Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210405plCC701-32 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: 04/05/ 202 1 Document dates: 03/10/2021 – 03/24/2021 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 4:49 PM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Stump, Molly; Jeff Moore; Rosen, Jeff; Richard Konda; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Jonsen, Robert; Cecilia Taylor; city.council@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; GRP-City Council; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; O'Neal, Molly; Anna Griffin; EPA Today; Raj Jayadev; cromero@cityofepa.org; Patrice Ventresca; Lewis james; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Alison Cormack; Palo Alto Free Press; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Winter Dellenbach; Tanner, Rachael; chuck jagoda; Dennis Upton; Sunita de Tourreil; Joe Simitian; james pitkin; Michele; Shikada, Ed; Angel, David Subject:Re Item # 1 on March 15, 2021 Palo Alto City Council agenda: PAPD canine attack CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Re Item # 1 on March 15, 2021 Palo Alto City Council agenda: Conference with City Attorney re liability claim against the city for alleged vicious dog/canine attack by Palo Alto Police Department’s canine unit. Date of incident: June 25, 2020. Note: Members of the public, at, or prior to 5 pm, can speak on this item for up to three minutes each. (Closed session scheduled from 5:00-6:30) 3/10/21 Dear City council members: I see you will be in a conference with the city attorney from 5- 6:30 pm, at the March 15, 2021 city council meeting regarding the alleged vicious PAPD canine attack on an innocent Mt. View resident, Mr. Joel Domingo Alejo. As I understand the initial claim filed with the city in the amount of $20 million dollars. Depending on the extent of the injuries, the trauma of Mr. Alejo’s experience, the age of the victim, the callousness of the officer(s) involved in the attack, prior misconduct claims against the officer(s) and the particular canine used in this attack, one, as an example, with a reputation for inflicting particularly serious wounds in the past, then a $20 million dollar settlement may in fact be a 2 reasonable settlement when compared with what a civil jury may reward after a jury trial. These and other factors should all be considered in reaching a fair settlement short of a jury trial. If video footage, body worn camera footage, is available, the council should watch the footage and consider how this potential evidence might impact a potential juror in the civil matter If no video footage is available you might want to ask the police chief and city attorney where the footage is. Why can’t we see it as part of the settlement conference? In considering the claim I suggest you read at least the two articles I sent to council back on February 21, 2021: When Police Violence Is A Dog Bite (see link below/article dated 10/2/2020. This article gives a harrowing perspective of how pervasive the problem of police canine attacks, often resulting in serious injuries and even death, are in this country. Sadly, as is the case in other forms of police violence, police sponsored canine attacks are disproportionately used against African Americans and other people of color. See also (linked below) The City Where Police Unleash Dogs On Black Teens (In Baton Rouge, police dogs bit a teenager 17 or younger every three weeks, on average) is an equally disturbing read. Aram James P.S. As you can see I filed a California Public Records Act re Palo Alto’s current canine unit back on February 21, 2021. I have been working with the city on this matter. Given the volume of materials I asked for, the city extended the day for compliance until March 18, 2021. I hope to have something to report back to the community and city council subsequent to that date. 2/21/21 CPRA request and cover letter re the current status of the Palo Alto Police Department’s Canine unit. Dear City Council members, members of the Palo Alto Community, and the local press: 3 I am very concerned that as a community we are not as fully informed regarding the current status of the PAPD canine unit, as we should be. I’m requesting that we all do our part to obtain a full picture of the risks these canines potentially pose to the health and safety of community members attacked by these vicious dogs. My most recent concern was raised after reading a Daily Post piece, Jan, 28, 2021, “Police dog attacks innocent man,” an incident where a Palo Alto police dog was released on an innocent Mt. View resident, Mr. Joel Domingo Alejo, who subsequently filed a $20 million claim against the city of Palo Alto for injuries suffered in the attack. In addition, I have attached two recent articles, see links below, that suggest the weaponization of police dogs targeting particularly African Americans is an under recognized form of police terror and brutality resulting in life threatening injuries, life changing injuries and even death. The first article: When Police Violence Is a Dog Bite (First published on 10/2/2020) gives a harrowing perspective on the fact that police dogs bite thousands of Americans every year and that few ever obtain justice. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/02/when-police-violence-is-a-dog- bite?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share-tools&utm_source=email&utm_content=post-top The second piece, published Feb 12, 2021 is titled: The City Where Police Unleash Dogs On Black Teens (In Baton Rouge, police dogs bit a teenager 17 or younger every three weeks, on average) is an equally disturbing must read. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/02/12/the-city-where-police-unleash-dogs-on- black-teens?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share-tools&utm_source=email&utm_content=post- top In addition I have attached the Palo Alto City Manager report from 2005 titled: REVIEW OF THE POLICE CANINE PROGRAM -- a report that was responsive to a CPDA request 1 filed on 9/5/2004 to then Palo Alto Police Chief Lynne Johnson. Said CPRA request is available should you wish to read it. Here is the link to a 2005 CMR, Palo Alto city manager report, providing a detailed review of the Palo Alto Canine Unit, as it existed in 2005. The report looks at a 36- month time frame and also breaks down the 13 dog bites, reported during the 36-month time frame in question, based on race. Of the 13 bites, analyzed, four involved whites, five involved African-Americans, three involved Hispanics and one involved a Pacific Islander. (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/cmrs/4091.pdf ) Conclusion During the course of 2020 and now in 2021 there have been discussions by the Palo Alto City Council regarding expanding the scope of the duties of the Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor. According to the CMR (City Manager Report) REVIEW OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S CANINE PROGRAM, dated January 10, 2005, CMR: 113:05, the Palo Alto canine program was developed in 1982, nearly forty years ago. During this time frame, our Independent Police Auditor (established 2006) has to my knowledge, never reviewed complaints filed by community members, regarding allegations of use of excessive force by the PAPD canine team. It is my understanding that the canine unit is primarily used during nighttime shifts under cover of darkness and most often outside of public view. Given the current national epidemic of the thousands of Americans bitten by police dogs every year it is past time Palo Alto considers adding review of dog bite incidents, perpetrated by our canine unit, to the list of police complaints reviewed by our police auditor. Sincerely, Aram James 4 California Public Records Act Request Re: Palo Alto Police Department’s Canine Unit (filed Feb 20, 2021) 1. Any and all City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Police Department documents and related information re the numbers of police dogs currently in the PAPD canine unit. 2. Any and all documents related to the purchase, training, and cost of maintaining the current canine unit. 3. Any and all documents and related information re the annual cost of maintaining the Palo Alto’s Canine unit. (The total annual canine budget for the Palo Alto Police Department) 4. Any and all documents re the number of times the canine unit has deployed their dogs during the last 36 months against a person. (# of times the canines have been deployed as a weapon as a opposed to the use of the canine in a search and rescue mission.) 5. Any and all documents reflecting the race of those who were attacked by dogs in the PAPD canine unit- during the last 36 months —from today’s date back 36 months. 6. While redacting the name of the individuals for privacy purposes —the number of individuals injured by the canine unit and the extent of said injuries...and all related documents redacted for privacy concerns. Including photos of the injuries. 7. Access to viewing all body worn camera footage of canine attacks going back 36 months. 8. A list of all complaints and lawsuits growing out of attacks by dogs on the canine unit going back 36 months from receipt of this CPRA request. 9. Any and all documents, name and type of artificial teeth, —and the material used to create these artificial teeth, that are made for each dog. For example teeth made of titanium. 10. Any and all documents, and related information, regarding the vendor used by the PAPD to make teeth for each canine on the team. 11. Any and all documents, or related information, re the annual budget to pay for replacement of artificial teeth for the canine unit? Food budget? Medical budget? 12. All documents and information re the certification process each dog member of the canine unit must go through. 13. Documentation or related information re whether the necessary documentation/certification for each canine is current. 14. The name of each officer assigned to the canine unit. 5 15. Any and all documents related to the training officers must undergo to qualify for membership to the canine unit. 16. Any and all documents and related information re the certification process members of the canine unit (police officers) must undergo to qualify for the unit. 17. Any and all current information and documentation related to re whether each police officer currently assigned to the canine unit has up to date certification? Is not currently certified? 18. Any and all documentation re the number of times a non police officer who has been bitten/attacked by a Palo Alto police dog has been required to obtain medical treatment during the last 36 months. Dating back 36 months from receipt of this request. 19. Number of times the victim of a Palo Alto Police dog bite or attack has been required to be hospitalized. Time frame going back 36 months from the receipt of this CPRA request. 20. Area or areas of the city of Palo Alto where police have released their canines most frequently. 21. Any and all information and documentation re the frequency (the number of times) the Palo Alto Police use their canine unit to assist the East Palo Alto Police during the last 36 months? 22. To assist the Mountain View Police Department during the last 36 months? 23. The Menlo Park Police Department during the last 36 months? 24. To assist the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office? 25. The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office? 26. Monies spent on training either a police officer member of the canine unit or a dog member of the unit for out of the Palo Alto training? 27. Any and all emails, memos, written policies, and other documentation re the need to use the canine to keep or intimidate residents of East Palo Alto from traveling to Palo Alto. (last 36 months) 28. Any and all text messages (or similar electronic communications) between members of the canine unit and other members of the Palo Alto Police department, or other local law enforcement agencies reflecting racial bias, towards African Americans or other racial minorities. (Last 36 months). 28. Name of the canine supervisor and length of time that officer has occupied that role. 29. The name of the canine team manager and the length of time that officer has held this position. 30. Any and all documents or information re the number of times victims of canine bits, by the PAPD canine unit, have been transported to the Stanford Hospital or any other local hospital facility for injuries. (Last 36 months) 6 31. Cost of all hospital visits for canine bits inflicted by the PAPD canine unit (last 36 months) 32. Any additional documents and information re the canine unit I have not specifically asked for but that are relevant to my current CPDA request for the current status of the PAPD canine unit. 33. Current Palo Alto Police Department policy or policies regarding the function, structure, and deployment of canines etc. 34. Name of the current computer system, i.e., Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) used to track all activity of the Palo Alto Police Department Canine Unit? 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Roger McCarthy <rlmccar@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 8:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Approval of Castilleja School Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members: My name is Roger McCarthy and I live a few blocks from Castilleja School at 650 Waverley Street, my house for the last 20 years. I have had no connection to Castilleja, past or present. I have never set foot in the place. As simply a very concerned Palo Alto resident I strongly feel that it is time to approve this project. In fact, it is well beyond time. If these poor Castilleja folks weren’t so dedicated, they would have given up a long time ago. Our national largely coeducational system has been failing to educate our young female secondary school students for STEM careers at a staggering scale for generations. The product of this national disgrace is found everywhere in our society. Just 16.5% of our engineers are women.[1] Just 24% of our computing jobs are held by women, and that percentage is expected SHRINK to 22% by 2025.[2] Our national proportion of women doctors, only 36%, is pathetic and embarrassing compared to virtually EVERY industrialized country in the world.[3] And our slow progress to cure this problem is equally embarrassing, as the chart below illustrates. How sad that we have to look to the misogynistic cultures of Asia to find countries worse than us? Why does virtually the ENTIRE WESTERN WORLD do better? Can we say with a straight face that US women are less interested in the healthcare field when 90% of our nurses are women!!? Despite the intelligence and talent, we extoll in Silicon Valley, we are a sorry copy of our national failure. The valley is dominated by men—from entry-level positions to the highest leadership roles. I have worked my entire career in the tech industry and have recently been the Membership Committee Chair of the National Academy of Engineering. In that role, I had to struggle with our nation’s huge gender imbalance at the national level. So what are you going to do? Wait for someone else to solve this problem? Again???? We can’t cure the nation’s shortcomings, but we can certainly begin to address our own. Palo Alto has an incredible opportunity to address this problem. We desperately need women in Engineering and Technology to make our products, our culture, and our world better. And we need to STOP talking about the problem and START doing something about it. A key part of our national solution to this problem is the all-girls school. 2 Study after study proves that graduates from all-girls schools are more SIX times more likely to pursue careers in STEM[4], and THREE TIMES more likely to pursue a career in engineering[5]. We have the SECOND BEST all-girls school in the entire NATION[6], and the only nonsectarian one in California, right down my street. Co-ed schools will not solve our huge existing STEM gender imbalance, which stands in mute testimony to their long-term ineffectiveness. Our huge gender imbalance is NOT going to improve without change, and what are doing now in our nation, including in Palo Alto is not enough. We need to do MORE. We need to do MORE NOW. This problem is NOT going to solve itself. We need to allow Castilleja to admit more girls now because we can’t sit back and wait for change. We have to make choices to actively promote change. We certainly can’t wait for the red states to do it. And we simply can’t allow NIMBY to obstruct the futures of our daughters. You have a chance to make a difference here. The world needs girls and young women to see themselves as computer programmers, scientists, and engineers. You know we are facing steep challenges. We need all the nation’s talents! We need all of the brightest, most creative, most resilient, and most insightful people in the room. Many of those people are women. You are the people who can open this door to more girls in STEM. It is well beyond time. Solving the gender imbalance in tech is far more important to all of us than heritage tree roots and traffic. Dr. Roger L. McCarthy [1] https://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm (accessed 3 March 2021) [2] https://qz.com/814017/the-percentage-of-computing-jobs-in-the-us-held-by-women-is-expected-to-shrink/ (accessed 3 March 2021) [3] https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/87e18004- en.pdf?expires=1614833795&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=124770FD52E5815AFC8EFBDB563661CF (accessed 3 March 2021) [4] https://www.heri.ucla.edu/PDFs/Sax_FINAL%20REPORT_Sing_1F02B4.pdf (accessed 3 March 2021) [5] https://www.ncgs.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/The-Girls%E2%80%99-School-Experience-A-Survey-of-Young- Alumnae-of-Single-Sex-Schools-1.pdf (accessed 3 March 2021) [6] https://www.niche.com/k12/search/best-all-girls-high-schools/ (accessed 3 March 2021) 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Gallagher <marygallagher88@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:52 AM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council members,    Please take the following matters into consideration as you review the request for Castilleja to renovate the campus and  expand enrollment.    Castilleja has built a sterling reputation for educating women. And that reputation will continue regardless of where the  school is physically located and whether or not the school decides to relocate to a larger more conducive site outside of  Palo Alto    You'll be hard pressed to find folks who don't believe in supporting women's education at any level. The Castilleja pr  campaign claiming that this project is all about educating women is a false canard. The issue is land use and complying  with the law. And please, refrain from calling an underground garage a basement.    Over the past years there seem to have been multiple exceptions granted to Castilleja favoring their application. As the  current council you have an opportunity to right this ship and ensure that all requirements and ordinances are enforced  fairly with all constituencies throughout this town. Transparency is ever important to every single person and project in  this town.    As a longtime neighbor of Castilleja I'd like to use a visual aid.  Imagine a size five shoe. Now imagine a size ten foot. Trying to fit this oversized project into a limited parcel of land  while increasing enrollment in an R1 neighborhood is pure folly.    Sincerely,    Mary Gallagher    4 Baumb, Nelly From:Lisa Van Dusen <lvandusen@mac.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:My remarks re the Castilleja Project at the 3/8/21 Palo Alto City Council Meeting 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,     Below are the remarks I delivered on Monday evening, March 8th at the Palo Alto City Council meeting regarding the Castilleja project. Thank you for your consideration as you make a decision on this project.     With best regards,     Lisa     Lisa Van Dusen  lvandusen@mac.com  Greenwood Avenue, Palo Alto    ####      Good evening, Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt and Council Members. Thank you for your time and attention to this topic tonight.    I am speaking to you this evening as an individual; and am not representing any organizations with whom I am affiliated.     I am pleased that at long last, this project has come before you. It has been a long process, as all parties, including and especially Castilleja have patiently worked with its neighbors and the City for over eight years. The first phase, the 3 ½ years of Castilleja’s conversations with neighbors before the application was even submitted, comprised more than 50 neighbor meetings, an extensive study of accessing campus directly from Embarcadero, and significant modifications to the school’s plan.    The 2nd phase, the 4+ years of the school working with City staff from the time the CUP application was submitted in 2016 to the release of the F.E.I.R. in July of last year, involved additional significant plan modifications, reductions in the number of events and car trips allowed, and more stringent standards and heightened consequences for any CUP violations.    And now it is decision time - the public hearing phase, where you are tasked with reviewing the record and making decisions on the application. The proposal before you is the 5 result of all of these conversations and adaptations in response to neighbor, community, City, PTC, and ARB feedback, and for that reason, it is ripe for a decision.    As I review the materials, what rises to the surface is that everyone is getting something and no one party, including Castilleja, is getting everything. This is the nature of compromise.      Those  who want fewer cars parked on neighborhood streets are getting an underground parking facility.   Those  who are concerned about the alleged institutional feel and size of the original garage design are getting a smaller underground parking facility that preserves houses and trees, creates more green space, and is characterized by an unobtrusive and gracefully  landscaped garage entrance and exit. AS WE HAVE JUST SEEN   Those  concerned with the massing of the buildings along Kellogg get a façade  compatible with the neighborhood aesthetic, with  reduced building heights and increased setbacks, as well as a  design  that breaks up the linearity  of the eaves and roofline.   Those  concerned about noise get a significant reduction in school-related noise. o o Eighty-five o percent of adjacent residences are estimated to have a decrease or no change in noise levels. o o Of o that 85%, half are estimated to see a decrease in noise levels. Most impressive, 28.5% of adjacent residences are estimated to see a decrease of at least 12 decibel points, which is more than double the amount that is considered to be a significant improvement.   Those  tired of hearing and seeing delivery vehicles, waste management trucks, and school buses are relieved of this burden through moving these activities to the center of campus and, in most cases, below grade. This is an enormous investment that Castilleja is  making on behalf of neighbors. 6   Those  concerned about events get a 22% reduction from current number allowed, a more clearly defined set of rules than under the current CUP, fixed hours of operation, and elimination of events on Sundays.   Those  concerned about traffic get the most stringent, detailed, and closely monitored TDM requirements and penalties  every imposed by  the City of Palo Alto.   Those  concerned about the cost to Palo Alto of Castilleja not paying taxes should note that 1) thousands of Palo Altans who have sent their daughters to Castilleja over the years pay property taxes that benefit the PAUSD while not using its services 2) Castilleja  will contribute funds to resolve the citywide impact at Kingsley and Alma, and 3) the school will pay for a robust TDM program -  on  an ongoing basis  - serving as a model for other Palo Alto institutions.   Those  concerned about the value of their homes retain a school that attracts homebuyers to the neighborhood and, according to realtors, enhances home prices.   Those  who prioritize the education and advancement of women retain a nationally recognized school in their community and preserve the joy of seeing motivated and inspired girls and young women from a diversity of backgrounds in the neighborhood.   Palo  Altans interested in providing their daughters with an all-girls education will have greater opportunity to do so with more spaces in the high school.   The  City of Palo Alto retains an educational institution that for more than 100 years, along with PAUSD and Stanford, has supported Palo Alto’s reputation as a center of educational excellence.   Silicon  Valley secures an enhanced resource that provides female graduates eager to join the world of technology at a time that the Valley is suffering from a dearth of female engineers, scientists, and leaders.   While 7  giving up a lot and putting itself under a microscope, Castilleja ultimately gets to fulfill and enhance its mission of educating girls and young women for leadership - locally and globally.   It is abundantly clear to me - and I hope to you - that this proposal is better for everyone and perfect for no one. Thank you for your attention and I urge you to approve the proposal before you.  8 Baumb, Nelly From:richard mamelok <mamelok@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:38 AM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja as a community benefit CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council:    We have seen two recurrent justifications for the expansion: 1. To support women's education and 2. Casti provides an invaluable community benefit. No one in the opposition that wee know opposes the idea that women should get the best education possible.     Whether Casti is an invaluable community benefit depends on the definition of benefit, but a reasonable one is an entity that provides an opportunity open to all or almost all members of the community. Obvious examples are a park, public schools and inexpensive adult education, the Art Center, the Children's Museum and Zoo. Entities like Theater Works, places of worship, the Gamble Garden Center are also community benefits. Even Stanford provides a wide range of free lectures by prominent scholars, free museums, free access to outdoor sculpture, a succulent garden, the path to the Dish and a number of paid events that present world class entertainment, as well as an excellent array of courses in the continuing studies program. In stark contrast is Casti, a non tax paying entity with 75% of its student body comprised of non Palo Alto residents and no cultural or intellectual events open to the public. Casti does not provide an invaluable community benefit and deserves no consideration as such.      Richard D. Mamelok, MD and Midori Aogaichi MD 364 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 mobile: +1 650 924 0347 mamelok@pacbell.net “there is always light if only we’re brave enough to see it if only we’re brave enough to be it."   9 Baumb, Nelly From:Kerry Yarkin <kya.ohlone@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja's new narrative CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Two nights ago many  so speakers ( many not Palo Alto residents) spoke  in favor of Castillej's large modernization  and  expansion  project that I have to stand up and express my dismay of the "NEW" narrative that Castilleja is now  presenting to the public.  For the last 5 years, starting in 2016 I attended around 6 community meetings held at Castilleja  to work on a compromise plan that Neighbors and the School could agree upon.  For many attendees these meetings  were not ones of building consensus, rather one side stone walling to get an increase of ;500+ enrollment.  Many  neighbors came up with  a wide array of building suggestions, traffic plans, # of  school event discussions,  which were  basically ignored. At around the 3rd meeting, I started  to feel like I was  being used to make the case that Castilleja had  listened and worked with Neighbors to get to a compromise agreement.  Hypocrisy!          For the last 2 years Castilleja realized they weren't going to make any headway with the Neighbors , then  decided to  have coffees all over town to drum up support for their expansion. I think they held over 30 of these coffee  meetings.   At these meetings at peoples' homes, Castilleja presented their side, no Neighbors were allowed to attend to  present  objections.      The latest attempt at compromise has been a neighbor and Castilleja parent who tried hard to reach a  compromise........to no avail.  Our City could have reached a compromise in 2016 by standing firm and reaching a deal,  where both sides compromise.    At this point after 5 years of City Staff, PTC, ARB, all skewing their "data" to fit  Castilleja's needs, City Council (after reprimanding and making institutional changes of City Staff) needs to strongly deny  this project.     Sincerely,  Kerry Yarkin  10 Baumb, Nelly From:DavidandGlowe Chang <davidandglowe@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 8:50 AM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy Subject:Long contentious Casti discussion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Honorable Mayor and City of Palo Alto Council Members,       My name is Glowe Chang. I live directly across the school on Bryant St. I support Castilleja School!  As do all the residents  on my side of Bryant.  To maintain the high educational standards and to continue to nurture young minds, the school  must be allowed to modernize. Updated classrooms and new equipment are necessary.   Increased enrollment will maximize on the efficiency of scale.  This is very reasonable especially since the school has  committed not to exceed the current traffic count.  Do you really think pnql will silence once you make a decision?  I  believe they will become hyper viligent and serve as an overwatch for any school infractions.       Over the last few years, we have seen a significant reduction in traffic and cars parking on the street. What a herculean  effort by the school. They should be commended, not punished. Traffic is only heavy twice a day for no more than 5‐10  min. It is a barely noticeable inconvenience. As far as noise is concerned, it is only during normal business  hours.  Personally, there is nothing more joyous than the sound of vibrant, healthy children. Schools should be allowed  to promote activities to further the social, emotional, and academic growth of its students and it should be done in  modern buildings and a beautiful environment. Schools should not be limited in this regard.    We need more good schools.       Castilleja is a great neighbor and they have shown every effort to mitigate their impact on the neighborhood.  They have  addressed every complaint from the pnql organization.   We moved here 25 years ago to avoid the over 1 hour commute when my daughter attended Casti. Our property values  have not suffered.       Nevertheless, our neighborhood is ever changing.  There are currently 5 home improvement projects within 150 feet of  our home.    We need to support And promote the important things in our ever growing city. Giving more young women an  educational opportunity is one way to do this.   Please support their request for increased enrollment and to modernize it's buildings.        One complaint I hear is the number of school related cars parked on neighborhood streets. Under what circumstances  does a homeowner own the curb?  The street is public domain and anyone can park as long as city parking ordinances  are observed.  Why shouldn’t the school be allowed to park on the street?  The opponents have overstepped their  bounds. Let’s address only the reasonable issues and bring normalcy back to our neighborhood.       As a direct neighbor in support of the school,  I thank you.   11     Sincerely,      Glowe Chang  1345 Bryant St.     Sent from my iPhone  12 Baumb, Nelly From:Joan Zwiep <joan@hosterfamily.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, The plan for expansion of Castilleja should be stopped immediately. There are many reasons for this but the most important is the proposed "basement." Approval of the Castilleja expansion would allow Castilleja to build a basement that is acting as a garage in all but name. As a R-1 homeowner, this would allow Castilleja zoning rights which I do not possess. Allowing Castilleja to build a garage is a travesty which you should not allow to happen. Joan Zwiep 2345 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 13 Baumb, Nelly From:Lian Bi <lian_bi2002@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:In Support of Castilleja Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi City Council: I am in support of Castilleja’s proposal. I live in Old Palo Alto, just a few blocks away from campus, and I am one of the many neighbors who support the underground parking facility. I appreciate that the school is moving parking below ground, and I understand that it WILL NOT INCREASE daily car trips to campus, because that number is capped within the C.U.P. There will not be an increase in traffic because that does not support the school’s or the neighborhood's goals. I also appreciate that the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report prefer the underground parking structure to surface parking lots. In particular, because I have a child who bikes in the neighborhood, I am happy to see that the Final Environmental Impact Report noted that the underground parking facility promotes safety along the Bike Boulevard. With only right turns into and out of Castilleja, cars will never cut across the flow of bicycles in the bike boulevard on Bryant. In addition moving parking below ground makes travel safer for cyclists because doors of parked cars will not be opening unexpectedly as the cyclists pass. And, the new design has fewer driveways on Bryant Street, making it safer for cyclists. I have seen renderings of the exit and entrance and both are hidden behind gentle landscaping and make the neighborhood more beautiful than it is now. I am glad this change in permissible in an R-1 neighborhood. That makes sense because it will improve conditions and aesthetics. The facts and data in the FEIR support this plan, and I feel that you should as well.   Best  Lian Bi  14 Baumb, Nelly From:Mahooya Dinda <mdinda@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 7:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,     I have had the pleasure of speaking to a couple of you in an outreach this summer and I would like to reiterate my  support for the Castilleja expansion.  I am a long‐term resident of Palo Alto for 25+ years living in Downtown North,  Crescent Park and now Professorville.  I have 2 children who have gone to Addison, Greene, Paly and one child at  Castilleja currently.      Castilleja has been a great neighbor and has encouraged the families of students to be very respectful to the  neighborhood.  Castilleja has lowered cars coming into the campus and for my daughter and her friends in Palo Alto,  they all bike together.  They discourage parents driving to events and the events are thoughtfully planned.  I find that  more people park in front of my house for events at Addison or the church.      The school has been very accommodating to neighbors requests.  We had heard about the expansion prior to applying  to the school.  The issue I contend with neighbors is that the goal keeps moving (ie garage/no garage).      Castilleja has been an institution in the neighborhood and should be able to expand much like Addison and Paly have.      Thank you, Mahooya Dinda  15 Baumb, Nelly From:Hank Sousa <thomashenrysousa@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:25 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:CC meeting on Castilleja expansion, 3/8/2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Council members:    I am sending along my spoken notes from last night's city council meeting on Castilleja's planned expansion. Thanks for  giving a good amount of time, for all of us close‐in concerned neighbors,  to speak.  We felt it was a fair hearing in the zoom era.    The school has told us neighbors three different reasons for wanting an enrollment increase:  1. The pedagogical argument that optimal class size is reached with 540 student enrollment (2016)  2. School wants to allow more deserving girls a Casti education ‐ but doesn't consider a bigger campus (2018)  3. The increase in enrollment request is what the TDM can accommodate (2020)    There was no neighbor input regarding enrollment number. The neighbors say the current model of small class sizes  with an enrollment  below 450 works well and is not broken.      Success:  Is the school saying current model is no longer good? It has been good for over 100 years.  Hundreds, if not thousands, of Casti alums are out in the work world. Articulate and polished; they were educated in  small class settings.  Perhaps many current Casti parents may even prefer smaller class sizes for their girls.       Additional proof:  In tax returns spanning 2011‐2019 the school ended up "in the black" 8 out of 9 years. That is good performance for a  non‐profit      2011: $4.4 million 2012:$1.755 million 2013:$225 thousand 2014: ‐$176 thousand 2015: $121 thousand 2016: $1.5  million 2017: $12 million 2018: $1.5 million  2019: $7.4 million          In summary:  Rebuild and modernize the campus. Keep enrollment below 450 as that works for both the school and the neighbors.  Combine the above with the 86 current at‐grade parking spaces on campus and add additional shuttling. You will  continue to have a well functioning school that fits in the neighborhood with minimal impacts.    Regards,  Hank Sousa  16 100 block of Melville Ave.  17 Baumb, Nelly From:Cath Garber <cath@fg-arch.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja School Hearing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    My name is Catharine Garber. I am a resident and practicing architect living in Palo Alto. Although I have no affiliation with the school, I support its application for a new CUP.   As an interested architect and community member, I have followed this project along its journey and have commented at both ARB and HRB hearings in support of the project  Castilleja is integral to the history of the City, and the school has been on that block long before the residential zoning existed in Palo Alto. It has evolved over time, and this update, in my eyes, is a thoughtful step in that ongoing evolution.   In the past year, as this plan came before the HRB and the ARB I have been impressed by Castilleja’s willingness to return to the drawing board to respond to feedback from City leaders and community members; for example adjusting the facade on Kellogg to reduce it’s mass, redesigning the entry on Bryant, and revising the stairway on the Gunn Building.   I recognize that a data discrepancy was recently discovered related to the project’s above ground square footage. The school has ALL along stated that their goal is to maintain the same above ground square footage as they have presently. I assume an ARB sub-committee can review the documentation of the reduced square footage and work with the school in an expedient manner so that this very long process is not further extended. I certainly hope that this issue will not hold up your voting on the 15th,  I appreciate the work the school and their team of architects have done In their effort to update their campus while honoring the themes of the historical structures. Modernization is desperately needed for Castelleja. Most current structures are aging and do not enhance the neighborhood in the least. The new buildings and the thoughtful landscaping around them will improve the aesthetics of this corner of Old Palo Alto.   Please approve this proposal and allow Castilleja to move forward with their project.  Respectfully yours, Catharine Garber            ‐‐   Catharine Fergus Garber, Partner Fergus Garber Architects  www.fg-arch.com  81 Encina Avenue  Palo Alto CA 94301  o 650.459.3700  m 650.245.9680  18 Baumb, Nelly From:cathy williams <cathycwilliams@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 1:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City council: My name is Cathy Williams. I am a neighbor on Bryant street who wants to speak in support of Castilleja. With over 60 community meetings and eight years of revising the proposal, I am impressed with the significant compromises Castilleja has made:  Changes to the building on Kellogg to reduce the massing  Preserving trees and increasing the number of trees overall  Protecting two homes  Reducing the number of events  Reducing the number of deliveries and moving them below grade  Building a sound wall around the pool  Holding to current drop-off patterns with no increase in traffic  Adding landscaping and increased setbacks Those are all good compromises. Talking about education, Not all girls want a single-sex environment. And not all are suitable for big schools either. For those who are suited to Castilleja, this could be a life changing experience. For them, Castilleja is the place where they become comfortable taking risks and becoming leaders. We have just seen our first woman vice president come from California, and I would love to see more women in leadership on this city council or in business field. Bigger schools like Paly and Gunn are nurturing young women for leadership, but some girls need a different setting, and I urge you to support their growth—especially because there are no negative impacts for close neighbors like me. Warm regards, Cathy Williams 19 Baumb, Nelly From:Roy Maydan <roy.maydan@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:In Support of Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Members of the City Council,    I am writing in support of Castilleja.  I have lived in the Downtown North neighborhood for more than 25 years and like  many Palo Altans have myself experienced the effects of commercial development on residential traffic.  I have seen  how the growth of companies like Facebook and Google that didn’t exist when I moved here has substantially increased  my commute time.  I have seen the effects of the growth of Stanford and the rejuvenation of Town & Country on the  flow of traffic on Embarcadero. However, I do not buy the argument that Castilleja embodies the growth that residents  fear; in fact, opponents have strategically and incorrectly defined Castilleja’s project as an “expansion,” drawing the  school erroneously into this larger City debate. I am hoping that you are beginning to see through the false parallels. Yes,  Palo Alto has grown and changed, but Castilleja is a school, not an office park. Let’s review a few key  facts:      1.     Castilleja is not expanding. The variance keeps the square  footage the same; the rooflines will be lower; and the setbacks will be improved.    2.     Castilleja is not a developer seeking profit. Instead, it is a  not‐for‐profit that has employed and educated generations of Palo Altans.    3.     There are no negative impacts from this plan. The school will  only be allowed to gradually increase enrollment if traffic levels remain the same, so the alarm about disrupting the  neighborhood is groundless.    4.     Only 14 trees, some of them already weak, will be removed, and  103 more hearty trees will be added, increasing the tree count by over 50% on campus.    5.     The school has already reduced the number and scale of events  and will continue to do so by 22% in total. Please note, some of the remaining so‐called events are PTA meetings with  only ten people.      Placing Castilleja into the middle of the city‐wide debate about growth was a strategic tactic, but it falls apart when we  look honestly at the mission of the school and the facts of the project. If we are really trying to preserve Palo Alto,  protect schools. That is where the future begins, and I implore you to abide by the facts, not by hyperbole.      Roy Maydan  131 Byron Street  20 Baumb, Nelly From:Stewart Raphael <stewraph@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter supporting the Castilleja School project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  March 9, 2021 571 Military Way Palo Alto, CA 94306 Dear City Council, Thank you for the opportunity to speak on March 8, 2021. I would like to reiterate my message. As a resident of Palo Alto, I urge you to support Castilleja’s application to gradually increase enrollment in the high school by up to 25 students a year over five years. Since the terms of the new Conditional Use Permit cap car trips with no new trips coming to campus, the increase in students will not create an uptick in cars. The new Traffic Demand Management measures will mitigate impacts, and more girls in and around Palo Alto will have access to this transformative education without any more cars coming to campus. Castilleja’s mission seeks to educate young women to become confident thinkers and compassionate leaders. As we think about leadership, we know we need to see more women at the table. Right now less than 1% of girls in the United States attend girls’ schools, yet 20% of the women in the Senate and House of Representatives graduated from an all-girls school. Castilleja plays an important role in educating women leaders and mentors for the future. the only non-sectarian all-girls middle and high school in northern California. Since the enrollment can increase to 540 WITHOUT ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE CITY, I hope you will approve this proposal. Traffic is capped, and the school should be permitted to grow gradually while remaining below the cap. It’s time to allow more girls to build compassion and tolerance to become collaborative leaders. Our world so desperately needs it right now. Thank you, Stewart Raphael 21 Baumb, Nelly From:Lama Rimawi <lrimawi1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Supporting Castilleja's plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi,  I had a chance to speak at last night's city council meeting. I wanted to let you know that I am in full support of  Castilleja's plan. Please approve it and do not send it back to ARB.    As I mentioned, I have been a Palo Alto resident for almost a decade.    I want to express my appreciation for Castilleja’s close attention to the tree plan as they modernize campus.     Trees are important to the history and the future of Palo Alto ‐ as well as to Castilleja’s neighbors     There are currently 157 trees on campus. Fourteen of them will need to be removed (as Ms. French mentioned) some of  which are already damaged by the recent droughts. As a result of climate change, which we all know is a problem, trees  that used to thrive in Palo Alto, are now struggling unfortunately.     As we think about tree health and overall canopy, we need to not just maintain what we see around us now; we also  need to begin to look ahead and plan for the future.     Castilleja’s tree plan introduces almost 100 new trees to campus. This will substantially increase the trees on campus.   The type of tree matters as much as the count. Castilleja’s new trees will be here to stay as we see winters with less rain  and summers with more heat. These new native trees will provide shade around the block for our children and  grandchildren and they will outlast us all.     My children and I love to walk around the area of Castilleja and I imagine that it will only look more beautiful over time  with the new trees.    I am so grateful to Castilleja for creating a thoughtful plan that faces the reality of our climate crisis and responds with  new plantings that will ensure future greenspace. I also want to mention that Castilleja’s tree plan is 100% aligned and  compliant with Palo Altos Tree Technical Manual.    I appreciate your consideration.      Hope you have a wonderful week.     Lama Rimawi      22 Baumb, Nelly From:YANTING ZHANG <ytzhang@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja school expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello, My Name is Yanting Zhang, and I am one of the many neighbors of Castilleja who supports this project. I live nearby on Bryant Street. I have watched the school make changes to improve the plans in response to city and neighbor feedback, and this project alternative number 4 is a positive plan that brings together the very best of the school’s hopes and their neighbors’ input.   I appreciate the care and thought that Castilleja has put into planning the construction process—that will be completed inside of three years. That’s amazing! That’s faster than some of the home construction projects in our neighborhood. The underground parking will be completed first and the temporary structures that will serve as a school while the learning spaces are being remodeled are made of materials that suit the neighborhood.   I also appreciate that the school plans to repurpose and salvage materials from the current structures and fabricate some elements of the new building offsite to save time. Most of all, I recognize that the school wants students settled into improved learning spaces as quickly possible, so their interest and my interest as a neighbor are the same.   Most of all, I am excited for the new building. I have looked at the external renderings, and I love the way the facades and setbacks are varied to blend in with the residential scale of my neighborhood. The old buildings are outdated and to tell the truth, they are not very appealing visually, so the new ones will be a welcome improvement and beautiful update.   Please approve the expansion.      Yanting zhang      23 Baumb, Nelly From:Sulev Suvari <sulev@outlook.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    I want to compliment Castilleja’s good faith work toward compromise as they agree to reducing the number of events they hold by 22%. Please bear in mind that Sacred Heart, Menlo, and Crystal Springs, which are similar in type and location to Castilleja, do not have any restrictions on events in their CUPs. Meanwhile, Serra High School, a boys’ school in a residential neighborhood in San Mateo, has a CUP that only limits events after 10pm on Monday through Saturday and 6pm on Sunday. Castilleja NEVER has events on Sunday and NEVER has events that run past 10pm on Monday through Saturday. That means that 100% of Castilleja’s current events would be permitted under that CUP. Even so, Castilleja has already reduced events.   Opponents claim that in comparison to Castilleja, Pinewood holds only 12 events per year. Looking at Pinewood’s calendar, I see more than 12 events in a single month. So this line of argument is questionable. Interestingly many of the so-called “events” that remain on Castilleja’s approved list are very small meetings, not larger gatherings at all. Setting higher restrictions on this all-girls school while its co-ed and all-boys rivals thrive in other towns such as San Mateo, Hillsborough, Mountain View, and Atherton is a questionable path for you to support as City leaders, but I appreciate that Castilleja is willing to make this compromise just the same. Let’s move this project forward in support of providing young women with a range of experiences that are part of the life of any school.     Best Regards,  Sulev Suvari  24 Baumb, Nelly From:Trisha Suvari <trishasuvari@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Modernization Plans CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    As a resident of Palo Alto, I would like to talk about the facts that Castilleja has on their side. Here are just a few myths that have been cleared up during recent hearings:      The underground parking will NOT lead to more traffic. Traffic is capped, so the underground parking will simply move cars below ground and make the neighborhood more beautiful and the bike boulevard more safe.  The gradual increase in enrollment in the high school will NOT lead to more traffic. Again, traffic is capped. The school will add more TDM measures to make sure daily trips do not increase. If they fail, they will not be permitted to add more students.  Construction will take no more than three years, with only the north half of campus affected in the first phase and only the south half in the second phase.  Castilleja has consistently integrated input from neighbors, arborists, traffic experts, city staff, environmental consultants, and members of the HRB, ARB, and PTC. When our public schools have modernized and grown, they have not had to go through such an arduous process as this.  At least as many near neighbors support this project as oppose it. They have spoken eloquently about the merits of the project, about their trust of Castilleja as a good neighbor, and about their desire to see cars move below ground and a beautiful new building replaces the dated structures on campus now.  Over 600 Palo Altans support this project and understand that supporting strong schools enhances and enriches quality of life in all neighborhoods across the city.  Castilleja is working with arborists to completely comply with the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual and add over 100 new trees to campus to establish new greenspace and ensure canopy for the future.  For those concerned about noise from events on the circle or the pool, I want to remind everyone that band practice and football games can also be heard from Paly, so why is it that no one is complaining about the noise from their extracurricular activities? Why only directed at Casti’s, which are far fewer than Paly’s?   This is a complex and contentious project. But adhering to the facts in the EIR and in the CUP should guide your decisions.    I find it ironic that I am outlining the merits of increasing access to an all-girls school on International Women’s Day, but perhaps that fact only further underlines why allowing Castilleja to admit more girls is critically important.     25 First of all, for the listeners who are concerned about traffic, this is a zero-risk plan. Within this proposal, Castilleja’s daily permitted car trips will remain capped at current levels. The school is seeking permission to add 25 more students without adding traffic. If that first phase succeeds, the school will be allowed to add 25 more students. If it fails, the school will need to reduce trips and ultimately reduce enrollment. Where is the risk here? The maximum number of 540 students will only be reached after at least five years with NO INCREASE in traffic.     For opponents who claim to support women's education but don’t support this proposal, well, you can’t have it both ways. This is a proposal with NO IMPACTS. No increase in traffic, no increase in square footage, improved sustainability, reduced events, reduced noise, increased setbacks, lower rooflines, more sustainable trees and greenspace. I urge you to look at all of these benefits, all of these compromises that the school has made, all of these FACTS. These are the reasons you can feel confident approving this plan which expands opportunities to young women in the Bay Area.    Some people question the need for Castilleja to grow enrollment, especially in a city like Palo Alto with some of the finest public schools in the country. Well, some girls really need this environment, even just for a few years—for instance, those four years in high school where Castilleja would like to admit 25 more students at a time—to establish self-confidence. And some girls might not thrive in larger schools like Paly and Gunn. It’s time to do everything we can to help those girls close the gender gap, which has only been made wider by the pandemic. Let’s review the jobs report from December alone. Nationwide 140,000 jobs were lost overall, but looking more carefully, during that period of time we see that 156,000 women lost their jobs and 16,000 unemployed men got new jobs. So while working women have been devastated by the pandemic, unemployed men are still getting hired.     The bottom line: girls and women need everyone to rise up and create new opportunities for education and employment. Decades of progress have been wiped out within the course of this one year.     Honestly, I am having trouble squaring up why there is so much opposition to a school. I realize it is a private school, but it is a private school that offers financial aid to one in five students and has had a four-fold increase in first generation college students in just a few years. Castilleja is no more elite than Palo Alto itself, where the median home price is currently listed at $3.15 million dollars.     Yes, I hear critics exaggerate how few Castilleja students reside in Palo Alto. To stick to facts, it varies from year to year, and the range falls between 26 and 33% of students who live in Palo Alto. That’s over 100 kids—at a small school. If Castilleja gains permission to admit more girls, that number from Palo Alto will grow accordingly.     And let’s remember, traffic will not.  As far as the students who come from outside Palo Alto, if they don’t cause traffic, what is the issue? Do we not like outsiders here? Do we only concern ourselves with people who can pay the median home price in Palo Alto? We see, perhaps more clearly than ever before, that schoolchildren in different communities are being disproportionately impacted by the pandemic. With more space in the high school, Castilleja can help work toward reaching children who aren’t finding what they need most in their neighborhood schools. And to be clear, the non-Palo Alto students at Castilleja are the ones who take the shuttles, the vans, the train. They bring diverse voices and backgrounds to the school, but it is outright false to claim they bring the traffic.    26 Finally, circling back to International Women’s Day, all girls and young everywhere need schools that will help them reach their fullest potential. Some of those girls benefit from the single sex setting; it is the game-changing difference in their lives. With a plan that improves conditions in the neighborhood and does not increase traffic, we need to make space for those girls, just 25 at a time.     Let Castilleja try.     There is no risk here, just lost opportunity.     Thank you,  Trisha Suvari  306 Iris Way    27 Baumb, Nelly From:Teresa Zepeda Kelleher <tnzepeda@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City of Palo Alto Council Members,    I am a long time Palo Alto resident and neighbor of Castilleja. I want to take a moment to highlight the impressive sustainability features of Castilleja’s project, which sets a new standard for environmentally-sound construction and design in Palo Alto. California defined goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. Palo Alto’s Sustainability Climate Action Plan aims to meet this goal by 2030. Castilleja’s Project Alternative surpasses both of these standards right away and adds other features for a sustainable future.     The environmentally-responsive and responsible aspects of the design and construction process include:   Entirely fossil fuel-free spaces - with the exception of science labs  Onsite-generated energy through solar and heat recovery  Sustainable upgrades to transportation with bike parking, car charging stations, and electric shuttle routes  High-efficiency and recycled water infrastructure  Drought-resistant landscaping and the preservation of trees  Non-hazardous, responsibly-sourced green building materials  Reusing and recycling materials from the old campus in the new campus design    Castilleja has proven their commitment to minimizing its environmental footprint on campus. The new spaces will also build environmental education into the curriculum. By teaching students to be environmental stewards, Castilleja will help educate the next generation of conservationists.   Castilleja’s tree plan removes only 14 of the 157 trees on campus, and some of those are already damaged by drought. In addition, the plan adds 103 new drought-resistant trees. The new campus will have 50% more trees, and the species will be able to survive and thrive, increasing the canopy and greenspace for generations to come.    Please support this responsible project that's a win for this community.    Thanks,  Teresa Kelleher  512 Coleridge Ave.  Palo Alto    28 Baumb, Nelly From:Ashni Sheth <22asheth@castilleja.org> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:In Support of Castilleja's Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi! I’m Ashni Sheth, a junior at Castilleja School, and I’m writing in support of Castilleja’s expansion. 4 years ago, I gave a speech to Castilleja’s student body on the opening day of school. 4 years ago, following the release of the infamous Google Memo, I stressed the importance of Castilleja’s motto - Women Learning, Women Leading. The memo that showed that some, even in Silicon Valley, believe that women can’t be reasonable, or be assertive, are too sensitive, or can’t be good engineers. I said “the criticism goes on, the old stereotypes live on.” Here I am, 4 years later, as a junior in high school, and I am disappointed to say that the world around us has not improved enough. The misogyny the US Women’s National Soccer Team faced despite winning the world cup, or the fact that in the 92 years of the Academy Awards, there has only ever been one female recipient of the Best Director award, is proof that the power of women is consistently overlooked. Critics say that we’re too emotional to be a member of Congress, or we don’t know enough to be a CEO of a top ten company, or we’re not assertive enough to research and write a New York Times bestseller. Well, clearly these critics haven’t met the Casti community. Our school is having an impact at both the global and local levels. Globally, our alums have become Olympic gold medalists, founders of prominent non profits, even COO of Snapchat, press secretary to former VP Biden, and US Secretary of Commerce, among many others. In Palo Alto, our students have worked with the Brentwood School, the VA Hospital, Ada’s Cafe, and more. What’s most unique about Castilleja is the all-girls space that fosters an environment of women supporting other women. While some incorrectly presume that Castilleja caters simply to economically privileged students, the school’s primary goal is uplifting women, regardless of their socio-economic status. In fact, Castilleja provides tuition assistance to 21% of the student body. The community at Castilleja instills in us this fire to not be held back by old stereotypes and new hindrances. The world needs more women leaders, and engineers, and soldiers, and everything else that we’re capable of. That’s why, once again, I come to you, 29 reiterating Castilleja’s impact on our community. With your support, Castilleja can extend this opportunity to more young girls, and you’ll see the wonderful impact we can have on the world, and especially Palo Alto.     --   Ashni Sheth  Class of 2022  she/her/hers  30 Baumb, Nelly From:John Giannandrea <jg@meer.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 11:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Letter of Support for Castilleja CUP and Master Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members    I am a resident of the city of Palo Alto and I am writing in support of the Castilleja application for a revised Conditional  Use Permit and in support of their Master Plan to upgrade the school classroom buildings.    I attended the City Council meeting held on Monday March 8th and listened to all the public comments.  Many of the  detractors seem to misunderstand some key facts about the project as laid out by your staff and documented in the  Final EIR.   This project has received a level of due diligence and community feedback that might be unprecedented for  the City.  The final result is a proposal which has been highly responsive to community and staff input over a period of  four years.    This project is extremely important to Palo Alto because it continues to provide the community with a world class school  which is at the forefront of women's education.  The plan if approved increases access to a highly sought after education  with private investment in modern and green buildings on an existing school site.   I urge you to approve the project for  the betterment of Palo Alto.    Thank‐you.    John Giannandrea  1057 Ramona St  Palo Alto      31 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 9:59 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Minor, Beth; Stump, Molly Subject:Re: Nancy Tuck is the applicant and not a community member CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  WHY IS NANCY TUCK ALLOWED TO SPEAK AS A COMMUNITY MEMBER    Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078      On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 9:42 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote:  Nancy Tuck should be removed from the community list as she is the applicant.      Any other non‐residents and/or Castilleja employees should be removed as well, as you know.    This happened several other times in the past, and the error was admitted afterwards.     Please do not repeat the error that was admitted to be wrong in the past.     Thank you.    Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078  32 Baumb, Nelly From:Bill Schmarzo <schmarzo@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 9:44 PM To:Council, City; Bill Schmarzo; Carolyn Schmarzo Subject:Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  You have incorrectly removed Carolyn Schmarzo from tonight's speakers list. Both Carolyn and Bill Schmarzo registered for the city council meeting, with only Bill giving his time to Mary Sylvester. Carolyn Schmarzo is separate from Bill Schmarzo and she still wants her 2 minutes to speak at tonight's city council meeting on the Castilleja expansion. Sincerely, Bill Schmarzo On Monday, March 1, 2021, 12:40:42 PM PST, Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e-mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet. If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329-2571 to confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting. If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification. We appreciate hearing from you. 33 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 9:42 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City; Minor, Beth; Stump, Molly Subject:Nancy Tuck is the applicant and not a community member CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Nancy Tuck should be removed from the community list as she is the applicant.      Any other non‐residents and/or Castilleja employees should be removed as well, as you know.    This happened several other times in the past, and the error was admitted afterwards.     Please do not repeat the error that was admitted to be wrong in the past.     Thank you.    Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078  34 Baumb, Nelly From:Susie Levine <susielevine@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 8:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Supporting Castilleja.... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and Honorable City Council Members, I am writing to ask for you to vote in favor of the Castilleja CUP and masterplan. Specifically, I urge you to vote in favor of the underground garage, enrollment of 540, and the variance to maintain their above ground square footage. This is a project with no significant and unavoidable impacts and the preferred option in the Environmental Impact Report. Note, the PTC has stated that this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the most thorough they've ever reviewed. Over recent months, the project was closely reviewed by the HRB, ARB, and PTC, and based on their feedback, the school revised their proposal leading to approval by all commissions. While a decision on the underground parking facility was split in the PTC, please note that the zoning code does not prohibit underground parking in an R-1 neighborhood for non-residential use. The underground facility will remove cars from the streets and improve the neighborhood aesthetics (per the EIR). There is precedent in the city for approving such a facility for non-residential use in an R-1 neighborhood. I understand that a recent development arose, a discrepancy in the figures for above ground square footage. The school has stated consistently that they want to build only the above ground square footage that they already have; they applied for a variance to maintain the current number. I think an ARB sub-committee should work with the school on revised plans as needed, and that this issue should not hold back your voting on March 15. It is now time for Council to vote on this project so that our city can move on to the other issues you laid out in your 2021 goals. On March 15, I urge you to vote on the enrollment, underground parking facility, events, and other conditions of approval that can be agreed upon independent of the academic building's square footage adjustment - which should, again, be handled by an ARB sub-committee.    Please, do this for the good of our community. Thank you for listening, Susie & Paul Levine 1329 Waverley St. Palo Alto, CA 94301 35 Baumb, Nelly From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 7:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council:     We are VERY OPPOSED to the expansions of this elite, private girls school,  that has already stretched its limits in a residential neighborhood. They pay no  taxes to the city, increase traffic now, and they want to expand! We hope you  will vote NO on their expansion plans.  Work to build low‐income housing, not  more elite private schools in residential neighborhoods.      Sincerely,  Roberta Ahlquist  Women's Intl' League for Peace & Freedom Low income  Housing Committee.    36 Baumb, Nelly From:Bryan Ko <bryanko@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 5:45 PM To:Council, City Cc:dorcia lu; Bryan Ko Subject:Supporting Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and Honorable City Council Members, Dorcia and I have been residents of Palo Alto for over 10 years and we are writing to ask for you to vote in favor of the Castilleja CUP and masterplan. Specifically, we urge you to vote in favor of the underground garage, enrollment of 540, and the variance to maintain their above ground square footage. This is a project with no significant and unavoidable impacts and the preferred option in the Environmental Impact Report. Note, the PTC has stated that this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the most thorough they've ever reviewed. Over recent months, the project was closely reviewed by the HRB, ARB, and PTC, and based on their feedback, the school revised their proposal leading to approval by all commissions. While a decision on the underground parking facility was split in the PTC, please note that the zoning code does not prohibit underground parking in an R-1 neighborhood for non-residential use. The underground facility will remove cars from the streets and improve the neighborhood aesthetics (per the EIR). There is precedent in the city for approving such a facility for non-residential use in an R-1 neighborhood. We understand that a recent development arose, a discrepancy in the figures for above ground square footage. The school has stated consistently that they want to build only the above ground square footage that they already have; they applied for a variance to maintain the current number. I think an ARB sub-committee should work with the school on revised plans as needed, and that this issue should not hold back your voting on March 15. It is now time for Council to vote on this project so that our city can move on to the other issues you laid out in your 2021 goals. On March 15, we urge you to vote on the enrollment, underground parking facility, events, and other conditions of approval that can be agreed upon independent of the academic building's square footage adjustment - which should, again, be handled by an ARB sub-committee. Please, do this for the good of our community. Thank you. Bryan and Dorcia Ko 11 Phillips Road (and 1219 Pitman Ave), Palo Alto 37 Baumb, Nelly From:Patama Roj <patamaroj@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 5:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Neighbor Support for Castilleja plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members    We are writing to express our support for Castilleja's plan to modernize their campus and increase high school enrollment. We are current neighbors of the school living just 1.5 blocks away on Churchill at Emerson. We want to make sure you hear from some of the many neighbors who support this project. There are many of us who don't have signs in our yards (!) but still support the school. Our family is not affiliated with the school in any way but we have met many of their students and we are proud to have such a quality institution in our neighborhood. In the 11 years that we have lived in our home, we have rarely/never experienced much traffic or parking issues associated with the school. On the contrary, any neighborhood traffic issues we have experienced can be attributed to Stanford Campus or Paly which are significantly bigger institutions. We believe that the school raises the value and desirability of our property and would like to advocate its continued success and therefore its necessary modernization.    We recognize that the city of Palo Alto has experienced much growth and transformation in recent years, and I commend the city and those who have stewarded the thoughtful and sustainable development that has allowed us to preserve our neighborhoods and maintain a sense of community.    A modernized Castilleja campus (as designed) does complement and support this appreciation for residential quality. The school has gone to great lengths to ensure that its impact on the surrounding neighborhood is minimal, and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) found Castilleja’s project is completely compatible with the existing community. We are also happy to see a resulting project that is even BETTER for the community than the one that currently exists. In particular, we note that the underground garage will move activity off the streets and preserve more green space.    Castilleja has found a way to provide an environmentally superior project with no unavoidable and significant impact to our community. We hope that the EIR’s findings remain a key part of the conversation as you consider supporting this project plan. We do hope that as very close neighbors of Castilleja that our opinion and personal experiences matter and are taken into consideration.    If you have any questions for us, please don't hesitate to contact us.    Sincerely,  Patama Roj and Saar Gur  151 Churchill Avenue  38 Baumb, Nelly From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 5:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Casti “NO” CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am likely already on the record with this position but I recommend leadership not do anything drastic for Castilleja. This  is a very divisive issue. I wish to point out that to some people’s estimation government has been shut down for more  than a year and that letting citizens or dissent only speak through these electronic media devices is not really giving us a  fair hearing.  I want to highlight or lowlight if you will the thing in the weekly about staff attorney Albert Yang suggesting that we  could consider the “garage” in the Castilleja expansion to be a “basement”.   Who would send their daughter to a private school with $100 million basement —sounds pretty kinky‐?  Like that Biggie Smalls song “hypnotize” that was used in the Spiderman movie where he says “your daughters tied up in  the basement”.     Palo Alto would have millions of dollars in property taxes if the school would move to a more appropriate campus.  And given their years of flouting the conditional use permit we should not consent to their plan.   And overall here, in America, and worldwide there is huge conflict between the billionaires and the regular people (I  consider myself a regular person —I’m certainly not a billionaire).  And yes, I read through a list of donors for the school and recognize at least 20 people who I think are good people.  My sense is that a rogue group of mega donors and the school head person are miss leading their rank and file.   It reminds me of the grand jury report from a couple years ago which among other problems with the project it was sold  via the press as a theater but it was actually an office tower and of course people say the evil genius billionaire behind  that is also behind this current project/problem.  Mark Weiss  On Bryant    Casti casti casti can't you see  Sometimes your words just hypnotize me And I just love your flashy ways Guess that's why they broke, and you're so paid (uh)    Sent from my iPhone  39 Baumb, Nelly From:Tom Shannon <tshannon2@cs.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 3:26 PM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL: 1310 Bryant Street (Castilleja) - March 8, 2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  RE: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL: 1310 Bryant Street (Castilleja): Written public comments for Council meeting – March 8, 2021 From: Tom Shannon – 256 Kellogg Ave. 40 years in Palo Alto and the last 32 years directly across the street from Castilleja’s Kellogg Ave. entrance.  Neighbors recognize and respect Castilleja’s mission; it’s the school’s negative impact on the quiet enjoyment of our neighborhood that’s troubling.  I would appreciate hearing the council’s deliberations on when a CUP’s explosive growth becomes incompatible with a residential neighborhood? What are the limits on the growth of a CUP? Our neighborhood’s infrastructure and streets have not changed over the 60 year life of the CUP. Yet, Castilleja’s impacts have dramatically exploded with:  Almost doubled enrollment,  74 extracurricular events per year mostly at night, and,  Driving age students now commuting to school and parking on residential streets. Quick history of Castilleja’s CUP – first CUP issued in 1960 with approx. 300 students and a dormitory in the planning stages for 100 students. In 1960, not many, if any, students had their own cars to drive to campus. Fast forward 60 years later and all students of driving age have their own car or access to one. That translates to potentially 200 juniors and seniors driving to campus with most coming from outside of Palo Alto and parking on neighborhood streets. (Note - 70% of Castilleja’s students reside outside of Palo Alto). Castilleja’s current TDM plans do NOT specify where the proposed 200 driving age high school students will park. Neighbors have asked Castilleja to prohibit students from driving to campus and parking but Castilleja has outright refused to even consider such a policy. We ask for council's help in this matter.  All staff, visitors and students should be required to use on campus parking with a prohibition to park on residential streets. Other private schools throughout the Peninsula operate under this restriction. The Kellogg Ave. school entrance is the most convenient for staff and students, causing this small street to be continually impacted with traffic and parked cars. Please review this impact and create a new condition to restore use of our neighborhood streets.  Please retain the PTC's condition of "No New Net Trips" and go further by only granting incremental enrollment increases when and if the school achieves verified declines in Net Trips. Castilleja can easily accomplish this goal with more shuttles.  Please reduce the impact of extracurricular events especially at night by requiring at least half of these events to be held offsite at other venues/spaces. As you might imagine, when there's a school wide special event, often the entire neighborhood becomes a parking lot - something similar to Stanford Football game parking except 74 times in a year. 40  If the City grants an enrollment of 540 students, there's no turning back. What became of the City’s representation in the 2000 CUP amendment which allowed for an enrollment increase from 385 to 415 students? Then, John Lusardi, the City's planning director, included in that CUP approval letter that the city would not look favorably on any future enrollment increases. Where's the integrity of the City on this representation?  I was one of the neighborhood proponents of an on-campus parking garage but no neighbor ever envisioned this parking garage to have ingress and egress from/to the neighborhood's residential streets (currently proposed to be Bryant and Emerson). The original idea was to have the parking garage solely accessed from Embarcadero. Please revisit this option. I doubt anyone sitting on the council would welcome a parking garage entering and exiting into their neighborhood unless it predated the buying of their home in that neighborhood. Thank you for your time, dedication and public service to the City. It's much appreciated. 41 Baumb, Nelly From:Norman Kilvans <nklivans@att.net> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 3:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja expansion plans CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.              Dear Members of City Council,    I’m writing today in support of Castilleja’s modernization project. I live on Oregon Avenue and am a parent of an alumna. I know that there are members of our community who are concerned with Castilleja’s enrollment numbers, and I would like to discuss the ways in which Castilleja has corrected course since disclosing their over-enrollment eight years ago.    When Castilleja’s current Head of School took her position in 2013, she promptly alerted the city to the school’s over-enrollment. I admire Nanci Kauffman for coming forward herself to report the issue and face the consequences, and I believe it is a testament to her integrity. Since then, Castilleja has complied with the City to reduce its enrollment and develop an amended CUP. I believe the school’s honesty, transparency, and reparative work with the community should be taken into account, and I hope you will grant the school permission to move forward with its project - one that includes extensive, built-in accountability measures.     I hope that the council also takes into account the conclusion of the PTC that enrollment impacts, rather than specific numbers, are the most important feature for consideration. I agree that the school should only be allowed to increase enrollment if impacts can be mitigated, which is why they are only contemplating a gradual increase in enrollment with adequate time for study.     Castillja has worked for the better part of a decade to rebuild trust with the community. Ongoing complaints and rhetoric about trust can begin to feel like distraction created by those who do not have meaningful critiques of the project before you. For that reason, I hope you will remain focused on the merits of Castilleja’s campus modernization plan, and that we can count on your support.     Thank you,  Norman Kilvans, 615 Oregon Avenue  42 Baumb, Nelly From:Daniel Virtheim <dvirtheim@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 2:55 PM To:Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:PLEASE DENY Castilleja Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,    First of all, thank you for your service on the Council. I am sure it is challenging, especially during this pandemic, and  especially when dealing with hot‐button issues like this one. Thank you for your consideration.    I will try to be brief. I sincerely ask that you deny the Castilleja project as it currently stands. I have lived across the street  from Castilleja (on Emerson Street) for seven years. I am sure Castilleja provides excellent education to the girls who are  able to attend. However, I oppose the project for several reasons. First, it would kill mature trees, and mature trees are  one of the aspects of Palo Alto that sets it apart from surrounding Bay Area communities and makes it special. The death  of mature trees is something you can only recover from over the course of decades or hundreds of years. Second, the  construction would be a major nuisance to those of us who live next to Castilleja. The noise and dust and blockages  would be with us for years. I think such nuisances are justified when the local inhabitants will benefit from the project,  but we will not benefit, which leads me to the third concern. Namely, this project will make traffic in the neighborhood  worse. I have watched the number of cars on Embarcadero increase year after year, and every time I see one zooming  around the corner from Embarcadero onto Emerson, I wonder to myself that no one has been killed there (Heaven  Forbid). This project will only exacerbate the traffic problem.     It would be one matter if all of these negatives were due to some good cause, like affordable housing, or dense housing,  or a homeless shelter, or a train station, or a free clinic, or bike lanes. But the project would only serve for the expansion  of an exclusive private school, which is decidedly not a public good. I wish the Castilleja students and teachers well, I  really do. I simply believe that they need to be reasonable.    Thanks again for your time and consideration.    Sincerely,  Daniel Virtheim      43 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeffrey Hook <tribaljeff51@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 12:53 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:DENY Permit for Castilleja's expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Councilmembers -    Human beings are in ecological overshoot globally, and in overshoot locally here in Palo Alto. Increasing artifact and traffic within the City imposes a cost on every resident while the benefit accrues to a much smaller population, most of whom do not reside here.     We're not stupid. Our intuitions about the harm this project will cause are well grounded, backed by solid science. This is a classic case of the tragedy of the commons. The only proven way to redress tragedies of the commons is for elected officials to use their power of regulation to ensure costs and benefits are distributed fairly.     Castilleja is requesting a 30% increase in enrollment after 20 years of illegally over enrolling. Given this, the only reasonable answer to their request is NO. What other answer can possibly have standing?    Residents want LESS traffic, not more. 300 additional car trips into the neighborhood is nothing short of an assault. We want less noise, less "busy-ness". We want more calm, a more walkable city, a city conducive to birds, trees and nature in general.    A Costco-sized facility has NO place in a residential neighborhood.    Your decision has far-reaching consequences. A yes vote symbolizes growth and encourages more growth, more policy of the few taking from the many. A NO vote symbolizes standing for policy based on ecological science and fairness.    The only action a responsible representative of Palo Alto residents can take is to DENY the permit.     Respectfully,    Jeffrey Hook  381 Oxford Ave.   Palo Alto   44 Baumb, Nelly From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 12:51 PM To:Cormack, Alison; Council, City; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Please Deny Castilleja's Expansion Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I write to ask you to deny Castilleja’s expansion plan and to limit their enrollment to the legally zoned 415 students.     I see no community benefit to Castilleja’s growth and many community costs. The drawbacks include increased traffic,  commercial construction disturbance in a residential neighborhood, and the destruction of our natural environment. In  addition, by allowing the school to violate their enrollment cap, we have failed to adhere to city rules and regulations.    Please vote “no” on this proposal and a way to vote “yes” for residential quality of life and adhering to our city’s zoning  laws. Let’s provide an example to young people of being satisfied with what we’re offered instead of disobeying the law  and externalizing costs on the community to reap personal benefit.    Thanks for considering my views.    Gratefully,    Hilary     ************* Magic, 1979‐2021: forty‐two years of valuescience leadership **************    Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental  ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize   it more fully.     Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one‐time or recurring gifts.   Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax‐deductible to the full extent   permitted by law.                                                                 THANK YOU!    www.ecomagic.org ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ (650) 323‐7333‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309  ************************************************************************************************** **  45 Baumb, Nelly From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 12:48 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Proposed Expansion of Castilleja School CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi, Palo Alto City Council Members, I write to oppose the expansion of Castilleja School. You’ve an opportunity to act with integrity and protect the quality of our neighborhoods. The residents of Palo Alto clearly want less traffic. Castilleja’s expansion will result in ~300 additional car trips through the neighborhood. The residents of Palo Alto want more trees and less pollution. Castilleja’s plans include removing mature oaks and redwood to make room for an underground garage. The residents of Palo Alto want those who govern Palo Alto to act with integrity. City Council has enabled Castilleja School to violate city rules by allowing the school to be over-enrolled for 20 years. The residents of Palo Alto want the structures within their neighborhood to serve the residents and to have a residential look and feel. Castilleja’s plans include building an over-sized, boxy, institutional structure that is a violation of municipal codes. The residents of Palo Alto want quiet. The construction associated with the expansion of the school is estimated to take 5 years. Please fairly represent the residents of Palo Alto and oppose this expansion. Gratefully, Robin Bayer 381 Oxford Avenue   ************* Magic, 1979‐2021: forty‐two years of valuescience leadership **************    Magic demonstrates how people can address individual, social, and environmental  ills nearer their roots by applying science to discern value more accurately and realize   it more fully.     Enjoy the satisfaction of furthering Magic's work by making one‐time or recurring gifts.   Magic is a 501(c)(3) public charity. Contributions are tax‐deductible to the full extent   permitted by law.                                                                 THANK YOU!    www.ecomagic.org ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ (650) 323‐7333‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Magic, Box 15894, Stanford, CA 94309  ************************************************************************************************** **  46 Baumb, Nelly From:Magic <magic@ecomagic.org> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 12:33 PM To:Cormack, Alison; Council, City; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Castilleja proposed expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi, Palo Alto City Council members,     I write to oppose the expansion of Castilleja School that is before you. The school administrators and governing board  have stolen from their neighbors by inflicting the costs of over enrollment on them while reaping the benefits for the  school. Now they're asking that you reward them by legitimizing their theft and allowing them to continue stealing at an  even greater rate.    If Castilleja wants to serve more students, they can emulate the UC and countless other public school systems and open  more campuses. They've offered no compelling region why a growing number of students from beyond Palo Alto can be  educated only in Palo Alto.     While few seem to understand the meaning of overshoot as a biological term, ecologists worldwide concur that the  human species is in overshoot. With our obsession with growth—of population, GDP, and institutions from businesses to  universities—is the antithesis of "sustainability." we impoverish our own and our children's futures.    If the folks at Castilleja want to update or remodel their facilities to accommodate a student population and the  activities allowed under their use permit, I'm glad for them to do that. By taking from their neighbors in order to  "educate" young women, they're by example teaching those women that character matters less than whatever else  they're being taught.    Thank you for considering these views.    David Schrom  47 Baumb, Nelly From:Kerry Yarkin <kya.ohlone@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 12:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege,  not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The  CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a  right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a  privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!The CUP is a privilege, not a right!        I got carried away with copy edit.    Stay well,  Kerry Yarkin  48 Baumb, Nelly From:Dawn Um <dawn.um@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 11:52 AM To:Council, City Cc:Mark Sue; David Ko; Lorraine Brown; Jennifer Cho Subject:Supporting Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Dear Mayor DuBois and Honorable City Council Members,     We are writing to you to ask that you vote in favor of the Castilleja CUP and masterplan on March 15th. As concerned residents of Palo Alto, we have reviewed documents and found that the plan will have minimal impact on the neighborhood while having lifelong impact on the young ladies who attend Castilleja. The school’s critical enrollment number is 540 students in order to offer the highest quality all-girls education. Please note, this number would only add 6% (or 25-27 students) per year which does not justify a second campus. Additionally and perhaps more importantly, so much of what makes Castilleja a unique asset in Palo Alto is the mentorship that happens between the younger girls and the high-schoolers on a daily basis through both set curriculum and social interactions. These strong relationships build the girls in our community into confident, capable young women.     In order for this to happen, we need your vote in favor of the underground garage and the variance to maintain the above ground square footage. It is compelling to note that the PTC has stated that this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the most thorough they have ever reviewed.     The underground garage will not increase car traffic to the school, but rather do more to preserve the neighborhood feel by moving cars off the street. Zoning code does not prohibit underground parking in an R-1 neighborhood for non-residential use and in fact the EIR states it is the environmentally superior option. The Kol Emeth sanctuary at 4175 Manuela Avenue establishes precedent for such underground parking in an R-1 zone.     Castilleja’s current above-ground square footage predates current code and it is important to emphasize that a vote in favor of the variance would not increase the above ground square footage at all, but rather maintain it.     In Project Alternative #4, Castilleja has shown its commitment to its students, surrounding neighbors, the community, and the environment. We believe they have done everything possible to appease all involved. Your vote in favor of the proposed items on March 15th will allow the Council to move forward to other issues facing our community in 2021 and moving forward, the ARB sub-committee should work with Castilleja on any additional revisions.     Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.   49   Warmly,   Dawn and Mark Sue  1494 Kings Lane  Palo Alto, CA   50 Baumb, Nelly From:Cosmos Nicolaou <cosmos.nicolaou@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 10:06 AM To:Council, City Subject:March 8 Council Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,    I trust that you are all well in these trying times. I’m writing today to ask you to support Castilleja’s master plan. I have lived in Palo Alto for over 20 years, my daughter attended the school and my wife is a teacher there.    Much has already been written about the requested growth in enrollment and arguments put forward both for and against. I won't dwell on the details except to say that from my perspective it is clear that the school administration has done its utmost to address all concerns and comments even when they have required significant changes, delays and expense. Such compromise and flexibility is a key aspect of all good faith negotiation which sadly has become a scarce commodity in today's public discourse. I believe the final proposal is a reflection of that constructive process and will prove to be a long term asset to our city.    The school is absolutely committed to the traffic cap and I can personally attest to its rigorous and consistent enforcement over many years, both in terms of our local neighborhood carpool and the traffic management implemented in the school's immediate vicinity. My daughter learned the importance of 'journey minimization' at a young age!    My son attended Gunn and having seen how sound forward looking investment dramatically improved the facilities there I am hopeful that as many Castilleja students of the future as possible can enjoy a similarly improved school environment.    In summary, I wholeheartedly encourage you to approve the application and allow more young women to benefit from Castilleja's excellent education!      Yours,  Cosmos Nicolaou  Magnolia Drive, Palo Alto  51 Baumb, Nelly From:john@kovalfamily.com Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 9:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a longtime resident of Castilleja, we appreciate the benefits of educating all of our youth. We support women’s  education. That is not what this is about.    The expansion does not specifically go to improve the education of Palo Alto youth, since most of their students come  from outside of Palo Alto. This expansion will however, significantly affect the residents and neighborhood around it  with many more vehicles and events at the school.    Castilleja is a business that has benefitted financially by breaking the rules (and continues to break that rule). You should  not reward a business that breaks the rules by allowing them to further expand the campus and enrollment, that were  the subject of their violations!    John Koval  Tennyson Ave  Palo Alto  52 Baumb, Nelly From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 8:10 AM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Neighbors' Statement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and Council Members: We recognize that being a Palo Alto City Council member is very intense and difficult work. There are immense piles of information on each topic you need to deliberate, and then you have to try to sift through applicants' and opponents' public statements. I know you are trying to read volumes of paper coming from both sides on this controversial issue. Likely there are many other pressures as well. You should be paid a significant salary for this work, it's shocking to me that it's expected to be basically a volunteer job. We are so grateful that there are 7 hard-working and seriously dedicated individuals sitting on Council. This letter is to let you know who we are. Neighbors: PNQL is the neighborhood organization organized in June of 2016, when the school's plans were submitted, fully baked, to the City of Palo Alto. We had no influence or input on the proposal. The PNQL steering committee has been meeting weekly for the last 4- 1/2 years to try to get Castilleja to reduce the scope of their expansion plans. Before Covid, we would meet in our homes and have guest speakers from among City officials and would reach out to 20 - 30 neighbors to join. We have a solid group of 60 people that consists ONLY of the immediately surrounding 1-2 blocks, not to mention many more supporters from all around Palo Alto and many friends and neighbors who, although they prefer to remain anonymous, are appalled at these plans. We submitted a petition in 2017 to Council to get the school to go back to their required maximum enrollment of 415 (500 signatures). We have researched the enormous amount of public records that show how the school has manipulated city staff. For example, when they were caught significantly over-enrolled, they agreed to reduce enrollment over a few years, but then quit after 2 years. We had to hire an attorney to get Keene and Stump to require them to start reducing again. They are still over enrolled and the staff report recommends that they be allowed to stay at this number. We kept "events trackers" spreadsheets among neighbors to keep evidence of nighttime and weekend events significantly over what their CUP allows. We have been working for at least 2 years to prove they are misstating their own existing floor area. We brought it up at the July 2019 Draft EIR public comments meeting and provided documentation at the 11/18/20 PTC meeting (these are just two examples). We met with staff at least quarterly for many years and have presented our work and have been ignored. The EIR was prepared by an organization, Dudek, that is supposed to be independent, according to the CEQA manual. I have sat in staff's office and had my complaints about not 53 getting our comments posted emailed to Dudek while CC-ing school officials and school's attorney. How can this be independent? At the PTC meetings, Dudek, the school and the staff all seemed to be in concert, using all the same words and pushing this project through. We have pointed out that staff aggressively led commissioners to a conclusion on one of the findings based on inaccurate information (Mr. Lait's 3/5/21 memo gives a confusing explanation for this). One of the Planning Commissioners didn't disclose his connections to the school, and he has hand-in-hand led the development side attorneys on the commission to go along with him; he used the same words from the school's PR playbook and made disparaging remarks about us, the neighbors, while seeming to advocate for the school. We got no "casti-cap" group to get our views included, like SOFA very successfully got, or a "study session" for you to have gotten wind of what's going on. Money and Influence: We aren't paid (this is costing us) and we don't have the deep pockets to provide binders with 4-color marketing pieces, written by PR firms touting how great the school is. Nowhere in there do they talk about what digging a hole to pour concrete to build a bunker for cars and invite traffic does to Palo Alto's sustainability goals and how it requires removing mature trees. There are included, however, results from a flawed and deceiving "polling". These plans, from our standpoint, dramatically change the operation from a small bucolic school where it has been successful for 100 years to become something entirely different. A 30% increase in enrollment has never been granted to a private school in Palo Alto (unless they moved or got a second campus) once they maxed out their CUP. We couldn't get any local architecture firm or law firm to work for us as they all claimed to have conflicts, if they would talk to us at all once we said who we were. We are up against seriously highly-paid school officials and consultants and a city staff that has been committed to seeing this project through. It should have had some dampers applied years ago, and now they are claiming they've "come so far" and are almost there. In the school's attorney's original request for variance (Mar 22, 2018) she tries to make a case for allowing the floor area using code, and not well, but mainly talks about the wonderfulness of women's education and how the school has always gotten what they want in the past, and expects to get what they want this time, too. Please study our letters and give this project a fresh perspective, one that reflects neighbors' viewpoints. Please read our Summary Statement: Neighbors of Castilleja, including PNQL and the neighborhood group that preceded us, called the Small Working Group, put together a Neighbors Summary Statement after meeting together many times last fall, which we have sent around to various boards and commissions. 60 surrounding neighbors signed. Thank you. Andie Reed PNQL 54 Castilleja School Expansion Summary Statement Prepared by Neighbors September 2020 The attached Castilleja Neighbors' Summary Statement was written by neighbors who live on Kellogg, Bryant, Melville, and Emerson, surrounding the school. Please read it carefully and consider the impact of your decisions on our neighborhood and the greater Palo Alto. All of the signatories on this letter have residences within two blocks of the school. We are a grass-roots group of actual neighbors who are appalled that this current proposed project, which will be so detrimental to our community, would even be considered for approval by the City of Palo Alto. Building an underground garage at Bryant and Embarcadero and allowing a 200% FAR variance in an R1 neighborhood provides no benefit for Palo Alto, only increased pollution and traffic, and continued ill will. SIGNED BY: Al Kenrick, Melville Ave Amber La, Kellogg Ave Andie Reed, Melville Ave Andrew Alexander, Emerson St Angie Heile, Emerson St Bill Schmarzo, Emerson St Bill Powar, Emerson St Bruce McLeod, Bryant St (SW corner Bryant and Kellogg) Carla Befera, Bryant St (SW corner Bryant and Kellogg) Carolyn Schmarzo, Emerson St Chi Wong, Emerson St. Chris Stone, Emerson St. Daniel Mitz, Melville Ave Daniel Vertheim, Emerson St. David Quigley, Emerson St. Debby Fife, Emerson St Diane Rolfe, Emerson St (NW corner Emerson and Kellogg) Ed Williams, Kellogg Ave Erica Jurney, Kellogg Ave Elizabeth Olsen, Melville Ave Emma Ford, Emerson St Geegee Williams, Kellogg St George Jemmott, Emerson St Han Macy, Melville Ave Hank Sousa, Melville Ave Isaac Caswell, Kingsley Jim Poppy, Melville Ave Joan MacDaniels, Emerson St Joseph Rolfe, Emerson St (NW corner Emerson and Kellogg) Kathleen Judge, Churchill St Kathy Croce, Emerson St (SW corner Melville and Emerson) 55 Kerry Yarkin, Churchill St Kimberley Wong, Emerson St (NW corner Melville & Emerson) Lee Collins, Embarcadero Rd Lee Holtzman, Emerson St Lisa Wang, Kingsley Marie Macy, Melville Ave Mary Joy Macy, Melville Ave Mary Sylvester, Melville Ave Matt Croce, Emerson St (SW corner Melville and Emerson) Midori Aogaichi, Churchill St Nancy Strom, Melville Ave Nelson Ng, Emerson St Neva Yarkin, Churchill St Pam McCroskey, Emerson St PatriciaWong, Emerson St Pius Fischer, Emerson St Richard Mamelok MD, Churchill St Rob Levitsky, Emerson St Robert Yamashita, Bryant St (NE corner Bryant and Kellogg) Ruben Land, Kingsley Stan Shore, Kellogg Ave Val Steil, Kellogg Ave Vic Befera, Bryant St Wally Whittier, Bryant St William Macy, Melville Ave Ying Cui, Waverley St (SW corner Embarc & Waverley) Yoriko Kishimoto, Embarcadero Rd Yulia Shore, Kellogg Ave Yuri Yamashita, Bryant St (NE corner Bryant and Kellogg)   Proposed Castilleja School Expansion Summary Statement Prepared by Neighbors: July 2020 Castilleja Neighbors’ Summary Statement Situation: Castilleja, a private middle and high school located in an R-1 neighborhood, has submitted to the City of Palo Alto a proposal to significantly remodel its campus and increase enrollment by 30% (plus unspecified increases in faculty/staff). Neighbors, who have already borne the brunt of the private school’s significant growth over many years, challenge Castilleja’s plan to increase the size and scope of its operation on this very small parcel. We urge the City to deny approval of an enrollment increase, and not permit the outsized redevelopment proposals, for the following reasons: 1. Traffic congestion, crowded street parking, bike safety concerns on Bryant St. Bike Blvd. Palo Alto seeks fewer traffics issues, not more. 75% of Castilleja’s students and staff commute from outside Palo Alto, with 4 car trips/day/student (drop-off and pick-up) adding congestion to all our main arteries. The neighborhood absorbs unrelenting impact from traffic, busses, parking, deliveries, events, sport meets, and more, on days, nights, weekends, and throughout the summer. 2. Outsized nature of the project: The school is proposing 200,000 sf of buildings on a one-block (268,000 sf) lot. For comparison, imagine a Costco … or two City Halls or Home Depots … located on one small block in a residential neighborhood. 56 3. Castilleja’s Conditional Use Permit (CUP) is far more lenient than neighboring private schools’ permits. Other private schools in Palo Alto and nearby towns are held to much stricter standards, such as specified hours of operation, less density, few or no night events, and none allow an underground garage in a residential neighborhood. Why is Castilleja exempt from similar conditions? No local private schools are permitted more than 20 events per year, Castilleja hosts 100+ events per year. 4. The City should enforce its own Muni Code/Comprehensive Plan statutes. Castilleja’s use does not satisfy the City’s definition of an R-1 conditional use which per PAMC 18.76.10 will “not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience (in the vicinity)” and shall “be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.” The Comp Plan states that the city “seeks to promote community /commercial uses but not at the expense and quality of the residential neighborhoods.” When the school was founded, it was a small boarding school. Its growth and future plans far exceed what is appropriate for this site. 5. City’s prior directive assuring the neighborhood of no future expansion. In 2000, Palo Alto Planning Director John Lusardi was forceful in his CUP approval letter to Castilleja: “The approved Conditional Use Permit does not provide for any increase in students over 415, and any subsequent request for additional students will not be favorably looked upon by the City. … the City is not willing to continue to approach increasing school enrollment for Castilleja School in an incremental manner.” The neighbors did not realize this cap would be ignored by Castilleja starting in 2001, and violations would go unenforced by the City. Why would the City ignore its own 2000 directive, favoring the school’s desire to grow over the needs of Palo Alto residents? 6. Continuous Violation - Castilleja has exceeded its existing enrollment cap for the last 19 years, collecting millions of dollars from over-enrollment. The City is unable to enforce CUP violations, and neighbors have no viable enforcement or compliance leverage. Neighbors have no confidence that future CUP conditions will be met, nor that conditions will be improved with a significant increase in students, plus accompanying parents, teachers, staff, and visitors, coming daily to this small section of Palo Alto. For years neighbors have asked the school to work together in good faith, asking the school to reduce enrollment to the allowed level, and institute a robust shuttle by which ALL students/staff would be delivered to campus. Instead the school has moved ahead with outsized plans, far more expansive than other schools are allowed (see chart attached.) NO neighborhood would welcome this type of unbridled growth from a private entity in its midst. The City Council has an obligation to protect and preserve the rights of its citizens, and to enforce its own codes. We urge the City to oppose this application. If the school wishes to expand, the City should require it to follow the example of other private schools and divide into two appropriately-sized campuses, or move to a larger location which will support as many students as it desires, or require ALL arrivals/departures by shuttle from a satellite parking area, significantly reducing the impact not only on this neighborhood, and the Bike Boulevard, but on all Palo Altans. Thanks for your time and attention. – Neighbors of Castilleja (immediately surrounding blocks)   ‐‐   Andie Reed CPA 160 Melville Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809   57 Baumb, Nelly From:Roger McCarthy <rlmccar@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 10:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:The deplorable history of R-1 zoning CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members, It is probably fitting that the opponents of Castilleja’s expansion are now turning to the intricacies of R-1 single-family zoning to stop this project. This discrimination tool has had a century of success against ethnic minorities. It remains up to the Council if it will be successful in blocking this project as well. We should probably remember that Castilleja was there long before R-1 zoning in Palo Alto, or anywhere else. R-1 zoning was ignominiously invented in the Bay Area in 1916, in Berkeley, which was the first city in the US to adopt this zoning for its Elmwood neighborhood. “Modern zoning has its roots in Berkeley, and racial exclusion and real estate profits were among the primary reasons for its development.” It was explicitly designed as “exclusionary zoning” to preserve the racial segregation of Berkeley’s housing. The negative social impact of these discriminatory zoning policies is beyond dispute. “Zoning has long been criticized as a tool of racial and socio-economic exclusion and segregation, primarily through minimum lot-size requirements and land-use segregation (sometimes referred to as "environmental racism"). Early zoning codes often were explicitly racist.” “Relevant research in this area documents the fact that decision-making in cities, towns, and especially suburban areas routinely excludes people on the basis of socio-economic status or race. While in decades past this exclusion specifically kept out people according to their race, more modern and subtle versions keep people out through informal means, or through the control of land use. An example would be zoning ordinances which exclude low-income or multi-family housing from well-to-do suburbs. The general term for such discriminatory action is exclusionary zoning.” I hope the council will read and consider this history in their decision-making. Dr. Roger L McCarthy 650 Waverley Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-01/california-turns-a-corner-on-single-family-zoning (accessed 7 March 2021) haasinstitute_rootsraceplace_oct2019_publish.pdf (accessed 7 March 2021) https://belonging.berkeley.edu/rootsraceplace/exclusionaryzoning (accessed 7 March 2021) https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/geography-of-inequality-how-land-use- regulation-produces-segregation/BAB4ABDF014670550615CE670FF66016 (accessed 7 March 2021) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoning_in_the_United_States#cite_note-:0-6 (accessed 7 March 2021) https://web.archive.org/web/20070809194948/http://gis.sarup.uwm.edu/acsp/Documents/Race_LitReview.pdf, pg. 5 (accessed 7 Maarch 2021) 58 Baumb, Nelly From:Khoa Do <khoado71@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 8:06 PM To:Council, City Cc:Donna Nguyen Do Subject:Support Castilleja School | CUP and Masterplan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and Honorable City Council Members: We respectfully request your support of Castilleja School’s conditional use permit and Masterplan. Specifically, we seek your vote in favor of the underground parking facility, total school enrollment of 540 students and the variance to maintain Castilleja’s above-ground square footage. The Masterplan has no significant and unavoidable impacts, and it is the preferred option in the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) released by the City of Palo Alto. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) finds this EIR as the most thorough report it has reviewed. The project has also been closely studied by the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and Architectural Review Board (ARB). Based on feedback from the PTC, HRB and ARB, Castilleja revised its proposal to obtain the approval of each tribunal. While the PTC’s decision on the underground parking facility was split, please note the zoning code does not prohibit underground parking in an R-1 neighborhood for non-residential use. This underground facility will reduce car parking in the streets and, per the EIR, improve neighborhood aesthetics. Precedent exists for the City of Palo Alto’s approval of such a facility for non-residential use in an R-1 neighborhood. We have been informed of a recent discrepancy in the figures regarding above-ground square footage. Castilleja has consistently maintained that it desires to construct only within the above-ground square footage already in existence; and the school applied for a variance to maintain the current number. Perhaps a subcommittee of the ARB could collaborate with Castilleja on revised plans as needed. On March 15th, please vote in favor of the underground parking facility, 540-student enrollment, events and other conditions of approval that can be agreed upon (independent of the school building's square footage adjustment). We believe that your support serves the best interests of the community. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, Khoa and Donna Do 3289 South Court Palo Alto, California 94306 59 Baumb, Nelly From:Quigley, David <dquigley@asbrealestate.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 7:21 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers, Some brief thoughts about Castilleja. We have heard from many parents and students over the last four years about what a great education and experience these young women receive. What we have not heard is that the current facilities are preventing the students or the school from thriving. On the contrary, the students, as seen in their testimonials, love it. The school has so much demand for spots that it has to turn people away. A giant expansion does not need to happen for the school to continue to succeed. As we have heard, it is doing wonderful things now. Castilleja is not threatening to move. The opposite – it has no intention of relocating or splitting its campus. Castilleja is already located in Palo Alto, so this is not some entity that the city admires that we are trying to woo to locate in our city. It is here and not leaving. It does not need to be granted variances that other entities or individuals would never get in order to succeed. The school is thriving. If it wants to renovate its campus then it should renovate under the conditions allowed under the existing CUP. Thank you for your time and consideration. David Quigley 1326 Emerson Street Palo Alto 60 Baumb, Nelly From:Wally Whittier <wallywhittier@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 6:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Subject: Castilleja Expansion Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members      I am writing to urge the Council to reject a new underground parking garage that is proposed in the Castilleja School  expansion plan.      Operation of the school with more than 300 students plus staff bordered by a major hard hat construction project  presents serious safety and liability issues. These were not addressed during the ARB and Planning Commission  discussions which mainly focused on the scale and design of the expansion. An underground garage would require major  earth removal equipment and excavation operations done on the border of a busy school, arrivals/drop‐off traffic, and  large construction deliveries‐all constrained by Embarcadero traffic, the Bryant St bicycle route and relatively narrow  neighboring streets. If the “big dig” is to be approved, the City should require a qualified on‐site authority to oversee the  construction from a safety perspective, and who has the authority to halt the project if safety issues arise. Pro‐active  monitoring by the City cannot be done from an office at City Hall. The usual practice of one or more contractor  employees with orange vests making traffic control judgments is insufficient given the scale and complexity of  construction activity. Questions that should be answered in detail: who has the singular responsibility for establishing  safety rules and procedures governing the interaction between school operations including student arrival/departure  and the ad hoc mix of cars and trucks; and in the (very unlikely) event of a serious incident, is the City morally and  financially liable for the consequences.     Embedding a large parking structure increases the number of cars heading to school. To address the increase Castilleja  offers a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program which basically puts the City in a long term (years) traffic  cop role. The school envisions an on‐going yearly “car count” as an effective mechanism to manage neighborhood traffic  impacts. Counting car arrivals at drop off points is insufficient: there is no measure of the impacts of cars flowing  through the adjoining streets; an analogy would be measuring car arrivals at the front door of CVS in the Town and  Country shopping Center to assess congestion on Embarcadero as drivers work to enter the Center and park.  Additionally, the drop off/pick up car count also has the limitation of being after the fact‐little relief if the TDM  outcomes fall short of meeting established goals. Again using the T&C center experience there will be one/two year  required to negotiate changes to the TDM while traffic impacts persist.     School operations in temporary trailer classrooms during construction are totally at odds with Castilleja’s stated goal of a  Green Project. It’s a failure of imagination to place a complex of schoolroom trailers for three years of use, after which  the trailers are to be “removed” (presumably to land‐fill). The Council might ask whether an alternate site might be  found where, following move into the newly upgraded school, the trailer complex could be put to positive use (an  obvious candidate might be at Cubberley).     Three years is too long to let the construction drag on. The gradual approach to the schedule might at first glance offer  to moderate the neighborhood impacts. Based on the experience on Bryant St one block from the school, a long  construction period is not good. Since Nov 2014 two large new residential projects have been underway for more than  five years, and are still not completed. Even given two contractors, who strive to moderate the impacts, inevitable heavy  equipment operations, material deliveries, contractor parking and noise issues arise. Occurring as construction  61 demands, there is a direct impact on neighbors who deserve to be able to work in their homes. The Council should  require that the schedule be accelerated; get the disruption over with as soon as possible.     It is an Urban Myth that Castilleja “listened” to the neighbors who purportedly originated the idea of an underground  garage. In the hours of ARB and Planning Commission public comment, no neighbors who took part in early  school/neighbor discussions spoke recalling such discussion. On the contrary, early participants state they were  surprised when the garage idea surfaced in the school’s early plans. The school’s attorney seems particularly to be fan of  this self‐serving tale.     Similarly disingenuous is the claim that an underground garage is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. In Nov  2017 the City Council adopted a compressive plan entitled, “Our Palo Alto 2030”. Two major themes of the Plan:  MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING COMMUNITY CHARACTER and REDUCING RELIANCE ON THE AUTOMOBILE. Castilleja  ignored these goals, requesting increased enrollment and, therefore, more parking. Having created more traffic, the  school then pivots and uses the Plan’s as justification for an underground garage solution when more cars come to the  enlarged facility.    I have long been an admirer of Castilleja’s students and teachers. The school has a reasonable need to modernize, but in  a way that restores a supportive relationship with its neighbors.     The Council should approve Castilleja’s objective to modernize but reject its “car” driven garage plan.    Wallace Whittier   1525 Bryant St   Palo Alto  62 Baumb, Nelly From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 6:04 PM To:Council, City; city.manager@cityofpaloalto.com; Clerk, City Subject:Fw: Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  -T Subject: Castilleja Please listen to the residents information about Castilleja's historic failure to follow the rules and regulations for the number of students allowed. Nothing was ever enforced. In 2016 there were over 100 events, which certainly disrupts the neighborhood surrounding the school. The 90 that are proposed is not a compromise. The school wants a 30% increase in students, which will result in over 300 trips a day. Please do not approve of its proposed expansion, underground garage, extreme environmental impact on the neighborhood, with the resulting noise of the underground construction, and the increased traffic on Embarcadero and other nearby streets. The neighbors have thoroughly researched this proposal, and the resultant impacts on the neighborhood and the city. Please support the residents in making this decision. Thank you, Suzanne Keehn 94306 63 Baumb, Nelly From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 6:03 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please listen to the residents information about Castilleja's historic failure to follow the rules and regulations for the number of students allowed. Nothing was ever enforced. In 2016 there were over 100 events, which certainly disrupts the neighborhood surrounding the school. The 90 that are proposed is not a compromise. The school wants a 30% increase in students, which will result in over 300 trips a day. Please do not approve of its proposed expansion, underground garage, extreme environmental impact on the neighborhood, with the resulting noise of the underground construction, and the increased traffic on Embarcadero and other nearby streets. The neighbors have thoroughly researched this proposal, and the resultant impacts on the neighborhood and the city. Please support the residents in making this decision. Thank you, Suzanne Keehn 94306 64 Baumb, Nelly From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 5:10 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:March 8, 2021 Council Meeting, Item #7: 1310 Bryant Street (Castilleja) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Herb Borock  P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302    March 7, 2021    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      MARCH 8, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #7  1310 BRYANT STREET (CASTILLEJA)      Dear City Council:    I urge you to reject the Project and to take no action on the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).    Last year you considered an appeal by Pat Burt, Greg Schmid, and Karen Holman of a Planning Director's interpretation to award a seismic bonus to a building that was being demolished.    In their appeal the three appellants said,    This interpretation also carries with it an inherent conflict regarding historic buildings that are in need of seismic retrofit. Will the new “Interpretation” extend to historic rehabilitations and the President’s Hotel or the Post Office be vulnerable to the wrecker’s ball if an applicant is successful in convincing the Building Official of some undefined “financial infeasibility” or “impracticality” if a similar Interpretation determines the fate of such buildings? The PTC, City Council and the public must not be circumvented by such an Interpretation as they are with the June 29 Interpretation.     Now, in the Castilleja application, staff is proposing to exempt basement floor area pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.12.090(b)(3) adopted in 2018 that excludes counting basement floor area associated with a historic property.    65 However, most of the historic property is being demolished as part of the proposed project.    Staff is recommending excluding the project's basement floor area for historic reasons after most of the historic property is demolished, just as staff previously allowed a seismic bonus for a demolished building.    I saw no mention in the staff report of PAMC Section 18.12.090(a) that says, "Basements may not extend beyond to the building footprint".    Does any of the basement parking extend beyond any of the building footprint of any of the existing buildings that are not being demolished?    In 1992, Castilleja consisted of two parcels that were separated by a street easement on Melville Avenue between Bryant Street and Emerson Street.    The City Council on March 16, 1992 adopted Resolution No. 7080 to vacate that street easement at Castilleja's request, because the school desired to construct a new athletic field.    If the Council at that time was told that the Melville Avenue easement of 0.609 acres was going to be used to connect the Castilleja campus with the separate undeveloped Castilleja parcel on Embarcadero Road to create a combined parcel from Embarcadero Road to Kellog Avenue that would have substantially more development potential, and that the "athletic field" would also be the site above a basement parking area, the City could have demanded a premium price for vacating the easement, and the City could have included the easement vacation as part of an EIR at that time to evaluate the development potential of the newly created combined parcel.    Castilleja has moved its campus multiple times in the past as the school expanded. It is time for Castilleja to move again.    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock      66 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 3:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  By now you must have read a high volume of messages and opinions regarding Castilleja’s ambitious expansion plan. If you are  keeping track, please add a tick mark in the “approve a modified plan” column.  The proposed garage/basement is over‐the‐top and  should not be approved for many reasons, including that it is contrary to many Palo Alto goals, including reducing green gas  emissions, protecting neighborhoods, and mitigating traffic.   This issue is reminding me of the Stanford GUP.  Like Stanford, Castilleja conflates being an excellent education institution with  development rights.  As Castilleja must know, the two are not related and no one is contesting the well‐established fact that  Castilleja does an excellent job educating young women.  I sent my daughter to Castilleja for middle school and gladly encourage  parents to do the same.  But that is a big SO WHAT? in the context of land use.  Castilleja has the money to gain your approval for this proposal.  Some of that money was gained by deliberately ignoring the  agreed‐upon enrollment cap and collecting tuition from extra students . . .  for years.  Please don’t prove that Council approval is up  for sale.  If the County allowed Stanford to develop unchecked, Palo Alto would be forced to absorb the many impacts of that  development.  Likewise, if you approve the Castilleja proposal as is, the surrounding neighborhood will be forced to absorb the bulk  of the impacts.  But the impacts, especially traffic, will spread to other nearby areas as well.  The City has invested time, money, and effort in developing the Comp Plan and zoning that govern development.  Residents should  be able to rely on those existing standards.  Why have a blueprint for development if it can be tweaked at will to suit the needs of an  over‐reaching project?  Why not instead scale back this project so that it complies with existing standards and to what was  previously agreed?  The garage/basement is the problem.  I well understand why many neighbors are objecting.  Unfortunately, those seeking a more  reasonable plan are up against a behemoth, aided, apparently, by guidance and assurances from senior Staff, including the current  and former City Manager and a convenient interpretation of the code that may be one of the City Attorney office’s most assailable  actions against residents ever.  Even if clever lawyering can distort common definitions, residents should be able to rely on this not  happening.  Residents should also be able to rely on existing codes and common sense. Perhaps most importantly, residents should  be able to rely on City Council to see through such manipulation and not reward it with approval.  Finally, decisions about our built environment should be made by City Council, elected representatives of the residents of Palo Alto,  not Staff.  Somewhere along the line City Council forfeited too much control and influence to Staff.  This has resulted in major  proposals advancing outside of established processes.  The Hotel President and this Castilleja proposal are egregious examples of  this.  Please take this opportunity to right the ship.    Annette Ross  Amherst Stree, Palo Alto  67 Baumb, Nelly From:Naida Sperling <naidasperling@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 3:13 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; lydiakou@cityofpaloalto.org; alsion.cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members:    Admittedly, a portion of my letter has been copied from a sample format that sufficiently expresses my thoughts about this project. But to personalize it a bit I want to add the following additional points:    1) I see no added value to our community by allowing this expansion to proceed to an organization that adds no tax revenue to our city and frankly I do not see the panache they seem to think they add to Palo Alto. What it will add is an even greater use of our resources that they seem to feel entitled to.    2) Eventually we will recover from the pandemic and hopefully life will resemble much of what life was life pre-Covid. That means at early morning, midday lunch and rush hour traffic will resume to the nightmare it is on Embarcadero Road. I resist any measure that will allow more time added to that already overcrowded stressful traffic situation. I live in midtown and recall when going to Town and Country or El Camino at Embarcadero would be a short 10-15 minute drive. It has turned into a 25 - 45 minute commute instead at those times of day. The traffic then impacts El Camino. It’s not inconsequential. Do not allow this to happen!    3) I consider myself a feminist, support the idea of girls/women’s education and I’m offended that there is some connection with rejecting this plan as presented as a condemnation of that form of education. It is not unusual for private schools to have multiple sites or to move altogether to a different site that will adequately and legally address their expansion plans. Instead we have an organization that is acting aggressively and trying to bully our community to give them what they want. They’ve spent tens of thousands of dollars in planning and lawsuits that could have been better used to find another site without argument.    4) It’s somewhat incredulous that the school promises they will monitor themselves when they have disregarded their enrollment cap in the past. I’m not one for rewarding people or organizations that don’t think the rules apply to them. It’s particularly notable that these are people dedicated to educating others while seeming to be in flagrant violation of contractual agreements. Perhaps this would be a good time for both students and administrators to learn you can’t always get what you want.    5) Last but not least, aside from any precedents an approval might set, I don’t see how the school’s wish list trumps the wishes and well being of all the tax paying residential neighbors who are opposed to this expansion.    I have been following the Castilleja expansion project controversy because the idea that a private school could expand so dramatically in a small neighborhood surrounded by major arterials would set a precedent of allowing commercial development interests over R-1 zoning anywhere in Palo Alto.   68 At the draft EIR public meeting last year, people made very good suggestions; reduce the scope of the expansion, split the campus or find a larger site, as other private schools have done. These were rejected by the EIR preparers, however, because that’s not what the school wants to do, as those solutions don’t allow the business model the school has determined is essential. And now decision- makers are ONLY looking at a 30% increase in enrollment, 90 events per year, and an underground garage, as though it is a given that despite not being in compliance with the Muni Code, this should be acceptable. The EIR says that the impacts will be mitigated because the school says they will mitigate them. This school does not have a history of respecting their Conditions of Approval, so why would the City be entertaining this project?  Please recommend no change until the school can come up with an authentically neighborly plan that we can all get behind.     Thank you,    Naida Sperling  Moreno Avenue  Palo Alto 94303       69 Baumb, Nelly From:Heather Kenealy <hkenealy@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 2:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please approve Castilleja's proposals! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council, I am writing today as a Palo Alto resident and supporter of Castilleja School regarding the upcoming meetings on March 8th and 15th. As a resident and parent of an alumna, I know firsthand the incredible diligence, thought, and care that Castilleja puts into all of their decisions. Castilleja's proposals for an underground garage, increased enrollment and maintenance of the current above-ground footprint are no different. These proposals should be approved as it improves the neighborhood's aesthetics and is preferred by the Environmental Impact Report. The underground garage removes cars from the neighborhood streets and is consistent with the city's Comprehensive Plan. Castilleja has been extremely conscientious in its effort to remove cars and traffic from the neighborhood. Further, this proposal will not bring any additional cars to the neighborhood. After our daughter graduated from Castilleja School, she attended Stanford University and received both her undergraduate and master's degrees in Computer Science in the Artificial Intelligence track. She now works at Google Brain in Mountain View and hopes to remain a Palo Alto resident after Covid-19. Without the math, science, and ethics offered to our daughter during her time at Castilleja, she would not have been able to accomplish what she has to this point. We support Castilleja's increased enrollment as it gives the opportunities our daughter had to more young women. Our daughter started at Castilleja School in the fall of 2008 as a 6th grader. At the time, we lived in Menlo Park. When our daughter began high school in 2011, we moved from Menlo Park to Palo Alto. Our move was largely because we wanted our daughter to be closer to her school community and be able to bike or walk to school. We wanted our house to be the local hub for our daughter and her friends after school. Castilleja School is an asset and draw to this community and should be supported as such. Please approve Castilleja’s proposals for an underground garage, increased enrollment, and maintaining their current above-ground footprint. Thank you for your time and attention. Sincerely, Heather Kenealy 1032 Channing Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 70 Baumb, Nelly From:James ODonohue <odonohue@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 11:29 AM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy Subject:Castilleja project on March 8, 2021 agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  March 6, 2021 Mayor Dubois and Honorable City Council members: I am writing to express my strong opposition to the currently proposed Castilleja expansion plan. I am a strong supporter of women’s education, and both my wife and my daughter are physicians. Since I live a block from the school, had my daughter wanted to attend Castilleja, I would have been thrilled to have her educated there. I also support Castilleja as an institution in their mission to educate young women, and it would be wonderful if they could double or even triple their enrollment to serve more young women, but it would be most appropriate if they expanded or split their campus and their enrollment away from a residential neighborhood. Since 75% of Castilleja students live outside Palo Alto, the school should relocate or expand into a separate campus closer to their students. Importantly, Castilleja knowingly violated their conditional use permit with the city for many years. That past behavior is the best predictor of how they may be expected to behave regarding any future agreements. Because of those past violations, the city of Palo Alto imposed a financial penalty amounting to a tiny slap on the wrist which is also best predictor of how the city may be expected to behave regarding any future violations. How could any reasonable citizen believe this will deter Castilleja from violating any or all future agreements? Since their proposed project violates zoning rules for their R1 neighborhood, that alone should stop the project. Please, limit the permitting to 450 students, giving the school a chance to prove they can accomplish “no net new trips”. This is especially important since the local traffic impact of the proposed closure of the Churchill rail crossing is unknown. So please, reject the current Castilleja expansion proposal. Thank you for your time and the work you are doing for the city. James O’Donohue, M.D. 72 Baumb, Nelly From:David Ko <davidko@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 10:56 AM To:Council, City Cc:David Ko; Jennifer Cho Subject:Supporting Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and Honorable City Council Members,    I am writing to ask for you to vote in favor of the Castilleja CUP and masterplan. Specifically, I urge you to vote in favor of  the underground garage, enrollment of 540, and the variance to maintain their above ground square footage. This is a  project with no significant and unavoidable impacts and the preferred option in the Environmental Impact Report. Note,  the PTC has stated that this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the most thorough they've ever reviewed. Over recent  months, the project was closely reviewed by the HRB, ARB, and PTC, and based on their feedback, the school revised  their proposal leading to approval by all commissions. While a decision on the underground parking facility was split in  the PTC, please note that the zoning code does not prohibit underground parking in an R‐1 neighborhood for non‐ residential use. The underground facility will remove cars from the streets and improve the neighborhood aesthetics  (per the EIR). There is precedent in the city for approving such a facility for non‐residential use in an R‐1 neighborhood.    I understand that a recent development arose, a discrepancy in the figures for above ground square footage. The school  has stated consistently that they want to build only the above ground square footage that they already have; they  applied for a variance to maintain the current number. I think an ARB sub‐committee should work with the school on  revised plans as needed, and that this issue should not hold back your voting on March 15. It is now time for Council to  vote on this project so that our city can move on to the other issues you laid out in your 2021 goals. On March 15, I urge  you to vote on the enrollment, underground parking facility, events, and other conditions of approval that can be agreed  upon independent of the academic building's square footage adjustment ‐ which should, again, be handled by an ARB  sub‐committee.      Please, do this for the good of our community.      Thank you for listening,    David and Jennifer Ko  1357 Pitman Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301  73 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathy Croce <kathryncroce@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 10:11 AM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council members, During your deliberations on the proposed Castilleja project would you spend a few minutes looking at the site where the school wants to relocate the swimming pool? It is currently located in the interior of the campus and we neighbors along Emerson would like it to stay that way. The extra excavation to lower it fifteen feet would occur directly across from my house on the corner of Emerson and Melville. The crowd noise and whistles from water polo matches would overwhelm several of the homes along Emerson. The architects stated that the proposed sound wall was never tested with a real pool so there is no data to support that it will limit noise from pool events. The proposed new pool site is where a nice parking lot exists now. It makes more sense to leave the parking lot there, eliminate the planned underground garage and recess the pool in or near its current site where it is further away from the residences along Emerson. The school can still retain 86 at grade parking spaces and have a new pool that is not directly across from the neighbors on Emerson. 86 spaces is legal (per Code) and sensible for a reasonable enrollment of 450 or so. 540 students, with all the additional parents, teachers, staff, volunteers, is an outrageous increase on such a small site. In addition don't forget the comments that one of the ARB members made during their hearings. One member suggested a retractable pool cover be installed. You see that in certain parts of the country so why not consider mandating the school put that into its plans? The school site is so small that strong measures are needed to limit the changes the school wants without depriving the neighbors of their peace and quiet. I hope that these suggestions will convince you to send the plan back to the school for some reworking. Please do that so both sides can have an acceptable outcome. Thank you, Kathy Croce 1300 block Emerson 74 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeff Dean <jeff.dean@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 10:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja School CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Palo Alto City Council members,     My name is Jeff Dean.  I have been a Palo Alto resident for the past 17 years, and my wife and I currently live in Barron  Park.  We have two daughters, Victoria (age 25) and Natalie (age 21), who both attended Castilleja School for high  school.  Both benefited greatly from the excellent education provided by Castilleja, and having the city support Castilleja  in their efforts to rebuild parts of their campus infrastructure and to continue to bring excellent all‐girls education to  Palo Alto is extremely important to me and to many, many others in Palo Alto.    By allowing Castilleja to modernize their campus and to grow enrollment, more students will be able benefit from the  type of education that my daughters received.  Castilleja nurtured both my daughters' love of science and mathematics,  and gave them both confidence and leadership skills.  Both were active in the Castilleja robotics team, Gatorbotics, and  pursued STEM majors as undergraduates at MIT and UCSB, and my older daughter Victoria is now a Ph.D. student at  Carnegie Mellon University studying machine learning and robotics.  As one of two Senior Fellows at Google (the highest  technical position in the company) and as the SVP of Research and Health at Google, I can assure you that the world  needs more female technologists, and supporting Castilleja can help in this regard!    I've also seen the effort that Castilleja has put into traffic planning, with the traffic at the school dramatically reduced  compared with a few years ago (not that it was much of an issue to begin with!).    Please support Castilleja by approving their renovation plans and their new conditional use permit (CUP).  I urge you to  vote on this project on March 15.  An ARB sub‐committee can review the recently discovered square footage  discrepancy, and Council should proceed with voting on enrollment, the underground parking facility, events, and other  conditions of approval.  You have a tremendous amount of data on which to base your decision, and I ask for you to vote  in favor of the school's proposal.    Thank you,    ‐Jeff  75 Baumb, Nelly From:Joseph Rolfe <joerolfe@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 7:58 PM To:Council, City Cc:dianehrolfe@comcast.net Subject:Castilleja Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of the City Council, Castilleja is trying to push through what we see as a poorly designed, and controversial expansion plan. The changes to the neighborhood are profound and the present plan needs to be abandoned or at least changed significantly. They are asking the City Council for a vote while taking advantage of the dislocation and distractions of the pandemic. Also, in presenting their plans and ambitions, they have been less than honest with their neighbors and the City, for a long time. Castilleja had an enrollment of about 175 students in 1965. Approximately 100 lived on campus. Their impact on the neighborhood was much less than today. Castilleja has been not a good neighbor. Their arrogant and indifferent treatment of their neighbors has destroyed trust. Castilleja has displayed rigidity and a closed mind to anything but what they want. As one example, Castilleja’s original Palo Alto Conditional Use Permit (CUP) requirement was for 415 students. For most of the last 20 years they have been out of compliance by having more students and have been dishonest about this. They want 540 students. Is that the final enrollment or do they have further expansion plans? It seems wise to question their stated expansion plans with consideration of past behavior. Castilleja’s expansion plans are out-of-scale for the neighborhood. Their planned expansion cannot be realized without far more impact on the neighborhood. They have been rigid and unwilling to compromise with their plans. For example, there are sound pedagogical reasons for separating the high school from the middle school. All of the other middle schools and high schools in Palo Alto both public and private are separated, but Castilleja rejects this idea out of hand. Castilleja has been rigid in that they will not separate the middle school from the high school. However, that one change in their proposal would simplify the Castilleja expansion plan immediately. (Castilleja already has 60+ students per acre and they want to increase this to about 90 students per acre – more than any school in the area). The necessary financial needs for a second campus are certainly within the fund-raising ability of Castilleja. Castilleja occupies 6+ acres in an R1 neighborhood. A win-win solution for all would be a land swap between Stanford and Castilleja. Castilleja would probably have more than 6 acres and could greatly expand their campus. This is not a new idea. Palo Alto High School, Gunn High School, Escondido, and Nixon Elementary Schools are on Stanford land. The present Castilleja site would become much needed mixed-use housing for Stanford staff and students and preserve the neighborhood ambiance. Castilleja needs to reconsider the impact of their proposal on other problems facing the city and the region. Here is a solution that can help the City of Palo Alto meet its housing needs and solve its 76 traffic problems as well as considering the impact of the proposed project on its neighbors. Castilleja has tried to equate their expansion to educating girls and young women. Of, course Castilleja does a good job of educating girls and young women. Other people have described the proposed ill-conceived project in detail before the City Council. Please Stop the rush and reconsider how we can all help one another in a final positive proposal that will not cause further ill-will and litigation. The present plans are out-of-scale for the neighborhood. Joe and Diane Rolfe 1360 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301     77 Baumb, Nelly From:Susann Mirabella <smirabella@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 7:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please approve Castilleja's proposed project now! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council, I live on Kellogg Avenue and have been a neighbor of Castilleja for about 30+ years. Castilleja has always been a great neighbor and we really enjoy having a school here and be able to see and hear children in the area. Traffic has been mitigated as they have been asked to do! You are already aware what a wonderful educational institution Castilleja is and therefore no need for me to add anything more to that. Castilleja has listened and followed all the requirements imposed and will continue to do so. By doing so, Castilleja deserves and has earned the right to get approval for the project. Thank you. Susann Mirabella-355 Kellogg Avenue 78 Baumb, Nelly From:Julia Zeitlin <24jzeitlin@castilleja.org> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 3:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Palo Alto City Council Members,     My name is Julia Zeitlin, and I am sending in a letter in support of the Castilleja Master Plan.    Thank you so much,    Julia   79 Baumb, Nelly From:Ellen Smith <ef44smith@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 11:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:Deny Castilleja expansion plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am opposed to Castilleja's plan to expand enrollment by nearly 25 percent, and therefore also its facilities, including underground parking. No one disputes the quality of education the school provides, but it is nonetheless a corporate function in a residential neighborhood already impacted by traffic and parking and situated on a major commute arterial to Stanford University. What's in a name? A garage by any other name will still hold cars. Calling this a basement is mere sophistry. Is the parking under City Hall a basement? It seems one could make that argument. Let us not make a decision based on definitional hair-splitting. Look at the impact of more students, more teachers, more traffic, more events - as well as the impact of construction over a considerable period of time. And consider that for years Castilleja violated the operating agreement it had with the city. Again, I urge you to deny the application for expansion. Ellen Smith 1469 Dana Ave. 80 Baumb, Nelly From:Andrew Dean <andy.dean@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 10:33 AM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members:     I am writing to comment on the future of the young women's school, Castilleja. Although the proposed increase in  enrollment is very gradual over a period of years, it is actually overdue, urgently needed. There is a significant number of  girls that are best served by learning in a single‐sex environment, as we want to promote women's participation in fields  like robotics and computer science.     Moreover, these courses that are so vital  to our community's future cannot be taught as independent study. They  require a minimum number of enrolled students.     Furthermore, the underground parking responds to obvious need for increased parking while preserving the beautiful  community environment.     While commending the Castilleja Reimagined proposal for being so willing  to address community members' concerns, I  also want to acknowledge the community's willingness to change and adapt in response to the needs of our young  women.      Best,       Andy Dean  ‐‐   Andrew G. Dean, MD, MPH                                            995 Matadero Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94306  USA  81 Baumb, Nelly From:Amy Christel <amymchristel@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 10:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Permit CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,    I write to you in consternation over the City Staff calling the underground parking garage proposed for Castilleja School a "basement". This is a deplorable move to create a giant loophole for a private school that is mostly serving students from outside Palo Alto. The City has NO obligation to enable this school's expansion, especially given the history of over-enrollment in defiance of permits issued to the school! Please do not pander to elitist interests.     Since the vast majority of Castilleja students come from outside our city, there is no reason that the school must expand here, and indeed if the intent was to have no increase in car commuters, no underground parking would have been planned. The City has a history of not enforcing development "agreements" regarding traffic impacts and noise. If this project is approved, Castilleja will continue to take advantage of that situation and negatively impact adjacent neighborhoods.    It is a slap in the face to residents, who pay taxes to live in this city and who bought homes or pay high rents so that their kids can attend excellent Palo Alto schools, to say that we must sacrifice our peaceful R1 neighborhoods to accommodate a private school's expansion, clog streets and impede access to our public high school just blocks away. This school should be kept to its historic size limits, as a "grandfathered" zoning exception, and no underground parking should be allowed.     It strains credulity (and frankly smacks of big money influence) to call an underground structure, that provides parking for scores of motor vehicles, anything BUT an underground parking garage. You will be participants in this fraud if you approve the permit for the Castilleja expansion. Please constrain City Staff in this giveaway permit approval. I oppose raising the cap on enrollment, and adding any underground space that allows for any vehicle parking.     Sincerely,    Amy Christel  Midtown, Palo Alto        82 Baumb, Nelly From:Beverly Sarver <bevsarver@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 9:45 AM To:Council, City Cc:DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; French, Amy Subject:Re: Castilleja project on March 8, 2021 agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Mayor Dubois and Honorable City Council Members: I am writing to express my concern about the proposed Castilleja expansion. I have lived in Palo Alto for 37 years and have supported opportunity and quality education for all our students. It is disturbing that Castilleja has framed their expansion goals as somehow supporting or not supporting women’s education. Castilleja has been illegally overenrolling for 20 years, and their disregard for the City’s rules and regulations should not be rewarded. Five years of commercial construction would require removal of mature trees and lead to increased traffic, with endangerment to pedestrians and bicyclists. Building a 78-car underground garage and calling it a basement raises alarms as to how easily the zoning code can be conveniently interpreted to serve a developer's needs. I am in favor of limiting Castilleja’s enrollment to 450, which will alleviate the need for an underground garage. The vast majority of Castilleja students live outside of Palo Alto and the school pays no property taxes. If the school would like to expand, I support the idea of splitting the campus, which is a solution that would preserve their relationship with the city and their neighbors and allow for unlimited expansion in the future. Thank you for your time and hard work. Sincerely, Beverly Sarver, MD 1321 Waverley St. Palo Alto, CA   83 Baumb, Nelly From:Consuelo Beck-Sague <becksague@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 5:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please, accept this letter in support for the Castilleja Reimagined proposal.     I am a new member of the Palo Alto community since I retired here in 2019, but have visited frequently since 2009. The  history of this unique 113‐year‐old school for young women is inspiring and a testimonial to the progressive spirit of this  community.     I have been so impressed with the progress that Castilleja staff and volunteers have made in articulating the vision for  the future of the school, responding to the insights and concerns of diverse stakeholders, and presenting a cohesive plan  for this unique entity. Clearly, the enhancements that this proposal represents for this high school for young women  responds to the needs identified and the vision of the founders over a century ago, as well as to the needs created by  the changing landscape of education in the 21st century.   The gradual and thoughtful expansion of the student body to 540  is essential to have the "critical mass" of learners that  offers choices in essential skills for this century and for our community.     It is clear that effective teaching in various subjects requires that expansion. Moreover, the concerns about the impact  of increased numbers of cars is effectively addressed by the ingenious design of the underground parking. The  thoughtful attention to preserving the character,the green spaces, and the serenity of the surrounding community  reassures so many of us in Palo Alto that this expansion will dramatically improve the Castilleja School experience, with  great sensitivity to the quality of life of the schools neighbors.     As a graduate myself of a high school for young women, I am moved by the willingness of the school and community  supporters to ensure that this option, which can make a great difference in the lives of many young women, and their  impact on their communities and the world.     Thank you for your kind attention.     Best wishes         Consuelo M. Beck‐Sagué, MD, FAAP  Associate Professor, RETIRED  Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work  Dept. of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention  Florida International University  Miami, FL 33199    Current Address:  995 Matadero Ave.  Palo Alto, CA 94306  84       Consuelo M. Beck‐Sagué, MD, FAAP  Associate Professor, RETIRED  Robert Stempel College of Public Health and Social Work  Dept. of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention  Florida International University  Miami, FL 33199    Current Address:  995 Matadero Ave.  Palo Alto, CA 94306      85 Baumb, Nelly From:Craig Heimark <craig@hgroup.com> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 6:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council Members,    I last wrote to the City Council in October of 2020 to express my strong support for approval of the Castilleja CUP and  Master Plan.    In that letter I included my view that:  “I am very worried that our community is taking a lead from our Federal government and becoming so paralyzed  by discord that we have become incapable of making real decisions. That paralysis will inevitably lead to decline  and we expect you to avoid that scenario. We elected you to make decisions and expect you do so so in a timely  manner".      Education is critical to the future of our community and country.  We value the diversity of educational opportunities in  the Bay Area from public, to denominational, to single sex schools.  We feel that maintaining that diversity is extremely  important as it allows parents choice and ownership of their children’s educational journey, and parental ownership is a  crucial factor in positive educational results.    Accordingly I am disappointed that a decision approving Castilleja’s plans have not already been approved.    Castilleja has been  working with local stakeholders in a very collaborative manner. Over the last 8 years Castilleja has  held over 60 community meetings to listen to and engage the neighborhood in a constructive manner.  As part of this  dialogue they have made many changes to their original proposal including:   Reducing the size of their underground parking lot   Addressing environmental considerations by working with the City of Palo Alto to meet all standards   Revising outside appearances of their building   Preserving two houses on Emerson   And reducing the number of events to be held on campus    My wife and I have been residents of Palo Alto for over 20 years.  In that time we have observed the value that Castilleja  brings to the local community.  We know many fine young women who have treasured their educational experience at  Castellija.      In order to maintain the quality of educational experience, from time to time, capital investments have to be made to  modernize the facilities and optimize the use of space.      In that light we strongly feel the Castilleja plan should be approved as fast as practical.    Craig Heimark  2174 Waverly Street  87 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 5:34 PM To:Council, City Cc:Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Castelleja Expanssion Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council Members:    The proposed expansion of the Castelleja School has benefits for both the school and Palo Alto.  Unfortunately, the  benefits are lopsided, benefiting the school much more than Palo Alto, and impacting the neighborhood in ways which  far outbalance the small benefits to the city.    Castelleja School is a highly rated and respected all‐girls school.  I'm sure that the great majority of Palo Alto residents support the educational opportunities which the school provides.   The question is not whether Palo Alto should support education for these and future students, but where the balance is  between this goal and the burdens on the city and its residents.    The Castelleja School doesn't pay taxes.  Whatever increase in city services, such as traffic control or noise management,  will be born by the residents of Palo Alto, not by the school or its students.  Insuring that Castelleja School complies with  permit requirements will be an added unfunded burden on the same city departments which have been unable to  enforce past requirements.    Expanding Castelleja School will result in an increase in traffic and noise in the neighborhood.  The Environmental Impact  Statement says that these impacts cannot be completely avoided or eliminated.  The school claims that they can, but  hasn't been able to address either traffic or noise issues in the past.    The area where the school is located is residential, neither zoned nor intended for large institutional buildings and  extensive traffic.  If a new school were to be proposed in this neighborhood, or any other in Palo Alto, of the size and  impact of the proposed expansion, clearly the recommendation would be to look at other locations which would have  smaller impact on neighbors and neighborhoods, as well as better highway access.  Castelleja School has been in the  neighborhood for more than a century.  This doesn't give them a pass or exemption from the same standards which  would be applied to any other similar project.    Some 3/4 of the students are not Palo Alto residents.  Certainly attending a respected school in our city is a benefit to  these students, as is the income that Castelleja School receives is for the school.  The taxes that these students' families  pay goes to their communities, not to Palo Alto to offset the impact that the school has on the city and its residents.    Some of these concerns might be reduced if the Castelleja School was a good neighbor and supported Palo Alto.  That  hasn't been the case.  For literally decades, the school exceeded the legally zoned limit on the number of students permitted.  When this was  discovered by a new president, she did not inform the city and put a plan in place to reduce student population to legal  limits.  There was a public apology, but this only came after the school submitted the expansion proposal.  88 Is it credible after a long history of violating student limits that the school would abide by future limits?  Or is it more  likely that this would require the over‐burdened city staff to audit the school and enforce these regulations, something  which it has been unable to do in the past?    Castelleja School wants to maintain and expand its campus in Palo Alto.  I'm sure that there are many reasons, one of which is certainly the reputation that our city has and the cachet it lends to  the school.  As far as I'm aware, despite suggestions, the school has not investigated creating a second campus in a more suitable  location either in Palo Alto or one of the neighboring cities, such as Menlo Park or East Palo Alto.  I'm sure that a second  campus would have additional costs, and perhaps additional benefits, but with no study or evaluation, it's unclear what  they would be.  The Castelleja School has said that this expansion plan is the only one which they are willing to consider.    It seems to me that there are very modest benefits to Palo Alto, with significant burdens in traffic, noise, and disruption  of a residential neighborhood.  The benefits to Castelleja School are very significant, more students and greatly  increased revenue.  In the light of this marked imbalance, I urge the City Council to reject the expansion proposal.    ‐‐  Michael Eager  89 Baumb, Nelly From:Aidan Pasamonte from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 4:24 PM To:Council, City; michelledeblank@gmail.com Subject:Re: Castilleja Dear Michelle,     My name is Aidan, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out regarding this topic.     Recently, we've been receiving numerous emails regarding the renovation at Castilleja. To discuss this topic more,  Councilmember Tanaka has scheduled a group discussion this Sunday, March 7th between 2:30 and 2:45pm. Would you  have time to join us and express your opinion? Please keep in mind that there may be residents from both sides of the  issue.     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Aidan Pasamonte   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Aidan | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 1:45 PM, Michelle de blank <michelledeblank@gmail.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.   ________________________________     Hi City Council members,     I am writing this email in support of Castilleja’s expansion. Castilleja has done everything under the sun for their  neighbors. The remodel plan is amazing and it will be a win/win once completed. Let’s just let it happen already so this  discussion can end.     It is time to vote “yes” and let Castilleja remodel and modestly expand. It is an asset to Palo Alto and the greater  community.     Thank you,     Michelle de Blank   91 Baumb, Nelly From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 2:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: City Council Meeting 3/8/21, Action Item 7. (1310 Bryant St.) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,     This statement in Thursday’s edition of Palo Alto Online caught my attention.     “When the Palo Alto City Council launches its review Monday of Castilleja School's contentious plan to reconstruct its  campus, it will kick off a process that will influence not just the Bryant Street institution but also the city's process for  evaluating future major developments.”      We all know that land is scarce and valuable in Palo Alto and that we need to build up or down or both to maximize the  space we have.  But, while we have Capital Infrastructure Plans, Coordinated Area and other plans for above ground  construction, we don’t have a plan for underground construction.  Every underground construction project is  considered on an individual basis and cumulative impacts are not considered.  Building underground has physical,  environmental and financial trade‐offs that are as important, if not more so, than building above ground.     As more and more projects propose underground construction, the City needs a citywide plan for underground  construction that considers and mitigates the cumulative impacts of loss of soil, increased contamination of  groundwater, rising groundwater levels, damage to trees, possibility of mobilizing contaminant plumes, and likelihood of  increased flooding.     In a time of climate change our natural and built environments are already being impacted.  We should no longer feel  that because underground construction is out of sight, it can be "out of mind".  We can no longer afford to think that  because “we have always done it this way” it will work in the future.  We can no longer afford to think that any of our  natural resources, including soil and groundwater are disposable.   Unless the cumulative impacts of underground  construction are seriously considered and mitigated, the idea that this project might influence the City’s process for  evaluating future major developments is extremely worrisome.     Thank you for considering my comments,  Esther Nigenda, Ph.D.            92 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Sylvester <marysylvester@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 2:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comment Letter on Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  March 5, 2021 Dear Council Member, I am writing as a longtime resident of Palo Alto who has been an adjacent neighborhood to Castilleja School for 43 years.During this period, I have raised my two children and been professionally employed here.For most of that period, neighbors and Castilleja, have peacefully and respectively co- existed. When the school’s current Head of Schools began her tenure in 2010, relations began to deteriorate in the neighborhood, particularly with the school’s significant jump in over enrollment and attendant traffic and noise issues along with the untruths and obfuscations promoted by the school’s administration.Neighbors began to realize that they were no longer dealing with an honest and transparent broker for a neighbor. We count on you as our duly elected representatives to be a voice for all residents of Palo Alto! Neighbors are here to stay as I presume Castilleja is, so it is now up to you to chart a fair, balanced and environmentally sustainable course going forward.As you proceed, I strongly encourage you to consider: Is the Castilleja expansion project in the best interests of the Palo Alto community! And do the long-term costs of this project exceed the benefits of it to Palo Alto? 93 Implications of Approval of the Castilleja FEIR and new CUP As a result of events over the last decade within our neighborhood and community, I am concerned about the implications of the Castilleja Expansion Project and what it represents for Palo Alto in terms of our environmental sustainability, the value we place on maintaining an economically and racially diverse community and the role special interests might play in public governance. Despite 20 years of Castilleja being out of compliance with its Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the City continues to seriously entertain the school’s request for greater student enrollment and a far denser, commercial style building complex.Further, despite the school’s over enrollment and the pocketing of $12+ million, which Castilleja has never publicly accounted for, City staff has continued to support the school in submitting a project application that is not Code-compliant as to (1) exceeding the City’s Code for total floor area ratio (FAR) far exceeding local density limits; (2) the construction of an “underground parking facility,” in a purely residential neighborhood; (3) labelling the garage as a basement so FAR is not counted; (4) evaluating the garage as a “basement” despite not being under a building as required by Code; and (5) sidestepping the Tree Protection Ordinance to destroy trees and make room for parking spaces in a highly polluting underground garage. And while technically not outside the municipal and zoning codes, why is an underground garage entrance being installed on our Bike Boulevard, which is heavily traveled on by students and commuters thus threatening the Safe Routes to School Program?Further, what is the point of having a Sustainability Plan (2017) that seeks to reduce greenhouse gases by 80% over 1990 levels and allow Castilleja to allow students, parents and staff to drive to school instead of relying on a school- operated shutting system and non-motorized transport. 1477 car trips a day flooding Embarcadero, Alma and narrow City streets, amounting to an extra 300 cars a day (Castilleja FEIR-2020). Doesn’t our Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (2017) aim to encourage environmentally healthy and friendly neighborhoods that promote walkability and encourage a sense of community and well- being?If it was you faced with the institutionalization of your neighborhood as Castilleja seeks to do, would you feel that this goal of the Comprehensive Plan was satisfied? A Double Standard ? To support this project as designed and advanced to City Council at this time demonstrates to me and many Palo Alto residents that a double standard is alive and well in Palo Alto!The wealthy and politically well-connected can throw unlimited amounts of money at this project for lawyers and consulting fees and let all parties to the controversy know if they aren’t granted what they are requesting, the City is looking at very expensive litigation. The residents of Palo Alto are hurt by double standards and lax Code enforcement.Our former City Auditor, Harriet Richardson’s code enforcement audit attests to this fact (2018).We depend on City staff and our elected officials to faithfully follow the letter of the law, the Municipal and Zoning codes, 94 as well as look for guidance to the City’s key Planning documents—Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (2017) Tree Protection Ordinance (Title 8, Palo Alto Municipal Code), Sustainability Plan (2016) along with the Safe Routes to School program. We depend on City Council to represent the best interests of the entire community! Residents Count on a Fair and Transparent Political Process It has been financially costly for my neighborhood to even be heard at City Hall.We have had to spend thousands of hours of our time as well as hire an attorney and consultants in various disciplines to assist neighbors even get recognized and heard by senior Palo Alto City staff.The only reason Castilleja was forced to resume reducing its over enrollment was because of our vigorous public education campaign and the efforts of our attorney to convince the prior City Manager that legally he must resume CUP Code enforcement.Why was Castilleja allowed to pay a fine that was disproportionately low compared to the illegally garnered revenue it collected?And why was the school allowed after 2 years of enrollment reduction to be given a “pause” in 2015 with reducing over enrollment?This is unjust and demonstrates the dangerous power of special interests in Palo Alto! No neighborhood should be forced to go to the lengths we have had to, particularly when 75% of the students and their families are non-residents.Residents need to know that City staff is seriously considering the best interests of all Palo Alto residents.For 20 years now, Castilleja has been afforded special privileges at City Hall: (1) the granting of the 200 block of Melville to the school (once a much- enjoyed neighborhood cul-de-sac); (2) allowing the school to pump groundwater into the street without penalty when constructing the new gym; and (3)stopping the enforcement of the City- mandated enrollment reductions, and (4) pocketing over $12 million dollars of unaccounted for revenue from over enrollment and paying perhaps a 1% fine for intentional wrongdoing. Unfortunately, the Planning Staff report you have before you is a highly biased and largely one-sided document.Only passing references to neighbor concerns are even mentioned.And this is the document that is to provide you with an-depth, comprehensive and unbiased analysis of the Castilleja expansion project for your decision making? Every time City government denies residents’ a voice in critical public decisions, residents’ faith in our government’s transparency, fairness and respect for diverse opinions is undermined.Neighbors’ have NOT had equal standing with Castilleja at City Hall.We reside here, we will be living with the results of this project 7 days a week while most of Castilleja’s students and parents will not, 75% of them come from outside Palo Alto. Repeatly our voices have not been considered or muted by Castilleja staff and City officials.We are not even allowed to meet or talk with many members of City staff (e.g. transportation, bike safety coordinator) about the project and instead are referred to the City’s Chief Planning Official.Unlike any other local civic issues I’ve been involved with for 40 years, there seems to be a “gag rule” on City 95 staff about who can speak to the public about the Castilleja project.We ARE the tax paying residents unlike the overwhelming majority of Castilleja families. Neighbors came together and proposed a draft CUP to City Planning officials (2019-20).Neither were the neighbors’ recommendations considered nor do you see in your packet reference to this document it or a link to it for your convenience.Neighbors would be happy to provide you a copy of this draft document. Equitable, Balanced and Sustainable Growth I am for balanced and sustainable development.Zoning laws create areas for commerce, residential use, and mixed use districts.When the laws aren’t followed, special exceptions can follow that are both unfair, costly and environmentally damaging. Further, it sows distrust in our democratic process!And this is one of the last things we want nationally and locally at this politically and socially fragile time. Residents still question, what happened with the President Hotel?With the Hotel closing, over 74 people lost their housing and some still reside in questionable accommodations yet the building sits empty.All during a housing crisis existing side by side with a pandemic. At a time when we desperately need affordable housing, if Castilleja is unwilling or unable to respectfully follow our local laws and planning documents—that the rest of us must—and believes it is entitled to overly broad and uniquely creative interpretations of local laws and policies, maybe it is time for them to make other choices.Castilleja School pays no taxes on its 6-acre school site on prime residential real estate.At this time of desperately needed housing the property could be converted into mixed use housing that contributes to our city’s tax base and promotes equitable and sustainable growth in our community! A Path Forward Castilleja has many options to pursue if it wishes to stay at its current location and make a modest increase its enrollment (e.g. 450 students), modernize its campus, eliminate the underground garage, save protected and mature trees and utilize a robust school-sponsored shuttling program and encourage the greater use of non-motorized transport (e.g. bikes, etc.). If Castilleja believes it must have 540 students and maintain its current location then like all other Peninsula private schools located on similar size tracks of land it can split its campus.Those that have successfully done do are Pinewood (3 sites), Nueva (2 sites), Crystal Springs (2 sites), Keys School (3 sites), and Harker School (4 sites).Those few schools that have grown in place are Menlo School, Woodside Priory and Sacred Heart all located on 40 or more acres of land.Castilleja is the most densely packed school in Palo Alto and among peninsula private schools. 96 Neighbors have been patient with the school’s behavior for the last 20 years.We will continue to listen carefully and respectfully.For this process to come to an equitable and enforceable conclusion, I recommend that the City Council step in and authorize a City-supervised negotiation process between all the relevant parties here.Otherwise, this controversy will drag on indefinitely. Equitable, Balanced and Sustainable Growth I am for balanced and sustainable development.Zoning laws create areas for commerce, residential use, and mixed use districts.When the laws aren’t followed, special exceptions can follow that are both unfair, costly and environmentally damaging. Further, it sows distrust in our democratic process!And this is one of the last things we want nationally and locally at this politically and socially fragile time. At a time when we desperately need affordable housing, if Castilleja is unwilling to respectfully follow our local laws and planning documents—that the rest of us must—and believes it is entitled to sidestep City Council must realize that residents will continue to pursue all legal channels open to us! Respectfully submitted, Mary Sylvester Melville Avenue Palo Alto 97 Baumb, Nelly From:Tina Tang <tina.tang@womeninbigdata.org> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 12:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter in support of the Castelleja campus plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the City Council of Palo Alto:    I'm writing to you in support of the Castilleja School campus and neighborhood impact plan. As a co-founder of Women in Big Data, a volunteer organization of over 18,000 people across 6 continents, I am on the front line of the global women's advancement movement. The movement needs new generations of strong leaders, because the movement has much work to do to close the gender gap in all facets of society. Castelleja's curriculum, culture, staff, and mission to provide an exceptional education to purpose-driven young women to become confident thinkers and compassionate leaders to effect change in the world is an essential institution that will further this cause.     As a resident of Palo Alto, I understand my neighbors' concerns about an enlarged campus. However, seeing how the school has assessed environmental impacts like noise and traffic, I do feel they've worked in good faith to minimize these concerns through compromise and good design.    I hope you will vote to approve the plan. Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,  ....................................  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Tina Tang  Co‐founder & Chair  Women in Big Data, a 501(c)3 non profit organization  Pronouns: she/her  98 Baumb, Nelly From:Michelle de blank <michelledeblank@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 10:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi City Council members,    I am writing this email in support of Castilleja’s expansion. Castilleja has done everything under the sun for their  neighbors. The remodel plan is amazing and it will be a win/win once completed. Let’s just let it happen already so this  discussion can end.     It is time to vote “yes” and let Castilleja remodel and modestly expand. It is an asset to Palo Alto and the greater  community.    Thank you,    Michelle de Blank    Sent from my iPhone  99 Baumb, Nelly From:Susana Young <susanay@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 7:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja -- all in! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, I enthusiastically support the "Castilleja Reimagined" plan for their updated campus. The staff and board have worked tirelessly for years to bring this plan before you for approval. They have been diligent, responsive and compliant. It is time for a resounding YES vote to approve their proposed project. Castilleja is a Palo Alto gem that has made such a difference in so many lives for generations. My granddaughters are Castilleja graduates. I am so proud of them and the difference they are making in the world. They give much of the credit to the fine education they received while students at Castilleja. Please help the school implement their plans to renovate the campus, improve the traffic flow, and realize the neighborhood outcomes requested. Castilleja's unique and inspirational approach to educating young women can only be enhanced with the implementation of the renovation project you now have the opportunity to vote on. Please approve this project. Thank you, Susana Young _________  Susana Young  650‐430‐5397    100 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Rieder <barieder@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 7:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor Dubois and Council Members, While I have been a resident in Old Palo Alto since 1962, I am not directly impacted by the proposals for Castilleja's expansion. I have, however, responded to several survey's regarding Castilleja's proposals the most recent being quite a manipulative survey on supporting underground vs above ground parking. Most of my 59 years in the same home, I have experience Castilleja to be a responsible, respectable neighbor adhering to City of Palo Alto ordinance and CUP. However, when I learned about the dishonesty of the Administration over enrollment until they were discovered, I understood the growing frustration of bordering neighbors. And driving through the neighborhood during an event night, I wondered how often these neighbors had to put up with inviting guests over for the evening. I support the plans to make the existing buildings seismically safe. I do not support the underground garage or the student expansion. First,I do not believe the school has demonstrated they can be trusted to adhere to the City's CUP and to me it really gives students absolutely the wrong ethical, values message. Why would I want my daughter to learn, "Be dishonest, as long as you can get by with it. Then say you are sorry when you get caught and be so gleeful that you got by with it and so now you want more"?? In my opinion, faculty and staff are the only ones who need onsite parking. The school can either lease parking or purchase parking space and shuttle student to the campus. If students can afford an auto, affording a parking fee should be a non issue. To me, it would be a huge mistake to "Reward" Castilleja with all of their plans given that they have failed to demonstrate being an honest, responsible, respectable neighbor! Regards, Barbara A. Rieder 1728 Cowper Street Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 101 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol Heermance <cheermance@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 3:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, On Monday, March 8, you will again be considering the Castilleja project that impacts the Old Palo Alto neighborhood. Over the past several years we have objected to the Castilleja plans, and we continue to object because of the effect on the immediate neighborhood. Although this project may be good for Castilleja (more space, more students) it does not improve Palo Alto. To the contrary, it will cause more traffic and will make egress from Emerson street much more difficult. 75% of the Castilleja students come from outside Palo Alto which affects traffic patterns and the neighborhood. Please refuse a permit for this project and hold Castilleja to the promises of no growth that it ignored for years. Respectfully, Richard and Carol Heermance 208 N California Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 102 Baumb, Nelly From:Dave Baird <dave.w.baird@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 1:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja School Hearing - My Vote is Yes to Approve CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Sir or Madam, l live in Palo Alto and want to express my support for the project to update the Castilleja property. Castilleja is an asset to our community. They have demonstrated, for decades, the importance of educating young women and preparing them for leadership roles. The school's plans for updating the school are necessary and exciting for the future of the school. They have been working diligently and effectively to accommodate the needs, desires, and concerns of interested City residents, City officials, and most importantly all the surrounding neighbors of the school. I am in favor of the success of Castilleja's project. I hope you approve the project at your March 8th and 15th Castilleja hearings. A win-win for everyone! Kindly, Dave ------ Dave Baird 3880 La Selva Drive Palo Alto, CA 94396 Cell: (816) 868‐1352   Email: Dave.w.Baird@Gmail.com     103 Baumb, Nelly From:DavidandGlowe Chang <davidandglowe@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 7:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Thank you for taking time to evaluate this contentious issue.    > As neighbors directly across the street from Castilleja, WE SUPPORT CASTILLEJA!  >  > The neighbors opposed have gone to extreme tactics including stealing pro Castilleja lawn signs.  They originally forced  the school to offer ridiculous architectural plans to lower their central lawn and the swimming pool to mitigate noise.  They forced the school to plan an expensive garage to avoid parking on the street.  Now these neighbors are appalled  that there is a garage. The school has bent over backwards to try to appease them. The most vocal opponents DO NOT  live on Emerson. They are landlords. One owner does not even landscape their properties. It is strewn with trash and  there are cars everywhere.  >  > This is an academic girls school. There are no Friday night football games. The events are not unreasonable and there  are only a few dances. It is the neighbors who are unreasonable. They moved in knowing there was a school. Schools  should be allowed to promote activities to further the social, emotional, and academic growth of its students and they  should be done in modern buildings and a beautiful environment.   The traffic impact to the neighborhood will remain at  current levels.  A home owner does not own the street parking. The “PNQL Neighbors’” complaint of no street parking is  inappropriate.  Out of courtesy, the school has requested “no School street parking” of their members, which is actually  illegal for a private party to designate.  >  > The decision falls on City Council to allow the modernization of the school. Castilleja should also be given the CUP  requested. You will be giving more young women the opportunity to have an incredible education.  Who knows what  impact that can have on society!  We need to educate MORE children, not less!  >  > There are so many residential remodeling projects. I can count 5 within 100 feet of my home. The school can’t be  denied modernization.  Please support their efforts to educate more young women.  >  > Sincerely,  >  > Glowe and David Chang  > 1345 Bryant St.  > Palo Alto  > davidandglowe@yahoo.com    104 Baumb, Nelly From:Leila H. Moncharsh <101550@msn.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:49 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Part 4 of 4 - Castilleja Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  This is the final part of my submission -- 4 of 4. Leila Moncharsh 105 Baumb, Nelly From:Leila H. Moncharsh <101550@msn.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:48 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Part 3 of 4 - Castilleja Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  This is the third of four parts of my submission. Leila Moncharsh 106 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:07 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Please do not approve Castilleja's expansion 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 Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kou, Stone and Tanaka: Please do not approve Castilleja’s proposed expansion project, garage construction and increase in enrollment. Castilleja is an expensive and exclusive private school, most of whose students do not live in our city. For Palo Altans living anywhere near it, the school has been a bad neighbor. It has, for example, created substantial traffic and parking problems, and for years it has flouted the enrollment limit City Council generously approved in the past. Please do not reward Castilleja’s selfish, unneighborly behavior by approving an expansion plan that does not comply with the plain English of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming   Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151   107 Baumb, Nelly From:Victoria Dean <victoria.dean@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 6:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello City Council members,    My name is Victoria Dean. I have been a Palo Alto resident for 15 years on Matadero Avenue. I am voicing my support  for Castilleja going into the final hearings this March.    I was a member of the Castilleja class of 2013 and was on the robotics team throughout high school. I was the  Gatorbotics coach from 2017 to 2018.    Castilleja and Gatorbotics are where I developed my love of STEM. At Castilleja, I got to take Calculus Theory with 13  like‐minded girls passionate about proofs. Being on an all‐girls robotics team meant that I got to be the programming  lead, a position that on most teams is filled by boys. Without these experiences, I would not have been confident in my  computer science major at MIT.    As a junior on Gatorbotics, I was introduced to computer vision when we used a camera to auto‐aim at basketball hoops.  In 2017, I developed computer vision algorithms every day on the machine learning team at Waymo, using cameras to  make self‐driving cars a reality.    Gatorbotics showed me the challenges of control loops that combine software and hardware. I am a PhD Student in  Robotics at Carnegie Mellon conducting research on robot learning.    I spend my free time mentoring young women in STEM because I know how much of a difference it can make.    I am one woman whose career has been shaped by Gatorbotics, and I assure you there are countless other women who  have pursued STEM fields in college and beyond because of their experiences at Castilleja.    Please vote yes to increase enrollment and modernize Castillejas campus, because when you support Castilleja, you're  supporting each young woman with a passion for science and technology in a world that desperately needs more of us.  To this end, I strongly support Castilleja's proposed plans for enrollment increase, especially in the high school as I was a  transfer student entering in 9th grade.    I have also reviewed Castilleja's plans over the years and fully support the underground parking facility and maintaining  the school's current footprint. I believe these are the best paths forward not just for Castilleja, but for Palo Alto.    Thank you for your time,  Victoria Dean  108 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Phillips <susan@mrsmoskowitz.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 1:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vote no on Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council members,    As a resident of Palo Alto since 1975 and living in old Palo Alto near Castilleja since 1976 I have become familiar with the  ongoing problem of traffic and issues.    I request that you vote no and do not grant permission for anymore building or remodeling for their school. They existed  for many years with the same number of students and if people decide to send their daughters to the school then they  need to do it under the current size.    Thank you    Susan Phillips Moskowitz  susan@mrsmoskowitz.com      old Palo Alto resident.    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:David Dockter’s Comment to CC Attachments:Dockter Script for 3.8.2021 CC mtg_abridged.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I know this was sent to you by Mr Dockter, but I’m sending it again if you missed it.  As someone who is concerned about how well our protected tree ordinance functions, I think what he said has  importance well beyond Casti.  We must do much better in protecting trees than we are now.  Please take the time to read this. Few on staff gained the public trust more than Dave Docktor did.  Thanks ‐  Winter Dellenbach    Page 1 of 6 Castilleja School Project Comments of David Dockter, March 8, 2021 Castilleja School Project EIR & Campus Redevelopment Script for Public Comments of March 8, 2021 Prepared by David Dockter Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers. Good evening. My name is David Dockter. I have worked for Palo Alto for over 21 years directly administering the tree ordinance related to land use decisions such as the Castilleja redevelopment project. I keep in good standing with credentialing and standards of industry practice. There are two (points) related to tree resources that I wish to bring to your attention before you deliberate on the Castilleja redevelopment. These two points need your discussion and should be well-vetted with your Senior City Attorney, senior staff and Urban Forester before certifying an amended EIR or adding conditions for the Record of Land Use Action. For your reference, I will be emailing Council a transcript of my comments tonight. For each point I provide Recommendations for Council action. Point #1 1. There is a significant impact missing (omitted) in the Environmental Impact Report. Your deliberations would want to include this controversial Tree Resources element surrounding a serious misinterpretation of the Tree Ordinance. Page 2 of 6 Castilleja School Project Comments of David Dockter, March 8, 2021 a. Specifically, the incorrect Castilleja interpretation of Section 8.10.020 (b)(2) would set a new precedent for all other R-1 zoned properties throughout Palo Alto city limits. b. The EIR preparers and Planning staff’s new interpretation of the tree ordinance provisions would allow the indiscriminate removal of any protected tree on other R-1 properties considering development. i. To explain, their interpretation would allow any development application to remove any Protected tree in the buildable area outside the perimeter setbacks, as a simple ministerial process with no other reasoning than the development desires the space where a tree lives. ii. The Castilleja EIR has used this flawed interpretation wrongly to justify removal of protected oaks #140 and #155. iii. Without using this flawed interpretation, the removals would constitute an unmitigated unavoidable significant impact--reportable as such in the EIR. c. Here’s a summary of the flawed interpretation contained in the EIR and your staff report, dated 3/8/21. I direct your attention to the lower half of page 19. d. Paraphrasing, on R-1 zoned properties, the operative code section cited (by EIR/staff) wrongly omits a phrase which is the main qualifier of this statute: that “If no building footprint exists, Page 3 of 6 Castilleja School Project Comments of David Dockter, March 8, 2021 e. but the EIR/staff then adopts the remainder .” . .then protected trees may be removed if located in the building area . . . “ f. Since the Castilleja DOES have existing buildings upon their property--using this statute is not applicable. g. This statute section intent clearly describes a ‘vacant property’ where no building footprint currently exists. h. Thus, the EIR/staff have side-stepped this important qualifier of the statute by using a dissected version of 8.10.020 (b)(2) i. —and ignores the important code language to be exclusively used for a ‘vacant property’, a property with no building footprints or structures. ii. For the record, Castilleja has many existing buildings on the property. i. On this 6-acre, R-1 parcel, If Council allows the misinterpretation of the tree ordinance to proceed in the EIR, the precedent would allow the wholesale removal of any/all protected trees in the buildable area of the property-- simply to facilitate grading or any other development amenity. j. With this reasoning, an overreach effect could also apply on this site— allowing future removal of any oak or redwood on the 6-acre parcel, including retained Redwood #1, Oak #89, #113, #138, Redwoods #120, etc.—as long as it is within the building area! k. This EIR/staff interpretation is contrary to 25 years of consistency using the tree ordinance. Page 4 of 6 Castilleja School Project Comments of David Dockter, March 8, 2021 i. Since its inception, the tree ordinance has not allowed indiscriminate tree removal in the buildable area, unless the property is vacant (without a structure) pursuant to its reading. ii. This understanding has been reaffirmed to me personally from the original 1996 author Senior City Attorney, Debra Cauble, as well as Ariel Calonne, Wynne Furth and others. My Recommendation to Council on Point #1: • Before certifying the EIR, Council should direct the preparer to add a section to the EIR evaluating and explaining the outcomes of the Castilleja Precedent interpretation o and highlight where the previous interpretation is in error. • The EIR should describe the potential effect to all other R-1 zoned properties in Palo Alto when the protected tree removal in any buildable area is allowed during any degree of development. o In other words, using the flawed interpretation, the EIR should describe how staff would respond to protected tree removal requests and comments during R-1 lot Individual Review, ARB, PTC and site planning reviews. • For the removal of trees #140 and #155, request the EIR issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SoC) to remove the two trees. Significant & unavoidable. 2. SoC caveats aside, this action would eliminate the Castilleja Precedent interpretation from being abused by future developers of other R-1 properties with protected trees. Page 5 of 6 Castilleja School Project Comments of David Dockter, March 8, 2021 Point #2. Tree Security Deposit Guarantee. 2. Latest plans have identified various new tree protection measures. Even so, many protected trees on site remain at-risk for decline, injury and death. a. Mortality may be high with individual at-risk trees –those with multiple impacts targeting each tree--such as Oak #89, #113, Redwood #120, #102, etc. 3. The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual outlines the process for figuring the monetary appraised value of at-risk trees. Urban Forestry maintains a standard condition of approval to guarantee tree loss mitigation and how it will be utilized in the event of tree damage from either planned construction or contractor negligence of the tree protection measures. 4. This Urban Forestry condition has been omitted from the Record of Land Use Action and should be reinstated (placed there by the Urban Forester and standard for complex development projects). 5. This should be considered as an ‘added’ security measure above and beyond ‘in- lieu’ payments to mitigate a planting. My Recommendation to Council on Point #2 • Reinstate the Urban Forestry conditions into the RULA regarding the tree security deposit guarantee. • Direct staff to require a tree security deposit guarantee amount of 150%-200% value of all trees listed in CoA #70 and #72 (of the CC Staff Report dated, 3/8/21.) Page 6 of 6 Castilleja School Project Comments of David Dockter, March 8, 2021 o Council should specifically direct staff to prepare a condition requiring the appraised values for tree security deposit guarantee—and should be included in the next staff report for timely review (not delaying until the last steps before building permit.) Lastly, I believe these two points are important to literally all Palo Alto neighborhoods— from Barron Park to Crescent Park, College Terrace to South Palo Alto—and relative interest to the neighborhood listservs, Canopy and other regional media outlets. I hope you welcome my comments for your deliberations with staff and EIR corrections. Thank you, and Good Day Respectfully submitted, David Dockter Former Planning Arborist, City of Palo Alto 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Bill Burch <bill.burch@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:My public comments for the 3/8/2021 PACC meeting Attachments:WJBurch PACC Castilleja 382021.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  March 8, 2021 Thank you members of the Palo Alto City Council and City Staff. My name is Bill Burch and I have been a homeowner in Palo Alto for the last 37 years. I wanted to join tonight’s Council session to voice my support for Castilleja’s planned campus project. Tonight marks the beginning of your formal public process for determining the outcome of Castilleja’s proposal. The decisions you make will surely upset some members of the community. I don’t envy you. When my Dad served on the City Council, I had a first-hand look at the balancing act that you all face as Councilmembers. His guiding principle was to always ask “Does it benefit the community?” and “does what we do reflect the values of our City”. My request here tonight is that you examine the Castilleja proposal before you through that same lens. “Does the school provide a benefit to the community?” You’d have to overwhelming agree that providing an outstanding education for our students, and the students from our expanded region is something that’s worthy of continued support. From it’s humble origins at the beginning of the last century to today, Castilleja has grown into one of Palo Alto’s most treasured institutions. When you drive by the campus, you can see the value they place on being an aesthic integrated member of their local residential community. Before you is Castilleja’s roadmap for making a continued contribution for the next century. “Does the school reflect the values of our City?” Castilleja is all about enabling young women to develop into tomorrow’s leaders. It’s about valuing diversity. Encouraging critical thought. And it’s about giving back to the world from which we’ve all been given so much. As I said earlier, you have a challenging task before you. There’s a lot of “noise” in the press and a lot of passion on both sides. My hope is that you can filter this out and look at the merits of the proposal in front of you. Be bold. Be decisive. Thank you, Bill Burch 777 Marion Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 bill.burch@gmail.com 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Kellerman, Thomas W. <thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:56 AM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Kamhi, Philip Subject:XCAP Report Submission Attachments:City Council Letter 3-5-21- Final XCAP Report.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Ladies and Gentlemen:    Please see the attached submission in connection with the March 23, 2021 City Council Working Session concerning the  final XCAP Report (https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp‐content/uploads/2021/03/XCAP‐Final‐Report.pdf).  Thank you.    Tom    Thomas W. Kellerman  1400 Page Mill Road | Palo Alto, CA 94304 Direct: +1.650.843.7550 | Mobile: +1.650.283.5023 l Main: +1.650.843.4000 | Fax: +1.650.843.4001 thomas.kellerman@morganlewis.com | www.morganlewis.com   DISCLAIMER  This e‐mail message is intended only for the personal use  of the recipient(s) named above. This message may be an  attorney‐client communication and as such privileged and  confidential and/or it may include attorney work product.  If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review,  copy or distribute this message. If you have received this  communication in error, please notify us immediately by  e‐mail and delete the original message.  