The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20211025plCC701-32 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: 10/25/2021 Document dates: 10/18/2021 – 10/25/2021 Public Comments Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:slevy@ccsce.com To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Wong, Tim Subject:prescreenings tonight Date:Monday, October 25, 2021 11:24:16 AM Attachments:hau.press.release.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Tonight the council has a chance to signal to the community and HCD that we intend to honor the applicable state housing laws and ABAG RHNA allocation even though many council members did and do not support them. Tonight's discussion comes on the heels of recent news including 1) the denial of PA's RHNA appeal, 2) the staffing of an expanded state Housing Accountability Unit (see press release) and 3) a growing string of court cases overturning city denials of housing projects for capricious reasons. Tonight you hear two pre-screenings, both of which come with several requests for exemptions from existing rules regarding adding housing on these properties. But council members and members of the housing element working group also know nowthat the only way for PA to meets if legal obligations is to change some rules to allow morehousing on existing sites. No math works otherwise. There can be a major plus for giving the green light to the Amarillo proposal. HCD has been cautious about approving lots of ADUs in new housing elements. But we have an excellent case for doing so and actions past and tonight and in the near term by council will solidify our case for higher ADUs in our HE and I will be happy to plead PA;s case before HCD. the Amarillo project creates 8 units where there were 4, eliminates four cottages renting for near $4,000 a month, adds ADUs that will be more affordable and adds 4 new smallish SF homes. Please send HCD and our community a forward going good faith thumbs up despite the usual presence of neighbors dissenting. The University/Middlefield project should be a slam dunk. 70 units with a 20% BMR, sameoffice space, a lot in downtown that will bring new customers and energy to the council'sefforts to create a vibrant downtown. I look forward hopefully to some positive housing news tonight. Stephen Levy STATE OF CALIFORNIA -BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES, AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-7400 www.hcd.ca.gov FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Date: October 19, 2021 Contact: Alex Traverso 916.820.1269 Alex.Traverso@hcd.ca.gov HCD Strengthens Efforts to Increase Housing Accountability Welcomes New Leader for Housing Accountability Unit SACRAMENTO – The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) today provided a big boost to its new Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) with the appointment of David Zisser as its new leader. The new Accountability Unit will play a critical role in ensuring that local leaders fulfill their legal responsibility to plan, zone for, and permit their share of the state’s housing needs. “The Governor has set ambitious housing goals for California, and it’s imperative that we do everything in our power to work with all our partners to achieve those goals,” HCD Director Gustavo Velasquez said. “The appointment of David Zisser will help us amplify and grow our accountability efforts. His vast experience in housing policy will be an enormous benefit to HCD and we are excited to welcome him to the team as the leader of the Housing Accountability Unit.” Zisser will head up a team charged with expanding on HCD’s accountability work through a holistic strategy that combines: Prohousing incentives and planning grants supporting local jurisdictions to comply with state housing laws; education and technical assistance to help jurisdictions understand the law, and strong accountability actions for non-compliance as needed. He brings more than 14 years of professional experience in local, regional, and statewide housing policy, advocacy, and accountability to HCD, and his appointment comes less than a month after Governor Newsom announced the launch of the HAU at a bill signing ceremony in Oakland. As part of the 2021-2022 state budget, HCD received new positions to grow its accountability efforts and as part of this expansion was able to form the Housing Accountability Unit with a total of 25 staff. The new team will work to boost the accountability efforts already taking place at HCD. Currently, HCD has the authority to enforce various state housing laws, including: Housing Element Law, including housing element fair housing and program commitments; Housing Accountability Act; No Net Loss Law; Density Bonus Law; Land Use Discrimination Law; Accessory Dwelling Unit laws; Affordable Housing Preservation; Noticing Law; and Surplus Land Act. The HAU will also be empowered to take escalating enforcement steps to bring municipalities into compliance with state housing legislation in the event of persistent non-compliance. “A housing element is no longer a paper exercise – it’s a contract with the state of housing commitments for eight years and the Housing Accountability Unit will hold jurisdictions to those commitments,” said Megan Kirkeby, HCD Deputy Director for Housing Policy. While the accountability work is still growing, the existing team has been busy. To date, HCD has issued 253 letters ranging from inquiries, technical assistance, notices of noncompliance, and housing element decertification. As an example of its success, 320 housing units were approved in September in Norco when the City Council overturned the Planning Commission’s original denial of a housing project. Prior to the appeal hearing, HCD provided technical assistance that highlighted the city’s commitments in its housing element and obligations under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). In another instance, the City of Bakersfield formally welcomed Casa Esperanza, a transitional home for women and their children who have been experiencing homelessness. Technical assistance provided by the Housing Accountability Unit led the City to update its municipal code to properly accommodate transitional and supportive housing, paving the way for Casa Esperanza. The formation of the Housing Accountability Unit and addition of new staff to this work will allow HCD to more proactively pursue outcome-based resolutions that increase housing supply throughout California. In addition, starting January 1, 2022, HCD will also have authority to enforce Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing law, The Housing Crisis Act of 2019 – SB 330, Streamlined Ministerial Permit Processes – SB 35, By Right Supportive Housing Provisions – AB 2162, By Right Low Barrier Navigation Centers – AB101, and limitations on development standards – AB 478. While education and technical assistance is always the first step, the Housing Accountability Unit will hold jurisdictions accountable for their housing element commitments and these other state laws. David Zisser Bio David Zisser most recently served as the Associate Director of Housing California, a statewide affordable housing and homelessness advocacy organization. He previously served as Senior Staff Attorney at Public Advocates, where he created a robust practice around Surplus Land Act accountability and led the organization’s efforts to enforce local jurisdictions’ obligations to affirmatively further fair housing. Zisser started his career in local government as a Housing Fellow at the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development. He went on to serve as Counsel at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law where he developed a post-Katrina Gulf Coast initiative, working with dozens of local organizations in Louisiana and Mississippi to hold communities accountable for affordable housing, fair housing, tenant protections, equitable development, and environmental justice. # # # The California Department of Housing and Community Development is dedicated to the preservation and expansion of safe and affordable housing, so more Californians have a place to call home. Our team works to ensure an adequate supply of housing for Californians and promotes the growth of strong communities through its leadership, policy and program development. For more information, please visit www.hcd.ca.gov and follow us on Twitter, @California_HCD; Facebook, @CaliforniaHCD; and LinkedIn. From:Palo Alto Forward To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal);Cormack, Alison; Gail Price Subject:Item #1 and #2 Study Sessions on Housing Proposals Date:Monday, October 25, 2021 11:01:02 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from palo.alto.fwd@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. October 25, 2021 Re: Item #1 and #2 Study Sessions on Housing Proposals Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto Council members, I am writing on behalf of Palo Alto Forward in support of both housing proposals being studied for pre-screening at tonight’s City Council meeting. While these proposals are very different in their scope and composition, both increase the number of homes on their respective sites. As the City considers how to interpret the denial for Palo Alto’s RHNA appeal, staff and council should view proposals like these as opportunities to demonstrate our willingness to find solutions that fit our community. The proposed project at APIC Amarillo Avenue LLC increases housing density while providing a diversity of housing types to serve a variety of incomes. While it does remove some rental housing stock from the market, it provides more and varied housing options for our residents. Further, by supporting this proposal in its current form, Palo Alto can demonstrate the feasibility of gentle density through the increase of ADU production. If we want local control then we need to show how we can make it work. Agenda Item #2 outlines a PHZ proposal at 660 University that provides 70 homes, including 14 affordable. This mixed-use proposal is exactly what residents have identified as a priority in previous community surveys. There are few locations - downtown and walking distance to Caltrain - better positioned to ensure success for new affordable housing residents. And while the height and parking variance may be a controversial point for some, these changes are aligned with the stated preferences of the Housing Element Working Group and the neighborhood character. The parking ratio per unit should be changed from 2 to 1 or <1 because the site is located adjacent to University Avenue retail, office, commercial, and transit. According to this Denver-based study, locations like this one would diminish reliance on a vehicle and reduce GHG emissions from tenants. The outcome aligns with our climate action goals. Additionally, since the units are small, there may be tenants who do not want or need an assigned space. These multi-family proposals will yield much needed new homes and align with our RHNA housing allocation which we strongly support. The recent denial of Palo Alto‘s RHNA appeal was appropriate and needed. Please provide constructive and clear feedback so that both of these proposals can move forward, as designed, and allow our city to demonstrate our commitment to making housing at all income levels a priority. Gail A. Price President, Palo Alto Forward Board From:Ted O"Hanlon To:Council, City Subject:1033 Amarillo Pre-Screening: R-1 Subdivisions & Gentle Density Date:Monday, October 25, 2021 9:50:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Greetings Council Members: In April 2021, the City Council considered a property owner request and approved the subdivision of a >20,000 square foot R-1 lot into two >10,000 square foot lots. Since theproposed lots were >9,999 square feet, thus considered non-conforming, the application required review and approval by both the Planning & Transportation Committee (PTC) andCity Council. During PTC's review of the project, dialogue included observations of the City's Comprehensive Plan policies to both retain and create cottage clusters as well as technicalissues such as flag lots limiting subdivisions into smaller lot formations and perhaps different outcomes than those proposed by the applicant. Tonight, a Project Pre-Screening will seek guidance on subdividing a 20,787 square foot R-1lot into 4 lots of approximately 5,000 square feet each. The result would be smaller format, detached single family homes plus ADU's on each for a total of 8 dwelling units. The StaffReport observes several zoning compliance issues including flag lots and use of an easement for ingress/egress. The application also includes how the property might subdivide into two R-1 lots or fewer and larger homes that including allowable ADUs and Junior ADUs would create 6 total dwelling units. The subject property currently has 4 detached rental homes of about 900 square feet eachrented for approximately $4,000 per month. As proposed, the rental units could be replaced by the 4 ADU's which as drawn are 2 ADU's of 484 square feet with 1 bed/1 bath and 2 ADU's of799 square feet with 2 beds/2 baths. These would be delivered with 4 single family homes that might be 3 beds/2 baths with the ADUs attached to the primary home. A suggestion of the Staff Report would be implementing a combining district, which parallelsa discussion that the PTC had when reviewing the subdivision that City Council approved in April 2021. Frequently property owner proposed projects motivate the implementation ofguidelines that might be reusable within a jurisdiction. With 15% of R-1 property in Palo Alto being greater than 10,000 square feet, more opportunities would exist to create differentiatedhousing in Palo Alto over time. By creating parameters for "gentle density" subdivisions, property owners would possess more alternatives to create more new housing units. Sincenearly 1 in 5 Palo Alto R-1 properties are less than the conforming size of 6,000 square feet, smaller lot configurations are quite common and present an excellent opportunity for housingunit creation. Many thanks in advance for your consideration of the application. We look forward to and appreciate City Council's guidance on how we should proceed in further steps on this housingunit creation opportunity. Best Regards Ted O'HanlonConsulting Project Executive --- Ted O'Hanlontedohanlon@gmail.com 415.317.5070 mobile/text CA DRE #01868277 From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein;bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field;Council, City; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; davonkelly@novadconsulting.com; Dan Richard;esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net;grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo; IrvWeissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor;margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville;russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Blanko Lirio guy is flying again. Fought prostate C. He"d be my preferd pilot. Date:Monday, October 25, 2021 12:13:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 11:04 PM Subject: Fwd: Blanko Lirio guy is flying again. Fought prostate C. He'd be my preferd pilot.To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 11:00 PMSubject: Fwd: Blanko Lirio guy is flying again. Fought prostate C. He'd be my preferd pilot. To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Sun, Oct 24, 2021 at 10:57 PM Subject: Blanko Lirio guy is flying again. Fought prostate C. He'd be my preferd pilot.To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sunday, Oct. 24, 2021 Good vid. by Juan Brown of his Blanco Lirio channel. He made this on Saturday onOct. 23, 2021. On his way to Inchon. Shows flight down from Sacto to LA on a new 737 Max. They show the stab trim cut out switch in cockpit now very prominent on the 737Max. Back to Work! B-777 Incheon - YouTube Apparently it is a 777 cargo flight LA to Inchon (Seoul) to Hong Kong and back to LAX.He is one of four pilots on the trip. You can bet that cargo flights from Hong Kong to LA are much in demand right now. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Aram James To:Jonsen, Robert; Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew; Enberg, Nicholas; Tony Dixon; Human Relations Commission;Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; chuck jagoda; Council, City; Jeff Moore; Winter Dellenbach; PlanningCommission; Sajid Khan; Raj; Jeff Rosen; Vara Ramakrishnan; alisa mallari tu; Rebecca Eisenberg; Jay Boyarsky Subject:Racism protests change the script on Broadway. (But can we ever change racist police culture? Can law enforcement culture evolve and if not can we as a people abolish policing as current constituted? Date:Sunday, October 24, 2021 10:58:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/23/theater/broadway-race-depictions.amp.html Sent from my iPhone From:Keith Bennett To:Council, City Subject:660 University Ave, Agenda Item # 2, 10/25/2021 Date:Sunday, October 24, 2021 8:17:18 PM Attachments:660_Universtiy_Council_Comments_21_10_25.rtf GHG Emission_660_University_Basement Construction.rtf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ To Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council,Attached please find 2 documents from Save Palo Alto's Groundwaterpertaining to Agenda Item #2 on the 10/25/2021 on 660 University Ave.1) Comments, especially on the green house gas emissions that wouldresult from building a 2nd level of underground parking, and otherconsiderations relating to groundwater2) Detailed calculations. Thank you in advance for your kind considerations. --Keith Bennetthttp://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org Agenda Item #2, 10/25/21 Palo Alto City Council Meeting Study Session, re: 660 University Ave. Comment to Council Keith Bennett, Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater I am Keith Bennett representing Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater. Our interest is solely on impacts of underground construction in areas of high groundwater. The proposed project at 660 University Ave, includes 2-levels of underground parking covering approximately 90% of the lot. To accommodate this underground parking, the excavation will likely be 25 feet deep, and reach groundwater. Palo Alto’s building code requires the building to be sufficiently heavy to keep it from floating at the highest anticipated groundwater depth, which considering groundwater fluctuations and sea level rise would be about 10 feet above the bottom of the sub- structure. Water of this depth covering 90% of the lot will lift 12.8 million pounds. Assuming 3 million pounds for the weight of the 1st level underground parking and above-ground structure, an additional 9.8 million pounds of concrete will be required to prevent the building from floating. The CO2 released by concrete production is about 18% of its weight, which comes to nearly 1.8 million pounds additional CO2 for the construction of this second parking level. How much is 1.8 million pounds of CO2? CO2 emissions from all residential use of natural gas in Palo Alto totals about 160 million pounds annually; the additional CO2 emitted for the 2nd level of parking for this single project is 1.1% of total residential emissions for a year. Let’s look at this another way. The City is trying to get residents to convert their gas-burning stoves to electric. A typical gas burning range emits about 400 pounds of CO2 per year. To offset the emissions of this project, 4,500 residential gas ranges would need to be replaced in the year of construction. At $2,000 to $4,000 cost per replacement, offsetting these emissions would cost $9 - $18 million. The GHG emitted by this basement construction would contribute to climate change essentially forever. We strongly request not permitting any underground construction exceeding 15 feet below ground surface for this project. Zoning exceptions should not be provided for a project which strongly conflicts with the City’s goals to reduce GHG emissions. Please see the detailed calculations I provided as written comments. Basement construction in high groundwater areas has other impacts. Dewatering during construction either results in significant pumping and waste of groundwater, a valuable resource, or, with the use of cutoff walls, significant additional CO2 emission. Secondly, groundwater storage and flows are the largest component in Palo Alto’s stormwater management system, in a manner somewhat analogous to the way snow in the Sierras store freshwater. Soils that absorbing rainwater are removed and the underground construction dams groundwater flows, increasing flood risks, especially from atmospheric river rain events. Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Basement Construction October 22, 2021 Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater Keith Bennett, Ph.D. 1. The building must be heavy enough to avoid floating in the groundwater. Weight of water: 62.4 lbs/ cubic foot Basement area: 20,000 square feet (including walls) Basement depth (20 feet to floor + 2 feet slab thickness): 22 feet Highest transient groundwater level: 15 feet below ground surface Total weight of building = total weight of water: 20,000 sq. feet x (25 – 15) feet x 62.4 lbs/cu ft = 12.8 million pounds (5,820 metric tons) Allowance for building weight P1 and above: 1.5 feet of concrete x 13,000 sq. feet = 19,500 cu feet @150 lbs/ft3 = ~3 million pounds Additional concrete needed to prevent buoyancy: 12.8 – 3.0 million pounds = 9.8 million pounds. (4,450 metric tons) 2. Amount of CO2 emitted 180 kg/ton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_concrete 3. Total emission: 4,450 metric ton x 180 kg / ton = 800,000 kg (800 metric tons) of CO2 Comparison to residential emissions 1. Total emissions from burning natural gas in all residences (single and multi-family) in Palo Alto: 72,000 metric tons/ year. 2. Fraction of emissions from burning natural gas for all residential use from construction of the 2nd level underground parking: 800 metric tons / 72,000 metric tons= 1.1% Comparison to CO2 emissions from cooking on a gas stove 1. Amount of natural gas used per year for cooking (per residence): 35 therms (https://askinglot.com/what-is-the-average-natural-gas-consumption-per-household, price per therm $1.00; 5 – 10% of natural gas consumption for a residence with gas furnace, water and range) 3. CO2 emitted per therm of natural gas: 5.3 kg/therm https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhouse-gases-equivalencies-calculator-calculations-and- references 4. CO2 emitted by burning natural gas for cooking: 35 therms x 5.3 kg/therm = 186 kg. 5. Equivalent CO2 emissions for construction of this 2nd level basement: 800,000 kg/186 (kg / range) = 4,300 ranges. Cost of mitigation of environmental impacts: A. Estimated cost to 1 gas range with electric induction range: $2,000 - $4,000 per range plus electrical service upgrade (if needed) B. Total cost of GHG mitigation for this basement: 4,300 x ($2,000 - $4,000) = $8.6 - $17+ million + electrical service upgrades. C. Value of water: 20 million gallons / 325,000 (gallon/acre foot) = 61 acre-feet Cost of groundwater (Valley Water, Zone W-2): $1,499/ acre-foot x 61 /acre-foot = $91,433 D. Total: (B) + (C) = >$4,000,000 per basement in high groundwater area. From:Aram James To:Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; chuck jagoda; JayBoyarsky; wintergery@earthlink.net; Rebecca Eisenberg; Planning Commission; Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew;Enberg, Nicholas; Greer Stone; Joe Simitian; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Stump, Molly; Molly; MiguelRodriguez; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Why a progressive prosecutor just left D.A. Chesa Boudin"s office and joined the recall effort Date:Sunday, October 24, 2021 4:33:02 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://www.sfchronicle.com/sf/bayarea/heatherknight/article/She-s-a-progressive- homicide-prosecutor-who-16556274.php From:Mimi and Eric Carlson To:Council, City Subject:Fw: 660 University Date:Sunday, October 24, 2021 4:27:12 PM Attachments:660 University.msg Some people who received this message don't often get email from mimianderic@hotmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Member: October 21, 2021 As a senior resident living adjacent to 660 University, I oppose the building under review at 660 University Avenue. Crowding, traffic, and lack of affordability make this highly undesirable . Please either reduce the plan greatly or reject it out of hand. Sincerely, 555 Byron St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Council Member: October 21, 2021 As a senior resident living adjacent to 660 University, I oppose the building under review at 660 University Avenue. Crowding, traffic, and lack of affordability make this highly undesirable. Please either reduce the plan greatly or reject it out of hand. Sincerely, o,= e,. q ~~ ~ 555 Byron St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein;bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field;Council, City; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; davonkelly@novadconsulting.com;esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net;grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; huidentalsanmateo;hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; lalws4@gmail.com; leager;Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; merazroofinginc@att.net; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com;nick yovino; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Sally Thiessen; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry;VT3126782@gmail.com; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Vaccines and increasing infections Dr. John Campbell Friday, Oct. 22, 2021 Date:Sunday, October 24, 2021 4:17:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sunday, October 24, 2021. IMPORTANT DO NOT MISS THIS. Fit young males getting serious, lifethreatening reactions in the heart after receiving the Pfizer vaccine. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 9:20 PM Subject: Fwd: Vaccines and increasing infections Dr. John Campbell Friday, Oct. 22, 2021To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message ---------From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 8:50 PMSubject: Fwd: Vaccines and increasing infections Dr. John Campbell Friday, Oct. 22, 2021 To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Sat, Oct 23, 2021 at 8:26 PM Subject: Vaccines and increasing infections Dr. John Campbell Friday, Oct. 22, 2021To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Saturday, October 23, 2021 To all- Dr. Campbell in the UK put this out on Friday, October 22, 2021. Kyle's vaccine experience- Yikes!!! Another fit young malel, this one in Boise, Idaho(not quite the last State on the upper left). Has won biking awards and contests. A professional athlete. Hear what he has gone through. He got the first Pfizer shot middle of May, 2021 and the second shot June 10, 2021. Serious heart events. Went to an ER in Boise St. Alphonsis Hospital or St. Adolphis and the doctor there said he was not having the heart events that the mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna can cause in fit young males andreferred him to a psychiatrist. Said it was a panic attack. Important that his story be widely heard. Starts to make me more of a believer wrt bad reactions possible with the mRNA Covidvaccines. The second trip to a different hospitlal in Boise yielded the correct diagnosis: Paracarditis. Hear what Dr. campbell says about all of this. Double yikes! Kyle's vaccine experience - YouTube Vaccines and increasing infections - YouTube Dr Campbell here goes through the usual charts and tables. Number of new cases in US coming down and the number in the UK is going up, his first chart shows. But then, the UKdoes lots of testing and the US does not. He shows at the end this Vid. a brief vid from a fit young man in Australia who had a bad reaction after getting vaccinated with the Pfizervaccine. Pericarditis. He is in the hospital. Hear Dr. Campbell discuss where that can go (morgue) and what to look for. That, and myocarditis, is a remote risk with the mRNAvaccines- Pfizer and Moderna. If any heart reaction to those, do not work out for a fewdays. and seek medical attention. Listen to what can happen to the heart in these cases,at the end of the video. A different problem, the throbocytopenia- blood clots- is a (small) risk withthe adenovirus virus vector vaccines-- Oxford Astrazeneca and Johnson and Johnson. Recall the cerebral sinus venus thromboses in the brain and the hepatic portal vein clots. Big vein from the intestine over to the liver. Dr. Campbell has put out lots of vids about those,especially when they first emerged. Biden has never approved the Oxford Astrazenaca vaccine for use in the US, but it has been widely used outside the US., hundreds of thousandsof times per day in the UK, e.g. The J&J vaccine has been widely used here. The vaccines are not without risk. Rare, but there. The Moderna booster was approved Thurs. evening, October 21, 2021, by Walensky- head of CDC. I have mailed my doctor at Kaiser asking to get the Moderna booster as soon aspossible. I got the Moderna shots on January 15 and February 14, 2021. That is about when the Delta variant showed up in the US, having originated in India. During all of 2020 "all" wehad to deal with was the original Wuhan virus and then the Kent variant. If somehow the Delta variant had been the first one out of the box, we'd have had a lot more deaths during 2020. