appreciate your feedback and will take it into consideration as the program evolves, especially as we continue to negotiate the demands of a public healthemergency. Please let us know if you have any additional questions. Sarah Wilson (she, her) Administrative Assistant, Office of TransportationCity of Palo Alto Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org(650) 329-2520 From: Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 8, 2021 10:36 AMTo: Hur, Mark <Mark.Hur@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Baird, Nathan<Nathan.Baird@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Subject: Re: Southgate RPP question Mark/Nathan, Since we were required to renew our residential permits in Southgate back in April, I would have expected enforcement to also begin shortly thereafter. I can't rememberseeing any vehicles coming through the neighborhood checking on permits. I've seen several cars in the neighborhood without tags that have been parked for weeks, othersjust during the day. I have even left our car on the street several times and forgot to put a tag on it, but didn't receive a ticket. If the city isn't going to monitor the parking situation and ticket cars that are illegallyparked, then why are we paying for a permit? If the city ever looks at the cost of the RPP's around the city, I will expect that staff points out that one of the reasons that revenues are so low is due to the fact that carsthat are parked illegally are not being ticketed. Please let me know when I can expect to see enforcement of the Southgate RPP. Otherwise, please issue an extension or a refund on our current permits. Thanks Keith From:Allan Seid To:Allan Seid Subject:Fwd: San Jose apologises for past racial discrimination against Chinese community - BBC News Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 9:39:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Date: Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 2:08 PMSubject: Fwd: San Jose apologises for past racial discrimination against Chinese community - BBC News A REPEAT FOR MANY; NEW FOR SOME.-- Allan From: Ping Yee, Allan Seid---------- Forwarded message --------- Date: Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:27 AM Subject: Fwd: San Jose apologises for past racial discrimination against Chinese community -BBC News Sent from the all new AOL app for iOS Begin forwarded message: On Monday, October 11, 2021, 8:13 PM, bctom2000@gmail.com <bctom2000@gmail.com> wrote: ----- Forwarded Message ----- h Subject: Fwd: San Jose apologises for past racial discrimination against Chinesecommunity - BBC News Subject: San Jose apologises for past racial discrimination against Chinese community -BBC News https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-58729097 San Jose apologises for past racial discrimination against Chinese community 19 hours ago Archival image showing Chinese immigrant railroad workers Corbis via Getty Images In early California, many Chinese immigrants were employed to do some of the toughest work, including building railroads When Young Soong Quong first arrived San Jose, California in the late 19th century, the Chinese teenager stocked shelves at his uncle's shop in the city's vibrant Chinatown, where thousands of Chinese immigrants worked back-breaking, low-wage jobs to send money back home. Young was later hired as a domestic worker by a white family living outside of Chinatown. Whenever he returned home, he would run very fast because white children would throw rocks at him, his granddaughter and historian Connie Young Yu told US media KQED. In 1887, the Chinatown that Young called home was burned to the ground, days after the city council had declared the neighbourhood a public nuisance. More than a hundred years later, San Jose has officially apologised to Chinese immigrants and their descendants for the role the city played in "systemic and institutional racism, xenophobia, and discrimination". The fire in May 1887 tore through what was once a merchant Chinatown with dozens of stores and restaurants, displacing about 1,400 residents. A church attended by Chinese immigrants was also burned. San Jose once had five Chinatowns - two were destroyed by suspicious fires. But the Chinese immigrants rebuilt their neighbourhoods, and Young passed down the vivid memory of combating racism to his descendants, his granddaughter said to KQED. The city's apology on Wednesday comes amid a rise in anti-Asian hate in the US during the Covid-19 pandemic, drawing attention to the country's legacy of racism against Asian Americans. Chinese immigrants first arrived the US in large numbers during the California Gold Rush in the mid-1800s. After the scramble for gold ended, many stayed to build the Transcontinental Railroad or to take up other difficult industrial and agricultural jobs for low wages. San Jose Chinatown just before fire of 1887 Courtesy History San Jose San Jose Chinatown just before fire of 1887 During this period, Chinese immigrants faced intense racial discrimination in America. They were required to pay special taxes, banned from owning properties and land, and blamed for stealing jobs and driving down wages. The anti-Chinese sentiment later escalated into assaults, arson and murder. More than 150 anti-Chinese riots took place through the American West during the 1870s and 1880s. One of the worst examples was in the Los Angeles Chinatown in 1871, when 19 Chinese people - 10% of the small Chinese population of the city at the time - were killed by a mob. The Sinophobia culminated in the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act, which virtually prohibited the immigration of Chinese labourers. Congress has apologised for the law, which remains the country's only legislation limiting immigration based on race or nationality. San Jose is the latest and largest US city to officially apologise to Chinese immigrants and their descendants. Market Street Chinatown fire, 1887 Courtesy History San Jose Market Street Chinatown fire in 1887 "An apology for grievous injustices cannot erase the past, but admission of the historic wrongdoings committed can aid