C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 1 March 10, 2021 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave., #7 Palo Alto, CA 94301-2531 Re: Expanded Community Advisory Panel Final Report Dear Honorable Council Members: We are writing on behalf of a number of concerned citizens in the Professorville, Embarcadero, and Southgate neighborhoods with respect to the final report delivered by the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (“XCAP”) to the City Council dated March 4, 2021. This document is part of a coordinated community effort of concerned citizens that asks Council to reject the XCAP’s majority opinion recommending Churchill Closure with Mitigations. Before a decision can be reached, a full traffic analysis needs to be completed and vetted by experts involved in city planning and transportation, bicycle and pedestrian advocates, neighbors and neighboring institutions such as schools and businesses, and the community at large. This letter is limited solely to issues and concerns related to the mitigation steps contemplated in the Hexagon traffic study, which is incorporated into the XCAP recommendation concerning the proposed closing of the Churchill Avenue crossing. As set forth in some detail below, we believe that the proposed mitigations are incomplete and inadequately analyzed at this point in time. Many of the points made in this submission are also referenced in the Minority Position discussion at Section 4.5 of the XCAP Report. We ask that the Council members read that portion of the report with care. Please be aware that the previous City Council committed not to adopt any specific proposal with respect to the Churchill Avenue crossing until it is satisfied that an adequate mitigation plan is in place. The Current Mitigation Plan Does Not Align with Council Motion In June 2018 the Council adopted a resolution1 with respect to the Churchill crossing that requires the following: 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=83343.25&BlobID=65728 Part E C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 2 “Add to Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea, “study additional options for addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area including actions to minimize redirected traffic onto residential streets in adjacent neighborhoods and commit to adopting appropriate mitigations to address the impacts” As evidenced by the discussion below, the foregoing standard has not been met by the proposed mitigation plan. Indeed, the definition of mitigation that appears on a slide 5 of the January 8, 2020 traffic presentation is as follows: “Street system changes that would allow additional capacity to accommodate diverted traffic.” This definition focuses exclusively on the volume of vehicular traffic that can be accommodated by an existing street. This definition does not consider the nature of the street in question (purely residential v. residential arterial v. arterial), or the effect on pedestrians, bicyclists, residents, schools and businesses. The Council needs to insist on a fulsome mitigation plan that addresses the issues identified in its June 2018 resolution prior to taking any action with respect to this crossing. Lack of Community Engagement Even before the onset of the pandemic, the traffic study process lacked robust community engagement. Under the current pandemic conditions, the prospects for achieving that engagement are even more daunting. Our neighborhoods asked for and never received direct engagement between community members and city staff with the various traffic consultants. The virtual town hall presented useful information, but it was not truly interactive and did not afford the opportunity to engage in any meaningful way with the traffic consultants. This type of interaction would have provided an opportunity to understand the assumptions underlying the study and the proposed mitigations, as well as provided direct “on-the- ground” input to the consultants to help inform their conclusions. In addition, a number of other important constituencies have not been included in the dialogue. The bicycle community was never formally engaged in the mitigation evaluation process, and the views of Palo Alto High School students, staff and administrators were not included in the proposals regarding changes to this major artery to school.2 3 There has been no meaningful input from Stanford, Town and Country or the business community generally. As you are aware, several relevant community 2 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-01-13_emails-public-comments.pdf (p 3) 3 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-01-20_emails-public-comments.pdf (p 5) C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 3 voices, including the PAUSD, Chamber of Commerce and University South representatives, resigned from the XCAP early on and were not part of the recommendation process. As a result, the so-called “majority recommendation” from XCAP actually represents a minority of the Committee as originally constituted and therefore does not achieve the goal of obtaining a balanced consensus. This lack of neighborhood engagement has led to confusion and frustration and diminishes the value of the conclusions expressed in the final report. Flaws and Gaps in the Traffic Study There are several areas where the traffic study appears to be flawed or at least incomplete, resulting in inadequate mitigations in the XCAP Report. In fact, as stated in Section 4.3 of the Report, the proposed mitigations are “early conceptual designs, not final plans”. Given the critical importance of effective mitigations to the viability of the plan to close Churchill, a “conceptual approach,” with promises to determine the actual designs in the future, is not an adequate basis on which to reach a final decision. Findings from a traffic study by Dr. Michelle DeRobertis, P.E., an independent traffic consultant, were delivered to XCAP, but are not referenced in their recommendation.4 This independent analysis identified several deficiencies in the traffic study. It is also worth noting that seven out of nine XCAP members agreed that additional mitigation measures beyond those included in the recommendation should be considered, as described in Section 4.3 of the XCAP Report. However, the report acknowledges that these additional potential mitigations have not been studied yet and will require detailed analysis. Section 4.1.1.3 of the XCAP Report sets forth ten specific mitigation proposals identified by XCAP. Our commentary on the first seven of these proposals is provided in red below. A. Construction of a pedestrian/bike overcrossing at Embarcadero Road and Alma Street. We are supportive of this proposed mitigation, although the details of the integration with the overall bicycle and pedestrian pathways on the north side of Embarcadero road is an essential element that is missing at this time. B. Reconstructing or replacing the existing Alma Street overpass over Embarcadero. 4 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2020-09-23_emails-public-comments.pdf (comment 11 of 82) C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 4 With respect to the Alma/ Embarcadero bridge, the traffic study expressly states: “Widening would require extensive modification or potential replacement of the existing bridge structure.”5 This one sentence describes a huge undertaking that has not been described or analyzed. No meaningful study has been undertaken regarding this almost 100-year-old bridge and the true cost of modifying or replacing it is not known. C. Adding a right turn lane from eastbound Embarcadero Road to Kingsley Ave. A right turn is currently permitted at this intersection, although impact on the traffic volume at this juncture from the addition of a new lane has not been studied because the traffic study does not capture any data on the existing volume of traffic on Embarcadero Road. D. Adding a left turn lane from southbound Alma Street to Kingsley Ave. This proposed measure is closely aligned with mitigation proposal #6. There is not yet good data on traffic volumes here and, most importantly, there has been no analysis of the ability to accommodate increased traffic volumes, given the existing traffic volumes on Embarcadero Road. E. Installation of two new signal lights on the Alma Street overpass at Embarcadero Road, at the Embarcadero slip road and at Kingsley Ave. We have a number of concerns with respect to this design. It is unknown what volume of traffic will use these two intersections, but it is likely to be significant. Currently traffic traveling eastbound on Embarcadero seeking to turn south onto Alma generally uses Churchill. Opening the Embarcadero slip road to this traffic is likely to increase substantially the number of vehicles on the slip road, although volumes and impact have not been studied. This additional traffic will need to traverse the bicycle and pedestrian crossing at High Street -- a crossing that is already very busy (over 300 bicycles at the morning peak hour) and quite dangerous. The increased vehicular traffic crossing this intersection seems likely to greatly exacerbate the dangers to students, bicyclists and pedestrians, and the current mitigation plan does not mention this concern at all. The mitigations illustrated in figure 8 (p 27) take away the current left turn from Lincoln to Alma, inviting cars to use High Street to access the new left turn on the 5 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-22_Item-3A_Traffic- Report_Churchill_MeadowsCharleston-Grade-Separation-Analysis.pdf P 17 Paragraph 2 C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 5 Embarcadero slip read. This new traffic movement creates safety concerns on this very narrow residential block. F. Installing a new signal at Embarcadero Road/Kingsley Avenue/High Street with two possible options: One that provides full connectivity to and from High Street, or an option that maintains the movements to and from High Street as they are today. The traffic study did not address the intersection level of service (LOS) or operating conditions expected to result from either of these modifications. Because the traffic volumes on Embarcadero have not been studied, it is unknown what the impact will be of installing an additional traffic signal on Embarcadero Road. The projected traffic counts do not correspond with the anticipated changes. For example, the projected traffic flow indicates a decrease in the number of vehicles traveling through the Alma/ Kingsley intersection after the mitigation when in fact the point of the mitigation is to direct additional traffic to that intersection. During the morning and evening peak hours the traffic on Embarcadero is already in a gridlock condition. Given the traffic volumes that would use the Kingsley to Embarcadero light, the traffic flow will likely be impeded further. Again, these volumes have not been included in the study. With respect to the design option that would connect High Street to Embarcadero Road, it seems likely that Alma Street traffic seeking to travel to westbound Embarcadero will use the “around the block” cloverleaf, resulting in much increased traffic on the narrow, residential block of High Street. G. Improvements at Embarcadero/High Street for bicycles and pedestrians per the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard (NTSBB) projects plans. We are very much in favor of these improvements in concept. But, as noted in the response to proposed mitigation #5, this is already a busy bicycle and pedestrian corridor and the changes to the slip road will increase the danger for this crossing. Much more work needs to be done to this plan to truly create a safe bicycle and pedestrian route. . Limited Focus on LOS (Vehicles) Ignores Bicycle and Pedestrians North of Embarcadero & Does Not Follow Comprehensive Plan The Hexagon traffic study only looks at vehicular traffic level of service (LOS) at select intersections and ignores other impacts of diverted traffic, such as effects on the very busy school/community bicycle and pedestrian route that runs along the north side of Embarcadero. This route is an official Palo Alto bicycle route, but that fact is not reflected in the conceptual design. Moreover, the traffic study does not count bicycles and pedestrians along the Embarcadero corridor because they were not asked to do C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 6 so.6 Residents did a daily count of bicycles and pedestrians that crossed the busy intersection of Emerson/Kingsley/Embarcadero between 7:30-8:30 am on a typical school day and counted over 300 bike and pedestrian crossings against 100 cars that stopped or more often paused at the stop sign. The proposed mitigation to add a new Alma Street traffic signal at the slip road will exacerbate this problem. While the closure of Churchill is seen as a way to address bicycle and pedestrian safety south of the Embarcadero corridor, which is a very important consideration, the accompanying plan makes no comprehensive attempt to address safety issues on the north side of the corridor. Embarcadero Road Traffic Volume Needs More Analysis Embarcadero Road is a residential artery with over 200 driveways and should be analyzed differently than Oregon Expressway, which is a different roadway category. In normal peak-hour traffic times, the traffic on Embarcadero moves glacially, especially through the tunnel. The addition of a light at Kingsley and Embarcadero is likely to create gridlock on Embarcadero during peak hours when traffic enters Embarcadero from Alma. The studies to date do not consider what alterations to Embarcadero Road or to the Alma underpass may be required to accommodate the level of traffic, nor do they address the potential costs of such alterations. In addition, there are assumptions but no clear analysis of how traffic congestion on Embarcadero Road will impact the busy neighborhood streets that surround Embarcadero, or local destinations such as Town and County shopping center, Palo Alto High School, Castilleja, Walter Hayes and Addison Elementary schools. Drivers using routing apps can easily navigate neighborhood streets as they attempt to avoid traffic congestion on Embarcadero Road. Because Embarcadero traffic has not been studied, the current mitigations seem insufficient to deter traffic cutting though neighborhood streets and are likely to worsen the already poor function of this artery. In the traffic consultant’s presentation from February 2020, they indicate that studying Embarcadero would cost $20,000. We have no idea if this figure is accurate, but we do know that understanding traffic volume increases on Embarcadero is essential for any mitigation plan to succeed.7 6 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Item3-Hexagon-Responses-to-XCAP-Traffic- Questions.pdf Page 6 7 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Item3-Hexagon-Responses-to-XCAP-Traffic- Questions.pdf page 5 & 6 C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 7 The Baseline Date for Traffic Analysis is Inappropriate As the minority XCAP opinion points out, the study estimates future traffic volumes as of 2030 but not beyond that date. Often, future traffic analyses use a horizon of 20 to 25 years in the future, especially for projects that are expected to be in place for decades, Likewise, the analysis does not incorporate anticipated external changes during the relevant time horizon that are likely to affect the area, such as potential expansions and alterations at Stanford, Castilleja, Palo Alto High School and Town and Country, or the implementation of a Downtown Plan. Lack of Integrated Planning with Palo Alto Avenue Crossing The ultimate decisions regarding the Palo Alto Avenue crossing and a Downtown Plan will significantly impact the adjoining neighborhoods and need to be coordinated with the planning associated with the Embarcadero corridor. We agree with the Minority Position which states: “The few east/west traffic crossings in the City are inextricably linked. The relationship of the future grade separation of Palo Alto Avenue or changes to the existing University Avenue and Embarcadero grade separations should be part of the analysis.” (Section 4.5.1) C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 8 Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we urge the Council not to adopt any proposal with respect to the Churchill crossing until there can be a more inclusive community process and thorough city planning analysis of this seemingly simple but in fact very complex question. Given that there are already three below-grade rail crossings on the north side of Palo Alto, Council should prioritize solutions for south Palo Alto while continuing to analyze equitable solutions for the north. Thank you for your tireless efforts on this challenging and important project. Very truly yours, Thomas W. Kellerman Rachel H. Kellerman Yoriko Kishimoto Cc: Ed Shikada, City Manager Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Leila H. Moncharsh <101550@msn.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 9:22 AM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Castilleja Project - LETTER FROM PNQL ATTORNEY Attachments:Letter to CC. March 10, 2021.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  This letter discusses the EIR legal ramifications related to former PA arborist Dave Dockter's statement at the hearing on Monday. He just sent you yesterday a transcript of his statement about protected trees #140 and #155. I know you are inundated with emails. Please review this one as it deals with the adequacy of the EIR and your Council will probably be addressing certifying the EIR on Monday, 3/15. Thank you for your attention to this matter, Leila Moncharsh, attorney for PNQL. LAW OFFICES VENERUSO & MONCHARSH DONNA M. VENERUSO (d.’09) 5707 REDWOOD ROAD, SUITE 10 LEILA H. MONCHARSH OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619 TELEPHONE (510) 482-0390 FACSIMILE (510) 482-0391 Email: 101550@msn.com March 10, 2021 City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja School EIR – Protected Oak Trees 140 and 155 Dear Council Members: I am the attorney for PNQL. During the City Council hearing on March 8, 2021, Mr. Dave Dockter, former Palo Alto arborist for over 21 years, spoke regarding a problem with the EIR for the above project and the staff’s interpretation of the City’s Tree Ordinance. This letter discusses the legal aspects of this issue. A. The Revised DEIR (REIR) Does Not Reduce the “Significant” Impact of Removing Two Oak Trees Protected Under PAMC 8.10 to “Less Than Significant” On pages 4-37 and 4-38 of the Revised DEIR (REIR), an inventory lists all of the trees on the school property including two oak trees that will be removed as part of the proposed project: oak #140 is 36” in diameter and in “Fair-Poor” condition; and oak #155 is 27” in diameter and in “Fair” condition. These are two of the larger, and presumably older, oaks in the inventory list. (REIR, pgs. 4-29 to 4-39.) According to an updated inventory from 2020, these two trees are in the way of the proposed new, very large building.1 On page 4-19, the REIR contends that although various trees, including our two oaks are protected under Palo Alto’s tree ordinance, their removal is consistent with the Comp Plan’s Policy N-2.10: “Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, . . . and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto.” It does not indicate how removal of the two oak trees is consistent with this Comp Plan policy other than to promise that “Impact 4-3 evaluates the project’s consistency with the City’s Tree Protection Preservation and Management Regulations.” Impact 4-3 on page 4-29 of the REIR states that “Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance” would constitute a “Significant” impact under CEQA, but Mitigation Measure 4b will reduce that impact to “less than significant.” It then informs us that PAMC § 8.10 controls protected trees 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78617 The updated inventory changes the status of #140 to “very poor.” City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja Project March 10, 2021 Page 2 and the removal of the protected trees will not conflict with the PAMC or the Comp Plan because Mitigation Measure 4b will include a requirement to comply with Section 8.10 of the PAMC by obtaining tree removal permits and planting more trees, which will then reduce the impact to “less than significant.” (REIR, pages 4-39 to 4-40.) Nowhere in Mitigation 4b or in the REIR does it analyze whether the PAMC allows removal of protected trees for projects such as this proposed one. Nor does it explain how, if the PAMC does not allow removal of our two oak trees the impact will be reduced from “significant” to “less than significant.” B. The Staff Report for the March 8, 2021 City Council Hearing Staff’s report for the recent City Council hearing contends that PAMC § 18.10.050 (b)(2) allows removal of our two oaks even though they are protected trees. (Staff Report, page 19 and footnote 16.) That section states: If no building footprint exists, protected trees shall not be removed unless the trunk of the tree is located in the building area, or the director of planning and development services has determined, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a certified arborist for the applicant and other relevant information, that the tree should be removed because it is dead, is hazardous, is a detriment to or crowding an adjacent protected tree, or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050 (2) of this code. In footnote 16, Staff claims that “the protected trees being removed are within the project site’s “building area” and therefore, removal of our two protected oaks complies with the City’s tree ordinance. However, staff overlooked the definition of “building area” in Section 18.10.020 (b) which states: (b) “Building area” means that area of a parcel: (1) Upon which, under applicable zoning regulations, a structure may be built without a variance, design enhancement exception, or home improvement exception; or (2) Necessary for construction of primary access to structures located on or to be constructed on the parcel, where there exists no feasible means of access which would avoid protected trees. On single-family residential parcels, the portion of the parcel deemed to be the building area under this paragraph (b)(2) shall not exceed ten feet in width. Our two oak trees are located in the area of the “new building” for which the City is requiring a variance, so (1) does not apply. Under (2), there are multiple entry points to City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja Project March 10, 2021 Page 3 the school without removal of either protected oak tree. Therefore, the two protected trees are not in the “building area” under this definition, contrary to Staff’s conclusion. C. PAMC § 18.10.050 (b)(2) Does Not Allow Removal of the Two Oak Trees Because the School Is Not Located on an Empty Lot Mr. Dave Dockter has just sent his comments during the recent hearing to your Council. He explained that the words “If no building footprint exists” at the beginning of § 18.10.050 (b)(2) meant that this section applies to empty lots, not to lots like here that have been built out and are in the R-1 zone. He stated that throughout his 21 years as Palo Alto’s arborist, this section has never been used to allow removal of protected trees on built-out lots in the R-1 and to do so now would set a dangerous precedent. D. The REIR Has Failed to Accurately Inform Decision-Makers and the Public that Removal of the Two Oak Trees Remains a Significant Environmental Impact or to Mitigate that Impact The purpose of an EIR is to “[i]dentify ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced.” (Cal.Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15002, subd. (a)(2) (Guidelines). It must provide decision makers and the public with “detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment” (Guideline § 21061). It must also “describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts” and “describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project.” (Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(1); 15126.6, subd, (a).) Where, as here, the project has a significant impact on Land Use and Planning and on the environment due to removal of protected trees, the City Council may only approve the project “upon finding that it has [e]liminated or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible” or that any unavoidable significant effects on the environment are “acceptable due to overriding concerns” specified in Public Resources Code section 21081. (Guidelines, § 15092, subds.(b)(2)(A) & (b)(2)(B).) That decision must be based on evidence that is truthful and without major omissions; otherwise a court may order the EIR completely redone. (See Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Comm. (2014) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1366-1367 [court found an official’s untrue statement “a serious one, and is such to prevent a decisionmaker and the public from gaining a true understanding of one of the most important environmental consequences of increasing the number of flights.” Court ordered a new EIR with a different preparer].) The removal of the two oaks in violation of the Comp Plan and the Tree Ordinance cannot be mitigated. Either the City Council must deny permission to remove these two old, gorgeous trees, or make a finding that there are overriding considerations justifying their removal City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja Project March 10, 2021 Page 4 despite the environmental impacts. It also must address its failure to comply with the City’s Comp Plan and Tree Ordinance as cities are legally required to comply with their own general plans and ordinances. Thank you for considering our comments. Very truly yours, Leila H. Moncharsh Leila H. Moncharsh, J.D., M.U.P. Veneruso & Moncharsh LHM:lm cc: Clients 5 Baumb, Nelly From:davedockter@comcast.net Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Redevelopment project_my Public Comments Attachments:Dockter Script for 3.8.2021 CC mtg_abridged.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,    Last night I spoke and provided comments on two important areas for you to consider during deliberations prior to certifying the  EIR.    Speaking for a number of folks, I promised that I would send Council the transcript so that you could digest the two points—each  with actionable recommendations.    With your insightful direction to both applicant and staff, I believe the Castilleja Campus Redevelopment will become a good  example of Building with Nature and Palo Alto’s tree resources.    Please accept my Public Comments with all seriousness.    Respectfully,        David Dockter, the Arbor Advisor   ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified & Certified Arborist WE‐0351  American Planning Association  Contact me at Linkedin.com   6 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Gross <barbara.ellen.gross@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion Attachments:Palo Alto City Council.Cast.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council March 9, 2021 RE: Castilleja Expansion I realize there have been questions about trust in this process, and I want to address them. Nanci Kauffman self-reported that Castilleja had over-enrolled when she became Head of Castilleja. Soon after, the City issued an enrollment reduction schedule, and the school has been 100% compliant with it. Moving forward, the school has built consequences into their new C.U.P. For example, the number of car trips is capped, and if trips exceed that cap, the school will not be allowed to admit more girls. There is no need for trust with built in accountability like this. I realize that a past miscalculation of total square footage was recently was recently discovered. Looking at the document from 50 years ago, I can see why many sets of eyes missed the error. But I hope you will not mistake this as an issue of trust. The school submitted the document to the City, who agreed with the calculations. This was an oversight, and the school will make sure the new building matches the correct specifications. As far as the notion that Castilleja needs to be punished for the past, well, I think that has happened. Look at the overblown process. Clearly, the consequences of the over enrollment have haunted Castilleja through these efforts to modernize, which should never have become this complicated. We need to focus on what really matters here. This Final Environmental Impact Report has no significant impacts: the project is 100% compliant with the comprehensive Plan; and the mission to educate girls for leadership is critical to building a better future. Please do not single out a private school when our public schools have modernized their sites. Thank you for your attention. Barbara and Michael Gross 7 Baumb, Nelly From:bill Powar <bill@thepowars.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 7:48 AM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Additional submission related to the Castilleja application. Attachments:City letter re Castilleja self-reporting.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Unfortunately, I was unable to stay up until my name was called last night as I am undergoing cancer treatment and I find that the chemo has created added fatigue. Accordingly, I am sending you a written version of my remarks. I also submitted some advance written material that I ask you to read before voting on the application. My wife and I have lived across the street from the school for over 40 years. We have long supported the school. In the early 90s, while living in what is now the school’s Lockey House, we backed their application to close the Melville cul- de-sac, going so far as to trade houses to our current address, giving the school much greater flexibility in developing their athletic facilities. There is no question that the school provides a wonderful opportunity for young women to advance their education and should be allowed to upgrade and modernize their academic facilities to provide greater opportunities for the students. However, we cannot now support the school’s current CUP application. What we object to is a greater than 25% increase in allowable enrollment from 415 students to 540 and the building of an underground garage that will add few additional parking places. The primary question before the council is what size student body is appropriate for a 6-acre site in an R1 neighborhood. Castilleja’s enrollment is already at a level resulting in a student per acre density far greater than any school in the area. Allowing their requested increase will create a negative effect on the neighborhood, not just in school day traffic and noise, but also in the overwhelming number of evening and weekend events that that enrollment will engender. Other private schools facing the same constraints as Castilleja have either moved out of Palo Alto or developed multiple campuses. Up until this point, Castilleja has been unwilling to seriously consider either. I also ask the Council to consider the disruption caused by the building of an underground garage and the hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of dirt that will be required to be removed by hundreds of truckloads as well as the multi-year construction project that the school’s rebuilding will necessitate.  When the school built the underground gym, Emerson  became like a dustbowl. Windows had to be kept shut and we had to have them washed several times just to maintain  light and had to power wash our house when the project was completed.  One of the speakers tonight, whom I was able to hear before I was forced to retire, mentioned that the school self‐ reported its 15‐year enrollment violation. We have asked the City for any evidence of this. The City staff was unable to  provide it. I have attached a letter from staff to that regard.  Thank you all for the time you put in on City issues.  Respectfully,  Bill Powar      08/18/2017 RE: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST of July 11, 2017, Reference # W000851-071117 Dear Andrea, I am writing in response to your requests for documents under the California Public Records Act (Govt. Code § 6250 et seq.) received by the City on 7/11/2017. Your request mentioned Any correspondence from Nanci Kauffman or her representative to City of Palo Alto in January 2012 (or thereabouts), referred to in James Keene's letter to Nanci Kauffman (May 23, 2017) and Mindy Romanowsky's letter to James Keene (June 7, 2017) regarding Castilleja School, specifically that they are "self-reporting" the school's over-enrollment to the City. This could be in City Attorney's office, or City Manager's office, or Planning Dept or City Council. Thank you. The City has reviewed its files and has determined there are no responsive documents to your request. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me by responding to this message. Sincerely, David Carnahan Deputy City Clerk Office of the City Clerk To monitor the progress or update this request please log into the [NAMEOFSYSTEM] 9 Baumb, Nelly From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 8:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:PA-PACC-I urge you to approve the Castilleja Project Attachments:PA-PACC-letter to CPA re Castilleja - 2021-03-08.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.     Via Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org     Honorable Tom DuBois, Mayor  Honorable Pat Burt, Vice Mayor  Honorable City Council Members  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto CA 94301     Re:      March 8, 2021, Special Meeting,[1] Agenda Item 7, Public Hearing/Quasi‐Judicial Regarding 1310 Bryant Street  (Castilleja)… (ID # 11180)[2]  ‐‐‐ I urge you to approve the Castilleja Project  Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and City Council Members,              I urge you to approve the Castilleja Project, as detailed in part 2(b) of the “Recommendation” section of the Staff  Report, based on the City Staff’s analysis and code interpretations.  Staff Report at pgs. 1‐2.  As numerous other  members of the public have noted, it is particularly important to allow Castilleja to increase its enrollment, modernize its  campus while maintaining its current footprint, and build underground parking.  For over a century, Castilleja has been a  vital Palo Alto institution.  Over that time period, and particularly in recent decades, the world and education have  changed considerably.  To support a broader and more advanced curriculum, exemplary educational institutions such as  Castilleja need to reach “critical mass” and to have the benefit of modern facilities.  The underground parking facility, as  well as Castilleja’s successful traffic demand management program, will help to maintain the residential character of the  neighborhood.  In reading public comments, I have been particularly impressed by the multiple neighbors who have  spoken out in support of Castilleja’s proposals.  Like them, I believe that City Staff, the PTC, and other City Boards have  struck an appropriate balance, and that the City Council should embrace and support the Castilleja Project.  There are  two other important reasons why the Castilleja Project should be approved.    For decades, Palo Alto has made environmental progress one of the City’s most important goals, but recently  Palo Alto’s progress towards achieving its Sustainability and Climate Action Plan has slowed considerably.  The City  needs to embrace a broader and bolder set of climate initiatives.  The Castilleja Project should be one of them.  The  imperative of overcoming catastrophic global warming is inextricably linked to the mission of educating young women,  and, in recent years, young women have emerged as some of the most dedicated, skilled, and articulate climate  leaders.  Castilleja has repeatedly demonstrated its abilities not only to enhance the knowledge and thoughtfulness of  10 young women but also to assist them in extending their leadership skills.  By supporting the Castilleja Project, Palo Alto  will be contributing in unique and important ways to addressing the challenges of global warming.              Finally, let us recognize that Castilleja has much to teach our community as well as its students.  Castilleja has  demonstrated its own institutional leadership in drastically reducing traffic since 2013; it has accomplished far more  than many other local institutions.  Its Traffic Demand Management program has reduced daily car trips by more than  30%.  Castilleja has also shown how to increase pedestrian and bicycle travel significantly and how to dramatically  expand transit and shuttle transportation.  The success that Castilleja has enjoyed in reducing traffic is as instructive as it  is commendable.  Castilleja should serve as a model for other institutions in the immediate vicinity ‐‐‐ including Walter  Hays Elementary School, the new Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, the Palo Alto Art Center, Rinconada Library, Palo  Alto High School, and even Town & Country Village.  Castilleja will undoubtedly achieve even more in the future to  reduce local traffic, and the entire City can learn from its progress.              Castilleja has contributed greatly to Palo Alto for more than a century.  Approving the Castilleja Project will help  ensure that it continues to benefit Palo Alto in the future.     Respectfully submitted,   John Kelley       [1] See the agenda for the Meeting of the City Council: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80449   [2] See the Staff Report, “Summary Title: Castilleja” (“Staff Report”):  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80441     John Kelley 555 Bryant St., No. 714 Palo Alto, CA 94301 jkelley@399innovation.com (650) 444-2237 March 8, 2021 Via Email: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Honorable Tom DuBois, Mayor Honorable Pat Burt, Vice Mayor Honorable City Council Members City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto CA 94301 Re: March 8, 2021, Special Meeting,1 Agenda Item 7, Public Hearing/Quasi-Judicial Regarding 1310 Bryant Street (Castilleja)… (ID # 11180)2 --- I urge you to approve the Castilleja Project Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and City Council Members, I urge you to approve the Castilleja Project, as detailed in part 2(b) of the “Recommendation” section of the Staff Report, based on the City Staff’s analysis and code interpretations. Staff Report at pgs. 1-2. As numerous other members of the public have noted, it is particularly important to allow Castilleja to increase its enrollment, modernize its campus while maintaining its current footprint, and build underground parking. For over a century, Castilleja has been a vital Palo Alto institution. Over that time period, and particularly in recent decades, the world and education have changed considerably. To support a broader and more advanced curriculum, exemplary educational institutions such as Castilleja need to reach “critical mass” and to have the benefit of modern facilities. The underground parking facility, as well as Castilleja’s successful traffic demand management program, will help to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. In reading public comments, I have been particularly impressed by the multiple neighbors who have spoken out in support of Castilleja’s proposals. Like them, I believe that City Staff, the PTC, and other City Boards have struck an appropriate balance, and that the City Council should embrace and support the Castilleja Project. There are two other important reasons why the Castilleja Project should be approved. For decades, Palo Alto has made environmental progress one of the City’s most important goals, but recently Palo Alto’s progress towards achieving its Sustainability and Climate Action Plan has slowed considerably. The City needs to embrace a broader and bolder set of climate initiatives. The Castilleja Project should be one of them. The imperative of overcoming catastrophic global warming is inextricably linked to the mission of educating young women, and, in recent years, young women have emerged as some of the most dedicated, skilled, and articulate climate leaders. Castilleja has repeatedly demonstrated its abilities not only to enhance the knowledge and thoughtfulness of young women but also to assist them in extending their leadership skills. By supporting the Castilleja Project, Palo Alto will be contributing in unique and important ways to addressing the challenges of global warming. 1 See the agenda for the Meeting of the City Council: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80449 2 See the Staff Report, “Summary Title: Castilleja” (“Staff Report”): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80441 2 Finally, let us recognize that Castilleja has much to teach our community as well as its students. Castilleja has demonstrated its own institutional leadership in drastically reducing traffic since 2013; it has accomplished far more than many other local institutions. Its Traffic Demand Management program has reduced daily car trips by more than 30%. Castilleja has also shown how to increase pedestrian and bicycle travel significantly and how to dramatically expand transit and shuttle transportation. The success that Castilleja has enjoyed in reducing traffic is as instructive as it is commendable. Castilleja should serve as a model for other institutions in the immediate vicinity --- including Walter Hays Elementary School, the new Palo Alto Junior Museum and Zoo, the Palo Alto Art Center, Rinconada Library, Palo Alto High School, and even Town & Country Village. Castilleja will undoubtedly achieve even more in the future to reduce local traffic, and the entire City can learn from its progress. Castilleja has contributed greatly to Palo Alto for more than a century. Approving the Castilleja Project will help ensure that it continues to benefit Palo Alto in the future. Respectfully submitted, John Kelley 11 Baumb, Nelly From:Carla Befera <carlab@cb-pr.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 3:37 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Please revise process to include neighbors Attachments:John Lusardi's cover letter to Casti - 2000 CUP approval.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members:     You will hear tonight from dozens of Castilleja supporters, recruited to extoll the virtues of this institution and  women’s education. They will be made up of former students, parents, donors, and others who support the  elite school’s admirable work. Most of those speakers will not be directly affected by the school’s daily  activities and planned growth – indeed, some may not even live in Palo Alto. But I think we can all agree that  excellent education for girls is not at issue here.     You will also hear the school describe the onerous years it has spent, meeting and working with neighbors on  its plans. On this, we do NOT agree.     The school allowed neighbors to express their concerns and has then systematically ignored them and gone  ahead with its proposed plans for growth. Some slight modifications have been made to the project – such as  not tearing down private homes or building an even larger underground garage that violated setbacks. Those  concepts were shot down by the City during the DEIR process. We resent them now being promoted as  concessions that the school granted to appease those gosh darn impossible‐to‐please neighbors.      My family has lived directly across the street from the school for over 50 years and was deeply involved in the  previous CUP, created in 2000 after 18 months of meetings. At that time, Palo Alto City Manager John Lusardi  said the enrollment cap of 415 was final, that the city would not look favorably upon any future requests for  additional enrollment (copy attached). Neighbors foolishly took the City at its word.      When it became know that Castilleja had been violating its CUP from almost the moment the ink was dry, we  took part in more meetings, in which neighborhood input was solicited, and then uniformly rejected.     Instead of working in good faith with the neighbors who are impacted daily by the school’s activities, Castilleja  has used its considerable resources ($22 million/year in tuition, plus endowments and donations – not to  mention tens of millions in tuition collected over the past 20 years for the illegally over‐enrolled students) to  hire marketing teams, run self‐serving ads, host neighborhood focus groups far from campus, and most  recently to send an official‐looking survey to unsuspecting Palo Alto voters. We wonder what results that  survey would have garnered had one of the questions been: Would you support a building the size of a Costco,  to be built across the street from your home? Do you think many Palo Altans would embrace that reality?     Interestingly the survey results – found in your packet (page 125) ‐ show that Castilleja has HALF the  favorability rating of PALY (that would be the public high school up the street that doesn’t collect $22 million  12 per year in private tuitions). A plurality of those surveyed thought the school caused neighborhood traffic  congestion, and that it was unresponsive to neighborhood concerns. It takes quite a spin doctor –  congratulations FM3 Research – to present these overall results as positive.     Neighbors have asked – begged ‐ the school to follow the examples set by other elite private schools up and  down the peninsula, such as Harker, Notre Dame, Nueva, Crystal Springs. Those lauded schools prohibit  driving to campus, on‐street parking, boast that 70% of their students take public transportation, offer robust  private shuttle services. And all have continued to grow and serve more students, by adding new campuses.  Why is Castilleja so intractable on all of these points? Frankly, if the school had proposed off‐site parking and  shuttles, the whole project could have been built by now with the neighbors’ blessing.     We ask the City to meet with neighbors – a part of this process that has been notably missing – and see if it  can broker a compromise that more of the impacted stakeholders can support.      Other local private schools have done this and have worked out excellent agreements. The City of Palo Alto  did an admirable job of meeting with neighbors in Crescent Park earlier this year to solve traffic issues. It also  did a brilliant job working with stakeholders when the PA Medical Foundation  outgrew its home on Forest  Avenue.      We ask the City Council not to bend over backwards, declaring a garage is really a basement ... or that the  square footage is whatever the school claims it is today – not what the records show.      We ask the City not to grant the school seven to ten times the events it allows other private schools in Palo  Alto. Or to pretend that if it gives the school all the growth it seeks, the City will somehow be able to closely  monitor the results and punish transgressions with future reductions in enrollment.       We ask the City to grant the school modest growth, and let it earn more by proving it is able to maintain no  net car trips ‐the same agreement it made with Stanford.     Thank you for your kind attention to this matter.     ‐ Carla Befera     November 2, 2000 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment Georgia Bond Castilleja School 13I O Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: 1310 Bryant Street (Castilleja School) Planning Division Dear Ms. Bond: Attached to this letter is an approved Conditional Use Permit [OO-CUP-23] authorizing Castilleja School to increase its enrollment from 385 to 415 students and add two full- time faculty members. Castilleja School's request for 30 additional students was outlined in a letter to Lisa Grote dated August 28, 2000. The request was also reviewed at a public hearing held on October I 9, 2000. At no time did Castilleja School indicate that it was their intent to submit a later application for additional students. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the approved Conditional Use Permit does not provide for an increase in students of 415 students, and that any subsequent request for additional students will not be favorable looked up by the City. The City Staff greatly appreciate Castilleja School's demonstrated willingness to work with their neighbors to address existing traffic and parking problems, as well as any impacts related to increasing the student population. However, the City is not willing to continue to approach increasing school enrollment for Castilleja School in an incremental manner. Please contact me at 329-2561 if you have any questions regarding this approval. Sincerely, cc: Rachel Adcox, Planner 250 Hamilton Avenue P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax 13 Baumb, Nelly From:Janet L. Billups <jlb@jsmf.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 12:18 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Yang, Albert; French, Amy; Kathy Layendecker; nkauffman@castilleja.org; Tanner, Rachael Subject:Action Item No. 7 - 1310 Bryant Street (Castilleja): Consideration of Certification of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Attachments:LetterFinal.CCMtg.3.8.21.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     The attached letter, submitted by Mindie Romanowsky, on behalf of Castilleja School, clarifies the square footage issue  with regard to Action Item No. 7 on the Council’s  Agenda for March 8, 2021.        Kind regards,     Janet Billups, Legal Assistant to Mindie Romanowsky  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.        1 N:\DATA\Clients\Protected\Castilleja\Corres\LetterFinal.CCMtg.3.8.21.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 FACSIMILE (650) 324-0227 www.jsmf.com March 8, 2021 OF COUNSEL KENT MITCHELL LEIGH F. PRINCE _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ RETIRED JOHN D. JORGENSON MARGARET A. SLOAN DIANE S. GREENBERG _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DEC EASED MARVIN S. SIEGEL (1936 - 2012) JOHN R.COSGROVE (1932 - 2017) Sent via Email: City.Council@CityofPaloAlto.org City of Palo Alto City Council and Mayor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Square Footage Clarification 16PLN-00258 SCH#2107012052 (“Project”) Dear Honorable Members of the City Council: Castilleja School (“Castilleja” or “School”) submitted an application for an amended Conditional Use Permit (“CUP”) to increase enrollment and to request a variance in connection with its master plan to redevelop a portion of the campus based on existing permitted above grade square footage (“Variance”). In light of the recent correspondence regarding above grade square footage, and Staff’s at places memo in response to the inquiry, we feel it important to expressly state that Castilleja remains steadfast in its commitment to only build the above grade square footage permitted and proven by the permit record. This letter seeks to provide the necessary context for understanding that the recent letters misconstrue the issues, without merit. The background set forth below is provided to show that the small square footage discrepancy has no material impact on the Project nor your ability to consider and vote on this matter. In anticipation of the public hearings that will commence this evening, we respectfully encourage Councilmembers to stay focused on the information in the record. As articulated in my letter dated February 25, 2021, we remain confident in the strength of the School’s application, including the final environmental impact report (“EIR”), that support the findings necessary to grant the CUP and the Variance. Throughout the application process, the professionals and consultants working on the Project have operated in good faith, referencing and relying on a mutually agreed set of facts and figures that informed Project plans. To that end, in late 2017, the City asked DocuSign Envelope ID: 8233DDEC-6B9B-4FF9-AE75-8D1877AA998D 2 N:\DATA\Clients\Protected\Castilleja\Corres\LetterFinal.CCMtg.3.8.21.docx Castilleja to submit and substantiate a variance application to retain above grade square footage based on approved and provable historic permits that vest existing square footage. In response, Castilleja researched City permit documents consisting of hundreds of pages and submitted copies of all approved permits for the existing buildings. Castilleja found permits which we believed to show 84,572 of above grade square feet that previously permitted the buildings which the Project seeks to replace. Based on this information, and in the absence of disagreement by Staff, Castilleja’s current plan proposes to redevelop 81,942 of above grade square feet (not including existing buildings to remain), but now understands that there is a 4,370 overage. Included in the historic permits found through Castilleja’s research was an approved plan from 1965, which was photographed and stored on the City’s microfiche system. Given the age and quality of this image, it is understandable how both our team and City staff missed the handwritten annotation in the bottom corner -- it was an honest mistake. As articulated in Staff’s at-places memo, taking into consideration the hand-written notation, the total permitted above grade square footage drops by 7,000 square feet from 84,572 to 77,582 square feet. This oversight should not be misconstrued as anything other than an honest mistake. The School continues to seek approval for the ability to maintain above grade permitted square footage with its Variance request. It is also noteworthy that to maintain a proposal of above grade square footage consistent with previous permits, the Project does not need to be reduced by 7,000 square feet; rather by 4,370 square feet, as illustrated in the Table, below. Historic Permits for buildings intended for demolition 84,572 SF (as submitted to Staff in 2017) 77,572 SF (removes 7000 SF due to 1965 microfiche) Proposed Project (new construction) 81,942 SF 81,942 SF Square Footage (below) and above historic permits (2,630 SF) 4,370 SF The 4,370 discrepancy which results from re-evaluation of the 1965 microfiche is minor and represents a 5.3% (4,370/81,942) reduction of the Project. Castilleja wants the record to be clear — the School will reduce the Project to comport with the historic permits, as has always been its stated goal. The de minimis change in square footage is not a fatal flaw for purposes of making the findings for the Variance or for CEQA purposes. There is no practical or legal reason to stop the process and measure square footage of buildings proposed for demolition. The relevant data points for purposes of the EIR are (i) existing conditions (see Communities for a Better Env't v. S. Coast Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. (2010) 48 Cal. 4th 310), and (ii) the proposed Project. Castilleja already provided as-built information showing existing conditions as well as Project plans showing the proposal. To determine potential impacts, the EIR compared the Project, as proposed, to existing conditions and found that all potential impacts, with Alternative #4, including Castilleja’s request to replace existing above grade permitted square footage, are less than significant, with mitigation. Further, DocuSign Envelope ID: 8233DDEC-6B9B-4FF9-AE75-8D1877AA998D 3 N:\DATA\Clients\Protected\Castilleja\Corres\LetterFinal.CCMtg.3.8.21.docx any small reduction in square footage would make the Project less impactful, both environmentally and experientially. Because the square footage discrepancy is minor, the City Council should feel confident in making its decision based on the record, as did the Historic Resources Board (“HRB”), Architectural Review Board (“ARB”) and Planning and Transportation Commission (“PTC”). With support from HRB, ARB and PTC, we look forward to sharing our vision with the City Council at the hearings which commence tonight. This has been a journey filled with engagement and collaboration, as we held approximately 60 community meetings. Over the years, the input, especially from those with concerns, informed our iterations and resulted in a project deemed environmentally superior and in compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Our outreach efforts indicate that a substantial number of Palo Altans, including many immediate neighbors, support this Project, with the increase in enrollment and the below grade parking facility. We encourage the Council to move forward and vote to approve this Project, specifically Alternative #4, which is environmentally superior. The de minimis 4,370 reduction in square footage makes no difference to the EIR conclusions and no difference to the CUP or the Variance findings. Should the Council refer the application back to ARB as recommended by Staff, Castilleja would respect that decision. However, if you send the small reduction in square footage back to ARB, we respectfully request that their review be limited to the 4,370 reduction so that time and resources are not wasted on questions which have been asked and answered. As an alternative path, we request that the Council consider approval of the Project with a condition that an architectural subcommittee review and approve the minor reduction, as is common practice. Notwithstanding, it is our hope that the clarification and context provided in this letter regarding the minor discrepancy will remove any doubt that the Variance findings required to maintain above grade square footage are strong and that this Project is ripe for decision. Thank you for your consideration and your service. Sincerely, Mindie S. Romanowsky Cc: Jonathan Lait (via email: Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org) Amy French (via email: Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org) Rachael Tanner (via email: Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org) Albert Yang (via email: Albert.Yang@cityofpaloalto.org) Nanci Kauffman (via email nkauffman@castilleja.org) Kathy Layendecker (via email klayendecker@castilleja.org) DocuSign Envelope ID: 8233DDEC-6B9B-4FF9-AE75-8D1877AA998D 14 Baumb, Nelly From:Alan Cooper <akcooper@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 11:11 AM To:Council, City Cc:French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:Castilleja traffic: proposed rewards for reduced ADT Attachments:Castilleja enrollment and traffic comparison Mar 8 2021.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members, I am sending you the text of my speech for tonight's Council meeting. And, I attach a table for a traffic reward system that is cited in my speech, but there is not enough time to show the table. I appreciate your consideration of my requests! Alan Cooper 270 Kellogg Ave 1. Text of Alan Cooper’s speech to City Council on March 8: I am Alan Cooper and have lived across the street from Castilleja at 270 Kellogg Ave for 37 years. In that time, I have seen Castilleja double in size from a quiet boarding school to an elite school serving a regional population, and having significant impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. I ask that Council members acknowledge that the proposed project is in an R-1 zone where requests of neighbors who financially support their City thru taxes TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER the requests of an academic institution that does NOT financially support their City. Neighborhood “quality of life” should take precedence over a school business plan for an elite regional population. My comments are directed toward traffic. I praise the City for recommending the restriction of “no new net trips” with strict enforcement via detailed traffic monitoring for the school, as a starting point. Stanford operates under this restriction and at a minimum, so should Castilleja. I also encourage Council to use a reward system that would encourage REAL traffic reductions. The reward system could help Castilleja get to their maximum enrollment more quickly. A specific example would be: if Castilleja permanently reduced daily trips by 1% they would get a bonus reward of 1 student added to that year’s enrollment allotment. Neighbors and the City want less traffic. I encourage Castilleja to be a good neighbor and reduce their school traffic. Thank you for your consideration. 2. Example table of a reward system to encourage Castilleja to make REAL traffic reductions (attached pdf file) The table is based on a reward of 1 student for each 1% reduction of ADT (over and above the student enrollment growth rate proposed in the City Staff Report). All scenarios presume fundamental principles of “no new net trips” and traffic reductions would be permanent. The table shows one example of how Castilleja could reach their allowed maximum enrollment more quickly if they rapidly reduced their daily trips (ADT) via shuttles, no student drivers, more bikes etc. The Council may wish to slow down the “Formal Path” student-enrollment growth rate and increase the reward levels (e.g. 2 or 3 students for each 1% reduction of ADT) to further encourage Castilleja to be a good neighbor and permanently reduce their ADT. Possible paths to 540 student enrollment at Castilleja School Formal Path Good Neighbor Path (less traffic) City Staff Report: No net new trips City Staff Report: No net new trips + decreasing ADT (with "rewards") Start of Year ADT*Students**Comment ADT*Students** Comment (some examples for ADT reductions) 2021 1198 426 Garage construction 1198 426 achieve 2% ADT decrease = 2 student reward (more biking) 2022 1198 426 Garage construction 1174 428 (=426+2)achieve 5% ADT decrease = 5 student reward (fewer drivers) 2023 1198 426 Education Bldg cons.1114 433 (=426+7)achieve 9% ADT decrease = 9 student reward (shuttle program) 2024 1198 451 Educ.Bldg; 25 max 1006 467 (=451+16)another 5% ADT decrease = 5 student reward (shuttle program) 2025 1198 476 Educ.Bldg; 25 max 946 497 (=476+21)another 4% decrease = 4 student reward (shuttle program) 2026 1198 476 Educ.Bldg wrap up 898 501 (=476+25)another 4% decrease = 4 student reward (off campus events) 2027 1198 501 25/yr max growth 851 530 (=501+29)another 4% decrease = 4 student reward (off campus events) 2028 1198 526 25/yr max growth 803 540 (=526+33)This is a 33% reduction of ADT from 1198 2029 1198 540 Reach maximum 803 540 WIN-WIN path The proposed Good Neighbor Path is a way to 1. reward the neighborhood with ~33% less Castilleja traffice (and related parking and noise issues) AND 2. reward Castilleja with faster increase in student student enrollment (1 student/1% ADT decrease). * Requires monitoring goals be met at each level to preserve student enrollment; ** enrollment growth allowed per EIR (without reward) 3/8/21 Table created by Alan Cooper (akcooper@pacbell.net) 16 Baumb, Nelly From:Bruce McLeod <mcleod.bruce@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 11:08 AM To:Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Burt, Patrick; DuBois, Tom; Stone, Greer Cc:Council, City Subject:1310 Bryant Street proposed development and CUP Attachments:City Council McLeod March 7.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please see the attached comments for tonight's quasi‐ judicial consideration of the Castilleja project proposal. I realise  there is a lot of information to wade through but this is a massive and complex proposal and merits the time to get it  right.  I am available by zoom or in person to follow up on any of these suggestions.  Thanks for your public service.     Bruce McLeod  1404 Bryant Street  Palo Alto,Ca  650‐465‐2908      1 City of Palo Alto March 7, 2021 Members of the City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 1310 Bryant Street; Castilleja Expansion Project As an immediate neighbor of Castilleja, I have been involved in the process leading up to your Monday evening meeting since 2000. I was part of the small group of neighbors, the Small Working Group, who met for 2 ½ years with Castilleja to seek a compromise plan. I have written countless documents and plans, written numerous letters to City staff and Boards and attended every public meeting since the project plans were first presented. I want to thank you in advance for your time and consideration of the issues this project raises and the Solomon -like decision you are being asked to make. I will not go into all of reasons I object to this project but instead hope to give you some context and possible paths to a decision that might protect our neighborhood and the residential lifestyle we all deserve on Palo Alto. 1. Access: Castilleja is the only Middle or High School in Palo Alto, public or private, that has no access from the adjacent arterial street. The Council should direct the City engineering department to thoroughly study all options for campus vehicular traffic access from Embarcadero Road prior to approval of any CUP application. 2. Construction Impacts: The EIR treats construction as a temporary inconvenience and includes minimal mitigations. This massive project will “inconvenience” a residential neighborhood for at least three years and probably more. The 2006 gym construction was delayed for 6 months while the contractor pumped “unexpected” groundwater 24/7 from the site. The PTC should be tasked with reviewing and approving a comprehensive construction plan that protects neighborhood streets and residents BEFORE any CUP is granted. Will access be from Embarcadero – see lane closures on Page Mill at El Camino for the last two years, or will access be from neighborhood streets not designed for heavy construction vehicles and impede access for students and staff to the school and neighbors to their homes? Just last week, there were nearly 20 construction vehicles parked on the 1500 block of Bryant for the two residential projects. Castilleja’s project is over 100 times that size. Include the 1198 average daily trips to Castilleja plus student and staff parking and gridlock looms. Real time air quality monitoring during construction should also be included in any CUP conditions. 2 3. Current TDM: Castilleja has promoted their “robust” TDM and its 25-30% reduction in trips. First, his should have started in 2000 per the current CUP, instead of 2013. Second, in the small working group meetings Castilleja’s traffic consultant expressed that the first 25% is easy, it gets harder and more-costly after that. The first 25% was accomplished in two years. Since 2015 the progress has been minimal and these additional reductions can be attributed to the reductions in enrollment (nearly 5%) that were finally mandated by the City. The neighbors do not trust that the proposed traffic targets can be accomplished with an additional 125 High School students nor do they believe the City has the will or capacity to enforce them. 4. Enrollment and TDM: The current proposed CUP conditions grant Castilleja the right to 540 students based strictly on construction progress. There are enrollment penalties attached if TDM measures fall short yet, as we have seen with the current enrollment rollbacks, these reductions are difficult to accomplish due of the impact on currently enrolled students. This is bad practice and only minimally protects the neighborhood and City. Please consider the neighbor’s proposal to reward enrollment growth for meaningful traffic reductions. With this or other similar plan, Castilleja has an incentive to decrease trips and the neighbors and City get some long sought relief from traffic impacts. Additionally, as a condition of any CUP, I would ask the Council to direct the City Engineering department to work with neighbors and implement traffic calming measures on Kellogg, Bryant, Emerson and Melville streets around the school. 5. Street Parking: Castilleja has consistently rebuffed any suggestion that students should not drive to campus. Without this, there will be no meaningful reduction in ADT, peak trips or street parking. Even the proposed garage does not give Castilleja parking for even their 145 staff members. Other neighborhoods near schools have instituted RPP zones and the City has turned down requests for special rules for their staffs (Addison School. Etc.), instead requiring full self- parking onsite. Castilleja already encourages their students and staff to park on Waverley and farther down Bryant, thus avoiding the traffic counts. I suggest that the City create an RPP zone as a condition of a CUP. At a minimum, it should include the 1400 and 1500 blocks of Bryant, the 1300, 1400 and 1500 blocks of Emerson, the 100 block of Melville and the 100, 200, and 300 blocks of Kellogg. 3 6. Enrollment distribution: Castilleja has proposed adding 125 students- all in the high school grades. This seems out of line with accepted pedagogical information and Castilleja’s prior statements regarding their grade alignments. First, studies have shown that the greatest benefit to young women in terms of leadership, self-esteem, and later access to male dominated careers occurs when they are educated separately in Middle Schools. Second, Castilleja has previously argued that having equal grade enrollments on the same campus is necessary for their mentoring programs between older and younger students. If the grades no longer need to be the same size they could also be separated onto different campuses. Regardless, the impacts of older high school students who drive to campus are greater than younger ones who don’t. I ask the Council to consider and define the limits of the proportional make up of any enrollment increase as a function of the relative impact on the neighborhood. I do not believe this issue was considered in the EIR. 7. School Site Size and student density: This site is grossly undersized for a Middle and High School experience. The student density is already well above any other public or private school in the City or surrounding area.on the following page I have included a section of the California Department of Education (CDE)recommendations for school sites for your reference. The CDE recommends 24 acres for a 400-600 student high school. Even allowing for the minimal athletic fields at Castilleja, this site is nowhere near those recommendations. Thank you for your time and your consideration in this matter, Bruce McLeod 1404 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 4 City of Palo Alto March 07,2021 Members of the City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 1310 Bryant Street; Castilleja Expansion Project Site recommendations for grades nine through twelve https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/fa/sf/guideschoolsite.asp#Table6 Area Use Enrollment up to 400 Usable Acres Required Enrollment 401 to 600 Usable Acres Required Enrollment 601 to 800 Usable Acres Required Enrollment 801 to 1000 Usable Acres Required Enrollment 1001 to 1200 Usable Acres Required Physical Education 13.8 15.6 17.6 19.5 19.8 Buildings and Grounds 3.3 4 5.1 6.3 7.6 Parking and Roads 2.1 3.6 4.4 5.2 6.1 Total acres without CSR 19.2 23.2 27.1 31 33.5 Added Buildings and Grounds for CSR 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 Added Parking and Roads for CSR 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 Total acres with CSR 19.7 24 28.1 32.3 35 Notes: CSR: refers to Class Size Reduction ( 20 instead of 30) Student parking at secondary schools: Secondary schools generally provide additional land for student parking. This provision allows students who drive cars to park on the school site rather than occupy street parking throughout a neighborhood. When student parking areas are located to permit use by the public attending athletic events or community events, more land than is needed for student parking must be provided as determined by the capacity of the gymnasium, stadium, or auditorium. In the past many school districts provided student lots with a minimum parking capacity calculated on 50 percent of the school enrollment. Thus a high school of 2,000 students would provide parking for 1,000 cars at 380 square feet per car - an area of 380,000 square feet or about 8.7 acres of land - in addition to the space needed for staff and visitor parking. The number of students driving cars differs for each school, but this amount of land is usually adequate for all school purposes. Recommended Total Area: These requirements for secondary school parking include student parking, staff parking, access roads, land around and between parking lots, turnarounds, drop-off areas, service areas, and the frontal street (see Table 6). 5 Unusual or exceptional site conditions are defined in the California Code of Regulations, Title 5, Chapter 13 of Division 1, Section 14010(a) and (b) as follows: a. The net usable acreage and enrollment for a new school site shall be consistent with the numbers of acres and enrollment established in the 2000 Edition, "School Site Analysis and Development" published by the California Department of Education and incorporated into this section by reference, in toto, unless sufficient land is not available or circumstances exist due to any of the following: 1. Urban or suburban development results in insufficient available land even after considering the option of eminent domain. 2. Sufficient acreage is available but it would not be economically feasible to mitigate geological or environmental hazards or other site complications which post a threat to the health and/or safety of students and staff. 3. Sufficient acreage is available but not within the attendance area of the unhoused students or there is an extreme density of population within a given attendance area requiring a school to serve more students on a single site. Choosing an alternate site would result in extensive long-term busing of students that would cause extreme financial hardship to the district to transport students to the proposed school site. 4. Geographic barriers, traffic congestion or other constraints would cause extreme financial hardship for the district to transport students to the proposed school site. b. If a school site is less than the recommended acreage required in subsection (a) of this section, the district shall demonstrate how the students will be provided an adequate educational program, including physical education, as described in the district's adopted course of study. Re: Castilleja: 1. The above exceptions are intended for public schools serving local populations. Castilleja chooses to serve affluent students from a wide area. Since the location is a school choice the size of the property is not a hardship nor is it an excuse to overdevelop. 2. Even allowing for the lack of recreation space, Castilleja is significantly undersized for the school size with no space for even their staff parking, let alone student or event parking. Nothing in the current proposal addresses this deficiency Thank you for your consideration, Bruce McLeod 1404 Bryant Street Palo Alto 17 Baumb, Nelly From:Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 7:51 AM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Castilleja School List of Supporters Attachments:20210305_PA Public Supporter Address List for CC_st no. removed.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  March 5, 2021 Dear Honorable Members of the City Council, We are looking forward to our public hearing, beginning tonight. In advance, I want to share with you a list of hundreds of Palo Altans who support Castilleja's proposal to modernize our campus and increase enrollment, while reducing impacts on the neighborhood. As we will share during our applicant presentation, we have listened to neighbors, residents, City staff and City officials in what has become an iterative design process over the past several years. We feel this broad support across Palo Alto reflects widespread respect for the integrity of the process and for the project that is before you. Thank you for your careful consideration. Respectfully, Nanci Z. Kauffman   ‐‐   Nanci Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 P (650) 470-7718 E nkauffman@castilleja.org www.castilleja.org Follow us on Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn    Women Learning. Women Leading. For an appointment, contact: adelafuente@castilleja.org or (650) 470-7702  Addison Ave Kalpesh Kapadia Addison Ave Michael Harrison Alger Dr Leonardo Guerrero Alger Dr Min Guo Alma St Mary Liz McCurdy Alma St Amanda Brown Alma St Kyle Bordeau Amherst St Henry Vinton Ashton Ave Jouliette Erickson Ashton Ct Lexin Li Ashton Ct Ning Li Barbara Dr Carolyn Davidson Barbara Dr Kristin Goldman Barclay Ct Sandra Koppe-Passell Bibbits Dr Guillermo Viveros Bibbits Dr Olivia Viveros Birch St Deborah Goldeen Bret Harte St Peter Gunadi Bret Harte St Lilyana Prasetya Bruce Dr Wei Si Bruce Dr Frank Yuan Bryant Ct Diane Corrie-McIntyre Bryant St Grace-Ann Baker Bryant St John Cochrane Bryant St Elizabeth Fama Bryant St Ray Dempsey Bryant St Anneke Dempsey Bryant St Michael Flexer Bryant St Caroline Hu Flexer Bryant St Rob Steinberg Bryant St Gerry Marshall Bryant St John Stucky Bryant St Gail Stucky Bryant St David Chang Bryant St Glowe Chang Bryant St John Colford Bryant St Margaret Lane Bryant St Marvin Feinstein Bryant St Kate Feinstein Bryant St Olivier Redon Bryant St Yanting Zhang Bryant St Diana Walsh Bryant St Anthony Fenwick Bryant St Dana Fenwick Bryant St Nancy Hannibal Bryant St Cathy Williams Bryant St Don Williams Bryant St Linda Williams Bryant St Dandan Wu Bryant St Bryan Furlong Bryant St Lisa Heitman Bryant St Madhavi Cheruvu Bryant St Sajjad Jaffer Bryant St Suky Jaffer Bryant St Rosanna Jackson Bryson Ave Yong Sheng Bryson Ave Lin Wang Bryson Ave Tina Kuan Byron St Roy Maydan Byron St Yvette Maydan Byron St Debbie Whitson Byron St Keith Burnett Byron St Chara Burnett Byron St Ashmeet Sidana Byron St Yuko Watanabe Byron St Leannah Hunt Byron St Catharine Garber Byron St Michael Ross Byron St Amanda Ross California Ave Qian Weng California Ave Haobo Xu Cass Way Harvey Alcabes Cass Way Ellen Stromberg Center Dr Azieb Nicodimos Center Dr Humphrey Polanen Center Dr Stephanie Flamen Center Dr Daniel Flamen Center Dr Ellen Flamen Cereza Dr Nirmala Ramarathnam Cereza Dr Jay Venkat Channing Ave Nellis Freeman Channing Ave Deglin Kenealy Channing Ave Heather Kenealy Channing Ave Chris Markesky Channing Ave Eugenie Van Wynen Channing Ave Teresa Chen Channing Ave Huisheng Wang Channing Ave Yinqing Zhao Channing Ave Jon Foster Channing Ave Turnbull Meaghan Channing Ave Steve Turnbull Chimalus Dr Brittany Chavez Churchill Ave Eduardo Llach Churchill Ave Teri Llach Churchill Ave Aileen Lee Churchill Ave Jason Stinson Churchill Ave Joseph Bergeron Churchill Ave Chi-Kuo Shen Churchill Ave Li-Hsiang Yu Shen Churchill Ave Jamie Poskin Churchill Ave Patama Gur Churchill Ave Megan Hutchin Churchill Ave Christina Gwin Churchill Ave Douglas Kerr Churchill Ave Nanci Kauffman Clara Dr Marion Lepert Clara Dr Bharat Bhushan Clara Dr Veena Bhushan Clark Way Laura Hansen Coastland Dr Steve Leen Coastland Dr Mary Ruth Leen Coleridge Ave Eric Dunn Coleridge Ave Susan Dunn Coleridge Ave Kari Kirkpatrick Coleridge Ave Carol Read Coleridge Ave Lian Bi Coleridge Ave Albert You Coleridge Ave Anne Avis Coleridge Ave Brian Kelleher Coleridge Ave Teresa Kelleher Coleridge Ave Vivek Raghunathan Coleridge Ave Vidhya Thygarajan College Ave Emily Wang College Ave Mongson Wang Colonial Ln Deanna McCusker Colorado Ave Rebeca Erickson Colorado Ave Aarthi Anand Colorado Ave Brijesh Jeevarathnam Colorado Ave Anne Guionnet Cornell St Trevor McConnell Cowper St Dianne Jenett Cowper St Joe Martignetti Cowper St Edith Sheffer Cowper St Dave Fisch Cowper St Peggy McKee Crescent Dr Colleen O'Malley Crescent Dr Martin O'Malley Crescent Dr Beth O'Malley Crescent Dr Barbara Hanna Crescent Dr John Hanna Dana Ave Gang Liu Dana Ave Cindy Wang Dana Ave Amy Kacher Dana Ave Karen Harwell Dana Ave Stacie Cheng Dana Ave Tom Cole Dana Ave Paul Maloney Dana Ave Michele Wong Dana Ave Gary Paladin Dana Ave Patty Boas De Soto Dr Kurt Taylor De Soto Dr Shannon Elward Dennis Dr Yi Tang Dennis Dr Steve Emslie Donald Dr Barry Johnson Duluth Cir Asim Hussain E. Charleston Rd Chris Loew Edgewood Dr Angie Ball Edgewood Dr Charles Stevens Edgewood Dr Barbara Stevens Edgewood Dr Katherine Greatwood Edgewood Dr Michelle Cale Edgewood Dr Duncan Greatwood Edgewood Dr Jeff Hausman Edgewood Dr Liza Hausman El Camino Real Diane Morin El Camino Real John Yau El Cerrito Rd Victoria Wang El Cerrito Rd Bill Leonard El Cerrito Rd Tang Tan El Cerrito Rd Celine Teoh El Dorado Ave Andrea Christensen El Verano Ave Leora Tanjuatco Ross Elsinore Dr Sally Dudley Elsinore Dr Chuck Sieloff Emerson St Cameron Turner Emerson St Annie Turner Emerson St Barbara Hazlett Emerson St Tench Coxe Emerson St Simone Coxe Emerson St Leif King Emerson St Bill Mann Emerson St Cindy Chen Emerson St Bob Kocher Emerson St Bosung Kim Emerson St Chungwha Park Fallen Leaf St Johnson Selvaraj Fielding Ct Mike Anderson Fielding Ct Vanessa Anderson Fife Ave Sharyn Efimoff Forest Ave Marcela Millan Forest Ave Jochen Profit Forest Ave Emily Sawtell Forest Ave Sabrina Braham Forest Ave Bas De Blank Forest Ave Michelle De Blank Fulton Ave Bella Ramon Fulton Ave Rebeca Ramon Fulton St Andy Hess Fulton St Cindy Hess Fulton St Susan McDonnell Fulton St Judy Koch Fulton St Jamie Barnett Fulton St Tricia Baker Fulton St Lauren Baker Georgia Ave Joe Sullivan Georgia Ave Suzanne Sullivan Glenbrook Dr Tony Carrasco Grant Ave Desola Amos Greenwood Ave Jane Gee Greenwood Ave Bruce Gee Greenwood Ave John Kelley Greenwood Ave Lisa Van Dusen Greer Rd Elain Anderson Greer Rd James Lin Greer Rd Clarissa Shen Greer Rd David Meng Greer Rd Caixia Zhang Hale St Asma Rabbani Hale St Jim Migdal Hale St Victoria Thorp Hale St Don Stark Hale St Laura Stark Hamilton Ave Martha Lee Hamilton Ave Shalin Dwivedi Hamilton Ave Sonia Dwivedi Hamilton Ave Kusum Pandey Hamilton Ave Lydia Callaghan Hamilton Ave Adam Au Hamilton Ave Betty Lee Fortenbaugh Hamilton Ave Peter Fortenbaugh Hamilton Ave Nirmy Kang Hamilton Ave Vij Sushmita Hamilton Ave Sarah Sands Hamilton Ave Greg Sands Hamilton Ave Michael Kieschnick Hamilton Ave Frances Kieschnick Hamilton Ave Megan Hereda Hamilton Ave Sarah Littke Hamilton Ave Scott Johnston Hamilton Ave Seyonne Kang Hamilton Ave Navin Budhiraja Hamilton Ave Sonal Budhiraja Hamilton Ave Perry Meigs Hamilton Ct Dain DeGroff Harker Ave Prince Shah Harker Ave Megan Myers Harriet St Or Gozani Harvard St Jane McConnell Harvard St Sophia McConnell Hawthorne Ave Bertha Gouw Hemlock Ct Wileta Burch Holly Oak Dr Monica Stone Homer Ave Amanda Glassman Homer Ave Hiromi Kelty Hopkins Ave Laurie Phillips Hutchinson Ave Carolina Abbassi Iris Way Sulev Suvari Iris Way Trisha Suvari Iris Way Anastasia Karaglani Island Dr Don Wood Island Dr Elaine Wood Island Dr Georgie Gleim Ivy Ln Uma Menon Ivy Ln Sri Nair Jackson Dr Todd Kaye Jackson Dr Julie Kaye Jackson Dr Michaela Kaye Jordan Pl Zachary Zeitlin Jordan Pl Amanda Zeitlin Kellogg Ave Roy Wang Kellogg Ave Mike Chen Kellogg Ave Vania Fang Kellogg Ave Diane McIntyre Kellogg Ave Matthew McIntyre Kellogg Ave Theresia Gouw Kellogg Ave Susann Mirabella Kelly Way Jayant Kadambi Kelly Way Sujata Kadambi Kenneth Dr George Jaquette Kings Ln Teva Gevelber Kingsley Ave Mace McGinn Kingsley Ave Kathryn Verwillow Kingsley Ave Eric Verwillow Kingsley Ave Anna Verwillow Kingsley Ave John Danner Kingsley Ave Carol Lamont Kipling Ave Elaine Uang Kipling St Magda MacMillan La Donna Ave Ben Lloyd La Selva Dr Susana Young Laguna Ct Tina Boussard Laurel Glen Dr Beerud Sheth Laurel Glen Dr Nipa Sheth Lincoln Ave Christina Hu Lincoln Ave Michel Del Buono Lincoln Ave Mahooya Dinda Lincoln Ave Gina Bianchini Lincoln Ave Shira Mowlem Lincoln Ave Mimi Lyons Lincoln Ave Dave Lyons Lincoln Ave Cathy Martin Lincoln Ave Emil Lovely Lincoln Ave Linda Lovely Lincoln Ave Mike Graglia Lois Ln Amit Agarwal Lois Ln Priyanki Gupta Loma Verde Ave Blake Kavanaugh Los Robles Ave Hwai Lin Louis Rd Vivek Goyal Louis Rd Pareeja Kamboj Lowell Ave Andy Lichtblau Lowell Ave Marc Friend Lowell Ave Rebecca Friend Lowell Ave Bill King Lowell Ave Lesley King Lowell Ave Catherine Debs Lowell Ave John Debs Lowell Ave Jiajun Zhu Lowell Ave Anjun Wang Lowell Ave Ben Hammett Lowell Ave Laurie Hunter Lowell Ave Jonathan MacQuitty Lowell Ave Carol Friedman Lowell Ave Hugo Sarrazin Lowell Ave Mili Sarrazin Lowell Ave Leslie Wang Lowell Ave Gene Wang Lytton Ave Jill Paldi Lytton Ave Roxy Rapp Melville Ave Yeshi Lama Magnolia Dr Cosmos Nicolaou Magonlia Dr Evelyne Nicolaou Mallard Ln Stephanie Wansek Maple St Gina Jorasch Marion Ave Anu Priyadarshi Marion Ave Sudhanshu Priyadarshi Marion Ave Bill Burch Marion Ave Kathy Burch Mariposa Ave Steve Lamm Marlowe St Patrick Heron Marlowe St Beth Heron Marshall Dr Andrea Wolf Martin Ave Andrea Saliba Martin Ave Karen Schilling-Gould Matadero Ave Adam Tachner Matadero Ave Christine Tachner Matadero Ave Consuelo Beck-Sague Matadero Ave Victoria Dean Matadero Ave Natalie Dean Matadero Ave Jeff Dean Matadero Ave Heidi Hopper Matadero Ave Andrew Dean Matadero Ct Anne-Marie Macrae May Ct Brendon Kim May Ct Esther Kim Melville Ave Nancy Tuck Melville Ave Natalie Tuck Melville Ave AJ Gokcek Melville Ave Ebru Gokcek Melville Ave Mara Wallace Melville Ave Tenzin Dingpontsawa Melville Ave David Pfeffer Melville Ave Peter Levin Melville Ave Tod Cohen Melville Ave Stacy Mason Middlefield Rd Bambi Guzman Middlefield Rd Debbie Wolter Middlefield Rd Carole Borie Middlefield Rd Josette Domokos Middlefield Rd Steve Flanders Middlefield Rd Jody Lieb Middlefield Rd Tina Chen Middlefield Rd Lois Toback Middlefield Rd Gloria Rothbaum Military Way Stewart Raphael Military Way Mayma Raphael Miramonte Ave Ramon Espinosa Miramonte Ave Rita Seymour Moreno Ave Matt Leary Moreno Ave Josh Thurston-Milgrom Moreno Ave Patrick Burrows Moreno Ave Suman Gupta Moreno Ave Tom Kemp Moreno Ave Jolie Kemp Moreno Ave Gill Barsley Morton Way Jeff Chang Morton Way Adrienne Lee N. California Ave Luo Lusong N. California Ave Min Wei Nelson Dr Carolyn Steele Northampton Dr Kathleen Foley-Hughes Olive Ave Jane Bennion Olmsted Rd Stacy Xu Oregon Ave Norman Klivans Oxford Ave Irene Au Oxford Ave Bradley Lamm Oxford Ave Bernadette Au Palm St Jim Bean Palm St Christine O'Sullivan Park Blvd Jonathan Hoy Park Blvd Anne Sweeney Park Blvd April House Park Blvd Ruth Ofori-Nyako Park Blvd Ruth Oku-Ampofo Park Blvd Rebecca DeHovitz Parkinson Ave Caitlin Field Pitman Ave Jill Christensen Pitman Ave Wes Christensen Pitman Ave David Ko Pitman Ave Jennifer Ko Ramona St John Giannandrea Ramona St Arunashree Ramkumar Ramona Cir Yefei Peng Ramona Cir Ming Mao Ramona St Steve Dostart Ramona St Cindy Traum Ramona St Kathy Hallsten Ramona St Craig Ritchey Ramona St Arunashree Bhamidipati Ramona St Ram Ramkumar Ramona St Jing Li Ramona St Laura Oliveira Ramona St Raphael Oliveira Ramona St Ferdinand Sales Ramona St Rebecca Sales Ramona St Erica Brand Ramona St Mary Rose Ramona St Jin Lee Ramona St Jennifer Lee Redwood Cir Naomi Temes Richardson Ct Guangwei Yuan Rinconada Ave Kate Shrout Rinconada Ave Travis Shrout Rinconada Ave Joy Frick Roble Ridge Rd Tina Tang Roble Ridge Rd James Witt Rosewood Dr Yu Wan Ross Rd Bonnie Rosenberg Ruthelma Ave Ambika Pajjuri Ruthelma Ave Vijay Vusirikala Ruthven Ave Josee Band S. California Ave Lisa Cooper Carlson Saint Michael Ct David Spencer Saint Michael Ct Jeannette Cheng Saint Michael Dr Yvette Bovee Saint Michael Dr William Barnett Sand Hill Rd Dick Gould Santa Ana St Gloria Carlson Santa Ana St Steve Carlson Santa Ana St Dan Stober Santa Rita Ave Alex Kaplinsky Santa Rita Ave Tara Kaplinsky Santa Rita Ave Michal Goldstein Santa Rita Ave Guy Goldstein Santa Rita Ave Hila Goldstein Santa Rita Ave Alice Mansell Santa Rita Ave Lucy Nightingale Santa Rita Ave Steve Nightingale Seale Ave Anuja Lele Seale Ave Avinash Lele Seale Ave Harry Plant Seale Ave Amy Rao Seale Ave Jianming Yu Seale Ave Kate Li Seale Ave Elizabeth Berry Seale Ave Nandini Cherian Seale Ave Milind Gadekar Seale Ave Leonard Ely Seneca St Priya Chandrasekar Seneca St Chandra Gnanasambandam Sharon Ct Ann DeHovitz Sharon Ct Ross DeHovitz Sharon Ct Xenia Hammer Sharon Ct Gary Hammer Sheridan Ave Fumiko Yamaguchi Sheridan Ave David Rockower Somerset Pl John Oh Huber Somerset Pl Marie Oh Huber South California Ave Erik Carlson South Ct Margie Cain South Ct Tim Cain South Ct Megan Miller South Ct Donna Do South Ct Khoa Do South Ct Julie Huang Tsang Southampton Dr Glen Segal Southampton Dr Lauren Segal Southampton Dr Sonya Sinha Southwood Dr Lydia Jett St Francis Dr Barry Asin St Francis Dr Amy Asin St Michael Dr Danit Bismanovsky Sutherland Dr Malcolm Fleschner Sutherland Dr Kristin Meier Sutter Ave Kate Healy Sutter Ave Paul Healy Tanland Dr Jacquelyn Glidden Tasso St Tim Ranzetta Tennyson Ave Rebecca Fox Tennyson Ave Jennifer Carolan Tennyson Ave Shawn Carolan Tennyson Ave Roger Smith Tennyson Ave Kris Zavoli Tennyson Ave Sherry Brown Tennyson Ave Brett Bullington Tevis Pl Nancy Ginsburg Towle Way Gloria Hom Tulip Ln April Li Tulip Ln Baosheng Wang University Ave Carrie Anderson University Ave David MacKenzie University Ave Helen MacKenzie University Ave Nadir Ali University Ave Lubna Qureishi University Ave Dawn Billman Van Auken Cir Nathalie Tan Van Auken Cir Rachel Cleary Van Auken Cir Hayes Raffel Walter Hays Dr James Fitzgerald Walter Hays Dr Lila Fitzgerald Walter Hays Dr Irv Henderson Walter Hays Dr Vani Henderson Walter Hays Dr Laura Lauman Walter Hays Dr Lorraine Brown Walter Hays Dr Joel Brown Walter Hays Dr Maya Blumenfeld Walter Hays Dr Yair Blumenfeld Walter Hays Dr Carol Kenyon Walter Hays Dr Helen Zheng Washington Ave Stephanie Norton Washington Ave Karen Olson Waverley Oaks Carol Shealy Waverley Oaks Mike Shealy Waverley St Maria Leeman Waverley St Roger McCarthy Waverley St Maureen Bard Waverley St Nancy Bischoff Waverley St Susie Levine Waverley St Greg Avis Waverley St Carin Rollins Waverley St John Rollins Waverley St Jenny Zhou Waverley St Eli Pasternak Waverley St Carmela Pasternak Waverley St Ted Marston Waverley St Jeannine Marston Waverley St Nancy Mueller Waverley St Libby Heimark Waverley St Craig Heimark Waverley St Adam Boulanger Waverley St Cati Boulanger Waverley St Parag Patel Waverley St Mora Oommen Waverley St Jonathan Lyons Waverley St Sophie Bromberg Waverley St Pauline Bromberg Waverley St Patty Mcguigan Waverley St Christine Loui Webster St Alex Noe Webster St David Hanabusa Webster St Michele Grundmann Webster St Joseph Haletky Webster St Andreas Kogelnik Webster St Vicki Sullivan Webster St Larry Sullivan Webster St Gregory Lee Webster St Doug Whitman Webster St Yael Shacham Webster St Nita Goyal Webster St Ashish Gupta Webster St Deborah Gruenfeld Webster St Jarlon Tsang Webster St Bernice Kwong Webster St Chris Kwong Webster St Craig Allen Webster St Diane Allen Willmar Dr Lama Rimawi Yale St Stacy Brown-Philpot 18 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 4:41 PM To:Council, City; Stump, Molly Subject:Castilleja/Michael Alcheck -conflict of interest? Attachments:archive(14).zip; 11-16-20 Bill Ross & Fred Balin's letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Dubois, City Council members, City Manager and City Attorney: Please see attached the 10/26/20 letter from William Ross and as well as several emails and a letter from Fred Balin regarding Michael Alcheck, PTC Commissioner and the PTC's hearings concerning Castilleja. Mr. Alcheck, to my knowledge, did not recuse himself from the PTC’s discussion of Castilleja’s EIR or expansion plans. In fact, he seemed to be the person driving the discussion and the push for majority approval. He even complemented Ms. Romanowsky, who has served since 2/2017 as Castilleja’s legal counsel of record, for her excellent work while acknowledging that he “did not know much about garages”. Listening to that PTC meeting, I found Mr. Alcheck’s comments odd. Then I was told that, in October, 2017, Mr. Alcheck, acting on behalf of Alcheck Properties, retained Ms. Romanowsky for “carport/garage” matters at 11 Philips Rd and 558 Madison Way. This information made me question why Mr. Alcheck had not recused himself from the PTC meetings dealing with Castilleja’s expansion plans since both Castilleja and Alcheck Properties were using the same attorney, discussing garages and Zoning Codes. As far as I know, Mr. Alcheck has not disclosed his hiring of Ms. Romanowski as an attorney for Alcheck Properties at or during any PTC meetings where Castilleja’s expansion plans were being discussed. Also, as far as I know, Mr. Ross’ letter and Mr. Balin’s letter (with attachments) were never acknowledged by Ms. Templeton or any of the City officials copied on these letters. I am, therefore, asking: 1. Were Mr. Ross’ 10/26/20 letter and/or Mr. Balin’s letter/ emails ever acknowledged and his questions regarding Mr. Alcheck’s need to recuse himself from PTC meetings where Castilleja expansion plans were discussed? 19 2. If the content of these letters were addressed, why was Mr. Alcheck not asked to recuse himself from PTC discussions and deliberations of Castilleja’s expansion plans? Whose decision was this? 3. Also, Mr. Alcheck is listed as the primary PTC Representative to the City Council for March, 2021. Is this appropriate for Mr. Alcheck to be the PTC's Primary Rep. for the City Council's discussions of Castilleja’s expansion plans? https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80529 If these concerns and my questions have been addressed, please send me this information so I may be educated as to the "official" response to Mr. Ross’ and Mr. Balin’s correspondence. Thank you so much for addressing my questions and providing timely answers. Sincerely, Rita Vrhel 650-325-2298 3-7-21 Attachments: 10/26 Letter William Ross 4 documents from Mr. Balin-(zip file) William D. Ross David Schwarz Kypros G. Hostetter Law Offices of William D. Ross 400 Lambert Avenue Palo Alto, California 94306 Telephone: (650) 843-8080 Facsimile: (650) 843-8093 October 26, 2020 VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org The Honorable Carolyn Templeton, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Los Angeles Office: 11420 Santa Monica Blvd #25532 Los Angeles, CA 90025 File No: 1/10 Re: Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting of October 28, 2020 Agenda Item No. 2; Required Recusal of Commissioner Member Dear Chair Templeton and Members of the Planning Commission: This communication is submitted as a resident and taxpayer of the City of Palo Alto ("City") requesting recusal of Commission Member Alcheck and a Commission rehearing on the September 9, 2020 action on the Final Environmental Impact Report ("FEIR") for the Castilleja School Project under the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., "CEQA"). Recusal of Commission Member All Commission Members and certain members of Commission Staff must comply with the provisions of AB 1234, commonly known as the Ethic Statutes (Government Code Section 53233, et seq.). AB 1234 sets forth a three-tiered standard for recusal of government decision makers (here, Members of the Commission), based on defined conflict of interests, financial interests and the appearance of impropriety. References made to the October 26, 2020 communication of Mr. Fred Balin (copy enclosed) addressed to the City Attorney's Office, Officials in the Planning Department and the City Council, concerning Commissioner Michael Alcheck and both, evidence and analysis, as to why Commissioner Alcheck should not be allowed to participate in this Agenda Item. The Balin communication presents evidence advanced as to why there is not a conflict of interest as defined under Government Code Section 1090, because of the relationship of Counsel for Project Applicant, Castilleja, also representing business interests of Commissioner Alcheck, e Honorable Carolyn Templeton, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Page2 including representation with respect to a land-use decision in which City Planning Staff was intricately involved. Moreover, the third element of AB 1234 recusal requirements, that of avoiding the appearance of impropriety or common-law bias, is directly applicable. If Commissioner Alcheck is allowed to participate (and his past participation bares on further issues which are the responsibility of the Commission as developed infra) you're practically allowing a Commissioner to make a decision on a matter where the Applicant's attorney has also been his attorney on a land-use matter before the City. Even using common English there is an appearance of impropriety. This should be a matter that should be addressed, first with your Commission, in conjunction with whoever from the City Attorney's Office is present. The Commission Hearing on the Sufficiency of the Project FEIR Should be Reopened The recusal of Commissioner Alcheck is involved with the Commission decision as to whether to recommend approval of the Project EIR and the proceedings associated with your Commission's September 9, 2020, Regular Meeting of the Commission and requirements of the Brown Act (Government Code Section 54950 et seq.). With respect to the September 9, 2020 meeting, the Staff Report was not made available until barely one (1) day before the hearing, and an Applicant's communication was forwarded to Members of the Commission and not made available to Members of the Public prior to your Commissions hearing. At that hearing, a principal advocate for the sufficiency of the Project FEIR was Commissioner Alcheck. Among other things, Commissioner Alcheck referenced analysis by the Applicant as being the most thorough in his career as a land-use lawyer. Under established authority, the additional "analysis" or "advocacy" by Commissioner Alcheck at the September 9, 2020 provides an additional basis for his required recusal. Given the evidence advanced concerning for the recusal of Commissioner Alcheck as a basis for ethical recusal, it sets the basis for that same conduct at the Commissions last hearing to disqualification on the basis of bias. See, Woody's Group Inc. v. City of Newport Beach (215 233 Cal. App. 4th. 1012, 1021. See also, Nasha v. City of Los Angeles (2004) 125 Cal. App. 4th. 470, 483. (The comments made by a decision-maker before a hearing can be considered to constitute evidence of "unacceptable probability of bias"). Here, the comments were made during the hearing, that evidenced based conduct serves as a basis for disqualification based on bias. The Honorable Carolyn Templeton, Chair and Members of the Planning Commission October 28, 2020 Page3 Given the restricted nature of this Commissions last hearing -substantial evidence concerning the Project's actual configuration and whether an alternative should be considered after public testimony after the lack of compliance with the seventy-two (72) requirement for Staffs position being available to the public merit reopening of the hearing on the Commission's determination on the sufficiency of the CEQA evaluation of this Project. The' Commission vote to recommend approval on the Project FEIR 4-1-2 (Commissioner Summa opposed, Roohparvar and Riggs absent) is not effective because of the unauthorized participation of Commissioner Alcheck. Summary It is respectfully requested that your Commission, City Staff, including the City Attorney, analyze this issue prior to any substantive consideration of Agenda Item No. 2. Very truly yours, w~~.~ William D. Ross WDR:jf Enclosure cc: Fred Balin, tbalin@gmail.com Molly Stump, molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org Johnathan Lait, jonathan.lait@cityofpalalto.org Albert Yang, albert.yang@cityofpaloalto.org Rachael Tanner, rachael.tanner@cityofPaloAlto.org From: Fred Balin <fbalin@gmail.com> Subject: Why Michael Alcheck Should Not Participate in Wed 10/28 PTC Castilleja QJ Hearing Date: October 26, 2020 at 9:17:39 PM PDT To: Molly Stump <molly.stump@cityofpaloalto.org>, Albert Yang <albert.yang@cityofpaloalto.org>, city.attorney@cityofpaloalto.org, Jonathan La it <jonathan.lait@cityofpalalto.org>, Rachael Tanner <rachael.tanner@cityofPaloAlto.org>, Palo Alto City Council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> To: City Attorney Molly Stump and Deputy City Attorney Albert Yang To: Director of Planning Jonathan Lait and Assistant Director of Planning Rachael Tanner To: Palo Alto City Council City Legal and Planning Staff, Planning and Transportation Commissioner Michael Alcheck should not participate in Wednesday's Item 2 at the commission --Public Hearing/Quasi-Judicial: Castilleja School Project, 1310 Bryant Street [lGPLN-00238], for the following reasons: 1. Alcheck retained the attorney for Castilleja for his personal interests while Castilleja's application was before the commission on which he served Castilleja's current application first came to the PTC on February 8, 2017 for a public scoping meeting on the notice of preparation for an environmental impact report. Page 2 of the staff report (Attachmentl to this email) lists the legal counsel for Castilleja School as Mindie Romanowsky In the summer of 2017 and in the aftermath of the illegal conversion of a carport to a garage on each of two residential properties in which Alcheck had an economic interest, one he owned and a second in which he was an investor, Romanowsky was hired to represent his interests. Attachment2 is a series of communications between Romanowsky and the city during that period. Having a commissioner whose own attorney represents an applicant before him on quasi-judicial matters that the commissioner will rule on is a clear conflict of interest. 2. Alcheck violated Planning Commission protocols between the August 26 and September 9, 2020 PTC Meetings On August 26th, after the close of the public hearing and discussion at the dais of the quasi-judicial Castellija EIR, the matter was continued to a future date. Planning Commission Procedural Rule IV relates to quasi-judicial hearings. Its sub-section B-5-e entitled "No Contacts after Hearings" reads: Following closure of the hearing, and prior to a final decision, Commissioners will refrain from any contacts pertaining to the item, other than c!arifying questions directed to City staff. After the start of the subsequent September 9 PTC continuation, Alcheck stated that he had contacted at least two representatives of Castilleja as well as some other schools (Attachment3). Neither is permissible under the commission's quasi-judicial protocols, and his disclosure at the meeting does not cure the violation. Even a humble juror on the most basic cases is expected to comply with a principle that Alcheck disregards, now over 8 years since joining the commission. 3. Alcheck's Double Standard At the September 9th PTC meeting on the Castilleja EIR, Alcheck argued that the explicit wording of a city ordinance should be ignored in favor of a past practice. Even though the code required a basement to be under the building's footprint, he claimed that a precedent in another project overrode the code. But in 2015," as a commissioner, and arguing in regard to his own residential redevelopments, he advocated the exact opposite: that the explicit wording of an ordinance trumps any precedent. That ordinance prohibited a "garage" in the front half of his lots, but it did not explicitly exclude a "carport." (Attachment4) When it worked in favor of Alcheck's personal interests, he advocated for a strict reading of the code, but when it benefited the Castilleja application, he spoke in favor of ignoring the clear reading of the code. Final Word (to the city council) The above are new examples of why Michael Alcheck has not met the ethical standards to remain a Palo Alto city official. -Fred Balin 2385 Columbia Street 4 PDFs attached \ Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report (ID # 7316) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/8/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Castilleja EIR Scoping Meeting Title: 1310 Bryant Street [16PLN-00258]: The Planning and Transportation Commission Will Hold a Public Scoping Meeting on the Notice of Preparation for an Environmental Impact Report for the Castilleja School Expansion Project. Public Input is Encouraged. For More Information, Please Visit the Webpage or Contact Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a meeting to allow the public to participate in an Environmental Review Scoping Meeting for the Castilleja School Expansion project. Report Summary Castilleja School is a private, all-girls school in Palo Alto. The school seeks city approval to expand its enrollment and for a major phased renovation of the school property. As currently proposed, different aspects of this project will require review by the PTC, the Architectural Review Board, and ultimately, a decision by the City Council. As part of the review process, the City is preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate potential environmental impacts pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff and its consultants have identified several environmental issues that warrant further analysis and review. This preliminary review, an Initial Study (IS), is attached to this report as Attachment B. The purpose of this public meeting is to provide interested persons an opportunity to comment on environmental issues they think the city should examine or study in the EIR. This type of City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 meeting is referred to as a scoping meeting in CEQA and is required for certain projects. While not legally required for this project, having an opportunity like this for early public consultation can be helpful to all parties. The PTC’s role in this meeting is to provide an opportunity for public comment and to offer its own perspective about issues that should be studied. Importantly, this meeting is not intended to serve as a forum for dialogue about the merits of the project. In fact, the PTC’s own purview on the project is limited to the anticipated parcel map. There will be future, noticed, public hearings that will provide an opportunity for public comment on the proposed project. Background Project Information Owner: Castilleja School Architect: Steinberg Representative: Kathy Layendecker Legal Counsel: Mindie Romanowski Property Information Address: 1310 Bryant Street, and 1235 and 1263 Emerson Street (all owned by Castilleja and located within R-1 (10,000) Zone District) Neighborhood: Seale Addition (located south of Embarcadero Rd west of Alma St) Lot Dimensions & Area: Project site is 286,783 sf comprised of three parcels. x APN 124-12-034 (1310 Bryant, school site) frontages: 500’ on Kellogg Av; 406.6’ on Bryant St; 429.4’ on Embarcadero Rd.; 430’ on Emerson St. x Project site includes two additional parcels, 100 feet deep adding 180’ of frontage to Emerson St. for Castilleja School (site’s total frontage on Emerson would be 610’): o APN 124-12-031 (1235 Emerson, “Emerson House” aka ‘Lockey/Alumnae House’, 75’ on Emerson St, a rental housing unit on a nonconforming 7,500 sf lot) o APN 124-12-033 (1263 Emerson, “Head’s House’, 105’ on Emerson St, no longer used as a housing unit). Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Yes. The administration building and former chapel are listed historic resources (Category 3) on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory. Other buildings on Castilleja property are more than 45 years but are not listed on any inventory. Attachment E provides a brief summary of the campus’ development history. Existing Improvement(s): Approximately 105,700 square feet of floor area above grade, plus basement area below grade; buildings are one, two and three From:Mindie S. Romanowsky To:Yang, Albert Subject:Re: Request for a Call? Date:Monday, October 02, 2017 5:24:02 PM Albert- Thank you for our call today. Jonathan sent me the link to the address specific memos. Please let me know if you have had the chance to loop back with Molly re: our discussion about a possible conditioned approval. I would like to reach out to her tomorrow to follow up. Thank you. Mindie. From: mindie romanowsky <msr@jsmf.com> Date: Monday, October 2, 2017 at 10:47 AM To: "Yang, Albert" <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: Request for a Call? Is it Ok if I call you at 11:15? I am afraid my 10:30 call will run long… Mindie S. Romanowsky Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel LLP 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Ph: 650-324-9300 Fx: 650-324-0227 Email: msr@jsmf.com From: Mindie S. Romanowsky Sent: Monday, October 02, 2017 9:47 AM To: 'Yang, Albert' <Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: RE: Request for a Call? I will plan to phone you at 11:00 this morning. Mindie. Mindie S. Romanowsky Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel LLP 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Ph: 650-324-9300 Fx: 650-324-0227 Email: msr@jsmf.com From: Yang, Albert [mailto:Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org] Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 5:00 PM To: Mindie S. Romanowsky <msr@jsmf.com> Subject: RE: Request for a Call? Yes that works, thanks. On Sep 29, 2017 4:53 PM, "Mindie S. Romanowsky" <msr@jsmf.com> wrote: Sorry. I set another call when I didn't hear back. Can we plan to speak at 11 on Monday? Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message-----From: Yang, Albert [Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org]Sent: Friday, September 29, 2017 04:02 PM Pacific Standard TimeTo: Mindie S. RomanowskySubject: RE: Request for a Call? Hi Mindie, Just realized I never confirmed 4pm. I’m available now if this time still works for you. Otherwise, I can be available most of the day Monday. Thanks, Albert S. Yang | Deputy City Attorney 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@cityofpaloalto.org This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. From:Mindie S. Romanowsky [mailto:msr@jsmf.com]Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 10:48 PMTo: Yang, AlbertSubject: RE: Request for a Call? I could speak at 4 tomorrow. Does that work? Sent with Good (www.good.com) -----Original Message-----From: Yang, Albert [Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org]Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 04:00 PM Pacific Standard TimeTo: Mindie S. RomanowskySubject: RE: Request for a Call? Hi Mindie, I can be available tomorrow between 11am and 2pm or between 3-5pm. Thanks, Albert S. Yang | Deputy City Attorney 250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 P: 650.329.2171 | E: albert.yang@cityofpaloalto.org This message contains information that may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee, you may not use, copy or disclose the message or any information contained in the message. If you received the message in error, please notify the sender and delete the message. From:Mindie S. Romanowsky [mailto:msr@jsmf.com]Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2017 2:49 PMTo: Yang, AlbertSubject: Request for a Call? Good afternoon, Albert- I hope you are well. I wonder if you and I could schedule a call in the next few days (Monday is fine) to discuss 11 Phillips Road and 558 Madison Way. Jonathan Laid has communicated the City’s position on the pending building permits, but I would like to discuss the legal rationale with you. Please let me know your schedule. Kind regard, Mindie. Mindie S. Romanowsky Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel LLP 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210 Menlo Park, CA 94025 Ph: 650-324-9300 Fx: 650-324-0227 Email: msr@jsmf.com Page 28 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Mr. Yang: So, this is a continued public hearing from the previous PTC meeting and as a result 1 there’s… it’s not necessary to have another public comment period because there… in our view, 2 there’s not been a significant change in the project or the item that’s before you. 3 4 Yes, Staff has issued a Staff Report responding to the Commission’s questions said at its last 5 meeting, but these are largely clarification items. It’s akin to or responding to Commissioner 6 questions if we had just continued on into the wee hours of the morning that last time. 7 8 Chair Templeton: Thank you for clarifying. Ok, so we have a possible presentation from Ms. 9 French to address the items that were put in the At Place Packet. Is that something you’d like to 10 share with us now? 11 12 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes, I’ll try to share my screen. 13 14 Chair Templeton: Thank you. 15 16 Ms. Rachael Tanner, Assistant Director: And just as she prepares for that, our intention was not 17 to respond to each question. Ms. French will provide kind of an overview of where we left off 18 and where we are, but we are available at the pleasure of the Chair and of the Commissioners 19 to go into more detail as discussion items are brought forward or questions that you’d like to 20 have oral conversation about. 21 22 Ms. French: Ok, can everyone see my screen? 23 24 Ms. Tanner: We can Amy. If you can go to display settings at the top of your screen and switch 25 your display. That may improve (interrupted) 26 27 Commissioner Alcheck: I just had… can I jump in real quick? I want to update the disclosure for 28 the… this quasi-judicial item. I did reach out to Castilleja among a number of other schools but 29 because they’re the applicant I just wanted to disclose that I reached out to their 30 representatives to inquire about the conditions that are applicable. And they pointed me to the 31 letter that they prepared… that their attorney-prepared and its footnotes on Page 6 which is 32 public information now. So, but I did want to disclose that I did reach out to them for the 33 purposes of better understanding the specifics of the conditions that they are already operating 34 Page 29 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to three minutes to accommodate a larger number of speakers. under or preserve to be interested in operating under this application. I also reached out to 1 some other schools too, but they’re not (interrupted) 2 3 Chair Templeton: Thank you for sharing that Commissioner Alcheck. Any other changes to 4 disclosures? Commissioner Summa. 5 6 Commissioner Summa: Yes, I have a disclosure, but I also have some questions about the 7 process about the timing of submissions and also oral speakers to this item. Should those be 8 addressed now or after Staff’s (interrupted) 9 10 Chair Templeton: If we could give Staff the chance to orient us to what process they have in 11 mind for sharing… they have a couple of context items to share. Then we’ll go to you first to 12 address your questions about the process for our discussion. Would that be ok? 13 14 Commissioner Summa: Ok, yeah, I don’t need to be first. I just wanted to know what time but I 15 do have a disclosure and that’s what… that I was at a regular neighborhood association meeting 16 to update people about the NVCAP process as I had asked to do. And they actually had… they 17 were going to discuss the Castilleja process. So, I’d left the meeting so there wouldn’t be an 18 appearance; but I just want to be super careful in case somebody knew I was at that meeting 19 that I did excuse myself because I didn’t feel it was right to stay. 20 21 Chair Templeton: Alright, thank you. Any other changes to disclosures since our last meeting? 22 Alright, over to you Ms. French. 23 24 Ms. French: Ok, thank you. Let me try that again. Is everyone seeing the presentation? It’s a 25 short one I promise. 26 27 Ms. Tanner: We can see it, Amy. Thank you. 28 29 Ms. French: Thank you. We are back. Last we met was August 26th where we had a Staff 30 presentation, applicant presentation, a presentation on the EIR Environmental Impact Report, 31 and public comment; extensive public comments. The topic was focused on Alternative Number 32 Four which is the Disbursed Circulation and Reduced Garage Alternative. There was not enough 33 time for the Planning and Transportation Commissioners to take up discussion, in-depth 34 discussion on this project. 35 From:Mike Alcheck To:McKay, Scott Cc:French, Amy; Reich, Russ Subject:Re: Palo Alto Planning Department: 558 Madison (15000-00402) Date:Friday, April 17, 2015 4:56:28 PM Hi Scott, Thank you for getting back to me. We are available to meet on Wednesday, 4/22 at 4pm. I assume Amy and Russ will be joining us and I look forward to sitting down with all of you. Please let me know where we will be meeting and have a nice weekend. Best, Mike Alcheck Phone: 650.248.5121 Email: malcheck@gmail.com On Apr 17, 2015, at 3:48 PM, McKay, Scott <Scott.McKay@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote: Mike, Are you available to meet on Wednesday 4-22-15 at 4PM? Scott McKay, AICP | Associate Planner | C&D Debris Diversion Program Coordinator ISA Certified Arborist | P&CE Department 285 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.617.3113 |E: Scott.McKay@CityofPaloAlto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: McKay, Scott Sent: Wednesday, April 08, 2015 11:47 AM To: 'Mike Alcheck' Cc: French, Amy; McKay, Scott Subject: RE: Palo Alto Planning Department: 558 Madison (15000-00402) Mike, I am in receipt of your email and anticipate having a response by next week at the latest. City Logo Scott McKay, AICP | Associate Planner | C&D Debris Diversion Program Coordinator ISA Certified Arborist | P&CE Department 285 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.617.3113 |E: Scott.McKay@CityofPaloAlto.org Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! From: Mike Alcheck [mailto:malcheck@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, April 06, 2015 12:33 PM To: McKay, Scott Cc: French, Amy Subject: RE: Palo Alto Planning Department: 558 Madison (15000-00402) Hi Scott, Thank you for getting back to me. I presume that the process of reviewing this project and comparing it to our neighbor’s home at 1523 Hamilton Ave. required more thought and discussion with management over the past month than your original March 6th email anticipated. I think it would be useful for us to have a discussion in person along with those in management who were consulted. As you can imagine, I spent a significant amount of time analyzing the code with our architects before coming up with our design. We believe that there is both precedence and support in the code for our position and for that reason spent substantial resources coming up with the plan submitted with the carport located in the front half of the house footprint. As for past experience, the example in our neighborhood (1523 Hamilton Ave.) clearly shows that the code related to “Contextual Garage Placement” was not applied to the placement of a carport in the front half of the house footprint even where the site had a rear facing garage and was located on a street with a predominant pattern of garages or carports located in the rear half of the lots. In other words, the omission of the term carport in 18.12.040(f) was considered deliberate in reviewing that project. You should know that we didn’t come to this conclusion on our own. We consulted with Alpheus (Chip) Jessup of M. Designs Architects several times throughout the process about their decision to build a carport in place of a garage for 1523 Hamilton Ave. Chip was clear that the decision to incorporate a carport was deliberate because it was not subject to the Contextual Garage Placement. At the time of review, this home was reviewed under the more stringent Individual Review Guidelines by Arnold Mammarella (who helped draft the Zoning Ordinance Technical Manual) who confirmed the carport placement met the guideline. As for the intent behind the parking regulations, while many other sections of the Palo Alto Zoning Code articulate within the code the intent of the regulation that follows, the Code referencing parking, carports and garages, including 18.12.040(f), does not. Moreover, the Zoning Ordinance Technical Manual for Single-Family Residential Zones which is supposed “to indicate the underlying intent and basis for many of the zoning ordinance provisions” does not state, as you do below, a preference that all covered parking facilities are to be visually minimized. The only articulated preference set forth on page 34 related to Parking is that parking regulations minimize the number of cars parked on the street and in the front yards. Our design does not propose parking on the street or in the front yard. Rather, we have proposed a design that allows two cars to be parked deeper in the lot. Please let me know when you and those you’ve consulted with are available to meet. Please note, I am coping Amy French as well because I would like her to participate as well. I look forward to continuing this discussion. Regards, Michael Alcheck Applicant 558 Madison Way Palo Alto From: McKay, Scott [mailto:Scott.McKay@CityofPaloAlto.org] Sent: Wednesday, April 01, 2015 11:50 AM To: Mike Alcheck Cc: 'Joe Gardella' 20 Baumb, Nelly From:Janie Farn <janie.farn@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 10:26 AM To:Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; French, Amy; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Cc:Michael Farn Subject:DENY APPROVAL OF CASTILLEJA’S EXPANSION PLAN Attachments:No4Castilleja.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council members As a longtime resident of Palo Alto and mother of Paly Graduates, I have seen many changes over the years. Most significantly is the increase in traffic! As a resident of Crescent Park living on Newell Road, I have been most affected by the traffic cutting through from the freeway on my street. I am most fearful not only for my safety in front of my house, but of the safety hazards to student bicyclists who traverse Newell to attend the schools around Palo Alto as I did when my children had to bike to school. I am very concerned how the Castilleja project will add more dangers to the Bryant Street/Embarcadero intersection. It is already a dangerous intersection. To add traffic backing up into an underground garage is bound to cause more hazards than are already present. As I read the Environmental Impact Report, I did not find any mitigations of impact to the neighborhood by monitoring this intersection, protecting bicyclists on this major Bike Boulevard, nor consideration of splitting the campus as many other private schools have done or mandatory shuttling. Building a garage that will bring more traffic into the neighborhood onto an already busy thoroughfare, Embarcadero Road is not the solution. Please do NOT certify the Environmental Impact Report as it does not address safety, environmental or traffic concerns that will affect not only nearby Palo Alto residents but residents throughout Palo Alto and those coming into the city. We will ALL be affected by the increased congestion due to this project, during and after construction. Thank you, Janie and Mike Farn   March 7, 2021 Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council members As longtime resident of Palo Alto and mother of Paly Graduates, I have seen many changes over the years. Most significantly is the increase in traffic! As a resident of Crescent Park living on Newell Road, I have been most affected by the traffic cutting through from the freeway on my street. I am most fearful not only for my safety in front of my house, but of the safety hazards to student bicyclists who traverse Newell to attend the schools around Palo Alto as I did when my children had to bike to school. I am very concerned how the Castilleja project will add more dangers to the Bryant Street/Embarcadero intersection. It is already a dangerous intersection. To add traffic backing up into an underground garage is bound to cause more hazards than are already present. As I read the Environmental Impact Report, I did not find any mitigations of impact to the neighborhood by monitoring this intersection, protecting bicyclists on this major Bike Boulevard, nor consideration of splitting the campus as many other private schools have done or mandatory shuttling. Building a garage that will bring more traffic into the neighborhood onto an already busy thoroughfare, Embarcadero Road is not the solution. Please do NOT certify the Environmental Impact Report as it does not address safety, environmental or traffic concerns that will affect not only nearby Palo Alto residents but residents throughout Palo Alto and those coming into the city. We will ALL be affected by the increased congestion due to this project, during and after construction. Thank you, Janie and Mike Farn Newell Road 21 Baumb, Nelly From:John Guislin <jguislin@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 10:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:Reject Castilleja's application for expansion Attachments:PAN Letter re Castilleja EIR.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council,     Castilleja has amply demonstrated that it is not a trustworthy member of the Palo Alto community. For years they have  exceeded the enrollment limits they agreed to, they have mischaracterized their current application for expansion,  underestimating the impacts on the surrounding neighborhoods, and they have demonstrated bad faith in their  discussions with nearby residents.    It is imperative that we not reward bad behavior or we put the foundational trust in local government at risk.    High quality education for girls is a worthy goal, but there is no need to trample municipal code standards and the  quality‐of‐life rights of neighbors to achieve it.    Please thoroughly read the letter from Palo Alto Neighborhoods for more details (attached).    Sincerely,  John Guislin  225 Middlefield Road  Palo AltoNeighborhoods Subject: Castilleja Project and Final EIR March 3, 2021 Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) is writing to express our concern that any allowed increase in enrollment, events, and facilities at Castilleja School needs to adhere to city laws. We evaluated evidence that key legal protections for residents and the environment have been ignored for years while the proposed increases also conflict with the municipal code. The community expects you as our elected representatives to fairly and impartially review the Castilleja FEIR and uphold our laws and not support further violations. We call to your attention these areas of particular concern: 1. Lack of Current CUP Enforcement: The school began violating its CUP (Conditional Use Permit) just a few years after the current agreement went into effect, and the City knew about the violations in 2013, if not earlier. Yet there has been little to no enforcement of the enrollment cap, the required neighborhood meetings, and the number and size of events. If the City will not enforce CUPs, it should stop issuing them. 2. Failing to Meet Standards for a New CUP: City law 18.76.010(c)(1) requires that a CUP “[n]ot be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity.” A commercial garage exit next to homes on an otherwise residential street appears unlikely to meet that requirement. The latest proposal (“Alternative 4”) was not even studied for this. Furthermore, the additional car trips associated with the higher enrollment indicates the new proposal will create a 23% increase in VMT (Vehicle Miles Travelled), per page 37 of the Traffic Impact Study for the Castilleja School Expansion. We want people to work and shop in their own community so we can reduce greenhouse gases, air pollution, and energy consumption. The same principle applies to schools. Expanding a school to which students and staff drive from many other cities thus fails to meet the additional CUP requirement at 18.76.010(c)(1) that it “not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience.” 3. Failing to Address Lack of TDM Enforcement: The City has repeatedly allowed parking reductions in new projects based on TDM (Transportation Demand Management) plans despite the lack of any enforcement or proof that they work. Until that changes, contending that imposing a TDM as part of the new CUP will reduce Castilleja’s traffic and parking intrusions into the neighborhood is implausible. Simply put, given the current level of TDM enforcement in our city, Castilleja’s proposed TDM will not stop its expansion from being detrimental and injurious. 4. Failing to Study Alternative 4: The impact on nearby streets associated with Alternative 4 needs to be understood. The argument that it will not meet the impact threshold for EIR analysis is speculative, but a new CUP does not allow for any negative impact, so the proposal needs to be studied for that reason alone. 5. Failing to Study Event Traffic: Because the new CUP would expand the number of allowed events, the traffic for those should be studied as well. 6. Failing to Apply Variance Laws Appropriately: Per 18.76.030(c)(2), variances in Palo Alto “shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property.” The applicant’s attorney’s March 22, 2018 letter argues that the school merits a variance from the laws governing maximum FAR (Floor Area Ratio) because its site is large and thus disproportionally subject to the 30% FAR rule (the first 5,000 sq. ft. of R-1 sites can have 45% FAR). However, the argument is clearly wrong. Every site of the same size as Castilleja’s throughout R-1 is subject to the exact same FAR rules, so granting the variance to Castilleja would actually provide it a special privilege and thus precludes a variance. Such a variance would actually create a new precedent and encourage every R-1 site larger than 5,000 sq. ft. to seek similar treatment, thereby completely undoing the current law. Per 18.76.030(c)(1)(B), a variance must not consider “[a]ny changes in the size or shape of the subject property made by the property owner or his predecessors in interest while the property was subject to the same zoning designation.” The large size of Castilleja’s site is due in part to its incorporation of the 200 block of Melville in 1992, which is after the R-1 zone was adopted and after the current R-1 FAR rules were established. So basing the request on the full lot size does not meet the legal test imposed by our municipal code. 7. Failing to Count the Underground Garage as FAR: No salient argument has been advanced as of this writing why the proposed 32,500 sq. ft. underground garage is not gross floor area. The city’s latest argument is that the underground garage beneath the playing field is a “basement” per 18.12.090 and thus exempt. Here are nine reasons why you should reject that argument: a. Castilleja’s own land use attorney, Mindie Romanowsky, said in her rebuttal remarks at your August 26, 2020 meeting that the proposed underground garage is not a “basement.” b. Basements by common understanding have to be beneath something. The Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary, accessed September 5, 2020, defines a basement as, “a part of a building that is below the level of the first floor.” There is no first floor for the proposed garage, so it does not meet this definition. c. Ask yourself, “What is the underground garage a basement of?” The answer is, “nothing.” It is therefore not a basement. d. The Municipal Code definition at 18.04.030(a)(15) says, “’Basement’ means that portion of a building between the lowest floor and the ceiling above […].” The Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary defines “portion” to mean “a part or share of something larger.” So an underground structure that is not part of something else cannot be a basement, per our own code. e. 18.12.090(a) says “Basements may not extend beyond the building footprint.” An underground garage not under any building footprint clearly then is not a basement. Staff claimed at the Planning and Transportation Commission’s August 26th, 2020 meeting that this rule only applies to residential uses because the same paragraph mentions “the main residence” further on. But that mention is in a rule allowing basements in certain setbacks for some main residences and has no bearing on the footprint rule. f. The applicant’s own architectural firm WRNS Studio in a letter dated June 5, 2020 to the City of Palo Alto reiterated the law that “basements may not extend beyond the building footprint,” so they clearly believed the footprint rule applied to Castilleja rather than staff’s recent contention. g. Staff’s allusion that the Kol Emeth project and perhaps others represent precedents for exempting garages for non-residential uses in R-1 has not been supported by any analysis. The 2016 Kol Emeth review by the ARB (Architectural Review Board) did not appear to even discuss any of the basement laws in the Municipal Code. Who can say what the decision would have been had it done so? h. Staff’s theory that the footprint (and setback) rules only apply to residential uses would allow a non-residential use in R-1 to build a vast underground complex to the edges of the property and none of it would count as floor area. It’s implausible that anyone writing the Municipal Code intended such a consequence. In summary, the Castilleja proposal contains a substantial and worrisome list of apparent violations of the Municipal Code. No quick review will remedy this. We urge you to address each issue fully and to approve only those aspects that comply with the Municipal Code. Thank you. Sincerely, Sheri Furman and Rebecca Sanders Co Chairs, Palo Alto Neighborhoods 22 Baumb, Nelly From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 7:10 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion Attachments:School Density 2019 chart.pdf; CastillejaEnrollmentGraph_2000-2020 Sept 2020.pdf; Castilleja Map - Melville.PDF CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  March 8, 2021 My name is Andie Reed and I live on Melville near the school. First I would like to acknowledge and thank planning staff for the hard work that went into the at-places memo. I’m a retired CPA; my husband was raised in Palo Alto, and went to middle school dances at Castilleja. We moved back here 5 years ago and consider ourselves lucky to be able to retire here; we appreciate Palo Alto’s fine resources, walkability and friendly neighbors. We live in a great town, are lovers of education for girls and boys, and support schools of all kinds. I can truly say I’ve never heard a neighbor reflect that Castilleja school shouldn’t rebuild and modernize their school. We wish they’d re- built their school years ago and we’d be done. The issue is, of course, the size and scope of the expansion. All the benefits of this overly ambitious expansion accrue to the school and none to the City of Palo Alto, and trump the neighbors’ needs and interests. When we neighbors first heard about Castilleja’s plans in June of 2016, they were already submitted to the City of Palo Alto, fully baked. Neighbors were riled up; there was significant concern and shock about the demand for a 30% enrollment increase, the size of the large building, and digging an underground garage which invites more traffic into a tightly-packed neighborhood surrounded by mostly small, older homes on narrow streets. We already have a significant traffic problem around the school. We want less traffic not more. We are used to having school kids in and around the neighborhood, as we live between Castilleja and Paly. Public schools are local to their families, students can bike and walk, they are on sites with significant acreage and are zoned for Public Facilities. Castilleja’s private school population is 75% from out of town, its current enrollment makes it twice as dense than any public or private school in Palo Alto and it sits on a small site in an R-1 neighborhood. (see School Density Chart att’d). Palo Alto High school is on 44 acres, Menlo School shares 62 acres with Menlo College and they both front El Camino Real. Castilleja is on 6 acres in tight quarters. Per the plans, they request a combined above-grade and below-grade build-out to 230,000 square feet on total acreage of 268,765 square feet. Although a fine institution, this would be an extremely dense commercial enterprise in a residential neighborhood. ENROLLMENT: As you have heard, Castilleja agreed in 2000 to limit their enrollment to 415, and by 2002, the numbers started climbing. The public learned there were 450 students enrolled in 2013 at a public meeting at the school. The City requested and the school agreed to reduce by a few students each year until they got back to 415. However, they ceased reducing after 2 years. Neighbors had to hire an attorney to write a letter to get Mr. Keene, the city manager at that time, to get them back on track. They reduced for a few 23 more years, but then stopped. (see Castilleja Enrollment Graph att'd). Castilleja is still over enrolled, they have not complied with their CUP, and once they get any increase, we are stuck with it. The city is unable to enforce and the neighbors become the watchdogs, which is not how we want to live. The school says they will “disburse” traffic, and they will stop increasing students if it doesn’t work. This is the same administration as in 2013, when they couldn’t see their way to reducing enrollment to their agreed-upon maximum of 415. Why would the City of Palo Alto allow this private school to control its own future enrollment limits when they have a history of non-compliance? Why should the residents take on all the risk? If the school is so confident they can control traffic, then let them rebuild and earn enrollment increases by proving it. We are not against their growing moderately, reducing traffic, and then applying for more students. Why doesn’t Castilleja consider educating even more deserving young women by keeping this historic site for some portions of the school while utilizing a satellite campus to accommodate growth. Castilleja Foundation has a vast array of resources to expand without overwhelming their neighbors, commercializing our neighborhood, and costing the City of Palo Alto years of employees’ and officials’ time and effort to appease their desires. GARAGE: Castilleja proposes the entrance to their garage to be on the corner of Bryant Bike Blvd., full of bikes, cars, and pedestrians going to school and work, and Embarcadero, one of the busiest 4-lane arterials in Palo Alto. The exit onto Emerson requires entering Embarcadero at an extremely dangerous corner, with cars coming up from under Alma and around a curve. The school could serve the community better by shuttling 80% of their out-of-town students, mandated by the City. This is what a “Conditional Use Permit” is for and what “working with the neighbors” really means. The underground garage boondoggle currently proposed will increase parking spaces, above what currently exists, by a mere 22 spaces. Who would put their neighbors through this to build a permanent cement storage bunker for cars? Also, the plans require shifting the public utilities easement to make way for more cars to park, and running a tunnel 3’ under the sewer line for girls to walk through. As we have suggested many times, it would have been efficient and smart to have had a “pre-screening” or a “study session” on this project years ago. VARIANCE: The school is asking for an exception to the Floor Area rules to build thousands of above-grade floor area in excess of code, not including the 32,500SF garage – not because they can’t rebuild within the rules but because they don’t want to. Would any other applicant ask for this variance? The Variance request claims the size of the lot as a “hardship”, but when you have caused your lot to be large, you are specifically denied the right to use size and shape as a hardship basis for a variance. The school bought up the residential lots on Melville to increase their campus, then they got the City of Palo Alto, in 1992, to abandon the 200 block of Melville to them. The residents’ use of Melville Ave ceased. It is now a baseball field behind a locked gate. (see Castilleja Map att'd). The school claims they don’t have to count the garage as floor area because it is a basement. Muni Code identifies what is a basement, and, since the proposed garage is NOT under a building, it is clearly not a basement, and therefore, the square footage is required to be added to the floor area. There is no precedent for this underground garage. The school and City cite Kol Emeth Synagogue as a “precedent”; however: a. It is not a school, it is a synagogue which generally has little traffic, except on the sabbath. Castilleja is a 6th-12th grade school, approx 500-600 people attending daily M - F, plus weeknight and weekend events. 24 b. Kol Emeth's underground garage is partially under the building and thus qualifies as a basement (Castilleja's underground garage has no building on top of it and doesn’t) c. Kol Emeth got a ministerial variance to allow the underground garage to encroach into a setback, and a Floor Area variance for height in their lobby in excess of floor area ratio rules. Not similar to Castilleja. EVENTS: The school agreed in 2000 to hold “5 major events” (over 500 visitors) and “several others”, but by 2016 were holding 100 events. We are not concerned with daytime, school hours events. We want the City to limit weeknights and weekend events. During the last Planning Commission meeting, there was negotiation going on about how many events to let them have, but no discussion about the purpose of the events and when they take place. In fact, neighbors were derided, as though we want to stop the school from having parent-teacher conferences and sports. Staff was talking numbers and some commissioners were laughing about how Menlo School doesn’t limit events, why should Castilleja? Because Castilleja is on 6 acres in an R-1 district and Menlo is on 60 acres on El Camino Real, that’s why. The 3-5 year construction period would be an ideal time for the school to figure out how to use off-site venues for nighttime and weekend fund-raisers and celebratory events. Be a good neighbor. We request that the City of Palo Alto require the school to submit a code-compliant project compatible with the neighborhood, represent the neighbors of Castilleja and the residents of Palo Alto, and not put a private school’s interests above ours. Thank you. Andie Reed Melville Ave ~w 1'> I ~ \I ' .~ I w '_J I (/) <!> <Z ~ yPLf 3~'...- 3?,:i 33 1~· 2 ~ '2.v2. '1,;,.,1.. "' o6ci \J'i N N w ; .. R'L41'l'-'~-1-1---'2.~\--1 ct GRAPHIC ATTACHMENT TCl STAFF REPORT PROJECT: __ 1. ___ _ I I 9ASTI LLEJA SC HO 0\.. "2..'5'S 0 0 t'J ~ -. 1:10 Z.'$1.,. ii..i ~ 2..4'2... i~o t7o 1.1.9. 0 ';]'" - 0 :l"" -:J" ~ ,__ ~ N -:!" ,...::::. b' i".:i ::r :r - --· & /_(p :r -- ~ "). .... -:J ::r ---7..'31 _1-{1 ? '2.?)S 2_ -IJ.J 3·\ 1.1 1 -· 1 r~ ~ !----:-)(.) I tf-' ::r ·:r -ct\ ,_, NORTH ____ .... ., _________ 818i1.11ii!lilliilliYl'Q~~ll . Castilleja Enrollment History 19 Years of Enrollment Limit Violation 391 414 416 418 416 424 427 427 432 431 434 437 450 448 444 438 438 438 434 430 426 390 400 410 420 430 440 450 460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 465 540 519 492 Systematic enrollment increase until neighbors discovered violation 2000 CUP Max Enrollment 415 Proposed 30% increase Enrollment Limit Violation found by neighbors Castilleja was ordered to resume enrollment reduction to 415 ACREAGE ENROLLMENT DENSITY Castilleja (current)6 434 72 Castilleja (allowed by CUP)6 415 69 Castilleja (proposed)6 540 90 Pinewood - Los Altos 7 300 43 Stratford - Palo Alto 10 482 48 Stratford - San Bruno 10 250 25 Palo Alto High School 44.2 1994 45 Gunn High School 49.7 1885 38 Menlo School 31 795 26 Hillbrook - Los Gatos 14 414 30 JLS Middle School 26.2 1205 46 Nueva School K-8 & HIgh School 36 713 20 Crystal Springs Middle & High School 10 323 32 Peninsula School 6 252 42 Sacred Heart 64 1186 19 Woodside Priory 51 385 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Menlo School Gunn High School Palo Alto High School Stra�ord, San Bruno Stra�ord, Palo Alto Pinewood, Los Altos Cas�lleja Current Allowed by CUP Cas�lleja Proposed Hillbrook, Los Gatos JLS Middle School Nueva School Crystal Springs Peninsula School Sacred Heart Woodside Priory Comparison of Student Per Acre Density - Local Public and Private Schools 25 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Sylvester <marysylvester@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 6:12 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Comment Letter on Castilleja--Environment Impacts Attachments:Transportation and Garage 3321.docx; Peninsula Schools 3.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members, Attached is my Comment Letter on the Environmental Impacts of the Castilleja Expansion Project. As you will notice in the documents above all other Peninsula private schools who have sought to expand their enrollment and update their facilities have added a second location (e.g. Nueva, Crystal Springs, Pinewood, Keys, and Harker Schools) to respect neighbors' preferences on traffic, noise and density issues. The few schools that have expanded in place and not added a second site are all located on 40 or more acres of land (Woodside Priory, Sacred Heart and Menlo). You will notice in my comments above, Castilleja insisting on growing but staying in place and not opening a second campus, places a significant burden on both neighbors as well as the general Palo Alto community. While 75% of the students are from outside Palo Alto, the impacts of their driving to school in single family vehicles and not shuttling cause outsize impacts as to community traffic volume, safety, environmental pollution and destruction of part of our community's heritage tree canopy. I leave you with this questions as you read my comments and as you enter your Council deliberations: 1. Do the costs of the Castilleja Expansion Project as presented to you justify the benefits to our community? 2. And finally, Is this Project as designed in the overall best interests of Palo Alto? Respectfully submitted, Mary Sylvester Melville Ave. March 6, 2020 Dear Council Member, As a 43 year neighbor of Castilleja School, I am writing to express my concerns about the Castilleja Expansion Project (Project). The issues I am most concerned about are the long-term impacts on Palo Alto from the addition of traffic and the construction and operation of an underground garage that together will jointly contribute to increased traffic volume and congestion, safety hazards and the production of unhealthy greenhouse gases (ghg). Further, given the absence of a cumulative analysis of the impacts of probable Grade Separation at Alma and Churchill occurring around the time of the Castilleja Project, the northern portion of Old Palo Alto may become a highly unlivable, unsafe neighborhood for a decade or more. Given that City staff and the consultants who wrote Castilleja’s Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) failed to: study a mandatory shuttling option as other schools provide; a no garage option for the Project; and, the elevated risk of production of greenhouse gases caused by traffic congestion, idling cars and garage exhaust fans which will together emit unhealthy levels of nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds particulate matter and sulphur dioxide into the environment. As you read my comments below, I ask you Council is the Castilleja Expansion Project serve the best interests of Palo Alto, particularly as to environmental sustainability and quality of life for its residents? Do the costs of this project exceed the benefits? I.TRAFFIC Introduction The transportation impacts of Castilleja’s expansion project are especially important for Council to consider as they not only significantly impact narrow neighborhood streets but also two of the City’s main arterials: Embarcadero Road and Alma Street. There will be long-term impacts to Palo Alto as to safety, traffic volume and congestion as well as the production of unhealthy levels of greenhouse gasses (ghgs), all contribute to climate change. Due to these factors, the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) is seriously flawed. 1. Castilleja’s Project conflicts with Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan ( policy for addressing safety and performance of the City’s circulation system (i.e. roadways, bicycle lanes and pedestrian paths), 2016 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (2016) and Safe Routes to School Program. The Issue Castilleja’s expansion project (herein Project) estimates that their Project will bring 1477 car trips into and out of the neighborhood per school day during school hours, not including after hours special events’ traffic. By the school’s own estimates, this is an additional 300 car trips per day. Adding this significant number of cars on already-crowded arterials like Embarcadero Road and Alma Street along with narrow neighborhood streets will cause a dramatic impact to traffic volume and congestion along these busy roadways and will negatively impact cyclists, pedestrians and motorists, particularly during peak commute hours. Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan (2017), Transportation Section, Part 3, pages 57-74 and Palo Alto’s Sustainability Plan (2016) both call for significant reductions in single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) if the City is going to achieve an 80% reduction in greenhouse gases over 1990 levels. As we well know by now, automobiles produce high levels of nitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, particulate matter and sulphur dioxide. Carbon dioxide emissions, in particular, significantly contribute to greenhouse warming and climate change. Query to Council: Why when 75% of Castilleja’s students are from outside Palo Alto, are neighbors of the school and the Palo Alto community generally being asked to breathe in the toxic fumes from the vehicles owned and operated by school students, parents and staff? Palo Alto’s Bryant Street Bike Boulevard has been a particular source of pride for Palo Alto in its attempts to reduce the negative effects of traffic-related greenhouse gas emissions, the reduction of traffic volume and congestion on City streets as well as the promotion of safety for students traveling to and from local school sites (Safe Routes to School program) as well as adult commuters. The Castilleja FEIR (2020), which evaluated traffic volume, congestion and safety on the Bryant St. Bike Boulevard, at the entrance to the school’s proposed underground garage, concluded there were NOT safety risks to students and adult commuters on the Bike Boulevard nor did the Castilleja’s traffic volume or entrance to the underground garage create safety or congestion risks for not only cyclists, but also for pedestrians and community motorists who regularly travel on Bryant St. Query to Council: I request that the Council probe this matter deeply with City staff and Castilleja representatives as the logic of the FEIR on the absence of safety risks eludes me. The Solution Establishment of a truly effective Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, which calls for mandatory arrival to the Castilleja campus for all students and staff by public transit, shuttling or non-motorized transport to and from the school could provide a significant reduction in school-related traffic and thereby increase safety on both Embarcadero and Alma as well as neighborhood streets. Such a TDM program will allow for effective and efficient supervision and enforcement, which can be easily supervised by an independent auditing firm. Such a program could create the type of accountability and trust building that neighbors have been requesting for years. Otherwise, like most other private schools on the Peninsula when they have sought to expand their enrollment and enhance their facilities they have opened second sites to offload traffic, noise and quality of life issues for their neighbors (see Private School Attachment). 2. The Project’s proposed Disbursed Circulation Plan will result in unsafe conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. The Issue Castilleja’s dispersed circulation plan calls for 1477 daily car trips per day through narrow neighborhood streets. Such a plan has school-related traffic going through the neighborhood in various directions at peak traffic times when public school children, motorists and pedestrians will also be heavily utilizing these narrow street corridors. The volume and unpredictability Castilleja’s car volume will add to these streets will severely impact the safety, efficiency and effectiveness of the City’s arterials and neighborhood street corridors. The Solution Castilleja can operate a mandatory shuttling program for students and staff or add a second school site. 3. The Project fails to take into account the cumulative impacts of both Castilleja’s increased volume of traffic with planned grade separation at Alma and Churchill as required under CEQA. The Issue Not considering the Cumulative Impact of the traffic impacts of the Castilleja project with planned grade separation at Alma and Churchill is a glaring omission under CEQA and must be rectified. Otherwise, the neighborhood becomes completely unlivable and unsafe for the next decade or longer. Under CEQA, Grade Separation at Alma and Churchill would be considered under CEQA a “Probable Future Project” as funding has been designated for Peninsula Grade Separation Projects and is currently being studied by a Palo Alto-based citizens’ commission and being planned for in local and regional planning documents. The Solution Castilleja has two options to remedy this situation: operate a mandatory shuttling program or open a second site. Query to Council: I recommend to Council that you seriously query Planning and Transportation staff about the cumulative impacts of both the Castilleja Project and the planned for Churchill Grade Separation Project. II.UNDERGROUND GARAGE 1. The construction of an underground garage, with an entrance on Bryant St. presents a safety risk to cyclists using the Bike Safety Boulevard and undermines the intent of Palo Alto’s 2016 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan as well as our 2017 Comprehensive Plan. Underground garages are known as a magnet for increasing traffic as it provides free and convenient parking. As is often said of garages, “Build it and they will come.” It must be noted that mature redwoods and oaks will need to be destroyed to make room for this parking garage. Is it really worth cutting down trees to make space for polluting vehicles? Somehow the logic and priorities of this seem askew. Wouldn’t it be better for our community and the planet if this campus was designed around what was healthy and protective for all of us, not a minority of privileges individuals. We have a Tree Protection Ordinance for this very reason, to protect the natural heritage of our community, which in turn best serves us and the planet. 2. Underground garages, both as to the construction, use and maintenance of it are all known as major contributors to greenhouse gases (ghg) The Issue Cars drawn to the garage for free and convenient parking emit highly toxic substances: mitrogen oxides, volatile organic compounds, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, particulates, and sulphur dioxide. In an underground garage those highly toxic and polluting substances collect. To avoid having a lethal environment, those substances will have to be pumped out into the neighborhood. 2.The Solution Don’t build an underground garage. Students and staff can be shuttled to campus or arrive via non-motorized means. And better yet, split the campus so the impacts will not be so great on a small neighborhood community. Conclusion I request that the City Council abide by the goals of the Comprehensive Plan, Sustainability Plan, Tree Protection Ordinance and the Safe Routes to School program and be an effective voice for preserving and protecting what makes Palo Alto a truly unique and valuable community to reside in. I conclude my comments with: Does the Castilleja Expansion Project serve the best interests of Palo Alto? Respectfully submitted, Mary Sylvester Private School Characteristics Peninsula Split Schools School Name Sites Grades Enrollment Pinewood 3: 2 Los Altos, 1 Palo Alto Middle-High 591 Keys 2 Palo Alto K-8th 315 Nueva 1 Hillsborough Middle 1 San Mateo High Crystal Springs 1 Belmont Middle 1 Hillsborough HIgh Middle 527 High 800 German International 3 Mountain View pre-K thru High Peninsula Single Site Middle & High Schools School Name Acreage Enrollment Students Per Acre Woodside Priory 51 385 8 Menlo School 40 795 26 Sacred Heart 62 615 19 Castilleja 6 426 (540 proposed) 71 (90 proposed) Robust Alternative Transportation Programs School Name Policy Notre Dame d'Amour (SJ) "No Driving" to school policy for students, parents, and staff. Public transit and off-site parking/dropoff required Harker (SJ) Shuttle Program: off-site "kiss & park" lots for pickup and drop off of students and staff. Shuttle covers intercampus transport 605 539 4 San JoseHarker 701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/05/ 202 1 Document dates: 03/10/2021 – 03/24/2021 Set 2 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 26 Baumb, Nelly From:Carla Befera <carlab@cb-pr.com> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 3:37 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja - on a par with other schools is only fair Attachments:School Density 2019 chart.pdf; Matrix comparing CUPs _3.1.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members:  As a Palo Alto native, and neighbor of Castilleja for more than 50 years, I question why the school’s proposed conditional  use permit significantly exceeds what other private schools are allowed, both within Palo Alto and in neighboring  communities.  The school has declined all neighbors’ suggestions that it devise a method by which all its students arrive by alternative  modes of transportation (such as shuttles),  that doesn’t allow upper class students to self‐drive to school, that it limit  events to a number similar to other schools, or split its campus to accommodate its desired growth. There are multiple  local examples of similar private schools which are restricted by their CUPS,  to no apparent detriment to enrollment or  learning abilities. A few examples:  Notre Dame HS San Jose  All‐girls school founded in 1851, 9‐12th, current enrollment 670 girls.  No driving to school policy. Students, staff, parents are required to use public transit and off‐site parking. Harker  Originally an all‐boys school founded in 1893 in Palo Alto. Now a burgeoning complex with four campuses, 2040  students.   Offers bus system, shuttle program, off‐site “kiss & ride” lot for pickup and drop off. No driving to school policy. Limited to 12 events per year (outside school hours) Stratford at Garland  A comparable private (elementary) school in a Palo Alto  R‐1 neighborhood, 483 kids on 10 acres.  CUP requirements:  No evening events allowed. No on‐street parking permitted. Amplified sound only allowed 5x/year between 8am‐5:30pm All faculty, staff, student parking and drop‐offs shall occur on premises. Stratford @ Crestmoor  Private school in similar R‐1 neighborhood, 250 kids on 10 acres.  CUP requires:  No evening events except parents nights 4x/year – all parking onsite. No on‐street parking permitted. No outside use of buzzers, bells or loud speakers. All faculty, staff, student parking and drop‐offs shall occur on premises. Pinewood High School:  Similar private HS school in R‐1 neighborhood. Now split into three 3 campuses to accommodate growth, plus an external  Activities Center in Palo Alto. The HS holds 300 kids on 7 acres. CUP requires:  27  No evening courses or events permitted, only 12 events/year   No on‐street parking permitted.   Amplified sound only allowed 5x/year between 8am‐5:00pm     Nueva:  Pre‐K – 12th. 930 students. Originally in Menlo Park, moved to two campuses in Hillsborough (42 acres) and San Mateo  (Bay Meadows).    No on‐street parking permitted.    School provides Caltrain Passes to Upper School students and faculty and staff. More than 70% of students take  the train.  (in the packet you received, Castilleja notes that 7% of its students take the train.)  Impressive video on  how their students get to campus: https://vimeo.com/243919175     Crystal Springs Upland:  6th – 12th. On 10 acres. 542 students.     No on‐street parking permitted.   Offers private bus service with routes from Los Altos, Menlo Park, Woodside, from BART in Colma, from Caltrain.   School partners with rideshare companies Zum and KidzJet. Does not have parking onsite.        Castilleja is proposing a growth to 365 high school students (540 total students, faculty 140+), when all onsite parking in  this plan totals 104 spaces. Other CUPs recognize this issue and require that students are NOT allowed to drive to  campus.     Attached are a couple of charts which give a snapshot of extreme density Castilleja seeks, as well as comparisons in  areas such as events, faculty, parking, sound, summer school, etc. The school is asking for FAR more than other local  private schools have been granted in all these areas. You will also find easy to read comparison graphs on how Castilleja  is an outlier among Peninsula schools here.     It also bears repeating that other local high schools (both private and public) are situated on major thoroughfares (El  Camino, Arastradero) and on acres of land  (Paly at 44, Gunn at 49, Menlo at 31 – vs Castilleja at 6) which provide ample  room for parking, on‐site drop‐offs, and isolation that protects neighbors from noise. Castilleja has none of those  buffers.      Castilleja wants the equivalent of a Costco on one small residential block, with all auto access via small neighborhood  streets.     Please seriously consider why this school should be allowed to set so many precedents.     ‐ Carla     ____________________________  CBCO PR/Marketing  www.cbpr.co     March 10, 2016 Matrix of CUP Conditions Included in Conditional Use Permits for Local Private Schools Castilleja School Pinewood HS Stratford @ Garland Stratford@Crestmoor Acreage 6 7 10 10 Building SqFt 160,000 (Proposes 194k + 32.5k garage) 40,000 32,000 22,000 Hours of Operation No Limitations 7:30 am – 5:30 pm 8 am – 4 pm with childcare from 7 am – 8:15 and 3:45 – 6 pm 7:00 am – 6:00 pm Approved Current Proposed Max Enrollment 415 438 540 300 482 250 Density: students/acre 69 73 90 42 48 25 Outside activities No Limitations currently placed on evening or after school events No evening courses or events permitted No evening events allowed No evening events except for Parents night not to exceed 4x/yr. Night Events No Regulations Limited to 12/year; must be over by 11 pm on weeknights and 12 midnight on Fridays & Saturdays “Scheduled evening events not permitted.” Only allowed to hold Parents Night not to exceed 4 / year. All parking shall be on site. Faculty Not Limited Shall not exceed 50 No limitation stated 23 Parking Not Controlled – faculty, staff and students park on neighborhood streets. Must be parked on campus or the 8 spaces in front of school. These 8 spaces are not on the street but on school grounds; no houses front the school All faculty, staff and student parking shall occur on the premises. Parking only on-site. Drop-offs and pick-ups must be staggered and all on-site. On Street parking Not Regulated Not permitted Not permitted Not permitted Sound No Regulations Outdoor sound amplification allowed 5x per year, between 8:30am – 5pm, max 4 hours/day. Outdoor sound amplification shall only be allowed 5x /yr between the hours of 8 am – 5:30 pm. No outside use of buzzers, bells or loud speakers. Summer School No Regulations Regulated Regulated Regulated Crossing guards No Regulations N/A Required N/A 28 Baumb, Nelly From:Leila H. Moncharsh <101550@msn.com> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 6:37 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Castilleja Project - PNQL response to Mr. Lait's memo Attachments:Letter to CC. March 5, 2021.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please see attached PNQL's response to Mr. Lait's memo. The memo is located next to the agenda under item 7 for the March 8, 2021 hearing. Thank you, Leila LAW OFFICES VENERUSO & MONCHARSH DONNA M. VENERUSO (d.’09) 5707 REDWOOD ROAD, SUITE 10 LEILA H. MONCHARSH OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619 TELEPHONE (510) 482-0390 FACSIMILE (510) 482-0391 Email: 101550@msn.com March 5, 2021 City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja School Hearing, March 8, 2021 19PLN-00116 EIR, Use Permits Dear Council: This letter is in response to the memo from Mr. Lait that my clients received yesterday afternoon. We disagree with his recommendation to refer this project to the ARB or the PTC. Instead, we request that your Council: 1) instruct staff to have a code inspector, in the presence of the city manager, measure and record the existing above ground square footage on Castilleja’s campus; 2) instruct staff to prepare a memo to your Council with an accurate statement of how many above ground floor area square feet exist now and how many square feet the project would entail; and 3) include in the memo how many square feet the building will be over the allowable above ground square footage, and how many square feet the garage plus the building would be over the allowable limit under the PAMC. Despite Mr. Lait’s memo, your Council still needs to know the existing square feet on the campus and the correct relevant calculations to decide the variance issue. For example, if Castilleja reduces the proposed large building to make up for the 7,000 square foot error, it would then demolish 77,572 square feet, instead of its previously stated 84,572 square feet. Mr. Lait says that the proposed floor area (113,667 square feet) will be reduced by 4,370 square feet to address the 7,000 square feet error which would total 109,297 square feet. However, none of this information tells your Council the existing floor area on the campus so that one can subtract it from the new square feet in the proposed project, and then determine how much square footage over the PAMC allowable amount the variance would provide. City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja Project March 5, 2021 Page 2 We suspect, based on the numbers provided in the record to date, that Castilleja’s request for a variance involves a great deal of additional square footage over the PAMC allowable amount (81,385 square feet). Without the garage, the square footage would be 109,297 square feet, which is 27,912 square feet in excess of the allowable amount. If it also built the garage, the total square footage would be 141,777 square feet, 60,392 square feet over the allowable amount. These are huge amounts for any city to grant in a variance. Both sides have briefed your Council already on the legal test for granting variances. We appreciate that Mr. Lait is now acknowledging two errors, but strongly disagree that they constitute new information to the City. These two errors, including the failure to include the underground garage square footage in the gross floor area and then blend it into the variance calculations, have been in front of the City for about two years. Ms. Reed has repeatedly pointed them out to staff and three commissions, only to see them ignore the information and her supporting documents. It is unconvincing that referral back to a commission will result in any less muddling, or any more responsible land use planning. PNQL is requesting that your Council entirely deny the permit for the garage, deny the variance for the building, set a specific low amount of additional student enrollment, and instruct staff to redraft the proposed CUP conditions to conform with your Council’s decisions and address our requests for changes to them. Thank you for considering our comments. Very truly yours, Leila H. Moncharsh Leila H. Moncharsh, J.D., M.U.P. Veneruso & Moncharsh LHM:lm 29 Baumb, Nelly From:Leila H. Moncharsh <101550@msn.com> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 12:47 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Castilleja Project Attachments:Final Submission w. table & pg numbers. March 5, 2021.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members, Thank you and Mr. Shikada for letting me know that the PNQL submission in four parts was not working. My firm had the four parts combined back into one document, reduced the size in half to 10MB, and page numbers added in the right-hand lower corner. I inserted a table of contents in the front. This submission may look huge but actually there are duplicates here and there because over time, letters were attached to other letters as exhibits. For example, you will notice a September 18th letter that shows up two or three times. All this to say, it is not as voluminous as it looks. I am relieved and pleased to know that your Council is reading the material for both sides of the issues, despite the amount of it. Thank you again for all of the time your Council is devoting to this important project, Leila Moncharsh, attorney for PNQL 37 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Gross <barbara.ellen.gross@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 12:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Project Attachments:Castilleja.City.Council.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To: Palo Alto City Council From: Barbara Gross Date: March 3, 2021 RE: Castilleja School Expansion Dear Council Members Although my granddaughter (a current Casti student) will not benefit from the proposed campus modernization plan, other future leaders will. I am a thirty-five year Palo Alto resident and have worked in the downtown for much of that time. As a community member and business leader, I have been engaged in traffic issues for many years. Improving institutions and retaining our neighborhoods are not mutually exclusive. Mitigations have been negotiated, so that both can meet the demands of our evolving needs. Extensive communication and outreach have thoroughly vetted the familiar issues. Castilleja initiated a TDM program, which has already reduced the number of car trips to campus. Pre-pandemic, I witnessed changes to include multiple available parking spaces when visiting the school during the day, and staff oversight of the drop-off and pick-up times. The tight grip the administration has on faculty, parents and students is a cooperative effort to be good neighbors, conscientious stewards of the environment and maintain an essential community asset. Supporting a nationally ranked school – which has been a community asset for over 100 years, must be an essential goal. Castilleja will be under the watchful eye of the city and its neighbors to meet the no new car trips cap. With the phased development plan, adjustments will come with time. Just as our public school site modernizations and expansions have been successful, so must this. Thank you for your attention. Barbara Gross 27 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael Eager <eager@eagercon.com> Sent:Sunday, March 14, 2021 8:23 AM To:Council, City Cc:Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Castelleja Expansion Plan - Garages CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council Members:    I've been reading the news reports about a novel definition of a garage which has been proposed for the Castelleja  School.  The architects for the Castelleja expansion describe the parking structure as a garage.  The Castelleja staff  proposing the project describe it as a garage.  Opponents describe it as a garage.    As I understand it, the City Staff has concluded that the definition of garage for a single‐family home does not apply, and  since they are unable to find an applicable definition in the zoning rules for  R‐1 single family homes, they have concluded that what everyone describes as a garage isn't a garage at all.  The City  Staff, in an exercise of logical contortion which is truly amazing to behold, have concluded that, despite all evidence to  the contrary, that the Castelleja expansion does not include a garage.    My house has a garage.  I don't park my car in it; I use part of it for a workshop.  That doesn't make it something other  than a garage; garages are designed to park cars in.    I don't have a basement.  Some of my neighbors do.  I don't know what they use their basement for.  Maybe they have a  ping‐pong table, maybe they store Christmas or Halloween decorations.  Maybe they have a workshop.  What I'm pretty  sure of is that they don't all park their cars in their basement.  Basements are not designed to park cars.    The City Staff, along with the "anything goes if the builder wants it"  faction of the Planing and Transportation Commission, want this interpretation to allow Castelleja to have a larger  structure.  Rather than representing the interests of Palo Alto and its residents, it looks like City Staff and the PTC want  to put their thumb on the scales in favor of Castelleja School.  This would set a precedent for every other project in the  city which includes, shall we say, an underground parking facility, making a change in zoning laws that the City Council  never considered or approved.    This reminded of a story about a professor of logic, discussing logical fallacies with his class.  He posed a question: "If you  have a table and four chairs, and you call the table a chair, how many chairs do you have?"  After some discussion, the  professor answers: "There are four chairs.  Calling a table a chair does not make it a chair."    No matter how contorted and contrived a definition that the City Staff come up with, a basement is not a garage; a  garage is not a basement.  If a garage counts against permissible floor area, it should be counted, no matter whether it is above or below ground.        ‐‐  28 Michael Eager  30 Baumb, Nelly From:Hank Sousa <thomashenrysousa@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 6:55 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Council members:     One last email before you deliberate this issue which is important to many of us who live near the school. The  introduction of the underground garage idea, in 2016, served to galvanize quite a few of us neighbors and led to the  start of our group (Preserve Neighborhood Quality of Life). Consider settling on the new enrollment number first. If it is  below 450 students (an 8 percent increase) then the school can use their existing parking spaces which number 86. The  8 percent increase seems very fair considering that is what they were granted when the last CUP went into effect in  2001 (385 to 415 students). As more talk of sustainability swirls around us now is an opportune time to push additional  shuttling and not a garage. A large number of parents and students use Hwy. 101 and exit onto Embarcadero before  driving west to the school.  Mandate the school direct those parents to meet Castilleja shuttles in the parking lot at the  end of Geng Rd., just east of 101 off Embarcadero. Will they squawk and say it is inconvenient? Yes, but why should we  neighbors have the inconvenience? We already have issues with traffic and events.     As you deliberate an enrollment increase, please listen to our concerns and offset the driving traffic with a more robust  shuttling effort.  Any enrollment increase should be based on traffic decreases from the extremely high current baseline  of 1198 car trips per day.  This is 2021; high‐end schools can figure this out.      Thank you,  Hank Sousa  100 block of Melville Ave.  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kang, Danielle Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 8:47 AM To:Council, City Cc:jeff@levinsky.org Subject:FW: Castilleja Good morning,    I am forwarding a public comment for Jeff Levinsky.    Thank you,  Dani          Danielle Kang  Administrative Associate III  Office of the City Clerk    250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301   P: 650.329.2159 | E: Danielle.Kang@CityofPaloAlto.org           From: Jeff Levinsky Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 8:44 AM To: Kang, Danielle Subject: Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. http://wowbrary.net/castillejapresentation.pdf ----- Original Message ----- From: Jeff Levinsky To: City Council Sent: Monday, March 15, 2021 8:32 AM Subject: Castilleja Dear City Council Members: Please find attached the slides I presented at your March 8, 2021 session on Castilleja. Thanks, Jeff Levinsky 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Filseth, Eric (Internal) Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:13 PM To:Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office; Council, City; sulev@outlook.com Subject:RE: Castilleja Project Chad, please take me and the rest of city council off your cc list for all these emails.  Thanks, Eric      From: Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org>   Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:10 PM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; sulev@outlook.com  Subject: Re: Castilleja Project    Dear Sulev,     My name is Chad, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 15‐minute meeting this Sunday, March 14th  between 2:30PM and 3:00PM?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Chad Leo   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Chad | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:36 PM, Sulev Suvari <sulev@outlook.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Dear City Council Members,     I want to compliment Castilleja’s good faith work toward compromise as they agree to reducing the number of events they hold by 22%. Please bear in mind that Sacred Heart, Menlo, and Crystal Springs, which are similar in type and location to Castilleja, do not have any restrictions on events in their CUPs. Meanwhile, Serra High School, a boys’ school in a residential neighborhood in San Mateo, has a CUP that only limits events after 10pm on Monday through 3 Saturday and 6pm on Sunday. Castilleja NEVER has events on Sunday and NEVER has events that run past 10pm on Monday through Saturday. That means that 100% of Castilleja’s current events would be permitted under that CUP. Even so, Castilleja has already reduced events.   Opponents claim that in comparison to Castilleja, Pinewood holds only 12 events per year. Looking at Pinewood’s calendar, I see more than 12 events in a single month. So this line of argument is questionable. Interestingly many of the so-called “events” that remain on Castilleja’s approved list are very small meetings, not larger gatherings at all. Setting higher restrictions on this all-girls school while its co-ed and all-boys rivals thrive in other towns such as San Mateo, Hillsborough, Mountain View, and Atherton is a questionable path for you to support as City leaders, but I appreciate that Castilleja is willing to make this compromise just the same. Let’s move this project forward in support of providing young women with a range of experiences that are part of the life of any school.     Best Regards,   Sulev Suvari     4 Baumb, Nelly From:Rob Levitsky <roblevitsky@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 5:00 PM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer Cc:Passmore, Walter Subject:castilleja design errors CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto city council:    my presentation on video didnt work right on Monday night, so im writing to cover some important points.  There are six or more architects, engineering firms, and arborists that provide information for the Castilleja Drawings,  and they havent been good at sharing data, or keeping the drawings up to date and accurate.  Although the drawings  are filled with fancy color sketches of outside shingle textures, and pictures of flowers, here is an example of a critical  measurement that is not to be found on any of the drawings‐  how deep is the swimming pool going to be.?  This is  important because the design calls for the whole pool to be set down 15 feet below grade, and if the pool depth is 10  feet, and has some pipes and drains underneath the pool, it could require excavation down 30 feet below grade, which  would likely hit the water table, and require extensive dewatering, which was the case when the gym, of a similar depth,  was dug out in 2006.  Why would this important detail be left off of every drawing?    Another category with errors and omissions is the measurement of the diameter of each tree.  The trunk diameter is  measured 4 1/2 feet off the ground, then this measurement is multiplied by 10 to generate the Tree Protection Zone  (TPZ) radius, and the calculated TPZ circle is the drawn around each tree.     For the first 4 1/2 years, TPZs were underdrawn for all protected Oaks and Redwoods (and probably most or all of the  other trees).  This misrepresentation of the TPZs with smaller circles makes it look on the drawings that the trees in  question are safer than is actually the case ‐ that less of their roots are disturbed by other construction impacts‐ such as  chopping off roots for concrete walls, trenching through roots for electrical or water pipes, pouring of concrete pads  topped with heavy electrical transformers, and digging and placing electrical “pull boxes” for routing electric cables.  This  situation describes Oak tree #89, currently in the parking lot near Emerson and Melville, shown in the following photos,  as is now, and how it might look after equipment is installed.  8     and here is the drawing, which misrepresents the actual TPZ  10     Arborist Dave Dockter calls this    situation “a sure kill” of tree 89.  You can see its a little crowded in the TPZ for the poor tree.  Sure doesnt show any concern for this trees survival.    another factor affecting this tree  would be any dewatering of the soil done by digging out for the swimming pool just to the right ‐ the chopped off roots  on this side of the tree wouldnt be able to find water.     TPZs for redwood trees 115‐120 are misrepresented on every drawing for 4 1/2 years.  although the diameters vary  from 16 inches to 27 inches, generic circles are shown, making one think these trees would be fine.    12     in actuality, the TPZs are like this    14     and when i overlay a drawing of the parking spaces in the underground garage, we see definite conflicts between trees  and parking spaces.  Which begs the question, how many parking spaces is a tree worth??  16     i had to make this overlay of trees and parking spaces, as it did not exist.  I would say, at minimum, 6 parking spaces  should be removed (though i dont believe the garage is code compliant, or appropriate for the neighborhood to begin  with)      Questions for Walter Passmore:    1.  Have you, as head of Urban Forestry, approved this design?    2.  Have you noticed significant errors in the TPZs as drawn?    3.  Are you aware of any inconsistencies  in the measurement of tree diameters?    4.  are you aware that oak tree 89, a beautiful oak on the west side of campus, was measured at a diameter of 50 inches  in 2016, but only 45 inches in 2020?  Wouldnt that change the TPZ by about 8 feet?      5. Does these inconsistencies suggest that all trees be remeasured before proceeding further?    6. do you agree with the Castilleja arborists opinion on the survivability of tree 89, 102, or 120?          Last subject is the shifting and permanent encroachment of the Melville Public Utility Easement (PUE) which has the  sewer pipe that services the neighborhood.   Also proposed is a pedestrian tunnel from the underground garage to the  main campus, running 3 feet under the Melville sewer pipe. This is really stupid, and compromises our neighborhood  with more difficult sewer repair.  Also, Mike Sartor told me he knew of no PUE giveaways during his 8 years heading  Public Works Engineering, and Dean Batchelor told me he thought it was a bad idea.  City Ordinance 12.12.10 says its up  to the City Manager or his designee to approve such encroachments.  So who has approved this?    18     thanks for reading through this email    rob levitsky    Sent from my iPhone  19 Baumb, Nelly From:John Hanna <jhanna@hanvan.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 1:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of the City Council: Before beginning your deliberations about the Castilleja project, please take time to consider what Castilleja has meant and will continue to mean to our community and to the larger community beyond Palo Alto. Many people (but not enough, unfortunately) know and appreciate Castilleja, what it has accomplished, what it stands for, and the contribution it has made and will continue to make to our society. Castilleja has, for more than a hundred years, offered extraordinary educational opportunities to young women of all races, creeds, colors and economic situations. Some of us have been fortunate to experience the Castilleja phenomenon first hand. I have seen a sister, a wife, two daughters and a granddaughter all graduate from Castilleja. My parents were both educators and devoted much of their lives to the education of young people. My father, a Stanford professor who taught in the School of Education, was appointed by the U.S.Government immediately following the end of the war to oversee the reorganization of primary and secondary schools in Germany and Japan. Dad served on the Castilleja Board of Trustees for many years, as did I. One of the most significant accomplishments of the Board of Trustees of the School during my term on the Board was to resist the political forces of the time which resulted in most schools (including Menlo School, Sacred Heart and others) going co-ed. We listened to the arguments in favor of going co-ed but decided that the School should stay on mission, which was and is to offer our young women the finest education and the greatest opportunity to become the future leaders and contributors of and to our nation and to the World. In short, Castilleja is truly an institution worthy of our protection, our encouragement, and our support. The neighbors who continue to rant against the school have been making the same arguments for years. Basically they do not want the school in their neighborhood. I cannot help but to compare them to someone who buys a home next to the railroad line and then complains about the noise of passing trains. The School has been there long before any of them moved into the neighborhood. They are so blinded by their prejudice against the School that they fail to see that the current proposal will take cars off of the street, create open space and increase the number or trees(to mention just a few of the advantages accruing to them from the approval of the current plan under consideration.) I urge you to vote to approve the current plan. I know that years from now, you will be glad and proud to count yourselves among those who did the right thing by supporting Castilleja. 20 John Hanna Palo Alto resident (off and on) since 1935. John Paul Hanna, Esq. HANNA & VAN ATTA | 525 University Avenue, Suite 600 | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel: (650) 321-5700; Fax: (650) 321-5639 E-mail: jhanna@hanvan.com Recognized by Best Lawyers® in America 2019 for Real Estate Law; Community Association Law; and Land Use and Zoning Law; and in 2019 for Land Use and Zoning Law Lawyer of the Year in N. California This e-mail message may contain confidential, privileged information intended solely for the addressee. Please do not read, copy, or disseminate it unless you are the addressee. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please call us (collect) at (650) 321-5700 and ask to speak with the message sender. Also, we would appreciate your forwarding the message back to us and deleting it from your system. Thank you.   21 Baumb, Nelly From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 12:51 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council Members;    I am surprised that there is the necessity to write this letter. It seems to me that the requests of PNQL are minimal and  reasonable. They are asking that Castilleja not build a garage because it encourages more cars. They are asking that after  school events be kept to a reasonable number and they are asking that enrollment be increased gradually rather than by  30% which is what the school is requesting. It seems to me that Palo Alto residents’ wishes should be taken into account.  Castilleja has been an unreliable partner  in this process.  For years, they have been deceptive about their enrollment numbers. We have only recently discovered that their  report of their square footage has not been accurate. As has been stated repeatedly, 75% of their students come from  outside of Palo Alto and the school pays no taxes which is not the case for its neighbors. If the school and Council would   go along with the neighbors’ minimal requests, this 4 year battle might be concluded.    Sincerely,    Beth Rosenthal, PhD  22 Baumb, Nelly From:gerry marshall <glmarshall@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, March 14, 2021 8:14 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; eric.filseth@cityofpalo.org; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Castilleja’s underground facility and campus renovation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,      My name is Gerry(Marshall)Newcomb. My husband, Bernie Newcomb, and I live on Bryant Street directly across from  Castilleja’s Gunn Admission building entrance and visitor parking lot.  My husband bought our home in 1979 so we are  well aware of Castilleja’s daily school activities. Please be aware that we do NOT have any affiliation with the school and  yet we both whole heartedly support the school’s plans to provide an underground structure for parking, deliveries,  drop offs and pickups.  It really doesn’t matter to us what this underground space is called.  What’s important is how this  underground space will better serve our immediate neighborhood and community.     •Will it take parked cars off the street?  YES  •Will it improve street/bicyclist safety?  YES  •Will it aid Embarcadero apt neighbors? YES  •Will it reduce street noise? YES  •Will it reduce headlights at nite events? YES  •Will it enhance traffic flow off street? YES  •Will it support the project’s EIR? YES  •Will it support the Comprehensive Plan? YES  •Will it be a pleasant view from our home? YES  •Will it be better than a large surface lot? YES    Our 111 year old home is on the corner of traffic heavy Embarcadero and the Bryant Street Bicycle Blvd intersection.  Castilleja’s very thoughtful underground space is well planned and respectful to our neighborhood. We’ve been  advocates of this plan for more than five years now.  I believe we have been diligent in being open minded of other’s  opinions concerning the benefits of an underground space.  However, we don’t believe others have the same  perspective that we have because of our home’s location.      So, traffic is an ongoing part of our lives. Zooming engines, screeching tires, sirens, pedestrians and bicycles all at our  front and backyards.  Horrifying car drivers, ADULT bicyclists with trailing children and pedestrians all trying to beat the  traffic signals.  This is nothing new for us.  What is surprising is hearing that some neighbors say Castilleja is responsible  for increased traffic and lack of parking. Since the school’s visitor parking lot, their student drop off and pick up  entrances are directly across from our front door and driveway, we hope that you will trust us when we tell you that this  is just NOT true.  In fact, Castilleja’s traffic management program has been a godsend.  Cars flow quickly and safely for  about 20 minutes in the morning and afternoon.  When the school is not open, the traffic on Embarcadero is just as  crazy as always.     We have observed many changes in our neighborhood in the 40 plus years living on this busy corner.  Some positive and  some not so much. We are grateful for Castilleja’s perseverance and help to improve our community with off street  underground parking. This will be a huge increase of safety on our streets and the convenience of parking in front of our  own homes. With the the city’s parking permit ordinances and increased single homes transforming into rented rooms,  we are faced with a parking shortage even when the school is not open.  Many are room renters, neighbors living on  23 Embarcadero or employees of University Ave downtown businesses.  Often these mostly unknown parkers, will park too  close to driveway entrances for several days, or longer.  As a matter of fact, as I’m  writing this email, two young people  just parked their car at the edge of the school’s main drive drop off entrance with their suitcases in tow and walked  down Embarcadero.  This car will be a hazard all day tomorrow, or longer, for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists as  people cannot easily see anything moving by and into or out of the entrances.  Castilleja’s traffic safety persons will need  to be extra diligent in maintaining safety around this car.  Castilleja’s underground facility will absolutely fix this issue as  the entrance is designed to immediately move school traffic and parking underground at the  Embarcadero/Bryant corner.      With an underground facility, the noise reduction will also be an additional great benefit.  Car doors, engines starting,  backup alarms, deliveries, etc. will be silenced.  Thank you Castilleja for such a gracious gift to our community.     As you responsibly deliberate all the considerations of Castilleja’s project, please understand the we also have reviewed  most of the neighborhood issues presented in this very lengthy investigation of the school’s renovation project.  We  have looked at facts and not hearsay. We have concluded that the benefits of Castilleja’s campus renewal outweighs any  issues of opinions or issues that may be addressed via changes to city ordinances or variances.     We ask you to please support and approve the much needed Castilleja underground facility and building renovations  without further delays. It’s been over 5 years and it’s important to us and our community that this project gets  underway.      Respectfully,   Gerry (Marshall) Newcomb   Bernie Newcomb  1301 Bryant Street   650‐815‐8782    Sent from AT&T Yahoo Mail for iPhone  24 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Phillips <susan@mrsmoskowitz.com> Sent:Sunday, March 14, 2021 2:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Vote no on Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council members,    I continue to be disturbed and angry that the Castilleja School is swaying your opinion on what benefits Palo Alto  residents.  I estimate that most of the students attending Castilleja are not living in Palo Alto.  I have lived in the city  since 1975 and don’t remember having an issue like this since the Children’s Theater issue many years ago.    Keys School on Middlefield wanted to enlarge their capacity and they divided their school into 2 campuses.  That is what  Castilleja should do and be done with the town halls and all of this discussion.  Please VOTE NO to Castilleja and end this  horrible argument.    Too many people have talked and discussed for too long.    Thank you.    Susan Phillips Moskowitz  susan@mrsmoskowitz.com old Palo Alto resident and sent my children to the excellent Palo Alto schools        > On Mar 3, 2021, at 1:15 PM, Susan Phillips <susan@mrsmoskowitz.com> wrote:  >  > Dear Council members,  >  > As a resident of Palo Alto since 1975 and living in old Palo Alto near Castilleja since 1976 I have become familiar with  the ongoing problem of traffic and issues.  >  > I request that you vote no and do not grant permission for anymore building or remodeling for their school. They  existed for many years with the same number of students and if people decide to send their daughters to the school  then they need to do it under the current size.  >  > Thank you  >  > Susan Phillips Moskowitz  > susan@mrsmoskowitz.com  >  >  > old Palo Alto resident.  >    25 Baumb, Nelly From:Kim Martin <kim_maas_martin@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, March 14, 2021 2:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comments on Proposed Castilleja School Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello. My name is Kim Martin. I am a resident of Palo Alto. I live on Churchill Avenue in close proximity to Castilleja. I have previously expressed to this council my concerns regarding the proposed Castilleja School project, but since then the project has changed as and I would like to take this opportunity to repeat some of of my remaining concerns. Castilleja school absolutely and considerably impacts street parking in the nearby neighborhood every single school day. By contrast, I live 1/2 block from Paly and there are only 2 days in the entire school year when families park in our surrounding neighborhood in such numbers as to have an impact - that is Back to School Night and Graduation. Although many do not consider an underground parking garage ideal, either in its potential environmental impacts or construction impacts, it is really the only way that we will get cars off streets. Some like to idealize the prospect that students will take public transit in larger numbers. This ideal does not fit the profile of what I consider to be a typical Castilleja student. A family that is willing to pay $350,000 for private middle school and high school eductation is not likely to put their daughter onto public transit unless they personally hold a very strong commitment to the environmental benefit of doing so, and newer model electric cars moot that benefit anyway. The past belonged to public group transit. The future belongs to personal transit, electric cars and autonomous or semi-autonomous vehicles. We must allow Castilleja to plan for that, as I believe they have. Even so, we must assume that their students who are old enough to drive will be driving to school, and (for the same reasons as Paly students) may choose to park on city streets rather than queue up to get into the garage. The protocols for street parking are not currently effective in my opinion. I see way too many girls pull into street parking spaces (often while texting and driving to be honest) and ignore neighbor signs or actual neighbor in the moment requests to not park in front of their homes (where there are discrete signs). It is a flawed system and needs improvement. My suggestion is for Castilleja to establish a tip line of some sort that neighbors can use to report egregious parking, students or staff parking vehicles without identifying Castilleja permits, etc. I think the nearby community deserves a periodic report-back on this issue, perhaps twice a year, on the number of complaints, the number of students and staff involved in incidents etc. Assuming agreement to an underground garage, neighbor concerns about the entrance and exit plans (using Bryant and Emerson) are serious and deserve futher study. I personally believe that working the plans to have these entrances and exits on the interior of the campus (with something like a roundabout, with an offshoot for drop offs) instead of on a border street would be ideal. That would allow for substantially more containment of siren-type sounds that are so typical of garage exits. I believe Castilleja school should be allowed to move or remove buildings and or trees as deemed appropriate to make the long-term campus changes they are seeking, provided that their plans call for reestablishing an agreeable proportion of green space and canpoy that they currently have. Many trees were planted in Palo Alto long ago that would not be deemed suitable or prized landscape trees now, including many native ones. We must be brave and wise enough to recognize that, and also the fact that while very old and very large trees are monumental, nothing lives forever and they can become dangerously unstable over time and present large risks to people and property. The best tree canopy is achieved by managing our landscape trees and occasionally removing them and replacing them. 26 At a recent debate, the issue was raised about evening and weekend activities. I do not see impacts from these from where I live, nor do I hear them. By contrast, I see and hear impacts from Paly events on evenings and weekends, so I think it is fair to say that anyone living near Castilleja knew what they were getting into by moving close to a school. The specific issue of bright campus lighting that may extend beyond the campus border into neighbors dining rooms etc deserves further attention, but should easily be remedied. With regard to enrollment, their physical space will have a max enrollment. I think they have identified a reasonable max enrollment number for their site, but given their history of non-adherence to CUP guidelines, it does not make sense to grant them increased enrollment at this time, but rather set targets for future increases. It's a chicken and egg kind of thing. What comes first? In my opinion as a neighbor, let's grant them approval to improve their campus. If they handle that process exceptionally well, let's agree to come back to the table and revisit enrollment upon completion and every 3-5 years after that until they reach max enrollment, with a commitment to reach a conclusion in a MUCH smoother and quicker process. Finally, with regard to construction, I would like to make two suggestions - 1) that all contractors involved in Castilleja's construction project be required to make use of remote parking lots from which to carpool workers as densely as possible to the school site, and 2) to mandate that workers who may be living out of their vehicles park overnight in our new van-living space(s) (Geng) and not on our neighborhood streets. This area has seen extensive residential construction during the covid lockdown where requirements to use as many vehicles as possible have had hugely negative impacts in our area. If this were to continue into Castilleja's project, it is almost incomprehensible how many construction trucks may be around. Thank you and regards, Kim Martin 150 Churchill 29 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Ann Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, March 13, 2021 2:34 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Underground Parking - Please Approve CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council: My name is Barbara Hazlett, and I live across Embarcadero from Castilleja School at the corner of Embarcadero and Emerson Streets. Please vote to approve Castilleja’s underground parking. I realize that you will be deliberating about Castilleja’s proposal on Monday, and I want to ask you to support the underground garage. The school is making a huge investment in the neighborhood at the behest of neighbors (I was at those meetings) by moving cars below ground. I am grateful. The change will make Castilleja’s campus, and my corner of Palo Alto, quieter and more beautiful. It will protect and preserve the feel of our neighborhood. The other option is surface parking. Have the opponents really thought this through? If the cars don’t go below ground, they stay right here with us. We will look at them outside our kitchen windows. If you approve the underground parking facility, I will be able to look out and see more trees and more greenspace. That is far more preferable than looking at parked cars all day on Spieker Field along Embarcadero. Please note that the school has significantly downsized the garage to preserve trees and homes, and now only have the size needed to park what is required per the City. The garage will not invite any more traffic and its creation does not require the removal of even one tree. There is also the EIR, the most thorough PTC Commissioner Bart Hechtman has ever seen, which prefers the underground parking. Years of study of the site and of public policy went into that report. It is based on facts. The opposing voices, which by the way DO NOT represent all neighbors, seem entrenched and unwilling to support any aspect of this proposal, even a great idea, like moving cars below ground. Thank you for taking on the difficult decisions ahead. Please rely on facts and support below grade parking. Best Regards, Barbara Hazlett 31 Baumb, Nelly From:bill Powar <bill@thepowars.com> Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 5:22 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Re: Additional submission related to the Castilleja application. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  This note is further to my note from earlier this week. As I mentioned in that note, I am undergoing cancer  treatment. I just found out today that in all likelihood I will be scheduled for a bone marrow transplant later  this year. I would like to ask you to require, as a condition of whatever project you approve for Castilleja, that  they designate a senior administrative official for neighbors to contact in the event that construction traffic  limits our ability to enter and leave our residence and driveway. I would like to have a cell phone number to  call should construction limit my ability to go to the hospital when required.    When I am in the midst of the transplant prep and for several weeks following the transplant itself, my  immune system will be totally destroyed and non‐functioning, and I will be making frequent (if not daily) visits  to the cancer center at Stanford. During past construction projects at the school, as I pointed out in a prior  missive, my driveway was blocked and construction equipment drivers refused to move until they completed  their tasks, causing me to miss appointments. One actually told me that I knew there would be construction  and I should have parked around the corner before they started work.    Given that my immune system will be compromised severely, I will be unable to leave my house except to get  into the car to be driven by my wife to the hospital. Since I live on Emerson, directly across the street from the  art building, my egress will likely be impacted by the garage construction should you approve it as well as any  other activities that impact Emerson Street traffic. I should not have to park on the street around the corner at  7:30 in the morning to ensure that I can get to the hospital for critical treatments and monitoring.    Thank you for your consideration.    Bill Powar  1310 Emerson    From: bill Powar  Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 7:48 AM  To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org  <Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org>; greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org <greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org>;  Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org  <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tom.Dubois@cityofpaloalto.org <Tom.Dubois@cityofpaloalto.org>;  pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org <pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org>; greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org  <greer.stone@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Additional submission related to the Castilleja application.      32 Unfortunately, I was unable to stay up until my name was called last night as I am undergoing cancer treatment and I find that the chemo has created added fatigue. Accordingly, I am sending you a written version of my remarks. I also submitted some advance written material that I ask you to read before voting on the application.  My wife and I have lived across the street from the school for over 40 years. We have long supported the school. In the early 90s, while living in what is now the school’s Lockey House, we backed their application to close the Melville cul- de-sac, going so far as to trade houses to our current address, giving the school much greater flexibility in developing their athletic facilities.  There is no question that the school provides a wonderful opportunity for young women to advance their education and should be allowed to upgrade and modernize their academic facilities to provide greater opportunities for the students. However, we cannot now support the school’s current CUP application. What we object to is a greater than 25% increase in allowable enrollment from 415 students to 540 and the building of an underground garage that will add few additional parking places.  The primary question before the council is what size student body is appropriate for a 6-acre site in an R1 neighborhood. Castilleja’s enrollment is already at a level resulting in a student per acre density far greater than any school in the area. Allowing their requested increase will create a negative effect on the neighborhood, not just in school day traffic and noise, but also in the overwhelming number of evening and weekend events that that enrollment will engender.  Other private schools facing the same constraints as Castilleja have either moved out of Palo Alto or developed multiple campuses. Up until this point, Castilleja has been unwilling to seriously consider either.  I also ask the Council to consider the disruption caused by the building of an underground garage and the hundreds of thousands of cubic feet of dirt that will be required to be removed by hundreds of truckloads as well as the multi-year construction project that the school’s rebuilding will necessitate.  When the school built the underground gym, Emerson  became like a dustbowl. Windows had to be kept shut and we had to have them washed several times just to maintain  light and had to power wash our house when the project was completed.  One of the speakers tonight, whom I was able to hear before I was forced to retire, mentioned that the school self‐ reported its 15‐year enrollment violation. We have asked the City for any evidence of this. The City staff was unable to  provide it. I have attached a letter from staff to that regard.  Thank you all for the time you put in on City issues.  Respectfully,  Bill Powar           Sent from Mail for Windows 10     33 Baumb, Nelly From:Cormack, Alison Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 2:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:Stump, Molly Subject:Fw: from neva yarkin Forwarding this for the public record    From: neva yarkin <nevayarkin@gmail.com>  Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2021 4:27 PM  To: Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: from neva yarkin      CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  March 11, 2021     Dear Alison Cormack,    I live 600 Feet from Castilleja.  I also live 5 houses away from the  Churchill Train Tracks.  My family has owned this property for over      60 years when there was limited traffic  congestion.  Castilleja was a boarding school then, and Palo Alto had 3 high schools.    Before COVID we were saturated in Traffic, all over town.      I grew up in Palo Alto and returned in 2008 from abroad.    13 years ago when I returned, I was dismayed at the amount  of traffic in the whole Bay Area.     When I tried to take a class in Los Altos, that is when I got involved in traffic in the area (5 years ago).  It took me 45  minutes to get to my class during commute hours to Los Altos.       So, here I am today.    Again, I repeat, that adding another 125 more students will only intensify traffic.  75% of Castilleja students live outside  of Palo Alto (Found in the EIR).  Building a parking garage with an entrance off of Embarcadero/Bryant and exit –  Emerson/Embarcadero will add to this traffic.  Can you imagine adding more traffic to Embarcadero during commute  hours?     In my opinion, city staff does not represent both sides of an issue.  It is not just Castilleja expansion.  We, the citizens of  Palo Alto are paying the salaries of city staff and they should present a more balanced and fair view‐point on any  issue.  It would be interesting to know how many years and time was spent on just this Castilleja issue?   In another few  years Castilleja will ask to expand again.  What will happen than?       Other issues also have an impact in this area.  “Five Major events and several others” agreed upon for the 2000 CUP.  How did that end up going to 100+ to 90 (Castilleja applying for now) and city staff recommending 70?    To me, SEVERAL means a few, not a hundred, or even 70.    Castilleja and the City have taken advantage of the city residents.    34    Pinewood HS has no evening courses or events, Stratford has no evening courses or events, Stratford (San Bruno) no  evening events except 4 a year.  Hillbrook has 10 events per academic year.       Who is taking advantage here?  This is why we are here today.   Correct this wrong, and spell out a lower number.  Don’t let this become a precedent for  all the schools in Palo Alto wanting more events too.         Another issue, is making Palo Alto GREEN and Environmentally Friendly.  This is the direction the world should be heading.  How does a parking garage, with thousands of tons of cement fit  here?   “Make a ton of cement, and you’ll get a ton of carbon dioxide” quoted from                Bill Gates Book.  How is that  helping our environment?     Breaking the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard, for a parking garage, is that promoting Biking?  I’m curious as to the bike riders, skate boarders on city council, who might be voting for Castilleja expansion?  I also ride  a bike in town and grew up riding a bike all over Palo Alto. Bike riding is in our DNA.     Shouldn’t Palo Alto be a leader for environmental issues rather than at the bottom of the list?        A major safety issue that City Council should demand be corrected before construction starts.  Castilleja wants to  continue to teach classes in portable buildings (on Spieker Field, EIR July 2020) while construction is going on.  You will  have a mix of construction trucks, cars, students, bikers, plus area residents, etc.  (Found in the EIR, July 2020).  The campus should be declared a construction zone while remodeling is taking place, rather than having an accident  occur.       Enrollment should be decreased to 415 which is in the current CUP, until all the construction is totally finished.     Stanford put a hold on their massive building projects. City Council needs to put limits on Castilleja expansion and not  set precedents for all the other private schools in Palo Alto that are waiting in line to expand.       