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:Cara Silver To:Council, City Cc:slongstreth@gmail.com Subject:Reject Item 1 on October 25 Agenda Date:Sunday, October 24, 2021 3:34:41 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from carasilver1@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and Council Members: We are reaching out as homeowners who live on Amarillo Avenue, not far from 1033 Amarillo Avenue, the subject of Item 1 on the Council’s October 25 agenda. Item 1 proposes to tear down the four existing rental units at 1033 Amarillo (Attachment A), split the existing lot into four parcels, and build four large ownership homes (each with an ADU) on the four new parcels. No onsite BMRs or tenant protections are proposed. As is the trend, the new ADUs and/or JADUs will likely sit empty or ultimately house extended household members, with no guarantee they will be offered to the displaced renters or other qualifying low income tenants. (As an aside, we strongly support intergenerational housing. However, in the face of our current housing crisis, we think large, multi-story houses are well suited to accommodate inter-generational housing and Palo Alto has many, many of these housing options currently available.) Obviously, we have an affordable housing shortage in Palo Alto. Recently, market forces are also creating a moderate income shortage as older housing stock is being removed and converted. This older housing stock largely operates as rentals for households who are simply not able to purchase a home in town. It also houses seniors who want to stay connected to the community and who cannot afford the high cost of assisted living. Midtown is one of the few communities in Palo Alto where working class, middle income, fixed income and wealthy households live side-by-side. Preserving older housing stock, particularly multi-family units, is the simplest and most efficient way to retain affordable housing as well as an economically and culturally diverse population, something Palo Alto has long honored. We strongly urge the Council to reject Item 1 for the following reasons: Cultural diversity. The Amarillo cottage cluster has long been the home of multiple families. Prior to the April 2021 sale of the property, the cottage clusters were filled with children riding their small bicycles along the communal blacktop, potted plants • cheerfully hanging from the patio roofs, and kids’ toys sprinkled on the grassy common area. When walking by, we would hear people speaking Spanish, adding cultural depth to our street. Through observing the young families interact in the large communal area, this site holds a special place in our hearts. Sadly, there are fewer and fewer opportunities in Palo Alto to experience cultural diversity. Overabundance of oversized houses. In the past few years, developers have been gobbling up older single story housing stock in less expensive Midtown and converting it to oversized new homes selling for $4 Million plus. (See Attachment B just one block from the cottages.) There are plenty of options for households looking for a large, newly built house in midtown. This is not the type of housing stock needed in our community and it does not create the density contemplated in our recent RHNA allocation.. Historic structure. The Amarillo cottage cluster was built in 1947 and has been an integral part of our street for almost 75 years. As the staff report indicates, it is one of the last rental cottage clusters in town. An historic analysis should be conducted and all efforts made to preserve this unique housing option. Preservation of rental units. Our current Housing Element and recently updated Land Use plan acknowledge the importance of preserving existing rental and cottage cluster housing stock as a desirable way to preserve affordable housing and create diversity. The first goal of our Housing Element emphasizes the benefits of preserving unique aspects of existing neighborhoods. The Housing Element discourages the removal of rental housing and encourages “the preservation of existing rental cottages and duplexes currently located in the R-1 and R-2 residential areas.” (Program H1.1.3) It especially encourages the preservation of multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods (Policy H1.2). Likewise, the Land Use Element emphasizes the need to retain affordable housing in existing neighborhoods as a way to foster inclusivity and diversity. Thus, Policy L-2.7 directs the city to retain housing that is more affordable in existing neighborhoods, including a range of smaller housing types. Policy L-3.3 recognizes the contribution of cottage cluster housing to the character of Palo Alto and directs the city to retain it. Avoid displacement or tenants. The Land Use Element cautions against promoting infill redevelopment that will displace existing residents. (Policy L-2.8.) Most importantly, when a loss of rental housing occurs due to subdivision or condominium conversion approvals, the project shall require 25 percent BMR units. (Program H1.2.1 and H3.1.2 ) • • • • • State housing laws. The new State housing laws also recognize the importance of avoiding displacement and the increasing harm of market gentrification. Thus SB 9 is not available to projects requiring the displacement of tenants. And the new housing laws which permit displacement, typically require the developer to replace ALL of the displaced units and offer them back to the displaced tenants at an affordable rental rate (see e.g. SB 330; density bonus laws). As you know this rezoning request is discretionary and we urge you to reject it. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Cara Silver, 925 Amarillo Avenue Sarah Longstreth, 979 Amarillo Avenue From:Helene Grossman To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Gas leaf blowers Date:Sunday, October 24, 2021 2:15:52 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from helenegrossman@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council and City Manager: I have met with many of you about gas powered leaf blowers, and I wanted to thank you allfor your time, consideration, and thoughts on this issue -- as well as for all that you do for Palo Alto! I wanted to follow-up with a more specific proposal regarding gas leaf blowers. Background of this issue: Gas leaf blowers have been banned in Palo Alto for the last 16 years, but the law is notenforced. Gas leaf blowers: Are super polluters. The CA Air Resources Board has found that gas leaf blowers andsimilar equipment cause more smog-forming emissions than all passenger cars in CA — and those are also greenhouse gases that are disrupting the Earth’s climateCause serious health issues for workers who utilize them every day Are extremely noisy - the low frequency noise from a single gas blower can be heardfrom over 100 homes (versus only ~6 homes for an electric blower) Hundreds of community members have signed a petition (change.org/gasleafblowers)indicating that gas leaf blowers are affecting them personally and requesting the City to enforce the ordinance. Proposal: We believe it’s the responsibility of property owners to pay their gardeners enough to do theirjob safely and legally or to provide the equipment to do so. We'd like City Council to: Educate property owners who employ gardeners that gas leaf blowers are illegal andharmful Issue warnings to property owners who continue to use gas leaf blowers on theirproperty As a last resort, fine property owners who have more than one violation (as analternative, this fine could be waived if they purchase an electric leaf blower -- only $59 at Home Depot! -- for their gardener) At Monday's meeting, the Council will be discussing the mid-year budget update and whether any services should be restored. Previously, code enforcement was cut from 3 people to just • • • • • • 1. We would like to ask City Council to restore 1 of those positions, and that person couldspend part of their time on leaf blower enforcement. Code enforcement would still be 33% below previous service levels, but at least we would have a chance (and it would relieve the 1remaining code enforcement officer, who is doing 3 jobs at once). Thank you so much for considering! Sincerely, Helene Grossman From:Aram James To:Tanaka, Greg; Council, City; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; wintergery@earthlink.net; Jeff Rosen; Sajid Khan; Jeff Moore; JayBoyarsky; Greer Stone; Raj; Roberta Ahlquist; Cecilia Taylor; Planning Commission; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Joe Simitian;CA18AEima@mail.house.gov; Binder, Andrew; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:FBy Suppressing Information on the Impact of Racism, Opponents of Critical Race Theory Maintain Inequity Date:Sunday, October 24, 2021 1:30:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachmentsand clicking on links. FYI: From the archives of Aram James ( slight edits from the original email sent 9-25-2021. To: Palo Alto City council member Greg Tanaka From: Palo Alto activist Aram James Re: Your proposed unconstitutional stand-alone-hate-speech ordinance 1. Will your proposed stand-alone-hate-speech-ordinance be used to chillthe right of community members to support critical race theory (CRT)education in our schools or result in charges against folks who wish toadvocate for critical race theory( CRT) education in our schools? 2. Will folks like myself of Jewish heritage be charged with violatingyour proposed stand-alone-hate-speech ordinance —when I speak at citycouncil meetings, HRC meetings, PTC meetings, and vehementlycriticize the Apartheid state of Israel of being guilty of on going warcrimes against the Palestinian people, demand that the U.S. withdraw allfunding to Israel, argue in support the Boycott, Divestand Sanction-movement, equate the state of Israel with Nazi Germany? Greg, please let me know your thoughts on these critical questions. Best regards, Aram James Understanding the political nature of the attacks against CriticalRace Theory allows us to counter them more effectively and thushelp ensure that public education can serve to reduce, ratherthan reinforce, structural racism. View this email in your browser Thursday, September 23, 2021 Publication Announcement ----------------------- NEPC NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY CENTER By Suppressing Information on the Impact of Racism, Opponents of Critical Race Theory Maintain Inequity KEY TAKEAWAY: Understanding the political nature of the attacks against Critical Race Theory allows us to counter them more effectively and thus help ensure that public education can serve to reduce, rather than reinforce, structural racism. NEPC Publication -> NEPC Resources onPolitics, Policy, and SchoolPractices -> CONTACT: Michelle Renée Valladares: (720) 505-1958 michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Francesca López: (814) 865-0963 fql5174@psu.edu BOULDER, CO (September 23, 2021) — Critical Race Theory, or CRT, is acontroversial topic that has ignited a contentious national dialogue. Thosewho argue against using CRT in the classroom often portray it as afrightening “symbolic enemy” to help drive people who hold a widevariety of racial, cultural, and political grievances to support right wingpoliticians and policies. To address these arguments and provide a better understanding of whatCRT entails, the National Education Policy Center todayreleased Understanding the Attacks on Critical Race Theory, authoredby Francesca López of Penn State University, Alex Molnar of the Universityof Colorado Boulder, Royel Johnson, Ashley Patterson, and LaWanda Wardof Penn State University, and independent scholar Kevin Kumashiro. The authors describe the history of attempts to legislate race-relatedcurriculum. Since early 2021, eight states have passed legislation thatbroadly speaking seeks to exclude historical information and analysisrelated to race and racism from school curriculum. Additional legislationhas been, or is being, considered in 15 other states and in the U.S. 0 8 Congress, as well as policies by local school boards and state boards ofeducation. Advocates of this legislation argue that providing students with suchinformation is un-American, divisive, and racist, and that including it inthe curriculum is a result of schools incorporating CRT into their curriculaand staff training programs. The authors explain how the assault on CRTcan be understood as part of a larger ideological effort to delegitimizehistorically accurate presentations of race and racism in American history;to thwart attempts by members of marginalized groups to participate fullyin the civic life; and to retain political power. In their review of these contemporary attacks against CRT, the authorsexpand upon the political objectives of these tactics and provide historicalexamples of similar ones, and in conclusion offer resources on evidence-based strategies to counter the propaganda. Find Understanding the Attacks on Critical Race Theory, by FrancescaLópez, Alex Molnar, Royel Johnson, Ashley Patterson, LaWanda Ward, andKevin Kumashiro, at:https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/crt The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at theUniversity of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit usat: http://nepc.colorado.edu Copyright 2021 National Education Policy Center. All rights reserved. Manage Your Subscription This message was sent to roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu from nepcnews@nepc.colorado.edu The National Education Policy Center School of Education, University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~;Contacf TRY IT FOR FREE ► From:E Nigenda To:Council, City; UAC; Batchelor, Dean Subject:Wired: How Hacked Water Heaters Could Trigger Mass Blackouts Date:Sunday, October 24, 2021 6:19:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. As we transition to smart meters and "smart" cities please keep cybersecurity in mind: "Just as utilities carefully model heat waves and British tea times and keep a stock of energy in reserve to cover those demands, they now need to account for the number of potentiallyhackable high-powered devices on their grids, too. As high-power smart-home gadgets multiply, the consequences of IoT insecurity could someday be more than just a haywirethermostat, but entire portions of a country going dark." How Hacked Water Heaters Could Trigger Mass Blackouts Thanks, Esther Nigenda From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:October 25, 2021 Council Meeting, Item #6: 340 Portage Avenue/3200 Park Boulevard Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 5:53:51 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 23, 2021 Palo Alto City Council250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 OCTOBER 25, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #6340 PORTAGE AVENUE AND 3200 PARK BOULEVARD Dear City Council: I urge you to reject staff's suggestion that you for either astaff committee or a Council committee to negotiate with thedeveloper. A staff committee would become part of the development team. A Council committee would be prohibited from participating inquasi-judicial decisions. Herb Borock From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:October 25, 2021 Council Meeting, Item #7: Workforce Housing Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 5:48:21 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 23, 2021 Palo Alto City Council250 Hamilton AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94301 OCTOBER 25, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7WORKFORCE HOUSING COMBINING DISTRICTPALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.30(K) Dear City Council: I urge you to initiate a text change to the Zoning Ordinance todelete the Combining District for Workforce Housing that wasadopted by Ordinance No. 5443. Council Member Eric Filseth sent you an email message onSunday, September 26, 2021 7:24 PM in which he compared therental prices of the middle-income residential units with theother market rate units at the Alta Locale project at 2755 ElCamino Real which is the only project to use the WorkforceHousing Combining District. The Alta Locale middle-income units rent is substantially thesame as the rent for the other units. If residential units are small enough, their rents will beaffordable for any defined income. The City has an obligation to meet its Residential HousingNeeds Allocation (RHNA), but there is only a single RHNAallocation for market rate. There is not a RHNA allocation formiddle income. The staff report for the adoption of the Combining Districtrefers to AB 1637 (Statutes 2017, Chapter 801) that enactedHealth and Safety Code Section 34340 for "Middle-Income HousingProjects". AB 1637 authorized, but did not require, a demonstrationproject in San Diego County and Santa Clara County that defineda "Middle-income housing project" as one that includes at least40% of the units for persons of low income, and at least 10% ofthe units for families of middle income. By contrast PAMC Section 18.30(K) is for projects with 20% of the units for persons with middle income and the remaining 80%of the units for persons with incomes above middle income. Now that you can view an actual project that used the newCombining District, I urge those of you who voted to enact thatdistrict, to amend the Zoning Ordinance to repeal thatdistrict based on the new evidence. The 2021 Fiscal Year median income in Santa Clara County is$105,900 for a one-person family, and $121,050 for a two-personfamily. You can do your own arithmetic to determine who benefits fromincreased density in exchange for providing an additional 20percent of a project's units for persons who earn up to 150% ofthose median incomes. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock From:Aram James To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:WILL HOMES EVOLVE IN CALIFORNIA? Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 3:56:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Follow the link below to view the article. WILL HOMES EVOLVE IN CALIFORNIA?https://mercurynews-ca-app.newsmemory.com/?publink=1484f250c_1345f73 Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Alison Cormack; alisa mallari tu; Rebecca Eisenberg; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Stump, Molly;wintergery@earthlink.net; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.com; Tanaka, Greg; Planning Commission; Cecilia Taylor;city.council@menlopark.org; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council Subject:Alabama’s Next Poet Laureate Writes Searingly about race ( Her latest collection of Poems is called “ Reparations Now!” Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 12:58:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>Date: October 23, 2021 at 12:54:46 PM PDTTo: julie.Tannock@cityofpaloalto.org, Nicholas Enberg <Nicholas.Enberg@cityofpaloalto.org>, Zachary Perron<zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org>, James Reifschneider <james.reifschneider@cityofpaloalto.org>, Zachary Perron<zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org>, Andrew Binder <andrew.binder@cityofpaloalto.org>, Robert Jonsen<Robert.Jonsen@cityofpaloalto.org>, hrc@cityofpaloalto.org, City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Jeff Moore <moorej@esuhsd.org>,Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org, Sajid Khan <sajid@votesajid.com>, Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>, Jeff Rosen<jrosen@dao.sccgov.org>, Jay Boyarsky <jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org>, Raj <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org>, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>,Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>, Alison Cormack <alisonlcormack@gmail.com>, cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org, Joe Simitian<joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org>, paloaltofreepress@gmail.com, Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>, tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org, Greg Tanaka<greg@gregtanaka.org>, Tony Dixon <Wadixon@menlopark.org>, Cecilia Taylor <cmrstaylor@gmail.com>, michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com, Betsy Nash<BNash@menlopark.org>Subject: Alabama’s Next Poet Laureate Writes Searingly about race ( Herlatest collection of Poems is called “ Reparations Now!” FYI: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/us/ashley-jones-poet-laureate- alabama.amp.html Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Perron, Zachary; Reifschneider, James; Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew;Jonsen, Robert; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Jeff Moore; Planning Commission; Sajid Khan;Winter Dellenbach; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Raj; Roberta Ahlquist; Rebecca Eisenberg; Alison Cormack;cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Joe Simitian; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Greer Stone; DuBois, Tom; GregTanaka; Tony Dixon; Cecilia Taylor; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Betsy Nash Subject:Alabama’s Next Poet Laureate Writes Searingly about race ( Her latest collection of Poems is called “ Reparations Now!” Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 12:54:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ FYI: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/21/us/ashley-jones-poet-laureate-alabama.amp.html Sent from my iPhone From:Rebecca Sanders To:Council, City Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com Subject:Agenda Item #2 for October 25, 2021 Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 11:34:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Re: October 25, 2021, Agenda Item #2 – 1033 Amarillo Pre-screening Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members: PAN takes issue with the assumed privilege of any developer asking the city to change its zoning code when to do so would obviously harm other property owners. Regarding 1033 Amarillo, asking for a split into substandard lots, not having to stick to the flag lot one-story rule, and other exemptions from our existing R-1 regulations is unfair to all the other landowners in the city who have complied with our stricter rules for many decades. We understand that developers will request special treatment because it profits them to do so. What we don’t understand is granting exemptions when to do so is unfair to others. Without taking us through the tedium of adjusting our laws for them, the applicant could achieve profitable results and follow the code by requesting a parcel split into three compliant parcels and then developing those. This would allow them three regular homes plus perhaps three ADUs or JADUs. Those ADUs and JADUs will likely have somewhat lower rents than any of the eight homes in the applicant's proposal. So, by not granting the applicant's current request, we could gain more lower-rent housing, which is a high priority for the City. What a marvelous opportunity to save the applicant, the staff, and the Council time (and money) by urging the applicant to come back with a proposal that complies with Palo Alto’s current zoning code. By encouraging this developer in their aspirations of changing the code for them (as previous councils have done), Council will no doubt continue to encourage an ever-growing flood of time-wasting pre-screenings and subsequent applications that do not meet our code and which harm others. I have read the excellent research that Annette Glanckopf and my PAN co-chair Sheri Furman presented in their letter to you on behalf of the Midtown Residents Association. I hope you can appreciate the motivation behind the hours of work that went into preparing that memorandum. Isn’t it reasonable, wise, and just to ask that those who want to do business in our city comply with its codes? Sincerely, Becky Sanders Co-Chair, Palo Alto Neighborhoods From:Cynthia W To:Council, City Subject:1033 Amarillo Avenue (21PLN-00212) Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 10:35:16 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cindyjwebber7@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council members, I am writing to the Palo Alto City Council to protest the construction at 1033 Amarillo Avenue (21PLN-00212). I propose that the land be divided into only three parcels, and that each residence have only 3BR maximum, with land around each building. I have lived at 1038 Amarillo Avenue for 35 years, and have raised two children here. I do not want to see our investment deteriorate because of the proposed land division with so much of the site covered. Since we moved here in 1986, the properties at 1033 Amarillo Avenue have always been rental properties, generally with an adult couple or a young family. Often the tenants were there for at least a few years. It gave them some connection to the good of the neighborhood. However, the way the plans are drawn will not be a continuation of that family-oriented residence. Instead, it is geared toward rentals that will draw larger groups of adults. There are two reasons for saying so: The first reason is that the proposal currently maximizes the structure on each site, with no real area for families and children to spend time in a yard/play area. Secondly, although the plans indicate that the driveways would be in the same place as the current driveway, the height of the buildings and their proximity to the driveways make it a very unwieldy place for kids to bike or play because the lack of visibility for the kids due to the fences/shrubs that are proposed to create a border between the buildings that face Amarillo and the proposed driveway. So, this would not be a place that would be appealing to families, but would be ok as a rental for single adults like college students, coworkers, etc. While we welcome people in all stages of life, our neighbors and I object to the number of cars they will bring. Each large residence is slated to have 3 BR and 2BR in its ADU. Going from four places with 2 BR currently to four places with 5 BR will likely bring more than double the number cars parking on the street. Since the proposed lot size is so small, a more reasonable plan is to make only three of the 3BR residences allowing more land/yard around each one, and drop the plan for the ADU’s. Even this plan would probably bring more cars to the street, but far fewer than the current proposal. Thank-you for considering this request. Regards, Cynthia Webber 1038 Amarillo Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:Your Fave CIgar GODdessTo:Council, CitySubject:There is nowhere else you want to beDate:Saturday, October 23, 2021 6:02:27 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email fromnoreply@campaign.eventbrite.com. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Let’s get together We’re launching a new happy hour and we’d love to see you there. Join us for Access Smoke Room Presents: The Red GODdess Experience October 8, 2021 at 6:00 PM. Come join DMVs sexiest happy hour at The Republic Garden. Food, hookah, and drink specials from 6-10pm. Cigars and Hookah available! Follow @asrcigar on IG Email asrcigar@gmail.com to reserve table specials. Register soon because space is limited. We hope you’re able to join us! Friday, October 22, 2021 6:00 PM ASR presents: The Red GODdess Experience: Happy Hour + Networking + Cigars Register Republic Garden ASR Group, LLC 8402 Georgia Ave , Silver Spring , Md 20910 US Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy From:Mimi and Eric Carlson To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Proposed building at 660 University Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 4:46:48 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mimianderic@hotmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Begin forwarded message: From: Jane Hadly <janehadly@icloud.com>Subject: Fwd: Proposed building at 660 UniversityDate: October 22, 2021 at 3:17:29 PM PDTTo: City. Council@cityofpalo.org@cityofpalo.orgCc: jane hadly <janehadly@icloud.com> Begin forwarded message: From: jane Hadly Subject: Proposed building at 660 University Date: October 25, 2021 CityCouncil@cityofpaloalto.org I am a resident at 555 Byron. Our attorney, Leigh Prince, has sent you a detailed description of the problems we, as Palo Alto citizens, see. I support her statement . In addition I want to point out that the property is in the flood zone and their plan to dig 20 or 30 feet should not be accepted. The proposed apartment are too small and the influx of more than 70 additional cars would be a terrible burden to all. Middlefield traffic is very dangerous for cars, trucks and bikes a well as pedestrians. The posted speed limits are not normally followed. Thank you for your consideration, Jane Hadly From:Mimi and Eric Carlson To:Council, City Subject:Fw: October 25th City Council Agenda, Item 2 Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 4:34:15 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mimianderic@hotmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From: Jane Hadly <janehadly@icloud.com> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2021 1:14 AM To: mimianderic@hotmail.com <mimianderic@hotmail.com> Cc: jane hadly <janehadly@icloud.com> Subject: October 25th City Council Agenda, Item 2 Dear Council Member: October 20, 2021: As a resident living adjacent to 660 University, I do oppose the building under review at 660University Avenue.The crowding small apartments, heavy traffic with lacking affordability make this highlyundesirable. Please either greatly reduce the plan or reject it out of hand. Sincerely, Jane Hadly555 Byron Street Palo Alto. CA 94301 From:Mehrzad To:Council, City Subject:1033 Amarillo Avenue (21PLN-00212) Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 8:23:41 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from mehrzadrasti@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council Members, Please do not re-zone this area to hold so many tenants on one property at 1033 Amarillo Ave. The main problem with expanding the square footage of the above property to 20,787.00 SF is the heavy congestion and traffic in this already-congested section of Amarillo Ave, resulting in safety issues and consequently devaluation of the neighboring homes. Several of the properties on the North Side of Amarillo have historically been rentals, so we have seen the trend over the past 35 years, and can predict the occupancy of the properties that are proposed. The most troubling trend is that the four proposed larger properties (with additional 4 ADUs) will be occupied by unrelated tenants, meaning college friends, coworkers, etc. Most of them will be adults with cars. As the places are small now, there are already at least 2 cars per building. This means that the future larger buildings (for example 3 BR) might likely hold 4-6 adult tenants, with 4-6 cars, and the smaller buildings with 2 tenants, and 2 cars. That means the amount of parking with be 2-4 times the amount of the current tenants. Currently 8-12 cars, and most likely, with the new construction: 24-32 cars. This amount of cars would occupy both sides of the street from Greer Road all the way down the block next to Greer park, leaving no space for the existing homeowners. The proposed plans show that the access road is about the same as the current access road/driveway. In either plan there are only two parking spaces for each parcel, and either plan shows 4 total number of ADUs. Each ADU is proposed to be 2 BR. It seems that 2 parking spaces per parcel would not even be enough for the tenants of the ADUs. Please do not assume that the future new tenants would not have/afford cars, and use only public transportation or bikes. That is not a valid assumption in our neighborhood, as your city/county transportation records and surveys will show. In fact, a count would show you that there is actually MORE than ONE VEHICLE per adult driver in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Mehrzad Rasti 1038 Amarillo Ave., Palo Alto From:Aram JamesTo:info@paloaltoforward.com Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Human Relations Commission; Joe Simitian; Jethroe Moore; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Stump, Molly; Jay Boyarsky; Joe Simitian; Raj; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Perron,Zachary; Roberta Ahlquist; Reifschneider, James; Cecilia Taylor; Winter DellenbachSubject:Palo Alto"s wasteful affordable housing appeal DENIED Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 5:12:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Angie,Great Work! Great result! Congratulations! Next let’s tackle the critical issue of reparations to/for members of our African American Community, for those who remain, and for those who have been driven out of Palo Alto,long ago, by relentless gentrification and a history of systemic racism in Palo Alto. Best regards,Aram From: "Angie, Palo Alto Forward" <info@paloaltoforward.com>Date: October 22, 2021 at 4:15:56 PM PDTTo: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>Subject: Palo Alto's wasteful affordable housing appeal DENIED Aram -- Short Story: WE WON!! Long Story: When our City Council voted to use resources and appeal our affordable housing targets (aka RHNA), we were deeply disappointed. But we used thatdisappointment to organize against the City's wasteful appeal. We're thrilled to share that the appeal was unanimously denied this afternoon, signaling to the City of Palo Altothat we need to start doing the work to identify sites and policies to enable new, affordable housing equitably across our city! We are grateful that so many of you stand withus in our fight for a more affordable, inclusive, and sustainable city. THANK YOU to all of the members and neighbors who helped get us here! We look forward to our continued work on Palo Alto's Housing Element. For more info andways to get involved, check out our Housing Element landing page! " 'It can be done if you look for a solution,' one member of an ABAG Committee told Palo Alto officials before the agency rejected the city's appeal of its RHNA housingtargets. The rejection was swift and unanimous." Read more here. Palo Alto Forwardhttp://www.paloaltoforward.com/ Palo Alto Forward · United States This email was sent to abjpd1@gmail.com. To stop receiving emails, click here. You can also keep up with Palo Alto Forward on Twitter or Facebook. Created with NationBuilder, the essential toolkit for leaders. ----=====------------------------ paloaltoonline.com Palo Alto falters in attempt to appeal housing mandates Palo Alto's attempt to lower its housing mandates fell flat Friday afternoon, when the Association of Bay Area Governments swiftly and emphatically ... From:Aram James To:Perron, Zachary; Jonsen, Robert; Jeff Moore; Binder, Andrew; Sajid Khan; Human Relations Commission; chuckjagoda; Winter Dellenbach; Council, City; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Tony Dixon; Rebecca Eisenberg;Planning Commission; Raj; Reifschneider, James; Jay Boyarsky; james pitkin; Joe Simitian; Raj; Greer Stone;cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Roberta Ahlquist Subject:Bad Cop protected by bad leaders Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 4:47:22 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.politico.com/amp/news/magazine/2021/10/22/javier-ortiz-florida-police-misconduct-protections- 516231 Sent from my iPhone From:Richard Smallwood To:Council, City Subject:A concern about the plan for 660 University Ave. Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 1:14:27 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rdsmallwd35@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Member: October 22, 2021 As a senior resident living adjacent to 660 University, I oppose the building under review at 660 University Avenue. Crowding, traffic, and lack of affordability make this highly undesirable. Please either reduce the plan greatly or reject it out of hand. Sincerely, Richard Smallwood 550 Byron Street, Apt. 204 PalAlto, CA 94301 From:Aram James To:michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Human RelationsCommission; Planning Commission; Council, City; Jeff Moore; Raj; Jay Boyarsky; Winter Dellenbach; Enberg,Nicholas; Tannock, Julie; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Tony Dixon; Perron, Zachary; chuck jagoda; RebeccaEisenberg; Greer Stone; Joe Simitian; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Tool for police reform rarely used by local prosecutors Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 10:48:30 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://apnews.com/article/death-of-george-floyd-religion-police-george-floyd-seattle- b20b50bd1562c70e59fe30689a8a867f Sent from my iPhone From:David Gilbert To:Council, City Cc:Gilbert David Subject:Opposition to Proposed Building Project at 660 University Ave. Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 10:18:48 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from gilbert.co@comcast.net. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Member: October 21, 2021 I oppose the project under review for 660 University Avenue. Crowding, traffic, and lack of affordability make this highly undesirable. Please either reduce the plan greatly or reject it out of hand. I am a senior resident livingadjacent to 660 University, Sincerely, David Gilbert555 Byron St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Gary K. Roberts To:Council, City Subject:October 25 City Council Agenda, Item 2 Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 9:19:22 AM Attachments:image.png image.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from groberts@stanford.edu. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council Members, I am Dr. Gary Roberts. I have been in dental practice here in Palo Alto and at Stanford and Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital for over 30 years. My colleagues and I recently started our Cardinal Dental practice at 517 Byron Street, having moved off Welch Road after being there since 1989. At 517 Byron, we have three dentists and six staff members serving the Palo Alto community. Our offices are immediately adjacent to the proposed 660 University development. There is a majestic Coastal Live Oak tree (the “Tree”) on our property about one foot from the property line of the proposed development. The Tree’s trunk is 144 inches in circumference and 45 inches in diameter, and its limbs stretch out about 35 feet over the parking lot at 660 University. The Tree brings shade and joy to us and everyone else on the block. View from 660 University parking lot View from Byron and past our offices This proposed project puts this beautiful Tree in grave danger. The project’s above ground structure would be only 22 feet from our property line, and this means that more than 13 feet of limbs will be sliced off, probably a lot more. Even more frightening, what will the two-story underground garage do to the Tree’s root system which have been free to spread out over the years under the parking lot? The plans show a cutback in the garage to give 27 feet of clearance for the roots, but that is notnearly enough for a tree of this size. I am not an arborist, but several of my patient's are--at Stanford, Fiololi, and other commercial and civic organizations. I am told that one common rule of thumb is that a tree’s roots are one and one-half to three times wider than the foliage. For the Tree’s 36-foot limbs, that would be 50 to 100 feet of roots out under the parking lot where the new building would go. Another common rule is to have one foot of roots for every one inch of trunk diameter. For the Tree’s 45-inch trunk, that would be 45 feet of roots. A two-story underground garage structure only 27 feet away will put this magnificent Tree in grave danger. The Palo Alto Municipal Code appears to specify that this Tree is “protected” as it is a large Coastal Live Oak; because it is a protected tree the City mandates a “Dripline Area” around the Tree with a radius of 10x the diameter of the tree’s trunk. The diameter is 45”, so the Dripline Area extends out 450” or 37.5 feet, well beyond the 27-foot cutback suggested by the developer. The Municipal Code also mandates that no trenching or excavating may be done within that Dripline Area. You don’t have to be an experienced contractor to know that there will be plenty of construction workdone closer to the Tree than 27 feet in clear violation of the Municipal Code. This is not just a legal technicality to us. We set up our dental offices here this past spring to continue serving the Palo Alto community. I am not the owner of thisproperty, but we have options to lease if for 15-years. If the proposed building at 660 University is allowed to be built, the Tree’s limbs will be severed on one side, likely disrupting the Tree’s balance, potentially allowing strong gravitational forces to push the Tree over, perhaps crashing into our office. In addition, the roots needed to holdthe Tree back from tipping over will have been cut and lost their gripping force. How soon will the Tree topple over and crash into our offices? How soon will we have to abandon our offices and shut down our dental practice because of this potential imminent danger? Please don’t let this happen. Thank you, Gary K. Roberts, D.D.S. Stanford University Department of Surgery Division of Plastic & Reconstructive SurgeryDental Medicine & Surgery Service and by Courtesy of Otolaryngology/Head & Neck Surgery and Cardinal Dental 517 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 328-6684 CardinalDentists.com CardinalDentists@gmail.com From:Jamie Beckett To:Council, City Cc:Terry Holzemer; Suzanne Steimle; Kim Griffin; Julia Grinkrug; George Thomas; Anoja Herath; Jeff Levinsky; Valerie Milligan Subject:10/25, Agenda item #7 - Objective Standards hearing Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 8:49:57 AM Attachments:Objective-Standards-Sept252021.docxObjective-Standards_Oct82021.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members,We have just received the agenda packet for your meeting on Monday, Oct. 25. Wewere appalled to see that you've scheduled the hearing on Objective Standards tostart at 10 p.m. As you are aware, there is considerable interest in this item among many Palo Altoresidents. Yet by scheduling the hearing to start at 10 p.m., you have almostguaranteed that few members of the public will be able to attend the hearing. In our view, then, this is NOT a public hearing but an opportunity for staff to pushthrough their ideas with little opposition. We can see that you already have a very fullagenda for Monday. We urge you to continue this item to another week and to set areasonable time when working people can attend. We have already written to you twice about how city zoning discriminates againstresidents of RM-40, denying them the light, air and space enjoyed by residents ofother zones in the city. We have attached previous letters as reference. Besides being unjust, this unequal treatment violates the city’s own policies outlinedin the Race & Equity Statement, adopted only a little over a year ago. We are grateful for the willingness expressed by council members Dubois, Greer andKou to explore ending the long-standing inequities that RM-40 residents face. Wehope the rest of the council can show us they are similarly open-minded. As the city goes through these vast changes to the zoning code, we urge you toeliminate an unfair and unequal system. Like all of you, we want Palo Alto to be thekind of city residents and others point to with pride. We ask you to take action to show that Palo Alto is a city that values all ofits citizens, not just a privileged few. Please include justice for RM-40 residents in anymotions directing staff modifications to the zoning code overhaul. best regards,Jamie BeckettPeter Shuler Park Boulevard, Palo Alto September 25, 2021 Dear Palo Alto City Council, We are homeowners in Palo Alto Central, a 140-unit condominium complex that is facing the prospect of a giant office complex that would be built just 10 feet from our homes. We have learned the hard way that Palo Alto zoning laws discriminate against people like us who live in residential zones designated RM-40. If you adopt the Objective Standards proposed by staff, you will be compounding the inequities we face. City zoning code shelters residents in other zones from some of the impact of large developments close to their homes. These protections include height restrictions, requirements for a daylight plane, setback requirements, open space requirements and more. Not RM-40. We are granted only the flimsiest protections. If the council adopts the proposed Objective Standards, you will be ripping away even these bare shreds. Although the city claims to want more multi-family housing near transit -- exactly the kind of housing we represent – city zoning laws punish us for choosing homes in RM-40. Under current law, RM-40 homes are restricted to 35 feet, but a builder can put massive structures as high as 50 feet within 10 feet of our homes and we have no recourse. Developers can invade our privacy with their glass-walled buildings, build projects with too few parking spaces, add hundreds of cars to clog our streets, build towering structures that cloak our homes in shadow – and it is just too bad for us. Current law treats us like second-class citizens. The proposed law is even more unfair. The only protections that current zoning code offers RM-40 fall largely under Context- Based Design Criteria (18.16.060). But even these will be removed under the so-called Objective Standards. RM-40 housing: • Brings in more tax revenue for the city per square foot of land than any other residential land (just because it is that much denser) • It costs less to the city in terms of services and maintenance (think just about the number of stops for trash collection) • It brings more consumers into nearby business districts and benefits local businesses • It’s closer to the public transportation, which reduces traffic • Requires less water and energy per housing unit than single family homes. Despite its stated desire to add more housing, Palo Alto really isn’t interested in attracting people willing to live in denser housing. Why should anyone pay the inflated Palo Alto housing prices when they can go to other cities where costs are lower for the same amount of benefits? Rather than drive us away, the city should fight to retain us by providing us with the same benefits others in Palo Alto enjoy -- public open space, adequate setbacks, traffic mitigation, privacy protections, etc. That means rewriting the municipal code to erase the inequities and provide the same treatment to everyone in Palo Alto. Isn’t that the kind of city we want to be? Best regards, Jamie Beckett Peter Jon Shuler Park Blvd., Palo Alto October 8, 2021 Dear Mayor Dubois and City Council Members,, Thank you for listening to our pleas about equity for RM-40 residents on Monday night. The council came very close to voting on a motion that included exploration of treating residents of RM-40 like other residential zones. But the motion was dropped in order to continue the item to the next meeting when the objective standards will come up. We urge you not to forget RM- 40 residents when you take up this issue again. As we have stated time and again, the city's zoning code has long created a two-tier system of haves and have-nots. Those who live in R-1 and most other residential zones, and those like us who live in RM-40 developments. Those who are protected from obstructive and intrusive developments building too close and too high, blocking daylight and invading privacy -- and those like us who are not. This has been made painfully clear to those of us living in the Palo Alto Central condominium complex next to the California Avenue Caltrain station, which has become the epicenter of development in the city. Besides being unjust, this unequal treatment violates the city’s own policies outlined in the Race & Equity Statement, adopted only a little over a year ago. As the city is going through these massive changes to its zoning code, this is a golden opportunity to end this long-standing inequity once and for all. Please include justice for RM-40 residents in any motions directing staff modifications to the zoning code overhaul. Best regards, Peter Jon Shuler Jamie Beckett Suzanne Steimle Valerie Milligan Kimberly Griffin George Thomas Terry Holzemer Patricia Hernandez Park Boulevard, Palo Alto From:Mimi and Eric Carlson To:Council, City Subject:Letter from Peter Sturrock re 606 University Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 6:57:30 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mimianderic@hotmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From:Mimi and Eric Carlson To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Project at 660 University Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 5:11:59 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mimianderic@hotmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. October 21, 2021 Dear Major and Palo Alto Council Member: As senior residents living adjacent to 660 University, I oppose the project under review at 660 University Avenue. The density, traffic generation, indadequate parking, removal of mature trees, and lack of affordability make this project highly undesirable. Please either recommend major reductions to the proposal or reject it out of hand. Sincerely, Eric and Mimi Carlson 555 Byron St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Jeremy Erman To:FunScience; News; Council, City; O"Kane, Kristen; Administrative Services; Kamhi, Philip Cc:Lauren Angelo Subject:Wrong transit information on JMZ website Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 4:17:52 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Dear Palo Alto, Following links from the October 21 "Uplift Local" newsletter, I went to the website for the new Junior Museumand Zoo and found that it has incorrect information for public transit to the new museum--not once, but twice. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Community-Services/Arts-Sciences/Junior-Museum-Zoo/Plan-Your-Visit The page says it was "Last updated on October 16, 2021" and is clearly about visiting the new museum on Middlefield Road, but the public transit information is for visiting the temporary museum at Cubberley CommunityCenter, and has outdated information even for that location. Near the top it says: "Getting to the Junior Museum & Zoo We are located directly in front of the VTA #35 bus stop at Montrose Road.Caltrain stops at the San Antonio station. The museum is a 20 minute walk." These are obviously instructions for going to the temporary museum, but the bus route is wrong even for thatlocation, since VTA eliminated route #35 and replaced it with #21 several years ago, even before the pandemic. Later these errors are repeated and more outdated information is added: "Parking, Biking, and Public Transportation Onsite parking is free. Bike racks are available. Caltrain stops at the San Antonio station. The museum is a 20 minute walk. The Museum is located directly in front of the VTA #35 bus stop at Montrose Road. The Palo Alto Free Shuttle runs Monday through Friday. The Crosstown Shuttle stops at Middlefield &Charleston, and the museum is a four minute walk." Again, wrong Caltrain station, wrong bus stop intersection, and wrong bus route number, but now it also says youcan ride the Palo Alto Free Shuttle to the museum. This would be nice, but the City eliminated the entire shuttleprogram in the 2021 budget. The website also seems to indicate that all tickets for the new Junior Museum and Zoo must be bought online byregistered users of Enjoy Online. So only those with internet access can buy their way into the museum? I registered for Enjoy Online this summer to buy a Palo Alto Children's Theatre Hotdog show ticket, and found it tobe a horrible system for buying a ticket for a one-time event, as the system was obviously designed for signing upfor ongoing classes. The registration process was cumbersome and asked for lots of personal information I did notwant to give and which had no relevance for a one-time event, such as emergency contact information. At one pointit even asked me to select my cell-phone carrier from a drop-down menu. What the heck??? Enjoy Online lists one-time events like theatre performances in a cumbersome, redundant way that does not resemble any theatre ticketing website I have used before. Forcing people to use this system to get into the JuniorMuseum and Zoo will certainly depress attendance. Also, unless it's changed since I registered, Enjoy Online does not allow most non-US citizens to register for anaccount (because it was designed for local residents to sign up for classes), so people visiting from overseas wouldnot be able to buy tickets for themselves, but would have to have friends buy them. And children cannot register forEnjoy Online or buy tickets for themselves, even teenagers who want to see a Children's Theatre play, unless anadult has listed them by name in the adult's account. So if you are forcing everyone to buy tickets through Enjoy Online for the Junior Museum and Zoo, I think this willdefinitely decrease attendance. Of course previously, anyone could stroll in for free on a moment's whim. Even if the city wants to limit the numberof attendees at first because of COVID-19 concerns, I strongly urge you to open the museum with free attendancefor the first few months to encourage people to visit this new treasure in the heart of Palo Alto. Thank you, -Jeremy Erman From:Christopher Ream To:Council, City Subject:FW: Opposition to 660 University Project; October 25 Agenda, Item 2 Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:56:16 PM Attachments:660 - Ream Letter on Traffic and Parking - 20211021.pdf Importance:High Some people who received this message don't often get email from ream@reamlaw.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From: Christopher Ream <ream@reamlaw.com> Date: Thursday, October 21, 2021 at 10:42 PM To: Palo Alto City Council <CityCouncil@CityofPaloAlto.org> Cc: "Samuel Gutierrez, Planner" <Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Jonathan Lait, Planning Director" <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>, "Molly Stump, City Attorney" <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Leigh F. Prince, Esq." <lfp@jsmf.com> Subject: Opposition to 660 University Project; October 25 Agenda, Item 2 Dear and City Council Members, In my role as President of The Hamilton Homeowners Association, I submit the attached letter in opposition to the application for constructing a large building at 660 University Avenue. Not only does the proposed project grossly violate many rules and mandates of the City of Palo Alto as has been described in the letter submitted by Leigh F. Prince earlier, the attached letter brings to the Council’s attention the fact that approval of the proposed project would: 1. Endanger a magnificent, protected Coastal Live Oak tree; 2. Cause significant traffic problems at the intersection of University and Middlefield; and 3. Severely exacerbate the already existing downtown parking problem. Please ensure that the attached letter is provided to each Council Member in their agenda packets for the Council Meeting Monday evening. Christopher Ream _________________________ 555 Byron Street, #409 Palo Alto, CA 94301 1-650-424-0821 ream@reamlaw.com THE HAMILTON HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION Christopher Ream, President 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, California 94301 Telephone: 1-650-424-0821 Email: ream@reamlaw.com October 21, 2021 Via email: CityCouncil@CityofPaloAlto.org Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Opposition to 660 University Project October 25, 2021 Agenda, Item 2 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, The Hamilton is a senior living (55+) condominium development located in the transition zone from low-rise apartments and single-family homes to the larger buildings of downtown Palo Alto. The average age of the residents in The Hamilton is mid-80’s. The Hamilton shares the block with the proposed development at 660 University Avenue. The Board of Directors of the Hamilton Homeowners Association (the “HHA”), with the support of its members/residents, has resolved to fight against the proposed development. If you are in a hurry, you can jump down to “Parking” on page 3. Lytton Gardens, Webster House and Webster House Health Center are also within a block and directly across the street from the proposed development. Channing House is two blocks away. Because of this concentration of elderly citizens, the area is frequently referred to as “Senior Corner.” I am Christopher Ream. My wife Anne and I have been Palo Alto residents for more than 50 years and are now residents of The Hamilton. The Hamilton community strongly opposes the proposed development. I am the President of the HHA and am personally committed to stopping, or at least significantly revising, the proposed building along University Avenue that will materially adversely affect us and all of our neighbors. Attorney’s Letter The HHA has retained a highly qualified attorney with substantial experience in real estate development: Leigh Prince of the law firm of Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel. Our attorney has sent a letter to the City Council articulating just some of many reasons why the Council should deny the developer’s application for this proposed project: Unprecedented flouting of the City’s density rules for residential units; Ignoring the City’s rule against including office space in a residential development; The failure to provide substantial public benefit; Violation of setback standards all around the project; And other points. Tree Preservation There are other problems such as the almost certain killing of a magnificent, protected Coast Live Oak tree with a 45-inch diameter trunk and corresponding foliage which has brought shade and comfort to so many in The Hamilton and other neighbors. Residents should not have to worry that they will lose their view of this beautiful tree. Traffic Jam on Middlefield Out of concern for the safety and peace of mind of the elderly residents of The Hamilton and the other senior living developments nearby, I want to bring to the attention of the Council the traffic and parking problems this project will dump on Palo Alto if it goes forward. University Avenue and Middlefield Road are main traffic arteries in Palo Alto, and a smooth flowing intersection of University and Middlefield is crucial to traffic in the City. There already is congestion at that intersection, and the proposed project will cause huge traffic jams there. The project includes a 103-car underground garage with the only entry/exit being onto Middlefield Road less than 100 feet from the traffic light at University Avenue. Cars traveling northwest on Middlefield that want to enter the garage will have to cross traffic less than 100 feet from the intersection, and thus will not have a good view of cars turning off University onto Middlefield. This is a dangerous situation and one that will back up traffic on Middlefield. A majority of the cars exiting the garage will want to turn left and cross traffic on Middlefield in order to go towards Menlo Park on Middlefield, towards Stanford on University, or out to the freeway on University. With the red light at the intersection less than 100 feet away, turning left across traffic on Middlefield is frequently going to cause traffic jams. A few cautious drivers will turn right and then work their way around the neighborhoods to get back to where they want to go, causing excess traffic in those neighborhoods, and be a danger to the many elderly walking around the neighborhood for a little exercise. Parking Parking in downtown Palo Alto is a problem the City has been dealing with for years and continues to deal with. The Hamilton sees it every day. The Hamilton is on the short block of Byron between University and Hamilton. It is a narrow street to start with, but on every workday, every single parking spot on both sides of the street is filled all day long. This narrows the drivable room so that two cars going in opposite directions cannot pass; one has to slowly pull into a driveway to make room for the other to pass. We also get traffic on Byron of cars trying to avoid the congestion at the University/Middlefield intersection. This proposed project for 660 University Avenue is going to greatly exacerbate the parking problem. On top of that, it appears to me that the developers have revealed on the face of their application that they have no intention of providing 103 parking stalls if their application is approved. How many cars will that add to those cruising around downtown looking for a parking space? Follow me please through their application (2nd Submittal on 09/14/2021): On the first page, under the section “PROPOSED BUILDING AREA – PARKING AREA,” they say “103 TOTAL STALLS” divided between “LEVEL P1 (49 STALLS)” and “LEVEL P2 (54 STALLS)” Then immediately below that in “PARKING REQUIRED,” they calculate that the City requires 115 parking stalls, including four ADA stalls, two of which must be Van ADA. In any event they are short 12 stalls. Then immediately below that in “PARKING PROVIDED,” the application switches stalls around and now says “LEVEL P1 - 33 STALLS (STD.)” (not 49) and “LEVEL P2 - 70 STALLS (STD. + STACKERS) (not 54). Moving down to page 8 with drawings of the two underground garage levels which are now called “B1” and “B2”. The drawing of B1 still says 33 stalls, but the drawing shows 30 standard stalls and 5 more stuck behind other cars, for a total of 35. The drawing of B2 still says 70 stalls, but the drawing shows only 3 standard stalls and 68 stacker stalls. The developers never show a location for the four ADA stalls (two of which must be Van ADA). How is any resident or office occupant/visitor going to operate a stacker or move someone else’s car? They are not. This configuration, notwithstanding that it is short of the required spaces, will require valet parking 24/7. Is the developer going to pick up the cost of a team of valets for years to come? What this tells me is that the developer has paid little attention to the parking configuration because it has no intention of providing 103 useable parking stalls or any number close to 103, much less the required 115. If the Council were to approve this application with this glaring defect, the downtown parking problem will be made much worse. Looking at the drawings, it seems that only 30 readily accessible parking stalls can be put on each garage level. The developer has two choices: (1) Expand the garage to four levels underground; or (2) Eliminate the office space and scale back the number of units so that the required number of stalls including ADA stalls is 60. This is the preferred option. Conclusion My observations regarding the traffic and parking problems caused by support of this proposed development should be considered along with the strong legal points raised by our attorney. The Hamilton community strongly opposes this application for excessive development of the half acre of our block along University and urges the Council to reject it. Thank you for your consideration, Christopher Ream cc: Samuel Gutierrez, Planner (Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org) Jonathan Lait, Planning Director (Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org) Molly Stump, City Attorney (Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org) Leigh F. Prince, Esq. (lfp@jsmf.com) From:Aram James To:Sajid Khan; Jethroe Moore; Jeff Rosen; Council, City; Human Relations Commission;paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Raj; Planning Commission; chuck jagoda; wintergery@earthlink.net; Jay Boyarsky;Vara Ramakrishnan; Rebecca Eisenberg; Roberta Ahlquist; Greer Stone; Rebecca Eisenberg; Tannock, Julie;Enberg, Nicholas; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Joe Simitian; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Perron, Zachary Subject:A Brazoria County District Clerk Sorted Jurors by Race. A Convicted Black Man Wants a New Trial.A Brazoria County District Clerk Sorted Jurors by Race. A Black Man Convicted Under Her System Wants a New Trial. –Texas Monthly Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:55:42 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.texasmonthly.com/news-politics/brazoria-county-new-trials/ Sent from my iPhone From:JY Park To:Council, City Subject:660 University Ave Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 9:21:39 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jiny.park@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Member: As a member of senior resident living next to 660 University Avenue, I oppose the buildingunder review at 660 University Ave. I believe the project is not in line with the underlying multifamily residential zoning and is not compatible with the surrounding community. Pleaseeither reject or modify the plan accordingly. Sincerely. Jin Y. Park555 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad From:C.S. Park To:Council, City Subject:660 University Ave Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 9:12:40 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cspark224@yahoo.