Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210322plCC701-32 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: 3/22/ 202 1 Document dates: 3/3/2021 – 3/10/2021 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 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  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 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: 3/22/ 202 1 Document dates: 3/3/2021 – 3/10/2021 Set 2 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 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 Enrollm 1001 to Usable Require Physical Education 13.8 15.6 17.6 19.5 Buildings and Grounds 3.3 4 5.1 6.3 Parking and Roads 2.1 3.6 4.4 5.2 Total acres without CSR 19.2 23.2 27.1 31 Added Buildings and Grounds for CSR 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 Added Parking and Roads for CSR 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 Total acres with CSR 19.7 24 28.1 32.3 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 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 30 Baumb, Nelly From:Sheri Furman <sheri11@earthlink.net> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 4:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:PAN Letter Regarding Castilleja EIR Attachments:PAN Letter re Castilleja EIR.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please see the attached letter regarding Agenda Item 7 at the March 8 council meeting. Thank you, Sheri Furman 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 31 Baumb, Nelly From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 9:10 AM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Kol Emeth is not a Precedent for Castilleja's Plans Attachments:KolEmethPlanningDoc6-10-16.pdf; CityComparisonChart.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Castilleja Expansion Plans PNQL 3-1-21 There is NO precedent for what is being asked for by Castilleja School. No other school in an R-1 zone exceeds their enrollment and otherwise doesn't comply with their Conditional Use Permit and gets away with it for years and years and then asks for 30% more students, or submits an expansion plan that requests thousands of square feet of floor area in excess of what is allowed by code and asks to dig an environmentally unfriendly underground garage to bring more traffic into the neighborhood.     Kol Emeth:  The EIR and the City staff reports cite Kol Emeth as a precedent, and state that they have to go along with Castilleja's request for an underground garage because they allowed Kol Emeth's. However:   1. Kol Emeth is a small synagogue, it doesn't have much traffic except on the sabbath; Castilleja is a 6 - 12 grade school that is full of activity day and night.   2. Kol Emeth's underground garage IS under the building and the variance they asked for was to encroach into a setback; Castilleja's proposed underground garage IS NOT under a building, is not a basement, and therefore, its garage does add to square footage, and because there is no similarity to Kol Emeth's, the city and the school cannot use it as a precedent.   3. Kol Emeth's variance for square footage had to do with the height of the ceiling in the lobby, not the garage (see att’d Kol Emeth 6-10-2016 Planning Dept approval).    City of Palo Alto Comparison Chart:  A planning commissioner, during the first PTC meeting, asked City staff to come up with a list of private schools in Palo Alto and what variances they have received and to compare floor area ratios actual versus allowed. I attach the chart that was presented 32 at the next meeting. You will notice there are hardly any variances requested, mostly the schools are below their allowable Floor Area Rations. Also, there is a blank in the place where Castilleja’s “bldg. square footage” should be entered and was not. It would show a vast gap between what the school is claiming is existing Floor Area of 116,297 and allowable of 81,375, which does appear. There was no further discussion of this chart.  This project would set an unwelcome precedent to the rest of the Palo Alto’s R-1 districts dealing with CUPs. Who would want an underground garage exit emptying out into their narrow street? Planning to reduce traffic by requiring shuttling for 50% of the students would allow the school to earn more students and put the risk on the school instead of the neighbors.     Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Sincerely,  Andie Reed  PNQL    ‐‐   Andie Reed CPA 160 Melville Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809         PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT CITY 0 F • '.)0 Ha,111 ton /\v< 1 1 !:>t11 f-1(> '' PALO Palo Al o CA '14301 ALTO , so 32' 211111 Kevin Davies Hawley Peterson Snider 1237 E. Arques Avenue, Suite B Sunnyvale, CA 94085 Subject: Kol Emeth-4175 Manuela Avenue [15PLN-00129] Dear Mr. Davies: June 10, 2016 On April 21, 2016 the Architectural Review Board recommended approval of the application referenced above and as described below. After discussions with the application's attorney, the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director) approved the project on June 10, 2016. The approval will become effective 14 days from the postmark date of this letter, unless an appeal is filed in accordance with Title 18 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The approval was based on the findings in Attachment A, and is subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment B for the project. The project is described as follows: 4175 Manuela Avenue [15PLN-00129]: Request by Kevin Davies, on Behalf of Congregation Kol Emeth, for Major Architectural Review to Demolish an Existing One Story Synagogue Facility Totaling Approximately 11,691 Square Feet and Construction of a New Synagogue Facility with approximately 23,555 sf area. Th e project includes 1). Variance to Exceed the Maximum Allowable Floor Area by approximately 4,943 Square Feet for a portion of the Building with a vau lted ceiling over 17 Feet in Height. This varian ce is not for Actual Floor Area, but Volume Space that by Code is counted toward th e Floor Area Maximum and Relates more t oward Building Mass as opposed to the Intensity of the Proposed Use, and 2). A Variance to Allow the Access Ramp to the Subterranean Garage, as well as the Below Grade Garage Itself, to encroach into the Special Setback. Religious Facilities in the Residential Districts are also Subject to a Conditional Use Permit. Environmental Assessment: This Project is Exempt from Environmental Review Pursuant to a CEQA Gu idelines Sections 15061, 15302 and 15303. Zoning District: Single Family Residential District (R-1(20,000)). Un less an appeal is filed, this project approval shall be effective for one year from June 24, 2016, within which time construction of the project shall have commenced. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. The time period for a project may be extended once for an additional year by the Director of Planning and shall be open to appeal at that time. In the event the building permit is not secured for the project within the time limit s specified above, the Architectural Review approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Cit yOfPaloAlto.org Should you have any questions regarding this ARB action, please do not hesitate to contact the Project Planner, Ranu Aggarwal, by email at raggarwal@m-group.us or by phone at (650) 938-1111. Since';>;~. / // ~c:J,'e, &>rh":Jf ~ ~ =? {//-/L--f>r ::s'<M ~ Jonathan Lait, AICP Assistant Director of Planning and Community Environment cc: Mindie S. Romanowsky, 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Yvonne Boxerman, 4175 Manuela Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Attachments: A: Findings for Archi1tectural Review Approval B: Conditions of Approval 15PLN-00129 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 2 DocuSign Envelope ID: BOF56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 Attachment B: PA Private Schools in Residential Zones ' NCT/ 1n Z?r1 -I zorie School Z~ning Building Allowed ' APN Address Lot Size CUP Variance Notes Names Desi nation SQFT1 FAR?&' l CUP granted in 2010 allowing modifications A Variance was to the previously required for the approved CUP# 90-UP placement of the I .. , 21. The increase In FAR new buildings within 2890 Middlefield &numberof thP. rear setback. The Located with a l Keys School 132-03--19~ Road, Palo Alto, CA R-1 124,830 32,SGO 38,199 classrooms would not distancl? between the Church. Expansion of (Lower School) intensify the use/ new buildings and 1Modular classrooms 94303 ~ increase student the rear property line in March 2010 number and would would be no less than provide the 10 feet, per the opportunity to lmprnve conditions of the existing traffic approval. situation. An amendment to CUP I #87-UP-40 in 2012 for additlon and operation A variance to allow a rhe CUP# 87-UP-40 St. Elizabeth Allowed FA!\ of 3,383 sqft Pre Kand five foot exception to amended permits 59· Seton School ·A 1095 Channing Av, 53,llOsqft, K building adjacent to the height limit for a UP-26 and 64-UP-7 2 003-27-0'11 R-1 l9l ,74G 54,303 new structure to Jhlch allowed them Orel(el School Palo Alto, CA 94301 on ground exlstln~ 1(-8 school. This house wireless I rotation of Church, (Grades PK-Bl 58,274 sqft allows additional student enrollment and communication Rectory1 Convenl and better vehichular antennas. School I circulation. CUP In 2013 for 5,524 sqft addition and I This project was remodel. The project Torah Academy 307( Louts Rd, Palo combined APN # 127-3 (Grades 4-5) U7-26·209 Alto, CA 9~303 R-l ~9,310 4,230 6,543 26-067 and the total No Variance rnally w;thdrawn In FAR allowed wns 9,754 2015. sqft. The proposed FAR was 9, 752 sqft. I A CUP granted in 2009 to allow after school enrichment activities, 1295 Middlefield Rd, homework assistance, Lbcated with Church. 