Thank you for your time.     Neva Yarkin        35 Baumb, Nelly From:Douglas Charles Kerr <douglask@stanford.edu> Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 12:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council,       I write as a neighbor—235 Churchill Ave—and supporter of Castilleja School. I have grown so tired of the misinformation out there and wish we could all welcome a growing, thriving school in our neighborhood. I have lived on this block for the last 15 years and love the proximity to both Castilleja and Paly.       Unlike what a few neighbors claim, Castilleja has consistently demonstrated respect for the City and neighbors by proposing a solution that allows the school to grow without adversely impacting neighbors. Castilleja has met with neighbors over 50 times and iterated its plans meaningfully in response to the variety of opinions in the neighborhood.       I see absolutely no traffic from the school during non-Covid times and dismiss any claim of traffic as false. I furthermore, do not understand the argument that is lessens the “quality of life.” If people are really concerned about that, they should focus on the many houses that have no occupancy. I can count at least 10 within the few blocks around Castilleja.       Best,    Douglas Kerr           36 Baumb, Nelly From:Chris Stone <christi176@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 9:36 AM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; lydia.ku@cityofpaloalto.org; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Mayor and Council Members:     I understand that you are probably fatigued and overwhelmed with all information and correspondence that are coming  your way regarding this issue. But please hear me out! Thank you.    My name is Christine Stone. My family has owned the house at 1234 Emerson since 1960. I expected to  live out my days  here, living peacefully in my R‐1 neighborhood.    Instead, it looks like the Council is going to approve of the expansion plan which will materially affect my quality of life  FOREVER. This business seeks to disrupt life on my street FOREVER.    Those who live directly across the street from the campus will have to live with constant construction for a few years but  those who live on Emerson Street and Melville Avenue will have to live with the consequences of the underground  garage FOREVER. For the rest of my 20‐30 years on earth.    People have smiled benignly and sweetly talked about providing STEM education for girls. Honestly, who doesn't  support that? My mother was a feminist college professor and my father was a computer scientist who worked at  Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. But it does not follow that this invasive business which wants to encroach on my  historic neighborhood should be given permission to ruin my residential street.    I don't believe that any of you, nor any Castilleja Board Member nor any student's family could look me in the eye and  say "Yes, I'd like to have houses and mature trees across the street from my house torn down and replaced with a  concrete construction from which hundreds of cars are streaming on a daily basis. I think it would be lovely. I'd like my  children to live on a street like that."? Whatever happened to respect, compassion, courtesy? The parking garage is a  slap in the face to long‐term residents, a statement that Castilleja girls are more important than we Palo Alto residents.    No attention has been given to the very practical alternative of having shuttles bring the students and staff in to campus.  This is a very reasonable and rational approach.     I ask you to consider this point of view before making any final decisions.    Thank you for your time,    Christine Stone              38 Baumb, Nelly From:Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 9:24 AM To:lrimawi1@gmail.com Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Supporting Castilleja's plan Great! I have gone ahead and sent you a Google Calendar invitation for 2:30 on March 14th.     We look forward to speaking with you. If you have any questions beforehand, please don't hesitate to email me.     Chad | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Fri, Mar 12, 2021 at 12:12 PM, Lama Rimawi <lrimawi1@gmail.com> wrote:   Hi Chad,   I would be happy to meet at 2:30pm on March 24th. Looking forward to it.   Lama     On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:09 PM Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <  Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> wrote:   Dear Lama,     My name is Chad, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held  every Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 15‐minute meeting this Sunday, March  14th between 2:30PM and 3:00PM?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Chad Leo   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Chad | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:39 PM, Lama Rimawi <lrimawi1@gmail.com> wrote:   39 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Hi,   I had a chance to speak at last night's city council meeting. I wanted to let you know that I am in full support of  Castilleja's plan. Please approve it and do not send it back to ARB.     As I mentioned, I have been a Palo Alto resident for almost a decade.     I want to express my appreciation for Castilleja’s close attention to the tree plan as they modernize campus.     Trees are important to the history and the future of Palo Alto ‐ as well as to Castilleja’s neighbors     There are currently 157 trees on campus. Fourteen of them will need to be removed (as Ms. French mentioned)  some of which are already damaged by the recent droughts. As a result of climate change, which we all know is a  problem, trees that used to thrive in Palo Alto, are now struggling unfortunately.      As we think about tree health and overall canopy, we need to not just maintain what we see around us now; we also  need to begin to look ahead and plan for the future.     Castilleja’s tree plan introduces almost 100 new trees to campus. This will substantially increase the trees on campus.  The type of tree matters as much as the count. Castilleja’s new trees will be here to stay as we see winters with less  rain and summers with more heat. These new native trees will provide shade around the block for our children and  grandchildren and they will outlast us all.     My children and I love to walk around the area of Castilleja and I imagine that it will only look more beautiful over  time with the new trees.     I am so grateful to Castilleja for creating a thoughtful plan that faces the reality of our climate crisis and responds  with new plantings that will ensure future greenspace. I also want to mention that Castilleja’s tree plan is 100%  aligned and compliant with Palo Altos Tree Technical Manual.     I appreciate your consideration.      Hope you have a wonderful week.     Lama Rimawi           ‐‐     ‐‐‐   Regards,   Lama Rimawi, M.D.       40 Baumb, Nelly From:Lama Rimawi <lrimawi1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 9:12 AM To:Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Supporting Castilleja's plan Hi Chad,  I would be happy to meet at 2:30pm on March 24th. Looking forward to it.  Lama    On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 9:09 PM Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office  <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> wrote:  Dear Lama,     My name is Chad, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held  every Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 15‐minute meeting this Sunday, March  14th between 2:30PM and 3:00PM?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Chad Leo   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Chad | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:39 PM, Lama Rimawi <lrimawi1@gmail.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Hi,   I had a chance to speak at last night's city council meeting. I wanted to let you know that I am in full support of  Castilleja's plan. Please approve it and do not send it back to ARB.     As I mentioned, I have been a Palo Alto resident for almost a decade.     I want to express my appreciation for Castilleja’s close attention to the tree plan as they modernize campus.   41   Trees are important to the history and the future of Palo Alto ‐ as well as to Castilleja’s neighbors     There are currently 157 trees on campus. Fourteen of them will need to be removed (as Ms. French mentioned) some  of which are already damaged by the recent droughts. As a result of climate change, which we all know is a problem,  trees that used to thrive in Palo Alto, are now struggling unfortunately.      As we think about tree health and overall canopy, we need to not just maintain what we see around us now; we also  need to begin to look ahead and plan for the future.     Castilleja’s tree plan introduces almost 100 new trees to campus. This will substantially increase the trees on campus.   The type of tree matters as much as the count. Castilleja’s new trees will be here to stay as we see winters with less  rain and summers with more heat. These new native trees will provide shade around the block for our children and  grandchildren and they will outlast us all.     My children and I love to walk around the area of Castilleja and I imagine that it will only look more beautiful over  time with the new trees.     I am so grateful to Castilleja for creating a thoughtful plan that faces the reality of our climate crisis and responds with  new plantings that will ensure future greenspace. I also want to mention that Castilleja’s tree plan is 100% aligned and  compliant with Palo Altos Tree Technical Manual.     I appreciate your consideration.      Hope you have a wonderful week.     Lama Rimawi             ‐‐     ‐‐‐  Regards,  Lama Rimawi, M.D.    42 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 10:31 PM To:Stump, Molly Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Bill Ross; Fred Balin Subject:Michael Alcheck/Castilleja: potential conflict of interest? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Molly... I recently email you, Mr. Shikada and the City Council previous correspondence from Bill Ross and Fred Balin listing their concerns about Mr. Alcheck 's professional relationship, thru Alcheck Properties, with Castilleja's counsel of record, Ms. Romanowski. Their 10/26/20 letters questioned whether Mr. Alcheck's professional relationship with Ms. Romanowski and her assistance in helping Alcheck Properties settle a carport/garage dispute with the City of Palo Alto would be reason for Mr. Alcheck to 1). disclose this relationship at the PTC and 2). recuse himself from PTC discussions and voting on any issue concerning Castilleja's expansion plans. Both Mr. Ross and Mr. Balin indicated there was never any disclosure from Mr. Alcheck at the PTC. Also they never received any response from your office or any other City official as to their letters. I find this very disturbing. I believe the questions asked by Mr. Balin and Mr. Ross deserve answers. Based on the information provided by Mr. Balin and Mr. Ross, please advise: Did you or your staff review Mr Balin and Mr. Ross's letters? Did you or your staff decide that Mr. Alcheck had a legal conflict of interest that merited recusal? If yes, did you or your staff advise Mr. Alcheck of a legal conflict of interest and advise him to recuse himself? If yes, on what basis was the legal conflict of interest determined and on what date was Mr. Alcheck advised? If no legal conflict of interest was determined, on what basis was this determination made? If you or your staff determined a legal conflict of interest did not existed, was Mr. Alcheck advised regarding the appearance of a conflict of interest? I realize your role is advisory and not enforcement. However, as the City Council is considering Castilleja's expansion plans on 3/15, I believe Mr. Balin and Mr. Ross deserve a response to their concerns regarding Mr. Alcheck's potential conflict of interest. As do I. Thank you so much. 43 Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 44 Baumb, Nelly From:Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:10 PM To:Council, City; sulev@outlook.com Subject:Re: Castilleja Project Dear Sulev,     My name is Chad, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 15‐minute meeting this Sunday, March 14th  between 2:30PM and 3:00PM?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Chad Leo   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Chad | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:36 PM, Sulev Suvari <sulev@outlook.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Dear City Council Members,     I want to compliment Castilleja’s good faith work toward compromise as they agree to reducing the number of events they hold by 22%. Please bear in mind that Sacred Heart, Menlo, and Crystal Springs, which are similar in type and location to Castilleja, do not have any restrictions on events in their CUPs. Meanwhile, Serra High School, a boys’ school in a residential neighborhood in San Mateo, has a CUP that only limits events after 10pm on Monday through Saturday and 6pm on Sunday. Castilleja NEVER has events on Sunday and NEVER has events that run past 10pm on Monday through Saturday. That means that 100% of Castilleja’s current events would be permitted under that CUP. Even so, Castilleja has already reduced events.  Opponents claim that in comparison to Castilleja, Pinewood holds only 12 events per year. Looking at Pinewood’s calendar, I see more than 12 events in a single month. So this line of argument is questionable. Interestingly many of the so-called “events” that remain on Castilleja’s approved list are very small meetings, not larger gatherings at all. Setting higher restrictions on this 45 all-girls school while its co-ed and all-boys rivals thrive in other towns such as San Mateo, Hillsborough, Mountain View, and Atherton is a questionable path for you to support as City leaders, but I appreciate that Castilleja is willing to make this compromise just the same. Let’s move this project forward in support of providing young women with a range of experiences that are part of the life of any school.     Best Regards,   Sulev Suvari     46 Baumb, Nelly From:Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:09 PM To:Council, City; lrimawi1@gmail.com Subject:Re: Supporting Castilleja's plan Dear Lama,     My name is Chad, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 15‐minute meeting this Sunday, March 14th  between 2:30PM and 3:00PM?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Chad Leo   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Chad | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:39 PM, Lama Rimawi <lrimawi1@gmail.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Hi,   I had a chance to speak at last night's city council meeting. I wanted to let you know that I am in full support of  Castilleja's plan. Please approve it and do not send it back to ARB.     As I mentioned, I have been a Palo Alto resident for almost a decade.     I want to express my appreciation for Castilleja’s close attention to the tree plan as they modernize campus.     Trees are important to the history and the future of Palo Alto ‐ as well as to Castilleja’s neighbors     There are currently 157 trees on campus. Fourteen of them will need to be removed (as Ms. French mentioned) some  of which are already damaged by the recent droughts. As a result of climate change, which we all know is a problem,  trees that used to thrive in Palo Alto, are now struggling unfortunately.      As we think about tree health and overall canopy, we need to not just maintain what we see around us now; we also  47 need to begin to look ahead and plan for the future.     Castilleja’s tree plan introduces almost 100 new trees to campus. This will substantially increase the trees on campus.   The type of tree matters as much as the count. Castilleja’s new trees will be here to stay as we see winters with less  rain and summers with more heat. These new native trees will provide shade around the block for our children and  grandchildren and they will outlast us all.     My children and I love to walk around the area of Castilleja and I imagine that it will only look more beautiful over time  with the new trees.     I am so grateful to Castilleja for creating a thoughtful plan that faces the reality of our climate crisis and responds with  new plantings that will ensure future greenspace. I also want to mention that Castilleja’s tree plan is 100% aligned and  compliant with Palo Altos Tree Technical Manual.     I appreciate your consideration.      Hope you have a wonderful week.     Lama Rimawi         48 Baumb, Nelly From:Cecilia Willer <cecilia_willer@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 8:55 PM To:Council, City Cc:Cecilia Willer Subject:Please postpone plans for Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council Members, I have just listened to the Palo Alto Weekly/Online forum on Castilleja. It was an excellent forum. It is extremely evident that Castilleja needs to earn trust and be held accountable. I feel it is unacceptable that you would even discuss a rebulid/expansion plan when Castilleja is not even compliant with their current student enrollment and hasn't been since 2010! That is 11 years. What do you anticipate happening with a newer larger building? Secondly, the issue of square footage needs to be addressed. As a homeowner, we continue to have our square footage measured when our home is assessed for refinancing. Why it is even a question to have a third party company go and measure the existing square footage? This would seem to be a standard for development unless that is only for R1 homes versus a school in an R1 neighborhood. Unless I am missing something here. Third, you are setting a president here. Clearly you see that Castilleja has deep pockets - perhaps from families attending the school - and has hired every resource possible. Yes, a private girl's school is wonderful to have; just like Bellarmine in San Jose is great as an all boys' school. The major difference is where the school is located. If it is vital that Castilleja be in Palo Alto, then having a capacity of 450 students should be the max and be strictly enforced. If the pedagogical needs are for larger sized grade capacity, a new location should be found. Castilleja is in a neighborhood on a 6 acre lot. There is not more than 6 acres available and it is R1. I hope and pray that you will do what is best for Palo Alto for years to come. If only 25% of the enrollment is from Palo Alto families, why is it vital to be in Palo Alto? Is it because Palo Alto is a well sought after city to live in or is it a well sought after city to attend a private all girls school? Who pays the taxes in the city? Please do what is right for the community. Please stop shifting the rules and allowing variances that significantly impact so many in Palo Alto. Embarcadero is already full of traffic even during this time of covid. Regards, Cecilia Willer 1270 Byron Street ...You have already taken away any opportunity for Palo Alto homeowners to go to Foothill Park/Preserve on the weekends. Please stop taking away so much from your taxpayers. Focus on 49 what is needed most in Palo Alto, the priorities that have been identified. I doubt Castilleja is on the top of the priority list unless it is to complain about traffic and parking! 50 Baumb, Nelly From:Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 8:47 PM To:Council, City; mdinda@alumni.stanford.edu Subject:Re: Castilleja Expansion support Dear Mahooya,     My name is Chad, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 15‐minute meeting this Sunday, March 14th  between 2:30PM and 3:00PM?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Chad Leo   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Chad | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 10:51 PM, Mahooya Dinda <mdinda@alumni.stanford.edu> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Dear City Council Members,     I have had the pleasure of speaking to a couple of you in an outreach this summer and I would like to reiterate my  support for the Castilleja expansion.  I am a long‐term resident of Palo Alto for 25+ years living in Downtown North,  Crescent Park and now Professorville.  I have 2 children who have gone to Addison, Greene, Paly and one child at  Castilleja currently.       Castilleja has been a great neighbor and has encouraged the families of students to be very respectful to the  neighborhood.  Castilleja has lowered cars coming into the campus and for my daughter and her friends in Palo Alto,  they all bike together.  They discourage parents driving to events and the events are thoughtfully planned.  I find that  more people park in front of my house for events at Addison or the church.       The school has been very accommodating to neighbors requests.  We had heard about the expansion prior to applying  to the school.  The issue I contend with neighbors is that the goal keeps moving (ie garage/no garage).       51 Castilleja has been an institution in the neighborhood and should be able to expand much like Addison and Paly have.       Thank you, Mahooya Dinda     52 Baumb, Nelly From:Mimi Lyons <thelyonspack@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 5:28 AM To:Council, City Subject:In support of Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi,    I am writing to encourage the City Council to support the Castilleja plan. The school is truly a bedrock in our community  and has served girls from communities throughout the Bay Area, while giving back to our town. Empowering the school  to continue the legacy of empowering young women is of value to all of us.    Thank you,  Mimi Lyons  Crescent Park  53 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 5:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Shuttle Service CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I work in a building near the municipal golf course and I am ‐ was ‐ a frequent rider of the Embarcadero Shuttle. It’s my  understanding that shuttles are a facet of the Castilleja TDM program.  I hope this means that Palo Alto is planning to  revive the shuttle program.  Is it?  Or is the school providing a private shuttle service?    I look forward to learning the answer.    Thank you,    Annette Ross  College Terrace  54 Baumb, Nelly From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 5:06 PM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia Subject:Casti -- Short ad sweet CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council, I hope you'll reject Casti's expansion proposal which they're only defending on the basis of broad and illogical platitudes that oponents of this project oppose women's education and instead consider the highly specific points made by those opposing it, including real Casti parents and graduates neighbors, residents and taxpayers -- not those falsely claiming to be Casti neighbors and/or Palo Alto residents. I also urge you to conduct an intensive review of City Hall, the PTC and the Planning and Legal Departments to understand how this project has even gotten as far as it has. As Jack Morton, Bill Ross, Fred Balin, Mary Sylvester and many others said, it should not have gotten this far and cost us so much in city time and resources. It's high time for oversight and to demand accountability. Citizens and taxpayers should not have to spend our own money to hire consultants and lawyers to fight City Hall and a deep-pocked lawbreaking institution and its huge and costly supporting cast of highly paid lawyers, lobbyists, pr firms etc. in a David & Goliath battle. You are supposed to represent US; please do so. Most sincerely and most tersely, 55 Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, Ca 94301 56 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Balin <alafargue@mac.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 4:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt & Council Members,    Please reflect carefully and do not permit the expansion of the Castilleja School for Girls.    I attended the school for four years graduating in 1972. I was in a tiny minority of Palo Altans who attended the school.  Most of the students were from outside our town. As the school has continued to expand I have observed some  disturbing trends over the years. Now there is a lack of trust in the neighborhood as the enrollment violates the CUP.    The culture of the school is now driven by status and money. Yes the girls do receive an excellent education but this  expansion is also teaching them some dark lessons. The administration is manipulating the narrative. Instead of  following the original motto:  Personal values must accompany academic achievement. Winning for the sake of winning  was not an example of the five C’s (Conscience, courtesy, character, courage, and charity). Have these qualities been  replaced with attitude, superiority, greed, elitism and disrespect.    The PR team for the school perpetuates a narrative that if the school cannot be expanded then the neighbors are against  girls and young women’s education. That is gaslighting. The neighbors care about their community and do not want their  neighborhood pressured by the expansion. Please do not conflate what the school’s administration says about the  superior education being threatened should the school not be allowed to expand. The fact is the school has simply  outgrown the site.    We are still in this pandemic and yet traffic is increasing. The intersection at El Camino and Embarcadero is graded I  would imagine as a F. The traffic impacts of an enlarged campus/enrollment will hurt our community.    Please review the excellent presentation given by Jeff Levinsky who shows the argument that a garage is not a  basement.    You the council have the power to make the right decision.    Respectfully yours,    Ann Lafargue Balin        57 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol C. Friedman <carolcfriedman465@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 3:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Reimagined project! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and Members of the City Council,     After eight long years, I am pleased to have the opportunity to voice my strong support for Castilleja's Reimagined  Project. I have followed the project closely and as a neighbor on Lowell Avenue, I urge you to finally make a decision for  all of us.     Castilleja has worked with its neighbors with 60 neighbor meetings, studied traffic on the Embarcadero, reduced car  trips to the campus by 31%, reduced the number of school events, provided numerous iterations of the parking garage  and waste management trucks & deliveries and planned for the pool to be below ground level for noise abatement.     As a nearby neighbor, the classroom buildings of the 1960's rebuilt to new standards and learning spaces will be  appreciated. The exterior to the neighborhood will be a handsome environmental alternative. I also support the increase  in the high school to 540 students. Not only will this one day allow more girls to enjoy the Castilleja experience, but also  it will bring new dynamic and energetic girls to the high school years which is important in a 6‐12 years school.  Castilleja's robust robotics program, team building and community service motivate girls to become confident thinkers  and compassionate leaders.     The PAUSD, Castilleja School and Stanford University have a reputation for educational excellence. This attracts many  families to Palo Alto Real Estate which enhances the economy of the City.     After eight years of study and approval of the ARB and PTC, I urge the City Council to vote in support of the Castilleja  Reimagined Project. The school, Old Palo Alto and the City need your thoughtful decision. Thank you!    Carol C. Friedman  carolcfriedman465@gmail.com      58 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Ann Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:31 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Castilleja Neighbor and Supporter CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: Thank you for the opportunity to speak at the March 8th Council meeting regarding Castilleja's CUP application. I am submitting my comments and some further thoughts. My name is Barbara Hazlett. I am a neighbor of Castilleja and have lived near the school, just across Embarcadero, for 40 years. It is a privilege to support the school's application. Castilleja is a treasure, and as a Palo Alto voter who strongly supports protecting neighborhoods, I feel that schools, churches, and libraries are crucial civic elements. I want to make three points: # 1. Castilleja is a very respectful neighbor, having gone to great lengths to mitigate traffic and parking demands as the town has grown up around it. Going forward, they will be independently audited for their ongoing compliance. This is not the case for any other local schools. # 2. The proposed plan to build under-ground parking demonstrates Castilleja's earnest response to neighbors' requests to mitigate street parking and traffic noise. The alternative to underground parking is surface level lots. Think about the ugly aesthetics of surface lots. Is that what neighbors want to see from their homes? I am a neighbor and I certainly do not. The school provides a park-like buffer from Embarcadero. The school's master plan enhances this in every way by proposing a green and inspired design. # 3. PTC Commissioner Alcheck identified an important issue at one of PTC's hearings, asking, " Are the demands being placed on this girl's school in line with other schools in Palo Alto?" Clearly not. Council certainly wants to be on the right side of supporting women's education in our town. Castilleja should have the opportunity to modernize as have Ohlone, Paly, Addison and Stanford. In my opinion, the most notable comments of the evening were given by a Castilleja neighbor with no personal ties to the school but with a macro perspective. He eloquently spoke of the national crisis of the dearth of women in tech, in leadership positions and in the nation's failing educational systems . . . his data and examples were beyond compelling. It was the most profound message of the evening imploring Council to see the big picture, to be part of the solution of supporting educational opportunities for young women, rather than standing on the sidelines mired in inconsequential details. I am sure you remember his comments and I believe you should give them great weight in your deliberations. In conclusion, why should one of our most historic and consequential neighborhood treasures be denied critical improvements and to extend its reach to a modest number of new students? To do so is in opposition to a core Palo Alto value of superior education. Schools are a public good and Castilleja is undeniably good. How lucky are we to have this institution in our back yard? Please support the school's application in its entirety and ensure that exceptional education continues as a timeless value in Palo Alto. Thank you. Barbara Hazlett 59 Baumb, Nelly From:John K Sterling <john@johnksterling.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 12:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter of Support for Castilleja Reimagined CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello ‐      I am the father of 2 daughters, one of whom recently started at Castilleja.  I had followed the process from afar, and  more recently watched more closely given my relationship to the school.  I also have experience in local activism  working as the President of a land trust and understand the complications of projects like this.    It seems the time has come to accept the current proposal and move forward.  While both sides of this debate have had  highs and lows throughout the years, Castilleja has been very focused for the last two years+ on being flexible and  respectful to the community.  Meanwhile a small subset of the town are never going to yield and around each corner  walk back on previous agreements or dig for new loopholes.  This is tiring and hurtful for the community, and for the  young ladies who experience this negative energy related to their school.    I hope the council takes this opportunity to confirm the good faith of Castilleja's work and move to a phase of healing  with the excellent plan that has been put forth.  With the most recent detail, a slight adjustment to the square footage  accepted quickly by Castilleja, I would like to see you reward that and previous flexibility by allowing the project to move  forward.  We are tired of the relentless blocking in the face of good faith partnership by Castilleja, and the young ladies  look forward to focusing back on their learning experience.    Thank you for your consideration,  John    60 Baumb, Nelly From:kzavoli@gmail.com Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 12:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:We support Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To City Council Members,  Please vote to approve Castilleja’s plans.  Having worked in college admissions and as a staff member for the Western  Region of the national College Board, I have had the opportunity to meet and work with their faculty and administrators  for many years.  I have also observed their classes.  It is a superior school and a Palo Alto historic treasure.      Kris and Walter Zavoli 49 year residents of Old Palo Alto  1 Baumb, Nelly From:davedockter@comcast.net Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 12:41 PM To:Council, City Cc:Leila H. Moncharsh Subject:Errata: Castilleja Redevelopment project_Dockter Public Comments Attachments:Dockter Script for 3.8.2021 CC mtg_abridged.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers:    You received the previous transcript from me that contained a typo of a code section that should read 8.10.050(b)(2) [pg. 2, 3]  [and not 8.10.020(b0(2)].     Your recognition of this errata is appreciated.    David Dockter, the Arbor Advisor   ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified & Certified Arborist WE‐0351  American Planning Association  Contact me at Linkedin.com or 408.318.7316    From: davedockter@comcast.net <davedockter@comcast.net>   Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:18 PM  To: 'city.council@cityofpaloalto.org' <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Castilleja Redevelopment project_my Public Comments  Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers,    Last night I spoke and provided comments on two important areas for you to consider during deliberations prior to certifying the  EIR.    Speaking for a number of folks, I promised that I would send Council the transcript so that you could digest the two points—each  with actionable recommendations.    With your insightful direction to both applicant and staff, I believe the Castilleja Campus Redevelopment will become a good  example of Building with Nature and Palo Alto’s tree resources.    Please accept my Public Comments with all seriousness.    Respectfully,        David Dockter, the Arbor Advisor   ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified & Certified Arborist WE‐0351  American Planning Association  Contact me at Linkedin.com   Page 1 of 6 Castilleja School Project Comments of David Dockter, March 8, 2021 Castilleja School Project EIR & Campus Redevelopment Script for Public Comments of March 8, 2021 Prepared by David Dockter Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers. Good evening. My name is David Dockter. I have worked for Palo Alto for over 21 years directly administering the tree ordinance related to land use decisions such as the Castilleja redevelopment project. I keep in good standing with credentialing and standards of industry practice. There are two (points) related to tree resources that I wish to bring to your attention before you deliberate on the Castilleja redevelopment. These two points need your discussion and should be well-vetted with your Senior City Attorney, senior staff and Urban Forester before certifying an amended EIR or adding conditions for the Record of Land Use Action. For your reference, I will be emailing Council a transcript of my comments tonight. For each point I provide Recommendations for Council action. Point #1 1. There is a significant impact missing (omitted) in the Environmental Impact Report. Your deliberations would want to include this controversial Tree Resources element surrounding a serious misinterpretation of the Tree Ordinance. Page 2 of 6 Castilleja School Project Comments of David Dockter, March 8, 2021 a. Specifically, the incorrect Castilleja interpretation of Section 8.10.020 (b)(2) would set a new precedent for all other R-1 zoned properties throughout Palo Alto city limits. b. The EIR preparers and Planning staff’s new interpretation of the tree ordinance provisions would allow the indiscriminate removal of any protected tree on other R-1 properties considering development. i. To explain, their interpretation would allow any development application to remove any Protected tree in the buildable area outside the perimeter setbacks, as a simple ministerial process with no other reasoning than the development desires the space where a tree lives. ii. The Castilleja EIR has used this flawed interpretation wrongly to justify removal of protected oaks #140 and #155. iii. Without using this flawed interpretation, the removals would constitute an unmitigated unavoidable significant impact--reportable as such in the EIR. c. Here’s a summary of the flawed interpretation contained in the EIR and your staff report, dated 3/8/21. I direct your attention to the lower half of page 19. d. Paraphrasing, on R-1 zoned properties, the operative code section cited (by EIR/staff) wrongly omits a phrase which is the main qualifier of this statute: that “If no building footprint exists, Page 3 of 6 Castilleja School Project Comments of David Dockter, March 8, 2021 e. but the EIR/staff then adopts the remainder .” . .then protected trees may be removed if located in the building area . . . “ f. Since the Castilleja DOES have existing buildings upon their property--using this statute is not applicable. g. This statute section intent clearly describes a ‘vacant property’ where no building footprint currently exists. h. Thus, the EIR/staff have side-stepped this important qualifier of the statute by using a dissected version of 8.10.020 (b)(2) i. —and ignores the important code language to be exclusively used for a ‘vacant property’, a property with no building footprints or structures. ii. For the record, Castilleja has many existing buildings on the property. i. On this 6-acre, R-1 parcel, If Council allows the misinterpretation of the tree ordinance to proceed in the EIR, the precedent would allow the wholesale removal of any/all protected trees in the buildable area of the property-- simply to facilitate grading or any other development amenity. j. With this reasoning, an overreach effect could also apply on this site— allowing future removal of any oak or redwood on the 6-acre parcel, including retained Redwood #1, Oak #89, #113, #138, Redwoods #120, etc.—as long as it is within the building area! k. This EIR/staff interpretation is contrary to 25 years of consistency using the tree ordinance. Page 4 of 6 Castilleja School Project Comments of David Dockter, March 8, 2021 i. Since its inception, the tree ordinance has not allowed indiscriminate tree removal in the buildable area, unless the property is vacant (without a structure) pursuant to its reading. ii. This understanding has been reaffirmed to me personally from the original 1996 author Senior City Attorney, Debra Cauble, as well as Ariel Calonne, Wynne Furth and others. My Recommendation to Council on Point #1: • Before certifying the EIR, Council should direct the preparer to add a section to the EIR evaluating and explaining the outcomes of the Castilleja Precedent interpretation o and highlight where the previous interpretation is in error. • The EIR should describe the potential effect to all other R-1 zoned properties in Palo Alto when the protected tree removal in any buildable area is allowed during any degree of development. o In other words, using the flawed interpretation, the EIR should describe how staff would respond to protected tree removal requests and comments during R-1 lot Individual Review, ARB, PTC and site planning reviews. • For the removal of trees #140 and #155, request the EIR issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SoC) to remove the two trees. Significant & unavoidable. 2. SoC caveats aside, this action would eliminate the Castilleja Precedent interpretation from being abused by future developers of other R-1 properties with protected trees. Page 5 of 6 Castilleja School Project Comments of David Dockter, March 8, 2021 Point #2. Tree Security Deposit Guarantee. 2. Latest plans have identified various new tree protection measures. Even so, many protected trees on site remain at-risk for decline, injury and death. a. Mortality may be high with individual at-risk trees –those with multiple impacts targeting each tree--such as Oak #89, #113, Redwood #120, #102, etc. 3. The City of Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual outlines the process for figuring the monetary appraised value of at-risk trees. Urban Forestry maintains a standard condition of approval to guarantee tree loss mitigation and how it will be utilized in the event of tree damage from either planned construction or contractor negligence of the tree protection measures. 4. This Urban Forestry condition has been omitted from the Record of Land Use Action and should be reinstated (placed there by the Urban Forester and standard for complex development projects). 5. This should be considered as an ‘added’ security measure above and beyond ‘in- lieu’ payments to mitigate a planting. My Recommendation to Council on Point #2 • Reinstate the Urban Forestry conditions into the RULA regarding the tree security deposit guarantee. • Direct staff to require a tree security deposit guarantee amount of 150%-200% value of all trees listed in CoA #70 and #72 (of the CC Staff Report dated, 3/8/21.) Page 6 of 6 Castilleja School Project Comments of David Dockter, March 8, 2021 o Council should specifically direct staff to prepare a condition requiring the appraised values for tree security deposit guarantee—and should be included in the next staff report for timely review (not delaying until the last steps before building permit.) Lastly, I believe these two points are important to literally all Palo Alto neighborhoods— from Barron Park to Crescent Park, College Terrace to South Palo Alto—and relative interest to the neighborhood listservs, Canopy and other regional media outlets. I hope you welcome my comments for your deliberations with staff and EIR corrections. Thank you, and Good Day Respectfully submitted, David Dockter Former Planning Arborist, City of Palo Alto 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 2:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:additional information on Castilleja's DEIR- please read Attachments:Moncharsh Neighbors Atty DEIR comment letter2. September 16, 2019.pdf; Stephen Ambrose - resume.pdf; 9-12-19 S. E. Ambrose- Professional review of DEIR Noise chapter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Mayor DuBose, Vice Mayor Burt and City Council members: As a Castilleja parent and resident I reviewed several Chapters of Castilleja’s DEIR; specifically, Chapter 8,  Noise and Chapter 12, Geology, Soils, Seismicity and Paleontology.  I found many areas of concern in both Chapters and forwarded these to PNQL’s Attorney. Ms. L. Moncharsh’s  9/16/19 letter to Ms. French (see attached) included these concerns.   However, as the packet you received on Castilleja is likely thousands of pages long, I wanted to draw a few  concerns to your attention. Silicon Valley Soil Engineering, on page 26 of their 1/9/17 report indicated their report and findings were  “subject to review and should not be relied upon after a period of three years.” Their Report, per the above,  became invalid on 1/9/20. Please use this link: https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72468  for the Geotechnical report in total as presented as part of Castilleja’s DEIR.  Dukek, the Planning Department and the PTC approved this portion of the DEIR even though the information  was invalid per the authors of the report. Should an updated evaluation, as recommended, not have been  required? Also please note on page 21 of their 1/9/17 report, Silicon Valley Engineering indicated “the underground  basement structure will be approximately 13‐15 ft below ground surface elevation. The highest groundwater  is approximately 23 ft below ground elevation.” But there is no indication of or discussion of the swimming pool depth in their 1/9/17 report. Swimming pool  retaining walls and construction is discussed but no depth is mentioned. It is noted 6 inches of ¾ inch clean  crushed rock will be required under the pool. No dewatering plan is noted, but a contingency plan is  recommended in Cornerstone Earth’s 2/3/17 analysis. Is the depth of the swimming pool not important as  dewatering and a dewatering plan may be required?  Have the garage and swimming pool depths been evaluated for dewatering, damage to adjacent tree roots  and possible subsidence to nearby areas?  On 2/3/17, the Cornerstone Earth Group issued a Peer Review of the Silicon Valley Soil Engineering 1/9/17  Geotechnical report.  Eleven (11) specific recommendations were made for additional testing and re‐ evaluations so as to provide a more complete Geotechnical report before construction began.  3 To my knowledge none of these 11 recommendations were ever completed or addressed by Dukek, the  Planning Dept., the PTC or Castilleja. These specific recommendations concern important issues such as soil  moisture content, seismic earth pressure and liquefaction potential. Why were they never addressed or  discussed? I also ask you to review Castilleja’s Noise Section; deficiencies are noted on page 15 of Ms. Moncharsh’s  9/16/19 letter to Ms. French.  Please use this link to the Noise (Chapter 8) of Castilleja’s DEIR:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77800 Also, please see attached Mr. S.E. Ambrose’s 9/12/2019 review by of Chapter 8 of Castilleja’s DEIR. His  extensive qualifications are listed in the first paragraph of his report; his resume is also attached. None of his  expert comments were addressed by Dukek, the Planning Department or the PTC in their rush to approve  Castilleja's DEIR. I ask the Council to review the documents mentioned and determine if they warrant further review.   I am very concerned regarding glaring deficiencies in Castilleja’s DEIR, which were accepted and now  constitute Castilleja’s EIR.  The PTC’s in their rush to approve Castilleja’s DEIR and expansion plans, along with the Planning Department's  "liberal" interpretations of our Codes could establish dangerous zoning and regulation precedents.  If the City Council agrees with the Planning Department’s interruption of Palo Alto’s Zoning and other Codes  and the PTC’s majority vote and approves Castilleja’s expansion plans as they currently exist, an immediate  degradation of the surrounding neighborhood will occur and all other neighborhoods will be equally at risk.  Thank you for reviewing this important information and for your service to Palo Alto. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 Tel: 207-892-6691 S.E. Ambrose & Associates Email; seaa@myfairpoint.net September 12, 2019 15 Great Falls Road, Windham, ME 04062 Acoustics, Environmental Sound & Industrial Noise Control Ref: Palo Alto, CA, Castilleja School Project Draft EIR, July 2019 Responding to a neighbor's request, I respectfully submit a preliminary peer-review for noise issues. Professional experience began in 1976, working for a large design-engineering-construction firm in the environmental division responsible for acoustics, environmental sound and noise control engineering. I am Board Certified by the Institute of Noise Control Engineering (INCE), full-member Acoustical Society of America (ASA), and adhere to professional ethics to protect public health, safety and wellbeing: the why for peer-reviews). Community volunteer experience includes 10-years zoning board of appeals and 5- years ordinance review committee. Community noise impact assessments are to identify and mitigate planned new noise sources to minimize adverse human reactions. Complaints occur when noise interferes with normal human activity, such as conversations, listening, relaxing and sleep. Sound level measurements establish the ambient baseline for design. New noise sources can cause complaints when the increase exceeds 5 dB for fluctuating or strong low frequency content, and 10 dB for steady-state balanced spectrum. Noise predictions determine noise control requirements for compliance and community compatibility. Noise regulations are ineffective when simplified to A-weighted hourly averages such as Leq, and less effective when Leqs are converted to DNL (Ldn): day-night average with 10 dB night penalty: Ldn 50 dB(A) is equivalent to Day Leq SO dB(A) and Night Leq 40 dB(A}. Chapter 8 second paragraph refers to the publics' response to school modifications: "Comments received in response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP} for this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) relating to noise impacts identified concerns that surrounding neighbors would be exposed to substantial noise during construction and resulting from the proposed increase in enrollment, the parking garage, and truck traffic to the site. The NOP, Initial Study, and comments received in response to the NOP are provided in Appendix A." Appendix A Table 3.12 identifies three (3) noise Potentially Significant Impacts (col 2). 3.12 Noise leaalhan Potenflally SlgnlfiQantwlth Leu'Thal' Signiflcurt Mitigation Slgnificarrt Impact I lmimt tfolmpact XII. NOISE -Would the project result in: a) EJq>OSure of persons to or generabon of noise levels in excess of standards eslabllShed m lhe r8J 0 0 0 local general plan or noise ordmance. or appficable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons lo or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groondbome noise -r8J 0 0 0 levels? c) A substantial pemianenl increase in ambient notSe l levels "' the project vicinity above levels existing r8J 0 0 0 wrthout the project? d) A substantial temporary or penodJc uicrease in ambient noise levels in the project viooty above r8J 0 0 0 levels existing wilhout the prqect? Stephen E. Ambrose, ASA, INCE Bd Cert, Emeritus Page-1 Peer-Review Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 12 Sep 2019 Draft EIR, Chapter 8 Noise rambles through an incomplete, poorly organized and technically flawed report. Appears to be a bloated feasibility study with excessive boilerplate text and minimal relevant analysis. Noise levels were not properly identified as dBA often without the appropriate metric: Leq, Lmin, Lmax. Project Compliance: The City of Palo Alto has a municipal code with quantitative (measurable) noise levels for existing ambient noise level, and new noise source increase limit: Chapter 8, (pages 8-9 & 10), subsection 9.10.020 Definitions (d), and subsection 9.10.030 Residential property line noise limits (a). (d) "Local ambient" means the lowest sound level repeating itself during a six-minute period as measured with a precision sound level meter, using slow response and "A"weighting .... " (a) No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. Palo Alto's municipal code noise requirement are measurable, enforceable, and protects neighbors from noise that degrades property amenity. The comprehensive plan noise limits are significantly louder, with less public protections, and not appropriate for long-established residential communities. The Municipal Code should prevail to safeguard public protections. However, Section 9.10.060, Special Provisions: special exceptions ... shall apply: notwithstanding the provisions of Sections 9.10.030 through 9.10.050. Densely populated or developed communities limit choices for finding an acceptable noise measurement position without interference from nearby traffic, buildings or trees. The school is surrounded by closely-spaced, single-family residences with 30-ft setbacks. These restrictions often result in higher Leq measurements than for an open area setback from the street by 50 of more feet. Charles M. Salter Associates (CMSA) performed a basic feasibility noise assessment without sufficient ambient noise measurements with audible observations, Unattended monitor measurements were at 2- locations (next page) from September 23 to 27, 2017 include weekend. Emerson St. L1 is on school property, under trees near pedestrian walkway and parking lot entrance: 46-56 dB(A). L2 is also on school property under a tree near the intersection of Kellogg Ave and Bryant St.: 45 to 51 dB( A). Pool area activity noise measurements (Oct 2016) averaged 69 dBA with maximums of 81 dBA at 70-ft. Mnsurad Noise t.eveJ (dS) Weekday Hourly Ambient Noise $1te LOcatiQn. DNL Levels L1 Emerson Street. approximately 30 feet northeast of 58-60 46-56 centerline L2 Kellogg Avenue, approximately 30 feet northwest 56-62 45-51 of centerline As part of Dudek's peer-review, a 5-minute dayti_me (Jan 31, 2017) noise measurement was made opposite the school bus driveway on Bryant Street: L.eq 51 dBA and L90 44 dBA. MN11111W11ent lime Oeicripllott of Noise '-"" L..u L" Lt. Location Source$ (1SBA} (flBA} {dBA} (dBA) Bryant Street across '1:14 p.m. -1 :19 p.m. Distant Traffic, Distant from the exit of the January 31, 2017 Aircraft, Distant landscaping ~1.3 64J 53.4 442 school driveway or Construction Noise Stephen E. Ambrose, ASA, INCE Bd Cert, Emeritus Page-2 Peer-Review Castilleja School Project Draft EIR 12 Sep 2019 Noise from buses, trucks, and traffic were not reviewed. Draft EIR, Chapter 8 Noise requires significant improvement: Remove boilerplate text, present relevant discussions that pertain to this project, assess noise that conforms to the municipal code, and do not include irrelevant assessment methods: Section 2, Regulatory Framework. Provide visuals (maps, figures, pictures), to illustrate where noise impacts are likely to occur for construction and future operation. Appendix F, CMSA and Dudek reports should provide more details about distances, identify noise metric: Leq, Lmax, Lmin, local ambient to the municipal code. Chapter 8 should be concise and clearly written identifying residential properties where the school can comply, comply with mitigation(s), or cannot comply. I have evaluated several projects that were landlocked by nearby homes that prevented future growth. Local codes manage community development and growth using zoning to cluster compatible land-uses. Mixed-use allows conflicting land-uses to be side-by-each without adequate separation. Has the school outgrown the neighborhood ? Thank you for your time and consideration. Please feel free to call with any questions. Respectfully, ~2~ Stephen E. Ambrose, ASA, INCE Board Certified, Emeritus Principal Consultant Stephen E. Ambrose, ASA, INCE Bd Cert, Emeritus Page-5 1 LAW OFFICES VENERUSO & MONCHARSH DONNA M. VENERUSO (d.’09) 5707 REDWOOD ROAD, SUITE 10 LEILA H. MONCHARSH OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94619 TELEPHONE (510) 482-0390 FACSIMILE (510) 482-0391 September 16, 2019 Amy French, Chief Planning Official City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Castilleja School Expansion Plans – DEIR Comment Letter Dear Ms. French: As you know, my law firm represents PNQL. The DEIR is inadequate, it needs to be redrafted with the missing and important information that was left out of it, and then circulated for public comment. When two out of six PTC commissioners requested a new DEIR during the August 14, 2019 hearing and cited specific informational deficiencies in the one presented to them, it was an indication that the DEIR was not ready for release. Other commissioners raised many questions that had not been answered by the DEIR and should have been. An EIR is an informational document that a public agency must consider when it approves or disapproves a project. The purposes of an EIR are to provide decision-makers and the public with detailed information about the impacts of proposed projects and to list ways that significant negative impacts of the project can be mitigated. It must include “sufficient detail to enable those who did not participate in its preparation to understand and to consider meaningfully the issues the proposed project raises.” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 510; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 405.) As shown below, the DEIR in many respects fails to provide detailed information about Castilleja’s proposed project’s impacts or ways to mitigate them. I. Aesthetics A. Trees The DEIR admits that virtually all of the trees on and surrounding the Castilleja campus will be negatively impacted by the proposed project. According to arborist Michael Bench’s reports in Appendix C, there are 122 trees on the school property, 42 trees on the street, and 4 trees on a neighboring property for a total of 168 trees. “All of the 168 trees are expected to be 2 impacted by proposed construction.” (Bench report, dated June 13, 2016, p. 1) He states in a later report that 37 trees, some of which are very large, are to be relocated. (Bench report, dated September 20, 2017, pp. 13-14; February 15, 2018, pp. 13-14.) The DEIR, reflects that 174 trees could be impacted by the project, “128 trees located within the project site and 46 trees adjacent to the site.” (DEIR, p. 3-3.) Despite the magnitude of the tree removals and relocations due to the proposed project, the DEIR impermissibly understates the impacts on aesthetics of the tree removals and relocations. On pages 5-11 - 5-16, it minimizes the number of trees that will be moved or taken down and that will impact views from the street. Impacting Bryant Street and Kellogg Street, the DEIR claims that only one tree each will be relocated and impact the view for each street. (DEIR, pp. 5-11 - 5-13.) On Emerson Street, 22 trees would be removed or relocated. A reader of the DEIR would have no idea that in fact the 128 trees located within the project site and the 46 trees adjacent to the site will be impacted by the project and in turn, will impact the neighbors’ views of the trees. The DEIR is completely silent on how the removal or death after relocation of very tall trees will impact the neighbors’ views around and into the school campus. And as mentioned above, “a sufficient discussion of significant impacts requires not merely a determination of whether an impact is significant, but some effort to explain the nature and magnitude of the impact.” (Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502, 519.) The neighbors are familiar with the proposal to remove and relocate many of these trees. The documents entitled, “Original Tree Locations Phase 1 and Phase 2 Tree Locations Submitted January 8, 2018” show the current locations of the trees and the plans to remove or relocate them. Having seen those documents, the neighbors have written comments, complaining about the change of how the Castilleja campus will look after the proposed project is completed. Currently, the campus has many very large trees that give the campus the feel of a woodland garden, all of which will change greatly with the proposed removal and relocation of the trees. In Hank Sousa’s comment letter and those of other neighbors, they talk about how much pleasure they get from daily walks past the magnificent trees, some of which are as tall as at least two or three story buildings. Photographs submitted by Rob Levitsky, another neighbor, show how the trees provide a forest-like background for the neighborhood. These trees are also located in key locations around the campus that act as visual buffers between the houses surrounding the school and the sterile school buildings. According to the tree location documents, these trees will be lost. Instead, what will remain are much smaller trees along the perimeter of the property. (See plans L2 and T2.) Furthermore, the DEIR’s reliance on arborist Bench’s tree plan is misplaced because the plan does nothing to prevent loss of the woodland garden setting around the campus. Although Mr. Bench relies on a tree protection plan laying out exactly how the trees will be preserved, and how many of them will be relocated, there is nothing in the DEIR that considers the survival rate from doing construction around trees or moving the trees, some of which are extremely large. 3 The neighbors retained arborist David Dockter to review Mr. Bench’s reports and the relevant sections of the DEIR. He states in his comment letter that the survival rate for moving trees is very low. Also, as to the large trees, they will need to be held up with wires which is unsightly and also does not guarantee that the relocated trees will thrive or even survive the move. (See article regarding realities of moving large trees: http://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/the- realities-of-large-tree-moving.) Furthermore, Mr. Dockter, points out that the DEIR does not discuss the risks to the preserved trees from grading. He explains that grading has a deleterious impact on trees as it disrupts their root structure, no matter how careful the onsight arborist is to set a tree protection zone and protect roots. In looking at the overall picture of what the proposed project will most likely do to the trees on the Castilleja campus and the surrounding streets, it appears that a high percentage of the extant trees will either be removed during construction, relocated and then die, or be killed by the digging and grading that is required to complete the proposed project. Architect Heinrich, in her comment letter of September 5, 2019, also discusses the loss of trees as “degrading” the visual character of the neighborhood. Drawings need to show the “before and after” of what Emerson and Embarcadero will look like after trees are removed or relocated. She points out problems with the DEIR that assumes relocation of a tree that cannot be located due to its size. The DEIR violated CEQA because it did not consider the concerns of the neighbors regarding tree loss and how that will impact the aesthetics of the greater neighborhood. These concerns have been stated in correspondence by the neighbors and the DEIR acknowledges that they are “areas of known controversy.” (DEIR, p. 1-5.) There are two references on page 1-5 of the DEIR to the controversies surrounding the trees: • Compatibility of. . . tree loss, and the scale and massing of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. . . • Tree loss in conflict with the City’s Tree Ordinance The First District Court of Appeal has recently held that a “project’s negative effect on the aesthetic, natural, scenic, or historical environmental qualities in its vicinity may constitute a significant impact under CEQA. (Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 596, 609 (Friends).) Comment letters from neighbors who directly observe the condition of the property and understand the significance of the proposed project’s visual impact is sufficient to raise a “fair argument” that the proposed project will have a significant negative environmental impact. No expertise is required. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) The failure to describe the visual impacts from removal and relocation of so many trees fully supports the commissioners’ requests for a new DEIR. The lead agency is legally required to obtain one and release it for public review, give the omissions about the visual impacts of tree loss. 4 B. Loss of Residential Neighborhood Characteristics Another issue not discussed in the DEIR is the aesthetic impact of placing a large institutional building close to housing, removing all but one house on the school side of Emerson Street, and installing an underground garage with an entry and an exit onto residential streets. The neighbors’ architect expert, Gogo Heinrich, points out some of the DEIR inadequacies in her comment letter in which she discusses Impact 5-1: “Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings: The DEIR is incorrect in stating the project is less than significant.” She notes that removal of two residences on Emerson will change the character of the street. Rob Levitsky, who lives on Emerson, points out that with the removal of the two houses as part of the proposed project, there will only be one house left on the school side of the street. A residential street with only one house on one side of a block is no longer residential. Neighbors showed photos of the proposed garage entry and exit at the August 14, 2019 PTC hearing. They demonstrate that the access points to and from the garage are almost identical with what one would find in a downtown parking garage or an area of a city dedicated to office buildings. It is not consistent with any residential neighborhood. A commissioner specifically asked the EIR preparer if there were any underground parking garages in the vicinity of the proposed project. The preparer was unable to provide any examples, and that was presumably because cities do not mix together retail or business building garages with residences. Furthermore, the DEIR does not even offer any examples of similar underground garages with access points adjacent to housing for schools anywhere in Palo Alto. Here, the DEIR is completely silent as to the proposed project’s negative impacts, listed above and in public comment letters, due to visual changes in the neighborhood. Instead, on page 5-2, the DEIR simply lists what is present on the project site, such as trees, parking lots, etc. Then, for some unknown reason, on the following pages, it lists Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) policies and zoning codes sections, which have nothing to do with whether the project will have negative visual impacts on this particular residential neighborhood. It then concludes that the project will have a less than significant impact on the surrounding neighborhood. In the following pages, the DEIR tries mightily to defend many of the problematic portions of the project with statements that amount to claiming in essence that “it is much better to have walls, fences, an underground commercial parking lot, and landscaped bushes than beautiful old houses, tall and magnificent trees, and 3 parking lots normally found on school grounds.” For example, the views for neighbors from Bryant and Kellogg Streets will include a new building that the DEIR admits will be 30 feet tall and 140 feet along Kellogg and a connected “campus center building” will extend another 195 feet along Kellogg towards Emerson Street. The DEIR refers us to Figures 4-1 and 4-2, which show a huge, long structure completely inconsistent with the massing, and in many cases, the height of the houses across the street. To avoid discussing the inconsistent massing and height, the DEIR tells us to look at all of the interesting fencing, wood panels, and storefront windows on this building, and how they are 5 attractively placed vertically along the building. It concludes with the absurd conclusion that as to the view from Bryant Street, “Landscaping and fencing would be similar to existing landscaping and fencing within the project site and would be compatible with the residential nature of the surrounding neighborhood.” Therefore, it reasons that the project would result in a less than significant visual change from Bryant and Kellogg (DEIR, p. 5-12, 5-13.) Nothing about this structure is visually consistent with the residential neighborhood. As for the view from Emerson Street, the DEIR acknowledges that there is no fence or wall visible from the street. The proposed project would result in demolition of two houses, construction of a wall for a swimming pool, a .33 acre park, and the underground garage. The wall admittedly would “change the aesthetics of the pedestrian experience along the sidewalk.” Once again, the DEIR goes into great detail about the wonderful materials that will be used for this wall - there would be horizontal wood slats, a 20-foot wide landscape zone, a brick planter, and only the entrance and exits from the garage would be visible. Against these obvious negative visual impacts, the DEIR then again retreats into great detail about the type of materials that will be used for fencing. It comes to the ridiculous conclusion that these “trades” make the project visually consistent with the neighborhood: “While replacement of one residential structure with a parking garage egress driveway could be seen as an adverse visual change if viewed in isolation, the addition of fencing and landscapiong to the frontage would soften the views of the driveway and the replacement of a second residential structure with a landscaped open space area is considered a beneficial visual change.” (DEIR, p. 5-16.) Several times, the DEIR alludes to the visual benefit of not having cars parking on the street as part of this project, but that conclusion is totally speculative and makes assumptions about the contents of the use permit. (DEIR, p. 5-16.) There is no way to know whether the City will grant the portion of the project that involves a garage or will, instead, require that all students arrive by bus, bicycle, or walking. It is not reasonably foreseeable that the City will go back to allowing Castilleja to have multitudinous single occupancy vehicles dropping off and picking up students, especially since it already has a transportation plan in effect which limits the number of cars during drop-off and pick-up. The visual effect described in the DEIR is impermissibly speculative and should be removed. (Save Round Valley Alliance v. County of Inyo (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1437, 1448-1449.) II. Transportation A. Data from Unreliable Source Leading to False Conclusion On page 7-30 of the DEIR, we discover a serious “self-reporting” problem that negates some of the critical data relied upon in the DEIR. It refers us to the W-TRANS (WT) traffic engineer report as the basis for its transportation conclusions. WT relied completely on reports 6 from Castilleja for important conclusions without independently verifying the information. For example, on page 34 of the WT, it indicates that to figure out how far away employees and students live from the school campus, it obtained zip codes from Castilleja. It then came to the conclusion, based on the self-reported information that the average distance from home to school for all employees and students is 7.69 miles. That conclusion defies common sense given that we already know that no more than 25% of the students live in Palo Alto and employees likely live in communities less expensive than Palo Alto and its environs. Just getting around Palo Alto, which is spread out, would involve for most people driving more than 7.29 to and from the school. WT should have independently audited the school’s student directory. If privacy was an issue, it should have asked the planner to delete the names and phone numbers of those listed in the directory. A list of employee addresses similarly should have been provided to the planner. Also, WT would have been in a position to know what to do about divorced parents, which can skew data because one parent may live in Palo Alto and the other, with custody of the child, may live in another city quite far away from Palo Alto. Leaving the decisions to the school, with an obvious desire to show that it is not causing a negative traffic impact around the school and the city, defies logic. The conclusion that the project “would contribute less than 0.001% of the existing citywide [vehicle miles traveled]” is not supported by competent evidence and is no more than the product of what Castilleja wants the decision-makers to believe. WT needs to obtain “clean” and objective data from its own auditing before concluding how may daily trips and associated VMT will be related to the proposed project. (DEIR 7-30.) CEQA requires more than obtaining biased information from a project applicant that then leads to obviously erroneous expert opinions as occurred here. The use of zip codes acquired from the school does not meet the essential requirement for substantial evidence to support the WT opinions: Substantial evidence is not “[a]rgument, speculation, unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous. . . Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts.” (Pub. Resources Code, § 21082.2, subd. (c); Guidelines, § 15384; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1198.) B. No Showing of Infeasibility Justifying “Significant and Unavoidable” Conclusion On page 18 of the WT report, it concludes that the loss of service (LOS) is acceptable at all intersections except: Embarcadero Road Spur/Alma Street, westbound Embarcadero Road during a.m. peak hours (LOS F) and westbound Alma Street/Kingsley Street. Westbound Kingsley approach operates at LOS F during a.m. and p.m. peak hours and LOS E during school p.m. peak hours. On pages 7-37 et seq., the DEIR describes why these impacts would be “significant and unavoidable.” However, there is no showing that it would be infeasible to reduce the school’s 7 impact on the traffic at these intersections. Instead, the DEIR argues that if there were no project, the intersections would still fail the City’s requirement to keep delays at intersections such that they do not fall within LOS’s of E or F. The DEIR misses the point – there can be mitigations to prevent further environmental negative impacts from the project. CEQA requires public agencies to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if “there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures” that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. (Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission (1997) 16 Cal.4th 105, 134 [“The Legislature finds and declares that it is the policy of the state that public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or feasible mitigation measures available which would substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of such projects ...”].) The CEQA Guidelines define the term “feasible” as “capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364, italics added.) The emphasis is on lessening the impact of the project on the environment, not just compliance with a city policy, as argued by the DEIR. Here, there are mitigation measures available that would reduce the school’s impact not just on the intersections listed above, but on all of the traffic surrounding the school. However, the transportation design management plan (TDM) produced by Nelson/Nygard and relied upon in the DEIR is woefully insufficient and badly outdated for controlling private school traffic, especially in instances where there has been a history of use permit noncompliance. This author has seen many of these Nelson/Nygard recommendations for private schools and they all rely on voluntary steps, insufficient independent monitoring, no fine system or ineffective fine systems, and self-reporting by the school as to compliance. Currently, cities have turned to much more effective mitigation systems. Andie Reed has provided the use permits for several of these cities. One example is Archer School for Girls in Southern California (Archer). The City required Archer to have 80% of its traffic arrive by bus, bike, or walking. The use permit includes other effective mitigations such as prohibiting students from driving to school. Very few schools think it is a good idea to have teenagers driving to school and the license requirements pretty much restrict driving a car without an adult to seniors, in any event. Teenagers carpooling with one of them driving the car? What could possibly go wrong?! The student who has an after school job? If the job is not close enough to the home that the student needs to drive, then that student is not one eligible for admission to the school and needs to either change jobs or find a school closer to home. In section II.D, we discuss the proposed mitigations in more detail. C. Unrealistic 14 Seconds per Car Discharge from the Garage Beginning on page 7-32, the DEIR discusses the problem of cars lining up (“queuing”) on the street, interfering with the flow of traffic as they wait to enter the garage to drop off or pick up students. The estimates are based on a very unrealistic 14 seconds for each car to leave the 8 garage, which assumes that each drop off or pick up is timed rather evenly and occurs quickly, a bad assumption: W-Trans conducted a sensitivity test to determine the slowest service rate that could accommodate the expected demand given the size of the proposed vehicle stacking area [in the garage]. Through this sensitivity test, it was determined that a service rate of approximately one vehicle discharged every 14 seconds [from the garage] would result in an average of 7.9 vehicles per lane in the queue and would have a low probability (4.3%) of exceeding eight vehicles in the queue at any point during the drop-off period. (WT, p. 7-33.) The problem, of course, is that we are dealing with children, not widgets on a manufacturing line with mechanical robots controlling it. The 14 second discharge rate is dependent on no children (or parents) having a “meltdown” as they get in or out of the car, no parent, nanny, or other driver on their first trip to the school being slow to figure out how the garage works, no problem getting a student’s huge and fragile project in or out of the car, no student suddenly remembering she left something in a classroom and running back to get it, no traffic monitors calling in sick during flu season, etc. The chances of this 14 second discharge rate going right are .7% (5% minus 4.3%) before hitting the statistical “not okay” level: Probabilities of 5-percent or less are generally considered to be acceptable. Through this process, it was determined that the successful operation of the drop- off lanes would rely on the quick discharge of vehicles at a rate no slower than 14 seconds per vehicle during peak periods, or about four vehicles per minute. Discharge rates which are slower than this would increase the probability that the queue would exceed the available queue length of the drop-off lanes during the peak periods. (WT, p. 7-33.) The DEIR presents a sad picture of what happens when the 14 second discharge rate is not met - the queue backs up and then interferes with everyone behind it having to sit and wait to either get out of driveways, proceed to work, or enter the garage. The delay will generally cause parents to skip the garage for a quicker and more efficient way to drop off or pick up the students. In this author’s past experience reviewing planning problems with private schools, this means letting the child out of the car a block or two away from the school while the traffic waits. Pick up is a product of today’s smart phone – the child goes down the street and texts her parent with the location while the parent drives around the neighborhood, tying up traffic, and waiting for the text. Then, the pickup location is anywhere except where it is supposed to occur, again tying up traffic. The solution is to implement the Archer use permit mitigation with enforcement. The DEIR should consider restricting the number of students and employees to no more than 20% allowed to bring a car to the campus. That mitigation should be included in any use permit regardless of whether the City Council grants a permit for the current number of students with changes to the campus or adds students. The streets around the school are exceedingly narrow and not designed 9 to carry the amount of traffic that the school generates now. The width of the streets, as it impacts traffic, is completely overlooked by the DEIR and needs to also be addressed. As shown below, the mitigations contained in the DEIR are ridiculously ineffective. D. The DEIR Failed to Consider Alternatives and Effective Mitigations On page 1-14, the DEIR summarizes the possible project impacts, mitigations, and whether the mitigations reduce the environmental impacts to “less than significant.” As to traffic impacts, the DEIR lists the following: “7-1 Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel.” It lists the following list of mitigations: Mitigation Measure 7a:Castilleja School shall implement the proposed enhanced Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce the number of project-related trips by between 12 and 22 percent. As described in the TDM plan (Appendix B), this is expected to include: 1.late afternoon shuttle departures 2.off-site drop-off/pick-up area 3.expanded carpool/trip planning program 4.additional off-site parking 5.parking/carpool incentives program for employees 6.alternative transportation information 7.bike tune-up day and on-site repair stations 8.Guaranteed Ride Home program 9.on-site car or bike sharing program 10.provide transit passes 11.mandatory ridesharing 12.other TDM measures developed by Castilleja in coordination with the City of Palo Alto (City), including the monitoring and enforcement provisions identified in Appendix B.In addition, Castilleja School shall modify the proposed enhanced TDM plan to include the following 13.educating staff, students, and families regarding the importance of an efficient and safe student drop-off operation to prevent excessive queuing in the garage, 14.conduct ongoing monitoring of drop-off lane discharge rates and ingress and egress queues; 15.if vehicle queues are causing spillover into the public right of way on Bryant Street, modify the drop-off procedures and TDM program to include greater staggering of bell schedules or other strategies that would decrease vehicle trips or otherwise spread out the number of peak hour vehicle trips accessing the underground garage; 16.Provide bicycle safety education for students, parents, and staff to encourage students and staff to ride bicycles to and from school; and 17.Host school-wide bicycle encouragement events (such as competitions, incentives, and other fun events) to support biking, walking, carpooling, and transit use so that the school community understands that active transportation is a community-held value. 10 The DEIR concludes that even with these mitigations, the traffic impacts of the project would still be “significant and unavoidable.” Presumably, it is referencing the two intersections that would remain LOS of E and F, although this is not made clear in the DEIR. As to the rest of the traffic impacts, the DEIR fails to consider alternatives, including restricting the number of cars that may come to the campus as described above and as implemented by Archer. It also does not consider the alternative of a split campus with one part of the school in another location as suggested by neighbors, or splitting the school according to those studying online and those on campus (an example of online education can be found at Stanford Online in Palo Alto.) Once the DEIR admitted that the project would have a significant adverse impact on traffic, it was then legally required to describe, evaluate and ultimately adopt feasible mitigation measures which would “mitigate or avoid” those impacts. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21002.1, subd. (b); see also, Guidelines, §§ 15126.4, subd. (a)(1), 15091.) Instead, the DEIR lists a handful of mitigation measures that could go into a TDM, with no description, evaluation or any details, improperly leaving it to the City to figure out later which of these measures would mitigate or avoid the traffic impacts. The EIR points to a traffic report by Nelson/Nygard with no analysis within the EIR of the effectiveness of the proposed mitigations, in violation of CEQA. “Formulation of mitigation measures should not be deferred until some future time.” (Guidelines, § 15126.4(a)(1)(b).) An EIR is inadequate if “[t]he success or failure of mitigation efforts ... may largely depend upon management plans that have not yet been formulated, and have not been subject to analysis and review within the EIR.” (San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v. County of Merced (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 645, 670.) Deciding later on which mitigations will be successful is “analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA. [Citations.]” (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307, 248 Cal.Rptr. 352 (Sundstrom ).) There are situations where mitigation measures can be deferred and traffic impacts is one of them. However, there are strict limitations on when and how a DEIR can defer those mitigation measures: [F]or kinds of impacts for which mitigation is known to be feasible, but where practical considerations prohibit devising such measures early in the planning process ..., the agency can commit itself to eventually devising measures that will satisfy specific performance criteria articulated at the time of project approval. Where future action to carry a project forward is contingent on devising means to satisfy such criteria, the agency should be able to rely on its commitment as evidence that significant impacts will in fact be mitigated.... [Citation.]” (Sacramento Old City Assn. v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028– 1029 (SOCA ).) (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92 11 (Communities).) The court of appeal has limited deferral of definite mitigation measures for purposes such as addressing traffic impacts as long as the EIR gives “the lead agency a choice of which measure to adopt, so long as the measures are coupled with specific and mandatory performance standards to ensure that the measures, as implemented, will be effective.” (Ibid.) In SOCA, supra, 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, Sacramento prepared an EIR which identified potentially significant traffic and parking impacts resulting from the proposed project, the expansion of a downtown convention center and the construction of a nearby office building. (Id. at p. 1015.) The draft EIR discussed possible mitigations and alternatives like providing onsite parking and constructing garages, but unlike here, it also included a specific performance requirement that the overall parking utilization should not exceed 90 percent. The SOCA court found that it was not feasible to select the exact mitigation measures to be implemented prior to project approval because the city had provided funding for a “major study of downtown transportation” that would help in defining the final mitigation plan. (Id. at p. 1029.) Based on SOCA, the DEIR here can legally only defer the formulation of specific mitigation measures after the City, as lead agency: “(1) under[takes] a complete analysis of the significance of the environmental impact, (2) propose[s] potential mitigation measures early in the planning process, and (3) articulate[s] specific performance criteria that would ensure that adequate mitigation measures [will be] eventually implemented.” Communities, supra, 184 Cal.App.4th at p. 95.) Here, the DEIR fails to articulate any performance criteria that would ensure adequate mitigation of the traffic impacts. Instead, it references reducing school trips by between 12 and 22 percent with no explanation as to how it arrived at that figure or why such a small reduction would stop the interference with the flow of traffic or shorten waiting parents in a queue. It then follows with vague mitigations such as “alternative transportation information,” “mandatory ridesharing” with no information as to who is doing the ride sharing, “conduct ongoing monitoring” with no indication as to who is monitoring what, and it absurdly includes that if the traffic mitigations do not work, “modify the drop-off procedures in the TDM to include greater staggering of bell schedules . . .” or other strategies to decrease vehicle trips. The deferral of mitigation measures also offers no assurance that the mitigation measures will even be implemented. For example, all of the proposed mitigation measures are nothing more than voluntary steps that the school can take, assuming it feels like it. It can monitor its own traffic and institute various programs if it wishes. Even guaranteed ride sharing is so vague that it is unlikely to ever be implemented. Moreover, there is no realization in the DEIR that it is dealing with a private school which, unlike public schools, generates its money from parents paying tuition. As such, it is not in the school’s financial interest to impose fines and compulsory measures on its parent customers, who may react by going to a competitor private school. 12 The DEIR section on transportation needs to be redrafted with specific and enforceable mitigation measures and an articulated performance measure. An example would be car counting by an outside traffic engineer, and a fine that the school must pay for each car that goes over the maximum allowable number of cars entering the neighborhood for drop off and pick up. Also, specified rules in the DEIR for parents and employees on where they can park with periodic audits by the independent traffic engineer. The audit would include checking for license plates of parents or employees that are parked around the neighborhood instead of in the designated area for parking. Another example would be a mitigation measure that requires every parent to sign the school’s contract with a specific transportation plan for his or her child and that includes use of public transportation, the school’s shuttle service, or a combination of both (kiss and ride.) There should be a mitigation requiring the school to prohibit any students driving to school. The independent traffic engineer, chosen by the city and paid for by the school, would review the traffic portion of the contracts to make sure that there is compliance with the mitigation measures. The DEIR mitigation measures also need to cover events with a specific performance standard and feasible measures to reduce the traffic impacts on the neighborhood and the public. III. Biological Resources - Trees The DEIR does not discuss biological resources as a separate category. Therefore, there is no separate discussion regarding what environmental impacts will occur to the many trees that will be impacted by the project. (See section I.A., above for discussion about the magnitude of the project’s impacts on trees.) Instead, the DEIR represents, under “Land Use and Planning” that the project presents Significant impacts because it will: “4-1Conflict with land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.” The DEIR contends that mitigation measure 4b will reduce the lack of consistency impact to Less than Significant. Mitigation measure 4b contains a series of steps that a construction arborist will take to supervise and to create protections zones for the trees that will remain during construction. Essentially, the mitigation puts off to the future a plan to preserve the trees protected under the city’s ordinance. The plan would be presented to the city by the school’s arborist, but that deprives the decision-makers and the public from fully vetting that plan, and is disallowed under CEQA: By deferring environmental assessment to a future date, the conditions run counter to CEQA's policy which requires environmental review at the earliest feasible stage in the planning process. [T]he environmental impact should be assessed as early as possible in government planning. Environmental problems should be considered at a point in the planning process where genuine flexibility remains. A study conducted after approval of a project will inevitably have a diminished influence on decision making. Even if the study is subject to administrative approval, it is analogous to the sort of post hoc rationalization of agency actions that has been repeatedly condemned in decisions construing CEQA. 13 (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307 - citations and quotation marks omitted.) The DEIR relies on the reports from Mr. Bench, an arborist, to support its conclusions about tree preservation. However, the reliance is misplaced because of serious deficiencies and misrepresentations in the reports. Most significantly, Mr. Bench misrepresents or overlooks many of the construction and project impacts in his discussion about preserving the root systems for the remaining and relocated trees. The court of appeal has rejected the same approach in Lotus v. Department of Transportation (2014) 223 Cal.App.4th 645 (Lotus). While the EIR in that case provided far more detail than here concerning the exact depths and widths of the areas around redwood trees where construction would occur, it did not include “any information that enables the reader to evaluate the significance of these [construction] impacts.” (Id. at p. 654.) The EIR in Lotus relied on the State Parks Natural Resources Handbook which had information about safeguarding protected trees when planning for construction and which the arborist relied on. However, the EIR itself never referenced or applied the standards in that handbook. Here, the DEIR failed to explain to the decision-makers the differences between its mitigation measure and the real eventual outcomes for the trees. It does not indicate how mitigation measure 4b will result in compliance with the tree ordinance. In some circumstances, the DEIR proposes relocating trees into conditions that will cause them to expire. In others, the construction of the project itself will destroy trees that are supposed to remain. The lack of information then precludes consideration in the DEIR of other alternatives, all of which is unacceptable under CEQA: The two expert opinions cited in the EIR, both of which conclude that the project will have no significant impact on the root health of the redwoods, suffer from the same deficiency. Both fail to discuss the significance of the environmental impacts apart from the proposed “avoidance, minimization and/or mitigation measures” and thus fail to consider whether other possible mitigation measures would be more effective. (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 657.) The neighbors retained David Dockter, an arborist for over 30 years and the Planning Arborist for the City of Palo Alto from 1997 to 2017. We have submitted Mr. Dockter’s expert report in which he peer-reviewed the DEIR, the plans that include tree information, and Mr. Bench’s various reports. In Mr. Dockter’s report, he discusses the failure of the Bench reports to consider that multiple trees, both remaining and relocated, will be jeopardized by the proposed project. For example, on page 5 of his report, he lists specific areas of the project that interfere with protected trees. While the protection zones recommended by Mr. Bench were, in some cases, adequate, the plans override the zone because aspects of the project are too close to the trees or their relocation sites. On page 9 of his report, Mr. Dockter gives examples of several oak trees whose survival depends on whether the city grants a variance so that the garage setback can 14 encroach into the sidewalk. The DEIR does not discuss how the project will preserve the trees if the city grants the encroachment variance. It has not served its informational function as required under CEQA. Mr. Doctkter states in his report that, like Lotus, the DEIR needs to discuss how the project can be altered to preserve the trees, not just how the project will remove or relocate the trees. Before the DEIR considers mitigation measures, it needs to separately identify and analyze the potential impacts to the protected trees. As in Lotus, the DEIR has the same failings: The failure of the EIR to separately identify and analyze the significance of the impacts to the root zones of old growth redwood trees before proposing mitigation measures is not merely a harmless procedural failing. . . . [T]his shortcutting of CEQA requirements subverts the purposes of CEQA by omitting material necessary to informed decisionmaking and informed public participation. It precludes both identification of potential environmental consequences arising from the project and also thoughtful analysis of the sufficiency of measures to mitigate those consequences. (Lotus, supra, 223 Cal.App.4th at p. 658.) While we cannot summarize all of Mr. Dockter’s 11-page report, there are two points that he makes which are legally significant. One deals with the lack of consistency between the city’s ordinances, which I discuss in another section, infra, and the other relates to misrepresentations in the Bench reports and as a result, in the DEIR. In the seminal case, Berkeley Keep Jets Over the Bay Committee v. Board of Port Com’rs (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 1344, 1371, the appellate court dealt with misrepresentations in an EIR and ordered a new supplemental EIR: In summary, the defects disclosed by the record in the EIR’s treatment of TACs are substantial. The Port’s response fell far short of the “good faith reasoned analysis” mandated by CEQA for responding to significant conflicting information generated by the public. Much information of vital interest to the decision makers and to the public pertaining to toxic air contamination was simply omitted. In other instances, the information provided was either incomplete or misleading. The dispute in this regard goes beyond a disagreement of qualified experts over the reasoned conclusions as to what the data reveals. The EIR failed to acknowledge the opinions of responsible agencies and experts who cast substantial doubt on the adequacy of the EIR’s analysis of this subject. The conclusory and evasive nature of the response to comments is pervasive, with the EIR failing to support its many conclusory statements by scientific or objective data. These violations of CEQA constitute an abuse of discretion. In his report, Mr. Dockter cited several misrepresentations in the DEIR and Mr. Bench’s reports. For example, between preparing his reports, Mr. Bench downgraded the condition for 15 two oak trees, #102 and #104, which are conspicuously in the way of a proposed building and parking garage. (Dockter report, p. 4.) The DEIR ignored the true nature of the project’s components by not considering that footprints for structures will increase when trade practices and uniform building code requirements are factored into how close these structures will be to remaining or relocated trees. Thus, trees will be closer to these new structures, and there is more danger of damaging their root systems. (Dockter report, p. 8.) Before issuance of the DEIR and Bench reports, three years had elapsed between measuring the trees and release of these two documents. The DEIR failed to re-measure the trees that three years’ prior had been close to reaching the “protected tree” status given their size.) (Dockter report, p. 3.) These and other misrepresentations and omissions mentioned by Mr. Dockter require a new DEIR. Architect Heinrich also commented in her letter that the construction of underground utilities and structures “are in direct conflict with tree roots and canopies, and the salvaging of trees, temporary storage, and replanting work is untenable.” She describes one tree, #89, a 50" diameter oak as being retained. However, the tree roots will be “killed by the underground construction of the swimming pool, the underground utilities, the fire truck access lane, and the new electrical transformer.” The DEIR fails to notice the problems the architect and the arborist have described in their reports. The assumption just seems to be that “it doesn’t matter if we lose protected trees to make a private school larger.” That attitude is inconsistent with the purposes of an EIR, and it is also incompatible with how Palo Alto has designed its Comp Plan and tree protection ordinance, as discussed, infra. IV. Noise The DEIR identified several potential noise sources as “potentially significant.” The sources were from loudspeaker(s) located at the swimming pool and from construction. The proposed mitigation measures required the school to obtain a technical report addressing these problems. In that case, there would be no input to decision-makers whether the outdoor swimming pool should be permitted in the first place or whether the location of it needed to be changed to avoid impacting the neighbors. As stated above, using mitigation measures to put off until a later time addressing environmental impacts does not comply with CEQA. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307.) The DEIR relied upon the report of acoustics expert, Mr. Salter. On two occasions, I informed the city planner in emails that his report is stamped “Draft” and requested from the planner the backup data to support his report: From: Leila H. Moncharsh [mailto:101550@msn.com] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2019 12:47 PM To: French, Amy Subject: Appendix F Dear Amy, 16 The DEIR is relying on Appendix F for its conclusions. However, Appendix F is a report from Mr. Salter and it is stamped "DRAFT." Could you please forward and post Mr. Salter's final report and his back-up data? That would include his sound recordings and any other data he relied on in his report. Thanks, Leila From: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 5:07:44 PM To: Leila H. Moncharsh <101550@msn.com> Subject: RE: Appendix F Leila, I forwarded your request to our consultant. Dudek did a peer review of the Salter report. In addition, Dudek measured noise levels in January 2017 to verify the accuracy of the Salter report. Our consultant notes the document in Appendix F is the Final version (it just didn’t get re- labeled). I have not seen any backup data (monitor output; this was not attached to the Salter report - we can request this from Salter). Noise level readings are measurements and not sound recordings - the consultants don’t record the noise itself. From: Leila H. Moncharsh Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 7:54 PM To: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Re: Appendix F Yes, I know what the decibel readout looks like. I am just annoyed they were not provided to you with what we know now is the final acoustic report. Can you make sure Dudek gives you backup data for all the reports? They should already have done that. Thanks. Sigh, Leila I again reminded the city planner about the missing data and about another matter. There was no reply: From: Leila H. Moncharsh Sent: Saturday, August 24, 2019 4:15 PM To: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Transportation and Noise Hi Amy, I am still waiting for the backup data supporting Salter's report. Any progress? Also, do you have 17 it in writing from him that where his report is stamped “Draft” it is really his final. If I were you, I would not let that go. He should submit his final report for this DEIR. I have dealt with him in the past, and know that he can be curmudgeonly but so can I! There is supposed to be a final report supporting the noise section of the DEIR. The noise section of the DEIR relied on Mr. Salter’s report. The public was entitled to see the backup data for it, and the request was refused. That the DEIR preparer did sound recordings in 2017 did not make up for the fact that the city did not provide the data so that a member of the public could have his or her acoustics expert review it. Thus, there was no substantial evidence to support the noise conclusions in the DEIR. (State Water Resources Control B. Cases (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 674, 723.) Despite the limitations of having no backup data for the DEIR conclusions, a neighbor obtained a peer review of what was provided. Not surprisingly, the peer review pointed out various deficiencies in Mr. Salter’s draft report and the DEIR. Mr. Steve Ambrose is an acoustics expert, who began working in his field in 1976. In his report, dated September 12, 2019, he opined that the DEIR included “boilerplate text” instead of a present, relevant discussion of the project’s noise impacts. He faulted the DEIR for not relying on the city’s noise ordinance and not demonstrating to the decision-makers where noise impacts were likely to occur during construction. He included that the DEIR should “be concise and clearly written identifying residential properties where the school can comply with the ordinance, comply with the mitigation(s), or cannot comply.” (Ambrose report, p. 5.) The Noise analysis does not meet the informational requirements for the decision-makers and the public to know what noise impacts will occur from the project and what mitigation measures will potentially reduce the impacts to “less than significant.” V. Land Use and Planning The DEIR contends that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the city’s ordinances. It gets to this conclusion through convoluted thinking, misrepresentations, and by just ignoring the content of both documents. For example, it confuses “goals” with “policies,” only the latter of which are legally enforceable. Then, it arrives at irrelevant policies. For example, “Policy L-1.1: Maintain and prioritize Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities.” How can this one even conceivably be relevant given that the neighborhood is not in an area with commercial and public facilities? Castilleja is not a public facility; it is a private school. (DEIR, p. 4-4.) The next two policies also do not fit this neighborhood or the proposed project. The project does not preserve open space. This project is not “infill” and had it been, the city would have asserted a CEQA exemption. It is a private school that is obviously out of scale and size with its residential neighbors. (DEIR, p. 4-4.) The DEIR then continues with an attempt to “sell” this project, instead of providing an accurate and objective analysis of where the project fails to meet the comprehensive plan and where it meets it. The letters from experts who have commented on 18 the DEIR soundly refute the “sales” job. In his report, Mr. Dockter points out the inconsistency of the project with the Comp Plan. Because of the poor survival prognosis of the many trees related to the proposed project, the project violates the following Comp Plan policies: Policy N-2.1: If the city grants the requested permits it would violate the policy to “recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the city’s natural and green infrastructure.” Policy N-2.6: The proposed project does not comply with the duty to “improve the overall citywide canopy cover, so that neighborhoods in all areas of Palo Alto enjoy the benefits of a healthy urban canopy.” Policy N-2.9: The proposed project will cause a great deal of unnecessary and tragic loss of trees. It does not comply with the requirement that it “minimize removal of, and damage to, trees due to construction-related activities such as trenching, excavation, soil compacting and release of toxins.” Policy N-2.10: The proposed project violates the policy to “preserve and protect regulated trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto.” Mr. Dockter also points out inconsistencies between the project and the city’s tree protection ordinance. The mitigation measure 4b “does not legally justify removal of protected trees.” He comments that there is nothing in the ordinance that would permit their removal. Not only has the DEIR misapplied the Comp Plan and the city’s tree protection ordinance, but it also advocates that the decision-makers ignore both of them in the interests of approving the permits. Selling the project is not a function of an EIR. It is charged with objectively informing the decision-makers about the inconsistencies. Moreover, it is illegal for a city to grant permits for a project if to do so violates the city’s own Comp Plan. “A project is consistent with the general plan ‘ “if, considering all its aspects, it will further the objectives and policies of the general plan and not obstruct their attainment.” ’ [Citation.] A given project need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general plan policy. [Citation.] To be consistent, a subdivision development must be ‘compatible with’ the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the general plan.” (Families Unafraid to Uphold Rural El Dorado County v. El Dorado County Bd. of Sup’rs (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1332, 1336.) One of the significant problems with the project is that the city planner has called out two variances, which are rarely if ever, granted by any city. The first one is for the floor area ratio (FAR). 19 / A. Requested Variance for A Combined Building of 84,572 Square Feet Ms. Heinrich, an architect, describes the calculations in her comment letter of September 5, 2019: In the DEIR Chapter 3, there is a request for a variance for the Floor Area Ratio (FAR). Table 3-1 notes that the existing FAR is .43 and that the “final conditions” FAR is .40. Table 4-2 notes that the proposed FAR is .41 (not .40) and the allowable FAR is .30. The calculations provided are in conflict and there is a critical need for these to be recalculated and resubmitted. First and foremost since the merger of the three parcels for the project has not been approved, the FAR for the existing school needs to be calculated with just the one parcel to accurately portray the existing condition. Also in Chapter 3, the variance for the underground garage is requested. However, if that variance is granted, then the area of the underground garage for the FAR needs to be counted, per PAMC Section 18.12.60(e). Assuming that the square footages in the DEIR are accurate, the actual FAR is 115,849 sf plus 50,500 for the underground garage divided by 286,783 (of the three combined parcels) for a final FAR of .58. This is almost twice what is allowed per PAMC Section 18.12.040. The history of the requested variance is that on March 22, 2018, Castilleja applied for a variance that would facilitate demolishing five existing buildings and then combining the square footage of those five demolished buildings into one new large building. The school believes that the city planner’s decision to require a variance is due to “unintended consequences because the floor area ratio” will exceed the current FAR for residential properties in the R-1 zone. It argues that the construction of the 84,572 square foot building is necessary because the older buildings it wishes to demolish cannot be brought up to today’s green and seismic building standards. Further, the community will receive benefits because the single structure will allow for a half- acre community park and a public bike pavilion. Castilleja also argues that historically, the city has granted permits for Castilleja’s requests to develop its property as it wishes. Therefore, reasons Castilleja, the city should issue a variance now and continue allowing Castilleja to develop its property as it pleases. The city planning department is requiring a variance because the square footage of the proposed new large building violates the zoning code. The five buildings Castilleja wishes to demolish were constructed on the school property before Palo Alto adopted a particular type of density restriction into its zoning code. The FAR is a measure of the total permitted floor area of a building, to the total area of the lot on which it will stand: gross floor area of all floors of the building / Area of the building lot = FAR. The use of the FAR calculation was incorporated into city zoning codes during the 20th century as a way for cities to control rapid growth. Today, city planners use it for restricting planning permissions, setting a limit on the “load factor” generated by new developments, beyond which the proposed project may place undue stress on a city and its public infrastructure. The calculation also allows cities to control the density of use in given 20 zones. By containing the size of a building on a given lot, the FAR restriction allows the city to limit the number of persons who will be using that building. It appears that the five buildings Castilleja wishes to demolish would not be permitted today without a variance because their square footage would violate the current zoning code FAR for the zone where the school is located. Combining the square footage of all the five buildings Castilleja wishes to demolish and placing the square footage all in one huge building does not prevent the need for a variance from the FAR restriction. It would just convert five small buildings into one huge, very institutional appearing building, in the middle of a single-family residential neighborhood. The DEIR argues that the grant of variances for the FAR irregularity and allowing the garage to encroach into the sidewalk will reduce the inconsistency between the project and the zoning code to less-than-significant. However, it overlooks that variances are not given out like Halloween candy to everyone who would like to have some. There are strict legal requirements and the DEIR does not show how the project qualifies. B. The DEIR Has Failed to Demonstrate That Castilleja Is Entitled to A Variance The city code provides that variance permits are intended to address unique constraints that would make it a hardship for the developer to comply with the zoning code restrictions: The purpose of a variance is to: (1) Provide a way for a site with special physical constraints, resulting from natural or built features, to be used in ways similar to other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district; and (2) Provide a way to grant relief when strict application of the zoning regulations would subject development of a site to substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. (Section 18.76.030) No particular physical constraints or hardships are preventing the campus from being used in ways similar to other sites such that it would qualify for a variance from the zoning FAR restriction. Therefore, Castilleja is not entitled to the grant of one. a. There are no unique physical constraints on the Castilleja campus Castilleja argues that it meets the criteria because it has a unique history. It built its structures before the city’s adoption of the zoning code with FAR density restrictions. After the passage of the zoning code, the city allowed the school to build and remodel structures in 21 compliance with a conditional use permit but did not enforce the FAR restriction. Further, the FAR applies to residential properties, not institutions. (3/22/18 Letter from Castilleja’s attorney, page 2.) However, the burden was on the DEIR and Castilleja to show that its physical constraints due to natural or built features prevented it from being used in ways similar to other sites in the same vicinity or zoning district. (Walnut Acres Neighborhood Assn. v. City of Los Angeles (2015) 235 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1313-1315 (Walnut Acres).) The city historically allowing Castilleja to construct larger buildings than would be permitted today does not meet that test. b. There is no showing that castilleja would suffer a substantial hardship without a variance Castilleja contends that if the city denied a variance from the FAR restriction, it would disproportionally constrain Castilleja’s property compared to other parcels in the vicinity. (Letter, page 3.) The DEIR is silent on this issue. The zoning regulations are designed to restrict the use of properties. Whether they do so disproportionately is not relevant to the legal requirement that the applicant demonstrates “substantial hardship” to qualify for a variance. For example, hardship is something that would prevent profitability. Walnut Acres, supra, is instructive. In that case, the developer applied for permits to build a 50,289 square foot eldercare facility in a low- density residential neighborhood, similar to the one surrounding Castilleja. The Los Angeles zoning code restricted the FAR to 12,600 square feet. The developer argued that the growing demand for senior care was so great that if it reduced the square footage to comply with the zoning code, it could only provide 16 rooms instead of 60 rooms and thus, would deprive Los Angeles of needed senior services. The city council granted the variance requested by the developer and the neighborhood association filed a lawsuit. The superior court ruled in favor of the neighbors and set aside the permit. The court of appeal rejected the property owner’s reasons for its appeal because there was no substantial evidence of a hardship: There was no evidence that a facility with 16 rooms could not be profitable. Eldercare homes apparently include small homes with four to 10 beds, according to the zoning administrator's report. There was no evidence that necessary support services demanded additional rooms in order to generate a profit. Just as in Stolman v. City of Los Angeles, supra, 114 Cal.Appage4th at page 926, there was no “information from which it [could] be determined whether the profit [was] so low as to amount to ‘unnecessary hardship’” (Walnut Acres, supra, at page 1315.) Like the developer in Walnut Acres, Castilleja submits no evidence that if it is required to construct buildings on its property that comply with the FAR restriction, it will become unprofitable or that running a private school, of necessity requires larger structures than the FAR limitation would allow. Accordingly, it has not demonstrated that it will suffer “substantial hardships, constraints, or practical difficulties that do not normally arise on other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district.” (Zoning Code Section 18.76.030.) Accordingly, the city council should deny Castilleja’s request for a variance to construct an 84,572 square foot structure. The DEIR should have included an analysis of the inconsistency between the project’s request for variances and the city code sections that discussed the criteria for granting them. 22 Otherwise, the “less-than-significant” claim made in the DEIR is specious. There also is no showing by the school or the DEIR that the FAR would only apply to residences and not to institutions. Typically, the city would apply the FAR limitation to the institution’s location. We expect that the FAR applicable to institutions in downtown Palo Alto or its industrial area would be more flexible for an institution wishing to build there than a FAR that applies to single-family zones. There is nothing in Castilleja’s argument or in the DEIR that shows complying with the current FAR would prevent the school from using its property due to physical or natural constraints, which do not exist for other similar properties. Nor does it show that compliance with the FAR restriction would create a hardship that would not apply to other institutions in the same zone and vicinity. The school’s problem is that it wants to re-arrange its structures so that it can accommodate a much higher enrollment than what it has now, but that is the very reason for the FAR restriction - to prevent a high level of density incompatible with the institution’s surrounding neighborhood. Without the variance requirement, and just relying on the existing conditional use permit for density, as the school would prefer, the school would be able to keep seeking modifications of its conditional use permit for more enrollment. The variance requirement prevents the school from building its property to accommodate unfettered growth that depends on the “politics of the day.” Instead, the variance restriction relates to the city’s interest in not having the project site use excessive city resources, to the detriment of the overall, surrounding infrastructure maintained by the city. For example, the larger the allowable density, the more people who can be on the campus. That means more cars parking on the streets, more traffic for students and employees on city streets, and more city services to maintain those streets, provide protection, arrange for garbage disposal, and the like. It is not in the city’s interest to grant a variance. Furthermore, the city council does not have the factual or legal basis for making the findings for granting a variance. The DEIR should have discussed this aspect of the school’s request for variances. C. The City Council Does Not Have a Basis for the Findings Necessary to Grant a Variance The zoning code only allows the city council to grant an application for a variance by making specific findings. It would have to find, in relevant part, all of the following: 1. That there are special physical circumstances that exist on the property which would cause the strict application of the FAR to deprive Castilleja of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and the same zoning district as Castilleja’s property; 2. That the special personal circumstances peculiar to Castilleja does not form any consideration for granting a variance; 3. That the granting of the application would not affect substantial compliance with the 23 zoning regulations; 4. That the grant of a variance will not constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property; 5. That the granting of the variance is consistent with the General Plan; and 6. That the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. (Section 18.12.030, subd. (c).) 1. There are no unique physical circumstances that exist on Castilleja’s property which would cause the strict application of the FAR to deprive Castilleja of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and the same zoning district as Castilleja’s property On page 3 of the school’s Letter, it correctly states that the school’s parcel is different from the parcels with housing because it is much larger in square feet, but that is irrelevant when determining whether a variance would grant a privilege to Castilleja that is not enjoyed by other property in the same zone and vicinity. Castilleja had the burden to list properties in the same zone and vicinity where the city has granted the privilege of exceeding the FAR. It has failed to do so. For that reason alone, the city council should deny the application for a variance. Castilleja relies on several cases to support its position that in considering whether to grant a variance, it should look at the “disparities between properties, not the treatment of any individual property’s characteristics in the abstract.” (Letter, page 4.) That is true but is out of context. A city can properly grant a variance when strict enforcement of the FAR restriction would prevent safety problems or a property owner from enjoying the same amenities enjoyed by owners of properties in the same zone and vicinity. For example, in Eskeland v. City of Del Mar (2014) 224 Cal.App.4th 936, cited by Castilleja, the appellate court upheld the grant of a variance, keeping in mind that other houses in the same area were able to build with amenities that the property owner wanted to include in his rebuilt home. The variance application requested a variance from the setback zoning restriction so that the owner of a house could rebuild it on a very steep hillside. The city based its decision to grant a variance because the steepness of the hill restricted its development potential. Unlike Castilleja, the property owner demonstrated that without a variance, he could not construct a house with the same amenities as other houses within the same area. The lack of a variance would restrict him to build a house that would adversely impact the steep slope and landform. Also, if the city denied the variance, the driveway to the house would be “very steep and dangerous.” (Id. at 952.) 24 In Save Hollywood Specific Plan v. City of Los Angeles (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 1168, another case cited by Castilleja, the appellate court upheld the grant of a variance from the three- foot setback requirement and the height restriction because there was an adequate showing of substantial hardship if the city had denied it. The property owner had constructed a wooden fence on top of a 1920s historic masonry wall, instead of three feet back from the wall. (Id., at page 1172.) The court concluded that there was evidence of hardship if the city had required a three- foot setback. The subject property was a three-parcel site without a backyard, and all of the property faced a winding street. Much of the yard was below grade, which made enforcing the three-foot setback problematic. (Id., at page 1184.) Also, the three-foot setback, if applied, would cause a gap between the wall and yard, which would cause a safety hazard: Further, the property sits below grade on a winding street, and enforcing the requirement would create a more significant risk by providing a gap between the wall and yard into which persons and debris could fall. The fact that other properties in the area may have a similar below- grade configuration and do not have such fences does not detract from the necessity of ameliorating the substantial safety hazard which would remain if the City strictly enforced the setback requirement. (Id., at page 1184.) Castilleja’s third cited case also does not support its position that the city should compare the size of residential lots and the size of Castilleja’s property, and on that basis alone, grant a variance from the FAR restriction. In Topanga Assn. for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506 (Topanga), the California Supreme Court determined that the city did not make sufficient findings to support the grant of a variance, allowing a 93-space mobile home park within an acreage zoned for light agriculture and single-family houses with a one-acre minimum lot size. (Id., at page 510.) The court recounted the support for granting the variance, including the desirability of satisfying a growing demand for new low-cost housing, presumably through use of mobile homes, that the project could provide a fire break, and that other uses such as for single-family houses would necessitate costly grading. (Id., at page 520.) Then, the court explained that these considerations were legally irrelevant: These data, we conclude, do not constitute a sufficient showing to satisfy the (cite) variance requirements. [Variances are permitted] “only when, because of special circumstances applicable to the property, . . . the strict application of the zoning ordinance deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and under identical zoning classification.” This language emphasized disparities between properties, not the treatment of the subject property’s characteristics in the abstract. It also contemplates that at best, only a small fraction of any one zone can qualify for a variance. (Id., at page 520.) Here, neither Castilleja or the DEIR has shown in what way it cannot construct its improvements by staying within the FAR restriction. It also has not demonstrated that other properties near it have been allowed to build in contravention to those restrictions. Thus, there is no substantial hardship preventing Castilleja from constructing new buildings due to safety problems, land configuration limitations, or otherwise as occurred in two of its cited cases. Nor has it shown that the city has waived the same restrictions for surrounding property owners. 25 Like the developer in Topanga, Castilleja has only come up with irrelevant arguments to support its variance application. For example, it argues that the following supports its position: the difference in the square footage of surrounding properties compared with its square footage, the history of the city granting permits for buildings on the site, that the new building will be seismically up-to-date, that the new plan will be beneficial to the neighborhood, and that the building will be architecturally attractive. (Letter, page 5.) None of these arguments suffice to show that the school cannot build on its campus without a variance. Castilleja argues that it needs the variance to meet current code and seismic standards, but it does not show why the lack of a variance prevents it from upgrading its existing buildings or constructing one or more new buildings less than 84,572 square feet and complying with the FAR limitation. Increasing square footage with a new plan that incorporates this large, institutional building may be an advantage, but it does not satisfy any legal requirement for obtaining a variance from the FAR restriction. Similarly, even if Castilleja believes that the new, sizeable institutional building will be attractive and compatible with the neighborhood, that also does not qualify as showing “substantial hardship” or that the neighbors are receiving some advantage that Castilleja does not enjoy. 2. Granting the variance will affect substantial compliance with the regulations and will constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity or same zone Castilleja contends that its master plan substantially complies with the zoning code (Letter, page 5.) Its contention evidences a lack of reality. A project that substantially meets the zoning code is one that requires a building permit, not a slew of permits that are exceptions to the rules for the zone. Here, Castilleja is requesting a conditional use permit, encroachments into public easements, a variance to construct a building that violates the FAR, and for another variance to get around the setback requirements by encroaching into the sidewalk for a proposed underground garage. The city does not have to grant any of these permits - each is discretionary. These requested permits represent privileges that the city could grant, not rights that the city must grant to Castilleja. They are also privileges that Castilleja has failed to show nearby neighbors are enjoying. PQNL is aware of nobody else in the neighborhood, who has exceeded the FAR or obtained a variance to do so. The fact that historically, the city has granted permission to build out the site in a way that exceeds the current FAR restriction is not a legally cognizable reason to grant a variance, as discussed above. Castilleja has cited no cases that would support such an interpretation of the city’s requirement to make specific findings. For this reason, also, the city should deny the application for a variance. 3. Granting the Requested Variance is Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan 26 Castilleja references goals and land use policies in its Letter (page 7) to support the construction of the proposed 84,572 square foot building. However, policies, not goals, are binding upon the city. (See definitions of “policies” and “goals” on page 6 of the Comprehensive Plan (CP). Also, the CP contains several “elements,” and the planner has to consult each in determining whether the application for a variance violates the CP. Below are the relevant sections from each, the housing and land use elements: Policy H1.4 Ensure that new developments provide appropriate transitions from higher density development to single-family and low-density residential districts to preserve neighborhood character. (Housing Element.) An 84,572 square foot building next to a residential neighborhood does not conform with the above policy. The policy requires avoiding placing large buildings in close proximity with single-family homes in a neighborhood such as the one surrounding Castilleja, which is low- density, residential. Policy L-1.1 Maintain and prioritize Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities. (Land Use element.) Policy L-1.5 Regulate land uses in Palo Alto according to the land use definitions in this Element and Map L-6. Policy L-1.6 Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community. Policy L-1.7 Use coordinated area plans to guide development, such as to create or enhance cohesive neighborhoods in areas of Palo Alto where significant change is foreseeable. Address both land use and transportation, define the desired character and urban design traits of the areas, identify opportunities for public open space, parks and recreational opportunities, address connectivity to and compatibility with adjacent residential areas; and include broad community involvement in the planning process. Policy L-1.11 Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. These policies, above, demonstrate that the city has prioritized its residential neighborhoods. Given the city’s problems with providing sufficient housing, these policies require preservation of existing housing and avoidance of disturbing the characteristics of residential areas. Part of maintaining these neighborhoods is assuring that substantial buildings, with questionable future uses, are not placed near single-family houses. The institutional structure that Castilleja seeks to build will not contribute to maintaining the residences around it. When Castilleja is done with the site and moves on to another one, the proposed campus will present problems for repurposing it into much-needed housing. The demolition cost of a substantial institutional building is sufficient 27 to discourage developers from building on the site. Policy L-2.3 As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, integrated into neighborhoods and designed for greater affordability, particularly smaller housing types, such as studios, co-housing, cottages, clustered housing, accessory dwelling units and senior housing. Policy L-2.7 Support efforts to retain housing that is more affordable in existing neighborhoods, including a range of smaller housing types. Policy L-2.8 When considering infill redevelopment, work to minimize displacement of existing residents. Policy L-2.9 Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The subject neighborhood includes a mixture of cottages, small single-family houses, small to medium sized apartment buildings, rentals, and secondary units. If the city continues to allow Castilleja to “institutionalize” the neighborhood by tearing down housing for its institutional uses, building large institutional buildings, and disturbing the neighborhood with its activities, eventually the city will lose this diverse residential neighborhood. It is evident from a site visit that over time, the school has already encroached deeply into the neighborhood. The city should follow the above policies and stop the encroachments, including allowing construction of a huge institutional building and garage in the middle of the neighborhood. Castilleja's argument that it wishes to tear down old buildings for seismic and code reasons violates policy L2.9, which requires the city to facilitate reuse of existing buildings. The proposed huge building also directly violates L-3.1 because its proposed new building is not compatible with the surrounding single-family housing, which is why it is seeking a variance from the FAR restriction. Ordinance No. 5446: In May 2018, Palo Alto citizens gathered sufficient signatures to place an initiative on the ballot to cap the amount of office and R/D (research and development) development at 850,000 square feet. On July 30, 2018, the Palo Alto City Council passed Ordinance 5446, amending portions of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan to include this cap. The Ordinance contains the following finding: 2. Palo Alto Cannot Tolerate More Traffic: According to the City’s own study, there are already about three jobs in the City for every employed resident. As a result, the City has one of the highest commuter ratios in the nation for cities with 28 populations of more than fifty thousand. Excessive new office/R&D development in Palo Alto-as the recently adopted 2030 Comprehensive Plan allows-will lead to even more jobs and thus exacerbate traffic congestion and parking shortages in the City. Two-thirds of City residents cite these issues as major concerns. (Ordinance 5446, page 2.) While the Ordinance caps new office and R&D development, it includes the finding above, indicating an intention to reduce traffic from commuters in the city. The only reason Castilleja is seeking to construct an 84,572 building is because of its concomitant plan to add over 100 more students and eventually become a school of 540 students, along with employees to serve them. A substantial institutional building accommodating increased enrollment on the campus will further add to traffic congestion from commuter students and employees, in contradiction to the citizens’ amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Castilleja cites two other CP policies, but they are relevant to different parts of Palo Alto than residential neighborhoods. (Letter, page 7.) Policy 6.1 applies to Employment Districts -- the design of buildings and public space (CP, pages 45-46) and Policy 9.6 applies to Parks and Gathering places - public streets and public spaces (CP, pages 50-51). Furthermore, Castilleja’s arguments under these two policies are illogical and irrelevant to the legal test for whether the city should grant a variance. For example, Castilleja contends that demolishing older buildings and building one new colossal structure will allow “for more site improvements and foster[] an enhanced sense of community” including a bike pavilion at the corner of Bryant and Kellogg and a half-acre community park at Emerson Street and Melville Avenue. Castilleja does not explain how any of these items will build a sense of community. The neighbors never requested a bike waystation or a park open to the public. A park in the midst of housing can become a nuisance very quickly due to noise, lack of supervision and maintenance, and inappropriate behavior by patrons, especially after dark. To PNQL's knowledge, no neighbor has asked for inclusion of either a public park or bike waystation in the school's master plan. The residents are not looking for a “sense of community” that would mean expanding their involvement with people who do not live in the neighborhood or opening up their neighborhood for public uses for “a more welcoming environment with enhanced views and gathering spaces.” (Letter, page 7.) As would be true with any neighborhood, the residents desire a peaceful place to live, not a way to open up their neighborhood to the public. Castilleja describes all of the design features it intends to include in the new building as positive improvements. (Letter, pages 6-8.) The CP stresses the importance of maintaining and reusing existing buildings. Castilleja presents no evidence that it cannot remodel its existing structures with the improvements Castilleja describes. Moreover, as shown above, a robust transportation demand management plan, an excellent education for young girls, an underground garage, increased open space, and the like are not relevant to the legal question of whether the city should grant a variance from the FAR restriction. 29 Contrary to its claim that it complies with the R-1 zone restrictions, Castilleja's proposed master plan violates its zoning prohibition against the encroachment of schools into this primarily residential zone. Its proposed master plan proposes demolition of two houses with no replacement housing: The R-1 single-family residential district is intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature and with open area affording maximum privacy and opportunities for outdoor living and children's play. Minimum site area requirements are established to create and preserve variety among neighborhoods, to provide adequate open area, and to encourage quality design. Accessory dwelling units, junior accessory dwelling units and accessory structures or buildings are appropriate. Community uses and facilities, such as churches and schools, should be limited unless no net loss of housing would result. (3/22/18 letter, page 8; Zoning Code, section 18.12.010, subd. (a) - emphasis added.) Castilleja attempts to get around the zoning restriction by arguing that it is contributing to the neighborhood a park and a bike waystation, which does not address the R-1 intent that the neighborhood consists of primarily single-family housing. It also does not address the loss of housing at a time when the need is at an all-time high in Palo Alto. 4. Granting the variance would be detrimental and injurious to property in the vicinity and to the general welfare As discussed above, placing large, institutional buildings near residential neighborhoods presents two problems: 1) they are incompatible in size and design, and 2) they are challenging to repurpose given their surroundings. While Castilleja emphasizes that one colossal building will allow for a community park, the neighbors do not want a park, and it should not be up to Castilleja to force one upon them. The CP requires reuse of existing buildings to prevent waste and excessive filling of land dumps. The growth of the school population is the underlying cause for a substantial institutional structure, and with increased enrollment comes exacerbation of noise, deliveries, traffic, and the like. Thank you for considering our comments. Veneruso & Moncharsh Leila H. Moncharsh ________________________ Attorney for PNQL LHM:lm Tel: 207-892-6691 Stephen E. Ambrose 15 Great Falls Road seaa@myfairpoint.net Windham, ME 04062, USA 1 Education: 1973-75 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA B.S. Civil Engineering 1971-73 Cape Cod Community College, Barnstable, MA A.A. Math/Science Professional: 1978 Institute of Noise Control Engineering Full Member 1981/Board Certified 1993 1981 Acoustical Society of America Full Member Expert Testimony: Wind Turbine Noise Technical Advisory Group (WNTAG), Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA, June 2013 to February 2014. Wind turbine peer-review, Remanded Court Decision to the Town of Charlestown Zoning Board of Review, Charlestown, RI, June 2013. Wind turbine legislation re: S 30 Vermont House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy, April 18, 2013, Montpelier, VT. Wind turbine moratorium legislation re: S. 30 and S.21, Vermont Senate Natural Resources & Energy Committee, January 31, 2013, Montpelier, VT. Wind turbine adverse health effects, Environmental Review Tribunal Hearing, Ministry of the Environment June 15, 2012, Ontario, Canada. Community noise impact assessment, Maine Senate Environmental and Natural Resources Committee, February 8, 2012, Augusta, ME. Published Professional Reports: Falmouth, Massachusetts wind turbine infrasound and low frequency noise measurement; Inter-Noise 2012, Session 325, 10-02, New York City, NY, August 19-22, 2012, Stephen Ambrose, Robert Rand, Carmen Krogh. Wind Turbine Acoustic Investigation: Infrasound and Low-frequency Noise – Case Study, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 22, 2011, 0270467611417849, Stephen Ambrose, Robert Rand, Carmen Krogh. Occupational Health and Industrial Wind Turbines: A Case Study, Bulletin of Science Technology & Society, August 22, 2011, 0270467611417849, Robert Rand, Stephen Ambrose, Carmen Krogh. Noise ordinance design: mapping by land use, Noise-Con 2007, Reno Nevada, October 22-24, 2007, Robert Rand, Stephen Ambrose, Caroline Segalla. Published White Paper: The Bruce McPherson Infrasound and Low Frequency Noise Study, For Christopher Senie & Associates, Westborough, MA December 14, 2011, Stephen E. Ambrose, Robert W. Rand Stephen E. Ambrose 2 Professional Reviews - industrial wind turbines: Independent Peer-review – Douglas Woods Wind Farm, Douglas, Massachusetts, Report to Brian Swartz, Esq., Senie & Associates, P.C., Westborough, MA, July 26, 2013, Stephen Ambrose, Robert Rand. Independent Peer-review – Saddleback Ridge Wind Farm, Carthage, Maine, Report to Rufus Brown, Esq., Brown & Burke, Portland, ME, June 28, 2013, Stephen Ambrose, Robert Rand. Acoustic Analysis Report – Whale Rock Wind Development Project – Charlestown, RI, Report to John Mancini Esq., MAK Law Offices, Providence, RI, June 4, 2013. Acoustic Analysis Report – Environmental Sound Level Assessment – The Rte. 44 Stop & Shop Wind Project, Report to David Paliotti, Greenbaum, Nagel, Fisher & Paliotti, LLP, Boston, MA, March 13, 2013, Stephen Ambrose, Hoosac Wind Project, Letter to Kenneth Kimmell, Commissioner, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA, September 12, 2012, Stephen Ambrose, Robert Rand. Vermont Noise Monitoring Plan, Sheffield Wind Project Operational Sound Level Compliance Test - Wintertime Conditions, Sheffield Wind Project Operational Sound Level Compliance Test - Springtime Conditions, letter to Annette Smith, Executive Director, Vermont for a Clean Environment, Inc., Danby, VT. Anderson Cranberries Wind Project, Letter to Marilyn Byrne, Plymouth Zoning Board of Appeals, Plymouth, MA, February 7, 2012, Stephen Ambrose, Robert Rand. Madaket Wind Turbine Acoustic Analysis, letter to Common Sense Nantucket, February 1, 2012, Robert Rand, Stephen Ambrose, TTOR Wind Turbine Project, Cohassett, MA, Letter to Damon Seligson, DiNicola, Seligson & Upton, LLP, Boston, MA, April 19, 2012, Stephen Ambrose, Robert Rand. Salem Wind Turbine Generator Study, letter to Christopher Senie & Associates, Westborough, MA, September 9, 2011, Stephen Ambrose, Robert Rand Pisgah Mountain Wind Project, letter to Charles E. Gilbert III, Gilbert & Grief, P.A., Bangor, ME, April 12, 2011, Stephen Ambrose, Robert Rand. Proposed Wind Energy Facility in the Town of Brewster Massachusetts, letter to Christopher Senie & Associates, Westborough, MA, January 6, 2011, Stephen Ambrose, Robert Rand. Professional Experience: 2008-present S.E. Ambrose & Associates Windham, ME 1991 to 2008 part-time Principal Consultant / Owner  Wind turbine noise, infrasound and low frequency noise investigations to understand why neighbor complain and government agencies unable to protect public from adverse health impacts. Wind turbine application peer-reviews and community impact assessments. Stephen E. Ambrose 3  Acoustic measurements for noise source identification and mitigation. Noise compliance for workplace and community environments. Peer-reviews for states and municipalities. Public education, presentations, and guidance for municipal ordinances. 2001-2008 Stone & Webster / A Shaw Group Company Stoughton, MA Senior Environmental Engineer  Noise & vibration control responsibilities for industrial & power generation projects.  Combustion turbine, reciprocating engine & compressor station evaluations.  Community and environmental impact assessments, industrial noise investigations, and noise control feasibility and installation. 1994-2001 & 1989-91 Tritek Inc. Lexington, MA Manager Instruments & Applications  Manufacturer’s rep for dynamic measurement, test, analysis, predictive maintenance & inspection instruments.  Instruments; spectrum analyzers, time-wave form analyzers, data acquisition systems, multi-channel AM, FM & digital tape recorders, precision sound level meters, vibration sensors and transducers, and RF / microwave frequency components.  Inspection; hi-resolution CCD cameras, SESI radio frequency eddy current analyzers and lubrication oil analysis service. 1976-89 & 1991-93 Stone & Webster Engineering Boston, MA Senior Environmental Engineer  Instrumentation Lab Manager, Noise Control Specialist, Vibration and Dynamic Measurement Specialist, Equipment and Station Start-up Engineer,  In-situ measurements, evaluations & mitigation, in-house post-analysis & reports.  Dynamic evaluations using spectrum, modal & finite element analysis, multi-channel data acquisition, predictive maintenance & related application programs.  Dynamic & static sensors; acceleration, velocity, displacement, torque, acoustic, pressure, strain gage, & temperature. Significant Projects: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station  Responsible for compliance vibration tests for major mechanical equipment prior to being accepted by the station owners.  Solved 500 HP screen-well pump excessive vibration problems when vendor gave-up after 3 installs and 2 factory rebuilds. Improper mounting connections enabled the system to vibrate at a natural frequency excited by running speed imbalance.  During the critical 900 MW steam turbine test, identified that a vibration was caused by a shaft-rider sensor was positioned above a defect that was not part of the bearing surface. Factory team could not clearly define the problem. The test was successful. Stephen E. Ambrose 4  Solved a long-term excessive vibration problems on a 500 HP screen-well pump after the vendor/installer gave-up in frustration after 3 installs, removing for 2 factory rebuilds. Problem corrected by stiffening mounting bracket so the pump would not excite a running speed natural frequency.  Involved with identifying the cause for two emergency generator crankshaft failures.  Performed start-up vibration compliance tests for 2 V12 replacement emergency generators. Chesterfield Power Station Unit 5  Project replaced the fire damaged top 70-ft on a heavy load main support column.  Responsible for 110 channels of strain and LVDT transducer system used to monitor structure stability during the critical 10 MW thermal jacking procedure to remove and replace top 70-ft of a main support column. Monitored for three weeks to determine the structural movement and load transfers caused by the summertime sun movement.  Calculated building dead load transfers between main-support columns during dynamic thermal jacking using a personal programmable calculator versus telephone communications with Boston engineering staff. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority  Created computer spreadsheet, prediction noise model to account for over 250 pieces of mobile construction equipment in 3 month sequences over 10-years. Recommendations were made for installing noise control equipment, devices and techniques to comply with noise limits at several noise sensitive properties. Tennessee Natural Gas / FERC  Performed environmental noise impact assessments for expanding the northeast corridor capacity with more than 30 new or expanded combustion turbine compressor stations. Some station had to meet 40 dBA noise limits at 400-ft. Boston Edison  Performed 20 environmental noise assessments throughout Massachusetts to determine which sites would be feasible for new development or expanding existing electric power-generation facilities. Volunteer: 1994-2005 Zoning Board of Appeals Windham, ME Windham, ME 1993-2005 Ordinance Review Committee Windham, ME Military: 1967-1971 Search and Rescue Crew Member U.S. Coast Guard Radio/Navigator, Avionics Technician 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Nanci Kauffman <nkauffman@castilleja.org> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 4:01 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Yang, Albert; Lait, Jonathan; Kathy Layendecker; Mindie S. Romanowsky; French, Amy Subject:Request for City Council to Take Action Attachments:Request for City Council to Take Action Letter 3-11-21.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers, Please see attached letter for your consideration, Nanci -- Nanci Kauffman Head of School Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 P (650) 470-7718 E nkauffman@castilleja.org www.castilleja.org Follow us on Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | LinkedIn Women Learning. Women Leading. For an appointment, contact: adelafuente@castilleja.org or (650) 470-7702 March 11, 2021 Sent via Email: City.Council@Cityof PaloAlto.org Re: Request for City Council to Take Action Castilleja Project 16PLN-00258] [SCH#2107012052] Dear Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers: 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto. CA 94301 650.328.3160 castilleja.org Nanci Z. Kauffman Head of School Thank you for your time on Monday evening. While I acknowledge it was a long council meeting, as Castilleja's Head of School, I was encouraged to hear the wide support for our project and the broad appreciation for the concessions we have made throughout this multi-year process. Now that the public hearing is closed, I respectfully request that you discuss, deliberate, and take action on our project, which includes the specific items staff identified as requiring your approval: •Certification of the Environmental Impact Report•Conditional Use Permit Amendment to Increase Student Enrollment•Variance to Maintain Existing Above Grade Floor Area•Architectural Review of Campus Redevelopment It is our strong belief that your decision on these entitlements should come first, so that the recent minor issue regarding reduction of the project by 4,370 square feet could then be delegated by you to the Architectural Review Board (ARB), to a subcommittee of the ARB, or to staff. The reduction in footage does not impact the merits on which the Council could make its decision to certify the EIR and to approve the conditional use permit and variance. Castilleja believes it is time for Council to decide on the entitlements and to provide a path forward for the City, the School, and the community, even if a continuance is required. As is evidenced in the public record, this project has been carefully studied, yielding significant analysis, refinement, and further analysis. Now that you have the complete record and have heard all the public testimony, please act on our application. Sincerely, Nanci Z. Kauffman cc: Amy French Mindie Romanowsky Albert Yang Jonathan Lait Ed Shikada Kathy Layendecker Molly Stump Women Learning. Women Leading. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 3:09 PM To:Council, City; Tanaka, Greg; DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Cormack, Alison; Stone, Greer; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia Subject:Please reject the variance for first-floor medical at Town & Country CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council, Please reject the landlord's request for a variance to enable him to rent ground-floor space to medical offices, gyms, dental offices, etc. The City gets no sales tax revenues from medical/dental services who staffs will take up much-need parking that will hurt the existing struggling retail businesses. Why the rush? Let retail recover from the pandemic. The landlord has a 20+ year history of destroying retail tenants dating back to the 2000 dot.bomb crash when he refused to let long-term tenant Prestige Boutique move BACK into its smaller EMPTY space from the larger more costly space to which they'd moved. Ellis refused to make even that small accommodation to a long-term tenant and since then has done the same to Patrick James and Mayfield Bake   Please do the right thing and keep Town & Country "vibrant" with retail. Don't reward Ellis. Don't deprive the city of needed sales tax revenue. Most sincerely Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301   2 Baumb, Nelly From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 5:28 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:March 22, 2021 Council Meeting, Item #3: 855 El Camino Real (20PLN-00252) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Herb Borock P. O. Box 632 Palo Alto, CA 94302   March 21, 2021   Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301      MARCH 22, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #3  855 EL CAMINO REAL (20PLN-00252)     Dear City Council:   I urge you to remove this item from your agenda, because the proposed project is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and requires either a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental Impact Report before the Council can hold a public hearing on this application.   The staff report alleges that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Regulation Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).   CEQA Regulation 15301 says,    "15301. EXISTING FACILITIES Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing,  licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or  topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use."  (Emphasis Added)  I urge you to ask the City Attorney in open session whether I have accurately quoted the text of CEQA Regulation 15301.  The last two pages attached to the staff report for this agenda item show the floor area of each occupied use at Town and Country Village.  Only one leased space at Town and Country Village in location 82 (Dr. Berkowitz at For Eyes) is a medical office consisting of only 720 square feet.  3 The thousands of square feet of additional medical offices recommended is not a "negligible" expansion of an existing use as required by CEQA Regulation 15301.   Proceeding with your scheduled hearing on the basis of staff's proposed CEQA exemption is a violation of CEQA and a prejudicial abuse of discretion.  Planning Director Johnathan Lait's spouse's solo psychotherapy practice is currently prohibited from replacing retail uses on the ground floor at Town and Country Village Shopping Center, but would be permitted to replace retail uses if you adopt the proposed ordinance.  Does that fact mean that the proposed ordinance has a foreseeable material financial effect on Director Lait that is distinguishable from the public generally and that, therefore, he has a potential conflict of interest regarding the medical office language in the proposed ordinance?  Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely,  Herb Borock    4 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Balin <alafargue@mac.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 5:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Town & Country Retail CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Dubois, Vice Mayor Burt & Council Members,    As I have stated before it is well known that Ellis is using the pandemic as an excuse to not negotiate with tenants and  blames the vacancies on the virus.    Patrick James Clothiers and the Mayfield Restaurant and Bakery would still be in Town & Country Village center had Ellis  worked with these strong tenants. The economy is improving and coupled with the public getting vaccinated will  contribute to a better retail climate. All landlords have to plan for the ups and downs of doing business. It is shameful for  this wealthy property owner to cry foul and attempt to get you, the city council, to bend to his design.    Please do not agree to medical services on the ground floor of Town & Country Village. Should you ignore what  constituents want (retail on the ground floor) then these leases for medical services would remain and retail as we know  it would be eliminated. The cachet of Town & Country would be severely diminished. This is not a common strip mall.  The parking lots would be overwhelmed with the constant comings and goings of patients.    I have been going to Town & Country Village since I was a kid in the fifties. It provides patrons with an ambiance, stores,  and restaurants that the public enjoys. It has served as a boon to many during the pandemic where they could frequent  Douce France or browse for books at Books Inc. It is in contrast to the corporate mall which certainly has its place but  does not offer the same experience.    California Avenue lost a florist, bakery, bookstore and art supply store. The last council wanted gyms on California  Avenue. The character of the avenue has changed.    Therefore I ask that you retain our current retail zoning and do not allow medical services on the ground floor.    Respectfully yours,    Ann Lafargue Balin      5 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary B. <mab9999@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 7:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:KEEP RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR IN TOWN AND COUNTRY!!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the PA Council: Don't allow office space to overtake retail space in Town and Country! We need some place to shop! Sincerely, Mary Bartholomay 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Barry Hart <hartb88@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 9:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please do not allow medical at T&C. The consequences will be irreversible CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council - Town and Country was a thriving retail and eating shopping center (with offices on the second floor) before the pandemic. Give the environment a chance to 'grow back' it will not happen overnight. We know that medical/offices provide a greater rent than retail - and this would be the goal of the property owners, 'highest and best use' If Palo Alto needs more medical space, please allow offices to be converted, NOT retail. There are plenty of offices available for conversion to medical. Our spaces zoned for retail are precious - please keep them Barry Hart 7 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Town and Country Village Agenda Item 3 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Dear Mayor Dubois and Council Members,     Spot zoning for one particular commercial property company to provide them a permanent financial windfall because  they complain that their business model isn’t working is a terrible precedent to set.       It is not the responsibility of the  city council to bail out particular property owners by spot‐zoning to give them a  permanent financial advantage. Although during the P&TC discussion Michael Alcheck proposed some conditions and  limits that could be included to make council’s approval more palatable, in reality any such “temporary” conditions are  de facto permanent.    This is not the first time the council has been asked to change zoning codes for the benefit of certain commercial  property owners.  During a previous financial turndown and citing vacancies, council was asked to allow similar  conversions of certain retail properties to offices along the University Avenue side streets. Council voted to allow  “temporary” but not permanent conversions during the economic downturn, with the proviso that this come back to  council after the economy recovered.   While attaching such conditions may allow council to feel justified in voting in the  affirmative, a lack of any systematic “institutional memory” means any conditions that require the city to automatically  follow up at a later date are worth less than the paper on which they are printed.   And I think one can assume that the  property owners in question are hardly likely to do so.    Once again, the quality of the P&TC discussion and vote was disappointing. Particularly as some members of the  commission appear to either  regularly spend little, if any, time familiarizing themselves in advance, and/or lack the  experience to understand in depth, the materials provided  by staff. Leaving them unable to contribute much of  substance and/or more than a shallow analysis of the complex land use issues pertaining to Palo Alto that come before  the commission.   While unfortunately, those with a greater understanding all too often may appear to be acting more  as advocates for applicants rather than objectively representing the council and city.    Sincerely,    Margaret Heath  2140 Cornell Street  Palo Alto  8 Baumb, Nelly From:mary gallagher <marygallagher88@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 2:49 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Town & Country CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Du Bois, Vice Mayor Burt and council members,    Please do not allow a vibrant Town & Country retail center to become a medical destination. We already have that next  door at PAMF, other places in town, and nearby at Stanford.    Many times a week I’m a customer at the Village and it continues to be a very popular spot for dining, specialty services,  all sorts of retail purchases ‐ food, pharmacy, books, dry cleaning, clothing etc. It is unique to this town and quite a  successful retail center.    Pre‐pandemic T&C was thriving on all cylinders. At times it was difficult to find parking. They even had to offer valet  parking to accommodate all the patrons. Then the pandemic hit. Things changed. Now as we emerge out of the  pandemic people are returning, the center is busy and sales are increasing.    Prior to the pandemic a former council member was quite complimentary about the success of the center and the “mix”  of tenants and that it should serve as a beacon and example for Cal Ave and other retail centers.    I’ve heard that the property owner started refusing to renew/negotiate leases for Mayfield restaurant and bakery,  Patrick James and others. Those two businesses were thriving with longtime, repeat customers as well as new  customers. Frequently there were lines out the doors at Mayfield.    Please keep T&C retail and do not allow medical offices as tenants.    Sincerely,    Mary Gallagher    9 Baumb, Nelly From:Rubinson, Dean J. <Dean@ellispartners.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 8:21 AM To:Council, City Cc:Raybould, Claire; Lait, Jonathan; Evers, Melinda Ellis; Ellis, James F.; Sarah MacIntyre; Jeff Burkebile; French, Amy Subject:Town & Country Village Attachments:Town and Country Zoning Text Change Proposal 03-02-21 Final.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,    I am writing to you ahead of the March 22nd meeting at which we will be discussing our request to allow some degree of  Medical Office Use at Town & Country Village.  We believe the attached letter, which is included in the Staff Report,  clearly outlines the dire leasing situation we are facing at this treasured asset and the fact that this condition is a result  of long‐term shifts towards e‐commerce that are exacerbated by the COVID‐19 pandemic, but will remain and likely  worsen even after this health crisis subsides.      We have been thoughtful stewards of Town & Country since 2005 and have been carefully managing the merchandising  mix in a way that creates a unique shopping experience for the community.  However, the increased failures of our  tenants is creating a dangerous downward spiral which will result in even greater vacancy unless we can restore foot  traffic to the center quickly.  We truly believe that allowing some degree of flexibility in leasing to Medical Office uses  will restore this critical traffic to Town & Country while still maintaining its special charm.    We understand that the there is concern that introducing these uses could change the overall experience at the  center.  Given the recent evolution of Medical Office uses towards retail and public facing settings (see images on the  attached letter), we do not share these concerns.  Furthermore, we believe that our revised proposal of 15,000sf or 10%  of the ground floor (which is 50% of our original request), coupled with our agreement not to place these uses along  street frontage, finds an appropriate balance, while meaningfully addressing the leasing and foot traffic crisis being  faced at Town & Country.    As indicated in the Staff Report, we and Palo Alto Planning Department staff feel that this revised proposal results is a  careful compromise that we truly hope you will support at Monday’s meeting.  If you have any questions or want any  additional information ahead on that meeting, please feel free to email me or call me at (415) 373‐7706 at any time,  including this weekend, to discuss this important matter.    Thank you for your time and consideration,    Dean Rubinson        Dean Rubinson  Partner, Director of Development     111 Sutter Street, Suite 800  San Francisco, CA 94104  415.373.7706  10 dean@ellispartners.com  www.ellispartners.com     This message contains information which may be confidential and privileged. Unless you are the addressee (or  authorized to receive for the addressee), you may not use, copy or disclose to anyone the message or any information  contained in the message. If you have received the message in error, please advise the sender by reply email and delete  the message. Thank you.    TOWN & COUNTRY VILLAGE November 17, 2020, Revised March 2, 2021 Jonathan Lait Director of Planning - City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mr. Lait: Over the past several years, Town & Country Village has experienced a consistent downturn in gross sales driven by a change in consumer purchasing habits. This has been widely documented by the retail real estate community as consumers prefer to shop on-line, skip the store visit and get free delivery and returns right from their home. In response to these changes in customer preferences, retailers and shopping center owners have been forced to evaluate how they can evolve the customer experiences to capitalize on the continued desire to experience products in person and interact with on-site personnel, which has required them to become more flexible and more creative to provide customers with a reason to shop in brick and mortar stores. Municipalities around the country have also demonstrated an awareness and a concern for this evolving situation and have allowed for additional flexibility within the zoning codes to address new consumer habits. When the COVID-19 Pandemic started, on-line shopping dramatically accelerated and is expected to result in a permanent shift in shopping habits towards on-line purchasing, even after the pandemic subsides. Due to the dramatic impact on retail and restaurant tenants from the COVID-19 Pandemic on top of the more global shift in shopping trends, Town & Country Village has seen a precipitous drop in occupancy and many of our tenants have declared bankruptcy or simply defaulted on their leases and will not re-open. This is despite our best efforts to assist our tenants in any way we can, such as providing outdoor dining within parking areas, enhancing our marketing and promotion efforts and voluntarily abating and/or deferring rent. The duration of these impacts is yet unknown, but it is certain that Town & Country Village will suffer significant financial losses, city tax revenues will be significantly reduced and, if the increasing vacancy trend is not mitigated, the experience for shoppers will be severely changed. As shown on the attached site plan, our pre-COVID vacancy was only 13,212 SF and is now 32,891SF, with an additional 20,465 Sf of retail space considered likely to become vacant due to the continued impact of COVID on retail, including the domino effect caused by reduced foot traffic to the shopping center. As mentioned, these detrimental effects are in part an acceleration of trends that were already occurring before the pandemic. In fact, sales volumes at Town & Country fell by 1.5% between 2017-2018 and have fallen another 6.0% between 2018-2019. Online shopping was already disrupting almost all categories of retail uses and the likes of Amazon have taken a huge toll on the viability of many retailers, as demonstrated in our alarming dataset. Of the 20 merchants that reported downward sales trends, eight have already closed their doors at Town & Country Village and we expect other tenants will either continue to fail, despite our all our efforts noted above. The good news is that market for medical-related tenants is growing, despite the pandemic, and we expect this new component of customer-facing merchandising to grow over the longer term. Examples of the types of medical service uses we would like to be allowed to implement as a convenience to our customers are membership based primary care practices such as One Medical, Carbon Health and Forward, Dental/Braces services such as Invisalign and Candid, health and wellness services such as Modern Acupuncture, Hyper Wellness and B12LOVE and Medi-Spa services such as Awaken MD and Orange Twist. As shown in the attached photographs, the design of these types of tenant spaces are typically geared toward pedestrian-facing retail settings and would be consistent with the character and merchandising mix at Town & County. Additionally, their traffic and parking demand are generally consistent with retail use. However, we are unfortunately unable to take advantage of this growing demand since our zoning use restrictions are outdated and do not reflect the evolution of viable uses for successful shopping centers that provide the community what they need. Specifically, we are limited by our inability to lease ground floor space to Medical Offices and are limited to 15% overall for office uses. Allowing for these types of medical uses would allow Town & Country Village to offer more reasons to visit the property for these needs and to stay and shop for other goods and services in Palo Alto. It will also give us a much better chance of returning this cherished property to its Pre-COVID occupancy levels. We believe that retail and restaurant leasing will face a serious headwind for many years to come as a result of online retail disruption and this current pandemic and we sincerely believe that allowing some level of leasing to Medical Offices in these vacant retail spaces is a key to our efforts to avoid a downward spiral at Town & Country. As such, in December 2020, we requested the following changes to the Palo Alto Planning Code to allow us to implement a more current and vibrant merchandising of Town & Country Village and mitigate the long-term challenges we have in maintaining a fully occupied and thriving shopping environment: • Allow Medical Office uses to occupy up to 20% (30,049sf) of the ground floor at T&C • Increase the sitewide office use to 30% (51,594sf) In the Planning & Transportation Commission staff report for the February 10, 2021, city staff recommended approval of our request, with the adjustment of the Medical Office maximum to 15% and the sitewide office maximum to 25%. At the February 10, 2021 Planning & Transportation Commission hearing, several amendments were made to staff’s recommendations, including but not limited to: • Imposing a deadline for Medical Office leases of December 31, 2021 • Limiting the occupancy term for Medical Office uses to 10 years We have carefully considered these amendments and assessed their viability and potential impact on our challenging efforts to re-lease Town & Country Village’s growing vacancy. We understand that there is some level of concern that too much ground floor Medical Office use could adversely impact the merchandising mix and the customer experience at the site. As the stewards of this treasured asset since 2005 and hopefully for many decades to come, we want to assure the city and the community that we understand this concern and have no intention of degrading the shopping experience at Town & Country. In fact, our proposal is solely focused on ensuring its relevancy and vibrancy into the future, despite the changing retail landscape. We also understand there is some debate as to whether the vacancy increase at Town & Country is a short-term issue that is solely caused by COVID, and we believe the PTC amendment is largely driven by this incorrect assumption. As discussed above, sales volumes have been dropping at the property since 2017 and dropped 6% between 2018-2019 alone. COVID is only the latest factor in a longer-term trend away from traditional retail demand. E-commerce has been siphoning off sales revenue from retail tenants across the US, and Town & Country is unfortunately no exception. As such, imposing these two restrictive time limits onto our request for limited Medical Office use will not allow us to adequately address these negative long-term trends and will result in ongoing chronic vacancy. Firstly, with regard to the December 31, 2021 deadline, even if this date were extended to allow us one year from the adoption of this ordinance, it would be virtually impossible to draft and execute leases with five to ten Medical Office tenants in that time frame. Many of these tenants are national corporations that have slow and methodical processes for identifying their target markets and for drafting and approving leases for new locations. As stated earlier, this issue and our request is not a temporary pandemic mitigation effort. These trends began before the pandemic and will continue long after is its effects are minimized. Secondly, we are confident that nearly all of the potential Medical Office tenants we would pursue, would reject any lease that required them to vacate their spaces in 10 years with no rights to renew. The cost of building out a typical Medical Office space is more than twice the cost of retail space and thus requires even more lease term to amortize these initial outlays. Furthermore, these businesses rely on the surrounding neighborhood to become its trusted, regular clientele. This customer base will take years to develop and potential tenants will not lease space in a location at which they would need to “pull up their stakes” and start over, just when they are beginning to achieve their goals. Given that the current vacancy trend is clearly not just a result of COVID, we feel it is wholly inappropriate to impose these time and term limits. We also feel that with these additional restrictions our efforts to lease to Medical Office users would be entirely unsuccessful and the vacancy trend would only further spiral at Town & Country. With that said, we are eager to find a compromise that might achieve the goals of all stakeholders. Therefore, in recognition of the staff report recommendations and the PTC amendment, we hereby revise our request as follows: • If there are no time limits on when leases are executed and there are no lease term limits imposed, we herewith revise our proposal to 10% of the ground floor (or 15,025sf) for Medical Office and 21.4% sitewide office (or 36,579sf). These limits are half of our original request and are even lower than identified by staff and the PTC amendment • We further commit to NOT locate Medical Office uses in retail suites that face El Camino Real or Embarcadero We feel this compromise would allow us to mitigate our retail vacancy trend while ensuring there is no adverse impact (short or long term) on the shopping experience at Town & Country. Attached sample site plan with both of these limitations imposed. Given that Town & Country Village has its own section in the Palo Alto Zoning Code, that is already much more strict than in other retail areas in Palo Alto and is part of the Community Commercial (CC) zone, which it shares only with Stanford Shopping Center, we think it is appropriate to enact these changes on a localized basis. This will allow Town & Country Village to evolve with the changes in the retail marketplace and give this community treasure the best chance to survive the combined threats of e-commerce and COVID. Below are the relevant code sections that would be modified: 1) Proposed Changes to Section 18.16.040 Section 18.16.040 allows (subject to a Conditional Use Permit) Medical Office uses in the CC Zone (which governs this property and Stanford Shopping Center only), but as noted in the use table, it is subject to regulations in Section 18.16.050, which is excerpted below: 18.16.050 Office Use Restrictions The following restrictions shall apply to office uses: (a) Conversion of Ground Floor Housing and Non-Office Commercial to Office Medical, Professional, and Business offices shall not be located on the ground floor, unless any of the following apply to such offices: (1) Have been continuously in existence in that space since March 19, 2001, and as of such date, were neither non-conforming nor in the process of being amortized pursuant to Chapter 18.30(I); (2) Occupy a space that was not occupied by housing, neighborhood business service, retail services, personal services, eating and drinking services, or automotive service on March 19, 2001 or thereafter; (3) Occupy a space that was vacant on March 19, 2001; (4) Are located in new or remodeled ground floor area built on or after March 19, 2001 if the ground floor area devoted to housing, retail services, eating and drinking services, personal services, and automobile services does not decrease; (5) Are on a site located in an area subject to a specific plan or coordinated area plan, which specifically allows for such ground floor medical, professional, and general business offices; or… Based on our discussion with Amy French, Chief Planning Official, it appears that we are not permitted to utilize former ground floor retail spaces for Medical Office, Professional Office or General Business Office uses. We therefore request a change to the zoning text to allow Medical Office uses to be permitted on ground floors at Town & Country Village, subject to a limitation of 10% of total ground floor area, or 15,025 SF. We understand the historical goal of limiting Medical Office use of ground floor spaces to better activate retail storefronts, especially along public streets like University Avenue. Town & Country storefronts are significantly set back from public right-of-way and therefore, with the additional prohibition of no street frontage Medical Office uses, we believe that the center’s ground floor uses should be given more flexibility. With the unprecedented impacts of COVID-19 and the industry disruption referenced herein, and the fact that new medical uses have emerged that are integrating with retail shopping environments all over the country, it seems that this approach with the 10% limitation would strike the proper balance between the planning goals of the city and allowing this treasured community asset to avoid long-term, dramatic reductions in occupancy. 2) Proposed Changes to Section 18.16.060(e.1) While Professional and General Business Office is a permitted use in the CC Zone, this section limits the percentage of Professional and General Business Office space at the property to 15% of the total floor area, or 25,797 SF. Consistent with the above request to allow up to 10% of the ground floor area to be used for medical uses, we request that the maximum office percentage overall be increased to 21.4%, which would allow for an additional 10,962 SF of space for these uses. The total office space allowed would be 36,759 SF, and since there is 21,734 SF of second floor space, the remaining 15,025 SF would likely be on the ground floor. This represents just 10% of the ground floor area and would therefore be consistent with the requested change in item 1 above. 3) Changes to Section 18.40.180 We understand that changes would be required under the Retail Preservation Ordinance as well (in Section 18.40.180) to allow the above proposed changes to occur. We request that city staff propose the text changes in 18.40.180 to facilitate this request. 4) Potential Financial Impacts We expect these proposed changes would mitigate the dramatic increase in ground floor vacancy and would drive badly needed foot traffic back to Town & Country which would have the effect of increasing retail sales volumes for the tenants that do survive. We believe that over the long term, having a full and vibrant center will produce more retail sales volume even with the Medical Office use component we are requesting. With that said, we understand that these changes might impact sales tax revenue that is important to Palo Alto. Per your request, we have endeavored to calculate the potential magnitude of these impacts on Palo Alto’s sales tax revenue. Using the sales tax revenue from Town & Country reported in the March 8, 2018 City Auditor Report, which we found online, attached to this letter, we calculated the following: • Total Palo Alto Sales Tax Revenue from Town & Country (Annual Average based on 2016 and 2017 reported data): $637,000 • Estimated Portion of Town & Country Sales Associated with In-Line Retail Spaces (excludes Trader Joes, CVS and Restaurants): 27% • Estimated Palo Alto Sales Tax Revenue from Town & Country from In-Line Retail Spaces: $172,000 • Potential Reduction in Sales Tax Revenue to Palo Alto if ALL 15,025 SF of the 66,488 SF In-Line Retail was leased to Medical Office Tenants (15,052 ÷ 66,488 x $172,000): $39,000 It is important to note that this represents a worst-case scenario, in which ALL of the square footage that is given the more flexible use designation is actually converted from retail to medical office. For reference, this potential $39,000 impact would only be an 6.1% reduction in the sales tax revenue associated with Town and Country and approximately 0.5% of total Palo Alto sales tax revenue. It is also worth noting that without the foot traffic generated by these potential new medical uses, we believe many of our remaining retail tenants that are currently generating sales tax will fail or experience significantly reduced sales, resulting in a sales tax revenue reduction of similar or greater magnitude. 5) Recent City Council Resolution As you are aware, the City Council held meetings on September 14, 2020 and November 9, 2020 to consider potential changes to retail zoning ordinances in response to the COVID situation and its impact on the market. Jim Ellis, one of our founding partners addressed the Council at both meetings and explained the dire situation outlined above. As we understand it, the Council passed a motion on November 9, 2020 to: “…quickly evaluate and propose changes to enable Diverse Retail Uses in more retail sites, including, food, medical, educational, financial and other professional office uses citywide or by district…” We believe this Council action is consistent with the above requests. We have active interest from medical-related tenants for our vacant ground floor space and every week is critical to our ability to maintain their interest in Town & Country and in Palo Alto in general. We appreciate your consideration of this revised request and look forward to hearing back from you regarding next steps. Please call me at (415) 373-7706 with any questions on this matter. Best Wishes, Dean Rubinson Director of Development Ellis Partners Attachments 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathy Durham <kfdurham@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 11:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item #5 on 3/22/21 Council Agenda: Act to fund completion of Phase 3 of Charleston/Arastradero Plan! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, Phase 3 of the Charleston/Arastradero Plan completes this 2.3 mile residential arterial project by funding critical, long delayed intersection safety and flow improvements at 4 cross street locations: El Camino Real, Middlefield Road, Louis / Montrose and Fabian Way. Conceptual plans were approved in 2003 and the original projected completion date was 2007. I am writing to urge you to approve implementation of the approved plans without further delay! Why? It’s true that the staff report does not include explanation of how the Phase 3 safety improvements will reduce known hazards for both foot-powered and motor-powered travelers and improve the flow for all users, especially the 1960s designs at Charleston & Middlefield and where the El Camino Real crosses Charleston & Arastradero. It is now urgent to replace the porkchop islands, inadequate sidewalks, disappearing bike lanes, lack of median refuges and designs that do not prevent unsafe turning movements by motorized traffic that threaten vulnerable road users. However, I would note in staff’s defense that this project has received all necessary approvals by PTC and the City Council. It also meets the criteria of being shovel ready and able to take advantage of favorable construction market pricing typical of a recession, and it has gone out to bid. Plus, and this is important, expenditures for this project count toward the maintenance of effort required to receive SB1 funding which Palo Alto most certainly needs. Let me close by asking you to ponder this: School children in South Palo Alto who were kindergartners back in 2003-04 when initial plans were approved graduated in 2015-16 after 13 years in the PAUSD, without benefiting from the key safety improvements that would make their journey to Gunn, Fletcher, JLS or the elementary schools accessed via this corridor between Middlefield and El Camino Real less hazardous. Meanwhile, many drivers have been choosing bigger, high powered vehicles with known blind spots that put young students, seniors and disabled people at risk. In sum, the status quo in the portion of this corridor covered by this project is not what our Comprehensive Plan envisions for a sustainable and healthy Palo Alto. It’s time to stop delaying Phase 3 and get it done. Thank you for your service, and for considering my comments in your decision. -- Kathy Durham PTA Traffic Safety Representative, 1989-2003 Volunteer in the local Safe Routes to School Partnership, 2004-2005 Safe Routes to School Program Coordinator, City of Palo Alto, 2005-2016 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Elke MacGregor <bemacgregor@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 10:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Charleston- Arastradero & El Camino bike crossing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Esteemed council members    We would like to strongly support the completion of the Charleston Arastradero improvements.   Crossing El Camino on  a bike is scary for seasoned cyclists and dangerous for children.  There are no bike lanes or protection and the road is  potholed and pitted.  We really look forward to this essential safety measure on a busy bicycle route.    Elke MacGregor and family  650‐207‐3321  (sent en route)    > On Jan 3, 2021, at 9:34 PM, Elke MacGregor <bemacgregor@earthlink.net> wrote:  >  > Esteemed council members  >  > We applaud all of the work that has been done on the bike boulevards and lanes in Palo Alto.  We are a family of avid  cyclists and really appreciate these.  >  > The Charleston Arastradero bike lanes and safety measures are especially wonderful as we live close by and ride this  road weekly.  We hope that the El Camino crossing will be addressed soon as well.  This portion of Charleston‐ Arastradero has no bike lanes or safely measures and the asphalt has large linear potholes. The combination of these  factors makes this an unnerving cyclist crossing.  >  > With appreciation for all of the  bike friendly measures that you have implemented,  >  > Elke & Bruce MacGregor  > 55 Roosevelt Circle  > 650‐207‐3321  >  >> On Feb 23, 2020, at 1:19 PM, Elke MacGregor <bemacgregor@earthlink.net> wrote:  >>  >> Esteemed council members  >>  >> Our family really appreciates the effort and thought that you and the community have put into Palo Alto’s bike  transportation infrastructure.  Our children have utilized the safe bike routes to the 3 schools in our neighborhood as  well as the bike boulevards to downtown and park areas.   In addition, all four of us travel along Charleston Arastradero  multiple times per week for bike rides in the foothills.  These routes as well as the prioritization of environmentally  friendly bike/walk transportation have changed our lives immeasurably for the better.  >>  3 >> We are proud to be a part of a community that teaches our children and encourages our adults to enjoy their  surroundings from the vantage of foot power.  Please continue to support this vision.  >>  >> Elke & Bruce MacGregor  >> 55 Roosevelt Circle,  >> Palo Alto    4 Baumb, Nelly From:Sonya Bradski <sonyangary@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 6:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston-Arastradero Plan Phase 3 --Please get it done! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council,     My whole family bikes all over town.  My husband and I bike Charleston/Arastradero several times every single  day.  Please fund the Charleston‐Arastradero Plan Phase 3 as soon as possible.       The El Camino intersection is terrible.  The bike lane disappears before and after the intersection, and you have to either  go on the sidewalk or merge with cars.  Neither option is safe or good.  If you merge with cars, the drivers honk at  you.  If you pull forward and share a lane with them, they might right hook you.  If you ride on the sidewalk walkers get  mad.  This is a bigger problem at times of day when large numbers of kids are commuting to and from school or peak  times when adult commuters are going to and from the Research Park. This highway crossing is unsafe and must be fixed  as soon as possible.      San Antonio/Charleston is also bad.  It would be great to have better bike connections to and across San Antonio for  shopping and for people who bike to work in that General Manufacturing District zoned area.     We have been waiting for years and years for the city to finish this traffic safety project that they promised so long ago.  The sections that are done make the road safer for everyone who uses it, including people who walk, bike and drive,  every day.      Phase 3 should be done by now.  Please finish the project this year as planned.      Thank you so much for your time and consideration.     Sonya Bradski  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Linda Henigin <linda@brail.org> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 5:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Complete the Middlefield/Charleston-Arrastradero corridor project! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,    Middlefield/Charleston and El Camino Real/Charleston‐Arastradero are two of the most dangerous intersections in Palo  Alto. Many students cross these hazardous intersections on their way to and from school. As part of the last phase of  the Charleston/Arastradero corridor project these hazardous locations would see significant safety improvements.    It is critical to our students' safety that you complete this shovel‐ready project. It will cost more to go back and complete  it later, and it will put more students' safe biking at risk. We need to get kids in the habit of biking early so that they  choose green transportation options throughout their lives.    Complete this project please!    Kind regards,  Linda Henigin, Duveneck Elementary Transportation Safety Rep (for identification purposes only; not an official position  statement)    7 Baumb, Nelly From:Keri Wagner <keriwagner@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 5:54 PM To:Council, City Cc:Keri Wagner Subject:Charleston/Arastradero plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council members —  Please move forward on the Phase 3 of the Charleston/Arastradero Plan. We desperately need safety improvements for  biking and walking through the El Camino, Alma, Middlefield, and Fabian intersections.    I bike regularly through the Alma intersection, which is somewhatnarrow and unpleasant, and I also bike through the El  Camino and Middlefield intersections, both of which are downright dangerous. Especially the intersection of El Camino,  and I encourage you to bike or walk through this intersection to understand the problem. Currently, there is no room for  bikes at El Camino and the bike lanes simply disappear.    Thank you for your work,  Keri Wagner  311 Edlee Ave      8 Baumb, Nelly From:James Pflasterer <jimpf@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 5:45 PM To:Council, City Cc:ampboelens@gmail.com; Gold, Audrey Subject:Funding for Phase 3, Charleston-Arastradero Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Honorable City Council Members,    We write to let you know that affected Charleston‐Arastradero corridor PTAs continue to actively support expeditious  implementation of this traffic safety project as evidenced by attached letters that site PTAs recently wrote to Caltrans in  support of City of Palo Alto staff’s application for an encroachment permit for the C‐A Phase 3 project.    Over many years, corridor school site PTAs have consistently supported the City of Palo Alto 2012 Bicycle Pedestrian  Transportation Plan, including the Charleston‐Arastradero Plan as part of a network solution to safety problems of  young people who walk and bike to school in this area.    Phase 3 will address the two intersections with the highest numbers of bike/ped injury collisions on the C‐A corridor— Middlefield and El Camino Real.  At El Camino, bike lanes disappear on the C‐A approaches about 200 feet on either side  of the highway. This forces people on bikes to either take a lane with cars across the highway or mount the sidewalk.  This in turn creates conflicts with pedestrians and puts bicyclists in unsafe locations where drivers do not expect them.  Gaps in safe, standard bike facilities can result in collisions like the one that tragically killed a middle school boy at this  time last year at ECR/California Avenue. Continuous bike lanes the entire length of the corridor were a key promise of  the C‐A Plan school commute corridor project. Gaps in bike lanes, especially those crossing high auto volume/speed  intersections, discourage parents from letting their children bike to school.    The project concept was approved back in 2003 after years of work. Please include funding for Phase 3 and move this  project forward without further delay.    We thank you for considering our comments.    Sincerely,  Jim Pflasterer, PA PTAC Safe Routes to School co‐chair Arnout Boelens, PA PTAC Safe Routes to School engineering chair  9 Baumb, Nelly From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 5:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Review of Fiscal 2021 Capital Projects CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members,    I am very concerned that there is a move to cut funding for the Phase 3 work on the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor  Project.    This project is already out to bid and is eligible for additional matching funding from state and federal sources.  It is not a  suitable candidate for delaying. In addition, since safety is a key goal of this project, that must considered by the Council  as you weigh the alternatives.    As a life‐long bicyclist and an advocate of bicycling and walking for transportation, I urge you to press ahead with this  project.  Palo Alto talks a lot about the importance of reducing our carbon impact.  And one of the best ways to do that,  is to get people out of their cars.  Safe routes for foot‐powered transportation are critical if we are to move in that  direction.  If people are fearful of using alternative transportation modes or allowing their children to do so, they will  continue to rely on their cars.  Period.    It’s time to follow through on our stated priorities.    Thank you.    Pria Graves  2130 Yale Street  Palo Alto, CA 94306              10 Baumb, Nelly From:Kara Davis <karaldavis@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 5:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Phase 3 Charleston/Arastradero Corridor project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Council members,    I would like to voice my support to preserve funding to complete the planned Charleston/Arastradero Corridor project.  Understanding that COVID‐19 has had significant impact on our city budgets, I would urge council to preserve these  much needed safety improvements in this important corridor to many schools for our community.    What’s more, safety improvements are needed at the intersection of El Camino and California Avenue after the tragic  death of a child in our community last year when he was struck by a truck while riding his bike home from swim practice.  We are a bicycle friendly community and we should continue to support transportation by non‐carbon generating means  and encourage our kids to commute that way as well. However, our roads remain busy and sometimes dangerous.  Please support safety improvements at our bike and school routes to keep our kids safe.    And, let’s urgently address the intersection at El Camino and California Ave. This is a major pedestrian and bicyclist  thoroughfare to schools, Caltrain, and Cal Ave businesses while a very busy intersection across a 6 lane street. I am very  happy to participate and brainstorm to make sure no more of our children die when riding home from swim practice.    Best,  Kara Davis  11 Baumb, Nelly From:pennyellson12@gmail.com Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 4:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Fund the Charleston-Arastradero Plan Phase 3 This Year As Planned--No Further Delay CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable  City Council,    I am writing to encourage you to fund the Charleston‐Arastradero Plan Phase 3 this year as planned without further  delay.    Some background: This project is in the city’s 2012 Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan and was in the prior Bike  Plan.  The last two Comprehensive Plans and the more recent Comp Plan Update all have included a residential arterial  treatment like this (Comp Plan Policy T‐4.4) for Charleston‐Arastradero (C‐A), a residential arterial that serves eleven  public and private k‐12 schools, public parks, playing fields, south PA’s only library, community centers and shopping  centers.  The concept was approved in 2003 and has been through 17 PTC and CC public hearings (unanimous votes of  approval every time), countless community meetings, an extensive paint trial in two phases that was followed by  additional spot pop‐up demonstrations with additional opportunities for public comment on some intersection  improvements. Community outreach has not been lacking.    This traffic safety project was the mitigation plan, supported by a Nexus Study and impact fees for multiple  developments, including hundreds of new affordable housing units with nearly 1,000 new housing units in total in  addition to other development along the corridor service area. This mitigation plan was created by community  members, staff and developers working together.  It enabled the community to get to “yes” on housing that, in  aggregate, greatly exceeded Comp Plan projections.  Though the housing and other development (Challenger School,  CJL,  Elks, hotel, SRP) has been built and occupied for more than a decade, the mitigation plan has not been  completed.  This project is not an option, it is a mitigation obligation that has not been fulfilled‐‐ already long  overdue. The original project completion date was estimated 2007, fourteen years ago.    Safety should be considered by Council. In the Attachment A Critical Elements/Issues to be Considered column, safety is  not cited for the C‐A Plan Phase 3, though improving safety for people who drive, walk, and bike is a key goal of the  project.      Phase 3 will finally address the most hazardous intersections on the school commute corridor, Middlefield/Charleston  and El Camino Real/C‐A. At El Camino, the bike lanes disappear completely on the eastbound and westbound  approaches to and through the eight‐lane state highway intersection, forcing bicyclists to merge with motor vehicle  traffic.  This is challenging, even for very experienced, skilled and confident bicyclists. (see bike/ped injury collision  data from the 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928 , p. 4‐13 and p. 4‐15).  It is surprising that safety is  not mentioned as a critical element/issue for consideration in addition to SB1 compliance.      Each year the project is delayed we see reported ped/bike injury collisions.  In 2019 (the most recent full year SWITRS  data is available),  it shows four injury collisions involving people who were walking and biking in the corridor segments  that will be addressed by Phase 3.  We know that only the most severe injury collisions get reported by PAPD.  Many  more bike/ped collisions occur that are not reported to police and are not included in this data set. Remember that we  saw very similar data on the Phase 1&2 segments of the road leading up to the crash that killed a woman from  12 Stevenson House who was crossing Charleston on foot before those improvements were constructed.  The safety  problems are well documented.  Let’s not tempt fate with further delay again.    Please follow through on the city’s commitment to provide continuous bike lanes the entire length of the corridor.  This was a key goal of the C‐A Plan project. Phase 3 will improve the El Camino Real intersection, and the Middlefield‐to‐ Fabian segments of the corridor. It also will add provide new bike lanes to San Antonio and improved pedestrian  facilities near the CJL. Pedestrian improvements to intersections near the Campus for Jewish Life and nearby affordable  housing for seniors will provide some senior residents who can no longer drive and CJL members with walking conditions  they need to  to access nearby bus stops and shops safely.    It appears that this is a good time to get bids for roadway projects. Prices are down. Further delay will likely increase  costs as previous delays have done.     Encouraging sustainable commutes: If we are serious about encouraging people to choose sustainable, healthy, active  alternatives to driving to reach our congestion management and SCAP goals, we need to provide safe, standard road  facilities for all of the people who use them.  This road, one of only two east/west crosstown routes in Palo Alto south of  Oregon Expressway,  must be designed to keep auto speeds close to posted limits and provide  safe spaces for foot‐ powered people.   As e‐bikes and other small e‐vehicles become more popular for local trips,  this will become a greater  need.  Further,  improving the Middlefield and ECR intersections will make it safer for people to walk, scooter or bike to  bus stops for the 22, 522, 288 and 35 VTA bus lines near these intersections.  If the Shuttle is restored,  it may help  people access those stops as well.    After over two decades of work on this mitigation project, its completion is already many years overdue. Let’s get this  done!    Thank you for your public service, and for considering my comments.      Sincerely,    Penny Ellson        To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preautomatic download of this picture from the Intern   Virus-free. www.avg.com   13 Baumb, Nelly From:Henry Lum <hlumjr@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:Funding for the completion of the Charleston/Arastradero (C-A) Corridor CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We are requesting that the City Council move the C-A Plan, Phase 3, forward this year. By not funding the completion of the Arastradero section of the C-A Corridor, it severely endangers the safety and life of the students, elderly, and pedestrians using this Corridor. Cars are going at speeds in excess of 35 mph from the Coulombe/ Arastradero intersection to El Camino Real trying to beat the change of the traffic signal at Arastradero-Charleston/El Camino Real. The bike lanes narrow and disappear at the McKellar/Arastradero intersection causing cyclists to swerge onto the sidewalk to avoid the speeding cars. To ensure the safety and well-being of the children, elderly, and all others who walk and cycle along this corridor, we hope you will please provide the funding this year to proceed with the completion of the C-A corridor Thank you for your consideration and attention to this matter. Regards, Henry and Betty Lum 4202 Suzanne Drive Palo Alto 94306-4335 14 Baumb, Nelly From:forest light <forest129@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 12:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Council Meeting Monday March 22-Agenda Item 5: Review of and Potential Direction Regarding Planned Fiscal Year 2021 Capital Projects CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council:      While we understand the budget circumstances faced by the city, we are asking you to please find a way to follow  through on the city’s commitment to provide continuous bike lanes the entire length of the corridor, especially through  the El Camino state highway intersection.  This was a key goal of the C‐A Plan project. Phase 3 will improve the El  Camino Real intersection, and the Middlefield‐to‐Fabian segments of the corridor.    Please do not cut or delay this project.    We live on Fairmede Ave in South Palo Alto, essentially “landlocked” in our Greenacres One neighborhood. What  happens — or does not happen — on Charleston Arastradero is of critical importance to us. We have no other way in  and out of our neighborhood than our two access points on Arastradero… And (in normal times) we travel it several  times daily and know what is happening there.     Prior to the implementation of the C/A School Corridor Plan. our children went to school at Juana Briones, Terman and  Gunn on foot and bicycles and had to contend with the ungoverned traffic on Arastradero.    Which, put plainly, was a daily source of ongoing danger for our young family.      The implementation of the first two phases of the C/A has, however significantly controlled and controlled and  improved traffic flow, reduced/standardized traffic speeds and foot‐and‐bicycle safety on the C/A school corridor.  Especially during the school traffic hours. And made it far more possible for us to safely access our neighborhood.    The most hazardous of the several hazardous intersections  on the school commute corridor, are Middlefield/Charleston  and El Camino Real/C‐A. At El Camino, the bike lanes disappear completely on the eastbound and westbound  approaches to the eight‐lane state highway intersection. Yet safety is not mentioned as a critical element/issue for  consideration in the staff report on this issue. It is clear that safety concerns should be heavily re‐emphasized here since  the most likely victims of such hazards are, in this instance, the city’s schoolchildren.      (See bike/ped injury collision data from the 2012 City of Palo Alto Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928 , p. 4‐13 and p. 4‐15)    It also  appears worthy of re‐emphasis that bids are due for this third phase of the project (March 30) and that further  delays will likely increase costs…    Thank you,    Michael and Judith Maurier  Fairmede Ave.  16 Baumb, Nelly From:William Robinson <williamrobinson@goldenworld.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 10:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fund and Complete Charleston /Arastradero Phase 3 in 2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council and Staff,  For “Safety’s Sake” please press on  with completing traffic safety improvements along the 11  school corridor in south Palo Alto.     Copied from the CIP FY2021 Follow up report.    This phase  completes the 2.3  mile corridor  project including  major intersection  work at El Camino  Real, Middlefield  Road, Louis /  Montrose and  Fabian Way. The  expenditures for  this project count  toward the  maintenance of  effort required to  receive SB1  funding. ‘Rob’ William Robinson 650-464-8933   17 Baumb, Nelly From:Ken Kershner <ken@triomotors.co> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 10:56 AM To:Council, City Cc:m: Penny Ellson; Pat Burt Subject:Small Business Owner Supports C-A Phase 3 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I'm writing to encourage the Council to retain the funding for the C‐A Phase 3 project.      This corridor must have better safety for foot and bike traffic. This project finally ‐ after decades of advocacy ‐ addresses  the most hazardous intersections  Middlefield/Charleston and El Camino/C‐A.      Eliminates the gaps in a safe biking infrastructure corridor.  Studies show ridership increases when gaps in infrastructure  are filled and riders feel safer.  This program is essential to increasing ridership and setting a model standard for other  climate savvy improvements.     I bike and scooter on this corridor from the JCC in Palo Alto towards Gunn.  The improvements so far have been very positive and the corridor deserves to be completed now while the construction  bids can be gathered without further increase like what the 101 bike bridge experienced.     thanks for your consideration,  ken  ‐‐   Ken Kershner | Co-Founder & CEO Cell 650-248-9059 | Email ken@triomotors.co Trio Motors | Palo Alto     18 Baumb, Nelly From:Skyler Hedblom <hedblomskyler@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 10:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please Preserve Charleston/Arastradero (C-A) Corridor – Phase 3 Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,      My name is Skyler Hedblom and I am a senior at Henry M. Gunn High School.     I write to you today asking you to support and continue to fund the Charleston/Arastradero (C‐A) Corridor – Phase 3  Project.    As a PAUSD student, this project will help protect me and my fellow students of all grades as we get to school, the  library, and local parks. For us, this is not a luxury but a safety necessity.    