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Member: As one of many senior residents living adjacent to 660 University Avenue, I oppose thebuilding under review at 660 University Avenue. Crowding, traffic, lack of affordability make this project highly undesirable. Please either reduce the plan greatly or reject it out of hand inaccordance with the underlying multi-family residential zoning and compatible with the neighboring community. Sincerely,Chong S. Park 555 Byron St.Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Richard Craswell To:Council, City Subject:October 25th city Council Agenda, Item 2 Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 8:35:57 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rcraswel@stanford.edu. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. As a senior resident living adjacent to 660 University, I oppose the building under review at 660 University Avenue. Crowding, traffic, and lack of affordability make this highly undesirable. Please either reduce the plan greatly or reject it out of hand. Sincerely, Richard Craswell 555 Byron St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Carol Gilbert To:Council, City Subject:October 25th City Council Agenda, Item 2 Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 5:55:48 PM Attachments:PastedGraphic-1.tiff Some people who received this message don't often get email from carol.gilbert@comcast.net.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Member: October 21, 2021 As a senior resident living adjacent to 660 University, I oppose the building under review at 660 University Avenue. Crowding, traffic, and lack of affordability make this highly undesirable. Please either reduce the plan greatly or reject it out of hand. Sincerely, 555 Byron St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ill From:Carol Gilbert To:Council, City Subject:October 25th City Council Agenda, Item 2 Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 5:51:19 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from carol.gilbert@comcast.net.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please sign and forward this today (Thursday), because the clerks put the packages togetherfor each Council Member on Friday. Please call (650-424-0821) if you need help. If you print and sign, Eric can pick them up from you. If you can Email, Send To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org leaving the Subject you see in thismessage. Do not include this part above the double line.============================================== Dear Council Member: October 21, 2021 As a senior resident living adjacent to 660 University, I oppose the building under review at 660 University Avenue. Crowding, traffic, and lack of affordability make this highly undesirable. Please either reduce the plan greatly or reject it out of hand. Sincerely, 555 Byron St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 From:Joe Shank To:Council, City Subject:660 University Project Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 4:59:17 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from joeshank@me.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Attention City Council Members: I strongly object to the proposed project at this address, it does not meet many city codes, will over crowd the area with too many cars exiting onto Middlefield. Please kill this project for these reasons and many many more which you are aware of… I reside at 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, Ca 94301 Joe Shank Sent from my iPhone From:Rita Lancefield To:Council, City Subject:Sidewalks Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 3:48:09 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from ritalance@comcast.net. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Councilmembers: As I walk around our neighborhood, I am more and more struck by the condition of the sidewalks. Roots have lifted them up, making walking hazardous, especially for those of us who are older. Cracks are everywhere and growing. Repairs are extremely ugly - Bumps are ground down to reveal the rocky subsurface, and, when they get bad enough, large amounts of black asphalt are used to patch them while retaining the uneven surface. A few asphalt patches have been painted with grey paint, but they don't look any better. Why can we afford to budget tens of millions of dollars for a new bike bridge, fiber to the home, and smart meters for our utilities but cannot replace aging, deteriorating sidewalks? Thank you for listening. Rita Lancefield189 Walter Hays Dr From:Joann Meredith To:Council, City Subject:Proposed building at 660 University Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 3:15:27 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from meredithjoann@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I support the things Leigh Prince proposes and I want to add a couple of other considerations. The proposed building is in the flood zone and, although dry now, think of the future. Digging in a flood zone should not be permitted. Recollect what happened to Millennium Towers in San Francisco. The size of the apartments are much too small; they can accommodate only one person. That is very impractical. Thank you for your consideration. Joann Meredith From:Arlene Goetze To:Sara Cody; Britt Ehrhardt; george.han@phd.sccgov.org; County Public Health Department; Michele Seaton Subject:Anti Mandate Rally-- Big Sucess -- I DO NOT CONSENT! Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 1:39:17 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from photowrite67@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Anti Jab Mandate Rally at the California State Capital Was a Success! Truly a Unifying Issue The rally in Sacramento against theillegal jab mandates in schools thattook place on October 18, 2021 had5,000 plus attendees! ReopenCalifornia and Our Children OurChoice really pulled it off. Children were kept home from schoolall over the state and parents met atthe Capital to send a message that itshould be a parent's right to choosemedical procedures for their childrennot the government! This issue hasbrought all sides together and is trulyunifying parents across the state.Most parents are anti-mandate! Getready to make it a million mamapapamarch in January when thelegislators return! #IDoNotConsent Speakers were AHHmazing! The line up of speakers kept thecrowd going and inspired for hours! CALIFORNIA CPU PARENTS UNITED California Parents United FounderTracy Henderson educated the crowdon the legal problem with schoolsmandating the jab and got the crowdgoing with the chant "I do NOTconsent!" "I do NOT consent!" Watchthe clip here! You can watch the entire line up ofspeakers on the California ParentsUnited Facebook page. School Jab Mandates Violate State and Federal Law - There is No Legal Mandate Parents and Grandparents need to understand that there are no legal mandatesfor the COVID jab in California Schools. The only way the jab can be added tothe vaccine schedule is if CDPH, the California Department of Health, not schooldistricts or school boards, adds it to the schedule by law. And, the governmenthas stated that this will not happen until the jab is FDA approved. Remember -there are no FDA approved COVID vaccines being manufactured in the USA!Because the jab is not FDA approved, it is by law defined as experimental andrequires informed consent under federal law. You can withhold your consent. "IDO NOT CONSENT!" If and when CDPH adds the jab to the schedule - maybeJanuary, maybe July, maybe never, California law will then allow for a personalbelief exemption. And even then, remember, that it is illegal to enter a childinto a medical trial under federal law when there is no benefit. With a 99.97%recovery rate for children, there is absolutely no benefit to take the risk ofdeath with the jab! The restrictions on entering a child into a medical trial geteven more strict when there are risks and safer alternatives like ivermectin. Weall know there is a risk of death! So do not give in as the law is on your side.Get a letter that you can customize in the resources tab in our mobilize groupto send to your school district informing them they cannot mandate the jab! Current CPU Calls to Action The See My Smile campaign is working to get masksoff children in schools with "friendly" andcourageous principals. It works if you work it! #seemysmile Watch the see my smile instructional video here. Get your see my smile advocacy t-shirts! A localt-shirt shop in Hollister California invested in youand is making them for only $18.00! Lets supporthim! Mama Bears get your California Parents United T-Shirthere! PARENTS ARE FED UP. They are raising funds Call toAction and suing their school districts. Support South Bay ParentsPush Back and Santa Monica Malibu Unified in their fightto end the mandates! San Benito, Santa Cruz, and Monterey CountyParents there is a joint strategy meeting at CPUFounder's House Sunday October 24, 2021 at 1:00 p.m.with Latinos for Medical Freedom on county town halls thatthe county is doing "to promote" the jab for kids. Join oursignal group for more information including the address. DONATE We can do more together. Support California ParentsUnited! DONATE California Parents United831.917.1583caparentsunited@gmail.comhttps://www.californiaparentsunited.org/ See what's happening on our social sites: California Parents United | P. O. Box 221562, Carmel, CA 93923 Unsubscribe photowrite67@yahoo.com Update Profile | About Constant Contact Sent by caparentsunited@gmail.com in collaboration with .•■.IJ\Jfll!F *LMF* • ,;;\ Constant \::!,I Contact Try email marketing for free today! From:Larry Alton To:Council, City Subject:Fw: 160 Waverley Development Project Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 12:48:01 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lalton@pacbell.net. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Larry Alton ----- Forwarded Message -----From: Larry Alton <lalton@pacbell.net>To: samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org <samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org>Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2021, 11:56:32 AM PDTSubject: Re: 160 Waverley Development Project Dear Mr Gutierrez, I just watched most of the online presentation on this project. I was stunned to understand there are roof top patios proposed. This is unacceptable in this neighborhood and completely out of character. Pleasechange the rooftop as suggested by your board member. It is not obvious to the neighbors and city residents that this project is proposing roof top patios and this should be specifically spelled out to the public for feedback before proceeding.Thank You, Larry Alton 453 Hawthorne Avenue On Friday, June 4, 2021, 04:35:44 PM PDT, Larry Alton <lalton@pacbell.net> wrote: Dear Mr Gutierrez, This project is an architectural disgrace to this neighborhood. It looks likea commercial office building and does not fit in this residential area. Tearing down a nice looking residential building to put up this very boxy ugly building does not make any sense to our city and our neighborhood. Please stop this project before it goes any further.Sincerely, Larry Alton From:Janet L. Billups To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Stump, Molly; Gutierrez, Samuel; ream@reamlaw.com Subject:The Hamilton Homeowner’s Association Opposition to 660 University Avenue: Mixed Use Office and Residential(PHZ) Date:Thursday, October 21, 2021 10:55:19 AM Attachments:Letter to CPA re 660 University Pre-Screening.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from jlb@jsmf.com. Learn why thisis important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council, The attached letter, submitted by Leigh Prince on behalf of the Hamilton Homeowners Association, brings to attention the proposed project at 660 University Avenue. We request that the City Council direct the applicant to come back with a project more in line with the underlying multifamily residential zoning and compatible with the surrounding community. Regards, Janet Billups, Legal Assistant Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel LLP 1100 Alma Street, Ste. 210 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Ph. 650-324-9300 jlb@jsmf.com CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and contain information that may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message. Any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of this communication by someone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. Letter to CPA re 660 University Pre-Screening.docx WILLIAM L. McCLURE JOHN L. FLEGEL DAN K. SIEGEL JENNIFER H. FRIEDMAN MINDIE S. ROMANOWSKY DAVID L. ACH GREGORY K. KLINGSPORN NICOLAS A. FLEGEL KRISTINA A. FENTON CARA E. SILVER KIMBERLY J. BRUMMER ____________ JENNIFER A. BEYERS BRITTNEY L. STANDLEY JORGENSON, SIEGEL, McCLURE & FLEGEL, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW 1100 ALMA STREET, SUITE 210 MENLO PARK, CALIFORNIA 94025-3392 (650) 324-9300 F ACSIMILE (650) 324-0227 www.jsmf.com October 21, 2021 OF COUN SEL KENT MITCHELL LEIGH F. PRIN CE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RETIRED JOHN D. JORGENSON MARGARET A. SLOAN DIANE S. GREENBERG _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DEC EASED MARVIN S. SIEGEL (1936 - 2012) JOHN R.COSGROV E (1932 - 2017) Sent Via Email: City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org City of Palo Alto City Council Palo Alto City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: The Hamilton Homeowner’s Association Opposition to 660 University Avenue: Mixed Use Office and Residential (PHZ) Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, I am writing this letter on behalf of the Homeowner’s Association for The Hamilton senior community (“the Hamilton community”) located at 555 Byron Street, which is adjacent to the proposed project at 660 University. The Hamilton community opposes the project at its current density and intensity and requests that the City Council do the same, directing the applicant to come back with a project more in line with the underlying multifamily residential zoning and compatible with the surrounding community. As will be discussed in this letter, the project proposes a significant adjustment to base zoning. The central issue is that the project proposes 70 units, but the maximum number of units allowed by the multifamily residential zoning would be 10 units. This is seven times the maximum allowable density. The proposed project also does not conform with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, which would allow a higher density. It far exceeds the Comprehensive Plan’s maximum allowable multifamily density of 40 units per acre, which would be 20 units for the half-acre project site. Furthermore, the proposed project does not provide a substantial public benefit. The project proposes less than 20% below market rate units, while requesting a significant density increase that inequitably places the heavy burden of increased development, including increased traffic and congestion, on the community. As a result, consistent with its policy direction regarding planned home zoning (“PHZ”), the City Council should not support this project as proposed. Significant Departure from Multifamily Residential Zoning To approve a rezoning from multifamily residential RM-20 to PHZ, the City Council has indicated the proposed project should be no more than a “moderate adjustment” to base zoning. This discussion will highlight the significant departure from the underlying multifamily residential zoning Palo Alto City Council October 21, 2021 Page 2 proposed by the project. In the RM-20 multifamily residential zoning district, the allowable residential density is 11-20 units per acre. Because the project site is a mere 22,526 square feet, the maximum allowable density would be 10 units. Far in excess of this maximum allowable density, the project proposes 70 units. As the staff report notes, this equates to a density of 142 units per acre, a density unprecedented in Palo Alto or surrounding Peninsula communities. This density far exceeds not only the maximum RM-20 zoning density, but also the maximum residential density identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Respectful of the City’s need for housing, shoehorning seven times the maximum permitted number of units on this site is unreasonable. The Hamilton community will experience this unprecedent density daily in significantly increased traffic and congestion raising concerns for senior safety, as well as a loss of peace in their golden years. This level of density and intensity in this location burdens, not benefits, the community and should not be encouraged to proceed. While the density of the proposed project is the most egregious, the proposed project disturbingly fails to respect any aspect of the underlying zoning: 1. The maximum floor area ratio (“FAR”) allowed in the multifamily residential RM-20 zoning district is 0.5:1 FAR. The project proposes 2.29 FAR or more than four times the maximum allowable. 2. Office is not a permitted or conditional use in the multifamily residential zoning district; it is also not consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Nevertheless, the project proposes 9,115 square feet of general office (which is a departure from the existing non-conforming medical office). General office, which will generate a significant number of trips and vehicle congestion, should not be allowed. The project should be residential only, which would improve the jobs-housing balance. 3. The bulk of the building is 45 feet high, with an extra 5 feet for parapet around a roof terrace, and then mechanical equipment and structures rising another 5 feet above that, for a total of 55 feet. The maximum height in the RM-20 zoning district is 30 feet; the maximum height in the PHZ zoning district is 35 feet adjacent to residential zones. The project proposes a building height nearly twice the maximum allowable. 4. The setbacks on all streets and sidewalks are greatly reduced. The side yard on Byron Street should have a setback of 16 feet, but has only 10 feet, a reduction of 6 feet. The front along University Avenue should also have a setback of 16 feet, but it has been reduced to only 6 feet, a reduction of 10 feet. The side yard along Middlefield Road should have a setback of 24 feet, but it is only 10 feet, a reduction of 14 feet. 5. The project requires 115 parking stalls and is providing only 103, which is a 10% reduction. In addition, the project proposes to provide 68 of those spaces through mechanical lifts, effectively reducing the supply even further as lifts are cumbersome to use, and have not been favored by the City Council in past projects. A project that fails to respect any of the multifamily residential zoning standards does not have the neighborhood compatibility required in Municipal Code Section 18.13.060(a) which states: “Development in a multiple-family residential district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development.” In a recent staff report dated May 18, 2021, for the 2239 Wellesley PHZ pre-screening, City staff stated: “The proposed FAR is approximately four times the floor area ratio allowed within the R-1 zone and almost none of the special standards required for PHZ projects are met under the current design (e.g. setbacks, daylight plane, and height). These are significant differences between the base zoning and the proposed project; suggesting the project may not align with Council’s most recent policy direction regarding PHZs.” The staff noted that while City’s Comprehensive Plan includes goals and policies that encourage housing development (Policy L- Palo Alto City Council October 21, 2021 Page 3 2.3 and L-3.3), it also identifies programs and policies that speak to transitions in scale between developments (Policy L-1.3), discouraging abrupt changes in scale and density (Policy L-6.7 and Program L6.7.1) and that discourage reducing daylight plane requirements adjacent to single- family residential uses (Policy L-6.8). Similarly here, although the staff report does not reach the same conclusion, the significant differences between the proposed project and the underlying zoning and surrounding community, which are even greater than those of this previous PHZ proposal, should lead the City Council to find that the proposed project does not align with the Council’s policy direction regarding PHZ applications. The City of Palo Alto established its existing zoning standards with community input to guide development in this location. The PHZ allows moderate adjustments to the zoning standards, however the proposed project disregards the community’s standards in their entirety. The Hamilton community respectfully requests that the City Council direct the applicant to pay attention to and respect the multifamily zoning standards rather than ignoring them entirely and propose a project that is more appropriate to this location. Inadequate Below Market Rate Housing To approve a rezoning to PHZ, the City Council has indicated a threshold requirement is the provision of 20% below market rate units. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.04.030(a)(16) defines a below market rate (“BMR”) housing unit as “any housing unit sold or rented to very-low, low- or moderate-income households pursuant to the City of Palo Alto's below market rate program administered by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, or a successor organization.” Citywide affordable housing requirements, Municipal Code Section 18.65.020, also defines “affordable unit” as “a dwelling unit affordable to very low, low or moderate income households.” Above moderate units do not meet the definition of a BMR unit or an affordable unit. This is consistent with the City’s BMR program which seeks “to increase the amount of housing affordable to individuals and families with less than median income” and the Income Standards and Rent Limits chart for use in the City’s BMR Program that only goes as high as moderate income. This is also consistent with state law (Government Code Section 65915, et. seq.) which grants a density bonus and incentives for providing affordable housing at very low, low and moderate incomes. In light of the foregoing, the project only proposes 10 affordable units – four very low, three low and three moderate. The four above moderate income units do not count toward the requirement to provide 20% affordable. Therefore, the staff report is incorrect in its conclusion that the proposed project provides 20% affordable consistent with the PHZ requirement – it provides only 14% affordable. This is inadequate for the City to move the PHZ forward in light of the City Council policy direction that 20% affordable be a threshold for rezoning. The community benefit is simply not there with such a low percentage of BMR units. To put it in perspective, if the project maximized the base zoning of 10 units and provided five moderate income units, state law would entitle the project to a 50% density bonus. This would result in five additional market rate units for a total project of 15 units. Following this logic, assuming with double the amount of affordable units or 10 moderate income units, the project would be entitled to double the density bonus or a 100% bonus, the total project would still only be 20 units. Nevertheless, for only 10 affordable units, the City is being asked to agree to a 70 unit project. This is not a community benefit, it is simply a benefit to the developer’s rate of return. The Hamilton community respectfully asserts that this is not the type of project that the City Council should be incentivizing with the PHZ zoning. Palo Alto City Council October 21, 2021 Page 4 Comparison to Neighboring Planned Community Projects A number of projects in the area, including the Hamilton community, Channing House, Webster House and Lytton Gardens, utilize Planned Community (“PC”) zoning. All of these neighboring PC projects are senior housing projects, which by their nature have unique needs distinct from a standard residential development as is being proposed at 660 University. This discussion will focus on a comparison between the Hamilton community and the proposed project. The ordinance rezoning the Hamilton community to Planned Community allows an increase in floor area from 1.0 FAR as required by the underlying zoning to 1.70 FAR to “accommodate activities and services of a senior living community.” The proposed project has no similar justification to increase FAR from 0.5 to 2.29. Furthermore, although the Hamilton community had a 70% increase in FAR to provide adequate space for senior services, the proposed project requests a much larger 458% increase. The community benefit with the Hamilton community was the provision of senior support services to allow senior residents to remain in the community and the payment of a significant ($500,000) financial contribution to the City to provide benefits for seniors and senior services. As is discussed in the section of this letter regarding affordable housing, this project is doing extremely little to provide affordable housing as a benefit to the community and is providing no additional financial contribution to the City’s affordable housing fund. Thus, there is no comparison and the Hamilton community’s opposition cannot be portrayed as claiming what is “good for the goose is not good for the gander.” The Hamilton community would instead encourage the provision of senior housing in this location, which is referred to in the community as the “senior corner,” consistent with the multifamily residential zoning. Conclusion The Hamilton community appreciates the significant amount of staff time and resources these preapplications consume and thanks you for your time and attention to this matter. The Hamilton community strongly encourages the City Council not to support moving this project forward as proposed. The project should be consistent with or a modest modification to the underlying residential density and other standards, the project should not include office and the project should include a true public benefit, such as affordable senior housing. Sincerely, Leigh F. Prince Cc: Samuel Gutierrez, Planner (Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org) Jonathan Lait, Planning Director (Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org) Molly Stump, City Attorney (Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org) Christopher Ream, President Hamilton HOA (ream@reamlaw.com) From:Sheri Furman To:Council, City Cc:Glanckopf, Annette Subject:Oct 25 Agenda Item 1 Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 10:35:43 PM Attachments:1033 Amarillo Letter.