4 'lru !Grades K·61 003·43-()<15 Palo Alto, CA 94301 R·l 44,526 7,275 14,108 and tutoring for up to No Variance Exp;in slon In 1994 10 children at a time in the Sunday School class rooms of Trinity Luthernn Church. On May 2017 CUP I approved for ilmendlng CUP# 03-CUP-07 for reducing student s Bowman ~)chool 167-05-07.0 4000 Terman Drive, R·l(to,000) 63,318 23,500 19, 745 enrollnment number No Variance IGrodes K·B) Palo Alto, CA 94306 and allowing the students to enroll at the new annex campus located at 693 Arastradero Road. - 6., 1 'cas~lllel~ !•chopl !31ifBr,yon\ St1Jalo . w~ 124--1;?-0:14 R.l(lQ,00 0) ·26R,78·2 81,385-(l,;rade• ~-12) A.lto,.ca,94301 Bv I\. J r-CUP approved in 2013 7 Athena Acil demv 147-08-047 525 San Antonio Av, R-1(8,0001 84,070 18,964 25,976 for private school and No VarliilnCe (Grades 1-8) Palo Alto, CA 94306 I daycare use in PAUSD owned property l l . e.e... t?.'. ~) ~~~ ~-.:> ~ ~t; (J -~ () .G') f'J : oo 0 ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. NET LOT AREA LOT COVERAGE EXISTING FLOOR AREA RATIO PROPOSED FLOOR AREA RATIO EXISTING GROSS FLOOR AREA PROPOSED GROSS FLOOR AREA (INCroo-rS-EXISTING CAMPUS BU!LDlNGS) NO. OF STORIES TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION OCCUPANCY GROUPS I FIRE PROTECTION SYSTEM ZONE DISTRICT SETBACKS FRONT EMBARCADERO SIDE BRYANT SIDE EMERSON REAR KELLOGG MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT EXISTING VEHICLE PARKING SPACES PROPOSED VEHICLE PARKING SPACES ~U.t-1 . I ACK!::::i 124-12-034 268,783 I 6.17 124-12-033 EXCLUDED FROM PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 124-12-031 EXCLUDED FROM PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TOTAL AREA 266,765 6.17 268.765 SF ALLOWED EXISTING ! PROPOSED PAMC."" 100,374 SF 65,273 SF I 72.240 SF 18.12.030 (35.0%) (27%) TABLE 1 (24.3%) 0.43 ··o.43 ABOVE GRADE SF G_6.297 SF (A FA ~ BELOW GRADE SF 43,913 SF TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE (INCL. LO\NER LEVEL) 160.210 SF [' u1.A \;,- ABOVE GRADE SF < 115.895 SF (SEE G.005) Gt~A-=\ BELOW GRADE SF 76,543 SF (SEE G.004) TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE r(i (INCL. LOWER LEVEL) 192.438 SF "\LJ , f\ \..-- 2 (1 LEVEL OF BASEMENT) TYPE 11-B E (MAIN OCCUPANCY), A2, A3, B, S FULL FIRE ALARM AND SPRINKLERS R-1 (10000) ALLOWED EXISTING PROPOSED 24'-0" 108'-6" 108'-6" 20'-0" 22'-0" -52'-9" 20'-0" -48'-1" 20'-0" 20'-0" -22'-0" 20'-0" -78'-5" 20'-0" 2-7'-~ J.1'-8'.' -2Ef'-O" • '3 2'-6'' - AL°lDWED I EXISTING PROPOSED PAMC ..... I I ... 30·-o .. 18.12.040 "'33'-0" 34'-6" TABLE 2 EXISTING I EXISTING PAMC., ... BELOW GRADE ABOVE GRADE 18.52.040 1 s2 TABLE 1 0 REQUIRED I PROPOSED CAV !PROPOSED CAV CAVSPACESI BELOW GRADE ABOVE GRADE CG"'"·· e "'"e ~..., G .. 000 COVER SHEET G .. 001 jPROJECT ALTERNATIVE DIRECTORY, PROJECT ALTERNATIVE INf G .. 002 DISTRIBUTED DROP OFF SITE PLAN DIAGRAMS G .. 003 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE FLOOR AREA DIAGRAMS -G .. 004 I PROJECT ALTERNATIVE BELOW GRADE CAMPUS FLOOR fl.REAS G .. 005 I PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ABOVE GRADE CAMPUS FLOOR AR EAS G .. 010 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT AND ELEVAT G .. 030 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE OPEN SPACE PLAN -G.,034 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CIRCULATION PLAN AS .. 100 EX!STING CAMPUS PLAN AS .. 102 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ACCESSIBILITY PLAN 11 02 LANDSCAPE T .. 2.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TREE PROTECTION PLAN T .. 3.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TREE PROTECTION NOTES L.2.1 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE TREE PLANTING PLAN 3 i' 04 ARCHiTECTURAL ~ AA1 .. 00 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE CAMPUS SITE PLAN AA 1 .. 02 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE ACCESSIBLE EXIT PLAN AA2 .. 01 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE G/.l.RAGESJ:TE./ ELO.ORPLAN Lie.PEP. LEVI 1"""'2 .. 02 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE GARAGE SITE I FLOORPLAN LOWER LEV J\ I~ PROJECT ALTERNATIVE GARAGE EXHIBIT LOWER LEVEL -SOUAI I\ ENCROACHMENT I PARKING COMPARISON TO ORIGINAL PROJEC AA3 .. 01 ~ROJECT ALTERNATIVE SITE SECTIONS AA .. 302 PROJECT ALTERNATIVE GARAGE STREET VIEWS AB .. 301 PRo.iECT ALTERNATIVE EMERSON STREET VIEW \.(IB .. 302 PROJ~CT ALTERNATIVE BUILDING ELEVATIONS -~\ ~ ~~~ ~ ~~ ~ 1 ~:~ ..... .., ~i ~ -~ € JJ~ -1-5 ~ ~~~ ] -0 -~ -5 · ---> l~ -;5 () ~ --•'t tr--~ ~V'~ .... e .. ~ t5 g 0 0 tj ® \}J 33 Baumb, Nelly From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:47 AM To:DuBois, Tom; Burt, Patrick; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Stone, Greer; Council, City Subject:Castilleja Floor Area Not Reliable Attachments:Basic numbers Oct 22, 2020.pdf; CHART.PDF; CastillejaFloorArea2-18-2021.PDF; CityComparisonPrivateSchoolsR-1 9-9-20.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and Council Members:   Castilleja claims in their expansion plans that they are merely "replacing square footage" with their request for a Variance. Review of the documentation reveals that they are, in fact, requesting significantly more square footage. They base part of their rationale for the Variance on existing floor area, and the school's plans and City staff use this number, 116,297SF. However, there is no documentation for this number. There is significant documentation for a lower number, 99,800SF (see below).    CHART referenced as the source of existing floor area numbers (see CHART att'd):  Castilleja's attorney, Mindie Romanowsky, in a letter dated Feb 25, 2021 used the attached “Castilleja School: Historic Permit History of Vested Square Footage” (Chart) to prove-up the square footage allowed (her words), see page 6, Applicant Binder, Castilleja page of CPA website: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80466 Further, Planning staff in an email last week described this chart as prepared by the Applicant team based on City records, and discussed by City attorney and the Director, and double-checked against available data.     This Chart gives confusing numbers that sometimes include basements and sometimes don't. It doesn't add up to 116,297, it adds up to 126,719. After reducing the number for basements, it adds up to 99,600 (we know floor area doesn't include basements).    VARIANCE:   1. The school is requesting, in its plans dated 10-22-20, a proposal that will result in total floor area of 113,667SF.  Attached historical documents suggest that existing floor area is 99,800SF (see att'd: CastillejaFloorArea2-18-21).  Therefore, it is likely that the school is requesting 13,867SF in excess of existing floor area. 2. The campus site has an allowable above-grade floor area of 81,385SF per code (see the math, Basic Numbers 10-22-20 att'd). The proposed Floor Area of 113,667SF is 32,282SF in excess of allowable floor area. 34 3. If the 32,480SF garage is added to floor area, which code seems to indicate it should be, the proposed floor area of 113,667SF is actually 146,147SF. This result is 64,762SF in excess of allowable floor area (and 46,347SF over the 99,800, if that's existing floor area). This is an exceptionally significant request for a Variance in any case. See City Comparison Private Schools R-1 (att'd), prepared by the planning staff for the 9-9-20 PTC meeting, comparing other private schools in Palo Alto and what they have asked for in variances; nothing compares to what Castilleja is asking for. Oddly, there is a blank area where the existing floor area should be, which makes it confusing for the reader. Existing Floor Area is a very important number that needs to be determined and verified, with back-up documentation, so everyone can understand what we are talking about.    Thank you for your attention to this matter.  Andie Reed PNQL -- Andie Reed CPA 160 Melville Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809   Floor Area Ratio PNQL 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, in 2016 it was 99,800). 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). 0 Castilleja School: Historic Permit History of Vested Square Footage Buildings to be Decommissioned and Rebuilt under Proposed Master Plan Existing Campus Building Existing Site Plan exduding basements , -·---~'""'-cl .......__ .......,,,,.. I Campus Center (converted from Dorms) Mechanical Building Fine Arts Building Maintenance Building Total' Admin./Chapel 1,901 SF - (via field verification} 84,572SF Permit Histor" A.40 _.n~ :ffl'b ' !l'icrt1fiche ·Gfl.·HP~ Proposed Master Plan exduding basements 84,572 SF 0 0 0 84,572 SF5 1'1 L'11Cl ~t-"CJ~I '\I less ad \us+vv\evrt3 <-z:; oo + IC/ B t5) = .for" lo~S~VV\e....v-.TS , ') .. ·-- Notes The new campus building will resuit from the decommissioning and re-use of vested square footage, with no Increase in existing above grade square footage. Square f.cctage-t9-be de-commissioned and re- used for new campus building r Ad 1 'vs+e.d Floor .A-7-eG'.J w 1q) 60lf approved the decommission of 1328 square feet and the addition of 1885 squarce feet, 557 of which to meet handicap ccessibility requirements. ,_-------+------1i11t--~-;-~_7s_.,7J,.-·,....'1C'-'-· h..,.';;°..:.:.~"--:Br,..:;.y:.,,.;~'_d'!}i11.:'i3W!dlhg. Pe f'inlt''l approved 8881 square feet. ____ _ . Sf'Lrii o04-sb/06PLN OO@:f* Approved new Physic.a/ Arts Building and restricted number of persons in lower basement to 500 occupant:S. ~!