Sincerely,  Skyler Hedblom  19 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Neff <robert@neffs.net> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 10:16 PM To:Council, City Cc:Neff, Robert Subject:March 22 Item 5 - 2021 Capital funding CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. March 19, 2021 Honorable Members of Palo Alto City Council, This letter concerns item 5 on the March 22 agenda, review of capital projects. I am writing to ask you to support maintaining the planned Charleston / Arastradero funding through its final, 3rd phase when you consider pushing out some capital projects at Monday’s meeting. This phase of this project will improve important connections along the corridor, including new bike lanes from San Antonio to Fabian, upgrading the pavement and intersections from Fabian to Middlefield, and finally creating bike lanes through the El Camino Real intersection, my commute for 25 years. These improvements will help the city transportation network by making bicycle trips across El Camino much safer and more comfortable for commuters, especially school commuters to Gunn HS and Fletcher Middle School. The improvements from MIddlefield to San Antonio will connect bike lanes from Midtown all the way across San Antonio, where they already exist, finally making bike trips to the hardware store and back comfortable for residents south of Oregon Expressway. The improvement at Fabian includes a left turn arrow signal for vehicular traffic going to businesses, the JCC and Moldaw residences, or the high school on Fabian. The pavement condition on these parts of Charleston are low, so the pavement improvements will also help the city qualify for SB-1 funding, like other elements in the street paving program. Since the point of this item is to identify ways to reduce capital funding, let me suggest a few. Among the streets proposed for paving in last year’s report is over one mile of Los Trancos Road, on the edge of Portola Valley. I am surprised that the pavement condition there is considered so low. When I have bicycled and motored there it has been a pleasant smooth ride, much better than many other Palo Alto streets, like Charleston, East of Middlefield, or Arastradero, near Arastradero Preserve. I could not determine the exact streets proposed for repaving in the report under PE086070, but Los Trancos is in the 2021 year according to Public Works’ 5 year plan. I think you should consider pushing out the contract for parking systems in downtown garages, and I think the broken pavement in Rinconada Park could be patched and the larger capital improvement be delayed as well. Thank you for your work for our city of Palo Alto Robert Neff 701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/05/ 202 1 Document dates: 03/10/2021 – 03/24/2021 Set 3 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 21 Baumb, Nelly From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 5:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Planned Fiscal Year 2021 Capital Projects CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  My reading of Staff Report #12089 is that the City Manager and Public Works Director believe that  the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor Project (PE-13011) be retained in the plan as approved during prior reviews. I support that recommendation.     Please vote to complete phase 3 of that project as designed and scheduled.    thank you for your service,  Ken Joye  Ventura neighborhood  22 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy <ngkrop@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 3:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Charleston/Arastradero C-A Corridor - Phase 3 Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi      Please move forward the Charleston/Arastradero C‐A Corridor ‐ Phase 3 Project, without any funding cuts or delays.    Please put the safety of our City’s children first ‐ by funding and moving forward with this project.    The Charleston‐Arastradero Corridor serves children commuting twice daily to eleven PAUSD K‐12 schools, several  parks and a library. As we emerge from this pandemic, our children will be biking an walking, twice daily to and from all  those schools, in greater numbers along that Charleston/Arastradero Corridor.    Phase 3 finally addresses the most hazardous intersections of the school commute corridor, Middlefield/Charleston and  El Camino Real/Charleston‐Arastradero. At El Camino, the bike lines disappear completely on the eastbound and  westbound approaches to the eight‐lane state highway intersection.    Please follow through on the City’s commitment to provide continuous bike lanes the entire length of the corridor,  especially through the El Camino state highway intersection.    Nancy Krop  Barron Park resident  PAUSD parent          23 Baumb, Nelly From:NTB <aarmatt@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 2:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:In support of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project - Phase 3 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council Members, The world has barreled on since the initial conception of the Charleston-Arastradero Corridor Project back some 20 years ago but the conditions that propelled the project to prominence have not changed. Eleven schools still operate along the corridor. The SAFETY of our children who walk or bike along the corridor is still a major concern. You can’t let the past year which saw schools closed and the corridor underutilized persuade you that the conditions and concerns have gone away. They haven’t. The Charleston-Arastradero Corridor project must be completed as planned. It can’t be taken off the table. The SAFETY of our children is at stake.     Also keep in mind that this promised traffic mitigation (supported by a Nexus study) for aggregate development impacts 300%   over the former Comp Plan's high estimate for this area at the time is long overdue. Before the City even contemplates the support   of more housing development in this area, it is time to rebuild community trust by implementing the languishing mitigation plan for   the LAST massive round of development.    Please move Charleston-Arastradero Phase 3 forward without further delay. Sincerely, Nina Bell  24 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Greenfield <elizabethg15@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 2:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Maintain funding for Charleston-Arastradero Phase 3 Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     My name is Elizabeth, and I am a Palo Alto resident in the South of Midtown neighborhood. I am writing in support of  keeping the Charleston‐Arastradero Phase 3 Project funded in the FY 2021 CIP budget.    The community has been waiting for over two decades for this project to be completed. As far as making the City a safer  and more walkable, bikeable, and carbon‐free community, this project's completion can make a significant impact. The  Charleston‐Arastradero corridor connects people to a plethora of destinations in South Palo Alto, from 11 schools to the  Mitchell Park Library, shopping on El Camino Real and at Charleston Center, and more. I have used the corridor  frequently since I was a toddler (2000) via bike, my two feet, or back in the day, in a stroller, to access the Mitchell Park  Library; piano, dance, and soccer practices at Cubberley; destinations at Charleston Shopping Center; hangouts at Juana  Briones Park; and to get a change of scenery on my bike commute to Sunnyvale.     The current project's progress does a good job making it safer to walk and bike in most locations along the corridor, but  it only takes one unsafe intersection for a parent to not allow their child to bike to school, or for an adult new to biking  to feel unsafe and opt to drive instead.     The vast and overwhelming majority of carbon dioxide emissions in Palo Alto are derived from driving private vehicles  around town. To reach our ambitious 80x30 goal, empowering more non‐car travel trips is imperative, and this project  offers a terrific opportunity to do that. Phase 3 of the Charleston‐Arastradero project will add safer crossings at the  most unsafe intersections and make the Charleston‐Arastradero project a Complete Street. More parents will feel  comfortable letting their children, our next generation, develop freedom, independence, and lifelong sustainable  transportation habits to walk and roll to school, and more working adults and seniors may be persuaded to get their  bikes out more often if they feel safer.     Finally, this is a matter of public trust. There have been extensive and numerous meetings with Council, Commissions,  and the public over this project over the last 20 years, in addition to two  on‐the‐ground pilots. Every time the project  moves forward with a resounding yes. Please finish what you started to help prove to your constituents that when  Council approves a project, the project actually comes to fruition as promised. Just think how fantastic it will feel to  check this off the City's to‐do list, for once and for all.     Elizabeth Greenfield  1 Baumb, Nelly From:James Pflasterer <jimpf@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 9:43 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Funding for Phase 3, Charleston-Arastradero Plan Attachments:Gunn_PTSA_El_Camino_Letter.pdf; Juana Briones PTSA El Camino Letter.pdf; Fletcher PTA ECR crossing safety letter to DOT.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please note the addition of attachments, letters of support.      > On Mar 21, 2021, at 5:45 PM, James Pflasterer <jimpf@sbcglobal.net> wrote:  >   > Honorable City Council Members,    >   > We write to let you know that affected Charleston‐Arastradero corridor PTAs continue to actively support expeditious  implementation of this traffic safety project as evidenced by attached letters that site PTAs recently wrote to Caltrans in  support of City of Palo Alto staff’s application for an encroachment permit for the C‐A Phase 3 project.    >   > Over many years, corridor school site PTAs have consistently supported the City of Palo Alto 2012 Bicycle Pedestrian  Transportation Plan, including the Charleston‐Arastradero Plan as part of a network solution to safety problems of  young people who walk and bike to school in this area.   >   > Phase 3 will address the two intersections with the highest numbers of bike/ped injury collisions on the C‐A corridor— Middlefield and El Camino Real.  At El Camino, bike lanes disappear on the C‐A approaches about 200 feet on either side  of the highway. This forces people on bikes to either take a lane with cars across the highway or mount the sidewalk.  This in turn creates conflicts with pedestrians and puts bicyclists in unsafe locations where drivers do not expect them.  Gaps in safe, standard bike facilities can result in collisions like the one that tragically killed a middle school boy at this  time last year at ECR/California Avenue. Continuous bike lanes the entire length of the corridor were a key promise of  the C‐A Plan school commute corridor project. Gaps in bike lanes, especially those crossing high auto volume/speed  intersections, discourage parents from letting their children bike to school.  >   > The project concept was approved back in 2003 after years of work. Please include funding for Phase 3 and move this  project forward without further delay.  >   > We thank you for considering our comments.  >   > Sincerely,  > Jim Pflasterer, PA PTAC Safe Routes to School co‐chair  > Arnout Boelens, PA PTAC Safe Routes to School engineering chair  Caltrans El Camino Repaving Project Attn: Kathy Karroubi, Manager kathy.karroubi@dot.ca.gov February 19, 2021 Dear Ms. Karroubi, Juana Briones Elementary School PTA strongly supports safe, sustainable, active, and healthy school commutes. We continue to support the City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Bicycle Boulevard projects and the Charleston create a network solution to bike/pedestrian safety problems on school routes. Because El Camino Real (State Highway 82) creates a significant safety barrier for many student commuters, we write to as safety improvements at intersections where students cross El Camino Real every school day.2 In 2019, 57% of our student population chose a “green transportation” option to school (bike, walk, scooter, bus or carpool car.3 Student commutes converge with the morning peak hour traffic. 1 See City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (Adopted July 2012), https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/319282 See Juana Briones School Walk & Roll Map, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/723373 See Safe Routes to School Snapshot (2019 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78709 rans El Camino Repaving Project Manager Juana Briones Elementary School PTA strongly supports safe, sustainable, active, and healthy school commutes. We continue to support the City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan,1 including the Traffic Safety and cts and the Charleston-Arastradero Plan, which together create a network solution to bike/pedestrian safety problems on school routes. Because El Camino Real (State Highway 82) creates a significant safety barrier for many student commuters, we write to ask you to give special consideration to safety improvements at intersections where students cross El Camino Real every In 2019, 57% of our student population chose a “green transportation” option to school (bike, walk, scooter, bus or carpool) each day and 43% arrived by family Student commutes converge with the morning peak hour traffic. See City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (Adopted July 2012), https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928. l Walk & Roll Map, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72337 See Safe Routes to School Snapshot (2019-20): Juana Briones Elementary School,. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78709 Juana Briones Elementary School PTA strongly supports safe, sustainable, active, and healthy school commutes. We continue to support the City of Palo Alto including the Traffic Safety and Arastradero Plan, which together create a network solution to bike/pedestrian safety problems on school routes. Because El Camino Real (State Highway 82) creates a significant safety barrier for k you to give special consideration to safety improvements at intersections where students cross El Camino Real every In 2019, 57% of our student population chose a “green transportation” option to ) each day and 43% arrived by family Student commutes converge with the morning peak hour traffic. Juana Briones’ young people cross El Camino Real at these intersections: ● Charleston Road/Arastradero Road ● Maybell Avenue/El Camino Way The City of Palo Alto’s bike boulevard projects are removing major barriers to safe biking and walking to school by moderating vehicle speeds, improving visibility at intersections, and creating safer connections for students who walk and bike to school. El Camino Real continues to present an important safety problem on these routes. We respectfully urge you to work with City of Palo Alto staff to make El Camino Real crossings as safe as possible at the above locations. Please note that the City has submitted an encroachment permit application for improvements to the Charleston/Arastradero intersection. Please expedite this permit application process. Thank you in advance for giving our comments your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Ginnie Noh President, Juana Briones Parent Teacher Association (PTA), on behalf of the Juana Briones PTA Board Cc: Kathryn Bimpson, Juana Briones Elementary School Principal Sylvia Star-Lack, Rosie Mesterhazy and Jose Palma, City of Palo Alto Transportation Department PAUSD Board of Education fletcher Middle School cve.rychild ~nevo • ce.• Dear Ms. Karroubi, Ellen Fletcher Middle School PTA strongly supports safe, sustainable, active, and healthy school commutes. We continue to support the City of Palo Alto Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan, 1 including the Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard projects and the Charleston-Arastradero Plan, which together create a network solution to bike/pedestrian safety problems on school routes. Because El Camino Real (State Highway 82) creates a significant safety barrier for many student commuters, we write to ask you to give special consideration to safety improvements at intersections where students cross El Camino Real every school day. 2 In 2019, 43% of our student population biked to school each day, 25% arrived by car, and the others walked or rode a bus. 3 Student commutes converge with the morning peak hour traffic. Many students commute from after-school activities in evening peak hour traffic. Fletcher's young people cross El Camino Real at the following intersections: • Charleston Road/ Arastradero Road • Maybell Avenue/El Camino Way • Los Robles Avenue/El Camino Way • Matadero Avenue The City of Palo Alto's bike boulevard projects are removing major barriers to safe biking and walking to Fletcher by moderating vehicle speeds, improving visibility at intersections, and creating safer connections for students who walk and bike to school. El Camino Real continues to present an important safety problem on these routes. We respectfully urge you to work with City of Palo Alto staff to make El Camino Real crossings as safe as possible at the above locations. Please note that the City has submitted an encroachment permit application for improvements to the Charleston/ Arastradero intersection. Please expedite this permit application process. 1 See City of Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (Adopted July 2012), https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebankldocuments/31928. 2 See Fletcher Middle School Walk & Roll Map, htms://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64858. 3 See Safe Routes to School Snapshot (2019-20): Ellen Fletcher Middle School, https://www.citvofualoalto.org/civicax/filebank/ documents/7 6951 . Thank you in advance for giving our comments your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, Jennifer Silva President, Ellen Fletcher Parent Teacher Association (PTA), on behalf of the Fletcher PTA Board Cc: Melissa Howell, Ellen Fletcher Middle School Principal Sylvia Star-Lack, Rosie Mesterhazy and Jose Palma, City of Palo Alto Transportation Department PAUSD Board of Education GUNN I IICI I SCI 1001. l'i\Rl·.N r Tl:i\ 111·.R s·1 UIJl-.NT A SOCIAi ION evcrychild. 011evoice.• March 15, 202 1 Dear Ms. Karroubi, Henry M. Gunn High School PTSA advocates for safe, sustainable, active and healthy school commutes. In 2019, before COVID, 982 students (50% of our student population) biked to school and we estimate that another 250 students (14% of population) walked to school. Gunn student commutes converge with the morning peak hour traffic, and many students commute from after-school activities in evening peak hour traffic. El Camino Real (State Highway 82) is a heavily travelled ro~te which creates a significant safety concern for many Gunn HS student commuters. We write to ask you to give special consideration to safety improvements to intersections where Gunn students cross El Camino Real every school day. Hundreds of intrepid young people must cross El Camino Real at the following intersections: • Charleston Road/ Arastradero Road • Maybell Avenue/El Camino Way • Los Robles Avenue/El Camino Way • Matadero Avenue Please note that the City of Palo Alto has submitted an encroachment permit application for improvements to the Charleston/ Arastradero intersection. We ask that you work with city staff to make El Camino Real crossings· as safe as possible for our student bicyclists and pedestrians. See Gunn High School Walk & Roll map which shows Gunn's walk/bike routes here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/fil ebank/documents/7234 7 . We continue to avidly support the City of Palo Alto 2012 Bicycle Pedestrian Transportation Plan https:Uwww.cityofpaloalto.on~/ciyicax/filebank/documents/31928 , including the Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard projects and the Charleston-Arastradero Plan which together create a network solution to bike/pedestrian safety problems on Gunn school routes. The city's bike boulevard projects are removing major barriers to biking and walking to Gunn by moderating vehicle speeds, improving visibility at intersections, and creating safer connections for students who walk and bike to school. Gunn PTSA Transportation Safety Representatives, students and parents work with city staff and other community members in the community outreach and public review process through development of these projects. Thank you in advance for giving our comments your thoughtful consideration. Sincerely, imberly Eng Lee Henry M. Gunn High School Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA) President, on behalf of the Executive Board Cc: Wendy Stratton, Gunn High School Principal Sylvia Star-Lack, Rosie Mesterhazy and Jose Palma, City of Palo Alto PAUSD Board of Education Trustees Shounak Dharap, Ken Dauber, Todd Collins, Jennifer DiBrienza, Jesse Ladomirak Jim Pflasterer and Audrey Gold, Safe Routes to School Chairs, Gunn High School Sent via e-mail to Kathy Karroubi, Caltrans El Camino Repaving Project Manager, kathy.karroubi@dot.ca.gov 3 Baumb, Nelly From:James Pflasterer <jimpf@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 5:56 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gold, Audrey Subject:Gunn PTA Safe Routes to School Supports C-A Phase 3 funding Attachments:Gunn PTSA letter 2015 re C-A Corridor.pdf; Fletcher C-A Letter 2020-2[9363].pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council Members,       The Gunn High School Parent Teacher Student Association (PTSA) supports the completion of the Charleston‐ Arastradero Phase 3 changes needed to make important changes to key intersection in that corridor.  Attached are  letters previously submitted by the PTA for Fletcher MS and Gunn PTSA supporting these infrastructure changes.    Phase 3 will address the two intersections with the highest numbers of bike/ped injury collisions on the C‐A corridor— Middlefield and the state highway intersection, El Camino Real(ECR).  At El Camino, bike lanes disappear on the C‐A  approaches about 200 feet on either side of the highway. This forces people on bikes to either take a lane with cars  across the highway or mount the sidewalk, creating conflicts with pedestrians and putting bicyclists in an unsafe location  where drivers do not expect them. Gaps in safe, standard bike facilities can result in collisions like the one that tragically  killed a middle school boy in March of last year at ECR/California Avenue. Continuous bike lanes the entire length of the  corridor were a key promise of the C‐A Plan school commute corridor project. Gaps in bike lanes, especially those  crossing high auto volume/speed intersections, can discourage parents from letting their children bike to school.     Please include funding for Phase 3 to move the project forward this year as planned.  Thank you for supporting the PA  PTA’s students as well as the city’s bicyclists and pedestrians that will benefit from safer travels at these intersections.     Sincerely,  Jim Pflasterer  Gunn High School PTSA Transportation Safety Representattive  Palo Alto   PTAC Safe Routes to School committee co‐chair     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• 780 ARASTRADERO ROAD • PALO AL TO , CA 94306 Telephone (650) 354-8200 FAX (650) 493-7801 March 30, 2015 Honorable City Council and Planning & Transportation Commissioners, Henry M. Gunn High School directly abuts Charleston/Arastradero. We draw an average of 836 bicycle commuters each school day during peak bicycling season. Our site is served by several approach streets, including Charleston /Arastradero. Gunn High School PTSA Traffic Safety Representatives and administrators have participated on the Charleston/Arastradero Stakeholders Group and the City School Traffic Safety Committee, providing comment and support for the Charleston/Arastradero Plan for more than a decade. Gunn PTSA has consistently supported the project and we now ask you to approve the recommended Concept Plan Lines for the permanent hardscape improvements to the street. Paint striping was adequate for a restriping trial of road operations and it provided some safety improvements. It is time to put the hardscape improvements in place that will deliver the lion's share of safety benefits to all users. We have formally supported the project a number of times over a decade. In February 2005 Henry M. Gunn High School PTSA approved the following resolution and delivered it to City Council: "We urge the City of Palo Alto to move forward with the Gunn segment of the Charleston Arastradero Plan without further delay because the traffic situation is currently untenable." We wrote again in 2008 in support of the Phase II trial. We wrote again in 2013 in support of an OBAG grant application for Arastradero Road Corridor Improvements (Gunn HS to El Camino Real) that are consistent with the plan lines before you now. Consistent with our previous support of the project, via vote at our General Membership meeting on March 24, 2015, we ask you to approve the Concept Plan Lines which fine tune the striping plan that exists now on the corridor. These plans provide planted medians, intersection and signal improvements, bulb-outs, multi-use paths, buffered bicycle lanes, a dedicated auto right turn lane into the Terman campus from east bound Arastradero, and built enhancements at the Gunn HS entrance and Arastradero approaches. The project is a key component of the south Palo Alto bike boulevard network, connecting PAUSD corridor schools to residences and after-school destinations. We look forward to the safety improvements for all road users-people who drive, people who bike, and people who walk on Charleston-Arastradero. r~~y~ Jdi~ a'Qenry H int~ President (2014/2015), Henry M. Gunn High School PTSA 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Sara woodham-johnsson <sawoodham@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Don't cut budget on the backs of C-A Corridor users Attachments:Don't cut budget on the backs of C-A Corridor users CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Sara woodham-johnsson <sawoodham@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Don't cut budget on the backs of C-A Corridor users City Councilmembers,  I appreciate that we are in a period of tremendous need to reassess priorities and manage budget as we emerge from  this pandemic.  That notwithstanding, the Charleston‐Arastradero plan needs to remain a priority and funded.  It is a  safety issue, especially for our school children as we encourage them to bike to and from school as stewards of our  environment.  We have done great in mid‐town and north with our bike routes and traffic calming to enable safer bike  riding. The C‐A corridor should not be pushed off any more.  It isn’t fair.  The city has said that it is committed to  providing bike lanes along the entire length of this corridor.  Please follow through on our city’s commitments.  Our  family are avid bikers all over the city and this area of Palo Alto is woefully underserved.    Respectfully.  Be well,  Sara Woodham  732.768.7207 cell  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 6:25 PM To:Council, City Cc:ParkRec Commission; Jensen, Peter; pwecips; CSD; Public Works Public Services Subject:Approve Ramos Park improvements Without Fence CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and City Council,    The Ramos Park renovations will be voted on this Monday at the City Council Meeting. I am pleased that the dog park is  no longer part of the plan, but a chain link fence has been added to separate the green space from the sidewalk (See  Exhibit A).  This was not in any plan that I have seen.  I’m surprised that this was added without consulting the  neighborhood.  The fence will certainly change the lovely view of the expansive green space and make it impossible to  walk across the grass to/from the sidewalk.    Please remove the fence for the plan.  Save money!  Save our neighborhood from an unwanted eyesore.    Best regards,  Arthur Keller    2      To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 10:07 AM To:Jensen, Peter Cc:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; pwecips; CSD; Public Works Public Services Subject:Re: Approve Ramos Park improvements Without Fence CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Thank you for clarifying the diagram. Will a new diagram be posted before the meeting?  An “at places” memo is not  generally available to the public.    Best regards,  Arthur    > On Mar 20, 2021, at 1:41 PM, Jensen, Peter <Peter.Jensen@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  >  > Arthur‐  >  > The chain link fence was part of the proposed off leash dog area.  There will no longer be an off leash area, which  eliminates the fence.  >  > Thank you  >  > Sent from my iPhone  >  >> On Mar 19, 2021, at 6:25 PM, Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> wrote:  >>  >    4 Baumb, Nelly From:Sharon Elliot <saelliot7@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 3:45 PM To:Jensen, Peter Cc:Michelle Rosengaus; Council, City; ParkRec Commission; pwecips; Public Works Public Services; CSD; Lisette Micek; Camille Tripp; Ana Maria Arjona; Satomi Rogers; Taly Katz; Sue Freeman; Rick Hallsted; Nate Case; John Jacobs; Corkie Freeman; Ram Sunder; Kathy Fei; Pam Mayerfeld; Paul Koo; Tim Rogers; David Cheng; Jo Vitanye; Margaret Cheng; Eliezer Rosengaus; Lisa Zhang; Koo Darice; Robin Holbrook; George Greenwald; Yan Jing; runlong Zhou; Olga Rubchinskaya; Chip Wytmar; Mary Ann Norton; CeCi Kettendorf; Amanda Case; Lakshmi Sunder; Arthur Keller; Kevin Mayer; lioraphoto@hotmail.com; Will Shen; Teddie Guenzer; adele@acm.org; Campbell Linda & Bob; Brian and Maggie Szabo; Sung and Jenny Ryu; Grant Elliot; Margie Greenwald Subject:Re: Objection to Ramos Park Chain Link Fence Hello Peter,    Thanks for the good news about the fence.  Many people here are still in favor of off‐leash times at Ramos, but we  certainly don’t want the fence under any conditions.    Please be sure the fence is removed from “Exhibit A” before it goes to Council on Monday.    Thanks for all your good work, Sharon Elliot Adobe Meadow NPC VP AMNA We're all in this together     On Mar 20, 2021, at 1:43 PM, Jensen, Peter <Peter.Jensen@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:    To All‐     The fence is no longer part of the project as the off leash dog area has been removed from the project  scope.     Thank you   Sent from my iPhone      On Mar 19, 2021, at 9:00 PM, Michelle Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com> wrote:  5    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor, City Council and Parks and Recreation Staff,  It has come to my attention that you are ready to vote on Monday on the final PARK  IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE FOR RENOVATIONS AT RAMOS PARK. I reviewed the  document and found that a new 42" tall chain link fence will be built along East Meadow  where the turf meets the sidewalk. This fence was not in the plans presented to the  community for discussion. This fence will block a major access to the park, leaving as  the only other entrance on East Meadow through the child's playground area. This is a  very unsafe move. Everyone will have to enter and exit the park by the child's  playground, a terrible idea where children's safety is concerned. People bringing in  equipment for volley ball, soccer, parties, and so on, usually bring it in through the turf  area, which you are planning to block. In case of an emergency, you are blocking the  major access point to the park. If you insist on building this fence, first you have to  present it to the community for review before you approve it.   The document mentions the dog park is no longer part of this renovation. There is a  brief "DOG PARK DISCUSSION" of the public meetings regarding this issue. What the  document sorely fails to include is the very strong community reaction opposing the dog  park. This was expressed at the February 10 community meeting,  at this time there was  a barrage of emails opposing the dog park sent to the Council and City Staff from the  neighborhood. The Board for the Adobe Neighborhood Association representing 300  households also sent an email opposing the dog park. Neighbors voiced their opposition  yet again at the City Council/Parks and Rec Meeting.  The extensive neighborhood  opposition to the dog park has to be included and documented as part of the  ORDINANCE to reflect the neighborhood's position on the issue. It is imperative that  this be part of the record for when the issue gets revisited in the future.  Michelle Rosengaus  3704 Ortega CT  Palo Alto, CA               6 Baumb, Nelly From:Michelle Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 2:00 PM To:Jensen, Peter Cc:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; pwecips; Public Works Public Services; CSD; Sharon Elliot; Lisette Micek; Camille Tripp; Ana Maria Arjona; Satomi Rogers; Taly Katz; Sue Freeman; Rick Hallsted; Nate Case; John Jacobs; Corkie Freeman; Ram Sunder; Kathy Fei; Pam Mayerfeld; Paul Koo; Tim Rogers; David Cheng; Jo Vitanye; Margaret Cheng; Eliezer Rosengaus; Lisa Zhang; Koo Darice; Robin Holbrook; George Greenwald; Yan Jing; runlong Zhou; Olga Rubchinskaya; Chip Wytmar; Mary Ann Norton; CeCi Kettendorf; Amanda Case; Lakshmi Sunder; Arthur Keller; Kevin Mayer; lioraphoto@hotmail.com; Will Shen; Teddie Guenzer; adele@acm.org; Campbell Linda & Bob; Brian and Maggie Szabo; Sung and Jenny Ryu; Grant Elliot; Margie Greenwald Subject:Re: Objection to Ramos Park Chain Link Fence Hi Peter, Thank you for the clarification on the fence. Questions on the restroom: will the entrance face East Meadow? Will it be one or two stalls? At the community meeting it was discussed that for security the entrance should face East Meadow so police can keep an eye on the users as they drive by the park. It was also mentioned that since it is a very small park, one stall would be sufficient. Michelle Rosengaus Get Outlook for Android From: Jensen, Peter <Peter.Jensen@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:43:33 PM  To: Michelle Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com>  Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  pwecips <pwecips@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Public Works Public Services <pwps@CityofPaloAlto.org>; CSD  <CSD@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Sharon Elliot <saelliot7@gmail.com>; Lisette Micek <slmicek@yahoo.com>; Camille Tripp  <cpt2947@hotmail.com>; Ana Maria Arjona <garciawalker@hotmail.com>; Satomi Rogers <Satomirogers@gmail.com>;  Taly Katz <Talyk@sbcglobal.net>; Sue Freeman <sue.freeman9@gmail.com>; Rick Hallsted <mysemite@yahoo.com>;  Nate Case <nacase@gmail.com>; John Jacobs <johnajacobs@comcast.net>; Corkie Freeman  <rkfreeman@sbcglobal.net>; Ram Sunder <ramamurthy.sunder@gmail.com>; Kathy Fei <fei41817@gmail.com>; Pam  Mayerfeld <pam.mayerfeld@stanfordalumni.org>; Paul Koo <pcskoo@gmail.com>; Tim Rogers <taroger@pacbell.net>;  David Cheng <dmcheng34@aol.com>; Jo Vitanye <jo.vitanye@gmail.com>; Margaret Cheng <mccheng34@aol.com>;  Eliezer Rosengaus <erosengaus@gmail.com>; Lisa Zhang <lisa99rose@yahoo.com>; Koo Darice <dkoo4@comcast.net>;  Robin Holbrook <robineholbrook@gmail.com>; George Greenwald <george.greenwald@gmail.com>; Yan Jing  <yjing@yahoo.com>; runlong Zhou <runlongz@yahoo.com>; Olga Rubchinskaya <m.olgaru@yahoo.com>; Chip Wytmar  <chip@wytmar.com>; Mary Ann Norton <Maryann@nortonoptics.com>; CeCi Kettendorf <cecihome@gmail.com>;  Amanda Case <ammcgraw@gmail.com>; Lakshmi Sunder <lakshmi3733@gmail.com>; Arthur Keller  <arthur@kellers.org>; Kevin Mayer <mayer.zimmer@gmail.com>; lioraphoto@hotmail.com <lioraphoto@hotmail.com>;  Will Shen <bokuishen@gmail.com>; Teddie Guenzer <tjg@guenzer.com>; adele@acm.org <adele@acm.org>; Campbell  Linda & Bob <lmaidl2000@yahoo.com>; Brian and Maggie Szabo <b.szabo@comcast.net>; Sung and Jenny Ryu  <sungwookryu@yahoo.com>; Grant Elliot <agrante@stanfordalumni.org>; Margie Greenwald  <margiebgreenwald@gmail.com>  Subject: Re: Objection to Ramos Park Chain Link Fence   7    To All‐     The fence is no longer part of the project as the off leash dog area has been removed from the project scope.     Thank you   Sent from my iPhone      On Mar 19, 2021, at 9:00 PM, Michelle Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com> wrote:     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor, City Council and Parks and Recreation Staff,  It has come to my attention that you are ready to vote on Monday on the final PARK IMPROVEMENT  ORDINANCE FOR RENOVATIONS AT RAMOS PARK. I reviewed the document and found that a new 42"  tall chain link fence will be built along East Meadow where the turf meets the sidewalk. This fence was  not in the plans presented to the community for discussion. This fence will block a major access to the  park, leaving as the only other entrance on East Meadow through the child's playground area. This is a  very unsafe move. Everyone will have to enter and exit the park by the child's playground, a terrible idea  where children's safety is concerned. People bringing in equipment for volley ball, soccer, parties, and so  on, usually bring it in through the turf area, which you are planning to block. In case of an emergency,  you are blocking the major access point to the park. If you insist on building this fence, first you have to  present it to the community for review before you approve it.   The document mentions the dog park is no longer part of this renovation. There is a brief "DOG PARK  DISCUSSION" of the public meetings regarding this issue. What the document sorely fails to include is  the very strong community reaction opposing the dog park. This was expressed at the February 10  community meeting,  at this time there was a barrage of emails opposing the dog park sent to the  Council and City Staff from the neighborhood. The Board for the Adobe Neighborhood Association  representing 300 households also sent an email opposing the dog park. Neighbors voiced their  opposition yet again at the City Council/Parks and Rec Meeting.  The extensive neighborhood  opposition to the dog park has to be included and documented as part of the ORDINANCE to reflect  the neighborhood's position on the issue. It is imperative that this be part of the record for when the  issue gets revisited in the future.  Michelle Rosengaus  3704 Ortega CT  Palo Alto, CA             8 Baumb, Nelly From:Teddie Guenzer <Teddie@guenzer.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:56 PM To:Council, City; ",parkrec.commission"@cityofpaloalto.org; ",peter.jensen"@cityofpaloalto.org; ",pwecips"@cityofpaloalto.org; ",pwps"@cityofpaloalto.org; ",csd"@cityofpaloalto.org Subject:Fence at Ramos Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor, City Council and Parks and Recreation Staff,    I am writing in support of having a fence with landscaping installed along the East Meadow side of Ramos park. There  had been discussion of off‐leash hours at the park with the portion of the park between the street and the basketball  court, from the walkway towards Ortega being the designated area for this. The fence makes sense for an additional  boundary line there.    I understand some of the concerns of the neighbors. However there is already a low fence along the side of the  playground area and it seems like there will still be plenty of access to the park between these two fences.    Teddie Guenzer    9 Baumb, Nelly From:Jensen, Peter Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:44 PM To:Michelle Rosengaus Cc:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; pwecips; Public Works Public Services; CSD; Sharon Elliot; Lisette Micek; Camille Tripp; Ana Maria Arjona; Satomi Rogers; Taly Katz; Sue Freeman; Rick Hallsted; Nate Case; John Jacobs; Corkie Freeman; Ram Sunder; Kathy Fei; Pam Mayerfeld; Paul Koo; Tim Rogers; David Cheng; Jo Vitanye; Margaret Cheng; Eliezer Rosengaus; Lisa Zhang; Koo Darice; Robin Holbrook; George Greenwald; Yan Jing; runlong Zhou; Olga Rubchinskaya; Chip Wytmar; Mary Ann Norton; CeCi Kettendorf; Amanda Case; Lakshmi Sunder; Arthur Keller; Kevin Mayer; lioraphoto@hotmail.com; Will Shen; Teddie Guenzer; adele@acm.org; Campbell Linda & Bob; Brian and Maggie Szabo; Sung and Jenny Ryu; Grant Elliot; Margie Greenwald Subject:Re: Objection to Ramos Park Chain Link Fence To All‐    The fence is no longer part of the project as the off leash dog area has been removed from the project scope.     Thank you   Sent from my iPhone      On Mar 19, 2021, at 9:00 PM, Michelle Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com> wrote:     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor, City Council and Parks and Recreation Staff,  It has come to my attention that you are ready to vote on Monday on the final PARK IMPROVEMENT  ORDINANCE FOR RENOVATIONS AT RAMOS PARK. I reviewed the document and found that a new 42"  tall chain link fence will be built along East Meadow where the turf meets the sidewalk. This fence was  not in the plans presented to the community for discussion. This fence will block a major access to the  park, leaving as the only other entrance on East Meadow through the child's playground area. This is a  very unsafe move. Everyone will have to enter and exit the park by the child's playground, a terrible idea  where children's safety is concerned. People bringing in equipment for volley ball, soccer, parties, and so  on, usually bring it in through the turf area, which you are planning to block. In case of an emergency,  you are blocking the major access point to the park. If you insist on building this fence, first you have to  present it to the community for review before you approve it.   The document mentions the dog park is no longer part of this renovation. There is a brief "DOG PARK  DISCUSSION" of the public meetings regarding this issue. What the document sorely fails to include is  the very strong community reaction opposing the dog park. This was expressed at the February 10  community meeting,  at this time there was a barrage of emails opposing the dog park sent to the  Council and City Staff from the neighborhood. The Board for the Adobe Neighborhood Association  representing 300 households also sent an email opposing the dog park. Neighbors voiced their  10 opposition yet again at the City Council/Parks and Rec Meeting.  The extensive neighborhood  opposition to the dog park has to be included and documented as part of the ORDINANCE to reflect  the neighborhood's position on the issue. It is imperative that this be part of the record for when the  issue gets revisited in the future.  Michelle Rosengaus  3704 Ortega CT  Palo Alto, CA             11 Baumb, Nelly From:Jensen, Peter Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:41 PM To:Arthur Keller Cc:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; pwecips; CSD; Public Works Public Services Subject:Re: Approve Ramos Park improvements Without Fence Arthur‐     The chain link fence was part of the proposed off leash dog area.  There will no longer be an off leash area, which  eliminates the fence.      Thank you     Sent from my iPhone    > On Mar 19, 2021, at 6:25 PM, Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> wrote:  >   12 Baumb, Nelly From:Camille Tripp <cpt2947@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 12:07 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; Jensen, Peter; pwecips; Public Works Public Services; CSD Subject:Ramos Park fence CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I can see no reason to put an ugly chain‐link fence along East Meadow at Ramos Park.  I thought the idea was  to plant native plants there so that dogs would not run out into the street (although I do not remember one  instance of that happening).    I hope the City Council and Parks Department reconsider this.    Camille Tripp  3716 Ortega Court    13 Baumb, Nelly From:Michelle Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 9:00 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; Jensen, Peter; pwecips; Public Works Public Services; CSD Cc:Sharon Elliot; Lisette Micek; Camille Tripp; Ana Maria Arjona; Satomi Rogers; Taly Katz; Sue Freeman; Rick Hallsted; Nate Case; John Jacobs; Corkie Freeman; Ram Sunder; Kathy Fei; Pam Mayerfeld; Paul Koo; Tim Rogers; David Cheng; Jo Vitanye; Margaret Cheng; Eliezer Rosengaus; Lisa Zhang; Koo Darice; Robin Holbrook; George Greenwald; Yan Jing; runlong Zhou; Olga Rubchinskaya; Chip Wytmar; Mary Ann Norton; CeCi Kettendorf; Amanda Case; Lakshmi Sunder; Arthur Keller; Kevin Mayer; lioraphoto@hotmail.com; Will Shen; Teddie Guenzer; adele@acm.org; Campbell Linda & Bob; Brian and Maggie Szabo; Sung and Jenny Ryu; Grant Elliot; Margie Greenwald; Michelle Rosengaus Subject:Objection to Ramos Park Chain Link Fence CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor, City Council and Parks and Recreation Staff,  It has come to my attention that you are ready to vote on Monday on the final PARK IMPROVEMENT ORDINANCE FOR  RENOVATIONS AT RAMOS PARK. I reviewed the document and found that a new 42" tall chain link fence will be built  along East Meadow where the turf meets the sidewalk. This fence was not in the plans presented to the community for  discussion. This fence will block a major access to the park, leaving as the only other entrance on East Meadow through  the child's playground area. This is a very unsafe move. Everyone will have to enter and exit the park by the child's  playground, a terrible idea where children's safety is concerned. People bringing in equipment for volley ball, soccer,  parties, and so on, usually bring it in through the turf area, which you are planning to block. In case of an emergency,  you are blocking the major access point to the park. If you insist on building this fence, first you have to present it to the  community for review before you approve it.   The document mentions the dog park is no longer part of this renovation. There is a brief "DOG PARK DISCUSSION" of  the public meetings regarding this issue. What the document sorely fails to include is the very strong community  reaction opposing the dog park. This was expressed at the February 10 community meeting,  at this time there was a  barrage of emails opposing the dog park sent to the Council and City Staff from the neighborhood. The Board for the  Adobe Neighborhood Association representing 300 households also sent an email opposing the dog park. Neighbors  voiced their opposition yet again at the City Council/Parks and Rec Meeting.  The extensive neighborhood opposition to  the dog park has to be included and documented as part of the ORDINANCE to reflect the neighborhood's position on  the issue. It is imperative that this be part of the record for when the issue gets revisited in the future.  Michelle Rosengaus  3704 Ortega CT  Palo Alto, CA             14 Baumb, Nelly From:Sharon Elliot <saelliot7@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 5:37 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission; Jensen, Peter; pwecips; Public Works Public Services; CSD Subject:Ramos Park Chain Link Fence CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council and Parks and Recreation Staff,    We just saw “Exhibit A” for the Ramos Park renovations and were shocked that a chain link fence has been added to  separate the green space from the sidewalk.  As far as we know, the fence was not in any previous plan presented to the  community.       Such a fence will certainly change the lovely view of the expansive green space and make it impossible for us to walk  across the grass to/from the sidewalk.   It will be an impediment to the enjoyment of the park and an unnecessary  expense.  We are totally opposed to any kind of barrier between the green space and the sidewalk.      Thank you for your consideration, Sharon and Grant Elliot 3712 Ortega Ct Palo Alto, CA We're all in this together               1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kevin Ma <kevinma.sd@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 11:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:Comment on 7 (Res to Condemn Xenophobia against AAPI) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    I would like to thank the authors for bringing up this resolution and city council for acting on it so quickly. As a member  of the AAPI community, I am assured that the council is looking after us.    If not already done, the city should reach out to AAPI institutions like WizChinese or Palo Alto Chinese School to see how  the city can locally address the issue. The city could call up volunteers, like our ESVs, to run a community patrol or on‐ call chaperone system, like those in Oakland or San Jose, or spread awareness of bystander training, such as the one  created by Hollaback! and AAJC, within the city and PAUSD.    Sincerely,  Kevin Ma  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Bob Wenzlau <bwenzlau@neighborsabroad.org> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 9:13 PM To:Council, City Cc:board@neighborsabroad.org; Gaines, Chantal Subject:Regarding Item 7 – Supporting Colleagues Memo Denouncing Anti-Asian Violence Attachments:NeighborsAbroad_Item7_20210322.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council,     Please find a statement from Neighbors Abroad.    Sincerely,      Bob Wenzlau      ‐‐       Bob Wenzlau  President  Neighbors Abroad of Palo Alto  650‐248‐4467  Facebook  |  Web | Twitter | Join    March 21, 2021 Regarding Item 7 – Supporting Colleagues Memo Denouncing Anti-Asian Violence Honorable City Council, Neighbors Abroad, Palo Alto’s official sister city organization, supports the City Council adopting a resolution to denounce, condemn and combat racism, xenophobia, and violence against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the City of Palo Alto. Furthermore, we denounce violence whether the person is American or not, and urge broadening the breadth of this resolution to denounce racism regardless of citizenship. Three of our nine sister cities are in Asia, Yangpu District of Shanghai, China, Tsuchiura, Japan and Palo, Philippines. Through student exchanges, cultural events and service we build relationships and friendships. These relationships bring understanding and engagement across our community. We remind the City Council that both Yangpu District and nearby Nanjing, China supported Palo Alto during the pandemic by sending personal protective equipment to our Fire Department. This generosity occurred despite a narrative blaming China for the pandemic. Such engagement created a counter narrative to the destructive statements. While our city may be relatively small in population, statements as well as action build empathy which can defeat racism and xenophobia. Our work over the last fifty years has instilled in Palo Alto citizens knowledge and understanding of the common humanity across skin colors and racial identities. Neighbors Abroad will be part of the solution, and we support the City Council in denouncing racism. Sincerely, Bob Wenzlau President cc. Board of Neighbors Abroad 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Lei Fu <leifu99@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 12:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Request of your response CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and Vice Mayor Burt, The recent Atlantic massacre and the nationwide spike of anti-Asian violence have brought deep concerns to our local Chinese community. We are now not only worrying about how to react to potential hate crimes, but also our personal safety. Fortunately, we are not aware of such anti-Asian hate crimes in Palo Alto yet. To keep Palo Alto a safe place for Asian Americans, we would like to request the City Council of Palo Alto to issue a statement to stand against anti-Asian hateful rhetoric, racist thinking, bigotry, and xenophobic, acts of violence and to stand with Asian American community to fight against any forms of Anti-Asian hate crimes. As you know, none of us is safe until all of us are safe. Sincerely, Lei 1 Baumb, Nelly From:rogersac@aol.com Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 8:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Closing Churchill CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members I am writing to state that I am against closing Churchill. Firstly, living in South Palo Alto my main route to Stanford is Alma/Churchill. Any alternatives involve too much traffic and more importantly too many traffic lights. As a former Paly parent, I have done my best to avoid Paly commute times on Churchill, but at any other time, Churchill/Alma is definitely the best route to Stanford from south Palo Alto. Secondly, for the ability to get to Stanford or Sand Hill Road, we cannot get there from Alma unless we do U turns on El Camino Real. There is no word about what might happen at the Alma crossing but the ridiculous lack of connectivity between Alma and Sand Hill does nothing to help efficient traffic flow and that bottleneck must be improved. Thirdly, as a former Paly parent, I know that I have had meetings on campus and the best way to get there is Alma/Churchill. If I had to collect my children from school (twice I had children on crutches so they needed short term chauffering to and from schoo)l, and that car park by the sports fields made most sense). Additionally, when they were able to drive and on the very few occasions they took the car to school, they parked in the residential neighbourhoods around Churchill, Bryant, etc. Likewise, many parents parked there for back to school night and of course for Paly football and other sports events. As I am sure the local residents would say, this neighbourhood would be very impacted by parking by students and staff if Churchill was closed. Lastly, PAUSD parks all their school buses by the Churchill entrance to Paly. All these buses (and presumably the drivers who drive their personal vehicles to get to work) would be heavily impacted by this closure. School buses need to get pupils to and from school in a timely manner and having to use other crossings where traffic would be increased would mean that their schedules would be at risk. To sum up, efficient traffic flow is a very big consideration in this. All the other crossings are busy. Closing a cross would not add to efficient traffic flow around town. That traffic will not disappear, it will still need to cross the tracks. Please consider those of us who live in Palo Alto and need to be able to get around efficiently. Closing Churchill is a poor decision. Sincerely, Carol Rogers, Stockton Place. 2 Baumb, Nelly From:mickie winkler <mickie650@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 1:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Closing Churchill Ave????? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council   Do you know how many students attend Paly?   Or how many staff work there?  The answer is 2117 and 231, respectively  And you're "thinking" of closing access to one of three roads serving it?  Please, think again.    Mickie Winkler    Mickie Winkler  650-324-7444 office  850 Webster St.    3 Baumb, Nelly From:Alla Gorinevsky <allagorin@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 2:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Against Churchill closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  closing Churchill would shift unacceptable loads to other streets which are already overcrowded.   It will make reaching Stanford and PAMF difficult for South Palo Alto residents.   It is a waste of money without solving anything.  All that to allow bikers to cross without stopping?    "Palo Alto is preparing to advance its most complex, expensive and potentially divisive public infrastructure  project" ‐‐‐ again, without referendum.   Please stop!!!   Do not proceed without a comprehensive train tracks plan.   Conduct a city‐wide referendum, complete with per parcel contributions required.  Start with collecting the funds from large donors ‐ don't do anything until the money is there and research  completed.    "Concurrently, the city would proceed with a wide range of traffic improvements at Embarcadero Road and  Oregon Expressway — modifications designed to keep traffic at these busy arteries from getting worse once  the Churchill intersection is reconfigured."    Concurrently? Surely traffic improvement should be done PRIOR to closure of Churchill.   It will be beneficial anyway.    Thanks,  Alla Gorinevsky  Palo Alto resident  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Markevitch <pat@magic.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Honorable Council Members,    Please do not close the Churchill crossing.    Sincerely,    Pat Markevitch  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Roberts <patroberts707@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 7:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Avenue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Members of the City Council,     I am writing to show my support for keeping Churchill Avenue open at Alma Street. I think Churchill is an important  automobile crossing to Palo Alto High School and El Camino Real.    Embarcadero Road and the Oregon Expressway are often bumper to bumper during the commute hours. I don’t believe  that there is room for additional traffic if Churchill is closed.    Please vote to keep Churchill Avenue open!    Thank you,  Patrick Roberts  857 Southampton Dr  Palo Alto  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 1:34 PM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia Subject:Please don't close Churchill and add another 7,000 cars to Embarcadero *& the neighboirhoods CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello. As someone who lives on Middlefield a block south of Embarcadero, I'm begging you not to close Churchill and divert an estimated 7,000 NEW daily car trips to an already crowded major road, one of only 3 leading to 101 and the only one providing direct access to Stanford. Where will those thousands of vehicles be diverted to: Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway, both of which are near schools: PALY, Casti, Walter Hays and Jordan where students and their parents transporting them will be endangered. Both roads are already disasters, with traffic backed up for blocks even outside of rush hour.  Regarding rush hour, one of the city's RR  closure consultants  underestimated when rush hour  starts and stops and only considered 2.5 hours of vehicle traffic 8‐9:15 AM and 5‐6:15 PM. This  timeframe totally ignores PALY afternoon and early morning traffic, car tips to other schools like  Casti, Jordan and Walter Hays which are accessed by Embarcadero and Oregon,  and the  fact that rush hour in general starts earlier and ends later with drivers trying to avoid rush hour  congestion.   During rush hour, frustrated Embarcadero drivers often form their own lanes when backed up at the still poorly timed traffic lights. Trust me, it's truly terrifying to turn into one's correct lane and find a car that shouldn't be there and be boxed in with no place to go! The same thing happens at Oregon / Middlefield due to the bollards at Jordan; a driver can legally 7 cross Oregon heading north at the light AND get stuck in the intersection because the Jordan / N/ California bollards box in through traffic if a car's trying to make a left at Jordan. Being stuck in the middle of Oregon with several lanes of through traffic speeding at you is not fun and I've had guests arrive shaking from the experience. City "planners" also ignored what now happens at Middlefield and Embarcadero when the VTA  bus stops 3 car lengths from the intersection when they narrowed the street and added  bollards at every intersection:   through southbound traffic gets boxed in by the bollards and can't  bypass the  bus. Southbound turning and through traffic AND East/West through traffic regularly  gets stuck IN the intersection during rush hour.  This Keystone Kops/Third World scenario lasts  through several cycles of traffic light changes while the multiple lanes of N/S and E/W traffic tries  to untangle itself.   (Years of complaints to the city's Traffic "planners" and to City Council about both situations have not been fruitful; let's hope the new City Council will pay more attention to costly traffic "calming" measures that do exactly the opposite!.) If Casti's under construction abutting Embarcadero AND Churchill's closed AND we're deluged with thousands more vehicles a day, this will be a disaster! PLEASE SAY NO to closing Churchill. Also note that Casti's garage access from Bryant is even CLOSER to Embarcadero than the Middlefield VTA bus stop so just imagine the chaotic backups there!) Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Chacon <Mary.Chacon@varian.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:26 AM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:mary@mac-archcon.com Subject:STOP - DO NOT Close Churchill!!! Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  All,  Diverting traffic to Embarcadero and North Palo Alto - Professorville is not the answer. Do NOT close Churchill!! Please take a long term look at the situation along with developing a MASTER Plan for traffic in Palo Alto.   We live at the corner of Embarcadero and High Street (North). One side of our lot is on the Embarcadero frontage road that accesses Alma. Our front door is on High street. High street is a 30 foot wide street. Cars are parked all week long on both sides of the street. The parked cars come from:  1. Street residents   2. Permit parking for downtown workers   3. Permit parking for PALY students.   4.  Our street is also the drop off and pickup site for many PALY students every morning and afternoon.  There is a large number of bikes and pedestrian that come down High Street/Emerson Street and Embarcadero to go to PALY, Stanford and T&C. In fact many residents park on High and Embarcadero frontage and walk to T&C to shop because it’s quicker then sitting in the long line on Embarcadero to get to T&C. Additionally, there have been multiple car/bike accidents at this intersection.  Essentially this is an already VERY busy and dangerous intersection.  Diverting Churchill traffic would completely destroy our streets and quality of living. We have a wonderful WALKABLE neighborhood with young kids, dogs, pets, elderly residents that 9 we do not want to be destroyed by sending more cars that would normally go down Churchill through our neighborhood…..this is NOT the answer…all it does is create another harmful problem to an already traffic impacted area.  Thank you for your consideration!   Mary Chacon   (650)862‐9972      Varian Confidential  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Hing Sham <hinglsham@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 4:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail crossing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear sir/madman, I live on Carolina Lane and very close to the Charleston/Alma railroad crossing. I believe underground  trenches for the trains at the crossing is the best option for Palo Alto residents. Thank you very much for your attention.   Hing Sham    Sent from Hing's iPad  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 1:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Resending: XCAP presentation Attachments:DRAFT Part 1 3-18-21 City Council - XCAP Presentation for Mar 2021.pptx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I sent you all XCAP’s presentation for tonight but AJ think the PDF version distorted some images, so I’m sending the soft  copy just in case.     Sorry for the multiple emails.    Nadia  2 Baumb, Nelly From:pennyellson12@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 1:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:XCAP--Churchill Closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council,    Re: Churchill Closure and Embarcadero Changes  that you will consider in your study session this evening    First, I want to thank XCAP members for their work to date on seeking workable solutions to at‐grade rail crossing  barriers to east‐west transportation citywide.  This is a complex set of problems, and they have worked hard to identify  feasible options.  Nonetheless, the recommendations you see before you reflect analysis that is incomplete and doesn’t  take into account known impacts of major projects that are in the city’s pipeline.  This is probably another side effect of  having heavy staff turnover and new staff with limited historical knowledge coupled with reliance on consultants who  have limited comprehensive knowledge of the city’s current and long term transportation and development picture and  policies.     I do not support the XCAP recommendation to close Churchill at this time because there are important gaps in the data  that informed it. Here are my questions and comments:    1. When the Stanford GUP DEIR was underway in 2018, the DEIR said Stanford’s proposed GUP expansion plan  would result in auto congestion impacts to the Embarcadero/Middlefield intersection in front of Walter Hays  Elementary School that cannot be mitigated.  (See Mitigation Measure #66: the Project will cause significant Level of Service (LOS) impacts at the Middlefield/Embarcadero intersection in both the morning and evening peak times. The DEIR provided no mitigation, stating that there is “No feasible mitigation measure.’) Notably, the GUP  DEIR analysis did not study possible Churchill closure and diversion of existing Churchill auto trips to  Embarcadero.  Nor did it consider a probable increase in auto trips near Churchill related to a possible Castilleja  expansion or University Avenue closure. I don’t know what those aggregates mean for the rest of the  Embarcadero intersections, but it seems likely this is a line of study that is worth pursuing before decisions are  made on this matter. Question: did the project traffic analysis consider potential aggregate impacts of  increased auto trips on Embarcadero due to Castilleja expansion and Stanford GUP projects that are in the  pipeline now in their analysis of Churchill closure? If it did, that does not appear to be reflected in the reports  presented to XCAP.  Grade sep planning is a 100‐year project, so looking at known probable aggregate impacts  would be prudent.     2. If Embarcadero intersection operations are significantly compromised, might auto traffic migrate with the  help of Waze and similar apps to quieter neighborhood streets that function as school commute routes in this  area?  A lot of careful analysis and work was done on the Charleston‐Arastradero (C‐A) Plan in order to avert  auto traffic diversion.  I hope that similar attention will be given to potential traffic diversion for any Churchill  closure decision, including the aggregates I mention above in Question #1—just as C‐A Plan analysis was  required to include an SRP expansion that was in the pipeline at the time.     3. PAUSD and PTA Council letters expressing concern that they had not had opportunity to contribute as  stakeholders were disappointing to see.  A project of such importance to school commute safety and school  site operations should have undergone rigorous cooperative review with the city’s Safe Routes to School  partners. This must be rectified.  3   4. As a member of PABAC,  I have been disappointed by the limited opportunity for review the Pedestrian &  Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) was offered very late in the process—only when members of PABAC  pressed hard for it.  Because it was so late, there was no money left to make significant design changes.  This  is not normal process.  I hope Council will investigate why PABAC did not regularly get to see the evolving  plans in their monthly meetings as is the norm for Palo Alto.    5. Mitigations for Embarcadero focus primarily on motor vehicle operations (probably because that is the focus  of the traffic analysis). Bike/ped solutions for the slip road and Kingsley are particularly unclear, but certainly  will have important implications for school commute safety.  These should be fleshed out so they can be  understood better.       6. Information about ped/bike volumes and crossings in the report is lacking.  From the current concepts, it is  impossible to understand how this will work for students or anyone else who walks or bikes.    7. The consultants were given copies of school route Walk & Roll maps and information about Comp Plan  Transportation policies.  I don’t see evidence in the reports that alternative commutes were given the kind of  consideration Comp Plan policy demands.  In the XCAP meetings I attended,  though members of the public  and XCAP repeatedly asked for bike facilities to be integrated early in the design process,  staff and the  consultants consistently designed for motor vehicles first and shoehorned in bike facilities afterward.  The  results, for every single crossing, reflect that outmoded planning process.    Further study is needed to understand the implications for all road users of Churchill closure on Embarcadero and  nearby neighborhood streets before any decision is made.    Thank you for considering my comments.    Penny Ellson        To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Virus-free. www.avg.com   4 Baumb, Nelly From:John Koval <john@kovalfamily.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:XCAP Program Recommendation and BIG Infrastructure $$ cmoming! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a longtime resident of Palo Alto, I wanted to write in dissent regarding the impending closure of Churchill Ave at the  Caltrain Tracks.     The proposed (and it appears baked‐in) closure of Churchill Ave is not the best idea. This is a shortsighted attempt to  save $, and justify the XCAP committees existence, with a disappointing and poorly developed plan as the ONLY  recommendation by a highly paid consulting firm after 2 years of wasteful meetings.    If you are going to go through the construction costs and impacts of the pedestrian tunnel, do it right and complete this  important cross town linkage of our neighborhoods. Think long term and for the whole city.    We need to be ready with a plan and thin k bigger knowing that we will have passing tracks in Palo Alto (Mountain View  is the only other North Santa Clara City, which already has 3 tracks for the light rail) and the impacts will be more severe  than we think with noisy trains on the side tracks at any time and more clanging bells, squealing brakes and horns  blowing as they idle next to our homes day and night! These trains and tracks need to be in a trench or tunnel!    Their will be large amounts of money available from the infrastructure program that will be shortly flowing to the State  from Congress. Think big and get this program in gear and be shovel ready!!!    Sincerely,  John Koval  Tennyson Avenue  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Mohamed T. Hadidi <mthadidi@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:48 AM To:Council, City Cc:Mohamed Hadidi; youngjoh; Omar Hadidi; Mona Hadidi; Expanded Community Advisory Panel Subject:Please support the “Closure of Churchill Ave” CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council Members,      I would like to start by thanking all XCAP members for dedicating months of hard work, meticulous analysis and probing  questions in the midst of the Pandemic to come up with their report.      Some who didn’t like the results of the XCAP’s work have tried to descredit the XCAP by claiming that 2 of its members  live on Churchill Ave. This is a disingenuous ad hominem attack. Only one XCAP member lives on Churchill and he lives  on the east side, which is the side least affected by the proposed alternatives. Another member lives in Southgate, but  does not live on Churchill, and in fact has voted at the start in favor of considering the Underpass Option and its further  study. And these are only two of the 9‐member XCAP.      I ask you to honor the XCAP work by taking to heart its analysis and recommendations.      I ask you also in particular to accept the XCAP recommendation of closing Churchill with Mitigations.      The reasons are simple:   1. Cost which is almost an order of magnitude less than the other 2 alternatives.   2. Safety of Palo Alto High School students and street residents   3. Preserving the residential character of the neighborhood, which would be irretrievably damaged by either of the  Partial Underpass or the Viaduct. Either of these two other alternatives would pose an almost existential injury to those  who are in direct view of these “concrete monsters”. This existential damage cannot be compared to the slight  inconvenience for those in the Southgate area who would no longer have as quick an access to Alma as they currently  have. Or to a possible slight increase in traffic for those living close to Embarcadero. The degrees of harm that the 3  alternatives for Churchill pose to these different constituencies just don’t compare in kind and are not in the same  league.   4. The Hexagon Traffic Study is quite clear that with Mitigations traffic at most intersections impacted by Churchill  Closure would be better. Only in two of the seven impacted intersections would it be worse, but only slightly so.   5. Palo Alto has more rail crossings per capita than any other city in the Bay Area, and would remain so even with  Churchill’s closure.      Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.      Best regards,   Mohamed       Mohamed Hadidi, Ph.D.  6 Baumb, Nelly From:YORIKO KISHIMOTO <yoriko12330@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:Connecting Palo Alto! (study session) Attachments:KellermanKishimoto letter - RRXing 0321.docx; Memo-Churchill Avenue At-Grade-Xing.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Dubois and Honorable City Council:    Thank you for your attention to the “Connecting Palo Alto” challenges.    First, please note the name of the project:  We want to CONNECT Palo Alto, not dis‐connect it.    I am attaching the letter from Tom and Rachel Kellerman and myself.  It focuses on the direction that the city council  made, that any closure must be meaningfully mitigated.  It’s not!  We commissioned an experienced professional traffic  engineer (PE) to review it and I will attach that too.    There are too many big problems with the recommendation to close Churchill.  * 14 original appointees are down to 9 ‐ two who live near Churchill are still there but University South, PAUSD, Friends  of Caltrain representatives are all gone.  The “majority” who want to close Churchill is a minority ‐ 6 out of 14.  * Pushing traffic and problems from one neighborhood to another  * Making things worse for walkable/bikeable Palo Alto by funneling more traffic to a more expressway‐like system  * Economic comparison doesn’t include the true cost of their “mitigations” ‐ $50 million to re‐do the bridge,  intersections etc.??  * Technically, the “mitigations" are based on shaky assumptions with BIG gaps as our letters point out.  * PAUSD is not on board and the safe routes to school and bike groups have concerns too    Overall:  too many big concerns to make such an important policy call. Closing Churchill is not taking us in the right  direction for the city and any survey of residents would no doubt  show lack of broad support.    Instead, I recommend:  * Prioritize South Palo Alto first for the Measure B funding.  They have no grade separations.  * Build the recommended bike/ped under crossings and network first ‐ Connect Palo Alto!  This include the 2016  Embarcadero bike improvement project that had been fully approved and funded.  Seale and Loma Prieta bike/ped  crossings too (and Hawthorne).  * Take the time to study and implement North Palo Alto area in a comprehensive way including Palo Alto Avenue and  University Avenue.  This might include some of the long term multi‐modal improvements.    Thank you so much for your consideration.  I also strongly support Susan Newman’s excellent summary letter.      Yoriko Kishimoto  Former Mayor of Palo Alto  Professorville resident, Embarcadero Road    Memo 1834 Casterline Road m.derobertispe.@gmail.com Oakland CA 94602 MMD...… …. September 15, 2020 To: Yoriko Kishimoto From: Michelle DeRobertis, P.E. Subject: Churchill At-grade Xing Traffic Analysis This memorandum presents comments and observations on the traffic studies of the impact of closing the Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto at-grade railroad crossing and the proposed mitigation. I have reviewed the August 13, 2020 memo from Hexagon which also contains the November 26, 2019 traffic study, also by Hexagon. The latter refers to a TJKM traffic study, which I did not review. These comments take into account the forthcoming Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidance on conducting multimodal traffic studies1. ITE recognizes that a major shortcoming of many traffic impact analyses is that they often neglect to analyze the impact of roadway changes and/or land developments on other roadway users besides automobiles. The new ITE recommended practice is that traffic studies should address not only impacts on automobile traffic but also impacts to transit service, pedestrians, bicyclists, and sensitive areas such as residential streets. Thus, the following comments reflect the need to evaluate traffic impacts on all modes, including transit travel time, pedestrian and bicyclist circulation and sensitive areas such as residential streets, not only auto level of service. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC STUDIES The August 13, 2020 study of the closure of the Churchill Avenue at-grade crossing describes the following as the options: • Do Nothing- maintaining the existing at-grade option. • Complete closure of the Churchill Avenue roadway rail crossing while maintaining pedestrian and bicyclist access by the construction of a nonmotorized undercrossing. • The partial underpass of Churchill Avenue; this would create a Tee intersection at Alma Street with Churchill Avenue access to and from the west, as shown in Figures 3A and 3B of the August 2020 study. • Proving a grade-separated roadway crossing. The study identified this option as a viaduct, an elevated structure for the railroad. (Presumably other reports addressed other alternatives of providing grade separation including a roadway undercrossing of the railway, or by undergrounding the railroad). 1 ITE Recommended Practice - Multimodal Transportation Impact Studies, expected publication in 2020. September 15, 2020 Page 2 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com It is recognized that the “Do Nothing” alternative (retaining the existing at-grade roadway crossing) is not feasible given the proposed increase train frequencies. Thus one of the other options above must be chosen. The costs associated with these options and their associated mitigations and other necessary new infrastructure were not presented in the traffic study and are not the subject of this review. This review focusses on the analysis of the impacts of the complete closure option as presented in the November 2019 traffic study. The study addressed the traffic diversion from the intersection of Churchill Avenue at Alma Street to Embarcadero Road due to closure of the existing at-grade crossing of Churchill Avenue. This memorandum presents comments in these main areas: • Assignment of the diverted trips • Future analysis year • Assessment of impacts of the diverted trips • Mitigations measures and analysis of the impact of the mitigation measures 1. Assignment of the Diverted Trips The traffic study evaluated how and where existing Churchill Avenue traffic would divert to other routes to cross the railroad. While the traffic volumes were not described in terms of vehicles per day, based on the turning movement volumes, it appears that approximately 7,000 vpd use the Churchill at-grade crossing, 5,000 of which are to and from Alma Street and 2,000 proceed east on Churchill Avenue. The impacts of these diverted automobile trips away from the intersection of Churchill Avenue at Alma Street was the basis for assessing the impacts of the closure of Churchill at-grade crossing. The traffic study identifies the existing AM and PM peak hour turning movements, and Figures 7A and 7B depict the path that the diverted traffic is predicted to use. The traffic study then analyzes the impacts of the diversion of these auto trips. For simplicity, this discussion will refer to the AM peak hour volume, unless noted. Figure 7A Eastbound movements • Eastbound right turn movement from Churchill onto southbound Alma Street (150 trips): the majority was assigned to Oregon Expressway. This seems like a reasonable assumption. • Eastbound left turn from Churchill onto northbound Alma Street (89 trips): It unclear where this movement was assigned. Figure 7A shows that 89 AM trips as being assigned to an eastbound left turn at the intersection of Embarcadero and Alma, but this left turn is not possible. The way to make this movement (turn from eastbound to northbound) is to enter the Embarcadero Road underpass heading east and then use the slip ramp to Kingsley Avenue as a loop onramp onto Alma Street. Thus these additional trips (89 AM and 127 PM or about 1000 vehicles per day) would use the section of Kingsley Avenue heading westbound and then would turn right onto Alma Street. September 15, 2020 Page 3 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com Figure 7B Westbound Movements • Southbound right turn from Alma Street onto westbound Churchill (157 AM): this movement was assigned to Lincoln -Emerson via a left turn from Alma Street onto Lincoln Avenue to access Embarcadero Road. This was then mitigated by assigning them to turn left onto Kingsley Avenue to access Embarcadero Road. • Northbound left turn from Alma to westbound on Churchill (199 AM): 97 of the 199 AM (and 94 of the 190 PM peak hour trips) appear to be diverted to turn left at Oregon Expressway. This seems to be a reasonable assumption. It is unclear where the remaining ~100 vehicles per hour (vph) were assigned during both the AM and PM peak hour. It appears as if some if not all of the remaining 100 vph would be diverted to the Lincoln Avenue -Emerson Street route to access Embarcadero Road to head west. The report states: “Traffic from Alma Street that wants to head west on Embarcadero Road must use Lincoln Avenue to Emerson Street. The amount of traffic going “around the block” to access Embarcadero from Alma would increase by 157 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 97 vehicles during the PM peak hour.” Thus, it does not appear that any of the northbound left-turn movement was assumed to divert to this route. If the 100 extra trips from the northbound left-turn movement were assumed to divert to this route also, then the projected diverted volume would be 157 + 100 = 256 AM peak hour trips, and about 97 + 100 = 194 PM peak hour trips. This is about 2000 vehicle per day (vpd) that would use the Lincoln- Emerson route or the alternate route recommended as mitigation. 2. Future Analysis Year Impacts of the closure of the Churchill Avenue at-grade crossing were assessed by comparing existing conditions with two scenarios: existing volumes with the closure and future volumes with the closure. Future traffic volumes were for the year 2030. However, 2030 is only ten years out. Often, future traffic analyses use a future horizon year of 20 to 25 years in the future, especially for projects that are expected to be in place for decades, as this would be. A 2013 City of Palo Alto Memo (ID # 4327) titled “Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and Traffic Model Update”2 cited the year 2035 as the future analysis year, which at the time was 20+ years in the future. 3. Assessing the Impacts of the Diverted Trips The Hexagon November 2019 Traffic Study stated that 24 intersections were evaluated by a prior TJKM traffic study and that the TJKM study determined that the closure of the Churchill Avenue railroad crossing would create significant impacts at eight study intersections. Hexagon disagreed with two of the impacts, but agreed with impacts six intersections. Thus the Hexagon report proceeded to discuss 2 Department of Planning &Community Environment available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38140 September 15, 2020 Page 4 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com the six intersections for which it also recommended mitigations. (Comments on these mitigations are discussed in the next section). The traffic study analysis of the diverted trips impacts was restricted only to impacts on automobile travel and only at intersections. Automobile level of service (LOS) at intersections is not the only element of the roadway system that could be impacted by capacity constraints or other problems due to increased traffic. In addition, increased traffic also impacts other modes and sensitive areas. These are discussed further below. Impacts on other roadway elements The impact of closing the Churchill at-grade crossing on the following aspects of the road system do not appear to have been evaluated in the August 2020 and November 2019 traffic studies. 1. The Embarcadero Road underpass. The volumes for this location were not presented for any of the three scenarios: existing conditions, existing volumes with Churchill closure, and future year with Churchill closure. In order to assess the full impact of the Churchill closure on automobiles, the following should be analyzed for the Embarcadero Road underpass under all three scenarios: the average daily traffic volume (ADT), the AM peak hour volumes, and PM peak hour volumes. Furthermore, as stated above, 2030 is not typical future scenario; the future year should be 2040 or beyond. This is not to suggest that the Embarcadero underpass should be widened, but only to state that when comparing the pros and cons and the financial implications of all the options, the cost of widening the Embarcadero undercrossing may need to be included in the cost of the “Churchill closure” scenario to compare to the cost of the “Churchill grade separation” scenario and the cost of the “Churchill partial underpass”. 2. At the unsignalized intersections, the LOS of the impacted turning movements were not presented. The LOS for the unsignalized intersections was presented with the note “Average delay is reported for the worst approach at one-way stop intersections. LOS F is not substandard unless a signal warrant is met”. However the specific movement or movements experiencing LOS F were not identified nor was the increased delay or increased queue length associated with that movement, for example for the left turn from Alma Street onto Lincoln Avenue. For three unsignalized locations, the recommended mitigation was a traffic signal, so perhaps this was why no further analysis was presented. Impact of increased traffic on other modes and sensitive areas 1. Impact on bus travel times due to increased traffic on Embarcadero Road was not assessed. Concentrating more traffic on fewer roadways adversely impacts public transit because buses are limited to using these fewer roadways which now carry more auto traffic. 2. Similarly concentrating traffic onto fewer roadways increases the impact to pedestrians and cyclists who use those roadways. The impact on Bicycle LOS or level of traffic stress due to additional automobile traffic on Embarcadero Road was not assessed. The impact on bicycling and pedestrian conditions on Embarcadero Road should be assessed at two locations: west of Alma Street and east of Alma Street. September 15, 2020 Page 5 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com 3. Impacts of the closure of the Churchill at-grade crossing and the increased traffic on Embarcadero Road underpass on emergency vehicle response time was not addressed. 4. Impacts of increased traffic on pedestrian delay and bicycle delay at signalized intersections was not assessed. 5. Residential streets. The traffic studies did not address the adverse impact of the diverted traffic on Lincoln-Emerson residential streets, only stating that this route was “circuitous” for vehicular traffic. It is implied that this “circuitousness” is the reason for the recommended mitigation. The traffic study did not address the adverse impacts of the additional traffic on the residents of these streets. It instead recommended an alternative to the use of Lincoln Avenue and Emerson Street which involves the use of another residential street—Kingsley Avenue. This impact on Kingsley Avenue was not stated nor evaluated. The impact of additional traffic on residential roadways is not due to capacity but due to livability and safety concerns. 4 Mitigation and Impacts of the Proposed Mitigation The November 2019 traffic study states that six intersections would have significant impacts but that they could be mitigated. The main mitigation affecting Embarcadero Road and its environs is to encourage diverted traffic to turn onto Kingsley Avenue to access Embarcadero Road westbound instead of using the Lincoln-Emerson route to access Embarcadero Road westbound. Other diverted trips onto Kingsley are the eastbound trips that wish to head north on Alma Street. The report analyzed the intersections affected by the traffic diversions and developed mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures themselves can have impacts. The impacts of the following proposed mitigation were not evaluated: • The study proposed three new traffic signals, at the intersections of Alma Street/ Embarcadero slip ramp; Alma Street/Kingsley Avenue; and Embarcadero Road /Kingsley Avenue. While the report evaluated the intersection level of service (LOS) of the first two intersections with signal operation, it did so only for automobiles. The LOS experienced by pedestrians and bicycles was not evaluated. • The report did not address the intersection level of service (LOS) and operating conditions at the new signalized intersection of Embarcadero Road/Kingsley Avenue. This should be addressed both for automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists. • This impact of the new signalized intersection at Embarcadero Road at Kingsley Avenue on transit travel times on Embarcadero Road was not assessed. The impact of the two new signalized intersections on Alma Street on transit travel times was also not addressed. Note this is in addition to the impact on transit travel time of the increased traffic on Embarcadero Road discussed above. • The traffic study did not address the fact that Kingsley Avenue is a residential street with single family home frontage. There would be additional north and southbound traffic on Kingsley Avenue. The resulting queue of traffic waiting to turn left onto Embarcadero Road at new signal at Embarcadero Road/ Kingsley Avenue and the westbound traffic turning right onto Alma Street from Kingsley Avenue September 15, 2020 Page 6 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com would impact the existing residents. The annoyance factors of noise and pollution were not addressed nor was the length and duration of each queue. • The report states the following with respect to the recommend mitigation to route diverted traffic from Lincoln-Emerson to Kingsley Avenue: “If this project were to be pursued, many design details would need to be worked out with regard to maintaining access to existing residential driveways on Embarcadero Road, Kingsley Street (sic), High Street, and the Embarcadero slip ramp” More clarity on what exactly the impacts would be, if these design details cannot be worked out, would be appropriate before an alternative is selected. The traffic study does not mention that it is likely that these impacts of the mitigation itself cannot be mitigated and that the solution to avoid these impacts is to preserve a Churchill roadway crossing. • The traffic study states that at the intersection of El Camino Real & Embarcadero Road “significant traffic impacts would occur due to reassigned traffic.” It then recommended additional turning lanes (a westbound left-turn lane and a northbound right-turn lane) along with “signal optimization”. The impacts of these “improvements” on pedestrians and bicyclists were not evaluated nor was signal optimization. Signal optimization often means longer signal cycle lengths. While it is true that models show this can reduce the average delay experienced by motorists, they also show that longer signal cycles almost always increase the delay experienced by pedestrians and bicyclists. One could argue that pedestrians and bicyclists are disproportionately impacted by the wait at long signal cycles. The impact of these mitigation measures, both the turning lanes and the signal changes, on pedestrians and cyclists should be evaluated. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The August 2020 and November 2019 traffic studies on the impacts of the closure of the Churchill Avenue at-grade rail crossing focussed solely on automobile operations. In the evaluation of the diversion of auto trips that would occur if Churchill at-grade crossing were closed, there was no analysis of the impact of additional auto traffic on the other users of Embarcadero Road e.g., on transit service, emergency vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. Furthermore, the future analysis year, ten years in the future, is not consistent with a typical planning horizon year of 20 years. There was no evaluation of the impact on the residential streets. Lastly there was no analysis of the impacts of the mitigation measure themselves, particularly on pedestrians, bicyclists, and residential streets. The study states that “many design details would need to be worked out”. Many questions remain with respect to the impacts of the closure of Churchill Avenue at-grade crossing, and further analysis would be appropriate before a decision is made with respect to this alternative. Alternatively, the solution to avoid these impacts is to preserve a Churchill roadway crossing. The following issues were not addressed in the November 2019 or August 2020 traffic studies. 1. The traffic studies did not address how the increased traffic and traffic congestion on Embarcadero Road will affect the following: September 15, 2020 Page 7 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com • Public transit travel time on Embarcadero Road and Alma Street • Emergency vehicle response time in the Embarcadero Road and Churchill Avenue corridors. • Bicycle LOS or bicycle level of traffic stress on Embarcadero Road • Bicycle or pedestrian delay at existing signalized and unsignalized intersections. • Impact of new signals on public transit travel time, on both Alma Street and Embarcadero Road and on pedestrians and bicycle LOS • Impact to pedestrians and bicyclists of proposed mitigation measures at the signalized intersection Embarcadero Road and El Camino Road (additional turn lanes and “signal optimization”). 2. There was no assessment of capacity of the Embarcadero Road underpass under current and future conditions. If it is at or near capacity now or in the future year scenario, it would be appropriate to consider the cost of widening the Embarcadero undercrossing in the cost of the “Churchill closure” scenario, (for example when comparing the cost of the “Churchill grade separation” scenario to the Churchill closure scenario). 3. The future analysis year is 2030. 2030 is only ten years out, while often traffic analyses use a future year of 20 to 25 years in the future. This is especially appropriate for projects that are expected to be in place for decades. This could have implications when assessing whether or not the Embarcadero Road underpass is sufficient to accommodate diverted traffic from Churchill. 4. It appears that the analysis did not account for all the traffic that would divert to Kingsley Avenue. The study only specifically identifies the 157 AM peak hour trips that formerly were turning right from Alma onto Churchill (and the corresponding PM peak hour trips) that would divert to Kingsley if the proposed new signals were provided. But there appears to be another 100 AM peak hour trips that were turning left from Alma onto Churchill that are unaccounted for. There is also the 89 left turns (AM peak hour) and 127 left turns (PM Peak hour) currently eastbound on Churchill turning left onto Alma Street that would use the slip ramp onto Kingsley Avenue to go northbound on Alma Street. 5. The traffic study did not address impacts on residential streets due to the diversion of auto trips from Churchill Avenue. Mitigation for the circuitous route of using Lincoln-Emerson was to direct this traffic to use Kingsley Avenue. The traffic study did not address the issue that residential streets have different considerations beyond “capacity”. It did not describe the magnitude of the impact of the additional traffic on Kingsley Avenue, such as describing the existing traffic volumes and the future volumes with traffic diversion. The mere presence of more cars in a public space or residential street changes the ambience of a location, and this is a quality beyond which is measurable by traffic capacity September 15, 2020 Page 8 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com and safety metrics. This was recognized over 50 years ago by Colin Buchanan in Traffic In Town3s and will be addressed in the forthcoming ITE Recommended Practice Multimodal Traffic Impact Studies. It is likely that an analysis of these issues would find significant and unavoidable impacts. The solution would be to choose a different alternative such as a grade separation or partial underpass at Churchill Avenue. A partial underpass would have much fewer impacts since approximately 5,000 vpd to and from the west would not be diverted to Embarcadero Road. The partial underpass retains a T - intersection at Churchill Avenue and Alma Street, thus all movements to and from the west of Alma Street could remain on Churchill Avenue and would not use Embarcadero Road. The August 2020 report did not fully evaluate the route of the traffic that would still be diverted with a partial underpass, but it would be much less than under full closure alternative. Full roadway grade separation would retain the most accessibility not only for cars but also for transit, emergency vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, in both corridors. There would be no traffic diversion to Embarcadero Road and thus there would be no diversion to either Lincoln-Emerson or Kingsley Avenue to access Alma Street. The way to avoid the adverse impacts of both the diversion caused by the closure and the proposed mitigation measures themselves is to preserve roadway access across the railroad tracks at Churchill Avenue. This could be accomplished by several design options including: (a) providing a partial underpass, i.e., maintaining a T intersection at Alma and Churchill, as shown in Figure3A and 3b of August 2020 study; (b) providing a roadway grade separation such as the viaduct; (c) providing a roadway grade separation by undergrounding the railroad and maintaining level street crossings for automobiles, bicyclists and pedestrians; or (d) a hybrid option such as partial undergrounding the railroad combined with a roadway overcrossing. The latter would reduce rail noise, visual impacts and may reduce other impacts, compared to the viaduct option. 3 3 Buchanan, Colin. 1963. Traffic in Towns: A Study of the Long Term Problems of Traffic in Urban Areas. London: Her majesty’s stationery office. C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 1 March 10, 2021 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave., #7 Palo Alto, CA 94301-2531 Re: Expanded Community Advisory Panel Final Report Dear Honorable Council Members: We are writing on behalf of a number of concerned citizens in the Professorville, Embarcadero, and Southgate neighborhoods with respect to the final report delivered by the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (“XCAP”) to the City Council dated March 4, 2021. This document is part of a coordinated community effort of concerned citizens that asks Council to reject the XCAP’s majority opinion recommending Churchill Closure with Mitigations. Before a decision can be reached, a full traffic analysis needs to be completed and vetted by experts involved in city planning and transportation, bicycle and pedestrian advocates, neighbors and neighboring institutions such as schools and businesses, and the community at large. This letter is limited solely to issues and concerns related to the mitigation steps contemplated in the Hexagon traffic study, which is incorporated into the XCAP recommendation concerning the proposed closing of the Churchill Avenue crossing. As set forth in some detail below, we believe that the proposed mitigations are incomplete and inadequately analyzed at this point in time. Many of the points made in this submission are also referenced in the Minority Position discussion at Section 4.5 of the XCAP Report. We ask that the Council members read that portion of the report with care. Please be aware that the previous City Council committed not to adopt any specific proposal with respect to the Churchill Avenue crossing until it is satisfied that an adequate mitigation plan is in place. The Current Mitigation Plan Does Not Align with Council Motion In June 2018 the Council adopted a resolution1 with respect to the Churchill crossing that requires the following: 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=83343.25&BlobID=65728 Part E C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 2 “Add to Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea, “study additional options for addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area including actions to minimize redirected traffic onto residential streets in adjacent neighborhoods and commit to adopting appropriate mitigations to address the impacts” As evidenced by the discussion below, the foregoing standard has not been met by the proposed mitigation plan. Indeed, the definition of mitigation that appears on a slide 5 of the January 8, 2020 traffic presentation is as follows: “Street system changes that would allow additional capacity to accommodate diverted traffic.” This definition focuses exclusively on the volume of vehicular traffic that can be accommodated by an existing street. This definition does not consider the nature of the street in question (purely residential v. residential arterial v. arterial), or the effect on pedestrians, bicyclists, residents, schools and businesses. The Council needs to insist on a fulsome mitigation plan that addresses the issues identified in its June 2018 resolution prior to taking any action with respect to this crossing. Lack of Community Engagement Even before the onset of the pandemic, the traffic study process lacked robust community engagement. Under the current pandemic conditions, the prospects for achieving that engagement are even more daunting. Our neighborhoods asked for and never received direct engagement between community members and city staff with the various traffic consultants. The virtual town hall presented useful information, but it was not truly interactive and did not afford the opportunity to engage in any meaningful way with the traffic consultants. This type of interaction would have provided an opportunity to understand the assumptions underlying the study and the proposed mitigations, as well as provided direct “on-the- ground” input to the consultants to help inform their conclusions. In addition, a number of other important constituencies have not been included in the dialogue. The bicycle community was never formally engaged in the mitigation evaluation process, and the views of Palo Alto High School students, staff and administrators were not included in the proposals regarding changes to this major artery to school.2 3 There has been no meaningful input from Stanford, Town and Country or the business community generally. As you are aware, several relevant community 2 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-01-13_emails-public-comments.pdf (p 3) 3 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-01-20_emails-public-comments.pdf (p 5) C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 3 voices, including the PAUSD, Chamber of Commerce and University South representatives, resigned from the XCAP early on and were not part of the recommendation process. As a result, the so-called “majority recommendation” from XCAP actually represents a minority of the Committee as originally constituted and therefore does not achieve the goal of obtaining a balanced consensus. This lack of neighborhood engagement has led to confusion and frustration and diminishes the value of the conclusions expressed in the final report. Flaws and Gaps in the Traffic Study There are several areas where the traffic study appears to be flawed or at least incomplete, resulting in inadequate mitigations in the XCAP Report. In fact, as stated in Section 4.3 of the Report, the proposed mitigations are “early conceptual designs, not final plans”. Given the critical importance of effective mitigations to the viability of the plan to close Churchill, a “conceptual approach,” with promises to determine the actual designs in the future, is not an adequate basis on which to reach a final decision. Findings from a traffic study by Dr. Michelle DeRobertis, P.E., an independent traffic consultant, were delivered to XCAP, but are not referenced in their recommendation.4 This independent analysis identified several deficiencies in the traffic study. It is also worth noting that seven out of nine XCAP members agreed that additional mitigation measures beyond those included in the recommendation should be considered, as described in Section 4.3 of the XCAP Report. However, the report acknowledges that these additional potential mitigations have not been studied yet and will require detailed analysis. Section 4.1.1.3 of the XCAP Report sets forth ten specific mitigation proposals identified by XCAP. Our commentary on the first seven of these proposals is provided in red below. A. Construction of a pedestrian/bike overcrossing at Embarcadero Road and Alma Street. We are supportive of this proposed mitigation, although the details of the integration with the overall bicycle and pedestrian pathways on the north side of Embarcadero road is an essential element that is missing at this time. B. Reconstructing or replacing the existing Alma Street overpass over Embarcadero. 4 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2020-09-23_emails-public-comments.pdf (comment 11 of 82) C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 4 With respect to the Alma/ Embarcadero bridge, the traffic study expressly states: “Widening would require extensive modification or potential replacement of the existing bridge structure.”5 This one sentence describes a huge undertaking that has not been described or analyzed. No meaningful study has been undertaken regarding this almost 100-year-old bridge and the true cost of modifying or replacing it is not known. C. Adding a right turn lane from eastbound Embarcadero Road to Kingsley Ave. A right turn is currently permitted at this intersection, although impact on the traffic volume at this juncture from the addition of a new lane has not been studied because the traffic study does not capture any data on the existing volume of traffic on Embarcadero Road. D. Adding a left turn lane from southbound Alma Street to Kingsley Ave. This proposed measure is closely aligned with mitigation proposal #6. There is not yet good data on traffic volumes here and, most importantly, there has been no analysis of the ability to accommodate increased traffic volumes, given the existing traffic volumes on Embarcadero Road. E. Installation of two new signal lights on the Alma Street overpass at Embarcadero Road, at the Embarcadero slip road and at Kingsley Ave. We have a number of concerns with respect to this design. It is unknown what volume of traffic will use these two intersections, but it is likely to be significant. Currently traffic traveling eastbound on Embarcadero seeking to turn south onto Alma generally uses Churchill. Opening the Embarcadero slip road to this traffic is likely to increase substantially the number of vehicles on the slip road, although volumes and impact have not been studied. This additional traffic will need to traverse the bicycle and pedestrian crossing at High Street -- a crossing that is already very busy (over 300 bicycles at the morning peak hour) and quite dangerous. The increased vehicular traffic crossing this intersection seems likely to greatly exacerbate the dangers to students, bicyclists and pedestrians, and the current mitigation plan does not mention this concern at all. The mitigations illustrated in figure 8 (p 27) take away the current left turn from Lincoln to Alma, inviting cars to use High Street to access the new left turn on the 5 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-22_Item-3A_Traffic- Report_Churchill_MeadowsCharleston-Grade-Separation-Analysis.pdf P 17 Paragraph 2 C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 5 Embarcadero slip read. This new traffic movement creates safety concerns on this very narrow residential block. F. Installing a new signal at Embarcadero Road/Kingsley Avenue/High Street with two possible options: One that provides full connectivity to and from High Street, or an option that maintains the movements to and from High Street as they are today. The traffic study did not address the intersection level of service (LOS) or operating conditions expected to result from either of these modifications. Because the traffic volumes on Embarcadero have not been studied, it is unknown what the impact will be of installing an additional traffic signal on Embarcadero Road. The projected traffic counts do not correspond with the anticipated changes. For example, the projected traffic flow indicates a decrease in the number of vehicles traveling through the Alma/ Kingsley intersection after the mitigation when in fact the point of the mitigation is to direct additional traffic to that intersection. During the morning and evening peak hours the traffic on Embarcadero is already in a gridlock condition. Given the traffic volumes that would use the Kingsley to Embarcadero light, the traffic flow will likely be impeded further. Again, these volumes have not been included in the study. With respect to the design option that would connect High Street to Embarcadero Road, it seems likely that Alma Street traffic seeking to travel to westbound Embarcadero will use the “around the block” cloverleaf, resulting in much increased traffic on the narrow, residential block of High Street. G. Improvements at Embarcadero/High Street for bicycles and pedestrians per the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard (NTSBB) projects plans. We are very much in favor of these improvements in concept. But, as noted in the response to proposed mitigation #5, this is already a busy bicycle and pedestrian corridor and the changes to the slip road will increase the danger for this crossing. Much more work needs to be done to this plan to truly create a safe bicycle and pedestrian route. . Limited Focus on LOS (Vehicles) Ignores Bicycle and Pedestrians North of Embarcadero & Does Not Follow Comprehensive Plan The Hexagon traffic study only looks at vehicular traffic level of service (LOS) at select intersections and ignores other impacts of diverted traffic, such as effects on the very busy school/community bicycle and pedestrian route that runs along the north side of Embarcadero. This route is an official Palo Alto bicycle route, but that fact is not reflected in the conceptual design. Moreover, the traffic study does not count bicycles and pedestrians along the Embarcadero corridor because they were not asked to do C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 6 so.6 Residents did a daily count of bicycles and pedestrians that crossed the busy intersection of Emerson/Kingsley/Embarcadero between 7:30-8:30 am on a typical school day and counted over 300 bike and pedestrian crossings against 100 cars that stopped or more often paused at the stop sign. The proposed mitigation to add a new Alma Street traffic signal at the slip road will exacerbate this problem. While the closure of Churchill is seen as a way to address bicycle and pedestrian safety south of the Embarcadero corridor, which is a very important consideration, the accompanying plan makes no comprehensive attempt to address safety issues on the north side of the corridor. Embarcadero Road Traffic Volume Needs More Analysis Embarcadero Road is a residential artery with over 200 driveways and should be analyzed differently than Oregon Expressway, which is a different roadway category. In normal peak-hour traffic times, the traffic on Embarcadero moves glacially, especially through the tunnel. The addition of a light at Kingsley and Embarcadero is likely to create gridlock on Embarcadero during peak hours when traffic enters Embarcadero from Alma. The studies to date do not consider what alterations to Embarcadero Road or to the Alma underpass may be required to accommodate the level of traffic, nor do they address the potential costs of such alterations. In addition, there are assumptions but no clear analysis of how traffic congestion on Embarcadero Road will impact the busy neighborhood streets that surround Embarcadero, or local destinations such as Town and County shopping center, Palo Alto High School, Castilleja, Walter Hayes and Addison Elementary schools. Drivers using routing apps can easily navigate neighborhood streets as they attempt to avoid traffic congestion on Embarcadero Road. Because Embarcadero traffic has not been studied, the current mitigations seem insufficient to deter traffic cutting though neighborhood streets and are likely to worsen the already poor function of this artery. In the traffic consultant’s presentation from February 2020, they indicate that studying Embarcadero would cost $20,000. We have no idea if this figure is accurate, but we do know that understanding traffic volume increases on Embarcadero is essential for any mitigation plan to succeed.7 6 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Item3-Hexagon-Responses-to-XCAP-Traffic- Questions.pdf Page 6 7 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Item3-Hexagon-Responses-to-XCAP-Traffic- Questions.pdf page 5 & 6 C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 7 The Baseline Date for Traffic Analysis is Inappropriate As the minority XCAP opinion points out, the study estimates future traffic volumes as of 2030 but not beyond that date. Often, future traffic analyses use a horizon of 20 to 25 years in the future, especially for projects that are expected to be in place for decades, Likewise, the analysis does not incorporate anticipated external changes during the relevant time horizon that are likely to affect the area, such as potential expansions and alterations at Stanford, Castilleja, Palo Alto High School and Town and Country, or the implementation of a Downtown Plan. Lack of Integrated Planning with Palo Alto Avenue Crossing The ultimate decisions regarding the Palo Alto Avenue crossing and a Downtown Plan will significantly impact the adjoining neighborhoods and need to be coordinated with the planning associated with the Embarcadero corridor. We agree with the Minority Position which states: “The few east/west traffic crossings in the City are inextricably linked. The relationship of the future grade separation of Palo Alto Avenue or changes to the existing University Avenue and Embarcadero grade separations should be part of the analysis.” (Section 4.5.1) C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 8 Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we urge the Council not to adopt any proposal with respect to the Churchill crossing until there can be a more inclusive community process and thorough city planning analysis of this seemingly simple but in fact very complex question. Given that there are already three below-grade rail crossings on the north side of Palo Alto, Council should prioritize solutions for south Palo Alto while continuing to analyze equitable solutions for the north. Thank you for your tireless efforts on this challenging and important project. Very truly yours, Thomas W. Kellerman Rachel H. Kellerman Yoriko Kishimoto Cc: Ed Shikada, City Manager Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:XCAP presentation for this evening Attachments:Final 3-23-21 City Council Study Session- XCAP Presentation Part 1.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Councilmembers, Attached is an advanced copy of the presentation XCAP will present this evening. Nadia 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Steve Carlson <stcarlson@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 2:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Minor, Beth Subject:Southgate Survey for Public Comments Special Meeting March 23rd Attachments:XCAP Southgate Survey Results Aug 2020.FINAL.pdf; Comments of Survey Participants Southgate July 2020.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi City Council and Staff,    In advance of the Special meeting for XCAP presentation on March 23rd, I am forwarding materials relating to a  comprehensive survey of Southgate residents which was done in August of 2020 regarding Churchill intersection  options.    We hope to provide a brief summary during the Public Comments period of the meeting, and will use the XCAP  Southgate Survey Results PDF which is attached.  The second document (Comments from Survey Participants) is  included for any Council member interested in additional detail re: comments of all survey participants.    Thank you in advance    Steve Carlson  1611 Portola Avenue  415 706 3589            z Southgate Survey Results on Churchill Rail Crossing options August 11, 2020 z Why a 2nd Southgate Survey? No neighborhood is more impacted more by a potential change to the Churchill intersection than Southgate The majority of Southgate neighborhood has not been represented in the XCAP process Goal was to give ALL residents in the neighborhood a chance for input 2 z Survey Methodology -Survey offered to ALL Southgate residents by email, flyers dropped on every doorstep, and Nextdoor Southgate. -Prior to the survey, each participant received an email update on the current grade separation options and links to factsheets, renderings, and analyses available on www.connectingpaloalto.com -Survey ran for 11 days from July 23rd -August 3rd, 2020 -Results come directly from SurveyMonkey; we provide the zoning map showing participation by street. 3 z Household Survey Participants in Orange: 122 households 138 individual responses 4 z 59%of all households in Southgate responded to the survey * * 7 unoccupied houses (for sale or rent) were excluded throughout the neighborhood * * 5 zQ2: 4% 48% 28% 20%Very informed Somewhat informed Not informed 0% 96% feel they are ”somewhat informed” to “very informed” on this issue. 6 zQ3: 36% 56% 8% Favor Closure Against Closure Undecided 7 zQ4: 7% 9% 30% 54%Partial underpass Viaduct Closing Churchill Undecided/Need more info 63% of respondents favor options other than Closure More than half favor the partial underpass Only 30% favor closing Churchill 8 z Trending §83% of the pro-Closure votes come from three streets withing the blue arc §Votes against Closure predominated on remaining streets §Support for the Partial Underpass was distributed throughout 9 z Summary -Participation in the survey was strong, engaging 59% of households and distributed evenly throughout the neighborhood. -Southgate residents support alternatives to closure by a 2:1 margin -The preferred option of the neighborhood is the Partial Underpass with over half (54%) of the votes. -The data show a marked geographic trend, with 83% of support for closure coming from the northeast corner of the neighborhood -This is a VERY important topic to the residents of Southgate, and they are interested in being engaged. 10 z APPENDIX comments from the survey z Additional questions asked §The next two slides show additional questions asked. In the interest of time, these were not included in the presentation to the City Council §Following those slides are selected comments 12 zQ5: 44% 56% 13 z 100% This issue is of great importance to Southgate residents Q6: 14 z §Total Comments: 177 §All comments are shared in a separate attachment §Selected/Representative comments follow z Why are many residents concerned about closure? §Closing Churchill would effectively isolate Southgate from the rest of Palo Alto. I believe that separation would harm our quality of life as well as the value of our properties. §Closing Churchill would increase already crowded roads as alternates. Additionally, it would have a negative effect on PAUSD operations as noted in a letter from the Superintendent. §Closing Churchill just totally impacts Embarcadero, already UNBEARABLY impacted, and El Camino, also VERY slow during normal rush hour. §Dead-ending our residential enclave and blocking logical ingress & egress to schools & businesses is nuts! z Concerns about closure (continued) §Closing Churchill will have negative effects on the composition of our neighborhood, as younger families with jobs and kids move out so as to have better access to the east side of the tracks. Beyond our own neighborhood interests, I believe diverting thousands of cars per day to El Camino, Oregon, and Embarcadero will create even worse traffic than we have now (under non- COVID conditions). §Closing the intersection would make traffic much worse, and it would slow down emergency response time for our neighborhood. It would also make it a much slower commute for those of us who live in Southgate—even just to go pick up groceries. §I live in Southgate, and really don't see how traffic can work out with the crossing just being closed, and all traffic being diverted to Embarcadero and Oregon Xpress. More considerations should be directed to local residents and Palo Alto High. These are the people who are being affected the most. Not the people who live along Churchill and want something different. We have no options when we need to get out of our subdivision. z Concerns about closure (continued) §While I appreciate the purpose of closing Churchill (and even acknowledge the benefits it might bring), I am concerned that an unintended consequence will be to physically and mentally untether Southgate from its current association with Old PA. This would have implications for house values, commuting times, ease of reaching friends and family on the other side of the tracks, access to Walter Hays, among many other issues. Without the Churchill thoroughfare, I suspect that Southgate stands a very good chance of being marginalized into one of a handful of unconnected micro-neighborhoods stuck between Alma and El Camino; difficult to access, an oddity on the local map, not closely associated with the core of Palo Alto and not part of Stanford. …We are at risk of cutting off the blood flow to this unique neighborhood. z Why do some residents prefer closure? §Don't spend hundreds of millions to build something when closing Churchill is safer and the traffic reports say it would not cause any issues. §I am strongly against the viaduct as it would be built behind my back fence. Both other options are acceptable, with closure preferred. §The XCAP traffic analysis shows this to be the best option for all of Palo Alto. The cost is 1/3 to 1/4th the other option costs. There are NO critical effects to any neighbors. Viaduct is critically negative to Mariposa and Castilleja neighbors. Underpass is critically negative to Churchill and neighbors close to Churchill. z Comments in support of closure (continued) §Of these 2 choices, I am in favor of closing with traffic mitigation measures on other arteries (and possibly opening at Peers Park). Since the partial option came to light, that seems like a good compromise too. §I would prefer closing Churchill to a viaduct. And have major concerns about significant traffic increases on Churchill if trains are taken out of the equation (partial underpass). §Of course without having done my homework, I realize the closure of Churchill may mean longer drive times for most outings, especially during peak travel periods -but I can deal with an additional 5 minutes for the many benefits of being in this neighborhood, and I'm most interested in what would serve the safety, equity, and accessibility needs of the city/region. So, I'm not especially concerned about localized inconvenience in my neighborhood if I understand a greater good that's being achieved. §Let's not spend millions of taxpayer funds for something we don't need. Close Churchill. z A few households are split §Our household is split. My wife who does most of the driving would prefer Churchill to remain open if this is done via partial underpass. I find both closure and underpass to be suitable solutions. We both are strongly opposed to viaduct as this seems entirely inappropriate bisecting residential neighborhoods and if there were funding to support this level of construction it would be much better spent improving major roadways, e.g. Embarcadero/Oregon rather than facilitating the bypass route through Churchill that functions to offload traffic that is coming from or going to one of these roadways. z 27% of comments express concern over Viaduct §I am strongly against the viaduct as it would be built behind my back fence. Both other options are acceptable, with closure preferred. §I would prefer closing Churchill to a viaduct. And have major concerns about significant traffic increases on Churchill if trains are taken out of the equation (partial underpass). §This choice is based on the original two choices of closing Churchill or viaduct. My true preference order is 1. partial underpass, 2. close Churchill, 3. viaduct §We both are strongly opposed to viaduct as this seems entirely inappropriate bisecting residential neighborhoods and if there were funding to support this level of construction it would be much better spent improving major roadways, e.g. Embarcadero/Oregon rather than facilitating the bypass route through Churchill that functions to offload traffic that is coming from or going to one of these roadways. §I would choose closing over the viaduct if those were the only 2 options on the table. In Comments regarding Churchill Closure (Q3)22 z39 Comments regarding Favored Option (Q4) §In favor of partial underpass!! No viaduct! No Churchill closure! §Partial underpass preserves the most throughways for traffic, is safer for bikes and pedestrians and is not an ugly industrial looking viaduct. §This is by far the best suggestion without cutting off access to the southgate neighborhood. §In Japan and France, they have viaducts, I don’t see why they can’t do it in this country. §I’m beginning to see the viaduct as the most viable option with the least disruption. However, the partial underpass is a very close second. In favor of Viaduct (8%)In favor of Partial Underpass (59%) Against Viaduct (23%) §Palo Alto does NOT need a viaduct -ever. §The viaduct is the most expensive and disruptive option. §I am against the viaduct. I saw a viaduct very similar to the one being proposed in a similar neighborhood in Long Island. It is terrible for all except the trains. Against Partial Underpass (8%) §Partial underpass seems very complicated and very costly, and it will change the neighborhood dramatically in a negative way. 23 z Concerns about Opening Castilleja at Peers Park (Q5): §This would put children going to and from the park and school in danger. §Absolutely not! The whole point of Southgate and why we bought our home here is because there is no traffic and the kids can play in the street. §Castilleja is already a bike boulevard. Adding more vehicle traffic would be disastrous. §When that was open (in the 70s), the 1600 block of Mariposa had the highest accident rate in Palo Alto. Cars would pick up speed along Park, zoom around where the barrier is now, and lose control rounding the curve onto Mariposa. The magnolia tree which was in the curb strip in front of 1669 was approx. 2 feet in diameter at the top and one foot in diameter at the bottom due to repeated car impacts. My car, parked in front of my house, was totally sideswiped by another out-of-control car. ... §Street way too busy with bike and pedestrian traffic to consider this. Even if there were restricted parking to minimize choke points the safety factor would be intolerable. Most comments (30) were written by those with concerns 24 zConcerns about Opening Castilleja at Peers Park (Q5) §The closure at Peers Park was implemented to prevent people beyond Southgate from using Castilleja as a shortcut to the California Ave business district. Especially now that Castilleja has be designated as a bike boulevard, it would be dangerous to have cars driving through. §Absolutely not. I was here at the time that was open and then closed. I was one of the teenagers who sped through Southgate almost daily to avoid the traffic at the corner of Churchill and El Camino. Madrono was like a narrow expressway with cars traveling fast. Now to add to the danger of more cars in Southgate --and there will be --we have a bike boulevard, a dog park and Peers park is busier with kids on trikes and people walking. It is really nice and safer that that part of the street is closed to traffic. §No way. We would not have bought a house here if we thought that was an option. §I have lived in Southgate since 1988 --long enough to have heard why it was closed. It was closed to protect the children. Drivers going home were cutting through the neighborhood and traveling at high speed past the park and through the neighborhood. So, it was closed to protect the children. As a consequence, Peers Park is the safest and perhaps the nicest park in Palo Alto. zComments supportive of opening at Peers (Q5) 5 comments total §We think a neighborhood route to Oregon would make sense and unlikely to increase through traffic significantly. §If it's mostly neighborhood traffic, I would be in favor of opening. There should be a study to determine how much through (non-Southgate) traffic this would encourage. §I would open it one way, only to exit Southgate, only to turn right onto Park. §Seems like a good idea -at least as a trial. Our narrow streets with parking on both sides could make Castilleja less safe for cyclists if it starts being used for through car traffic. §I would be in favor of opening Castilleja in addition to leaving Churchill open. z Given that no option is perfect, some suggest other options §I believe the Partial Underpass and the Viaduct plans both have merit, but I prefer to keep bicycle and pedestrian traffic above ground and to limit car traffic movement from Churchill East to Churchill West on an as-needed basis rather than preventing small amounts of traffic to move freely across Alma during non-peak hours. To make bicycle and pedestrian movement safer, I think we should use a dedicated bicycle/pedestrian signal at Alma/Churchill and at Castilleja/Churchill like the one in use at Homer Street, although I would only use it during the peak Paly commute hours. In lighter traffic, I think the current method works fine. I also think Palo Alto should mark bicycle lanes much more clearly along the length of Churchill and expand the west-bound bike lane on Churchill East to the area for parked cars, limiting parking there to overnight and weekends. §Is there a possibility to have it partially open (Churchill) to Southgate residence only? Have a gate system of some kind. §I'd like to explore partial closure options -limiting left turns on to Churchill from Alma and from Churchill to Alma, thereby reducing wait time at that intersection and extending time when traffic can go on to Churchill west across Alma in the morning (should be longer in the morning as well as adding time in the afternoon, to increase safety for PALY students. Other pedestrian crossing options are needed there -at a minimum there needs to be pedestrian access across Alma at Churchill. Lastly, Stanford should work w/ the City to explore commute patterns and better connection between transit systems. A lot of people commute in single vehicles to/from Stanford on Churchill. §RE: "Peers Park passage": One possible traffic control might be to place a stanchion in the middle of the road that is lowered by a remote control similar to a garage door opener. The remote control could be available only to Southgate residents for a fee to offset costs to the City. §Is undergrounding the train a viable option? z Lastly, some comments raised about long-term impacts of Pandemic §I think COVID is making everyone rethink how they work. Is it possible that there will be long-term reductions in traffic anyway? Less people commuting, fewer trains needed in general? Has this been discussed as part of future planning? §The prudent thing to do at this time is nothing. At a time when mass transit ridership is declining in every metropolitan area in the country including Los Angeles, Caltrain's projection of tripling ridership was amazingly optimistic, and reflected pre-COVID19 thinking….Just a few years ago, faced with declining ridership, Caltrain was in severe distress. As this tech expansion has reached maturity Caltrain ridership had actually started to decline in the months prior to COVID19. We may not know what the post pandemic world will look like, but we can rest assured that it will be very different, and sitting on Caltrain may well be the least desirable work option, so Caltrain's future is largely unknown. Therefore, the safest thing at this time is to do nothing until we can better visualize Silicon Valley's future work environment and transportation requirements. Participant Comments Southgate Neighborhood Churchill Options Survey July 2020 This document contains all individual comments submitted in response to the Southgate Neighborhood Survey regarding options for the Churchill-Alma intersection. Comments were solicited for Questions 3, 4, and 5. In addition, there was a field for Final Comments at the end of the survey. For easy access, you may click on a link below to go directly to comments for a question you are interested in: Question #3: Based on your current knowledge, what is your opinion about closing Churchill? Question #4: I am most in favor of 1) Closing Churchill, 2) Viaduct, or 3) Partial Underpass Question #5: IF the city decided to close Churchill, would you be in favor of opening Castilleja at Park Boulevard (by Peers Park) to allow through traffic? Final Comments in response to this survey Comments on Question 3: Based on your current knowledge, what is your opinion about closing Churchill?  Dead-ending our residential enclave and blocking logical ingress & egress to schools & businesses is nuts!  This choice is based on the original two choices of closing Churchill or viaduct. My true preference order is 1. partial underpass, 2. close Churchill, 3. viaduct.  Of these 2 choices, I am in favor of closing with traffic mitigation measures on other arteries (and possibly opening at Peers Park). Since the partial option came to light, that seems like a good compromise too.  In favor of partial underpass!! No viaduct! No Churchill closure!  I see traffic backed up on Churchill from Alma with cars blocking most of the intersections into Southgate on weekdays during afternoon commutes and it is hard to make a left turn onto Churchill in the morning.  Churchill is very short street, that isn’t worth multimillion overpass spending.  Closing the intersection would make traffic much worse, and it would slow down emergency response time for our neighborhood. It would also make it a much slower commute for those of us who live in Southgate—even just to go pick up groceries.  While losing direct access to Alma will be sad, I think it's the only reasonable path forward from a cost standpoint. I don't think a viaduct will ever be politically feasible, although I don't think it's a bad option (if implemented correctly). I lived near one of BART's elevated lines (Rockridge) for a while, it wasn't at all disturbing. But it wasn't seeing heavy freight traffic (which I think is the largest noise source, given what I hear several blocks away from the UP/Caltrain line).  Closing Churchill will add too much traffic to other routes such as Embarcadero, and make it take too long for Southgate residents to get to places to the east or north.  Is there a possibility to have it partially open to Southgate residence only? Have a gate system of some kind.  Closing Churchill will have negative effects on the composition of our neighborhood, as younger families with jobs and kids move out so as to have better access to the east side of the tracks. Beyond our own neighborhood interests, I believe diverting thousands of cars per day to El Camino, Oregon, and Embarcadero will create even worse traffic than we have now (under non-COVID conditions).  Prefer partial closure over closure.  Of course without having done my homework, I realize the closure of Churchill may mean longer drive times for most outings, especially during peak travel periods - but I can deal with an additional 5 minutes for the many benefits of being in this neighborhood, and I'm most interested in what would serve the safety, equity, and accessibility needs of the city/region. So, I'm not especially concerned about localized inconvenience in my neighborhood if I understand a greater good that's being achieved.  Would choose closing Churchill rather than a Viaduct.  Of the options discussed, I think it is the best.  Strongly in favor of closure  Our household is split. My wife who does most of the driving would prefer Churchill to remain open if this is done via partial underpass. I find both closure and underpass to be suitable solutions. We both are strongly opposed to viaduct as this seems entirely inappropriate bisecting residential neighborhoods and if there were funding to support this level of construction it would be much better spent improving major roadways, e.g. Embarcadero/Oregon rather than facilitating the bypass route through Churchill that functions to offload traffic that is coming from or going to one of these roadways.  Closure is the best option. I do not like Viaduct or Partial Underpass.  Best option given the 2 other alternatives.  The XCAP traffic analysis shows this to be the best option for all of Palo Alto. The cost is 1/3 to 1/4th the other option costs. There are NO critical effects to any neighbors. Viaduct is critically negative to Mariposa and Castilleja neighbors. Underpass is critically negative to Churchill and neighbors close to Churchill.  I'd like to explore partial closure options - limiting left turns on to Churchill from Alma and from Churchill to Alma, thereby reducing wait time at that intersection and extending time when traffic can go on to Churchill west across Alma in the morning (should be longer in the morning as well as adding time in the afternoon, to increase safety for PALY students. Other pedestrian crossing options are needed there - at a minimum there needs to be pedestrian access across Alma at Churchill. Lastly, Stanford should work w/ the City to explore commute patterns and better connection between transit systems. A lot of people commute in single vehicles to/from Stanford on Churchill.  I haven't seen information why existing track and crossing cannot be reused.  While I appreciate the purpose of closing Churchill (and even acknowledge the benefits it might bring), I am concerned that an unintended consequence will be to physically and mentally untether Southgate from its current association with Old PA. This would have implications for house values, commuting times, ease of reaching friends and family on the other side of the tracks, access to Walter Hays, among many other issues. Without the Churchill thoroughfare, I suspect that Southgate stands a very good chance of being marginalized into one of a handful of unconnected micro-neighborhoods stuck between Alma and El Camino; difficult to access, an oddity on the local map, not closely associated with the core of Palo Alto and not part of Stanford. As evidence of my concern, I can’t point to another separation along Alma that has successfully maintained the intimate neighborhood connection between the east and west sides of the tracks. Instead, I’d bet that the long-term outcome of a pedestrian-only passageway would be a trend toward the dilapidation of what today is a functional, refreshingly human-scale (albeit busy and sometimes dangerous) waypoint between Stanford and the residential heart of PA. We are at risk of cutting off the blood flow to this unique neighborhood.  A major concern we have is for the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists waiting at the corner of Alma and Churchill. Cars go too fast on Alma and, often times, students' bike tires protrude over the curb creating potential for accidents.  I believe the XCAP committee and City Council should weigh the evidence of studies already conducted and cost estimates to arrive at a decision. I believe the people conducting this survey are a self-appointed group trying to promote their own preference.  There is so much history on this matter, and so many facts and variables to consider, that the posing of the questions as presented here and any responses should not be viewed as providing meaningful input to the city decision makers. This should not be a popularity contest.  The most important change is to stop train horn noise at Churchill. One hundred decibel train horn noise seriously disrupts sleep, causing sleep deprivation throughout all of Southgate and Old Palo Alto. I favor eliminating the stop lights at Churchill and El Camino and continuing the central strip that separates Northbound and Southbound traffic on El Camino straight across Churchill meaning that Westbound Churchill cars could only turn North on El Camino, and Southbound cars on El Camino could not turn left onto Churchill. Peers Park closure would be changed to allow cars to exit Southgate, but not to enter Southgate. The reason for this change is to prevent Uber/Lyft drivers from shortcutting through Southgate. Southgate residents could easily travel to California and South on Alma by exiting at Peers Park. The Churchill stoplight on El Camino would be eliminated making through traffic which would help with all the other changes that will be made, and traffic would move better. The Peers Park opening should have a stoplight and a camera in order to ticket cars entering Southgate illegally.  It seems to me ridiculous to make me or anyone else go out of their way to get into Southgate, the neighborhood south of Palo Alto High School. There is already very limited access. Forcing cars to go around would put on extra mileage and increase the danger by driving an extra distance. Jeannine Olson, 1654 Portola Avenue, Palo Alto 94306,  1) It is the only safe option for PALY students 2) The current Churchill Ave. vehicle crossing is blatantly not effective - The total length of Churchill is only 0.8 miles. Thus, it can only serve as a local street - Churchill Ave. mainly serves traffics to/from the small triangle area of Embarcadero Rd./Churchill Ave., Embarcadero Rd./El Camino Real, and Churchill Ave./El Camino Real. (see attached map for details) - Closing Churchill has virtually no impact on all the traffic flows that are not to/from the small triangle area 3) The Churchill Ave. vehicle crossing is extremely cost-ineffective - It is only about 0.3 mile from the Embarcadero Rd. vehicle crossing - No such dense railway crossing in entire bay area or even entire US - It was for PALY students when there were very few trains decades ago - It is well-known that it extremely unsafe for PALY students  Irrespective of what happens at Churchill, the primary focus has to be improving traffic flow on Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway between El Camino and 101. There needs to be an intersection of Alma and Embarcadero, and improved flow between Alma and Oregon.  I really don't like any of the options. The partial closure is the most promising but not enough of the details are worked out. I like the full closure as it is the only one that would include improving the Embarcadero crossing. I do not want the street at Peers park opened again to traffic.  I would choose closing over the viaduct if those were the only 2 options on the table.  I am strongly against the viaduct as it would be built behind my back fence. Both other options are acceptable, with closure preferred.  Closing Churchill would effectively isolate Southgate from the rest of Palo Alto. I believe that separation would harm our quality of life as well as the value of our properties.  I would prefer closing Churchill to a viaduct. And have major concerns about significant traffic increases on Churchill if trains are taken out of the equation (partial underpass).  I’m in favor of closing Churchill to cars, not bikes and pedestrians  I live in Southgate, and really don't see how traffic can work out with the crossing just being closed, and all traffic being diverted to Embarcadero and Oregon Xpress. More considerations should be directed to local residents and Palo Alto High. These are the people who are being affected the most. Not the people who live along Churchilll and want something different. We have no options when we need to get out of our subdivision.  Closing Churchill just totally impacts Embarcadero, already UNBEARABLY impacted, and El Camino, also VERY slow during normal rush hour.  Even if we don't close Churchill, the number of train crossings planned will effectively close it. Let's be real about what is going to happen and plan accordingly, rather than engaging in wishful and magical thinking.  Closing Churchill would increase already crowded roads as alternates. Additionally it would have a negative effect on PAUSD operations as noted in a letter from the Superintendent.  My first preference is partial underpass. I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to a viaduct that will RUIN the aesthetics of the neighborhood.  Absolutely do not want viaduct  Don't spend hundreds of millions to build something when closing Churchill is safer and the traffic reports say it would not cause any issues.  I believe closing Churchill creates disruptive traffic patterns elsewhere with significant undesirable effects. Comments on Question 4: Originally, there were two primary options on the table: closing Churchill or a Viaduct (raised platform for the train). Now, there is a third option (a partial underpass) which is also under evaluation. Of the potential options on the table (based on my current knowledge), I am most in favor of 1) Closing Churchill, 2) Viaduct, or 3) Partial Underpass.  In Japan and France, they have viaducts, I don't see why they can't do it in this country  I live on Mariposa which faces the train traffic and thus I have "skin in the game" as my family's livelihood will be negatively impacted with the Viaduct option. It is workable if "Partial underpass" results in train track remaining at current grade level. However, if Churchill remains open to Alma after partial underpass with left or right turns onto Alma, we might as well keep Churchill open because the same amount of traffic remains during commute hours as most cars are going to turn onto Alma.  We are against closure, for sure. We are undecided about whether a viaduct or a partial underpass is better. But both Options are better than closure.  This is by far the best suggestion without cutting off access to the southgate neighborhood.  With the heavy freight traffic (and the noise of those trains), I think a viaduct isn't a feasible option. A partial underpass seems like a huge amount of work, for very little gain.  Is undergrounding the train a viable option?  I believe the Partial Underpass and the Viaduct plans both have merit, but I prefer to keep bicycle and pedestrian traffic above ground and to limit car traffic movement from Churchill East to Churchill West on an as-needed basis rather than preventing small amounts of traffic to move freely across Alma during non-peak hours. To make bicycle and pedestrian movement safer, I think we should use a dedicated bicycle/pedestrian signal at Alma/Churchill and at Castilleja/Churchill like the one in use at Homer Street, although I would only use it during the peak Paly commute hours. In lighter traffic, I think the current method works fine. I also think Palo Alto should mark bicycle lanes much more clearly along the length of Churchill and expand the west-bound bike lane on Churchilll East to the area for parked cars, limiting parking there to overnight and weekends.  I would prioritize aesthetics alongside safety, equity and accessibility for the city/region - this is a very long-term infrastructural project, physical/architectural aesthetics is of premium importance, and I'd rather accept some cost (which could mean monetary or convenience cost) than accept a physically ugly/imposing permanent structure for the sake of convenience (e.g., I'd accept longer drive times over a louder/more imposing/overbearing overpass...)  My 2nd best choice is partial underpass.  partial underpass; 2. closing. Viaduct is not an acceptable option in our view.  I’m beginning to see the viaduct as the most viable option with the least disruption. However, the partial underpass is a very close second.  Partial Underpass seems very complicated and very costly, and it will change the neighborhood dramatically in a negative way.  Both the Viaduct and Partial Underpass will put up a massive concrete structure that will change the character of the neighborhood for the worse.  The XCAP traffic analysis shows this to be the best option for all of Palo Alto. The cost is 1/3 to 1/4th the other option costs. There are NO critical effects to any neighbors. Viaduct is critically negative to Mariposa and Castilleja neighbors. Underpass is critically negative to Churchill and neighbors close to Churchill.  What are the traffic simulations like?  Underpass appears to be an attractive compromise  Palo Alto does NOT need a viaduct - ever.  Closure of Churchill with a pedestrian/bike underpass for Paly students would be the safest option, and also the least expensive and disruptive of all the options.  Closing Churchill is the only one of these options that can be prototyped, so it makes sense to start there and see how it works.  Cost and the financial and political impacts of the current virus should, if nothing else, cause a pause in the process until there is a reliable reality check.  Eliminating train noise is still my number one goal.  The viaduct is the most expensive and most disruptive alternative. Closing Churchill while fixing Embarcadero and Oregon interchanges with Alma would be the best alternative. The partial underpass is a compromise, and definitely better than the disaster of a viaduct, but provides little real value given the cost and disruption.  Both partial underpass and viaduct are bad for Palo Alto. 2) Both partial underpass and viaduct are too expansive. 3) Partial underpass is ineffective. 4) Partial underpass is unsafe  Closing with tunnel is dramatically cheaper than the other two choices. Should money become available to do the partial underpass I'd support that. I just can't see how a city of 66,000 can support an expenditure of $160M for a single grade crossing.  I am undecided between partial underpass and closing Churchill. I am against the Viaduct. I saw a viaduct very similar to the one being proposed in a similar neighborhood on Long Island. It is terrible for all except the trains.  I think a much cheaper option would be to computerize the traffic signals and time them with the trains. The waits at the traffic lights on Churchill might be a little longer during an hour or two of rush hour in the mornings and evenings (maybe not.) The rest of the day, there would be no noticeable change.  See comments above  There is no perfect solution for trying to modify something that was never planned for in advance. I think the partial underpass is very clever but admit I have not considered what might be any future problems with such a modification. I do wonder as more and more people are working from home - and quite possibly will be in the future - if the ridership really is going to increase according to the predictions.  Best solution would be to bury the tracks in a trench or tunnel.  I am strongly pro on finding a way to make Embarcadero 4 lanes under the tracks and using over/under pass for Paly to shopping center crossing.  I'm in favor of exploring a partial underpass for peds and bikes, but after we close the crossing.  This preserves the most throughways for traffic, is safe for bikes and pedestrians and is not an ugly industrial looking viaduct.  My first preference is partial underpass. I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to a viaduct that will RUIN the aesthetics of the neighborhood.  This is the option which best provides a solution to all concerned  This is spending $$$$$ for nothing. The traffic reports say fine to close Churchill, it is safer to close and most of the traffic is through traffic from outside PA - they can find another route with mitigations at Embarcadero, etc. STOP trying to build and make Churchill even more unsafe.  Not in favor of viaduct or closing. I believe there should be as is solution with modified traffic conditions.  Don’t know much about partial underpass but would support if cars go get to Alma Comments on Question 5: Many years ago, Castilleja was closed at Park Blvd (by Peers Park) in order to reduce through traffic in the neighborhood. Some have suggested that if Churchill were closed, one way to mitigate access impacts for Southgate residents would be to re-open Castilleja at Peers Park. IF the city decided to close Churchill, would you be in favor of opening Castilleja at Park Boulevard (by Peers Park) to allow through traffic?  Prefer to keep car traffic in Southgate to a minimum.  If it's mostly neighborhood traffic, I would be in favor of opening. There should be a study to determine how much through (non-Southgate) traffic this would encourage.  More study is required to ensure residents along Mariposa and Castilleja are not impacted  This would put children going to and from the park and school in danger.  Let’s solve problems one by one. Now we are talking about closing Churchill.  But this is not preferred.  Although we should also look at why it was closed: High School traffic to Cal Ave. If it was made a right-turn-only (onto Park), giving us two routes to SB El Camino, that would help.  I think opening Southgate at Peers Park is a bad idea for the same reasons it was closed in the first place -- through traffic on extremely narrow streets. But if Churchill closes it may be necessary for emergency access to and exit from the neighborhood.  For trial only. So they served the neighborhood, not as a second way to get to Stanford, etc.  Don't feel strongly enough/haven't considered the implications deeply to vote - I'll defer to those with stronger views  I am strongly opposed to through traffic. If you open it up, the neighborhood could experience increased crime as well.  Absolutely not! The whole point of Southgate and why we bought our home here is because there is no traffic and the kids can play in the street.  We think a neighborhood route to Oregon would make sense and unlikely to increase through traffic significantly.  Castilleja is already a bike boulevard. Adding more vehicle traffic would be disastrous.  Would need more information on this option.  When that was open (in the 70s), the 1600 block of Mariposa had the highest accident rate in Palo Alto. Cars would pick up speed along Park, zoom around where the barrier is now, and lose control rounding the curve onto Mariposa. The magnolia tree which was in the curb strip in front of 1669 was approx. 2 feet in diameter at the top and one foot in diameter at the bottom due to repeated car impacts. My car, parked in front of my house, was totally sideswiped by another out-of-control car. ... Castilleja could be opened one way out of Southgate, allowing access to Cal Ave for the neighborhood.  The original reason remains - There will be no thru traffic since Churchill would be closed, so the opening would allow Southgate neighbors to access El Camino easily  Improvements are needed at Churchill & El Camino - computerized signal and shorter wait for green light at El Camino. A pedestrian overpass may also encourage fewer cars there. Also, allowing U-turns at that intersection so drivers can go out from Southgate on Miramonte, then make a U-turn at Churchill if they want to go southbound on El Camino  no way, that would make it worse.  Concern for safety of Peers Park attendees and for residents of Mariposa and Castilleja  The closure at Peers Park was implemented to prevent people beyond Southgate from using Castilleja as a shortcut to the California Ave business district. Especially now that Castilleja has be designated as a bike boulevard, it would be dangerous to have cars driving through.  I would favor taking a good look at this and the potential safety impacts of opening the connection. This link is part of a major route to Paly for students and its safety needs to be protected.  Allowing cars to exit but not enter in order to prevent short-cutting as explained above.  This would be crucial, as the entire neighborhood would be in gridlock. But it's far better to keep Churchill open, given Paly traffic and other factors.  It is a bike thoroughfare for Palo Alto High School and it would be detrimental to their safety and the neighborhood in general.  I would be in favor of opening Castilleja in addition to leaving Churchill open.  Don't care  It is inappropriate to address this question until the issue of Churchill is resolved.  The problem would be teenagers careening through the neighborhood to get to Paly. So, I'd prefer to keep Castilleja closed at Peers park.  Absolutely not. I was here at the time that was open and then closed. I was one of the teenagers who sped through Southgate almost daily to avoid the traffic at the corner of Churchill and El Camino. Madrono was like a narrow expressway with cars traveling fast. Now to add to the danger of more cars in Southgate -- and there will be -- we have a bike boulevard, a dog park and Peers park is busier with kids on trikes and people walking. It is really nice and safer that that part of the street is closed to traffic.  Absolutely no. Southgate would be a parallel route running with El Camino; no reason for that.  Street way too busy with bike and pedestrian traffic to consider this. Even if there were to be restricted parking to minimize choke points the safety factor would be intolerable.  That idea would turn narrow Mariposa, on which children play, into a thoroughfare. Bad idea. Damages our neighborhood feel and increases danger to our children.  I would strongly oppose opening Castilleja at Park, as there would likely be significant cut through traffic to Paly  I have lived in Southgate since 1988 -- long enough to have heard why it was closed. It was closed to protect the children. Drivers going home were cutting through the neighborhood and traveling at high speed past the park and through the neighborhood. So, it was closed to protect the children. As a consequence, Peers Park is the safest and perhaps the nicest park in Palo Alto.  But feel this will not be a good choice for traffic. Also, the reason for closing is to cut down traffic near park. Now, there will only be more traffic and not less.  I recall that the major reason for closing was that people used it as a short-cut through the neighborhood and drove very fast by the park, etc. Perhaps is will not be as inviting to use in this way if Churchill is closed... just don't know.  Do NOT increase residential traffic.  Seems like a good idea - at least as a trial. Our narrow streets with parking on both sides could make Castilleja less safe for cyclists if it starts being used for through car traffic.  I would open it one way, only to exit Southgate, only to turn right onto Park.  This would create more through traffic in Southgate and it really wouldn't help Southgate homeowners with access to Alma.  Castilleja has a tremendous amount of bike traffic and is a narrow street - it would have catastrophic consequences.  Would create non-resident traffic  I would like a bit more information on this but at least not traffic outside the neighborhood  Never. This opening will ruin bike experience  Passage through this "Peers Park portal" would need to be restricted or "cut through" traffic could be a safety concern.  Re-opening would increase non-residential traffic and reduce safety  No way. We would not have bought a house here if we thought that was an option. Final Comments:  Closing Churchill is the only option that preserves the character of the neighborhood and maintains property value. Opening Castilleja is dangerous for student bicyclists.  I question the City Council's ability to make a decision (analysis paralysis). This coupled with the budget shortfall with the COVID crisis, it will be a miracle if anything at all gets done. Caltrans rider ship is down over 95% and may not survive the downturn making all of these discussions for not.  I previously sent an email to the City Council suggesting a practice run closing Churchill in order to see the effect it has on traffic in Palo Alto. Nobody responded.  The traffic on Churchill has become quite bothersome in the 10 years we have lived here. Making a left turn during most hours (normal non-COVID times) has become very difficult. Street parking sometimes obfuscates view for left turns. That is what makes us prefer Churchill closure, or vote for something that causes some traffic reduction. I am also wary of an expensive viaduct option for cost reasons. I would be fine with closure with traffic mitigation measures, or the partial option.  Again, I live on Mariposa facing the train track and my family will be negatively impacted if the raised track option is selected.  Thank you!  With respect to pushing more cars onto Embarcadero: I think widening it to 4 lanes would be a huge improvement there, drastically reducing the bottleneck that happens (and often spills into the Embarcadero / El Camino intersection).  Thanks!  Please do not claim to represent me — you are self-appointed and unelected.  Partial underpass seems like a good compromise. If Caltrain is resistant to making minor concessions to make this possible in its best design, can Stanford be leveraged to exert pressure on Caltrain in this regard?  If Churchill is closed, addressing safety for bikes/peds crossing Alma/entering, exiting Paly would be optimal. Also, isn’t there a way to close Churchill yet retain access for emergency vehicles or select opening of the street using removable/automatic hydraulic bollards? That might allow Churchill to remain open on weekends.  I hope the questionnaire is objective and possibly reviewed by a third party to reduce any possible bias. Thank you.  I highly recommend that the survey results be audited by a 3rd part to ensure fairness. Furthermore, every effort should be made to survey ALL Southgate residents as individuals, rather than some selected households.  XCAP has a ton of information on all of these items, which should be linked to this survey, so that people can see the information on each of the options. I do like the fact that you asked people if they were informed or not.  I do think improvements to enhance capacity at Embarcadero will be needed. This should include a pedestrian overpass that connects Paly to Town & Country so that traffic signal can be eliminated. Again, Stanford should be involved and contribute to solving traffic problems on Embarcadero and Churchill.  Thank you for trying to reach out to ALL Southgate residents.  While I appreciate the democratic, inclusive, and thorough process Palo Alto has undertaken, I'm concerned now that we'll miss out on precious regional, state, and federal funding if we don't make a decision quickly.  I want to emphasize that there needs to be a pause in the process until the impacts of the current shut downs are better understood.  I thank the committee for your work on this important matter. I would appreciate a response to my survey answers from as many of the committee members as would be gracious enough to write me. david664422@yahoo.com. 660-650-3303  Thank you for doing this. I hope we leave Churchill open. Jeannine Olson  Thank you for helping all of us keep abreast of this important matter. And great survey -- concise and to the point. And visually appealing, too! Well done!  Thanks for gathering this data.  Thank you for your hard and thoughtful work. I know this has not been an easy job. I still think we have solutions that are not that great. I understand there are constraints. The partial closure has the most promise but details have to be worked out better such as the right angle turn out of the tunnel for bikes, separating bikes and pedestrians, and figuring out how not to make it so far out of the way if you are walking like from Southgate to Walter Hayes, with a young child and possibly pushing a stroller to get a kid to school in the morning.  We live on Castilleja mid- second block. With the bike traffic from non-Paly High bikers, who apparently believe Castilleja is a bike freeway, we have to be ultra-careful backing out of the driveway at any time of the day or night. Some bikers believe they have the right-of-way irrespective of the fact that those backing out cannot always see them.  The only safe bike option for closing Churchill is the Kellogg underpass.  Please send this survey to all of Nextdoor Southgate.  Thanks to all involved. It’s important to keep neighbors informed.  The prudent thing to do at this time is nothing. At a time when mass transit ridership is declining in every metropolitan area in the country including Los Angeles, Caltrain's projection of tripling ridership was amazingly optimistic, and reflected pre-COVID19 thinking. In the last 30 years Silicon Valley has gone through three boom and bust cycles, and it is at the end of the third boom. Just a few years ago, faced with declining ridership, Caltrain was in severe distress. As this tech expansion has reached maturity Caltrain ridership had actually started to decline in the months prior to COVID19. We may not know what the post pandemic world will look like, but we can rest assured that it will be very different, and sitting on Caltrain may well be the least desirable work option, so Caltrain's future is largely unknown. Therefore, the safest thing at this time is to do nothing until we can better visualize Silicon Valley's future work environment and transportation requirements.  Thank you for all the wonderful work!  I think COVID is making everyone rethink how they work. Is it possible that there will be long-term reductions in traffic anyway? Less people commuting, fewer trains needed in general? Has this been discussed as part of future planning?  Thank you for keeping Southgate needs in the discussion!  I would like the Caltrain to provide updated estimates of ridership projections in a post- COVID world. The train goes through our backyard and, since March, every train is almost empty. The idea of increasing the number of trains seems highly unnecessary at this point. And given how this virus is transmitted, I do not see ridership growing at a rate that would justify a 4x increase in the number of trains.  The harm to the community of closing Churchill is real and substantial. The benefit is at best questionable.  Let's not spend millions of taxpayer funds for something we don't need. Close Churchill.  RE: "Peers Park passage": One possible traffic control might be to place a stanchion in the middle of the road that is lowered by a remote control similar to a garage door opener. The remote control could be available only to Southgate residents for a fee to offset costs to the City.  Thanks so much for highlighting the upcoming XCAP meeting (and making sure everyone is aware of Survey 2.0). The XCAP meetings have been held every week for the past 6-7 weeks and they continue to be committed to trying to have a recommendation for the City Council in the next few months. Of course, this is an extremely complicated and emotional issue—it is going to be difficult for any group, including XCAP, to make a strong recommendation. Time will tell. Also, the City Council is not beholden to take the recommendation of the XCAP and ultimately, any decision by City Council is highly likely to eventually go to the voters. So long road ahead. A small group has regularly attended the XCAP meetings (incl myself). My personal summary of the status thus far: Viaduct: The most expensive ($300-$400M) of the three options and while it is the only option that preserves all the vehicular traffic crossings in its current form (w/o a pesky train to interrupt the flow), it also has the worst traffic Level Of Service (LOS) rating of the three options (D/E letter grade, where A is best and F is worst). It’s also fairly clear that XCAP is intimately aware that no one in the vicinity (Southgate & Old Palo Alto) is advocating for this option—it’s very unpopular. While diligence is key to keep this one from becoming a reality, this one really seems like an extremely unlikely choice. Partial Underpass: A wee bit more than half the cost of the Viaduct ($160-200M), this late arriving option is quite complicated. It preserves *some* of the vehicular crossings at Churchill/Alma, eliminates others and creates some new barriers for still others (e.g. Mariposa can no longer exit onto Churchill, Old Palo Alto no longer has a protected left turn onto Alma southbound). According to the traffic report, it has the best LOS rating of the three options (B/C). This option is also expected to require the taking of a small bit of land from private property (called a “sliver”) as well as quite a bit of land from Paly and an allowance from Caltrain land. Caltrain has very clearly stated that they will not give up this allowance. Closure + Mitigations: At less than one third the cost of the Partial Underpass ($50-65M), the majority of the cost comes not from closing Churchill but from fixing the massively broken El Camino/Embarcadero, Alma/Embarcadero and Alma/Oregon Expwy crossings. The traffic study rates this very close to the same LOS as the Partial Underpass (C/C). Most of the concerns about this option have been addressed (traffic implications to other roadways – traffic analysis of the closure + mitigations; safety – clear message from both Fire and Police that this will not affect response times). However, there continues to be a vocal opposition, which primarily cites concerns about both traffic and safety. Few other points to help bring folks up to speed: In the Survey 2.0, you’ll note that there is a question about re-opening of the Peers Park exit from Southgate (Castilleja/Park Blvd), which was closed in the early 70’s (it was a *hotly* contested topic at the time). The Peers Park opening has been suggested by various members of the public as a potential alleviation for Southgate residents to open a secondary path to Oregon Expwy other than El Camino in the event of Churchill closure. It has never been on any proposal by the City Council, XCAP or any other municipal group. Similar to 1972, the opening of Peers would likely be a highly contentious topic and since it’s not really needed/relevant to the rail crossings, is highly unlikely to be placed on any decision matrix anytime in the near future. Both the Council and XCAP are pretty weary and I’d be surprised if they entertained any options not directly impacting the rail crossings, especially contentious ones. However, by placing the question on the Survey 2.0, it definitely feeds the fears of a Closure by anyone in the Southgate or Evergreen Park neighborhoods. The local debate has gotten a bit out of hand at times. Signs were made opposing Churchill Closure (using a simplified scare message: where do all the cars go?) and illegally put onto private property w/o owner permission along Churchill Ave as well as illegally put onto public land (Paly)—in the middle of the night. You can imagine how you’d feel if you woke up and someone had put a sign on your front lawn or across the street on public land, especially after having been very vocal in opposition to the message on the sign. Many of the residents along Churchill don’t have to imagine. In the last XCAP, it was discovered that none of the traffic studies done by the contracting firm (Hexagon) considered any traffic “inducement”, except for the Closure. Inducement is the concept of more traffic moving to a new route because either the old route has gotten worse or a new route has gotten better. For instance, in the case of Churchill Closure, Hexagon definitely studied the inducement of additional traffic on both Embarcadero and Oregon Expwy—cuz that traffic can no longer travel down Churchill. However, in the case of both the Viaduct and the Partial Underpass, no study was done to assess if improved travel along Churchill would increase the amount of traffic along Churchill. Instead, the firm assessed the existing and projected traffic volumes, assuming no add’l traffic was pulled from any of the surrounding areas. The firm said inducement is typically not required as most folks are trying to get somewhere and are unlikely to “bypass” just to save a few minutes. However, as their own study shows, roughly 70% of all traffic on Churchill is doing just that—it is trying to bypass from El Camino to Alma/Embarcadero or vice versa. Since Churchill dead-ends at Stanford and goes into a slow neighborhood to dead-end on Embarcadero on the other side, most of the traffic is not using it as a destination but as a bypass or cutoff. Lastly, it’s unclear if any of this will really matter given the current state of Caltrain, the State and our Nation. This has been regularly pointed out by members of the public in both City Council and XCAP meetings. Unfortunately, both the City Council and XCAP aren’t chartered with telling Caltrain and the State that their plans are garbage and simply halting all efforts to evaluate options; they are required to proceed until such a time as the electrification plans are halted by a higher power. If that does come to pass, then it will just have been a painful and neighborhood-splitting exercise in city-wide traffic planning. P.S. I strongly believe in full disclosure of position/bias in any survey or summary: I’m in support of the Closure + Mitigations option in the event that the City has to eliminate the at-grade rail crossing. Hopefully that helps you assess your own take on my take. It would have been great if the “Southgate Neighborhood Committee on the Churchill Rail Crossing”, which sponsors the Survey 2.0, had also disclosed their position/bias. Or, even better, invited a diversity of opinion into the “Neighborhood Committee”. 10 Baumb, Nelly From:Inder Monga <imonga@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 6:11 PM To:Council, City; Gaines, Chantal Subject:Presentation for City Council meeting on Tuesday Attachments:Results from Neighborhood Survey on Churchill (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council     We conducted a survey of select Palo Alto Neighborhoods to get a better sense of the community consensus based on  XCAP's deliberations and vote, and want to present the following slide‐deck on Tuesday.     I have attached it to this email for your review, and am happy to answer any questions ahead of time. I would appreciate  some time to in the open session to share this presentation to all present.    Thanks  Inder  on behalf of the Professorville, Embarcadero and Southgate neighborhoods    Churchill Rail Crossing Survey Critical perspectives from Palo Alto neighborhoods “Thank you City Council Members, for taking our concerns from this survey into consideration before casting your decisive vote” - Comments from Survey Respondent What was the goal of the survey? ●XCAP lacked community representation from neighborhoods north of Embarcadero during the critical deliberation phase of the process ●It's important for Council to consider the views of unrepresented neighborhoods before making a decision on the Churchill rail crossing “Closing Churchill will affect all of Palo Alto, even us Southies”- Comments from Survey Respondent Goal: Bringing the voice of unrepresented neighborhoods to the City Council “Thank you City Council Members, for taking our concerns from this survey into consideration before casting your decisive vote” - Comments from Survey Respondent Process ●Conducted in coordination with a number of concerned citizens from Professorville, Embarcadero and Southgate residents ● Employed Survey Monkey to create and administer questions ●Modeled on and augmented the Southgate Survey ●Survey conducted during severe COVID restrictions limiting physical contact ●Verified local residence by requiring respondents’ physical addresses ●Anonymous survey responses Participation Data ●100+ respondents from seven neighborhoods ●100% completion rate ●75% requested continued engagement Distribution of survey respondents in Palo Alto Q1: Have you kept up with the discussion of the City's plan to make significant changes to the Churchill intersection (in order to separate the train tracks from the road)? 80% of the respondents in affected neighborhoods were engaged with this topic before taking the survey Q2: How informed do you feel you are on this issue? 95% of the respondents were very or somewhat informed Only 5% felt they were not informed on this topic Q3: Based on your current knowledge, what is your opinion about closing Churchill? 82% against closing Churchill 8.7% in favor of closing Churchill Q4: The City is currently considering three options for the Churchill rail crossing, as shown in the recent Virtual Town Hall. We believe a viable fourth option is "No Build with Safety Improvements" — i.e., keep the intersection as is, but add safety improvements to the intersections and rail crossing gates. Based on your current understanding, please rank these four options in order of preference: First Choice 60.00% No Build with Safety Improvements* Third Choice 30.00% No Build with Safety Improvements* Partial Underpass Partial Underpass Viaduct (raised train) Closing Churchill intersection Viaduct (raised train) Closing Churchill intersection Second Choice 40.00% 30.00% 20.00% No Build with Safety Improvements• Fourth Choice 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 5.15% Partial Underpass Viaduct (raised train) 2.17% Closing Churchill intersection 63.7 5% 0.00% __ _J····-------------~ No Build with Safety Improvements* Partial Underpass Viaduct (ra ised train) Closing Churchill intersection ●90% of respondents opposed closing Churchill. When forced to choose, more than 60 % ranked closing Churchill as the least desirable option. Insights from ranked options: ●70% of respondents chose No-Build with Safety Improvements as either their first or second choice. ○Over half (~57%) choose this option as their first choice. ●70% of the respondents chose the Partial Underpass as one of their top two choices. ●50% of the respondents chose the Viaduct as one of their top two choices Data Summary Q5: In light of the pandemic, Caltrain's pause of its business plan, and changed work, traffic, and Caltrain ridership patterns, would you encourage the City of Palo to pause its grade separation process and await more clarity? “Making the decision about the train during the first six months of Shelter-In-Place assumes a level of knowledge from XCAP about the future will look that borders on hubris.” - Survey Respondent Takeaways ●90% of respondents opposed closing Churchill ●The majority felt leaving Churchill as-is would be the best choice for now. ●For grade-separation, the Partial Underpass is the preferred option. ●Viaduct remains a surprisingly strong alternative. ●Palo Altans are oppose making consequential and expensive decisions about the grade crossings at this time, when so many strategic factors remain uncertain. Our ‘ask’ from City Council ●We urge the Council not to adopt/vote on any proposal with respect to the Churchill crossing UNTIL ○There can be a more inclusive community process ○Thorough city planning analysis with all crossings considered as a whole ●Council should prioritize solutions for south Palo Alto while continuing to analyze equitable solutions for the north. Thank you for your tireless efforts on this challenging and important project. Appendix Please send an email to paloaltoneighborhoods@gmail.com for more information on the survey Sampling of comments received on the survey ●YES! Fewer and fewer people ride Caltrain already. We do not need to change Churchill intersection to accommodate this UNNEEDED intrusion by Caltrain ●Making the decision about the train during the first six months of Shelter-In-Place assumes a level of knowledge from XCAP about the future will look that borders on hubris. ●There are many decisions that might influence the mitigations like Palo Alto Avenue crossing discussion which has not even been started! The city would benefit from a comprehensive plan (or following its statements from the Comprehensive plan) Sampling of comments received on the survey ●I think we need a LOT more clarity on why the price quotes and time to complete the project for Palo Alto is so much high and longer than in several other projects. Keith Reckdahl has done amazing volunteer research to show how we (P.A.) are about to get ripped off if we buy into this now. Don't waste more money on new studies, and then set a top price and time limit and no change orders, which is how contractors make most of their money. ●I'm not convinced it would make sense to change Churchill even if more trains ever do materialize. The extra ridership would only be at peak hours -- why have the intersection closed at other times? People would just learn not to go that way at the busiest times. ●The committee from the beginning seems to be in favour of closing Churchill without collecting enough information. A new unbiased committee should be formed to look into the issue. It is unfair to take actions to UNFAIRLY DISADVANTAGE ANOTHER COMMUNITY JUST TO BOOST PROPERTY PRICES by closing Churchill crossing. People jump red lights and cause accidents; We look for finding ways to force people to adhere to traffic rules and make commutes safer. Likewise one should look into Churchill crossing to make it safer and not close it to divert traffic to another community. Sampling of comments received on the survey ●At some point it'll be necessary to figure out how the treatment of the Churchill crossing affects the treatment of the Palo Alto Ave and University Ave crossings and possibly how all this relates to proposed permanent closure of University Ave. Anyway, thanks for helping more people get informed and involved! ●City leadership has completely mismanaged the effort to study and select rail crossing solutions. Once we have sufficient clarity to forecast realistic transportation patterns, we should completely restart the process. ●Closing Churchill is a terrible idea. The traffic on Embarcadero is too heavy now and will be worse with the closure of Churchill. Seems to me an over under plan would work best. Sampling of comments received on the survey ●Making any kind of change at this moment when traffic patterns are irregular, PALY is closed, and train traffic is greatly reduced makes no sense. A proper traffic study has not been conducted. Embarcadero Road normally has nearly grid locked traffic during commute hours. Adding more cars is not the answer. ●Embarcadero would be so overwhelmed with Churchill closure. I would like to see Churchill look like the Embarcadero underpass. ●Thank you all for all your efforts keeping things organized and keeping the neighborhood residents aware of the issues, progress, and meetings. 11 Baumb, Nelly From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 2:42 PM To:Council, City; Tanaka, Greg; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Kou, Lydia; Burt, Patrick; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer Cc:Dave Price Subject:Table any decision on the RR Crossing / Churchill Ave Closure Until ALL factors / alternatives are considered CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council, I was appalled to read the front page article in this weekend's Post where XCAP chair Nadia Maik "said she wished her committee had been given authority to study the Alma crossing, too." Well, so do we -- all the residents who dread what closing Churchill will do! Who denied XCAP the authority to conduct a REAL study before proposing to divert thousands of NEW car trips into our neighborhoods and onto already-clogged Embarcadero and Middlefield? Was this limitation even factored into the Casti traffic impact equation and costly studies? If not, why not? How much money and time has the city wasted on consultants, studies, etc to end up such a limited study that even the XCAP chair decries?? But the real question is WHY?? Why must we residents / taxpayers have to watch so vigilantly the city's every move to protect our interests on what seems to be every issue -- Casti, RR crossings, getting the Palo Alto Utilities refunds due us after years of the city's illegal surcharges, letting retail recover before sticking TAX-FREE medical offices in Town & Country to benefit a landlord who's been destroying family businesses like Prestige, Patrick James etc. for 20+ years ..... to name just a few recent examples. 12 When Pat Burt called out the city for its biased "studies" re Casti, he was only partly right about the city having "its finger on the scale;" it's not just a finger, it's the entire hand. ENOUGH. No decisions without a REAL study that takes into account what we the RESIDENTS/Taxpayers want, takes into account existing traffic patterns, takes into account the fact that traffic-light timing STILL doesn't work right in spite of the millions the city's spent and decades of traffic complaints falling on deaf ears. PLEASE get your body parts off the city scale and start providing REAL unbiased solutions. Respectfully, Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 13 Baumb, Nelly From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 4:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:2021-03-23 Study Session on XCAP Final Report CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    In the Final Report some XCAP members observe that the traffic analysis is unreliable due to exclusion of the Downtown  area (particularly the University Ave and Palo Alto Ave grade crossings).    The 2021‐03‐22 Staff Report indicates that Staff is planning for eventual permanent closure of much of University Ave in  the Downtown business district.  This makes the traffic analysis even more suspect.    Spillover traffic is already significant when University slows down.  Making that condition permanent, and adding traffic  diverted from Churchill, is likely to choke neighborhoods around both University and Embarcadero.    More comprehensive traffic modeling is needed before these decisions are finalized.    Regards,  Allen Akin  14 Baumb, Nelly From:Tony Carrasco <tony@carrasco.com> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:26 PM To:Carrasco, Tony; Council, City Cc:Nadia Naik; Larry Klein; Gennady Sheyner Subject:Future studies. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor DuBois, Vice mayor Burt and members of the City Council.   Firstly, Hats off to Chair Naik, Vice chair Klein and fellow members of the XCAP. We  produced a report considering complex data while evaluating several alternative track alignments  with their individual costs and benefits and how they compared with each other.  As the XCAP report recommends, after community feedback on the report, a future study  would also incorporate the strengths and minimize  the weaknesses of the studied alternatives  while looking  for possible new alternatives that fit Palo Alto's landscape and pedestrian and Bike  priorities.  I am writing to you as an individual with full support of the XCAP recommendations. Here is  one such possibility    A potentially better way to provide a grade separation at Churchill which would maintain and even expand the character and walkable grid of Palo Alto streets would be a viaduct (different in size and location from the Viaduct alternative considered by XCAP)      A Viaduct over Embarcadero Road would allow for various configurations of roadways, landscaping, bicycle and pedestrian paths and eliminate the need for some of the questionable traffic mitigations that a Churchill closure would require.  It would obviate the need for the proposed long, trench-like pedestrian/bike lane on Kellogg Avenue in the Partial Underpass alternative.    The Viaduct would start to rise along the East side of the Southgate neighborhood and reach “top of rail” height of approximately 8 feet at Churchill Avenue. This height would allow a naturally lit, safe, pedestrian/bike underpass at Churchill Avenue, similar to the one at Homer Avenue.  Rising at about 1.4%, the Viaduct would permit new access to the Palo Alto High School property for buses and service vehicles close to Embarcadero Road.  The Viaduct would cross over the Embarcadero Road/Alma Street intersection at a 20 foot height, allowing for several configurations of the ground plane. This allows bikes/pedestrians to traverse the 15 ground on grade. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.    The Viaduct would allow future reconstruction of the Embarcadero and Alma bridges.  The Viaduct would require property acquisition to create a new roadway of the Southside of the Town & Country property, accommodating the West bound traffic diverted from the closing on Churchill Avenue.  The Viaduct allows for a modified “Dutch Roundabout.”  North of Embarcadero, the Viaduct would enhance pedestrian/bike connectivity and walkability between Professorville and Town & Country.  North of Embarcadero the Viaduct would allow possible emergency vehicle access to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation.   Sincerely.     ‐‐   Tony Carrasco  CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES   http://www.carrasco.com/  1885 El Camino Real, Palo Alto CA 94306  650-322-2288     16 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Newman <snewzy@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 1:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Kamhi, Philip; Nadia Naik Subject:Response to Majority Vote on Churchill Crossing, March 23 Council Meeting Attachments:Outline of Letter to City Council-8.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Honorable Council members,    I’ve attached a copy of a letter to Council addressing the Majority vote to close the Churchill Avenue crossing.  I am a day  late getting it to you, but I would deeply appreciate your attention as part of your preparations for the March 23 Council  Meeting on the XCAP Report.    Sincerely,  Susan Newman        Susan Newman  1523 Portola Avenue  Palo Alto CA 94306  650.473.1811 (h)  650.380.1764 (c)  snewman@workpractice.com  snewzy@gmail.com              March 17, 2021 Honorable Council Members, I am writing on behalf of a coalition of concerned residents from the Southgate, University South, and Embarcadero Corridor neighborhoods. We have been following the XCAP process over the last two years, including the Panel’s deliberations and writing of the Final Report. We appreciate the sustained effort of this group in attempting to understand the technical details and assumptions, as well as organizational and legal realities, affecting grade separation proposals. And we are grateful for their diligence in raising questions for staff and consultants and for attempting to think through the implications of alternatives for residents, drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. At the same time, the XCAP process has laid bare significant problems and unanswered questions pertaining to the selection of grade separation designs. In the case of South Palo Alto, these were sufficient to prevent the Panel from arriving at a majority, let alone a consensus recommendation. We feel that the issues associated with the Churchill crossing are equally profound and should have resulted in an informed discussion of the alternatives rather than a single recommendation -- particularly the radical one of closing one of our heavily used east-west crossings. This letter attempts to articulate our concerns, as well as our suggestions for moving forward. 1 XCAP deliberations were compromised by incomplete and misleading information. Lack of information about the Palo Alto Avenue Crossing. ​Decisions about the Palo Alto Avenue rail crossing will have significant impacts on traffic throughout northern Palo Alto, but the XCAP were unable to consider these in their deliberations about Churchill. Without knowing the outcome of planning for this crossing, it is premature to approve closing Churchill Avenue. Limitations of the Hexagon Traffic Study. ​In spite of its centrality to decisions about the Churchill crossing, the Hexagon Traffic Study (HTS) is limited in critical ways. ●Short-term, overly-modest traffic projections​.​ As has been pointed out repeatedly by concerned residents and some XCAP members, the Hexagon Traffic Report uses a much-too-limited time frame for its analysis, which only extends to 2030. Using estimates terminating just a few years beyond when modifications are likely to be built violates best practice for planning significant infrastructural changes, as these are likely to persist for decades or longer. Indeed, the inadequacy of HTS traffic projections was an important reason that three members of XCAP refused to recommend Closure of Churchill (September 3, 2020 XCAP Meeting). Notably, projections used by Hexagon predict only a modest 5% increase in Palo Alto traffic by 2030, although there are multiple reasons to consider larger increases in an analysis used to make decisions about Churchill: ●Caltrain projections:​ The pre-COVID figures ​used by Caltrain to justify increases in commuter rail traffic​ show a 40% increase in population and jobs along the corridor by 2040, with 80% of that in San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties. ●Stanford Build-Out:​ According to the County’s review of Stanford’s 2018 EIR, we can expect “significant adverse impacts” on area traffic that will be impossible to mitigate fully if and when the Stanford build-out goes through. ●Castilleja Expansion:​ If Castilleja completes its expansion, we can expect increased congestion in the area from queueing of cars and increased bike/ped traffic at the start and end of the school day. ●Ambitious development goals in Palo Alto:​ The City is committed to increased residential and commercial development during the coming decade at least. While much of this development is intended for transit corridors, and even if a good percentage of new residents use public transit during peak traffic hours, it is likely that personal vehicular traffic will increase as well, particularly during other parts of the day and on the weekends. It is not at all clear if these effects have been taken into account in Palo Alto’s 2030 numbers. In spite of repeated requests from the public and some XCAP members, Hexagon has yet to assess the effects of higher traffic numbers on its Level of Service analysis, even though executing the simulations with different inputs should be relatively easy. In the Final Report, the XCAP Minority have now formally recommended “running the numbers” with new inputs in order to assess the sensitivity of Hexagon’s proposals to traffic increases. In the absence of such analysis, it is premature to approve the closure of Churchill. ●Limited form of analysis. ​As it stands, the HTS focuses exclusively on intersection LOS for vehicles, with no apparent attention to interactions among vehicles, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian traffic on affected roadways. ●Unanalyzed risks to bikes and peds.​ Rachel and Tom Kellerman and Yoriko Kishimoto have done an excellent job of detailing the limitations of the HTS and Mitigation Plan in assessing the effects of increased traffic and roadway changes on bicycle and pedestrian traffic along the Embarcadero Corridor. While Closure may increase safety for bicyclists to the south side of Paly, the resulting increase in traffic on Embarcadero will exacerbate the risk for bikes and peds whose paths to the north side of Paly intersect routes taken by cars. ●Possibly invalid LOS numbers.​ We would add that failing to measure and analyze these challenging interactions between vehicular and bike/ped traffic may also undermine the validity of the Traffic Study by producing better LOS numbers than would be warranted if the interactions were taken into account. ●Unrecognized effects on public transit.​ Finally, the diversion of school buses and maintenance vehicles from their current paths along Churchill Avenue to El Camino and Embarcadero seems likely to affect schedules and transit time for students attempting to get to school. More generally, increased traffic along El Camino, Embarcadero and Oregon/Page Mill may slow other public transit vehicles, intensifying dislike of these methods of getting around town or to and from work. ●Limited selection of intersections for LOS analysis. ​Hexagon’s selection of six intersections for LOS analysis is too limited to convey a credible sense of the effects of Closure even with regard to vehicular traffic. ●Omitted intersections:​ The earlier TKJM traffic study mentions eight intersections likely to be affected by modifications of the Churchill grade crossing. Hexagon disagrees about two, but offers no explanation for this position. ●Intersections further afield:​ Behavior of traffic and function of intersections in the approaches to and departures from the studied intersections should be modelled. As one example, the HTS analysis does not provide existing LOS for intersections east of the bottleneck created by the narrowing of Embarcadero and turning movements in and out of Town and Country and Palo Alto High. As a result, their positive projections of LOS at the proposed new signalized intersections at Alma/Kingsley and Kingsley/Embarcadero are hard to believe. ●Traffic density and flow on remaining routes.​ Study should provide a better understanding of traffic density and flow on all roads that will have to carry additional traffic if Churchill closes -- Embarcadero, Oregon/Page Mill, Alma, and El Camino Real. Increased congestion along these arteries would add stress and inconvenience for residents in Southgate, Evergreen, College Terrace, and Stanford Avenue, as well as other drivers, forced to seek alternative routes for trips downtown or to points east and south of the train tracks. In short, we agree with the XCAP Minority’s call for analysis of “network LOS”. In the absence of these and other considerations mentioned above, the assurances of Staff and Consultants that the negative effects of Closure on traffic can be mitigated ​are simply not seen as credible​ by those who will be most directly affected by the loss of this important east-west rail crossing. ●Narrow view of traffic on Churchill​. HTS calculates LOS for two hours during weekday peak traffic. While this approach may throw light on congestion and delay under conditions of heaviest use, it ignores the fact that most Palo Alto residential travel takes place outside commute hours. Eliminating Churchill as a way to cross the tracks will add inconvenience and stress to residents’ routine trips throughout the day and on weekends by making traffic on El Camino, Oregon/Page Mill, and Embarcadero that is currently bearable during non-peak hours more like peak-hour commuter traffic. 2 XCAP does not adequately represent the community. Absence of important non-residential perspectives. ​In spite of early efforts to engage PAUSD, Palo Alto High, Stanford, and the business community in this phase of “expanded community engagement,” the XCAP made its recommendation without input from any of these critical partners. Within its first year, more than a third of the original 14 members left XCAP, arguably calling into question the “majority” label for the six individuals recommending Closure. More important than the reduction in their numbers, however, the XCAP lost its capacity to represent concerns other than those of residents. Residents’ issues are certainly important, but without the articulation and weighing of perspectives provided by representatives of the area’s institutions, the recommendation to close Churchill seems at best premature. As an example, in addition to the overall traffic impacts of Closure, it seems obvious that this decision would create special problems of access for both PAUSD and Palo Alto HIgh School -- not only for student and parent drivers, but for staff and workers. We are glad to see recent letters from PAUSD and PTAC that make it clear that these groups do indeed want “a seat at the table”. We hope there will also be dialogue with representatives of Town and Country, Stanford, California Avenue businesses, etc. before any decision is made. Inadequate representation of impacted neighborhoods.​ Without disparaging the contributions of any individual, we feel that representation of neighborhoods near the Churchill crossing is biased. Two of the nine current XCAP members 1) live within 100 yards of the Churchill intersection and 2) became part of the original CAP in part because of their vocal opposition ​from the outset​ to alternatives other than Closure or a tunnel. While it makes sense to include people from neighborhoods most affected by grade separation decisions, there has been insufficient attention to how well those chosen represent the positions and concerns of the neighborhood as a whole. In the case of Southgate, a neighborhood whose travel options will be seriously limited by Closure, a well-run survey in 2019 showed that ​residents oppose Closure by a 2 to 1 margin​. Yet no one on XCAP speaks for that majority. On the other hand, University South and Professorville neighborhoods, as well as residents living on Embarcadero itself, were not represented at all by XCAP membership, even though these areas will be heavily impacted by decisions about the Churchill rail crossings. The lack of balanced representation seems particularly problematic given the recently added responsibilities of the current XCAP to advise Council on grade separation. 3 Closing Churchill is simply the wrong choice. In addition to the limitations of information and perspectives used to evaluate the Churchill crossing alternatives, we wish to enumerate briefly specific objections to Closure. Failure to meet key Council Criteria for grade separation. ●Movement across the corridor.​ A key criterion for grade separation alternatives is “Facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of traffic”. While the Mitigation plan proposed by Hexagon may help ameliorate the effects of increased traffic through the remaining crossings, there are many reasons to question its effectiveness, including Hexagon’s own admission that in the future, the LOS at El Camino and Page Mill/Oregon will be “an unmitigatable F”. ●Maintain access to neighborhoods, parks, and schools.​ Although the majority avoid discussing this criterion in detail as it pertains to their preferred option, Closure demonstrably fails to meet this criterion by simply by compromising access to Palo Alto High. And while it may reduce “regional traffic” on certain neighborhood streets, it does so at the expense of others. Other alternatives do as well or better on Council criteria.​ A close reading of the XCAP Report shows that the two other alternatives under consideration rate as well or better with respect to many of the criteria. In fact, had the highly subjective “minimize visual changes along the corridor” been omitted from the Council’s list, it seems unlikely that Closure would have seemed better by anyone’s estimation. Equity concerns.​ A major objection to closing Churchill is that the proposal benefits one group of residents at the expense of multiple others. People living on Churchill West will see a major reduction in the amount of traffic they have to contend with only because that traffic will be offloaded to other areas, notably neighborhoods along and adjacent to the Embarcadero corridor. Compromised emergency vehicle response time and emergency evacuation routes.​ Although the PAFD have assured the City that emergency vehicle response time will be minimally affected, residents of Southgate and the Embarcadero corridor neighborhoods remain concerned. If HTS projections of traffic congestion are wrong, we would expect that other analyses based on those projections may be wrong too. A note on funding.​ ​One additional criterion strongly affected the Majority recommendation -- the ability to pay for a given option with “feasible sources of funding”. We assume that the hope of the Majority is to rely heavily on Measure B money for all three grade separations. But is this approach necessary or feasible? The XCAP Report makes a strong case for possible challenges to that funding, as well as for the likely emergence of federal and state funding for infrastructure projects as part of economic recovery from COVID. In addition, Caltrain representative Sebastian Petty reported that ​finding ways to combine grade separation projects along the Corridor both for construction savings and to attract funding​ will be part of the Rail Corridor Study. We believe that Palo Alto should participate fully in this Study as part of pursuing the best grade separation outcomes. Finally, we expect that the cost of Closure will turn out to be greater than expected from the current estimates. In particular, we believe that the cost of retrofitting the historic Alma Street bridge has had insufficient analysis. 4 How do we move forward from here? This letter has been focused on critique of the majority recommendation of Closure by the XCAP for both process and substantive reasons. Our goal is to encourage Council to select an alternative for Churchill that will better serve the needs of the community at large. Fortunately, we believe that, in spite of its flaws and what we see as faulty conclusions by the Majority, the XCAP process has opened up the design space in ways that ​could allow us to produce integrated vehicular and bike/ped solutions that will better satisfy the City Council’s criteria​, while meeting the true transportation needs of residents throughout Palo Alto for decades to come. Obviously, it will take additional time and resources to undertake this endeavor and arrive at the best solution. We understand the City’s reluctance to continue to spend money developing all solutions. However, in the case of the Churchill crossing, there are options that show real promise ​but have not yet received the attention and iterative development that Closure has​. We suggest leveling the playing field. In addition, the XCAP has done extremely useful work in surfacing additional analysis and design development tasks. Organizing and prioritizing those lists could enable targeted effort that would increase our confidence in a final choice. As residential advocates, we can offer our suggestions about how to do this for the Churchill crossing. Secondly, we note that deliberations for South Palo Alto have not yet reached a conclusion. Might it make sense to focus the City’s next efforts on arriving at greater clarity for the Meadow and Charleston crossings? Finally, we encourage the Council to remember that ​grade separation involves infrastructure changes that are going to cost as much as a billion dollars and that will last for a century​. We strongly believe that it doesn’t make sense to narrow the field in the absence of crucial information just to avoid expenditures of thousands of dollars to address the questions and issues that face each option. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Susan Newman Southgate With helpful comments and general support from residents of Southgate and Embarcadero area neighborhoods 17 Baumb, Nelly From:Arnout Boelens <a.m.p.boelens@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 10:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Public comment XCAP meeting March 23, 2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    We are writing on behalf of the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC). Our mission is to create a healthy community, environment, and economy through bicycling for people who live, work, or play in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.     This letter is written in strong support of a pedestrian and bicycle tunnel at Churchill Avenue (Option 2 of the XCAP grade separation project), and to encourage further study of the designs at Meadow/Charleston to make these intersections safe to use for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. As the city moves forward with future iterations of the different grade separation designs, we recommend active involvement of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), City/School Traffic Safety Committee (CSTSC), and other stakeholders to arrive at a more complete grade separation design. In addition we would like to encourage city staff to hire consultants with a proven track record in complete street design for any future work on this project.    To make bicycle infrastructure safe to use for users of all ages and abilities, designs need to allow vulnerable users to make mistakes without serious consequences. This means reducing the speed of motorized traffic to 20 mph when bicyclists and pedestrians share the road with motorized traffic, and separating them when traffic volumes and speeds are too high. In addition, to promote bicycle riding in Palo Alto and help the city to achieve the ambitious goals of the Sustainability & Climate Action Plan, the grade separation project should be used as an opportunity to upgrade the existing bicycle infrastructure and build bicycling routes that are cohesive, direct, comfortable, and attractive.    At Churchill, Option 2 is the best design for riders crossing the railroad tracks. A crossing at Churchill offers the best cohesion within the existing cycling network. In addition, Option 2:    Is the  safest  option because it eliminates the need to cross Alma and because it has a clear line of sight. Blind corners could be dangerous when large numbers of riders are present in the tunnel.    Provides the most  direct  crossing of both Alma and the train tracks.    Is the most  comfortable  because it does not have sharp corners which are difficult to navigate for younger riders and for people using cargo bikes.  18   Is the most  attractive  because it allows bicycle riders to stay away from traffic and congestion, thus encouraging riders to use the infrastructure.    At Charleston/Meadow, none of the current designs are able to sufficiently protect our most vulnerable road users. The designs that leave the current traffic patterns in place (Trench, Viaduct, Hybrid, and Tunnel designs), also leave the current flawed infrastructure designs for bicyclists and pedestrians in place. These designs would benefit from the installation of protected intersections on Alma. The current iteration of the underpass design, on the other hand, falls short due to unresolved problems with sharp corners, very indirect routes to reach the underpass, and closure of Meadow and Charleston for approximately 3.5 to 4 years during construction without any mitigation measures.    To summarize, as the city moves forward with future iterations of the different grade separation designs, we recommend active involvement of PABAC, CSTSC, and stakeholders. In addition, we would like to urge city staff to hire consultants with a proven track record in complete street design for any future work on this project. Only in this way we can ensure that the city arrives at complete grade separation designs which are safe, cohesive, direct, comfortable, and attractive to use for all road users.    