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see out attached letter regarding the 1033 Amarillo prescreening. Thank you, Sheri Furman To: Palo Alto City Council From: Sheri Furman and Annette Glanckopf Re: October 25, 2021, Agenda Item #2 – 1033 Amarillo Pre-screening October 20, 2021 Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council Members: We wish to share with you our concerns about the proposed project at 1033 Amarillo Ave., which comes before you for a preliminary review next Monday, October 25. First, we want to reiterate our commitment to more housing in Palo Alto, but at the moderate and low-income levels, not market-rate, as this project proposes. The existing property at 1033 Amarillo Ave. has four 800 sf. to 900 sf. homes that were built in 1947 on the 20,787 square foot lot. Per the staff report, the project requests the subdivision of the 20,787 square foot lot into a “cottage cluster” of 4 equally sized lots of 5,196 square feet with 4 single-family homes of approximately 2,300 square feet each with an Accessory Dwelling Unit, for a total of 8 dwelling units. The following are our concerns about this project. Current Layout Proposed Layout Issues with the Proposal • It is highly inappropriate to initiate a city-wide zoning change based on a request from a developer just to enable a single project. This small project proposes some to all of the following: o Zoning Code Text Amendments (Title 18) to revise the R-1 (Chapter 18.12) Zone District Development Standards. o Establishment of a new combining district, which would also require a Zoning Map Amendment. o Modifications to the Subdivision Ordinance (Title 21) regarding flag lot restrictions. o A Preliminary Parcel Map request that includes exceptions to allow for parcels that would each have less than the 6,000 sf minimum lot size and street frontages less than the 60-foot minimum. • The applicant’s alternative proposal to subdivide the lot into two equal parcels and to build three units on each resulting lot would exceed the maximum allowable lot size for each parcel. • Displaces (relatively) affordable, single-family rental housing (800-900 sf). • Neighborhood compatibility should be taken into account. o All nearby properties are single-story. o Apart from 1015 Amarillo (4,636 sf) and 1027 Amarillo (4,950 sq. ft.), all other neighboring lot sizes are 6,000-7,000 sq. ft. (see attached details). • "Cottage clusters" must be zoned RM-20, 30, or 40. • As proposed, this project might create flag lots. Homes on flag lots per 18.12.040(c) are supposed to only be one story tall (apart from the basement), whereas the proposed layout shows two story homes. • Property is in a Special Flood Hazard Area (both AE 10.5 and AH zones) o Section 16.52.130 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code outlines construction requirements. o The lowest floor must be elevated to or above the base flood elevation plus 1 foot or design flood elevations whichever is higher, which might prevent the building of a second floor. • The previous property owner applied for a similar subdivision in 1972 and was denied. Why SB9 Doesn’t Apply The developer has suggested he might use SB 9 if the City fails to grant his primary request. However, this is not a realistic option, because of the following. • SB 9 is meant to allow current homeowners to “split” a property into two lots, and then place two homes on each lot, for a total of up to four homes on the property, not for developers to buy up properties • Under SB9, homeowners or landlords can apply to upzone their properties through their local jurisdiction, but only if they plan to live on the property for a while. • SB 9 requires that property owners sign an affidavit stating they will occupy one of the housing units as their primary residence for at least three years after splitting their property or adding additional units. • A proposed project under this new law cannot result in the demolition or alteration of housing that has been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. • The proposed housing development does not allow for the demolition of more than 25% of the existing exterior structural walls, except if either o A local ordinance so allows. o The site has not been occupied by a tenant in the last three years. • Any units created as a result of the law cannot be used for short-term rentals. They must be rented for a term longer than 30 days. • Palo Alto is already considered invoking its legal option to disallow ADUs on lots split under SB 9, in which case, the owner could only have two homes on the present site, not six. Thank you for considering our recommendation that Council indicate that it would not be in favor of this proposal and want to see existing housing preserved, just as the Comp Plan requires. Sheri Furman and Annette Glanckopf Chair and Vice Chair, Midtown Residents Association -- 1033 Amarillo Neighboring Properties All properties are: Zoning District R-1 Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation SF Flood Zone AE10.5 Over 6000 sf, except for 1015 Amarillo and 1027 Amarillo Address APN Lot Size Year Built SCCA Floor Area 2657 Greer Rd 127-02-101 7,020 sf 1,958 2,856 sf 2669 Greer Rd 127-02-102 6,313 sf 1,958 2,644 sf 1015 Amarillo Av 127-02-008 4,636 sf 1,946 2,086 sf 1027 Amarillo Av 127-02-007 4,950 sf Currently being remodeled 2,228 sf 1039 Amarillo Av 127-02-124 7,000 sf 1,948 2,850 sf 1041 Amarillo Av 127-02-123 7,000 sf 1,946 2,850 sf 1045 Amarillo Av 127-02-077 6,631 sf 1,958 2,739 sf PRPERTIES TO THE REAR 2640 Elmdale Pl 127-02-032 7,122 sf 1,955 2,887 sf 2651 Elmdale Pl 127-02-033 7,391 sf 1,955 2,967 sf ACROSS THE STREET These properties all have the same specifications: 1020 Amarillo, 1026 Amarillo, 1032 Amarillo, 1038 Amarillo, 1044 Amarillo, 1050 Amarillo Lot Size Year Built SCCA FAR Easements 6,050 sf 1,951 2,565 sf Yes, see PW: PUE Figures are from https://opengis.cityofpaloalto.org/parcelreports/ Flood Zone AE10.5 Flooding in the AE Zone is due to potential overtopping of the Bayfront levees in the event of an extremely high tide, particularly one that might be associated with a storm front. This large zone is roughly bounded on the north by Embarcadero Road and on the south by the Mountain View city limits and includes everything easterly from roughly Middlefield, Ross and Louis Roads to San Francisco Bay. Originally, most of this area was tidal marsh and wetlands, but many years ago levees were built in the Baylands to drain the wetlands and allow the development of eastern Palo Alto. Because the levees lack required freeboard (additional height above the estimated high water level) and were not constructed in accordance with current engineering standards, FEMA does not consider these levees to be adequate protection from a high tide event that has a one percent (100-year) probability of occurring. The Flood Insurance Rate Maps were prepared under the assumption that the levees will overtop or fail and that the area in the AE 10.5 Zone will be flooded by tidal water to an elevation of ten and one-half feet above sea level (which is not the same as a depth of ten and one-half feet). Much of the residential area immediately west of the Bayshore Freeway is at only about six feet above sea level, meaning that the 100-year flood would reach a height of up to five feet above the ground. Properties near Greer Park may also be subject to flooding from San Francisquito Creek (ZONE AH). Requirements For Construction In A Special Flood Hazard Area. Palo Alto is required to impose the federal rules regarding construction in an SFHA. These rules are spelled out in Section 16.52 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and apply to "substantial improvement" and new construction in an SFHA, and to any improvement, no matter how small, to a structure in an SFHA built or "substantially improved" since 15 February 1980. Excerpts from the Code are contained in the Public Works Engineering Information Sheet "Requirements Applicable to Special Flood Hazard Areas", available on request. The requirement that hurts the most is that the lowest floor be elevated above the flood level with freeboard. This effectively prohibits basements (which are defined as any enclosed area below grade on all sides). Because of zoning requirements which limit building height and prohibit building beyond a specified "daylight plane", the need to elevate the lowest floor can create a "squeeze" which might prevent the building of a second floor. Other provisions require openings in areas below flood level to allow water to enter and exit, flood proofing of utilities below the flood level, etc. For AE and AH zones the Base Flood Elevation is given as an absolute elevation "above sea level", and the lowest floor must be elevated to or above the base flood elevation plus 1 foot or design flood elevations whichever is higher. From:Aram James To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Tanaka, Greg; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Council, City;Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen Subject:Lawsuit subjects Palo Alto to reputation as a national joke. While Palo Alto no longer has any African American officers …4-5 white officers claim a BLM mural discriminates against white folks and subjects white officers to ahostile work environment. ... Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 10:22:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://abc7news.com/amp/palo-alto-blm-mural-police-lawsuit-black-lives-matter-assata-shakur/10876062/ Sent from my iPhone From:Shachi BahlTo:Shikada, Ed; Council, CityCc:Lait, JonathanSubject:LETTER OF SUPPORT - Palo Alto Dental Group Supports Proposed Housing Project at 660 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CADate:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 6:33:43 PMAttachments:image.png [Some people who received this message don't often get email from shachibahl@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ 11 Date: October 14, 2021 From: Palo Alto Dental Group To: Palo Alto City Council Subject: LETTER OF SUPPORT -Palo Alto Dental Group Supports Proposed Housing Project at 660 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and Council members: We hope this letter finds you well. On Monday, October 25, 2021 the Palo Alto City Council is scheduled to hold a pre-screening regarding Smith Development's proposed multi-family housing project at 660 University Avenue. We are writing to you today to voice our enthusiastic support for Smith Development's proposed project. While Sll Byron Street has been home to Palo Alto Dental Group for years, we support this proposed project for two primary reasons. First, this project will result in bringing much needed housing units to our community. While no one project can solve our housing shortage, the cumulative impact of these projects can substantially improve housing availability in our region. Second, this project will not result In the loss of our dental practice to the patients we serve in Palo Alto. We are not leaving Palo Alto and have a good relocation site in the city. It will be an updated modern facility, which will allow us to continue serving our patients to the highest standards. This project represents change and it is positive change. Smith Development's proposed project is appropriately located in the downtown Palo Alto area with great proximity to community serving retail and public transit. In closing, we hope it is clear from this letter that Palo Alto Dental Group supports Smith Development's proposed multi-family housing project at 660 University Avenue and that Council support and approval of this project will not result in the loss of Palo Alto Dental Group services to the community. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration of this letter and please let us know if you have any questions. Respectfully, I ~~ · dkJJ I ~ D llfoo~(tb/ Shachi Bahl, DMD Martha Vanzina, DDS. Peter Kono, DDS f!J ~~ Robert Iverson, DMD Cc: Palo Alto City Manager Ed Shikada Palo Alto Planning Director Jonathan Lalt From:Aram James To:Donna Wallach; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; PlanningCommission; Raj; Jay Boyarsky; wintergery@earthlink.net; chuck jagoda; Joe Simitian;supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com;mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; Roberta Ahlquist; Greer Stone; Binder, Andrew Subject:NYTimes: Amid Flames and Gunfire, They Were Evicted From Where They Called Home Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 5:38:44 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ FYI: Important article: what does the genocidal Zionist State of Israel and Modi’s Hindu Nationalists have in common: ( see link below) answer: genocidal attacks on Palestinians and India’s Muslim minority . I certainly hope our two leading candidates for Santa Clara County District Attorney will debate the common tread of Israeli’s Zionist genocidal machine against the Palestinian people versus Modi’s Hindu Nationalists genocidal attacks on India’s Muslim minority. My guess: Neither candidate will touch this subject playing it safe in hopes of avoiding any true controversy in their election campaign. Amid Flames and Gunfire, They Were Evicted From Where They Called Home https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/17/world/asia/india-assam-muslim-evictions.html?referringSource=articleShare Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Tanaka, Greg; Human Relations Commission;Planning Commission; Council, City; Stump, Molly; Molly; wintergery@earthlink.net; Jay Boyarsky; chuck jagoda;Roberta Ahlquist; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com Subject:What a federal judge indicated during the first major hearing on Mountain View’s RV parking ban Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 5:13:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Sent from my iPhone From:Kang, DanielleTo:Council, CitySubject:Mailed in Public LetterDate:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 4:54:21 PMAttachments:Gertrude Reagan.pdfimage001.pngimage002.png Good evening City Council, Please see the attached mailed in public letter from Gertrude Reagan. Thank you, Dani Danielle KangAdministrative Associate IIIOffice of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 P: 650.329.2159 | E: Danielle.Kang@CityofPaloAlto.org CITY OF PALO ALTO Hiili&Hi \ f,1 � YHA /A _ 'I_ (Jlf J � ll.....-V'' "( v�<A..{ , l -Z.....,-z.\ l lu..J-e... C9vL rvvv .,� , it-� � 'hv-17 f,t,J. +v /'4.utJ w w tuA'--h ht o c.k, t � r 1-�r �e__ 'NM G--re£r f�,- { f-(Vn'IL (JJJ.( l {JM,L-fvY �t { I hi tl/llL trCd. A�� vn. � � t� � all_ (/_LU ��-r f-{µ:_ Jv0�/�'-:J vm�t G �rf-ru-l e_ tzA_ c-<-!J � 9 � -r rv1 1J rtkzlD fJJ,/4 /U'f<;'I �cL /vf &3 J. y, /Vl e,'-/ ,( From:Linda M. Saunders To:editor@paweekly.com; news@padailypost.com; editor@almanacnews.com; news@stanforddaily.com;usafetypcore@stanford.edu; Eileen O"Rourke; stanfordstaffers@lists.stanford.edu; Jo-Ann Cuevas;cardinaleatwork@stanford.edu; hrcommunications@stanford.edu; OConnell, M; Police; Clerk, City; City Mgr; Council, City;Dueker, Kenneth; Perron, Zachary; policechief@menlopark.org; police@losaltosca.gov; board@ctra.org; stanfordwestapartments; lucy.wicks@stanford.edu; Cynthea A. Kingsley; Norman W Robinson;lharwood@stanfordhealthcare.org; Harris, Kathryn; "Becky Brewer"; vgreenlew@pausd.org; vlao@pausd.org;msanchez@stanfordchildrens.org; ridhima@icrichild.org; enrollment@icrichild.org; allison@icrichild.org; yolonda Henry;susan@ccscparentcoop.org; hope@ccscparentcoop.org; mickey.alvarado@brighthorizons.com;Nathalie.Larsen@brighthorizons.com; javanni.brown-austin@brighthorizons.com; cierra.webb@brighthorizons.com; Kasey.Bojo@brighthorizons.com; bingschool; Mark C Lawrence; psa@kzsu.stanford.edu; gm@kzsu.stanford.edu Subject:FW: 2021 Annual AlertSU Test Notification Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 3:24:07 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from linda.saunders@stanford.edu. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Please distribute widely. Thank you. Stanford Dept. of Public Safety. From: Public Safety [mailto:alertsudps@lists.stanford.edu] Sent: Wednesday, October 20, 2021 11:33 AM To: Linda M. Saunders <linda.saunders@stanford.edu> Subject: 2021 Annual AlertSU Test Notification Dear Stanford Faculty, Staff and Affiliates, On Thursday, October 28, at approximately 12:05 p.m., Stanford University will conduct its annual testof the campus AlertSU system. Alert messages will be sent via text message and email to the Stanfordcommunity. Due to the number of community members off campus VoIP speaker phones will not betested. The test will also include activation of the outdoor warning system, which will sound an audible tonefor approximately 30 seconds, followed by a verbal message from each of the 7 sirens at variouscampus locations. The sirens will be audible throughout the campus and may also be heard in parts ofthe surrounding communities, including Palo Alto, Menlo Park and Los Altos. In the test message sent to your device, you will be asked to acknowledge the message. This is animportant step that will help us monitor the success of this test. If you receive both a text and email, youonly need to acknowledge one of the messages. Prior to the test, it is important you verify that your contact information is correct in StanfordYou. Makesure there is an entry in the mobile phone field, as this is the most rapid and direct way ofcommunication with you during an actual emergency. As a reminder: The University requires thatemployees maintain their directory entry and opt in to AlertSU with their work phone number,email address, and any university-issued or reimbursed cell phone number. Please click here for ---=----=--=--=----- 9 Stanford University step by step instructions on how to enter your contact information in StanfordYou or visithttps://police.stanford.edu/alert/alertsu-faq.html for more information. Additionally, in order to know you are receiving an official AlertSU message, please program thefollowing information into your mobile phone contacts. Email Address: alertsudps@lists.stanford.eduPhone Number: 650-725-5555Text Message phone number: 89361 If there were a real emergency, you would be asked to follow the specific instructions in the alertmessage. Other avenues that might be used to inform the community about critical incidents include: Stanford’s emergency website: http://emergency.stanford.eduDepartment of Public Safety website: https://police.stanford.eduKZSU 90.1 FMUniversity emergency information hotlines: 650-725-5555 and 844-253-7878 (844-AlertSU) Upon receipt of an AlertSU message, notify others in your immediate vicinity to ensure they are alsoaware of the situation and the recommended safety precautions. For more information about the AlertSU system, please visit the AlertSU FAQ page at:https://police.stanford.edu/alertsu-faq.html. Evacuation procedures and how to respond to other emergencies can be found on the following resourcepages. Evacuation Procedure: https://ehs.stanford.edu/manual/emergency-response-guidelines/evacuation-procedureFire: https://ehs.stanford.edu/manual/emergency-response-guidelines/fireEarthquake: https://ehs.stanford.edu/manual/emergency-response-guidelines/earthquakeStanford University Emergency Response Guidelines:https://ehs.stanford.edu/manual/emergency-response-guidelinesSafety, Security, and Fire Report 2019: https://police.stanford.edu/security-report.html Thank you for your cooperation. Stanford Department of Public Safety • • • • • • • • • • • • From:Yahoo Mail.® To:Honky Subject:DON"T get VAXXED. ;0 Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 3:08:26 PM Attachments:bef8afebe8aceaca496f24f05692e59f.mp4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. It's a vid from Sept, 2009 by Jesse ventura From:Bradley Stribling To:Council, City Subject:Opposition to Proposal 21PLN-00212 for 1033 Amarillo Ave. Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 1:54:59 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from brad_stribling@msn.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I am the owner of 1039 Amarillo Avenue in Palo Alto, and have been for about fifty years. I’m writing to you in opposition to the Proposal 21PLN-00212 for the redevelopment of my neighboring lot at 1033 Amarillo. The plan calls for the construction of four residential units plus four additional ADUs. A reasonable estimate of the number of vehicles for use by the occupants of those dwellings would be approximately twelve. This is unduly burdensome on the local community. At present, available street parking on that stretch of road is frequently zero. Often there are cars blocking my driveway entrance, and even parked in my driveway. This is unacceptable at this time, and significantly adding to the vehicular load next door compounds the problem enormously. This street of only a few blocks, bounded by a community park at one end and an elementary school at the other, is becoming choked and adding to this becomes a hazard and safety issue. I strenuously oppose this concept… and unless the develolper’s plans provide for on-site parking for twelve vehicles it is blatantly irresponsible. Sincerely, Brad Stribling From:matt sorgenfrei To:Council, City Subject:oppose 21PLN-00212 for 1033 Amarillo Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 12:08:16 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sorgenfrei.matt@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I own 1041 Amarillo and have been a full time resident in this home for over thirty years. I strongly oppose Proposal 21PLN-00212 for 1033 Amarillo Avenue. Traffic and parking are already an issue for this block of Amarillo. I have three major points of concern: 1. Impact by neighborhood activity 2. Traffic on Amarillo 3. Number of cars per residence Details about my points of concern are below. Thank you Matt Sorgenfrei Impact by neighborhood activity Amarillo Avenue is basically three blocks long. At one end is a large park, at the other end is an elementary school that is part of the Palo Alto Unified School District. On a typical Thursday Night/Friday Morning, the streets are so full of parking I am unable to set my bins out for collection without totally blocking my driveway. Most residents set their bins out Thursday afternoon just to have the space available. When there are activities at the park, especially soccer tournaments, my driveway is often blocked. The elementary school has it's own intense traffic pattern. Many parents park and walk their kids into the school, especially if there are any activities at the school. Out of city guests that visit me at my home frequently comment how difficult it is to find parking near to my house, especially if one guest has already used my driveway for parking. Traffic on Amarillo Most of us in the neighborhood need to park in our driveways with the hood of the car facing out. There are many pedestrians and children on bikes taking advantage of the park. Within our three block avenue, there is a very large apartment complex. Years ago there were not as many families living in the apartments and that has changed. There are more children riding bikes to school than I have seen in my years here. Given the parking on the street and all the bike traffic, it is already tricky to safely get out of the driveway and onto Amarillo. During commute hours this is impacted by buses and automobiles using Amarillo instead of Oregon Expressway. And we still have issues with cars speeding to and from the park. Amarillo was also suppose to be a bike boulevard. However the modifications were stopped, the roundabout abandoned and the additional safety for bicyclists were not completed. Amarillo is still shown as the recommended East to West bicycle boulevard, but given the traffic and parking it is a hazardous route for bicyclists. Number of cars per residence Over the past five years, I see that residences have at least one car per driver. Typically two cars are in the driveways and two cars are parked on the street. There is a multiple dwelling at 1065 Amarillo Avenue with more than one car per occupant. This block of Amarillo has flag lots that do require parking on the street. Adding eight dwelling units will add to the intensity of lack of street parking in the middle of the Amarillo corridor. The nearest public transportation is at the end of Amarillo on Louis and I can not recall the last time I've seen anyone waiting for the bus along the Louis stretch. From:cusinger@yes2connect.com To:Council, City Subject:Been there: Picking up the Pieces after a Disaster Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 11:07:29 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cusinger@yes2connect.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Rotating image: If thisdoesn't rotate, click on it. Hi Adrian "The disaster's over... the first responders (often fromaround the country) are going home... the press is gone. Mycommunity is in pieces... Now what?" 30 years ago, those were my feelings after the Oaklandfirestorm. They've been the same for victims of everydisaster since then. And "Now what?" is what I have been trying to answerwhile creating Yes2Connect, a disaster resiliency, businesssupport, and community building app - - that connectsofficials, businesses, organizations, families, employees andvisitors. For officials, after a disaster there are hundreds of puzzle pieces that need to be re-connected.For families and children, there are fewer, but they are more personal and hard to handle. Forbusinesses, their recovery is much more complicated, as 40% of the smaller businesses won'treopen, and of those that do, 75% will fail within 2 years. So, Yes2Connect has tools for all of these. It helps officials get loss data from the community and find people who have movedfrom the community but still own property. It makes it easy for people to reach out to hurting families through an ongoing check-intool. Families can also use the Rebuild My Dreams tool to process their feelings. Thereare practical tools to find babysitters and set up carpools.Businesses have tools to help get their customers back - minimart, egiftcards,ReBuildExpress, and moreBut most importantly, Yes2Connect helps the whole community support each otherduring the long process of recovery. Yes2Connect is a low-cost, customizable, community-based tool, with multilingualcapabilities. Free limited-time 90-day trial so you can show its power to your community. You can findvideos with the different features at https://www.yes2connect.com/videos.cfm • • • • Check it out or call/email me to set up an online tour. Carolyn UsingerYes2Connect.com cusinger@yes2connect.com925.360.9076 direct Connect with me on LinkedIn About me: I develop customized tools that make it easier for businesses, non-profits, andgovernment to work together. In the 1990s, my house and home office were burned in the East Bay firestorm. I also published a series of Business Start-Up Kits with the CaliforniaChamber of Commerce, customized for local chambers of commerce. I wrote a Guide to Hiring Independent Contractors, also published by CalChamber. In 2007 with a grant fromWells Fargo Bank and the California Association for Economic Development (CALED), I created Tools for Business Success, a customized website with local, state, and federalresources to start and grow businesses. CAN-SPAM email opt-out From:cusinger@yes2connect.com To:Council, City Subject:Been there: Picking up the Pieces after a Disaster Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 11:07:25 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cusinger@yes2connect.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Rotating image: If thisdoesn't rotate, click on it. Hi Adrian "The disaster's over... the first responders (often fromaround the country) are going home... the press is gone. Mycommunity is in pieces... Now what?" 30 years ago, those were my feelings after the Oaklandfirestorm. They've been the same for victims of everydisaster since then. And "Now what?" is what I have been trying to answerwhile creating Yes2Connect, a disaster resiliency, businesssupport, and community building app - - that connectsofficials, businesses, organizations, families, employees andvisitors. For officials, after a disaster there are hundreds of puzzle pieces that need to be re-connected.For families and children, there are fewer, but they are more personal and hard to handle. Forbusinesses, their recovery is much more complicated, as 40% of the smaller businesses won'treopen, and of those that do, 75% will fail within 2 years. So, Yes2Connect has tools for all of these. It helps officials get loss data from the community and find people who have movedfrom the community but still own property. It makes it easy for people to reach out to hurting families through an ongoing check-intool. Families can also use the Rebuild My Dreams tool to process their feelings. Thereare practical tools to find babysitters and set up carpools.Businesses have tools to help get their customers back - minimart, egiftcards,ReBuildExpress, and moreBut most importantly, Yes2Connect helps the whole community support each otherduring the long process of recovery. Yes2Connect is a low-cost, customizable, community-based tool, with multilingualcapabilities. Free limited-time 90-day trial so you can show its power to your community. You can findvideos with the different features at https://www.yes2connect.com/videos.cfm • • • • Check it out or call/email me to set up an online tour. Carolyn UsingerYes2Connect.com cusinger@yes2connect.com925.360.9076 direct Connect with me on LinkedIn About me: I develop customized tools that make it easier for businesses, non-profits, andgovernment to work together. In the 1990s, my house and home office were burned in the East Bay firestorm. I also published a series of Business Start-Up Kits with the CaliforniaChamber of Commerce, customized for local chambers of commerce. I wrote a Guide to Hiring Independent Contractors, also published by CalChamber. In 2007 with a grant fromWells Fargo Bank and the California Association for Economic Development (CALED), I created Tools for Business Success, a customized website with local, state, and federalresources to start and grow businesses. CAN-SPAM email opt-out From:Yahoo Mail.® To:Honky Subject:WeThePeopleArePissed1776 on TikTok WHAT SAY YEE ARIZONA? AND AFFECTING US ALL? Why isn"t it in the MSM (EVERY DAY) Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 9:51:00 AM Attachments:8483d7319c74a97fe22d452c4c543a2d.mp4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ? WOWSER From:Dilma Coleman To:998@998.gov.sa; Council, City Cc:clerkoftheboard@countyofnapa.org; gengeland@losaltosca.gov Subject:Fwd: How to solve that issue? Shut up and update on shut up. That"s good reasoning especially when Nia Wilsonpossibly is the biological daughter of Moroccan King Hassan II prior to his death. Argue it. Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 7:35:51 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: Wed, Oct 20, 2021, 6:58 AM Subject: How to solve that issue? Shut up and update on shut up. That's good reasoningespecially when Nia Wilson possibly is the biological daughter of Moroccan King Hassan II prior to his death. Argue it.To: <ajansen@pubdef.lacounty.gov>, <info@lastprisonerproject.org> Cc: <embassy@egyptembassy.net>, <afg_evac@padilla.senate.gov> Hello it's Diva Lee aka Diva Jobs.. what's happening now. Attachment #1 King Hassan II of Morocco died on July 1999..R.I.P. poppa. Attachment #2 Nia Wilson born Nov 11,1999. The killer is not John Lee Cowell attachment#4. Diva argues it. Diva Lee aka Diva Jobs wantsa Haebus Corpus application for John Lee Cowell..especially for Eric Holder jr who didn't kill Rapper Nipsey Hussle, Jaime Osuna who didn't kill Louis Farrakhan but he should not beaccused of the sadistic murder of ..Luis Romero. Why did louis Romero get transferred from mule creek prison to corcoran prison because he was fighting with a rich Donald trump. I hatelouis Farakkon for multiple things. Did Antolin Garcia Torres kidnapped Morgan Hill girl Sierra lamar? No. Antolin is innocent. I need a Haebus Corpus application for Antolin GarciaTorres. Diva wants it done before Oct.31,2021. Diva DIVA Jobs aka Diva Lee wants to press charges in Santa Cruz CA against Melinda Gates attempted murder on Diva's life with GHBdrugs which also was retailiated from Bill Gates's near death whereas bill gates had smoked a cavey.(cavey is cigarettes with cocaine inside).Bill Gates's also had GHB drug administered.Argue it. All this Understand that it was good reasoning especially since all this under Donald Trump's Presidential campaign. All these people deaths multiple people deaths.. overdosesshut up to update shut up. Hunter Biden ain't painting he plaguerized art pieces Eric Holder jr probably started.. Eric's bail bond $7 million really is the price of Eric Holder jr's art scissors..shut update on shut up.Eric Holder jr's art scissors because of his Habitual behaviors to explain art history at the legion of honor..in SF. Diva Lee aka Diva Jobs argues she is born in Italy..not Stanfordhospital. Diva Lee is former Alexandria university law student in Egypt. Ex wife to Egyptian Mohammed Hosni. Argue it. Diva Lee had owned the same Horse ranch whereas JenniferGates began her Friday wedding party this past weekend in New York. Diva Lee explains why Attorney Jarrett Adams had been programmed to use that income from the sell of that NewYork property. Argue it. It was good reasoning for how Eric Holder jr's mother had raised income intended for a LA park etc Eric Holder jr's future of art historian/Painter..that moneywas intended for something like that whereas it ended up being used for Jarrett Adams law degree. Argue it in a Haebus Corpus application for Eric Holder jr. Diva been with ahypochondriac empath nightmare since 3:45am..and it's 6:34am on Oct20,2021. Lee aka Diva Jobs trapped in the name Dilma Coleman argues that Lucinda Southworth, Jennifer Gates, Solano County DA Krishna Abrams must have a bench warrant..in Santa Claracounty and Santa Cruz. We are gonna deal with these pedestrian killings in San Jose CA these near death drug overdose with GHB, Fentanyl and other cocaine drug overdose which causedheart attack similarities to what Rapper DMX experience also what Rapper/DJ Shock G from Digital Underground experience. We are gonna look at the death of Cady Grooves WhereasDiva Lee aka Diva Jobs argues The death of Josie Harris..(Floyd Mayweather's ex girlfriend). We are gonna do what Diva says or something like mimic in a game of charades and or similarto how a hypochondriac empath psychic medium medical doctor lawyer with Judicial college credits. This lawyer shut up explain to CEO Google Larry Page that of he defends LucindaSouthworth's behaviors..je gonna spend the night in jail. ..paying restitution fees..We are gonna deal with the serial killers,serial arsonists affiliated with California Governor GavinNewsom,Lucinda Southworth,Mark Zuckerberg(who else mark Zuck has twin daughters with Diva Lee aka Diva Jobs),Santa Cruz Sheriff Jim Hart,Golden State warrior head coach SteveKerr,TV host Whoopi Goldberg aka Caryn Elaine Johnson, Oprah Winfrey, and Mandy..(Kyle shanahan's wife) all of the above..I gonna meditate on positive thinking whereas attachment#3king MOHAMMED Hassan VI owes Diva Jobs money..don't ever ask diva medical services especially when u need to pay Diva's bills .u don't get medical neurosurgeon psychiatric care,cardiology advise from Diva Lee aka Diva Jobs MD.. without paying money..I hate u ex husband MOHAMMED Hassan VI..let ur heart fall out ur eyeball.. something like thatwhereas don't ask diva..go ahead and get retardation no more free advice from Diva Lee. #3 Diva's hates her Ex husband King MOHAMMED Hassan VI King Mohammed Hassan VI owes Diva for heart exams etc. And other inherited income. Argue it. Diva has had enoughevil done ok. Was Nia Wilson the daughter of King Hassan II? Maybe maybe not. The only thing that is overwhelming is that information about who really killed Nia Wilson. Those whokilled Canadian billionaire Barry Sherman and Honey Sherman were present at MacArthur bart station same day Nia Wilson was killed. Argue it. Best regards Diva Jobs aka Diva Leetrapped in the name Dilma Coleman Photo of Hop Hopkins courtesy of Hyun Ralph Jeon | RSVP | Teach-In to End WhiteSupremacy Are you curious about the ways in which systemic racism is fueling the climate crisis, and how each of us can be a part of creating a livable future? RSVP now for a teach-in on Wednesday, October 20 with AllisonChin, former Sierra Club Board President; Hop Hopkins, the Sierra Club’s director of organizational transformation; and other Sierra Clubleaders from all across the country to identify and explore our role in creating a multiracial, intergenerational, cross- class movement to end whitesupremacy and combat racial and climate injustice in our communities. RSVP today! | Video/Article | People vs. Fossil Fuels Last week, Sierra Club President Ramón Cruz was one of more than 500 people who risked arrest at the gates of the White House in response to an urgent call to join frontline communities who have been carrying the burden of From:Sierra Club Insider To:Council, City Subject:RSVP to Our Teach-In to End White Supremacy, Protect Wolves, Build Back Better, and More Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 1:52:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Sierra Club President Ramón Cruz the pollution caused by fossil fuel infrastructure. Read Ramón’s dispatch from the demonstration. Photo by Josh Ewing | Sierra Magazine | Bears Ears, Grand Staircaseto Be Restored Last week President Biden restored in full three national monuments that the Trump administration had shrunk. Bears Ears and Grand Staircase- Escalante National Monuments, as wellas Northeast Canyons and Seamounts National Marine Monument, together protect about five million acres of federal land and water. Theirrestoration will help the Biden administration achieve its goals of conserving 30 percent of lands and waters by 2030. Read more about these historic restorations. | Take Action | Clear the Air Trump's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) allowed some of the West's largest polluters to avoid Clean Air Act rules. Now Biden's EPA has a Photo by iStock.com/hell2 chance to hold these companies accountable for their unchecked air pollution, cleaning up the air we breathe and clearing up the views at our national parks. Send your personalized public comment demanding that the EPA to regulate the most harmful coalplants. Photo by iStock.com/Plherrera | Take Action| Speak Up for Clean Cars The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has the power to set fuel economy standards that dramatically reduce vehicle emissions, protect public health, and improve gas mileage. However, NHTSA hasproposed a fuel economy standard that offers loopholes that would allow automakers to double down on gas- guzzlers. Urge NHTSA to set the most stringent standards possible so that people across the country can drivethe cleanest, safest, and most fuel- efficient cars. | Take Action | Build Back Better! As President Biden enters final negotiations with Congress over the Photo courtesy of the White House Build Back Better Act, let’s make sure he hears us loud and clear—we’re counting on him to finish strong and pass historic action on climate, jobs, healthcare, education and justice. Use our toolkit to let PresidentBiden know we need him to keep fighting for the boldest possible Build Back Better Act! Workers clean up the beach in Orange County, CA following a major oil spill off the coast | Photo courtesy of Peter Bennett, www.citizenoftheplanet.com | Article | Offshore Oil Spill Risks On October 2, an undersea pipeline from an oil rig 4.5 miles from the Los Angeles shoreline ruptured, spilling an estimated 25,000 gallons of oil into theocean and slathering marsh reserves, beaches, and wildlife. Adding insult to injury, the costs ofsafely disposing of these massive offshore facilities may not be covered by their owners, leaving taxpayers stuck with the cleanup tab. Read Javier Sierra’s article on the oil spill: "Sick of Cleaning Up After the Big Oil." | en español | Es el Mes de la HerenciaHispana Para los Latinx el concepto de conservación y justicia medioambiental es muy antiguo, las prácticas Photo by Tim Mossholder, Unsplash.com ecológicas ancestrales en la agricultura tradicional han demostrado ser más eficientes y respetuosas del medioambiente, pues no están basadas en obtener ganancias económicas sino en la sustentabilidad. For Latinx people, the concept of conservation and environmental justice being inseparable is very old. Intraditional agriculture, for example, ancestral ecological practices are proving to be both more efficient and more respectful of the environment byfocusing on sustainability instead of profits. Leer más. The canyon walls of the Gila River, in Gila National Forest, New Mexico. | Photo by iStock.com/ca2hill | Sierra Magazine | 7 Latino Heritage SitesUrgently Need Protection Fewer than eight percent of nationally designated landmarks in the United States specifically represent Indigenous, Latino, Black, and Asian history, underscoring the need to protect diverse heritages in an increasingly diverse country. “All these special places are threatened by exploitation,” says advocate Allyson Siwik. | Sierra Magazine | Photo by Jeremy Miller The Creek Fire One YearLater The Creek Fire in California destroyed more than 850 structures and charred more than 379,000 acres, an area twice the size of New York City. Here are the stories of those still trying to recover. Photo courtesy of Otuo-Akyampong Boakye, Eco Warriors Movement - Ghana | Take Action | Tell US Climate Negotiators:Listen to Global GrassrootsVoices! The Global Grassroots Leaders Climate Summit is underway this week. Dozens of grassroots leaders from around the globe will be participating in public and private sessions aimed at elevating grassroots demands heading into the G20 and UN Climate summitsthis Fall. Tell US Climate Envoy John Kerry and US climate negotiators to centergrassroots voices in these conversations. | Sierra Magazine | Can Native Leadership SaveOur Parks and Monuments? For the first time, Native Americans like Interior Secretary Deb Haaland hold key positions in power over large swathes of territory in the United States. Their leadership may offer a Photo by Jacqueline Keeler glimpse of what a new inclusive future for America could look like. Could it save the world from climate catastrophe? Could it make us onepeople genuinely tied to the land and not colonial systems of exploitation? Could it help us become one people,tied to the land, not to colonial-era systems of exploitation? Photo by AP Photo/Eric Gay | Sierra Magazine | Abandoned Oil and GasSites Are Leaking Methane Methane emissions from inactive oil and gas infrastructure are the 10th- largest source of such pollutants in the United States. Here's what it could take to fix the problem. | Sierra Club Outings | 2022 Alaska, Hawaii, andSpring Domestic Trips Looking for serious adventure—or just an opportunity to leave the house? We’ve got loads of experiences ready and waiting. Backpack, cruise, raft, and Photo by Mark Skerbinek/Eyeem/Getty Images more in Alaska and Arctic Canada. Head to Hawaii and the American Caribbean for hiking vacations, service projects, and water journeys. Or check out our many options in the Lower 48.Plus, many of our canceled 2021 trips are rebooked and ready for reservations. See all trips and sign up. Image by iStock.com/hkuchera | Sierra Club Store | Protect the Majestic GrayWolf It's Wolf Awareness Week, and we're taking this opportunity to honor the gray wolf, a keystone species in its historic habitats. We must protect and learn to co-exist with wolves—not make it easier to hunt them to near-extinction. You can help support our conservation efforts to protect gray wolves bysymbolically adopting one today. Use code GRAYWOLF and get 15 percent off. Shop now! This email was sent to: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org This email was sent by the Sierra Club 2101 Webster St., Suite 1300, Oakland, CA 94612 Manage Preferences | Unsubscribe | View as Web Page From:Arlene Goetze To:gustav larsson; alysacouncil@sunnybale.ca.gov Subject:Fw: 200,000 have D-ied from Shots Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 3:54:35 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from photowrite67@yahoo.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. More Than 200,000 Have Already Died From the COVID Jab in the US Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola Fact C Checked. October 09, 2021. If you’re under the age of 50, your risk of dying from the vaccine is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19. ---------------Subheads------------ How Many Have Died From the COVID Jabs? 212,000 excess deaths in the U.S., an estimated 300,000Americans suffered permanent disability from the COVID shots, and 2 to 5 million may have ` suffered adversereactions,Can VAERS Data Demonstrate Causality? Vaccine Program Needs To Be Halted Immediately. the VAERS data suggest more than 200,000 Americans have already died, ` and more than 2 million have been seriously injured by the vaccines. False Narratives Overview How to Calculate Excess MortalityMore Than 200,000 Have Likely Been Killed by the JabsCOVID Shot Kills Five Times More People Than It Saves Examples of Adverse Events Anecdotes and Other Data Consistent With High Death RateRate of Injury or Death Is Too Great STORY AT-A-GLANCE * So far, the CDC has not determined that any death was directly causedby the COVID shot, but that doesn’t mean the injectionshaven’t killed anyone. * Calculations using VAERS data suggest the COVID shots have resulted in 212,000 excess deaths in the U.S.* An estimated 300,000 Americans suffered permanent disability from the COVID shots, and anywhere from 2 million to 5 million may have suffered adverse reactions* If you’re under the age of 50, your risk of dying from the vaccine is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19 Dr. Peter Schirmacher, chief pathologist at the University of Heidelberg, who is recognized as one of the top 100 pathologists in the world, autopsied 40 patients who died within two weeks of theirCOVID jab, and found 30% to 40% of the deaths were conclusively due to the shot. * One top neurologist claims to have 2,000 reportable vaccine injuriesin 2021, compared to zero in the last 11 years. In all, 5% ofher existing patients now have suspected vaccine injuries, but she has only filed two VAERS reports due to the complexity of the filing * Yesterday, October 8, 2021, I published a Highwire exclusive interview with Deborah Conrad, a physician’s assistant who is blowing the whistle on COVID jab injuries, and the fact that these injuries are rarely reported because of a faulty VAERS database design. ----------------- Today you’re in for yet another bombshell video: “Vaccine Secrets:COVID Crisis.” It’s the first episode of “The False Narrative Takedown Series,” produced by Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. “Vaccine Secrets” complements and supports everything Conrad shared in her interview, so I highly recommend saving these files on your computer and watching both of them. Both are available on Bitchute. How Many Have Died From the COVID Jabs? According to Kirsch, the COVID shots have already killed an estimated 200,000 Americans, a far higher number than the 15,386 deaths reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as of September 17,2021.1 You can find all the research for Episode 1 of the “False Narrative Takedown” series on SKirsch.io/vaccine-resources.2 As noted by Kirsch, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Dr. Rochelle Walensky claims no causative link has been found for any of these deaths. She’s not lying, per se. But she’s also not telling the whole truth. So far, the CDC has not determined that any death was directly caused by the COVID shot, but that doesn’t mean the injections haven’t killed anyone. In this episode, Kirsch sets out to determine whether evidence of causality exists, and if so, what the actual death toll is likely to be. Can VAERS Data Demonstrate Causality? The big disconnect, Kirsch points out, is that the CDC insists that VAERS, as an early warning system, cannot prove (or disprove) causality. Kirsch argues that this is false. The idea that VAERS cannot show causality is part of how and why the CDC can claim none of the deaths is attributable to the COVID shot. To prove his point, Kirsch gives the following analogy: Suppose you give a two-dose vaccine. After the first dose, nothing happens, but after the second dose, people die within 24 hours of a deep vein thrombosis (DVT). When you look at the VAERS data, what you would find is no reports associated with the first dose, and a rash of deaths after the second dose, and all within the same timeframe and with the same cause of death. According to the CDC, you cannot ascribe any causality at all from that. To them, it’s just random chance that everyone died after the second dose, and from the same condition, and not the first dose or from another condition. Kirsch argues that causality CAN be identified from this kind of data. It’s very difficult to come up with another explanation for why people die exactly 24 hours after their second dose. For example, is it reasonable to assume that people with, say, undiagnosed heart conditions would die exactly 24 hours after getting a second dose of vaccine? Or that people with undiagnosed diabetes would die exactly 24 hours after their second dose? Why not after the first dose, or two months after the second dose, or any other random number of hours or days, or for other random cause of death? Why would people randomly die of the same condition at the exact same time, over and over again? Vaccine Program Needs To Be Halted Immediately According to Kirsch, the vaccination program should be immediately halted, as the VAERS data suggest more than 200,000 Americans have already died, and more than 2 million have been seriously injured by the vaccines. Interestingly enough, Kirsch and his entire family took the COVID shot early on, so he’s not coming from an “anti-vax” position. Ending the vaccinations would not spell disaster in terms of allowing COVID-19 to run rampant, as we now know there are safe and effective early treatment protocols that everyone can use, both at home and in the hospital. These treatments also work for all variants. According to Kirsch, the CDC, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the National Institutes of Health are all “spreading misinformation about the vaccine versus early treatment.” In a nutshell, these agencies are saying the complete opposite of what is true — classic Orwellian doublespeak. They claim the COVID shots are safe and effective, when the data show they’re neither, and they say there is no safe and effective early treatment, which is clearly false. At the same time, our medical freedoms are being stripped away under the guise of public health — all while an immense death toll is allowed to take place right before our eyes. Kirsch is so confident in his analyses, he’s offered a $1 million academic grant to anyone who can show his analysis is flawed by a factor of four or more. So far, no one has stepped up to claim the prize. He’s even offered $1 million to any official willing to simply have a public debate with him about the data, and none has accepted the challenge. As noted by Kirsch, “we’ve replaced debates as a way to settle scientific disagreements … with government-driven censorship and intimidation.” Medical recommendations are now also driven by the White House rather than medical experts and doctors themselves. False Narratives Overview In this episode, Kirsch goes through five false narratives about COVID jab safety, namely that: * The shots are safe and effective *.No one has died from the COVID shot * You cannot use VAERS to determine causality *The SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is harmless * Only a few adverse events are associated with the shots and they’re all “mild” He also reviews the five false narratives about what the solutions are: * Vaccines are the only way to end the pandemic * Vaccine mandates are therefore needed * Masks work * Early treatments do not work * Ivermectin is dangerous COVID Shot Kills Five Times More People Than It Saves Kirsch cites information from Dr. Peter Schirmacher, chief pathologist at the University of Heidelberg, who is recognized as one of the top 100 pathologists in the world. Schirmacher did autopsies on 40 patients who died within two weeks of their COVID jab, and found 30% to 40% of them were conclusively due to the shot, as there was no other underlying pathology that could have caused the deaths. Now, he did not rule out that 100% of the deaths could have been caused by the shots. He just could not conclusively prove it. There’s also Pfizer’s six-month study, which included 44,000 people. During the blinded period of the study, the deaths were just about even — 15 deaths in the vaccine group and 14 in the control group. So, one life was saved by the shot. But then, after the study was unblinded and controls were offered the vaccine, another three in the original vaccine group died along with two original placebo recipients who opted to get the shot. None of these deaths was considered related to the Pfizer “vaccine,” yet no one knows what they actually died from. So, the final tally ended up being 20 deaths in the vaccine group and 14 deaths in the control group. What this tells us is the Pfizer shot offers no all-cause mortality benefit. The shot saved one life, and killed six, which gives us a net-negative mortality rate. The reality is that five times more people are killed by the shot than are saved by it. How to Calculate Excess Mortality In the video, Kirsch explains how anyone can calculate the number ofCOVID shot deaths using VAERS data. What we’re looking at here is excess deaths, not background deaths of people who were going to die from a natural cause, such asold age, anyway. In summary, this is done by: * Determining the propensity to report * Determining the number of domestic deaths in the VAERS database * Determining the underreporting factor for serious events * Determining the background death rate, i.e., all deaths reported to VAERS by year * Calculating the number of excess deaths Lastly, you would validate your findings using independent methods or comparing it to what others have found. Step-by-step instructions and calculations can be found in the document called “Estimating the Number of Vaccine Deaths in America.”3 More Than 200,000 Have Likely Been Killed by the Jabs Between the documentation on his website and the video, you get a detailed in-depth understanding of how to do this and how Kirsch came to the conclusions made. Here, I will simply provide a summary rundown of Kirsch calculations and conclusions: Propensity to report = same as in previous years Number of domestic deaths in the VAERS database = 6,167 as of August 27, 2021 Under-reporting factor for serious events = 41 (i.e., for every 41events, only one is reported)Background VAERS death rate = 500 per year (this background death number will be subtracted twice, as most COVID jab recipients are receiving two doses. This gives us a very conservative estimate)Excess deaths calculation = (6,167 – 2 x 500) x 41 = 212,000 excess deaths Using the same calculation methods, Kirsch conservatively estimatesmore than 300,000 Americans have also been permanently disabled by the COVID shots. These estimates have been validated by four teams of researchers usingother methods. (None of them used VAERS data.) If you’re under the age of 50, your risk of dying from the vaccine isgreater than your chance of dying from COVID-19. Kirsch also demonstrates another calculation to show the COVID shots kill more people than the actual COVID-19 infection does. That calculation also shows that if you’re under the age of 50, your risk of dying from the vaccine is greater than your chance of dying from COVID-19, so it makes no sense from a risk-benefit perspective to get the jab if you’re younger than 50. What’s more, since your risk of natural infection exponentially decreases over time (as natural herd immunity grows, your chance of infection approximately halves each year), the risks of the COVID shot rapidly outgrow any potential benefit with each passing year. Examples of Adverse EventsKirsch has also analyzed adverse events by symptom, calculating therate at which they occur after the COVID shots compared to the average rate seen for all other vaccinecombined from 2015- to 2019 for ages 20 to 60. Here’s asampling:4 Pulmonary embolism, occurs at a rate 473 times higher than the normal incidence rate (i.e., if there was one pulmonary embolism event reported in VAERS on average for all vaccines, there were 473 events following a COVID injection)Pulmonary embolism, occurs at a rate 473 times higher than the normal incidence rate (i.e., if there was one pulmonary embolism event reported in VAERS on average for all vaccines, there were 473 events following a COVID injection)Stroke, 326 times higher Deep vein thrombosis 264.3 times higher Appendicitis 145.5 times higherParkinson's disease 55 times higherBlindness 29.1 times higher Deafness 44.7 times higher Death 58.1 times higher Interestingly, the most common cause of death in children aged 12 to17 who got the COVID shot was pulmonary embolism. This was determined by the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) afteranalyzing the deaths of 14 children. Coincidence? Or evidence of causality? Anecdotes and Other Data Consistent With High Death Rate Kirsch also cites anecdotal data that can clue us into what’s happening. One top n eurologist claims to have 2,000 reportable vaccine injuries in 2021, compared to zero in the last 11 years. In all, 5% of her existing patients now have suspected vaccine injuries. Yet this neurologist has only reported two of them, because she got so frustrated with the VAERS system. So, in this instance, the under-reporting rate is not 41, but 1,000. And she’s not alone. This is another classic real-world illustration of what the PA Deborah Conrad shared in yesterday’s article. Canadian physician Dr. Charles Hoffe has also reported that 60% of his COVID jabbed patients have elevated D-dimer levels, which is indicative of blood clotting, and levels in many cases remained elevated for up to three months. This too is evidence of causation, because your D-dimer level is a marker for blood clotting. Even if you don’t have obvious symptoms of clotting, it can indicate the presence of microclots. Hoffe discusses this in the video below. Dr. Peter McCullough has also reported that troponin levels are elevated in many vaccinated patients. Troponin is a marker for heart damage, such as when you’re having a heart attack or myocarditis (heart inflammation). A level between 1 and 4 is indicative of an acute or recent heart attack. In case of a serious heart attack, troponin can remain elevated for five days. In many patients who have received the COVID jab, the troponin level is between 35 and 50(!) and remains at that level for up to two months, which s uggests massive damage is occurring to the heart. Yet this is what they’re routinely labeling as “mild” myocarditis. There’s absolutely nothing mild about this level of heart damage. No Rate of Injury or Death Is Too Great Unbelievably, there seems to be no ceiling above which the death and disability toll is deemed too great. Why aren’t the FDA and CDC concerned about safety when more than half a million side effect reports have been filed? How come nearly 15,000 reported deaths haven’t set off emergency alarms and in-depthinvestigations? Historically, 50 deaths have been the cutoff point atwhich a vaccine is pulled. Considering the unprecedented risks of these shots, I urge you to review as much data as you can before you jump on the booster bandwagon. Based on everything I’ve seen, I believe the risk of side effects is likely going to exponentially increase with each dose. If you need a refresher on the potential mechanisms of harm, download and read Stephanie Seneff’s excellent paper,6 “Worse Than The Disease: ReviewingSome Possible Unintended Consequences of mRNA Vaccines Against COVID- 19,” published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice andResearch in collaboration with Dr. Greg Nigh. From Mercola Newsletter October 9, 2021 New post on GreatGameIndia Big Pharma New York Times Caught Peddling Fake News Of Children Hospitalized By COVID-19 by GreatGameIndia The New York Times has been caught again peddling fake news of children being hospitalized by COVID-19. Read more of this post In an article published by New York Times reporter Apoorva Mandavilli onWednesday, Times readers were told that “nearly 900,000children have been hospitalized with COVID-19 since thepandemic began A correction issued on Thursday notes that the correct number is 63,000 between August 2020 and October 2021, which means Mandavilli exaggerated the number of child hospitalizations by 837,000 cases. (NB: Please know that the NYTimes gets over millions of dollars from Big Pharma to push stories about fake shots. Forwarded by Arlene Goetze, MAl, writer/editor, NO Toxins for Children photowrite67@yahoo.com From:pennyellson12@gmail.com To:board@pausd.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Proposed use of Cubberley for alternative high school and displaced elementary school strands. Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 2:32:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Board of Education Members, This evening the board will discuss elementary bond measure projects, staff housing, Cubberley, future elementary school needs, Hoover Elementary project direction, including: 1. an alternative high school (alternative schools generate many more car trips than neighborhood schools because they draw from the entire district, so more students must travel farther). 2. use Greendell to serve as interim site for displaced strands from elementary sites that are under major construction. Some of these sites are far afield, including Escondido, whose attendance boundaries reach into the hills and will certainly put families into cars. The transportation and traffic safety implications of these changes would be significant, both for the families of the schools under construction and for families in nearby neighborhoods who use routes that abut Cubberley for their foot-powered school commutes. In reaching out to Safe Routes to School partners, I learned that none of them—neither PTA nor at the city-- knew anything at all about the idea to use Cubberley in this way. The concepts have not been reviewed by the City School Traffic Safety Committee. The city, which is responsible for public street safety, has not been included in this planning process yet. I cannot judge whether or not this is a good use for Cubberley, but the logistics of managing the traffic this will generate will be non-trivial, and PAUSD’s Safe Routes to School PTA and city partners should be involved early in the planning process. I ask that: 1. the school district partner with the city on mitigating mode shift and traffic safety impacts of any change to school facilities, per the Safe Routes to School Partnership Agreement 2. PAUSD partner with the city on planning to manage neighborhood traffic safety impacts of any changes at Cubberley. Greendell trips will certainly encourage cut-through on Nelson and Creekside and Ferne (where Ferne connects to Greendell ) and Montrose for car drop- offs/pick-ups. New traffic patterns will need to be thoughtfully managed to ensure safety for neighborhood school commuters and for the families who will be dislocated from their neighborhood school sites to Cubberley. Thank you for considering my comments. Penny Ellson Virus-free. www.avg.com Extreme heat’s deadly toll From:Rita Vrhel To:Council, City Subject:Fw: The Times’ newest investigation: Extreme heat Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:43:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello.. thank you for passing the Tree Ordinance.. wish the finish line was closer. Below is fascinating reading if you are interested. thank you Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Los Angeles Times <subscriptions@email.latimes.com>To: "ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net" <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net>Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2021, 12:02:02 PM PDTSubject: The Times’ newest investigation: Extreme heat Extreme heat is one of the deadliest consequences of global warming. But in a state that prides itself as a climate leader, California chronically undercounts the death toll and has failed to address the growing threat of heat-related illness and death, a Los Angeles Times investigation has found. Read our latest investigative series now. Heat waves are far deadlier than we think. How California neglects this climate threat California chronically undercounts the death toll from extreme heat, which disproportionately harms the poor, the elderly and others who are vulnerable. DIVE IN Climate change is supercharging California heat waves, and the state isn’t ready Key strategies that could protect the most vulnerable people and save lives, including urban cooling measures and better warning systems, remain a low priority compared with other environmental hazards such as wildfires. GET READY High As heat waves intensify, access to air conditioning can mean life or death Poor families have a far lower rate of air-conditioning units in their homes than the average family, and even when they have AC, they are reluctant to use it or get equipment fixed, because of the cost. That was the situation for the Hammonds, who lived on a fixed income. READ NOW How hot is it inside Southern California’s warehouses? Ask the workers at Rite Aid When the Rite Aid Corp. decided to build a giant warehouse to serve its Southern California stores in 1999, it chose an isolated stretch of the Mojave Desert. The land was cheap. The freeway was nearby. But during summers, the workers are boiling inside the mostly non-air-conditioned warehouse. FIND OUT We’ve made the below article free for all to access. If you’re able, we ask that you support us today for $1, so we can continue to make life-saving information available to all. How to protect yourself and your loved ones from extreme heat Californians will need to prepare themselves for temperature extremes just as they do for earthquakes and other disasters. What do you need to know about heat-related illnesses? How can you identify, treat and prevent them? We sought answers from experts who study climate change and its effects on the human body. PREPARE For more information sent straight to your inbox, sign up for Boiling Point, our free newsletter exploring climate change, energy and the environment. Otherwise, find us 24/7 at latimes.com/climate and latimes.com/investigations. Sign up for Newsletters | Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy Do Not Sell My Personal Information | CA Notice of Collection Copyright © 2021 | Los Angeles Times 2300 E. Imperial Highway, El Segundo, California, 90245 View Email in Browser 0 0 e 0 From:Nat Fisher To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:smart meters Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 1:32:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Can residents opt out of smart meters? Natalie Fisher From:Aram James To:Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Moore; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Perron, Zachary; Tannock, Julie;Enberg, Nicholas; Binder, Andrew; Reifschneider, James; Planning Commission; chuck jagoda;wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Jay Boyarsky; Greer Stone; Raj; Tony Dixon;cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Jonsen, Robert; Joe Simitian; Anna Griffin Subject:Thomas Jefferson Knocked off his Pedestal in New York council chamber Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:32:52 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://blendle.com/i/time/jefferson-knocked-off-pedestal-in-new-york-council-chamber/bnl- newyorktimes-20211019-1_3 Shared via the Google app Sent from my iPhone From:Roberta Ahlquist To:Samina Sundas; Council, City; Art Ventures Gallery; Human Relations Commission; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto Subject:Fwd: Schedule and Tickets for the 24th UNAFF LIVE! Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 12:10:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>Date: Tue, Oct 19, 2021 at 12:05 PM Subject: Fwd: Schedule and Tickets for the 24th UNAFF LIVE! This is one of the best documentary film series around the bay area. These films are powerfuland amazing. Please circulate to your documentary film friends. Ithis Thursday!Thanks, RobertaFrom: UNAFF <info@unaff.org> Date: Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 10:15 AMSubject: Schedule and Tickets for the 24th UNAFF LIVE! To: <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> 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 the AF 021 , tional umentary Film Festival 24th UNITED NATIONS ASSOCIATION FILM FESTIVAL October 21-31, 2021 • Palo Alto • East Palo Alto • San Francisco • Stanford University unaff.org globe 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 24th United Nations Association Film Festival umentary Film Festival DOCUMENTARIES THAT WILL CHANGE YOUR VIEW OF THE WORLD October 21-31, 2021 Stanford University • Palo Alto East Palo Alto • San Francisco unaff.org Unsubscribe roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu Update Profile | Constant Contact Data Notice Sent by info@unaff.org powered by Try email marketing for free today! ,;~ Constant \::!,/ Contact From:Kang, DanielleSubject:Letter from FBI (Received by Mayor)Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 10:42:01 AMAttachments:FBI Elections Letter.pdfimage001.pngimage002.png Good morning City Council, Please see the attached mail from the FBI counterintelligence task force regarding the prevention of foreign malign influence. This was received by the Mayor and has been forwarded for your reference. Thank you, Dani Danielle KangAdministrative Associate III Office of the City Clerk250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 P: 650.329.2159 | E: Danielle.Kang@CityofPaloAlto.org CITY OF PALO ALTO H:H&Hi U.S. Department of Justice Federal Bureau of Investigation San Francisco Field Office <w I? 5 ~ !!!s: ~2 __________ rn_7_! _n_r __ T_-__ fi __ A_~_-1 ....... · :_1 ___ . ___________________ _ 0 ~ '.:j LL g -·t o :c a:" cc ...J:,:: ....;:r.i:: r- iLlJ I LJ..d t-a u .._ >-C) ... i- t---~ear Wl'ayor DuBois, 450 Golden Gate Ave, 13th Floor San Francisco, California 94102 September 24, 2021 The FBI is the lead federal agency responsible for investigating foreign malign influence operations and coordinating strategies with election security counterparts. The FBl's efforts, working alongside elected officials, state/local election directors, private sector partners, and federal agencies to coordinate information sharing and implement election safeguards contributed to the "most secure [election] in American history," according to a joint statement by the U.S. Election Infrastructure Government Coordinating Council Executive Committee. However, the threats posed by hostile foreign governments endure beyond election cycles. As opposed to overt diplomatic activity, foreign malign influence efforts are subversive, undeclared, criminal, or coercive attempts to sway our government's policies, influence our electoral process, distort our country's public discourse, and undermine confidence in our democratic processes and values. You and your staff, among others, are the targets of these efforts. The People's Republic of China (PRC), in particular, does not tie its influence efforts to the election cycle. China is engaged in a broad, diverse campaign to influence U.S. communities to align the U.S. Government with Chinese policy, protect against perceived threats to China's state sovereignty, and ensure the stability of China's political system and society. FBI investigations consistently reveal the role of the San Francisco Consulate for the PRC as a platform to influence our communities' elected officials. Consular officers frequently attempt to ostracize elected officials whose rhetoric or actions diverge from China's preferences. Examples of such divergence include the protests against the PRC's mass detention of Uighurs, the PRC's suppression of free speech, or support for U.S. policy regarding Taiwan. Typically, the PRC will use a variety of methods to incentivize your compliance with Beijing's preferences, including coercive pecuniary and trade incentives or use of its leverage over companies or individuals in your jurisdiction to compel them to put pressure on you. This trend can best be countered by increased communication between the FBI and officials like yourself. To address this threat and others, my office established a Counterintelligence Task Force (CITF) to proactively share counterintelligence information and combat threats from foreign governments by combining the authorities, capabilities, and resources of federal, state, and local member agencies. The CITF is available to your office to provide threat briefings regarding foreign malign influence indicators and will intake reports of suspicious activity for follow-on investigation. Thank you for your diligence and partnership in pr ting foreign malign influence. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the threat posed by for · n mali · lue e or to report suspicious activities, contact the CITF at: SFTaskForce@fbi.gov. Craig ir Special tin Charge FBI San rancisco From:mark weiss To:Council, City Subject:First Amendment at Lytton, Cogswell or City Hall King Plaza Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:42:21 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. REGARDING FIRST AMENDMENT AND A PROPOS OF MY APPLICATION FOR PARKS AND REC COMMISSION I put on 15 concerts recently at Lytton Plaza, Cogwsell Plaza, Mitchell Park and on Cali Ave — but not at King Plaza City Hall — and we need a restart on what is the First Amendment. Briefly, myself and my neighbors and really all Americans or all peoples in America or hereabouts, Ohlone historic land, can gather where we please, say what we want and sing, dance or plug in amplifiers. Within noise limits. But we do not need permits. Leadership — which is elected council, appointed commissioners and paid staff — including public safety thank you for your service — do not grant us rights, our rights are inalienable. A permit, like at Cogswell Plaza, for Diunna Greenleaf pop up blues concert, last week, would be if I as the promoter wished to exclude my neighbor, as a modified and modern type of sharing and turns-taking. We did not need and did not get a permit. But oddly, staff and certain powerful special interests, and I am just guessing its the guy who built, owns or has office at the former GateHouse Funeral Home, said we could not use their power. Hello? We are speaking. Speak friend and enter or get the #^@% out! There was also a Christian religious worship at City Hall during the Covid chaos which does not explain why City Hall apparently does not understand "No Establishment Clause" and "separation of church and state". It was not legal for police or staff to issue a parking permit or any permit for the proselytizing for a particular religious prophet or figure. I have a tape audio and some photos of the entirety. Sincerely, Mark Weiss American, since 1964 Palo Altan, since 2004 community leader since 1976 -- Terman Junior High site council, student body president et cetera169 Bryant - I am not afraid to publish my address PS, There is something called Limited Public Forum which actually means we could limit theFirst Amendment at City Hall Plaza aka King Plaza in that once we the people designate aspecial use it can trump other uses. This was discussd apropos of protests at Lincoln Center inNew York, the Occupy movement and an opera about protest in India. It could have beenused, in my lay opinion, to thwart the White Supremacist man who kept interrupting Palo AltoPlayers at Lucie Stern a few years ago. When the Palo Alto Weekly published what I thoughtwere White Supremacist death threats against me -- "watch out for snipers, Weiss" or "theAgitator" I met with Chief Dennis Burns and Donna Grider clerk about what to do, this was during the 2014 campaign at at that time Burns said he believes the person who taunted meduring the 2009 debates at Palo Alto Art Center was the same White Supremacist Neo-Nazi and not, as I thought a drunk guy with a German accent - -he thought the German accent was aruse. From:Aram James To:chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Moore; Human Relations Commission; Council, City Subject:Department of Justice: The removal of Judge Donna Davenport from Rutherford County Tennessee. Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:32:59 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Hey, I just signed the petition "Department of Justice: The removal of Judge Donna Davenport from Rutherford County Tennessee." and wanted to see if you could help by adding your name. Our goal is to reach 35,000 signatures and we need more support. You can read more and sign the petition here: https://chng.it/NJWcdXF2gB Thanks! Aram Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Jeff Moore;Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; Joe Simitian; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org;Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Tony Dixon Subject:University of North Carolina can use affirmative action, Judge Loretta Biggs rules - The Washington Post Date:Tuesday, October 19, 2021 9:26:00 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/10/18/affirmative-action-university-of-north-carolina/ Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Joe Simitian; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org;michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; mike.wasserman@bos.sccgov.org; Sajid Khan; Jeff Rosen; Jay Boyarsky; Raj;Council, City; Jeff Moore; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Tanaka, Greg; Greer Stone Subject:Bad decisions by our Supreme Court re cop accountability -defund or reallocate cop funds now!! Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 11:24:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ And, Please Joe, no new barbaric county jail!!!’ > > https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/supreme-court-qualified-immunity-reform.amp > > > Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Tannock, Julie; Enberg, Nicholas; Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew;Jonsen, Robert; james pitkin; Planning Commission; Jeff Moore; Winter Dellenbach; Reifschneider, James; JoeSimitian; Vara Ramakrishnan; alisa mallari tu; Rebecca Eisenberg; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; ParkRecCommission; Jeff Rosen; Sajid Khan Subject:Bad decisions by our Supreme Court re cop accountability -defund or reallocate cop funds now!! Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 11:02:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/10/supreme-court-qualified-immunity-reform.amp Sent from my iPhone From:mark weiss To:Aram James; Council, City Cc:Jason Miller; Don Austin; Sadyk; Richard Jackson; Alison Cormack; Tom DuBois; Camille Townsend; Rebecca Eisenberg; Nia Taylor; Michael A. McFaul; Kristy Blackburn; Brian Evans; Ken Erlan Subject:Re: New math Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 10:51:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. If this were scored more like fantasy football the results would read: GUNN, 55Los Gatos, 49 Lynbrook, 15DAVANTE ADAMS (went to Barron but not Gunn) 2 PALY 0 (Rejected comment submitted to PAW— “new news”) Sent from my iPhone On Oct 17, 2021, at 11:50 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: And of course Akira Tana, whose all-Japanese jazz band visited Tohoku fivetimes since March, 2011 and on March 13, 2020 played my last hard ticket show,was the quarterback, of a league champion in your era…His son Ryan Tana led Serra to a League championship in hoops, though the nightI saw him play, as a Junior, he lost to St. Francis by 30 points. I just met Michael Payne, whose daughter is a PhD candidate at Stanfordeconomics— an Iowa Hawkeye drafted by NBA same year as Gunn’s KentLockhart; and at yesterday’s David Boyce-Philip Greenlief- Jonathan Bautista-Tommy Jordan show, the defending champion lady Cardinal kept galloping thruthe plaza, some sort of team building scavenger hunt exercise— I met HannahJump (Pinewood) and Haley Jones (Mitty); I even got a hug from Anna Wilsonwhose father and three uncles went to Dartmouth. Russell’s kid sister. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 17, 2021, at 11:35 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>wrote: Hi Mark,Thanks for today's concert.Good question re why Gunn's Football team apparentlyinappropriately ranked.I played football all three years at Gunn--a 165-pound guard. As I recall our first Gunn Football team was a JV team.We played at the old Buck Shaw Stadium at Santa Clara U against Bellarmine's JV squad. We scored first, thinkwe missed the extra point, jumped to a 6 point lead. Final score Bellarmine JV 42 Gunn 6. I managed toget enough playing time to letter all three years as a backup, never a full-time starter. I wouldlove to meet coach Jason Miller to talk a little history of the original Gunn FB teams.Sadly there are some ugly stories to go with the first head coach of the varsity team in1965. Aram James Gunn 1967 On Sun, Oct 17, 2021 at 10:38 PM mark weiss<earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: How are Half Moon Bay, Sacred Heart, Kings Academy with sixwins combined ranked higher than 5-2 Gunn? Why is Seaside ranked at all?Keep up the good work. Mark Weiss Gunn ‘82 Sent from my iPhone From:Aram James To:chuck jagoda Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Winter Dellenbach Subject:Dalits “The Oppressed” 200 million strong in India … but voices of resistance here in America seem week/meek…attacks on Dalits by upper caste and caste shaming occur right here in the Silicon Valley Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 10:36:46 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ FYI: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1239846 Sent from my iPhone From:Annette Glanckopf To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:Oct 18 council agenda item 13 Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 9:24:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, We can all agree that our Palo Alto tree canopy adds to the ambiance, livability, and environment of our fine city. It is incumbent on all of us to protect these valuable assets, as well as to plant more trees. With the drought, many of our trees are suffering. Unfortunately this has given some residents (and the urban forester) the rationale to remove trees, rather than provide the needed watering. Some thoughts on this item. 1) I ask you to accept the recommendations of the resident “ad-hoc” groupregarding changes to the Tree Ordinance. 2) I DO NOT recommend elevating the position of Urban Forester to Assistant Director level. Even though there are 10 FTE positions that make up the urbanforestry field staff, before any promotion, I would like to see some discussion on should there be an assistant director position, or just manager. If assistant director, then there should be an interview process to select that individual. 3) Code enforcement and fining need to be enhanced for tree removal, especially in south Palo Alto. There are many instances where large trees are removed especially in rebuilding. Reference correspondence by Lynn Chiapella to the department. 4) As far as public incentives: I would like to see a review of where street/public trees can be placed. Currently there are limits on how close to driveway and utilities. Please have staff re-think this policy. Trees with roots that go straight down, should be allowed, as opposed to other tree types that have roots that spread on the surface. Annette Glanckopf Midtown Resident From:Karen Damian To:Council, City Subject:College Terrace Library Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 6:42:56 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council members i am delighted that our little library, a valued neighborhood resource, is open now. i am wondering, however, if the hours might be expanded. The 1-5 p.m.Thursday and Friday times are great for a retired person like me. Thething is, i see no children or working folks there during the day. i am thinking Saturday hours for families and perhaps some after work hours for those employed would be a good thing. The library is a beautiful facility and it seems to me to be a shame not to have itmore fully utilized. Please consider these ideas when next you talk about the libraries in Palo Alto. Karen Damian 870 College AvenuePalo Alto, CA 94306 From:mary gallagher To:Council, City Subject:Tree Ordinance Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 4:28:53 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois and council members, Can you imagine this town without the trees? Not a pretty picture. Trees provide so many positive attributes to our health, climate, and environment and the trees need to be protected. Many decades ago our town leaders and residents had the vision, the foresight and the will to create the beautiful canopy that exists today. It has been enlarged through the years and continues to provide a wonderful, natural enhancement to our daily living. These trees need protection and your support. Please vote in favor of the ordinance that has been written with great effort and thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Mary Gallagher From:Suzanne Keehn To:Council, City Subject:Trees and Business Fees Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:34:07 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, I could not have written a better letter than Ann Balin wrote about ourtrees. I totally am in accord with her sentiments. I love when I drive around our City to see the trees, all kinds, in our neighborhoods. I am so blessed with twohuge Dedora Cedars in my back yard, plus a line of oaks between my neighbor and I. Trees, as you know, clean our air, help in the heat, preserving in spiteof the drought, they are magnificent beings. I also think it is more than time for Palo Alto to charge a business tax asso many surrounding cities do, and it doesn't seem like it is driving businesses away in other localities. It will help us keep our services, and our Utility bills down. Residence should not have to pay for it all. Sincerely, Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94306 From:Keith Ferrell To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Cc:City Mgr; Kamhi, Philip; Baird, Nathan Subject:Re: Southgate RPP question Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:11:28 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.png Ed, Philip, Nathan and City Council, In addition, according to the city's website, which is where we've been told we need to go in order to receive information on our permit program, it states, "Enforcement will continue to be paused until September 30, 2021; it will resume on October 1, 2021 in all commercial and residential parking districts. Vehicles without valid permits will receive warning notices only, but no tickets/citations through September 30, 2021." Yet, for the past few weekdays, there have been several cars parked in Southgate without permits,yet none of them received any type of notice/citation. I did notice that at some point last week there were some cars with notices. However, the websitesays that enforcement begins on October 1. So, why didn't it start on October 1? What newinformation changed those plans? I will ask again, what are the requirements of LAZ to monitor our neighborhood? Nathan Baird told me last week that "Live citations will commence soon, following the end of atwo week grace period concluding at the end of this week. Crews and staff seek to ensure thatcoverage is adequate, fair, regular, and consistent, although it is also expected that contractenforcement crews will alternate patrol routes on a regular basis to eliminate predictability." If the grace period ended last week, why no citations today? Why were we not notified that theactual enforcement period is different than what is posted on the city's website? How is anyonesupposed to know the regulations if you guys continue to change them without telling anyone? Keith On Mon, Oct 18, 2021 at 3:02 PM Keith Ferrell <ferrell.keith@gmail.com> wrote:Sending this again for comments. 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 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'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? C I TY OF PALO ALTO Please dick here to provide fce,dback on our City's services 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 we werestill 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 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 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 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:Monday, October 18, 2021 3:02:43 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage002.png Sending this again for comments. 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 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 is C I TY OF PALO ALTO Please click here to provide fec,dback on our City's services 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 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 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 we werestill 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 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 was going 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 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 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:Melanie Cross To:Council, City Subject:Tonight! Tree Protection Ordinance Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 2:34:06 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. My name is Melanie Cross and I am a long time Palo Alto resident. The global decline in biodiversity is alarming and this is being accelerated by climate change effects which is resulting in a year on year loss of trees and the canopy cover over the Bay Area. We need to accommodate housing development but not at the cost of a snow-balling effect on our climate, natural habitat and ecological support systems. As a native plant advocate for many years, I would like to see an increase in the number of native trees as Palo Alto street trees, bringing immense ecological value far into the future. 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 of acceptable 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 habitat”. Over time, this mitigation framework should allow Palo Alto to lead the region in 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. Thank you for your consideration and for taking a step forward to protect our trees and canopy. Melanie Cross From:Jeff Greenfield To:Council, City Cc:Holman, Karen (external); Winter Dellenbach; Summa, Doria; Gollinger, Peter Subject:Additional resident ad hoc committee information for Item 13 Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 2:30:59 PM Attachments:Tree Ordinance Updates 10-18-21.