~. (ifSo "Piiys~fu§.Y!fd/n" Perm~~gyed Jib.,266.sg.u.a..reJie'CFcJudJtl!L}Jssi_menf.levels. Physical Arts (Gym} fJ J ,A.. see \,..f,,...;.Q NOTE: The most recent CUP {OO-CUP·23) approved an enroltment increase (from 385 to 415 students) with associated i;onditlons, but did NOT appro11e any site lmpro11ements. Condition of Approval No. 3 states wNo approV(l/s for Olly physical !mprovem~nts ro the site are implied or given through opprc~.oa! of this Ust! P~nnlt [OO-CUP-23}. -No other use penntts reeelved by t;astiUeja. as .summarized in thls document. contain the afore.mentioned Jang11au. ev mntrast. all the permits contained ln the above charts control both the use and the physical site Improvements. ~ --1 tta-ssreem-S:::iktk:g A: 23-.S0e;-Glas-s~oom--BuHdittR:B:-8-;:'00;-€lassrc;am-Suffdin.e-C--$500•-. ------- 'Dorm Building Conversion Permit: (Basement+ 1" fioor + 2"" Floor+ 3"' floor) or 5600+11,000+11,300 + 11,300 = 39,200. 'We believe that the reference to "second floor" schedule was a mistake because the F!"e Arts Building has always been single story and field verlfkaticn Indicates the building to be S,368 SF. 'The totals do not include the two single family homes to be demollshed, which total 1.986 Sf and 1772 SF, respectively, per field verification. 5 The masler plan re-submitial applicztlon jdated 4/28/17i wHI need to be amended, as it currently proposes the new Gm1pus building to be 88,173 and it should be 84,572, per the abC11e analysis. ~ ~ !.,.._, ~-(". -t I 'V~ ::;-"T\ ' . / '-J c.-4 3 n i'1 j~ 71 "' -~\11 ..., I """b \\} =--n' p, .::. -t- "'' VJ ;r· $:l... it '\;-.:\ -0 ~ cr--. ~ ·---"' J , _____________ !_fv~11c~rohck '3 3 11 _ A I Agenda fate: I ! To: 1 From: Subject: ) February 1J , 20t6 Architectural Review Board Christopher, ruord•n, Planner Architectural Review Board Staff Report Department: Planning and Community Environment 1310 BRYANT STREET [OSPLN-00450]: Request by Jonathan James of Kornberg Associated of ~ehalf of Castilleja School for major Architectural Review of a new 13 ,451 sqJ are 1eet physical arts building with two levels of below grade basement to replace the existing 13,844 square foot one level physical arts building. Environm~ntal Assessment: Categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Envirqnme tal Quality Act (CEQA) per section 15314. Zone District: R-1 o:o,OOf). I I RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the ARS reymnmen.d the Director of Planning and Community Envirorunent approve the proposed project based upon the Architectural Review Findings (Attachment B) and conditions of approl al (Attachment E) attached to the this report. SUMMARY OF LAND USE AC1il0~ Background Castilleja School is located on a 268:,783 square fo ot parcel at 1310 Bryant Street in the 1' R-1 (10,000) zone district. The site is bo nded by Embarcadero Road to the west, Bryant Street to the north, Kellogg Avenue to the ~ast, ~nd Emerson Street to the south. Founded in 1907 as a college prf paratory school for girls,! it operates under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as a non- sectarian ~11-girls middle and high scho61 (61h-12th grade). The CUP limits the school population to 415 stuqents. \ \ Project Description The project would include demolition of the existing single story, 13,844 square foot Physical Arts Center and the construction of a 13,451 square foot replacement Physical Arts Building. The new building would include three 1 vels, one at grade an two below grade. The ground floor level would include a gym for the hi~ s~hool students, a fitness center, a lobby, and offices. The upper basement would include a dance studio and locker rooms. The lower basement would include a gym for the middle school ktud~nts, exercise rooms, locker rooms, and storage space. i 1310 Bryant ptreet 05PLN-00450 I Me 1 -1 The existing physical arts building is .<~onstructed of cement blocks. According to the architect, the arch~tecture of the proposed ~uildfng should derive from the campus to help the proposed building 1look more like adjacent buildmgs rather than appearing like a monument set apart from other cariipus buildings. \ \ To incre~se the new building's c9mp ltibility with adjacent buildings, exterior materials would include wood shingles, brick, and frameless glass with glass fins. I I The project's sustainability meaL res\ as proposed by the project architect are included in Attachment A. These would include a reduced site footprint, the use of low flow irrigation and drought tolerant landscaping, Forest Stfwardship Council-certified wood products, skylights and full-height windows, operable windows, and stub outs for the possible future installation of roof top photo.voltaic panels. \ I DISCUSSION Hist?ri~ Status . . \ . . . . . . . Cast1lleJa· School LS listed as a Categdry 3 h1stonc site on the City's Hlstonc Inventory List. Normally; Category 3 sites outsidb n 6wntown and historic districts do not require a historic review. flowever, because the pr(>ject1 is subject to discretionary review by the ARB, staff is required fo review the new construct~on for compatibility with the site's historic structures pursuant ~o the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA's standards of review are the Secretary of the Interior's Stancliard for Rehabilitation. These standards (in excerpt) require that " ... rJtated new construction ... ;shal~ be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the kassing, size, scale, and I arcHitectural fe atures to protect the historic integrity of the . I property ~nd its environment." $taff has determined that the proposed building would be compatible with the historic site in ma~sing, size, scale, and architectural features (specifically colors and materials). The one story anti simple massing are consistent with, and subordinate to, the scale, 1 massing, and the colors \and ~materials of the site's historic buildings. The building would estrblish design linkages With he adjacent historic buildings which would make the proposed new building more compati le with the site than the existing building and the contempo11ary design would differenf iate r e new building from the historic buildings. Floor Arer Ratio I I Site devel?pment standards of the R-1 Residential District are applicable to the project. These standards ~imit the allowable floor cirea on the approximately 6.2 acre site to 81,385 square feet. The total existing square footage of the campus is 99 ,831 square feet which exceeds the maximum allowable floor area by 18,446 square foet. In 1999, a Conditional Use Permit was approved allowing the school to decommission 1,~ 28 square feet of unusable third floor attic space in the Administration building due to its l · w h:eadroom and add 1,885 square feet of floor area during the remodel of the Administration bµilding. Since 557 square feet of the new floor area was set aside for accessibility upgrades, it \ did \not count as additional floor area and therefore, the Administration building remodel did\not ~ncrease the total floor area of the school. I 1310 Bryant Street I OSPLN-00459 _______ l ) The curr~nt project would include ~he ~emolition of the existing single story, 13,844 square foot Physical~1Arts building and the donsttuction of a replacement Physical Arts building. The proposed building would include ~ 13,451 square foot first floor level and two basement levels totaling 1,325 square feet. This ~elow grade area would not be included in the calculation of gross flo?r area. The Low Densify ~esidential Gross Floor list of exclusions is contained in PAMC SFction 18.04.030(65)(D)., This list excludes basements where the finished level of the first floot is not more than three! fee1 above the grade around the perimeter of the building foundatiop. The finished floor oft~e fo 1 st floor as per Sheet A-6 of the Development Plans would be constf\lcted at grade and therefdre, the 13,451 square feet of basement would not be added to gross floqr area. The total floor ar~a o~ the campus would be reduced by the proposed building since the first floor of the proposed building is 393 feet smaller than the existing building. I , I Parking In 2000, the Director of Planning: an9 Community Environment approved a Conditional Use Permit which provided the school the opportunity to increase the number of students from 385 to 415 students and to add two full-time! faculty members. A condition of this permit was the requirem9nt that the school reconfi~re 1'heir parking layout to provide a total of 97 on site parking spaces. lJ'he project would includ~ the temporary conversion of an existing 27 stall parking lot located tJ the south of the Phys~cal f'Uts building and accessed from Emerson Street to a construction staging area with only five ~arking spaces available for staff members. A portion of the playin~ field adjacent to Embar~ade~o Road, accessed from an existing parking lot next to the Administr'ation building, would be Jcon1erted to a temporary parking lot for 22 vehicles to help offset the temporary loss of parkin g. This temporary parking would be converted back to turf after completion of the proj ect, and the 27-stall lot would be restored. Tre~~s An Evaluation of Trees at Castilleja S 1hool was prepared by Barrie Coate & Associates, dated October 6i 2005. Eleven trees are ¢ons~dered Regulated Trees and consist of several street trees and ordinimce size oaks. The tree'.s h*e a high retention rating because of their health (all specimen ltrees were rated good-~xcel~ent condition) and their aesthetic and environmental contribution to the community. Thp tree assessment identified both precautionary measures to prote:ct thr;r trees during construction an~ areas of potential conflicts. In addition, several areas were ident:ified that