us in solving the critical problems of racial discrimination facing America today," the city of San Jose's resolution says. San Jose now has a population of more than one million people, of which around 30% are Asian. In May, the town of Antioch, California became the first to apologise for its treatment of early Chinese immigrants, who dug secret tunnels to commute home from work because they were barred from walking city streets after sunset. Ms Yu and other Chinese community members formally accepted San Jose's apology at a Wednesday ceremony at the location where the destroyed Chinatown once existed. [g] From:Aram James To:Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Binder, Andrew; Jeff Moore; Human Relations Commission; PlanningCommission; Council, City; Enberg, Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Rebecca Eisenberg; Greg Tanaka; Roberta Ahlquist;Winter Dellenbach; chuck jagoda; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jay Boyarsky; JoeSimitian; Greer Stone; Jonsen, Robert; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:A white Tennessee police officer resigned after witnesses said he got knocked out at a wedding for making drunken, racist comments Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 9:25:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.insider.com/police-officer-resigned-after-getting-knocked-out-racist-comments-2021-10 Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Enberg, Nicholas Cc:Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Scheff, Lisa; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; SajidKhan; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; Dave Price; chuck jagoda Subject:Can canines be trained to be anti-black? See this short but powerful documentary part 13 of the Pulitzer Prize winning 2021 series Mauled: when caninesbecome weapons Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 8:41:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. Hi Nick, ( Palo Alto Police Officer and canine handler Nicholas Enberg) Here is another note I recently sent out to our HRC on the national controversy re the continued us of weaponized canines. At the bottom of my note is a link to a powerful 15 min documentary on the history of weaponized canine use reaching backeven before their early use by the police departments, then referred to by the despicable term of slave catchers, earlydescendants of the current police canine handlers ( the job you and Julie Tannock now, sadly, in my view, perform for thePAPD. As a Palo Alto tax payer I hope to persuade the city to disband the canine unit as a practice violative of the most basic ofhuman rights: the freedom to be free of torture, mutilation, and even death by a police weaponized canine. I do hope you willread the entire series. As a retired Santa Clara County Deputy Public Defender ( line public defender -in the courts almost daily for 25 years -crossexamining police officers and other witness for the state), I know that the odds are long for my success…. but mycommitment to our constitution and the bill of rights requires me to be a zealous advocate for this goal. ( my state-bar #80215) I do hope you will watch the below linked to documentary. In a separate email I will send you the link to the entire 13 partseries Mauled: When Police Dogs Are Used As Weapons. ( Pulitzer Prize winning series by the Marshall Project). The Marshall project is named after the extraordinary Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall. Ok, look forward to hearingfrom you. Best regards, Aram On Oct 9,2021, at10:46 PM,Aram James<abjpd1@gmail.com>wrote: October 9,2021 MustseeCanine Videobelow AsweapproachtheimportantOct14,2021HRCinformationalsessiononPAPDcaninepolicy,startingat6pm,considerthebelowcommentsandwatchthispowerful15mindocumentaryontheprovocativeissue:Cancaninesbetrainedtobeanti-black?Youbethejudge. FYI:Thelinkbelowistopartthirteen,thelastpartofthisPulitzer Prizewinningseries,onthemaulingofhumanbeings,particularlyAfricanAmericans,bypolicetrainedandweaponizedcanines. Thishorrific-ugly-inhumanepracticegoesbacktoslaveryandbeforeandthenbacktocurrenttimes. Itisa15minutedocumentarythatshowstheintentionaltrainingofthesecaninestoattackBlackpeople. Pleasewatchthisdocumentary.Ibelieveit willconvinceyouthatnoamountofpolicychangesorpolicytweakingofcaninepolicyissufficient.Canineunits,includingPaloAlto’s,mustbedisbanded. Letmeknowyourthoughts. AramJames https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/06/23/a-dog-can-be-trained-to-be-anti- From:Shikada, Ed To:advocacyVP@paloaltopta.org; PTAC President; president_19_20@paloaltopta.org Cc:april.roeseler@cdph.ca.gov; board@pausd.org; daustin@pausd.org; rochelle.gaddi@cep.sccgov.org; Council, City; Eggleston, Brad; Supervisor Joe Simitian Subject:RE: Palo Alto Council of PTAs — Letter on Vaping Ban Enforcement Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 6:10:55 PM Attachments:image003.png2021.09.29 — PTAC Letter on Vaping Ban Enforcement.pdfimage004.png Dear Ms. Schmidt, Mr. Lee, and Ms. Chao, Thank you for your letter of September 29 (attached), expressing your concerns about the enforcement of Palo Alto’s Tobacco Retail Permit ordinance. Our Public Works staff has worked with the Santa Clara County Department of Public Health to provide an update about Tobacco Retail Permit (TRP) enforcement status for all retailers with a specific update about Raw Smoke Shop. As you may know, the TRP became effective September 3, 2020. The Ordinance prohibits the sale and distribution of any flavored tobacco and electronic cigarette products which includes smoking or vaping devices, flavored vaping liquids, and flavored pipe or hookah tobacco. As a reminder of roles and responsibilities, the TRP Ordinance is part of an agreement with the Santa Clara County Public Health Department. Under the agreement the County provides permitting services, annual enforcement checks, and responds to complaints about potential non- compliant stores in between annual enforcement checks. The City’s Police Department provides annual undercover “youth decoy” checks. However, due to budget and staffing shortages, the PAPD has not been able to conduct youth decoy checks for this current year but plans to resume these when staffing resources allow. After the TRP became effective in September 2020, the County conducted inspections of tobacco retailers in November and December 2020 and again in June and July 2021. County inspectors look for items that are prohibited from sale and for compliance with signage and administrative requirements. Stores that are inspected include “adult-only stores” and other retailers such as gas stations and convenience stores. The June summary noted that: 1. There are 22 tobacco retailers in Palo Alto (five are classified as “adult only” tobacco retailers: Hemingway, Mac’s Smoke Shop, Raw Smoke Shop, Smokes & More, and Smokes & Vapes). 