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Date: October 18, 2021 To: Palo Alto City CouncilFrom: Ad hoc group of residents Honorable City Council members, The resident ad hoc committee would like to thank the City Council and staff for their work on creating a healthier Palo Alto by putting forward an updated tree preservation ordinance. We recommend making the following addtional changes to the Title 8 Tree Ordinance: Section 8.10.055To address an important matter brought forward by the Sierra Club, Audobon Society, Green Foothills and Native Plant Society, a change is recommended to 8.10.055(a). You have theirletter from last Friday. We value the expertise embodied in these organizations and respectfully offer ordinance edits to reflect a higher standard of biodiversity commitment inPalo Alto. This update will maintain the goal of no net loss of canopy within 15 years while prioritizing replanting of native tree species. Section 8.10.050 and 8.10.055To address an important matter brought forward by Dave Dockter, former longtime arborist for the City of Palo Alto, a change is recommended to 8.10.050(d), along with a minorassociated change to 8.10.055(a). The staff recommendation in September 2018 made changes including the addition of Section 8.10.050 (d) to specifically address developments requiring aproject approval under Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals). In the process of doing so, two omissions were made that we recommend correcting: 1. Under 8.10.050 (d), for 18.76 developments, protected tree removal tree would only be permitted related to tree canopy coverage exceeding 25% of a buildable lot area. We recommend including removal provisions for dead, dangerous, and nuisance trees and including this as new Section 8.10.050 (d)(2). The previous removal conditionbecomes new Section 8.10.050 (d)(1). 2. Tree replacement should not be required when a tree is removed as a result of8.10.050 (d)(1) because the basis for removal is that trees occupy too high a proportion of the property. Accordingly, a change is recommended to 8.10.055 (a) tomandate tree replacement for 8.10.050 (d)(2), instead of 8.10.050 (d). The attached document includes both "redline" and "clean" text of these recommendedupdates. The yellow highlights in the redline version indicate the recommended changes. In addition, we are including the original cover letter which our ad hoc committee submitted to the Policy & Services Committee last August. Thank you for your consideration. Ad hoc committee members: Jeff Greenfield, Winter Dellenbach, Doria Summa, Karen Holman --- Comments - Policy & Services Committee 8/10/2021 agenda re: Municipal Code Title 8(Trees and Vegetation) Date: August 5, 2021 To: Policy & Services Committee From: Ad hoc group of residents Honorable City Council members, We appreciate that the Committee and City has agendized the updating of the Tree Ordinance. Palo Alto has long prized its urban canopy and is fortunate to have natural open spaces. Whether in our urban or more natural settings, trees provide a multitudeof benefits to humans as well as habitat for a wide variety of animal life. From time to time, ordinances and code need to be updated as new science comes to light and as development patterns and pressures highlight gaps or unintended consequences in current regulations and information. We view this update to theordinance as an opportunity to advance appreciation and protection of trees across the community. This ad hoc group of residents regularly monitors activities associated with our resident trees. Our goal is to help illuminate what we see as issues and potentialimprovements as you consider the Tree Ordinance update. We rely on your observations and staff’s expertise to create a positive future for Palo Alto’s living infrastructure and thus promote improved air quality, wildlife habitat, greenhouse gas reductions, beautiful spaces, enhanced property values and promotion of theCouncil’s S/CAP goals. In effort to advance these goals, we recommend: Modifications to the Tree Ordinance (Title 8)Formalizing a relationship between Urban Forestry and the Parks and RecreationCommissionElevating the urban forester position to assistant director level We hope you will consider changes to the ordinance consistent with the intention andgoals of our proposed updates for the benefit of our urban forest and local • • • community. The group would like to thank Holly Pearson - Canopy Board Member and Chair of Canopy's Advocacy Committee, Dave Dockter - member of Canopy's Advocacy Committee, Catherine Martineau - Canopy's Executive Director, and Walter Passmore - California State Urban Forester, for sharing their extensive knowledge,being available to answer questions, and for their valuable input. Ad hoc committee members: Jeff Greenfield, Winter Dellenbach, Doria Summa, Karen Holman 1 RECOMMENDED UPDATE TO 8.10.050 (d) – Removal of protected trees REDLINE VERSION (d) In the case of development requiring a project approval under Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), a protected tree shall not be removed unless determined by the urban forester, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a designated arborist and other relevant information, thatremoval of a protected tree may be permitted if: (1) retention of the tree would result in reduction of the otherwise-permissible buildableing area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible and reasonable design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree, except that no protected tree shall be removed solely to accommodate an accessory structure or accessory dwelling unit, or. (2) the tree should be removed because it is dead, dangerous or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2). In such cases, the dripline area of the removed tree, or an equivalent area on the site, shall be preserved from development of any structure. CLEAN VERSION (d) In the case of development requiring a project approval under Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), a protected tree shall not be removed unless determined by the urban forester, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a designated arborist and other relevant information, that: (1) retention of the tree would result in reduction of the otherwise-permissible buildable area of the lot by more than twenty-five percent, and there is no financially feasible and reasonable design alternative that would permit preservation of the tree, except that no protected tree shall be removed solely to accommodate an accessory structure or accessory dwelling unit, or (2) the tree should be removed because it is dead, dangerous or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2). In such cases, the dripline area of the removed tree, or an equivalent area on the site, shall be preserved from development of any structure. 2 RECOMMENDED UPDATE TO 8.10.055 (a) – Tree replacement REDLINE VERSION (a) In the event a protected tree is removed pursuant to subdivisionsSection 8.10.050 (a)(2), (b), (c), or (d)(2), or (e), the tree removed shall be replaced in accordance with the standards in the Landscape and Tree and Landscape Technical Manual and such replacements shall prioiritize the use of native trees, with a secondary goal of result in no net loss or increase of tree canopy within 15 years where both may be feasible and consistent with Urban Forest Master Plan Goal 2: Re-generated native woodland and riparian landscapes as the key ecological basis of the urban forest with focus on native species and habitat. Utilizing right tree in the right place principles, preferred replacement trees are locally native species, as listed in Section 8.10.020 (j)(1). CLEAN VERSION (a) In the event a protected tree is removed pursuant to Section 8.10.050 (a)(2), (b), (c), (d)(2), or (e), the tree removed shall be replaced in accordance with the standards in the Tree and Landscape Technical Manual and such replacements shall prioiritize the use of native trees, with a secondary goal of no net loss of tree canopy within 15 years where both may be feasible and consistent with Urban Forest Master Plan Goal 2: Re- generated native woodland and riparian landscapes as the key ecological basis of the urban forest with focus on native species and habitat. Utilizing right tree in the right place principles, preferred replacement trees are locally native species, as listed in Section 8.10.020 (j)(1). From:Kim To:Council, City Subject:10/18/2021 agenda item 13 my public comment Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 2:03:19 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto Council Members, My name is Kimberly Lemmer and I am a Palo Alto resident. I support the Tree Protection Ordinance as recommended by the Policy and ServicesCommittee, and ask Council to improve these recommendations by providing a list ofacceptable replacement tree species, primarily native trees, that support biodiversity andprevent 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 habitat”. Thank you for your consideration and for taking a step forward to protect our trees and canopy. Regards,Kimberly Lemmer2282 Amherst StPalo Alto CA 94306 From:Susan Rosenberg To:Council, City Cc:Martineau, Catherine Subject:City Council 10/18/21, Item #13 Tree Protection Ordinance Update Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 1:50:23 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and Council Members, Recommendations made by the Policy and Services Committee* on updates to Title 8 of the Tree Protection sectionof the Municipal Code go a long way in clarifying and strengthening the intent of the ordinance. I support the adoption of these changes and encourage you to do the same. Susan Rosenberg •With input from Canopy and the ad hoc group. From:YORIKO KISHIMOTO To:Council, City Subject:Item 13: Updates to Title 8 of Municipal Code (Tree Protection) Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 1:45:58 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Dubois and Honorable City Council members: I am pleased to see Item 13 on tonight’s agenda, 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. As some of you may remember, I was the co-organizer of a symposium last year, Green Streets for Sustainable Communities. Despite the pandemic, the symposium attracted many hundreds of city transportation and public works planners and community advocates including from the city of Palo Alto - thank you. Our vision is that “green streets" provide a major key to making our urban areas sustainable. Trees, especially native trees, provide critical natural habitats for biodiversity, shade for pedestrians and bicyclists in a time of global warming, improve the hydrology, soils and microclimates of our region, and provide many other irreplaceable natural benefits to our region. At a time of rapid climate change, they are our life boats! I support the recommendations of the Policy and Services Committee. There are some minor edits or clarifications which could be made and I understand there may be adjustments made in the future since trees are such a major part of the city. Timely adoption will ensure that Palo Alto’s trees - which we should understand to be major, value-creating infrastructure - will continue to be protected as the pressure to remove them will only grow. In short, our tree canopy is truly the resilient “foundation” that will keep our city sustainable as it grows and changes into the future. Please adopt the Policy and Services Recommendations. Thank you for your consideration. Yoriko Kishimoto Former Mayor of Palo Alto Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Director (Ward 2) From:Patricia Campbell To:Council, City Date:Monday, October 18, 2021 1:28:20 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, My name is Patricia Campbell and I am a Palo Alto resident. We have lived in five different houses here and each one has had a non-native street tree. The global decline in biodiversity is alarming and there are things we can do right here in Palo Alto to help support our ecosystem. As a native plant advocate for many years, I wouldlike to see an increase in the number of native trees as Palo Alto street trees, bringingimmense ecological value far into the future. 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 of acceptable 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 urbanforest with focus on native species and habitat”. Over time, this mitigation framework should allow Palo Alto to lead the region in 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 ClimateAction Plan. Thank you for your consideration and for taking a step forward to protect our trees and canopy. Patricia Campbell From:matt sorgenfrei To:Council, City Subject:oppose 21PLN-00212 for 1033 Amarillo Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 12:08:16 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sorgenfrei.matt@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I own 1041 Amarillo and have been a full time resident in this home for over thirty years. I strongly oppose Proposal 21PLN-00212 for 1033 Amarillo Avenue. Traffic and parking are already an issue for this block of Amarillo. I have three major points of concern: 1. Impact by neighborhood activity 2. Traffic on Amarillo 3. Number of cars per residence Details about my points of concern are below. Thank you Matt Sorgenfrei Impact by neighborhood activity Amarillo Avenue is basically three blocks long. At one end is a large park, at the other end is an elementary school that is part of the Palo Alto Unified School District. On a typical Thursday Night/Friday Morning, the streets are so full of parking I am unable to set my bins out for collection without totally blocking my driveway. Most residents set their bins out Thursday afternoon just to have the space available. When there are activities at the park, especially soccer tournaments, my driveway is often blocked. The elementary school has it's own intense traffic pattern. Many parents park and walk their kids into the school, especially if there are any activities at the school. Out of city guests that visit me at my home frequently comment how difficult it is to find parking near to my house, especially if one guest has already used my driveway for parking. Traffic on Amarillo Most of us in the neighborhood need to park in our driveways with the hood of the car facing out. There are many pedestrians and children on bikes taking advantage of the park. Within our three block avenue, there is a very large apartment complex. Years ago there were not as many families living in the apartments and that has changed. There are more children riding bikes to school than I have seen in my years here. Given the parking on the street and all the bike traffic, it is already tricky to safely get out of the driveway and onto Amarillo. During commute hours this is impacted by buses and automobiles using Amarillo instead of Oregon Expressway. And we still have issues with cars speeding to and from the park. Amarillo was also suppose to be a bike boulevard. However the modifications were stopped, the roundabout abandoned and the additional safety for bicyclists were not completed. Amarillo is still shown as the recommended East to West bicycle boulevard, but given the traffic and parking it is a hazardous route for bicyclists. Number of cars per residence Over the past five years, I see that residences have at least one car per driver. Typically two cars are in the driveways and two cars are parked on the street. There is a multiple dwelling at 1065 Amarillo Avenue with more than one car per occupant. This block of Amarillo has flag lots that do require parking on the street. Adding eight dwelling units will add to the intensity of lack of street parking in the middle of the Amarillo corridor. The nearest public transportation is at the end of Amarillo on Louis and I can not recall the last time I've seen anyone waiting for the bus along the Louis stretch. From:Bradley Stribling To:Council, City Subject:Opposition to Proposal 21PLN-00212 for 1033 Amarillo Ave. Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 1:54:59 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from brad_stribling@msn.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I am the owner of 1039 Amarillo Avenue in Palo Alto, and have been for about fifty years. I’m writing to you in opposition to the Proposal 21PLN-00212 for the redevelopment of my neighboring lot at 1033 Amarillo. The plan calls for the construction of four residential units plus four additional ADUs. A reasonable estimate of the number of vehicles for use by the occupants of those dwellings would be approximately twelve. This is unduly burdensome on the local community. At present, available street parking on that stretch of road is frequently zero. Often there are cars blocking my driveway entrance, and even parked in my driveway. This is unacceptable at this time, and significantly adding to the vehicular load next door compounds the problem enormously. This street of only a few blocks, bounded by a community park at one end and an elementary school at the other, is becoming choked and adding to this becomes a hazard and safety issue. I strenuously oppose this concept… and unless the develolper’s plans provide for on-site parking for twelve vehicles it is blatantly irresponsible. Sincerely, Brad Stribling From:Sheri Furman To:Council, City Cc:Glanckopf, Annette Subject:Oct 25 Agenda Item 1 Date:Wednesday, October 20, 2021 10:35:43 PM Attachments:1033 Amarillo Letter.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see out attached letter regarding the 1033 Amarillo prescreening. Thank you, Sheri Furman From:Mehrzad To:Council, City Subject:1033 Amarillo Avenue (21PLN-00212) Date:Friday, October 22, 2021 8:23:41 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from mehrzadrasti@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council Members, Please do not re-zone this area to hold so many tenants on one property at 1033 Amarillo Ave. The main problem with expanding the square footage of the above property to 20,787.00 SF is the heavy congestion and traffic in this already-congested section of Amarillo Ave, resulting in safety issues and consequently devaluation of the neighboring homes. Several of the properties on the North Side of Amarillo have historically been rentals, so we have seen the trend over the past 35 years, and can predict the occupancy of the properties that are proposed. The most troubling trend is that the four proposed larger properties (with additional 4 ADUs) will be occupied by unrelated tenants, meaning college friends, coworkers, etc. Most of them will be adults with cars. As the places are small now, there are already at least 2 cars per building. This means that the future larger buildings (for example 3 BR) might likely hold 4-6 adult tenants, with 4-6 cars, and the smaller buildings with 2 tenants, and 2 cars. That means the amount of parking with be 2-4 times the amount of the current tenants. Currently 8-12 cars, and most likely, with the new construction: 24-32 cars. This amount of cars would occupy both sides of the street from Greer Road all the way down the block next to Greer park, leaving no space for the existing homeowners. The proposed plans show that the access road is about the same as the current access road/driveway. In either plan there are only two parking spaces for each parcel, and either plan shows 4 total number of ADUs. Each ADU is proposed to be 2 BR. It seems that 2 parking spaces per parcel would not even be enough for the tenants of the ADUs. Please do not assume that the future new tenants would not have/afford cars, and use only public transportation or bikes. That is not a valid assumption in our neighborhood, as your city/county transportation records and surveys will show. In fact, a count would show you that there is actually MORE than ONE VEHICLE per adult driver in our neighborhood. Sincerely, Mehrzad Rasti 1038 Amarillo Ave., Palo Alto From:Cynthia W To:Council, City Subject:1033 Amarillo Avenue (21PLN-00212) Date:Saturday, October 23, 2021 10:35:16 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cindyjwebber7@gmail.com.Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council members, I am writing to the Palo Alto City Council to protest the construction at 1033 Amarillo Avenue (21PLN-00212). I propose that the land be divided into only three parcels, and that each residence have only 3BR maximum, with land around each building. I have lived at 1038 Amarillo Avenue for 35 years, and have raised two children here. I do not want to see our investment deteriorate because of the proposed land division with so much of the site covered. Since we moved here in 1986, the properties at 1033 Amarillo Avenue have always been rental properties, generally with an adult couple or a young family. Often the tenants were there for at least a few years. It gave them some connection to the good of the neighborhood. However, the way the plans are drawn will not be a continuation of that family-oriented residence. Instead, it is geared toward rentals that will draw larger groups of adults. There are two reasons for saying so: The first reason is that the proposal currently maximizes the structure on each site, with no real area for families and children to spend time in a yard/play area. Secondly, although the plans indicate that the driveways would be in the same place as the current driveway, the height of the buildings and their proximity to the driveways make it a very unwieldy place for kids to bike or play because the lack of visibility for the kids due to the fences/shrubs that are proposed to create a border between the buildings that face Amarillo and the proposed driveway. So, this would not be a place that would be appealing to families, but would be ok as a rental for single adults like college students, coworkers, etc. While we welcome people in all stages of life, our neighbors and I object to the number of cars they will bring. Each large residence is slated to have 3 BR and 2BR in its ADU. Going from four places with 2 BR currently to four places with 5 BR will likely bring more than double the number cars parking on the street. Since the proposed lot size is so small, a more reasonable plan is to make only three of the 3BR residences allowing more land/yard around each one, and drop the plan for the ADU’s. Even this plan would probably bring more cars to the street, but far fewer than the current proposal. Thank-you for considering this request. Regards, Cynthia Webber 1038 Amarillo Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:Cara Silver To:Council, City Cc:slongstreth@gmail.com Subject:Reject Item 1 on October 25 Agenda Date:Sunday, October 24, 2021 3:34:41 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from carasilver1@gmail.com. Learnwhy this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor and Council Members: We are reaching out as homeowners who live on Amarillo Avenue, not far from 1033 Amarillo Avenue, the subject of Item 1 on the Council’s October 25 agenda. Item 1 proposes to tear down the four existing rental units at 1033 Amarillo (Attachment A), split the existing lot into four parcels, and build four large ownership homes (each with an ADU) on the four new parcels. No onsite BMRs or tenant protections are proposed. As is the trend, the new ADUs and/or JADUs will likely sit empty or ultimately house extended household members, with no guarantee they will be offered to the displaced renters or other qualifying low income tenants. (As an aside, we strongly support intergenerational housing. However, in the face of our current housing crisis, we think large, multi-story houses are well suited to accommodate inter-generational housing and Palo Alto has many, many of these housing options currently available.) Obviously, we have an affordable housing shortage in Palo Alto. Recently, market forces are also creating a moderate income shortage as older housing stock is being removed and converted. This older housing stock largely operates as rentals for households who are simply not able to purchase a home in town. It also houses seniors who want to stay connected to the community and who cannot afford the high cost of assisted living. Midtown is one of the few communities in Palo Alto where working class, middle income, fixed income and wealthy households live side-by-side. Preserving older housing stock, particularly multi-family units, is the simplest and most efficient way to retain affordable housing as well as an economically and culturally diverse population, something Palo Alto has long honored. We strongly urge the Council to reject Item 1 for the following reasons: Cultural diversity. The Amarillo cottage cluster has long been the home of multiple families. Prior to the April 2021 sale of the property, the cottage clusters were filled with children riding their small bicycles along the communal blacktop, potted plants • cheerfully hanging from the patio roofs, and kids’ toys sprinkled on the grassy common area. When walking by, we would hear people speaking Spanish, adding cultural depth to our street. Through observing the young families interact in the large communal area, this site holds a special place in our hearts. Sadly, there are fewer and fewer opportunities in Palo Alto to experience cultural diversity. Overabundance of oversized houses. In the past few years, developers have been gobbling up older single story housing stock in less expensive Midtown and converting it to oversized new homes selling for $4 Million plus. (See Attachment B just one block from the cottages.) There are plenty of options for households looking for a large, newly built house in midtown. This is not the type of housing stock needed in our community and it does not create the density contemplated in our recent RHNA allocation.. Historic structure. The Amarillo cottage cluster was built in 1947 and has been an integral part of our street for almost 75 years. As the staff report indicates, it is one of the last rental cottage clusters in town. An historic analysis should be conducted and all efforts made to preserve this unique housing option. Preservation of rental units. Our current Housing Element and recently updated Land Use plan acknowledge the importance of preserving existing rental and cottage cluster housing stock as a desirable way to preserve affordable housing and create diversity. The first goal of our Housing Element emphasizes the benefits of preserving unique aspects of existing neighborhoods. The Housing Element discourages the removal of rental housing and encourages “the preservation of existing rental cottages and duplexes currently located in the R-1 and R-2 residential areas.” (Program H1.1.3) It especially encourages the preservation of multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods (Policy H1.2). Likewise, the Land Use Element emphasizes the need to retain affordable housing in existing neighborhoods as a way to foster inclusivity and diversity. Thus, Policy L-2.7 directs the city to retain housing that is more affordable in existing neighborhoods, including a range of smaller housing types. Policy L-3.3 recognizes the contribution of cottage cluster housing to the character of Palo Alto and directs the city to retain it. Avoid displacement or tenants. The Land Use Element cautions against promoting infill redevelopment that will displace existing residents. (Policy L-2.8.) Most importantly, when a loss of rental housing occurs due to subdivision or condominium conversion approvals, the project shall require 25 percent BMR units. (Program H1.2.1 and H3.1.2 ) • • • • • State housing laws. The new State housing laws also recognize the importance of avoiding displacement and the increasing harm of market gentrification. Thus SB 9 is not available to projects requiring the displacement of tenants. And the new housing laws which permit displacement, typically require the developer to replace ALL of the displaced units and offer them back to the displaced tenants at an affordable rental rate (see e.g. SB 330; density bonus laws). As you know this rezoning request is discretionary and we urge you to reject it. Thank you for your consideration. Kind regards, Cara Silver, 925 Amarillo Avenue Sarah Longstreth, 979 Amarillo Avenue From:Ted O"Hanlon To:Council, City Subject:1033 Amarillo Pre-Screening: R-1 Subdivisions & Gentle Density Date:Monday, October 25, 2021 9:50:01 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Greetings Council Members: In April 2021, the City Council considered a property owner request and approved the subdivision of a >20,000 square foot R-1 lot into two >10,000 square foot lots. Since theproposed lots were >9,999 square feet, thus considered non-conforming, the application required review and approval by both the Planning & Transportation Committee (PTC) andCity Council. During PTC's review of the project, dialogue included observations of the City's Comprehensive Plan policies to both retain and create cottage clusters as well as technicalissues such as flag lots limiting subdivisions into smaller lot formations and perhaps different outcomes than those proposed by the applicant. Tonight, a Project Pre-Screening will seek guidance on subdividing a 20,787 square foot R-1lot into 4 lots of approximately 5,000 square feet each. The result would be smaller format, detached single family homes plus ADU's on each for a total of 8 dwelling units. The StaffReport observes several zoning compliance issues including flag lots and use of an easement for ingress/egress. The application also includes how the property might subdivide into two R-1 lots or fewer and larger homes that including allowable ADUs and Junior ADUs would create 6 total dwelling units. The subject property currently has 4 detached rental homes of about 900 square feet eachrented for approximately $4,000 per month. As proposed, the rental units could be replaced by the 4 ADU's which as drawn are 2 ADU's of 484 square feet with 1 bed/1 bath and 2 ADU's of799 square feet with 2 beds/2 baths. These would be delivered with 4 single family homes that might be 3 beds/2 baths with the ADUs attached to the primary home. A suggestion of the Staff Report would be implementing a combining district, which parallelsa discussion that the PTC had when reviewing the subdivision that City Council approved in April 2021. Frequently property owner proposed projects motivate the implementation ofguidelines that might be reusable within a jurisdiction. With 15% of R-1 property in Palo Alto being greater than 10,000 square feet, more opportunities would exist to create differentiatedhousing in Palo Alto over time. By creating parameters for "gentle density" subdivisions, property owners would possess more alternatives to create more new housing units. Sincenearly 1 in 5 Palo Alto R-1 properties are less than the conforming size of 6,000 square feet, smaller lot configurations are quite common and present an excellent opportunity for housingunit creation. Many thanks in advance for your consideration of the application. We look forward to and appreciate City Council's guidance on how we should proceed in further steps on this housingunit creation opportunity. Best Regards Ted O'HanlonConsulting Project Executive --- Ted O'Hanlontedohanlon@gmail.com 415.317.5070 mobile/text CA DRE #01868277