Arnout Boelens  Matt Bryant  Ken Joye  Robert Neff  William Robinson  Frank Viggiano  Nicole Zoeller Boelens    Members of the SVBC, Palo Alto Chapter  1 Baumb, Nelly From:rogersac@aol.com Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 8:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Closing Churchill CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members I am writing to state that I am against closing Churchill. Firstly, living in South Palo Alto my main route to Stanford is Alma/Churchill. Any alternatives involve too much traffic and more importantly too many traffic lights. As a former Paly parent, I have done my best to avoid Paly commute times on Churchill, but at any other time, Churchill/Alma is definitely the best route to Stanford from south Palo Alto. Secondly, for the ability to get to Stanford or Sand Hill Road, we cannot get there from Alma unless we do U turns on El Camino Real. There is no word about what might happen at the Alma crossing but the ridiculous lack of connectivity between Alma and Sand Hill does nothing to help efficient traffic flow and that bottleneck must be improved. Thirdly, as a former Paly parent, I know that I have had meetings on campus and the best way to get there is Alma/Churchill. If I had to collect my children from school (twice I had children on crutches so they needed short term chauffering to and from schoo)l, and that car park by the sports fields made most sense). Additionally, when they were able to drive and on the very few occasions they took the car to school, they parked in the residential neighbourhoods around Churchill, Bryant, etc. Likewise, many parents parked there for back to school night and of course for Paly football and other sports events. As I am sure the local residents would say, this neighbourhood would be very impacted by parking by students and staff if Churchill was closed. Lastly, PAUSD parks all their school buses by the Churchill entrance to Paly. All these buses (and presumably the drivers who drive their personal vehicles to get to work) would be heavily impacted by this closure. School buses need to get pupils to and from school in a timely manner and having to use other crossings where traffic would be increased would mean that their schedules would be at risk. To sum up, efficient traffic flow is a very big consideration in this. All the other crossings are busy. Closing a cross would not add to efficient traffic flow around town. That traffic will not disappear, it will still need to cross the tracks. Please consider those of us who live in Palo Alto and need to be able to get around efficiently. Closing Churchill is a poor decision. Sincerely, Carol Rogers, Stockton Place. 2 Baumb, Nelly From:mickie winkler <mickie650@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 1:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Closing Churchill Ave????? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council   Do you know how many students attend Paly?   Or how many staff work there?  The answer is 2117 and 231, respectively  And you're "thinking" of closing access to one of three roads serving it?  Please, think again.    Mickie Winkler    Mickie Winkler  650-324-7444 office  850 Webster St.    701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/05/ 202 1 Document dates: 03/10/2021 – 03/24/2021 Set 4 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Alla Gorinevsky <allagorin@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 2:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Against Churchill closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  closing Churchill would shift unacceptable loads to other streets which are already overcrowded.   It will make reaching Stanford and PAMF difficult for South Palo Alto residents.   It is a waste of money without solving anything.  All that to allow bikers to cross without stopping?    "Palo Alto is preparing to advance its most complex, expensive and potentially divisive public infrastructure  project" ‐‐‐ again, without referendum.   Please stop!!!   Do not proceed without a comprehensive train tracks plan.   Conduct a city‐wide referendum, complete with per parcel contributions required.  Start with collecting the funds from large donors ‐ don't do anything until the money is there and research  completed.    "Concurrently, the city would proceed with a wide range of traffic improvements at Embarcadero Road and  Oregon Expressway — modifications designed to keep traffic at these busy arteries from getting worse once  the Churchill intersection is reconfigured."    Concurrently? Surely traffic improvement should be done PRIOR to closure of Churchill.   It will be beneficial anyway.    Thanks,  Alla Gorinevsky  Palo Alto resident  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Markevitch <pat@magic.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Honorable Council Members,    Please do not close the Churchill crossing.    Sincerely,    Pat Markevitch  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Roberts <patroberts707@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 7:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Avenue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Members of the City Council,     I am writing to show my support for keeping Churchill Avenue open at Alma Street. I think Churchill is an important  automobile crossing to Palo Alto High School and El Camino Real.    Embarcadero Road and the Oregon Expressway are often bumper to bumper during the commute hours. I don’t believe  that there is room for additional traffic if Churchill is closed.    Please vote to keep Churchill Avenue open!    Thank you,  Patrick Roberts  857 Southampton Dr  Palo Alto  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 1:34 PM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia Subject:Please don't close Churchill and add another 7,000 cars to Embarcadero *& the neighboirhoods CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello. As someone who lives on Middlefield a block south of Embarcadero, I'm begging you not to close Churchill and divert an estimated 7,000 NEW daily car trips to an already crowded major road, one of only 3 leading to 101 and the only one providing direct access to Stanford. Where will those thousands of vehicles be diverted to: Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway, both of which are near schools: PALY, Casti, Walter Hays and Jordan where students and their parents transporting them will be endangered. Both roads are already disasters, with traffic backed up for blocks even outside of rush hour.  Regarding rush hour, one of the city's RR  closure consultants  underestimated when rush hour  starts and stops and only considered 2.5 hours of vehicle traffic 8‐9:15 AM and 5‐6:15 PM. This  timeframe totally ignores PALY afternoon and early morning traffic, car tips to other schools like  Casti, Jordan and Walter Hays which are accessed by Embarcadero and Oregon,  and the  fact that rush hour in general starts earlier and ends later with drivers trying to avoid rush hour  congestion.   During rush hour, frustrated Embarcadero drivers often form their own lanes when backed up at the still poorly timed traffic lights. Trust me, it's truly terrifying to turn into one's correct lane and find a car that shouldn't be there and be boxed in with no place to go! The same thing happens at Oregon / Middlefield due to the bollards at Jordan; a driver can legally 7 cross Oregon heading north at the light AND get stuck in the intersection because the Jordan / N/ California bollards box in through traffic if a car's trying to make a left at Jordan. Being stuck in the middle of Oregon with several lanes of through traffic speeding at you is not fun and I've had guests arrive shaking from the experience. City "planners" also ignored what now happens at Middlefield and Embarcadero when the VTA  bus stops 3 car lengths from the intersection when they narrowed the street and added  bollards at every intersection:   through southbound traffic gets boxed in by the bollards and can't  bypass the  bus. Southbound turning and through traffic AND East/West through traffic regularly  gets stuck IN the intersection during rush hour.  This Keystone Kops/Third World scenario lasts  through several cycles of traffic light changes while the multiple lanes of N/S and E/W traffic tries  to untangle itself.   (Years of complaints to the city's Traffic "planners" and to City Council about both situations have not been fruitful; let's hope the new City Council will pay more attention to costly traffic "calming" measures that do exactly the opposite!.) If Casti's under construction abutting Embarcadero AND Churchill's closed AND we're deluged with thousands more vehicles a day, this will be a disaster! PLEASE SAY NO to closing Churchill. Also note that Casti's garage access from Bryant is even CLOSER to Embarcadero than the Middlefield VTA bus stop so just imagine the chaotic backups there!) Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Chacon <Mary.Chacon@varian.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:26 AM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:mary@mac-archcon.com Subject:STOP - DO NOT Close Churchill!!! Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  All,  Diverting traffic to Embarcadero and North Palo Alto - Professorville is not the answer. Do NOT close Churchill!! Please take a long term look at the situation along with developing a MASTER Plan for traffic in Palo Alto.   We live at the corner of Embarcadero and High Street (North). One side of our lot is on the Embarcadero frontage road that accesses Alma. Our front door is on High street. High street is a 30 foot wide street. Cars are parked all week long on both sides of the street. The parked cars come from:  1. Street residents   2. Permit parking for downtown workers   3. Permit parking for PALY students.   4.  Our street is also the drop off and pickup site for many PALY students every morning and afternoon.  There is a large number of bikes and pedestrian that come down High Street/Emerson Street and Embarcadero to go to PALY, Stanford and T&C. In fact many residents park on High and Embarcadero frontage and walk to T&C to shop because it’s quicker then sitting in the long line on Embarcadero to get to T&C. Additionally, there have been multiple car/bike accidents at this intersection.  Essentially this is an already VERY busy and dangerous intersection.  Diverting Churchill traffic would completely destroy our streets and quality of living. We have a wonderful WALKABLE neighborhood with young kids, dogs, pets, elderly residents that 9 we do not want to be destroyed by sending more cars that would normally go down Churchill through our neighborhood…..this is NOT the answer…all it does is create another harmful problem to an already traffic impacted area.  Thank you for your consideration!   Mary Chacon   (650)862‐9972      Varian Confidential  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Hing Sham <hinglsham@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 4:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail crossing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear sir/madman, I live on Carolina Lane and very close to the Charleston/Alma railroad crossing. I believe underground  trenches for the trains at the crossing is the best option for Palo Alto residents. Thank you very much for your attention.   Hing Sham    Sent from Hing's iPad  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 1:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Resending: XCAP presentation Attachments:DRAFT Part 1 3-18-21 City Council - XCAP Presentation for Mar 2021.pptx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I sent you all XCAP’s presentation for tonight but AJ think the PDF version distorted some images, so I’m sending the soft  copy just in case.     Sorry for the multiple emails.    Nadia  2 Baumb, Nelly From:pennyellson12@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 1:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:XCAP--Churchill Closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council,    Re: Churchill Closure and Embarcadero Changes  that you will consider in your study session this evening    First, I want to thank XCAP members for their work to date on seeking workable solutions to at‐grade rail crossing  barriers to east‐west transportation citywide.  This is a complex set of problems, and they have worked hard to identify  feasible options.  Nonetheless, the recommendations you see before you reflect analysis that is incomplete and doesn’t  take into account known impacts of major projects that are in the city’s pipeline.  This is probably another side effect of  having heavy staff turnover and new staff with limited historical knowledge coupled with reliance on consultants who  have limited comprehensive knowledge of the city’s current and long term transportation and development picture and  policies.     I do not support the XCAP recommendation to close Churchill at this time because there are important gaps in the data  that informed it. Here are my questions and comments:    1. When the Stanford GUP DEIR was underway in 2018, the DEIR said Stanford’s proposed GUP expansion plan  would result in auto congestion impacts to the Embarcadero/Middlefield intersection in front of Walter Hays  Elementary School that cannot be mitigated.  (See Mitigation Measure #66: the Project will cause significant Level of Service (LOS) impacts at the Middlefield/Embarcadero intersection in both the morning and evening peak times. The DEIR provided no mitigation, stating that there is “No feasible mitigation measure.’) Notably, the GUP  DEIR analysis did not study possible Churchill closure and diversion of existing Churchill auto trips to  Embarcadero.  Nor did it consider a probable increase in auto trips near Churchill related to a possible Castilleja  expansion or University Avenue closure. I don’t know what those aggregates mean for the rest of the  Embarcadero intersections, but it seems likely this is a line of study that is worth pursuing before decisions are  made on this matter. Question: did the project traffic analysis consider potential aggregate impacts of  increased auto trips on Embarcadero due to Castilleja expansion and Stanford GUP projects that are in the  pipeline now in their analysis of Churchill closure? If it did, that does not appear to be reflected in the reports  presented to XCAP.  Grade sep planning is a 100‐year project, so looking at known probable aggregate impacts  would be prudent.     2. If Embarcadero intersection operations are significantly compromised, might auto traffic migrate with the  help of Waze and similar apps to quieter neighborhood streets that function as school commute routes in this  area?  A lot of careful analysis and work was done on the Charleston‐Arastradero (C‐A) Plan in order to avert  auto traffic diversion.  I hope that similar attention will be given to potential traffic diversion for any Churchill  closure decision, including the aggregates I mention above in Question #1—just as C‐A Plan analysis was  required to include an SRP expansion that was in the pipeline at the time.     3. PAUSD and PTA Council letters expressing concern that they had not had opportunity to contribute as  stakeholders were disappointing to see.  A project of such importance to school commute safety and school  site operations should have undergone rigorous cooperative review with the city’s Safe Routes to School  partners. This must be rectified.  3   4. As a member of PABAC,  I have been disappointed by the limited opportunity for review the Pedestrian &  Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) was offered very late in the process—only when members of PABAC  pressed hard for it.  Because it was so late, there was no money left to make significant design changes.  This  is not normal process.  I hope Council will investigate why PABAC did not regularly get to see the evolving  plans in their monthly meetings as is the norm for Palo Alto.    5. Mitigations for Embarcadero focus primarily on motor vehicle operations (probably because that is the focus  of the traffic analysis). Bike/ped solutions for the slip road and Kingsley are particularly unclear, but certainly  will have important implications for school commute safety.  These should be fleshed out so they can be  understood better.       6. Information about ped/bike volumes and crossings in the report is lacking.  From the current concepts, it is  impossible to understand how this will work for students or anyone else who walks or bikes.    7. The consultants were given copies of school route Walk & Roll maps and information about Comp Plan  Transportation policies.  I don’t see evidence in the reports that alternative commutes were given the kind of  consideration Comp Plan policy demands.  In the XCAP meetings I attended,  though members of the public  and XCAP repeatedly asked for bike facilities to be integrated early in the design process,  staff and the  consultants consistently designed for motor vehicles first and shoehorned in bike facilities afterward.  The  results, for every single crossing, reflect that outmoded planning process.    Further study is needed to understand the implications for all road users of Churchill closure on Embarcadero and  nearby neighborhood streets before any decision is made.    Thank you for considering my comments.    Penny Ellson        To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Virus-free. www.avg.com   4 Baumb, Nelly From:John Koval <john@kovalfamily.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:XCAP Program Recommendation and BIG Infrastructure $$ cmoming! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a longtime resident of Palo Alto, I wanted to write in dissent regarding the impending closure of Churchill Ave at the  Caltrain Tracks.     The proposed (and it appears baked‐in) closure of Churchill Ave is not the best idea. This is a shortsighted attempt to  save $, and justify the XCAP committees existence, with a disappointing and poorly developed plan as the ONLY  recommendation by a highly paid consulting firm after 2 years of wasteful meetings.    If you are going to go through the construction costs and impacts of the pedestrian tunnel, do it right and complete this  important cross town linkage of our neighborhoods. Think long term and for the whole city.    We need to be ready with a plan and thin k bigger knowing that we will have passing tracks in Palo Alto (Mountain View  is the only other North Santa Clara City, which already has 3 tracks for the light rail) and the impacts will be more severe  than we think with noisy trains on the side tracks at any time and more clanging bells, squealing brakes and horns  blowing as they idle next to our homes day and night! These trains and tracks need to be in a trench or tunnel!    Their will be large amounts of money available from the infrastructure program that will be shortly flowing to the State  from Congress. Think big and get this program in gear and be shovel ready!!!    Sincerely,  John Koval  Tennyson Avenue  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Mohamed T. Hadidi <mthadidi@alumni.stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:48 AM To:Council, City Cc:Mohamed Hadidi; youngjoh; Omar Hadidi; Mona Hadidi; Expanded Community Advisory Panel Subject:Please support the “Closure of Churchill Ave” CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council Members,      I would like to start by thanking all XCAP members for dedicating months of hard work, meticulous analysis and probing  questions in the midst of the Pandemic to come up with their report.      Some who didn’t like the results of the XCAP’s work have tried to descredit the XCAP by claiming that 2 of its members  live on Churchill Ave. This is a disingenuous ad hominem attack. Only one XCAP member lives on Churchill and he lives  on the east side, which is the side least affected by the proposed alternatives. Another member lives in Southgate, but  does not live on Churchill, and in fact has voted at the start in favor of considering the Underpass Option and its further  study. And these are only two of the 9‐member XCAP.      I ask you to honor the XCAP work by taking to heart its analysis and recommendations.      I ask you also in particular to accept the XCAP recommendation of closing Churchill with Mitigations.      The reasons are simple:   1. Cost which is almost an order of magnitude less than the other 2 alternatives.   2. Safety of Palo Alto High School students and street residents   3. Preserving the residential character of the neighborhood, which would be irretrievably damaged by either of the  Partial Underpass or the Viaduct. Either of these two other alternatives would pose an almost existential injury to those  who are in direct view of these “concrete monsters”. This existential damage cannot be compared to the slight  inconvenience for those in the Southgate area who would no longer have as quick an access to Alma as they currently  have. Or to a possible slight increase in traffic for those living close to Embarcadero. The degrees of harm that the 3  alternatives for Churchill pose to these different constituencies just don’t compare in kind and are not in the same  league.   4. The Hexagon Traffic Study is quite clear that with Mitigations traffic at most intersections impacted by Churchill  Closure would be better. Only in two of the seven impacted intersections would it be worse, but only slightly so.   5. Palo Alto has more rail crossings per capita than any other city in the Bay Area, and would remain so even with  Churchill’s closure.      Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.      Best regards,   Mohamed       Mohamed Hadidi, Ph.D.  6 Baumb, Nelly From:YORIKO KISHIMOTO <yoriko12330@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:Connecting Palo Alto! (study session) Attachments:KellermanKishimoto letter - RRXing 0321.docx; Memo-Churchill Avenue At-Grade-Xing.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Dubois and Honorable City Council:    Thank you for your attention to the “Connecting Palo Alto” challenges.    First, please note the name of the project:  We want to CONNECT Palo Alto, not dis‐connect it.    I am attaching the letter from Tom and Rachel Kellerman and myself.  It focuses on the direction that the city council  made, that any closure must be meaningfully mitigated.  It’s not!  We commissioned an experienced professional traffic  engineer (PE) to review it and I will attach that too.    There are too many big problems with the recommendation to close Churchill.  * 14 original appointees are down to 9 ‐ two who live near Churchill are still there but University South, PAUSD, Friends  of Caltrain representatives are all gone.  The “majority” who want to close Churchill is a minority ‐ 6 out of 14.  * Pushing traffic and problems from one neighborhood to another  * Making things worse for walkable/bikeable Palo Alto by funneling more traffic to a more expressway‐like system  * Economic comparison doesn’t include the true cost of their “mitigations” ‐ $50 million to re‐do the bridge,  intersections etc.??  * Technically, the “mitigations" are based on shaky assumptions with BIG gaps as our letters point out.  * PAUSD is not on board and the safe routes to school and bike groups have concerns too    Overall:  too many big concerns to make such an important policy call. Closing Churchill is not taking us in the right  direction for the city and any survey of residents would no doubt  show lack of broad support.    Instead, I recommend:  * Prioritize South Palo Alto first for the Measure B funding.  They have no grade separations.  * Build the recommended bike/ped under crossings and network first ‐ Connect Palo Alto!  This include the 2016  Embarcadero bike improvement project that had been fully approved and funded.  Seale and Loma Prieta bike/ped  crossings too (and Hawthorne).  * Take the time to study and implement North Palo Alto area in a comprehensive way including Palo Alto Avenue and  University Avenue.  This might include some of the long term multi‐modal improvements.    Thank you so much for your consideration.  I also strongly support Susan Newman’s excellent summary letter.      Yoriko Kishimoto  Former Mayor of Palo Alto  Professorville resident, Embarcadero Road    Memo 1834 Casterline Road m.derobertispe.@gmail.com Oakland CA 94602 MMD...… …. September 15, 2020 To: Yoriko Kishimoto From: Michelle DeRobertis, P.E. Subject: Churchill At-grade Xing Traffic Analysis This memorandum presents comments and observations on the traffic studies of the impact of closing the Churchill Avenue, Palo Alto at-grade railroad crossing and the proposed mitigation. I have reviewed the August 13, 2020 memo from Hexagon which also contains the November 26, 2019 traffic study, also by Hexagon. The latter refers to a TJKM traffic study, which I did not review. These comments take into account the forthcoming Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) guidance on conducting multimodal traffic studies1. ITE recognizes that a major shortcoming of many traffic impact analyses is that they often neglect to analyze the impact of roadway changes and/or land developments on other roadway users besides automobiles. The new ITE recommended practice is that traffic studies should address not only impacts on automobile traffic but also impacts to transit service, pedestrians, bicyclists, and sensitive areas such as residential streets. Thus, the following comments reflect the need to evaluate traffic impacts on all modes, including transit travel time, pedestrian and bicyclist circulation and sensitive areas such as residential streets, not only auto level of service. REVIEW OF TRAFFIC STUDIES The August 13, 2020 study of the closure of the Churchill Avenue at-grade crossing describes the following as the options: • Do Nothing- maintaining the existing at-grade option. • Complete closure of the Churchill Avenue roadway rail crossing while maintaining pedestrian and bicyclist access by the construction of a nonmotorized undercrossing. • The partial underpass of Churchill Avenue; this would create a Tee intersection at Alma Street with Churchill Avenue access to and from the west, as shown in Figures 3A and 3B of the August 2020 study. • Proving a grade-separated roadway crossing. The study identified this option as a viaduct, an elevated structure for the railroad. (Presumably other reports addressed other alternatives of providing grade separation including a roadway undercrossing of the railway, or by undergrounding the railroad). 1 ITE Recommended Practice - Multimodal Transportation Impact Studies, expected publication in 2020. September 15, 2020 Page 2 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com It is recognized that the “Do Nothing” alternative (retaining the existing at-grade roadway crossing) is not feasible given the proposed increase train frequencies. Thus one of the other options above must be chosen. The costs associated with these options and their associated mitigations and other necessary new infrastructure were not presented in the traffic study and are not the subject of this review. This review focusses on the analysis of the impacts of the complete closure option as presented in the November 2019 traffic study. The study addressed the traffic diversion from the intersection of Churchill Avenue at Alma Street to Embarcadero Road due to closure of the existing at-grade crossing of Churchill Avenue. This memorandum presents comments in these main areas: • Assignment of the diverted trips • Future analysis year • Assessment of impacts of the diverted trips • Mitigations measures and analysis of the impact of the mitigation measures 1. Assignment of the Diverted Trips The traffic study evaluated how and where existing Churchill Avenue traffic would divert to other routes to cross the railroad. While the traffic volumes were not described in terms of vehicles per day, based on the turning movement volumes, it appears that approximately 7,000 vpd use the Churchill at-grade crossing, 5,000 of which are to and from Alma Street and 2,000 proceed east on Churchill Avenue. The impacts of these diverted automobile trips away from the intersection of Churchill Avenue at Alma Street was the basis for assessing the impacts of the closure of Churchill at-grade crossing. The traffic study identifies the existing AM and PM peak hour turning movements, and Figures 7A and 7B depict the path that the diverted traffic is predicted to use. The traffic study then analyzes the impacts of the diversion of these auto trips. For simplicity, this discussion will refer to the AM peak hour volume, unless noted. Figure 7A Eastbound movements • Eastbound right turn movement from Churchill onto southbound Alma Street (150 trips): the majority was assigned to Oregon Expressway. This seems like a reasonable assumption. • Eastbound left turn from Churchill onto northbound Alma Street (89 trips): It unclear where this movement was assigned. Figure 7A shows that 89 AM trips as being assigned to an eastbound left turn at the intersection of Embarcadero and Alma, but this left turn is not possible. The way to make this movement (turn from eastbound to northbound) is to enter the Embarcadero Road underpass heading east and then use the slip ramp to Kingsley Avenue as a loop onramp onto Alma Street. Thus these additional trips (89 AM and 127 PM or about 1000 vehicles per day) would use the section of Kingsley Avenue heading westbound and then would turn right onto Alma Street. September 15, 2020 Page 3 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com Figure 7B Westbound Movements • Southbound right turn from Alma Street onto westbound Churchill (157 AM): this movement was assigned to Lincoln -Emerson via a left turn from Alma Street onto Lincoln Avenue to access Embarcadero Road. This was then mitigated by assigning them to turn left onto Kingsley Avenue to access Embarcadero Road. • Northbound left turn from Alma to westbound on Churchill (199 AM): 97 of the 199 AM (and 94 of the 190 PM peak hour trips) appear to be diverted to turn left at Oregon Expressway. This seems to be a reasonable assumption. It is unclear where the remaining ~100 vehicles per hour (vph) were assigned during both the AM and PM peak hour. It appears as if some if not all of the remaining 100 vph would be diverted to the Lincoln Avenue -Emerson Street route to access Embarcadero Road to head west. The report states: “Traffic from Alma Street that wants to head west on Embarcadero Road must use Lincoln Avenue to Emerson Street. The amount of traffic going “around the block” to access Embarcadero from Alma would increase by 157 vehicles during the AM peak hour and 97 vehicles during the PM peak hour.” Thus, it does not appear that any of the northbound left-turn movement was assumed to divert to this route. If the 100 extra trips from the northbound left-turn movement were assumed to divert to this route also, then the projected diverted volume would be 157 + 100 = 256 AM peak hour trips, and about 97 + 100 = 194 PM peak hour trips. This is about 2000 vehicle per day (vpd) that would use the Lincoln- Emerson route or the alternate route recommended as mitigation. 2. Future Analysis Year Impacts of the closure of the Churchill Avenue at-grade crossing were assessed by comparing existing conditions with two scenarios: existing volumes with the closure and future volumes with the closure. Future traffic volumes were for the year 2030. However, 2030 is only ten years out. Often, future traffic analyses use a future horizon year of 20 to 25 years in the future, especially for projects that are expected to be in place for decades, as this would be. A 2013 City of Palo Alto Memo (ID # 4327) titled “Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines and Traffic Model Update”2 cited the year 2035 as the future analysis year, which at the time was 20+ years in the future. 3. Assessing the Impacts of the Diverted Trips The Hexagon November 2019 Traffic Study stated that 24 intersections were evaluated by a prior TJKM traffic study and that the TJKM study determined that the closure of the Churchill Avenue railroad crossing would create significant impacts at eight study intersections. Hexagon disagreed with two of the impacts, but agreed with impacts six intersections. Thus the Hexagon report proceeded to discuss 2 Department of Planning &Community Environment available at https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/38140 September 15, 2020 Page 4 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com the six intersections for which it also recommended mitigations. (Comments on these mitigations are discussed in the next section). The traffic study analysis of the diverted trips impacts was restricted only to impacts on automobile travel and only at intersections. Automobile level of service (LOS) at intersections is not the only element of the roadway system that could be impacted by capacity constraints or other problems due to increased traffic. In addition, increased traffic also impacts other modes and sensitive areas. These are discussed further below. Impacts on other roadway elements The impact of closing the Churchill at-grade crossing on the following aspects of the road system do not appear to have been evaluated in the August 2020 and November 2019 traffic studies. 1. The Embarcadero Road underpass. The volumes for this location were not presented for any of the three scenarios: existing conditions, existing volumes with Churchill closure, and future year with Churchill closure. In order to assess the full impact of the Churchill closure on automobiles, the following should be analyzed for the Embarcadero Road underpass under all three scenarios: the average daily traffic volume (ADT), the AM peak hour volumes, and PM peak hour volumes. Furthermore, as stated above, 2030 is not typical future scenario; the future year should be 2040 or beyond. This is not to suggest that the Embarcadero underpass should be widened, but only to state that when comparing the pros and cons and the financial implications of all the options, the cost of widening the Embarcadero undercrossing may need to be included in the cost of the “Churchill closure” scenario to compare to the cost of the “Churchill grade separation” scenario and the cost of the “Churchill partial underpass”. 2. At the unsignalized intersections, the LOS of the impacted turning movements were not presented. The LOS for the unsignalized intersections was presented with the note “Average delay is reported for the worst approach at one-way stop intersections. LOS F is not substandard unless a signal warrant is met”. However the specific movement or movements experiencing LOS F were not identified nor was the increased delay or increased queue length associated with that movement, for example for the left turn from Alma Street onto Lincoln Avenue. For three unsignalized locations, the recommended mitigation was a traffic signal, so perhaps this was why no further analysis was presented. Impact of increased traffic on other modes and sensitive areas 1. Impact on bus travel times due to increased traffic on Embarcadero Road was not assessed. Concentrating more traffic on fewer roadways adversely impacts public transit because buses are limited to using these fewer roadways which now carry more auto traffic. 2. Similarly concentrating traffic onto fewer roadways increases the impact to pedestrians and cyclists who use those roadways. The impact on Bicycle LOS or level of traffic stress due to additional automobile traffic on Embarcadero Road was not assessed. The impact on bicycling and pedestrian conditions on Embarcadero Road should be assessed at two locations: west of Alma Street and east of Alma Street. September 15, 2020 Page 5 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com 3. Impacts of the closure of the Churchill at-grade crossing and the increased traffic on Embarcadero Road underpass on emergency vehicle response time was not addressed. 4. Impacts of increased traffic on pedestrian delay and bicycle delay at signalized intersections was not assessed. 5. Residential streets. The traffic studies did not address the adverse impact of the diverted traffic on Lincoln-Emerson residential streets, only stating that this route was “circuitous” for vehicular traffic. It is implied that this “circuitousness” is the reason for the recommended mitigation. The traffic study did not address the adverse impacts of the additional traffic on the residents of these streets. It instead recommended an alternative to the use of Lincoln Avenue and Emerson Street which involves the use of another residential street—Kingsley Avenue. This impact on Kingsley Avenue was not stated nor evaluated. The impact of additional traffic on residential roadways is not due to capacity but due to livability and safety concerns. 4 Mitigation and Impacts of the Proposed Mitigation The November 2019 traffic study states that six intersections would have significant impacts but that they could be mitigated. The main mitigation affecting Embarcadero Road and its environs is to encourage diverted traffic to turn onto Kingsley Avenue to access Embarcadero Road westbound instead of using the Lincoln-Emerson route to access Embarcadero Road westbound. Other diverted trips onto Kingsley are the eastbound trips that wish to head north on Alma Street. The report analyzed the intersections affected by the traffic diversions and developed mitigation measures. However, mitigation measures themselves can have impacts. The impacts of the following proposed mitigation were not evaluated: • The study proposed three new traffic signals, at the intersections of Alma Street/ Embarcadero slip ramp; Alma Street/Kingsley Avenue; and Embarcadero Road /Kingsley Avenue. While the report evaluated the intersection level of service (LOS) of the first two intersections with signal operation, it did so only for automobiles. The LOS experienced by pedestrians and bicycles was not evaluated. • The report did not address the intersection level of service (LOS) and operating conditions at the new signalized intersection of Embarcadero Road/Kingsley Avenue. This should be addressed both for automobiles, pedestrians and bicyclists. • This impact of the new signalized intersection at Embarcadero Road at Kingsley Avenue on transit travel times on Embarcadero Road was not assessed. The impact of the two new signalized intersections on Alma Street on transit travel times was also not addressed. Note this is in addition to the impact on transit travel time of the increased traffic on Embarcadero Road discussed above. • The traffic study did not address the fact that Kingsley Avenue is a residential street with single family home frontage. There would be additional north and southbound traffic on Kingsley Avenue. The resulting queue of traffic waiting to turn left onto Embarcadero Road at new signal at Embarcadero Road/ Kingsley Avenue and the westbound traffic turning right onto Alma Street from Kingsley Avenue September 15, 2020 Page 6 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com would impact the existing residents. The annoyance factors of noise and pollution were not addressed nor was the length and duration of each queue. • The report states the following with respect to the recommend mitigation to route diverted traffic from Lincoln-Emerson to Kingsley Avenue: “If this project were to be pursued, many design details would need to be worked out with regard to maintaining access to existing residential driveways on Embarcadero Road, Kingsley Street (sic), High Street, and the Embarcadero slip ramp” More clarity on what exactly the impacts would be, if these design details cannot be worked out, would be appropriate before an alternative is selected. The traffic study does not mention that it is likely that these impacts of the mitigation itself cannot be mitigated and that the solution to avoid these impacts is to preserve a Churchill roadway crossing. • The traffic study states that at the intersection of El Camino Real & Embarcadero Road “significant traffic impacts would occur due to reassigned traffic.” It then recommended additional turning lanes (a westbound left-turn lane and a northbound right-turn lane) along with “signal optimization”. The impacts of these “improvements” on pedestrians and bicyclists were not evaluated nor was signal optimization. Signal optimization often means longer signal cycle lengths. While it is true that models show this can reduce the average delay experienced by motorists, they also show that longer signal cycles almost always increase the delay experienced by pedestrians and bicyclists. One could argue that pedestrians and bicyclists are disproportionately impacted by the wait at long signal cycles. The impact of these mitigation measures, both the turning lanes and the signal changes, on pedestrians and cyclists should be evaluated. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The August 2020 and November 2019 traffic studies on the impacts of the closure of the Churchill Avenue at-grade rail crossing focussed solely on automobile operations. In the evaluation of the diversion of auto trips that would occur if Churchill at-grade crossing were closed, there was no analysis of the impact of additional auto traffic on the other users of Embarcadero Road e.g., on transit service, emergency vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians. Furthermore, the future analysis year, ten years in the future, is not consistent with a typical planning horizon year of 20 years. There was no evaluation of the impact on the residential streets. Lastly there was no analysis of the impacts of the mitigation measure themselves, particularly on pedestrians, bicyclists, and residential streets. The study states that “many design details would need to be worked out”. Many questions remain with respect to the impacts of the closure of Churchill Avenue at-grade crossing, and further analysis would be appropriate before a decision is made with respect to this alternative. Alternatively, the solution to avoid these impacts is to preserve a Churchill roadway crossing. The following issues were not addressed in the November 2019 or August 2020 traffic studies. 1. The traffic studies did not address how the increased traffic and traffic congestion on Embarcadero Road will affect the following: September 15, 2020 Page 7 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com • Public transit travel time on Embarcadero Road and Alma Street • Emergency vehicle response time in the Embarcadero Road and Churchill Avenue corridors. • Bicycle LOS or bicycle level of traffic stress on Embarcadero Road • Bicycle or pedestrian delay at existing signalized and unsignalized intersections. • Impact of new signals on public transit travel time, on both Alma Street and Embarcadero Road and on pedestrians and bicycle LOS • Impact to pedestrians and bicyclists of proposed mitigation measures at the signalized intersection Embarcadero Road and El Camino Road (additional turn lanes and “signal optimization”). 2. There was no assessment of capacity of the Embarcadero Road underpass under current and future conditions. If it is at or near capacity now or in the future year scenario, it would be appropriate to consider the cost of widening the Embarcadero undercrossing in the cost of the “Churchill closure” scenario, (for example when comparing the cost of the “Churchill grade separation” scenario to the Churchill closure scenario). 3. The future analysis year is 2030. 2030 is only ten years out, while often traffic analyses use a future year of 20 to 25 years in the future. This is especially appropriate for projects that are expected to be in place for decades. This could have implications when assessing whether or not the Embarcadero Road underpass is sufficient to accommodate diverted traffic from Churchill. 4. It appears that the analysis did not account for all the traffic that would divert to Kingsley Avenue. The study only specifically identifies the 157 AM peak hour trips that formerly were turning right from Alma onto Churchill (and the corresponding PM peak hour trips) that would divert to Kingsley if the proposed new signals were provided. But there appears to be another 100 AM peak hour trips that were turning left from Alma onto Churchill that are unaccounted for. There is also the 89 left turns (AM peak hour) and 127 left turns (PM Peak hour) currently eastbound on Churchill turning left onto Alma Street that would use the slip ramp onto Kingsley Avenue to go northbound on Alma Street. 5. The traffic study did not address impacts on residential streets due to the diversion of auto trips from Churchill Avenue. Mitigation for the circuitous route of using Lincoln-Emerson was to direct this traffic to use Kingsley Avenue. The traffic study did not address the issue that residential streets have different considerations beyond “capacity”. It did not describe the magnitude of the impact of the additional traffic on Kingsley Avenue, such as describing the existing traffic volumes and the future volumes with traffic diversion. The mere presence of more cars in a public space or residential street changes the ambience of a location, and this is a quality beyond which is measurable by traffic capacity September 15, 2020 Page 8 1834 Casterline Road Oakland CA 94602 m.derobertispe@gmail.com and safety metrics. This was recognized over 50 years ago by Colin Buchanan in Traffic In Town3s and will be addressed in the forthcoming ITE Recommended Practice Multimodal Traffic Impact Studies. It is likely that an analysis of these issues would find significant and unavoidable impacts. The solution would be to choose a different alternative such as a grade separation or partial underpass at Churchill Avenue. A partial underpass would have much fewer impacts since approximately 5,000 vpd to and from the west would not be diverted to Embarcadero Road. The partial underpass retains a T - intersection at Churchill Avenue and Alma Street, thus all movements to and from the west of Alma Street could remain on Churchill Avenue and would not use Embarcadero Road. The August 2020 report did not fully evaluate the route of the traffic that would still be diverted with a partial underpass, but it would be much less than under full closure alternative. Full roadway grade separation would retain the most accessibility not only for cars but also for transit, emergency vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, in both corridors. There would be no traffic diversion to Embarcadero Road and thus there would be no diversion to either Lincoln-Emerson or Kingsley Avenue to access Alma Street. The way to avoid the adverse impacts of both the diversion caused by the closure and the proposed mitigation measures themselves is to preserve roadway access across the railroad tracks at Churchill Avenue. This could be accomplished by several design options including: (a) providing a partial underpass, i.e., maintaining a T intersection at Alma and Churchill, as shown in Figure3A and 3b of August 2020 study; (b) providing a roadway grade separation such as the viaduct; (c) providing a roadway grade separation by undergrounding the railroad and maintaining level street crossings for automobiles, bicyclists and pedestrians; or (d) a hybrid option such as partial undergrounding the railroad combined with a roadway overcrossing. The latter would reduce rail noise, visual impacts and may reduce other impacts, compared to the viaduct option. 3 3 Buchanan, Colin. 1963. Traffic in Towns: A Study of the Long Term Problems of Traffic in Urban Areas. London: Her majesty’s stationery office. C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 1 March 10, 2021 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave., #7 Palo Alto, CA 94301-2531 Re: Expanded Community Advisory Panel Final Report Dear Honorable Council Members: We are writing on behalf of a number of concerned citizens in the Professorville, Embarcadero, and Southgate neighborhoods with respect to the final report delivered by the Expanded Community Advisory Panel (“XCAP”) to the City Council dated March 4, 2021. This document is part of a coordinated community effort of concerned citizens that asks Council to reject the XCAP’s majority opinion recommending Churchill Closure with Mitigations. Before a decision can be reached, a full traffic analysis needs to be completed and vetted by experts involved in city planning and transportation, bicycle and pedestrian advocates, neighbors and neighboring institutions such as schools and businesses, and the community at large. This letter is limited solely to issues and concerns related to the mitigation steps contemplated in the Hexagon traffic study, which is incorporated into the XCAP recommendation concerning the proposed closing of the Churchill Avenue crossing. As set forth in some detail below, we believe that the proposed mitigations are incomplete and inadequately analyzed at this point in time. Many of the points made in this submission are also referenced in the Minority Position discussion at Section 4.5 of the XCAP Report. We ask that the Council members read that portion of the report with care. Please be aware that the previous City Council committed not to adopt any specific proposal with respect to the Churchill Avenue crossing until it is satisfied that an adequate mitigation plan is in place. The Current Mitigation Plan Does Not Align with Council Motion In June 2018 the Council adopted a resolution1 with respect to the Churchill crossing that requires the following: 1 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=83343.25&BlobID=65728 Part E C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 2 “Add to Churchill Avenue crossing closed (CAX) idea, “study additional options for addressing traffic in the Embarcadero Road underpass area including actions to minimize redirected traffic onto residential streets in adjacent neighborhoods and commit to adopting appropriate mitigations to address the impacts” As evidenced by the discussion below, the foregoing standard has not been met by the proposed mitigation plan. Indeed, the definition of mitigation that appears on a slide 5 of the January 8, 2020 traffic presentation is as follows: “Street system changes that would allow additional capacity to accommodate diverted traffic.” This definition focuses exclusively on the volume of vehicular traffic that can be accommodated by an existing street. This definition does not consider the nature of the street in question (purely residential v. residential arterial v. arterial), or the effect on pedestrians, bicyclists, residents, schools and businesses. The Council needs to insist on a fulsome mitigation plan that addresses the issues identified in its June 2018 resolution prior to taking any action with respect to this crossing. Lack of Community Engagement Even before the onset of the pandemic, the traffic study process lacked robust community engagement. Under the current pandemic conditions, the prospects for achieving that engagement are even more daunting. Our neighborhoods asked for and never received direct engagement between community members and city staff with the various traffic consultants. The virtual town hall presented useful information, but it was not truly interactive and did not afford the opportunity to engage in any meaningful way with the traffic consultants. This type of interaction would have provided an opportunity to understand the assumptions underlying the study and the proposed mitigations, as well as provided direct “on-the- ground” input to the consultants to help inform their conclusions. In addition, a number of other important constituencies have not been included in the dialogue. The bicycle community was never formally engaged in the mitigation evaluation process, and the views of Palo Alto High School students, staff and administrators were not included in the proposals regarding changes to this major artery to school.2 3 There has been no meaningful input from Stanford, Town and Country or the business community generally. As you are aware, several relevant community 2 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-01-13_emails-public-comments.pdf (p 3) 3 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/2021-01-20_emails-public-comments.pdf (p 5) C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 3 voices, including the PAUSD, Chamber of Commerce and University South representatives, resigned from the XCAP early on and were not part of the recommendation process. As a result, the so-called “majority recommendation” from XCAP actually represents a minority of the Committee as originally constituted and therefore does not achieve the goal of obtaining a balanced consensus. This lack of neighborhood engagement has led to confusion and frustration and diminishes the value of the conclusions expressed in the final report. Flaws and Gaps in the Traffic Study There are several areas where the traffic study appears to be flawed or at least incomplete, resulting in inadequate mitigations in the XCAP Report. In fact, as stated in Section 4.3 of the Report, the proposed mitigations are “early conceptual designs, not final plans”. Given the critical importance of effective mitigations to the viability of the plan to close Churchill, a “conceptual approach,” with promises to determine the actual designs in the future, is not an adequate basis on which to reach a final decision. Findings from a traffic study by Dr. Michelle DeRobertis, P.E., an independent traffic consultant, were delivered to XCAP, but are not referenced in their recommendation.4 This independent analysis identified several deficiencies in the traffic study. It is also worth noting that seven out of nine XCAP members agreed that additional mitigation measures beyond those included in the recommendation should be considered, as described in Section 4.3 of the XCAP Report. However, the report acknowledges that these additional potential mitigations have not been studied yet and will require detailed analysis. Section 4.1.1.3 of the XCAP Report sets forth ten specific mitigation proposals identified by XCAP. Our commentary on the first seven of these proposals is provided in red below. A. Construction of a pedestrian/bike overcrossing at Embarcadero Road and Alma Street. We are supportive of this proposed mitigation, although the details of the integration with the overall bicycle and pedestrian pathways on the north side of Embarcadero road is an essential element that is missing at this time. B. Reconstructing or replacing the existing Alma Street overpass over Embarcadero. 4 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/2020-09-23_emails-public-comments.pdf (comment 11 of 82) C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 4 With respect to the Alma/ Embarcadero bridge, the traffic study expressly states: “Widening would require extensive modification or potential replacement of the existing bridge structure.”5 This one sentence describes a huge undertaking that has not been described or analyzed. No meaningful study has been undertaken regarding this almost 100-year-old bridge and the true cost of modifying or replacing it is not known. C. Adding a right turn lane from eastbound Embarcadero Road to Kingsley Ave. A right turn is currently permitted at this intersection, although impact on the traffic volume at this juncture from the addition of a new lane has not been studied because the traffic study does not capture any data on the existing volume of traffic on Embarcadero Road. D. Adding a left turn lane from southbound Alma Street to Kingsley Ave. This proposed measure is closely aligned with mitigation proposal #6. There is not yet good data on traffic volumes here and, most importantly, there has been no analysis of the ability to accommodate increased traffic volumes, given the existing traffic volumes on Embarcadero Road. E. Installation of two new signal lights on the Alma Street overpass at Embarcadero Road, at the Embarcadero slip road and at Kingsley Ave. We have a number of concerns with respect to this design. It is unknown what volume of traffic will use these two intersections, but it is likely to be significant. Currently traffic traveling eastbound on Embarcadero seeking to turn south onto Alma generally uses Churchill. Opening the Embarcadero slip road to this traffic is likely to increase substantially the number of vehicles on the slip road, although volumes and impact have not been studied. This additional traffic will need to traverse the bicycle and pedestrian crossing at High Street -- a crossing that is already very busy (over 300 bicycles at the morning peak hour) and quite dangerous. The increased vehicular traffic crossing this intersection seems likely to greatly exacerbate the dangers to students, bicyclists and pedestrians, and the current mitigation plan does not mention this concern at all. The mitigations illustrated in figure 8 (p 27) take away the current left turn from Lincoln to Alma, inviting cars to use High Street to access the new left turn on the 5 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-22_Item-3A_Traffic- Report_Churchill_MeadowsCharleston-Grade-Separation-Analysis.pdf P 17 Paragraph 2 C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 5 Embarcadero slip read. This new traffic movement creates safety concerns on this very narrow residential block. F. Installing a new signal at Embarcadero Road/Kingsley Avenue/High Street with two possible options: One that provides full connectivity to and from High Street, or an option that maintains the movements to and from High Street as they are today. The traffic study did not address the intersection level of service (LOS) or operating conditions expected to result from either of these modifications. Because the traffic volumes on Embarcadero have not been studied, it is unknown what the impact will be of installing an additional traffic signal on Embarcadero Road. The projected traffic counts do not correspond with the anticipated changes. For example, the projected traffic flow indicates a decrease in the number of vehicles traveling through the Alma/ Kingsley intersection after the mitigation when in fact the point of the mitigation is to direct additional traffic to that intersection. During the morning and evening peak hours the traffic on Embarcadero is already in a gridlock condition. Given the traffic volumes that would use the Kingsley to Embarcadero light, the traffic flow will likely be impeded further. Again, these volumes have not been included in the study. With respect to the design option that would connect High Street to Embarcadero Road, it seems likely that Alma Street traffic seeking to travel to westbound Embarcadero will use the “around the block” cloverleaf, resulting in much increased traffic on the narrow, residential block of High Street. G. Improvements at Embarcadero/High Street for bicycles and pedestrians per the Neighborhood Traffic Safety and Bicycle Boulevard (NTSBB) projects plans. We are very much in favor of these improvements in concept. But, as noted in the response to proposed mitigation #5, this is already a busy bicycle and pedestrian corridor and the changes to the slip road will increase the danger for this crossing. Much more work needs to be done to this plan to truly create a safe bicycle and pedestrian route. . Limited Focus on LOS (Vehicles) Ignores Bicycle and Pedestrians North of Embarcadero & Does Not Follow Comprehensive Plan The Hexagon traffic study only looks at vehicular traffic level of service (LOS) at select intersections and ignores other impacts of diverted traffic, such as effects on the very busy school/community bicycle and pedestrian route that runs along the north side of Embarcadero. This route is an official Palo Alto bicycle route, but that fact is not reflected in the conceptual design. Moreover, the traffic study does not count bicycles and pedestrians along the Embarcadero corridor because they were not asked to do C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 6 so.6 Residents did a daily count of bicycles and pedestrians that crossed the busy intersection of Emerson/Kingsley/Embarcadero between 7:30-8:30 am on a typical school day and counted over 300 bike and pedestrian crossings against 100 cars that stopped or more often paused at the stop sign. The proposed mitigation to add a new Alma Street traffic signal at the slip road will exacerbate this problem. While the closure of Churchill is seen as a way to address bicycle and pedestrian safety south of the Embarcadero corridor, which is a very important consideration, the accompanying plan makes no comprehensive attempt to address safety issues on the north side of the corridor. Embarcadero Road Traffic Volume Needs More Analysis Embarcadero Road is a residential artery with over 200 driveways and should be analyzed differently than Oregon Expressway, which is a different roadway category. In normal peak-hour traffic times, the traffic on Embarcadero moves glacially, especially through the tunnel. The addition of a light at Kingsley and Embarcadero is likely to create gridlock on Embarcadero during peak hours when traffic enters Embarcadero from Alma. The studies to date do not consider what alterations to Embarcadero Road or to the Alma underpass may be required to accommodate the level of traffic, nor do they address the potential costs of such alterations. In addition, there are assumptions but no clear analysis of how traffic congestion on Embarcadero Road will impact the busy neighborhood streets that surround Embarcadero, or local destinations such as Town and County shopping center, Palo Alto High School, Castilleja, Walter Hayes and Addison Elementary schools. Drivers using routing apps can easily navigate neighborhood streets as they attempt to avoid traffic congestion on Embarcadero Road. Because Embarcadero traffic has not been studied, the current mitigations seem insufficient to deter traffic cutting though neighborhood streets and are likely to worsen the already poor function of this artery. In the traffic consultant’s presentation from February 2020, they indicate that studying Embarcadero would cost $20,000. We have no idea if this figure is accurate, but we do know that understanding traffic volume increases on Embarcadero is essential for any mitigation plan to succeed.7 6 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Item3-Hexagon-Responses-to-XCAP-Traffic- Questions.pdf Page 6 7 https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Item3-Hexagon-Responses-to-XCAP-Traffic- Questions.pdf page 5 & 6 C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 7 The Baseline Date for Traffic Analysis is Inappropriate As the minority XCAP opinion points out, the study estimates future traffic volumes as of 2030 but not beyond that date. Often, future traffic analyses use a horizon of 20 to 25 years in the future, especially for projects that are expected to be in place for decades, Likewise, the analysis does not incorporate anticipated external changes during the relevant time horizon that are likely to affect the area, such as potential expansions and alterations at Stanford, Castilleja, Palo Alto High School and Town and Country, or the implementation of a Downtown Plan. Lack of Integrated Planning with Palo Alto Avenue Crossing The ultimate decisions regarding the Palo Alto Avenue crossing and a Downtown Plan will significantly impact the adjoining neighborhoods and need to be coordinated with the planning associated with the Embarcadero corridor. We agree with the Minority Position which states: “The few east/west traffic crossings in the City are inextricably linked. The relationship of the future grade separation of Palo Alto Avenue or changes to the existing University Avenue and Embarcadero grade separations should be part of the analysis.” (Section 4.5.1) C:\Users\MP014805\Documents\City Council Letter 3-5- 21- Final XCAP Report.docx 8 Conclusion Based on the foregoing, we urge the Council not to adopt any proposal with respect to the Churchill crossing until there can be a more inclusive community process and thorough city planning analysis of this seemingly simple but in fact very complex question. Given that there are already three below-grade rail crossings on the north side of Palo Alto, Council should prioritize solutions for south Palo Alto while continuing to analyze equitable solutions for the north. Thank you for your tireless efforts on this challenging and important project. Very truly yours, Thomas W. Kellerman Rachel H. Kellerman Yoriko Kishimoto Cc: Ed Shikada, City Manager Philip Kamhi, Chief Transportation Official 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:40 AM To:Council, City Subject:XCAP presentation for this evening Attachments:Final 3-23-21 City Council Study Session- XCAP Presentation Part 1.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Councilmembers, Attached is an advanced copy of the presentation XCAP will present this evening. Nadia 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Steve Carlson <stcarlson@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 2:02 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Minor, Beth Subject:Southgate Survey for Public Comments Special Meeting March 23rd Attachments:XCAP Southgate Survey Results Aug 2020.FINAL.pdf; Comments of Survey Participants Southgate July 2020.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi City Council and Staff,    In advance of the Special meeting for XCAP presentation on March 23rd, I am forwarding materials relating to a  comprehensive survey of Southgate residents which was done in August of 2020 regarding Churchill intersection  options.    We hope to provide a brief summary during the Public Comments period of the meeting, and will use the XCAP  Southgate Survey Results PDF which is attached.  The second document (Comments from Survey Participants) is  included for any Council member interested in additional detail re: comments of all survey participants.    Thank you in advance    Steve Carlson  1611 Portola Avenue  415 706 3589            z Southgate Survey Results on Churchill Rail Crossing options August 11, 2020 z Why a 2nd Southgate Survey? No neighborhood is more impacted more by a potential change to the Churchill intersection than Southgate The majority of Southgate neighborhood has not been represented in the XCAP process Goal was to give ALL residents in the neighborhood a chance for input 2 z Survey Methodology -Survey offered to ALL Southgate residents by email, flyers dropped on every doorstep, and Nextdoor Southgate. -Prior to the survey, each participant received an email update on the current grade separation options and links to factsheets, renderings, and analyses available on www.connectingpaloalto.com -Survey ran for 11 days from July 23rd -August 3rd, 2020 -Results come directly from SurveyMonkey; we provide the zoning map showing participation by street. 3 z Household Survey Participants in Orange: 122 households 138 individual responses 4 z 59%of all households in Southgate responded to the survey * * 7 unoccupied houses (for sale or rent) were excluded throughout the neighborhood * * 5 zQ2: 4% 48% 28% 20%Very informed Somewhat informed Not informed 0% 96% feel they are ”somewhat informed” to “very informed” on this issue. 6 zQ3: 36% 56% 8% Favor Closure Against Closure Undecided 7 zQ4: 7% 9% 30% 54%Partial underpass Viaduct Closing Churchill Undecided/Need more info 63% of respondents favor options other than Closure More than half favor the partial underpass Only 30% favor closing Churchill 8 z Trending §83% of the pro-Closure votes come from three streets withing the blue arc §Votes against Closure predominated on remaining streets §Support for the Partial Underpass was distributed throughout 9 z Summary -Participation in the survey was strong, engaging 59% of households and distributed evenly throughout the neighborhood. -Southgate residents support alternatives to closure by a 2:1 margin -The preferred option of the neighborhood is the Partial Underpass with over half (54%) of the votes. -The data show a marked geographic trend, with 83% of support for closure coming from the northeast corner of the neighborhood -This is a VERY important topic to the residents of Southgate, and they are interested in being engaged. 10 z APPENDIX comments from the survey z Additional questions asked §The next two slides show additional questions asked. In the interest of time, these were not included in the presentation to the City Council §Following those slides are selected comments 12 zQ5: 44% 56% 13 z 100% This issue is of great importance to Southgate residents Q6: 14 z §Total Comments: 177 §All comments are shared in a separate attachment §Selected/Representative comments follow z Why are many residents concerned about closure? §Closing Churchill would effectively isolate Southgate from the rest of Palo Alto. I believe that separation would harm our quality of life as well as the value of our properties. §Closing Churchill would increase already crowded roads as alternates. Additionally, it would have a negative effect on PAUSD operations as noted in a letter from the Superintendent. §Closing Churchill just totally impacts Embarcadero, already UNBEARABLY impacted, and El Camino, also VERY slow during normal rush hour. §Dead-ending our residential enclave and blocking logical ingress & egress to schools & businesses is nuts! z Concerns about closure (continued) §Closing Churchill will have negative effects on the composition of our neighborhood, as younger families with jobs and kids move out so as to have better access to the east side of the tracks. Beyond our own neighborhood interests, I believe diverting thousands of cars per day to El Camino, Oregon, and Embarcadero will create even worse traffic than we have now (under non- COVID conditions). §Closing the intersection would make traffic much worse, and it would slow down emergency response time for our neighborhood. It would also make it a much slower commute for those of us who live in Southgate—even just to go pick up groceries. §I live in Southgate, and really don't see how traffic can work out with the crossing just being closed, and all traffic being diverted to Embarcadero and Oregon Xpress. More considerations should be directed to local residents and Palo Alto High. These are the people who are being affected the most. Not the people who live along Churchill and want something different. We have no options when we need to get out of our subdivision. z Concerns about closure (continued) §While I appreciate the purpose of closing Churchill (and even acknowledge the benefits it might bring), I am concerned that an unintended consequence will be to physically and mentally untether Southgate from its current association with Old PA. This would have implications for house values, commuting times, ease of reaching friends and family on the other side of the tracks, access to Walter Hays, among many other issues. Without the Churchill thoroughfare, I suspect that Southgate stands a very good chance of being marginalized into one of a handful of unconnected micro-neighborhoods stuck between Alma and El Camino; difficult to access, an oddity on the local map, not closely associated with the core of Palo Alto and not part of Stanford. …We are at risk of cutting off the blood flow to this unique neighborhood. z Why do some residents prefer closure? §Don't spend hundreds of millions to build something when closing Churchill is safer and the traffic reports say it would not cause any issues. §I am strongly against the viaduct as it would be built behind my back fence. Both other options are acceptable, with closure preferred. §The XCAP traffic analysis shows this to be the best option for all of Palo Alto. The cost is 1/3 to 1/4th the other option costs. There are NO critical effects to any neighbors. Viaduct is critically negative to Mariposa and Castilleja neighbors. Underpass is critically negative to Churchill and neighbors close to Churchill. z Comments in support of closure (continued) §Of these 2 choices, I am in favor of closing with traffic mitigation measures on other arteries (and possibly opening at Peers Park). Since the partial option came to light, that seems like a good compromise too. §I would prefer closing Churchill to a viaduct. And have major concerns about significant traffic increases on Churchill if trains are taken out of the equation (partial underpass). §Of course without having done my homework, I realize the closure of Churchill may mean longer drive times for most outings, especially during peak travel periods -but I can deal with an additional 5 minutes for the many benefits of being in this neighborhood, and I'm most interested in what would serve the safety, equity, and accessibility needs of the city/region. So, I'm not especially concerned about localized inconvenience in my neighborhood if I understand a greater good that's being achieved. §Let's not spend millions of taxpayer funds for something we don't need. Close Churchill. z A few households are split §Our household is split. My wife who does most of the driving would prefer Churchill to remain open if this is done via partial underpass. I find both closure and underpass to be suitable solutions. We both are strongly opposed to viaduct as this seems entirely inappropriate bisecting residential neighborhoods and if there were funding to support this level of construction it would be much better spent improving major roadways, e.g. Embarcadero/Oregon rather than facilitating the bypass route through Churchill that functions to offload traffic that is coming from or going to one of these roadways. z 27% of comments express concern over Viaduct §I am strongly against the viaduct as it would be built behind my back fence. Both other options are acceptable, with closure preferred. §I would prefer closing Churchill to a viaduct. And have major concerns about significant traffic increases on Churchill if trains are taken out of the equation (partial underpass). §This choice is based on the original two choices of closing Churchill or viaduct. My true preference order is 1. partial underpass, 2. close Churchill, 3. viaduct §We both are strongly opposed to viaduct as this seems entirely inappropriate bisecting residential neighborhoods and if there were funding to support this level of construction it would be much better spent improving major roadways, e.g. Embarcadero/Oregon rather than facilitating the bypass route through Churchill that functions to offload traffic that is coming from or going to one of these roadways. §I would choose closing over the viaduct if those were the only 2 options on the table. In Comments regarding Churchill Closure (Q3)22 z39 Comments regarding Favored Option (Q4) §In favor of partial underpass!! No viaduct! No Churchill closure! §Partial underpass preserves the most throughways for traffic, is safer for bikes and pedestrians and is not an ugly industrial looking viaduct. §This is by far the best suggestion without cutting off access to the southgate neighborhood. §In Japan and France, they have viaducts, I don’t see why they can’t do it in this country. §I’m beginning to see the viaduct as the most viable option with the least disruption. However, the partial underpass is a very close second. In favor of Viaduct (8%)In favor of Partial Underpass (59%) Against Viaduct (23%) §Palo Alto does NOT need a viaduct -ever. §The viaduct is the most expensive and disruptive option. §I am against the viaduct. I saw a viaduct very similar to the one being proposed in a similar neighborhood in Long Island. It is terrible for all except the trains. Against Partial Underpass (8%) §Partial underpass seems very complicated and very costly, and it will change the neighborhood dramatically in a negative way. 23 z Concerns about Opening Castilleja at Peers Park (Q5): §This would put children going to and from the park and school in danger. §Absolutely not! The whole point of Southgate and why we bought our home here is because there is no traffic and the kids can play in the street. §Castilleja is already a bike boulevard. Adding more vehicle traffic would be disastrous. §When that was open (in the 70s), the 1600 block of Mariposa had the highest accident rate in Palo Alto. Cars would pick up speed along Park, zoom around where the barrier is now, and lose control rounding the curve onto Mariposa. The magnolia tree which was in the curb strip in front of 1669 was approx. 2 feet in diameter at the top and one foot in diameter at the bottom due to repeated car impacts. My car, parked in front of my house, was totally sideswiped by another out-of-control car. ... §Street way too busy with bike and pedestrian traffic to consider this. Even if there were restricted parking to minimize choke points the safety factor would be intolerable. Most comments (30) were written by those with concerns 24 zConcerns about Opening Castilleja at Peers Park (Q5) §The closure at Peers Park was implemented to prevent people beyond Southgate from using Castilleja as a shortcut to the California Ave business district. Especially now that Castilleja has be designated as a bike boulevard, it would be dangerous to have cars driving through. §Absolutely not. I was here at the time that was open and then closed. I was one of the teenagers who sped through Southgate almost daily to avoid the traffic at the corner of Churchill and El Camino. Madrono was like a narrow expressway with cars traveling fast. Now to add to the danger of more cars in Southgate --and there will be --we have a bike boulevard, a dog park and Peers park is busier with kids on trikes and people walking. It is really nice and safer that that part of the street is closed to traffic. §No way. We would not have bought a house here if we thought that was an option. §I have lived in Southgate since 1988 --long enough to have heard why it was closed. It was closed to protect the children. Drivers going home were cutting through the neighborhood and traveling at high speed past the park and through the neighborhood. So, it was closed to protect the children. As a consequence, Peers Park is the safest and perhaps the nicest park in Palo Alto. zComments supportive of opening at Peers (Q5) 5 comments total §We think a neighborhood route to Oregon would make sense and unlikely to increase through traffic significantly. §If it's mostly neighborhood traffic, I would be in favor of opening. There should be a study to determine how much through (non-Southgate) traffic this would encourage. §I would open it one way, only to exit Southgate, only to turn right onto Park. §Seems like a good idea -at least as a trial. Our narrow streets with parking on both sides could make Castilleja less safe for cyclists if it starts being used for through car traffic. §I would be in favor of opening Castilleja in addition to leaving Churchill open. z Given that no option is perfect, some suggest other options §I believe the Partial Underpass and the Viaduct plans both have merit, but I prefer to keep bicycle and pedestrian traffic above ground and to limit car traffic movement from Churchill East to Churchill West on an as-needed basis rather than preventing small amounts of traffic to move freely across Alma during non-peak hours. To make bicycle and pedestrian movement safer, I think we should use a dedicated bicycle/pedestrian signal at Alma/Churchill and at Castilleja/Churchill like the one in use at Homer Street, although I would only use it during the peak Paly commute hours. In lighter traffic, I think the current method works fine. I also think Palo Alto should mark bicycle lanes much more clearly along the length of Churchill and expand the west-bound bike lane on Churchill East to the area for parked cars, limiting parking there to overnight and weekends. §Is there a possibility to have it partially open (Churchill) to Southgate residence only? Have a gate system of some kind. §I'd like to explore partial closure options -limiting left turns on to Churchill from Alma and from Churchill to Alma, thereby reducing wait time at that intersection and extending time when traffic can go on to Churchill west across Alma in the morning (should be longer in the morning as well as adding time in the afternoon, to increase safety for PALY students. Other pedestrian crossing options are needed there -at a minimum there needs to be pedestrian access across Alma at Churchill. Lastly, Stanford should work w/ the City to explore commute patterns and better connection between transit systems. A lot of people commute in single vehicles to/from Stanford on Churchill. §RE: "Peers Park passage": One possible traffic control might be to place a stanchion in the middle of the road that is lowered by a remote control similar to a garage door opener. The remote control could be available only to Southgate residents for a fee to offset costs to the City. §Is undergrounding the train a viable option? z Lastly, some comments raised about long-term impacts of Pandemic §I think COVID is making everyone rethink how they work. Is it possible that there will be long-term reductions in traffic anyway? Less people commuting, fewer trains needed in general? Has this been discussed as part of future planning? §The prudent thing to do at this time is nothing. At a time when mass transit ridership is declining in every metropolitan area in the country including Los Angeles, Caltrain's projection of tripling ridership was amazingly optimistic, and reflected pre-COVID19 thinking….Just a few years ago, faced with declining ridership, Caltrain was in severe distress. As this tech expansion has reached maturity Caltrain ridership had actually started to decline in the months prior to COVID19. We may not know what the post pandemic world will look like, but we can rest assured that it will be very different, and sitting on Caltrain may well be the least desirable work option, so Caltrain's future is largely unknown. Therefore, the safest thing at this time is to do nothing until we can better visualize Silicon Valley's future work environment and transportation requirements. Participant Comments Southgate Neighborhood Churchill Options Survey July 2020 This document contains all individual comments submitted in response to the Southgate Neighborhood Survey regarding options for the Churchill-Alma intersection. Comments were solicited for Questions 3, 4, and 5. In addition, there was a field for Final Comments at the end of the survey. For easy access, you may click on a link below to go directly to comments for a question you are interested in: Question #3: Based on your current knowledge, what is your opinion about closing Churchill? Question #4: I am most in favor of 1) Closing Churchill, 2) Viaduct, or 3) Partial Underpass Question #5: IF the city decided to close Churchill, would you be in favor of opening Castilleja at Park Boulevard (by Peers Park) to allow through traffic? Final Comments in response to this survey Comments on Question 3: Based on your current knowledge, what is your opinion about closing Churchill?  Dead-ending our residential enclave and blocking logical ingress & egress to schools & businesses is nuts!  This choice is based on the original two choices of closing Churchill or viaduct. My true preference order is 1. partial underpass, 2. close Churchill, 3. viaduct.  Of these 2 choices, I am in favor of closing with traffic mitigation measures on other arteries (and possibly opening at Peers Park). Since the partial option came to light, that seems like a good compromise too.  In favor of partial underpass!! No viaduct! No Churchill closure!  I see traffic backed up on Churchill from Alma with cars blocking most of the intersections into Southgate on weekdays during afternoon commutes and it is hard to make a left turn onto Churchill in the morning.  Churchill is very short street, that isn’t worth multimillion overpass spending.  Closing the intersection would make traffic much worse, and it would slow down emergency response time for our neighborhood. It would also make it a much slower commute for those of us who live in Southgate—even just to go pick up groceries.  While losing direct access to Alma will be sad, I think it's the only reasonable path forward from a cost standpoint. I don't think a viaduct will ever be politically feasible, although I don't think it's a bad option (if implemented correctly). I lived near one of BART's elevated lines (Rockridge) for a while, it wasn't at all disturbing. But it wasn't seeing heavy freight traffic (which I think is the largest noise source, given what I hear several blocks away from the UP/Caltrain line).  Closing Churchill will add too much traffic to other routes such as Embarcadero, and make it take too long for Southgate residents to get to places to the east or north.  Is there a possibility to have it partially open to Southgate residence only? Have a gate system of some kind.  Closing Churchill will have negative effects on the composition of our neighborhood, as younger families with jobs and kids move out so as to have better access to the east side of the tracks. Beyond our own neighborhood interests, I believe diverting thousands of cars per day to El Camino, Oregon, and Embarcadero will create even worse traffic than we have now (under non-COVID conditions).  Prefer partial closure over closure.  Of course without having done my homework, I realize the closure of Churchill may mean longer drive times for most outings, especially during peak travel periods - but I can deal with an additional 5 minutes for the many benefits of being in this neighborhood, and I'm most interested in what would serve the safety, equity, and accessibility needs of the city/region. So, I'm not especially concerned about localized inconvenience in my neighborhood if I understand a greater good that's being achieved.  Would choose closing Churchill rather than a Viaduct.  Of the options discussed, I think it is the best.  Strongly in favor of closure  Our household is split. My wife who does most of the driving would prefer Churchill to remain open if this is done via partial underpass. I find both closure and underpass to be suitable solutions. We both are strongly opposed to viaduct as this seems entirely inappropriate bisecting residential neighborhoods and if there were funding to support this level of construction it would be much better spent improving major roadways, e.g. Embarcadero/Oregon rather than facilitating the bypass route through Churchill that functions to offload traffic that is coming from or going to one of these roadways.  Closure is the best option. I do not like Viaduct or Partial Underpass.  Best option given the 2 other alternatives.  The XCAP traffic analysis shows this to be the best option for all of Palo Alto. The cost is 1/3 to 1/4th the other option costs. There are NO critical effects to any neighbors. Viaduct is critically negative to Mariposa and Castilleja neighbors. Underpass is critically negative to Churchill and neighbors close to Churchill.  I'd like to explore partial closure options - limiting left turns on to Churchill from Alma and from Churchill to Alma, thereby reducing wait time at that intersection and extending time when traffic can go on to Churchill west across Alma in the morning (should be longer in the morning as well as adding time in the afternoon, to increase safety for PALY students. Other pedestrian crossing options are needed there - at a minimum there needs to be pedestrian access across Alma at Churchill. Lastly, Stanford should work w/ the City to explore commute patterns and better connection between transit systems. A lot of people commute in single vehicles to/from Stanford on Churchill.  I haven't seen information why existing track and crossing cannot be reused.  While I appreciate the purpose of closing Churchill (and even acknowledge the benefits it might bring), I am concerned that an unintended consequence will be to physically and mentally untether Southgate from its current association with Old PA. This would have implications for house values, commuting times, ease of reaching friends and family on the other side of the tracks, access to Walter Hays, among many other issues. Without the Churchill thoroughfare, I suspect that Southgate stands a very good chance of being marginalized into one of a handful of unconnected micro-neighborhoods stuck between Alma and El Camino; difficult to access, an oddity on the local map, not closely associated with the core of Palo Alto and not part of Stanford. As evidence of my concern, I can’t point to another separation along Alma that has successfully maintained the intimate neighborhood connection between the east and west sides of the tracks. Instead, I’d bet that the long-term outcome of a pedestrian-only passageway would be a trend toward the dilapidation of what today is a functional, refreshingly human-scale (albeit busy and sometimes dangerous) waypoint between Stanford and the residential heart of PA. We are at risk of cutting off the blood flow to this unique neighborhood.  A major concern we have is for the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists waiting at the corner of Alma and Churchill. Cars go too fast on Alma and, often times, students' bike tires protrude over the curb creating potential for accidents.  I believe the XCAP committee and City Council should weigh the evidence of studies already conducted and cost estimates to arrive at a decision. I believe the people conducting this survey are a self-appointed group trying to promote their own preference.  There is so much history on this matter, and so many facts and variables to consider, that the posing of the questions as presented here and any responses should not be viewed as providing meaningful input to the city decision makers. This should not be a popularity contest.  The most important change is to stop train horn noise at Churchill. One hundred decibel train horn noise seriously disrupts sleep, causing sleep deprivation throughout all of Southgate and Old Palo Alto. I favor eliminating the stop lights at Churchill and El Camino and continuing the central strip that separates Northbound and Southbound traffic on El Camino straight across Churchill meaning that Westbound Churchill cars could only turn North on El Camino, and Southbound cars on El Camino could not turn left onto Churchill. Peers Park closure would be changed to allow cars to exit Southgate, but not to enter Southgate. The reason for this change is to prevent Uber/Lyft drivers from shortcutting through Southgate. Southgate residents could easily travel to California and South on Alma by exiting at Peers Park. The Churchill stoplight on El Camino would be eliminated making through traffic which would help with all the other changes that will be made, and traffic would move better. The Peers Park opening should have a stoplight and a camera in order to ticket cars entering Southgate illegally.  It seems to me ridiculous to make me or anyone else go out of their way to get into Southgate, the neighborhood south of Palo Alto High School. There is already very limited access. Forcing cars to go around would put on extra mileage and increase the danger by driving an extra distance. Jeannine Olson, 1654 Portola Avenue, Palo Alto 94306,  1) It is the only safe option for PALY students 2) The current Churchill Ave. vehicle crossing is blatantly not effective - The total length of Churchill is only 0.8 miles. Thus, it can only serve as a local street - Churchill Ave. mainly serves traffics to/from the small triangle area of Embarcadero Rd./Churchill Ave., Embarcadero Rd./El Camino Real, and Churchill Ave./El Camino Real. (see attached map for details) - Closing Churchill has virtually no impact on all the traffic flows that are not to/from the small triangle area 3) The Churchill Ave. vehicle crossing is extremely cost-ineffective - It is only about 0.3 mile from the Embarcadero Rd. vehicle crossing - No such dense railway crossing in entire bay area or even entire US - It was for PALY students when there were very few trains decades ago - It is well-known that it extremely unsafe for PALY students  Irrespective of what happens at Churchill, the primary focus has to be improving traffic flow on Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway between El Camino and 101. There needs to be an intersection of Alma and Embarcadero, and improved flow between Alma and Oregon.  I really don't like any of the options. The partial closure is the most promising but not enough of the details are worked out. I like the full closure as it is the only one that would include improving the Embarcadero crossing. I do not want the street at Peers park opened again to traffic.  I would choose closing over the viaduct if those were the only 2 options on the table.  I am strongly against the viaduct as it would be built behind my back fence. Both other options are acceptable, with closure preferred.  Closing Churchill would effectively isolate Southgate from the rest of Palo Alto. I believe that separation would harm our quality of life as well as the value of our properties.  I would prefer closing Churchill to a viaduct. And have major concerns about significant traffic increases on Churchill if trains are taken out of the equation (partial underpass).  I’m in favor of closing Churchill to cars, not bikes and pedestrians  I live in Southgate, and really don't see how traffic can work out with the crossing just being closed, and all traffic being diverted to Embarcadero and Oregon Xpress. More considerations should be directed to local residents and Palo Alto High. These are the people who are being affected the most. Not the people who live along Churchilll and want something different. We have no options when we need to get out of our subdivision.  Closing Churchill just totally impacts Embarcadero, already UNBEARABLY impacted, and El Camino, also VERY slow during normal rush hour.  Even if we don't close Churchill, the number of train crossings planned will effectively close it. Let's be real about what is going to happen and plan accordingly, rather than engaging in wishful and magical thinking.  Closing Churchill would increase already crowded roads as alternates. Additionally it would have a negative effect on PAUSD operations as noted in a letter from the Superintendent.  My first preference is partial underpass. I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to a viaduct that will RUIN the aesthetics of the neighborhood.  Absolutely do not want viaduct  Don't spend hundreds of millions to build something when closing Churchill is safer and the traffic reports say it would not cause any issues.  I believe closing Churchill creates disruptive traffic patterns elsewhere with significant undesirable effects. Comments on Question 4: Originally, there were two primary options on the table: closing Churchill or a Viaduct (raised platform for the train). Now, there is a third option (a partial underpass) which is also under evaluation. Of the potential options on the table (based on my current knowledge), I am most in favor of 1) Closing Churchill, 2) Viaduct, or 3) Partial Underpass.  In Japan and France, they have viaducts, I don't see why they can't do it in this country  I live on Mariposa which faces the train traffic and thus I have "skin in the game" as my family's livelihood will be negatively impacted with the Viaduct option. It is workable if "Partial underpass" results in train track remaining at current grade level. However, if Churchill remains open to Alma after partial underpass with left or right turns onto Alma, we might as well keep Churchill open because the same amount of traffic remains during commute hours as most cars are going to turn onto Alma.  We are against closure, for sure. We are undecided about whether a viaduct or a partial underpass is better. But both Options are better than closure.  This is by far the best suggestion without cutting off access to the southgate neighborhood.  With the heavy freight traffic (and the noise of those trains), I think a viaduct isn't a feasible option. A partial underpass seems like a huge amount of work, for very little gain.  Is undergrounding the train a viable option?  I believe the Partial Underpass and the Viaduct plans both have merit, but I prefer to keep bicycle and pedestrian traffic above ground and to limit car traffic movement from Churchill East to Churchill West on an as-needed basis rather than preventing small amounts of traffic to move freely across Alma during non-peak hours. To make bicycle and pedestrian movement safer, I think we should use a dedicated bicycle/pedestrian signal at Alma/Churchill and at Castilleja/Churchill like the one in use at Homer Street, although I would only use it during the peak Paly commute hours. In lighter traffic, I think the current method works fine. I also think Palo Alto should mark bicycle lanes much more clearly along the length of Churchill and expand the west-bound bike lane on Churchilll East to the area for parked cars, limiting parking there to overnight and weekends.  I would prioritize aesthetics alongside safety, equity and accessibility for the city/region - this is a very long-term infrastructural project, physical/architectural aesthetics is of premium importance, and I'd rather accept some cost (which could mean monetary or convenience cost) than accept a physically ugly/imposing permanent structure for the sake of convenience (e.g., I'd accept longer drive times over a louder/more imposing/overbearing overpass...)  My 2nd best choice is partial underpass.  partial underpass; 2. closing. Viaduct is not an acceptable option in our view.  I’m beginning to see the viaduct as the most viable option with the least disruption. However, the partial underpass is a very close second.  Partial Underpass seems very complicated and very costly, and it will change the neighborhood dramatically in a negative way.  Both the Viaduct and Partial Underpass will put up a massive concrete structure that will change the character of the neighborhood for the worse.  The XCAP traffic analysis shows this to be the best option for all of Palo Alto. The cost is 1/3 to 1/4th the other option costs. There are NO critical effects to any neighbors. Viaduct is critically negative to Mariposa and Castilleja neighbors. Underpass is critically negative to Churchill and neighbors close to Churchill.  What are the traffic simulations like?  Underpass appears to be an attractive compromise  Palo Alto does NOT need a viaduct - ever.  Closure of Churchill with a pedestrian/bike underpass for Paly students would be the safest option, and also the least expensive and disruptive of all the options.  Closing Churchill is the only one of these options that can be prototyped, so it makes sense to start there and see how it works.  Cost and the financial and political impacts of the current virus should, if nothing else, cause a pause in the process until there is a reliable reality check.  Eliminating train noise is still my number one goal.  The viaduct is the most expensive and most disruptive alternative. Closing Churchill while fixing Embarcadero and Oregon interchanges with Alma would be the best alternative. The partial underpass is a compromise, and definitely better than the disaster of a viaduct, but provides little real value given the cost and disruption.  Both partial underpass and viaduct are bad for Palo Alto. 2) Both partial underpass and viaduct are too expansive. 3) Partial underpass is ineffective. 4) Partial underpass is unsafe  Closing with tunnel is dramatically cheaper than the other two choices. Should money become available to do the partial underpass I'd support that. I just can't see how a city of 66,000 can support an expenditure of $160M for a single grade crossing.  I am undecided between partial underpass and closing Churchill. I am against the Viaduct. I saw a viaduct very similar to the one being proposed in a similar neighborhood on Long Island. It is terrible for all except the trains.  I think a much cheaper option would be to computerize the traffic signals and time them with the trains. The waits at the traffic lights on Churchill might be a little longer during an hour or two of rush hour in the mornings and evenings (maybe not.) The rest of the day, there would be no noticeable change.  See comments above  There is no perfect solution for trying to modify something that was never planned for in advance. I think the partial underpass is very clever but admit I have not considered what might be any future problems with such a modification. I do wonder as more and more people are working from home - and quite possibly will be in the future - if the ridership really is going to increase according to the predictions.  Best solution would be to bury the tracks in a trench or tunnel.  I am strongly pro on finding a way to make Embarcadero 4 lanes under the tracks and using over/under pass for Paly to shopping center crossing.  I'm in favor of exploring a partial underpass for peds and bikes, but after we close the crossing.  This preserves the most throughways for traffic, is safe for bikes and pedestrians and is not an ugly industrial looking viaduct.  My first preference is partial underpass. I am VEHEMENTLY opposed to a viaduct that will RUIN the aesthetics of the neighborhood.  This is the option which best provides a solution to all concerned  This is spending $$$$$ for nothing. The traffic reports say fine to close Churchill, it is safer to close and most of the traffic is through traffic from outside PA - they can find another route with mitigations at Embarcadero, etc. STOP trying to build and make Churchill even more unsafe.  Not in favor of viaduct or closing. I believe there should be as is solution with modified traffic conditions.  Don’t know much about partial underpass but would support if cars go get to Alma Comments on Question 5: Many years ago, Castilleja was closed at Park Blvd (by Peers Park) in order to reduce through traffic in the neighborhood. Some have suggested that if Churchill were closed, one way to mitigate access impacts for Southgate residents would be to re-open Castilleja at Peers Park. IF the city decided to close Churchill, would you be in favor of opening Castilleja at Park Boulevard (by Peers Park) to allow through traffic?  Prefer to keep car traffic in Southgate to a minimum.  If it's mostly neighborhood traffic, I would be in favor of opening. There should be a study to determine how much through (non-Southgate) traffic this would encourage.  More study is required to ensure residents along Mariposa and Castilleja are not impacted  This would put children going to and from the park and school in danger.  Let’s solve problems one by one. Now we are talking about closing Churchill.  But this is not preferred.  Although we should also look at why it was closed: High School traffic to Cal Ave. If it was made a right-turn-only (onto Park), giving us two routes to SB El Camino, that would help.  I think opening Southgate at Peers Park is a bad idea for the same reasons it was closed in the first place -- through traffic on extremely narrow streets. But if Churchill closes it may be necessary for emergency access to and exit from the neighborhood.  For trial only. So they served the neighborhood, not as a second way to get to Stanford, etc.  Don't feel strongly enough/haven't considered the implications deeply to vote - I'll defer to those with stronger views  I am strongly opposed to through traffic. If you open it up, the neighborhood could experience increased crime as well.  Absolutely not! The whole point of Southgate and why we bought our home here is because there is no traffic and the kids can play in the street.  We think a neighborhood route to Oregon would make sense and unlikely to increase through traffic significantly.  Castilleja is already a bike boulevard. Adding more vehicle traffic would be disastrous.  Would need more information on this option.  When that was open (in the 70s), the 1600 block of Mariposa had the highest accident rate in Palo Alto. Cars would pick up speed along Park, zoom around where the barrier is now, and lose control rounding the curve onto Mariposa. The magnolia tree which was in the curb strip in front of 1669 was approx. 2 feet in diameter at the top and one foot in diameter at the bottom due to repeated car impacts. My car, parked in front of my house, was totally sideswiped by another out-of-control car. ... Castilleja could be opened one way out of Southgate, allowing access to Cal Ave for the neighborhood.  The original reason remains - There will be no thru traffic since Churchill would be closed, so the opening would allow Southgate neighbors to access El Camino easily  Improvements are needed at Churchill & El Camino - computerized signal and shorter wait for green light at El Camino. A pedestrian overpass may also encourage fewer cars there. Also, allowing U-turns at that intersection so drivers can go out from Southgate on Miramonte, then make a U-turn at Churchill if they want to go southbound on El Camino  no way, that would make it worse.  Concern for safety of Peers Park attendees and for residents of Mariposa and Castilleja  The closure at Peers Park was implemented to prevent people beyond Southgate from using Castilleja as a shortcut to the California Ave business district. Especially now that Castilleja has be designated as a bike boulevard, it would be dangerous to have cars driving through.  I would favor taking a good look at this and the potential safety impacts of opening the connection. This link is part of a major route to Paly for students and its safety needs to be protected.  Allowing cars to exit but not enter in order to prevent short-cutting as explained above.  This would be crucial, as the entire neighborhood would be in gridlock. But it's far better to keep Churchill open, given Paly traffic and other factors.  It is a bike thoroughfare for Palo Alto High School and it would be detrimental to their safety and the neighborhood in general.  I would be in favor of opening Castilleja in addition to leaving Churchill open.  Don't care  It is inappropriate to address this question until the issue of Churchill is resolved.  The problem would be teenagers careening through the neighborhood to get to Paly. So, I'd prefer to keep Castilleja closed at Peers park.  Absolutely not. I was here at the time that was open and then closed. I was one of the teenagers who sped through Southgate almost daily to avoid the traffic at the corner of Churchill and El Camino. Madrono was like a narrow expressway with cars traveling fast. Now to add to the danger of more cars in Southgate -- and there will be -- we have a bike boulevard, a dog park and Peers park is busier with kids on trikes and people walking. It is really nice and safer that that part of the street is closed to traffic.  Absolutely no. Southgate would be a parallel route running with El Camino; no reason for that.  Street way too busy with bike and pedestrian traffic to consider this. Even if there were to be restricted parking to minimize choke points the safety factor would be intolerable.  That idea would turn narrow Mariposa, on which children play, into a thoroughfare. Bad idea. Damages our neighborhood feel and increases danger to our children.  I would strongly oppose opening Castilleja at Park, as there would likely be significant cut through traffic to Paly  I have lived in Southgate since 1988 -- long enough to have heard why it was closed. It was closed to protect the children. Drivers going home were cutting through the neighborhood and traveling at high speed past the park and through the neighborhood. So, it was closed to protect the children. As a consequence, Peers Park is the safest and perhaps the nicest park in Palo Alto.  But feel this will not be a good choice for traffic. Also, the reason for closing is to cut down traffic near park. Now, there will only be more traffic and not less.  I recall that the major reason for closing was that people used it as a short-cut through the neighborhood and drove very fast by the park, etc. Perhaps is will not be as inviting to use in this way if Churchill is closed... just don't know.  Do NOT increase residential traffic.  Seems like a good idea - at least as a trial. Our narrow streets with parking on both sides could make Castilleja less safe for cyclists if it starts being used for through car traffic.  I would open it one way, only to exit Southgate, only to turn right onto Park.  This would create more through traffic in Southgate and it really wouldn't help Southgate homeowners with access to Alma.  Castilleja has a tremendous amount of bike traffic and is a narrow street - it would have catastrophic consequences.  Would create non-resident traffic  I would like a bit more information on this but at least not traffic outside the neighborhood  Never. This opening will ruin bike experience  Passage through this "Peers Park portal" would need to be restricted or "cut through" traffic could be a safety concern.  Re-opening would increase non-residential traffic and reduce safety  No way. We would not have bought a house here if we thought that was an option. Final Comments:  Closing Churchill is the only option that preserves the character of the neighborhood and maintains property value. Opening Castilleja is dangerous for student bicyclists.  I question the City Council's ability to make a decision (analysis paralysis). This coupled with the budget shortfall with the COVID crisis, it will be a miracle if anything at all gets done. Caltrans rider ship is down over 95% and may not survive the downturn making all of these discussions for not.  I previously sent an email to the City Council suggesting a practice run closing Churchill in order to see the effect it has on traffic in Palo Alto. Nobody responded.  The traffic on Churchill has become quite bothersome in the 10 years we have lived here. Making a left turn during most hours (normal non-COVID times) has become very difficult. Street parking sometimes obfuscates view for left turns. That is what makes us prefer Churchill closure, or vote for something that causes some traffic reduction. I am also wary of an expensive viaduct option for cost reasons. I would be fine with closure with traffic mitigation measures, or the partial option.  Again, I live on Mariposa facing the train track and my family will be negatively impacted if the raised track option is selected.  Thank you!  With respect to pushing more cars onto Embarcadero: I think widening it to 4 lanes would be a huge improvement there, drastically reducing the bottleneck that happens (and often spills into the Embarcadero / El Camino intersection).  Thanks!  Please do not claim to represent me — you are self-appointed and unelected.  Partial underpass seems like a good compromise. If Caltrain is resistant to making minor concessions to make this possible in its best design, can Stanford be leveraged to exert pressure on Caltrain in this regard?  If Churchill is closed, addressing safety for bikes/peds crossing Alma/entering, exiting Paly would be optimal. Also, isn’t there a way to close Churchill yet retain access for emergency vehicles or select opening of the street using removable/automatic hydraulic bollards? That might allow Churchill to remain open on weekends.  I hope the questionnaire is objective and possibly reviewed by a third party to reduce any possible bias. Thank you.  I highly recommend that the survey results be audited by a 3rd part to ensure fairness. Furthermore, every effort should be made to survey ALL Southgate residents as individuals, rather than some selected households.  XCAP has a ton of information on all of these items, which should be linked to this survey, so that people can see the information on each of the options. I do like the fact that you asked people if they were informed or not.  I do think improvements to enhance capacity at Embarcadero will be needed. This should include a pedestrian overpass that connects Paly to Town & Country so that traffic signal can be eliminated. Again, Stanford should be involved and contribute to solving traffic problems on Embarcadero and Churchill.  Thank you for trying to reach out to ALL Southgate residents.  While I appreciate the democratic, inclusive, and thorough process Palo Alto has undertaken, I'm concerned now that we'll miss out on precious regional, state, and federal funding if we don't make a decision quickly.  I want to emphasize that there needs to be a pause in the process until the impacts of the current shut downs are better understood.  I thank the committee for your work on this important matter. I would appreciate a response to my survey answers from as many of the committee members as would be gracious enough to write me. david664422@yahoo.com. 660-650-3303  Thank you for doing this. I hope we leave Churchill open. Jeannine Olson  Thank you for helping all of us keep abreast of this important matter. And great survey -- concise and to the point. And visually appealing, too! Well done!  Thanks for gathering this data.  Thank you for your hard and thoughtful work. I know this has not been an easy job. I still think we have solutions that are not that great. I understand there are constraints. The partial closure has the most promise but details have to be worked out better such as the right angle turn out of the tunnel for bikes, separating bikes and pedestrians, and figuring out how not to make it so far out of the way if you are walking like from Southgate to Walter Hayes, with a young child and possibly pushing a stroller to get a kid to school in the morning.  We live on Castilleja mid- second block. With the bike traffic from non-Paly High bikers, who apparently believe Castilleja is a bike freeway, we have to be ultra-careful backing out of the driveway at any time of the day or night. Some bikers believe they have the right-of-way irrespective of the fact that those backing out cannot always see them.  The only safe bike option for closing Churchill is the Kellogg underpass.  Please send this survey to all of Nextdoor Southgate.  Thanks to all involved. It’s important to keep neighbors informed.  The prudent thing to do at this time is nothing. At a time when mass transit ridership is declining in every metropolitan area in the country including Los Angeles, Caltrain's projection of tripling ridership was amazingly optimistic, and reflected pre-COVID19 thinking. In the last 30 years Silicon Valley has gone through three boom and bust cycles, and it is at the end of the third boom. Just a few years ago, faced with declining ridership, Caltrain was in severe distress. As this tech expansion has reached maturity Caltrain ridership had actually started to decline in the months prior to COVID19. We may not know what the post pandemic world will look like, but we can rest assured that it will be very different, and sitting on Caltrain may well be the least desirable work option, so Caltrain's future is largely unknown. Therefore, the safest thing at this time is to do nothing until we can better visualize Silicon Valley's future work environment and transportation requirements.  Thank you for all the wonderful work!  I think COVID is making everyone rethink how they work. Is it possible that there will be long-term reductions in traffic anyway? Less people commuting, fewer trains needed in general? Has this been discussed as part of future planning?  Thank you for keeping Southgate needs in the discussion!  I would like the Caltrain to provide updated estimates of ridership projections in a post- COVID world. The train goes through our backyard and, since March, every train is almost empty. The idea of increasing the number of trains seems highly unnecessary at this point. And given how this virus is transmitted, I do not see ridership growing at a rate that would justify a 4x increase in the number of trains.  The harm to the community of closing Churchill is real and substantial. The benefit is at best questionable.  Let's not spend millions of taxpayer funds for something we don't need. Close Churchill.  RE: "Peers Park passage": One possible traffic control might be to place a stanchion in the middle of the road that is lowered by a remote control similar to a garage door opener. The remote control could be available only to Southgate residents for a fee to offset costs to the City.  Thanks so much for highlighting the upcoming XCAP meeting (and making sure everyone is aware of Survey 2.0). The XCAP meetings have been held every week for the past 6-7 weeks and they continue to be committed to trying to have a recommendation for the City Council in the next few months. Of course, this is an extremely complicated and emotional issue—it is going to be difficult for any group, including XCAP, to make a strong recommendation. Time will tell. Also, the City Council is not beholden to take the recommendation of the XCAP and ultimately, any decision by City Council is highly likely to eventually go to the voters. So long road ahead. A small group has regularly attended the XCAP meetings (incl myself). My personal summary of the status thus far: Viaduct: The most expensive ($300-$400M) of the three options and while it is the only option that preserves all the vehicular traffic crossings in its current form (w/o a pesky train to interrupt the flow), it also has the worst traffic Level Of Service (LOS) rating of the three options (D/E letter grade, where A is best and F is worst). It’s also fairly clear that XCAP is intimately aware that no one in the vicinity (Southgate & Old Palo Alto) is advocating for this option—it’s very unpopular. While diligence is key to keep this one from becoming a reality, this one really seems like an extremely unlikely choice. Partial Underpass: A wee bit more than half the cost of the Viaduct ($160-200M), this late arriving option is quite complicated. It preserves *some* of the vehicular crossings at Churchill/Alma, eliminates others and creates some new barriers for still others (e.g. Mariposa can no longer exit onto Churchill, Old Palo Alto no longer has a protected left turn onto Alma southbound). According to the traffic report, it has the best LOS rating of the three options (B/C). This option is also expected to require the taking of a small bit of land from private property (called a “sliver”) as well as quite a bit of land from Paly and an allowance from Caltrain land. Caltrain has very clearly stated that they will not give up this allowance. Closure + Mitigations: At less than one third the cost of the Partial Underpass ($50-65M), the majority of the cost comes not from closing Churchill but from fixing the massively broken El Camino/Embarcadero, Alma/Embarcadero and Alma/Oregon Expwy crossings. The traffic study rates this very close to the same LOS as the Partial Underpass (C/C). Most of the concerns about this option have been addressed (traffic implications to other roadways – traffic analysis of the closure + mitigations; safety – clear message from both Fire and Police that this will not affect response times). However, there continues to be a vocal opposition, which primarily cites concerns about both traffic and safety. Few other points to help bring folks up to speed: In the Survey 2.0, you’ll note that there is a question about re-opening of the Peers Park exit from Southgate (Castilleja/Park Blvd), which was closed in the early 70’s (it was a *hotly* contested topic at the time). The Peers Park opening has been suggested by various members of the public as a potential alleviation for Southgate residents to open a secondary path to Oregon Expwy other than El Camino in the event of Churchill closure. It has never been on any proposal by the City Council, XCAP or any other municipal group. Similar to 1972, the opening of Peers would likely be a highly contentious topic and since it’s not really needed/relevant to the rail crossings, is highly unlikely to be placed on any decision matrix anytime in the near future. Both the Council and XCAP are pretty weary and I’d be surprised if they entertained any options not directly impacting the rail crossings, especially contentious ones. However, by placing the question on the Survey 2.0, it definitely feeds the fears of a Closure by anyone in the Southgate or Evergreen Park neighborhoods. The local debate has gotten a bit out of hand at times. Signs were made opposing Churchill Closure (using a simplified scare message: where do all the cars go?) and illegally put onto private property w/o owner permission along Churchill Ave as well as illegally put onto public land (Paly)—in the middle of the night. You can imagine how you’d feel if you woke up and someone had put a sign on your front lawn or across the street on public land, especially after having been very vocal in opposition to the message on the sign. Many of the residents along Churchill don’t have to imagine. In the last XCAP, it was discovered that none of the traffic studies done by the contracting firm (Hexagon) considered any traffic “inducement”, except for the Closure. Inducement is the concept of more traffic moving to a new route because either the old route has gotten worse or a new route has gotten better. For instance, in the case of Churchill Closure, Hexagon definitely studied the inducement of additional traffic on both Embarcadero and Oregon Expwy—cuz that traffic can no longer travel down Churchill. However, in the case of both the Viaduct and the Partial Underpass, no study was done to assess if improved travel along Churchill would increase the amount of traffic along Churchill. Instead, the firm assessed the existing and projected traffic volumes, assuming no add’l traffic was pulled from any of the surrounding areas. The firm said inducement is typically not required as most folks are trying to get somewhere and are unlikely to “bypass” just to save a few minutes. However, as their own study shows, roughly 70% of all traffic on Churchill is doing just that—it is trying to bypass from El Camino to Alma/Embarcadero or vice versa. Since Churchill dead-ends at Stanford and goes into a slow neighborhood to dead-end on Embarcadero on the other side, most of the traffic is not using it as a destination but as a bypass or cutoff. Lastly, it’s unclear if any of this will really matter given the current state of Caltrain, the State and our Nation. This has been regularly pointed out by members of the public in both City Council and XCAP meetings. Unfortunately, both the City Council and XCAP aren’t chartered with telling Caltrain and the State that their plans are garbage and simply halting all efforts to evaluate options; they are required to proceed until such a time as the electrification plans are halted by a higher power. If that does come to pass, then it will just have been a painful and neighborhood-splitting exercise in city-wide traffic planning. P.S. I strongly believe in full disclosure of position/bias in any survey or summary: I’m in support of the Closure + Mitigations option in the event that the City has to eliminate the at-grade rail crossing. Hopefully that helps you assess your own take on my take. It would have been great if the “Southgate Neighborhood Committee on the Churchill Rail Crossing”, which sponsors the Survey 2.0, had also disclosed their position/bias. Or, even better, invited a diversity of opinion into the “Neighborhood Committee”. 10 Baumb, Nelly From:Inder Monga <imonga@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 6:11 PM To:Council, City; Gaines, Chantal Subject:Presentation for City Council meeting on Tuesday Attachments:Results from Neighborhood Survey on Churchill (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council     We conducted a survey of select Palo Alto Neighborhoods to get a better sense of the community consensus based on  XCAP's deliberations and vote, and want to present the following slide‐deck on Tuesday.     I have attached it to this email for your review, and am happy to answer any questions ahead of time. I would appreciate  some time to in the open session to share this presentation to all present.    Thanks  Inder  on behalf of the Professorville, Embarcadero and Southgate neighborhoods    Churchill Rail Crossing Survey Critical perspectives from Palo Alto neighborhoods “Thank you City Council Members, for taking our concerns from this survey into consideration before casting your decisive vote” - Comments from Survey Respondent What was the goal of the survey? ●XCAP lacked community representation from neighborhoods north of Embarcadero during the critical deliberation phase of the process ●It's important for Council to consider the views of unrepresented neighborhoods before making a decision on the Churchill rail crossing “Closing Churchill will affect all of Palo Alto, even us Southies”- Comments from Survey Respondent Goal: Bringing the voice of unrepresented neighborhoods to the City Council “Thank you City Council Members, for taking our concerns from this survey into consideration before casting your decisive vote” - Comments from Survey Respondent Process ●Conducted in coordination with a number of concerned citizens from Professorville, Embarcadero and Southgate residents ● Employed Survey Monkey to create and administer questions ●Modeled on and augmented the Southgate Survey ●Survey conducted during severe COVID restrictions limiting physical contact ●Verified local residence by requiring respondents’ physical addresses ●Anonymous survey responses Participation Data ●100+ respondents from seven neighborhoods ●100% completion rate ●75% requested continued engagement Distribution of survey respondents in Palo Alto Q1: Have you kept up with the discussion of the City's plan to make significant changes to the Churchill intersection (in order to separate the train tracks from the road)? 80% of the respondents in affected neighborhoods were engaged with this topic before taking the survey Q2: How informed do you feel you are on this issue? 95% of the respondents were very or somewhat informed Only 5% felt they were not informed on this topic Q3: Based on your current knowledge, what is your opinion about closing Churchill? 82% against closing Churchill 8.7% in favor of closing Churchill Q4: The City is currently considering three options for the Churchill rail crossing, as shown in the recent Virtual Town Hall. We believe a viable fourth option is "No Build with Safety Improvements" — i.e., keep the intersection as is, but add safety improvements to the intersections and rail crossing gates. Based on your current understanding, please rank these four options in order of preference: First Choice 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% No Build with Safety Improvements* Third Choice 30.00% No Build with Safety Improvements• Partial Underpass Partial Underpass Viaduct (raised train) Closing Churchill intersection Viaduct (raised train) Closing Churchill intersection Second Choice No Build with Safety Improvements* Fourth Choice 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 5.15% Partial Underpass Viaduct (raised train) 2.17% Closing Churchill intersection 63.75% 0.00% __ _J•••••-----------~ No Build with Safety Improvements* Partial Underpass Viaduct (raised train) Closing Churchill intersection ●90% of respondents opposed closing Churchill. When forced to choose, more than 60 % ranked closing Churchill as the least desirable option. Insights from ranked options: ●70% of respondents chose No-Build with Safety Improvements as either their first or second choice. ○Over half (~57%) choose this option as their first choice. ●70% of the respondents chose the Partial Underpass as one of their top two choices. ●50% of the respondents chose the Viaduct as one of their top two choices Data Summary Q5: In light of the pandemic, Caltrain's pause of its business plan, and changed work, traffic, and Caltrain ridership patterns, would you encourage the City of Palo to pause its grade separation process and await more clarity? “Making the decision about the train during the first six months of Shelter-In-Place assumes a level of knowledge from XCAP about the future will look that borders on hubris.” - Survey Respondent Takeaways ●90% of respondents opposed closing Churchill ●The majority felt leaving Churchill as-is would be the best choice for now. ●For grade-separation, the Partial Underpass is the preferred option. ●Viaduct remains a surprisingly strong alternative. ●Palo Altans are oppose making consequential and expensive decisions about the grade crossings at this time, when so many strategic factors remain uncertain. Our ‘ask’ from City Council ●We urge the Council not to adopt/vote on any proposal with respect to the Churchill crossing UNTIL ○There can be a more inclusive community process ○Thorough city planning analysis with all crossings considered as a whole ●Council should prioritize solutions for south Palo Alto while continuing to analyze equitable solutions for the north. Thank you for your tireless efforts on this challenging and important project. Appendix Please send an email to paloaltoneighborhoods@gmail.com for more information on the survey Sampling of comments received on the survey ●YES! Fewer and fewer people ride Caltrain already. We do not need to change Churchill intersection to accommodate this UNNEEDED intrusion by Caltrain ●Making the decision about the train during the first six months of Shelter-In-Place assumes a level of knowledge from XCAP about the future will look that borders on hubris. ●There are many decisions that might influence the mitigations like Palo Alto Avenue crossing discussion which has not even been started! The city would benefit from a comprehensive plan (or following its statements from the Comprehensive plan) Sampling of comments received on the survey ●I think we need a LOT more clarity on why the price quotes and time to complete the project for Palo Alto is so much high and longer than in several other projects. Keith Reckdahl has done amazing volunteer research to show how we (P.A.) are about to get ripped off if we buy into this now. Don't waste more money on new studies, and then set a top price and time limit and no change orders, which is how contractors make most of their money. ●I'm not convinced it would make sense to change Churchill even if more trains ever do materialize. The extra ridership would only be at peak hours -- why have the intersection closed at other times? People would just learn not to go that way at the busiest times. ●The committee from the beginning seems to be in favour of closing Churchill without collecting enough information. A new unbiased committee should be formed to look into the issue. It is unfair to take actions to UNFAIRLY DISADVANTAGE ANOTHER COMMUNITY JUST TO BOOST PROPERTY PRICES by closing Churchill crossing. People jump red lights and cause accidents; We look for finding ways to force people to adhere to traffic rules and make commutes safer. Likewise one should look into Churchill crossing to make it safer and not close it to divert traffic to another community. Sampling of comments received on the survey ●At some point it'll be necessary to figure out how the treatment of the Churchill crossing affects the treatment of the Palo Alto Ave and University Ave crossings and possibly how all this relates to proposed permanent closure of University Ave. Anyway, thanks for helping more people get informed and involved! ●City leadership has completely mismanaged the effort to study and select rail crossing solutions. Once we have sufficient clarity to forecast realistic transportation patterns, we should completely restart the process. ●Closing Churchill is a terrible idea. The traffic on Embarcadero is too heavy now and will be worse with the closure of Churchill. Seems to me an over under plan would work best. Sampling of comments received on the survey ●Making any kind of change at this moment when traffic patterns are irregular, PALY is closed, and train traffic is greatly reduced makes no sense. A proper traffic study has not been conducted. Embarcadero Road normally has nearly grid locked traffic during commute hours. Adding more cars is not the answer. ●Embarcadero would be so overwhelmed with Churchill closure. I would like to see Churchill look like the Embarcadero underpass. ●Thank you all for all your efforts keeping things organized and keeping the neighborhood residents aware of the issues, progress, and meetings. 11 Baumb, Nelly From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 2:42 PM To:Council, City; Tanaka, Greg; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Kou, Lydia; Burt, Patrick; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer Cc:Dave Price Subject:Table any decision on the RR Crossing / Churchill Ave Closure Until ALL factors / alternatives are considered CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council, I was appalled to read the front page article in this weekend's Post where XCAP chair Nadia Maik "said she wished her committee had been given authority to study the Alma crossing, too." Well, so do we -- all the residents who dread what closing Churchill will do! Who denied XCAP the authority to conduct a REAL study before proposing to divert thousands of NEW car trips into our neighborhoods and onto already-clogged Embarcadero and Middlefield? Was this limitation even factored into the Casti traffic impact equation and costly studies? If not, why not? How much money and time has the city wasted on consultants, studies, etc to end up such a limited study that even the XCAP chair decries?? But the real question is WHY?? Why must we residents / taxpayers have to watch so vigilantly the city's every move to protect our interests on what seems to be every issue -- Casti, RR crossings, getting the Palo Alto Utilities refunds due us after years of the city's illegal surcharges, letting retail recover before sticking TAX-FREE medical offices in Town & Country to benefit a landlord who's been destroying family businesses like Prestige, Patrick James etc. for 20+ years ..... to name just a few recent examples. 12 When Pat Burt called out the city for its biased "studies" re Casti, he was only partly right about the city having "its finger on the scale;" it's not just a finger, it's the entire hand. ENOUGH. No decisions without a REAL study that takes into account what we the RESIDENTS/Taxpayers want, takes into account existing traffic patterns, takes into account the fact that traffic-light timing STILL doesn't work right in spite of the millions the city's spent and decades of traffic complaints falling on deaf ears. PLEASE get your body parts off the city scale and start providing REAL unbiased solutions. Respectfully, Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 13 Baumb, Nelly From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 4:11 PM To:Council, City Subject:2021-03-23 Study Session on XCAP Final Report CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    In the Final Report some XCAP members observe that the traffic analysis is unreliable due to exclusion of the Downtown  area (particularly the University Ave and Palo Alto Ave grade crossings).    The 2021‐03‐22 Staff Report indicates that Staff is planning for eventual permanent closure of much of University Ave in  the Downtown business district.  This makes the traffic analysis even more suspect.    Spillover traffic is already significant when University slows down.  Making that condition permanent, and adding traffic  diverted from Churchill, is likely to choke neighborhoods around both University and Embarcadero.    More comprehensive traffic modeling is needed before these decisions are finalized.    Regards,  Allen Akin  14 Baumb, Nelly From:Tony Carrasco <tony@carrasco.com> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 8:26 PM To:Carrasco, Tony; Council, City Cc:Nadia Naik; Larry Klein; Gennady Sheyner Subject:Future studies. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor DuBois, Vice mayor Burt and members of the City Council.   Firstly, Hats off to Chair Naik, Vice chair Klein and fellow members of the XCAP. We  produced a report considering complex data while evaluating several alternative track alignments  with their individual costs and benefits and how they compared with each other.  As the XCAP report recommends, after community feedback on the report, a future study  would also incorporate the strengths and minimize  the weaknesses of the studied alternatives  while looking  for possible new alternatives that fit Palo Alto's landscape and pedestrian and Bike  priorities.  I am writing to you as an individual with full support of the XCAP recommendations. Here is  one such possibility    A potentially better way to provide a grade separation at Churchill which would maintain and even expand the character and walkable grid of Palo Alto streets would be a viaduct (different in size and location from the Viaduct alternative considered by XCAP)      A Viaduct over Embarcadero Road would allow for various configurations of roadways, landscaping, bicycle and pedestrian paths and eliminate the need for some of the questionable traffic mitigations that a Churchill closure would require.  It would obviate the need for the proposed long, trench-like pedestrian/bike lane on Kellogg Avenue in the Partial Underpass alternative.    The Viaduct would start to rise along the East side of the Southgate neighborhood and reach “top of rail” height of approximately 8 feet at Churchill Avenue. This height would allow a naturally lit, safe, pedestrian/bike underpass at Churchill Avenue, similar to the one at Homer Avenue.  Rising at about 1.4%, the Viaduct would permit new access to the Palo Alto High School property for buses and service vehicles close to Embarcadero Road.  The Viaduct would cross over the Embarcadero Road/Alma Street intersection at a 20 foot height, allowing for several configurations of the ground plane. This allows bikes/pedestrians to traverse the 15 ground on grade. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.    The Viaduct would allow future reconstruction of the Embarcadero and Alma bridges.  The Viaduct would require property acquisition to create a new roadway of the Southside of the Town & Country property, accommodating the West bound traffic diverted from the closing on Churchill Avenue.  The Viaduct allows for a modified “Dutch Roundabout.”  North of Embarcadero, the Viaduct would enhance pedestrian/bike connectivity and walkability between Professorville and Town & Country.  North of Embarcadero the Viaduct would allow possible emergency vehicle access to the Palo Alto Medical Foundation.   Sincerely.     ‐‐   Tony Carrasco  CARRASCO & ASSOCIATES   http://www.carrasco.com/  1885 El Camino Real, Palo Alto CA 94306  650-322-2288     16 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Newman <snewzy@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 1:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Kamhi, Philip; Nadia Naik Subject:Response to Majority Vote on Churchill Crossing, March 23 Council Meeting Attachments:Outline of Letter to City Council-8.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Honorable Council members,    I’ve attached a copy of a letter to Council addressing the Majority vote to close the Churchill Avenue crossing.  I am a day  late getting it to you, but I would deeply appreciate your attention as part of your preparations for the March 23 Council  Meeting on the XCAP Report.    Sincerely,  Susan Newman        Susan Newman  1523 Portola Avenue  Palo Alto CA 94306  650.473.1811 (h)  650.380.1764 (c)  snewman@workpractice.com  snewzy@gmail.com              March 17, 2021 Honorable Council Members, I am writing on behalf of a coalition of concerned residents from the Southgate, University South, and Embarcadero Corridor neighborhoods. We have been following the XCAP process over the last two years, including the Panel’s deliberations and writing of the Final Report. We appreciate the sustained effort of this group in attempting to understand the technical details and assumptions, as well as organizational and legal realities, affecting grade separation proposals. And we are grateful for their diligence in raising questions for staff and consultants and for attempting to think through the implications of alternatives for residents, drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. At the same time, the XCAP process has laid bare significant problems and unanswered questions pertaining to the selection of grade separation designs. In the case of South Palo Alto, these were sufficient to prevent the Panel from arriving at a majority, let alone a consensus recommendation. We feel that the issues associated with the Churchill crossing are equally profound and should have resulted in an informed discussion of the alternatives rather than a single recommendation -- particularly the radical one of closing one of our heavily used east-west crossings. This letter attempts to articulate our concerns, as well as our suggestions for moving forward. 1 XCAP deliberations were compromised by incomplete and misleading information. Lack of information about the Palo Alto Avenue Crossing. ​Decisions about the Palo Alto Avenue rail crossing will have significant impacts on traffic throughout northern Palo Alto, but the XCAP were unable to consider these in their deliberations about Churchill. Without knowing the outcome of planning for this crossing, it is premature to approve closing Churchill Avenue. Limitations of the Hexagon Traffic Study. ​In spite of its centrality to decisions about the Churchill crossing, the Hexagon Traffic Study (HTS) is limited in critical ways. ●Short-term, overly-modest traffic projections​.​ As has been pointed out repeatedly by concerned residents and some XCAP members, the Hexagon Traffic Report uses a much-too-limited time frame for its analysis, which only extends to 2030. Using estimates terminating just a few years beyond when modifications are likely to be built violates best practice for planning significant infrastructural changes, as these are likely to persist for decades or longer. Indeed, the inadequacy of HTS traffic projections was an important reason that three members of XCAP refused to recommend Closure of Churchill (September 3, 2020 XCAP Meeting). Notably, projections used by Hexagon predict only a modest 5% increase in Palo Alto traffic by 2030, although there are multiple reasons to consider larger increases in an analysis used to make decisions about Churchill: ●Caltrain projections:​ The pre-COVID figures ​used by Caltrain to justify increases in commuter rail traffic​ show a 40% increase in population and jobs along the corridor by 2040, with 80% of that in San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties. ●Stanford Build-Out:​ According to the County’s review of Stanford’s 2018 EIR, we can expect “significant adverse impacts” on area traffic that will be impossible to mitigate fully if and when the Stanford build-out goes through. ●Castilleja Expansion:​ If Castilleja completes its expansion, we can expect increased congestion in the area from queueing of cars and increased bike/ped traffic at the start and end of the school day. ●Ambitious development goals in Palo Alto:​ The City is committed to increased residential and commercial development during the coming decade at least. While much of this development is intended for transit corridors, and even if a good percentage of new residents use public transit during peak traffic hours, it is likely that personal vehicular traffic will increase as well, particularly during other parts of the day and on the weekends. It is not at all clear if these effects have been taken into account in Palo Alto’s 2030 numbers. In spite of repeated requests from the public and some XCAP members, Hexagon has yet to assess the effects of higher traffic numbers on its Level of Service analysis, even though executing the simulations with different inputs should be relatively easy. In the Final Report, the XCAP Minority have now formally recommended “running the numbers” with new inputs in order to assess the sensitivity of Hexagon’s proposals to traffic increases. In the absence of such analysis, it is premature to approve the closure of Churchill. ●Limited form of analysis. ​As it stands, the HTS focuses exclusively on intersection LOS for vehicles, with no apparent attention to interactions among vehicles, transit, and bicycle/pedestrian traffic on affected roadways. ●Unanalyzed risks to bikes and peds.​ Rachel and Tom Kellerman and Yoriko Kishimoto have done an excellent job of detailing the limitations of the HTS and Mitigation Plan in assessing the effects of increased traffic and roadway changes on bicycle and pedestrian traffic along the Embarcadero Corridor. While Closure may increase safety for bicyclists to the south side of Paly, the resulting increase in traffic on Embarcadero will exacerbate the risk for bikes and peds whose paths to the north side of Paly intersect routes taken by cars. ●Possibly invalid LOS numbers.​ We would add that failing to measure and analyze these challenging interactions between vehicular and bike/ped traffic may also undermine the validity of the Traffic Study by producing better LOS numbers than would be warranted if the interactions were taken into account. ●Unrecognized effects on public transit.​ Finally, the diversion of school buses and maintenance vehicles from their current paths along Churchill Avenue to El Camino and Embarcadero seems likely to affect schedules and transit time for students attempting to get to school. More generally, increased traffic along El Camino, Embarcadero and Oregon/Page Mill may slow other public transit vehicles, intensifying dislike of these methods of getting around town or to and from work. ●Limited selection of intersections for LOS analysis. ​Hexagon’s selection of six intersections for LOS analysis is too limited to convey a credible sense of the effects of Closure even with regard to vehicular traffic. ●Omitted intersections:​ The earlier TKJM traffic study mentions eight intersections likely to be affected by modifications of the Churchill grade crossing. Hexagon disagrees about two, but offers no explanation for this position. ●Intersections further afield:​ Behavior of traffic and function of intersections in the approaches to and departures from the studied intersections should be modelled. As one example, the HTS analysis does not provide existing LOS for intersections east of the bottleneck created by the narrowing of Embarcadero and turning movements in and out of Town and Country and Palo Alto High. As a result, their positive projections of LOS at the proposed new signalized intersections at Alma/Kingsley and Kingsley/Embarcadero are hard to believe. ●Traffic density and flow on remaining routes.​ Study should provide a better understanding of traffic density and flow on all roads that will have to carry additional traffic if Churchill closes -- Embarcadero, Oregon/Page Mill, Alma, and El Camino Real. Increased congestion along these arteries would add stress and inconvenience for residents in Southgate, Evergreen, College Terrace, and Stanford Avenue, as well as other drivers, forced to seek alternative routes for trips downtown or to points east and south of the train tracks. In short, we agree with the XCAP Minority’s call for analysis of “network LOS”. In the absence of these and other considerations mentioned above, the assurances of Staff and Consultants that the negative effects of Closure on traffic can be mitigated ​are simply not seen as credible​ by those who will be most directly affected by the loss of this important east-west rail crossing. ●Narrow view of traffic on Churchill​. HTS calculates LOS for two hours during weekday peak traffic. While this approach may throw light on congestion and delay under conditions of heaviest use, it ignores the fact that most Palo Alto residential travel takes place outside commute hours. Eliminating Churchill as a way to cross the tracks will add inconvenience and stress to residents’ routine trips throughout the day and on weekends by making traffic on El Camino, Oregon/Page Mill, and Embarcadero that is currently bearable during non-peak hours more like peak-hour commuter traffic. 2 XCAP does not adequately represent the community. Absence of important non-residential perspectives. ​In spite of early efforts to engage PAUSD, Palo Alto High, Stanford, and the business community in this phase of “expanded community engagement,” the XCAP made its recommendation without input from any of these critical partners. Within its first year, more than a third of the original 14 members left XCAP, arguably calling into question the “majority” label for the six individuals recommending Closure. More important than the reduction in their numbers, however, the XCAP lost its capacity to represent concerns other than those of residents. Residents’ issues are certainly important, but without the articulation and weighing of perspectives provided by representatives of the area’s institutions, the recommendation to close Churchill seems at best premature. As an example, in addition to the overall traffic impacts of Closure, it seems obvious that this decision would create special problems of access for both PAUSD and Palo Alto HIgh School -- not only for student and parent drivers, but for staff and workers. We are glad to see recent letters from PAUSD and PTAC that make it clear that these groups do indeed want “a seat at the table”. We hope there will also be dialogue with representatives of Town and Country, Stanford, California Avenue businesses, etc. before any decision is made. Inadequate representation of impacted neighborhoods.​ Without disparaging the contributions of any individual, we feel that representation of neighborhoods near the Churchill crossing is biased. Two of the nine current XCAP members 1) live within 100 yards of the Churchill intersection and 2) became part of the original CAP in part because of their vocal opposition ​from the outset​ to alternatives other than Closure or a tunnel. While it makes sense to include people from neighborhoods most affected by grade separation decisions, there has been insufficient attention to how well those chosen represent the positions and concerns of the neighborhood as a whole. In the case of Southgate, a neighborhood whose travel options will be seriously limited by Closure, a well-run survey in 2019 showed that ​residents oppose Closure by a 2 to 1 margin​. Yet no one on XCAP speaks for that majority. On the other hand, University South and Professorville neighborhoods, as well as residents living on Embarcadero itself, were not represented at all by XCAP membership, even though these areas will be heavily impacted by decisions about the Churchill rail crossings. The lack of balanced representation seems particularly problematic given the recently added responsibilities of the current XCAP to advise Council on grade separation. 3 Closing Churchill is simply the wrong choice. In addition to the limitations of information and perspectives used to evaluate the Churchill crossing alternatives, we wish to enumerate briefly specific objections to Closure. Failure to meet key Council Criteria for grade separation. ●Movement across the corridor.​ A key criterion for grade separation alternatives is “Facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of traffic”. While the Mitigation plan proposed by Hexagon may help ameliorate the effects of increased traffic through the remaining crossings, there are many reasons to question its effectiveness, including Hexagon’s own admission that in the future, the LOS at El Camino and Page Mill/Oregon will be “an unmitigatable F”. ●Maintain access to neighborhoods, parks, and schools.​ Although the majority avoid discussing this criterion in detail as it pertains to their preferred option, Closure demonstrably fails to meet this criterion by simply by compromising access to Palo Alto High. And while it may reduce “regional traffic” on certain neighborhood streets, it does so at the expense of others. Other alternatives do as well or better on Council criteria.​ A close reading of the XCAP Report shows that the two other alternatives under consideration rate as well or better with respect to many of the criteria. In fact, had the highly subjective “minimize visual changes along the corridor” been omitted from the Council’s list, it seems unlikely that Closure would have seemed better by anyone’s estimation. Equity concerns.​ A major objection to closing Churchill is that the proposal benefits one group of residents at the expense of multiple others. People living on Churchill West will see a major reduction in the amount of traffic they have to contend with only because that traffic will be offloaded to other areas, notably neighborhoods along and adjacent to the Embarcadero corridor. Compromised emergency vehicle response time and emergency evacuation routes.​ Although the PAFD have assured the City that emergency vehicle response time will be minimally affected, residents of Southgate and the Embarcadero corridor neighborhoods remain concerned. If HTS projections of traffic congestion are wrong, we would expect that other analyses based on those projections may be wrong too. A note on funding.​ ​One additional criterion strongly affected the Majority recommendation -- the ability to pay for a given option with “feasible sources of funding”. We assume that the hope of the Majority is to rely heavily on Measure B money for all three grade separations. But is this approach necessary or feasible? The XCAP Report makes a strong case for possible challenges to that funding, as well as for the likely emergence of federal and state funding for infrastructure projects as part of economic recovery from COVID. In addition, Caltrain representative Sebastian Petty reported that ​finding ways to combine grade separation projects along the Corridor both for construction savings and to attract funding​ will be part of the Rail Corridor Study. We believe that Palo Alto should participate fully in this Study as part of pursuing the best grade separation outcomes. Finally, we expect that the cost of Closure will turn out to be greater than expected from the current estimates. In particular, we believe that the cost of retrofitting the historic Alma Street bridge has had insufficient analysis. 4 How do we move forward from here? This letter has been focused on critique of the majority recommendation of Closure by the XCAP for both process and substantive reasons. Our goal is to encourage Council to select an alternative for Churchill that will better serve the needs of the community at large. Fortunately, we believe that, in spite of its flaws and what we see as faulty conclusions by the Majority, the XCAP process has opened up the design space in ways that ​could allow us to produce integrated vehicular and bike/ped solutions that will better satisfy the City Council’s criteria​, while meeting the true transportation needs of residents throughout Palo Alto for decades to come. Obviously, it will take additional time and resources to undertake this endeavor and arrive at the best solution. We understand the City’s reluctance to continue to spend money developing all solutions. However, in the case of the Churchill crossing, there are options that show real promise ​but have not yet received the attention and iterative development that Closure has​. We suggest leveling the playing field. In addition, the XCAP has done extremely useful work in surfacing additional analysis and design development tasks. Organizing and prioritizing those lists could enable targeted effort that would increase our confidence in a final choice. As residential advocates, we can offer our suggestions about how to do this for the Churchill crossing. Secondly, we note that deliberations for South Palo Alto have not yet reached a conclusion. Might it make sense to focus the City’s next efforts on arriving at greater clarity for the Meadow and Charleston crossings? Finally, we encourage the Council to remember that ​grade separation involves infrastructure changes that are going to cost as much as a billion dollars and that will last for a century​. We strongly believe that it doesn’t make sense to narrow the field in the absence of crucial information just to avoid expenditures of thousands of dollars to address the questions and issues that face each option. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, Susan Newman Southgate With helpful comments and general support from residents of Southgate and Embarcadero area neighborhoods 17 Baumb, Nelly From:Arnout Boelens <a.m.p.boelens@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 10:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Public comment XCAP meeting March 23, 2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    We are writing on behalf of the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition (SVBC). Our mission is to create a healthy community, environment, and economy through bicycling for people who live, work, or play in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties.     This letter is written in strong support of a pedestrian and bicycle tunnel at Churchill Avenue (Option 2 of the XCAP grade separation project), and to encourage further study of the designs at Meadow/Charleston to make these intersections safe to use for bicyclists of all ages and abilities. As the city moves forward with future iterations of the different grade separation designs, we recommend active involvement of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), City/School Traffic Safety Committee (CSTSC), and other stakeholders to arrive at a more complete grade separation design. In addition we would like to encourage city staff to hire consultants with a proven track record in complete street design for any future work on this project.    To make bicycle infrastructure safe to use for users of all ages and abilities, designs need to allow vulnerable users to make mistakes without serious consequences. This means reducing the speed of motorized traffic to 20 mph when bicyclists and pedestrians share the road with motorized traffic, and separating them when traffic volumes and speeds are too high. In addition, to promote bicycle riding in Palo Alto and help the city to achieve the ambitious goals of the Sustainability & Climate Action Plan, the grade separation project should be used as an opportunity to upgrade the existing bicycle infrastructure and build bicycling routes that are cohesive, direct, comfortable, and attractive.    At Churchill, Option 2 is the best design for riders crossing the railroad tracks. A crossing at Churchill offers the best cohesion within the existing cycling network. In addition, Option 2:    Is the  safest  option because it eliminates the need to cross Alma and because it has a clear line of sight. Blind corners could be dangerous when large numbers of riders are present in the tunnel.    Provides the most  direct  crossing of both Alma and the train tracks.    Is the most  comfortable  because it does not have sharp corners which are difficult to navigate for younger riders and for people using cargo bikes.  18   Is the most  attractive  because it allows bicycle riders to stay away from traffic and congestion, thus encouraging riders to use the infrastructure.    At Charleston/Meadow, none of the current designs are able to sufficiently protect our most vulnerable road users. The designs that leave the current traffic patterns in place (Trench, Viaduct, Hybrid, and Tunnel designs), also leave the current flawed infrastructure designs for bicyclists and pedestrians in place. These designs would benefit from the installation of protected intersections on Alma. The current iteration of the underpass design, on the other hand, falls short due to unresolved problems with sharp corners, very indirect routes to reach the underpass, and closure of Meadow and Charleston for approximately 3.5 to 4 years during construction without any mitigation measures.    To summarize, as the city moves forward with future iterations of the different grade separation designs, we recommend active involvement of PABAC, CSTSC, and stakeholders. In addition, we would like to urge city staff to hire consultants with a proven track record in complete street design for any future work on this project. Only in this way we can ensure that the city arrives at complete grade separation designs which are safe, cohesive, direct, comfortable, and attractive to use for all road users.    Arnout Boelens  Matt Bryant  Ken Joye  Robert Neff  William Robinson  Frank Viggiano  Nicole Zoeller Boelens    Members of the SVBC, Palo Alto Chapter  1 Baumb, Nelly From:rogersac@aol.com Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 8:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Closing Churchill CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members I am writing to state that I am against closing Churchill. Firstly, living in South Palo Alto my main route to Stanford is Alma/Churchill. Any alternatives involve too much traffic and more importantly too many traffic lights. As a former Paly parent, I have done my best to avoid Paly commute times on Churchill, but at any other time, Churchill/Alma is definitely the best route to Stanford from south Palo Alto. Secondly, for the ability to get to Stanford or Sand Hill Road, we cannot get there from Alma unless we do U turns on El Camino Real. There is no word about what might happen at the Alma crossing but the ridiculous lack of connectivity between Alma and Sand Hill does nothing to help efficient traffic flow and that bottleneck must be improved. Thirdly, as a former Paly parent, I know that I have had meetings on campus and the best way to get there is Alma/Churchill. If I had to collect my children from school (twice I had children on crutches so they needed short term chauffering to and from schoo)l, and that car park by the sports fields made most sense). Additionally, when they were able to drive and on the very few occasions they took the car to school, they parked in the residential neighbourhoods around Churchill, Bryant, etc. Likewise, many parents parked there for back to school night and of course for Paly football and other sports events. As I am sure the local residents would say, this neighbourhood would be very impacted by parking by students and staff if Churchill was closed. Lastly, PAUSD parks all their school buses by the Churchill entrance to Paly. All these buses (and presumably the drivers who drive their personal vehicles to get to work) would be heavily impacted by this closure. School buses need to get pupils to and from school in a timely manner and having to use other crossings where traffic would be increased would mean that their schedules would be at risk. To sum up, efficient traffic flow is a very big consideration in this. All the other crossings are busy. Closing a cross would not add to efficient traffic flow around town. That traffic will not disappear, it will still need to cross the tracks. Please consider those of us who live in Palo Alto and need to be able to get around efficiently. Closing Churchill is a poor decision. Sincerely, Carol Rogers, Stockton Place. 2 Baumb, Nelly From:mickie winkler <mickie650@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 1:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Closing Churchill Ave????? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council   Do you know how many students attend Paly?   Or how many staff work there?  The answer is 2117 and 231, respectively  And you're "thinking" of closing access to one of three roads serving it?  Please, think again.    Mickie Winkler    Mickie Winkler  650-324-7444 office  850 Webster St.    3 Baumb, Nelly From:Alla Gorinevsky <allagorin@hotmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 2:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Against Churchill closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  closing Churchill would shift unacceptable loads to other streets which are already overcrowded.   It will make reaching Stanford and PAMF difficult for South Palo Alto residents.   It is a waste of money without solving anything.  All that to allow bikers to cross without stopping?    "Palo Alto is preparing to advance its most complex, expensive and potentially divisive public infrastructure  project" ‐‐‐ again, without referendum.   Please stop!!!   Do not proceed without a comprehensive train tracks plan.   Conduct a city‐wide referendum, complete with per parcel contributions required.  Start with collecting the funds from large donors ‐ don't do anything until the money is there and research  completed.    "Concurrently, the city would proceed with a wide range of traffic improvements at Embarcadero Road and  Oregon Expressway — modifications designed to keep traffic at these busy arteries from getting worse once  the Churchill intersection is reconfigured."    Concurrently? Surely traffic improvement should be done PRIOR to closure of Churchill.   It will be beneficial anyway.    Thanks,  Alla Gorinevsky  Palo Alto resident  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Markevitch <pat@magic.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 1:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Honorable Council Members,    Please do not close the Churchill crossing.    Sincerely,    Pat Markevitch  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Roberts <patroberts707@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 7:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Avenue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Members of the City Council,     I am writing to show my support for keeping Churchill Avenue open at Alma Street. I think Churchill is an important  automobile crossing to Palo Alto High School and El Camino Real.    Embarcadero Road and the Oregon Expressway are often bumper to bumper during the commute hours. I don’t believe  that there is room for additional traffic if Churchill is closed.    Please vote to keep Churchill Avenue open!    Thank you,  Patrick Roberts  857 Southampton Dr  Palo Alto  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 1:34 PM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia Subject:Please don't close Churchill and add another 7,000 cars to Embarcadero *& the neighboirhoods CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello. As someone who lives on Middlefield a block south of Embarcadero, I'm begging you not to close Churchill and divert an estimated 7,000 NEW daily car trips to an already crowded major road, one of only 3 leading to 101 and the only one providing direct access to Stanford. Where will those thousands of vehicles be diverted to: Embarcadero and Oregon Expressway, both of which are near schools: PALY, Casti, Walter Hays and Jordan where students and their parents transporting them will be endangered. Both roads are already disasters, with traffic backed up for blocks even outside of rush hour.  Regarding rush hour, one of the city's RR  closure consultants  underestimated when rush hour  starts and stops and only considered 2.5 hours of vehicle traffic 8‐9:15 AM and 5‐6:15 PM. This  timeframe totally ignores PALY afternoon and early morning traffic, car tips to other schools like  Casti, Jordan and Walter Hays which are accessed by Embarcadero and Oregon,  and the  fact that rush hour in general starts earlier and ends later with drivers trying to avoid rush hour  congestion.   During rush hour, frustrated Embarcadero drivers often form their own lanes when backed up at the still poorly timed traffic lights. Trust me, it's truly terrifying to turn into one's correct lane and find a car that shouldn't be there and be boxed in with no place to go! The same thing happens at Oregon / Middlefield due to the bollards at Jordan; a driver can legally 7 cross Oregon heading north at the light AND get stuck in the intersection because the Jordan / N/ California bollards box in through traffic if a car's trying to make a left at Jordan. Being stuck in the middle of Oregon with several lanes of through traffic speeding at you is not fun and I've had guests arrive shaking from the experience. City "planners" also ignored what now happens at Middlefield and Embarcadero when the VTA  bus stops 3 car lengths from the intersection when they narrowed the street and added  bollards at every intersection:   through southbound traffic gets boxed in by the bollards and can't  bypass the  bus. Southbound turning and through traffic AND East/West through traffic regularly  gets stuck IN the intersection during rush hour.  This Keystone Kops/Third World scenario lasts  through several cycles of traffic light changes while the multiple lanes of N/S and E/W traffic tries  to untangle itself.   (Years of complaints to the city's Traffic "planners" and to City Council about both situations have not been fruitful; let's hope the new City Council will pay more attention to costly traffic "calming" measures that do exactly the opposite!.) If Casti's under construction abutting Embarcadero AND Churchill's closed AND we're deluged with thousands more vehicles a day, this will be a disaster! PLEASE SAY NO to closing Churchill. Also note that Casti's garage access from Bryant is even CLOSER to Embarcadero than the Middlefield VTA bus stop so just imagine the chaotic backups there!) Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Chacon <Mary.Chacon@varian.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 11:26 AM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:mary@mac-archcon.com Subject:STOP - DO NOT Close Churchill!!! Importance:High CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  All,  Diverting traffic to Embarcadero and North Palo Alto - Professorville is not the answer. Do NOT close Churchill!! Please take a long term look at the situation along with developing a MASTER Plan for traffic in Palo Alto.   We live at the corner of Embarcadero and High Street (North). One side of our lot is on the Embarcadero frontage road that accesses Alma. Our front door is on High street. High street is a 30 foot wide street. Cars are parked all week long on both sides of the street. The parked cars come from:  1. Street residents   2. Permit parking for downtown workers   3. Permit parking for PALY students.   4.  Our street is also the drop off and pickup site for many PALY students every morning and afternoon.  There is a large number of bikes and pedestrian that come down High Street/Emerson Street and Embarcadero to go to PALY, Stanford and T&C. In fact many residents park on High and Embarcadero frontage and walk to T&C to shop because it’s quicker then sitting in the long line on Embarcadero to get to T&C. Additionally, there have been multiple car/bike accidents at this intersection.  Essentially this is an already VERY busy and dangerous intersection.  Diverting Churchill traffic would completely destroy our streets and quality of living. We have a wonderful WALKABLE neighborhood with young kids, dogs, pets, elderly residents that 9 we do not want to be destroyed by sending more cars that would normally go down Churchill through our neighborhood…..this is NOT the answer…all it does is create another harmful problem to an already traffic impacted area.  Thank you for your consideration!   Mary Chacon   (650)862‐9972      Varian Confidential  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Hing Sham <hinglsham@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 4:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rail crossing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear sir/madman, I live on Carolina Lane and very close to the Charleston/Alma railroad crossing. I believe underground  trenches for the trains at the crossing is the best option for Palo Alto residents. Thank you very much for your attention.   Hing Sham    Sent from Hing's iPad  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy Mueller <nmueller10@mac.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:42 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Cc:Nancy Mueller Subject:CASTILLEJA CUP AND MASTERPLAN CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am speaking to the Castilleja CUP and Masterplan. It is my opinion that the best way to get parked cars and traffic off  neighborhood streets is to make the underground parking at Castilleja as large as physically possible. It takes away the  impact of on‐street parking and maintains the residential character of the neighborhood. Castilleja is a vital asset in Palo  Alto, and we must help them accomplish their goals within reasonable city guidelines.       ___________  Nancy Mueller  2110 Waverley Street  Palo Alto, CA 94301  650‐804‐5345      2 Baumb, Nelly From:Michele Grundmann <michele.grundmann@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 24, 2021 10:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Castilleja School CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I needed to forward my message because I failed to send it to the correct email address.      Begin forwarded message:    From: Michele Grundmann <michele.grundmann@gmail.com>  Subject: Castilleja School  Date: March 24, 2021 at 9:13:10 AM PDT  To: citycouncil@cityofpaloalto    Dear Members of the City Council of Palo Alto: Alison Cormack, Tom Dubois, Eric Filseth, Lydia Kou, Greg  Tanaka, Pat Burt, Greer Stone,     My late husband, Alan Grundmann, and I, Michele Grundmann came to Palo Alto in 1962, we bought an  Eichler house and raised our two children at 2491 Greer Road. We considered ourselves very lucky to  reside in Palo Alto.    From the beginning I considered Castilleja School a very important part of our City. Your children went  to Van Auken  Elementary School (it has a different name now), Wilbur Junior High and Paly. 0ur  daughter wanted to go to Paly to follow her brother although I would have loved her to go to Casti but  was not going to interfere with her wish. Palo Alto High is an excellent high school.    I taught at Castilleja School for 18 years and until the Pandemic I still visited the French classes once a  year. I made friends at Castilleja, I   like Castilleja very much and I have an enormous respect for it. The school has made and still makes  efforts to include students of color and at yearly Reunions I see many former students who like me are  very happy to have been part of the School.    I am writing to you, respected Members of the City Council, because of my fears as I read the Palo Alto  Daily Post that some people especially residents who live close by are against any plan to increase the  number of students and enlarge the school. Some even suggest that Castilleja move from Palo Alto “like  some other schools have done”.    I am more worried now; 20 years ago when I retired from teaching  I participated to a meeting of the  neighbors of the school with the Head of Castilleja and other Administrators. Those neighbors had a list  of grievances which were addressed amiably. There have been since that time several real other  discussions abut Castilleja. However what is happening now worries me immensely and this is why I am  writing this message.    Castilleja was funded in 1907, the school has been and still is an important part of the city of Palo Alto.  3   Long live Castilleja with a garage hopefully,    Respectfully,    Michele Grundmann  850 Webster St.Apt. 918  Palo Alto CA 94301     4 Baumb, Nelly From:Mike Greenfield <mike@mikegreenfield.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:33 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     I want to express my support for Castilleja's proposal to upgrade their campus.    Castilleja has been doing an amazing job of educating young women in this area for over 100 years, and it is wonderful  that they are literally laying a foundation to help turn even more girls into tomorrow's leaders.    I've been fortunate to have had a current senior at Castilleja intern with my company for the past year and a half; her  discipline, drive, and desire to make the world a better place have blown me away. And I know that Castilleja is a big  part of that!    This is an opportunity to increase the hugely positive impacts of a jewel of Palo Alto, in a way that will also upgrade the  surrounding infrastructure, mitigate many of the challenges of car travel in the surrounding area, and improve the look  and feel of the neighborhood.    I hope you will move this project forward!    Thank you and best    Mike Greenfield  Palo Alto resident  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Lian Bi <lian_bi2002@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 7:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja School Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi City Council: I am in support of Castilleja’s proposal. I live in Old Palo Alto, just a few blocks away from campus, and I am one of the many neighbors who support the underground parking facility. I appreciate that the school is moving parking below ground, and I understand that it WILL NOT INCREASE daily car trips to campus, because that number is capped within the C.U.P. There will not be an increase in traffic because that does not support the school’s or the neighborhood's goals. I also appreciate that the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Report prefer the underground parking structure to surface parking lots. In particular, because I have a child who bikes in the neighborhood, I am happy to see that the Final Environmental Impact Report noted that the underground parking facility promotes safety along the Bike Boulevard. With only right turns into and out of Castilleja, cars will never cut across the flow of bicycles in the bike boulevard on Bryant. In addition moving parking below ground makes travel safer for cyclists because doors of parked cars will not be opening unexpectedly as the cyclists pass. And, the new design has fewer driveways on Bryant Street, making it safer for cyclists. I have seen renderings of the exit and entrance and both are hidden behind gentle landscaping and make the neighborhood more beautiful than it is now. I am glad this change in permissible in an R-1 neighborhood. That makes sense because it will improve conditions and aesthetics. The facts and data in the FEIR support this plan, and I feel that you should as well. Thanks Lian Bi 6 Baumb, Nelly From:William Bechtold <wrbechtold@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 7:06 PM To:Council, City Cc:klayendecker@castilleja.org Subject:Please Approve Castilleja Project Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello:    My wife and I are longtime residents of Old Palo Alto and live on the 300 block of Tennyson Avenue, near the Castilleja  School for Girls.  My wife graduated from the Stanford Graduate School of Education and her first teaching job was as a  teacher of American History at Castilleja.  She taught there for five years until our daughter was born. Years later, when  my daughter was ready to enter Seventh Grade, we enrolled her in Castilleja and she graduated with honors six years  later.    I am very proud of the efforts Castilleja has made to make its daily arrival and departure traffic have as little impact as  possible on its neighbors.  If only the Palo Alto Unified schools had made even half that effort to mitigate their arrival  and departure traffic.  Have any of you ever driven down California Avenue at 8 am or 3 pm?  It is a very unpleasant  experience.  By comparison, the 1300‐block of Bryant has almost no noticeable traffic at these times.    My wife and I strongly encourage you to approve Castilleja’s project.  More that five years of of dealing with the City and  its various Committees is  more than enough for you to thoroughly evaluate their project.  We ask you to approve it  straightaway.    Thank you for your consideration,    Ginny and Bill Bechto;ld  Tennyson Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Xenia Hammer <xhammer@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 2:32 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Castilleja - in support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers,     I am writing to express strong support for Castilleja School's proposal and to urge you to approve it without further delay. The EIR found No Negative Impacts, and it's time for this project to move forward.    Castilleja's proposal benefits the city and the neighborhood in so many ways! Here are just a few:   Moving parking below ground (See EIR, Comprehensive Plan, Precedent in Kol Emeth). The garage was added to the plans in response to neighbors' wishes! Castilleja has done extensive work on traffic planning to make sure that there are no negative impacts.    The proposed plan has overall improved aesthetics including:  o Increasing setbacks (See Planset)  o Lowering rooflines (See Planset)  o Increasing greenspace and adding trees to the environment (See EIR and Tree Plan)   Castilleja has demonstrated a commitment to traffic management and reducing car trips   The new campus will be a shining example of environmental sustainability. It will be a net-zero and fossil-fuel free campus  Overall, the school benefits Palo Alto and the wider community:   By educating generations of girls; significant portion of the school are Palo Alto residents   By elevating women’s issues locally   By offering a school setting that is smaller for girls who seek that   By employing Palo Altans   By opening new paths to higher education for first generation students  This is a project that we need now, as we seek to recover from the impacts of the pandemic, more than ever. Please support this project.    Thank you,    Xenia Hammer   Sharon Court    8 Baumb, Nelly From:Jing Li <jingli95070@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 4:46 AM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:support on Castilleja's expansion plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, I live on Ramona street and California street in old Palo Alto. As neighbors of Castilleja our family has been keeping close eyes on Castilleja’s upper school expansion plan. I wrote to city council several times before to let you know that our whole family fully support castilleja’s upper school expansion plan. I’m here again to let you know that we are glad to find out Castlilleja’s CUP and master plans will improve the neighborhood and Palo Alto by:  Reduce noisy and event  Increasing the tree canopy by adding over a hundred new trees  Reducing traffic  Increasing setbacks and lowering rooflines  Reducing environmental impact on City of Palo Alto and the demand of our city’s infrastructure  Educating more young woman who are motivated to make a difference in Palo Alto and beyond Thank you for your service to our loved city and I believe together we can make this city a better place to live in. Best Regards, Jiang Family 4088059307 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Virginia Smedberg <virgviolin@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 2:12 AM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja's plan is good for Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    The reason I say Castilleja's plan is good for Palo Alto is twofold:    First, the underground garage will help the immediate neighborhood by removing many cars from the street  and putting them below ground, thus removing both the visual impact of a street full of cars and the sounds of  many car doors closing in a short time period ‐ all of this will move below ground.  It also will preserve green  space, as the field along Embarcadero can be preserved as a playing field rather than as a parking lot.  The  more green space we can keep, the better for our air and for our mental peace, for all of us!    Second, the sustainable design plans will help the city as a whole because they include replacing outdated,  inefficient buildings with modern net‐zero 100% electric buildings, reducing the school's demand on the  power grid, reducing greenhouse gases, and helping the city achieve its sustainability goals.      A third factor which is important to me, as a Casti alumna, is the education of girls in a girls‐only  environment.  This was really good for me ‐ since I'm good at math, my winning the geometry award at Jordan  in 9th grade was a bit stressful since there were boys who wanted it (and were close in scores).  So when I  went to Casti for High School (10th ‐12th grades back in the 60's) all that competition disappeared and I could  be who I was with no disagreement from the "status quo".  It's a bit better these days but there are still  ceilings, glass and otherwise, that women have to deal with.  All these young women will work on projects,  and some will be close to home and thus benefit all of Palo Alto's citizens.  And since all will come from the  Bay Area, our whole megalopolis will benefit.    I sincerely hope you will look at all the facts, and allow this project to come to fruition.    cheers ‐ Virginia Smedberg, Casti class of 1963  441 Washington Ave, Palo Alto (same house I lived in when I was a Casti student!)  10 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeff Chang <jeff.chang.mit@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 11:14 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:In support of Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council members ‐    I am writing you as a 20+ year resident of Palo Alto, and parents of both a Paly grad and a current Castilleja student.    I feel that Castilleja has worked very hard over many years to develop a plan, working with the residents and the city in  good faith. I believe the underground garage is a reasonable solution to reducing the overall impact of cars on the  streets.    I have noticed that the public schools our daughters attended also had cars and redevelopment projects adjacent to the  residences, and I feel that Casti has been an integral part of the Palo Alto community for just as long.    Thank you for your support,  Jeff Chang  Palo Alto, CA        11 Baumb, Nelly From:Evelyn Danforth <edanforth@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Supporting Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi there,     My name is Evelyn. I'm a Palo Alto native and a proud alumna of Castilleja. I am writing today to voice my strong support  for Castilleja's plan, including its proposed underground parking garage. Castilleja provided me with a remarkable  education and community, and I want to ensure that opportunity is available to many other young women in the  decades to come.    Like many native Palo Altans, I am acutely aware of how much the city has changed over the years. It's been frustrating  at times, especially as traffic has slowed to a crawl along many major arteries. As a former resident of Old Palo Alto, I  also know how easy it is to pin blame for changes that are much bigger than our town and our neighborhood on a single,  identifiable threat ‐ the modest expansion of this incredible school. But the truth is, the traffic and congestion problems  that plagued Palo Alto before COVID are attributable to the dizzying rise of the technology industry in our community,  not the day‐to‐day operations of a small girl's school. Nor can they be solved by blocking this common‐sense, much‐ needed plan to modernize Castilleja; in truth, the parking garage will take cars off residential streets. I implore you to  look beyond the fears and misconceptions of a few neighbors, and support a plan that serves our community and our  world ‐‐ especially at this critical time for empowering women's voices worldwide.    Thank you so much,  Evelyn Danforth  Stanford Law '20 / Stanford '12 / Castilleja '08 / Walter Hays '00    ‐‐   Evelyn Danforth   (650) 704‐6168  12 Baumb, Nelly From:Parag Patel <mr.parag@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:17 PM To:Parag Patel Subject:Writing in support of the Castilleja CUP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,   I am writing in support of the Castilleja CUP.  Please think deeply and clearly about these points.       25 students with no new traffic.  That is what we are talking about.   Castilleja wants to earn the right to enroll up to 540 students, but they can only do that if they can start with 25 and succeed to have no new traffic.     This isn’t going to increase density or intensity.   This is a gradual enrollment through which the school earns the right to grow more by having NO NEW CARS.    Study the conditions of approval and the data in the EIR. This is not unfettered growth. This is thoughtful evolution that will improve conditions in the neighborhood. Your PTC voted to recommend it to be certified. This should be a straightforward process for an exhaustive document,     Underground parking is the most significant improvement. Neighbors asked for it, and now they are eagerly awaiting its approval. Of course they want to see street parking move below ground! If only other organizations were willing to make this investment in their neighborhoods.     Parking is required no matter what. It will be above ground or below. City planning tools and precedent support underground because it is environmentally superior.     It is time to certify the EIR and use the material within it to approve this project and the underground parking.     Thank you,  Parag Patel  13 Baumb, Nelly From:Douglas Charles Kerr <douglask@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:16 PM To:Council, City; Stone, Greer; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick Subject:Castilleja Decision CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello, It is time to make a decision in favor of Castilleja's plan. It will improve the neighborhood AND educate more young women. Please stop listening to a vocal few who have spread misinformation. Please listen to facts; we have an EIR for a reason. It is time to be decisive and move forward. I am a neighbor on Churchill Ave. Thank you. Douglas Kerr 235 Churchill Ave   14 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne-Marie Macrae <annemariemacrae@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 7:31 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi, I am a parent of a former Castilleja student and am aware of the decisions being discussed. In my experience Castilleja School was incredibly concerned to be a good neighbor and I invite you to kindly take this into account. Thank you Anne-Marie Anne-Marie Macrae Home Tel 650 565 8513 Mobile 650 799 7850 15 Baumb, Nelly From:Kate Shrout <kate.shrout@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 7:17 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja School - Support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi City Council,     My husband and I own 127 Rinconada Avenue and support Castilleja.  Although we do not have children, we value the  top‐notch education that Casti provides to future women leaders and support the school's current initiatives.      Best,    Kate  16 Baumb, Nelly From:Sudhanshu Priyadarshi <sspriyadarshi@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 5:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja's new CUP and master plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,     In advance of your upcoming discussion on March 29th, we would like to request you to approve Castilleja's new CUP and master plan since this will improve the neighborhood and Palo Alto by:   Removing parked cars from the neighborhood streets   Increasing green space   Improving the compatibility of the campus architecture with the neighborhood   Reducing environmental impact on City of Palo Alto and the demands on the City of Palo Alto's infrastructure - stormwater system, power grid, gas supply  By approving the new plans, you are also helping educate more young women who are motivated to make a difference in Palo Alto and beyond.    Best,   Sudhanshu Priyadarshi  410 Marion Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301    17 Baumb, Nelly From:Leif King <leifking1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 5:46 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,     As a resident and homeowner in Old Palo Alto for 14 years, most of which spent within a block of Castilleja, I am  writing in support of Castilleja's new CUP and masterplan.    The changes proposed by Castilleja will improve the neighborhood by reducing traffic and cars parking on the street, and  by beautifying the buildings facing out toward the neighborhood.      I do not have a student at Castilleja or any other affiliation with the school.  But I do value quality education, and believe  that Castilleja provides a unique resource to girls in our community.  This privately‐funded project will benefit Palo Alto  greatly, both from the pure physical building perspective as well as the greater mission that the school serves.    The lengths to which a handful of my neighbors, who collectively represent a very small but vocal minority of opinion in  Old Palo Alto, have gone to block this project, is disheartening.  Their delay tactics have succeeded to date in pushing the  project back by years, and delaying the benefits for the girls who attend the school and the community as a whole.  I  hope that the City Council will act in the best interests of the community and approve this project without further delay.    Warm regards,  Leif King  18 Baumb, Nelly From:Jin Jennifer Lee <jinlee90292@msn.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 4:50 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Support of Castilleja School's proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    I am writing to express my support of Castilleja School's proposal to modernize campus and add 25 more students to the upper school without adding any traffic. I know that the school CAN EARN the ability to add more than 25 students as long as traffic decreases from current levels. But I appreciate that the school is starting with only 25 to make sure that the TDM measures are effective. I am grateful that Castilleja's plan moves car below ground to --comply with the Comprehensive Plan --follow the guidance of the EIR --add green space by reducing surface parking --increase safety on the bike boulevard by removing  car doors that open and close along the edges  cars that cut toward the curb to park  cars that cross the flow of bikes It is time to certify the EIR, as the PTC suggested after assessing that is what the most thorough study in the history of the city, and approve the underground parking because it improves conditions in the neighborhood. I am a voter in Palo Alto, and I hope that you will take my voice into account as you assess the merits of this project. Palo Alto should be known for supporting schools. All schools. It would be a shame to deny a project with no impacts.    Sincerely,    Jennifer Lee       19 Baumb, Nelly From:Adrienne Lee <adrienneleeod@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 4:49 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja School Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello Palo Alto City Council Members,  As a 21 year Palo Alto (near  Embarcadero Road) resident, 6th generation Californian, lifelong Bay Area resident, health  professional , employer, woman, and Mother, I would like to offer my view of the Castilleja project and my wishes for  our hometown.  With my home being situated very near Embarcadero Road, I have keen sense of the traffic pattern and changes over  my almost 21 years here.  Although the speed limit is sensible 25 mph, it is mostly observed by drivers for intra‐city trips  rather than from 101 to El Camino Real who speed to the stop signs making it difficult to enter the road. This real  frustration of many people in Palo Alto cannot be blamed on a few dozen cars attributed to any increased enrollment.    During Covid (school and tech  at home!!)   shutdown  I have observed that the heavy traffic REMAINS present at 8 AM  and 4 pm on Embarcadero Road. The major culprit of this traffic: cars is Stanford Univ and workers coming into PA. I  would appreciate more diversion of through traffic via Oregon expressway.    My fairly long residency in the Bay Area from birth in San Jose to present, I have witnessed a massive increase in  population growth of this valley.  Everyone across the valley must accept the changes that come with growth : increase costs of housing, more people ,  more cars, bigger enrollment in schools, larger schools and increased community diversity .  Some folks are not  accepting of these changes and would use any means ($$) to stop progress and change.    Castilleja school is an excellent neighbor. Urging the pick up and drop off card to Never park in front of the neighbor  houses. If u live near a PAUSD school, much more car parking, traffic, intrusion occurs ... especially in the last 20 years..  everyone is acutely aware of our public schools swelling in numbers.. We residents deal with it .. accept and don’t  whine..    As a professional, I see income disparity persisting among all types of professions and possibly affecting my own . Most  optometry graduates are now women.. while coincidentally the major insurance companies dropping reimbursements  year after year! Hence, The US bureau of Statistics shows a decline in earnings of Californian optometrists. I believe  gender is playing a huge roll in this problem. Even in Tech,  I have seen women simply accept lower pay and not make  waves for fear of job loss. My friends did not  get stock equity when men would receive  it.  I think this is a ubiquitous  problem in our society. Nurturing  Self esteem and a strong voice is a priority at an all women’s education institute like  Casti. Starting at the tender 6th grade level, I believe their goal of educating women leaders a valorous and essential  priority in our society. we have a long way to go for true equity in all areas of American life. It saddens me to see Mill’s  college disappear and I see it as a victim of that persistent pay and other inequities of the sexes. We must support Casti!    As a mom of a Paly graduate and a 6th grader attending Castilleja School, I see the difference and it is wonderful. Each  child has unique talents and needs. I think Castilleja School strives to provided a special environment  for girls that no  other school can do. I wish more schools existed like this one. Perhaps the PAUSD could start the first , girls‐ only middle  and high school campus? It would be justified and should be kept in place .....until we have full equity in work, income,  and leadership roles in our society.  20 Please support Castilleja School. They are essential . They are responsive and they care about this community .  Thank you for  your service to Palo Alto.  Adrienne Lee        Thank you for your servic    Sent from my iPhone  21 Baumb, Nelly From:Ming Mao <ming.m.mao@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 4:34 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:To Support Castilleja's new CUP and masterplan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Councils,     I'm part of Castilleja's community. I'd like to ask you to support Castilleja's new CUP and master plan because it will improve the neighborhood and Palo Alto by reducing traffic and improving the compatibility of the campus architecture with the neighborhood.    Thanks!  Ming Mao  22 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy Bischoff <nancykanebischoff@icloud.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 4:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja rejuvenation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    As a nearby neighbor of Castilleja, I wholeheartedly support the proposed renovations including the underground  garage.  This project by the school will have no negative impact on the neighborhood.  In fact, having a school of this quality adds  value to every house, and as with everything in life, it must continue to improve.  Life does not stand still. How fortunate  Old Palo Alto is to have a school of this caliber willing to make adjustments benefiting the neighborhood‐ removing cars  from the streets, adding hundreds of trees.  Please vote Yes, full steam ahead.  Nancy Bischoff  1300 Waverley St  Palo Alto  23 Baumb, Nelly From:Diane Morin <dianejn.morin@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 4:21 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja should be allowed to have an underground parking lot and to modernize. A handful of dissidents should not block the attempt streamline traffic and modernize education. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear  Esteemed Palo Alto City Council Members:       I write you in support of the  modernization of Castilleja School and of its request for an underground parking lot.  I  respectfully ask that you allow the school to modernize  the campus as well as to allow for underground parking.    Shortly after my daughter was born, I moved to a rental, an ADU within a block of Castilleja (half a block west on the 100  block of Melville).    I lived in that rental, behind a residence on Melville street, for approximately six years before  moving to my current (owned) residence in South Gate, within walking distance of Palo Alto High School.    My memories were that even then, 22 years ago, when I lived within a half block of Castilleja there was no problem with  parking.  This was at a time when the school apparently was over‐enrolled.  The noise from the youngsters at the school  was minimal even when they had  “events”.   It was a pleasure to have such a renown, vibrant educational institution for  girls near me.   Above all, I never… not  once….recall being upset because someone was parking in front of the lot where  I lived.  At that time, not never (not once) did I hear neighbors complain about the noise or the parking with one  exception, i.e. friends of mine complained who had a home literally right across from the Castilleja side entrance, i.e. the  one between their pool and the parking lot that is visible on Emerson street.     As an aside, I recall that there were multiple homes around Castilleja owned by someone who rented to college  students.  They were packed with cars and poorly maintained.  These were right next to Castilleja.  I never heard of  compaints about those houses or students.    I distinctly remember walking on Castilleja Campus with my child in a stroller when she was a toddler and watching girls  play basketball.  (Until more recently, there was no fear of retribution by neighbors and the campus was open to  all)  and we, as neighbors were allowed and  felt free to use the school campus as an enclosed, safe park.    With my little girl in the stroller, I was so moved by seeing girls in the Castilleja gym , having fun in their own safe space,  with no worries except to play intensely, that I became emotional, cried and hoped my daughter would one day be able  to attend.  She did, in Ninth Grade,  and had an extraordinarily happy 4 years within 5 blocks of our home.  She could  ride to the school on her bicycle, passing a huge public high school (Palo Alto High School)  on the way.  Castilleja was  our neighborhood school, that just happened to extend financial help to me, a single mother and to be an all girls school. Amazing school.      I now live in South Gate  (a quiet residential neighborhood which I love and that is right next to PALY.  I note that due to  the over parking by high school students we needed to get a PPP designation.  Until we did, there was constant traffic  from the kids going in and out of PALY.  No one, to my knowledge, suggested that PALY  had to cut back attempts to  modernize or enrollment despite the disturbance to my neighborhood.  Why? Because we chose to live in this  neighborhood.  Because we assume students can go in and out of Churchill Street as they do at Castilleja.  Because the  education of our kids is paramount and the community recognizes that the discomfort of a handful of residents should  24 not lead to the imposition of rules meant to preserve the status quo per se.  The same should apply to Castilleja.   In  reviewing Castilleja’s request for an underground parking lot and modernization of its campus I respectfully submit to  you  the following:    1.  Common sense suggests that the addition of a parking lot will get cars off neighborhood streets, reduce traffic and  reduce noise in the residential neighborhood.  All the noise from the handful of neighbors around the school, who are  acting largely in their own self interest as opposed to the common good for the city and girls in the expanded geographic  area,  does not undermine common sense.    2.  Castilleja has committed increasing green space, increasing the tree canopy, reducing events, reducing the  environmental impact on the City of Palo Alto and reducing its demands on the city’s power infrastructure (stormwater  system, power grid and gas supply)— this is good, and should be supported by the City despite the complaints of the  immediate neighbors (of which I sue to be one).    3.  Educating more young women who are from many differing cultures but oriented towards working towards the  common good is great and should be applauded and not undermined,       4.  The school proposal has no negative impacts.        City Council should relay on facts and not self‐interested complaints and unsupported allegations.  I expect no less of my  City Council.      Please recall that Castilleja has been in our community for over one hundred years and treat this educational community  with the respect it deserves.  I ask that you approve Castilleja School’s proposal to modernize the campus and its request for underground parking lot.    Regards,       Diane Morin  dianejn.morin@gmail.com        25 Baumb, Nelly From:Heidi Hopper <hhopper@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 3:58 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council of Palo Alto,     Please listen to your city staff, the EIR, ARB and PTC and approve the Castilleja project. The facts give you all the reasons  you need to approve it. This is an amazing project that has no negative impacts (as explained in the EIR) and is an  environmentally sustainable project that will significantly improve the look and feel of the neighborhood while  educating future women leaders.     The underground parking facility is far superior to an at grade parking lot and should be allowed without adding to the  FAR for the project. Underground parking is far better for the neighborhood than surface parking. The choice is not  between underground and remote parking; the choice is between underground and surface parking. Who in their right  mind would rather look at a surface parking lot along Emerson than a garage exit that's blended into landscaping? The  City Council needs to look past the inconvenience of the underground garage's construction and think about the long  term and about what is best for Palo Alto and the neighborhood.    Also, please approve the increase in enrollment as proposed to allow more girls this valuable education. With the  limitations set in the CUP, there will be no new traffic related to these students. Support the project and support  women's education in Palo Alto.    Thank you for your consideration!  Heidi Hopper  Matadero Ave., Palo Alto  26 Baumb, Nelly From:Annie Turner <arturner2012@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 3:53 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Stone, Greer; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Council, City Cc:Cameron Turner Subject:Castilleja support CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello City Council members,    As neighbors to Castilleja, we want to express our strong support for an underground parking garage.  From an  aesthetics perspective, the benefits of extra green space in lieu of a surface parking lot is obvious!  Additionally, it will  help reduce the congestion on neighborhood streets and street parking.  We believe that this is in the long‐term best  interest of the neighborhood and the school.    Please make the sensible decision in allowing Castilleja to move forward with their project.    Thank you,  Annie and Cameron Turner  1027 Emerson St  27 Baumb, Nelly From:Trisha Suvari <trishasuvari@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 3:52 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Castilleja Renovation Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Councilmembers,   I want to talk about the public benefits of Castilleja School’s proposal. 1. They will educate more girls with FEWER car trips. 2. The sustainable campus uses no fossil fuels and runs on zero-net energy. 3. The plan removes 12 trees, adds 103 healthy ones, and retains 158 current trees.   ON EDUCATING MORE GIRLS (with FEWER TRIPS THAN ARE PERMITTED NOW) 1. Some of those girls will come from Palo Alto, so immediately your friends and neighbors will benefit. 2. We know that zip codes determine and limit opportunities for children who deserve more. Everyone benefits from educational equity. 3. Women have lost ground in the workforce due to the pandemic. We need to invest in their futures.   ON A SUSTAINABLE CAMPUS 1. This will become the most sustainable building in Palo Alto. 2. This is the future of redevelopment and rebuilding and serves Palo Alto’s climate change goals. 3. Water systems will reduce usage and plantings are drought resistance.   ON INCREASING TREES 1. THERE WILL BE MORE TREES BY OVER 50%. 2. The EIR and the city staff support this plan. 3. This is a plan for the future to ensure that greenspace increases with drought-resistant trees.   These are just a few of the public benefits They are outlined and supported in the EIR and the Comprehensive Plan. Please rely on the city planning tools to guide your decision.   Sincerely, Trisha Suvari 306 Iris Way  28 Baumb, Nelly From:Bobject <bobject@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 3:51 PM To:lison.cormack@cityofpaloalto.org; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Support Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear county counsil,    As a Palo Alto resident, I am writing to express my support for Castilleja School’s expansion project.    The Castilleja has been a pride of Palo Alto for nurturing woman’s education. I see the conflict between Palo Alto  community and school but I believe the school has resolved many issues and neighborhood concerns. I hope the council  can approve the project.    Regards,  Bosung Kim      701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/05/ 202 1 Document dates: 03/10/2021 – 03/24/2021 Set 5 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 29 Baumb, Nelly From:Libby Heimark <libby@hgroup.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 3:39 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members     I am quite distressed that you appear unable to hear the neighborhood voices that are thoughtful and quiet on the  Castilleja issues over the oh so many years.  So I am going to write my second letter in the last year with the hope of garnering your attention and hoping that I can  urge you to vote yes on the Castilleja CUP.  Boldly stated, I do not understand why the Council appears to be aligning with the Palo Alto neighbors that have made it  their mission to find any means to stand in the way of this approval.  Castilleja is a 100 year plus educational institution  whose footprint firmly existed when most Palo Alto real estate owners purchased their existing homes.  All of the  residents who purchased homes near the school during the last 100 plus years should have had eyes‐wide open that  institutions existed in this neighborhood (both public and private and places of worship) when we all chose to purchase  our homes.  The real estate market takes into account that a school is nearby when pricing home purchases and often  there is a discount if the home faces the a non residential building like a school.  We were well aware that an  independent school was in our vicinity; and contrary to popular assumptions, we happen to like the voices of children  and activities and find it a sign of a thriving community.  Yes Palo Alto has changed since we purchased out home in  1997;  the change has impacted the traffic, the noise and parking but that is not the School’s fault alone. But we believe  as homeowners the we benefit much more than we are challenged by these changes over time.   On one thing we all  should be able to agree; time does not stand still, ever and neighborhoods change.    The last five years the School has taken traffic off the streets by managing ridership and parking and has lessened their  imprint by pulling back on school activities and events; the public schools in our neighborhoods have had less  restrictive “rules” of which to contend;  it would never occur to me to complain about the daily tempo of schools.  As  community members, we are well aware that there was an unauthorized increase of enrollment during the transition  from one Head of School Joan Lonegren in 2011 to the current Head of School Nanci Kauffman. BUT Castilleja  acknowledged their guilt, and paid their fines under Kauffman’s leadership.   In spite of their admission of guilt and  restitution, there are a group of neighbors who continue to want to punish them forever under the Preserve  Neighborhood Quality of Life Now.  As City Council members, you are neighbors as well.  As such,  I ask if you do  not find  it peculiar that we have residential  neighbors who spend their days and nights documenting the ins and outs of the  school’s life on campus? I was horrified to hear at the Palo Alto Online forum last week that there are individuals for the  PNQLN group that shared how consumed  their "Castilleja watch” has been, logging lights that go on in classrooms on  weekends and nights, documenting numbers of cars in and out on a daily basis and are absorbed by reading planning  documents and enacting group pressure techniques to the City’s administrative arms by researching microfiche with  notes to find a way to “stop” the project as it entered its final submission. It feels like an obsession and there seems to  be no intention of burying the sword so‐to‐speak.     