2. Most stores were in compliance with the TRP. Ten stores (a mix of adult-only and other retailers) had one or more compliance issues, most minor and corrected onsite. If violations are observed at the time of inspection, a directive for corrective action is provided along with education about the requirements. Fines are generally not issued for a first violation of the types of compliance issues noted below. Those that were not in compliance included: · 7-Eleven (401 Waverley site), Amidron, Baylands Café, Palo Alto Arco, Palo Alto Chevron, and Valero (1963 El Camino Real site). These retailers did not meet various administrative requirements related to signage or posting in public view their SCC Tobacco Retailer’s Permit or State CDFTA License. Owners were instructed to correct problems, no fines were issued, and no additional inspections were conducted; · Raw Smoke Shop, Palo Alto Gas & Smog, and Valero (3972 El Camino Real site) did not have valid Santa Clara County Tobacco Retailer Permits and/or State CDFTA License. Owners were instructed to immediately cease selling all tobacco products until a valid permit was obtained and to post the permit in plain view. No fines were issued, and no additional inspections were conducted. It should be noted that during this inspection Raw Smoke Show did not stock any prohibited items; · Mac’s Smoke Shop had flavored tobacco products and e-cigarette and vaping products for sale. The owner was instructed to immediately cease sales of flavored tobacco products and e-cigarette and vaping products. A follow up inspection is being scheduled for this business to check compliance. Raw Smoke Shop A recent complaint concerning Raw Smoke Shop on California Avenue was investigated by the County on September 30, 2021, and again on October 5, 2021. Prohibited products were identified, and were removed from shelves. The prohibited items for sale included approximately 20-30 electronic smoking/vaping products or component parts for sale, approximately 20-30 flavored nicotine products, and approximately eight boxes of flavored tobacco wraps. Vaporizer products were also being sold that require additional time for the County to ascertain if they fall under the restrictions outlined in the ordinance, and so the business was not directed to remove these products until the County has made that determination. Another joint inspection conducted by Department of Environmental Health and Public Health will occur within two weeks to confirm compliance and to provide direction about the legality of selling certain vaporizer products. The County will determine whether to issue any fines and/or penalties after completion of the additional inspection. Please know that County staff plans to reach out to you to discuss your concerns. You will be hearing from them soon if you haven’t already. In addition, for future reference: Public members who want to report ordinance violations can file a complaint online at Submit a Complaint - Department of Environmental Health - County of Santa Clara (sccgov.org), or via email dehweb@cep.sccgov.org; For additional information about TRP enforcement please contact Nicole Coxe, Tobacco-Free Communities Program Manager Santa Clara County Public Health (408) 793-2745, nicole.coxe@phd.sccgov.org. Thanks again for reaching out about this important public health issue. Best regards, --Ed Ed Shikada City Manager (650) 329-2280 | ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: PTAC Advocacy <advocacyVP@paloaltopta.org> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2021 6:45 PM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org <supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org> Cc: PTAC President <president@paloaltopta.org>; april.roeseler@cdph.ca.gov <april.roeseler@cdph.ca.gov>; board@pausd.org <board@pausd.org>; daustin@pausd.org <daustin@pausd.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; president_19_20@paloaltopta.org <president_19_20@paloaltopta.org>; rochelle.gaddi@cep.sccgov.org <rochelle.gaddi@cep.sccgov.org> Subject: Palo Alto Council of PTAs — Letter on Vaping Ban Enforcement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Dubois and Supervisor Simitian: On behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC), please see the attached letter regarding the enforcement of the Palo Alto Vaping Ban. Sincerely, Steven Lee Vice President of Advocacy Palo Alto Council of PTAs September 29, 2021 Mayor Tom Dubois and Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Sent via Email:city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Supervisor Joe Simitian 70 West Hedding Street San Jose CA 95110 Sent via Email:supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org Dear Mayor Dubois and Supervisor Simitian: We are writing on behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs (PTAC). Over the past couple of years, PTAC has worked collaboratively with the State of California Department of Public Health, City of Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, parents, students, nicotine addiction experts at Stanford, and adult and teen community stakeholders to address the vaping epidemic. The work was started in 2019 and is on-going to address the teen vaping crisis in Palo Alto. One of the outcomes of this on-going community collaboration was the passage of the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Ordinance