could require uiodifications to the proposed construction techniques in order to preserve the protected trees. Thei two trees with the greatest potential of being affected by the project are Tree A, a 28-inch diameter ak located between the existing Physical Arts building and the pl~ying field, and Tree B, ~ 46-inch diameter Oak located in the parking intended to be used for the construction staging area. f he Planning Arborist reviewed the tree assessment and met the p~oj ect applicant at the site to Jdiscuss the affected trees. The review resulted in the applicant's agreement to tree protectlon measures added as conditions of project approval. In summary, conditions would ensure tha~ the stairwell areas and building footprint not be located -I any closer to Tree A than as shown! on the development plans, and ensure that the low hanging branches on Tree B not be removed ia i extended tree protection zone. 1310 Bryant Street OSPLl\l-00450 PLANNING DIVISJO_N Memorandum l-b ~ Date: January 10, 2006 To: From: Subject: Chris Riordan Project Planner I Dennis Backlund \ Historic Preserv~tior Planner Department: Planning and Community Environment 1310 Bryant Street [OSPLN-00000-00450]: Staff review, under the Secretary's Standards ~or Rehabilitation, of the historic compatibility of a proposal by Kornberg Associates Architects to replace an existing gymnasium with a ne1 gymnasium at Castilleja School, a Category 3 historic site on the City 's Historic Inventory that is located in the R-1(929) zone dis~·icti The project Plan Set is dated December 14 (landscaping) and December 15 (building and grading plan), 2005 and was received by the Pl nning Department on December 22, 2005. Project Description The proposed project comprises (a) the demolition of the existing 13.844 square-foot gymnasium, a non-historic structure constructed circa 1960, (b) construction in the same location of new one-story gymnasium containing 13 .451 square feet and an additional 21 ,325 square feet in two levels located below grade, (c a landscape plan, and (d) li ghting. As indicated on Sheet A-1 of the plans the new gymnasium would be located adjacent to the historic Chapel, designe~ by Birge Clark in 1926, and the Administration Building, designed by Roy C. Heald in ~910. The oew gymnasium's scale and mas in g would be similar to the existing gymna ium with its lower section sited adjacent to the Chapel, ang the taller section (30 feet) located beyond to the southwest. The walls would be clad with red brick veneer (intended '.to match the brick in the school's entry gates).and brown shingles (intended to match the shingles of the Chapel and Administration Buildin g). All metal elements of the bu?lding (for example, panel fascias, window framing, and extruded aluminum trellises, would be painted to match the dark green tri m elements of the historic buildings a~d o~er campus buildings. Certain portions of the wall would be composed of frame less glass systems. The landscaping plan includes I P .C-4 ) ) -th•-s ~a. C,fy ,,f PP-loGll.\-o ~t!A\f1\ nt fl~ 17 ~ 4 ) 1)1~\}J!llt(<a.prll- IAttachment C T1 i{~~ r R\ordaY\; Project's Conformance with Zoning Code Regulations p I ttr>ner 1310B t Str I F'l N 05PLN 00450 iryan , eet I e o. - Table 1: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.12 (R-1(10,000) DISTRICT) I Feature Regulation Proposed/Existing Conformance Minimum Site Area 10,000 sq. ft. 268,783 sq. ft. Conforms PAMC 18.12.040(a) I Min. Site Width 60 ft. I Approx. 500 ft. Conforms PAMC 18.12.040(a) Min. Sit1~ Depth 100 I Approx. 630 ft. Confom1s PAMC 18.12.040(a) Front Setback 20 ft. Approx 25 ft. (Bryant St.) Conforms PAMC 18.12.040(a) I ,,..., -Street Side Setback 16 ft. I Approx.30 ft. Conforms ~~ .. \C, PAMC 18.12.040(a) ~· (Kellogg Ave.) 0P Approx. 115 ft. l\ "'°~ (Embarcadero Rd.) Rear Setback ~' j Approx. 20 ft. ~t' PAMC 18.12.040(a) (Emerson Street). Floor An!a Ratio I 81,385 sq. ft. J 99,438 ss . ft/ / Existing PAMC 18.12.040(a) I 99 831 SQ. ft. I N onqonforming. I Proje,ct reduces existing floor area by 393 sq. ft. Site Coverage 94,074 sq. ft. 4,474 sq. ft. Conforms PAMC 18.12.040(a) I Building Height (Gym) 30 ft 30 ft. Conforms PAMC 18.12.040(a) Daylight Plane (Gym) 10' at side and 45 degrees No Encroachment Conforms PAMC 18.12.040(a) 16' a~ rear setback line and 45 degrees Table 2: CONFORMANCE W.TH CHAPTER 18.83 (parkin2/landscape) Parkin2 Spaces Parking for Visitors and Staff Accessible Parking Bicycle Parking Perimeter plantings 1310 Bryant Street 05PLN-00450 Required/ Allowed 97 Spaces per Cui> \ Four accessible parking stalls for 97 spaces. I 1 per three students fo r 138 bike racks \ 5 ft. wide I I L Proposed Conf9rmance 97 Spaces Conforms Four at grade Conforms 3 6 bike racks Does not Cont<mn. Required as condition of approval. Minimum 5 ft. wide Conforms around school B. Project Description existing conditions: Figure 3 11roject Detail Above Grade S .F. Basement Level S.F. Total Square Footage Floor Area Ratio Maximum Building Height5 Minimum Setbacks Emerson Kellogg Bryant Embarcadero On-Site Parking Spaces Underground Spaces Surface Spaces Site Coverage Open Space Mast~r Plan Proposed Current Canurus 105,7~0 sf. I 105 ,700 sf. I 69,00Q sf. 42,300 sf. 174,7~)0 sf. 148,000 sf. 0.37 I 0.37 34'6"' 34'6" I 71'6" ' 15, 6" 16'0" 25'2" 38'5" 17'9" 108'6'i 108 '6" 170 sp,aces 73 spaces 130 sdaces 0 spaces 40 spa~es 73 spaces 21% 22% 99,480 sf. 93 ,298 sf. C. Neighborhood Compatibility and Design Enhancement Exception Castilleja's Master Plan is committed to an architectural tyle and massing that is compatible with our neighborhood. Castilleja, located in { n R-1 single-family zone district, has attempted to comply with all R-1 development sta~dards . The R-1 building height standard, however, when applied to academic structures 1 ould create long stretches of monoton.ous roof forms. Castilleja's Master Plan proposes a Design Enhancement Exception which would allow for variation in roof fonns typidal of our neighborhood, producing a more visually filteresting and compatible street view. At no point would the height of the new building exceed the maximum height of existi g campus buildings. D. Sustainability Program Castillejja's Master Plan attempts to set aggressive goals which will demand an on-going comq1itment to achieve Castilleja's sustainability mission. Charting a leadership path in the building sector does not simply entail incorporating a list of discrete design features; it requires a fundamental departure from business-as-usual. Building Castilleja's Master Plan will necessitate engaging our design and construction team in an integrated design and delivfry process that is characterized by an exceptional degree of interdisciplinary collaboration -from the very earliest stage of design, all the way through construction and start of perations. Castilleja's sustainable campus is expected to produce benefits, over a long span of time, to numerous constituents: the students~ employees, neighbors, the Palo Alto community as 3 Maximum Building Height defined per City of Palo Alto's Municipal Code Definition 18.04.67 6 ? o s1 ED l)~ (a..s. +i \ '~-' I ·)""'0J,,:';T,..,k' .. ,,,._ Development Rev·1ew ·:·'°(-..,f },'.' !-o .. ,,~ )~·:'·:.~~· · · "?~)~ Application I ~v ; 1 '0 '\ Departmen t of Planning & Community Environment • • . , • iJ I (~(., -, , <~"'/ ::~so Hamilton Avenue, Palo ~llo, CA 94301 '"-·~.;1.1 r.·('n"~; .. :-6 650-329-2441 -plandlv.info@cityofpaloalto.org App:~;=~ts are required (or al/ appl/caUon s~bmlttals, please call ID sched~/e. ,, 0 Application Request I ·liH~l.tJ.01'~•i?Y;1EtJt'i~!fi1~[u . .. . _{llL.'Hlfh'ff~ ... CJ Architectural Review CJ Site an , Design Fee Coll~cted C:::.1 Condi\ional Use Permit C) Subdiv~ion : 0 Design Enhancement Excep tion C1 Tempo my Use Permit Cost Recovery Yes I No I CJ Historic Review 0 Transfer of Development Rights/HRS CJ Horne Improvement Exception 0 Variance Cos\ Recovery # CJ lndividual RBview r · I '.::! Zone ~tange 0 Planned Community Zone Change LJ Other: Receipt# 0 Protected Tree Removal I @ Property Location I Address of Subject Property: -~-~.:,~§.ry~t St~~~~)o Alto, CA 94301 ,,.,_,,,._..,...,,,,._W,,.,,.,~,-......-<ff_..._,.,.,,~.,..._..,,..,.,..,~,v••-_.,,...,_,..uu<<--•- H-1 124-12-034 I Zone District -Assessor's Parcel Numb~r Historic Categor; (if ~pplicable): ... ~ ......... _ .. ,_, __ @) Requested Action/Project Description 1 ______ .__..... .... .,,., ________ ,.. .. _M_'<•O•••-•-••<"•-• .. -··-"---'' A..., Application for Conditional tJse Permit and Master Plan ·see attached 0 Applicant/Primary Contact I Name: Kathleen Layendecker ·1 Email: klayendecker@castilleja.org Address: 131.~ Bryant Street Ph one 1: (650) ~28-3160 City: Palo Alto Slate: ~A Zip: 9~-~Q!__ Phone 2; (650) 470·7751 _,,,,,__ .. __ ""'"' _____ ... __ .,~-YNY'"' __ , __ -i·----------·--·· 0 Property Owner Name: Castil~!_~-~h<?_~~~o~~d~~~~,--,-1 ____ . Email: ~aye~~~cker@castilleja.org , .. ,_. ___ """"""--~· Address: 13!0 Bry~nt Street . -··-r----------Phone 1: (650) 3,28-3160 ·---- Cily: Palo Alto State: i:f~--Zip: .94301 Phone 2: (650) 470-7751 J hereby certify lhat I am the owner of record of lhe property de~cribed ~Box #2 above< and that I approve of lhe requested aclio~ herein. If this applicalion(s) is subject lo 100% cosl recovery of planning coslS, l undersland that charges for staff time spent processing this applicalion(s) wilt ~e based on the Policy and Procedures documenl p ovldedJ1 me. I understand lhal my initial ~po$1t Is a~ estimalo of those charges and not a lee, and I agree lo abide by Iha billing policy : stated. r /H AAA.-iv !r'i::~ ,lf',4 --~.