The garage vs basement issue as a discoverable item recently revealed that the staff of the Architectural Review Board  made a misguided judgment call on equating basement with garage and citing the rules accordingly.  It is they who  interpreted the language incorrectly, not Castilleja architects nor Board.  Nevertheless the School appears to be willing  to accommodate less square footage in order to meet the City and PNQLN demands. This error on the CIty’s part has  energized a fight to redraw the plans without the necessary lower level to take noise and parking and louder activities  30 underground. And this was a demand by this same group of PNQLN back when the project was shared with the  neighborhood.  This change of requirements, now feels punitive or dare I say a bit of a gotcha  to attempt to kill the  project once and for all.  Could the planting of 100 new trees to the canopy really not balance the loss of  two heritage  oaks newly designated as precious by the former (not the current) City arborist?     Forgive me but we quiet neighborhood supporters of the School whose children did not attend the school are residents  and voters too.  And it feels fair to state that at some point the indecision and tentative punitive approach by the nearby  residential group is worn by the City Council members themselves if they choose to reject the CUP again.  I really make a  life choice to try never to walk in others shoes but in this case after so many years, shouldn’t you as Council members  want to spend your precious Council time in more productive pursuits for our community?  If the project CUP fits the  planning commission requirements, why would you choose to stand in its way to move forward?   The School has  already lost precious time in 21st century  programming and facility needs not to mention the enormous expenditures  that have been made to fit the changeable criteria.    A theme throughout the many years of yard signs and debate has centered around “trust” of the School.  During the  time of the enrollment debacle that description was fair.   Now there is the issue of  “trust”  of the intentions of the  PNQLN  that could be called into question.  Only you and the Planning Commission can move us all forward from this  unbalanced turn of events.  Whatever the decision, you will bear the burden as you each warm the seats and now have  the important weight of the vote.  Please enter the process of deciding please also pay attention to the quiet voices of  constituents who do believe that there is harm in keeping this project from proceeding.    We are only one homeowner family of many.  The health of our neighborhood rests in your votes as does the  community spirit to tackle larger problems that face our community.  Please do so and let our City move on to other  issues that far outweigh this singular issue.   Please lead us through to the more pressing issues which face our City.  One  party in this conflict has compromised many times over the years and the project is better for it.   Now the fighting must  end and the City must move forward, please.    Respectfully submitted.    Libby Heimark  31 Baumb, Nelly From:Adam Tachner <atachner@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 3:16 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:message in support of Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Greetings all,     We're writing in support of Castilleja's new CUP and masterplan, which will improve the surrounding neighborhood and  Palo Alto by reducing noise, increasing the tree canopy by adding over one hundred new trees and ‐ most importantly ‐  reducing traffic and parked cars in the area, all while establishing strict consequences for non‐compliance.      We see zero downside to this proposal and expect the City Council to rely on the facts before them to certify the  Environmental Impact Report and approve this project.     Thanks so much,    ‐Adam & Christine Tachner   Palo Alto residents (970 Matadero Ave.)  32 Baumb, Nelly From:Laura Stark <laura.s.stark@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 2:53 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:In support of Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,     I am writing again in support of Castilleja's campus modernization plan and increase to their upper school  enrollment.  Their current proposal has been determined to have no negative impacts and, in fact, has many benefits  including getting parked cars off of neighborhood streets,  increasing green space and reducing traffic.    I encourage you to vote yes and support the school's mission to educate more young women who are motivated to  make a difference in our community and beyond.    Please support Castilleja by certifying the Environmental Impact Report and approving their project.  Thank you.    Regards,  Laura  (Parent of a Castilleja senior and Palo Alto High School Sophomore)    ‐‐   Laura Stark  645 Hale St. Palo Alto, CA  94301  33 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathy Burch <kburch777@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 2:34 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Support Castilleja Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please, please, please bring this long and painful journey to an end by voting to support Castilleja School's project. Many  of Castilleja's most vocal opponents ‐‐ those living in direct proximity to the school ‐‐ have said for YEARS that they do  not want cars parking in the neighborhood. Castilleja then said they would build (at great expense to the school) an  underground garage that would take a large number of cars off the streets surrounding the school. What happens next?  Of course, the neighbors scream NO UNDERGROUND GARAGE. This is ludicrous. The amount of time and resources the  school has spent over the past years trying to meet the most vocal and negative neighbors' demands is a travesty. Please  do not let the NIMBYs win. Castilleja is a Palo Alto treasure, and deserves its chance to prove they can make this work  for all concerned, including the City of Palo Alto.      Kathy Burch  777 Marion Avenue  Palo Alto  34 Baumb, Nelly From:Simone Otus Coxe <simone@shv.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 2:33 PM To:Cormack, Alison; Tom DuBois; Filseth, Eric (external); Lydia Kou; Tanaka, Greg; Pat Burt; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Supporting Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council:     We have lived across the street from Castilleja for 23 years, and also have participated in the ongoing discussion about  traffic, parking and the new building since my daughter started at Casti in the 6th grade in 2012.  She graduated this past  June.      The original goal back then was to reduce traffic and get parked cars off the street.  Casti's plan for an underground  garage, and its focus on managing traffic through car pools, drop off sites and other mitigations seemed completely on  target and appropriate.    Since then, they communicated, adjusted, and collaborated to create a school design with minimal impact on the  neighborhood, while continuing to add Palo Alto's vitality.  They seem to have overcome almost every hurdle put in their  place.  This last piece of discussion of whether to have an underground garage or not seems ironic, since one of the  original goals was to get the cars off the street and less visible even in a parking lot.     As I mentioned, we live across the street at the corner of Emerson and Kellogg and have never felt burdened by the  school or the traffic.      I think it is time to move on, and let the construction commence.      Sincerely,    Simone      35 Baumb, Nelly From:Bob Kocher <bobkocher37@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 2:24 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Support for Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  March 22, 2021      Dear Palo Alto City Council,     I am a neighbor of Castilleja and I am reaching out to express my support for their proposal, especially the underground parking.  Moving cars below ground both increases safety along the bike boulevard and is more beautiful than a parking lot.  Allowing  Castilleja to invest in our community and build a better facility is good for our Old Palo Alto neighborhood. We should all be rooting  for Castilleja to remain very successful since their vibrancy is also good for our neighborhood and city    I agree with Andie Reed and PNQL that Castilleja can earn the right to enroll more students. It has already done so by:      Complying with all scheduled    enrollment reductions from the city over the past 8 years.         Reducing traffic by    up to 31% over the past 8 years.          Submitting a CUP with    consequences; traffic must decrease while 25 students are added         The school will not    be able to add more than 25 students if traffic increases, and that is true for each subsequent 25 student group until 540 is  reached.       The school wants to grow by 25 students. This is not a drastic change. It is careful, thoughtful, measured, and it has already been  earned. The 540 number is an ending point, only if there is no increase in traffic. Begin with just 25, and Castilleja will need to make  the changes to TDM to succeed in keeping trips down.      Castilleja has already proven that it can comply with enrollment guidelines and reduce traffic. Castilleja has already done what PNQL  has asked so it makes no sense for PNQL to hold‐up this project any longer. It also seems clear that PNQL will not be satisfied with  any plan that Castilleja puts forward which is unfair.    It sure seems like now it is time to certify the EIR, which represents years of study. Your own PTC Chair described it as the best  environmental study in the history of the City. Your fellow city leaders have weighed in. Please respect their input and certify the EIR  now and move on to other issues for our city.   36   Sincerely,       Bob Kocher   Emerson Street, Palo Alto    37 Baumb, Nelly From:Liza Hausman <hausman.liza@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 2:23 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Writing in support Castilleja's new CUP and Masterplan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,     Castilleja's current proposal has no negative impacts on the neighborhood, and in fact will improve it.     From reducing noise and traffic, to increasing the tree canopy and green space, not to mention reducing the  environmental impact on the City of Palo Alto and it's infrastructure, the proposal is thoughtful and important to  educating and empowering more young women in Palo Alto and beyond.     It's time for the City Council to rely on the facts before them to certify the Environmental Impact Report and approve this project.    Thank you,  Liza Hausman  1795 Edgewood Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94303  38 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:In Support Castilleja Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Nit pick all you want over city codes, the council has the power to make an exception. It’s the right thing to do.    Tanking the Castilleja expansion plans becuase of R1 zoning technicalities sets the stage for an even bigger fight. If the  ACLU was willing to go after Palo Alto over Foothills Park, you think they are going to leave this one alone?    I know that a significant portion of Palo Alto residents want to hang on to R1 by hook or by crook. But as Roger  MacCarthy pointed out in his letter to the editor (PAWeekly, 3/12), R1 is explicitly discriminatory. It’s only a matter of  time before it is eliminated state, if not country, wide. Question is, are you all going to allow Castilleja to make the  changes it needs to make to function decently or are you going to hamstring it with technicalities, hobbling it for life.    I know that at least three of the council are beholden to “the residentialists.” Not wanting to go against this very vocal  and energetic contingent is understandable, but caving to obstructionists makes for bad government. Please approve  the plans.    Deborah Goldeen, 2130 Birch, 94306, 321‐7375  39 Baumb, Nelly From:Michelle de blank <michelledeblank@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:49 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members,    During your last meeting, it was not lost on me that before Castilleja’s proposal was discussed, you had a long conversation about the fact that there are not enough women in the Palo Alto Fire Department. As a city, you are about to spend thousands of dollars to try to achieve some gender equity among public servants.     Part of the solution, it was widely agreed, was that there wasn’t enough mentorship for young women. They didn’t have role models to look to, and therefore didn’t imagine that path for themselves.     Ultimately, you can plug in countless career paths where women are in the minority and realize that we need to take active steps to help girls see themselves in new roles. Really, we need to do everything we can to create opportunity for women.    You can do that by supporting Castilleja while benefiting the neighborhood by:   Moving cars below ground  Reducing traffic   Increasing opportunity for girls  Reducing events and noise and deliveries  Reducing environmental impacts  Adding over 100 healthy trees     Benefit the city and the neighborhood and young women and girls. Support educational equity and equity in every workplace. Support Castilleja.     Sincerely,    Michelle de Blank  1398 Forest Avenue    Sent from my iPhone  40 Baumb, Nelly From:Roy Maydan <roy.maydan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja New CUP Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers,     I am writing once again in support of approving Castilleja's plan to amend its CUP.  At this point in the process, I hope  that you can all see how this project is a net plus for Palo Alto.  It will allow the school to modernize its facilities while  reducing the environmental impact on the city.  It will increase the setbacks from the property line and lower the  rooflines which will improve the look for the neighborhood.  Finally, enrollment increase will not happen if traffic  increases, and the school has shown over the last decade that it is a model for traffic demand management.    Thank you for your attention and I look forward to this project proceeding after the next council meeting.    Roy Maydan  131 Byron Street  41 Baumb, Nelly From:Andy Lichtblau <alichtblau130@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:31 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja's CUP and New Master Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     I've lived on Lowell Ave between Alma and Emerson street for over a decade. Castilleja is only a few blocks and I very  much consider this school a jewel of the neighborhood. The school is tied to the rich history of Palo Alto's progressive  roots. What could be more progressive and such a moral‐imperative than a school originated to provide women with a  path to education, equality, and leadership?    As I consider Castilleja's new plans, two improvements to the neighborhood stand out to me.    1) Reducing traffic: Castilleja's new design/reconfiguration and the parking garage will reduce traffic through the  neighborhood in the morning and at their release time. In particular, the parking garage would get cars off the road  (which will also address some of the local concerns stated around the aesthetics of a school in a residential area) and in  my evaluation create a more consistent flow of traffic.     2) Renovating the campus consistent with the neighborhood: Old Palo Alto is going through a construction boom over  the past decade. Countless homes on my street and all around Old Palo Alto have been rebuilt and restored. The  architecture of our neighborhood is stunning and inspiring. Old Palo Alto is an "it" place to be because of all the  modernization and beautification.  It is such an attractive place to live. Personally, I would to see Castilleja work their  magic to modernize their campus to be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. The plans clearly align with the  feel of the neighborhood.    I am so proud to call Old Palo Alto my home and I am so thrilled to have the venerated all‐girls school as a neighbor. I am  in full support of their plans to modernize, particularly given the extensive work and commitment to work with us  neighbors over the past several years.    All the best,    Andy Lichtblau  130 Lowell Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94301          42 Baumb, Nelly From:Natalie Dean <natalie.m.dean@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:30 PM To:DuBois, Tom Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Member,    Today I am writing to express my support for Castilleja’s modernization plan that is nearing its final hearings. I have lived in Palo Alto my entire life and I went to Castilleja for high school. I can honestly say Castilleja was one of the best experiences of my life and it helped shape me into the confident woman I am today. After eight years of discussion, modifications, and evolution, the school’s demonstrated commitment to the community is one of the reasons I support this project.    Castilleja has laid out a plan that will reduce traffic and get parked cars off the neighborhood streets as well as allowing more young women to receive the high quality education that Castilleja has to offer.     It is time that the City Council looks at the facts and realizes that there are no negative impacts of this project and allows Castilleja to move forward.     Sincerely,  Natalie Dean (Class of 2017)  43 Baumb, Nelly From:Sujata Kadambi <busysuj@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:26 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja's new CUP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers,    I urge you to rely on the facts before you and certify the Environmental Impact Report and  approve Castilleja's CUP.    The underground parking structure will help get parked cars off the neighborhood streets and thereby reduce traffic  congestion. The shuttle services provided by the school have reduced traffic and vehicle noise.  The school has promised  to increase the green space making the building very environmentally friendly.    While taking care of all the requirements, Castilleja will continue with its primary objective to motivate young women to  make a difference. Please vote yes for Castilleja's CUP.  Thank you for your kind attention.    Sujata Kadambi  44 Baumb, Nelly From:Nadir Ali <nali06@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:17 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:In support of Castilleja's CUP and masterplan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,     I'm writing to voice my family's support for Castilleja's CUP and masterplan. Our daughter graduated Castilleja in 2019  and she had a wonderful experience at Castilleja. We as a family enjoyed our time there to see these young girls grow  into such independent and intelligent women that are given the skills and confidence to be future leaders in any field  they choose. I know our daughter was much better prepared for university and the world because of the educational  foundation and the resiliency Castilleja provided. Many more girls deserve that opportunity.    Castilleja has in my opinion gone above and beyond to modify the plans and incorporate feedback from the community  so that there are no negative impacts from their plan. This is only a plus for Palo Alto in terms of reducing noise, getting  parked cars off streets, increasing the tree canopy, reducing traffic and events, etc. The most important of course is that  it will be able to educate more young women who are motivated to make a difference in Palo Alto and the world. Please  support our girls and our community and approve this plan!    thank you,    Nadir Ali      45 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeri Hilleman <jeri1398@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:16 PM To:jeri1398@sbcglobal.net Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Member: I am writing in support of the Castilleja School proposal to modernize the campus, enroll more girls in the Upper School and improve conditions in the neighborhood. There are many benefits to this proposal for the neighborhood, including getting parked cars off the street, reducing noise and traffic and improving the tree canopy and green space. Castilleja is a wonderful citizen of the community and we are fortunate to have this high quality education with a strong commitment to excellence and diversity in our neighborhood. I am a resident of Crescent Park and my daughter attended the school. Please do approve this proposal for the benefit of our community. Sincerely, Jeri Hilleman 46 Baumb, Nelly From:Cassie Peters <cpeters@castilleja.org> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:15 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Support of Castilleja School CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Palo Alto City Council Members,     I am writing in support of Castilleja's proposed project and enrollment increasement. I believe it has been proven that  Castilleja's proposed project has no negative impacts on the neighborhood or community, and I'm asking that the Palo  Alto City Council approve this project as soon as possible.     Castilleja has made countless improvements to its plan to ensure that it only adds to the community. Some examples of  this include increasing green space, reducing the environmental impact, reducing traffic (if still baffles me that some  people would prefer an above‐ground garage when an underground garage is an option!), and of course educating more  amazing students to lead in our community, which they have already shown they can do so well. I sincerely hope you  will approve this project when you meet again on Monday.     Thank you so much for your effort to represent and lead this community. Thank you for thinking deeply about this  decision.    Sincerely,    Cassie Peters      ‐‐   Cassie Peters  She/her/hers Advancement Assistant  Assistant Athletic Director  Head Tennis Coach  Castilleja School 1310 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 P (650) 470-7829 E cpeters@castilleja.org www.castilleja.org Follow us on Instagram | Facebook | Twitter     Women Learning. Women Leading. 47 Baumb, Nelly From:Christina Gwin <my1gwinevere@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:05 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:in support of Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a neighbor on 235 Churchill, I write again in support of Castilleja. It is time to make a decision. After an exhaustive  EIR, it is time to confirm that Castilleja's project will actually improve the neighborhood and allow for more students to  have access to this education.     Thank you,  Christina Gwin  48 Baumb, Nelly From:nancytuck@aol.com Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 1:02 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members, I live at 113 Melville Avenue, and I support --the underground parking --enrolling more girls while REDUCING traffic The parking garage removes cars from surface parking lots, leaving a more green, peaceful and neighborhood feel to the school. This is a big deal to me, as I think it preserves my property value and the neighborhood appeal. I am very comfortable with the plan that continues the distributive drop-off and pick-up, as well as the option to turn left, right or go straight upon exiting the garage. My two neighbors who have spearheaded PNQL have had a voice during this 7 year marathon. They have been heard, and Castilleja has made multiple concessions and amendments to their plans in response. From the beginning, concerns about traffic have been the primary bone of contention. Castilleja has reduced its traffic by 31% in response, and there are clear and measurable restrictions in place preventing any increase in traffic in order to grow enrollment by just 25 girls per year. The shuttles, biking/walking, and carpool programs are working. And the manned traffic management at drop-off and pick-up has been extremely effective. If the Council agrees that these monitoring measurements are in place and effective, and that there exists the ability to stop enrollment increases if the traffic increases AT ALL, can we please approve this project and allow the school to move forward? There are hundreds of Palo Altans who support this school and appreciate its excellence and the choice for an all-female education. Even if a majority of the student population comes from surrounding communities. The situation is truly manageable, and is trivial when compared to the rail-crossing issue. Please approve this project and let's move on. Respectfully, Nancy Tuck 113 Melville Avenue 49 Baumb, Nelly From:priya chandrasekar <priya_chandrasekar@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 9:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:In support of Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council members, I support Castilleja’s proposal to add 25 more students a year without adding more traffic and to create underground parking. Honestly, I don’t understand why there is opposition to this proposal because it  Increases safety along the bike boulevard (See the EIR for this data)  Increases safety along the bike boulevard (Removing cars means car doors won’t open unexpectedly)  Increases safety along the bike boulevard (Cars won’t cut through the path of bikes to park on the street or to enter the underground parking)  Increases safety along the bike boulevard (Moving a share of the current traffic below ground) The school contributes to the public good by  BEING A SCHOOL. ALL SCHOOLS BENEFIT THE PUBLIC GOOD  Stewarding the environment with a sustainable campus update  Being a TDM leader that the entire city should follow  Adding over 100 trees  Educating young women to lead and build an equitable workforce.  Allowing students from under-resourced districts a choice about school The proposal benefits the neighborhood by  Increasing setbacks  Lowering rooflines  Adding over 100 trees  Reducing noise  Moving cars below ground  Reducing car trips This is a proposal that is supported widely in the city; hundreds and hundreds of voters want this approved. Please follow the facts and city planning tools that guide you to approve this excellent proposal that has no negative impacts. Thank you, Priya Chandrasekar Seneca st , Crescent park Neighborhood, 50 Baumb, Nelly From:Al Kenrick <al.kenrick@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 1:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    I am writing to encourage you to vote against the Castilleja expansion as currently presented. I am the father of four daughters who  strongly supports the education of women, but I also support sensible zoning in an R‐1 neighborhood.      The plan that includes the underground garage with all traffic routed out via Emerson then onto Embarcadero will create dangerous  and untenable traffic conditions on that corner.  I take this turn during rush hour and it is already dangerous. The additional traffic  from the Castilleja expansion combined with the proposed closing of the Churchill crossing will create a perilous log jam.  Although  they are not supposed to exit via Melville, when one route is clogged it is likely the students will exit via another dangerous  intersection from Melville to Alma, creating more risk from heavy traffic.    Past city councils had to address similar decisions with Palo Alto Medical Foundation’s desire to expand south of downtown and  Harker Military Academy’s growth in the Community Center neighborhood. Fortunately for our city, the council preserved our R‐1  neighborhoods and these institutions found new locations where they could grow and flourish.  It is natural that Castilleja wants to  expand in its existing location but it is the wrong choice for Palo Alto and for furthering its mission of educating women.     I support the school’s desire to modernize its current buildings and, if Castilleja can prove that its traffic mitigation efforts are  successful, would support higher student enrollment.  I am strongly against the underground garage and the scale of the proposed  expansion.    Thank you for your consideration and your service to the City of Palo Alto.    Regards,     Al Kenrick  134 Melville Avenue  52 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Ann Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 12:05 PM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed Subject:Castillelja Facts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: Facts: I am a 40 year neighbor of Castilleja School. Here are some facts regarding the school. 1. Traffic! Traffic is NOT an issue as the CUP application has stringent consequences if traffic increases. This is NOT the case for any other school in Palo Alto. 2. Supporting neighbors/voters! Castilleja pre-dates ALL neighbors by several decades. Castilleja has hosted innumerable neighborhood events to genuinely seek neighbor input on their modernization and enrollment plans. They have modified these plans extensively over the years based on feedback. The press highlights a small group of opposing neighbors giving scant coverage to the hundreds and hundreds of neighbors and voters who want the CUP approved in its entirety. Yet another example of the media not doing its job of balanced reporting and the tail wagging the dog. 3. Castilleja is a nationally ranked school! California's public schools are among the worst in the US, giving the state an overall ranking of 37 out of 51 states. That is a failing grade. Schools are a public good and Castilleja is undeniably superior. How lucky are we to have this institution in our back yard? Exceptional education is a foundational Palo Alto value. 4. Castilleja has NOT outgrown its location and it is NOT going to move! The modernization plan calls for no additional sq. ft. above ground and has a green and inspired design. This is NOT the case for any other school in Palo Alto. 5. Underground parking is highly desirable! The alternative to underground parking is surface level lots. Think about the ugly aesthetics of surface lots. I am a neighbor and I do NOT want surface level lots. 6. Castilleja is a treasured member of the neighborhood and town! School, churches, libraries, and community centers are crucial neighborhood elements. In summary, Castilleja’s new CUP and master plan will improve the neighborhood and Palo Alto by:  Getting parked cars off the neighborhood streets  Reducing noise  Reducing events  Increasing the tree canopy  Reducing peak car trips per day  Reducing total daily trips  Establishing strict consequences for non-compliance  Increasing setbacks and lowering rooflines 53  Increasing green space  Improving the compatibility of the campus architecture with the neighborhood  Reducing environmental impact on City of Palo Alto and the demands on the City of Palo Alto’s infrastructure - storm water system, electric grid, gas supply  Educating more young women who are motivated to make a difference in Palo Alto and beyond. Finally, ask yourself, are the demands being placed on this girl's school in line with other schools in Palo Alto? I would think that Council wants to be on the right side of supporting women's education in our town. Castilleja should have the opportunity to modernize as have Ohlone, Paly, Addison and Stanford. Shame on any Council member who suggests this treasured neighborhood institution and preeminent school should move or not be allowed to modernize and further its crucial mission in Palo Alto! Regards, Barbara Hazlett 54 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Rieder <barieder@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 4:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Underground Garage CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Dubois and City Council Members, After reading the SJMN and Palo Alto Online articles about the Castilleja expansion plan, I am urging you to oppose the proposed, underground garage. What precedent would this set, not only for this neighborhood, but also the entire city...to allow it be called a "basement"? I disagree with Ms Kauffman's claims to be "on the right side of history' even as the effort to manipulate the outcome continues. What are the Ethical Standards of Castilleja's Administration? I keep reading about huge gaps here when it comes to honesty and integrity. Actually, a reduction in the overall size of the school and capacity would be a better fit with the neighborhood along with maintaining parking for faculty and staff only at ground level. Thank you for your efforts on this contentious issue! Regards, Barbara A. Rieder 1728 Cowper Street Palo Alto, Ca.94301 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office preautomatic download of this picture from the Intern   Virus-free. www.avast.com   55 Baumb, Nelly From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 9:53 AM To:Minor, Beth Cc:Lydia Kou; Alison Cormack; Greg Tanaka; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tom DuBois; Pat Burt; Council, City; Greer Stone Subject:Re: How to evaluate Castilleja Thanks, Beth.  And congrats on your retirement and all the best in your next phase of life!    My mom, who graduated from Mills College, just informed me this women’s school is closing. Wow. Hope someone  takes this over to continue their great work advancing women’s education:    https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Mills‐College‐is‐closing‐to‐become‐an‐institute‐16033462.php    Chris        On Mar 18, 2021, at 9:43 AM, Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:    Hi Chris,  The Castilleja discussion will continue on 3/29 and not this Monday.    Thanks and stay healthy.      BETH MINOR  City Clerk  (650)329‐2379 | Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                         ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com>   Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2021 9:42 AM  To: Lydia Kou <lydiakou@gmail.com>; Alison Cormack <alisonlcormack@gmail.com>; Greg Tanaka  <greg@gregtanaka.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tom DuBois  <tomforcouncil@gmail.com>; Pat Burt <patburt11@gmail.com>; Council, City  <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>  Subject: How to evaluate Castilleja    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments  and clicking on links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,  56   As you meet this coming Monday to discuss Castilleja, I hope you will disregard the fact that it is a  worthy pursuit to advance women’s education (albeit less than one third from Palo Alto). Even though  this is a great endeavor, it should not cloud your decision making.    I don’t think the merits of the activity being conducted should heavily influence the approval process.  This reminds me of the Mercedes dealership building plans last year near the Baylands. Some members  of the PTC questioned whether another car dealership is appropriate or a good business plan given  where the future is going. In the end, the clear answer was the business model cannot influence the  decision.    Furthermore, one could make the argument that the Casti project, with underground “basement” (aka  parking garage), removal of historic trees, and significantly more single occupancy vehicle trips, is  terrible for the environment so you should deny this application.    This project needs to be evaluated based on whether or not it is consistent with our EXISTING  ordinances (zoning, trees, noise, etc.).  I think it is inappropriate to twist/contort our existing code and  pretend it is legal and appropriate when clearly it isn’t.  I believe the arguments of credible speakers that  the proposed plan violates existing tree ordinances (e.g. Dave Docktor testimony) and zoning violations  (Jeff Levinsky and others).    And please don’t change our ordinances on the fly to accommodate this project.  It sets a terrible  precedent and would erode public trust.    Thank you,  Chris Robell    57 Baumb, Nelly From:ROBERT HALLEWELL <hallewell@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 1:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja development - Opposed CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members,    As a resident of Community Center I want to state my opposition to the proposed expansion.    For several reasons it’s bad for the immediate neighborhood as well as for everyone car bound to and from Town &  Country, Stanford and 280.    I was glad to see that at the last council meeting at least some of the councillors seemed to be standing up for the  regulations.    Personally I find it more than frustrating to see the councillors and planning appear to be trying to help the school and  not enforcing their own regulations.    There are clearly some well organized Palo Altans that support this development (I understand there are about 100 Palo  Alto families with children at the school).    But in this case it is those who will be adversely affected that should be the priority because they are working with the  grain of the regulations whereas the school has historically and imo currently worked against this grain.    Currently the school has still not reduced the number of students back to the agreed limit, having broken this limit for 19  years.    sincerely, Robert Hallewell    1118 Harker Avenue  Palo Alto 94301  58 Baumb, Nelly From:Hank Sousa <thomashenrysousa@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 10:22 AM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Council members:     Just a quick note to thank you for taking into consideration many of our concerns regarding this project. Most of the  decisions flow from the enrollment number you come up with. This is a good time to reiterate our preference for 448  students. That allows the school an 8 percent increase in enrollment and supports 86 parking spaces which the school  currently has at grade. The proposed underground garage can be left out of the plans going forward once you ok the  modest enrollment increase. The neighbors can rest a little more easily once they know they are not facing a giant  excavation and concrete pour that would add 18 months to the project. Even Nanci K touched on satellite parking and  shuttling which are definitely the key to bringing in any increase in students and staff, although in the past it has been  spotty, with most students arriving by car. The new building can be reconfigured somewhat to keep the current parking  spaces. The school gets something, the neighbors maintain their health and welfare and an acceptable compromise has  been achieved.    Regards,  Hank Sousa  100 block of Melville Ave.  59 Baumb, Nelly From:Cecilia Willer <cecilia_willer@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 10:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comments on Monday evening meeting... Plans for Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council Members, I listened for a while to the meeting on Monday the 15th It is obvious that there are many open issues with this plan. I appreciate all your attention to detail and raising many issues with the analysis that was lacking. Thanks for bringing up the point that the quantity of bikes are going to become much more relevant and bikes on Bryant and even Embarcadero are going to continue to increase. E-bikes will be in the future as a mode of transportation and require much more diligence on the part of the city to keep everyone safe. I cannot imagine that the 75% of out-of-Palo Alto students will be bike riders; there will be more cars, train passengers, and satellite parking. And thanks for pointing out that the students are not going to respond honestly to a survey when they are breaking the school rules! The issue of the trees seems to be huge. I appreciated the question about the planning group being stricter versus trying to interpret the rules based on the situation. It seems like there needs to be much more adherence to the laws and rules that have been in place. If they are easily manipulated, then they clearly need to be tightened up. Thank you again for your digging in to get to the facts and ideally decide that much more vigilant, forward thinking analysis needs to occur. I personally feel that Castilleja would be better suited in a location outside of the neighborhood. However, if it must stay, like noted before, get the number to 415 students for at least a year or two to help build trust that they do adhere to the rules. Trust is earned not bought. When it is bought, it is at a huge cost to the community and the community falls apart. Please don't allow that to happen. Thanks, Cecilia Willer On Thursday, March 11, 2021, 08:55:27 PM PST, Cecilia Willer <cecilia_willer@yahoo.com> wrote: City Council Members, I have just listened to the Palo Alto Weekly/Online forum on Castilleja. It was an excellent forum. 60 It is extremely evident that Castilleja needs to earn trust and be held accountable. I feel it is unacceptable that you would even discuss a rebulid/expansion plan when Castilleja is not even compliant with their current student enrollment and hasn't been since 2010! That is 11 years. What do you anticipate happening with a newer larger building? Secondly, the issue of square footage needs to be addressed. As a homeowner, we continue to have our square footage measured when our home is assessed for refinancing. Why it is even a question to have a third party company go and measure the existing square footage? This would seem to be a standard for development unless that is only for R1 homes versus a school in an R1 neighborhood. Unless I am missing something here. Third, you are setting a president here. Clearly you see that Castilleja has deep pockets - perhaps from families attending the school - and has hired every resource possible. Yes, a private girl's school is wonderful to have; just like Bellarmine in San Jose is great as an all boys' school. The major difference is where the school is located. If it is vital that Castilleja be in Palo Alto, then having a capacity of 450 students should be the max and be strictly enforced. If the pedagogical needs are for larger sized grade capacity, a new location should be found. Castilleja is in a neighborhood on a 6 acre lot. There is not more than 6 acres available and it is R1. I hope and pray that you will do what is best for Palo Alto for years to come. If only 25% of the enrollment is from Palo Alto families, why is it vital to be in Palo Alto? Is it because Palo Alto is a well sought after city to live in or is it a well sought after city to attend a private all girls school? Who pays the taxes in the city? Please do what is right for the community. Please stop shifting the rules and allowing variances that significantly impact so many in Palo Alto. Embarcadero is already full of traffic even during this time of covid. Regards, Cecilia Willer 1270 Byron Street ...You have already taken away any opportunity for Palo Alto homeowners to go to Foothill Park/Preserve on the weekends. Please stop taking away so much from your taxpayers. Focus on what is needed most in Palo Alto, the priorities that have been identified. I doubt Castilleja is on the top of the priority list unless it is to complain about traffic and parking! 61 Baumb, Nelly From:Jennifer Carolan <jennifer@reachcapital.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:20 AM To:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:a note from a Palo Alto resident and teacher CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi All,    First, thank you for your service. I appreciate your effort and time on behalf of Palo Alto. I am a resident of Palo Alto, a former tenured teacher from PAUSD (JLS) and a parent of three. I'm writing in support of Castilleja's Master Plan. We live near Tennyson and Bryant and specifically bought our house due to its proximity to Castilleja where my daughter attends.     Ten years ago I founded an education technology fund and am often consulted by superintendents on edtech matters. As you know, the state of all of our schools are in a tenuous position due to COVID and teacher shortages. It is more important than ever to preserve and support our brick and mortar education institutions. The latest estimates show that between 10%-30% of secondary school kids are expected to remain remote post COVID (see HERE for NPR DATA and NYT piece will come out next week). Virtual schools are growing faster than ever and there has been an explosion of options for families who are opting out of traditional schooling. This is probably not surprising data to you given so many institutions are changing and evolving.     It is why it's essential we modernize our schools and enable them to thrive and compete in this new era. Wherever you fall on the private/public/virtual school spectrum, the reality is this: the educational environment has changed dramatically in the last year by nearly all metrics. Remote schooling is something that will exist post-pandemic and will be much larger than the charter school movement which has stabilized at about ~6% of school kids in the US. All schools (public and private) will lose students to remote schooling options and ultimately, this trend will weaken real estate demands driven by local schools. The time is now to invest in our city's schools (all of them) so they are relevant for students and families and continue to demonstrate that in-person schooling is a modern and healthy path for kids. Whatever you think of Castilleja, it is widely recognized as a national leader in pedagogy, curriculum and leadership. It's very presence draws families, like ours, to Palo Alto. Castilleja's national leadership is increasingly important but they must be allowed to grow with support from their community and civic leaders, and that support means more than you might think.     The new Castilleja plan goes above and beyond to minimize the impact on the neighborhood and increase green space. We would like to stay in this neighborhood as long as the community embraces Castilleja and all institutions of learning that we are so fortunate to have in Palo Alto. As Nelson Mandela said “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world". I hope we can continue the tradition of prioritizing education in Palo Alto.     If you have any questions or would like to follow-up, I would be happy to talk.    Warm regards,  62 Jennifer Carolan        ‐‐   Jennifer Carolan   www.reachcapital.com  (408) 460-9122  Asst: Maria Torres   Maria@reachcapital.com        1 Baumb, Nelly From:rob levitsky <roblevitsky@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 3:51 PM To:Council, City; Burt, Patrick; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; Cormack, Alison; Shikada, Ed Subject:Possible Castilleja Garage solution Attachments:0915am march19 2021 350 sherman garage.jpeg; 1215pm march19 2021 350 sherman garage.jpeg; 445pm march18 2021 350 sherman garage.jpeg; 445pm march18 2021 350 sherman inside3.jpeg; 445pm march18 2021 350 sherman inside1.jpeg; 445pm march18 2021 350 sherman inside 2.jpeg; 445pm march18 2021 sherman surface lot.jpeg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members: After visiting the new 6 Level, $50M+ parking garage at 350 Sherman, i was stunned at how empty it was at 4:45pm Thursday March 18: 597 spaces open (387 + 210) see first photo. So i went back twice this morning. At 09:15am, there were 605 spaces open (385 + 220), and at the supposedly busy lunch hour, at 12:15pm, there were 594 spaces open (381 + 213) see pictures 2 and 3. There were many cars in the surface street lots, which people seem to prefer, but whole floors of the parking structure had zero cars- pictures 4,5,6,7 As Castilleja is just 1 mile away, I see an opportunity to get some cars into your embarrassingly empty parking structure, and save the neighborhood around Castilleja from the very inappropriate construction of a giant underground parking garage, and save the planet from yet another non sustainable, non green, massively CO2 emitting project. Please consider this opportunity to park some of the Castilleja cars, and put some use to this expensive white elephant. Or somebody tell me why its a bad idea. I'm just trying to save our neighborhood from this monstrous, tree killing garage. This is not Cal Ave, or University Ave. Think how much you would like this garage right next to your house, and why on earth you would vote to approve a variance or some form of spot zoning to allow it. Its nuts . Thank you for seeing through the phony garage/basement nonsense that Planning has been promoting for the last 5 years, but there are other areas where Planning has had more than a thumb on the scale - like a willingness to effectively throw out the Tree Ordinance to whack Protected Oak #155 for a Below Grade Trash Enclosure and Killing or Maiming Protected Redwoods #115- 120 to cram in a few more underground Parking Spaces. Some Priorities! More on the trees in another email, this one is about the underground garage and using parking spaces at the near empty 350 Sherman structure. rob levitsky 1200 Emerson street • ~ •=a -~ ----~ --~ --= --~ ""' -=---"" -------··-~ ~-~ ~ -,....._ ~ = " - - - ---------• • • -- -• - -.. - • --- I -- --... f .. - -- - .. - ~ -- - - - - -- - -% ( .. , ' ~ . .. ._...;:-~~c~ - • • -.... • - • - - - - - • • • -• • -• .. • • -. • • • • • • • -• err • ..... • • • • •• • .. • ... • • -• --.•. • • .. .-4 • • • ;; .. ,>. -• • • • • -' • • ;. • "ol • • • • -• • • • • • ., -• • • -• t{f .i.,;. • ,. • • • '\f" •• -• _,_ • ~ • • • . ' • -• • • • ·--~·--______ ,,. ... _ ~ . Rn .. • - I -=--~ 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Sylvester <marysylvester@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 1:25 PM To:DuBois, Tom Cc:Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Burt, Patrick; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Project--Palo Alto Seeks a Fair and Transparent Process Attachments:Peninsula Schools 3.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members, Thank you for the amount of time and thought you've put into reviewing voluminous amounts of highly technical material, reports from staff and letters from the public as well as years of meetings with the public about Castilleja's proposed project. In this correspondence I will be commenting on the City Council's March 15, 2021 quasi-judicial hearing. While a number of excellent points were raised by Council Members about Castilleja's EIR, CUP and project application, I will be concentrating my comments on Vice Mayor Burt's questions and concerns about the project from that meeting. They fall into the following categories: 1. TDM and Off-Site Parking 2. Garage 3. Trees 4. Public Benefit and Mitgations As there has been a decades old issue over the school's veracity about over enrollment and their TDM program, I applaud Council for carefully questioning Castilleja and City staff about the school's project application to the City. Many of my comments raise the veracity issue and the need for independent, verifiable data about how Castilleja's students and staff arrive at campus and where they park? And I applaud Council for proposing a real estate survey to have accurate square footage numbers of the campus' buildings so accurate determinations can be made about the variance and garage square footage. Please note Council that the school's narrative has changed about the need for a parking garage. The need as expressed in the school's 2016 project application was for a garage for student and staff parking. However, during the Council's 3/15/21 meeting, Ms. Layendecker commented that the garage is for STAFF parking. This is new to the neighborhood. It speaks to both veracity and a shifting narrative. Is Castilleja now sensing that the Council is less than supportive of students driving to campus and is now changing the need for their request? My concerns are: 1. TDM and Offsite Parking A solid baseline of data has not been established by Castilleja about how many students and staff arrive to campus via: 3 (1) single occupancy vehicle (SOV); (2) public transportation and shuttling; and (3) non motorized transport. As Vice-Mayor Burt clearly pointed out in questioning EIR consultant, Ms Waugh, a student survey is insufficient to determine transportation utilization by students and parents. Further, data has not been supplied on the number of off-site parking spaces available at First Prebysterian Church and why that is not adequate for the school's staff needs? Rob Levinsky's recent memo to Council (3/20/21) provides ample evidence about the underutilized City parking facility at 275 Cambridge Ave. The facility can provide ample parking for students and staff while providing revenue to the City. Given Castilleja's 4 electric vans, students and staff can be picked up at the Cal Ave. train depot, the City's parking garage as well as the VMT bus stop at Cal Ave and El Camino and be dropped off at the campus? During the EIR process, when neighbors repeatedly requested that Castilleja and City staff as well as the EIR preparers study the possibilities of a more robust TDM program including shuttling and offsite parking, neighbors were repeatedly told this was not what the applicant requested. I appreciate the Council's openness to revisit these important TDM and parking considerations. 2. Underground Garage a) The Need Has Not Been Established A robust TDM program can provide ample transportation options for students and staff and obviate the need for an underground garage. Again, the school has not established a sufficient baseline need for a garage when numerous non-SOV options exist for students and staff. Given that the garage construction is estimated to take 18 + months and require thousands of truckloads of dirt to be hauled out, tons of concrete to be poured, many heavy construction vehicles, construction personnel all contributing to traffic volume, congestion, parking issues while the school continues to operate. Please think about the impact on neighbors, many of whom live here 24 x 7. And until, enrollment is established with staffing numbers solidified there is no current established need for a garage. b) Smaller Garage What significant issue would a smaller garage satisfy? There will still be loss of trees, years of unnecessary construction impacts and densification of the neighborhood. This can all be obviated if a robust parking program is established. Please note NO other Peninsula private school has felt the need for an underground garage when they decide to grow, they historically have added a second campus, off-site parking and a robust shuttling program (Attachment A). As often occurs with underground parking lots, when people are in a hurry and street drop off exists, to save time and hassle from cuing up, street drop off is utilized. And busy parents, caregivers and staff rushing to class, will be no different. b) Tree Destruction Not constructing the garage will result in mature and protected trees being saved. 4 Why would trees be unnecessarily destroyed for a highly polluting underground garage, whose need has not been established. c) Cars off the Street Students and staff can utilize a more robust TDM program and off-site parking to avoid street parking. A garage is NOT want neighbors want nor a precedent that many community members want. d) Counting Floor Area Given what an anomaly an underground garage is for a residential neighborhood, why if a garage is to be built, would the City not count square footage? What is the rationale for such an approach? And why limit it to Castilleja School? Would such an approach be utilized just to satisfy the school's desire to avoid making design modifications instead of demonstrating to the public and other applicants the importance of code compliant projects and that the City doesn't apply a double standard for the wealthy and politically well-connected. e) Grade Separation CEQA requires an EIR to adequately evaluate reasonably foreseeable impacts of future activities on a project (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15130, http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art20.html). The impacts of possible grade separation At Churchill on the Castilleja project were requested by neighbors but were not adequately studied in Castilleja's EIR. Please bear in mind that the closure of Churchill Road will have direct bearing on how students and staff access the Castilleja campus. Consequently, if Churchill is closed, drivers will utilize our narrow neighborhood streets to quickly access the school and Embarcadero Rd and avoid traffic backups on Alma and merging onto Embarcadero. 3. Trees Trees will be impacted both by a construction of the underground garage but also by the pool as Council member Burt wisely brought up, particularly Oak tree #89 whose trunk and root system can be deleteriously impacted by possible de-watering in construction of the pool as well as cables and trenching that will be done around it. If no garage is built at least 4 protected Oaks are saved (#89, #102, #122, and #157) as well as 6 protected Redwoods (#115-#121). 4. Public Benefits and Mitigations What public benefit exists for the community when a private school builds an underground garage? 10% more P.A. and EPA students? Depending on whether we use the school's legal enrollment, current over enrollment or requested enrollment, we may be looking at 10-15 additional students. Is this the type of public benefit that serves the best interests of Palo Alto? As Mayor DuBois stated on 3/15/21, given how busy many higher schoolers are locally with after school activities, Council can't assume that those Palo Alto/East Palo Alto students won't also be driving and adding to the community's traffic issues. Once the flood gates are open for underground garages for non-conforming uses in residential neighborhoods, how do you stop the momentum? No matter how narrowly crafted an ordinance/text change there is with Castilleja, it doesn't mean that other non-conforming uses in R-1 neighbors won't 5 also request an underground garage and work to show a public benefit. It could result in claims of favoritism to wealthy and politically well connected interests. And does the City want to support residential densification to support further growth of an elite institution? Thank you for the time and consideration you've given to reviewing this correspondence. Sincerely, Mary Sylvester 43-yr immediate neighbor of Castilleja School Private School Characteristics Peninsula Split Schools School Name Sites Grades Enrollment Pinewood 3: 2 Los Altos, 1 Palo Alto Middle-High 591 Keys 2 Palo Alto K-8th 315 Nueva 1 Hillsborough Middle 1 San Mateo High Crystal Springs 1 Belmont Middle 1 Hillsborough HIgh Middle 527 High 800 German International 3 Mountain View pre-K thru High Peninsula Single Site Middle & High Schools School Name Acreage Enrollment Students Per Acre Woodside Priory 51 385 8 Menlo School 40 795 26 Sacred Heart 62 615 19 Castilleja 6 426 (540 proposed) 71 (90 proposed) Robust Alternative Transportation Programs School Name Policy Notre Dame d'Amour (SJ) "No Driving" to school policy for students, parents, and staff. Public transit and off-site parking/dropoff required Harker (SJ) Shuttle Program: off-site "kiss & park" lots for pickup and drop off of students and staff. Shuttle covers intercampus transport 605 539 4 San JoseHarker 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Hank Sousa <thomashenrysousa@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 24, 2021 7:45 AM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja expansion Attachments:HankSousaKiss'nRide Photos.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Council members:    After attending the meeting via Ch 26 on March 15th, and reviewing the video of it, I want to share several thoughts  with you. In particular some of Council member Filseth's comments stuck with me.     For example, the school is coming up against constraints and may have to make difficult decisions soon. One of those is  about the underground garage or any parking facility on the campus. Since an underground parking garage seems to be  what Nanci K. wants to pursue let's look at a couple figures. Currently there are 86 spaces scattered around the campus.  The new buildings are supposed to be about the same square footage so it makes sense to configure them to retain  these spaces.  The proposed garage itself only adds 22 spaces, as the school plans to reduce parking on the surface.  The  ramps themselves take up a lot of usable parking area, so the garage could be avoided pretty easily.    As was mentioned in the meeting both shuttling and satellite parking are something the school already does, although  most of the girls who commute get dropped off. The logical step is to do more shuttling and make it a mandatory  program, agreed to in the Use Permit. This should help make the difficult choices easier.    The attached photo collage shows several examples of possible "kiss n' ride" spots (starting top left and going  clockwise):  1 Shoreline Athletic Fields   Rengstorff/Charleston/Garcia features a loop driveway and is a little east of 101  2 Sand Hill/Lawler Ranch Rd just west of 280   3 Baylands Athletic field Embarcadero/Geng just east of 101 (lots of room)  4 Lasuen where it dead ends at El Camino Real just south of University/Palm Dr. (close in but avoids Town &  Country mess)  5 Lord’s Grace Christian Church @San Antonio/Bayshore & 101 ( big parking lot)      Another alternative would be using the 6‐story public parking structure at 350 Sherman. Some students/employees  could park there for the day while others may choose to be dropped off there and picked up by Castilleja's shuttles.        Also, since the school does not want to split the campus because they want the 6th graders to still be able to mingle  with the upper class young women, which is the school's pedagogical choice, why not have another school in a nearby  location? Two 450 enrollment schools should satisfy the needs of parents who want this type of education for their girls  and allow the school to grow.      7 We neighbors don't want the school to move. We just want it to take a reasonable, neighbor‐friendly approach that  employs a modest increase in enrollment (to 448) and additional shuttling and ensure that no large parking facility  remains on the proposal's plans.    Sincerely,  Hank Sousa  100 block Melville Ave  - 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 24, 2021 8:47 AM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion Attachments:pg G.001,Castilleja10-22-20 Plans.jpg; Basic numbers everybody can agree on.docx; School Density 2019 chart.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members, Thanks very much for your hard work studying volumes of documentation and asking the right questions as you dig down into the Castilleja expansion project. The 3-15-21 meeting was very insightful for us neighbors and we appreciate your rigorous attention to all the moving parts. It was compelling to me to hear Council Member Kou speak up, a few hours in after much debate and discussion about trees and garages, to remind us all that this project exists in an R-1 district. Even if the school operates under a conditional use permit, it is still in a residential location, as Title 18 states, intended “to create, preserve, and enhance areas suitable for detached dwellings with a strong presence of nature … affording maximum privacy… facilities such as churches and schools should be limited…” Muni code is the neighbors’ only safeguard against the intrusion of large buildings and intense operations growing in our backyard. I understood Council Member Kou to make the point that the deliberation of an underground garage shouldn’t be about whether we can “craft” a way to allow it and not count it as square footage, which merely circumvents the point of the code, but whether it should be considered at all. The synagogue that has been suggested as a precedent has a garage that is actually under a building and got a ministerial variance for encroaching into a setback, so provides no guidance for Council. There is no precedent for what the school is asking for. The neighbors, which Ms. Kou acknowledges have undergone years of uncertainty, should be able to easily understand the proposal, and you, as the decision-makers, should know what the school is asking for: a. what is the actual build-out? The most recent plans show combined above grade and below grade proposed square footage of 194,000SF, compared to existing of 160,200SF (although that "existing SF" number needs to be re-evaluated). See page G.001 attached. b. additionally, there is a proposed underground garage of 32,500SF (but you have to search through the plans to page AA2-02 to find it). The plans contain no single page with all the pertinent numbers, so we supply one (see att’d “Basic Numbers Everyone Can Agree On"). That’s a total of 226,500SF of combined above and below grade build-out (floor area discussion aside) on a site of 268,765SF. The increase in activity around our homes would be significant. Each additional girl brings many others, parents, staff, support workers, volunteers; events ramp up and traffic gets only more concentrated. In the real world of lack of enforcement and the school's history with their agreements with the City, MMRPs and TDMs do not give us assurances. 9 See “School Density Chart” attached which compares students per acre of private and public schools in Palo Alto, to provide a comparison; density matters in a small, crowded R-1 neighborhood. You have the tough job of deciding when to draw the line, and rather than fit 10 lbs into a 5 lb box, to suggest that the school look at other ways to accommodate growth or continue to be the successful school it has been for 100 years by remaining compatible with the neighborhood. Please limit the growth of the school. Thank you, Andie Reed 100 block Melville PNQL 530-401-3809 Castilleja Expansion PNQL December 2020 Here are the important numbers that need to be considered all together, but do not appear on one page anywhere in the expansion plans or in Staff reports, which makes it difficult to understand What is the Square Footage of the Variance being requested? The school is re-evaluating existing square footage, as there were some errors in the original documentation; these numbers below are from the latest set of plans. Floor Area Ratio December 2020 Basic numbers from the Oct 22, 2020 plans prepared by the school: 1. The parcel size is 268,783 (top number on page G.001). 2. The proposed plans above-grade GFA is 113,667 (same page). 3. The existing (current) GFA is 116,297 per school. This number is questionable, because according to historical documents in 1999, 2006, and 2016 it was 99,800; there has been no building in the interim. 4. The allowed Floor Area Ratio (PAMC 18.12.040 Table 2) is .3028, which translates to 81,385 sq ft: 1st 5,000 sq ft @ .45 = 2,250 remaining sq ft @ .30 = 79,135 (268,783 - 5,000 = 263,783 x .30) 2,250 + 79,135 = 81,385 (see att’d 2006 CUP doc to confirm) 5. Therefore, the proposed GFA is 32,282 sq ft in excess of allowed GFA (in other words, proposed GFA is 32,282 higher than allowed GFA because 113,667 less 81,385 = 32,282). 6. 32,282 is 40% of 81,385 (32282/81385=.40); proposed GFA is 40% in excess of allowed GFA. This is the school’s request for variance. 7. The square footage of the underground garage is 32,480 sq ft (page AA2.02). Analysis - Why this matters: The school is asking for a 40% increase in GFA, using their definition of the garage as a basement. If the underground garage is an accessory facility (we all agree it is) and not a basement (which it appears not to be), then this number doubles. Add the garage sq ftg to the amount already over the allowed GFA and you have got not a 40% increase in GFA but an 80% increase (it goes from 32,282 to 64,762 sq ft over the allowed 81,385). PROJECT DATA I ~ 00 " ACltCI N«.-.aPMCEL HO •JC..'~ .. ,.. . .. ,, .... ,H» IM flhQ HOUK TO 'tl.MM41 .. .,, 114-.l 031 Dmw-ta HOUK. fOlll;f._.Mt OJ fOlM. ...... ..,.. ..,, ~I ....... _.. _,.. .. ~ LOT C(MJltf.GI AUowtO I voorm _,, .,_.._ 100,)74 Sfl t$.271&f 1 t.a,071 fit" ,. 110)0 f °' ('5 OIJL) rJ•~I C:!Sl"l tHM.e, ,d ~ ClQITWG flOQllt N11EA RAT10 O<J .....oa:D R.OOftNlf.EA AAJ10 ...... I .. ..,,. ..,... s:u:lOR: lilC'£A --· .. ,,•m• 6BDH a:AMli .. <UI> .. TOTAL SOUARI roorAoi l c...a.. L.OWCR 1.EWLI 160.210 Sf HOOllDG...aA~NtfA --· 111111!I11U. OtllDIS1i tifCl.l.US IEXl:S'no'40 ~ llADINGSI 9B.CI'\.' G~ ltl IU565FtStO*t TOTAL &OUARt roorAOC! 113..923 $F (IOCl. LOWl'.JI L£\llll "" 00 STOl<U J (I l.EVC. °' Bift,$1:9'£Hl) ,.,... Of COl<llllltJCllON l'Y1'E •• !-~AZl>J.RS All ____ _...... lONl111811'eT R·t (tCIOOOJ ........ ••Nm Dlll'M -•o -ZEJllCMBD ,, ... .... 1or1· --. ..,. 7Z tr u-r "N'T ... ,. -a -=-. ..,. 111'T U'T 'ifl IT r•.&· -••OGPQ -rrr ,,._. 'ifltr U4' - ACREAGE ENROLLMENT DENSITY Castilleja (current)6 434 72 Castilleja (allowed by CUP)6 415 69 Castilleja (proposed)6 540 90 Pinewood - Los Altos 7 300 43 Stratford - Palo Alto 10 482 48 Stratford - San Bruno 10 250 25 Palo Alto High School 44.2 1994 45 Gunn High School 49.7 1885 38 Menlo School 31 795 26 Hillbrook - Los Gatos 14 414 30 JLS Middle School 26.2 1205 46 Nueva School K-8 & HIgh School 36 713 20 Crystal Springs Middle & High School 10 323 32 Peninsula School 6 252 42 Sacred Heart 64 1186 19 Woodside Priory 51 385 8 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Menlo School Gunn High School Palo Alto High School Stra�ord, San Bruno Stra�ord, Palo Alto Pinewood, Los Altos Cas�lleja Current Allowed by CUP Cas�lleja Proposed Hillbrook, Los Gatos JLS Middle School Nueva School Crystal Springs Peninsula School Sacred Heart Woodside Priory Comparison of Student Per Acre Density - Local Public and Private Schools 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rob Levitsky <roblevitsky@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:04 PM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Stone, Greer; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia Subject:Staff and EIR consultant Tree Ordinance errors CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  There are serious problems with how the CIty Planning staff and EIR consultant have interpreted the tree ordinance.     I will try to clear the matter up, so that the trees are properly protected, or if chosen for removal, will be listed in a  Statement of Overriding Consideration (SOC).    At  the 4:48 mark in the recording of the March 15 meeting, Councilman   Greer Stone asks Planning to explain exactly which section of the Tree Ordinance is being cited to justify the removal of  Protected Oaks #140 and #155. located on opposite sides of the circle ( (see diagram).  I might add  that #155 is being removed to locate several underground Trash Bins.          Albert responds by saying that the trees are being removed by power of 8.10.050b 1 and 2.    so lets look at these definitions.    2     here is a photo of an Oak on Forest Ave where the basal flare (trunk) is touching the building footprint  (foundation).  This is NOT happening for tree #140 or #155, so 8.10.050b1 does not apply, and cant be used to remove  these Oaks.        So next we look at 8.10.050b2        Section B is conditional statement, just like in the following sentence:    If it's Raining, I will use my Umbrella.  3   "If its Raining" is the Antecedent  "I will use my umbrella" is the Consequent    In the case of 8.10.050b2, the Antecedent is    "If No Building Footprint Exists"   the definition of "Building Footprint" : the two dimensional configuration of an Existing Building's  perimeter boundaries  as measured on a horizontal plane at ground level.    Since there are currently at least 7 buildings on this R1 Lot, the Antecedent is False, so the  consequent is not invoked.  Yet both the EIR consultant, and the City Planning Staff have  misunderstood the sentence construction of 8.10.050B2 and erroneously  have mis‐applied the tree ordinance,  suggesting that Protected Oaks and  Redwoods can be cut anywhere, anytime, on an R1 Parcel.  This was  obviously NOT the intent of the Tree Ordinance.     Since the EIR is using this incorrect interpretation, the EIR should not be certified as currently written.    Trees #140 and #155 need to be respected, and built around.  Since  at least 4000 sq feet of proposed buildings need to be removed, i would suggest that sq footage should be removed  from around these and other trees, like perhaps tree #89, probably the most important tree visually on the West side of  Campus. Tree #89 is currently a "sure kill" with well over 35%  of its TPZ disturbed by Electrical conduits, Fire Water Pipes, 20 foot concrete slab to house a 2000 Amp electrical service,  an underground electrical "pull box", and the North side of the swimming pool.  And like almost every other protected  tree, the TPZ is grossly underdrawn.  The whole south side of the roots will be chopped for the swimming pool,  the depth of said pool is not drawn on any of the plans.  Since the pool  is supposed to be set 15 feet down, and the pool will have at least a 12 foot  excavation under the 15 foot set down, thats 27 feet under grade, and likely into the water table.  Any pumping of the  water table will remove whatever chance of water trees #89 and #87 had for survival.      4            A much bigger concrete pad and 2000 Amp transformer  are planned for next to tree #89, so it will look something like this tree on Alma street.       When it comes to the Underground garage, many protected Oaks and Redwoods could be saved, if about 10 parking  spaces were not dug out.  I ask ‐ How many parking spaces is a protected Oak or Redwood worth?  One? Two? Five? Ten?   Here is a photo that you cant find in your packet,  because i had to make it with transparencies to see the conflict between parking spaces and trees.  The arrows point to  parking spaces that should  5 certainly be removed, so these protected Oaks and Redwoods might live.            the           6 Baumb, Nelly From:pennyellson12@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:XCAP And South PA Rail Crossings CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council,     RE: XCAP and South PA Crossings    All of the XCAP concepts for Charleston and Meadow will greatly improve LOS and safety for motor vehicle drivers when  compared to a “no project” alternative. Most of them will fail to do the same for people who walk and ride bikes.  We  know that when LOS improves and road capacity is added, motor vehicle traffic volumes will rise both at the crossings  and on nearby streets—school commute routes.   This new traffic will be induced by added motor vehicle  capacity.  More cars will create additional risk for foot‐powered road users on these school commute routes. The  concepts offer few meaningful additional protections for peds/bikes to mitigate that additional risk. Crossing six lanes of  Alma Expressway becomes a glaring problem for foot‐powered road users. Why is this ignored by nearly every concept?    Abandoned Goal: Safe routes for people who walk and bike, separate from motor vehicles  Council’s adopted Connecting Palo Alto Evaluation Criteria include “clear, safe routes for pedestrians and cyclists  crossing the rail corridor, separate from motor vehicles.”  All of the crossings under consideration are important school  commute routes, so it is surprising that so little effort appears to have been expended toward separating foot‐powered  modes (bikes/peds) from car traffic across the multi‐lane expressway in south Palo Alto. Given the time and money  spent on this planning process, I view this as an opportunity missed.    As an attendee at a number of XCAP meetings, I can attest that pleas for better bike/ped facilities frequently were made  by XCAP members and members of the public.  Nonetheless, motor vehicle and train facilities were prioritized, designed  first, and bike/ped facilities were shoehorned in the limited space that was left. The designs we have been offered  reflect that approach.    The plans were not brought to PABAC nor the City School Traffic Safety Committee until late summer.  By that time, the  planning funds were nearly depleted.  No significant changes were possible.      Every one of these crossings is a designated school commute route where bike/ped safety and operations are important.  The lack of attention given to bike/ped safety in this design process is disappointing.    Parity, please. Uneven citywide distribution of bike/ped grade separated crossings    If a map of existing bike/ped grade separated crossings were included in the fact sheet maps,  it would show five existing  grade separated crossings north of Oregon Expressway and zero grade separated crossings (for any mode of  transportation) in Palo Alto south of Oregon Expressway. See the following visual of existing and possible rail crossing  locations from the 2013 CoPA Rail Corridor Study (Fig 4.2 below).   7   More even distribution of this type of facility is directed by Comp Plan policy. (Comp Plan Program T1.19.3—Increase the  number of east‐west pedestrian bicycle crossings across Alma Street and the Caltrain corridor, particularly south of  Oregon Expressway.) Why was a needed midtown crossing eliminated from the planning process—especially if bikes and  peds were not being separated from cars across Alma at the East Meadow and Charleston crossings?     I am struggling, as I am sure you are, to choose a “best option” from the current field of choices.      Only one XCAP concept for south PA track crossings makes any attempt to provide grade separated bike/ped  crossings of Alma expressway—even though separation from autos is directed in the Comp Plan and in the Council’s  approved evaluation criteria for XCAP. Hundreds of people of all ages cross this multi‐lane expressway on bike and on  foot next to the RR tracks daily. We cannot afford to get this wrong.    Setting the Stage  We need to implement south PA projects that have already been approved during this low traffic pandemic period—like  the Charleston/Arastradero Plan and Wilkie, Maybell and Park bike boulevards which all seem to be stuck.  Without  these projects finished,  grade seps will induce higher volumes of traffic with unmanaged speeds to school routes at the  south end of town.  Finishing these overdue projects now while traffic is so diminished should be prioritized.  Intersections that have the most injury accidents still have not been addressed, like the El Camino/Charleston‐ Arastradero intersection where bike lanes completely disappear on east and west school route approaches to the  intersection, forcing people who bike to merge with cars. High ped/bike injury collision numbers should be driving  decision‐making, because safety is a primary priority of Palo Alto’s City Charter and Comprehensive Plan Transportation  Element.  Relevant Bike/Ped Tier 1 Criteria: Most Important   East‐West connectivity: facilitate movement across the corridor for all modes of transportation   Ped/Bike circulation: provide clear and safe routes for pedestrians and bicyclists seeking to cross the rail  corridor, separate for automobile traffic    Relevant Bike/Ped Tier 2 Criteria: Also Important  8  Local access: maintain or improve access to neighborhoods, parks, schools and other destinations along the  corridor while reducing regional traffic on neighborhood streets    Whatever design we pick must have excellent bike/ped connectivity, safety, comfort.  Meadow and Charleston are  school commute corridors, a residential arterial and a collector street, connectors from thousands of south Palo Alto  homes to public schools, parks, our only south PA library, a shopping center, community centers as well as private  learning and recreation facilities and regional bike routes. Further, these would be are the only two grade separated  crossings south of Oregon Expressway in Palo Alto for all modes.    Here are just a few of the questions the renderings raised for me. Motor vehicle access is pretty clear. The analysis and  design work to date seems to prioritize motor vehicle LOS.  This is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan goals, policies  and programs (See list of these below).  Bike connectivity is even less clear than ped connectivity. Please see Walk & Roll  maps for the school sites these routes serve:    Fairmeadow https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72344  Hoover https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72348  JLS Middle School https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72349  Gunn High School https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72347    At a recent XCAP the meeting, the engineer mentioned that they might be able to take away some of the current  designed bike capacity. That is the opposite of what we need to do. Middle school and high school bike counts continue  to grow and adult commuters are also increasing in number.  (See secondary school bike counts.  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=61556.7&BlobID=74257 ) Plan for more  bicyclists.  Further, e‐bikes and e‐scooters are becoming increasingly popular as designs for these vehicles improves.  We  can expect more growth in coming years. Please clearly separate pedestrian and bike components of the facilities for  comfort and safety of all.    The partial underpass    There are bike/ped destinations on both sides of Charleston.  If the partial underpass is selected, the roundabout will  disgorge cars roughly 600’ before the school zone begins, so it must be designed to moderate speeds (of cars coming off  Alma Expressway) to 20mph.  This is demanded by the Comprehensive Plan (relevant goals, policies, and programs  pasted below) and Muni Code, but I see nothing in the designs to ensure that.    10.56.035   Twenty miles per hour school zones speed limit.  It is determined and justified pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22358.4(b)(1) that twenty miles per  hour shall be the prima facie speed limit on the road segments shown below at a distance within 500 feet from or  of the school grounds while children are going to or leaving the school, either during school hours or during the  noon recess period.    The roundabout on Charleston is designed with two lanes. I asked the Hexagon consultant about the possibility of  reducing its capacity to one lane  He said he had tried it and the experiment resulted in “gridlock.”  I see no record of  this experiment in the reports. Where is the data and information about the assumptions he made when he did the  analysis? I asked him about it again, then he said that the roundabout’s close proximity to the Alma intersection drove  his design decision.  I have no way to challenge his design choice, but I  worry that a two‐lane roundabout might both  induce auto trip increases and increase speeds right near Carlson, an important school commute crossing/bike/ped  route. I want to understand this better. The size of the roundabout also will transform  the abutting Walnut Grove  neighborhood area and affect the number of homes that have to be taken.  The decision not to use a single‐lane  roundabout should be very carefully considered, given Council’s Adopted Criteria.    9).  The existing Bryant Bike Boulevard/Meadow crossing is uncomfortable for peds and bikes. Can this plan provide a  solution to create a gap in traffic for bike/peds there?   9 10). The segment of Charleston between ECR and Alma  is designed in the C‐A Plan to stay at four lanes in order to  provide capacity to stack cars that stop and wait for trains today. I wonder if this extra auto capacity will be needed after  the grade sep is in place.  Please consider reducing one EB lane in this segment in order to make room for improved  bike/ped facilities.   11). How does each concept address relevant City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, Programs:   Goal T‐1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses that emphasizes walking,  bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single occupancy  motor vehicles.  Policy T‐1.3: Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing VMT and per‐mile  emissions through increasing transit options, supporting biking and walking, and the use of zero‐emission vehicle  technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030.  Goal T‐3:  Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users.  Policy T‐3.2 Enhance connections to, from and between parks, community centers, recreation facilities, libraries, and  schools for all users.  Policy T‐3.3 Avoid major increases in single‐occupant vehicle capacity when constructing or modifying roadways unless  needed to remedy severe congestion or critical neighborhood traffic problems. Where capacity is increased, balance the  needs of motor vehicles with those of pedestrians and bicyclists.   Policy T‐3.4 Regulate truck movements and large commercial buses in a manner that balances the efficient movement of  trucks and buses while preserving the residential character of Palo Alto’s street system.  Policy T3.5 When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users.  Program T3.5.1 Continue to use best practices in roadway design that are consistent with complete streets principles  and the Urban Forest Master Plan, focusing on bicycle and pedestrian safety and multi‐modal uses.  Consider  opportunities to incorporate best practices from the National Association of City Transportation Officials guidelines for  urban streets and bikeways, tailored to the Palo Alto context.  Policy T‐3.6  Consider pedestrians, bicyclists, e‐bikes, and motorcycles when designing road surfaces, curbs, crossings,  signage, landscaping and sight lines.  Policy T‐3.7 Encourage pedestrian‐friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on‐street parking, gathering  spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, and interesting architectural details.  Policy T‐3.8 Add planting pockets with street trees to provide shade, calm traffic and enhance the pedestrian realm.   Policy T‐3.15 Pursue grade separation of rail crossings along the rail corridor as a City priority.   Goal T‐4: Protect streets and adopted school commute corridors that contribute to neighborhood character and provide  a range of local transportation options.  Policy T‐4.1 Continue to construct traffic calming measures to slow traffic on local and collector streets, and prioritize  calming measures over congestion management.  Policy T‐4.4 Maintain the following roadways as residential arterials, treated with landscaping, medians, and other visual  improvements to distinguish them as residential streets, in order to improve safety:  10  Middlefield Road (between San Francisquito Creek and San Antonio Road)   University Avenue (between San Francisquito Creek and Middlefield Road)   Embarcadero Road (between Alma Street and West Bayshore Road)   East and West Charleston Road/|Arastradero Road (between Miranda and Fabian Way)  Policy T‐4.5 Minimize the danger of increased commercial ingress/egress adjacent to major intersections, and noticeable  increases in traffic from new development in residential neighborhoods, through traffic mitigations measures.  Goal T‐6: Provide a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets.  Policy T‐6.1 Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle  and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at intersections and motor vehicle parking.  Program T6.1.1 Follow the principles of the Safe Routes to School program to implement traffic safety measures that  focus on safe routes to work, shopping, downtown, community services, parks and schools including all designated  school commute corridors.  Policy T‐6.2: Pursue goal of zero severe injuries and roadway fatalities on Palo Alto city streets.  Policy T‐6.6 Use engineering, enforcement and educational tools to improve safety for all users on City roadways.  Program T6.4.3: In collaboration with PAUSD, provide adult crossing guards at school crossings that meet established  warrants.  Policy T‐6.6: Use engineering, enforcement and educational tools to improve safety for all users on city roadways.  Program T6.6.1 Periodically evaluate safety on roadways and at intersections and enhance conditions through the use of  signal technology and physical changes. Consider the construction of traffic circles for improved intersection safety.  Program T.6.6.6 Improve pedestrian crossings by creating protected areas and better pedestrian and traffic  visibility.  Use a toolbox including bulbout, small curb radii, high visibility crosswalks and landscaping.  Policy T‐6.8 Vigorously and consistently enforce speed limits and other traffic laws for both motor vehicles and bicycle  traffic.    Policy Support regional bicycle and pedestrian plans including development of the Bay Trail, Bay‐to‐Ridge Trail and the  Santa Clara County County‐wide Bicycle System.    Program T8.8.1 Identify and improve bicycle connections to/from neighboring communities in Santa Clara and San  Mateo counties to support local trips that cross city boundaries.  Also advocate for reducing barriers to bicycling and  walking at freeway interchanges, expressway intersections and railroad grade crossings.    11). How does the plan take into account the proposed bicycle/pedestrian boulevard network outlined in the CoPA  Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan?    A Loma Verde crossing would be nice, but it cannot be a substitute for completely separated crossings farther south.  Hundreds of millions could be spent on these projects only to improve operations for motorists and reduce train  hazards. Despite depleting an enormous concept planning budget,  only one of the concepts addresses conflicts  between bikes/peds and cars at these expressway crossings.  I view this failure as an enormous lost opportunity on  these well‐used school commute routes.      11 What happened?  I went to the meetings along with others who repeatedly asked for better attention to bike/ped  facilities.  The XCAP members did the same.      I’m struggling to choose…and feeling disappointed that the pleas of citizens and XCAP citizen members (not to mention  outreach to PABAC and the CSTSC) appear to have been ignored.      As I argued at the beginning of this process, it was a bad idea not to have PABAC regularly reviewing the concepts as  they evolved.  Staff argued that would be hard because grade sep is complicated.  PABAC (and CSTSC) should have been  involved because it is complicated.  Maybe it would have been hard, but it is going to be even harder to get better  bike/ped improvements now that the money for concepts has been spent.     In the future, let’s please follow the process of regular review that we normally do, even if that is hard—especially on  expensive and complicated projects on expressway intersections on school routes.     Thank you for your work on this important project and for considering my comments.    Sincerely,    Penny Ellson                To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Virus-free. www.avg.com   12 Baumb, Nelly From:Kirk Vartan <kirk@asliceofny.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 12:34 AM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Clerk, City Subject:Fwd: Mission College offers Worker Cooperative conversion workshop CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor, Council, and City Manger,    Wanted to make sure you were aware of this…    ‐Kirk      Workers, Owners, Policy Makers:    What: Pilot program on how to rapidly convert businesses to Worker Cooperatives  When: Tues, April 6, 2021 ‐ 11am‐1pm  Details: coop.missioncollege.edu    Mission College is piloting a new workshop, with information on options for current small‐medium businesses whose  owners are looking to exit their business, by either selling or closing it.  Becoming a worker‐owned business, like a  Worker Cooperative, can build a succession plan for the current owner, provide a fair sale price, and create an  ownership opportunity for their workers!    Besides simply being aware of this option of converting to a Worker Cooperative, there can be large barriers to  transitioning: time and cost. Typically, a conversion to a co‐op takes 12‐18 months and can cost $20‐30K, or more. This  workshop series called “Co‐op Rapid Conversion Academy ‐ From Owner to Owners” is focused on converting privately  held businesses to Worker Cooperatives in a way that attempts to address these two challenges, while creating a  program that will scale with demand.    The April 6th initial intro class called “Co‐ops, Conversions, Ownership ‐ COOP101” is designed to inform owners,  employees, and government agencies on what this process looks like, examples of a transition, and how many cities are  currently supporting this model.    See you then!    ‐Kirk, Grant and John    NOTE: This is a pilot and Proof of Concept program. It is not a funded class or a complete series. Participation requires  time, interest, and dedication.    ================  A Slice of New York, a worker cooperative  A New York Experience in the Bay Area  3443 Stevens Creek Blvd. (San Jose/Santa Clara)  1253 W El Camino Real (Sunnyvale)  13 SJ: (408) 24‐SLICE / SV: (650) 938‐NYNY  www.asony.com  www.911memorial.org      14 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 2:45 PM To:david.rose@aog.ca.gov; Bill Robinson; Brian McComas Cc:supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; sixth.district@jud.ca.gov; Brian McComas; Christopher Welsh Subject:Internal Audit - Santa Clara County Public Guardian CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mr. McComas should not have assumed that evidence was destroyed.            On March 21, 2021 at 1:52 PM, Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> wrote:  If Mr. McComas thinks all evidence has been destroyed from Lee Pulen's email account. he should think  again.    Lee Pujllen btw,  was supervisor over public guardian Donald Moody.  15 From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Helpdesk, Lee Pullen Thursday, July 11, 2013 4:07 PM Helpdesk; Priscilla Aleman; James Ramoni Delete Email and Reset Phone Voicemail Today is my las1 day with Santa Clara County. Can you please delete my email account and reset the voicema number 755·7606? Jim Ramon! will be serving as Interim director and will need to change the outgoing mess; Thank you, Lee Pullen Director Department of Aging and Adult Services County of Santa Clara 333 West Julian San lose, CA 95110 408-7 55-7 600 16 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 1:53 PM To:david.rose@aog.ca.gov; Bill Robinson; Brian McComas Cc:supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; sixth.district@jud.ca.gov; Brian McComas; Christopher Welsh Subject:Destruction of evidence CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  If Mr. McComas thinks all evidence has been destroyed from Lee Pulen's email account. he should think again.    Lee  Pujllen btw,  was supervisor over public guardian Donald Moody.  17 Baumb, Nelly From:GP Jones <senojpg@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 1:54 PM To:Bansal, Megha Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: Bike bridge closure - why no information provided? Thanks for the reply.  But you have still omitted critical information.  From what agency are we waiting for permission?  What is the permit for or specifically allow?  What is the best estimate of when it will be obtained?    You know, it has been a month since the announced postponement, with (as far as I can determine) no information  provided as to the reason.  It is action such as this that gives (local) government and its employees a bad name.  And  further reduces the trust and support of those institutions and people.      ‐carl jones    From: Bansal, Megha <Megha.Bansal@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 5:27 PM  To: Carl Jones  Cc: pwecips <pwecips@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: Bike bridge closure    Dear Carl,    Thank you for your inquiry about the status of the Adobe Creek overpass project.  As you know, the project’s steel  bridge truss sections were originally planned for installation from February 11 to February 14.  The project team is  currently working to schedule a new installation date, while the contractor continues to address other work at the  site.  At this time, the project completion date in summer 2021 has not been delayed.  We will provide an update next  week to our email distribution list for the project.  If you are not already on the list and wish to receive project updates,  please respond indicating your interest.    Regards,   Megha        Megha Bansal, PE, PMP  Senior Project Manager, Public Works  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  D: 650.329.2693 | E: megha.bansal@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org    From: Carl Jones   Sent: Friday, February 19, 2021 5:02 PM  18 To: pwecips <pwecips@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Bike bridge closure    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  COPA:  Your notice contained too little information and was far too cryptic.  What specifically was the technical issue and why is there no estimated date for its resolution?   Whose responsibility was it to have seen that this issue had been taken care of? The contractor? The project manager?  This is no small matter to have just slipped through the cracks!  And it has been 10 days since the announcement and I’ve seen nothing since then!  This is the kind of thing that frustrates the public no end.       ‐carl jones    19 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 11:36 AM To:Human Relations Commission Cc:Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; James Aram; Stump, Molly; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Council, City Subject:When police dogs bite: 6 takeaways from the investigation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Police dogs are often portrayed as harmless and lovable. But many departments use the K9s as weapons. 20 21   Photo credits: City of Palo Alto     Here’s what you need to know and main points to be considered..... https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/20 20/10/15/police-k-9-dogs-involved-excessive-force- allegations-bystanders/3652320001/ 1. Some police forces use biting dogs far more than others. 2. K-9 Bites can cause life-altering injuries, even death. 3. Many people bitten were not violent and were suspected of minor crimes 4. Most police dogbite victims are men 5. Police officers sometimes can’t control the dogs, worsening injuries. 6. There’s little accountability or compensation for many bite victims. Respectfully,    The editor of Palo Alto Free Press        Sent from my iPad  22 Baumb, Nelly From:Douglas Sharp <dasharpcib@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:51 AM To:Council, City Subject:City vehicle violating CA Vehicle code 22500 (f) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  23 24 25     “VEHICLE CODE - VEH  DIVISION 11. RULES OF THE ROAD [21000 - 23336] ( Division 11 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. )    CHAPTER 9. Stopping, Standing, and Parking [22500 ‐ 22526] ( Chapter 9 enacted by Stats. 1959, Ch. 3. ) 22500. A person shall not stop, park, or leave standing any vehicle whether attended or unattended, except when necessary to avoid conflict with other traffic or in compliance with the directions of a peace officer or official traffic control device, in any of the following places: .... (f) On a portion of a sidewalk, or with the body of the vehicle extending over a portion of a sidewalk, except electric carts when authorized by local ordinance, as specified in Section 21114.5. Lights, mirrors, or devices that are required to be mounted upon a vehicle under this code may extend from the body of the vehicle over the sidewalk to a distance of not more than 10 inches.” Plenty of room to park legally! Corner of Cowper Street and Loma Verde Ave.   Sent from my iPhone  26 Baumb, Nelly From:chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 24, 2021 6:08 PM To:Rebecca Eisenberg Cc:Rosen, Jeff; Roberta Ahlquist; Aram James; Jeff Moore; Richard Konda; Raj Jayadev; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council; Anna Griffin; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; Taylor, Cecilia; Donald Mendoza; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steven D. Lee; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Pat Burt; Josh Becker; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; O'Neal, Molly; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Sean James; Perron, Zachary; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanner, Rachael; Rodriguez, Miguel; Bains, Paul; mark weiss; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Michele; yolanda; Patrice Ventresca; Palo Alto Free Press; Curtis Smolar Subject:Re: Time for our District Attorney, Jeff Rosen, to file charges in the Joel D. Alejo case CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Great letter, Rebecca! The cruelty is unbelievable. Do we actually live in a world we all know and accept that we can be viciously attacked by an attack dog at the instigation of a "trained" police officer? (Imagine if it were an UNTRAINED officer!! If the training worked, this wouldn't have happened. NOTE to those with responsibility here, i.e. police, city, county, and state administrators and elected officials: DO something about this NOW!!) What WERE Engberg's motives, goals, intentions? The ONLY reasons I can imagine behind the things Engberg says are (1) to get the dog to bite the totally unknown victim additional times, and (2) to develop a defense for his defenseless cruelty. Has anyone investigated the needs of police for recreational and mediated roustings, beatings, and shootings? I DO think that the incident as seen on screens is way beyond the "unfortunate incident" that Mayor Du Bois calls it. An unfortunate incident is when I step down clumsily from the curb to the street. The treatment resulting from the strategies and commands of Officer Engberg are acts of assault, battery, and vicious attempted great bodily harm and should be prosecuted as such. Or why did you bother to go to law school? Doing nothing is already well covered here. Take some action that indicates some understanding and responsibility for what acts were consciously, intentionally, horribly wrong here-- and not for the first time in Engberg's police career. Chuck Jagoda   On Wed, Mar 24, 2021 at 4:07 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote:  Dear Mr. Rosen,     I join the many other voices in demanding that you prosecute Enberg and his fellow officers to the fullest extent of the  law. These officers should be behind bars, not armed with weapons and free to terrorize the streets.  27   Our community has been set siege upon by an armed police force that has been allowed to attack innocent individuals  without oversight or consequence. Due to this lack of oversight or consequence, our neighbors, family members,  visitors, and friends lack basic safety in their and our homes.  It is intolerable that we have to live with the rational fear  of an unprovoked deadly attack like the one experienced by Mr. Alejo last June. As a mother, wife, daughter, sister,  colleague, and friend, I should not have to experience fear for the safety of my loved ones at the hands of a police force  that is violently out of control.    Exactly whom can we call for help, when it is the Police from whom we need protection?     I urge you to watch the videos released (after undue amounts of effort) by the MVPD (as well as the inexcusably low‐ quality single video released by the PAPD). In these videos you will see a group of police officers led by Nick Enberg  order their police dog to attack an innocent man sleeping peacefully in his family's property.  Notably, the officers  arrived at the property visibly excited to set their dog on a victim, shouting "F Yeah!" Only after commanding the dog to  "DURSH! DURSH!" (which means "Bite Bite!" in Czeck, the language with which the dog was trained), and only after  that dog *did* DURSH, and only after Mr. Alejo was wailing in fear and pain, did Enberg or his crew begin to investigate  the identity of the innocent man whom they already had caused great grievous bodily injury.     It is your job to protect us from dangerous criminals such as the police officers shown in the released videos. I demand  that you protect our community from Nick Enberg and his fellow officers, who performed these violent acts on camera  for the world ‐ and, notably ‐ a jury to see for themselves without any room for doubt.    Please feel free to call any time to discuss. I can be reached at your convenience at 415‐235‐8078.    Sincerely,     Rebecca Eisenberg      Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078      On Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 6:46 PM Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:  PAPD Officer Charged with Unlawful Assault of Man He Was Arresting - Wayne Benitez, 62 https://www.sccgov.org/sites/da/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/NRA2020/Benitez‐.aspx  DA Jeff Rosen said: “Peace officers who use more force than necessary hurt more than the person they are trying to arrest.      They damage the deservedly excellent reputations of the vast majority of officers who work every shift to help people.     28 And they strain the bonds with their communities who expect and deserve that police officers will protect and serve them fairly and professionally.”     Mr. Rosen, please explain to your constituents why the Alejo case is different.  Was not the force used “more force  that necessary hurt more than the person they are trying to arrest.”    Or are these just hollowed words?     Editor: Palo Alto Free Press    Sent from my iPad      On Mar 23, 2021, at 12:56 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:     Dear Friends,     We support the request that Mr. Rosen file felony charges of assault with a deadly weapon in the  Alejo case.     Sincerely,    Roberta Ahlquist  Walter Bliss    On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:13 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:    3/22/21 To: Elected District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Palo Alto City Council, Mountain View City Council, and all members of our community From: Aram James Please read the two excellent letters to the editor in today’s (Monday March 22, 2021) Daily Post, Opinion section page 9. Each letter poignantly describes the vicious canine attack on Joel Domingo Alejo: Police dog attack 1, by Ethan Young, Stanford Police Dog attack 2, by Kazuo Yoshimoto, Mountain View 29 Both letters make exceedingly powerful arguments that Palo Alto Police officer/agent Nick Enberg, the alleged canine handler in Joel Allejo canine attack, used well beyond excessive force (both letters) and in particular the letter, Police dog attack 1, by Ethan Young, makes an extremely powerful case for our elected District Attorney, Jeff Rosen, to file criminal charges against the alleged canine handler, Palo Alto Police Officer/Agent Nick Enberg. I’m asking members of the public as well as all members of the Palo Alto and Mountain View city councils, to review the tapes in this matter, all nine thus far released. And then, to take action to call or write Mr. Rosen asking him to file felony charges for assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder in the Joel Domingo Alejo case. Similar police initiated canine attacks, across this country, have resulted in very serious injuries and even death. See in this regard, the yearlong 12 part series titled: Mauled: When police dogs are weapons, by the Marshall Project, in collaboration with other media outlets. The series is eye opening to say the least. Aram James https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/15/mauled- when-police-dogs-are-weapons       ‐‐   Chuck  30 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 24, 2021 11:25 AM To:Honky CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  ---------- Forwarded message ----------   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Our pro-life reporting is being attacked. So is the truth. We can’t back down in the fight against abortion! View this email in your browser     [remainder of message body omitted; too large]      31 Baumb, Nelly From:Government Relations <govrelations@cimalawgroup.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 24, 2021 11:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:CIMA Law | Political Connections CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Hon. Councilmember Burt and Hon. Councilmember Stone,     Hello, my name is Emily, and I am a Management Associate at CIMA Law Group, located in Phoenix, Arizona. As a leading Government Relations firm, we pride ourselves on creating positive connections with officials and organizations throughout the country. Working in matters of government relations, we specialize in lobbying, business development, RFP & proposal writing, as well as election & political law.     On behalf of CIMA Law Group, we invite you to subscribe to our weekly newsletter, Political Connections, which covers breaking news on the federal, state and local levels in CA and AZ. We have provided a sample of Political Connections for your convenience, click here to access the newsletter.    We thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to hearing back from you and would be happy to answer any further questions.     Sincerely,   Emily Castle   Management Assistant CIMA Government Relations 350 E. Virginia Ave., Suite 100  Phoenix, AZ 85004 Office: (602) 368-2196 This electronic mail transmission and any accompanying documents contain information belonging to the sender, which may be confidential and legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom this electronic mail transmission was sent as indicated above. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the contents of the information contained in this transmission is strictly prohibited. Thank you.  32 Baumb, Nelly From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 24, 2021 10:58 AM To:Sara Cody; Ro Khanna; Gavin Newsom Subject:Lose V - FEAR--Avoid Shot say Canada MDs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Indian Doctor Positive After Full Vaccine Course An Indian state of Uttar Pradesh reported the first case where a person got COVID-19 positive even after getting a 2-dose course of the Covaxin vaccine. A Lucknow-based doctor Nitin Mishra, who works as emergency medical officer at the Civil hospital, received a 2-dose course of Covaxin on Feb. 15, and March 16, 2021. However, just after 2 days of getting the second dose, he got a severe cough along with mild fever March 18. When he tested on March 20, he was found suffering with COVID-19. After getting the test results, he isolated himself at home and regularly started monitoring his blood pressure and blood oxygen levels on regular basis. Info@GreatgameIndia.com Mar 24, 2021 --------------------------------- 1. 8 Canadian doctors give advice --they say their country did not have a pandemic. See #6, 7, 8 doctors below for remedies, not a shot, lots of other insights 2 & 3. See short notes below saying why the 6 ft distancing was all wrong (FDA) and why masks and generators do not work. So much of the Pandemonium is NOT based on science. Science without Common S--ence = Failure The story of the Virus 1. Protect Yourself w/o a Shot – 8 Canada MDs Speak See remedies in #6, 7 and 8 below. March 18, 2021. info@greatgameindia.com In a video created by the Liberty Coalition Canada in partnership with the Canadian Health Alliance, licensed medical professionals and doctors provide instructions on how to protect yourself without getting a vaccine shot. The doctors also offer the top reasons not to fear Covid-19 providing information about variants of the disease and immunity, and recommends treatments that have been proven effective against the virus. The doctors believe that policies for the pandemic “are destroying Canadian society and the health of Canadians.” 1. Protect yourself w/o a vaccine shot-- Dr Stephen Malthouse MD BC, Canada: “Welcome to Canadian doctors speak out, where we are going to give you the top reasons not to be afraid of COVID-19. On the TV, we hear ‘cases, but they are not necessarily the symptomatic people and the vast majority are not really sick.. They have a positive PCR swab test (that) is practically worthless. Only 3% with a positive tests actually have the COVID virus. Looking at the early deaths in Canada from 2001, we have hardly even had a pandemic. At the Ontario intensive care unit data, there were fewer patients in the ICU in 2020 than the previous 3 years. The CDC’s own data compares it to flu. In children their death rate isy zero. For under 50, the survival rate is over 33 99.98% and for over age 70, it is 94.6 per cent. And that is without any early treatment like vitamin D or vitamin C. So, stop worrying and don't get a vaccine. 2. Asymptomatic transfer from Dr Patrick Phillips MD Ontario Canada: “So back in April we knew so little about COVID and this led us . . . to think healthy people can spread disease. This is known as the asymptomatic spread and that’s a very scary thought.Now however over 10 million cases have been s tudied and evidence is coming from both Wuhan and the U. of Florida showing that asymptomatic and presymptomatic spread is almost negligible. So we can take our lives back– if you are sick, stay home. 3. T Cell Immunitym --Dr Caroline Turek MD, Ontario, Canada: “We have great news! Do you know that many of us are already immune to SARS-CoV2 due to cross-reactive T cells? A T cell is just another immune cell that helps our body fight infection. At the beginning of the pandemic, it was thought all were still at risk for infection. However, now we know 30 to 50 % already have pre-existing immunity from pre-existing circulating T cells, possibly from the common cold.. So the problem is with testing for COVID immunity is the tests don't look at T cell response. And antibody levels decline over time but we still have our T cells to protect us. Many of us are more protected than we realize. We are closer to herd immunity than we realize.” 4. Kids and COVID-19 --Dr Neda Amani MD Ontario, Canada: “We have heard a lot about how children are COVID ‘super spreaders and that terrifies us.. but the science shows that none of this is warranted. If children do get COVID-19 they might not even show any symptoms and if they do, they’re mild, and they’re not drivers of the pandemic. Only four people under 19 have died with COVID in all of Canada. That’s four out of eight million children and teenagers. By comparison, 10 children died of influenza in the 2018-2019 flu season. Influenza has killed more children annually than COVID-19. A Lancet study showed that closing schools was never medically warranted. A German study showed that parents are more likely to infect their children 5. Prevention--Dr Dorle Kneifel MD BC Canada: “I am not afraid of this coronavirus and you do not need to be afraid either. We’ve evolved with these respiratory viruses over thousands of years, and we’ve developed a highly intelligent and very sophisticated immune system. We support and strengthen our immune system when we eat nutritious food, when we can engage in physical activity, spend time in nature, and feel supported by life. Vitamin D is a critical nutrient for our immune system. When we supplement with vitamin C, with zinc, with magnesium our immune system is primed and ready to go. In spite of sub-optimal diets and widespread vitamin D deficiencies, most people who encounter the coronavirus do not require hospitalizations but are able to manage their symptoms at home. When I had the virus last year I took Vit. – 60,000 units & symptoms were gone in a few days. Our bodies know what to do.” 6. Treatments--Dr Bill Code MD BC, Canada: 34 Thirty of my 40 years practising medicine in Canada have been as a speciality anaestheologist whso knows the risk/benefit ratio about drugs. I am experienced like a pharmacist, in using drugs to combat a virus. With this in mind in reviewing the literature, I treat my patients with Quercetin, zinc, vitamin C, vitamin D. If you’re able to get a prescription Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin. In addition, I have used Ivermectin for post COVID symptoms with some success. If needed oxygen supplementation with nasal specs often based on what your personal oximeter, which I recommend, is safe for you. This regime worked for all patients I treated this year and none needed hospilization. I had the virus and recovered in 7 to 10 days. 7. Variants--Dr Stephen Malthouse MD BC Canada: “. . . hearing about dangerous variants has scared the living daylights out of us. One slight variant was artificially created . . .in a mouse study. The so-called variants had never been found in humans. This was followed by some papers with mathematical modelling and coding, not real-life observation. This was simply guesswork about spread and severity, not real research with human beings. Viruses naturally change over time and new strains emerge. Since a virus cannot live alone but depends upon human cells to live, it makes evolutionary sense that it’ll become less dangerous, not more so, over time. If it becomes more easily spread but less likely to make you really sick then that is a good natural progression towards herd immunity. The COVID virus is no different. Studies find viruses adapt to humans as humans adapt to them. They are less likely to do harm as time goes on.” 8. A way out for everyone--Dr Stephen Malthouse MD BC Canada: “ When we honestly evaluate the COVID evidence and stop being fearful we can start living life again. Hiding inside your home and avoiding people is not necessary.. . both solitary confinement and fear are harmful to your immune system. So make sure your nutrition is good and don’t forget to take 4000 units of vitamin D in the wintertime to optimize your immune system, followed by a blood test in about a month to make sure that’s the right amount for you. Vitamin D is safe, it’s inexpensive and has been shown to boost resistance to viral respiratory infections including COVID. And remember the real virus is fear. It stops a person from thinking clearly. The evidence is clear. You do not need to be afraid of a little COVID virus.” For latest updates on the outbreak check out our Coronavirus Coverage. ---------------------- Who are we? GreatGameIndia is India’s one of a kind portal on international affairs providing global intelligence through strategic analysis by placing events in a geopolitical and historical framework to better understand international developments and the world around us. Experts in the field of Geopolitics and International Relations we bring in fresh perspective to the otherwise redundant academic approach. We are read, recommended and published by decision makers, renowned personalities and organisations around the world. Info@greatgameindia.com Condensed and forwarded by Arlene Goetze, MA, No Toxins for Children Masks don't work--a review of science 35 relevant to Covid-19 social policy. vanessa beeley. June 23, 2020 By Denis Rancourt, PhD Masks and respirators do not work. There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles. Furthermore, the relevant known physics and biology, which I review, are such that masks and respirators should not work. : The main transmission path is long- residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are TOO fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective dose is smaller than one aerosol particle. The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history. from The Wall Will Fall in America's Frontline Doctors. Mar 23/21. & 23 REFERENCES Social distancing of 6 ft. was big mistake. Mar. 22, 2021 According to former USDA Chief Scott Gottlief, the social distance rule used worldwide is not based on science. This six-foot requirement had been the single costliest mitigation tactic that we’ve employed in response to COVID …and it really wasn’t based on clear science. …' We should have re-adjudicated this much earlier,” he said. He said 3 ft. was all that was needed. Info@GreatGameIndia.com. 36 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:48 PM To:alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bballpod; fred beyerlein; beachrides; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; kfsndesk; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; midge@thebarretts.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: UK won't escape third wave in Europe. AND US data for Oxford vacc. magnificent CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:25 PM  Subject: Fwd: UK won't escape third wave in Europe. AND US data for Oxford vacc. magnificent  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:16 PM  Subject: Fwd: UK won't escape third wave in Europe. AND US data for Oxford vacc. magnificent  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 5:13 PM  Subject: Fwd: UK won't escape third wave in Europe. AND US data for Oxford vacc. magnificent  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 5:09 PM  37 Subject: Fwd: UK won't escape third wave in Europe. AND US data for Oxford vacc. magnificent  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 1:36 PM  Subject: Fwd: UK won't escape third wave in Europe. AND US data for Oxford vacc. magnificent  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 3:43 AM  Subject: UK won't escape third wave in Europe. AND US data for Oxford vacc. magnificent  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                 Tuesday, March 23, 2021                    To all‐             Covid: Boris Johnson warns UK to expect Europe's third wave to 'wash up on our shores' | ITV News ‐ YouTube                                      Johnson says there that a third wave on the continent will produce one in the UK.  Beautiful woman at the  end of the report ruining her face by pursing her forehead and putting ugly lines in her forehead.  All to make herself  more "believable". I wouldn't care if they believed me or not. I'd stay beautiful.                And here is DW re the third wave hitting Germany and the rest of the EU. Big lockdown in Deutschland around  April 18 but the political parties there squabble about opening v. shutdown:                COVID‐19: Germany imposes strict lockdown over Easter | DW News ‐ YouTube                 Wir horen Kanzlerin Merkel da sagen  "Wir haben jetzt..." We have now a new pandemic.  She blames it on the  variant "from Great Britain" That's the UK variant, the Kent variant, the B.117 variant. It now accounts for ~40% of new  cases in the U.S.  Dr. Campbell said months ago they are not sure where it arose. Could have been Portugal or Italy. The  EU and the UK are at each other's throats re the availability of vaccines. Germany has had a slow vaccine roll‐out and the  Germans are looking for a way to get more vaccine sooner. They will meet virtually on Thursday, including with Boris  Johnson on the line. He'll have choice words about a threatened export ban of vaccine from the EU (including to the UK,  naturally). The translators may have to use discretion there.                 L. William Harding              Fresno, Ca.   38 Baumb, Nelly From:maryann.hinden@gmail.com Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:26 PM To:Council, City Cc:Bob Hinden Subject:Robbery at Midtown Baskin-Robbins CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members:    You may or may not be aware, but a day or two ago, the Baskin Robbins in Midtown Palo Alto was robbed at gunpoint in  the early evening. This is the latest in a string of crimes which have hit Palo Alto in recent months.    I live on Murray Way (cross street Loma Verde) which is not far from the location where the robbery occurred. I never  would have thought twice about walking or biking there in the evening; now, I feel reluctant go there outside of daylight  hours. I have lived in this town for thirty years now and the increasing crime is alarming and I am starting to fear for my  personal safety.    The store is frequented by families and teenagers as well as others. I shudder to think what might have happened if a  mother and young children had walked in while this was going on.    I live on Murray Way (cross street Loma Verde) which is not far from the location where the robbery occurred. I never  would have thought twice about walking or biking there in the evening; now, I feel reluctant go there outside of daylight  hours. I have lived in this town for thirty years now and the increasing crime is alarming and I am starting to be  extremely concerned about this. If we do not have personal safety on the street and in our homes, we have nothing.    I urge the council to take action to decrease the crime rate by increased police presence in all parts of town. To me, this  problem supersedes anything the council may have before it.    Sincerely yours,  Maryann Hinden  3271 Murray Way  Palo Alto 94303      39 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:21 PM To:alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bballpod; fred beyerlein; beachrides; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; kfsndesk; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; midge@thebarretts.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Fauci and AZN, some data out of date- I smell a rat. If Biden tried for murder, he can say that Co. issued false data, so he should let his FDA stall. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 10:02 PM  Subject: Fwd: Fauci and AZN, some data out of date‐ I smell a rat. If Biden tried for murder, he can say that Co. issued  false data, so he should let his FDA stall.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 9:56 PM  Subject: Fwd: Fauci and AZN, some data out of date‐ I smell a rat. If Biden tried for murder, he can say that Co. issued  false data, so he should let his FDA stall.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 4:58 PM  Subject: Fwd: Fauci and AZN, some data out of date‐ I smell a rat. If Biden tried for murder, he can say that Co. issued  false data, so he should let his FDA stall.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      40 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 4:20 PM  Subject: Fwd: Fauci and AZN, some data out of date‐ I smell a rat. If Biden tried for murder, he can say that Co. issued  false data, so he should let his FDA stall.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 23, 2021 at 4:01 PM  Subject: Fauci and AZN, some data out of date‐ I smell a rat. If Biden tried for murder, he can say that Co. issued false  data, so he should let his FDA stall.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Tuesday, March 23, 2021                   To all‐                 "I've never seen a body feel they needed to make a statement like this instead of communicating with the  company..."  Listen to her say it. At 2:35. Just listen to her say it!  There's your smoking gun. That does not happen,  unless somebody at the WH contacts them and makes it happen.               The FBI should interview the people running that data review outfit and ask "Who at the WH or elsewhere  contacted your team and told you to release that letter to the media. You are under oath".                 Let's see the passage in the press release they are talking about and let's have the UK authorities tell us whether  that makes the vaccine less effective or even dangerous. I call upon the Congress to issue subpoenas and let us see what  data they are talking about. I think this is shaping up as another Watergate. Except that nobody died in Watergate.                I smell a rat!    "No worry, Mr. President,. we can "influence" some data reviewers to say that some item in a press  release by AZN was old data. THERE'S your defense if you are tried for murder in the Senate after impeachement by the  House for letting your FDA KEEP holding up an EUA  for the  efficacious, safe, widely used in the EU and the UK, Oxford‐ Astrazeneca vaccine in the U,S."   It is now being injected hundreds of thousands of times a day in the UK.   If it were  making people sick, they would sound the alarm. "It's a problem, Sir, but it can be bent"‐ Stones.                   Dr. Anthony Fauci: AstraZeneca's press release on vaccine data not quite accurate ‐ YouTube               NO WONDER it was hard to nail Nixon in Watergate. They are surrounded by high‐powered liars who can dream  up all sorts of stuff to keep the President from serious political trouble. And they have unlimited money to influence  people. NO matter what some press release said, the data announced yesterday by AZN re the U.S. trials of the Oxford  vaccine show it to be safe and effective. Fauci says so. "It's likely a very good vaccine".  The only two vaccines that the  UK has, even now, are the Pfizer and Oxford‐AZN vaccines. THAT is what they are using in their large scale vaccination  campaigns. They have been using the Oxford vaccine since Jan. 4, 2021, as I say over and over. No issues with it.  Now  this BS to try to save Biden's butt about some press release containing some old data. The advisory committee looking at  Oxford vaccine trial data should issue their recommendation for an EUA by this Friday, March 26, 2021 and the 30  million doses that AZN has stored should be going into American arms by Saturday. Anything else is a crime against  humanity. People who were convicted of that at Nuremburg were hanged for it.      41           Now here is Dr. Fauci talking about the incident today on ABC.    "The data and safety monitoring board sent a  letter to AZN saying that the press release could be misleading".   LH‐  AND BY SOME BIZARRE TWIST OF FATE, THAT  LETTER WAS MADE PUBLIC. THAT HAS NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE.  Dr. Fauci: "It is very likely a very good vaccine"  Hear  all of the "verys" in there.  Dr. Fauci: "The data are quite good, but when they put it in a  press release it wasn't quite  accurate".     "The FDA will go over the data"   LH‐ I am quite sure that they will, on and on.  While Americans are  dying.   And while hundreds of thousands of doses of the Oxford vaccine are being injected in the UK every day without  issues. Ditto for the EU, Canada, Mexico, India, Argentina, Australia. Congress should vote out articles of impeachment  against Biden for murder. What else is it? He won't release a vaccine that is desperately needed all over the U.S. and  whose use now would save thousands of lives in April and May.            Fauci discusses concerns about Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine data l GMA ‐ YouTube            Dr. Fauci here:   "New cases in the U.S. are about 53,000 a day and have plateaued. Not good. We're seeing it in  Europe and we are usually 3‐4 weeks behind Europe so there is a risk we'll do the same thing if we don't maintain  current public health measures".                 L. William Harding            Fresno, Ca.             42 Baumb, Nelly From:Martha Sakellariou <martha.sakellariou@me.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:rental forgiveness and the Cubberley artist tenants CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members    In a recent City Council meeting when the rental forgiveness for Cubberley tenants was discussed, someone asked about how  Cubberley Artists cope with this situation. To her question the answer was that they are okay, they have their independent studios.  The assumption, I believe was partly because we do not work with large groups, do not run visible businesses or rent big spaces and  partly because it is not clear how we maintain our practice and use our studio spaces.     The assumption that we have been doing fine could not be further away from reality for many of us and I would like to offer a  different answer to this question. To speak for myself, for the entire three months of lockdown I was not allowed to use my studio at  all. Access was not allowed on the entire campus, bathrooms were locked, facility staff was not on site.   Even today, I still cannot use my studio full time safely, as I share with another artist and our small space does not have adequate  ventilation or filtering or enough sqf to keep distances while working. I can only work in my studio 2.5 days a week and so does my  studio‐mate. Most studios are shared so I imagine for many of us there’s still limited use of space.      For those three months my studio was closed I could not produce any work. I rent a studio space because I do not have one to work  at home and my art practice cannot be moved on zoom or on a desk or computer. I need physical tools, space and materials.     During that period a lot of my projects that generate income to support my practice and studio space, were canceled and others are  still on hold because indoor functions are still not fully operational. I had to adapt my practice, learn new tools, do my workshops  and meetings online, buy new equipment to help me transfer on the digital platform.    Without projects happening there was no income and paying for a studio meant using savings or cut back on art production.  Meanwhile my creative contribution and desire to support my community has been consistent and in most cases at my own  expense. I created public murals for free for my neighbors, offered art lessons to students who needed live instruction, provided free  of charge mentorship.     Three months of rental for a small studio space may not sound like a lot compared with other tenants but it is fair to say that the  pandemic has impacted our practice too, in different but not always obvious ways.    I hope this helps give a different answer to the question if artists are doing okay at Cubberley.    Respectfully,     Martha Sakellariou       Martha Sakellariou MA[RCA] Visual Artist marthasakellariou.com  instagram    43 Baumb, Nelly From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 7:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Separated Crossings: raised options are ugly and divisive CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council     As you consider the options for grade separations for southern Palo Alto  (Meadows and Charleston), I ask you to remove the two raised options   from considerations. Here are my reasons:    1. Raised options (the viaduct and the hybrid) will have the trains operating ABOVE    the roofs of the homes in large single‐story overlay neighborhoods   of Greenmeadows and Charleston‐Meadows, and of course  higher than all single‐story houses.      By themselves the newly‐installed electrification poles are creating  an ugly wall. These poles will be placed ON TOP of the viaduct or hybrid berm.    These raised solutions would create a huge visual barrier stretching  through the middle of our entire city.     2. Raised structures push their noise much wider / farther than below‐grade or at‐grade options so the train noise will  affect many more people than the current train does.  Building a raised train guarantees that noise for the next 100 years.     3. Over time, as Palo Alto builds more housing, the train noise will operate in a direct line to the windows of 2‐4 story  apartment buildings that are built adjacent to the train tracks.    4. Viaducts all over the world, over time, become dirty and ugly and poorly‐maintained. It will be no different in Palo  Alto. Why build something that you know will become ugly and dirty with litter and garbage collecting on the wasted  land under the structure.    5. Cities around the world who have built raised solutions come to hate them  well before the structures reach their end of life. Many cities have even torn them down.    Please remove the viaduct and the hybrid options from consideration.    Carlin Otto  231 Whitclem Court  Palo Alto          44 Baumb, Nelly From:Angela Dellaporta <asdellaporta@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 7:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parks in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     Palo Alto is well known for its high quality of living, and for its beautiful parks. Even in parts of the city where residents’ homes sit in large, park-like gardens, Palo Alto’s public parks welcome everyone to gather, relax, listen to music, and play together.     While an urgent need for housing is driving the city to waive its development standards in order to approve the construction of dense, multi-family buildings in the North Ventura area, little attention is being paid to the park acreage necessary for these new residents. I think you will agree that residents of Palo Alto should enjoy at least as much recreation space as a resident of San Francisco has.     Residents of San Francisco live in a city which provides 4.22 acres of public park/1000residents. Every resident of SF lives within a 10 minute walk of a public park.     Can the same be said about Palo Alto at this time?   While Palo Alto’s Comp Plan recommends 4 acres/1000 residents (that’s just a bit less than what SF provides), at this time Palo Alto only provides 2.67 acres/ 1000 acres.     If thousands of new residents come to live in the south end of Palo Alto, including the Ventura neighborhood, the need for acres of new public park land will become even more acute than it is now. I support the addition of new housing in Palo Alto, but it must be accompanied by a commensurate commitment to public park acreage in the city — and there are indeed ways to pay for that park land.     I do not believe that Palo Alto residents would support the practice of crowding its less wealthy citizens into small areas that provide substandard public park space for people who have little or no private garden space.    Thank you,   Angela Dellaporta   45 Baumb, Nelly From:Arnout Boelens <a.m.p.boelens@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 7:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Grade separation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    Below please find my spoken comments on grade separation.    Kind regards,    Arnout Boelens    Dear City Council Members,    I am Arnout Boelens. I am a member of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs Traffic Safety Committee, but tonight I am speaking  as an individual. First of all I would like to thank the members of XCAP for their hard work and the comprehensive report  they put together. Provided that mitigation measures are taken to prevent additional car traffic in neighborhoods, I  agree with the recommendation of XCAP in favor of closing down Churchill for motorized traffic and building the bicycle  and pedestrian tunnel (option 2). In addition, I would like to urge City Council to further study the grade separation  options at Charleston and Meadow and to involve all the relevant stakeholders in this process.    The directness of a trip is a very important variable that determines whether someone will bike or walk or choose  another mode of transportation [1]. To make sure that students continue to ride their bikes to Paly and do not cause  extra traffic congestion, it is therefore very important that they can take the most direct route to school. This is a  straight bicycle and pedestrian tunnel at Churchill Avenue. Added benefits of this design are that it is the safest design  for students crossing Alma and that it is much cheaper than building a crossing for motorized traffic.    Unfortunately, regarding Charleston and Meadow, all of the current iterations of the designs have their own  shortcomings. While it is great that bicycles and pedestrians are grade separated in the partial underpass design, there  are currently problems with very sharp corners in the design that make it nearly impossible to navigate on a bike. For all  the other options the intersection designs should be brought up to date using the latest NACTO design guidelines [2] for  protected intersections and traffic signal phasing. Lastly, I think it is very important that for any future steps there is  active participation of stakeholders including the PAUSD, SRTS, the PTA Council, and PABAC.    Thank you for considering my comments.    [1] Crow, design manual for bicycle traffic (2016)  [2] NACTO, Don’t Give Up at the Intersection (2019)  46 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 6:46 PM To:Roberta Ahlquist Cc:Aram James; Rosen, Jeff; Jeff Moore; Richard Konda; Raj Jayadev; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council; Anna Griffin; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; Taylor, Cecilia; Donald Mendoza; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steven D. Lee; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Pat Burt; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; O'Neal, Molly; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Sean James; Perron, Zachary; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanner, Rachael; Rebecca Eisenberg; Rodriguez, Miguel; Bains, Paul; mark weiss; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Michele; yolanda; Patrice Ventresca Subject:Re: Time for our District Attorney, Jeff Rosen, to file charges in the Joel D. Alejo case CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  PAPD Officer Charged with Unlawful Assault of Man He Was Arresting - Wayne Benitez, 62 https://www.sccgov.org/sites/da/newsroom/newsreleases/Pages/NRA2020/Benitez‐ .aspx  DA Jeff Rosen said: “Peace officers who use more force than necessary hurt more than the person they are trying to arrest.      They damage the deservedly excellent reputations of the vast majority of officers who work every shift to help people.     And they strain the bonds with their communities who expect and deserve that police officers will protect and serve them fairly and professionally.”     Mr. Rosen, please explain to your constituents why the Alejo case is different.  Was not the force used “more force that  necessary hurt more than the person they are trying to arrest.”    Or are these just hollowed words?     Editor: Palo Alto Free Press    Sent from my iPad      47 On Mar 23, 2021, at 12:56 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:     Dear Friends,     We support the request that Mr. Rosen file felony charges of assault with a deadly weapon in the Alejo  case.     Sincerely,    Roberta Ahlquist  Walter Bliss    On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 10:13 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:    3/22/21 To: Elected District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Palo Alto City Council, Mountain View City Council, and all members of our community From: Aram James Please read the two excellent letters to the editor in today’s (Monday March 22, 2021) Daily Post, Opinion section page 9. Each letter poignantly describes the vicious canine attack on Joel Domingo Alejo: Police dog attack 1, by Ethan Young, Stanford Police Dog attack 2, by Kazuo Yoshimoto, Mountain View Both letters make exceedingly powerful arguments that Palo Alto Police officer/agent Nick Enberg, the alleged canine handler in Joel Allejo canine attack, used well beyond excessive force (both letters) and in particular the letter, Police dog attack 1, by Ethan Young, makes an extremely powerful case for our elected District Attorney, Jeff Rosen, to file criminal charges against the alleged canine handler, Palo Alto Police Officer/Agent Nick Enberg. I’m asking members of the public as well as all members of the Palo Alto and Mountain View city councils, to review the tapes in this matter, all nine thus far released. And then, to take action to call or write Mr. 48 Rosen asking him to file felony charges for assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder in the Joel Domingo Alejo case. Similar police initiated canine attacks, across this country, have resulted in very serious injuries and even death. See in this regard, the yearlong 12 part series titled: Mauled: When police dogs are weapons, by the Marshall Project, in collaboration with other media outlets. The series is eye opening to say the least. Aram James https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/15/mauled- when-police-dogs-are-weapons 49 Baumb, Nelly From:Young-Jeh Oh <ohyoungjeh@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 3:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:PLEASE SUPPORT THE "CHURCHILL CLOSURE" CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good afternoon, distinguished members of the Palo Alto City Council. My name is Young-Jeh Oh and I am a resident of the Southgate neighborhood.   After three years of conducting research and gathering public opinion, and engaging in meticulous and comprehensive analysis, we are hopefully getting close to making some decisions on this very important question.   Regarding the crossing on Churchill and Alma, I would implore you to support the Churchill Closure with mitigations as the best option.   First and foremost, this plan is the most cost-effective amongst the other plans. Churchill Closure with mitigation is estimated to cost a fraction of the other proposed plans.   Secondly, the plan will preserve the peaceful ambience of Palo Alto by requiring the least amount of construction and disruption. It will also give the best access to the pedestrians and cyclists who frequent and live in Palo Alto. It is also the greenest of all of the plans being proposed.   Thirdly, the other plans present clear safety issues for both PALY students and the growing population of mature baby boomers who live in the area. Most recently, a gentleman in his 70’s was struck and killed by Caltrain in this very intersection.   Last but not least, Hexagon research analysis confirms that the traffic impact of Churchill Closure will be minimal.   Some Southgate residents support the Underpass plan, but it will be an esthetic disaster.   I humbly ask that the City Council votes in favor of Churchill closure with mitigation as the best option to keep our city safe, quiet and beautiful for all of us and for future generations.   Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Young-Jeh Oh    50 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 11:40 AM To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission Subject:Jameel Douglas in 'Helen' CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    FYI:  >  >> On Mar 23, 2021, at 11:05 AM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote:  >>  >> One) to the extent we’re living in a different world since the Black Lives Matter demonstration’s last summer, it  would be great to feel that a investment in the skateboarding subcommunity of Palo alto would also be seen as  representing people of color and therefore Jameel Douglas and his connection to Palo alto is an important asset that  Aram has identified for us; to my eye he is professional class;  >> Two) I thought the white paper or colleagues’ memo was somewhat weak very vague looks like it was written by a  student not a professional person; I would question the statement for example that the preponderance of graffiti and  tags and Art on the Greer Park is what necessitates a second park; I think graffiti culture is copacetic to skate culture and  the communities would’ve self‐enforced against sabotage that the memo seems to imply (consistent with Tanaka’s  constant attack on Art —‐ duly noted that Tanaka has posted videos of himself at least commuting on a skateboard or a  powered board or whatever);  >> Three) Maybe we need a blue ribbon committee on skateboarding the precedent of course is the committee that  recommended the police station;  >> Four) It seems like there’s a zero sum phenomenon that whenever we increase services to one sports community it is  seen is taking away from another see also pickle ball versus tennis; I would presume staff has an institutional history of  the Greer skate park and maintenance issues;  >> Five) I think Castilleja would be a great place for a skate park the Palo Alto weekly had a story in June 2019 about  exemplary local graduating seniors including one from Castilleja who was in a rock band and liked to skate;  >> Six) I would not say it’s a strong connection but it is true that the rock band of one of the world’s greatest skaters  Steve Caballero —Soda— Performed in my concert series at Cubberley as the opening act for blink‐182; The South bay is  a hotbed for skateboarding so we should aspire to create something that is a regional draw and not just Palo alto’s me‐ too version.  >> But based on what I’ve seen officially in this campaign I would not want $25,000 worth of tax money spent here let  alone $1 million.  >> Mark Weiss  >> From the clay wheels era  >> But knows people who know people  >> Sent from my iPhone  >>  >>>> On Mar 23, 2021, at 10:21 AM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  >>>  >>> FYI:  >>>  >>> Four minute skate video featuring former Palo Alto resident Jameel Douglas. His family still lives in Palo Alto. Jameel  is a big supporters of more skateboarding parks for the youth of Palo Alto.  >>>  51 >>> Aram  >>>>  >>>> https://youtu.be/x392o9npq38  >>>>  >>>>  >>>> Sent from my iPhone  >>  52 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 10:21 AM To:mark weiss; Rebecca Eisenberg; David Moss; Planning Commission; Council, City; chuckjagoda1 @gmail.com; Human Relations Commission; ParkRec Commission; Greer Stone; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Greg Tanaka; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; DuBois, Tom; Raj Subject:Jameel Douglas in 'Helen' CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    FYI:    Four minute skate video featuring former Palo Alto resident Jameel Douglas. His family still lives in Palo Alto. Jameel is a  big supporters of more skateboarding parks for the youth of Palo Alto.    Aram  >  > https://youtu.be/x392o9npq38  >  >  > Sent from my iPhone  53 Baumb, Nelly From:Peggy Kraft <pkraft99@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 9:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston/Arastradero corridor CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, Please finish the Charleston/Arastradero calming project in South Palo Alto. Only two of the four portions have been finished. This project has been approved and was funded and it should be finished. Please do not wait for the county permit for the El Camino intersection to move forward with the rest of the project. This is a residential corridor that has schools, churches, parks and homes all along it. Many neighbors and students use this every day and it must be finished to ensure their safety. The portions that have been finished are MUCH SAFER. I ride my bike to Stanford for work most every day and also on weekends. I recently had a bike accident on one of the unfinished portions due to having to move too close to the curb in order to get farther away from fast moving cars that were driving too close to me on my bike. ecuase of this I am now less inclined to ride my bike to work because of the safety issues. Please be sure that this project is finished for the safety of all the residents that use this residential corridor. Thank you, Peggy 54 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 11:24 PM To:Council, City; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Raj; Human Relations Commission; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission; Greer Stone; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Kaloma Smith; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; ravenmalonepa@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Jeff Moore; DuBois, Tom; Jeff Rosen; David Angel; Tanner, Rachael; Charisse Domingo; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; wintergery@earthlink.net; mark weiss; Perron, Zachary; Stump, Molly; Joe Simitian; Cecilia Taylor; city.council@menlopark.org Subject:Residents call for cop’s firing in dog attack CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    https://padailypost.com/2021/03/22/residents‐call‐for‐cops‐firing‐in‐dog‐attack/amp/      Sent from my iPhone  55 Baumb, Nelly From:lchiapella@juno.com Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 10:29 PM To:ORG - PDS Data; Council, City; MacDonald, Robert Subject:571 Colorado Ave new construction CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    To Whom It May Concern:    RE:  Record 19000‐03292:    The house at 571 Colorado Avenue has a large tree in or next to the driveway.   IS THIS TREE PROTERCTED?    The fencing on the property is not on the lot line.  WHAT IS THE SIDE YARD SET BACK?   IS THE FRONT YARD SETBACK 20  feet or 24 feet?    Are there trees on the property required and/or protected on the three adjoining properties of 515, 571 and 575  Colorado  Avenue currently being built?    Are City street trees required to be protected and are any street trees required?    I am writing because I was unable to find the answers to any questions on ACELA which did not pull up any of the plans,  setbacks, or information regarding the trees.    Can the entire lot be filled with cement or is there a requirement for some dirt and landscaping?    Lynn Chiapella  650‐326‐4311                                56 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 10:13 PM To:Rosen, Jeff; Jeff Moore; Richard Konda; Raj Jayadev; Dave Price; Council, City; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; city.council@menlopark.org; GRP-City Council; Anna Griffin; Roberta Ahlquist; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; Eduardo Guilarte; Taylor, Cecilia; Donald Mendoza; Palo Alto Free Press; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Steven D. Lee; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Pat Burt; Josh Becker; chuck jagoda; Charisse Domingo; Stump, Molly; O'Neal, Molly; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Sean James; Perron, Zachary; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanner, Rachael; Rebecca Eisenberg; Rodriguez, Miguel; Bains, Paul; mark weiss; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Michele; yolanda; Patrice Ventresca Subject:Time for our District Attorney, Jeff Rosen, to file charges in the Joel D. Alejo case CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    3/22/21 To: Elected District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Palo Alto City Council, Mountain View City Council, and all members of our community From: Aram James Please read the two excellent letters to the editor in today’s (Monday March 22, 2021) Daily Post, Opinion section page 9. Each letter poignantly describes the vicious canine attack on Joel Domingo Alejo: Police dog attack 1, by Ethan Young, Stanford Police Dog attack 2, by Kazuo Yoshimoto, Mountain View Both letters make exceedingly powerful arguments that Palo Alto Police officer/agent Nick Enberg, the alleged canine handler in Joel Allejo canine attack, used well beyond excessive force (both letters) and in particular the letter, Police dog attack 1, by Ethan Young, makes an extremely powerful case for our elected District Attorney, Jeff Rosen, to file criminal charges against the alleged canine handler, Palo Alto Police Officer/Agent Nick Enberg. 57 I’m asking members of the public as well as all members of the Palo Alto and Mountain View city councils, to review the tapes in this matter, all nine thus far released. And then, to take action to call or write Mr. Rosen asking him to file felony charges for assault with a deadly weapon or attempted murder in the Joel Domingo Alejo case. Similar police initiated canine attacks, across this country, have resulted in very serious injuries and even death. See in this regard, the yearlong 12 part series titled: Mauled: When police dogs are weapons, by the Marshall Project, in collaboration with other media outlets. The series is eye opening to say the least. Aram James https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/15/mauled-when-police-dogs-are-weapons 58 Baumb, Nelly From:Jessica Zang <jessicazangblogs@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 9:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Written Comment on Resolution Denouncing, Condemning and Combating Racism, Xenophobia, and Intolerance Against AAPI Communities CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I am writing to you as an Asian American (more specifically, a Chinese American) junior at Henry M. Gunn High School.  The topic of racism against Asian Americans is one that is extremely important to me. I have been lucky enough to have  grown up in Palo Alto, a city with a large proportion of Asian Americans and one that has made me feel at home.  However, this has not prevented me from experiencing racism during my middle and high school years. When I was in  seventh grade, someone came up behind me during a break period and poured a bag of chips on my head while saying  offensive and insensitive things "ching chong." (Neither of which, by the way, are actual words in Mandarin Chinese.) In  this past year, I've heard too much about "eating bats" and fearing Chinese people because "they have the virus". This  doesn't even compare to the altercations many of my peers have experienced or witnessed, and it shouldn't be a topic  of contention whether or not the city of Palo Alto should take a stand for its citizens.    This year, I've found myself wondering if I will be harassed, punched, spat on, or killed on the street only for my skin  color and the shape of my eyes. I've had to hold onto my pepper spray and make sure my family isn't being followed on  walks. I've had to wonder if my conversations with my grandmother will be my last when she leaves to go back to the  senior living facility. This isn't right. I shouldn't have to worry about these things as a teenager, yet I burden myself with  protecting my family whenever we go outside. Every day is a risk, despite it being unlikely. Nobody thinks it will happen  to them or that it will happen in their town until it does. It isn't normal, and the situation necessitates legislative action.    It's time to face the fact that even in Palo Alto—even as Asian Americans make up a huge percentage of the  population—racism, ignorance, and hatred still exist. It's up to you, esteemed members of the City Council, to help the  vulnerable and grieving members of your community combat the racism that occurs both in America and within our very  own city. As a city that prides itself on being diverse, inclusive, and upstanding, I'm hopeful that Palo Alto can make the  right choice in protecting and standing for its citizens moving forward—all of them.    Thank you for reading, and thank you for your consideration.  59 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 9:18 PM To:chuck jagoda; DuBois, Tom; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Kou, Lydia; Binder, Andrew; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Rebecca.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org; Gennady Sheyner; Raj Jayadev; Winter Dellenbach; Cormack, Alison; Anna Griffin; Rosen, Jeff; Palo Alto Free Press; Emily Mibach Subject:Re: Police K-9 dogs involved in excessive force allegations by bystanders CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Chuck,   I agree, great line for sure. Not only should the very brilliant Rebecca Eisenberg not speak less   she should be on the city council. How about the mayor and chair of the HRC giving   the citizens more time to speak on critical issues ‐‐we've been cut from 5 minutes per  item to 3 minutes per item now down to 2 minutes per agenda items. Even then the mayor  often acts as though it is an inconvenience to have to listen to members of the   public at all. Shameful attack on a true democracy where every voice should be given  equal value. And I really like Tom as a person. It's mayor Tom I have the issue with.    The job of the city council is not to be efficient but to do justice on all critical   items before the council. But I get it! I appeared for 25 years in front of authoritarian judges,  Jim Crow judges, straight old school sexist and racist judges, and we always figured a way   to push the envelope for justice! Ain"t quitting now, you can bet on that. You go Rebecca,  we got your back.    Aram            Y    On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 8:17 PM chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote:  Rebecca: Best line of your letter: "Want me to be silent, do better!" GREAT line! C   On Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:30 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote:  I also want to state for the record ‐ and will speak it too ‐ that on Friday, the Mayor urged me to speak out LESS often  about these and other issues.      Dear Mayor: In my 50+++ years of life, I have learned that silence helps no one but the wrongdoers.     I will not be silent as the PAPD continues to terrorize my neighbors, family members, visitors, and friends. I will not be  silent as Palo Alto City Council continues to give the PAPD unlimited power to terrorize our community. I will not be  silent as Palo Alto City Council refuses to demand transparency, accountability and justice.   60   Want me to be silent? Do better.     Best,   Rebecca      Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078      On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 12:31 PM chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote:  Thanks for this, Aram. As I think about the attack and responses to it-- like Mayor DuBois: "very unfortunate incident"-- remind me when torture for Iraqi prisoners being tortured in American custody was an issue. Only one government official was willing to endure the procedures being considered. He was a veteran who'd been active in Vietnam. I respect his opinion much more than the opinions of others who only knew about torture from the position of the torturer/administrator of torture. He decided waterboarding was torture and shouldn't be part of the US repertoire. If someone from the Palo Alto Police Dept or the Palo Alto City Council would endure an attack similar to the one Mr. Arejo did at the direction of a trained officer, I would be very interested in her/his responses on the experience. I find it fairly disgusting to read the approvals or mild comments from people who are in groups largely immune to what happens to poor people at the hands of cruel and heartless "protectors" of the public. Until those in charge experience what they approve for current victims, I have to say all the opinions from those who are exlusively looking through the eyes of the torture-administrators are not relevant to the practice in general or the particular use of it in what may turn out to be a very expensive case. Chuck Jagoda   On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 2:12 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Thanks to Palo Alto Free Press for sending this piece re a canine attack in Tacoma Park Maryland.    Question: Given the recent vicious attack by a Palo Alto canine on an innocent man in Mountain View—and similar  viscous attacks by Palo Alto’s canine unit in the past ....is it time to ban K‐9 units in Palo Alto. Give me your thoughts  on this critical police practices issue.     Aram     https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/10/15/police‐k‐9‐dogs‐involved‐excessive‐force‐ allegations‐bystanders/3652320001/      Sent from my iPhone        ‐‐   61 Chuck        ‐‐   Chuck  62 Baumb, Nelly From:Douglas Charles Kerr, via an autoresponder <douglask@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 8:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Away from my mail [Re: Your e-mail to City Council was received] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I will be back checking email on Wednesday, March 24th. Stay safe and healthy.    Best,    Douglas Kerr    63 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 7:38 PM To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; city.council@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Greer Stone; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Joe Simitian; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; ravenmalonepa@gmail.com; Kaloma Smith; Jeff Moore; DuBois, Tom; Sunita de Tourreil; chuck jagoda; Jeff Rosen; Tanner, Rachael; Jonsen, Robert; Charisse Domingo; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; mark weiss; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; wintergery@earthlink.net; Cecilia Taylor; Perron, Zachary; Greg Tanaka; Dave Price; Stump, Molly; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Josh Becker Subject:Evanston, Ill., leads the country with first reparations program for Black residents - The Washington Post—( Can Palo Alto, Redwood City, Mountain View, Menlo Park do the same? Note Evanston’s population is 75 thousand people). CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/evanston‐illinois‐reparations/2021/03/22/6b5a308c‐8b2d‐11eb‐9423‐ 04079921c915_story.html      Sent from my iPhone  64 Baumb, Nelly From:David Moss <ssow111@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 6:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Palo Alto to give windfall to billionaire developer to the detriment of our community and environment CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We need housing, and parks of course, not more office space. I disagree with any action to allow Ellis Partners to build  more office space on Town and Country land. And, same with Fry's property and same with the remaining properties on  Park near Cal Ave. Thanks.   David Moss  ssow111@gmail.com  347 Ferne Ave  Palo Alto 94306  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>  Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 6:26 PM  Subject: Palo Alto to give windfall to billionaire developer to the detriment of our community and environment  To: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>, Human Relations Commission <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>, Council, City  <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>, <Jonathan.Lait@cityofpaloalto.org>,  Stump, Molly <Molly.Stump@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>, Kaloma Smith  <pastor@universityamez.com>, Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>, ParkRec Commission  <parkrec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>, Raven Malone <ravenmalonepa@gmail.com>, WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto  <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>, Jeff Rosen <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org>, Raj <raj@siliconvalleydebug.org>, Charisse  Domingo <charisse@siliconvalleydebug.org>, Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>, Jeff Moore <moorej@esuhsd.org>,  <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org>, Sunita de Tourreil <sunita@chocolatedividends.org>, Rachael Tanner  <Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org>, Andrew Binder <andrew.binder@cityofpaloalto.org>, <griffinam@sbcglobal.net>,  Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com>, Cecilia Taylor  <cmrstaylor@gmail.com>, Mark Petersen‐Perez <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>, Zachary Perron  <zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org>, Greg Tanaka <greg@gregtanaka.org>, Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>, Joe  Simitian <supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org>, Josh Becker <becker.josh@gmail.com>, Lydia Kou  <lydia.kou@cityofpaloalto.org>, Alison Cormack <Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org>, Lewis. james  <alphonse9947@gmail.com>, <Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org>, David Moss <ssow111@gmail.com>,  <cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org>, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>    All:     As more attention is being given to the many ways that billionaires have benefited from the pandemic, as well as the  huge and growing problem of underreporting and underpayment of taxes by the wealthiest under‐1%, especially real  estate investors (See e.g. the Wall Street Journal's article today: https://www.wsj.com/articles/high‐income‐tax‐ avoidance‐far‐larger‐than‐thought‐new‐paper‐estimates‐11616364001? ) , we MUST pay attention to the many ways  that here at home we continue to enrich billionaires to the detriment of the rest of us.     65 On the Palo Alto City Council Agenda tonight is a proposed legal change that would funnel undue wealth to the  billionaire owner of one of Palo Alto's last remaining areas of protected retail space ‐ Town and Country Village.  Ellis  Partners, who purchased Town & Country 15 years ago for an undisclosed sum now has an asset worth between twice  and three times that sum. Despite its appreciation that many estimate to be worth more than half a billion dollars, Ellis  Partners asks that Palo Alto allow Ellis to convert much of Town & Country from retail to office use, and Palo Alto's top  two city executives want to deliver Ellis this absurd windfall.     After declining to extend lease extensions to numerous small business tenants, while refusing to lower rents to other  tenants, Ellis Partners now seeks to exploit the vacancies it created intentionally in order to allow it to convert much  needed retail to office space, which creates additional profit to Ellis but far less tax revenue to Palo Alto's general fund.     If City Council pass the law being requested by our City staff, it would be a gross miscarriage of justice for the following  reasons:     1. Ellis Partners needs no finance assistance from Palo Alto. Since Ellis Partners purchased Town & Country  approximately 15 years ago, the value of Palo Alto real estate has continued to skyrocket ‐‐ and commercial properties  now are worth 2 to 3 the times that they were in 2006. If Ellis no longer wants to own retail space, it can sell it to a  willing buyer and recognize its hundreds of millions of dollars of profit.      2. Town & Country's vacancies are a short‐term impact of the pandemic, and no change to zoning should be made until  at very least Stanford and Palo Alto High School are open again, retail occupancy limits are lifted (so that Trader Joe's no  longer have 1‐hour waits to enter) and residents are no longer facing locktown in their homes.    3. Town & Country's vacancies are due to Ellis Partners' refusal to extend leases to tenants, not due to a declining retail  market. I have spoken to at least five former tenants of Town & Country who can testify that they wanted to stay in their  leases but Ellis Partners refused to allow them.    4. Ellis Partners claimed that it has done "everything" to support its retail tenants but even Ellis Partners admits that it  has not DECREASED RENTS.  Ellis has increased its rents steadily every year since purchasing Town and Country and  never once decreased them. NOW is the time that they must decrease rents.    NOTE: While Ellis insists it has abated rent, that is NOT TRUE. The City report makes clear that it did not research on this  topic. Speaking to former tenants will reveal Ellis's blatant lies. Please note: Ellis Partners's lease disallows tenants to  discuss their rents via a nondisclosure agreement, so Ellis has successfully muzzled most of the current tenants, who  cannot speak on the record without risking eviction.     5. The idea of granting this extraordinary move to a highly unsympathetic applicant during a time that billionaires are  reaping unprecedented gains and small businesses are experiencing unprecedented losses is both irrational and  inhumane.     6.  Converting the retail space to office will cost the City in sales tax at a time when Palo Alto is over‐reliant on sales tax  revenues for its general fund. This will hurt all community members by reducing funds at a time when the city already is  operating at a deficit. Granting this demand will enrich a highly profitable applicant, in other words, while created large  costs to a city that is operating at a loss.    7. Taking away retail of any extent will harm sustainability, causing residents and local employees to drive to restaurants  and shops rather than shop locally. This is directly in opposition to the City Council's stated mandate of sustainability.     For all of these reasons, I believe that the City Manager and Planning Manager should be censured for fronting  billionaire Ellis Partners' outrageous antidemocratic and environmentally‐damaging demand.     This is exactly why so many Palo Altans complain that our city is being run ‐ and destroyed ‐ by the wealthiest few.  66   This profoundly unjust proposal never should have come before our City Council. Shame on the city manager and city  planner.     Sincerely,     Rebecca Eisenberg            Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078      67 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 6:28 PM To:Alison Cormack; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:I spoke with LaBelle and they are no longer interested in expanding CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Due to unreasonable demands of Ellis Partners.     Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078  68 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 6:26 PM To:Aram James; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Stump, Molly Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Raven Malone; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Charisse Domingo; Greer Stone; Jeff Moore; DuBois, Tom; Sunita de Tourreil; Tanner, Rachael; Binder, Andrew; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; Winter Dellenbach; mark weiss; Cecilia Taylor; Mark Petersen-Perez; Perron, Zachary; Greg Tanaka; Dave Price; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Lewis. james; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; David Moss; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:Palo Alto to give windfall to billionaire developer to the detriment of our community and environment CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  All:     As more attention is being given to the many ways that billionaires have benefited from the pandemic, as well as the  huge and growing problem of underreporting and underpayment of taxes by the wealthiest under‐1%, especially real  estate investors (See e.g. the Wall Street Journal's article today: https://www.wsj.com/articles/high‐income‐tax‐ avoidance‐far‐larger‐than‐thought‐new‐paper‐estimates‐11616364001? ) , we MUST pay attention to the many ways  that here at home we continue to enrich billionaires to the detriment of the rest of us.     On the Palo Alto City Council Agenda tonight is a proposed legal change that would funnel undue wealth to the  billionaire owner of one of Palo Alto's last remaining areas of protected retail space ‐ Town and Country Village.  Ellis  Partners, who purchased Town & Country 15 years ago for an undisclosed sum now has an asset worth between twice  and three times that sum. Despite its appreciation that many estimate to be worth more than half a billion dollars, Ellis  Partners asks that Palo Alto allow Ellis to convert much of Town & Country from retail to office use, and Palo Alto's top  two city executives want to deliver Ellis this absurd windfall.     After declining to extend lease extensions to numerous small business tenants, while refusing to lower rents to other  tenants, Ellis Partners now seeks to exploit the vacancies it created intentionally in order to allow it to convert much  needed retail to office space, which creates additional profit to Ellis but far less tax revenue to Palo Alto's general fund.     If City Council pass the law being requested by our City staff, it would be a gross miscarriage of justice for the following  reasons:     1. Ellis Partners needs no finance assistance from Palo Alto. Since Ellis Partners purchased Town & Country  approximately 15 years ago, the value of Palo Alto real estate has continued to skyrocket ‐‐ and commercial properties  now are worth 2 to 3 the times that they were in 2006. If Ellis no longer wants to own retail space, it can sell it to a  willing buyer and recognize its hundreds of millions of dollars of profit.      2. Town & Country's vacancies are a short‐term impact of the pandemic, and no change to zoning should be made until  at very least Stanford and Palo Alto High School are open again, retail occupancy limits are lifted (so that Trader Joe's no  longer have 1‐hour waits to enter) and residents are no longer facing locktown in their homes.    3. Town & Country's vacancies are due to Ellis Partners' refusal to extend leases to tenants, not due to a declining retail  market. I have spoken to at least five former tenants of Town & Country who can testify that they wanted to stay in their  leases but Ellis Partners refused to allow them.  69   4. Ellis Partners claimed that it has done "everything" to support its retail tenants but even Ellis Partners admits that it  has not DECREASED RENTS.  Ellis has increased its rents steadily every year since purchasing Town and Country and  never once decreased them. NOW is the time that they must decrease rents.    NOTE: While Ellis insists it has abated rent, that is NOT TRUE. The City report makes clear that it did not research on this  topic. Speaking to former tenants will reveal Ellis's blatant lies. Please note: Ellis Partners's lease disallows tenants to  discuss their rents via a nondisclosure agreement, so Ellis has successfully muzzled most of the current tenants, who  cannot speak on the record without risking eviction.     5. The idea of granting this extraordinary move to a highly unsympathetic applicant during a time that billionaires are  reaping unprecedented gains and small businesses are experiencing unprecedented losses is both irrational and  inhumane.     6.  Converting the retail space to office will cost the City in sales tax at a time when Palo Alto is over‐reliant on sales tax  revenues for its general fund. This will hurt all community members by reducing funds at a time when the city already is  operating at a deficit. Granting this demand will enrich a highly profitable applicant, in other words, while created large  costs to a city that is operating at a loss.    7. Taking away retail of any extent will harm sustainability, causing residents and local employees to drive to restaurants  and shops rather than shop locally. This is directly in opposition to the City Council's stated mandate of sustainability.     For all of these reasons, I believe that the City Manager and Planning Manager should be censured for fronting  billionaire Ellis Partners' outrageous antidemocratic and environmentally‐damaging demand.     This is exactly why so many Palo Altans complain that our city is being run ‐ and destroyed ‐ by the wealthiest few.    This profoundly unjust proposal never should have come before our City Council. Shame on the city manager and city  planner.     Sincerely,     Rebecca Eisenberg            Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078      70 Baumb, Nelly From:Annika Bereny <anbereny@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 5:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Officer Enberg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Members of City Council,      My name is Annika Bereny and as a resident of Palo Alto, I was very disturbed to hear that an officer of the Palo Alto  Police Department, Nick Enberg, had set his dog on an innocent man, as well as shooting someone in a mental health  crisis and previously setting his dog on a high school student at Paly. I strongly urge the council to pay the victim his full  settlement and discipline officer Enberg immediately. After a summer in which so much police brutality was brought to  light, I think it's rather ill‐considered and tasteless that this is even a discussion you need to be having. Finally, I would  like to ask all of the members of City Council to watch the video of the incident and then come back and try to in good  faith ignore it.     Best,  Annika Bereny  71 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 5:30 PM To:chuck jagoda Cc:Aram James; Jonsen, Robert; Roberta Ahlquist; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; Council, City; ParkRec Commission; Raven Malone; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Stump, Molly; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Charisse Domingo; Greer Stone; Jeff Moore; DuBois, Tom; Sunita de Tourreil; Tanner, Rachael; Binder, Andrew; Anna Griffin; Winter Dellenbach; mark weiss; Cecilia Taylor; Palo Alto Free Press; Perron, Zachary; Greg Tanaka; Dave Price; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Kou, Lydia; Shikada, Ed; Cormack, Alison; Lewis. james; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; David Moss; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Re: Police K-9 dogs involved in excessive force allegations by bystanders CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I also want to state for the record ‐ and will speak it too ‐ that on Friday, the Mayor urged me to speak out LESS often  about these and other issues.      Dear Mayor: In my 50+++ years of life, I have learned that silence helps no one but the wrongdoers.     I will not be silent as the PAPD continues to terrorize my neighbors, family members, visitors, and friends. I will not be  silent as Palo Alto City Council continues to give the PAPD unlimited power to terrorize our community. I will not be  silent as Palo Alto City Council refuses to demand transparency, accountability and justice.     Want me to be silent? Do better.     Best,   Rebecca      Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078      On Sun, Mar 21, 2021 at 12:31 PM chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote:  Thanks for this, Aram. As I think about the attack and responses to it-- like Mayor DuBois: "very unfortunate incident"-- remind me when torture for Iraqi prisoners being tortured in American custody was an issue. Only one government official was willing to endure the procedures being considered. He was a veteran who'd been active in Vietnam. I respect his opinion much more than the opinions of others who only knew about torture from the position of the torturer/administrator of torture. He decided waterboarding was torture and shouldn't be part of the US repertoire. If someone from the Palo Alto Police Dept or the Palo Alto City Council would endure an attack similar to the one Mr. Arejo did at the direction of a trained officer, I would be very interested in her/his responses on the 72 experience. I find it fairly disgusting to read the approvals or mild comments from people who are in groups largely immune to what happens to poor people at the hands of cruel and heartless "protectors" of the public. Until those in charge experience what they approve for current victims, I have to say all the opinions from those who are exlusively looking through the eyes of the torture-administrators are not relevant to the practice in general or the particular use of it in what may turn out to be a very expensive case. Chuck Jagoda   On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 2:12 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Thanks to Palo Alto Free Press for sending this piece re a canine attack in Tacoma Park Maryland.    Question: Given the recent vicious attack by a Palo Alto canine on an innocent man in Mountain View—and similar  viscous attacks by Palo Alto’s canine unit in the past ....is it time to ban K‐9 units in Palo Alto. Give me your thoughts  on this critical police practices issue.     Aram     https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/10/15/police‐k‐9‐dogs‐involved‐excessive‐force‐ allegations‐bystanders/3652320001/      Sent from my iPhone        ‐‐   Chuck  73 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 5:23 PM To:alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bballpod; fred beyerlein; beachrides; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Daniel Zack; Dan Richard; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; kfsndesk; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mayor; midge@thebarretts.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; sanchezphilip21@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: Monday, March 22, 2021 CBS News Oxford vaccine safe, etc. says FDA CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:10 PM  Subject: Fwd: Monday, March 22, 2021 CBS News Oxford vaccine safe, etc. says FDA  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 5:01 PM  Subject: Fwd: Monday, March 22, 2021 CBS News Oxford vaccine safe, etc. says FDA  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 4:45 PM  Subject: Fwd: Monday, March 22, 2021 CBS News Oxford vaccine safe, etc. says FDA  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 4:07 PM  74 Subject: Fwd: Monday, March 22, 2021 CBS News Oxford vaccine safe, etc. says FDA  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Mar 22, 2021 at 3:42 PM  Subject: Monday, March 22, 2021 CBS News Oxford vaccine safe, etc. says FDA  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                Monday, March 22, 2021             U.S. study finds AstraZeneca vaccine 79% effective against symptomatic COVID‐19 ‐ YouTube                   NOTE, first of all, she asks the doctor how releasing the Oxford vaccine NOW would affect the timeline of the  vaccination program AND  HE DODGED THE QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!  He did not want to answer that!  He replied that this is  good news, about the Oxford vaccine. THAT IS NOT WHAT SHE ASKED HIM.  WE SEE THIS EXCHANGE IN THE FIRST 1:12  OF THE INTERVIEW. SHE PREFACED THE QUESTION BY SAYING THAT SOME ARE SAYING THAT BY THE TIME THE FDA  (finally,  FINALLY) approves the Oxford vaccine, the other 3 vaccines will have been enough to vaccinate everybody in  the U.S.   BUT THAT DODGES THE ISSUE OF HOW MANY MORE   MORE   PEOPLE WILL HAVE BEEN VACCINATED IN THE  NEXT MONTH OR SO IF THE OXFORD VACCINE IS RELEASED NOW.  BECAUSE THAT NUMBER WILL BE LOWER IF THE  OXFORD VACCINE IS NOT RELEASED NOW, MORE PEOPLE WILL SUCCUMB TO COVID IN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. One need  not be a member of Mensa to see that. Therefore, Biden and his incompetent or worse FDA are just killing people by all  of the mindless, criminal hold up in releasing the Oxford vaccine. Congress should impeach Biden for murder. In his trial  in the Senate, he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.                   To all‐    At long last, the networks, in this case CBS, have been smoked out and have broken their silence on the  Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine. The Phase 3 trial data is now in. IT IS NOW IN, AND IT IS PUBLIC, AND IT IS NOW FULLY  AVAILABLE. The doctor interviewed here says that data is MUCH MORE COMPLETE THAN THAT FROM THE TRIALS DONE  IN EUROPE, and it shows the Oxford vaccine to be safe and effective.   I have never heard anyone, before this man's  comments, say that the trial just completed in the U.S. is much better, much more complete, than the trials done in  Europe. That is news.                BUT then he goes on to say that now the advisory committee will CAREFULLY, CAREFULLY review the data for  several WEEKS and THEN decide whether to recommend an EUA for the Oxford vaccine in the U.S.  THIS despite the fact  that the trials conducted in the UK were very well designed and conducted trials and that the results of those trials  caused the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency in the UK to issue an EUA for the Oxford vaccine in  December, 2020. It started being injected in the four countries of the UK on Monday, January 4, 2021 and has now been  given to millions of people in the UK with few if any problems. It has been approved by the European Medicines Agency,  the EMA, for weeks and has been used for weeks now in the 27 countries of the EU, with an unwarranted stoppage due  to blood clot fears. Those fears have now been shown to be baseless, and previous mails I have sent show the top  officials of the EMA a couple of days ago saying so and re‐authorizing the Oxford vaccine for use in the EU. The UK  regulators looked at the clot data and re‐affirmed their approval of the Oxford vaccine for use in the UK.   Despite all of  that, despite all of trials and despite the real‐world data from the UK and elsewhere, the FDA's advisory panel is now  going to study the data produced by the Phase 3 trial here for WEEKS AND WEEKS AND WEEKS to try, somehow, to  decide, maybe, if the vaccine may be  safe for use here. This is a crime without a name, as Churchill said. The UK has  real‐world data from Scotland. One half million people there got the Pfizer vaccine and the same number got the Oxford  vaccine. Both proved safe and effective. That is real world data, not trial data. AND STILL  AND STILL THE CORRUPT,  MURDEROUS BIDEN ADMINISTRATION STILL WILL NOT COMPEL THE FDA TO RELEASE THE OXFORD VACCINE FOR USE IN  75 THE U.S. Everyone involved in the vaccination effort in the U.S. says over and over that we still have a shortage of  vaccine. Therefore, if the FDA released the Oxford vaccine for use in the U.S., Americans could be vaccinated in bigger  numbers than they are now. That is indisputable. And because of that, some of the people who will get vaccinated later  than they could be now without the Oxford vaccine, will develop Covid and some of them will die. Not fancy logic.                I call on Congress to impeach Biden for murder. He could compel the FDA to release the Oxford vaccine  immediately. To not release it now is a crime against humanity. AZN has 30 million doses ready to ship now. Congress  has a duty to impeach and remove Biden because he is killing Americans through his stupidity or worse. The interviewer  above asked the doctor if releasing the Oxford vaccine would increase the rate of vaccination, and he dodged the  question. You do not want to get on the wrong side of Uncle Sam if you are a public official somewhere.             And here is the ABC News piece of today about the great results on Oxford. She can't read very well and trips on  "test subjects" or something at the outset. She interviews the German CEO of Astrazeneca USA.  HE says they will submit  their now complete data to the FDA advisory panel in APRIL! Why not now?  Why not next Christmas? When they give  an EUA, AZN will ship out 30 million doses and 20 million more will follow soon thereafter.  She mentions the  CONCERNS   OH, THE CONCERNS in Europe re blood clots, even though MHRA and the EMA both announced a couple of  days ago that that is NOT a concern now and both cleared the Oxford vaccine for continued use now in the EU and in the  UK.  But she wanted to yell that word  "CONCERNS", I guess to somehow justify the collusion by the networks here with  the Biden admin. and his FDA in keeping the Oxford vaccine off the market here for months after it has been used safely  for months in the UK and EU. And in Mexico, Canada, Argentina, India, Australia, Brazil.                     The FDA advisory panel should grant an EUA for the Oxford vaccine this week. If they do not, they should  charged criminally. What do they think they might find? The trials in the UK were carefully done. Since January 4, 2021,  millions upon millions of doses have been administered in the UK, and millions more in the 27 countries of the EU.  All of  that has been carefully monitored by the people running the vaccination programs. If there was some danger in the use  of the Oxford vaccine, those people would have told the world about it. The blood clot issue turned out to be so rare  and so much a correlation and not a causation, that vaccinations are now proceeding in the UK and EU as before. But the  panel asserts that if they study the Phase 3 trial data here for weeks and weeks that they might still see something that  even the real world data have not picked up. That is just crazy. Americans are going to die in April and May because the  Oxford vaccine is being held up by the FDA. Congress has a duty to move against Biden on this issue. The evidence is  overwhelming that the Oxford vaccine is safe and effective and it is just criminal conduct by Biden not to compel its  release it to the Ameican people now.                 AstraZeneca's executive vice president on new vaccine trial data ‐ YouTube              L. William Harding           Fresno, Ca.  76 Baumb, Nelly From:Arnout Boelens <a.m.p.boelens@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 4:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston/Arastradero comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    Below, please find a copy of my spoken public comments on Charleston/Arastradero for tonight.    Kind regards,    Arnout Boelens    Dear City Council Members and Mayor Dubois,    I am Arnout Boelens, speaking on behalf of the Palo Alto Council of PTAs Traffic Safety Committee to voice our  continued support for the Charleston/Arastradero Plan Phase 3 funding. This weekend we copied you on a number of  letters of support for staff’s El Camino Real encroachment permit application for Phase 3, which were sent by corridor  school PTAs over the last couple of months. These letters demonstrate that  PTAs have been doing what we can to  actively support staff’s efforts to get this important safety project done as quickly as possible..    A year ago a boy on his bike was killed at  El Camino Real and California Avenue. This was a tragic and unnecessary loss  to our community. El Camino bike/ped crossing hazards have been well known and documented for decades, but safety  improvements for people who walk and bike continue to be delayed. The committee was therefore surprised and  disappointed to hear that Council is considering cutting or delaying the third and last phase of the  Charleston/Arastradero corridor project which already has been delayed multiple times over two decades.     According to data from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) of the University of California, Berkeley [1],  since 2009 nine collisions have happened on the intersection of El Camino Real/Charleston‐Arastradero and 16 on the  intersection of Middlefield/Charleston. The Charleston/Arastradero corridor serves eleven public and private k‐12  schools, and many students must cross these hazardous intersections on their way to and from school. As part of the  last phase of the Charleston/Arastradero corridor project, these hazardous locations would finally see significant safety  improvements by providing continuous bike lanes along the corridor and through these intersections.     Over many years, corridor school site PTAs have consistently supported the Charleston‐Arastradero corridor project so  students can walk and ride safely to school. We urge you again to ensure that funding is available for phase 3 this year,  as planned. Please allow this project to move forward without any further delay, preventing further unnecessary injury  crashes.    We thank you for considering our comments.    [1] https://tims.berkeley.edu/  77 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 4:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Strong support for maintaining Charleston/Arastradero funding Item # 5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am urging the council to get to the finish line, finally, with this project. While this may be the last phase, it is in some  ways the most important. It would improve two of the worst intersections in the city as far as conflicts between people  walking, biking and driving.     The intersections at El Camino and Middlefield are currently very dangerous.  The El Camino intersection should have  been fixed years ago but it has taken many years to get an agreement with Caltrans. Currently there is no bike lane, nor  room for one, so you have bicyclists moving between the middle of the lane, the sidewalk and the cross‐walk.    I am more aware than many about the design flaws of this intersection ‐ my daughter was hit by a car biking home from  school.  Like many other bicyclists (including adults), she was in the cross‐walk on the correct side of the side.. Even  though she had started crossing on a green light and was clipped on her bike wheel, legally she was at fault. One issue I  learned about is that the light cycles give very limited time to cross  because Caltrans is trying to optimize capacity.  The  safer the intersection is by design, the fewer compromises have to be made that impact everyone.    I know during this challenging budget time it is tempting to delay many projects. In this case, these are important safety  fixes that need to be made and it seems likely that bids will be very aggressive. Making a decision now to pull something  before finding out the cost seems premature and potentially costly in the long‐term. Over the next year, it seems likely  there will be additional stimulus funds for infrastructure and we could find ourselves in a very different bidding  environment.    A final consideration needs to be the effort that staff has put into this project and getting it up to the finish line. They  have really done an excellent job getting through a lot of hurdles to get agreement from all the relevant agencies on a  design.    Thanks for your consideration,    To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Virus-free. www.avg.com   78 Baumb, Nelly From:Sebastian Brisbois <sebastian.brisbois@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 10:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Police Attack on Joel Alejo CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     I recently learned of the police dog attack on Joel Alejo. This is such a disgusting case of police misconduct. It is amazing  that Nick Enberg was allowed to handle a police dog, let alone still be an officer, considering he was already responsible  for a previous undeserved attack on a teenager. I'm also flabbergasted that this incident only came to light now even  though it happened last summer. What else might we learn about next year that happened now? It is also  convenient timing for local governments throughout the Peninsula, including Palo Alto, to have this incident not be  known to the public until now considering the calls from the public for meaningful police reform last summer that have  been ignored because police brutality supposedly doesn't happen here. Well, police brutality clearly does happen here.  The myth that we are an exception to the policing problem in America has been shattered. It is time to do something  meaningful, not just issue empty apologies.    Sincerely,  Sebastian Brisbois  79 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 11:41 PM To:David Meiswinkle Subject:Re: Please watch this video as soon as you can. It is the most important statement to date concerning the COVID vaccines. by one of the worlds vaccine experts. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Log into Facebook To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Log into Facebook Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with your friends, family, and people you know.    On Saturday, March 20, 2021, 11:36:27 PM EDT, Dennis Tiernan <dennistiernan@comcast.net> wrote: A really good video, quite the eye opener D Sent from my iPhone > On Mar 20, 2021, at 2:25 PM, biotica <biotica@ptd.net> wrote: > 80 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 7:54 PM To:Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com Subject:NYTimes: In City After City, Police Mishandled Black Lives Matter Protests CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    In City After City, Police Mishandled Black Lives Matter Protests https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/20/us/protests‐ policing‐george‐floyd.html?referringSource=articleShare      Sent from my iPhone  81 Baumb, Nelly From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 5:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Legislative highlight: Pooling our resources to help house our neighbors CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    When will yu apply for CARES act $$ for affordable housing?  Roberta Ahlquist, WILPF low‐income housing committee    From: Team California YIMBY <info@cayimby.org>  Subject: Legislative highlight: Pooling our resources to help house our neighbors       To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Dear roberta, California YIMBY’s sponsored bills this legislative session include two bills we’re especially excited about: AB 946 and SCA 2. Together, these proposals will help re-imagine the role we can all play in helping make sure everyone in California has a home. AB 946, authored by Asm. Alex Lee, directs the state to close a tax loophole on vacation homes, and use the funds to help nearly 23,000 Californians become first-time homebuyers. To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. SHARE THIS GRAPHIC » California’s tax revenues aren’t supposed to benefit the wealthy few with the means to own vacation properties By closing the vacation home tax loophole, AB 946 will secure an estimated $230 million per year to help moderate-income Californians purchase a home and help address the disproportionately low rate of homeownership among Latino and Black Californians. You read more about AB 946 on our website. 82 SCA 2, introduced by Sens. Ben Allen and Scott Wiener, would amend the state Constitution to make it legal to build low-income and public housing in California’s cities. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. SHARE THIS GRAPHIC » Article 34 was passed in 1950 as a means to perpetuate racial exclusion in California’s neighborhoods. By repealing Article 34, SCA 2 removes the power of wealthy neighborhoods to veto affordable housing developments -- and will help us build integrated, economically diverse communities. If voters approve SCA 2 on the ballot, it will:  Empower local governments to address low-income housing and homelessness by removing obstacles that prevent needed housing from being built.  Lead to more equitable housing outcomes and help address California’s severe shortage of subsidized affordable housing.  Save taxpayer dollars by eliminating red tape and prohibitive local fees, making it cheaper to build publicly-funded affordable housing projects. You read more about SCA 2 on our website. Ultimately roberta, AB 946 and SCA 2 represent opportunities to radically re-imagine the role of government in making sure every Californian can afford a place to live, work, and raise a family. What’s more -- they’re not the only bills we’re sponsoring this year. Keep an eye out over the coming day as we continue chronicling our 2021 Sponsored Legislation. In the meantime, please share some of the beautiful graphics designed by Alfred Twu for California YIMBY. Hopefully, Team California YIMBY        California YIMBY is a movement dedicated to ending our state’s housing crisis and building a more inclusive, affordable, and accessible state for ALL Californians. If you 83 were forwarded this email, you can join our movement here. Donate now » We rely on email to communicate with supporters like you and power our movement. Thank you for being an important part of the team! Getting a bit too much email? You can sign up here to receive fewer emails. To unsubscribe, click here.   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.In stagram   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Web Site     PAID FOR BY CALIFORNIA YIMBY,   717 K Street, Suite 221, Sacramento, CA 95814          Sent via ActionNetwork.org. To update your email address, change your name or address, or to stop receiving emails from California YIMBY, please click here.         84 Baumb, Nelly From:Katherine Causey <katherinecausey@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 4:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Public Safety CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am writing to the Palo Alto City Council and PAUSD Board of Education, regarding community public safety - I’ve written to council and board before, and spoken publicly about how I believe Council and Board should pursue joint initiatives on large issues like community safety, because when it comes to issues that fall under public safety, whether that’s ending violence fueled by white supremacy or sexual assault - it takes all of us working together. I am writing to ask that our safety processes and resources be made as clear as possible to the Palo Alto and PAUSD community.     If a member of the school  community (a student, an educator, etc.) says something homophobic, posts something racist online, is violent or sexually harrasses someone - how is  it investigated, addressed, and what are the consequences?      If an individual experiences harassment  at a local business, violence or threats (online or in person) or a hate crime occurs what are the different options for an individual to report, how is it investigated and addressed?   I am asking this because on the district side, the main feedback I got from students last year, is  they just don’t see evidence that when sexual harassment or violence occurs that it is effecitlvey addressed. Last year in a Palo Alto Online forum a very brave student described an educator using the n-word, I don’t believe the district made any sort of  statement about if anything was being done to investigate and remove that educator.    Last year a PAUSD campus was plastered with racist flyers targeting the Asian American community. I  believe this was one of many incidents of white supremacy that the Human Relations Commission cited in their presentation to Council, as why we need an need an independent investigation by an organization outside of the Palo Alto Police Department into white  supremacist incidents in Palo Alto.  85   City Council just approved a $118 million public safety building for the headquarters of our police department, but last year so many community members spoke out about racist incidents with the police department, that even with all the reform in the world - police are just not a resource every individual can go to.     I say all this because I fear an incident similar to Atlanta happening here. It is well known that the Asian and Asian American communities face descrimination in Palo Alto. School board candidates were asked during multiple debates last year about how the Asian and Asian American communities have been used as a racist scapegoat for over a decade during discussions of student mental health. It’s common for racist comments to be made about Asian families who buy homes in Palo Alto. In our last California Healthy Kids survey (taken right before the pandemic) 30% of Asian freshmen at Paly did not feel safe at school and 14% had faced harassment, 20% of Asian freshmen at Gunn did not feel safe at school and 16% had faced harassment. Most of the student survivors I spoke to last year who had reported sexual violence or harrassment were Asian American girls.   Journalist SuChin Pak has talked about how of the rise over the last year in violence toward the Asian American Pacific Islander communities California has seen the highest rates of such violence and that the most common incidents happen at businesses.     Palo Alto has so many Asian American Pacific Islander owned businesses, and I would like to know what is being done to protect those business owners and community members, what resources are being provided - because again, reporting through the police department is just not something every individual can do.     The shooter in Atlanta was a young white man, as shooters usually are, I have no doubt in the coming weeks information will come out that this man had a history of violence against women and of racism and disturbing online behavior - because that is the case with almost every shooter. We know that when harrassment, racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism, transphobia or other forms of hate are not addressed - they only escalate. I want our community to constantly actively be showing that we’re protecting every member of our community and that we don’t allow hateful behavior to ever escalate. Please ensure our safety and reporting processes are accessible, effective and uniform. My letters linked above talk about different potential timelines and what other communities have done such as, working with local technology companies or nonprofits to create new public safety resources (for example Washington DC’s approach with the Collective Action For Safe Spaces which provides businesses deesclation and intervention training for harassment). I believe for the last year the district has moved toward the creation of an annual survey to measure the full presence of safety issues such as discrimination and harrassment in our schools - I think the city should do the same. Our AAPI community members need to know what resources we are providing now to keep them safe, and we do need to be moving toward alternatives to policing. Thank you, Katherine Causey   87 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 3:44 PM To:biotica Subject:Please watch this video as soon as you can. It is the most important statement to date concerning the COVID vaccines. by one of the worlds vaccine experts. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  YES AND WE WILL ENDURE IT BUT BUCKLE YOUR SEATBELT WE IN FOR A BUMPY RIDE THANKS FOR THIS POST I'LL REACH A MILLION BY WEEKEND 12AM MONDAY REGARDS Frank A On Saturday, March 20, 2021, 05:40:08 PM EDT, biotica <biotica@ptd.net> wrote: See the flyer https://greennews.dk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/COVID_Dangers.pdf ----- Original Message ----- From: "biotica" <biotica@ptd.net> To: "David R. Meiswinkle" <drmeiswinkle@aol.com>, "efkaplan" <efkaplan@ptd.net> Cc: "honkystar" <honkystar@yahoo.com>, "LDBasile" <ldbasile@comcast.net>, "pc77user" <pc77user@aol.com>, "Steve Kormondy" <pyramidian@optonline.net>, "Dennis Tiernan" <dennistiernan@comcast.net>, "Philip Hussa" <philiphussa@aol.com> Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2021 2:25:10 PM Subject: Re: Please watch this video as soon as you can. It is the most important statement to date concerning the COVID vaccines. by one of the worlds vaccine experts. Hello all, With the current state of affairs of the USA corporation being dissolved, negotiations on with China, COVID-19 Plandemic, Injections of mRNA so-called vaccines of should I say a binary weapon, DC a ghost town in lockdown, and the Gates mosquitoes being released, along with the Deagle report I posted the speech of General Chi Haotian. I had posted this on my blog in 2009. Read it weep, and pray. The Relevance Today of The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian https://subterrnews.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-relevance-today-of-secret-speech-of.html Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "David R. Meiswinkle" <drmeiswinkle@aol.com> To: "honkystar" <honkystar@yahoo.com>, "biotica" <biotica@ptd.net>, "LDBasile" <ldbasile@comcast.net>, "pc77user" <pc77user@aol.com>, "Steve Kormondy" <pyramidian@optonline.net>, "Dennis Tiernan" <dennistiernan@comcast.net>, "Philip Hussa" <philiphussa@aol.com>, "David R. Meiswinkle" <drmeiswinkle@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:50:47 AM Subject: Fwd: Please watch this video as soon as you can. It is the most important statement to date concerning the COVID vaccines. by one of the worlds vaccine experts. 88 Please watch this video as soon as you can. It is the most important statement to date concerning the COVID vaccines by one of the worlds vaccine experts. Your understanding of this virus and this specific vaccine will be increased exponentially. Please watch to understand what is at stake. A COMING COVID CATASTROPHE - The Highwire 89 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 20, 2021 10:35 AM To:Pat Burt; DuBois, Tom; Raj; Charisse Domingo; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Greer Stone; Council, City; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Rebecca Eisenberg; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; ravenmalonepa@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Sunita de Tourreil; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Binder, Andrew; Stump, Molly; Jonsen, Robert; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Perron, Zachary; mark weiss; wintergery@earthlink.net; Cecilia Taylor; Greg Tanaka; Dave Price; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Josh Becker; David Moss; David Angel; Shikada, Ed Subject:A city where someone was bitten by a canine every five days CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/11/the‐city‐where‐someone‐was‐bitten‐by‐a‐police‐dog‐every‐5‐days    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  90 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 10:53 PM To:DuBois, Tom; Pat Burt; Rebecca Eisenberg; mark weiss; Winter Dellenbach; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Greer Stone; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Council, City; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Human Relations Commission; Greg Tanaka; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Jeff Moore; Sunita de Tourreil; Tanner, Rachael; Dave Price Subject:Nanci Kauffman uses the press in a not so subtle effort to bully the Palo Alto city council ...and the people of Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/17/palo‐alto‐castilleja‐school‐expansion‐plans‐hangs‐in‐balance‐as‐council‐ remains‐undecided/amp/      Sent from my iPhone  91 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 9:49 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bballpod; fred beyerlein; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; kfsndesk; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; midge@thebarretts.