No. 5502 (“Vaping Ban”). The Vaping Ban, which mirrors the County’s ban, prohibits all retailers in Palo Alto from selling vaping devices and flavored tobacco products -- to anyone (not just minors). Flavored tobacco products are flavored specifically (e.g., cotton candy, unicorn poo, etc.) to target teens. Addressing the teen vaping crisis will require a multi-prong approach. That approach includes this Vaping Ban, along with parent education and student awareness, substance abuse treatment and mental health services, and other preventative efforts. In 2020, California PTAs passed a statewide resolution calling out flavored tobacco products that harm our teens. Over 99% of statewide PTAs supported the resolution. National PTA and local PTAs continue to monitor the teen vaping data and find overwhelming consensus in the public health community, including the American Medical Association, that measures like this Vaping Ban are a critical component to protecting teens. Unfortunately in Palo Alto, we have a problem with enforcement of the Vaping Ban. Not enough is being done. PTAC has received numerous reports from our parents and community members that the Raw Smoke Shop on California Avenue has, as recently as this past week, been selling vaping devices and flavored tobacco products to adults and minors alike in violation of the Vaping Ban. This is a blatant disregard for the law. PTAC has strong reason to believe that other local retailers may also be in violation of the Vaping Ban. PTAC condemns the Raw Smoke Shop for blatantly violating the Vaping Ban and for its continued role in adversely impacting the health of our teens. Page 1 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 18E59CD4-7293-4656-B595-1FE30590F4FC PTAC formally requests that the City and County work together to more vigorously enforce the Vaping Ban by suspending Raw Smoke Shop’s tobacco permit and by taking similar enforcement action against any and all retailers who violate the Vaping Ban. While there may still be lingering debate in the community about the Vaping Ban as a matter of policy, that debate has already been decided by our City Council. This is no longer a policy debate. It is now a matter of enforcement. Palo Alto parents have been reporting violations to the City. There, however, remains little visibility or evidence that any enforcement actions have actually occurred. PTAC respectfully requests a formal response from the City and County on what specific enforcement actions have or will take place against Raw Smoke Shop and other retailers who are in violation of the Vaping Ban. PTAC is optimistic that we can improve and safeguard the health of all children if we remain vigilant and continue to work together as a collaborative community. Respectfully submitted, Christina Schmidt President, Palo Alto Council of PTAs Steven Lee Vice President of Advocacy, Palo Alto Council of PTAs Jade Chao Immediate Past President, Palo Alto Council of PTAs CC:Palo Alto City Manager (Ed Shikada) Director of the Santa Clara County Department of Environmental Health (Jim Blamey) Chief of the Palo Alto Police Department (Robert Jonsen) PAUSD School Board and Superintendent (Don Austin) California Department of Public Health Tobacco Control Chief (April Roeseler) Page 2 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: 18E59CD4-7293-4656-B595-1FE30590F4FC From:Ken Horowitz To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Ruling in CA Sugary Drink Tax Preemption Lawsuit | ChangeLab Solutions Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 6:07:36 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ > > Hello City Council > FYI > Ken Horowitz > 525 Homer Ave > Palo Alto > > https://www.changelabsolutions.org/news/ruling-california-sugary-drink-tax-preemption > > > Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Sajid Khan; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Human Relations Commission; Raj; Council, City; chuck jagoda;wintergery@earthlink.net; Planning Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Roberta Ahlquist; Binder, Andrew;nick.enberg@cityofpoalto.org; Tannock, Julie; Greer Stone; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Jeff Rosen;Reifschneider, James; james pitkin; Joe Simitian Subject:Deputy district attorney Daniel Chung has officially announced his candidacy to lead the Santa Clara County DA’s Office. Now the District Attorney race includes three candidates: Sajid Khan, Jeff Rosen & Daniel Chung Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 5:21:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://sanjosespotlight.com/prosecutor-officially-challenges-santa-clara-county-district- attorney-da/ Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:New Garden Design To:Council, City Subject:Kontaktny formular Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 5:11:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Odoslali ste nám nasledovný e-mail: Meno: Best Dating App! Click here: https://bit.ly/3FK3BLU E-mail: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Text správy:abqkfj From:Aram James To:Human Relations Commission; Sajid Khan; Council, City; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; Raj; wintergery@earthlink.net;Planning Commission; Jay Boyarsky; Rebecca Eisenberg; Roberta Ahlquist; Vara Ramakrishnan; Binder, Andrew;Constantino, Mary; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Greer Stone; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org;supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; alisa mallari tu Subject:Canine Weaponization( letter by Chuck Jagoda) see below Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 3:14:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. FYI: On Oct 12, 2021, at 12:55 PM, chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote:  To the Editor, Aram James letter's analysis of canine weaponizing doesn't go far enough. Not only are present practices discriminatory, extreme, torturous, and unnecessary--, they are very cruel to the dogs. Attack and guard dogs are "trained" by being driven mad. They are abused to be