·I Signature of Owner: I T,. -Date: ~...J0,.2.0/p I . , ©Action Ta~n v Date Decision 0 Planning Manager '• -·--, .. -··-·------~·-----.. --··-T-,,_,_, _____ .. ,,..,,H•-•-"'-•••-•• -- ,_, Director of Planning 10 -··--~--~,,~-,--•''"" •-·-•·v•• City Council ·-- .. vurw ciiyofpaloano 019 EXISTING SITE: 8. State all known or suspected prior uses, o~erations, or other activities on the site over the past 20 ---···-·-------~------------------~--- 9. Sizeofsite: Gross 286,783 s.t. 10. Site h; owned X Rented by applicant. 11. Existing use of property: Private school _(g~ades 6-12) for girls *Attach photographs of project site, also ,Include an aerial photo ot the project site. 12. Number of existing structures_6 __ _ urrent Use Administration/Theater, Gym, Art, Library/Dining, Classrooms, anol\ilaTntenance --·---~----- 13. Size of existing structure 105,710 sJ. a ove gra e nditi.Q..n Fair to Excellent 2.0lb .. 14. Will any structure be demolished for this f roject No __ -· /0~71D f)f < i/ Ooo>S ... 15. Total square footage to be demolished_7_7...,.J5_8_1_s_.f_. ----~-- 16. Total number of building occupants for el sting use 438 students and ·122 FTE. employ_e~s ' l]Cf> 710 S f-- 17. Number of parking spaces 2-3 ____ % c mpact spaces 13.7%.. . #Bicycle spaces 95 ___ _ 18. If current use is residential: Number of owner-occupied units ~N_IA_· ----- Number of renter-occupied units ..... 1 ________ _ PROPOSED PROJECT: 19. Project description _Qaslllle asru:iruills.~6ei...aµ~ondil1onal Use £.al:mj~n to i) increase enrollment 1rom 438 to 540 students; II) mitigate traffic Impacts; and ii!) obtain approval of phase,d Master Plan with Phase 1 to include ARB approval of unaergr60na parkmg gaTga. "'ffefer to attacneo COP •a a 1v or more m,o a on . \ _ - I !his doc,,vMeV\t / s +;t \eel / L),y I _) .. Project Detail Master Plan Proposed Above Grade S.F. 119,898 ~f. Basement Level S.F. 65,886 sf. Total Square Footage 185,784 sf. Floor Area Ratio 0.42 Maximum Building Height1 34'6" I Minimum Setbacks Emerson 71 '0" Kellogg 20'0'' Bryant 20'0" Embarcadero 108'-6" On-Site Parking Spaces 142 spaceis Underground Spaces 11 5 spaces Surface Spaces 27 spaces Allowable Site Coverage 100,374 SF (35.0%) Actual Site Coverage 79,962 S!f (27 .9%) 01?en Space 130,206 sf. Current Campuy 119 1\98 sf. J 43,333 sf. 163,231 sf. 0.42 34'6" 15'2" 25'2" 17'9" I 08'-6" 74 spaces 0 spaces 74 spaces 100,374 SF (35.0%) 67,956 SF (23.7%)· 93,298 sf. 1 Maximum Building Height defined per City of Palo Alto's Municipal Code Definition 18.04.67 I / /' 4 -LAN() USE AND PLANNING feet; roofi mounted photovoltaic panels would increase the height to 30 fee't. Most other site characteriftics would comply with thci remaining development standards, including setbacks, site coverage, I and vehicle and bicycle pdrking. However, the project includes a 1:equest for further exceedanJe of maximum lot size via r Tentative Map with Exception process; ai1d removal and replacenwnt of existing non-complyini gross floor area. Table 4-2 Minimum -Maximum Lot Slzt:t Maximum F;loor Area Ratio Qrn2:'i.Il9.2LAJ:§11 Maximum 8,uilding Heiqi·1t --··~~·.........I--·--·- Minimum Setbacks Erners911 Kellogg Bryant I E111barcadero Zoning Ordinance Policy Consistency Analysis 10,000-19,999 squarJ fe~ 0.45 first 5,000 square feet of lot size; 0.30 square footage in excess of 5,000 squa e feet ·------L .... _. 2,250 sq II for the first 5.000 sn I]_ of lot si~: \- v3ries wii.b..M .. ~ize fo!Jfil1Ilfil 10!% 30 feet standard; 33 feelifor buildings with a roof pitcl'l of J..2~..£C_~~~~--I 20feet I 20 feet 20 te.et 2.4 feet 286, 783 square feet (project site)-includes 268,78302 sq ft existing campus parcel plus lo\ area of two Castilleja-owned parcels (10,500 sq ft and 7,500 sg ft) Allowable: 1310 Bryant Street, 0.30; 1263 Emerson Street, 0.37; 1235 Emerson Street, 0.40. Total 0.31 Existing Total: 0.43 1310 Br ant Street: 116 297 s 1263 Emerson Street: 3,171 sg ft; 1235 Emerson: 2,850 sg ft 34 feet 6 inches ---·--·-·-· 20 feet 27 feet 9 inches 22 feet 108 feet 6 inches 286,783 square feet {three parcels :merged) +-·----····------; Allowable: 0.30 Proposed: 0.41 30 feet 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet Above grade: 108 feel 6 inches (no change above grnde) Below grade: 0 feet, ·--·-------1-----------i---· ............ -... ·------+-v_a_ri~.~~e requested _ .. Maximum site 35% (100,374 square fee() 23% (65,263 square feet) 29% (83,043 square feet) coverage, multiple· s\ol'y developmenl Vehicle Parking 2 spaces PW middle grad~ teaching station, 4 spaces per up er grade teachin~_5-tatro~,-----------1----------i B1cyc10 Parking 1 space for every 5 studer ts 95 Source: City 01 Pulo Alto 2018; App~ .. ~dl~-B-----1·........ ---------~-----140 I Castilleja School Pro)?;'.t,,9_'.:~1:'-IR_--1~--~\._,,. ___ ·-·--··- Jul 2019, as ~evlsed Jul 2020 ---------· 1005G ---4-22 L School Names APN Address Zoning Designation Lot Size Building SQFT1 Allowed FAR2 & 3 CUP Variance Notes 1 Keys School (Lower School)132-03-193 2890 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 R-1 124,830 32,560 38,199 CUP granted in 2010 allowing modifications to the previously approved CUP # 90-UP- 21. The increase in FAR & number of classrooms would not intensify the use/ increase student number and would provide the opportunity to improve the existing traffic situation. A Variance was required for the placement of the new buildings within the rear setback. The distance between the new buildings and the rear property line would be no less than 10 feet, per the conditions of approval. Located with a Church. Expansion of Modular classrooms in March 2010 2 St. Elizabeth Seton School -A Drexel School (Grades PK-8) 003-27-041 1095 Channing Av, Palo Alto, CA 94301 R-1 191,746 54,303 Allowed FAR 53,110 sqft, on ground 58,274 sqft An amendment to CUP #87-UP-40 in 2012 for addition and operation of 3,383 sqft Pre K and K building adjacent to existing K-8 school. This allows additional student enrollment and better vehichular circulation. A variance to allow a five foot exception to the height limit for a new structure to house wireless communication antennas. The CUP # 87-UP-40 amended permits 59- UP-26 and 64-UP-7 which allowed them location of Church, Rectory, Convent and School 3 Torah Academy (Grades 4-5)127-26-209 3070 Louis Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94303 R-1 19,310 4,230 6,543 CUP in 2013 for 5,524 sqft addition and remodel. The project combined APN # 127- 26-067 and the total FAR allowed was 9,754 sqft. The proposed FAR was 9,752 sqft. No Variance This project was finally withdrawn in 2015. 4 Tru (Grades K-6)003-43-045 1295 Middlefield Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94301 R-1 44,526 7,275 14,108 A CUP granted in 2009 to allow after school enrichment activities, homework assistance, and tutoring for up to 10 children at a time in the Sunday School class rooms of Trinity Lutheran Church. No Variance Located with Church. Expansion in 1994 5 Bowman School (Grades K-8)167-05-020 4000 Terman Drive, Palo Alto, CA 94306 R-1(10,000)63,318 23,500 19,745 On May 2017 CUP approved for amending CUP # 03-CUP-07 for reducing student enrollnment number and allowing the students to enroll at the new annex campus located at 693 Arastradero Road. No Variance 6 Castilleja School (Grades 6-12)124-12-034 1310 Bryant St, Palo Alto, Ca 94301 R-1(10,000)268,782 81,385 7 Athena Academy (Grades 1-8)147-08-047 525 San Antonio Av, Palo Alto, CA 94306 R-1(8,000)84,070 18,964 25,976 CUP approved in 2013 for private school and daycare use in PAUSD owned property No Variance Attachment B: PA Private Schools in Residential Zones DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 School Names APN Address Zoning Designation Lot Size Building SQFT1 Allowed FAR2 & 3 CUP Variance Notes 8 Living Wisdom School of Palo Alto (PK-8) 124-31-082 456 College Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306 R-2 10,245 No info in GIST 3,823 Old CUP from 1959 No Variance Located with a Church 9 Achieve Kids (UG)132-06-030 3860 Middlefield Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94303 RM-30 85,670 16,514 32,157 A CUP granted in 2005 to allow installation of telecommunication antennas mounted to existing tree poles. No Variance Application # 12PLN- 00137 in 2012 (ARB) for 356 sqft addition. 10 Discovery Children's House Montessori School (Grades K- 1) 120-03-083 & 120-03- 082 401 Webster and 437 Webster St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 PC 3437 & RM- 40 21,000 & 38,375 34,329 & 59820 51,410 No CUP No Variance Webster House and Webster House Health Center Source: City of Palo Alto Planning Department, October 2017. Notes 2 & 3 Information from GIST and Project Plans. Note 1 Information from Santa Clara Assessors Office. All informations compiled from GIST, Accela, Project Plans and stored files in S Drive. DocuSign Envelope ID: B0F56263-713F-43BA-B106-A9713F3ECDA3 35 Baumb, Nelly From:Leila H. Moncharsh <101550@msn.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:47 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:Part 2 of 4 - Castilleja Project Attachments:Final letter to CC w attachments. March 3, 2021_Part2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  This is the second of four parts of my submission. Leila Moncharsh      36 Baumb, Nelly From:Leila H. Moncharsh <101550@msn.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 7:44 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 - Part 1 Attachments:Final letter to CC w attachments. March 3, 2021_Part1.