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 12:33 PM  Subject: Fwd:   The Oxford vaccine deemed safe by EU and now used again, but we saps in U.S. cannot have it. Just plain  murder by Biden.   To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 1:26 AM  Subject: Fwd:  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 11:06 PM  Subject: Fwd:  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  92 Date: Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:39 PM  Subject :Very important re Oxford vaccine  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:36 PM  Subject: Fwd:  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Mar 18, 2021 at 10:26 PM  Subject:   To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                     Friday, March 19, 2021                        To all‐                   European Medicines Agency,  the EMA,  says Oxford ANZ vaccine safe!!!  Countries there resume roll out of  Oxford vaccine.             EU regulator declares AstraZeneca vaccine “safe and effective” ‐ BBC News ‐ YouTube                     Here, above, is a segment of BBC News today,March 18, 2021.  EU regulators declare Oxford AZN vaccine safe  end effective.They studied  four cases of clots in the brain in men over 60 yrs of age. Any link of clots in the brain to the  Oxford vaccine is unproven, they declare. Anyone with a headache that lasts more than four days should seek medical  attention. EU countries are resuming the roll out of the Oxford vaccine.   They can't rule out a connection, but the  condition is extremely rare and the benefits of the Oxford vaccine are great. Just BTW, pts fighting for their lives in an  ICU with Covid can get blood clots. Recall that a man in that situation got them in his leg and they amputated his leg. Not  sure how frequent that is. But getting blood clots comes with Covid, so avoid the Oxford vaccine for fear of blood clots  and you can get them when you're in the hospital fighting Covid.                 Then see below the PBS Newshour for Thursday, March 18, 2021 starting at  19:00 and ending at 31:00.  Twelve  minutes. The Biden administration has entered the world of Alice in Wonderland. AZN has 30 million doses of the Oxford  vaccine here in the U.S. ready to ship the minute the FDA gives the Co. an EUA for the vaccine.  The FDA has still not  approved the Oxford vaccine for use in the United States.   Nonetheless, the Biden administration is GOING TO DONATE  FOUR MILLION DOSES OF IT, IN TOTAL, TO CANADA AND MEXICO. SEE, THE FDA  AND THE INCOMPETENT OR WORSE  BIDEN ADMINISTRATION KNOW THAT THE VACCINE IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, BUT BECAUSE OF CORRUPTION OR  SOMETHING, THEY ARE GOING TO DONATE IT TO CANADA AND MEXICO AND DENY IT TO THE SUCKERS, THE  AMERICAN PEOPLE.  THAT SHOULD BE GROUNDS FOR IMPEACHEMENT OF BIDEN FOR MURDER.  MANY AMERICANS  WILL DIE BECAUSE THOSE FOUR MILLION DOSES OF THE OXFORD VACCINE ARE TO BE DENIED TO THEM.    93             IF ANY COUNTRY DELIBERATELY DONATED FOUR MILLION DOSES OF  A MEDICINE TO TWO COUNTRIES,  KNOWING THAT IT WAS DANGEROUS, AND IT KILLED PEOPLE, THAT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS AN ACT OF WAR. THE  CIVILIZED WORLD WOULD BE JUSTIFIED IN TAKING VERY STRONG ACTION AGAINST THE REGIME THAT DID THAT. BUT  THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION SEEMS TO HAVE NO FEAR OF THAT HAPPENING BECAUSE THEY THINK THE OXFORD  VACCINE IS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE. CAN YOU BELIEVE WHAT YOU ARE HEARING?  If the Oxford vaccine is safe, it should  be rolled out and provided to the suckers, the American people, or Biden should be removed from office.                  Here is the PBS Newshour for Thursday, March 18, 2021. Listen to 19:00 to 21:00: Note the BS about how we  won't need those four million doses because  someday we will have so much vaccine. I Guess universities don't want to  get on the wrong side of Uncle Sam for some reason. The supply shortage is now and everyone involved in the  vaccination effort agrees. We need the 30 million doses of Oxford released now and injected now, not given away.  This  is a crime against humanity, the humanity in this case being the American people.  Again, a man is not a man until he is  President, and a President is not a President until he kills a lot of Americans, apparently. I object to this crap and Biden  will never live this down. For the rest of his life, and beyond, he will never live this down.  The House should step in here  and vote out articles of impeachment against Biden. He is giving away to other countries a Covid vaccine proven over  and over to be safe and effective when there is a dire shortage of Covid vaccines in most parts of the U.S. The UK started  to use the Oxford vaccine on January 4, 2021, after rigorous trials proved it safe and effective and UK regulators, the  Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, the MHRA, approved its use. The UK have real world data from  Scotland now, not trial data. One‐half million people there got the Pfizer vaccine and the same number got the Oxford  vaccine. Both were safe and effective, the Oxford vaccine being somewhat more effective in keeping people out of the  hospital. AND STILL, the FDA will not release it for use in the United States. On and on, month after month, Biden's FDA  will not release the Oxford vaccine, and the networks colllude and connive with him on that. NOT ONE QUESTION TO  HIM OR HIS PEOPLE ABOUT THAT. I'll bet that if the House of Representatives votes out articles of impeachement for  murder againt Biden, the media will cover that.               PBS NewsHour full episode, Mar. 18, 2021 ‐ YouTube                DW  "The Day" today, Thurs. March 18, 2021.   He interviews the great Dr. John Campbell re the Oxford  vaccine.  Safe?? Dr. Campbell thinks so. He discusses blood clots.  18 cases of a new kind of blood clot SEEM to show up  after millions of doses injected. It is a potential correlation. No causation proved. Boris Johnson gets his Oxford‐ Astrazeneca shot on Friday, March 19, 2021                Regulators agree on vaccination ‐ YouTube                    L. William Harding                Fresno, Ca.        94 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 6:26 PM To:Raven Malone Cc:Jonsen, Robert; Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda; Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; Council, City; ParkRec Commission; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Stump, Molly; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Charisse Domingo; Greer Stone; Jeff Moore; DuBois, Tom; Sunita de Tourreil; Tanner, Rachael; Binder, Andrew; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; wintergery@earthlink.net; mark weiss; Cecilia Taylor; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Perron, Zachary; Greg Tanaka; Dave Price; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Kou, Lydia; Shikada, Ed; Cormack, Alison; Lewis. james; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; David Moss; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Re: Police K-9 dogs involved in excessive force allegations by bystanders CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Raven,   Thanks so much for sending out   this announcement of a protest action against the PAPD and the Mountain View police departments’ canine units ....and  tagainst the vicious canine attack on an innocent man, Mr. Alejo.     Aram “ Ban Violent Canine Units Now” James   Sent from my iPhone      On Mar 19, 2021, at 4:54 PM, Raven Malone <ravenmalonepa@gmail.com> wrote:     There will be a protest on Sunday if any of you would like to join. See attached flyer.   Respectfully,  Raven Malone  ‐‐‐‐‐  ADEM Delegate AD24  www.ravenmalone.com   (650) 427‐9697  Pronouns: She/Her    On Fri, Mar 19, 2021, 2:12 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Thanks to Palo Alto Free Press for sending this piece re a canine attack in Tacoma Park Maryland.    Question: Given the recent vicious attack by a Palo Alto canine on an innocent man in Mountain View— and similar viscous attacks by Palo Alto’s canine unit in the past ....is it time to ban K‐9 units in Palo  Alto. Give me your thoughts on this critical police practices issue.     Aram     https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/10/15/police‐k‐9‐dogs‐involved‐ 95 excessive‐force‐allegations‐bystanders/3652320001/      Sent from my iPhone  <FB_IMG_1616193212097.jpg>  701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/05/ 202 1 Document dates: 03/10/2021 – 03/24/2021 Set 6 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 96 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 5:16 PM To:Honky Subject:Wolf and Fox and The Glorious Revolution and 9/11 Lawyers Committee for 9/11 Grand Jury CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi, I just sent a message to the link that is included with what you sent me. Hopefully, my work will help them prosecute the perpetrators of 9/11. Best regards, Arlene Johnson Publisher/Author http://www.truedemocracy.net To access my work, click on the icon that says Magazine. To access the blog that exposes the coronavirus, log onto https://arlenejohnson.livejournal.com On Friday, 4 September 2020, 03:43:35 BST, Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> wrote: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWQbEeExutR4vR4pEFmQUJw/?fbclid=IwAR1QZ62TvYCQz91WZfAbwgzoH61KSL OkwL2QI7JE3xkw3OxngumnbOYdYmc Westview newspaper: Lawyers' Committee program page: 18 & 19. Sent: Thursday, September 3, 2020 12:56:21 PM Subject: [CANOPOLIS] Wolf and Fox and The Glorious Revolution Secretary for Homeland Security Wolf said to Dana Perino that Marxist (Democrat) law authourities are now making lists of crimes like arsons, rapes, murders and thefts which they will not prosecute. That is not done in civil society. It is only done under martial law. During war soldiers do things which ordinarily and in peaceful civil society are called crimes so they are de-criminalized by fiat. The Marxists (Democrats) have in effect declared martial law. Who are they warring against? The 97 crimes are against the general public and their Constitution which means Americans and the American way of life. Democrats have declared war against America. Next, watch for WMD attacks on American cities by BLM and friends. In particular, watch for Lebed Suitcases filled with the deadly plagues of Ebola, Nipah, Lassa, Marburg and others that kill >50% to make COVID-19 look like the common cold by comparison. One Lebed Suitcase filled with biological weapons instead of the standard mini A bomb gets set up in a New York high rise with automated spraying and before it is detected thousands will at least be infected so as to become carriers infecting millions more before they can be identified. So the extant COVID climate of fear and insanity becomes a climate of terror. Populations will be walking about in hazmat + chemox instead of those silly Beavis and Butthead masks. How many votes in November will be done using hackable voting machines? Is the PERCEPTION of a hacking violation enough to void the election results? AK __._,_.___ Posted by: "akakaka@telus.net" <akakaka@telus.net> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (1) U-S-A = Usurers, Sodomites, Abortionists. The U-S-A Cult is the ruling power over America-the-Good and now seeks to a establish One World Government of Evil-Doers via the Afghanistan-Iraq domino effect. VISIT YOUR GROUP To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ 98 Baumb, Nelly From:Emma Shlaes <emma@bikesiliconvalley.org> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 5:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:John Cordes; Star-Lack, Sylvia; Mesterhazy, Rosie; Kamhi, Philip Subject:SVBC + GBI virtual El Camino bike tour 3/26 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi everyone,     I just wanted to make sure you saw this invite to an upcoming virtual bike ride next Friday, March 26. See below for  details. I hope you can make it!    Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition with the support of Silicon Valley Community Foundation organizes a series of city‐led, in‐ person and virtual bike rides for city leaders and staff to learn about how to install great bike infrastructure.       Our next ride will be an exciting virtual tour of plans by the cities of Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Palo Alto,  Redwood City, Colma and Burlingame to transform El Camino Real from its car‐centric past into a people‐centric  destination.  We are organizing this ride along with the Grand Boulevard Initiative team.       We'd love it if you can join us and learn about innovative approaches to improving the El Camino Real corridor. You can  register for the event using the link below. Please share this invitation with colleagues that you think would be  interested.    When: Friday, March 26 at 10:30‐12:00 pm     Please register today for this exciting tour by clicking the zoom link below.    https://zoom.us/meeting/register/tJItd‐‐sqz4iGNI‐oTk_HSnlARZHdruUn1UA        After registering, you will receive a confirmation email.      Interested in future virtual infrastructure rides?   Save the date!  Our next ride:  April 22 10:30‐ noon  A virtual tour of Slow Streets across both San Mateo and Santa Clara County.     We hope you choose to join us!   John Cordes ‐ Santa Clara County Advocate | he/him/his  E:John@BikeSiliconValley.Org  Twitter @bikeSV | Instagram @bikesiliconvalley  To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the InSVBC-logo To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In210326 GBI   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.sv cf-lo go-600x316   99   ‐‐   Emma Shlaes Deputy Director | she/her/hers 650-703-1191 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.  Want to see more bikes on your streets? Donate today! 100 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 4:33 PM To:Palo Alto Free Press Cc:Human Relations Commission; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Stump, Molly; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Council, City; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Jeff Rosen; David Moss; David Angel; Tanner, Rachael; Raj; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: When police dogs bite: 6 takeaways from the investigation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Thanks,, free press, all good points! aram  Sent from my iPhone      On Mar 19, 2021, at 2:17 PM, Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:  What should be note worthy and to the credit of city attorney Molly Stump, with outside legal counsel,  negotiated successfully, multimillion dollar settlements mitigating at a fraction, full‐blown litigation  costs.      But this case, should serve as a warning......    https://www.mercurynews.com/2008/03/13/palo‐alto‐loses‐longstanding‐legal‐fight‐in‐excessive‐force‐ case/    Palo Alto loses longstanding legal fight in excessive force case    In this instance and through a public records request, revealed the true cost and payout in excess of one  million dollars, a first of its kind....    Respectfully,  The Editor of Palo Alto Free Press      Sent from my iPad      On Mar 19, 2021, at 11:49 AM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Hi Mark,    Thanks for sending the important piece our way.    Aram  101 Sent from my iPhone      On Mar 19, 2021, at 11:35 AM, Palo Alto Free Press  <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:     Police dogs are often portrayed as harmless and lovable. But many departments use the K9s as weapons. <image0.jpeg>   Photo credits: City of Palo Alto     Here’s what you need to know and main points to be considered..... https://www.usatoday.com/story/ news/investigations/2020/10/15/p olice-k-9-dogs-involved-excessive- force-allegations- bystanders/3652320001/ 1. Some police forces use biting dogs far more than others. 2. K-9 Bites can cause life-altering injuries, even death. 3. Many people bitten were not violent and were suspected of minor crimes 4. Most police dogbite victims are men 102 5. Police officers sometimes can’t control the dogs, worsening injuries. 6. There’s little accountability or compensation for many bite victims. Respectfully,    The editor of Palo Alto Free Press        Sent from my iPad  103 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 2:13 PM To:Jonsen, Robert; Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda; Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; Council, City; ParkRec Commission; ravenmalonepa@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Stump, Molly; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Charisse Domingo; Greer Stone; Jeff Moore; DuBois, Tom; Sunita de Tourreil; Tanner, Rachael; Binder, Andrew; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; wintergery@earthlink.net; mark weiss; Cecilia Taylor; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Perron, Zachary; Greg Tanaka; Dave Price; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Kou, Lydia; Shikada, Ed; Cormack, Alison; Lewis. james; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; David Moss; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Police K-9 dogs involved in excessive force allegations by bystanders CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Thanks to Palo Alto Free Press for sending this piece re a canine attack in Tacoma Park Maryland.    Question: Given the recent vicious attack by a Palo Alto canine on an innocent man in Mountain View—and similar  viscous attacks by Palo Alto’s canine unit in the past ....is it time to ban K‐9 units in Palo Alto. Give me your thoughts on  this critical police practices issue.    Aram    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/investigations/2020/10/15/police‐k‐9‐dogs‐involved‐excessive‐force‐ allegations‐bystanders/3652320001/      Sent from my iPhone  104 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 11:37 AM To:Council, City; UAC Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:TRANSCRIPT & COMMENTS -- 08-05-20 UAC meeting -- Fiber Network Expansion Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council members and UAC commissioners, Here's a transcript of Items IX.2 and IX.4 of UAC's 08-05-20 meeting, with my comments (paragraphs beginning with "###" and highlighted in red). First, some general comments: 1. Four members of the public spoke on this item, representing the Palo Alto Hills Broadband Working Group (hereinafter PAHBWG). Their petition (pages 4-6 here -- see below the "%%%%%" line for details) https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77785 asks the City to provide internet services to them ASAP because they need them. As I see it, it's a MeFirst proposal, that competes with citywide municipal FTTP for resources and attention. So I don't like it. Would PAHBWG consider asking for citywide municipal FTTP instead? 2. I agree with the commissioners that speeding up the analysis of citywide municipal FTTP possibilities would be good, and merging phases might be a good way to do that. It is a corollary of Zeno's Paradox that any project can be killed by dividing it up into enough phases. 3. To me, it makes sense to do citywide municipal FTTP first, and only then figure out how to take advantage of the FTTP infrastructure to do AMI, SCADA, sensors, etc. 4. I agree with Commissioner Scharff that all (or at least most) items considered by UAC should be agendized as action items, so that UAC can vote on what advice to give Council. If an item is not an action item, UAC can't do its job effectively. 5. Palo Alto likes to think of itself as a happening place. But while we've been napping, FTTH fiber has "passed" 50.1 million homes in the United States. https://www.bbcmag.com/multifamily-broadband/fiber-trends-what-2021-promises-for-the-broadband-industry There are something like 121 million households in the U.S. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/HSD410219 So, something like 41.4% of homes in the U.S. have already have passed fiber. 6. On 09-28-15, Council Member Burt did an ad-lib back-of-the-envelope calculation that estimated that citywide municipal FTTP could save Palo Altans about $10 million every year. (See page 6 here.) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/70977 More recently, a report estimated that Chattanoogans received a benefit of $2.69 billion (with a "b") over the last decade from its investment in citywide fiber. https://muninetworks.org/content/study-finds-chattanooga-fiber-network-10-year-roi-269-billion So, Burt's estimate might have been too low. Anyhow, that's one reason time is of the essence. Thanks. Jeff 105 Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ========================================================================================= 08-05-20 UAC meeting agenda: https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77788 08-05-20 UAC meeting, Item IX.2 "staff report" -- really just presentation slides. https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77770 08-05-20 UAC meeting minutes: https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78322 08-05-20 UAC meeting video from 1:07:48 to 2:15:30. https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-852020/ The video doesn't have images of the Magellan people -- John Honker and Jory Wolf. The presentation slides on the video were illegible. But see the "staff report" to get the presentation slides. ========================================================================================= TRANSCRIPT: Item IX.2, "Discussion of the Fiber Network Expansion Project by the Vendor Magellan Advisors" 1:07:41: Chair Forssell: All right. So, I think we will move on, then, to our second item. And we will take a brief break after the second item. We have a discussion of the Fiber Network Expansion Project. And I know we had a couple members of the public. So, maybe we can start with those folks. 1:08:06: Dave Yuan: OK, sure. We have one public. Daniel Dulitz, please speak. 1:08:13: Chair Forssell: And if we can get that three-minute timer up. 1:08:20: Daniel Dulitz: Cool. Can you hear me now? 1:08:22: Chair Forssell: Yes. 1:08:22: Dave Yuan: Yes, we can. 1:08:23: Daniel Dulitz: Excellent. Great. Chair Forssell, commissioners and staff, good evening. I am Daniel Dulitz, the organizer of the Palo Alto Hills Broadband Working Group. I've lived in Palo Alto for 20 years, and over 10 of those years on upper Page Mill Road, just beyond Foothills Park. You provide us with electricity, water, and sewer service, for which we thank you. ### As I understand it, it costs more to provide these services to Palo Alto Hills (hereinafter PAH) homes than it does to provide them to the average Palo Alto home, but PAH residents pay the same rates as everybody else. 106 But we were never served by the Palo Alto Cable Co-op. ### Cable Co-op was a private-sector entity, not an arm of City government. We were also excluded from the service area when the City sold the Cable Co-op to AT&T. ### Between 2000 and 2010, the neighborhood could have asked the cable company to extend service there, if residents had been willing to share the deployment cost. Wired broadband is not available here. ### I'm hoping that Palo Alto will get around to deploying citywide municipal FTTP eventually. ### Los Altos Hills Community Fiber intends to deploy FTTP to all of Los Altos Hills eventually. That's close to you. You could talk to them. But I'd prefer that you get excited about asking for citywide municipal FTTP from Palo Alto. Satellite service cannot be used for video conferencing or other real-time work. ### SpaceX might be available soon: $499 up-front, $99/mo, 50-150 Mbps, latency 39 ms. https://www.reviews.org/internet-service/spacex-starlink-satellite-internet-review/ You might prefer lower latency, but 39 ms might be good enough as a stop-gap. Anyhow, I'd prefer that you ask for citywide municipal FTTP from Palo Alto. So all of us up here have relied on microwave links. There are not many choices. And they're all overwhelmed, due to demand for working at home in these times. And even when microwave service is available, it is expensive and often unreliable. So I was thrilled to hear through the grapevine that CPAU had a fiber endpoint a quarter mile away from us at the water reservoir. But CPAU does not provide commercial fiber optic backbone in our part of the City. And there is no other way for citizens of Palo Alto to access that data connection. We really need it. ### If you pay the City to do an engineering cost estimate, they'll tell you how much a dark fiber connection would cost. As far as I know, they'll connect to anywhere in the City. But it might cost a lot, both up-front and monthly. Keep in mind that a dark fiber has two ends. I'm guessing that you'd want the other end to go to PAIX, which has lots of ISPs. ### You might also check with "resellers," customers of the City's dark fiber network that use that infrastructure to offer retail services to their customers. We present to you today this petition with 26 signatures. We ask three things of you, as part of the planning process for the fiber network expansion project. First, to remember us, and remember that we have been unserved by the City for 30 years. ### The City hasn't provided FTTP service to anyone in the City (with the exception of a 67-home FTTH Trial in the Community Center neighborhood, between 2001 and 2005). Second, to take steps to make your existing fiber data endpoint available to us, whether that be under terms of the commercial dark fiber available elsewhere in the City or other terms. ### IF a fiber strand at the reservoir could be made available to PAHBWG as part of a dark fiber connection, it would still be just a dark fiber. PAHBWG would have to provide the electronics at each end of the dark fiber connection. Please consider a public-private partnership where existing wireless ISPs can connect to your fiber endpoint, to provide us service at very low cost to the City. ### This is a complete distraction. I don't think the City wants to be in the business of providing long-distance wireless broadband. If we form a co-op to run broadband to our homes, please commit to connecting to us. Finally, please work with us. Tell us how to be good partners for you. ### I don't get why the City would want to partner with you. What value could you bring to the partnership? 107 Because you have a data endpoint that, in these pandemic times, we just desperately need. Thank you. 1:10:33: Dave Yuan: OK. Next, we have Tim Parsey. 1:10:39: Tim Parsey: Hi. My name is Tim Parsey, one of Daniel's neighbors for 7 years, at 3810 Page Mill Road. I've been a resident of Palo Alto for about 15 years. Firstly, thank you for your time in addressing this issue. A lot of us are very excited, because we need your help. As we'll elaborate a little bit later on, we're all aware that the internet has become an essential utility for living and working. But those of us Palo Altans who live up in the hills have to be diligent and resourceful to get effective broadband Our options have been limited to line-of-sight, long-range wireless, or microwave, as Daniel described, which can vary from house to house. It depends upon where your house is, as to whether you're going to get service. And where there are only three providers with beaming locations that we can get to choose from: Coastline, Etheric, and Ridge. And if you're lucky enough to get one of these line-of-sight providers, you're still faced with high costs, the service slows when it's cloudy, or when it's raining, so it's a little bit tricky from those perspectives. But the reason why we're -- why we see this now as an urgent issue -- this petition -- is because one of our favorite providers -- one that really is the only one for several of our houses -- Ridge Wireless -- just lost its lease in Mountain View, and can no longer provide the service to us. ### Is Ridge Wireless looking for another roof that would at least meet your stop-gap requirements? So, several of us are really in deep doo-doo at this point as a result. So, while continuously resourceful and community- minded, we now need your help, to get access to the Utility as other Palo Altans do. 1:12:16: Dave Yuan: OK. Next, we have Kathleen Roskos. 1:12:21: Kathy Roskos: OK. Good evening, commissioners and staff. Thank you for taking our public comment tonight. My name is Kathy Roskos. I live at 4020 Page Mill Road, right across the street from Daniel Dulitz. I've been a resident of Page Mill Road since 1991. That's 29 years. I just wanted to emphasize the point that broadband is now vital to professionals who are now navigating the work-from-home environment. The internet has always been challenging in the hills, as you've heard. Last year, fast internet was a luxury, and we made do. Now, it is not. I live and work in Palo Alto. And I'm trying to do that from home, using internet service that, as you have heard, often slows or fails entirely in cloudy or rainy weather. Try to have a Zoom call when it just cuts out, because it's cloudy. And now, our children are trying to attend school and college in a work-from-home environment. This spring, and into summer -- and, I'll tell you, we're getting ready for fall -- my college-age daughter did just that from our house. So, just to be clear, that was a significant challenge. Competing interests to get both of our jobs done. The City has underinvested in a data service for our neighborhood for more than 25 years. Please do the right thing and make us part of the fiber network expansion plan. There is a need. And it is urgent. And, with your help, now it could be a possibility. Thank you. 1:13:52: Dave Yuan: And finally, we have Mike Carlton. 1:13:59: Mike Carlton: Yes. Hi, there. My name is Mike Carlton. I have lived here on Page Mill Road more than 15 years. We have never had an option for DSL or cable high-speed service. Just like others have mentioned, our only options have been wireless options. Which are unreliable. Not unusual for it to drop. If the City could provide a way for us here in the hills to connect to the existing fiber endpoint, it would be very valuable to all of us. I, like others, are working at home, trying to get my job done. Most of the people on this petition -- on this call -- are within 2000 feet of that existing fiber endpoint. There are businesses up here who might be able to pay commercial rates to run fiber to their premise. The City could contract with private wireless ISPs. There are several, like we've been -- mentioned, to provide last-mile service. Which all of us would happily sign up for. There's even options where we in the area could form a co-op to provide that last-mile service. But you guys have the facility. Please make it available to us, or a professional organization, to bring us into the net. Thank you. 108 1:15:20: Dave Yuan: That's the last public speaker I see. 1:15:24: Chair Forssell: All right. Thank you, all -- David, ### Daniel. Tim, Kathy and Mike -- for sharing sharing your thoughts. We will turn next to the presentation. I'm not sure who the speaker is. 1:15:38: Dean Batchelor: Thank you, Chair Forssell. So, I -- staff felt that it was timely to bring our new consultant firm on to talk a little bit about the high-level expansion of this fiber network. And I'm pleased tonight to have Mr. John Honker, who is the president and CEO, and Mr. Jory Wolf, who is the VP of digital innovations for Magellan tonight, that will be making a presentation. A little bit about John. Like I mentioned, he's the president and CEO. He's a seasoned broadband telecom executive for 20 years experience in carrying an ISP -- broadband provider of markets, as well as, he's the head of the internet services for Columbus Networks, which is now part of a Liberty global family of companies. He started to grow the Columbus internet services businesses from basically having nothing to over a million dollars in annual revenue in 6 years. He's one of the key founders from Magellan Advisors. He led his company's growth of broadband consulting engineering construction management and operations, and today Magellan Advisors has become the go-to firm for municipalities and utilities, co-ops and regional organizations. With over 400 clients, 50 networks, and built over 100 million pointer connections, ### What's a pointer connection? Honker's bio says "over 400 clients, 50 networks built and 1 million fiber-connected homes." https://www.magellan-advisors.com/leadership/john-honker.stml Magellan continues to connect at the light of speed [sic]. And then, Mr. Jory Wolf. who is the VP of digital innovations, joined Magellan after 22 years as the CIO of the City of Santa Monica, CA, where he launched Santa Monica's City's Wi-Fi, which provided free internet services to the public, through the network of 32 hot zones, and wireless coverage to most of the major commercials. ### I'm interested in FTTP, not Wi-Fi. But Wolf's bio does mention Wi-Fi first. https://www.magellan-advisors.com/leadership/jory-wolf.stml He created Santa Monica's City Net, which is 100-gigabyte ### 100 gigabits per second (100 Gbps). broadband, supporting environmental and local businesses. And he has over 35 years of experience in the information technology, including municipality fiber, fiber-to-the-home, and smart initiatives. His teams have received over 50 awards for innovation in technology in projects. During his career, in 2012, he received the CIO lifetime achievement award from the Los Angeles Business Journal. So, with that, I would like to welcome both of them tonight to talk a little bit about our phases, and where we're going to go in the next -- probably -- year. Or two. So, with that, John and Jory, welcome. 1:18:17: John Honker: Great. Thank you, Commissioner Batchelor. ### Director Batchelor. It's a pleasure to meet everyone. And it's a pleasure to present to the commission at this UAC meeting. That was a great introduction. I couldn't do it better myself. So, I'm going to pass on that, and dive right into the presentation. And I think one thing that's really important, as we get into this project, we see a lot of opportunity for Palo Alto. You know, we're at a transformative stage in Palo Alto, where the Utility is modernizing, and we have an opportunity to lay the foundational 109 groundwork for communications infrastructure to support the Utility needs. And, alongside that, as we get further into the project, into the later phases, you know, demonstrate and identify ways that that can be leveraged to support fiber-to-the- home and broadband within the community. Which we'll go through in just a moment. 1:19:20: So, just a bit about Magellan and our background. We are very heavily focused on electrical utilities, municipal electric utilities. We work with about 100 across the country. And, you know, in both the grid modernization as well as the broadband sector, we see, you know, major overlap between the two. Because, again, the infrastructure is relatively similar, from a distribution standpoint. The services being provided are both critical and both, you know, community- centered. And municipal utilities have strong capabilities to manage critical services. We work across the country, heavily in California, of course, with other municipal utilities, such as Glendale, Rancho Cucamonga, San Leandro, ### So far, San Leandro isn't doing residential FTTP. https://litsanleandro.com/ https://www.magellan-advisors.com/case-studies/expanding-fiber-broadband-for-economic-vitality-in-san-leandro.stml ### Rancho Cucamonga says it does residential FTTP, https://www.cityofrc.us/rcmu/rcmu-fiber-optics but BroadbandNow doesn't show them as a provider. https://broadbandnow.com/California/Rancho-Cucamonga https://www.magellan-advisors.com/case-studies/turnkey-deployment-of-fiber-to-the-home-in-rancho-cucamonga.stml ### Glendale apparently doesn't have residential FTTP yet. https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/glendale-water-and-power/current-projects/glendale-fiber-optic- solutions- At least BroadbandNow doesn't show them as a provider. https://broadbandnow.com/California/Glendale others in California that are moving through the same process, of building fiber networks. Or expanding fiber networks in this case. 1:20:23: I would say the first thing we look at when we talk about Palo Alto is the importance of the fiber network that you have. It's a major asset. It's -- When we look at Palo Alto, and what CPAU has accomplished in building that network over years, it's a testament to the need in the area, and the forward-looking perspective that the leadership team and staff has had at CPAU, to continue to build out its existing net network. 1:20:54: So, again, we provide turnkey services across the whole spectrum of building -- planning and building fiber networks. We are a very hands-on firm. A lot of construction experience. We've passed about a million homes with fiber, and a million electric meters with fiber. We do everything from engineering to planning to financing, construction and overall operations, specifically for municipalities and municipal utilities. Today, we have about 50 networks across the U.S. that are up and running and active, with live services. 1:21:37: So I thought I would walk the UAC through a high-level flow chart of the fiber project and the fiber expansion, as it's built, in a phased approach, with four phases. We started in Phase 1, which you can see in green here. Started in mid- July. And Phase 1 really covers what we call a high-level design and cost estimate. For the expansion of simply the Utility's network, right? The Utility itself. CPAU has specific needs around fiber communications infrastructure to support it ... 1:22:14: ### The video goes silent at this point. Why? 1:22:19: 110 ... grid and its distribution system. So, we're going to be looking at things like your exist- -- your AMI placement and your upcoming potential AMI services, and how the fiber should be expanded to support AMI, keeping costs down for AMI distribution, and making sure that the AMI system is very redundant and well-connected. ### Chattanooga, TN, uses its FTTP infrastructure to support AMI. We'll also be looking at SCADA, telemetry. We'll also be looking, then, at wireless applications for public safety and public works. Really, again, focused on how to modernize the City the best way possible, and get more bang for your buck, out of expanding the existing network, not only for CPAU but for other City applications that can run, right? To make the City more efficient. And also to improve municipal capabilities. So that phase is really focused on a 6-7 month period We started in July. We're looking at sort of the end-of-the-year time frame to be completed with that phase. 1:23:27: Coming out of Phase 1, is really Phase 2. And I'll go into detail on each one of these phases on the next slides. But Phase 2 is the detailed backbone engineering design for Phase 1 -- for really what we call the Utility and municipal expansion. 1:23:47: Phase 3 is where we actually start looking at fiber-to-the-premise and fiber-to-the-home. And the goal here is to really help CPAU and the City understand the different alternatives, right? The City has studied this for a long time and has come up with different scenarios for build out. What we're going to do is bring some innovation to that, and look at some other alternative ways the City could potentially build out fiber-to-the-home, creating some opportunities that may come with the Phase 1 and the Phase 2 design. So, we start to expand the fiber network for the City's own purposes, it's going to catalyze an opportunity for fiber-to-the-home. And we're going to walk through a number of scenarios and business cases with the team to help identify the best ones in that. 1:24:44: Phase 4 will then, also -- if the City chooses to move forward -- because at each one of these phases, there's a checkpoint with the City, and then the City will effectively provide guidance and approval to move to the next stage. If the City decides to move beyond the stage -- for example, from Phase 3 to Phase 4, we would move into a formal and a -- what we call a low-level engineering design for the fiber-to-the-home network, which would provide full engineering, cost estimates and bills of materials for the fiber-to-the-home broadband network -- IF viable options are found, and the City decides to move forward. 1:25:26: So, I talked deeply about Phase 1, and the applications that we're going to cover in Phase 1. Phase 2 is again going to be focused on very deep assessment of what those engineering plans look like, right? Detailed engineering, with detailed fielding. So, we'll have field teams on the ground, walking out each route. And the goal of doing that is to understand the subsurface utilities. To understand existing running lines. Where we can place fiber to minimize community impact throughout the City. We'll also be looking at permit authorities, with Palo Alto and any of the other permitting agencies that may have jurisdiction over the initial fiber expansion. We'll be looking at ways to update your construction standards as well. And identifying ways that we can help reduce the costs of future construction while protecting the community at the same time. Our final deliverables in this phase are also to create the final set of construction prints, bills of materials, and of a construction bid package that the City can then take out and can put out for bid competitively, with construction contractors. 1:26:48: There's one other portion with this scope that I failed to mention. And that's where Jory's team, from the POLICY side, will come in. And this will be a part of, really, Phase 1. Is helping the City define, update, and streamline some of its policies around fiber and broadband. Jory, do you want to talk about those for a few minutes? 1:27:12: Jory Wolf: Sure. We'll be concentrating on areas regarding dig-once, and joint build opportunities from others that are building in the public right-of-way. We'll be looking at capital projects, and -- both from the City and from the Utility, to look at opportunities to cost-effectively do net-neutral build through joint trench internally. And we'll also be looking at one- 111 touch make-ready for your utility poles, and policies related to those that would be using your assets as well as looking at multi-unit right of entry. And how to work with developers and property owners in making their units ready for broadband connectivity. Lastly, we'll be looking at policies related to various types of construction, and we'll be specifically focused on microtrenching and defining how microtrenching might be of use in Palo Alto. ### Google Fiber reneged on its commitment to deploy citywide FTTP to Louisville, KY, because of bad microtrenching. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/02/google-fiber-exits-louisville-after-shoddy-installs-left-exposed- wires-in-roads/ I think we want to design the infrastructure to last 50 years. 1:28:22: John Honker: Great. Thank you, Jory. And before we move on to Phase 3, are there any questions that we can answer on Phases 1 or 2, from the UAC? 1:28:36: Chair Forssell: I do have one question, which is motivated by the community from Palo Alto Hills, that we just heard from. Is the Page Mill area -- if it's not covered already with our fiber -- are they --- will they be part of AMI and SCADA and the other things that we'll be looking at in Phase 1? 1:29:03: John Honker: So, our assessment will really be looking at the entire City, Commissioner Forssell. So, if they're within the City limits, absolutely. Our scope has been defined to, you know, evaluate the entire City for fiber expansion. So, they would definitely be included in that. If they're in the City limits. 1:29:25: Chair Forssell: Got it. Thank you. 1:29:28: Vice Chair Segal: I had one question as well. Which, when I'm looking back at the timing, is it -- So, for Phase 1, Phase 2, it's about a year. Or so, right? And then, I think I heard you say that that would just -- that would get the City to a place where they could then seek bids. Design the RFP, or something. And so I'm wondering, for the City -- or, for the Utility's network itself, what would you -- based on all your experience -- estimate it would take, time-wise, to go from where we are today to actually putting in that infrastructure that you identify? Just for the City ... 1:30:13: John Honker: Sure. For the City piece? So, our -- yeah. Commissioner Segal, you're about right on the time frame. So, it's about -- If we go back to our timeline slide here, you know, we're looking at about 12 months for completion of Phase 1 and Phase 2. And the way we generally like to work is -- You know, when we get into the detailed design, we don't have to wait until the very, very end of that project to potentially release an RFP. So -- Because we realize time is of the essence across these projects. So, you know, we may be able to shorten the time frame, and build that construction package ahead of time. And release that, sort of at the 90 percent phase. Some utilities will do it that way. Some will wait until the 100 percent design is complete, and then release it. So, we'll look from guidance from staff on how they would like to do that. But assuming a longer-case scenario -- in, say, 12 months until a construction package were released -- you know, you could potentially see construction in -- starting -- and mobilization starting in month 15. And, you know, another 12 months of construction -- to 18 months of construction beyond that. So, you're looking, probably, getting into full-blown construction in about a year and a half. 1:31:33: Vice Chair Segal: A year and a half after Phase 2 is complete -- is that what you're saying? 1:31:38: 112 John Honker: No, no, no, no. A year and a half from the beginning. So, 18 months -- you could potentially be in construction. But, you know, that may vary, just depending on, again, the final design. But that's kind of what we're looking at now. And I'll -- for the -- That's a good average, I would say, for construction. 1:31:59: Vice Chair Segal: Including the whole contracting process. OK, that's quicker than **. And I had one other question -- which I don't know if it's a Phase 2 or Phase 3 question [laughs] -- but if City Council approved it, is there a way contract the timing? So, you have Phase 1 and Phase 2, which is the "backbone" side of it. And then there's Phase 3 and 4, which is more fiber-to-the-premises. Is there a way to consolidate those, if that's what City Council decided to do? 1:32:28: John Honker: We could do that. Absolutely. You know -- Because, again, we could be looking at, at that point, two very complementary designs. We'd be looking at the backbone, plus what we call the feeder distribution design. And the feeder distribution network is what really creates -- is what's really important in Phase 3 and Phase 4. Meaning, how do you get fiber from the backbone into the individual neighborhoods in a cost-effective way? And quickly. So, that could be compressed if, you know, the City decided to do so. 1:33:08: Chair Forssell: Ah, let's see, Greg Scharff, then Commissioner Johnston, and then I think I saw Commissioner Danaher's hand flicker. 1:33:17: Commissioner Danaher: My -- I'll deal with any other questions later. I'm good, thanks. 1:33:21: Chair Forssell: OK. Commissioner Scharff. 1:33:22: Commissioner Scharff: Thank you. So, I just wanted to clarify. I was a little confused there. So, right now, Phase 1, 6-7 months. And then we move to Phase 2, 5-7 months. So that's basically a year. And then we have another 18 months to get through Phase 4. You just said that we could do 3 and 4 at the same time as Phase 1 and 2? Is that what I understood? If we wanted ... 1:33:45: John Honker: We could condense -- yeah, we could start phases 3 -- Well, so Phase 3 would be the next natural phase. But we could slide Phase 3 into, really, Phase 2. And compress those two. And be looking at -- Once we have sort of a detailed backbone design ready to go, in Phase 2, then we could start to compress Phase 3. And we could start really looking at the fiber-to-the-home capabilities, and how we would -- you know, the alternative business cases to get fiber-to-the-home to different portions of the City. So, that could slide into the -- sort of the front end of the Phase 2 design. 1:34:33: Commissioner Scharff: And was the only reason that wasn't done that way because the City Council wanted to conserve cash? Or, why? I mean, what was the thinking behind that? Do you know? 1:34:43 John Honker: I don't, actually. I'm not sure what the -- what the -- what the intent was behind sort of phasing it this way. Um, ... 1:34:54: 113 Dave Yuan: I can speak. This is Dave Yuan, Utilities. Strategic Business Manager. I think the intent was to do an incremental approach. So, I think the Phase 1 and 2 were for the City usage. For SCADA and AMI. And then Phase 3 was to get a cost estimate and a business case. And see if we can utilize the other utilities in building it out, to reduce the cost. 1:35:17: Commissioner Scharff: I mean, because it's a separate Fiber Fund that this money's coming from. Is that correct, Dave? 1:35:21: Dave Yuan: That is correct. There is about $30 million -- or $32 million -- in that fund currently. ### $33,065,000, as of end of FY 2020, per the 4Q20 Utilities Quarterly Report (PDF page 31). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80037 But based on previous studies, the estimate was closer to $80 million to build it out completely. 1:35:32: Commissioner Scharff: I mean, I guess, if it was me, I would suggest to the City Council -- and it would probably need discussion -- that we combine Phase 2 and 3, and get a clearer picture. I mean, the money's there in the Fiber Fund. And I don't see it -- I really don't see any advantage to pushing it out in that sequential -- in that sequential way. 1:35:54: Dave Yuan: Hmm. 1:35:54: Commissioner Scharff: I mean, it seems that we're really just taking an extra 6 months to do it, without really needing to do it that way. 1:36:00: Dave Yuan: I think it's possible to merge Phase 2 and 3. And, cost-wise, it wouldn't add that much to it. It's Phase 4 that's the high bill. 1:36:08: Commissioner Scharff: Right. So, I mean, I think -- But, I mean, it -- after Phase 3, the City Council should have a lot of information. Right? And, I mean, you've talked about the business cases, and a lot of that stuff. That's correct? 1:36:19: Dave Yuan: That is correct. 1:36:19: Commissioner Scharff: You've thought about it. And -- I mean, I think there's a real focus, with COVID now, on getting good, you know, broadband. And I think the moment is here, as you might say, to really push this forward and think about it. I mean, it's too bad the construction couldn't actually be going on during COVID, because there's no traffic on the streets, and it's disruptive to people's lives, and that kind of stuff. But -- Anyway, that would be my -- I would definitely suggest to the City Council that they re-look at the Phase 2 and Phase 3. 1:36:53: Dave Yuan: OK. Thanks. 1:36:56: 114 John Honker: And maybe we can -- Oh, I'm sorry. 1:36:57: Chair Forssell: No, go ahead. 1:36:58: John Honker: I was going to say, maybe we can provide some clarity around Phases 3 and 4, and just talk about the detail in those, to help the commission understand what's all happening in those two phases. 1:37:11: Chair Forssell: Yeah. I was just ask -- We have another couple commissioners who wanted to speak. Do you want to get your comments in before the presentation continues to Phases 3 and 4? Commissioners Johnston and Smith? Or do you want to wait until all the presentation has gotten further along? 1:37:27: Commissioner Smith: My preference is to chime in now, if you don't mind. Chair? 1:37:33: Chair Forssell: Go ahead. 1:37:34: Commissioner Smith: I just want to echo what Greg Scharff just stated. And I agree wholeheartedly. I think, having been part of the team that drafted -- not drafted, but certainly edited -- the RFP for this, I think, at that time, when we were doing it, we certainly didn't have COVID-19. And we certainly didn't have a significant need like we do today. And we've heard from the public. So, I do think that there is an opportunity, and it is a GOOD opportunity right now, to accelerate some of this programming. And I think we should take advantage of it. What's nice about combining Phases 2 and 3 is -- to Greg's further comment -- it does provide Council some significant background and detail with respect to cost projections for building out the entire network. We've looked at fiber-to-the-node. We've looked at fiber-to-the-premise. What we've lacked is the detail. And that's -- I think that was one of the sole focuses of this entire effort. It would be nice to have. Thank you. 1:38:39: Chair Forssell: Commissioner Johnston. 1:38:40: Commissioner Johnston: Yeah. I also second the comments of Commissioner Scharff and Commissioner Smith. But I had a further timeline question. Which is: I understand that the end of Phase 2, we have basically a bid package for construction. And then, I wasn't sure if I heard you say that construction itself would take about 3 months of mobilization, and then another 12-18 months for the completion of the construction, to get us to the system to support the City uses. Is that correct? 1:39:16: John Honker: Yeah, that's what we're estimating right now. So, we think that's 3 months to get the contract on- boarded. Plus, then, you know, let's -- to be conservative -- say 18 months. Again, what's unclear right now is the actual size of the backbone. How many miles the expansion of the backbone will be. Because you're building off your existing network. You're expanding that existing resource. So, it could be -- 18 is probably a reasonable number. It could be longer, though, depending on the size. So, I think if you think maybe 18-30 months. We have a very similar project going on in the City of Boulder right now, which is expanding their backbone, in Boulder, Colorado, in a very similar way, for very similar purposes. And we're on about a two-year construction schedule to build about 65 miles of fiber backbone. And that's a very tough place to build, with the winters. So, you know, again, if we can mobilize contractors, move them quickly, 18-30 months is probably a reasonable time -- 30 being on the very long end of the stick, 18 being the short. 115 1:40:28: Commissioner Johnston: But basically, we're looking at two and a half years -- plus -- from now before the system is really ready to go. 1:40:39: John Honker: That's a correct statement. Yes. ### I think Honker is saying that by then, NO premises will be "passed." 1:40:40: Commissioner Johnston: OK. And I assume that if I asked the same question for, you know, completion of Phase 4 -- actual construction of Phase 4 -- that would be much harder to talk about, because you really don't know what the scope of that project is. 1:40:56: John Honker: You're right. That's right. Depending on the number of homes, ### and businesses? the size of the project, it could be short, it could be very long. 1:41:06: Commissioner Johnston: OK. Thank you. Time to get going. 1:41:10: John Honker: [chuckles] 1:41:16: Chair Forssell: Why don't we go ahead, and then we'll have some more discussion when we're done with the presentation. 1:41:19: John Honker: Sure. Thanks, Commissioner Forssell. So, Phase 3, again, which we're talking about, we're moving into the fiber-to-the-premise phase, and the evaluation of different business models for that. Different alternatives. The City's looked at this in the past, of course. What we're going to do is sort of bring some innovation to that. And look at some incremental and lower-cost, lower-risk approaches over time, to build out fiber-to-the-home. Where we have Phase 1 network designed, it gives us opportunities to potentially launchpad off of that existing backbone fiber, to reach areas that are close to it. Right? In close proximity to that backbone fiber, we can potentially serve fiber-to-the-home. And that may be one strategy that you want to look at when you're considering this. A lot of utilities do this. And they will build their backbone. And then they'll architect a buffer -- maybe a half-mile buffer around that existing backbone -- and be able to serve those customers, at potentially a lower cost, in the first phase, and then build -- continue to build that out over time. ### Is this half-mile "buffer" a way of describing what a "node" would serve in the FTTP network? Is it up to a half mile, following the routes the "passing" fiber would follow? Is this saying that the backbone additions build out in Phase 2 wouldn't necessarily build out to all of the "nodes" the FTTP network needs? ### How many "nodes" will Palo Alto's citywide FTTP network have? Previous estimates have varied widely. So, the idea is, they're very capital-intensive projects, so we want to look at ways to match capital with risk and also revenue. Right? 1:42:41: 116 So, the other things that we will be looking at as we start to consider the build-out is, integration with other projects that the City has going on now. So, any electric rebuilds and underground projects can be potentially utilization for fiber-to- the-home. We have a client up in Lehigh, in Utah, that has rebuilt about two-thirds of their electric system. And they've put in duct alongside their primary -- along their primary electric. And now, that's being used to substantiate their potential fiber-to-the-home project, saving them about 20 percent on the entire build. So, there are other projects. Looking at your existing road, water, sewer, other capital projects, to offset some of the costs. Because as those projects are disturbing the ground, it gives us an opportunity to put fiber in at a much, much lower cost. So, we will be evaluating the impact, quantitatively, to the overall fiber-to-the-home build by looking at each one of these projects and seeing how significant [it] is. Right? If it's a 5 percent difference, it may not be so significant. If it's a 30 or 40 percent difference, you know, we're talking real capital dollars, in terms of, you know, building fiber-to-the-home. 1:44:00: As we also look down the road, we'll assess what the wireless infrastructure role could be. You know, we're getting closer to wireless last-mile. We're not saying that that is a viable technology today, as a replacement for fiber. But there are strides being made. And, especially as we look out over the next few years, we'll be looking at it. Whether there could be technological innovations that improve wireless enough to substitute it as a last-mile access to the house -- to the home. This is important because we shouldn't think of fiber being the only technology we should use. But we also shouldn't think about fiber as a technology that's going to be replaced. Because, as we look at all of the providers out there that are building fiber-to-the-home now, we look at all the utilities throughout the U.S. that are building fiber-to-the- home, they are continuing to invest billions and billions of dollars in this. Now, if wireless improves, and becomes either a complement or a replacement for the last-mile portion of fiber ... Right? Meaning from the right-of-way to the actual home, that can be a technology that slides into a potential network, and alongside the fiber, to help offset some of the costs down the road. So, we never think about fiber in the last mile as a potential asset that's going to become defunct over time. We think of wireless complementing it as, you know, technology evolves. ### I really don't agree with this point of view. In this 02-01-21 post, consultant Doug Dawson, explains why fiber is the right choice. https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2021/02/01/why-fiber/ ### The City really shouldn't have to pay for a study about whether wireless drops might someday be an alternative to (some) FTTP drops. But if such a study is done, it should consider the following. Over what drop distances is a wireless drop potentially competitive with a fiber drop? Can a wireless drop handle 10 Gbps? 100 Gbps? What about rain? What about leaves? Should the City just sit on its hands waiting for wireless drops to become feasible? ### When Google Fiber "paused" building more FTTP networks in 2016, it speculated that wireless drops might someday be the magic that would allow them to un-pause. It hasn't happened yet. 1:45:40: So, as we go through this analysis, the idea is to build capital and financial models to evaluate with the City. Right? Bring the intelligence to City leadership, and help them make decisions on which, if any, of these alternatives is the best for the City to move forward with. And at the end of Phase 3, the City will basically give us guidance, as to if and when they want to move forward. Which would then trigger Phase 4. And Phase 4 is effectively the actual low-level design -- the engineering design -- for the option or options that the City chooses in Phase 3. 1:46:23: So, Phase 4 will -- is very similar to Phase 2, where we're talking about low-level engineering. Which -- And I won't get too technical here, but, effectively, the low-level design, fielding of every street line and every running line of the fiber throughout the neighborhoods. Again the goal there is to understand existing utilities, offsets, separation, and minimize community impact from any construction that would be happening in the City right-of-way. With that, we will be generating a final set of construction prints, if the City decides to move forward. Permit packages. And then a construction bid print package. Along with the phasing plan, and a final RFB or RFP for a construction contractor that the City would like to select. So, this last phase would effectively be the end of the engineering piece. You would be out to bid at that point. For fiber-to-the-home. And selecting a construction contractor for the actual build. 1:47:33: And that really concludes our presentation on Phase 3, Phase 4. Are there any other questions that we can answer? Or, on ANY of the slides? Any of the fiber project? 117 1:47:48: Commissioner Danaher: No. This is Mike Danaher. I share everybody else's concern about the pace of this, and the frustration that it takes so long. So, anything you can do to accelerate that, for the discussion, would be worthwhile. 1:48:06: Chair Forssell: Commissioner Smith. 1:48:10: Commissioner Smith: Thank you for the presentation. I -- ** a quick assessment thus far of the City, and it sounds like we've not yet dug into the details. But, based upon a quick assessment, what are the challenges and hurdles that you think the City of Palo Alto should be -- and the population should be aware of? 1:48:34: John Honker: Commissioner Smith, we -- In reference to the fiber backbone, or the fiber-to-the-home portion of the project? 1:48:40: Commissioner Smith: I think if you -- Right. So, thank you for an opportunity to clarify. So, I think the fiber backbone within the City -- I think it's quite robust. Which is why we have a significant balance available for doing a program of this nature. ### Yes, the City's dark fiber network has generated a lot of cash over the years. But that's not an indication of how much of a head start the infrastructure gives FTTP. I think what I would be referencing is any challenges or hurdles that we should be aware of with respect to building on the network in order to support AMI. And then, later, obviously, looking at the opportunity to do fiber-to-the-premise -- fiber-to- the-home -- for the population, based -- using the existing backbone. 1:49:23: John Honker: Sure. Sure. And we'll answer that with the information we know. As we're just getting into the project. Just collecting data, and getting the lay of the land. I think one thing that's really important is what's -- You know, that backbone -- the existing fiber backbone -- has been built over a number of years. And you guys aren't so dissimilar from other municipal utilities, where it gets added onto incrementally each year. And it was originally developed for utility needs, more so than commercial broadband. ### A forward-thinking City Council voted on 08-05-96 to implement a dark fiber network (originally 15 miles) in Palo Alto, at a cost of around $2 million. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/citycouncil-archive/1996/19960805.html On 08-05-96, Council said it was for commercial dark fiber customers. Council vaguely hoped that one or more private- sector service providers might take advantage the dark fiber network to provide retail services to homes. How the City could use the dark fiber network for its own purposes wasn't discussed. The staff report (CMR:361:96) is not available online. So, when we look at it, there's absolute value in that network that's been created. There's significant value that's been created for the City's internal operations. There's significant value that's been created for the electric utility. And, for, you know, the fiber leasing -- commercial fiber leasing. But when we start looking at fiber-to-the-home, we really want to make sure that the backbone is forethought. Because there are areas of the backbone that are getting congested, that we'll need to revamp. And we'll help you make intelligent decisions on that. Whether it makes sense to expand the existing backbone -- in the same running line -- or maybe take an alternative route -- right? -- where you're building new versus using existing. You know, one of the things that's really important when you look at this -- and you're considering ANY new fiber expansion -- is -- You know, when you buy -- When you build a new network, you know, it's all new at the same time. But if you're building a new network on top of an existing network, you don't want to -- um -- You really don't want to create any obstacles to that network's performance, or success, by leaning on the old network. So, you know, the old network -- the existing fiber -- is doing its job. It's providing services. But we want to be careful leveraging existing assets 118 carefully. We want to carefully leverage those existing assets by not putting too much burden on them. And in those cases, it makes more sense to build new than to try to integrate, you know, existing fiber with new fiber. So, that's something that's important. ### In summary, Palo Alto and CPAU should feel free to bask in well-deserved kudos for deploying a dark fiber before most of the world knew it was cool. But since it wasn't designed to support FTTP, don't count on its being of much value for that purpose. If we now build a network for AMI, SCADA, sensors, etc. and don't design it to support FTTP, won't the same problem arise? ### The City's 2003 cost estimate for citywide FTTP was about $40 million, of which $10 million was for connecting its 100 nodes to the central office. This estimate assumed that none of the dark fiber network would be used. I used to think this was just to simplify the estimate, rather than an assertion that all-new would be better. 1:51:30: We also think that, you know, as we look at expanding the backbone, it's going to be important to make it as flexible as we can. Right? And that's a very loose term. But, effectively, when we think about all of the applications that can come off of this network, we're looking at, you know, smart city down the road. We're looking at IOT. We're looking at sensor networks. Smart street lighting. You know, there's a plethora of applications that you want to be able to support with a network. So, we want to design for maximum flexibility and scalability, to be able to support those applications. And there's a number of design criteria we'll help walk you through, that really establish that, so that when you're ready to use these network -- the network for other applications -- EVEN fiber-to-the-home -- it will fit very well into that framework. And you'll be keeping you're costs down as much as possible. 1:52:32: Jory, is there anything you'd like to add? 1:52:35: Jory Wolf: Just -- John, thank you. And just that as we expand the network off of the backbone, and looking at new routes, we'll be uncovering new soils, conditions, and other things that will need to be evaluated. So, we will be providing detailed information on how best to resolve each of these issues as they arise. So, of course, building -- like John said -- off of something existing presents challenges. But at the same time, expanding off of that into new soils and areas within Palo Alto will also present challenges. And so, we will architect a system that will be flexible enough to be handling your needs in the future, for, again, not only fiber-to-the-home but many other applications, as you develop your smart city initiatives. 1:53:33: Commissioner Smith: Thank you. 1:53:36: Chair Forssell: Commissioner Scharff. 1:53:57: Commissioner Scharff: Yes. Thanks. So, one of our primary functions, obviously, is to advise the City Council. And I guess I wanted to figure out what's the best way to do that. 'Cause I heard a lot of support for having them re-look at Phase 2 and 3 sequencing, and trying to do Phase 2 and Phase 3 together. And evaluating that at the City Council level. And I guess I wasn't sure what the best way to do that is. Is -- You know, we've talked about it here. But that would require City Council members to, you know -- and I suppose Alison [Council Member Cormack] is on the call, and Tom [then-Vice Mayor DuBois] is as well. So the question is -- What is the best way to get that recommendation? And I heard a lot of support for it. But I also wasn't sure if EVERY commissioner supported it. So, you know, I think we could take a vote on it. Or we could sort of raise hands if we're unanimously in support of that. Or a discussion. I guess I wanted to get a sense of how you wanted to handle that, Chair. 1:54:32: 119 Chair Forssell: Well, it's not an action item. So I don't think we can make an official recommendation. But we can certainly informally give each other and staff a sense of if -- of where we stand. 1:54:44: Commissioner Scharff: OK. So, I think that's fine. I think that's great. And, obviously, you know where I stand. ### It wouldn't have hurt if Commissioner Scharff had gone on the record again. In his 02-27-13 State-of-the-City speech, then-Mayor Scharff, said, "Connectivity is the future and the future for Palo Alto fiber should be now." https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/33248 Was he talking about municipal FTTP? Less than a year later, the City was hoping Google Fiber would become the City's monopoly FTTP provider, but that didn't happen either. So, we can move to other commissioners for that. 1:54:50: Chair Forssell: [chuckles] 1:54:50: Commissioner Scharff: I actually have been giving this a little bit of thought. So, I thought I'd raise it, just briefly. I do think that when we do these, we should put an action item for everything. Because things come up. And if we just talk about it, then it's either educational for us, but it doesn't quite provide the value to the City Council. Then, if something comes up, we can then have the authority to go ahead and make a recommendation. So, that would be my thought, when you're doing the agenda, or whatever. And if anyone else wants to weigh in on that. But that's my sense of it. To be the most effective at helping City Council do what they need to do. ### GREAT IDEA. Not captured in the official minutes! https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78322 (In the good old days, before 06-02-04, UAC minutes were actually verbatim transcripts.) ### At the 10-16-18 Finance Committee meeting, at 2:47:00 on a transcript of the video tape (see page 36 here), https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67916 then-Council Member Scharff explained how UAC should provide its advice to Council. I think he meant that UAC should express how it feels by voting. (See also 2:49:29, "voted.") 1:55:28: Chair Forssell: Duly noted. That's an interesting idea. We can -- um -- We can talk about that, for the agenda-making process. Let's see. I know Council Member Cormack has something to say. I'm going to briefly chime in myself. To informally say compressing Phase 2 and Phase 3 would make sense to me as well. And my question is about: within Phase 3, which includes making a business case, my understanding is that there have been attempts in the past to make a business case for fiber-to-the-premises. And it has never penciled out before. ### The 2002-2004 FTTP business case said that municipal FTTP was feasible. But that effort foundered when the City Attorney, at the last minute, worried that the proposed financing plan might not be legal. The City planned to use revenue bonds backed primarily by anticipated FTTP revenues and secondarily by the revenues of the electric utility. But California doesn't allow a municipal electric utility to subsidize other things. And so, my question is, both what will be the methodology for the business case? Given that we have two incumbents, it can be hard to get a sense of, you know, what the uptake will be of a third offering. And if you have any sense of what might have changed in the last few years that would perhaps indicate that a business case will pencil out this time. 1:56:46: John Honker: Sure. That's a great question. So, I think, as we look at Phase 3, the competitive environment is important. You know, you have two incumbents in Palo Alto. Most of our community utility clients are in a very similar boat. Two incumbents. Both with strong packages. One, you know, with a stronger package of maybe to 500 meg [500 Mbps] or one gig [1 Gbps] cable service -- a DOCSIS-based cable service. 120 ### Comcast's fastest HFC offering in Palo Alto is 1000 Mbps down but only 35 Mbps up. As the pandemic, by necessitating multiple Zoom calls per household, is teaching us, upload speed is important. ### Four senators have asked the FCC to consider changing the definition of broadband from 25/3 Mbps to 100/100 Mbps. https://www.engadget.com/senators-fcc-change-definition-high-speed-broadband-222150947.html Under that definition, Comcast's product would not be considered broadband. And the other, you know, trailing, with some form of DSL, but, bonded together, getting maybe a couple hundred megs [200 Mbps]. ### AT&T is no longer accepting new DSL customers. https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2020/10/12/att-stops-dsl-sales/ ### Also, in Palo Alto, some parts of town get faster DSL service than others. The fastest DSL service ever offered to my house was 768 kbps down, and even slower up. ### AT&T has deployed FTTP to some parts of Palo Alto. BroadbandNow says it's available to 28.2% of Palo Alto. https://broadbandnow.com/California/Palo-Alto What this actually means is that it's available to at least one premises in each of 28.2% of census blocks in Palo Alto. That might be a lot fewer than 28.2% of premises. ### When AT&T wanted to acquire DirecTV, they promised to build out 12 million FTTP connections. https://potsandpansbyccg.com/2020/04/27/its-hard-to-like-att/ Now that they've done that, some people speculate that they'll be less eager to build out more. So, you know, when we look at the competitive environment, we don't think it's changed significantly. And we've seen this over the past few years. As the cable companies have rolled out the higher-speed products. And the municipal utilities have competed well against those. Because what we've found is, it's not always about the speed. It's about the reliability and the price. And availability. Because a lot of times, we're still seeing those competitive products very spotty in the market. And they're available in some areas and they're not available in others. So, there's less than ubiquitous coverage across the service areas that are being provided by the cable co. 1:58:07: So, the other thing that's important, I think, when we look at the business case is, let's not take sort of this home run approach to it. ### In the FTTH biz, "home run" sometimes refers to a network where premises are connected directly to the central office, with no intervening splitters or electronics. https://www.thefoa.org/tech/ref/appln/FTTHarch.html But here, I think Honker is talking about a municipality's committing to do citywide FTTP in one act of commitment. Right? And I think that's an approach that a lot of utilities have taken in the past. But we really believe -- and we've seen a significant amount of success in, you know, in incremental approaches. That, you know, utilize existing assets better, to start the fiber-to-the-home business early, rather than, you know, going through sort of the traditional process, which is, okay, we're going to move into, you know, a six-month financing window, then we're going to get our approvals, then we're going to order materials, then we're going to construct. Which takes, you know -- Fort Collins, in Colorado, is building out right now, you know, with significant bonding. A year and a half of additional planning and resourcing. And they're just now getting out to market. ### Fort Collins was required by Colorado law (SB-152) to have a referendum on whether they could even consider municipal telecom. Then, it took a while to get some recalcitrant Council members on board. Then, a quirk of the city charter required going to the public with another referendum to get permission to implement a fiber utility. Palo Alto doesn't have these particular challenges. ### Here's a timeline for Fort Collins Connexion FTTP network, from project initiation in January-March 2018 to completion in May 2022. https://ourcity.fcgov.com/citybroadband Connexion planned to start serving its first customers in August 2019. 121 ### Here's Connexion's 2Q20 Quarterly Report. https://www.fcgov.com/connexion/files/q2-2020-quarterly-report.pdf?20200807 ### I have the impression that IF a municipality can make one citywide commitment to municipal FTTP, that can offer several advantages. Better interest rate on financing. Quantity discounts on materials. More aggressive bids from infrastructure contractors. And it's easier for infrastructure contractors to schedule their work crews. But IF the municipality lacks the will to make one citywide commitment, maybe it can find the will to make a sequence of commitments. I look forward to reading more about this in the official report. ### Incidentally, in 1968, Fort Collins City Council passed an ordinance to underground all new electric construction. https://bizwest.com/2003/09/05/fort-collins-leads-the-pack-on-undergrounding/ In 1989, Council got serious about undergrounding electric citywide. By 2003 (the date of this article), the project was 97% complete. By contrast, in the 1950s, Palo Alto decided to do electric undergrounding incrementally. So far, the vast majority of homes remain aerial. We think there's a much more tactical way to do it. And less visible. That provides the same value to the community. But builds around the backbone network, builds around opportune areas, and then builds out from there. So, the end goal is the same: to try to serve, you know, a significant part of the community. As much of the community as possible. It's just a more incremental and iterative approach than the sort of big-bang approach, or the home run approach that we've seen in the past. 1:59:41: We have a good example. And we can send some case study information on this. There's a utility in eastern Tennessee, called BrightRidge, which is a center for teaching hospitals, VA, and health care. ### Johnson City Power Board (JCPB) has been trying to do FTTP since 2009. A public-public partnership failed. https://muninetworks.org/tags-214 ### In 2017, JCPB changed its name to BrightRidge. In 2018, it started an 8-year program to build out FTTP to dense areas and wireless to other areas. https://muninetworks.org/content/brightridge-creating-10-gig-communities-tennessee It's a little -- similar size to Palo Alto. But they've taken an approach where instead of, you know, building in that sort of Fort Collins methodology, where they bond $125 million to serve 60,000 homes, ### Fort Collins bonded for $142.2 million. https://muninetworks.org/content/fort-collins-full-steam-ahead-ftth-taking-shape To serve 77,000 homes plus 8,000 businesses. https://muninetworks.org/content/fired-about-fiber-front-range they've taken a more gradual approach of funding their deployment for $8 million a year, with market-rate loans between utilities -- between funds -- ### Would this work in California, given that electric utilities are not permitted to "subsidize" other things? ### Given that Palo Alto's Fiber Fund has $33,065,000 (and counting), Palo Alto could spend $8 million per year for four years before having to resort to another source of financing. to build out portions of the city. And the less dense areas. Equity was a very important aspect of this to them. So they didn't want to focus in the most dense areas. They said, we're going to take a dense area, and we're going to take a less dense, or more rur- -- well, not rural, but more suburban area, at the same time, and build that out over 4-5 years, so that they can get service to everyone. ### BrightRidge's wireless customers get slower internet than its FTTP customers, and pay more for the speed they get. That's not my idea of equity. https://muninetworks.org/content/brightridge-creating-10-gig-communities-tennessee Versus a slightly more aggressive approach, where it was 2-3 years. So, you know, there's no right or wrong way to do it, but we've seen a lot of utilities be very successful with the incremental, or gradual, approach. And at the end of the day, 122 they get to the same place. The incremental approach is just a little more "risk adjusted." Which, you know, is good for utilities. Because this is HARD. This is not an easy -- It's not -- Broadband is not an easy business. It takes dedication. And it's very intensive in terms of resources and capital. But they get to the same place. Sometimes it just takes them a bit longer. So, we want to look at both ways. We want to look at a number of different ways that could be achieved, and help you identify the ones that are the best. And we -- Which, I believe, when we're doing it, we take a sort of utility approach to it. And a quantitative approach. So, we start looking, instead of at the whole City, we're going to be looking neighborhood by neighborhood, to understand what the build-out costs are, what the payback on capital is, what the take rates could be. You know, with quantitative data. In the models that we use, we pull that into the analysis and get very granular. And then start to almost "heat-map" the City, and color-code the City, by different build-out opportunities. So that you can kind of see that, and then be able to merge those together. And, you know, for BrightRidge, we did this, and that's how they came up with the idea of serving, you know, areas that were more challenging -- or higher cost to get to -- with those that were less costly and more dense. And they came up with a happy medium that eventually builds out to the entire community. 2:02:46: Chair Forssell: Thank you. 20:02:46: John Honker: So, I -- I said a lot there. But those are just some ideas we have when we start looking at Palo Alto. 2:02:51: Chair Forssell: Um hum. Yeah. Thank you for that. Are there any commissioners who wanted to chime in on the idea of compressing Phase 2 and Phase 3, before we move to Council Member Cormack? And a lot of us spoke up already. 2:03:09 Vice Chair Segal: I guess -- I don't know if my comments, you know, were clear or not, but I would certainly encourage a contraction of those. And I would also -- you know, the equity piece, I would like to see, when we get there. Because I think that's important. And I would also be interested, going -- you know, we had this discussion with the recycled water - - if there's anything in the meanwhile that construction projects can consider when they're rebuilding to put in conduit or something that would facilitate fiber, that would be super helpful to know sooner rather than later. 2:03:47: John Honker: Great. That -- And we've already started that process. So, we'll be looking at all your capital projects throughout the City and identifying ones that could be potential candidates for fiber installation. 2:04:03: Chair Forssell: Council Member Cormack. 2:04:04: Council Member Cormack: Thank you, Chair Forssell. Definitely heard everything you guys said. Appreciate that. My question's really for staff. I'm trying to remember when we approved the Magellan contract exactly which project it came from. I'm looking at our proposed budget, and the proposed Fiber Optics Fund. I'm wondering if someone from staff could refresh my memory about where the funding for Phase 2 and Phase 3 is projected to come from, and in which fiscal years. ### My recollection is that when Council approved doing a fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) study, staff agreed that the portion of FTTN that would be dedicated to AMI and SCADA would be paid for by the utilities (electric, gas, and water) that benefited from that infrastructure, not by the Fiber Fund. 2:04:36: Dave Yuan: So, this is Dave Yuan. So, it's currently budgeted under the fiber CIP -- under the fiber rebuild. But just a high-level estimate right now. For the first phase, it didn't require construction, so we didn't build that out yet. 123 2:04:48: Council Member Cormack: OK. So, that's why I can't see it in FO-16000. It just says -- 2:04:53: Dave Yuan: It should be like a -- I think there should be something like $50,000 in the adopted budget. I think proposed, it showed only like $350 ... 2:05:01: Council Member Cormack: OH! OK. All right. Well, we don't have the printed-out [laughs] adopted one. Yet. OK. So, even between the proposed and final, it was moved up? ### The City's Proposed Capital Budget for FY 2021 https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76263 talks about the FO-16000 project on PDF pages 448-440 (i.e., pages 416-418). 2:05:11: Dave Yuan: Yes it was. 2:05:11: Council Member Cormack: And Phase 3 would both be in the coming -- in the current fiscal year? 2:05:17: Dave Yuan: We have -- This is the first time I heard that. But we could probably bring that to Council. After Phase 1 is done. We could let them know this is a UAC recommendation. And maybe merging the two of them together for the next phase. If Phase 1 is approved. 2:05:32: Council Member Cormack: OK. But right now, you have a placeholder in FY 2022? 2:05:36: Dave Yuan: Um. Not yet. I don't think we budgeted it yet, just because Phase 1 hasn't been completed. We will do a BAO for Phase 2 ... 2:05:45: Council Member Cormack: OK. 2:05:45: Dave Yuan: ... slash Phase 3. if Phase 1 gets approved by Council. 2:05:49: Council Member Cormack: OK. Great. That's helpful. Thank you very much. And then, I just want to say that I, you know, have been hearing it from a variety of places about the integration of fiber with potential electric rebuilds and undergrounding. And ideas about maybe starting, you know, in a specific area that's interested in doing electrification. So, I'm super supportive of all those attempts. And I know that that's -- This is the time. I know one of my colleagues talks about this is a good time to try experiments. ### That's a good slogan. But we should first assess whether we know enough about existing best practices. So -- I just wanted to say I'm happy to see that that's in there. And thank you for the details on the business case. 124 2:06:31: John Honker: You're welcome, [Council Member] Cormack. 2:06:35: Dean Batchelor: So, I just wanted to let you know that -- So, when we do any kind of undergrounding, or any kind of rebuilding on the electric side, we actually add -- and we have been adding -- for -- probably about for the last four years, we actually add extra conduit on the electric side. ### Here's a map of the City's underground districts (Jan 2019). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/12071/ ### As far as I know, the first underground district that put in conduit for fiber was District 41, which was completed in 2008. The City put in the conduit running down the street, and gave residents the opportunity of putting in conduit for the fiber drop (or not doing so) at their own expense. Between 2008 and now, which underground districts did NOT put in conduit for fiber. ### Will Magellan assess whether this conduit for fiber is appropriate for the purpose by today's standards? (I know that many municipal utilities use HDPC for this purpose, but when I suggested it to Director Batchelor, he thought I was nuts.) So, there's additional conduit in place just for the fiber expansions that we were going to do. So, we will continue doing that as well. We do not do that today with our water/gas/wastewater side. Just the electric. ### Magellan should take a look at Palo Alto's "Upgrade Downtown" project from 2018. On 01-22-18, Council approved a big project to upgrade gas and water mains on a half-mile section of University Avenue, and also add conduit for fiber (on speculation -- there was no design that said what the conduit would be used for). Staff proposed that it would cost the Fiber Fund about $2 million. Council Member DuBois proposed to omit the fiber conduit part, because it was way too expensive, but he did not persuade his colleagues. Later, the cost was reduced to about $1 million, which was still way too expensive. See my 04-05-18 email message (pages 2-3 here). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/64560 Can Magellan help staff devise a policy that assures that this kind of thing never happens again? 2:07:04: Council Member Cormack: Right. Thinking ahead. Thank you, Director Batchelor. 2:07:11: Chair Forssell: All right. Well, thank you very much for that presentation, and good discussion. We are running ... 2:07:19: Commissioner Jackson: Can I ask a quick question? 2:07:21: Chair Forssell: Yes. Go ahead. 2:07:21: Commissioner Jackson: This is not to Magellan. It's to staff, I think. And it's more relating to the citizen comments. And I'll try to make it very brief. To what extent does the City own any fiber that goes way up Page Mill Road? ** for staff. 2:07:44: Dean Batchelor: Commissioner Jackson, as you heard, from the citizens, the last stopping point of our fiber is actually to the water tower. And, as you heard, it's about 2000 short, that goes in that Upper Page Mill area. So, we have not extended any fiber past the reservoir up there. 2:08:13: 125 Commissioner Jackson: So, would -- just speaking hypothetically here -- would -- If some -- If this group of people were to create a co-op, and wanted to purchase dark fiber from the City, terminating at that location, is that something they would be able to do? 2:08:35: Dean Batchelor: I think that we'd have to look at our rules and regs, right at this period of time, since that dark fiber is only offered to commercials. ### Absolutely false. Some Palo Alto residences are dark fiber customers. Josh Wallace, Key Account Manager for the City's dark fiber network, would know the rules. But that doesn't mean that we can't change that, and go to Council and ask for ... 2:08:46: Commissioner Jackson: No, no, no -- I mean, anybody -- Any residential person, if they want to "act like a commercial person," can trench across -- you know, get the permits and, you know -- spend $100,000, and get on the dark fiber ring. So -- But, you know, there's a ** -- the City's dark fiber ring is 125 feet from my house. I just can't get there. ### I think Commissioner Jackson means that when he asked staff for a dark fiber that would connect his house to PAIX, they said it could be done, but it would cost about $45,000 up-front. But if they -- do you -- would you offer commercial broadband service on the dark fiber ring at that reservoir location? 2:09:18: Dean Batchelor: I guess -- I can't tell you yes or no at this period of time. We'd have to take a look at that and see what we could do to move that fiber out to the street side, away from the reservoir. 'Cause we would not make that final connection at the reservoir. But we probably could take a look at that. And that would be something that we could do. 2:09:37: Commissioner Jackson: And that would -- I'm trying to make this very, very brief. I mean, I understand. And my heart bleeds for residents, way up there. I would just note that, unfortunately, the City is not in the business of providing residential broadband to anybody. As far as I know. ### Right. The City doesn't offer lit services to anybody. Some dark fiber customers are "resellers." These resellers are able to offer lit services. ### According to this (very old -- 2013) dark fiber map (see page 45 here), https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/42930 the closest dark fiber network node ("BN") is north of Foothill Expressway. So, although the City has a fiber cable that goes to the reservoir, I'm not sure it is considered to be part of the dark fiber network. And so, the only thing that we have is this dark fiber network, that is a commercial offering, that is expensive. But if a group of people got together and shared it, and did a lot of hard work on their side, they might be able to do that. IF, in fact, they were able to get access to the dark fiber ring at or near that location. Because, you know, I don't think anyone's going to trench it up 2000 feet. You know, I don't think the City is going to. I think that would be the only viable way forward there. If, in fact, the City could provide them dark fiber service at that point of presence, or that "hop-on" place. And I would encourage -- I would be happy to talk to some of those people. Not that I have any power on any of this. But ** those people, and, I think, provide me an email address. My email address is readily available. I would ask Mr. Dulitz, or somebody else, to reach out to me, and we could chitchat. Not that I could promise to get anything done. That's it. 2:10:56: Council Member Cormack: Um -- through the Chair -- if I may, Chair Forssell -- 2:10:59: 126 Chair Forssell: Yes. 2:11:01: Council Member Cormack: Um, just a point of process. That didn't seem particularly hypothetical, Commissioner Jackson. And I think our usual procedures are to suggest that staff get in touch with them. I -- While I share your feelings, I just suggest that staff work directly with them, and then come back to you as a group, or to the Council, as appropriate. Thanks. 2:11:31: Chair Forssell: Thank you, Council Member Cormack. Loren Smith -- Commissioner Smith -- your hand is up. Is ... 2:11:38: Commissioner Smith: I did have one final -- one final question. And I recognize we're keeping everybody before the break. But this question is directly to Dean and Dave. And I'm not sure if it's Dean and Dave or it's a question for Magellan specifically. Are we losing an opportunity if we don't look at bringing forward Phase 2? If we combine Phase 2 and Phase 3 -- I recognize that when we wrote the RFP, we wrote it in a way in which it gave the City an opportunity to, if you will, have gates. And review what's been done in the past. Review, and approve what they like. And then move forward to the second gate. And then move forward to the third gate. And move forward to the fourth gate. So, it's a nice way of controls. But I think there is an opportunity. And it appears -- when I learned the definition of Phase 1 and Phase 2, here, on this slide that's being presented, it seems there is some opportunity for some concurrent tasks. For some simultaneous effort. And I'm just wondering if we are adding time when we may not need to. I guess the question is for Dean and Dave, more than it is for Magellan, at this point. 2:12:51: Dave Yuan: Dean, do you want to take that? Or do you want me? 2:12:53: Dean Bachelor: It doesn't matter, Dave. Either way. I can add if you want. 2:12:56: Dave Yuan: OK. So, yeah, I think it just makes sense to do what you are advising. So, we will talk amongst ourselves, and also with Magellan, to see what makes sense the most, given the eagerness to advance this. So, can we get back to you in another month or so? Next month, maybe? And give you an update? 2:13:18: Commissioner Smith: Well, six months might be too long, because by then, Phase 1 will be done, so we might as well move to Phase 2. So I think I would be more on the tune of like three weeks to a month. But ... 2:13:27: Dave Yuan: Yeah. NEXT month. ** 2:13:29: Dean Batchelor: I think -- Commissioner Smith, I think what we can do is, we can give you an update at the UAC meeting on what we're going to do. And then -- Because we'd have to go back to Council on -- and get agreement on ... 2:13:44: Commissioner Smith: Yeah. OK. 2:13:44: 127 Dean Batchelor: ... ** to move forward with this. I mean, I think it makes sense. I have heard all the commissioners. And I think both Dave and I agree on that -- that we would move 2 and 3 together. So, you know, we can get a report together and go to Council with that. And then see what Council has to say. 2:14:05: Commissioner Smith: Thank you. But, again, I think we have general agreement that Phases 2 and 3 probably could be combined. And I would agree that since this went to Council, it has to go back to Council. But what I'm suggesting is that we not only look at that opportunity for compressing schedule. We look at the opportunities of compressing schedule between Phase 1 and the new Phase 2&3. So, compressing it yet again. 2:14:33: Dean Batchelor: Totally on board with you, commissioner. 2:14:34: Commissioner Smith: OK. 2:14:34: Dean Batchelor: I totally understand what you're saying is that we would go back with -- to Council with combining Phases 1, 2, and 3 together. Probably makes sense ... 2:14:47: Commissioner Smith: Thank you. 2:14:47: Dean Batchelor: ... from a development point of view. We can have some conversations with Magellan. And see what we can do. And see where the overlays are for Phase 2/3, along with 1. And see if we can shorten the timeline down. ### Staff did not agendize this topic for UAC's 09-02-20 meeting. https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/78148 So commissioners could not read a staff report about it in advance, and the public was not put on notice that the topic would be presented. And commissioners could not discuss the topic. So I don't know whether commissioners felt that staff's proposal addressed their concerns. This is an example of what I think Commissioner Scharff was getting at when he said (at 1:54:50) that all items UAC sees should be action items. ### But Director Batchelor talked about it during his Director of Utilities Report (0:28:12 to 0:30:20). Please see below the "######" line for details. https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-922020/ ### On 10-05-20, staff proposed to Council moving some of the tasks in Phase 3 to Phase 1. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59010.48&BlobID=78526 And Council approved it on the Consent Calendar, with no discussion. 2:15:05: Commissioner Danaher: Don't -- Don't wait to come back to us if that slows anything down. So, you know our views already. 2:15:15: Dean Batchelor: Absolutely, Michael. Understand. Thank you very much. 2:15:19: Commissioner Smith: Thank you. 128 2:15:20: Chair Forssell: All right. So -- Checking the list for hands. All right. ### End of Item IX.2. ==================================================================================== Item IX.4, "Selection of potential topic(s) for discussion at future UAC meeting" ### This was an action item, so, in theory, UAC could have voted. But nobody moved anything. (I wish the title of the item did not say "discussion," but rather "consideration," so that commissioners could vote to select future topics for action.) 2:58:09: Chair Forssell: All right. Our last item is selection of future topic(s) for future discussion. [silence] Usually this bunch is full of good ideas at this point. [silence] All right. Maybe we're feeling pretty tapped out at this point. 2:58:39: Commissioner Smith: Sorry. I'll get a -- Chair, if you don't mind. I really -- I really enjoyed the discussion with Magellan. I'd like to bring them back. And suggest that we bring them back in the future. I don't know when that is. Maybe dependent upon whatever happens in the next four weeks. But it would be nice to bring them back. 2:59:07: Chair Forssell: All right. Thank you for that. If there are no additional suggestions, I'm wondering if we have a motion to adjourn. ### I won't transcribe the actual motion to adjourn. ######################################################################################## Excerpt from UAC's 09-02-20 meeting, the Director of Utilities Report: Video: https://midpenmedia.org/utilities-advisory-commission-31-922020/ TRANSCRIPT: 0:28:12: Dean Batchelor: The other thing was -- is -- that I wanted to talk just a minute about the fiber update. So, during our August 5th, the UAC discussed the importance of the broadband services, and the FTTP, given the shift to teleworking and remote learning, due to the pandemic. And the UAC asked us -- staff and Magellan -- to determine if it was feasible to effectively accelerate some of the FTTP analysis and tasks -- [Phase] Number 3. And shorten that duration of the fiber network expansion plans. And so, as they provided that information to all of you, we went back and had several meetings with Magellan. We were able to move items off of Number 3 and move them into the Plan Number 1 and Plan Number 2. And we are planning to go to Council on October the 5th with an amendment to the contract, and an amendment to the buckets, or plans, that we had put out before. ### The staff report for this contract amendment seems to say that some tasks formerly in Phase 3 would be moved to Phase 1 (and Phases 2 and 4 would remain unchanged). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59010.48&BlobID=78526 This is not exactly what UAC asked for. Is it close enough? And so, hopefully, Council will approve that. And they'll look at those phases. And, hopefully, they will agree with us that it makes sense to move this up in the timeline. And we can shorten the phases, then, at that period of time. 0:29:33: 129 Also, too, is that there were some folks that called in last time -- up -- folks that live up on the Upper Page Mill Road, that were losing their internet services. Staff has been looking into expansion of the fiber network. We made contact with the customers. ### At this point, they are not telecom customers of the City, right? We're looking to see how we can expand that fiber up Page Mill Road right now, as we speak. So, it's a priority. ### I don't know what this means, and I'm not reassured. I think moving forward with citywide municipal FTTP is more important than solving a particular neighborhood's telecom problems. It's on our radar. And I wanted to assure you -- all of you -- that we are looking at that as we speak. And to see any ways that we can expand that fiber line up through Page Mill Road. ### Council's 03-08-21 agenda https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80449 has an informational report about a Palo Alto Foothills Rebuild (project EL-21001). (Since it wan't agendized, Council couldn't discuss it or vote on it.) https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80429 The City is trying to underground some electric lines in the foothills, to reduce the danger of wildfires, and it wants to underground fiber optic cables at the same time. In response to a recent RFP, bidders failed to bid the fiber part. This would be an opportunity to increase the number of strands in the fiber cables. So, with that, I think I'll conclude my report. 0:30:23: Chair Forssell: Thank you very much. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% The PAHBWG Petition (in UAC's July 2020 "letters from citizens" document, pages 4-6): https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77785 Palo Alto Hills Fiber Petition WHEREAS City of Palo Alto Utilities has a fiber optic data cable running to the water reservoir across from 3895 Page Mill Road, used for monitoring and control of the water system; ### As far as I know, this fiber optic data cable is not officially part of the City's dark fiber network, so folks are not allowed to covet it. How many strands are in this cable? How many strands are already used? How many are reserved for future use by the City? WHEREAS AT&T has refused to provide fiber optic data service, or any reliable high speed data service, to the Upper Page Mill Road area at any price; WHEREAS the Upper Page Mill Road area was excluded from the City of Palo Alto cable and broadband network in the 1990’s ### Cable Co-op was never owned by the City. When Cable Co-op sold out, it had an all-coax infrastructure, and it had succeeded in offering 1-Mbps internet to a few customers, using a problematic technology that wouldn't have worked citywide. (I don't know whether 1-Mbps was ever considered to be "broadband.") Cable Co-op wanted to upgrade its infrastructure to hybrid fiber-coax, but it was unable to find financing to do that. So it had to sell. and was not covered by the agreement to transfer the Cable Co-Op to AT&T Broadband in 2000; ### In 2000, the City negotiated a 10-year franchise agreement with AT&T Broadband (which then sold to Comcast). The franchise agreement said that if a neighborhood was sufficiently dense, the cable company had to deploy cable to that neighborhood for free, on request. But for less dense neighborhoods, the cable company had to deploy cable to the neighborhood if the neighborhood was willing to contribute financially, according to a specific cost-sharing 130 formula. In 2000, the City asked consultant Sue Buske to hold a some meetings where members of the public could learn about franchise agreements and could ask for what they wanted in this one. Did any PAHBWG people attend? ### In 2006, the California legislature passed the Digital Infrastructure and Video Competition Act (DIVCA), which stripped cities of their authority to regulate cable. Nevertheless, the 2000 franchise agreement remained in effect until its expiration date, in 2010. So a neighborhood could have asked to get cable, by helping to pay for it, as late as 2010. By that time, Comcast was offering "broadband." WHEREAS Ridge Wireless, one of the few broadband providers serving this area, will lose its lease on its Mountain View antenna site and cancel service to its customers on Upper Page Mill Road as of September 1st; ### What is the current status? ### Should there be a WHEREAS to explain why satellite and cell phone options are not good enough? WHEREAS it is currently the policy of City of Palo Alto Utilities not to provide commercial fiber service using City-owned fiber beyond Foothills Park; ### This surprises me. Maybe it's a misunderstanding. Why wouldn't the City be willing to provide a dark fiber connection to any premises within the City if people are willing to pay dark fiber rates for it? WHEREAS the public health measures to control the spread of COVID-19 have made high speed broadband to the home an absolute necessity; and ### What does "high speed" mean here? ### If broadband to the home were an "absolute" necessity, you would do "absolutely" anything to get it, including pay a lot of money, and/or move to a different house. But I agree that it's certainly a utility, not a luxury. WHEREAS several residents of Upper Page Mill Road have extensive network and engineering experience; ### I'm not sure what the point of this WHEREAS is. WE THE UNDERSIGNED ARE RESOLVED THAT: ### Maybe this means that the signers are resolved to petition the City. The signers don't get to "resolve" what the City should do. ● City of Palo Alto Utilities should use existing fiber if possible and new fiber if necessary to offer commercial fiber service to the approximately 1.2 mile segment of Upper Page Mill Road from Shotgun Lane to Montebello Road at CPAU’s existing commercial rates; ● the City should issue an RFP for a wireless internet service provider (Ridge Wireless, Etheric Networks, etc.) to contractually provide last-mile wireless service from the closest existing City-owned fiber endpoint (e.g. the reservoir near 3895 Page Mill Road) to nearby residences; and ### It's not the City's job to provide wireless internet service to anybody. (It does offer free Wi-Fi service in a few places, but only as an amenity.) ● the City should coordinate with us to explore cost-sharing for residential fiber to the home. ### Up to now, the City has not opted to move forward with a "customer-financed" plan for implementing FTTP, although it was considered at one point. Respectfully submitted, Palo Alto Hills Broadband Working Group 131 ### The addresses listed here don't specify the city. When I asked Google Maps to show me where they were, it told me that many of them were in Los Altos Hills, or Los Altos. If they're really in the City of Palo Alto, it would have been helpful for the petition to have provided a footnote explaining why Google Maps says they're not. Daniel Dulitz, Organizer 3995 Page Mill Road Mike Carlton 31107 Page Mill Road Pam Carlton 31107 Page Mill Road Cathy Cartmell 4001 Page Mill Road Inmaculada del Castillo 4010 Page Mill Road David Ditzel 4010 Page Mill Road Henry Evans 31103 Page Mill Road Jane Evans 31103 Page Mill Road Lars Fuller 4017 Page Mill Road Laura Jones 3905 Page Mill Road Cynthia Lautzenheiser 3837 Page Mill Road David Lautzenheiser 3837 Page Mill Road Michael Lowry 3905 Page Mill Road Sharon Luciw 3885 Page Mill Road William Luciw 3885 Page Mill Road Maria Nguyen 31105 Page Mill Road Joss Parsey 3810 Page Mill Road Tim Parsey 3810 Page Mill Road Kathy Roskos 4020 Page Mill Road 132 Scott Selover 4020 Page Mill Road Alice Sheppard 3995 Page Mill Road Tony Tam 4001 Page Mill Road Marc Wilkinson 3895 Page Mill Road Lesley Wilkinson 3895 Page Mill Road Vincent Wood 31105 Page Mill Road 133 Baumb, Nelly From:Frances Morse <fkmorse@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 10:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Hate Crimes against Asian Americans CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,       “What can we do?” is often the refrain when faced with news of another hate crime like the ones that recently took  place in Georgia.  The Channing House Racial and Social Justice Committee, formed in August 2020 after the murder of  George Floyd, has adopted the practice of educating ourselves on America’s history of racial injustice and then taking  informed actions. We abhor the recent violent attacks on Asian Americans both in our community and across the  country. We applaud the 15 Silicon Valley Law Enforcement Leaders, including Palo Alto, uniting against hate crimes  toward Asian Americans. We implore the Palo Alto City Council to make a statement about the recent violence  andreview their policies on hate crimes. As stated so often,  “Silence is complicity.” Let’s not be silent.       Frances Morse, Chair       Channing House Racial and Social Justice Committee Members:       Gwen Barry, Nancy Flowers, Florrie Forest, Sue and Keith Gilbert, Kathleen Goldfein, Joan Gurasich, Susan Hartzell,  Chuck Hebel, Betty Howell, Patty Irish, Mary Ann Michel, Karen Morrison, John Morse, Mary O'Connor, Marcia Pugsley,  Kay Remsen, Sandy Songy, Lennie Stovell, Dave and Mary Alice Thornton       134 Baumb, Nelly From:Mora Oommen <mora@youthcommunityservice.org> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 10:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Invitation to YCS: United we Rise, Wed March 24 7-8pm CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    Youth Community Service (YCS) please join us on Wednesday March 24, 7-8pm for our virtual event United We Rise, highlighting local heroes!     Adriana Flores, Founder and Host of LatinxAmerica and Palo Alto resident will be in conversation with award- winning changemaker Sarahi Espinoza Salamanca, a trailblazer for social justice. As an East Palo Alto resident, founder and CEO of DREAMers Roadmap, Sarahi has led the way to higher education for thousands of first generation students.    Please register online at the following link:  https://youthcommunityservice.org/united‐we‐rise/    Support our local restaurants and enjoy great food with the event! Since we cannot share a meal with you in person, we  have compiled a list of local restaurants and food trucks where you can get delicious takeout. All of these have special  foods and special people in our communities running them. Please see the list and links here.    We look forward to seeing you at United We Rise on  March 24th from 7pm to 8pm!    best wishes,  Mora Oommen  Executive Director  (pronouns: she/her)     To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.  Instagram | Facebook | LinkedIn | Twitter    Youth Community Service  Mailing Address: PO Box 61000  Palo Alto, CA 94306    Office Location  780 Arastradero Rd., Room V‐14  Palo Alto, CA 94306  Office: (650) 858‐8061  Cell: (650) 644‐5354  mora@youthcommunityservice.org    135 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:31 PM To:Steve Levy Subject:Dissecting the Bay Area Job Revisions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. http://www.bayareaeconomy.org/bay-area-job-watch-53/ Many readers saw the news articles about the downward revision to last year's job estimates This update prepared for the Bay Area Council Economic Institute explains when and where the revisions occurred and what the outlook is now in March 2021. Highlights are below, the link to the full update is above. Dissecting the Downward Revision to Bay Area Job Estimates March 18, 2021 The highlights: • The downward revisions occurred after May 2021.In that month the revisions raised, now lowered, the Bay Area job total. • The downward revisions were largest in the Leisure and Hospitality sector that includes hotels, restaurants, and amusement parks. Tech sector jobs were revised up. • The downward revisions in the Bay Area were comparable in % terms to those statewide. However, the Bay Area and state have now recovered a much smaller share of jobs lost compared to the nation. • The number of people in the Bay Area labor force was revised downward. What might that mean? • Now we are in March. How has the outlook changed? 136 Baumb, Nelly From:g kerber <hdtreading@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 3:03 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City; Stump, Molly Cc:Craig Gerber Subject:municipal code violations CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City of Palo Alto I am filing complaints under the cities policy and procedures 1/19 mgr. I believe that the cities municipal code sections 9.10.030 , 9.73.010, calif.civil code sect. 3479. and calif. health and safety code sect. 46000 have been violated multiple times in the past 2 weeks in our neighborhood.. On mon. 3-15 and wed. 3-17 there were extremely loud noise disturbances occurring between 530 am and 600am near calif. ave, I believe these were attributable to activity occurring on jacaranda. On tues. 3-16 and thurs. 318 there were workers parking a large pick up truck with flashing lights on birch st. near the corner of birch and sherman. The workers were setting up signs and cones and saw horses on birch st as part of the projects taking place on birch st. This was happening before 7am despite the fact that the large signs placed on birch st. about the project indicate that construction hours,including deliveries, are from 8 am to 6 pm. Construction on birch began before 8am today 3-18. These violations of the cities muni code, particularly the sect. on construction hours ,were a routine, almost daily, occurrence, throughout the two years of construction at 350 sherman. I am not interested in communicating to the city staff about chronic violations which have already begun on the birch project and which i anticipate will happen on the sherman project and get the same result or non result myself and my neighbors got so i will be sending any communication about these projects to the staff and council. Both myself and my neighbors made multiple calls for service and submitted complaints to the city staff about these chronic violations. Unfortunately, nothing changed and i do not believe anyone was cited or warned about ongoing violations of the cities muni code. greg kerber 137 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 1:42 PM To:Raj; Charisse Domingo; Jeff Moore; Kaloma Smith; Human Relations Commission; Greer Stone; Council, City; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; chuck jagoda; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Jeff Rosen; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Anna Griffin; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Cecilia Taylor; Sunita de Tourreil; DuBois, Tom; ravenmalonepa@gmail.com; Jonsen, Robert; mark weiss; wintergery@earthlink.net; Tanner, Rachael; Greg Tanaka; Josh Becker; Kou, Lydia; Shikada, Ed; Cormack, Alison; Joe Simitian; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Lewis. james; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; city.council@menlopark.org; Cormack, Alison Subject:Palo Alto officer whose dog attacked man was named in earlier lawsuit over a police K9 attack. ..... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  FYI: Breaking new on Officer Enberg ...sued in earlier canine attack —has other bad priors .......      https://padailypost.com/2021/03/18/palo‐alto‐officer‐whose‐dog‐attacked‐man‐was‐named‐in‐earlier‐ lawsuit‐over‐a‐police‐k9‐attack/     Dave Price  Editor and co‐publisher  The Daily Post and padailypost.com  385 Forest Ave., Palo Alto CA 94301  (650) 328‐7700  price@padailypost.com          138 Baumb, Nelly From:Gary Fine <gary@finepoquet.com> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 11:55 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support FOR the proposed development on Wellesley Street in College Terrace CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  March 2021 Dear Mayor, Vice Mayor and Council Members, As a homeowner and 30 year resident of College Terrace (CT) I am writing to express my support for the proposed development at the corner of Wellesley Street and College Avenue. I know the College Terrace Residents Association (CTRA) wrote to the City Council opposing the project. The CTRA may represent the views of the majority of our current residents, but I want you to know that there are residents of CT who disagree with the letter, and who support the project in a general sense. The CTRA correctly states that “College Terrace boasts a welcoming community filled with a wide variety and healthy mix of multi-unit, multifamily home structures, single family homes ...” and that “College Terrace supports affordable housing goals when they are pursued responsibly”. But the CTRA then brings up all the overworked, outdated and frankly “exclusivist” reasons to suggest that this is the wrong place and time for more affordable/denser housing. It is not the wrong time and it is not the wrong place. I think a project like this in this location is exactly the right thing and indeed matches the character of our neighbourhood. Yes, there is a physical character to our neighbourhood that is to be protected - trees, variety of houses, parks, access to Stanford, the hills, small businesses and transit. But the more important character of CT is the people - both current AND future residents. A well designed version of this building can be made to fit and will certainly not destroy what we value in College Terrace. As correctly implied in the CTRA letter to CC, we do support diversity, multi-generational housing, equity, affordability etc. but we never miss an opportunity to dismiss all housing projects for the same old reasons like traffic, too cramped, too big, parking, safety, wrong time, etc. If we in CT are so welcoming, then it is time for us to step forward and lead Palo Alto’s housing initiatives with our actions locally in our neighborhood. The CTRA letter spends much of its argument assailing the developer CATO, and complaining about the lack of engagement. This is an irrelevant argument. The developer’s job is to build houses and other properties. I did not build my house, nor did almost all of my neighbours. As for the posture of, and engagement with the developers, seriously! College Terrace (and the CTRA) has always been antagonistic to most developers (and Stanford) and has approached projects with a ”stop it at any cost” attitude. One of our neighbours even suggested marching on city hall “with pitchforks”. CTRA and CT are losing credibility here. Developers build houses - unless we intend to do it ourselves we need to engage positively. If we take the developer’s proposal as a starting point, I believe good minds could make it fit. On the corner in question we have 2 large double story houses, across the road we have a 2 story apartment, next door we have a 2 story house (whose impact DOES need to be alleviated by the 139 developer), behind we have a 2 story apartment, and sort of next door we have an unoccupied brand new single story house. Adding a 3 story apartment building amongst all the 2 story buildings in this location is exactly the best way to ensure densification happens only in a capped way. In closing, I suggest that if the CC motivates the CT residents to come to the table in good faith and style, and if staff is instructed to engage with professional designers, planners and developers, we can work out reasonable changes with the developer to protect the immediate neighbours and to ensure the building has the right mix of units. There are going to be many reasons to not do this project, and I hope my letter challenges some of them, but the more important thing to do is to find a way we can say YES to buildings like this, because it will keep our city diverse, young, vital, and alive. I believe it's in the character of College Terrace to lead so let's get on with it and be a good example for all of Palo Alto how to work through a housing project that can make a difference. Sincerely, Gary Fine College Terrace 140 Baumb, Nelly From:Canopy <info@canopy.org> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 11:04 AM To:Council, City Subject:Last Chance to Register - Bridging Trees and Health Webinar CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.        Don't Miss Out!       Bridging Trees and Health: The Public Health Outcome of Urban Tree Canopy   Thursday, March 25, 2021 10:00 - 11:30 AM   Trees play a significant role in improving public health in urban areas. They reduce air pollution and mitigate heat islands, which lowers the rates of respiratory disease, cardiovascular complications, and heat-related illnesses in cities. In addition to physical health, urban forests have also been proven to enhance mental and social well-being. Though scientific evidence of the benefits of urban trees has grown, public investment in trees has decreased. In this webinar, learn how to bridge the goals of urban greening with the goals of the health sector through relevant case studies from across the country. Certified Arborists will earn 1.5 ISA CEUs upon attending the live webinar.   Register       This program is made possible by a generous grant from the County of Santa Clara Office of Sustainability.   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.         141       Speakers   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Dr. Desiree Backman Director, Population Health Group at the Center for Healthcare Policy & Research at UC Davis   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Dr. Neal Kohatsu Chief Health Strategist, Population Health Group at the Center for Healthcare Policy & Research at UC Davis   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Ray Tretheway Founder, Sacramento Tree Foundation        Next in the Series   Mark your calendar for these upcoming webinars!   Designing for Landscape Resilience on the Google Campus Thur. Apr. 29 | 10:00-11:30 AM Learn how Google's ecology program is expanding wildlife habitats, withstanding climate change, and restoring ecological functions of the landscape lost to development. Learn More ››     Greening the Outdoor Classroom Thur. May 20 | 10:00-11:30 AM Learn strategies for bringing trees and nature to school campuses and designing outdoor learning spaces that benefit students' social, emotional, and mental well- being. Learn More ››       Learn more about the series       Visit Our Website   Tree Library   Find an Arborist   Blog     To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     Canopy's mission is to grow urban tree canopy in Midpeninsula communities for the benefit of all.   142 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.In stagram   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.YouTube            Canopy | 3921 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Unsubscribe city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Update Profile | Customer Contact Data Notice Sent by info@canopy.org powered by   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today. Try email marketing for free today!       143 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:55 PM To:Human Relations Commission; Jeff Moore; Rebecca Eisenberg; Council, City; Jeff Rosen; Greer Stone; Kaloma Smith; Raven Malone; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; chuck jagoda; DuBois, Tom; Raj; Charisse Domingo; Chris; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Sunita de Tourreil; Tanner, Rachael; Dave Price; Jonsen, Robert; Winter Dellenbach; Binder, Andrew; mark weiss; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Greg Tanaka; Josh Becker; cmrstaylor@gmail.com; griffinam@sbcglobal.net; Shikada, Ed; Cormack, Alison; Kou, Lydia; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; Lewis. james; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; David Moss Subject:Man Sues Palo Alto Over Police Dog Attack, Police Release Body Cam Footage—Mr. Alejo speaks to channel 5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Check out this video on YouTube:    https://youtu.be/dOWeOMl‐kGw      Sent from my iPhone  144 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:50 PM To:Roberta Ahlquist; Jonsen, Robert; Rebecca Eisenberg; mark weiss; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; Human Relations Commission; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Charisse Domingo; Anna Griffin; chuck jagoda; Greer Stone; city.council@menlopark.org; Council, City; Joe Simitian; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; ladoris cordell; DuBois, Tom; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Tanner, Rachael; Raven Malone; Winter Dellenbach; Sunita de Tourreil; Greg Tanaka; Josh Becker; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; cmrstaylor@gmail.com; Kou, Lydia; Shikada, Ed; Cormack, Alison; Molly.ONeal@pdo.sccgov.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Dave Price; Lewis. james Subject:PAPD officer Enberg —one of officer involved in canine attack on Mr. Alejo —has a history of very bad acts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    https://www.mercurynews.com/2021/03/16/palo‐alto‐releases‐footage‐of‐police‐dog‐attacking‐innocent‐man/amp/      Sent from my iPhone  145 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 9:21 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Human Relations Commission; Architectural Review Board; Stump, Molly; DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Tanner, Rachael; Kaloma Smith; kaloma.smith@cityofpaloalto.org; Elizabeth Collet Funk Cc:Aram James; Roberta Ahlquist; Mary Gallagher; Chris Robell; mark weiss; Angie Evans; Gail Price; patti@safekids.com Subject:Correcting the record to restate that in fact $1.5 Billion in state housing funds are available CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Leaders    Earlier this evening, at the Human Relations Commission Meeting, both City Planner Rachael Tanner and HRC liaison  Minka van der Zwaag denied knowledge of state funding to address homelessness. They pointed to possible funding  from the *county.* This was frustrating to hear, given how many times that I and many others have sent emails and  made public comments urging the City to apply for grants of the $800 million that the State distributed through the  HomeKey program last year, as well as the $1.5 billion dollars that will be available this year, including per the email I  sent last week, available below. Countless times, I and others have pointed the City to the state website that advertises  funding programs available ‐ https://www.hcd.ca.gov/ as well as its email update service, which is the source of the  email I sent you last week.     Convincing City Staff and the City Council to apply for a HomeKey grant ‐‐ much less, convince the City that this funding  actually exists! ‐‐ has been an exercise in futility. Last fall I met directly with City Manager Ed Shikada, and asked him  directly why Palo Alto has not applied for HomeKey grant.  At that meeting, Mr. Shikada told me that HomeKey funding  is not something that our City Council is interested in. Query why PA City Council and City Staff would be opposed to  receiving free money to address homelessness? We cannot repeat last year's mistake. Palo Alto must seek state funding  to serve our unhoused populations and to provide both temporary and permanent housing for our most poor resident  and local workers.     Currently, Dignity Moves, the organization that successfully helped house all of Mountain View's homeless, paid for  entirely with State HomeKey funding, are hoping to bring a similar program to Palo Alto. Dignity Moves provides  temporary, low‐cost, and attractive transitional housing shelters, and works in partnership with LifeMoves, a respected  and established nonprofit with a decades‐long track record of providing successful and life‐changing wrap‐around  services for homeless shelters and vehicle dwellers.     The founder of Dignity Moves, Elizabeth Funk, is cc'd on this message and welcomes the opportunity to present her  organizations homlessness solutions at a City Council, Planning Commission and/or Human Relations Meeting.  I think  you will be amazed and impressed with the life‐changing work that Dignity Moves has done, and will enjoy seeing the  incredibly successful project that Dignity Moves and Life Moves made possible right next door. You can read about  Dignity Moves' Mountain View successful program on page 13 on this extremely informative, short  deck: https://blobby.wsimg.com/go/03189a71‐9c00‐4510‐8a09‐86cd6095e5b9/DignityMoves.pdf    I hope that one of you will respond to Ms. Funk at elizabeth@dignityfund.com . I would be happy to assist with this  process in any way, since as you know, I am passionately committed to helping our most vulnerable improve their  circumstances and opportunities.    146 As a final note, many of you undoubtedly have read the recent news reports, analyzing why California's success with  controlling Covid is virtually no better than Florida's. As you may have read, studies unanimously conclude that  California's Covid problem is largely due to California's large and growing problems of homelessness, poverty, and  overcrowding. As such, housing the homeless and serving the vehicle dwellers not only helps the unhoused, but it also  helps the greater community.     I know that you join me in supporting our city's most vulnerable.I hope that this email can be the last I need to send in  effort to inform the City of the huge amount of funding available for temporary and permanent housing solutions.  I  appreciate your attention and consideration to this urgent and pressing public health crisis.     Best,   Rebecca Eisenberg    Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078      On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 7:47 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote:  Please see below. $1.5 BILLION is available for affordable housing from the State of California!  This is a significant  increase from last year.   Palo Alto was the ONLY city with our housing imbalance not to apply for a grant last year.  Let's not repeat that error!   Please let me know if you need help. I am in regular contact with the organizations that secured $12.3 million from  Mountain View last fall. Mountain View used that funding to ensure that every single one of its unhoused individuals  and families now has transitional housing shelter and services.   If Mountain View, Fresno, LA, Santa Clara, Santa Barbara, and dozens other California Cities could use the state's free  housing funds, why can't Palo Alto?     Best,   Rebecca    Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: CA Department of Housing & Community Development <communications@hcd.ca.gov>  Date: Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 9:12 AM  Subject: $1.5 Billion in Housing Funding Scheduled for Release  To: <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>    To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.       147 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.HCD Announcement       $1.5 Billion in Housing Funding Scheduled for Release Critical Fund-Balance-and-Demand Data on State Programs Out Now Pause on Multifamily Housing Program, Infill Infrastructure Grant Ends   Great news! We’re happy to announce that all funding we temporarily paused last November to better align with two top affordable housing funders in the state — the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) — is now moving again. What we accomplished during the pause We laid the groundwork to change the way we do business. We are aligning policies across partner agencies and departments, and holding more frequent, focused conversations with you, to both speed up delivery of affordable homes and affirmatively further fair housing. This will be an ongoing effort over the next year as we look to simplify some of our own state-funded multifamily programs into one application consistent with the requirements of AB 434 signed by Governor Newsom last fall. Watch for opportunities to engage coming soon! We’ve updated our Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) calendar    Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) — NOFA release April 2021  Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) — NOFA release July 2021 Already-released NOFAs:  Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC)  Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker Grant New! Current program fund balances and outstanding TCAC/CDLAC demand for HCD-funded projects You asked and we delivered. Seeing the big picture of available funding from HCD and from TCAC/CDLAC allows you to better plan for opportunities and challenges ahead. Having this important data at our fingertips allows HCD to become a better partner on program innovation and alignment to achieve the goal of expedited housing production. In addition to the timing of NOFA releases as provided in the NOFA Calendar, knowing how much funding remains in our various programs is critical in To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.      148 putting together financing plans for projects. You can now view the Status of Bond-Funded Multifamily Program balances.   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Chart     Going forward, we will partner with our project sponsors to track the status of HCD-funded projects through quarterly surveys. This information will help us understand our Estimated Outstanding Bond and Tax Credit Demand for HCD- funded Projects.   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Chart     We will update this information quarterly and you can always find the most recent charts on our main Grants and Funding webpage. More improvements coming — AB 434 and beyond More improvements are coming your way as we implement AB 434 (2020), which will simplify the application process, making it even easier for you to apply for funding from our multifamily housing programs. We are excited about our continued collaboration with you as we simplify our programs and processes to remove barriers to the critical work you do building and preserving affordable homes for those most in need.   Copyright © 2021 hcd.ca.gov|(916) 263-7400   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter             Department of Housing & Community Development | 2020 W. El Camino Ave., Sacramento, CA 95833 Unsubscribe rebecca@winwithrebecca.com Update Profile | Customer Contact Data Notice Sent by communications@hcd.ca.gov powered by   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today. Try email marketing for free today!       149 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Rieder <barieder@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 7:08 PM To:Council, City Cc:Friends of Steering Committee Subject:Commendation for Palo Alto Swim & Sport CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Dubois and City Council Members, I am writing on behalf of the Friends of Rinconada Pool to request the following Commendation for Palo Alto Swim & Sport PAS&S) for their excellent service through the challenging events of the 2020 pandemic. Swimmers from Palo Alto and neighboring cities benefited from the rapid effort of PAS&S to safely reopen our public community pool as soon as the CDC Guidelines were issued. WHEREAS, Palo Alto Swim & Sport (PAS&S)has weathered many challenges since the inception of its contract for management of the City of Palo Alto Rinconada Pool, and WHEREAS, PAS&S responded within days of the issuance of CDC Guidelines for reopening outdoor pools following closure due to the Covid-19 Shut Down and, WHEREAS, PAS&S maintained maximum hours of safe access for swimmers through the 2020 California wildfires, and WHEREAS, PAS&S has responded with openness and positivity to feedback from swimmers, expanding communication, and WHEREAS, it is with gratitude and appreciation that hundreds of swimmers from infants and teens to seniors are healthier and happier given the dedication of the PAS&S staff, and WHEREAS, it is recognized that PAS&S will have a continuing impact on the health and wellness of the community and all of their efforts are deserving of acknowledgement,now, therefore be it RESOLVED by the City Council of Palo Alto that they take this opportunity to commend PALO ALTO SWIM & SPORT on their value and success to our community. Thank you, Respectfully Yours, Barbara A. Rieder Friend of Rinconada Pool Steering Committee 150 Baumb, Nelly From:Katherine Ferrara <sutclifk@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 6:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:2239 Wellesley CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi‐   I agree with those who feel that the planned development has too many units, the units are too small for families and  the parking is inadequate.  I live nearby and parking is already an issue as well as the lack of housing that is designed for  families (these units are not).  Thanks.    Kathy Sutcliffe          151 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 3:21 PM To:Aram James Cc:mark weiss; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Alison Cormack; ladoris cordell; Gennady Sheyner; Reckdahl, Keith; Raven Malone; Steven D. Lee; David Moss Subject:Re: “Dirsh” the prague pipeline CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mark, Dirsh means BITE in Czeck:      https://www4.uwsp.edu/psych/dog/languag1.htm        Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078      On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 2:29 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Stop the pipeline now! aram    On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 2:49 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Yes,   Sopt the fucking pipeliine now!    On Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 2:21 PM mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote:      Prague police puppy pipeline To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.og After City Council business I met Officer J. Tannock and Bohdan. She says his or her name means “given by God” and the dog arrived from Czech Republic where we apparently get all our dogs here. Thanks in advance for your service! Tannock and Bohdan will be appearing Tuesday at National Night Out. Personally, I’m looking forward to SF Mime Troupe “Treasure Island” at Cubberley Center outdoors, the amphitheatre. But if I happen on one of our eight block parties, I’ll try to sniff a few butts and get some paw. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.g 152 If “Dirsh” “dirsh” is the Czechoslovakian word for “stop“ then I suggest we dirsh the pipeline of dogs trained overseas that bite people sleeping in their yards in Mountain View. Mark Weiss In Palo Alto Means “white” or “he knows”   153 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:58 AM To:mark weiss Cc:Josh Becker; Joe Simitian; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Dave Price; David Angel; Tanner, Rachael; Raj; Charisse Domingo; chuck jagoda; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Molly O'Neal; Anna Griffin; Sunita de Tourreil; Kaloma Smith; Cormack, Alison; Greer Stone; Shikada, Ed; Emily Mibach; Kou, Lydia; Lewis. james Subject:Re: Police release video of dog attack - Palo Alto Daily Post CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi Mark,    In my view if we sent our cops to work on behalf of another city —pursuant to some type of mutual aid agreement our  employees still have an obligation to act in a non‐ negligent, non‐reckless and non‐criminal manner.    I suppose the legal doctrine of subrogation would apply to insurance issues between the cities. Given the pervasive  nature of violent police canine attacks, disproportionately visited on people of color, across this country, and locally, I  would agree, use of canine units should be limited to search and rescues duties only.    My guess, only a guess, is that Palo Alto will deny Mr. Alejo’s initial 20 million dollar claim, as Mountain View did, setting  the stage for law suits to be filed Mr. Alego’s attorneys.    Watching the videos of this vile unprovoked attack by the PAPD canine unit ...I would not make a good juror for the  defendants.    I can only imagine how quickly this case would settle for 20 million dollars had this attack been on a member of my dad’s  people ‐a Jewish person.     I hope the cities of Mountain View and Palo Alto do the right thing—settle the case for $20 million dollars and split the  cost.    Finally, I hope our elected distinct attorney, Jeff Rosen, after reviewing the tapes of this incident, including all of the  gratuitous violence allowed to occur in this incident, canine allowed to bite and injury Mr. Alejo, way beyond what was  necessary, files criminal charges against the officers involved in this extraordinarily repugnant matter.    Best regards,    Aram    > On Mar 17, 2021, at 11:13 AM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote:  >  > Not to sound heartless or NIMBY, but if this happened in Mountain View, is it our responsibility or liability? If the dog  or officer are deficient I don’t want to live in fear of them biting or harming me in my yard. But is MV 100 percent  responsible for the damages?  > Will Palo Alto make public its deliberation?  154 > Mark Weiss  >  > PS Was this dog from Czech Republic? What’s the name of the dog? I met an officer, maybe Tannock (?) and she said  all our dogs — how many? — are from the Czech Republic. Maybe we should local dogs to sniff out crime but not  brutally assault our neighbors sleeping in their yards, SOCBNBAONSITYs?!  >  > Sent from my iPhone  >  >> On Mar 16, 2021, at 10:33 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  >> FYI: if ever the HRC should speak out re the Palo Alto PD this is the case. The Daily Post article released just today (see  link below) includes 9 video tapes 1 released by the PAPD and 8 released by the Mountain View PD re the canine attack  on Mr. Alejo.  >> Mr. Alejo, in my view, was treated in an extraordinarily inhumane manner. The dog attack was unnecessary..there  were other options available to the police. The condescending way the police treated Mr. Alejo once the police realized  they had the wrong person is so inexcusable.  >> Make certain u watch all of the tapes including when a Mountain View officer returns to interview the sleeping family  members of Mr. Alejo ( tape approximately 11 minutes). I’m deeply disturbed but what I have seen in these tapes.  >> Aram James  >> https://padailypost.com/2021/03/16/police‐release‐video‐of‐dog‐attack/  >> Sent from my iPhone  155 Baumb, Nelly From:LaVonne Young <sgluke@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 11:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:Opposition to the Cato project proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello City Council,    I’m a long‐time resident of College Terrace, and own my home on a substandard lot.    I would like to register my opposition to the Cato proposal, and urge the Council to consider other options.    Other homeowners, like myself, who live on lot sizes under 5000 sf, have the ability to add rental unit(s), but may not  have the knowledge, wherewithal, or resources to do so.  Instead of the Cato proposal, how about creating a program  where the city would work with owners like myself to increase the density of the area in a cohesive and responsible  manner.   Partnerships between Palo Alto residents and the city seem like a more palatable option to satisfying the need  for housing while maintaining the irreplaceable neighborhood feel.    Thanks,    LaVonne Young  College Avenue  156 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:26 AM To:Tanner, Rachael; Human Relations Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Council, City; Raven Malone; Greer Stone; DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; chuck jagoda Subject:California Suburbs are Banishing RV Residents | ACLU of Northern CA CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    https://www.aclunc.org/blog/california‐suburbs‐are‐banishing‐rv‐residents      Sent from my iPhone  157 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:15 AM To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; Greer Stone; Kaloma Smith; DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Tanner, Rachael; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Raven Malone Subject:Re: RV bans have got to go ...ACLU TO SUE THE CITY OF PACIFICA CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.       Read how RV residents are fighting against Pacifica's ban.   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.ACLU of Northern California's logo   Aram – There's not a single community in Northern California that hasn't felt the pain of our state's housing crisis. That includes suburbs like Pacifica, where many who've been priced out by the city's astronomical rents have turned to living in RVs to keep a roof over their heads. But instead of working with their unhoused neighbors, Pacifica's City Council has responded with a campaign of unrelenting harassment aimed at running unhoused people out of town. So we're suing. Hear some of the stories from our clients:  "The RV ban has prevented me from progressing. I am afraid to leave my RV to take a bus to go to the doctor because if I come back it might be towed." – Sean Geary  "I am trying to go back to work to save up the money to get into a regular housing unit. That's my goal. But that goal is hard to reach when the place I have grown up all my life is banning RVs from parking anywhere." – Linda Miles 158  "If my RV got towed, I would not have the money to pay the tow and storage charges. I would likely be forced into a tent or a sleeping bag on the street." – Jared Carr Read here to learn what it's like to live under Pacifica's RV Ban – and why local residents are taking action. The Pacifica city council recently passed a law that essentially bans RVs from parking within city limits. Once the ban passed, Pacifica police began issuing fines to people who can't afford to eat regularly, let alone pay off tickets that can add up to thousands of dollars. The city is also threatening to tow the vehicles – an action that would rob them of all their possessions and last remaining shelter. We hope that this lawsuit will urge Pacifica, and other cities like it, to reconsider how they treat their unhoused neighbors. We all have a role to play in solving the housing crisis. To fix it, we need to come together and find solutions that respect everyone's dignity. Just because you live in your vehicle, doesn't mean you're not in your community: Read and share Sean, Linda, and Jared's stories. Thank you, To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Grayce Zelphin, Racial and Economic justice attorney for the ACLU of Northern California Grayce Zelphin Pronouns: She, her, hers Racial and Economic Justice Attorney, ACLU of Northern California DONATE NOW     To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook Icon To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter Icon To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.In stagram Icon 159 This email was sent to: abjpd1@gmail.com Unsubscribe Please note: If you forward or distribute, the links will open a page with your information filled in. We respect your right to privacy – view our policy. This email was sent by: American Civil Liberties Union of ACLU of Northern California 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111   160 Baumb, Nelly From:Bonnie Packer <bbpacker@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 10:11 AM To:Council, City Cc:City Mgr Subject:Fwd: RV bans have got to go CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  FYI:  Ticketing the RVs on El Camino is a form of harassment.  You need to address this situation.       Begin forwarded message:    From: ACLU of Northern California <no-reply@aclunc.org>  Subject: RV bans have got to go  Date: March 17, 2021 at 9:30:33 AM PDT  To: bbpacker@comcast.net    To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.ACLU of Northern California's logo Bonnie – There's not a single community in Northern California that hasn't felt the pain of our state's housing crisis. That includes suburbs like Pacifica, where many who've been priced out by the city's astronomical rents have turned to living in RVs to keep a roof over their heads. But instead of working with their unhoused neighbors, Pacifica's City Council has responded with a campaign of unrelenting harassment aimed at running unhoused people out of town. So we're suing. Hear some of the stories from our clients:  "The RV ban has prevented me from progressing. I am afraid to leave my RV to take a bus to go to the doctor because if I come back it might be towed." – Sean Geary 161  "I am trying to go back to work to save up the money to get into a regular housing unit. That's my goal. But that goal is hard to reach when the place I have grown up all my life is banning RVs from parking anywhere." – Linda Miles  "If my RV got towed, I would not have the money to pay the tow and storage charges. I would likely be forced into a tent or a sleeping bag on the street." – Jared Carr Read here to learn what it's like to live under Pacifica's RV Ban – and why local residents are taking action. The Pacifica city council recently passed a law that essentially bans RVs from parking within city limits. Once the ban passed, Pacifica police began issuing fines to people who can't afford to eat regularly, let alone pay off tickets that can add up to thousands of dollars. The city is also threatening to tow the vehicles – an action that would rob them of all their possessions and last remaining shelter. We hope that this lawsuit will urge Pacifica, and other cities like it, to reconsider how they treat their unhoused neighbors. We all have a role to play in solving the housing crisis. To fix it, we need to come together and find solutions that respect everyone's dignity. Just because you live in your vehicle, doesn't mean you're not in your community: Read and share Sean, Linda, and Jared's stories. Thank you, To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Grayce Zelphin, Racial and Economic justice attorney for the ACLU of Northern California Grayce Zelphin Pronouns: She, her, hers Racial and Economic Justice Attorney, ACLU of Northern California 162 DONATE NOW     To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook Icon To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter Icon To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.In stagram Icon This email was sent to: bbpacker@comcast.net Unsubscribe Please note: If you forward or distribute, the links will open a page with your information filled in. We respect your right to privacy – view our policy. This email was sent by: American Civil Liberties Union of ACLU of Northern California 39 Drumm Street San Francisco, CA 94111     163 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Newman <ann.m.newman@comcast.net> Sent:Wednesday, March 17, 2021 8:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rangers at Foothills Park and Open Space CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi,    I wanted to commend the rangers and staff and advocate for increasing their staff at Foothill.  I have been very  impressed with their timely responsiveness before the opening and most certainly after.  I’ve even had a ranger call me  back to get more details on a trail hazard report and they have always promptly followed up emails on other reports.   Moreover, they’ve followed through with action on keeping the trails safe and educating/guiding the public. They have  shown a deep commitment to preserving nature while thoughtfully maximizing the visitor’s experience.  It’s been a  challenging time with a sweep of changes and increasing demands on staff, but they can only do so much.  Especially  with the new fees and added demands of manning the entrance, please adopt a measure to increase staffing.    Best regards,  Ann Newman    164 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 2:58 PM To:mark weiss Cc:mark weiss; Council, City; David Moss; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Joe Simitian; Rebecca Eisenberg; Raven Malone; Greer Stone; Greg Tanaka; ParkRec Commission; Minor, Beth; Shikada, Ed; Sunita de Tourreil; Cormack, Alison; Binder, Andrew; Lewis. james Subject:Who was the amazing Rose Elizabeth Bird —Palo Alto resident before her untimely death on dec 4, 1999.... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        FYI: here is the Rose Bird article from 1986 ...          https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1986/04/08/rose‐bird‐and‐the‐ court‐of‐conflict/d391da7f‐33dd‐4fa5‐87b2‐a7c79e62e048/    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  165 Baumb, Nelly From:Linnea WICKSTROM <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 2:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Uplift Local: thank you for the murals! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Members of the City Council,    I very much enjoyed two “Mural hunts” in Downtown and on California Avenue!     I did each with a friend, masked and socially distanced. We enjoyed the artwork and walking around downtown and  California Avenue!    Uplift local for artists was a great idea!    Thanks for sponsoring this!    Mr Per Maresca   Palo Alto, California  166 Baumb, Nelly From:Cherry LeBrun <cherry@denovo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 16, 2021 12:43 PM To:Council, City Cc:Cherry LeBrun; Shikada, Ed Subject:Open University Avenue and Ramona Street CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council members Patrick Burt, Alison Cormack, Eric Filseth, Lydia Kou, Greer Stone, Greg Tanaka and Mayor  Tom DuBois,    I have had my retail business in the same location in downtown Palo Alto for over 30 years.  I am writing to let you know  that having University Avenue and Ramona Street closed to cars is very damaging to my retail business, De Novo Fine  Contemporary Jewelry.  Retail customers want easy access to the stores that they want to visit.  If they are deterred by  street closures and detours they will often give up and leave downtown and not go shopping.  Right now instead of  having 4 access points for cars to get to my store there are only two.  This cuts access to my store by 50% and has a very  direct affect on our sales.  Every time the streets close foot traffic in my store declines.  When the streets reopen foot  traffic immediately picks up.  I have talked to other downtown retailers who are having the same experience.  I am not  opposed to parklets to allow restaurants to have more outdoor dining options, but when restaurants are allowed to  open for indoor dining again I request that you immediately reopen University Avenue and Ramona Street to through  traffic to allow full access to retail stores again.    Respectfully,    Cherry LeBrun, Owner    De Novo Fine Contemporary Jewelry  250 University Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301  650‐327‐1256  cherry@denovo.com  www.denovo.com          167 Baumb, Nelly From:Liz Gardner <gardnerjaqua@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 3:04 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City; Planning Commission Subject:Re:Palo Alto & Fed Relief to Local Money from 1.9Trillion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please Can you forward to Parks Commission? TY     Dear City Council, Parks Commission and Planning and Transportation Commission :      I am writing to ask that a good, strong thorough discussion be had in how the City will distribute local Rescue Federal  monies coming into our community.     I was quite shocked that there are no PAUSD campus resources officers assigned to our schools. How does this serious  community gap apply with state mandated campus lock down drills or any pranks that may get called in and must be  handked? Or what about the ease un which our kids are getting drugs on SnapChat . Menlo Park has a resource officer,  why not us?  Our District has 1200 students and just as many easy access pint via the Internet or other.     As well. Children have been cooped up for over a year. Everything has been closed to them, the public and our youth. No  real time face to face interaction , no recreation and park programming, no art programing. It’s been “wear your mask,  wash our hands, six feet apart! Psychologically speaking there is going to be youth fall‐out from these well intentioned  safety precautions. Yet it’s not just about CoVID mitigation. it’s do much more.     Equity and access is a concern. Poor kids have very little and its been so much worse during the pandemic. Their hope,  morale and mental health has dropped very low.  Youth of today are our future. And with COVID has closely followed  with a lot of hurt, humiliation and grief among our biggest asset. No not property/real‐estate holdings    — but our  young our future’s leaders (not just followers of Instagram/SnapChat/ Tik‐Tok/YouTube/MineCraft/RoBlox/GTA or the  next big online thing!).    At this time, and for low income children/families, those of color, disabled, only get a 50% discount in participating in  PAUSD/Recreational outdoor and after school sports, arts (there is no music program). And in this only get one class per  year. This last year has laid a severe shortage beyond grasp for regular renters, the unemployed, school children’s  engagement . Our kids and families are overZoomed, consumed, taxed with having had to adjust to a screen en only  worked beyond our living rooms (if we have one), kitchen tables, bedrooms and front doors. There is no messaging that  gives us hope and rekief as to when libraries will welcome us back, or when the art center, Rinconada pool,  will be  open. As well with the gap in dedicated PAPD resource officers, I would hope this would be addressed. Above this need,  I would hope the city will expand it’s 50% scholarship to %80 or 100% based on income.     Most critical hundreds’s of families live in Alta housing, Mid‐pen housing, Mayfield Place etc. Alta has a close  relationship with the city. zi would think you’d be working to address the hole in teen, children based positive activities  in sports, arts, cultural programming.  For exampke: Just after WWII the term Juvenile was a new to our American  lexicon. Youth having matured during that war. Delinquency post War w got out‐of hand and many Rec add Park  departments confronted this with creating Teen Centers, Head Start and programs to combat the loss of such nurturing  safety nets and community during the years of Tge War. Obviously, the war was was our priority. Rec & Park did their  part: Victory Gardens, First Aid classes etc. However when it was over much of life in locally was about the GI Bill and  getting men back into jobs.   168   As we move through COVID, get vaccinated, return to school it will be time to replenish other means of creativity,  positive reinforcement, engagement. Life has to include measure and money and real connection for our youth to heal  and given every opportunity to thrive and mature into adults.     I urge you yo NOT expand technological connections. These Apps and such have been isolation, invited darker behaviors  in our youth . Let’s brung them near with good supervision and ingenuity they deserve and are yearning for.     I ask that consideration be given to our youth first not only law enforcement and emergency services or even just COVID  mitigation.     Please consider funding:    Youth related sports , arts, music, gardening  New Skateboard Park planning/implementation/construction (cubberely or Mitchel) Not Greer or Peers (too close to rail  and 101)  Hiring positive campus Resource officers  Safe Routes to School  Recreational programming  80‐100% income based fees & services  Invest in our libraries  Teen drop in Center ‐ with into evening and eeekend hours  Affordable Housing construction w/ good site programs and larger outdoor space for all ages    I am happy to meet with any one if you individually to discuss. At your convenience. Please email or text me.     Stay Safe, Stay Well     Liz Gardner  2500 ECR #301  Palo Alto, Ca 94306  650‐845‐7502                ‐‐   Liz Gardner  169 Baumb, Nelly From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 2:23 PM To:PlanningCommission@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Gail Price; Council, City Subject:Post NVCAP Public Hearing on March 10, 2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Chair Hechtman  and Planning and Transportation Commissioners,    I would like to thank you for your thoughtful discussion of the NVCAP Alternatives and your support of an enhanced  Alternative 3 to the Palo Alto City Council. Its strong economic feasibility and support of community benefits, including a  variety of housing choices for many incomes, is very critical. Clearly, it will help address the RHNA housing numbers and  contribute to the creation of the next Housing Element for Palo Alto.    NVCAP will serve both current and future needs of the immediate vicinity and region. Alternative 3 also has a balance of  land uses and densities to support a sustainable and balanced economy. This is a major opportunity area for Palo Alto.    The planning and transportation staff and consultants will continue to do a fine job.  Palo Alto Forward and a significant  number of community members and organizations have repeatedly supported an enhanced Alternative 3. We  appreciate your thorough and hard work on planning issues.    Thank you,  Gail A. Price  Board President Palo Alto Forward  170 Baumb, Nelly From:Martin J Sommer <martin@sommer.net> Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 2:15 PM To:CalMod@caltrain.com Cc:Board (@caltrain.com); Council, City; Pat Burt Subject:Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Brent,    I am still working on this issue. When we talked via phone, you offered to look into why the tall single poles were used at  the University Ave station, vs two shorter poles on the side, with or without a crossbar. The Cal Ave station, uses two  shorter poles, placed right on the platform.    Can you please answer that for me?    Thanks,  Martin    On 1/13/21 9:58 AM, Martin J Sommer wrote:  Hi Brent,    Thanks for talking this morning. Yes, please try to put a number on repainting the top half of one or  more poles at the University Ave station. Once we have this number, I will reach out to the City Of Palo  Alto, for potential funding sources.    Best regards,  Martin    On 12/22/20 7:49 PM, Martin J Sommer wrote:  +cc: Pat Bert    Brent, please take a look at the attached photo. I don't think this is what the City, nor  the design engineers, had in mind.    Please tell me, how I can help correct this situation.    Thank you,  Martin    On 11/25/20 10:05 AM, martin@sommer.net wrote:  Hi Brent,  171 Perhaps your new funding source obtained on Nov 3rd can help this  situation. Can you please look into this, and let me know? The visual  impacts you are creating, are not good.  Thank you,  Martin  -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality."   On 2020‐11‐25 09:50, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote:     Hi Martin,   Unfortunately, the project budget does not accommodate camouflaging  of the poles. Caltrain worked with Cities and regulatory agencies to  mitigate the impacts of the infrastructure through the Project's  Environmental Impact Report in 2014.     Thanks,   Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer SamTrans | Caltrain | TA 1250 San Carlos Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 tietjenb@samtrans.com       From: martin@sommer.net [mailto:martin@sommer.net]   Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 1:55 PM  To: CalMod@caltrain.com  Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>;  city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color Thanks Brent, What about the idea of camouflaging the upper part of the poles, similar to what is done with cell towers? For some reason, these poles have been created with an extremely hard industrial look. This is nothing like, the esthetics put into other electrified rails systems throughout the world. 172 Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." On 2020-11-13 10:09, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote: Hi Martin,   Thank you again for contacting Caltrain on this question. As Jim  previously mentioned, the selection of the pole color was done in  coordination with the City of Palo Alto and the Historic Resources Board  and Architectural Review Board in 2019. These color selections are final  and poles cannot be replaced or painted a different color after  installation.    Thanks,   Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer SamTrans | Caltrain | TA 1250 San Carlos Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 tietjenb@samtrans.com     From: martin@sommer.net [mailto:martin@sommer.net]   Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:20 AM  To: CalMod@caltrain.com; Board (@caltrain.com)  <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>  Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color Dear Caltrain Board, The more beige poles that go up at University Ave station, the more unsightly it becomes. At ground level, you might think the beige color matches the station, but from the view of local buildings, you are completely destroying the view of our Santa Cruz Mountains, and local green vegetation on Stanford campus. Can you please look into a way to fix this? Perhaps, painting any height above 10 feet, to be the standard forest green? Telecom poles can be camouflaged, the same applies here. 173 Please look in to it, and let me know some options. Thank you, Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." On 2020-09-30 12:05, calmod@caltrain.com wrote: Dear Martin, Thank you for contacting Caltrain Electrification. The selection of the beige color was done in coordination with the City of Palo Alto and is a common color for poles located near stations. Most poles are a neutral chrome color along the project area but in some cases, such as near stations, Caltrain staff worked with local cities to identify pole colors that aligned with certain station areas. Once the poles have been procured and placed, we are not able to change the colors of those poles. Thank you again for reaching out to us. Best, The Caltrain Team On 2020-09-25T10:17:50-07:00, Martin J Sommer <martin@sommer.net> wrote: Good morning, Please see the attached picture, of a beige pole placed last night. This creates a real eye sore!! Questions: 1) Why are you using a beige color vs the std forest green (that blends with the trees), and 2) can these beige poles please be painted forest green, before electrification occurs? I know that this is a "big ask". 174 Thank you, Martin -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net <mailto:martin@sommer.net>www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer <http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer> "Turn technical vision into reality."    -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality."    -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality."    -- Martin Sommer 650-346-5307 martin@sommer.net www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer "Turn technical vision into reality." 175 Baumb, Nelly From:Daniel Druker <ddruker@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 1:52 PM To:Council, City Subject:Inappropriate and Offensive City-Sponsored Political Speech CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear city council members,      I am writing to make you aware of inappropriate and offensive city‐sponsored political speech on city property.     As you may be aware, the city arts department periodically sponsors art installations on the lawn alongside  Embarcadero road in front of the Art Center.  Most of the time these installations are a wonderful and engaging asset to  our community.     In this case, unfortunately, the city's art department has decided to install lawn signs consisting solely of political slogans  ‐ such as "ABOLISH ICE" in our public space.        I contacted the city art department, and the woman I spoke with told me that many Palo Alto residents have called in to  complain that these political signs are both inappropriate and offensive. I also had an email exchange with Karen Kienzle,  the director of the art center, to share my concerns. Ms. Kienzle indicated that the signs are a product of Palo Alto's  sanctuary city project, and are funded primarily by the art center foundation.     The installations in front of the art center are usually great ‐ they are whimsical and hopeful and they are designed to  bring our community together.  in these very troubled times, can't we stick to art focused on community, unity and  healing instead of promoting divisive political speech?     Regards,   ‐ Dan  Daniel Druker  1427 Byron Street   +1.650.280.4460 cell  ddruker@stanfordalumni.org home email  176 Baumb, Nelly From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 1:11 PM To:Kamala Harris; Ro Khanna Subject:Be informed Pro and Con CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Elected Officials: Please be informed on both sides of getting a vaccine. Please read the ending about lawsuits for J&J, Merck,e tc. None of the first 3 virus shots are traditional vaccines..they are 'genetically modified technology' which can alter your genes. Moderna says they do not STOP tranmission of virus--just lessen a case of it. Dr FAuci owns half the Moderna vaccine patent--he wants everyone to get shots. So do CDC members owning over 30 vaccine patents. Italian researcher Cordelva says this genetic process has not yet been proved safe. These 3 'shots' do have aborted fetal cell/tissue which some bishops and VAtican say is okay, while other bishops say is immoral. No agency tracks deaths after vaccines but, VAERS accepts reports called in to it. Reports of Deaths After COVID Vaccines Up by 259 in 1 Week (in a 9 week period) by Megan Redshaw CDC Data Show Between Dec. 14 -- Mar. 5, 2021, * 31,079 reports of adverse events were submitted to VAERS, including * 1,524 deaths, (259 of these were in one week's time) * 5,507 serious injuries and *390 reports of Bell’s Palsy. This report is similar to previous except for 31% spike in Bell's Palsy. * Since J&J shot was first given March 2, two adverse events were reported to VAERS in 3 days. Both occurred in young people, and the reactions included tongue tingling and numbness, hot flashes, headache, and extreme fatigue. J&J has an adenovirus approach which 30 years study says is “failed gene therapy.” See lawsuits below against J&J and Merck (now helping J&J make its shots). VAERS - U.S. Vaccine Averse Event Reporting System Every Friday, VAERS makes public all vaccine injury reports received by the system as of Friday of the previous week. VAERS is the primary mechanism for reporting adverse vaccine reactions in the U.S. Be Informed: reports submitted to VAERS require further investigation before confirmation. CDC admits on one website that its stats are 'estimated...not exact, e.g. virus deaths. US program of Center for Disease Control and Dept. of Health/Human Services Breakdown of this week’s VAERS total data show: Of the 1,524 deaths reported as of March 5 in 9 weeks time, * 30% were within 48 hours of vaccination, 46% occurred on those who got ill within 48 hours of being vaccinated * 19% of deaths were related to cardiac disorders. (possibly from the shot) 177 * 53% of those who died were male, 45% were female and the remaining unknown * The average age was 77.9 and the youngest death confirmed was a 23-year-old. * As of March 5, 265 pregnant women had reported adverse events including 85 reports of miscarriage or premature birth. None of the vaccines have been tested for safety or efficacy in pregnant women. * 1,689 reports of anaphylaxis, with 59% from Pfizer and 41% Moderna * On March 10, a 39-year-old woman who died four days after receiving a second dose of Moderna’s vaccine. Kassidi Kurill died of organ failure after her liver, heart and kidneys shut down. She had no known pre-existing conditions. An autopsy was ordered, but Dr. Erik Christensen, Utah’s chief medical examiner, said proving vaccine injury as a cause of death almost never happens. Autopsies are rarely done and usually say vaccine is not a cause of death. Death by vaccines is not allowed on death certificates for babies (altho some have been given 10 to 15 vaccines in one day. Meanwhile, Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits on them (as bank assets, embassy buildings and military bases.) Argentina and Brazil have refused. Nine other South American countries have reportedly negotiated deals with Pfizer. In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring under the PREP Act. COVID vaccine injury claims are filed with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is funded by U.S. taxpayers. The CICP is within the Dept. of Health & Human Services. $4 billion has been paid to adults damaged by the flu vaccine in one decade. Where to report Injury Children’s Health Defense asks anyone who has experienced an injury to any vaccine, to file a report to the following 3 places: 1. VAERS for US citizens --go to its website 2 VaxxTracker.com -- a source outside of government. 3. Childrenshealthdefense.org. --2 pages for report, give vaccine & symptoms Megan Redshaw is a freelance reporter for The Defender. She has a background in political science, a law degree and extensive training in natural health. . . . .from March 12 The Defender, childrenshealthdefense.org Vaccine Company Lawsuits Both J&J and Merck have extensive lawsuits for illegal activities. Merck (who stopped making its own virus vaccines says: It is better to get the virus than take a vaccine.) has now joined J&J to help make its shots. LAWSUIT for Merck, paid $4.85 billion in 2007 after pleading to guilty illegal marketing its lethal drug Vioxx.. . .as well as many cases of fraud, deceit, and negligence, including its (MMR) and (HPV) vaccines. LAWSUITs for Johnson & Johnson: * A 2013 order by the U.S. Dept. of Justice to pay $2.2 billion in civil and criminal fines related to the antipsychotic drug Risperdal and two other drugs, following off-label marketing and fraud and kickbacks. * A 2019 award by a Philadelphia jury of $8 billion in punitive damages to a man alleging that J&J failed to warn that Risperdal could lead to breast growth in boys. Thousands of other lawsuits make the same claim. * A $572 million judgment against J&J by Oklahoma in 2019 for the 178 company’s role in the opioid crisis. * $3.9 billion set aside for 25,000 lawsuits related to J&J’s asbestos- tainted baby powder. “One of the largest punitive-damages awards in U.S. legal history,” Material above comes from The Defender, childrenshealthdefense.org March 12 issue. Led by Robert F Kennedy Jr, Atty who has defended people against toxins for many years. Condensed and forwarded by Arlene Goetze, MA, writer/editor author of 10 books. Founder/editor of non-profit organization on women's spirituality... ...first Dir. of Communication for Diocese of San Jose 1981-5. NO Toxins for Children. or Adults. 7 kids, 18 grandkids. photowrite67@yahoo.com 179 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 14, 2021 7:31 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Greer Stone; Rebecca Eisenberg; Raven Malone; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; DuBois, Tom; Kaloma Smith; Cormack, Alison; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Jeff Moore Subject:PAPD Canine attacks innocent Mountain View Resident -council to consider case in close session Monday March 15 at 5 pm CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  FYI: just sending this to council again as a reminder re the importance of the item # 1 ( closed session) re the canine  attack on innocent Mountain View Resident Joel Domingo Alejo.                   March 10, 2021   Dear City council members: I see you will be in a conference with the city attorney from 5-6:30 pm, at the March 15, 2021 city council meeting regarding the alleged vicious PAPD canine attack on an innocent Mt. View resident Mr. Joel Domingo Alejo. As I understand the initial claim filed with the city is in the amount of $20 million dollars. Depending on the extent of the injuries, the trauma of experience, the age of the victim, the callousness of the officer(s) involved in the attack, prior misconduct claims against the officer and the particular canine use in this attack, one with a reputation for inflicting particularly serious wounds in the past, a $20 million dollar settlement may in fact be a reasonable settlement when compared with what a civil jury may reward after a jury trial. In considering the claim I suggest you read at least the two articles I sent you back on February 21, 2021: When Police Violence Is A Dog Bite (see link below/article dated 1o/2/2020. This piece gives a harrowing perspective of how pervasive the problem of police canine attacks often resulting in serious injuries and even death. Sadly, as is the case of other forms of police violence, canine 2/21/21 180 CPRA request and cover letter re the current status of the Palo Alto Police Department’s Canine unit. Dear City Council members, members of the Palo Alto Community, and the local press: I am very concerned that as a community we are not as fully informed regarding the current status of the PAPD canine unit, as we should be. I’m requesting that we all do our part to obtain a full picture of the risks these canines potentially pose to the health and safety of community members attacked by these vicious dogs. My most recent concern was raised after reading a Daily Post piece, Jan, 28, 2021, “Police dog attacks innocent man,” an incident where a Palo Alto police dog was released on an innocent Mt. View resident, Mr. Joel Domingo Alejo, who subsequently filed a $20 million claim against the city of Palo Alto for injuries suffered in the attack. In addition, I have attached two recent articles, see links below, that suggest the weaponization of police dogs targeting particularly African Americans is an under recognized form of police terror and brutality resulting in life threating injuries, life changing injuries and even death. The first article: When Police Violence Is a Dog Bite (First published on 10/2/2020) gives a harrowing perspective on the fact that police dogs bite thousands of Americans every year and that few ever obtain justice. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/10/02/when-police-violence-is-a-dog-bite?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share-tools&utm_source=email&utm_content=post-top The second piece, published Feb 12, 2021 is titled: The City Where Police Unleash Dogs On Black Teens (In Baton Rouge, police dogs bit a teenager 17 or younger every three weeks, on average) is an equally disturbing must read. https://www.themarshallproject.org/2021/02/12/the-city-where-police-unleash-dogs-on-black- teens?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=share-tools&utm_source=email&utm_content=post-top In addition I have attached the Palo Alto City Manager report from 2005 titled: REVIEW OF THE POLICE CANINE PROGRAM -- a report that was responsive to a CPDA request 1 filed on 9/5/2004 to then Palo Alto Police Chief Lynne Johnson. Said CPRA request is available should you wish to read it. Here is the link to a 2005 CMR, Palo Alto city manager report, providing a detailed review of the Palo Alto Canine Unit, as it existed in 2005. The report looks at a 36-month time frame and also breaks down the 13 dog bites, reported during the 36-month time frame in question, based on race. Of the 13 181 bites, analyzed, four involved whites, five involved African-Americans, three involved Hispanics and one involved a Pacific Islander. (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/cmrs/4091.pdf ) Conclusion During the course of 2020 and now in 2021 there have been discussions by the Palo Alto City Council regarding expanding the scope of the duties of the Palo Alto Independent Police Auditor. According to the CMR (City Manager Report) REVIEW OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S CANINE PROGRAM, dated January 10, 2005, CMR: 113:05, the Palo Alto canine program was developed in 1982, nearly forty years ago. During this time frame, our Independent Police Auditor (established 2006) has to my knowledge, never reviewed complaints filed by community members, regarding allegations of use of excessive force by the PAPD canine team. It is my understanding that the canine unit is primarily used during nighttime shifts under cover of darkness and most often outside of public view. Given the current national epidemic of the thousands of Americans bitten by police dogs every year it is past time Palo Alto consider adding review of dog bite incidents, perpetrated by our canine unit, to the list of police complaints reviewed by our police auditor. Sincerely, Aram James California Public Records Act Request Re: Palo Alto Police Department’s Canine Unit (filed Feb 20, 2021) 1. Any and all City of Palo Alto and Palo Alto Police Department documents and related information re the numbers of police dogs currently in the PAPD canine unit. 2. Any and all documents related to the purchase, training, and cost of maintaining the current canine unit. 3. Any and all documents and related information re the annual cost of maintaining the Palo Alto’s Canine unit. (The total annual canine budget for the Palo Alto Police Department) 4. Any and all documents re the number of times 182 the canine unit has deployed their dogs during the last 36 months against a person. (# of times the canines have been deployed as a weapon as a opposed to the use of the canine in a search and rescue mission.) 5. Any and all documents reflecting the race of those who were attacked by dogs in the PAPD canine unit- during the last 36 months —from today’s date back 36 months. 6. While redacting the name of the individuals for privacy purposes —the number of individuals injured by the canine unit and the extent of said injuries...and all related documents redacted for privacy concerns. Including photos of the injuries. 7. Access to viewing all body worn camera footage of canine attacks going back 36 months. 8. A list of all complaints and law suits growing out of attacks by dogs on the canine unit going back 36 months from receipt of this CPRA request. 9. Any and all documents, name and type of artificial teeth, —and the material used, to create these artificial teeth, that are made for each dog. As example teeth made of titanium. 10. Any and all documents, and related information, regarding the vendor used by the PAPD to make teeth for each canine on the team. 11. Any and all documents, or related information, re the annual budget to pay for replacement of artificial teeth for the canine unit? Food budget? Medical budget? 12. All documents and information re the certification process each dog member of the canine unit must go through. 13. Documentation or related information re whether the necessary documentation/certification for each canine is current. 14. The name of each officer assigned to the canine unit. 15. Any and all documents related to the training officers must undergo to qualify for membership to the canine unit. 183 16. Any and all documents and related information re the certification process members of the canine unit (police officers) must undergo to qualify for the unit. 17. Any and all current information and documentation related to re whether each police officer currently assigned to the canine unit has up to date certification? Is not currently certified? 18. Any and all documentation re the number of times a non police officer who has been bitten/attacked by a Palo Alto police dog has been required to obtain medical treatment during the last 36 months. Dating back 36 months from receipt of this request. 19. Number of times the victim of a Palo Alto Police dog bite or attack has been required to be hospitalized. Time frame going back 36 months from the receipt of this CPRA request. 20. Area or areas of the city of Palo Alto where police have released their canines most frequently. 21. Any and all information and documentation re the frequency (the number of times) the Palo Alto Police use their canine unit to assist the East Palo Alto Police during the last 36 months? 22. To assist the Mountain View Police Department during the last 36 months? 23. The Menlo Park Police Department during the last 36 months? 24. To assist the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s office? 25. The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office? 26. Monies spent on training either a police officer member of the canine unit or a dog member of the unit for out of the Palo Alto training? 27. Any and all e-mails, memos, written policies, other documentation re the need to use the canine to keep or intimidate residents of East Palo Alto from traveling to Palo Alto. (last 36 months) 28. Any and all text messages (or similar electronic communications) between members of the canine unit and other members of the Palo Alto Police department, or other local law enforcement 184 agencies reflecting racial bias, towards African Americans or other racial minorities. (Last 36 months). 28. Name of the canine supervisor and length of time that officer has occupied that role. 29. The name of canine team manger and the length of time that officer has held this position. 30. Any and all documents or information re the number of times victims of canine bits, by the PAPD canine unit, have been transported to the Stanford Hospital or any other local hospital facility for injuries. (Last 36 months) 31. Cost of all hospital visits for canine bits inflicted by the PAPD canine unit (last 36 months) 32. Any additional documents and information re the canine unit I have not specifically asked for but that are relevant to my current CPDA request for the current status of the PAPD canine unit. 33. Current Palo Alto Police Department policy or policies regarding the function, structure, and deployment of canines etc. 34. Name of the current computer system, i.e., Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) used to track all activity of the Palo Alto Police Department Canine Unit? 185 Baumb, Nelly From:crookedsmile <crookedsmile@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, March 14, 2021 5:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:wellesley project--opposition CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am deeply opposed to the Wellesley project being built in my neighborhood. Please do not approve. I pay taxes and I vote. Thank you, Marlene Taormina 2065 Yale St. Palo Alto, CA 94306 186 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, March 14, 2021 5:41 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; beachrides; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; dennisbalakian; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; Steven Feinstein; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; Mark Kreutzer; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; leager; margaret- sasaki@live.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Crucial data coming on delayed Oxford-Astrazen. vaccine. March 8 article CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 4:14 PM  Subject: Fwd: Crucial data coming on delayed Oxford‐Astrazen. vaccine. March 8 article  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>, <alumnipresident@stanford.edu>,  <antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov>, fred beyerlein <fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net>, David Balakian  <davidbalakian@sbcglobal.net>, bballpod <bballpod@aol.com>, beachrides <beachrides@sbcglobal.net>,  boardmembers <boardmembers@hsr.ca.gov>, Leodies Buchanan <leodiesbuchanan@yahoo.com>,  <bearwithme1016@att.net>, city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>, Cathy Lewis <catllewis@gmail.com>, Chris  Field <cfield@ciw.edu>, Doug Vagim <dvagim@gmail.com>, Dan Richard <danrichard@mac.com>, Daniel Zack  <daniel.zack@fresno.gov>, david pomaville <pomaville165@sbcglobal.net>, <esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov>,  <eappel@stanford.edu>, Steven Feinstein <steven.feinstein@ionicmaterials.com>, <francis.collins@nih.gov>,  <fmerlo@wildelectric.net>, <grinellelake@yahoo.com>, <George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu>,  <Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov>, huidentalsanmateo <huidentalsanmateo@gmail.com>, hennessy  <hennessy@stanford.edu>, Irv Weissman <irv@stanford.edu>, Joel Stiner <jastiner@gmail.com>, jerry ruopoli  <jrwiseguy7@gmail.com>, Mark Kreutzer <mlkreutzer@yahoo.com>, <kwalsh@kmaxtv.com>, kfsndesk  <kfsndesk@abc.com>, leager <leager@fresnoedc.com>, <lalws4@gmail.com>, <margaret‐sasaki@live.com>, Mayor  <mayor@fresno.gov>, Mark Standriff <mark.standriff@fresno.gov>, <mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com>,  newsdesk <newsdesk@ksee.com>, <news@fresnobee.com>, nick yovino <npyovino@gmail.com>,  <russ@topperjewelers.com>, Steve Wayte <steve4liberty@gmail.com>, tsheehan <tsheehan@fresnobee.com>, terry  <terry@terrynagel.com>, <vallesR1969@att.net>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:49 PM  Subject: Crucial data coming on delayed Oxford‐Astrazen. vaccine. March 8 article  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>    187              Sunday, March 14, 2021           To all‐ Good March 8, 2021 article here re the Oxford‐astrazeneca vaccine, now used in the four countries of the UK  since Jan. 4, 2021, and in the 27 countries of the EU for several weeks. Now also approved and used in Canada, Mexico,  Australia, Argentina and India. All of those countries' regulators have studied the trial data and deemed the vaccine safe  and effective and have released it for use. If it were not safe, we would be hearing about it by now for sure. It is safe and  effective. But because of Biden and his recalcitrant FDA, the American people cannot have access to it.         Crucial data on AstraZeneca's vaccine are coming. Here's what we may learn. | BioPharma Dive                 The CEO of Astrazeneca testified under oath before Congress two weeks ago that his company has 30 million  doses of their Oxford vaccine ready to ship "instantly" when the FDA's advisory committee recommends an EUA for it  and the FDA grants that. Every official in the U.S. involved in vaccination efforts says they do not have enough doses of  vaccine.  It is unreasonable and criminal conduct to keep the Oxford vaccine off the market in the U.S. and that conduct  is killing people. We still have 1500 deaths per day in the U.S. and we desperately need those 30 million doses of the  Oxford vaccine to be distributed and injected. Astrazenaca could produce a lot more of their vaccine once approved.              Biden can order 100 million more doses of the J&J vaccine, or 100 billion more doses, but the Oxford vaccine is  ready to ship NOW and all of the extra doses of the J&J vaccine will take time to produce and roll out. People die over  time for lack of a vaccine, and for that reason, Biden is just killing people by not stepping up to his foot‐dragging FDA and  compelling release of the now widely used Oxford vaccine.                The networks are colluding and conniving with the incompetent, or worse, Biden administration in this outrage.  NOT ONE question to him or his people about the outrageous hold up of the Oxford vaccine.                  The Republicans, and the Democrats, in Congress should start asking questions of the administration about the  hold up of the Oxford vaccine. Their constituents in every State are dying and will die in coming weeks because of the  hold up of the Oxford vaccine.               Here is a good article from two days ago  "EU says no evidence that Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine linked to blood  clots":                Oxford‐AstraZeneca: EU says 'no indication' vaccine linked to clots ‐ BBC News          Please read both articles and then you will see what Biden is doing to the American people here. It is really an  outrage. The silence by the networks re. this is a further outrage. "Killer Biden" should be his new nick‐name.  Killer‐ Joe.  If the Oxford vaccine is not released now, thousands of Americans will be dying needlessly in April and May. Their  families should have questions then for their electeds in Congress. The public should have questions now. The AMA  should sue the Biden administraton to force release of the Oxford vaccine. How about the World Court?  The WHO?  How about a consortium of Stanford, UCSF, Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins and Harvard? What if they issued a joint  statement to the effect that they believe that the Oxford vaccine is safe and effective?  Congress has a duty to act here.  Vote out articles of impeachment for murder against Biden.               I guess a man is not really a man until he is President, and a President is not really President until he kills a few  Americans.                The Oxford vaccine would not be "available by May 1". It would be being injected 30 million times within 24 hours  of being released.     188           Another article re the safety of the Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine, dated Sunday, March 14, 2021: Norway reported  some clots, so Ireland suspenced use, but NI did not. Most experts say it is bad to suspend use of the Oxford vaccine:  :People get clots all of the time. Correlation does not equal causation, as all recipients of this mail know.                 Covid‐19: NI to keep using AstraZeneca jab after Irish suspension ‐ BBC News                   L. William Harding       Fresno, Ca.                                                                   L. William Harding           Fresno, Ca.              189 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Phillips <susan@mrsmoskowitz.com> Sent:Sunday, March 14, 2021 2:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wearing masks in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I have continued to be disturbed by the lack of mask wearing outside in our city. We visited San Francisco yesterday  after 13 months and everyone wore a mask. We were told that is required or people get “fined.”  We should have the  same policy. The health concern will remain here for at least one more year and we should implement this requirement  immediately.      Susan Phillips Moskowitz  susan@mrsmoskowitz.com      Resident of Palo Alto since 1975.    190 Baumb, Nelly From:Jamie O'Connell <jpdoconnell@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 14, 2021 1:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rent forgiveness for non-profit Cubberley tenants CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers,     I am writing to thank you for approving a limited but valuable program of rent forgiveness for non‐profit tenants of  Cubberley Community Center on March 1, 2021—and to urge you to expand it to forgive more back rent for each of  those tenants. Many (and probably all) Cubberley non‐profit tenants, including Dance Visions, have had to radically  curtail the programs that enabled them to cover their rent, let alone even nominal pay for staff, due to the pandemic.  Probably most have had to entirely cease operations for many months, and some have been unable to operate at all.  Dance Visions has been able to mount very limited programming within the stringent limits that the State and County  has imposed (quite necessarily, of course). Those programs have been enormously beneficial to our daughter in the last  few months — something of a lifeline, even, during this difficult, isolated time. Those operations yield too little, from  what I can assess, to even compensate the teachers more than nominally — let alone enough to help them keep  personally afloat. I know that is true of Dance Visions as an organization: it simply cannot afford to cover its rent arrears  from this past year.     I know that the City’s budget has been brutally hit by Covid, with revenues dramatically down. You have had to make  painful budget cuts, including laying off staff, with significant impacts on city services and of course on the individuals  affected. Nonetheless, I hope as you make further budget decisions, you will consider expanding the Cubberley rent  forgiveness program at least for non‐profit tenants. For Dance Visions, and probably many others, paying rent for the  last year would be simply impossible — while the program you approved March 1 is very helpful, it is not yet enough to  avert many of them perishing if/when they are required to pay their rent arrears from the last year.     Finally, thank you all for your service to our City in this very complicated and difficult time.     Best regards,   Jamie O'Connell         ______________________________________________________________________________________________  Jamie O’Connell  Lecturer in Residence   Stanford Law School  559 Nathan Abbott Way  Stanford, CA 94305       Tel: +1 (650) 736-8771  191 Email: joconnell@law.stanford.edu  Website: https://law.stanford.edu/directory/jamie-oconnell/  ______________________________________________________________________________________________         192 Baumb, Nelly From:ladoris cordell <ladoris@judgecordell.com> Sent:Saturday, March 13, 2021 5:34 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Aram James; Gail Price; price@padailypost.com; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com Subject:Independent Police Auditor 2019 Report: Matters of Concern CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and City Council Members:     I have read the 2019 Report of the Independent Police Auditor and as a result, I am left with several concerns that I list below  in the hope that you will follow up with the Auditor and with the Police Chief at your March 22nd meeting.    1. Taser Incident (pgs. 3‐6): An officer stopped a bicyclist who was riding on the wrong side of the road. Their interaction  ended with the officer tasing the man who had accused the officer of racially profiling him. The man was African American.  The man was eventually taken into custody and charged with resisting arrest. The officer should have recorded the incident on  his body‐worn camera. He did not because his jacket blocked the camera’s lens. According to the Auditor, “[T]he primary  officer’s body camera lens was blocked by his own jacket until after his Taser use– a seemingly foreseeable situation that  officers have found ways to avoid. While the problem was acknowledged in the sergeant’s original memo, no remediation of it  is cited in the materials.”  An officer’s failure to record an incident, especially when force is utilized is no small matter. The fact  that his jacket prevented the recording is inexcusable and constitutes misconduct, and at the very least, warrants discipline  for neglect of duty and a violation of the body‐worn camera policy. It does not appear that the officer’s superiors imposed  discipline. If not, an inquiry by the Council is warranted. Officers need to know that  recording their interactions with the  public, their jackets notwithstanding, is mandatory and important—it protects them, as well as members of the public.     The Auditor further noted the officer’s use of profanity, his “glib condescension” of the bicyclist, and his failure to de‐escalate  the situation. There is no indication that the officer was disciplined for this misconduct. The Council should follow up and ask if  discipline was imposed, and if not, why not.    Finally, there was no attempt by the Police Department to investigate the bicyclist's claim of racial profiling. The central issue  that came to the forefront in the aftermath of the killing of George Floyd and the Black Lives Matter movement was racial bias  in policing. The Council should inquire why racial bias, especially in light of the officer’s “glib condescension” directed to an  African American man whom he detained and subsequently arrested, was not investigated. Either the Department does not  take racial bias claims seriously or the Department is unaware of their import. In either case, this is a matter of major  concern.     2. Use of Force Following a Consensual Encounter (pgs. 6‐10): Five officers were eventually involved in the takedown of a  pedestrian who claimed that excessive force had been used on him by the officers. The Police Department’s own investigation  determined that the pedestrian’s complaint was unfounded. During the takedown, at least once officer had a visible injury to  his eye. According to the Auditor, “[O]nly one officer apparently wrote a report, and his description  [of the use of force] was  both brief and somewhat vague. This one in spite of the fact that, as he wrote, 'It took five (5) officers to gain compliance and  gain control of his hands and take him into custody.’” It is basic policy in every police department, including the Palo Alto  Police Department that when force is utilized, the officers who engage in the use of force must include a description of the  force in their respective reports, along with a separate use‐of‐force report that must be submitted by the supervisor. Neither  was done in this case. The failure to comply with this policy is misconduct for which discipline should be imposed, not only on  the officers who failed to include descriptions of the force used in their own reports, but also on the supervising officer who  failed to submit a use of force report. It is appropriate and important that Council ask why these were not matters for  discipline.    193 3. Use of Force and Handcuffing (pgs. 10‐12): Three officers were eventually involved in the detention, takedown, and arrest  of a female pedestrian. The Auditor determined that the use of force was proper. However, the Auditor pointed out that one  of the officers misstated the law by informing the female that, "when you are detained in the United States, you have to  identify yourself.” There is no such law. When the officer made this statement, other officers were on the scene, none of  whom corrected the officer. What we don’t need are law enforcement officers who either do not know the law or who  deliberately misstate the law when asserting their authority. Council should inquire about what steps the Police Department is  taking to ensure that all officers know the laws pertaining to detentions, consensual encounters, and arrest. Once again, there  is no indication that the officer who misstated the law was disciplined. Council should ask why.    4. Use of Force and Pat Down Search (pgs. 12‐16): The Auditor found several problems with the Department’s own  investigation of the allegations lodged by an African American female driver who was arrested for false personation and  outstanding warrants. One of the problems was the failure of the Department to investigate the allegation of racial profiling.  As well, the Department, according to the Auditor, failed to conclude that an officer had violated the Miranda rights of  another female arrestee's, failed to investigate the clear (recorded) use of profanity by an officer, and failed to record  the complainants' interviews.     Because complainants rarely know the policies and rules that govern police conduct, it is imperative that supervising officers  bring Department‐initiated complaints when they observe officer misconduct. For example, in the above‐listed incidents,  Department‐initiated complaints should have been filed for the failure to properly record using a body‐worn camera, for  misstating the law to a civilian, for use of profanity, for the failure to file reports describing the use of force, and for failure to  de‐escalate. It does not appear that that happened.    Under the current structure, the Independent Police Auditor does not conduct investigations of complaints; instead, in Palo  Alto, the police investigate themselves. Council should be concerned about the quality of the Police Department’s  investigations into complaints against its officers. Perhaps it is time to consider removing the investigative authority from the  Department and lodging it with an independent entity.     I thank you for your consideration of these important matters.     Sincerely,  LaDoris H. Cordell  194 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, March 13, 2021 4:15 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; fred beyerlein; David Balakian; bballpod; beachrides; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; Steven Feinstein; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; Mark Kreutzer; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; leager; lalws4@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Crucial data coming on delayed Oxford-Astrazen. vaccine. March 8 article CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 13, 2021 at 3:49 PM  Subject: Crucial data coming on delayed Oxford‐Astrazen. vaccine. March 8 article  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>            Saturday, March 13, 2021           To all‐ Good March 8, 2021 article here re the Oxford‐astrazeneca vaccine, now used in the four countries of the UK  since Jan. 4, 2021, and in the 27 countries of the EU for several weeks. Now also approved and used in Canada, Mexico,  Australia, Argentina and India. All of those countries' regulators have studied the trial data and deemed the vaccine safe  and effective and have released it for use. If it were not safe, we would be hearing about it by now for sure. It is safe and  effective. But because of Biden and his recalcitrant FDA, the American people cannot have access to it.         Crucial data on AstraZeneca's vaccine are coming. Here's what we may learn. | BioPharma Dive                 The CEO of Astrazeneca testified under oath before Congress two weeks ago that his company has 30 million  doses of their Oxford vaccine ready to ship "instantly" when the FDA's advisory committee recommends an EUA for it  and the FDA grants that. Every official in the U.S. involved in vaccination efforts says they do not have enough doses of  vaccine.  It is unreasonable and criminal conduct to keep the Oxford vaccine off the market in the U.S. and that conduct  is killing people. We still have 1500 deaths per day in the U.S. and we desperately need those 30 million doses of the  Oxford vaccine to be distributed and injected. Astrazenaca could produce a lot more of their vaccine once approved.              Biden can order 100 million more doses of the J&J vaccine, or 100 billion more doses, but the Oxford vaccine is  ready to ship NOW and all of the extra doses of the J&J vaccine will take time to produce and roll out. People die over  time for lack of a vaccine, and for that reason, Biden is just killing people by not stepping up to his foot‐dragging FDA and  compelling release of the now widely used Oxford vaccine.     195            The networks are colluding and conniving with the incompetent, or worse, Biden administration in this outrage.  NOT ONE question to him or his people about the outrageous hold up of the Oxford vaccine.                  The Republicans, and the Democrats, in Congress should start asking questions of the administration about the  hold up of the Oxford vaccine. Their constituents in every State are dying because of the hold up of the Oxford vaccine.               Here is a good article from two days ago  "EU says no evidence that Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine linked to blood  clots":                Oxford‐AstraZeneca: EU says 'no indication' vaccine linked to clots ‐ BBC News          Please read both articles and then you will see what Biden is doing to the American people here. It is really an  outrage. The silence by the networks re. this is a further outrage. "Killer Biden" should be his new nick‐name.                The Oxford vaccine would not be "available by May 1". It would be being injected within 24 hours of being  released.                              L. William Harding          Fresno, Ca.              701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 04/05/ 202 1 Document dates: 03/10/2021 – 03/24/2021 Set 7 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 196 Baumb, Nelly From:M.M. <paloaltoproperties@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 13, 2021 9:45 AM To:tyler.ratcliffe@gregtanaka.org; DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Palo Alto RV Dwellers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members:     I am writing to all of you to discuss the RV parking situation in our community.  I reside in Professorville and have lived in  Palo Alto since 2002.     Continuous parking on El Camino Real in our city streets is not a permanent solution.  The waste and debris blocking  our city sidewalks is preventing many of us from using our city streets for the public good.  There are few parking spaces  to use when going to the Stanford field or for a run on the trails.      The most concerning is the gas generators and butane tanks for bbqs that continue to be stationed between RVs. These  are fire/explosion safety hazards.  I am disgusted to be running through sidewalks only to step into a giant pile of feces  or or forced to run on El Camino in traffic due to the couches, bicycles, garbage, and other obstacles blocking the path. I  was nearly hit by traffic on Southbound El Camino because there was no path to run safely on the sidewalk and the view  of the road was obstructed by oversized RVs. I don't feel safe at night time and the emissions from the generators and  RVs running is polluting our community.  I share these concerns with many residents in our city.    Palo Alto should not be burdened by housing all the RVs since other cities have pushed them into our community.  We  are doing our share through our safe parking zone. For the RV residents who work in Palo Alto, we should prioritize on  our Safe Parking Zone with a waitlist.  