way more cruel than a family pet or hunting dog. The wounds they inflict on "suspects" or "people of interest" can be permanently disfiguring. Not to mention extremely expensive when paying victim damages that Palo Alto and other jurisdictions end up being responsible for. Do attack dogs get deployed against white folks? The stories in the POST and elsewhere are of attacks only on BiPOC. What is the advantage of using crazed dogs? Other than allowing a police officer to administer punishment on the street while staying safely distant, I can't think of any. Chuck Jagoda Sunnyvale 408.373.1449 From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bballpod; fredbeyerlein; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Council, City;dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu;fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy;jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; lalws4@gmail.com; Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com;Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com;tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net; Steve Wayte; Daniel Zack Subject:HSR construction in Central Valley, incl a 42 min. drone fly-over if you click there. Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:27:25 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Tues. Oct. 11, 2021 To all- Here is a good update on HSR const. in CV. Scroll down in this article andthere is a drone fly-over you can start. 42 min. of drone! He had to keep replacing the batts. in the drone to do it. I watched it all. Eyes on the Viaducts: Streetsblog Tours Under-Construction CA High-Speed Rail –Streetsblog California When you see this, and consider the stations that will be built, and the tunneling under the Pacheco Pass, the scale of California HSR becomes clearer. Bigger than GG and BayBridges, Calif. canals, Hoover Dam and maybe the pyramids tossed in. Well worth seeing. After we fire Newsom in November of 2022 for trying to destroy the livability of our neighborhoods, we can address the housing issue in SV by building the HSR link from Mercedto Gilroy to San Jose's Diridon Station. 45 min. max San Jose to Fresno on beautiful HSR. People pay $2500 a month for old 600 sq. ft. apts in SV and for that they can have a newhouse in Fresno. Or they live in an old RV along El Camino Real, and those are the big gun engineers and management people. Or they rent an apt. or even buy a house in Modesto andthey are out on 205 in Tracy headed for 580 west bound at 4:30 AM to get to jobs in SV. I hear the traffic reports on KCBS at that hour. You'd have to get up at 2 AM to have ignition at4:30 AM. They must be sharp when they get to their desk. We are a laughing stock with not one mm. of HSR when Europe, Japan, S. Korea and China and Taiwan all have thousands of miles of it and we provide their defense, free ofcharge. It is obscenities like that that account for the low regard most Americans have for their government. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Nanci Kauffman To:Nelson Ng Cc:Kathy Layendecker; French, Amy; Council, City; Lait, Jonathan; Lorraine Brown; Shikada, Ed; info@pnqlnow.org; Kim Wong Subject:Re: The Castilleja Expansion saga continues ... Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 2:02:01 PM Attachments:Screen Shot 2021-06-13 at 2.31.16 PM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Nelson, Thank you for sharing your perspective on our proposal. Kathy and I always appreciate feedback from neighbors as we seek ways to incorporate varied neighbor interests in our plans to support educational excellence in Palo Alto. With a 100+ year history of educating girls and young women at this location, we have watched as nearby schools have grown to accommodate Palo Alto's expanding population of school-aged children. We understand the important part we play in Palo Alto's educational ecosystem; an amended CUP to revitalize our campus and increase enrollment is fundamental to upholding this responsibility. We caution you not to conflate the availability of parking on campus with traffic. As it is clear from your emails that increased traffic is your key concern about the garage, please note that the proposed CUP ensures that traffic will not increase. In other words, the garage is not designed to increase the number of cars coming to campus nor would that be allowed. Instead, the purpose of the garage is to reduce noise and to keep streets clear of school parking, allowing more parking for residents, many of whom now have multiple tenants with cars. Thank you for pointing to the efforts other schools in surrounding municipalities have made to mitigate traffic. We too have satellite parking and many shuttles, and it is our understanding that we have reduced traffic more than any other school in the Bay Area. Some of the other schools you cite use satellite parking to augment their ample on-campus parking. In the case of Nueva, the parking is in an underground garage. We are sorry that you did not choose to join the conversation about our project until 2016. We have been holding noticed neighbor meetings since we received our 1999 CUP. From 2103 until we entered the City process in June 2016, those meetings included conversations about our project, including working sessions with neighbors. There were also opportunities during that time for neighbors to participate in more frequent conversations with us, facilitated by Geoff Ball. Everyone who volunteered was included. As for the format of the meeting tomorrow, we reserve the first 15-20 minutes to discuss school operations and then spend the remainder of the hour on Q&A. We will continue to hold these meetings virtually as we are advised by the State and County to keep non-essential visitors to a minimum. I know that we all look forward to a time that the dangers of COVID are behind us and we can convene in person. Best regards, Nanci On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:12 PM Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> wrote: Nanci and Kathy, The recent Castilleja letter about the October 13th neighborhood meeting is a fresh