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am the land use attorney for PNQL. Please find attached the first of four parts of my submission. The first part includes my summary cover letter and Attachment 1, a document about the square footage relevant to whether your Council should grant a variance for the project. The remaining parts of my submission are letters that I previously wrote to the City about this project. Thank you for your attention to this submission. Leila Moncharsh 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 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Chris Bradshaw <cnbradhsaw@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:11 AM To:Tom DuBois Cc:Chris Bradshaw; Council, City; Evelyne Keomian Subject:Re: El Camino RV evictions Tom,    Thanks very much for your clear explanation of the situation. I am relieved.    I have CCed Evelyne Keomian who originally brought this to my attention.  Evelyne has an ongoing relationship with the  families of these RVs. Evelyne, I hope you will convey this information to the families.    I was particularly shocked by what now appears to be a misunderstanding because I specifically asked one of the RV  owners if they ever had issues with the police. I was proud of PA when he told me that they have never had a problem  with the police.    Thank you for your service to the city,  Chris Bradshaw    Sent from my iPhone      On Mar 10, 2021, at 10:15 AM, Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> wrote:    Thanks for your email.  I'd like to clarify what I think happened this week as there has been misleading  information being circulated.  Our policy and actions towards vehicles on the street has not changed for  many years.  The police apparently placed warnings on vehicles that had not moved in several days, as  they do periodically.  This happens throughout Palo Alto.    At the same time, a specific move notice for Street cleaning was sent out with specific times that  vehicles must be moved or they could be towed.  This is also our standard street cleaning notice, but  apparently both notices appeared in the same week, causing confusion.  There has been no change in  policy.  We clean specific streets on a set schedule.     So far in 2021, only .0066  (0.6%) of the  vehicles that appeared to be abandoned and received a warning  were towed.   Those few vehicles that were towed appear to have been truly abandoned, with no one in  them.  Our police department is extremely sensitive to situations that appear to be someone's home.     Someone sent me a photo of the abandoned vehicle warning.  I'd like to clarify this is a warning, not  even a ticket which could be issued at that point.  The warning explains our ordinance about abandoning  vehicles on public streets.  If it is abandoned and nothing is done (often the warning is still on the  windshield, then a parking ticket may be issued ($86) several days later.  Towing happens extremely  rarely as a last recourse, primarily for vehicles that are truly abandoned.    Vehicles do need to be operable.  They must move but can then return to the same spot.      2 Safe Parking programs often require vehicles to leave every day in the morning and then come back in  the evening.  If we had more lots available, I suspect that would be the case in off‐street safe parking  lots.      If you have additional information that triggered your concern, please share it with me.  I'd really like to  know if there other things going on that  I should know about.     Hope this helps clarify the situation,    Tom DuBois  Mayor of Palo Alto    On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 7:54 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      Chris Bradshaw | Founder African Library Project | 1.650.388.0354 Facebook | Twitter | Instagram 3,086 Libraries | 3.1 Million Books!   3 Baumb, Nelly From:Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:15 AM To:Chris Bradshaw Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: El Camino RV evictions Thanks for your email.  I'd like to clarify what I think happened this week as there has been misleading information being  circulated.  Our policy and actions towards vehicles on the street has not changed for many years.  The police apparently  placed warnings on vehicles that had not moved in several days, as they do periodically.  This happens throughout Palo  Alto.    At the same time, a specific move notice for Street cleaning was sent out with specific times that vehicles must be  moved or they could be towed.  This is also our standard street cleaning notice, but apparently both notices appeared in  the same week, causing confusion.  There has been no change in policy.  We clean specific streets on a set schedule.     So far in 2021, only .0066  (0.6%) of the  vehicles that appeared to be abandoned and received a warning were  towed.   Those few vehicles that were towed appear to have been truly abandoned, with no one in them.  Our police  department is extremely sensitive to situations that appear to be someone's home.     Someone sent me a photo of the abandoned vehicle warning.  I'd like to clarify this is a warning, not even a ticket which  could be issued at that point.  The warning explains our ordinance about abandoning vehicles on public streets.  If it is  abandoned and nothing is done (often the warning is still on the windshield, then a parking ticket may be issued ($86)  several days later.  Towing happens extremely rarely as a last recourse, primarily for vehicles that are truly abandoned.    Vehicles do need to be operable.  They must move but can then return to the same spot.      Safe Parking programs often require vehicles to leave every day in the morning and then come back in the evening.  If  we had more lots available, I suspect that would be the case in off‐street safe parking lots.      If you have additional information that triggered your concern, please share it with me.  I'd really like to know if there  other things going on that  I should know about.     Hope this helps clarify the situation,    Tom DuBois  Mayor of Palo Alto    On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 7:54 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.  4   Concerned,  Chris Bradshaw      Chris Bradshaw | Founder African Library Project | 1.650.388.0354 Facebook | Twitter | Instagram 3,086 Libraries | 3.1 Million Books!   5 Baumb, Nelly From:Meri-Beth Bird <meribethbird@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 9:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rv dwellers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Palo Alto City Council,    Please stop the police from issuing towing notices to the RV dwellers on El Camino. This is not the time during Covid to  tow them away. It’s extremely costly to get their homes back to them. Please reconsider and find another solution.  Best,  Meri‐Beth Bird    Sent from my iPhone  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Chris Bradshaw <cnbradhsaw@gmail.com> on behalf of Chris Bradshaw <chris@africanlibraryproject.org> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 7:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:El Camino RV evictions 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      Chris Bradshaw | Founder African Library Project | 1.650.388.0354 Facebook | Twitter | Instagram 3,086 Libraries | 3.1 Million Books!   7 Baumb, Nelly From:Tajma Beverly <artivismthriving@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 7:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stop towing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Give people a place to live.  There are too many vacant apartments for this nonsense. Be part of the solution.    Truly,    Tajma Beverly MM, MFA  8 Baumb, Nelly From:Nathan Tauger <nvtauger@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please don't tow or evict the families on el camino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,      I am a Palo Alto resident and neighbor of the families staying on El Camino. Evicting the families staying on El Camino is  cruel and unlikely to accomplish anything for the city besides displaying its distaste for the poor. Please stop.     Nathan   ‐‐   Nathan Tauger   Pronouns: He/him  9 Baumb, Nelly From:Paul Heft <paulheft@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:41 PM To:'Tom DuBois' Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: RV evictions Thanks, Tom! It does seem confusing that there’s a big warning about towing that won’t  happen. Glad it’s not really a problem.    Paul    From: Tom DuBois [mailto:tomforcouncil@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:22 PM To: Paul Heft Subject: Re: RV evictions Thanks Paul - someone sent me a photo of a warning, not even a ticket, that explains our ordinance about abandoning vehicles on public streets. If it is abandoned and nothing is done (often the warning is still on the windshield, then a parking ticket may be issued ($86) several days later. Towing happens extremely rarely as a last recourse, primarily for vehicles that are truly abandoned. Hope this helps. On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 3:15 PM Paul Heft <paulheft@comcast.net> wrote: Thanks for your note. This is what I received, dated 3/8/2021:   Urgent. Join If You Can Dear KSP family, Palo Alto is evicting RV dwellers all along El Camino Real. Dozens of RV's and vehicles were littered with 72-hour tow warnings this morning. Tonight Palo Alto City Council is meeting and public comment is at 5:15 pm. Please call in if you can and tell them they must stop these evictions! It is particularly inhumane to do this right now. If not, please email city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Copyright © 2020 The Karat School Project, All rights reserved. Our mailing address is: 801 Alma St, Palo Alto, CA 94301 10   From: Tom DuBois [mailto:tomforcouncil@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 9, 2021 2:59 PM To: Paul Heft Subject: Re: RV evictions Can you explain what evictions you are referring to? So far in 2021, only .0066 (0.6%) of the vehicles that appeared to be abandoned and received a warning were towed. Those towed appeared to have been truly abandoned, with no one in them. Our police department is extremely sensitive to situations that appear to be someone's home. Can you share what information you have that triggered your concern? I'd really like to know if there is an issue I should know about. Thanks, Tom DuBois Mayor of Palo Alto On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 2:57 PM Paul Heft <paulheft@comcast.net> wrote: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council members,   I understand that RV dwellers along El Camino Real have received eviction notices this week.  