For others who are exploiting our lenient parking rules, there are many KOA and  RV campgrounds where Recreation Vehicles can be "Recreating."      Lastly, I am still waiting for the city to provide a detailed expense schedule to house the RVs on El Camino. The hours  spent to enforce, monitor, and the costs to our city taxpayers to remove the debris are better spent on education and  staffing many jobs in our city.  Many neighbors and residents in our neighborhood blog recently found out that some of  our city staff have lost their jobs in 2020 after many years working in our community and yet we are spending city tax  dollars towards a problem that is taking resources away from the community.    Let's work to resolve this situation together to preserve and restore Palo Alto as an environmentally conscious and  problem solving community that it has historically been known across the nation.    Many thanks,  Michael Manneh    197 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 9:14 PM To:Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; DuBois, Tom; Council, City; Greer Stone; Raven Malone; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:No hate crime charged. Reasons explained CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    No hate crime charges in murder of elderly Asian man in Oakland    https://www.kron4.com/news/bay‐area/no‐hate‐crime‐charges‐in‐murder‐of‐asian‐american‐man‐in‐oakland/    (Via KRON4 News)      Sent from my iPhone  198 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 12:02 PM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Human Relations Commission; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Greer Stone; Rebecca Eisenberg; Raven Malone; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; wintergery@earthlink.net; Kaloma Smith; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; Greg Tanaka; Cecilia Taylor; Josh Becker; Jeff Moore; Jonsen, Robert; Sunita de Tourreil; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Steven D. Lee; Shikada, Ed; Cari Templeton; Cormack, Alison; Jeff Rosen; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Tanner, Rachael; Raj; mark weiss; Pat Burt Subject:City of Minneapolis settles George Floyd Case for $27 million dollars CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    FYI:    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/03/12/us/george‐floyd‐minneapolis‐settlement/index.html      Sent from my iPhone  199 Baumb, Nelly From:Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:06 PM To:Council, City; barbaraweinstein2@gmail.com Subject:Re: Stop the evictions on El Camino Dear Barbara,     My name is Chad, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 15‐minute meeting this Sunday, March 14th  between 2:00PM and 2:30PM?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Chad Leo   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Chad | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 4:38 PM, Barbara Weinstein <barbaraweinstein2@gmail.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Dear City Council,     I was shocked to learn that families living in RVs on El Camino were given eviction notices this morning. It is a callous  action that is completely unwarranted.  The families are struggling to live under the threat of COVID, job loss, and the  exorbitant housing costs. I have met some of the families and know them to be hardworking people who simply want  the basics of life that the rest of us take for granted.      Please stop this inhumane eviction and instead focus your efforts on helping these families get the stable housing that  they desperately need.     Thank you,   Barbara Weinstein       200 Baumb, Nelly From:Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 8:59 PM To:Council, City; walleighadventures@gmail.com Subject:Re: Find alternative space if you must eliminate RVs Dear Wendy,     My name is Chad, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 15‐minute meeting this Sunday, March 14th  between 2:00PM and 2:30PM?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Chad Leo   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Chad | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 6:29 PM, Wendy Walleigh <walleighadventures@gmail.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Hello, while I understand that some people may feel offended by the many RVs parked on Palo Alto streets, especially  El Camino, I absolutely believe that these people have no alternative to survive. Unless Palo Altos finds safe, alternative  locations for them to park, even with requirements for maintaining cleanliness, these people have nowhere to go.  These mostly families are struggling to feed and clothe themselves. If they had alternatives, I'm sure they would take  them.  Show your humanity, please, to find safe, alternative locations.  Thanks.    Wendy Walleigh   Los Altos Rotary Club     201 Baumb, Nelly From:Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 8:46 PM To:Council, City; chris@africanlibraryproject.org Subject:Re: El Camino RV evictions Dear Chris,     My name is Chad, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2 PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 15‐minute meeting this Sunday, March 14th  between 2:00PM and 2:30PM?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Chad Leo   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Chad | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 10:54 PM, Chris Bradshaw <chris@africanlibraryproject.org> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Can’t believe you gave the RVs along El Camino Real just 72 hours to relocate.  Can you imagine if someone did that to you?       I was part of a clean up El Camino team last Saturday. We concentrated on the section of El Camino between Galvez and  Churchhill.  First, I was impressed with how there was really only dirt and leaves to “clean up”, not trash.  I realized I had lots  more leaves on my own street than there was on El Camino, so I came home and raked up a couple barrels worth of  leaves.  Second, I was impressed with how all the RV families contributed to the clean up effort including the children.     If you insist on having these families move, please give them at least 14 days to find a new place to park their homes.     Concerned,   Chris Bradshaw       202 Chris Bradshaw | Founder African Library Project | 1.650.388.0354 Facebook | Twitter | I nstagram 3,086 Libraries | 3.1 Million Books!     203 Baumb, Nelly From:Chad Leo from Palo Alto City Councilmember Tanaka's Office <Councilmember.Tanaka.Office@gregtanaka.org> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 8:03 PM To:nancymcdonaldlowe@gmail.com; Council, City Subject:Re: RE Proposed Apartment Project at 2239 Wellesley Dear Nancy,     My name is Chad, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for reaching out.     I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this topic during his office hours, which are held every  Sunday between 2:00PM and 4 PM. Do you have time to schedule a brief 15‐minute meeting this Sunday, March 14th  between 3:00PM and 3:15PM?     Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meeting.     Please let me know within two days if you are willing to attend, and I can send you a calendar invite containing details  such as the Zoom link and date.     If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know!     Best,   Chad Leo   Legislative Aide   Office of Councilmember Tanaka     Chad | Legislative Aide   Palo Alto City Council Member Tanaka's Office       On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 5:40 PM, Nancy Lowe <nancymcdonaldlowe@gmail.com> wrote:   CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Dear Council Member,   I want more affordable units for our current housing needs. In my opinion this developer isn’t proposing what we need. My message to council as to what I find lacking in Cato Investments’ proposal: – too small % of affordable units – units are all studio and small 1-br so too small for families, inadequate for our housing needs – not enough outdoor space on property for tenants to use (and tiny balconies) – 3 stories in a 1 story neighborhood – inadequate parking for residents and visitors (proposal reduces parking normally required) – Cato contacted some residents with a survey without adequate explanation of their proposal and didn’t identify themselves as the developer – Cato has not attempted to work with residents or responded to our attempts to contact them   Sincerely,     Nancy McDonald Lowe   College Terrace Neighborhood Resident.     204 Baumb, Nelly From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 4:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:RV's on El Camino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I wanted to thank you for working on this issue.  It looks better but really, they need a place to stay.  Maybe  Fry's or on E. Bayshore.  Set something up like Redwood city has done.  Otherwise we are just playing the shell  game.  I am all for towing some of these beasts.  They look horrible.  Another idea is to work with county and  make that a bus lane or no Parking!!!!  It just isnt okay to take up housing on the streets.  I think most are  good but truly we dont have inventory of who is out living in these.  If they are Stanford, we should work with  Stanford to allow them to park for a fee.  Just ideas  thanks    Amy Keohane  650‐346‐5306  205 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy Lowe <nancymcdonaldlowe@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 2:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:RE Proposed Apartment Project at 2239 Wellesley CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Member,  I want more affordable units for our current housing needs. In my opinion this developer isn’t proposing what we need. My message to council as to what I find lacking in Cato Investments’ proposal: – too small % of affordable units – units are all studio and small 1-br so too small for families, inadequate for our housing needs – not enough outdoor space on property for tenants to use (and tiny balconies) – 3 stories in a 1 story neighborhood – inadequate parking for residents and visitors (proposal reduces parking normally required) – Cato contacted some residents with a survey without adequate explanation of their proposal and didn’t identify themselves as the developer – Cato has not attempted to work with residents or responded to our attempts to contact them   Sincerely,    Nancy McDonald Lowe  College Terrace Neighborhood Resident.  206 Baumb, Nelly From:super nova <galaxy_454@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 2:19 PM To:Stretch Brian (USACAN); raymond.hulser@usdoj.gov; cityattorney@santaclaraca.gov; bcc@dca.ca.gov; mc03100-11@yahoo.com; mcuban@axs.tv; admissions@calbar.ca.gov; dsun@cupertino.org; susan.lee@doj.ca.gov; srubenstein@sfchronicle.com; otaylor@sfchronicle.com; johanna.luerra@shf.sccgov.org; angelo.tom@hud.gov; district7@sanjoseca.gov; markhamplazata@gmail.com; moneal@pdo.sccgov.org; schatman@scscourt.org; donald.rocha@sanjoseca.gov; dave.cortese@bos.sccgov.org; sylvia.macdonald@ido.sccgov.org; mary.murtagh@eahhousing.org; gary.goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; hwilliams@scscourt.org; Human Relations Commission; aleksandra.ridgeway@sheriff.sccgov.org; wbrown@sfchronicle.com; mturpin@bayareanewsgroup.com; publisher@bayareanewsgroup.com; editor@bayareanewsgroup.com; editor@siliconvalleyfreepress.com; eclendaniel@bayareanewsgroup.com; rkeith@bayareanewsgroup.com; sdussault@bayareanewsgroup.com; helbraun@helbraunlaw.com; jcanova@scusd.net; csanfilippo@scusd.net; asgonzalez@scusd.net; jmuirhead@scusd.net; vjfairchild@scusd.net; aratermann@scusd.net; mrichardson@scusd.net; mryan@scusd.net; pubworks@sunnyvale.ca.gov; joebravo@bravolaw.com; joe@piastalaw.biz; districtattorney@sfgov.org; 6th.district@jud.ca.gov; scottlargent38@gmail.com; will@crim-defense.com; anna@annaeshoo4congress.com; guardians@aclu.org; fdngift@aclu.org; chartley@sunnyvale.ca.gov; pubdef- mediarelations@sfgov.org; Council, City; patrick@sdpap.org; ukoffice@chinaculture.org; parmit.randhawa@georgehills.com; corrupt@brianmccomas.attorney; jdiaz@sfchronicle.com; 1guitard.as@gmail.com; paulette.altmaier@gmail.com; hotline@hudoig.gov; gerald.engler@doj.ca.gov; supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; san.francisco@ic.fbi.gov; david.rose@doj.ca.gov; servesdap@sdap.org; john.bennett@ic.fbi.gov; mayorlondonbreed@sfgov.org; chesa@sfgov.org; mccomas.b.c@gmail.com; info@siliconvalleydebug.org; florestrisha09@gmail.com; Be Judged; Jeremy Schmidt; mike@mikegoldman4mayor.org; nsallings@scusd.net; mrichardsom@scusd.net; ndefreitas@scusd.com; radams@scu.k12.ca.us; jluyau@scu.k12.ca.us; amasur@scusd.net; adoptions@hssv.org; intake@hssv.org; education@hssv.org; comments@hssv.org; officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com; jrosen@dao.sccgov.org; j@fuerylaw.com; second.district@jud.ca.gov; third.district@jud.ca.gov; fourth.district@jud.ca.gov; fifth.district@jud.ca.gov; sfagdocketing@doj.ca.gov; karlene.navarro@gmail.com; judicial.council@jud.ca.gov; first.district@jud.ca.gov; super nova Subject:Re: KNOW JUSTICE ~ KNOW PEACE $17 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Oops CAREFULLY AVOIDED TRUTHS haha? On Thursday, March 11, 2021, 2:18:09 PM PST, super nova <galaxy_454@yahoo.com> wrote: No need to apologize for my client once again; as it should be obvious by now who is out of line here and it is certainly not my client...Especially after posting about CCP censorship invading the USA...It's Sunnyvale POS DPS who needs to apologize for refusing to pull their big fat heads out of the asses and finally get with the program...My client kicked DPS out of this neighborhood years ago back around 2007 due to their nonsense; and my client has been successfully taking care of local business ever since...So my client doesn't need any ridiculous advice from POS DPS; because after ALL OF 207 THE CLAIMS FILED AND EMAILS SENT AND TIME SPENT IT WAS ALL A WASTE; AS POS DPS STILL DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE NEEDS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD...YES MANY PEOPLE LIKE THE SAFETY CONES AS THEY SLOW TRAFFIC... And this gross negligence regarding pedestrian etc deaths was going on way back before Covid-19 all over this valley as people got run over by other people going to and from work etc on a regular basis...There was little or no concern and/or action taken about those various vehicular-related deaths before Covid-19; making the latest concern for Covid-19 seem shallow and false and politically motivated...Just a reaction to the mass media generated consent for it...While the mass media continues to run irresponsible TV ads (that should be outlawed) encouraging people to drive around like maniacs (Except Volvo etc)...And the proof is in these latest actions that prove POS DPS has ZERO INTENTION of responding to my various claims filed; as they do not care about the safety of our neighborhood going on and on about their usual nonsense... Seriously; I've had it UP TO HERE with this kind of irresponsible and negligent police harassment; SO STOP IT NOW OR FACE LEGAL CONSEQUENCE...GOT IT? MY CAREFULLY AVOIDED TRUTHD ARE THE REAL BOSS HERE SO GET A FUCKING CLUE ALREADY... 208 Baumb, Nelly From:LOIS HANCOCK <loisdw@me.com> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 1:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Wellesley Apartments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Members of the Palo Alto City Council,    I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposed Apartments on Wellesley Street for the following reasons:     1. Too small percentage of affordable units. 2. Units are all studio and small one-bedroom so they are too small for families and are inadequate for our housing needs. 3. Not enough outdoor space on property for tenants to use, tiny balconies and unhealthy crowding for people. 4. Three stories in a one story neighborhood is unfair to current residents and infringes on daylight and privacy. 5. Inadequate parking for residents and visitors (proposal reduces parking normally required.)  6. Parking is already tight with the College Terrace Library on the same street. The already established library should take precedence over a building that is not suitable for the College Terrace neighborhood. 7. The developer has already indicated signs of non-transparency. Cato contacted some residents with a survey without adequate explanation of their proposal and didn’t identify themselves as the developer. 8. Cato has not attempted to work with residents or responded to the attempts to contact them.    Other options for affordable housing need to be looked at that address the real needs of the community, not what the developer wants and sees fit in order to fulfill minimum and below minimum guidelines that don’t serve the residents of this city.    Thank you for your consideration.    Sincerely,    L. Hancock  209 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 1:29 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; fred beyerlein; David Balakian; bballpod; beachrides; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; francis.collins@nih.gov; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; Mark Kreutzer; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; leager; Mayor; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; vallesR1969 @att.net Subject:Fwd: States drawing up wish lists for the Covid $1.9 trillion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 1:20 PM  Subject: States drawing up wish lists for the Covid Relief $1.9 trillion  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>             Thurs. March 11, 2021            To all‐          The "States wish lists" article is here, but probably won't be at the Schwab site for long. So print it out if you want it,  and if it allows you to. I find it interesting:  Maybe google will produce it on other sites.      Charles Schwab Client Center            LH  210 Baumb, Nelly From:Kim <ksuz1981@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 12:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Proposed building at 2239 and 2241 Wellesley St CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Council,    I’m writing to ask you to scrutinize Cato Investments‘ proposal to build apartments at 2239 and 2241 Wellesley St in  College Terrace.    The amount of lower rent units proposed for the building is small so it won’t make a dent in our housing needs.    It would be a 3 story apartment building inside a predominantly 1 story neighborhood.    It asks for a reduced amount of off street parking in a neighborhood that already uses parking permits in order to have  adequate parking for existing tenants and visitors.    The proposed units are all small studio and 1 bedroom units. Housing units targeted for teachers and other city  employees should be large enough for families, especially if it would replace existing multi‐family units.    There is very little outdoor space proposed for tenants to use and the balconies are tiny.    Cato contacted neighborhood residents to fill out a survey but didn’t explain exactly what they were proposing and  didn’t identify themselves as the developer. I believe that it was disingenuous. Rather than trying to work with residents  I believe they were identifying issues they will have to try to defeat.    I hope we can attract site‐appropriate, more reasonably priced and more adequately sized units that take parking and  outdoor space needs into account.    Thank you,  Kim Lemmer  2282 Amherst Street  Palo Alto CA 94306  (650) 213‐6836  211 Baumb, Nelly From:Hargis, Nicholas <Nicholas.Hargis@mail.house.gov> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 12:06 PM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Subject:Virtual briefing on the American Rescue Plan with Congresswoman Eshoo tomorrow CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Council, Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo invites you to a virtual briefing to discuss the American Rescue Plan and how it will benefit cities, counties and local school districts in our Congressional District. The briefing will also provide time to answer questions about the historic $1.9 trillion relief package and how it will help our mutual constituents during the ongoing response to the pandemic. Please note, this briefing will be open to members of the press. Who Congresswoman Anna G. Eshoo (CA-18) What Virtual Briefing on the American Rescue Plan When Friday, March 12th at 1:30 p.m. Where Zoom link provided upon RSVP Please RSVP to Noor Shah at Noor.Shah@mail.house.gov by Friday, March 12th at 10:00 a.m. PT. We look forward to being with you.     Nicholas C. Hargis  Field Representative  Congresswoman Anna Eshoo  698 Emerson Street   Palo Alto, California 94301    Click here to sign up for Rep. Eshoo’s Weekly Newsletter      212 Baumb, Nelly From:Diane <dianeef@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 11:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:College Terrace zoning change application CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor DuBois and members of the City Council,    The upcoming application of Cato to change the R‐1 zoning on Wellesley Street in College Terrace is very concerning. It is  an example of that old adage of being wary of allowing a camel to push its nose into the tent because of the resulting  damage.    If this application to change the zoning is permitted then our entire neighborhood, which is an eclectic mix of  homeowners and renters, will be under continuous assault   from Cato and others who pose as wanting to provide  “affordable” housing when the aim is to destroy R‐1 housing and build for profit. And, arguably, this zoning attack will  spread to other neighborhoods in Palo Alto as well.    Please reject the application.    Diane Finkelstein  2049 Dartmouth Street    Sent from my iPad  213 Baumb, Nelly From:Cox <coxbr@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, March 11, 2021 9:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Cato Investments in College Terrace CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, Even though I don't live in College Terrace, I used to about 30 years ago, and I appreciate the unique and warm neighborhood atmosphere that seems to go unchanged year after year in College Terrace. I understand that Cato Investments has invested vigorously in the College Terrace neighborhood in hopes that the City of Palo Alto would welcome such a dramatic change in zoning in that area. Perhaps because they saw the new housing built around that neighborhood within the last decade, which was tremendous. However, College Terrace has already absorbed a lot of new neighbors with the recent building boom, and why not point Cato to more appropriate places like the old Roller, Hapgood and Tinney Funeral Home, which is perfect for their type of project. Cato could easily reach out to the current owner and perhaps coordinate a win for them, and a win for the current owner, and a win for the City of Palo Alto with a more dense and lower income housing development. As an FYI, this is NOT a NIMBY request, as I currently live one block from the old funeral home site, and realize a more densely built affordable housing option there would be much better suited than on an R-1 zoned parcel. Hopefully you are familiarizing yourselves with the College Terrace residents, as well as the Cato Investments development team, and that you are leaning more towards preserving unique classic neighborhoods, and point these developers to more appropriate targets. Thank you for "listening". Rachel Cox, 1048 Webster Street, Palo Alto 214 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:47 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Planning Commission; Human Relations Commission; Architectural Review Board; Stump, Molly; DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer Cc:Aram James; Roberta Ahlquist; Mary Gallagher; Chris Robell; mark weiss; Angie Evans; Gail Price; patti@safekids.com Subject:Fwd: $1.5 Billion in Housing Funding Scheduled for Release CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please see below. $1.5 BILLION is available for affordable housing from the State of California!  This is a significant  increase from last year.   Palo Alto was the ONLY city with our housing imbalance not to apply for a grant last year.  Let's not repeat that error!   Please let me know if you need help. I am in regular contact with the organizations that secured $12.3 million from  Mountain View last fall. Mountain View used that funding to ensure that every single one of its unhoused individuals  and families now has transitional housing shelter and services.   If Mountain View, Fresno, LA, Santa Clara, Santa Barbara, and dozens other California Cities could use the state's free  housing funds, why can't Palo Alto?     Best,   Rebecca    Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: CA Department of Housing & Community Development <communications@hcd.ca.gov>  Date: Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 9:12 AM  Subject: $1.5 Billion in Housing Funding Scheduled for Release  To: <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>    To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.       To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.HCD Announcement       $1.5 Billion in Housing Funding Scheduled for Release 215 Critical Fund-Balance-and-Demand Data on State Programs Out Now Pause on Multifamily Housing Program, Infill Infrastructure Grant Ends   Great news! We’re happy to announce that all funding we temporarily paused last November to better align with two top affordable housing funders in the state — the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) and California Debt Limit Allocation Committee (CDLAC) — is now moving again. What we accomplished during the pause We laid the groundwork to change the way we do business. We are aligning policies across partner agencies and departments, and holding more frequent, focused conversations with you, to both speed up delivery of affordable homes and affirmatively further fair housing. This will be an ongoing effort over the next year as we look to simplify some of our own state-funded multifamily programs into one application consistent with the requirements of AB 434 signed by Governor Newsom last fall. Watch for opportunities to engage coming soon! We’ve updated our Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) calendar    Infill Infrastructure Grant (IIG) — NOFA release April 2021  Multifamily Housing Program (MHP) — NOFA release July 2021 Already-released NOFAs:  Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities (AHSC)  Joe Serna Jr. Farmworker Grant New! Current program fund balances and outstanding TCAC/CDLAC demand for HCD-funded projects You asked and we delivered. Seeing the big picture of available funding from HCD and from TCAC/CDLAC allows you to better plan for opportunities and challenges ahead. Having this important data at our fingertips allows HCD to become a better partner on program innovation and alignment to achieve the goal of expedited housing production. In addition to the timing of NOFA releases as provided in the NOFA Calendar, knowing how much funding remains in our various programs is critical in putting together financing plans for projects. You can now view the Status of Bond-Funded Multifamily Program balances. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.        To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Chart     216 Going forward, we will partner with our project sponsors to track the status of HCD-funded projects through quarterly surveys. This information will help us understand our Estimated Outstanding Bond and Tax Credit Demand for HCD- funded Projects.   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Chart     We will update this information quarterly and you can always find the most recent charts on our main Grants and Funding webpage. More improvements coming — AB 434 and beyond More improvements are coming your way as we implement AB 434 (2020), which will simplify the application process, making it even easier for you to apply for funding from our multifamily housing programs. We are excited about our continued collaboration with you as we simplify our programs and processes to remove barriers to the critical work you do building and preserving affordable homes for those most in need.   Copyright © 2021 hcd.ca.gov|(916) 263-7400   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Facebook   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Twitter             Department of Housing & Community Development | 2020 W. El Camino Ave., Sacramento, CA 95833 Unsubscribe rebecca@winwithrebecca.com Update Profile | Customer Contact Data Notice Sent by communications@hcd.ca.gov powered by   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today. Try email marketing for free today!       217 Baumb, Nelly From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 7:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:NVCAP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Tonight I am dialed in to the Planning & Transportation Commission meeting because NVCAP is on their agenda.  I would  like to share with you what I plan to say to them during public comments.    When the NVCAP Working Group was first proposed, I became very engaged in the process and offered much input to  the team.  Over time, I have become less engaged, primarily because I do not have any hope that there can be a  “Coordinated” approach to development in the study area.    Accordingly, there are two fairly narrow points which I would like to address:    (1) I hope that the PTC and Council will direct staff to require any development in the study area to treat sidewalks and  bike lanes as they would treat street trees.  An example of what I mean is the construction site of Wilton Court, at El  Camino Real & Wilton Ave.  The developer there has erected a scaffolding system such that the sidewalk remains open  while work progresses.  I think that it is much more important to keep sidewalks and bike lanes usable on Park Blvd than  it is on El Camino Real, given the number of people who walk and ride on the former.    (2) I hope that the PTC and Council will direct staff to address traffic flow such that motor vehicle traffic in the study area  is primarily from El Camino Real and that “cut‐through” traffic to Park Blvd is kept to a minimum.  An example of what I  mean is the way that the Elks Lodge re‐development was planned, such that access to the bulk of the construction is via  El Camino Real, leaving Wilkie Way relatively unaffected.  Note: there is bike/ped access between El Camino Real and  Wilkie Way but no motor vehicle access (except for emergency vehicles)    As you know, Park Blvd is part of Palo Alto’s bicycle boulevard network.  Also, many pedestrians use Park Blvd to walk  between the Ventura neighborhood and the California Avenue shopping district.  Thank you for making sure that those  things are preserved during any development in the NVCAP study area.    respectfully,  Ken Joye  Ventura neighborhood  218 Baumb, Nelly From:HEIDI SCHWENK <heidi29@me.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 6:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:RE: March 10th, 2021, North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Study Session CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Dubois and Palo Alto City Council Members,      Please see my March 10, 2021, letter to the Planning Commission regarding the support of an enhanced Alternative 3, for the  North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP).    Regards,  Heidi Schwenk           Re: March 10th, 2021 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Study Session     Dear Chair Hechtman and PTC members,     I support the City of Palo Alto to focus on further exploration and enhancement of Alternative 3 for the NVCAP area; California  Avenue, Page Mill/Oregon and El Camino Real.     Over one hundred years ago, in 1896, Palo Alto’s leaders had an universal community vision and created The City of Palo Alto  Utilities (CPAU). The utility company grew from 1896, with a water supply system to include wastewater/sewer collection  system in 1898, municipal electric power system in 1900, natural gas in 1917, and then passed the construction of the dark  fiber loop in 1996. Palo Alto is the only city in California to own and operate six essential utility services, including refuse and  storm drains. Palo Alto does not want to fail to meet its housing needs again or demonstrate that it’s not cooperative with the  state. Not agreeing on a comprehensive plan will insult the entire Palo Alto community and allow CA State to levy fines,  disqualify the City for funding, appoint an agent to take over the City’s Housing Element, remove or reinstate land use policies,  and even approve housing proposals irrespective of our local zoning policies. Please take prudent action to complete the  analysis, revise Alternative 3, and approve the broadest plan. “The Plan” will provide important direction for all current and  future developers and land owners.     The Council, Commission and Working Groups along with Community input must make wise and clear decisions to take  control of our City’s Comprehensive Plan/Housing Element in 2021. In California State, the City of Palo Alto can become an  affordable housing leader while addressing environmental needs, public health and education concerns, and revive the  economic vitality of our community. We can be bold and creative by addressing all the issues and enhance Palo Alto’s  communities and culture while meeting the State’s housing requirements. The NVCAP provides significant opportunities to  demonstrate our willingness to meet our RHNA goals. Land in Palo Alto is too scarce and development is too expensive to  resist opportunities like this one. Please work closely with land owners and developers to create the best plan. Palo Alto could  affordably create an European style ambiance in the area with foot and biking traffic, and private retail businesses to support  the diverse cultures who live and work in the area. Specifically work with Sobrato to incorporate their Fry’s building office  tenants by building designating rental space nearby. Allow private businesses to support that immediate area, such as at least  one private cafe, one private restaurant, one private bakery, one small private retail/card/small gifts/pharmacy, and other  private busineses agreed upon by the people who would frequent the businesses such as the home owners and tenants.   219   Along with affordable housing the city needs to address the inequities among all essential workers from store clerks, delivery  personnel, nurses and interns to teachers, service providers, technologists and young low, middle income earners. In addition,  higher education students along with new graduates from our community colleges and universities need affordable housing.  Young families in all income levels need affordable housing along safe and accessible transit corridors to attend Palo Alto  schools. Current home owners of all ages in the NVCAP area need to be assured they will not lose their homes to new  development, but be reassured that they will have a better lifestyle because of the plan.    A well designed development with the latest technology and sustainable materials for energy efficient buildings, with social  landscaping and a variety of amenities on the ground level, with inviting and solar lit, safe, foot and bike paths, with open  space parks, with a playground/school yard area (the area currently has a childcare facility) and access to public  transportation. A well designed neighborhood/city scape will inevitably attract members from other areas of Palo Alto, local  cities and contribute wealth to the NVCAP area. “If you build it, they will come.”    The Palo Alto City Council needs to capture the full potential of an enhanced NVCAP Alternative 3 and be more invested in the  development of the entire city by supporting it and current proposals brought before the council for consideration. Be the  visionaries, change makers and leaders for today’s entire community and Palo Alto’s future community.     Sincerely,   Heidi Schwenk    760 Northampton Drive  Palo Alto, CA 94303     cc: Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council Members   cc: NVCAP Working Group   220 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 4:28 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Fry's Housing Site CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Commissioners,     As you consider a vision for future housing to be built at the Fry’s site, please prioritize the residents whom you were  appointed to represent. Focus on community needs.  Housing as described in  “Alternative M” outlines a long‐term  vision to do just that.     It is probably safe to say that residents overwhelmingly want this entire site to be used for housing.  Especially housing  designed and priced to serve those individuals who can’t now otherwise afford to live here, including the more  vulnerable members of our community.  A new sustainable neighborhood as described in “Alternative M” for those who  value and want to become part of their local neighborhood as well as the broader Palo Alto community, rather than  providing for a more transient population.      Considering the particularly woeful jobs to housing ratio that has developed in Palo Alto coinciding with the rise of the  tech sector, and given RHNA mandates, the only consideration over this entire area should be for new housing.   Unlike  the rise of the electronic industry where the land south of Oregon to San Antonio was underdeveloped and available for  new housing production, this is now the last relatively large under‐developed piece of land in Palo Alto available for a  substantial amount of new housing production.  This rare and precious opportunity should be maximised and not go to  waste.      If the only option to realize “Alternative M” is for the city to purchase the Fry’s site, a site intended and zoned by the  City decades ago for new housing construction, the land should be valued and purchased as such by the city. Palo Alto  could offer 30‐year municipal bonds, as other cities do, and purchase the Fry’s site.  Interest rates are as low as they will  likely be for a very long time. Bond payments to be partially covered by tenant rents and made up from revenue from  the Business Tax that so many in our community favor. Bonds will create no financial burden on Palo Alto residents, nor  on City finances.  Revenue from the Business Tax is particularly appropriate given the increase in office densities that  have led to the serious deterioration in our jobs to housing ratio, especially for the larger employers in Stanford’s  Research Park which RHNA includes in Palo Alto’s housing allocation.         As members of Palo Alto’s “Planning” and Transport Commission this is a rare opportunity to truly craft a creative  planning vision. The vision described in “Alternative M” for how this last under‐developed area of Palo Alto can become  housing for a new community that serves the best and long‐term interests of the City and the people of Palo Alto.    Sincerely,    Margaret Heath  2140 Cornell Street  Palo Alto  221 Baumb, Nelly From:Paul DeMarinis <demarini@stanford.edu> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 3:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:re: Wellesley/College proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    The current proposal by Cato Investments to build a 24‐unit 3 story apartment complex an the site of 2 tiny College  Terrace lots seems to me like a no brainer for any City Council to shoot down, but it seems you are entertaining the idea,  so I would like to add my voice to the opposition.    Density: Adding 24 more families to the 2 tiny lots meant for 2 families brings us into a density situation that is getting  uncomfortable, not only for the families themselves but for the neighbors. If you live in high‐density areas like NYC or  Hong Kong, you get something in exchange in the way of  public transportation, shopping convenience, culture. At the  corner of Wellsley and College, you get nothing  ‐ just crowded.    Parking: 24 units means at least 24 cars, likely ~30 cars added to that single corner. The idea of the El Camino"  transportation corridor” meaning people won’t need cars is a distant dream at this point ‐ they will need cars to get to  work, shop, take kids to school. Where will all these cars park? And when the 24 families’ friends come to visit, where  will they park? You can keep selling residential parking permits but of there is no space it will be a mess anyway.    Traffic: and when the cars are used, 30 cars going in and out all day, this can only add to the traffic in a substantial way;  it’s right near the CT Library, young kids crossing the streets.    Roof line: The height here is all wrong. Look at the surrounding single story homes, or the elevated single story 4 unit  apartment across the way  ‐ they look, well, 50s suburban ‐ they fit together in their own offbeat style. I can’t imagine  what it would look like to have a24‐unit  3 story unit plopped next to my little CT house much less how it would sound   filled with 24‐ families clamoring to spread out.    Finally: Stanford Housing just built 2 little tasteful single‐family residences right next door. Why not talk to Stanford  Housing about buying out Cato and plopping in a few more of those. I know, Stanford…. yeah, yeah. But I think we’d all  regret a few more faculty houses much less than if this monstrosity goes through.    I urge you to reject the proposal by Cato Investments.    Thank you,    Paul DeMarinis  2285 Hanover St.        222 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:52 PM To:Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Council, City; Raven Malone; Roberta Ahlquist; Rebecca Eisenberg; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission; DuBois, Tom; chuck jagoda; city.council@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Cecilia Taylor; Joe Simitian; Sunita de Tourreil; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:Stop aapi hate rally CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  FYI: Important message from Richard Konda          Hi Everyone:    See below info about a STOP AAPI hate rally this coming Saturday March  13th.  Unfortunately, I am unable to attend, there may be ALA staff attending.      With the recent rise in hate crimes against the Asian Pacific Islander community, Assemblymember Low  and San Jose City Councilmember Pam Foley are partnering together to show their support and stand in  solidarity against Asian violence and racism. Details for the event are as follows:    Stop AAPI Hate Rally  Saturday, March 13th, 2021  11am ‐ 12pm (approx. one hour; max 2 hours)   San Jose City Hall Rotunda ‐ event will be outside by the flags      Sincerely,       Richard Konda  Executive Director  Asian Law Alliance   991 West Hedding St., Suite 202  San Jose, CA  95126  (408)‐287‐9710       This message may contain confidential and privileged information.  If it has been sent to you in  error, please reply to advise the sender of the error and then immediately delete the message.        223 Baumb, Nelly From:paiwf@aol.com Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Wellesley project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Palo Alto City Council, A three story building of any sort beyond El Camino in the College Terrace neighborhood is completely out of context. One only need to look around - even in the neighboring business area along California Ave. Those taller buildings in Stanford's California Avenue development are way off the street and not integral to the neighborhood. This new development neighbors a collection of several 2-story apartment buildings and single story homes. It should be made harmonious with those. Underground or on site parking should be a requirement for this development. Thank you for considering the concerns of College Terrace residents. Sharon Murphy (CT resident since 1970) 1540 College Ave 224 Baumb, Nelly From:t.w.five <t.w.five.art@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 2:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:CASP - Rent Forgivness - Studio:F1 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council members,    We are an artist duo that belongs to the Cubberley artist program and our studio is F1.   As everyone experienced, 2020 was a strange year and affected people all over the USA and all over the world.   Both of us had always worked full time outside the studio, but sadly one of us got furlough in March 2020. We were under lock down for a long time and weren’t allowed to enter our studio for 3 months. We kept paying rent for that period, because we really love our studio and didn’t want to compromise losing it. But somehow it doesn’t feel fair that we had to pay $836/month and not be able to go to our private space/studio. Being furlough was hard enough but then having to pay rent for a studio that we couldn’t go to was making things harder for us. Art especially is very important for your mental health especially for artists that use art as an expression. We are hopeful that things are going to be fair for all the artists at CASP and therefore hoping to be given rent forgiveness for those 3 months that we paid for.     We try to make a presence in the community and do as much as we can to create a “togetherness” with Palo Alto residents. In 2020 we volunteered to draw out the outline for BLM in front of Palo Alto City Hall, we held Portfolio Reviews and we just got a public art mural up in downtown Palo Alto.     Everyday we are trying to get back to “normal” and your help would be greatly appreciated.     Thank you for your consideration,    Pernilla Andersson and Paula Pereira “t.w.five”  Studio:F1  225 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary B. <mab9999@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 1:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cato investments' Wellesley Street project - oops, forgot to sign my name! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members, Can we put to rest the fiction that a SF-based equity investment firm whose purpose is to protect and grow the assets of its very wealthy clients has somehow chosen College Terrace to build "affordable housing"? It's simply an insult to everyone's intelligence. The fact is that Cato has bought up nine properties in College Terrace and Barron Park and is using its Wellesley Street project (WSP) as a test to see what it can get away with in the area while crippling R-1 zoning throughout the city. The fact is the project calls for numerous exceptions to the zoning code while cramming as many tiny inhuman dormitory-like 'rooms' onto a lot way too small for their number and at a height way out of scale and what looks to be the cheapest construction imaginable. The fact is that an outside investment firm has bought into a closely knit neighborhood in order to make an obscene amount of money and is now asking the city if it can break the law so it can do so. It's outrageous and should be stopped dead in its tracks. There are so many more negatives to address with this project but for now, I urge the Council to please vote against weakening R-1 zoning in order to accommodate the greed of Cato and others like them. Vote against the Wellesley Street project. Sincerely, Mary Bartholomay 2121 Dartmouth Street, (College Terrace) Palo Alto, CA 94306 226 Baumb, Nelly From:Arlene Goetze <photowrite67@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 12:50 PM To:United States Senate Subject:Contents of J&J shot; Phizer asks collateral CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please remember none of the 3 virus 'shots' stop transmitting the virus. They may lessen effects of the virus. Their task is to mutate genes in what they are put in. Two Stories below: Please read and share with your readers: 1. Media Hails New J&J vaccine, Ignore its Checkered Past  2. Phizer Bullies Nations to Put Up Collateral for Lawsuits  1. Media Hails New J&J Vaccine, Ignores Pharma Giant’s ‘Checkered Past’ As media cheered emergency approval of J&J’s COVID vaccine and the company’s plans to team up with Merck on production, there was little mention of safety concerns or the two companies’ criminal track records (for poor quality dangerous products). In Brief from the Defender, Children's Health Defense 1. Merck (who stopped making its own vaccines says: 'It is better to get the virus than take a vaccine.) has now joined J&J to help make its shots. 2. J&J has an adenovirus approach which 30 yesrs' study says is a “failed gene therapy.” 3. Booster shots can “unleash an antibody attack on the vaccine itself.” 4. Using continuous cell lines which have abnormalities, their “potential for growing tumors in laboratory animals.” 5. Italian researcher Corvelva concludes that vaccines of this type “should be considered defective and potentially dangerous to human health.” 6. J&J vaccine includes polysorbate-80, a stabilizer capable of transporting other substances across the blood-brain barrier. Both J&J and Merck have extensive lawsuits for illegal activities.  7. LAWSUIT for Merck, paid $4.85 billion in 2007 after pleading to guilty illegal marketing its lethal drug Vioxx.. . .as well as many cases of fraud, deceit and negligence, including its (MMR) and (HPV) vaccines. 8. LAWSUITs for Johnson & Johnson: * A 2013 order by the U.S. Dept. of Justice to pay $2.2 billion in civil and criminal fines related to the antipsychotic drug Risperdal and two other drugs, following off-label marketing and fraud and kickbacks. * A 2019 award by a Philadelphia jury of $8 billion in punitive damages to a man alleging that J&J failed to warn that Risperdal could lead to breast growth in boys. Thousands of other lawsuits make the same claim. 227 * A $572 million judgment against J&J by Oklahoma in 2019 for the company’s role in the opioid crisis. * $3.9 billion set aside for 25,000 lawsuits related to J&J’s asbestos- tainted baby powder. “One of the largest punitive-damages awards in U.S. legal history,” From The Defender By Children's Health Defense Team (a condensed version) On Feb. 26, the U.S. FDA granted Emergency Use Authorization for Johnson & Johnson’s (J&J) coronavirus vaccine for Americans 18 and older. THE Washington Post on March 2 printed a “historic” production partnership between J&J and Merck, two pharma giants portrayed as “fierce competitors.” ------------------------- 2. Pfizer Bullies Nations to Put up Collateral for Lawsuits. Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola. March 08, 2021 STORY AT-A-GLANCE     * Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets, including bank  reserves, military bases and embassy buildings, as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its COVID-19 inoculation * Argentina and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. According to legal experts, Pfizer is abusing its power * In the U.S., vaccine makers already enjoy full indemnity against injuries occurring from the COVID-19 vaccine under the PREP Act. If you’re injured, you’d have to file a compensation claim with the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), which is funded by U.S. taxpayers * A big problem with the CICP is that it’s administered within the Dept. of Health/Human Serv., who sponsors the COVID-19 vaccine program and whose members own more than 30 vaccine patents.. This conflict of interest makes the CICP less likely to admit vaccine fault. * The maximum CICP payout you can receive — even in cases of permanent disability or death — is $250,000 per person, after you exhaust your private insurance policy before the CICP kicks in Condensed from Mercola Newsletter: March 8, 2021. As in New Delhi-based World Is One News (WION),1 Pfizer is demanding countries put up sovereign assets as collateral for expected vaccine injury lawsuits resulting from its shot. Iit wants governments to guarantee the company will be compensated for any expenses resulting from injury lawsuits against it. Argentina & and Brazil have rejected Pfizer’s demands. Vaccine Maker Accused of Abusing Its Power According to STAT News,3 “Legal experts have raised concerns that Pfizer’s demands amount to an abuse of power.” Side Effects Are Inevitable For starters, mRNA vaccines are accurately referred to as gene therapies, 228 They effectively turn your cells into bioreactors that churn out viral proteins to incite an immune response, and there’s. no off-switch.8 Based on historical evidence, significant short-and long-term side effects are inevitable. For starters, your body sees the synthetic mRNA as “non-self,” which can cause autoantibodies to attack your own tissues. Judy Mikovits, Ph.D., explained this in “How COVID-19 ‘Vaccines’ May Destroy Lives of Millions.” How mRNA Injections May Trigger Prion Disease . . . Dr. Bart Classen warns there are also troubling evidences suggesting some of the mRNA shots may cause prion diseases such as Alzheimer’s & ALS. Greatest Risk of All: Sudden Death In the U.S., COVID-19 vaccines accounted for 70% of vaccine-related deaths between January 2020 and January 2021. Reports of Side Effects Are Rapidly Mounting Around the world, reports are now pouring in of people dying shortly after receiving the vaccine. In many cases, they die suddenly within hours of getting the shot or the span of a couple of weeks. Do a Risk-Benefit Analysis Before Making Up Your Mind The lethality of the virus is lower than the flu for those under 60. So, what are we protecting against with a vaccine? These mRNA vaccines aren’t even designed to prevent infection, only to reduce the severity of symptoms. Meanwhile, they could potentially make you sicker once you’re exposed to the virus, and/or cause persistent serious side effects such as those reviewed above. Condensed from Mercola Newsletter and forwarded by Arlene Goetze, MA, NO Toxins for Children. 229 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 12:21 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Council, City Subject:NVCAP agenda item CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Chairman Hechtman and Members, I support alternative 3 and developing feasible funding policies to support additional housing in alternative 3 for low and moderate income residents. I believe the following to be true: The planning area is a great site for housing as it is close to services, shopping, jobs and transit. The planning area is large enough to support a mixed use development consistent with existing uses. Our city has a need for additional housing with a focus on housing affordable to low and moderate income re4sidnets. moderate income residents. This is city policy and also supported by our RHNA target of 6,000+ units. The planning area is the largest opportunity site for housing in Palo Alto and it seems difficult to meet our RHNA goal of identifying sites unless we adopt the highest housing alternative on this site. Alternative 3 is the only alternative that is financially feasible according to the city's consultant. I also support the policies identified by staff in their staff report to make even more housing financially feasible. For these reasons staff has consistently recommended alternative 3 and based on what I know about HCD criteria, this is the only alternative that could make our new Housing Element get approved. Stephen Levy 230 Baumb, Nelly From:Lee Christel <lee_xtel@pacbell.net> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 12:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Retail on University and California Avenues CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council, Thank you for restricting gyms from the main streets of University and California Avenue. These uses take up too much area and do not contribute a sense of retail community in my opinion. I have been disappointed to see them move into areas previously occupied by true retail. I agree with Vice Mayor Pat Burt's statement referencing gyms, yoga studios, and medical clinics: "They are not really adding to the retail environment where we want to attract a critical mass of retail — drop-in retail and things like that". Lee A Christel 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael Price <mjpvirtual@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 23, 2021 4:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comments to be given at the council meeting on 3/23/2021 Attachments:comments-to-council-2021.03.23.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I have attached a copy of comments I intend to give during the City Council meeting of 2021/03/23.    Thanks you,  Michael Price  1665 Escobiat Ave.  Palo Alto, CA 94306    I am the originator of the Partial Underpass proposal for Churchill. Michael Cachon helped further develop the concept and created detailed renderings and videos to better visualize the idea. The proposal appeared late in the XCAP process but, given the unhappiness with the Churchill alternatives being considered at the time, the Council voted to allocate additional funds for its evaluation. I have an engineering background and Michael is an architect. We researched design constraints and standards, talked with construction firms, investigated construction methods, and generally prepared to contribute to fleshing out the proposal. We then participated in several discussions with city staff and engineers from AECOM. These discussions were very frustrating. AECOM's initial design included elements that greatly increased the footprint of the project, even though those elements were not included at University, Embarcadero, or Oregon. When challenged, we were told these would be refined as the project progressed, but of course, that won't happen if the project is derailed by these same initial choices. The current design is more appropriate for a freeway than a city intersection. We offered suggestions for improvements in design and construction, but were mostly brushed off with comments like "we're the experts". I got the impression that the city staff were mainly looking for reasons to reject the idea. It was as if the decision to close the intersection had long ago been taken, and AECOM's efforts were merely window dressing. There are uncertainties about the proposal because AECOM failed to adequately explore all aspects of the project. Nevertheless, AECOM admits there are no show stopper issues. One example: the aesthetics of the project received scant attention. Michael Cachon's original design demonstrate the improvements possible by engaging an architect. Another example: several alternative construction techniques were proposed but left unconsidered. As an engineer, I know the outcomes are very different if you approach a problem with the goal of finding a way to make it work rather than looking for reasons why it might fail. The City will live with whatever is done at this intersection for the next 100 years. Deciding to move forward without exploring alternatives more thoroughly would be a serious mistake. City council should postpone a decision about Churchill until a more compete analysis can be performed. Michael Price 1665 Escobita Ave. Palo Alto, CA 2 Baumb, Nelly Helen Golden <hsgoldenart@gmail.com> Tuesday, March 23, 2021 2:55 PM Council, City Charleston Arastradero Plan Phase 3 From: Sent: To: Subject: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. To: the Palo Alto City Council   Re: Possible Budget Cuts and/or Delay to Charleston/Arastradero Corridor – Phase 3   I am currently a Palo Altan who resided in an area adjacent to the Charleston/Arastradero Corridor for most of my life  and enjoyed the many advantages of the area (schools, library, playing fields, Mitchell Park, etc.). I observed over many  years, that its main traffic corridor was becoming more and more unpleasant as well as dangerous to use. A friend and I  sustained life‐long serious injuries when we were hit by a car as we walked across an intersection on Charleston Road.  That intersection was, and still is, very heavily used by students and residents on bicycles and on foot.   We know that traffic behavior has improved since significant measures have been taken to improve the safety of  the corridor. At this time, I am very concerned about the possibility that the city will delay or cut the completion of this  project. I encourage you to not loose the improvements already in place and those envisioned, and I urge you to  go forward in supporting the project’s completion!   This is the time to encourage people to walk and bike in safety and allowing this project to go forward will make the city  a more livable place for all.   Respectfully yours,  Helen Golden  850 Webster Street,  Palo Alto, CA 94301  HSGoldenart@gmail.com www.helengolden.com 650 324-7345 3 Baumb, Nelly From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 22, 2021 4:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:LWV Palo Alto Statement for item 7 regarding AAIP hate Attachments:LWVPA suport for item 7 racial justice.docx 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 Palo Alto City Council,     The Palo Alto LWV is submitting the attached letter in support of the resolution from Council Members DuBois, Kou and  Tanaka under item 7 of tonights agenda.    Thank you,    Nancy Shepherd  President      ‐‐   League of Women Voters of Palo Alto  3921 E. Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303  Phone: (650) 903-0600  Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/ Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto  3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 www.lwvpaloalto.org March 22, 2021 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Reference: Meeting March 22, 2021, Item 7 Colleagues' Memo: Discussion and Adoption of a Resolution Denouncing, Condemning and Combating Racism, Xenophobia, and Intolerance Against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the City of Palo Alto Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt and Palo Alto City Council, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto supports the adoption of a resolution proposed to stop Asian hate in Palo Alto. Below is the announcement from the State League to Stop Asian Hate and End White Supremacy released last week: The League of Women Voters of California condemns all xenophobic and hateful acts targeting Asian American and Pacific Islander (AAPI) communities. We stand in solidarity with, and in support of AAPI communities in calling for an end to anti-Asian hate and violence. No person, or group of people, should have to live in fear because of who they are. Our hearts are with the loved ones of those lost in Atlanta. We stand with AAPI people everywhere who are experiencing fear, sadness, loss, and anger as they are impacted by not only the domestic terror attack in Atlanta, but the attacks on AAPI communities everywhere. No one should have to live in fear because of who they are. The tragic murders in Atlanta punctuate an increase in anti-Asian violence and hate we have seen across the country. Systemic racism and white supremacy in the US are not bound by state or city lines - they are everywhere. California is no exception; anti-Asian hate crimes within California have been on the rise. It is the responsibility of allies everywhere to vocally denounce hate, violence, and xenophobia and actively work to dismantle the systems of racism and white supremacy that have perpetuated these attitudes and actions in our country. The League of Women Voters of the United States stated, “We are committed to listening to and amplifying AAPI voices and educating ourselves on the historic and ongoing systemic racism that plagues this country so that we can be better allies. 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 www.lwvpaloalto.org We urge our followers to do the same, and to call on elected and appointed officials at all levels of government to demonstrate their commitment to keeping ALL communities safe.” Please visit StopAAPIHate.org and be part of the solution. There can be no liberty in the face of racist and xenophobic violence. #StopAsianHate In solidarity, Stephanie Doute, CAE, Executive Director League of Women Voters of California Thank you for giving our city the opportunity to support the vision of an inclusive community and denounce racial hate to keep Palo Alto civil, progressive and equitable for all. Sincerely, Nancy Shepherd President 9 Baumb, Nelly From:John Hanna <jhanna@hanvan.com> Sent:Friday, March 19, 2021 2:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: Singapore Trash Disposal Attachments:Singapore Trash Disposal (Video).mp4; ATT00001.htm CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      John Paul Hanna, Esq. HANNA & VAN ATTA | 525 University Avenue, Suite 600 | Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tel: (650) 321-5700; Fax: (650) 321-5639 E-mail: jhanna@hanvan.com Recognized by Best Lawyers® in America 2019 for Real Estate Law; Community Association Law; and Land Use and Zoning Law; and in 2019 for Land Use and Zoning Law Lawyer of the Year in N. California This e-mail message may contain confidential, privileged information intended solely for the addressee. Please do not read, copy, or disseminate it unless you are the addressee. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please call us (collect) at (650) 321-5700 and ask to speak with the message sender. Also, we would appreciate your forwarding the message back to us and deleting it from your system. Thank you.   22 Baumb, Nelly From:Hargis, Nicholas <Nicholas.Hargis@mail.house.gov> Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 6:49 PM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Cc:Ramzanali, Asad Subject:Letter from Congresswoman Eshoo Attachments:Rep. Eshoo Ltr to Palo Alto re CPF - 3.15.21.pdf; Enclosure for CPF outreach to local elected - 3.15.21.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good afternoon Mayor DuBois and Council,     Happy Monday, I hope you’re well. Attached please find a letter from Congresswoman Eshoo and an informational  packet about Community Project Funding (CPF). To submit a project to the Congresswoman, use this link to fill out her  online form: https://forms.gle/gH4zdB5nuTpz7CQ29.     If you or the City have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out to Asad Ramzanali, cc’d here.     Best regards,   Nicholas     Nicholas C. Hargis  Field Representative  Congresswoman Anna Eshoo  698 Emerson Street   Palo Alto, California 94301    Click here to sign up for Rep. Eshoo’s Weekly Newsletter      ~,via :9: g'gk fff;,Ftk.end !?lfutnd ~_,.&;r/Ua March 151 2021 ~~edd o/ t-!U ~d .9fated 7lbaarJ o/ !Jfryvedentcdiued ~~tm,, 0. ~ 205-/5 The Honorable Tom DuBois1 Mayor City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto1 California 94301 DearM~s1 As part of this year's appropriations process1 Congress w ill a!Iow M embers to request Community Project Funding (CPFJ to directly fund only nonprofit and public sector projects in their Congressional D istricts. l invite you to s hare with me projects you believe are top priorities. CPF allow Members of Congress to advocate for projects that impact their constituents. Members can s ubmit CPF requests for nonprofit and government projects (for-profit projects are not allowed). The Appropriations Committee w i!l only consider requests for certain funding accounts; and each Appropriations Subcommittee i-equires specific information. l've endosed a list of eligib,!e accounts and required information for your reference. Also for your reference1 the Committee has informed me that they wi!l prioritize CPF requests with substantive community support in the form of letters from local elected officials1 local press articles or editorials; local government resolutions1 or other indications of local support. lf you have a project that l should consider submitting to the Committee1 (et me hear from you. You can submit information about the project to my office using the form located at the following: https://forms .g le/AYm9r4J_qiQ_ZQMeXK9. l ask that you s ubmit requests to my office as soon as possible and not later than March JI5t at 5:00 p.m. PST so we can thoroughly review the information you share. While l1m only permitted to submit a certain number of requests1 l w ill seriously consider yo ur recommendation. lf you have any questions about this process; you can call my Washington1 D.C. office at 202-225-8rn4. Most gratefully, ~ QD-6s~ ~aG.Eshoo Member of Congress Enclosure cc: The Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council Mr. Ed Shikada1 C ity Manager 1 CPF Information by Subcommittee Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies Further guidance: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/Ag%20Request %20Guidance.pdf • Agricultural Research Service, Buildings and Facilities • Rural Development, Rural Community Facility Grants • Rural Utilities Service, ReConnect Grants Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Further guidance: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/CJS%20Request %20Guidance.pdf • Byrne Justice Assistance Grants • COPS Technology and Equipment • National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--Operations, Research, and Facilities • National Aeronautics and Space Administration--Safety, Security and Mission Services Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Further guidance: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/LHHS%20Requ est%20Guidance.pdf • Department of Labor o Employment and Training Administration—Training and Employment Services • Department of Health and Human Services o Health Resources and Services Administration—Program Management o Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration—Health Surveillance and Program Support • Department of Education o Innovation and Improvement o Higher Education Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Further guidance: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/EW%20Request %20Guidance.pdf • Corps of Engineers: 2 o Investigations o Construction o Mississippi River and Tributaries o Operation and Maintenance • Bureau of Reclamation: o Water and Related Resources Subcommittee on Homeland Security Further guidance: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/Homeland%20R equest%20Guidance.pdf • Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grants • Nonprofit Security Grants • Emergency Operations Center Grants Subcommittee on Defense Further guidance: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/Defense%20De ar%20Colleague.pdf • Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Army • Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Navy • Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Air Force • Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Space Force • Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Defense-Wide Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Further guidance: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/MilConVA%20 Request%20Guidance.pdf • Military Construction accounts under the Department of Defense o Army o Navy and Marine Corps o Air Force o Defense-Wide o Army National Guard o Air National Guard o Army Reserve o Navy Reserve o Air Force Reserve 3 Subcommittee on Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Further guidance: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/THUD%20Guid ance%20and%20Requirements.pdf • Department of Transportation – o Local Transportation Priorities: Highway and transit capital projects eligible under title 23 and title 49 of the United States Code. Eligible projects are described under Section 133(b) of title 23, United States Code. Tribal and territorial capital projects authorized under Chapter 2 of title 23, United States Code, are also eligible. o Airport Improvement Program (AIP): Projects for enhancing airport safety, capacity, and security, and mitigating environmental concerns in accordance with sections 47101 to 47175 of title 49, United States Code, and FAA policy and guidance. • Department of Housing and Urban Development o Economic Development Initiative (EDI): Site acquisition, demolition or rehabilitation of housing or facilities, construction and capital improvements of public facilities (including water and sewer facilities), and public services are eligible. Funding is not limited to these identified eligible activities. Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Further guidance: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/FY22%20Interi or%20Community%20Project%20Request%20Guide.pdf • Department of Interior o Land Acquisition Through the Land and Water Conservation Fund • Environmental Protection Agency o State and Tribal Assistance Grants • U.S. Forest Service o State and Private Forestry Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government Further guidance: https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/democrats.appropriations.house.gov/files/FSGG%20Com munity%20Project%20Funding%20Questions.pdf • Small Business Administration • Small Business Initiatives. Subcommittees not accepting CPF requests 4 • Legislative Branch • State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 23 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Okuzumi <mokujo@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 15, 2021 11:31 AM To:Council, City Subject:On VTA Governance Reform Attachments:A Proposal for Restructuring Transportation Governance in Santa Clara County_reduced.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Assemblymember Marc Berman has introduced, for discussion purposes, AB 1091 with a proposal for changing how the  VTA Board is structured and appointed.    I wrote a paper on this topic years ago which is still very relevant (attached), and which I hope you'll read.    Some additional thoughts and background:    In the year following that particular Civil Grand Jury report came out in 2004, and also my paper in early 2005, the city  groupings were tweaked and I think most of the non‐San Jose ones came to new agreements to make the VTA board  position go to someone for 2 years instead of 1 year. But it used to be the case that the non‐San Jose groupings would  only seat someone for ONE YEAR and then they would swap the seat to whoever was next in line, creating horrendous  turnover.    I forget the exact composition of the Santa Clara Cities' Association, but that's an already existing body that would be  appropriate to make transit board appointments.    I'm less opposed to having an elected transit board than I used to be, but I will say we've seen some unfortunate people  elected to the AC Transit board in the past, including a poor elderly, mentally‐unstable woman who after many years of  wreaking havoc on the board, was arrested and perhaps institutionalized after exposing herself to neighbors. One time a  guy won it seems due to his simple common English name, over his more experienced/qualified opponent who had a  more complex ethnic name. Fortunately that guy who won turned out OK in the end. But this illustrates the peril of a  very down‐ballot office that most voters won't do due diligence on.    Lastly, I no longer feel an independent financial oversight agency to review the performance of the VTA and its  constituent agencies is strictly needed. In response to my report, former Assemblywoman Sally Lieber got a bill passed  to have the state audit VTA's finances if I'm remembering correctly, and overall they didn't find any problems. In terms  of handling its financial reporting at least, they found that VTA was well‐managed. But it could be a good safeguard to  have the county audit VTA's finances, without creating a whole new separate audit agency for that purpose.    Margaret Okuzumi  1 A Proposal for Restructuring Transportation Governance in Santa Clara County By Margaret Okuzumi BayRail Allianceemail: okuzumi@silcon.com(408) 732-8712 January 27, 2005 version 1.2 Executive Summary This white paper outlines a proposal for restructuring transportation governance in Santa ClaraCounty. Santa Clara County has a combined transit agency and congestion management agency structure that differs significantly from most others in the U.S. Flaws in this structure have created myriad problems in representation, accountability and performance of the agencythat have made headlines, and stimulated the production of a scathing report by the CountyCivil Grand Jury. This paper examines these problems in depth in order to facilitate reform. It identifies structural elements that contribute to effective governance, and analyzes the Santa ClaraValley Transportation Authority’s problems in relation to these elements. These structuralelements were derived from research, including interviews with fifteen current and former transit agency board members, staff, and experts as listed in Appendix A, as well as the experience of this author in several years of observing VTA. The proposal for restructuring the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) set forth in this paper was developed after much careful deliberation and research into of the practices and experiences of other jurisdictions. Based upon an examination of the structural elements required for effective governance, it is recommended that VTA be split into fourseparate entities: 1) a combined congestion management agency and transportation sales tax authority comprised of appointed representatives from all of the cities and the county, that prepares the countywide transportation plan and programs state transportation funds; 2) a transit agency governed by a smaller board of appointed members that is in charge of transitplanning, transit operations and smaller transit-related construction projects; 3) an entity thatoversees the construction of large transit and road capital projects, and 4) an independent financial oversight agency to review the performance of the VTA and its constituent agencies. Such a restructuring would greatly decrease problems of representation, expertise, and accountability within VTA, and would bring transportation governance in Santa Clara County closer to conventional practices proven elsewhere. 2 A Proposal for Restructuring Transportation Governance in Santa Clara County Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................1 LEARNING FROM OTHER JURISDICTIONS: CHARACTERISTICS OF STRUCTURE AND PRACTICE THAT FACILITATE EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE ...............................4 1. FISCAL OVERSIGHT ............................................................................................................4 2. INTERAGENCY COORDINATION ..........................................................................................5 3. STRONG STAFF/BOARD PARTNERSHIP ...............................................................................5 4. BROAD, FORMALIZED COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION AND INVOLVEMENT....................65. EFFECTIVE POLITICAL PRESENCE.......................................................................................66. EXPERTISE OF THE BOARD..................................................................................................7 7. FAIR AND BALANCED REPRESENTATION...........................................................................7 8. SMALL BOARD SIZE, OR ELSE EFFECTIVE COMMITTEES...................................................8 ADDITIONAL CHARACTERISTICS AND FACTORS ....................................................................8 PROBLEMS WITH VTA ......................................................................................................9 HEADLINES..............................................................................................................................9 PROBLEMS WITH REPRESENTATION .....................................................................................11 WEAK STAFF/BOARD PARTNERSHIP ....................................................................................12 WEAK COMMITTEES .............................................................................................................12DEFICIENT COMMUNITY REPRESENTATION AND INVOLVEMENT........................................14LACK OF EXPERTISE .............................................................................................................15 NO INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT OF THE 2000 MEASURE A PROGRAM..................................16 THE RESULT ..........................................................................................................................16 WHY DIRECTLY-ELECTED BOARD MEMBERS ARE PROBABLY NOT THEBEST SOLUTION FOR VTA.............................................................................................18 PROPOSED STRUCTURE.................................................................................................20 CMA/SALES TAX AUTHORITY ................................................................................................20 TRANSIT AGENCY .................................................................................................................21CONSTRUCTION AGENCY......................................................................................................22OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL..........................................................................................22 HOW THIS PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE.......23 Appendix A: SourcesAppendix B: Population of Santa Clara CountyAppendix C: Proposed Restructuring of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authorityin Chart Form Appendix D: Structure of Transportation Governance in San Mateo CountyAppendix E: Some Comments on Achieving a Transportation and Land Use ConnectionAppendix F: VTA Performance Compared to other Bay Area Transit OperatorsAppendix G: Memo by the Mayor of San Jose and other San Jose VTA Directors 3 Background Members of the community have become increasingly vocal in calling for reform of the SantaClara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), an agency responsible for congestionmanagement oversight, transit operations, and many road and transit projects within Santa Clara County. VTA has experienced multiple problems since its formation in 1995. It is among the worst-performing and least efficient transit agencies in the country. It has severefinancial problems that negatively affect its ability to provide quality transit service. Theseproblems have been made particularly visible by an economic recession, but a recent performance audit conducted by MTC shows that VTA performs poorly even on metrics that are independent of either revenue or cost of living, such as service hours per full time equivalent employee hours (see Appendix F). In addition, operating expenses at VTA beganto outpace sales tax revenues during boom times. Last year, the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury investigated VTA and recommended, among other things, that legislation be passed to restructure VTA. The Grand Jury suggested that the responsiveness of the transit agency could be increased by creating a smaller board ofeither directly-elected or appointed members who govern the agency as a primary rather than a secondary responsibility. However, VTA is a combined congestion management agency (CMA), transportation sales tax authority and transit agency. The Grand Jury report did not consider how such a restructured agency would comply with requirements for congestionmanagement agencies that were initially enacted by Proposition 111 in 1990 as well as bysubsequent acts of the California legislature, or with similar federal requirements. This paper explores these issues in greater depth and proposes a solution that would comply with these requirements. Santa Clara County has a combined transit agency, CMA and sales tax authority structure that is quite different from most others in the U.S. It is extremely unusual to have an entity that is both a transit agency and CMA. In the vast majority of jurisdictions that have transit service, the transit agency and the CMA (or CMA equivalent, for entities outside of California) areseparate agencies. One jurisdiction that does have an agency similar to VTA, the Los Angeles MTA, has also been continually plagued with problems and calls for restructuring the composition of its governing board. VTA has a 17-member Board of Directors, all of whom are elected officials appointed toserve by the jurisdictions they represent. Fourteen Directors are city council members and three Directors are County Supervisors. Twelve of these Directors serve as voting members, and the other five Directors are designated as alternate voting members when a voting member is unable to attend a meeting. Specifically, the board is comprised of ♦ 5 members from “Group 1” representing the City of San Jose, appointed by its mayor,plus one alternate ♦ 3 members plus one alternate from “Group 2” cities (Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale) ♦ 1 member plus one alternate from “Group 3” cities (Campbell, Cupertino, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Saratoga) ♦ 1 member plus one alternate from “Group 4” cities (Gilroy, Milpitas, Morgan Hill) ♦ 2 county supervisors plus one alternate 4 In addition there are two Ex-Officio (non-voting) board members who are the County’s appointees to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The theory guiding the formation of VTA originally was that a consolidation of functions andrepresentation would result in greater efficiency and improved coordination of transportation and land use. VTA was initially proclaimed a “successful experiment” by its architects. Unfortunately, time has revealed myriad problems inherent to the structure of the agency thatrequire reform. Learning from Other Jurisdictions: Characteristics of Structure and Practice That Facilitate Effective Governance Research identified the following characteristics of structure as crucial to success of the government enterprise: 1. Fiscal Oversight2. Interagency Coordination 3. Strong Staff/Board Partnership 4. Broad, Formalized Community Representation and Involvement 5. Effective Political Presence6. Expertise of the Board7. Fair and Balanced Representation 8. Small Board Size, or Else Effective Committees A weakness or lack in any of these eight areas creates conditions that may breed dysfunction,corruption and costly mistakes. Conversely, the combination of these elements produces robust institutions that strengthen governance. It is instructive to consider each of these in turn: 1. Fiscal Oversight Several people interviewed for this research emphasized that it is critically important to separate the agency that handles construction or operations, from the agency that disbursesfunding, so that there is financial oversight. For example, in the case of the current Santa Clara County 1996 Measure B program, VTA is in charge of construction and management of large capital projects, while the County of Santa Clara administers the Measure B sales tax funds and provides financial oversight. The experience of this author while serving on the Santa Clara County Measure B Citizens Watchdog Committee is that such independent county oversight helped to detect and prevent accounting irregularities on the part of VTA in the construction of large capital projects. To cite another example, because the Los Angeles MTA both administers and constructs projects in its jurisdiction, the agency was more easily able to conceal financial problems in the construction of the Red Line until it created a severe crisis for the agency. The crisis could have become even worse were it not for the presence of the LA MTA Office ofInspector General, which issued blistering audits of the transit agency. 5 The New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority Office of Inspector General (NY MTA OIG) is an independent oversight agency that reviews the operations of the NY MTA and itsconstituent agencies. NY MTA recently completed a reorganization that splits the agenciesinto four separate operating divisions for its bus, subway, commuter rail lines; another for its bridges and tunnels; and a sixth division that is charged with the construction of large capital projects. The NY MTA OIG conducts investigations, audits, and other studies focusing on theMTA's performance in order to enhance the efficiency, effectiveness, safety, and quality of itsagencies' operations. It’s interesting to note that the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), created by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 to oversee the auditors of public companies, itselfhas an Office of Internal Oversight and Performance Assurance. The concept of an OIG is a well-established one, and for many years has been a part of the institution of federal agencies such as the US DOJ, US DOT, US EPA, HSS, SSA etc. Additional information about the LA MTA OIG, the NY MTA OIG, and the Office of Internal Oversight for PCAOB, can be found in the documents listed in Appendix A. 2. Interagency Coordination While specialization helps agencies to achieve efficiency and expertise, the results can be disastrous when the work of these agencies is not coordinated. For example, San Franciscoexperienced problems with a proposed Bus Rapid Transit project when the public worksdepartment proceeded to allow major construction on an important corridor street to complete the under-grounding of some utilities. San Francisco law stipulates that when major construction takes place, no further disruption is allowed to the street for the next five years, to minimize repeated debilitating disruptions to neighborhoods. By permitting the utilityproject to proceed without coordinating with other agencies, the public works department endangered the completion of the Bus Rapid Transit project. After this and other instances where lack of coordination caused projects to go awry andescalate in cost, reforms were implemented in San Francisco to improve coordination betweenthe agencies. 3. Strong Staff/Board Partnership Many emphasized the need for strong staff leadership and communication with board members. This is particularly important where board members are lacking expertise and time to understand the details of the decisions they are making. Over time, the personal attentionand expertise that staff provides helps to board members to develop expertise, and improvesthe quality of governance. Staff expertise and support can be critically important in helping the board as a whole to comprehend and support complex or cutting-edge initiatives, such as ones that are proposedby a minority of board members who do have substantial expertise in the work of the agency. 6 A strong staff/board partnership is not necessarily something that can be codified into the governance of an agency. However, when the composition of a board is such that is itadvantageous for staff to be responsive to only a single controlling interest rather than to theboard as a whole, as in the case of VTA, the staff/board partnership is undermined. Examples of exemplary staff partnership behavior that were mentioned to us include: theefforts of Mike Evanhoe, former division director of VTA’s Congestion ManagementProgram, who offered to meet with each board member before every board meeting to go over items on the agenda and any answer questions; and similar efforts by Dennis Fay, the executive director of Alameda County’s CMA. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District was also cited as currrently having an exemplary staff/board partnership that hasimproved the governance of the agency. A common issue for many boards (although not for VTA thus far, for reasons explained later) is the fine line between governance, and micro-management of operations. The latter causes friction with staff and hinders staff’s ability to perform its duties. A well-functioning boardunderstands the difference between governance and micro-management, although the line can sometimes be blurry. Page 7-8 of Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) Web Document 24 (see Appendix A) has a further discussion of this topic. 4. Broad, Formalized Community Representation and Involvement Government functions most smoothly when feedback from a broad array of interests isreceived early in a process. A structure that formally incorporates representation andexpertise from various interest groups within the community, strengthens governance by revealing potential conflicts at an early stage, and provides a forum in which substantive policy discussions can take place. San Mateo County has codified a structure that formally incorporates input from a broad spectrum of the community into its transportation decision-making, as outlined in Appendix D. This structure facilitated the development of consensus within the county that resulted in a 75% voter approval for the renewal of Measure A, a half cent county sales tax andexpenditure plan for transportation, on the ballot last November. The NY MTA has incorporated six seats on its board from interest groups: three major transportation labor unions and the three major riders councils each have a non-voting seat. In addition, it has a formal, staffed Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee which requires allits members to be regular users of the transit system. This structure appears to strengthen NYMTA’s accountability and responsiveness to the community. 5. Effective Political Presence An effective board is politically astute and works to maintain a visible and positive presence within the community. Board members reach out to interest groups, other officials, and city staff to obtain input on issues and to generally educate others about the work of the agency. 7 This outreach and connection back into the community helps the agency to obtain support for funding and legislation, and to accomplish its mission. This characteristic is not necessarily one that is specific to structure, but some aspects ofstructure may affect the development of this characteristic. For example, having directly- elected agency representatives is commonly perceived to weaken ties between the agency and other elected officials and jurisdictions in a service area, which may harm the agency. On theother hand, some directly-elected special district board members have been more committed,focused and pro-active in their outreach efforts than their appointed colleagues. A few directly-elected transit agency directors have been known for their outstanding outreach efforts to other local elected officials. One observer expressed that when agency service is the only means though which a directly-elected director may gain public visibility, directors like “getting press” and frequently draw attention to matters through controversy, which creates negative press that can be detrimental to the agency. A few feel that appointed elected officials are too time-pressed to engage in significant outreach, let alone their basic governance duties, especially if they are part-time officials to begin with (as in the case of smaller cities with council members who are volunteers rather than full-time elected officials). But many people expressed that having directors who areappointed by elected officials (whether or not those appointees are themselves electedofficials), inherently helps to elevate the public profile of the agency and cultivates political connections as well as board member skills necessary for the agency’s success. 6. Expertise of the Board Board members should collectively have expertise in all aspects important to the functioning of the agency in order to govern well. Specialized knowledge of best practices and of newideas in the industry; financial, legal, human resources and engineering expertise, and familiarity with contracting and labor negotiations is desirable. This may require appointments made in an intentional, thoughtful fashion to “round out” a board, or other forms of pro-active recruitment to augment the collective skills and knowledge of the board.For example, SamTrans in San Mateo County has a board seat reserved for an appointed“transit expert”. Additionally, board terms must be sufficiently long enough for new directors to gain expertise and to become effective board members. It was commonly expressed that it takes a minimumof two years for directors to get “up to speed”, and that a minimum board service term lengthof four years was desirable. 7. Fair and Balanced Representation Effective governance requires balancing local and regional interests. Board composition should not be solely comprised of local interests, but include some at-large membership that is attuned and responsive to the overall agency or regional picture. This prevents the occurrenceof “horse-trading” for support of local projects without subjecting them to due scrutiny. 8 Local representatives, on the other hand, are important in advocating for specific needs within a local community that may be overlooked by a bureaucracy that is focused on the overallpicture for the agency. Another critical aspect of representation, is a structure that is not easily dominated or susceptible to takeover by a single interest. When strategic appointments can allow a single interest or a single city to control the board, the agency produces decisions that hurt theagency as a whole. 8. Small Board Size, or Else Effective Committees Studies in the field of group dynamics, as well as anecdotal evidence about board size, frequently mention the number seven as an effective board size for making decisions and having discussions. As board size increases, up to a maximum of 24 people, it becomes correspondingly difficult for the board to hold discussions and to make decisions. In some cases there is good reason to have a large board, such as when representation from many constituencies is important. A large board can be made functional when most of the work of the board is done in subcommittees, as long as members serve on no more than onesubcommittee and are not too spread thin. It’s important for the sub- and advisory committees of a large board to have adequate staff support, training and resources. For example, San Mateo C/CAG (San Mateo County’sCMA) provides significant staff support to both its main and advisory committees, which arekey to the ability of these bodies to perform effectively. Additional Characteristics and Factors A list of characteristics of effective transit board members and transit boards has been compiled in Chapter 6 of TCRP Report 85 (see Appendix A), as well as TCRP Web Document 21. A few of the characteristics identified in those documents overlap with theones identified here, but most of them relate to board member personality, individual skills,and other board culture issues that are independent of structure. Chapters 4 and 5 of TCRP Report 85 mention a few structural elements, and also outlines key roles and responsibilities of a transit board. Even when all structural elements are present and functioning well, external environmentaland cultural factors can create problems for an agency. For example, currently many transit agencies struggle with federal and state regulations that make it much easier to obtain monies for capital projects than for operations. This creates pressures on agencies to build projectsthat they have difficulty operating. The focus of this white paper, however, is upon internalstructural elements that are within the control of a single agency and which can be more easily reformed to create conditions under which effective governance can develop. 9 Problems with VTA Headlines A sampling of headlines published in local papers over the past few years illustrates some of the problems facing VTA: “Most local bus lines face reductions: Valley transit agency in steep financial crisis; meeting in Palo Alto”, Wednesday, December 4, 2002, Palo Alto Weekly “Transit agency to unveil list of possible cuts: VTA facing drastic reductions”, Thursday, December 12, 2002, San Jose Mercury News “VTA cuts would leave many riders waiting: Transit agency proposing reduction of service on 65 of 72 bus lines”, Wednesday, December 25, 2002, San Jose Mercury News “Cuts at VTA fail to stop bleeding; Service could fall 10%, fares rise by summer”, Thursday, January 30, 2003, San Jose Mercury News “VTA slashes service”, Friday, February 7, 2003, San Jose Business Journal “VTA change needed”, Editorial by Palo Alto Daily News, Friday, February 21, 2003 “Service cuts will impact bus lines, some light rail; Bus riders will face reduced service on 64 of 72 routes”, Thursday, March 6, 2003, Milpitas Post “VTA's plight partly its own doing; Rosy economic forecast worsened budget woes”, Monday, March 17, 2003, San Jose Mercury News “More transit cuts weighed”, Saturday, March 22, 2003, San Jose Mercury News “Service may be cut on new light-rail lines; VTA says fewer trains would save money”, Sunday, April 6, 2003, San Jose Mercury News “San Jose BART line to cost $100 per rider”, Friday, April 4, 2003, East Bay Business Times “VTA on the brink of bankruptcy”, Friday, April 11, 2003, Gilroy Dispatch “Valley transit riders grapple with cuts; More transfers and longer commute times begin”, Tuesday, April 15, 2003, San Jose Mercury News “VTA should cut wages, not service”, Editorial by the Gilroy Dispatch, Tuesday, April 22, 2003. “Dire VTA budget plan; New, drastic cuts proposed; 400 could be laid off and service slashed to '81 levels”, Saturday, April 26, 2003, San Jose Mercury News “VTA backs major cuts”, Saturday, May 10, 2003, San Jose Mercury News “VTA mulls deep cuts, layoffs”, Monday, May 12, 2003, Gilroy Dispatch 10 “Transit board set to OK major service cutbacks; Riders tell how bus cuts would affect them”, Monday, June 2, 2003, San Jose Mercury News “Transit agency delays cuts in service, raises fares; Vote puts off possible reductions until January”, Friday, June 6, 2003, San Jose Mercury News “ACE train losing VTA funding, oversight”, Friday, June 13, 2003, San Jose Business Journal “VTA borrowing plan: dumb and dumber”, Editorial by the Gilroy Dispatch, Tuesday, August 19, 2003 “Cities say VTA board should be enlarged”, Friday, September 12, 2003, San Jose Business Journal “Cities push transit agency”, Thursday, October 9, 2003, San Jose Mercury News “Ridership hits the skids for valley buses, trolleys; Service cuts, fare increases, economy cited for drop”, Sunday, December 7, 2003, San Jose Mercury News “Key pair in VTA operation leaving; Husband-wife team going to Michigan”, Tuesday, January 6, 2004, San Jose Mercury News “VTA costs are out of control; Its $134-an-hour per bus is far higher than other agencies” op- ed by Mountain View councilmember Greg Perry published Wednesday, January 28, 2004, in the San Jose Mercury News “Light-rail Woes Grow: Cost of running VTA trolleys soars while ridership has plummeted”, Saturday, February 7, 2004, San Jose Mercury News. “Palo Alto asks VTA for equity,” Wednesday, March 17, 2004, page 5, Palo Alto Weekly “Palo Alto officials fear VTA Squeeze”, Friday, March 26, 2004, page 5, Palo Alto Weekly, “City fights BART squeeze: Council Members say Giant S.J. Transit Job will Trump Local Projects”, Mountain View Voice, Friday, March 26, 2004, front page. “[VTA] Project fares poorly under federal guidelines; Lowest rating for cost-effectiveness”, Sunday, May 9, 2004, San Jose Mercury News “Grand jury raps BART linkup to San Jose; Report blames Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority for financial mismanagement of sales tax money”, Tuesday, June 22, 2004, Oakland Tribune “VTA faces harsh criticism; Report recommends scrapping BART project, dissolving board”, Friday, June 25, 2004, Mountain View Voice “Negative report [about VTA] called ‘predictable’”, Sunday, June 27, 2004, Palo Alto Daily News “Pull the plug on VTA: elect and reorganize,” Editorial published Tuesday, June 29, 2004, in the Gilroy Dispatch 11 “Memos link tax, transit agency effort; VTA officials deny political role for $7.7 million image push”, Thursday, September 23, 2004, San Jose Mercury News “Transit agency mishandled accident case,” Sunday, October 17, 2004, in the San Jose Mercury News “How to fix the VTA board,” Editorial published Sunday, November 21, 2004, in the San Jose Mercury News “Light Rail Smoke Screen,” Wednesday, December 22, 2004, in the San Jose Metro “Valley transit fares to rise again; STARTING JAN. 1, SHARP RISE IN FEES FOR SPECIALTY GROUPS, SINGLE RIDERS,” Wednesday, December 22, 2004, in the San Jose Mercury News "Today's [VTA] fare hikes hit teens, seniors, disabled hardest," Saturday, January 1, 2005, San Jose Mercury News “Board should order a thorough audit of VTA's efficiency, effectiveness,” Editorial published Sunday, January 9, 2005, in the San Jose Mercury News There are a number of structural elements that contribute to problems at VTA. These include: Problems with Representation There are two main structural problems with representation at VTA at present. The first isthat the structure inherently weakens the ability of non-San Jose directors to represent the interests of the remaining fourteen cities in the county. The second is that the composition of board is such that a single person, the mayor of San Jose, wields disproportionate power and essentially controls the board. Directors serving in the rotating city seats serve 2-year terms, as dictated by the enabling legislation creating VTA, whereas San Jose members have “permanent” seats. This in and of itself creates an imbalance of power, as San Jose members have greater opportunity todevelop and control institutional memory and expertise compared to most of the other boardmembers. Another problem is unequal access to resources, as the full-time elected officials from San Jose have full-time staff to assist them, while part-time elected officials on the board from thesmaller cities generally get comparatively little support. There is also the issue of the very odd “Group 4” seat grouping, where the “leftover” cities of Milpitas, Morgan Hill and Gilroy, with disparate interests and geography, are made to share arotating seat. In the other shared-seat groupings, cities wait years to have a representativewho serves a 2-year term before being rotated off the board. San Jose's Mayor has the power to appoint all five of the San Jose VTA board directors, giving him disproportionate power. These seats are not term-limited other than by the term 12 limits on San Jose city council members, so VTA board members from San Jose may serve for as long as eight years, or longer if they are subsequently elected Mayor. The Mayor's office directs San Jose board members on what position to take before the VTAboard meetings, and disagreement is not tolerated. For example, several years ago San Jose council member Linda LeZotte, an appointee to VTA, dared to disagree with the Mayor and voted differently from him on the issue of converting VTA's diesel buses to natural gas.Before the day was over, the Mayor had removed Ms. LeZotte from the VTA board andappointed another council member in her place. While numerically speaking it is theoretically possible for city of San Jose members to be unable to obtain the majority of the board vote, in practice this has almost never happened.They need only to convince two other board members to vote with them (or just one if evenone of the non-city-of-San-Jose board members is absent that day), and can usually broker an understanding with members who are desirous of San Jose's support for a local project in their district. There have been instances where the Mayor has produced a memo with all of the San Jose members' signatures on it, on VTA letterhead no less, right before a VTA board meeting outlining their policy position, in order to send a message to the other VTA board members. See Appendix G for one such memo. Weak Staff/Board Partnership Because the San Jose Mayor has power over a near majority of the board, VTA GeneralManager is mostly answerable to him. There have been spectacular clashes between the General Manager and board directors from other cities. The General Manager has been less responsive, and at times even impertinent, to the other directors because he knows they will be rotated off the board soon. The General Manager knows that as long as he keeps the San JoseMayor happy, he will keep his job. Weak Committees The weakness of the advisory committees of the Santa Clara VTA contrasts sharply with the strength of committees in neighboring San Mateo County, where advisory committees wield great influence. There are several advisory committees to San Mateo C/CAG. Two of the main ones are comprised of public works and city planning directors, and members of thepublic along with some elected officials (see Appendix D). At San Mateo C/CAG, staff have a vested interest in seeing to it that issues are resolved at the committee level so that things go smoothly at the board level. Significant policy discussionstake place at the committee level. Frequently, complex or controversial items will remain atthe committee level for months, and be referred back and forth between committees until the committees come to an agreement, before staff brings the matter back to the full board for approval. The C/CAG staff is responsive to all of the board and committee members and spends a lot of time helping members to understand the agenda items at hand. 13 In cases where policy direction from the board will help the committees work out the details, the C/CAG board is asked to provide some policy direction, but then the details are worked out in the committees before the agenda item is brought back to the board for a vote. Therecommendations of the committees are given serious weight by the board, and very rarelydoes the board overrule them. In fact recently an issue arose where the committees favored one position and the C/CAG staff favored an opposing position, and the C/CAG board voted to support the committees' recommendation. Now, let’s examine the situation in Santa Clara County. The VTA Policy Advisory Committee (PAC) consists of one city council member from each of the 15 cities and one member from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. The VTA Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) consists of 17 members, representing business, labor, environmental, andother community interests. While there are some deficiencies in representation, the spectrum of community interests incorporated into these and other VTA advisory committees is reasonably good. Whether feedback from these committees is actually taken under advisement by the board is anothermatter. The VTA board generally does not receive formal input from the committees other than through the meeting minutes that are included in the voluminous board packet. In recent months, the VTA board has been receiving a short verbal report from the PAC chair at their meetings, but not from the CAC. Some PAC members have resorted to providing input to theboard during the 2-minute public comment period. Historically, many agenda items have not been brought before the advisory committees in a timely fashion, before the VTA board was asked to make a decision. More recently thesituation has improved, but this has been heavily dependent on the initiative of particular staff. The VTA CAC has had great difficulties obtaining a quorum. In 2004, the CAC had five cancelled meetings, three meetings that did not have a quorum, and only four meetings with a quorum for at least part of the meeting. In 2003, the CAC had three cancelled meetings, fourmeetings that did not have a quorum, and five meetings with a quorum for at least part of the meeting. In order to help produce a quorum, the by-laws of the committee were amended to remove term limits for its members. Appointments to fill CAC vacancies have not been made in a timely fashion, for example, tofill the city of San Jose-appointed seat, even though qualified candidates had applied. Interest groups have also been slow to fill their vacancies on the CAC. Given the perceived limited influence of the committee, perhaps they did not consider it worth their time. In the past two months, with most vacancies finally having been filled, the CAC has been ableto obtain a quorum. However, the January 2005 CAC meeting was cancelled by VTA staff without any explanation and without prior notice to the CAC chair. The PAC, which is comprised of elected officials, has had more success than the CAC inobtaining attention, although not necessarily influence. The PAC’s bylaws are in the process of being amended to allow the PAC to control its own agenda, and the PAC chair works informally with the VTA board chair to discuss potential agenda items. The PAC chair has a chance to give a verbal report to the VTA board at the beginning of VTA board meetings. 14 Input from VTA's several advisory committees does not often lead to discussion by the VTA board and there has historically been little follow up. For example, twice the PAC requested for alternative proposals to be developed for the 2030 Valley Transportation Plan, only to getno response from the board. It’s interesting to note that the San Jose Mayor, after removingMs. LeZotte from the VTA board, appointed her to the PAC. In addition, the VTA board has almost completely disregarded several resolutions andrequests from the County Board of Supervisors to consider changes to VTA’s plans or policy.For example, the County Supervisors recommended against VTA issuing $170 million in bonds to pay for preliminary engineering for the BART extension until basic bus and light rail operations were financially stabilized. The VTA PAC, a few months later, also voted to recommend that the board suspend funding for the BART project. The efforts by thesegoverning entities, after being decried by the San Jose contingent, neither produced significantboard level discussion about the matter nor significantly impacted the outcome of the board’s votes. The County Supervisors also requested that VTA study phasing the BART project. Theadoption of this recommendation was also successfully blocked by the San Jose contingent, although a more vigorous debate ensued. The city of San Jose contingent was unable to pass a resolution to completely bar the recommendation from ever being considered again, but only because one of their appointed seats was vacant at the time.1 To summarize, the process by which the VTA board considers feedback from advisory committees is weak, one of its major committees is also very weak, and even when recommendations are made to the board in a forceful manner, it often fails to producesubstantive policy discussions at the board level. Some VTA board members have sadlynoted that when they attempt to engage the board in substantive policy discussions they are quickly chided by city of San Jose board members and unable to engage the board in dialogue, as if such discussions are not permitted. Even in those rare cases where debate does ensue, the outcome of the board vote, is essentially determined by the San Jose Mayor. It would benefit VTA, in the interests of democracy as well as good governance, to have a strengthened committee decision-making structure and process. Clearly the architects of VTAintended for this to be the case because they created committees as comprehensive in makeupas San Mateo County's. In practice though, it is not advantageous for VTA staff to strengthen the committee process, because the structure of the VTA board is such that the General Manager's primary task is to carry out the political agenda of the Mayor of San Jose. Deficient Community Representation and Involvement While historically more powerful and established constituencies such as labor and businesshave had representation on VTA’s CAC, there are almost no regular transit riders on any of VTA’s advisory committees and none on the board. When there is a major proposal before 1 The seat had just been vacated by council member Pat Dando, who was term-limited out of office, and the Mayor had not yet appointed a new member to take her place. The city’s alternate was filling in for the Mayor, who was on a trip out of town. 15 VTA such as a restructuring of service or fare hikes, the people who are most affected by the changes are often the last to know. VTA follows the letter of the law in its outreach efforts, but falls short in followingenvironmental justice principles. Local community groups are not directly notified about proposed changes. Local activists must constantly monitor VTA’s web site to learn about them or be diligent about picking up literature on VTA buses or be lucky enough to spot an adin the newspaper. Partly because of this lack of outreach, public meetings are sparselyattended. As a result, VTA, for all its wealth (and VTA is extremely wealthy compared to most other transit districts offering comparable service), has been less than cutting-edge in its strategiesand policies to improve the public transit service. Very little thought is given at the boardlevel to the needs of transit riders, especially those of transit-dependent riders. While other agencies proceed with initiatives like real-time information systems and rapid-bus expansion plans, these relatively inexpensive projects have proceeded only very slowly at VTA and as this author perceives it, primarily because of the efforts of some conscientious staff. Lack of Expertise Lack of expertise on the board is created by a combination of structurally-influenced factors.The first, as mentioned previously, is the short 2-year term length of a number of the board members. Although generally these board members have had previous exposure to VTA through service on the PAC, there is still a learning curve, and by the time those directors gainenough familiarity with VTA to become effective, they are rotated off. Because the structure is such that it is not advantageous for VTA staff to provide much support to the non-San Jose board members from smaller cities (who are the most in need of VTA staff support), it creates a further barrier for those members to gain expertise. Someboard members have complained that they have difficulty getting the time of day from the General Manager. The third problem is that all of the board members are elected officials whose primaryresponsibilities lie elsewhere. They have difficulty making enough time to keep up withagenda items, let alone to research industry practices or develop expertise in the field. Then there is the strange “alternate voting member” structure of the board. While they are invited to participate fully in board workshops (as opposed to board meetings), some do notattend board meetings unless they have been specifically requested to substitute for a votingmember at a particular meeting. The board member alternates do not participate in closed sessions, unless they are substituting for the usual voting board member at that meeting. The alternate board member is instructed on how to vote by the usual voting member, and becauseof incomplete participation in board meetings, can lack information or expertise to dealappropriately with additional information that might arise during the board meeting before casting their vote. While this is an unusual arrangement among special districts, the designation of alternate members is also practiced by San Mateo County C/CAG and the Alameda County CMA. 16 No Independent Oversight of the 2000 Measure A program This structural issue has already created controversy for VTA, even though monies have yet to be collected from the 2000 Measure A sales (which begins collecting revenue in the year 2006 at the expiration of the 10-year, 1996 Measure B sales tax). As discussed previously, theCounty Supervisors requested VTA to refrain from issuing $170 million in bonds to pay forpreliminary engineering for the BART extension, to no avail, even though the early borrowing has tremendous impacts on the ability of VTA to carry out its 30-year expenditure program. An even larger community furor erupted when public transit advocates requested that VTA borrow against future Measure A revenues to prevent massive service cuts to the existing bussystem and the board agreed to authorize staff to issue such bonds.2 Because the 2000 Measure A sales tax was created with VTA as the sponsoring sales tax authority, rather than the county, there will no longer be independent oversight of the additional ½ cent sales tax for transportation. In lieu of a County Citizens WatchdogCommittee that oversees the audits of the expenditures, the oversight committee will now be the VTA CAC, which as we have seen, is a weak and heavily staff-driven committee with no term limits for 30+ years. (It should be noted that this author is a member of the VTA CAC, appointed to the north county cities’ seat last October.) This loss of independent oversight alone, and the need to rectify this, should be reason enough for restructuring VTA, as the potential for abuse is extremely high and should be great cause for alarm. The Result These structurally-imposed weaknesses in VTA’s governance, have created an agency where: ♦ The Board is in control of the spending of billions of dollars but Board members are less than conversant about the agency’s financial performance. They get three different unlinked income statements. One is for Measure A capital, one for operations and one forthe all of VTA’s income sources. A comprehensive financial forecast for the entireagency doesn’t exist. Because all projected revenues and expenses for the agency are not combined in one statement, items such as repayment of interest expense, the cost of replacement capital or maintenance, and cash flows are obscured, omitted, or implied to exist in the other documents (but then aren’t included in those documents). No one canunderstand the whole picture even after many hours of effort, which none of the Board members are able to devote. ♦ Operating expenses nearly exceeded total sales tax revenue in 1999 and 2000, and exceeded it in 2001, with the board hardly even noticing, and without any concern on the 2 It should be noted that nearly 18 months later, however, not a penny of the bonds to pay for bus operations has actually been issued. 17 part of the board. Operating expenses rose by $150 million/year (by 75%, to a total of $350 million/year) between 1999 and 2002, again, with the board hardly blinking. ♦ Operations have become unsustainable. Expenditures exceed revenues, and the agencyhas had to reduce transit service multiple times. The agency still faces a structural deficitin the range of $50-$100 million/year. Amazingly, decisions by the Board threaten to worsen this structural deficit. The poor decisions by the Board have hit bus riders hard as bus service is cut to subsidize under-performing light rail operations, and transit fares aresteeply increased. ♦ The VTA’s general manager censors information presented to the board. For example, the board has never received a presentation of MTC’s triennial audits of the agency, even though the consultant who conducted the audit was willing and available to make apresentation to the Board and MTC would cover the consultant’s travel expenses. Thegeneral manager’s policy was to not let anyone besides his staff make presentations to the board. The Board did not ask to receive a presentation although they did receive a copy of the recent (December 2004) audit report, chock-full of troubling findings, in their voluminous packet of materials. ♦ Micro-management is far from being an issue. The board concerns itself largely with planning and programming functions rather than oversight of the operations of the transit agency. For one thing, the short length of many of the board members’ terms does little to encourage concern over the long-term impacts of their decisions on transit agencyoperations. VTA is a transit agency, but this author has yet to hear the performance of thebus system discussed at any of the Board meetings. Board agenda items are primarily focused on issuance of contracts, programming funds and occasion approvals for next steps in the progress of large capital projects. While the buses are mostly on time at present, on-time performance could be at 80% or worse as far as the board knows. ♦ The Board rarely receives information about, let alone analyzes, the transit system’s performance or efficiency. Staff presents misleading metrics. VTA has never acknowledged that their light rail projects are “the slowest among comparable urban systems in the nation…the most costly to operate per passenger mile…[and] one of themost heavily subsidized transit operations in the country.”3 Instead, they keep buildingmore of the same. Projects are determined mostly on a political basis with no regard for efficiency, performance, or whether the agency can afford to build and operate them. ♦ Board members are so lacking in familiarity with the transit systems they oversee thatthey could not possibly be making informed decisions. For example, Supervisor Gagewho was chair of VTA this past year, mistakenly and repeatedly tried to explain to a member of the public during the public comment period at a VTA workshop two months ago that the Caltrain line was already partially electrified to Palo Alto. “We just need to finish the job to San Jose”, he explained to a shocked audience. He made this erroneousdeclaration despite the fact that he had been on the Caltrain board for nearly a year, and 3 “Light Rail's Long Ride: Comparative study puts network's numbers to test,” published Monday,April 28, 2003, in the San Jose Mercury News,http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/5734269.htm 18 the electrification of the line is a major issue for Caltrain. Likewise, some of the VTA Board members have never ridden a VTA bus, and none ride the bus even once a month, even though they have free passes to ride. ♦ Dissent within the representation from the city of San Jose is not tolerated, as discussed earlier. The people of San Jose do not have representatives who can adequately advocatefor local or differing interests within the city of San Jose, a city that is larger in populationand geographic area than San Francisco. ♦ VTA’s Transportation Corridor Policy Advisory Boards appear to independently determine VTA board decisions with regard to those projects, and the time-pressed board members seem content to let them progress with almost no board oversight. These policy advisory boards for the Downtown/East Valley Project, the Vasona Light Rail Project, theSilicon Valley Rapid Transit Corridor Project, and so forth, are comprised of electedofficials and a subset of VTA board members. These board members give a very perfunctory report back to the board if a report is given at all, and there is no discussion of the work of these Policy Advisory Boards at board meetings. ♦ The youth monthly fare price increased by 63 percent on Jan. 1, 2005 (and by 81% withina 3-year period, and by 123%, or more than double, within a 4-year period). The senior and disabled monthly fare price increased by 49 percent, all at once (and by 136% within a 3-year period, and by 189%, or nearly tripled within a 4-year period). Routes and service hours have been cut nearly 20%, and overall ridership continues to fall.4 Why Directly-Elected Board Members Are Probably Not the Best Solution for VTA One person noted, “The political culture of a place matters just as much as the structure does.”An examination of the political environment in Santa Clara County provides insights worth considering when determining whether one structure might be more appropriate than another. A number of people interviewed, expressed concern that special districts that have directlyelected boards are prone to electing poorly qualified candidates. One reason is because the specialized work of those agencies is often not well understood by the public and doesn’t attract enough attention for voters to be able to make informed decisions on board candidates, or to hold board members accountable for the work that they do. Another reason is thatoutcomes of direct elections for such specialized districts are particularly susceptible tobecoming controlled by interest groups, especially, groups that have an interest in weakening the agency’s oversight. 4 “According to VTA's ridership statistics from November 2003, VTA lost about 100,000 transit ridersbetween 2001 and 2003. During that time, Santa Clara County lost about 200,000 jobs. Factor in theU.S. Census Bureau's statistic of only 4% of County commuters using public transit, and only 10,000transit riders were lost due to the economic downturn between 2001-2003. The loss of the other 90,000transit riders is easily traced back to VTA's four service reductions resulting in nearly 20% of overallservice lost, and three fare hikes resulting in an average 50% increase in public transit fares. In otherwords, the County has reverted to 1991 in terms of public transit service throughout the county, with 21st century inflated transit fares.” – Analysis by VTA Riders Union, http://www.vtaridersunion.org/papers/moneyfornothing.html 19 Still others have found that directly-elected boards can govern adequately and can produce directors who are at least as accountable and responsive to the electorate as appointed boards.Some research suggests that it is often the case that community monitoring evolves to dealwith recurring problems, but only if local interest groups have sufficient strength to develop such monitoring. Such community monitoring is weak in Santa Clara County. Several persons noted that SanFrancisco and parts of Alameda County have a more politically astute and aware constituency than Santa Clara County does. A much higher percentage of the general population in those locations is actively engaged in political campaigns, and the endorsements of local papers and of interest groups such as the Sierra Club are more influential there. Therefore, elections forspecial districts in those politically-engaged communities receive heightened scrutiny, andunder-performing incumbents are much more likely to be removed by the electorate than would be the case in Santa Clara County today. One person suggested that because a transit agency delivers a tangible and visible service, itcould inherently receive more, and perhaps sufficient, attention than other types of special districts such as redevelopment agencies that are harder for the average voter to comprehend and hold accountable. However, in Santa Clara County, only about 3-4% of the population uses public transit, creating a much lower level of general public awareness about theperformance of the transit system than say, in San Francisco. Therefore, a directly-electedtransit board would likely be nearly invisible in the public eye much of the time, unless it is in deep crisis. Certainly it has been the case that the Santa Clara County Board of Education and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, both with directly-elected boards, have hardlyregistered in the general public’s awareness. It was also expressed that some public opposition could arise to direct elections because of the additional costs that would be incurred, over the appointed structure now in place. Only a handful of transit agencies in the U.S. that have directly-elected boards, and two of them are in the Bay Area: AC Transit and BART. Other boards with directly-elected members include RTD in Denver and the Salem Area Mass Transit District in Oregon. It is much more common for transit boards to be comprised of appointed members. Members areappointed through a variety of different mechanisms, such as appointment by elected officialsor appointment by joint powers authorities. Although there is great diversity in the structure of these boards, the appointed board created by those entities is typically comprised of members of the public or some combination of appointed members of the public and appointed local elected officials. The majority of VTA’s patrons are transit-dependent and have very low incomes. A combination of low public awareness about transit in Santa Clara County and class-related hurdles has meant that the needs of economically-disadvantaged riders have been neglected infavor of projects perceived to be attractive to a wealthier, suburban constituency. This type ofneglect could happen with either a directly-elected or an appointed board. However, with an appointed board there is greater opportunity to put mechanisms into place to ensure representation of the interests of transit-dependent riders in the policies and operations of the transit agency, for example, by requiring that a representative of the county’s social serviceagencies be appointed to the board. 20 With regard to the CMA function of VTA, while Prop. 111 requirements for the establishment of CMAs were overturned by subsequent California state legislation, in practice it is necessaryfor urbanized counties to have such a governing body in place in order to program statetransportation funds. Additionally, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC, the Bay Area’s federally-designated Metropolitan Planning Organization) in practice requires the preparation of a countywide transportation plan, and a prioritized expenditure plan, to includein its regional transportation plan in order to meet federal requirements. The creation of sucha plan requires a governing body that represents the interests of relevant local elected councils and agencies, which give input by having appointed officials on the governing board. Through the continued establishment of a CMA, the county will be able to receive state transportation funds, federal Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds and other fundsthat are apportioned to Urbanized Areas. It will also be able to enjoy certain benefits as wellas comply with the additional requirements of being a designated federal Transportation Management Area. Proposed Structure Based upon an examination of the structural elements required for effective governance, it is recommended that VTA be split into four separate entities: 1) a combined congestionmanagement agency and transportation sales tax authority comprised of appointedrepresentatives from all of the cities and the county, that prepares the countywide transportation plan, compiles the expenditure plan for the 2000 Measure A half cent sales tax, programs STP funds, and programs funding for the other three branches; 2) a transit agencygoverned by a smaller board of appointed members that is in charge of transit planning, transitoperations and smaller transit-related construction projects; 3) an entity that oversees the construction of large transit and road capital projects, and 4) an independent financial oversight agency to review the performance of the VTA and its constituent agencies. This proposed new structure and decision-making process is outlined in chart form in Appendix C. A proposed structure for each of the four entities follows: CMA/Sales Tax Authority This proposed structure and accompanying voting process is based on a hybrid of principles used by the CMAs of San Mateo County and Alameda County. Create a CMA board consisting of representatives from all fifteen cities in the county, fromthe county, and the transit agency. It shall consist of one council member from each city in the county (except San Jose) as appointed by each city; two members from the County Board of Supervisors appointed by the Board of Supervisors; one member of the transit agencyboard appointed by the transit agency board; and five representatives from the city of San Josewho shall be city council members of the City of San Jose, appointed by the city council. For purposes of weighting, each San Jose member’s vote will be considered to represent one- fifth of San Jose’s population, and other cities’ votes will be weighted by their population asbased on the last major U.S. census. Each county supervisor member’s vote shall be weighted 21 to represent half of the population of the unincorporated area of the county. The transit agency member’s vote shall not be considered in the calculation of weighted votes, but shall be counted in the tabulation of unweighted votes. Allocation of funds, final adoption of county-wide plans, or changes to the bylaws must receive just over half of the agency’s unweighted votes as well as represent the majority of the population of the county (as determined by the weighted votes) in order to pass. Resolutionsand other motions of the board, other than those pertaining to the allocation of funds, adoptionof county-wide plans or changes to the bylaws, may be passed by a simple majority of unweighted votes as long as quorum is achieved. It is not desirable to impose any term limits on CMA board members, as the experience of SanMateo County is that turnover will be frequent enough as it is from each of the cities. Citiesshould be encouraged to appoint members for 4-year terms. The PAC would no longer need to exist as such, because all cities would have voting representatives on the CMA board. Otherwise, the advisory committee structure could remainessentially the same as it is today, with perhaps some modification to the CAC to improve representation from communities of concern. VTA, whether the CMA or the transit agency, would require the approval of the CountyBoard of Supervisors to put transactions and use taxes on the ballot, as is the case in othercounties. However, the VTA shall have the ability to put property or parcel taxes on the ballot. Transit Agency Create a smaller appointed transit board with 7 members. Three shall be council members appointed at-large by the city selection committee with one representative each from “VTACity Groups” 2, 3, and 4 (as they are currently defined in the Background section of this paper). One member shall be a County Supervisor appointed by the county Board of Supervisors. One member shall be a council member from the city of San Jose, appointed by the San Jose City Council. Two shall be public members, “transit experts”, one who isappointed by the County Board of Supervisors, and one by the City Selection Committee.Public members cannot have held any local public elected office in the last two years, and should generally be chosen from among transit agency Citizens Advisory Committee members. The two public members must not reside in the same Group of residence (of Groups 1-5 as currently specified in the Background section of this paper). Of the directors appointed in the first set of appointments following the formation of the board, the Group 2 representative and one public member shall both serve a three-year term; the County Board representative shall serve a four-year term; the Group 3 representative andone public member shall serve a 2-year term; and the Group 1 and Group 4 representatives aone-year term, until their successors are appointed and qualified. Thereafter, each year, a number of directors corresponding to the number whose terms of office expire shall be appointed for the term of four years. Thus, 22 in year 4, VTA city group 2 representative is appointed, also one public member is appointed for a 4-year term by the County Board of Supervisors; year 5, a Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors member is appointed for a 4-year term;year 6, VTA city group 3 representative is appointed for a 4-year term, also one publicmember is appointed for a 4-year term by the City Selection Committee; year 7, VTA city groups 1 and 4 representatives are appointed for a 4-year term; year 8, repeat the above cycle If an appointed elected official ceases to hold elected office for reasons of term limits or for other reasons, then his or her seat on the transit agency shall be considered to be vacant. The appointing bodies shall meet to appoint an official to serve out the remainder of the term approximately 40 days after the general election, or else within 15 days of when the vacancyoccurs. Appointments by the City Selection Committee should be affirmed by the majority of cities represented , i.e. with 8 votes. If none of the candidates receive the required number of votes, then the City Selection Committee shall reconvene within 30 days to vote again on theappointments. The Transit Agency shall have a Citizens Advisory Committee that consists of two county social services agency representatives appointed by the county Board of Supervisors, tworepresentatives appointed by the South Bay Labor Council, and seven public membersappointed by the Transit Agency Board. Construction Agency Separate out the construction division to be a separate agency, with a head staff person appointed by the CMA board, in the manner of New York’s MTA Capital Construction Company. The construction agency shall be in charge of overseeing the construction of verylarge (multi-million dollar) transit and road capital projects. The agency will work with the CMA and the Transit Agency to determine the criteria by which projects will be assigned to Construction Agency vs. being controlled in-house by the transit agency or coordinated by the CMA with other agencies. These criteria will include but not be limited to consideration of:1) the number of agencies that need to be involved in the construction, 2) whether the projectis to construct a major new facility, or is primarily concerned with maintenance or repair, 3) whether or not the project requires extensive disruption of existing services that require close coordination with the operator of the services. Office of Inspector General Create an Office of Inspector General (OIG). The OIG shall report directly to the board of theCMA and monitors the CMA, transit agency and construction division. The agency shall bemodeled on the Los Angeles MTA OIG charter and set of responsibilities. The mission of the OIG, to take a page from the LA MTA, is: * To conduct investigations and audits relating to the programs, operations, and contracts ofVTA. 23 * To detect, investigate, deter, and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse in VTA programs, operations, and resources. * To provide the VTA Board and the CEO with independent, fair, and objective evaluationsand appraisals relating to utilization of VTA resources, adequacy of internal controls, andperformance effectiveness. The VTA OIG shall be a quasi law-enforcement agency endowed with powers to: * Have full, free, and unrestricted access to all VTA records, reports, audits, reviews, plans, documents, files, contracts, memoranda, correspondence, or other data, information, or materials of the VTA. * Have direct and prompt access to any VTA Board Member, officer, employee, or contractoras may be necessary to carry out the responsibilities of the OIG.* Make available to law enforcement agencies information and evidence which relate to criminal acts that may be obtained in the course of OIG duties. “The OIG’s strategy in carrying out its mission has been to make the Metro a more difficulttarget for fraudulent, wasteful, and abusive practices both from within Metro and externally. This is accomplished through an aggressive program of prevention activities carried out by a professional and skilled team of investigators and auditors.” – from http://www.mta.net/about_us/departments/oig/default.htm How this Proposed Restructuring Meets the Requirements for Good Governance ♦ Fiscal Oversight through the creation of the OIG and the creation of a ConstructionCompany and Transit Agency that is separate from the CMA ♦ Interagency Coordination handled by the CMA/Sales Tax Authority ♦ Strong Staff/Board Partnership made possible by rectifying representation and accountability problems that have weakened this partnership ♦ Broad, Formalized Community Representation and Involvement established through the advisory committees ♦ Effective Political Presence facilitated by having an appointed, rather than directly-electedboards. ♦ Expertise of the Board increased through removing the 2-year term limits, and through the appointment of expert public members to the transit agency. ♦ Fair and Balanced Representation that is not susceptible to hijacking by a single interest or entity, but requires mutual cooperation in order to conduct business. ♦ Small Board Size, or Else Effective Committees, for both the CMA and the Transit Agency Adoption of this proposed structure will make Santa Clara County’s transportation decision-making structure less of an outlier and more in line with proven conventional practices in other parts of the Bay Area and the nation. By paying attention to the structural requirements for good governance and best practices, this new structure will greatly strengthen accountability, expertise, and public oversight over the work of the Santa Clara ValleyTransportation Authority. 24 Appendix A: Sources Persons interviewed for this research Joanne Benjamin, former Transportation Policy and Programs Director for VTA, former Los Gatos town council member, co-architect of the current VTA structure along with former countysupervisor Dianne McKenna. Jim Bigelow, Menlo Park Chamber of Commerce and Redwood City/San Mateo Chamber of Commerce, current C/CAG CMAQ committee board member, former SamTrans CAC boardmember for 14 years. Professor Bruce Cain, UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies, Professor of Political Science.Peter Detwiler, Consultant to the California Senate Local Government Committee. Howard Goode, recently retired SamTrans Deputy General Manager who was also a top staff person for Caltrain and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority (San Mateo County’ssales tax authority for the administration of their ½ cent transportation sales tax). Sherman Lewis, former BART director (elected from District 5) and emeritus professor of political science at Cal State-Hayward.Megan Mullin, senior graduate student in the Institute of Governmental Studies at UC Berkeley who will soon publish a dissertation on board structure and effectiveness of special districts.Roy Nakadegawa, former BART director and former AC Transit director who served on AC Transit’s board for 20 years. Richard Napier, Executive Director of C/CAG (City/County Association of Governments, whichis San Mateo County’s CMA). Mr. Napier is a former Sunnyvale city council member who served on Santa Clara County Transportation Commission (advisory board to the Santa Clara Valley Transit Authority, the predecessor to VTA) and is the former chair of the Santa Clara CountyCongestion Management Agency. Chris Peeples, current AC Transit Board Member, elected at-large.Tom Radulovich, current BART director, one of the architects of MUNI reform in San Francisco,and currently executive director of Transportation for a Livable City in San Francisco. Steve Schmidt, former Menlo Park city councilmember and mayor who served on the SamTrans and Caltrain boards for a number of years in addition to other transportation-related commissionsin San Mateo County. Dick Swanson, Transit Finance Expert, current city of Mill Valley councilmember, current Marin County CMA board member, was consultant to VTA ad-hoc financial stability committee in 2003.Professor Marty Wachs, Director of the UC Berkeley Institute of Transportation Studies, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Professor of City and Regional Planning.Matt Williams, a former AC Transit director, elected at-large, who served for nearly 8 years, andformer Alameda CMA board member. Reports: 2003-2004 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY INQUIRY INTO THE BOARD STRUCTURE AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT OF THE VALLEY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY,http://www.sccsuperiorcourt.org/jury/GJreports/2004/BoardStructureFinancialMgmtVTA.pdf 25 TCRP REPORT 85: Public Transit Board Governance Guidebook, Transit Cooperative ResearchProgram, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES, 2002, http://trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_85.pdf TCRP WEB DOCUMENT 21 (Project H-24): Public Transit System Policy Boards: Organizationand Characteristics, Transit Cooperative Research Program, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCHBOARD OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES, May 2002, http://trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_21.pdf TCRP WEB DOCUMENT 24 (Project H-24A): The Public Transportation Board: Effectiveness Study, Transit Cooperative Research Program, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD OFTHE NATIONAL ACADEMIES, September 2004, http://trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_24.pdf TCRP Report 104: Public Transportation Board Effectiveness: A Self-Assessment Handbook, Transit Cooperative Research Program, TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C., 2004, http://trb.org/publications/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_104.pdf Other Documents: NY MTA Board Composition: http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/mta/leadership/ NY MTA’s Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee: http://pcac.org/aboutus.htm NY MTA Capital Construction Company: http://www.mta.info/capconstr/about.htm Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA): http://mtaig.state.ny.us/ NY MTA OIG 2000 Annual Report: http://mtaig.state.ny.us/assets/pdf/annual/00-annua.pdf LA MTA Office of Inspector General:http://www.mta.net/about_us/departments/oig/faqs.htm http://www.mta.net/about_us/departments/oig/charter.htm Charter for the Office of Internal Oversight and Performance Assurance of the Public CompanyAccounting Oversight Board: http://www.pcaobus.org/Internal_Oversight/Charter.pdf Frequently Asked Questions: Applying 2000 Census Data to Urbanized and Urban Areas, US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration:http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/faqa2cdt.htm#50 26 “Polanco bill provides for direct election of directors” - Los Angeles County, California, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Los Angeles Business Journal, March 27, 1995 by AnneRackhamhttp://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m5072/is_n13_v17/ai_17002430 San Mateo County C/CAG website. Note particularly the non-hierarchical listing of committeesat http://www.ccag.ca.gov/agendas.html Books: Masaoka, Jan. The Best of the Board Café: Hands-on Solutions for NonProfit Boards. Wilder Publishing Center, St. Paul, Minnesota, 2003. Weisman, Carol. Secrets of Successful Boards: The Best From the Non-Profit Pros. F.E. Robbins & Sons Press, St. Louis, Missouri, 1998. Chapter 6, discussion of board size. Zander, Alvin. Making Groups Effective. Jossey-Bass Publishers, San Francisco, CA, 1982. 27 Appendix B: Population of Santa Clara County Compiled from data at http://www.lizkniss.org/district_five.html City/Town Census 2000 Population % of total county population Campbell 38,138 2% Cupertino 50,546 3% Gilroy 41,464 2% Los Altos 27,693 2% Los Altos Hills 7,902 0% Los Gatos 28,592 2% Milpitas 62,698 4% Monte Sereno 3,483 0% Mountain View 70,708 4% Morgan Hill 33,556 2% Palo Alto 58,598 3% San Jose 893,943 53% Santa Clara 102,361 6% Saratoga 29,843 2% Sunnyvale 131,760 8% Unincorporated 100,300 6% Total 1,682,585 100% 28 Appendix C: Proposed Restructuring of Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority in Chart Form 29 PART 2: Santa Claia Valley Tr.msit Distlict (SCVID) -Prepares strategic, short-and lon·g-range plans and capital and operating budgets for county transit -Operates/oversees bus & light rail system, paratransit -Develops expenditure plan for the J 97 6 and Measure A sales taxes for transit -Works with MTC to obtain federal and state transit grant funds -Works with other agencies to operate Dumbarton Express and Hwy 17 Express buses, ACE, Caltrain and other intercounty transit. CALTRAIN -Prepares strategic, short-and long-range plans for Caltrain -Prepares Caltrain capital and operating budgets ••••••••••••••••••• •' .. ...;•' ~······ Saitta Clara Valley Transportation Autl10rity (VTA) -Prepares countywide transportation strategic plan -Prepares county long-range transportation plan -Programs state transportation (STLP/R TIP) funds and TD'.A bicycle funds -Approves the SCVTD sales tax expenditure plans -Oversees administration of the county transportation and transit agency expenditure plans; disburses money ft.om those 'sales taxes to the SCVTD. VTA omce of Inspector General Audits/monitors VT A, SCVTD, and VTA Construction Company Input from all~ advisoiy and sub-committees VfA ADVISORY AND SUB- COMMITIEES; Including 2000 Measure A Watchdog Couunittee CITY SELECTION COMl'vlITIEE Santa Clara Cowity )3oard of Supervisors approves coWltywide expenditure plan and places countywide tax measureS' on the ballot wben deemed necessary Institute a policy that quarterly, the cities are sent an attendance report of the attendance of all VT A board and committee members. Appointments made by this committee, which meets once a year, must be approved by a majority of ihe 15 cities, rather than a majority vote of who shows up at the meeting. Each city representative must appear in person, and if it is not the mayor, the mayor must designate the substitute in writing. 30 Appendix D: Structure of Transportation Governance in San Mateo County 31 CJCAG (ClTY/COUNTV ASSOCIATION OF GOVF:RNMEJ'<(IS) PART 1 CONTl1'n.IED: ENTITIES CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE Co111lrised or mayors or the 20 dlles. Meels once a year. Programming Entity for state t.ransp0nallon (STIP) funds; bas entirely diflereol staJJ from the San Mareo Cooney TransltD islrlci, but works ~ry c:losely with them. OCAG RESPONSIBIUTlES CCAO BOARD OOMPOSITIOI~ I -Prqiares, reviews, adopts, DlOlll10rS and fac:ihla~ unplemenlation by the member agencies the foDowmg Slale•mandated cow11y·wide plans. (I) Congestion Managemeoi Plan. 23-member Board of DlteclOrS -I councilmember from each of 20 callesl!owns an San Mateo Coun1y (2) lnlegra1.ed Solid Waste Managemenl Plan. (3) Airport Land Use Plan. ( 4) Hazardous Waste Management Plan. -I member appointed !Tom 1he CoWlty Board of Supervisors (5) NPDES -Stormwata Management Plan -I Sam Trans board member (non·voung) -I SMCT A board member (non-voting) Perlorms such additional county-wide plannlng acuviues as approved by or directed by two-thirds (213) of the members represen1ing 1.wo·1hirds (213) of the population of the County. C/CAO VOTING PROCl!DURES ~ "The parties intend to strive for consensus following full discussion but in the event consensus cannot be reached the following voting procedures shall be utilized. (a) A quorum shall consist of al least a majority of the voting members and shall be required for all meetings of CICAG. (b) All decisions and acUons shall be by majority vote of those present unless the decision involves the adoption of a county-wide plan or any one ( 1) member requests the use of the special voting procedures hereinafter set forth. (c) The special voting procedures shall be uWized upon the request of any one (I) member. Addallon or Ex-Ofllcao members lo Ille Board, the es1ablishment of SUbcommiuees. and the final adopuon of coWlly-wide plans shall require lhe special volulg procedures Special voung procedures shall be as follows: for a motion to be successf\Jl d. must receive the votes of a imionty of lhe members rqiresemmg a lllilJOOIY or lhe population of lhe CoWlly • C/CAO ADVISORY COMMITTEES ~ CICAO has established and uses advisory & board sub- committees, including b\at not limited to: (1) Airport Land Use Committee (2) Congestion Management and Afr Quality Co.mmittee (3) Congestion Management Plan (CMP) Technical Advisory Comrruttee (4) Sohd Waste Advisory Corruruttee (Local Task Force) (5) Hazardous Waste J\l!anagemenl Plan Advisory Committee ( 6) Bikeways 8J'ld Pedesl.nan Advisory Commillee (7) fanance Comrrultee (8) NPDES Comrmll« (9) NPD.ES Techmc:al Adwory Commmee (JO) Lqpslalive Comrosuee 32 fi SAMTAANS lr, I :.. PART 2: PROCESS CHART _ Prepares s1rategic, short-and I I . ~ long-range plans for Sam Trans 111..&. 00 -Prepares Sam Trans capilal and ~ operating budgets -Plans, programs and spends monies from its permanent dedicated 112 cent sales tax -Develops BART SFO/Millbrae extension capital and operating agreements in conjunction with BART SAN MATEO COUNTY _J TRANSPORTAT!ON ';f AUTHORITY _:_ Prepares .countywide ~ ..:' transportauon strategic •• -pM ~ • Prepares expenditure plan •• for countywide (non-~ permanent) Measure A '• CALTRAIN -Prepares strategic, short- and long-range plans for Catt.rain -Prepares Caltrain capilal and operating budgets half-cent sales tax, based on C/CAG's countywide transportation plan -Oversees administration of the expenditure plan San Mateo County Board of Supervisors approves expenditure plan and places countywide tax measure on the ballot ' CITY SELECTION COMMITTEE. Appointments made by this committee, which meets once a year, must be approved by a majority oflhe 20 cities rather than a majority vote of who shows up at the meeting. Each city representative must appear in person, and if il. is not the mayo~ •. the mayor must designate the substitute m wntmg. C/CAG -Programs state STIP/ RTIP funds (appnx. $40 million/every 2 years) -Prepares Countywide Transportation Pim based on SMCTA strategic plan ~ Input from 611 conunittees Congestion Management Plan ( CMP) Technical Advisory Committee ~ Congestion Management and Air Qu<iity ( CMAQ) Committee C/CAO has a policy U>at quarterly, the cities are sent an attendance report of the attendance of all C/CAG board and committee members . Bikeways and Pedestrian Advisory Conunittee 33 Appendix E: Some Comments on Achieving a Transportation and Land UseConnection Some have argued that VTA’s structural combination of transit agency and CMA, fosters a closer connection in government between transportation and land use policies. While this is a nice idea in theory, and may even be somewhat true in practice, in fact, the regional leader in connecting transportation and land use has been San Mateo County, where the transit agencyand CMA are separate entities. Some local officials in Santa Clara County, very much favoring transit-oriented development (TOD), have wondered aloud how to proceed in the face of very vocal local neighborhoodopposition to an increase in housing densities. It is instructive to study the San Mateo Countyexample. San Mateo County’s Housing Incentive Program, on which MTC’s housing incentive program has been modeled, requires developments to be located within 1/3 of the mile of a Caltrain orBART station and to have a density of 40 units/acre to receive a $2,000/ bedroom bonus. Anadditional $250 per bedroom bonus for all bedrooms in the development is provided if there are below market rate units in the development for low-income residents. To receive the incentive monies, the project must be under construction within two years from being approved by theC/CAG Board for the incentive monies. The program has been oversubscribed. In addition, cities and the county apply for MTC incentive monies that can be spent on qualifying transportation projects anywhere within the city or county receiving the incentive monies. In Santa Clara County, public and private entities such as the Santa Clara Housing Action Coalition have struggled to encourage higher density housing development of 14-20 units/acre near transit stations. While this is an improvement over historically low densities, it is notcharacteristic of the most successful TOD. How is it that support for TOD is greater in San Mateo County? One of the most well-known TOD initiatives in San Mateo County is the El Camino CorridorGrand Boulevard Plan. The Grand Boulevard Plan is based on the idea is that El Camino Real is generally is very close to BART and Caltrain stations and that development along that corridor would assist in increasing transit ridership and reduce congestion. The genesis for this plan was laid more than ten years ago with the formation of the Economic Vitality Partnership, a jointproject led by the non-profit regional business group Samceda (San Mateo County EconomicDevelopment Association), along with the County of San Mateo and twelve cities in the county. The Economic Vitality Partnership, which later became the Peninsula Policy Partnership (P3), worked to develop a pro-TOD coalition, working with community groups like the League ofWomen Voters. They had the support of SamTrans staff, who gave them extensive support in developing the plan and who invented the Grand Boulevard concept to help the public to understand what the initiative was all about. "Government [is inherently constrained]…we could do things in the private sector, inconjunction with the public sector [to overcome NIMBYism and foster innovation]," said Jim 34 Bigelow, formerly of the Economic Vitality Partnership and long-time representative of the Menlo Park and Redwood City-San Mateo County Chamber of Commerces. "If you can get a coalition together then you get some momentum." A combination of public, private, and local city monies were used to conduct outreach to homeowners. The private sector provided seed money and space for hosting half-day conferences where lunch was served (for example at Oracle Corporation). The educationprocess for the Grand Plan has occurred over a period of four years. Cities approved the Planand a festive kick-off party was held last fall. The Plan is now being implemented by cities along the corridor. For more information, see US EPA National Award for Smart Growth Achievement 2002 Winners - City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County: http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/san_mateo.htm http://www.samtrans.org/news_2004_grand_boulevard.html http://www.plsinfo.org/healthysmc/16/economic_vitality_partnership.html 35 Appendix F: VTA Performance Compared to other Bay Area Transit Operators From December 2004 MTC Performance Audit of select Bay Area transit operators, aspresented in agenda item 4 of MTC Programming and Allocations Committee, Wednesday December 8, 2004, agenda posted at http://apps.mtc.ca.gov/agenda/view/agenda.jsp?committee_id=19&agenda_id=396 VTA exhibits “Generally deteriorating performance in cost efficiency and cost effectiveness.” – MTC Audit Presentation 36 Appendix G: Memo by the Mayor of San Jose and other San Jose VTA Directors Notice the time stamps on this memo. It was received by the VTA Board Secretary and disseminated to otherVTA board members just a few hours before the 6:00 PM board meeting on Thursday, August 7, 2003. 37 AUG-07-2003 15 :05 Debt Finance Funding DISCUSSION August 6, 2003 Page 2 of2 BART is the signature project of Measure A. Measure A garnered 71 % of the vote in 2000. That could not have occurred without BART, which was the most popular Measure A project countywide by a large margin. Because of that strong public support. we have an obligation to pursue every avenue of opportunity to keep this project moving towards timely completion. Unnecessary delays that add time and cost to the delivery of this signature project should be avoided if at all possible. Such delays will also undermine efforts to secure federal funding for the project. P .03/03 Although BART expenditures are often cited as a key reason 10r VT A's financial problems, the fact is there have been no VT A general fund or capital revenues expended for BART that were not reimbursable from either the state's Traffic Congestion Relief Program (TCRP) fimd or eljgible for advance funding from Measure A. It is important to reiterate that VT A would have the same .financial issues ifthere were no BART project. In fact, ifthere were no BART project, there would be no revenue source to bond against to maintain current bus and light rail service. Far from being a source ofVTA,s .financial problems, 2000 Measure A revenues that are available because of strong public support for bringing BART to San Jose/Silicon Valley may now play a positive and significant role in maintaining VTA current bus and light rail services1 saving approximately 400 FTEs for vr A and employing another 100-1 SO civil engineering and other related jobs as we enter the next phase of the BART project Keeping the project moving will also accelerate the local economic benefit of creating a significant number of good-paying construction jobs when the project enters the construction phase. The cost of preliminary engineering and the right-of-way purchase was to be covered by funding from the state TCRP revenues. In fact, the costs of the current environmental review process for the BART project has been funded with TCRP funds. Howevert the recently adopted state budget has temporarily diverted TCRP funding to the state general fund as part of the current budget solution. To keep the BART project moving forward towards delivery as soon as possible, the revenues approved by the voters in Measure A for that purpose should be made available to serve that purpose. cc: VT A General Manager TOTAL P.03 31 Baumb, Nelly From:Rice, Danille Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 4:27 PM To:Council, City Cc:Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Minor, Beth; Gaines, Chantal; Guagliardo, Steven; Velasquez, Ingrid Subject:City of Palo Alto Comment Letter on the Innovation Project Attachments:City of Palo Alto Comment Letter on the Innovation Project.docx.pdf Good afternoon Mayor and Council Members,   On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, I would like to inform you that the attached letter was sent to Director Sherri  Terao from the Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Department regarding the City’s official feedback on the  Santa Clara County Community Mobile Response (CMR) Program funded by the Innovation Fund.    Respectfully,   Danille         Danille Rice  Executive Assistant to the City Manager  (650) 329‐2105 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                      March 12, 2021 Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Department Sherri Terao, Ed.D., IFECMH Specialist, RPFM 828 S. Bascom Avenue San Jose, CA 95128 RE: City of Palo Alto Comment Letter on the Innovation Project 15 (Community Mobile Response Program) Dear Director Terao and Team, On behalf of the City of Palo Alto, I am writing to provide our official feedback on the Santa Clara County Community Mobile Response (CMR) Program funded by the Innovation Fund. Since first hearing about the program in 2020, Palo Alto has been very eager to see the program continue to take shape. The City of Palo Alto supports the creation of the CMR program, wishes to express our interest in participating in the CMR program, and requests consideration of a program site in the Northern part of Santa Clara County where there is a concentration of cities that could benefit from this unique program. Recognizing the limitations currently in place regarding funding, the City of Palo Alto requests that a placeholder be included in the program design documentation for expansion of the program into an area further north in the County should funding become available. The CMR program provides an alternative response to mental health crisis situations rather than the current law enforcement response. The program is loosely based on the Eugene, Oregon CAHOOTS program and is intended to honor and value lived experience as critical experience needed to provide authenticity to this work in addition to the licensed professionals. Through Palo Alto’s focused work on Race and Equity, our community has expressed an interest in this type of model top provide a more appropriate response to the mental health calls for service we often receive. We have been working with your County of Santa Clara staff to get a PERT resource clinician in Palo Alto for many years, but we have not yet been assigned a clinician. While we continue to seek a PERT resource, working towards a more northern site for the CMR program would be advantageous not only for Palo Alto and other nearby communities. Once PERT begins in Palo Alto, it would be very useful to see how it is used in relation to, and partnership with, a program like CMR. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3624D96B-0DD0-4DB7-8A97-FE8B5C9C18EC Page 2 Comment Letter on the Innovation Project 15 Palo Alto, or a more northern location, is a logical CMR program site because of the volume of people who could be served, the need shown through calls for service, and because the northern part of the County has a slower response time through the existing Mobile Crisis Response Teams (MCRT) program due to distance. A northern county CMR site could provide service to many communities including Palo Alto, Mountain View, Los Altos, Sunnyvale and others. Although there is not a concentrated ‘hot spot’ of need within our collective communities, many people would benefit from the CMR services in the north County cities. Palo Alto’s calls for service include more than 1,300 welfare checks each year. At the moment, sworn and armed police officers are the only resource that the City can deploy for these welfare checks. Such calls are prime examples of the types of calls that the CMR program would be able to address in a way which addresses all the needs of an individual instead of having a law enforcement response. Additionally, a northern CMR site would be beneficial because the aforementioned communities have a longer response time for the existing MCRT program. Since the MCRT program is based in San Jose, there is sometimes up to an hour delay from the time of the call before the resource teams arrive. Our community is accustomed to a more responsive customer service experience and often opts to just call 9-1-1 for assistance instead of calling the MCRT program simply because they are aware that law enforcement will arrive sooner. This significantly undercuts the effectiveness of MCRT in north county jurisdictions. The City of Palo Alto would also like to express feedback regarding the metrics used to determine the preliminary siting for the two locations resourced through innovation funding. County staff shared that the two sites were chosen based on data, need, and stakeholder engagement. We would like to request for planning purposes, incorporation of additional data beyond the MCRT call data and the U.S. CDC social vulnerability index. As discussed above, the MCRT call data cannot show that communities further away may not be calling because of the expected response time delays and thus, the data does not present a clear picture of needs for the CMR program. The City of Palo Alto would appreciate including the percentage of mental health-related law enforcement calls for service as a metric for determining siting of the CMR program. In summary, the City of Palo Alto requests the following: - A placeholder in the program design for a CMR site in Palo Alto or, failing that, in the Northern part of Santa Clara County. - Participation by the City of Palo Alto on the planned Community Advisory Board or other advisory group; we feel it is imperative that the group intentionally geographically represents the entire County. - Inclusion of the relationship between the CMR and the existing PERT and MCRT programs in the evaluation of the new CMR program; if a site had all three programs serving the population it would be very useful to understanding the collective, and individual, program impacts. DocuSign Envelope ID: 3624D96B-0DD0-4DB7-8A97-FE8B5C9C18EC Page 3 Comment Letter on the Innovation Project 15 - County Advocacy, with the City of Palo Alto and other interested jurisdictions, to the State Assembly for the passage of bills like Assembly Bill 118 which proposes funding for mental health support programs through nonprofits. - Creation of a distribution list where interested community members and city staff can easily get notified as interested parties about upcoming hearing dates, Stakeholder Leadership Council meetings, program progress, and other relevant information. This will enhance the ability of the community to stay involved and engaged as we seek to expand the program. - Lastly, continued partnership with us as a city as we continue exploring these alternative models to law enforcement response that can be tailored to specific calls for service to ensure the best possible outcomes. We look forward to seeing this program implemented in the County and to further discussions. Please do not hesitate to contact us in the process. My staff to connect with are Chantal Cotton Gaines, Deputy City Manager, at Chantal.gaines@cityofpaloalto.org, and Zach Perron, Police Captain, at Zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org. Sincerely, Ed Shikada City Manager Cc: Palo Alto City Council Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian District 5 DocuSign Envelope ID: 3624D96B-0DD0-4DB7-8A97-FE8B5C9C18EC 32 Baumb, Nelly From:Bert Robinson <jhrobinson@bayareanewsgroup.com> Sent:Friday, March 12, 2021 8:08 AM To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City Cc:Dave Price Subject:police scanner encryption Attachments:Mercury News scanner policy letter.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Letter to the city is attached.      Bert Robinson Senior Editor | Editorial  jhrobinson@bayareanewsgroup.com  408.920.5970 Direct @bert_robinson  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   bayareanewsgroup.com  Over 5 million engaged readers weekly  To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   March 12, 2021 4 N. 2nd Street, Suite 700 San Jose, CA 95113 Dear Mayor, Council Members and City Manager, The Mercury News would like to register its objection to the Palo Alto Police Department's recent decision to encrypt its main police radio frequency. If the department is unwilling to rescind its decision, we request a public discussion and council vote on this policy change. Based on years of police and fire department practice across the nation, the public has come to expect that it can monitor public safety activity in real time. Hobbyists use scanners, as do journalists whose job is to inform the public. In the heat of the moment, scanner traffic is sometimes the only source of information about a developing situation of high public interest — a hostage situation or spreading wildfire. Press releases can lag the news by hours. In 2021, the need for good information sources has become only more acute. In the absence of reliable facts, the public is left with social media rumors that spring up at the sound of sirens or helicopter blades. At a time when many have come to distrust law enforcement, rightly or wrongly, these rumors can take on an especially pernicious tone. I understand that there has been some confusion about a recent memo from the state Department of Justice regarding encryption, and concern about how police might communicate sensitive information the public should not hear. My colleague Dave Price has addressed these issues well in his own letter and news articles, and I refer you to his more detailed explanation of these issues. Government officials will do best by countering the situation with transparency, rather than cloaking previously public communications. We in the media will do our part to communicate appropriately and responsibly. We ask your assistance in making sure we have good information on which to base our reports. Thank you for your consideration of my request. Bert Robinson Senior Editor The Mercury News 7 Baumb, Nelly From:David Squarer <squarer@att.net> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 2:10 PM To:DuBois, Tom Cc:Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City; City Mgr; Police Subject:Long Overdue parked vehicles on Colorado Ave at Greer Park Attachments:Letter to Palo Alto Police 2-23-2021.docx; IMG_2490.jpg; IMG_2462.jpg; IMG_2465.jpg; IMG_2466.jpg; IMG_2507.jpg; IMG_2488.jpg; IMG_2493.jpg; IMG_2497.jpg; IMG_2506.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  March 21, 2021 Mr. Tom DuBois Mayor City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Honorable Mayor DuBois and City of Palo Alto Council members: I am writing to request your help in alleviating a serious health and safety issue that has persisted for a prolonged period of time (many months) at Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto, next to Greer Park, between Colorado Place and Simkins Ct and West Bayshore Rd. This section of Colorado Ave has been used as a camp site, without appropriate sanitary conditions and with the potential to infect with COVID-19, and harm nearby residents at Colorado Place and Simkins Ct. In spite of repeated requests to the City of Palo Alto by residents of Colorado Place to remove these camping vehicles, no action has been taken. This is particularly disturbing and unsafe during a pandemic. The absence of a toilette and running water amplifies the hazard posed by these campers. This unsafe condition does not exist in down town Palo Alto. If the City of Palo Alto wishes to support these campers, it could designate an area within Palo Alto that could accommodate such campers and provide for appropriate sanitary conditions including toilette, showers, and food. Attached are several photos taken during the past couple of weeks that show the parked vehicles as well as a letter I sent on February 23, 2021 to the Palo Alto Police Department. The attached letter lists the license plates of nine vehicle parked on Colorado Ave. I have additional photos showing the license plates of the parked vehicles. I implore you and would greatly appreciate if you could take a concrete action to remove these campers from Colorado Ave as soon as possible. In addition to ticketing and towing away these vehicles, the City of Palo Alto could for example post a sign stating “vehicles prohibited from parking longer than 3 consecutive nights”, or “overnight sleeping in parked vehicles is prohibited”, etc. Thank you, 8 David Squarer 1078 Colorado Place Palo Alto, CA 94303 squarer@att.net Tel. 239-431-7773 From: David Squarer <squarer@att.net> Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2021 5:35 PM To: Lee, David <David.Lee@CityofPaloAlto.org>; afana.siev@cityofpaloalto.org <afana.siev@cityofpaloalto.org>; Sunseri, Aaron <Aaron.Sunseri@CityofPaloAlto.org> Subject: Long Overdue parked cars on Colorado Ave at Greer Park Dear Palo Alto Police Sergeants: The vehicles listed below have been parked on Colorado Avenue at Greer Park for several months. I have listed the license plates and description of the vehicles. a. White van, license #3UFYO92 b. Chevrolet white RV Jamboree, License #8ALT135 c. Pace arrow, License #85IK461 d. Warrior, License #2PT388 e. Yellow school bus, License #OAMANDA f. Black passenger van, License #72018J2 g. Ford Camper, License #2PTE388 h. Born Free camper, Colorado License #YNO423 i. Black trailer, License #4PL3835 During the era of COVID-19 virus such long term parking on the streets of the City of Palo Alto constitute a serious health hazard to the owners and inhabitants of these vehicles as well as to the next door neighbors. In addition, the inhabitants of these vehicles could potentially be a source of illicit activities. It is highly likely that the inhabitants of these vehicles are unable to maintain proper hygiene and therefore could easily be infected with the Corona virus and also transmit it to others in the immediate neighborhood. I would greatly appreciate if the Palo Alto Police would act to remove these vehicles as soon as possible in order to maintain the health and safety of the residents of the City of Palo Alto. Thank you, David Squarer Colorado Place, Palo Alto I I COLORADO PL 10 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, March 18, 2021 10:54 PM To:Christopher Welsh Cc:San.francosco@ic.fbi.gov; supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; sixth.district@jud.ca.gov; Bill Robinson; markhamplazata@gmail.com; Council, City; gary.goodman@pdo.sccgov.org; Brian McComas; moneal@pdo.sccgov.org Subject: Fiscal Impact statement offset by millions - theft from federal government Attachments:Original_Answer_to_unlawful_detainer_1-12-CV-226958.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Chris,    No disrespect my friend, but you are my attorney in pendiing court case and your supervisor was very much involved in  sending me to prison for crime I did not commit.   Gary Goodman has nothing to say.  He went out of his way to protect  non existant people in false police report & put Heidi's life in danger.   She should have been priority over tbe non  existant people. Real  Investigsation should have taken prioriity  over fake pc 1268 proceedings.    I think my priorities  are strait &  Goodmans are crooked.    With that being said,  there also seams to be discrepency with grand jury investigaion findings thgat claim there was no  fiscal impact.  These numbers are not consistant with grand jury  numbers:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDnq059_sb4    Your supervisor is involved in  this & it needs to be looked into.  There is offset of millions of dollars.   It is not YOU, but your supervisor that is an issue.      I am not trying to pout you on  the spot.  I called you friend before I called you attorney.  i will save the "parasite"  label  for Mr. McComas.      Please remember USC title 18 Section 4.    Fiscal impact statement in title refers to fin dings of civil grand jury investigation into public guardian.    The Inspector General of US department of housing and urban development and others need to compare notes.       This is sent to Markham Plaza Tenant association for follow up.      Thank you,  Cary Andrew Crittenden    Begin forwarded message:  From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>  Date: 3/18/2021  To: Bill Robinson <bill@sdap.org>  Cc: sixth.district@jud.ca.gov,supreme.court@jud.ca.gov,Brian McComas  <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com>,San.francosco@ic.fbi.gov,david.rose@aog.ca.gov,Christopher Welsh  11 <cwelshlaw@gmail.com>  Subject: Fwd: Civil Grand Jury ‐ Fiscal Impact  Mr. Robinson,    The policy changes you claim I have implemented never occurred and there were no issues with  procedure that I applied.  ALWAYS, and with NO EXCEOPTIONS ,is action  initiated until a review of the  Actual duties has occured & all related matters such as supervisors role , etc.   As for the specific record i  in question, which was supposed video in case 112cv226958,  ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION ‐  is to call  hearing pursuant to section S 3102.      ‐   .  This was not done because it was NON APPLICABLE!!!     You  should know that.       It is very effective way to challenge accuracy and completeness  of San Jose Police Departnent  records.   Robert Ridgeway had not been with department for years and there was NO REASON SJPD  would have copy of video.  Additionally,  Ridgeway had used a fake name on the court declaration  to112cv226958 which refered to non existant video with reference ti fake name.     ( not unlike the  references to  people that only he and his wife could supposedly see. in case C1493022 )    You still  an not produce the discovery package  to C 1493022  ‐ CIVIL GRAND JURY INVESTIGATION INTO  PUBLIC GUARDIAN .  Which  would, if YOUR CLAIMS HAD MERIT: Show these changes had been  implemented ion my end.  Why cant you find discovery package?  C1493022    LT Valenzuyela did not appear to understand his duties very well being unable to distinguiah  COMPLAINT FROM ALEGATIION and implications as described in gov code 3304. and dep manuels.  So  how is he to determine whether others  duties apply if, as IA conmander, does not know his own  duties.    How can he be called competent?  How can public defender claim ton be competent when  paralell investigation was never done which would compare to IA investigation.    Why is it that you can not understand these simple things which for me have been working fine for  years?  It has certainly worked better than Silicon Valley Debug who runs similiar program.    Why have you missed this whilec checking for habeas corpus related issues.   If you do not know what  your duties are sir,  which is to know what Valenzuelas duties are, how can you claim., that I have  changed anything on my end or judge my procedures or policies as ineffective.?    You and McConas are incompetant , not being able ton tell complaint from alegation.    You can not tell forest from trees.                     Begin forwarded message:   From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>  Date: 3/18/2021  To: Bill Robinson <bill@sdap.org>  12 Cc: San.francosco@ic.fbi.gov,sixth.district@jud.ca.gov,supreme.court@jud.ca.gov  Subject: Re: Civil Grand Jury ‐ Fiscal Impact    This is documentation of Perjury by Deputy District Attorney Barbara Cathcart.  Of  course Detectiive David Carroll Fabicated evidence.  His name is on the false report and  he signed it under penalty of perjury.     Unless someone wrote the report for him or altered it. Nevertheless,  he is responsible.      I can not expect Sixth District Appellate Program attorney: Bill Robinson,  or Brian  McComas to do anything honest..  Though they  were supposed to be defense  attorneys. They are participating in the same type of behavior.  It s ACTIVE participation  because they did not nake any effort to ensure records were truthful and accurate.  Instead,  they deliberately skewed  and distorted the records in way they  felt to be  convenient..    I am assisting in advocacy for another person with active case.  I advocate for many  people. Not only regionally, but across the country.   Many come to me because of  referrals from other groups and organizations that have nothing to do with Brian  McComas and these things are none of his business.     Brian McComas has repeatedly interjected himself into my work, as if he were the  attorney representing the people I advocate for and groups I associate with.       One individual , though not directly involved with my case and i was not involved with  his situation either, bit there were common attributes and relationships that needed to  sorted out.   This person was a Navy officer who had an acquaintance who was high  ranking FBI agent. After retiring, he was involved in investigation into Santa Clara  County.    I had asked Brian McComas to not in involve himself in these matters but  focus on the case at hand.  McComas lashed out that it was inappropriate and wrote up  documentation and put me in position where I would have to defend ,myself against  him and by doing so, I would have to involve the case of Navy officer.    This also  involved drug cartel from Jamaica who had been responsible for 1600 murders across  the united states.   McComas potentially threated the life of not only the Navy officer,  but myself and others.  He has done this over and over again.  McComas sarcastically  proclaimed himself not only the attorney for the navy officer,  but captain of the ship  the officer of on.      I do not want to name the Navy officer, But feel I need to in case something  happens.  His name is David Plumb.  The retired FBI agent was Ted Gunderson , who we  all know was a bit eccentric.   That does not mean I agree or disagree with whatever he  was involved in. Much of it was very deep.    McComas is dragging non related cases and  investigations and skipping them  them together like  paper machet with no regard to  public safety.   I then began to hear from  retired CIA agent named David Robert Steele  who , from what I understand, had taken over for Gunderson .  It appears to me that he  is trying to gouge what all the commotion is about.   Steele believes there is identity  fraud being committed in  probate proceedings iinvollving multiple birth and death  certificates.  I do not claim to believe or disbelieve and no desire to be entangled in  these conspiracy theories regardless of whether or not they are real.        13 From beginning,  I simply wanted us to be left alone to live our lives in peace.  I had to  learn how to advocate for for myself and others to defend myself and others when  infinjged upon unjustly.   It becaame very overly complicated when I had been asked to  defend Markham Plaza residents who had complained of issues with  management facilitating hostile living environment and public guardian facilitating  illegal evictions.  I had not known that court officials were doing the same.  I naively  believed that they were honest.  I was very surprised and shocked when I was attacked  by them  and could not understand what I could have possible done to provoke  them.     The original answer to un lawful detainer is attached.   I appeared as  advocate.   There was other documention  with fictitious name '"Andrew Crittenden"  .     Robert Ridgeway had claimed yto mhave caught andrew on video and put this and  other fake info court record.   He was called on this fraud publicly which is what led to  false report by detective David Carroll.        The false report attempted to blend fake identity with real identity which public  defender Gary Goodman attempted to distort as some sort of personality disorder.    Tia  Enriquez believes that similar fraud has been occuring her case & her son attempted  suicide after Brian McComas became involved and committed fraud in opening brief to  "my appeal" .  He was not breathing when found &  I believe that McComas is at least  indirectly responsible but I could not tell hi to back off and not interfere with other  cases or things that are none of his business.      Cary Andrew Crittenden              14 - - - 15   On March 17, 2021 at 7:00 PM, Cary Andrew Crittenden  <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> wrote:  Bill Robindson,    It's now time for the audit that we discussed.  Are you ready?    Turn over all financial records relating to "my case" , all money you were  paid, Karleen Navarro  was paid,   and cost of trial.  Where it came from  & where it went.   Show receipts.    Do it now.      Cary Andrew Crittenden    Begin forwarded message:  From: Cary Andrew Crittenden  <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>  Date: 3/17/2021  To:  supreme.court@jud.ca.gov,jeff.smith@ceo.sccgov.org,j oe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org,joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.or g,Christopher Welsh <cwelshlaw@gmail.com>  Cc:  sixth.district@jud.ca.gov,david.rose@aog.ca.gov,david. anderson@usdoj.gov  Subject: Civil Grand Jury ‐ Fiscal Impact  I am sorry that Mr. McComas is having trouble  understanding things and appears that his judgement is  impaired which effects his decision making.  He is  having trouble discerning reality from delusions and it is  very concerning to me that the false police report by  detective David Carroll gives reference to "The  Ridgeways" who claimed they could see people walking  around that others could not see.  San Jose police data  shows no crime spike and no one else could see these  people.  There has been so much weight and  evidentiary value  devoted to these imaginary people,  yet still, what were there names?  How many were  there?  Best of all:   WHERE DID THEY COME FROM  ?  THEY ALEGATIOINS WERE THAT I SENT THEM.    In addition to investigating the false police reports, is it  not common routine procedure to look into issues with  chain of command and dispatch records?   That's the  way I've always done it?  Were orders passed down  correctly?  What about unlawful orders?  Then there are  potential conflicts of interest that can arise .     16 There was an Internal Affairs Complaint with Case #  2015‐009  ‐  Multiple allegations were submitted to this  complaint which yielded 1 single finding of  "Unfounded"  ‐  Does that seam a bit unusual to  anyone?  So here, we have very suspicious police  report  ‐ investigation into report also appears to be  tainted in that is missing   findings that Santa Clara County Sheriff department Neil  Valenzuela  can not account for missing records ( each  allegation )  & he doesn't appear to know what his job  is, how do do it correctly, etc.       Very Interesting.    There is a guy named "Cary Andrew Crittenden"  who  the court record describes as a guy who  have it all  together, and who can't tell the forest from the trees.  If  Cary Andrew Crittenden is THAT INCOMPENTENT,   that he not know the difference forest from the trees,  why is it that he knew better than the internal affairs  commander  what the difference is  between  COMPLAINT AND INVEDSTIGATION.       So , can  any one tell what the public defender is  supposed to do?   There are ways to trouble shoot  situations like this.   The public defender has team of  investigators who are there to serve a LEGITINATE  PURPOSE!    So any questionable police report or  investigation into such matters would have PARELLEL  INVESTIGATION!!!  Does anyone see a parellel investigation?   There were  not even 2 INVESTIGATIONS.       Did public defender fail to do its job?   Did either  "investigation serve legitimate purpose? "  ‐ OF COURSE  NOT.  So how then,  by any stretch of the  imagination,  say that my actions serve no legitimate  purpose.      I have problems with people like McComas putting  words in my mouth that were not mine.  Brian  McComas told a flat out lie and altered the  record.  While denying  fraud, he was committing  fraud.  In much the same way that detective David  Carroll did.    Look again at the web banner about  Robert Ridgeway which used the word fraud.   There are  countless web banners referring to fraud, and police  misconduct.  There are no refences anywhere on any  banner remotely connected with this case or  Ridgeways, that reference their duties as police  officers.   So someone please tell me,  "AT WHAT POINT  DID FRAUD BECOME DUTY OF LAW  ENFORCEMENT"  ?  " AT WHAT POINT DID POLICE  MISCONDUCT BECOME OFFICIAL DUTY OF POLICE  17 OFFICER?"   ‐   There is specific geographic coordinates  to Ridgeway address and time coordinates as ti when  police report was written and filed.     If Ridgeways had  seen imaginary people, from  where did they  originate?   ‐   Were they halucinatiions or  fabricatioins?  Were they actually present at geographic  location?  no.  Can they be tracked or traced from there  to determine there origin?  No.      Since they manifested on paper, as fraudulent  fabricatiions &   It ids from this point the origin of the  "invisible people can be tracked"  , and it was at THIS  SAME POINT,   That "FRAUD BECAME OFFICIAL DUTIES  AS POLICE OFFICERS"   ‐  Not only the point the point  the word   "FRAUD" was changed, to "OFFICIAL  DUTES"  it also , in a sense, manifested itself to be  true?    Detective David Carroll added these invisible  people.      They are not tracked by geographic location, but up  stream through chain of command which has multiple  conflicts.   Are there not?  How difficult is it tom locate and track these NON  EXISTANT PEOPLE,  Yet the MASSIVE EVIDETIARY VALUE  was inflated creating SOMETHING OUT OF  NOTHING.    This happened in the false report AND  ALSO,  the coresponding internal affairs investigation.       Look at the report itself.   Detective Carroll refers to  "Crittenden has a historic pattern"  pattern of what?    According to the report , publishing banners harrassing  police judges and ‐ OTHER AGENCIES AND  OFFICIALS.    ‐  Yet, how interesting is it that he did not  ILLUSTRATE THE PATTERN VERY WELL.      Carroll used the word "pattern"  ‐ but the pattern of his  words was not consistent .  At this point,  "OTHER  AGENCIES"   dropped off the map.    This was CRITICAL  JUNCTION POINT WHEN THING ENTERED SND EXITED  THE RECORD.     This was "JURIDSTICTION PROCURED BY  FRAUD"   ‐     And yes, the PUBLIC GUARDIAN was agency deliberately  omitted from  record.   This was done in collusion with  corresponding grand jury investigation.     The "non existent people" are easily followed up the  chain of command to Capain Ricardo Urena who was  head of court security & reported to Judge Brian Walsh ,  who at the time, was coordinating efforts with County  18 Executive Jeff Smith,  on CASE C2493022 and CIVIL  GRAMD JURY INVESTIGATION INTO PUBLIC GUARDIAN.      Brian McComas,  you were caught doing the same thing  others did,.  How stupid can that be.     Not only did you lie, but you also stole money  from  me.   You were told "NOTHING WILL CHANGE  WITHOUT MY  CONSENT"  , you changed many things  and many wiords.    In effect you changed the word O‐ W‐N , to O.W.E.  Taking something that MINE, that  I  already OWN,  away from me.    Did you lie for me on my behalf or did you lie on behalf  of someone else?    Did you profit?    How much money did you make from  attorney fees ?      What hapoened tom the money that  was supposed to finance investigation  into habeas  corpus issues?    By changinIg one letter of one word can alter meaning,  changing OWN  to OWE,   you changed more than just  court case.  This alters fundamental form of  government &  our democracy has become kleptocracy.    I do not have to prove anything.  I am simply making the  record.       I am 100 PERCENT COMPLETELY EXHONERATED.     As for the civil grand jury investigating into public  guardian,  I can tell you that insufficient data went into  investigation creating something out of nothing.   The  findings of "NO FISCAL IMPACT" arev not accurate.    When McComas took case to appelatlate court, he  should have wiped the dogshit off his shoes.  He sjhould  have known that by brining case to 6th district could  only bring investigation with him. Those on 6th district  tracked to judicial council & the sticky trail dogshit of  dog shit that McComas dragged with him  led to judicial  council, where the TRACK FOLLOWED THE MONEY to  Brian Walsh, working on facilities committee routing  right back to JEFF SMITH , where it converged again  suspiciously at same location.  The Santa Clara County  Family Justice Center.    Admittedly, the dogshjit is  metaphore and trail isit smudged. & money and dogshit  had been comingled.      Absolute proof? no.  But very substantial evidence and a  lot of dogshit to clean up.   19   Cary Andrew Crittenden         Begin forwarded message:  From: Cary Andrew Crittenden  <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>  Date: 3/13/2021  To: Brian McComas  <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com>,rua  <rua@uglyjudge.com>  Cc:  supreme.court@jud.ca.gov,sixth.district @jud.ca.gov,Christopher Welsh  <cwelshlaw@gmail.com>,Bill Robinson  <bill@sdap.org>,david.rose@aog.ca.gov  Subject: Re: Remittitur on Appeal  No Mr McComas.   That is not the way it  works. I have already made myself  clear.  I will not allow fraud in this  case.  Because of fraud ,  ALL ORDERS  AND JUSGEMENTRS ARE VOID.     You made outrageous false  accusation  on court record against  Judge Michele McCay‐McCoy, claiming  that she had killed someone.  These  accusations you made against her were  completely malicious, had no  merit or  basis.      For over 1 year, I had repeatedly  brought this to your attention and I  directed you to correct the false records  you made and this witnessed by the  justices of the 6th District and the  Supreme Court for the State of  California.       They are obligated to hold you  accountable under Canon 3(D) of the  Rules of Professional Conduct.     You told a malicious lie and you did so  on the record and that sir, is  FRAUD.  Calling a spade a spade , I  pointed out the fraud & made it clear  that those statements were not  true.  You tried to flip the  script and  blame me & called me crazy.  But it was  20 YOU, NOT ME that made the statement,  & it was completely absurd.      I asked you correct it and you did  not.  Therefore,  You are BOUND TO IT,  Not me.  Before making such a  accusation  against a person,  and putting it on  court record, you should first have  some evidence to back it up.  You had  NONE!   This was  not  hearsay it was a  LIE!    It has been made clear from the  beginning,  that NO FRAUD WOULD BE  ALLOWED & ,  that is absolute, and  without compromise.   Has not changed  and never will.    By choosing to commit fraud, you  compromised.    You compromised your  own integrity, and the integrity of  judicial system.    I am under non  obligation to the "court" which from  the beginning had no jurisdiction.    You were granted the opportunity to fix  this on oral argument. You threw away  that opportunity & now it is gone.      You owe judge Michele McCay‐McCoy  an apology.     Cary Andrew Crittenden          On August 12, 2020 at 9:13 AM, Brian  McComas <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com>  wrote:  Cary,    The Court of Appeal  issued remittitur  today.  See  attached.  That means  your appeal has  concluded.  It also  terminates my and  SDAP's  21 representation.  This  our final  correspondence on the  subject.    We wish you the best  going forward,    Brian C. McComas, Esq.   Law Office of B.C. McComas, LLP     PMB 1605, 77 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 101 San Francisco, CA 94102   Cell: 208-320-0383   Fax: 415‐520‐2310    CONFIDENTIALITY  NOTICE: This e‐mail is  legally privileged and  protected by the  Electronic  Communications  Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C.  2510‐2521.  If the  reader of this message  is not the intended  recipient, or the  employee or agent  responsible for  delivering it to the  intended recipient, you  are hereby notified that  any dissemination,  distribution or copying  of the communication  is strictly prohibited.  If  you have received this  e‐mail in error, please  notify me immediately  at (208) 320‐0383 and  by return e‐mail, and  delete all copies of this  message. Thank you.  24 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, March 13, 2021 5:41 PM To:supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; sixth.district@jud.ca.gov; david.rose@aog.ca.gov Cc:Brian McComas; Bill Robinson; Christopher Welsh Subject:Brian McComas is a loser! Attachments:Crittenden - Remittitur.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Attorney Brian McComas ,  I am making the record by stating confidently and truthfully, that you are a  liar !!    You , as an attorney should know what "fabricated evidence" means.   I understand what it means & I am not one to  mince the truth.    This case is FRAUD, WAS FRAUD AND ALWAYS WILL BE FRAUD.  All evidence that was not fabricated  was obtained fraudulently.       The statement below was made by you & besides being untrue & fraudulent, it is ABSOULUTELY STUPID!!!!    What kind of half‐wit would make a stupid statement about sufficiency of evidence that was never admissible from the  beginning?   Since the evidence  was never never admissible, why give it any more validity than it deserves & what  reason can there be to give prosecution opportunity to respond to something that should never come before them in  the first place.    You should know better than to make stupid, unfounded statements that you can not defend.  Unless you can prove  otherwise, which you have not and can not do, it will ALWAYS BE FRAUD!!!    With that being said, get it through your thick head:    ALL ORDERS AND JUDGEMENTS ARE VOID & THAT IS FINAL.   THERE WILL BE NO COMPROMISE!      THERE IS NO CONVICTION, NO FINES AND FEES, I AM COMPLETELY EXHONERAYTED!!!!!!    The records are fake and dirty , JUST LIKE YOU!       There is nothing real or clean about you.     You are a parasite , a blood sucking leach that contributes nothing.   All you do, is SUCK!    Cary Andrew Crittenden             You are the guilty one.      Regards,  Cary Andrew Crittenden      25                    On appeal, Crittenden claims the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. In addition, he contends the trial court erred in several ways when ir the jurors on stalking. Finally, he claims, based on People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueiias), the trial court violated his constitutional rights by ir restitution fines, fees, and assessments without assessing bis ability to pay the or amounts. Crittenden DID NOT CLAIM these or change his positiuon AT All 26 SANTA CIARA caa 27     Begin forwarded message:  From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>  Date: 3/13/2021  To: Brian McComas <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com>,rua <rua@uglyjudge.com>  Cc: supreme.court@jud.ca.gov,sixth.district@jud.ca.gov,Christopher Welsh  <cwelshlaw@gmail.com>,Bill Robinson <bill@sdap.org>,david.rose@aog.ca.gov  Subject: Re: Remittitur on Appeal  No Mr McComas.   That is not the way it works. I have already made myself clear.  I will not allow fraud  in this case.  Because of fraud ,  ALL ORDERS AND JUSGEMENTRS ARE VOID.     You made outrageous false accusation  on court record against Judge Michele McCay‐McCoy, claiming  that she had killed someone.  These accusations you made against her were completely malicious, had  no  merit or basis.      For over 1 year, I had repeatedly brought this to your attention and I directed you to correct the false  records you made and this witnessed by the justices of the 6th District and the Supreme Court for the  State of California.       They are obligated to hold you accountable under Canon 3(D) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.     You told a malicious lie and you did so on the record and that sir, is FRAUD.  Calling a spade a spade , I  pointed out the fraud & made it clear that those statements were not true.  You tried to flip the  script  and blame me & called me crazy.  But it was YOU, NOT ME that made the statement, & it was  completely absurd.      I asked you correct it and you did not.  Therefore,  You are BOUND TO IT, Not me.  Before making such a  accusation against a person,  and putting it on court record, you should first have  some evidence to back it up.  You had NONE!   This was  not  hearsay it was a LIE!    It has been made clear from the beginning,  that NO FRAUD WOULD BE ALLOWED & ,  that is absolute,  and without compromise.   Has not changed and never will.    By choosing to commit fraud, you compromised.    You compromised your own integrity, and the  integrity of judicial system.    I am under non obligation to the "court" which from the beginning had no  jurisdiction.    You were granted the opportunity to fix this on oral argument. You threw away that opportunity & now  it is gone.      You owe judge Michele McCay‐McCoy an apology.     Cary Andrew Crittenden          On August 12, 2020 at 9:13 AM, Brian McComas <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com> wrote:  28 Cary,    The Court of Appeal issued remittitur today.  See attached.  That means your appeal has  concluded.  It also terminates my and SDAP's representation.  This our final  correspondence on the subject.    We wish you the best going forward,    Brian C. McComas, Esq.   Law Office of B.C. McComas, LLP     PMB 1605, 77 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 101 San Francisco, CA 94102   Cell: 208-320-0383   Fax: 415‐520‐2310    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e‐mail is legally privileged and protected by the  Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510‐2521.  If the reader of this  message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for  delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,  distribution or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited.  If you have received  this e‐mail in error, please notify me immediately at (208) 320‐0383 and by return e‐ mail, and delete all copies of this message. Thank you.  29 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Saturday, March 13, 2021 10:40 AM To:Brian McComas; rua Cc:supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; sixth.district@jud.ca.gov; Christopher Welsh; Bill Robinson; david.rose@aog.ca.gov Subject:Re: Remittitur on Appeal Attachments:Crittenden - Remittitur.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  No Mr McComas.   That is not the way it works. I have already made myself clear.  I will not allow fraud in this  case.  Because of fraud ,  ALL ORDERS AND JUSGEMENTRS ARE VOID.     You made outrageous false accusation  on court record against Judge Michele McCay‐McCoy, claiming that she had  killed someone.  These accusations you made against her were completely malicious, had no  merit or basis.       For over 1 year, I had repeatedly brought this to your attention and I directed you to correct the false records you made  and this witnessed by the justices of the 6th District and the Supreme Court for the State of California.       They are obligated to hold you accountable under Canon 3(D) of the Rules of Professional Conduct.     You told a malicious lie and you did so on the record and that sir, is FRAUD.  Calling a spade a spade , I pointed out the  fraud & made it clear that those statements were not true.  You tried to flip the  script and blame me & called me  crazy.  But it was YOU, NOT ME that made the statement, & it was completely absurd.       I asked you correct it and you did not.  Therefore,  You are BOUND TO IT, Not me.  Before making such a  accusation against a person,  and putting it on court record, you should first have some evidence  to back it up.  You had NONE!   This was  not  hearsay it was a LIE!    It has been made clear from the beginning,  that NO FRAUD WOULD BE ALLOWED & ,  that is absolute, and without  compromise.   Has not changed and never will.    By choosing to commit fraud, you compromised.    You compromised your own integrity, and the integrity of judicial  system.    I am under non obligation to the "court" which from the beginning had no jurisdiction.    You were granted the opportunity to fix this on oral argument. You threw away that opportunity & now it is gone.      You owe judge Michele McCay‐McCoy an apology.     Cary Andrew Crittenden          On August 12, 2020 at 9:13 AM, Brian McComas <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com> wrote:  Cary,  30   The Court of Appeal issued remittitur today.  See attached.  That means your appeal has concluded.  It  also terminates my and SDAP's representation.  This our final correspondence on the subject.    We wish you the best going forward,    Brian C. McComas, Esq.   Law Office of B.C. McComas, LLP     PMB 1605, 77 Van Ness Ave., Ste. 101 San Francisco, CA 94102   Cell: 208-320-0383   Fax: 415‐520‐2310    CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e‐mail is legally privileged and protected by the Electronic  Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510‐2521.  If the reader of this message is not the intended  recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are  hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of the communication is strictly  prohibited.  If you have received this e‐mail in error, please notify me immediately at (208) 320‐0383  and by return e‐mail, and delete all copies of this message. Thank you.  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, March 21, 2021 4:31 PM To:supreme.court@jud.ca.gov; sixth.district@jud.ca.gov Cc:Brian McComas; Bill Robinson; david.rose@doj.ca.gov; Christopher Welsh Subject:Re: Brady Material Attachments:Randy Morris.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Interesting how Pullen's email to Randy Morris made no reference to the Lawless America Project, run by Bill Windsor,  who was already in town before Heidi Yauman's fake eviction.   (Mentioned on banner attachments ‐ Banners were  under contact between Lawless America and UglyJudge.com )  ‐  Pullen had just assumed these were by me or he did not  do his homework.  ‐  Or maybe he just lied )    Judge Manoukian's son had died 53 days earlier.   Judge Manoukian was suffering from a mental illness & accused Bill  Windsor AND ASSOCIATES of plotting terrorist attack.          On March 21, 2021 at 3:15 PM, Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> wrote:  See page 27 of attached document ‐ email from Lee Pullen to Randy Morris.        Cary Andrew Crittenden           Begin forwarded message:  From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>  Date: 3/21/2021  To: david.rose@aog.ca.gov,Bill Robinson <bill@sdap.org>,Brian McComas  <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com>  Cc: supreme.court@jud.ca.gov,sixth.district@jud.ca.gov,Brian McComas  <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com>,Christopher Welsh <cwelshlaw@gmail.com>  Subject: Internal Audit ‐ Santa Clara County Public Guardian  Mr. McComas should not have assumed that evidence was destroyed.          5   On March 21, 2021 at 1:52 PM, Cary Andrew Crittenden  <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> wrote:  If Mr. McComas thinks all evidence has been destroyed from Lee Pulen's  email account. he should think again.    Lee Pujllen btw,  was supervisor  over public guardian Donald Moody.  6 From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello Helpdesk, Lee Pullen Thursday, July 11, 2013 4:07 PM Helpdesk; Priscilla Aleman; James Ramoni Delete Email and Reset Phone Voicemail Today is my last day with Santa Clara County. Can you please delete my email account and re number 755-7606? Jim Ramoni will be serving as interim director and will need to change th• Thank you, Lee Pullen Director Department of Aging and Adult Services County of Santa Clara 333 West Julian San Jose, CA 95110 408· 7 55· 7 600