reminder that the Castilleja Expansion saga continues. Since my wife Kimberley and I first learned about the Castilleja's Expansion plan in 2016, we have spent countless hours along with neighbors trying to convince Castilleja that the traffic is a great detriment to the neighborhood and if the traffic problem is really fixed, then there should not be a need for an underground parking garage as reiterated in my last email. Two weeks ago, I read about Belmont's Notre Dame's to sell its 46.3 acre campus to Stanford University. One of the many neighbors' suggestions is for Castilleja to expand beyond this 6 acre parcel set right in the middle of a Single Family Home neighborhood. Harker, Pinewood, Crystal Springs and Nueva (all with high schools) have successful grown by expanding to multiple campuses; however, Castilleja has stubbornly insisted on jamming all 540 students into one small campus. While these schools also have successfully implemented satellite parking and drop-off with frequent shuttle service to their campuses, Castilleja still insists on building an on campus garage which will bring more traffic to the neighborhood and Palo Alto. At the June 9th 2021 semi-annual neighborhood meeting on, much of the 1 hour meeting was wasted by the school talking about its operations without much disclosure on the expansion redesign. Only a few concerned neighbors were ableto speak and to ask questions within the remaining minutes of the meeting. That was not a good use of the neighbors' time. In this latest Neighborhood meeting letter, Castilleja will again talk about its operations without asking the neighbors what is useful to discuss at the neighborhood meeting. Despite large gatherings onthe Castilleja campus inundating the neighborhood as of late, Castilleja still insists on conducting this neighborhood meeting via zoom. Castilleja refuses the most concerned citizens yet another opportunity to engage in a face-to-face dialogue with Castilleja administrators. Earlier this year the City Council required Castilleja to redesign its plans. I think this is a great opportunity for Castilleja to really engage with neighbors on meaningful discussions to develop a plan that is also good for the neighborhoodand the City of Palo Alto. I hope for the sake of Castilleja and its students, its administrators can look beyond their myopic beliefs of only expanding within the current confines of this small campus and expand its reach of women's education broadly into the future. Nelson On Monday, June 14, 2021, 09:20:45 PM PDT, Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> wrote:  Nanci, Thanks for your reply. The point is if the traffic problem is really fixed, then there should not be a need for an underground parking garage. It doesn't make sense to build a multi-million dollar underground garage just for claiming to meet any parking requirements. The money would be much better spent on shuttling and satellite parking to further improve any traffic issue. If Castilleja is genuinely wants to provide a solution that is good for the neighborhood, I am sure the neighbors would be willing to work with Castilleja and the City for a parking solution that is acceptable for the neighbors but without an underground garage. Thanks Nelson On Monday, June 14, 2021, 03:18:30 PM PDT, Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> wrote: Thanks again, Nelson, for clarifying your concerns. Traffic around campus has been reduced dramatically in recent years, and as you know, under our new CUP, we will be required to maintain extremely low trip counts. Additionally, the proposed trip-counting mechanisms are extremely technical and stringent. In addition, we will be abiding by the new standards for how we provide parking for our campus. Thank you for your continued input. Nanci On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 2:49 PM Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> wrote: Nanci, Thanks very much for replying to my question on a Sunday morning. It is hard to imagine this ordeal has been going on for almost 5 years. Below is our email exchange summarized our first and only face to face personal meeting back in August 2016. As I stated during that meeting, I will be supportive of Castilleja's expansion plan if it is beneficial to the neighborhood. The parking issue is a symptom and the root cause is traffic. If the traffic issue is really resolved by various suggestions such as what I listed in my email below, thenthere will not be a parking issue. However, Castilleja continues to insist on its own interpretation by picking and choosing specific issue to drive its own agenda. Although different neighbors could be impacted differently by Castilleja, ultimately we all want to preserve the quality of life for the neighborhood. I am not sure ifthe following statement from your reply is a hypothetical example or actually referring to the 47 letters submitted on May 2017. Please note all the letters signed by the immediate neighbors are located within the circled area below and well within the 600 feet of Castilleja. "versus a neighbor 3 blocks away who signs a petition (47 signatures, not letters) to oppose a parking lot for fear it will bring traffic," Castilleja is located in the heart of a single family neighborhood bordered by Embarcadero and Alma. In order for us co-exist in harmony, we all need to work together to come up with sensible solutions. Please do not just keep pushing Castilleja own agenda and blindly insisting on the underground garage. Insteadreally work on a solution to solve the root cause of traffic. Thank you and have a nice Sunday afternoon. Nelson ----- Forwarded Message -----From: Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com>To: Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> Cc: "klayendecker@castilleja.org" <klayendecker@castilleja.org>; Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com>Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 10:18 PMSubject: Re: Invitation to lunch with Nanci Kauffman Nanci, Thanks for the reply. We will relay this message to our concerned neighbors. We will all be looking forward to