Can you give any assurance that they will have alternate parking spots close by where they  will not be hassled?   11 We have to help the unhoused in our community!   Thanks.   Paul Heft 2550 Webster St, Palo Alto, CA 94301  Midtown neighborhood 12 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathy Waddell <kathy_waddell@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 5:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:RV recall CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear PA City Council,    As a former PA residence and supporter of Karat School Project please stop the displacement and eviction of RV dwellers  on El Camino Real.     These families are challenged and trying their best to survive in these current conditions.   If they must relocate I hope the city will take time to find a new area they can park their homes. PLEASE do not tow thes  homes on wheels. The City of Palo Alto has a responsibility to help those who are in need.  Thank you for your consideration on this serious matter.  Kathy Waddell                      13 Baumb, Nelly From:David Hoffman <davidhoffman0621@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please treat RV dwellers respectfully CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  "The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members" - Ghandi     I hope that the extremely wealthy and good hearted residents of Palo Alto, and our city council, will treat the people who live in RVs with respect and dignity. These folks' lives are challenging enough without extra stress caused by 72-hour towing warnings. Please work with these people and/or their representatives rather than imposing decisions on them.    Thank you,  David Hoffman  14 Baumb, Nelly From:Jose Luis Gomez Gamez <jlgmzgmz@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:36 PM To:Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Tanaka, Greg; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer Subject:Towing Harassment on El Camino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council, The towing warnings issued this morning to families living on El Camino are unjustifiable amid a public health and housing crisis in the area. These families are my neighbors. Instead of issuing warnings and harassing residents, I implore the city council to issue a towing moratorium and work together with these families to address any issues the city sees with their current setups - in ways that do not lead to their displacement. I bike past these families everyday and I would like to see them living in stable housing conditions and without the worry of imminent towing. Thank you for your past and continuing support of anti-displacement measures. I hope that you will continue to consider the wellbeing of these residents in crafting future policies for the city. José Luis G. G.   pronouns: he/him/his  J.D. Candidate 2023  Stanford Law School  623-206-7682  15 Baumb, Nelly From:Alan Stivers <alan@stivers.cc> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Why are we harassing RV dwellers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council, I wish to object to our policy of threatening to tow RV's being used as housing. I can understand towing abandoned vehicles, but not homes. I know for a fact that this ordinance is enforced unevenly, mostly as a reaction to some citizen complaint and is never part of a proactive solution to the problem. What can I expect from a Council that had identified airplane noise as our most serious problem? Please work on solutions to our real problems. Yours, Alan R. Stivers, 2732 Ross Rd., PA 16 Baumb, Nelly From:Wendy Walleigh <walleighadventures@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 3:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Find alternative space if you must eliminate RVs 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  17 Baumb, Nelly From:Paul Heft <paulheft@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 2:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:RV evictions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,    I understand that RV dwellers along El Camino Real have received eviction notices this week.  Can you give any assurance that they will have alternate parking spots close by where they will  not be hassled?    We have to help the unhoused in our community!    Thanks.    Paul Heft  2550 Webster St, Palo Alto, CA 94301   Midtown neighborhood  18 Baumb, Nelly From:Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 2:52 PM To:promiserani Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Please do not EVICT!   Can you explain what evictions you are referring to?      So far in 2021, only .0066  (0.6%) of the  vehicles that appeared to be abandoned and received a warning were  towed.   Those towed appeared to have been truly abandoned, with no one in them.  Our police department is  extremely sensitive to situations that appear to be someone's home.     Can you share what information you have that triggered your concern?  I'd really like to know if there is an issue I should  be know about.     Thanks,    Tom DuBois  Mayor of Palo Alto    On Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 2:49 PM promiserani <promiserani@gmail.com> wrote:  CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,     Palo Alto is evicting RV dwellers all along El Camino Real. Dozens of RV's and vehicles were littered with 72-hour tow warnings this morning. Please do not do this - these families are residents of Palo Alto, the children attend our schools, and they are a vital part of our community. Please reverse this decision!    Prerana Jayakumar  Midtown        19 Baumb, Nelly From:promiserani <promiserani@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 2:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please do not EVICT! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,     Palo Alto is evicting RV dwellers all along El Camino Real. Dozens of RV's and vehicles were littered with 72-hour tow warnings this morning. Please do not do this - these families are residents of Palo Alto, the children attend our schools, and they are a vital part of our community. Please reverse this decision!    Prerana Jayakumar  Midtown        20 Baumb, Nelly From:Prince Yoman <hynterprince@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 2:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stop eviction CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Stop eviction    21 Baumb, Nelly From:Caroline Huart <caroline.huart@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 2:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Evictions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please stop the evictions of RVS along El Camino. This situation is inhumane and other solutions can be found, in  partnership with locals organizations.      22 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Claire Jacob <ejacob@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 2:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: RV tow warnings CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,    As a Palo Alto resident, I am writing to express my deep disappointment with the recent decision to tow RVs  parked on El Camino Real. This is profoundly inhumane and unjust, and I strongly urge the City Council to  reverse this action.    Sincerely,    Elizabeth Jacob    ‐‐‐  Elizabeth Jacob (she/her)  PhD Candidate in African History  Stanford University  23 Baumb, Nelly From:Alexandra Simon <aesimon3@illinois.edu> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 1:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stop RV evictions along El Camino Real CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,     My name is Alexandra Simon and I am a college student at the University of Illinois in Champaign‐Urbana. I worked as an  intern for the KSP‐ an organization focused on the human development of women and children in the Ivory Coast but  who's priorities were changed with the pandemic this summer.     The founder of the KSp,  Evelyne Keomian, has made it her life's purpose to help others. When she first saw the RVs  emerge, she took it upon herself to meet these people and hear their stories and found that many were families with  children, and all were impacted by the COVID‐19 pandemic.    This pandemic is not over, and these people have not been able to get back on their feet. I am writing on her behalf to  contribute my voice to this issue. I ask that these families are given more time and resources rather than just ignored  and evicted as a burden. These people living in RV's have not been there before the pandemic and I believe that with the  proper help they can be relocated to someplace that will be better for them.    