the updates based on our input. Meanwhile we will continue our efforts to protect our quality of life. Regards Nelson From: Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> To: Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> Cc: "klayendecker@castilleja.org" <klayendecker@castilleja.org>; Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2016 11:11 AM Subject: Re: Invitation to lunch with Nanci Kauffman Dear Nelson and Kimberley, Thank you both for taking the time to meet with us. We appreciated the opportunity to hear your concerns and we will reflect on all of them as we continue to develop our plans for Castilleja's future. Please stay tuned for more updates. Regards, -Nanci On Fri, Aug 12, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> wrote: Nanci and Kathy, Thanks for meeting with Kimberley and me yesterday to discuss our input for Castilleja on ways to co-exist with the neighbors. Here is the summary of our discussion. While Kimberley and I appreciate the opportunity of this face-to-face meeting, this does not change the fact that we were never briefed on the current plan prior to its submission. We had to learn about the direct negative impact to our house from the City website. We learned that the two houses across from us would be demolished and replaced with an underground garage driveway funneling traffic of 440 trips per peak hour to our front door and living room. Thanks to Nanci for clarifying the 440 trips means 220 cars minus the cars that will be parked and exited as a later time. Because we stated that we adamantly oppose the current master plan and CUP application in our previous email, I appreciated that Kathy limited the overview of the plan to the barrier at Emerson & Embarcadero and beautification of the grounds above the underground garage exit. As a way to frame the context of our input, I restated the following known facts Castilleja is located in a Single Family R1 Neighborhood Castilleja is operating under the Conditional User Permit that is granted in 2000 with a maximum of 415 student enrollment Castilleja has violated the enrollment limit for over 10 years The following is our input: Non Starter o Building an underground garage o An exit ramp for the underground garage pointing at our home o Remove/Move 168 trees especially the 120 ft Redwood and the Oak trees in 1235 and 1262 Emerson o Demolishing the 1235 and 1262 Emerson o Discussion of any plan without prior traffic study that measures the true impact of Castilleja traffic to the neighbors’ quality of life and an agreed acceptable impact target by the neighbors. o Multi year constructions to disrupt and reduce our quality of life. ·       The guiding principle to design any plan is to allow Castilleja and the neighbors to co-exist in harmony while protecting the quality of life for the neighbors and Palo Alto residents as a whole. Any proposal must have a clear description of the benefit to the neighborhood and Palo Alto City as a whole, to benefit the Palo Alto Community and stay within the confines of the R-1 zoning of the neighborhood ·       Palo Alto traffic is reaching gridlock level. Though neighbors in the past were hoping a garage will address the off street parking issue, most of us who have met in the neighborhood meeting have realized that this will not solve the problem. Traffic is getting worse and the garage will just invite more traffic to the neighborhood and the City. If your goal is as you mentioned to reduce traffic in the neighborhood, then you should not need a garage. You should redirect the budget for the underground garage toward solutions including the following to reduce traffic to Palo Alto o remote garage or lot o more shuttles and from remote garage or lot o bike/walk o train/bus ·       Current traffic study is widely inadequate by just manually counting car for one hour during school dropoff in Castilleja campus in the morning. We need to have accurate comprehensive traffic study that covers 24x7 traffic around the neighborhood with and without Castilleja in session for the following. Set up traffic cameras such as the case by Gunn High, count many days over an extensive period of time in various weather conditions, automate the counting of cars for surrounding neighborhood. o Regular class session o Summer class session o Weekday events o Weekend events ·       Castilleja presents the result of the traffic study to the neighbors and work with the neighbors to define a concrete acceptable target of the traffic impact to the neighborhood. ·       Safety: Need to collaborate with the Commission of Traffic Safety, other schools, Penny Ellson of the PA Bicycle Advisory Committee as well as those working on the plans for the Embarcadero corridor near Paly and Town & Country. They all need to be aware of the master plan of Castilleja and drastically change of flow of traffic and dedicating one east bound lane off Embarcadero at the Kingsley, Emerson, Embarcadero junction to outflowing Emerson traffic. ·       We need much better transparency of the discussion regarding the plan to avoid a repeat of not notifying impacted neighbors as in our case. This was not an acceptable approach to build a collaborative plan. o Date of Castilleja/Neighborhood meeting should be communicated at least 1 month ahead via email and Castilleja website o All materials to be presented in the Castilleja/Neighborhood meeting should be viewable via Castilleja website 2 week prior the meeting o All meeting note of the Castilleja/Neighborhood meeting should be viewable via Castilleja website 1 week after the meeting o All submission of documents by Castilleja to the City and communication from the City to Castilleja related the the current CUP application and existing CUP should be made available in the Castilleja website ·       Suggestions to welcome more feedback from the neighbors: o Provide several options of plans to present to the community before submission. Print out huge copies and allow them to view the various options just like at the Embarcadero corridor meetings. Have neighbors write on the plans for their immediate input. This should be followed up to make sure that Castilleja has made changes and "heard" the neighbors’ requests. o This will reduce the amount of iterations to the submitted plans and increase transparency between Castilleja and the neighbors o Explore large lots to park cars offsite and shuttle students in. Explore another site to have a satellite school, near 101 just as Keyes school did. We are looking forward to see how your actions will bring back a good quality of life to our Single Family Neighborhood. Nelson & Kimberley On Sunday, June 13, 2021, 09:56:31 AM PDT, Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> wrote: Dear Nelson, Thank you for your question and for the opportunity to reply. I’d be happy to explain. As you know, neighborhood input has varied over time, and different neighbors have expressed conflicting points of view. Therefore, it would be impossible to develop a project that incorporates every neighbor’s comments and concerns. What I said at the meeting was that each new iteration of the project has reflected our attempts to review and consider all neighbors’ comments, to accommodate as many as possible, while also abiding by additional requirements set forth by city staff, and also by ARB, PTC, HRB, and now, City Council. A simple example: At one time, there were neighbors who requested that all cars be removed from the street, so we proposed ample underground parking. Over time, other neighbors indicated a preference for more street parking, in favor of an underground parking structure with fewer spaces. Other neighbors have focused on concerns that the garage footprint might be too close to a heritage tree. Each iteration of the parking plan for our project has been influenced by input from key stakeholders, while also seeking to manage opposing priorities and the city requirements to park our project. City staff, commission members, and ultimately the City Council, all face conflicting input from from stakeholders, and I don’t envy the challenge of weighing one neighbor’s perspective over another’s. For example, how might we consider the voice of neighbors whose homes are across the street from the school, and who have stated adamantly that they don’t want to see a parking lot from their kitchen windows, versus a neighbor 3 blocks away who signs a petition (47 signatures, not letters) to oppose a parking lot for fear it will bring traffic, without ever knowing that no new trips is a condition of the project. Ultimately, I believe Council will do their best to make a decision that takes into account not only current perspectives, but equally important, they will make a decision that is consistent with their vision for the future of Palo Alto. Castilleja’s willingness to address current and future parking needs in the neighborhood represents an investment in Palo Alto’s future that will benefit the community and will be greatly appreciated by future homeowners. Thank you again for posing this question and for giving me a chance to share my answer. Regards, Nanci On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 2:36 PM Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> wrote: Nanci, Thanks for taking additional questions via email since you limited the June 9th Castilleja Neighborhood meeting via Zoom to just one hour. You have stated publicly a number of times that Castilleja has incorporated all of the neighbors comments and concerns into the documents for the Castilleja Expansion plan. You also repeated that when you answered our neighbor MarySylvester's question during the Q&A of this meeting. On May 3rd 2017, the PNQL group hand delivered signed letters from 47 immediate neighbors to Castilleja stating that the neighbors DO NOT want theunderground garage and the reason. My question is can you please let us know where is that reflected in Castilleja submitted documents for the Castilleja Expansion Project? Thanks Nelson -- Nanci Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 P (650) 470-7718 E nkauffman@castilleja.orgwww.castilleja.org Follow us on Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn Women Learning. Women Leading. For an appointment, contact: adelafuente@castilleja.org or (650) 470-7702 -- Nanci Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 P (650) 470-7718 E nkauffman@castilleja.org www.castilleja.org Follow us on Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn Women Learning. Women Leading. For an appointment, contact: adelafuente@castilleja.org or (650) 470-7702 -- Nanci Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 P (650) 470-7718 E nkauffman@castilleja.org www.castilleja.org Follow us on Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn Women Learning. Women Leading. For an appointment, contact: adelafuente@castilleja.org or (650) 470-7702 From:chuck jagoda To:editor@dailypost.comj Cc:Aram James; Courtney Cooperman; Joe Simitian; Lenny Siegel; Rebecca Eisenberg; Susan Walsh; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Bains, Paul; Pat Burt; Council, City; Raga Ayyagari; Sneha Ayyagari; Neighbors Helping Neighbors; Kelcy Fleming; Edie Keating; Chris Richardson; MAHaag; mattteachny; a j; Will Dunnigan Subject:Canine Weaponization Date:Tuesday, October 12, 2021 12:55:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To the Editor, Aram James letter's analysis of canine weaponizing doesn't go far enough. Not only are present practices discriminatory, extreme, torturous, and unnecessary--, they are very cruel to the dogs. Attack and guard dogs are "trained" by being driven mad. They are abused to be way more cruel than a family pet or hunting dog. The wounds they inflict on "suspects" or "people of interest" can be permanently disfiguring. Not to mention extremely expensive when paying victim damages that Palo Alto and other jurisdictions end up being responsible for. Do attack dogs get deployed against white folks? The stories in the POST and elsewhere are of attacks only on BiPOC. What is the advantage of using crazed dogs? Other than allowing a police officer to administer punishment on the street while staying safely distant, I can't think of any. Chuck Jagoda Sunnyvale 408.373.1449