A 72 hour conviction notice has put an additional burden on these families and put fear in the children living in them  who do not comprehend how their lives have changed in just a year's time. What these people need is to be treated as  human beings with compassion, not with removal.     I thank you for the consideration of my request, and hope that an alternative can be figured out.    Alexandra Simon  24 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Weinstein <barbaraweinstein2@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 1:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stop the evictions on El Camino 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    25 Baumb, Nelly From:Sally O'Neil <sallyoneil@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 1:20 PM To:lkou@apr.com; Council, City Subject:Evictions of RVs on El Camino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,     Please do NOT evict the RVs on El Camino. This  action would be especially inhumane now during COVID times.     Another resolution is needed for the problems with these RVs. Their dwellers need assistance and a safe place to put  their vehicles. Not sudden evictions.    Surely the city can devise a plan to help these people, our neighbors.    Sally O’Neil  775 Barron Ave.  Palo Alto  26 Baumb, Nelly From:Elisabeth von Boch <didiboch@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 12:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:I just heard about the eviction CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear city council,  I just heart about the evictions of the trailers all along El Camino Real.  Please don’t do this right now in this so hard times. The people who live In there are humans.  It’s very important to stay human in times like this   Thanks tons   Best regards  Elisabeth von boch     Sent from my iPhone  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: 3/22/ 202 1 Document dates: 3/3/2021 – 3/10/2021 Set 3 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 27 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy Ng <ngnancyc@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 9:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:RV evictions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am writing in opposition to a plan to evict the RV dwellers on El Camino.This is a difficult time for everyone; but the  difficulty is not evenly shared. It is cruel and inhuman for the fortunate in Palo Alto to refuse compassion an∂  understanding to those who are suffering disproportionately.   Nancy Ng  ‐‐   nancy ng  28 Baumb, Nelly From:Alistair Murray <akmurray12@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:49 AM To:Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg Subject:Towing of RVs on El Camino - Implement a Moratorium CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,  Does the city plan to tow the RVs parked along El Camino Real? If so, do you recognize that you are asking those residents to leave their homes and try to find a new place to live in a global pandemic? It is shameful and immoral that this would even be considered in these times. The city needs a towing moratorium to prevent any eviction of these residents. Sincerely, Alistair Murray 29 Baumb, Nelly From:Chrystal Kafka <chrystalgkafka@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rv evictions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    A friend just told me the RVs along El Camino are being evicted.  Is this true?    Please indicate why such a thing could be happening?   On the surface without any information it seems unwarranted  and even cruel.    Thank you for your attention to this matter.  I hope to see a reply soon.    Sincerely,  Chrystal Kafka  2376 Bryant Street  Palo Alto      30 Baumb, Nelly From:Danielle Mewes <mewesrp@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:25 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rv eviction CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,  I just heard news that the RVs on El Camino have been given eviction notices. I have not heard why?  Is an alternative  being offered?  Is this permanent?  Unless they are being offered a comprable or better alternative please do not do this!  Times are desperate and people  need a place to live. Although it’s not ideal or attractive it’s so much better than living on the street or having to  constantly be searching for a safe place that will allow them to be.  I will attend the meeting tonight.  Danielle Mewes  539 Seale Ave      Sent from my iPhone  31 Baumb, Nelly From:Rachel Mewes <rmewes17@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Stop RV Evictions! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,     I was born and raised in Palo Alto and went to college at Stanford. I am appalled to hear that the city is evicting the  residents of the RVs parked along El Camino. We are still in the midst of a pandemic and economic crisis, and the  housing crisis in the Bay Area only exacerbates the issue. Everyone has the right to a place to live, so unless Palo Alto is  offering accessible, affordable housing to those families, they should allow them to find shelter where they can. Please, I  beg of you, do not center the comfort of wealthy Palo Altans over the very existence and survival of less fortunate Palo  Altans.    Sincerely,    Rachel Mewes  32 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 10:41 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Removal of RVs Parking Along El Camino Real CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members and City Manager,    I write to ask you to find another solution for those people who have been living in their RVs parked along El Camino  Real between Churchill and California Ave.  I understand that the City has issued 72 hour tow warnings to these vehicles,  which will be devastating to these people.  Please do not simply throw the occupants of these RVs out.    I am familiar with the problem of RVs that park along El Camino Real and become permanent fixtures as I live on Park  Blvd, about two blocks east of ECR.  I have seen as many as 25 to 30 RVs parked there at various times on my way out or  my way home. Until recently, none of those parked caused any problem at all, other than that some residents found the  RVs unattractive and there might be build up of leaves under the vehicles.    Recently, however, perhaps as a symptom of the worsening of the pandemic, some occupants of the RVs have created  messes around their vehicles, e.g., they have expanded their space to include areas in front of and behind the RV where  various items are ‘stored.’  These items can vary from bar‐b‐ques to the very sad piles of toys that must be there for kids  living in these horrific conditions — which should break everyone’s heart.    I know several residents of the neighboring areas have become alarmed by this and have written Council about their  concerns.  Simply evicting the RV dwellers, however, is not the answer.   Isn’t there a way to help these people in a  different way?  Could we prevail upon Stanford to open bathroom facilities for their use, and ask the City to provide  trash cans for refuse and connections to counseling to help find better places to live?  Where will they go?  They have  nowhere else to be.    I greatly appreciate that some Council members have been instrumental in opening an RV parking lot for RV residents.   Thank you so much for doing that.  Unfortunately, that solution only helps a few RV residents, and the out‐of‐the way  location of this lot may not work for many.  The RVs I see parked along El Camino Real are not driven to work — they  generally don’t move. Perhaps the occupant works at Stanford (someone recently mentioned on NextDoor that some  were graduate students at Stanford), or perhaps they walk or take a bus to work.    I have no solutions to offer, but I beg you to show compassion to those less fortunate among us.  Do not simply evict  them, but instead work with them to find the assistance they need.  If we cannot do anything to provide them with a  better housing solution, then at least we can try to find a way for them to stay safely where they are without causing  public health and nuisance concerns.    Thank you for whatever you can do to work with social agencies and others to find a humane way to assist these people  in need.    Carol Scott  Evergreen Park    34 Baumb, Nelly From:Jacob James Maddox <maddoxj@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 8:53 PM To:Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg Subject:Demand to Issue Towing Moratorium CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    I am a Palo Alto resident and Stanford Law student, and I am writing about the recent towing and eviction notices placed  on RVs along El Camino. These families rely on their RVs for shelter, and the towing and eviction notices are extremely  dangerous and harmful to these families ‐‐ especially during a housing crisis and pandemic. I write to demand that the  City Council issue a towing moratorium and to stop harassing these families.    Thank you,  A concerned citizen    Jacob Maddox  Stanford Law School | J.D. Candidate '23  maddoxj@stanford.edu (316) 680-4805  Pronouns: he/him/his    35 Baumb, Nelly From: Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 8:38 PM To:Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg Subject:Stop Criminalizing Poverty: Towing Moratorium NOW CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     I have lived in the Palo Alto area for the last seven years—first as a Stanford undergrad, then as a Stanford employee,  and now as a law student.    I learned today that the city has threatened to tow the RVs parked along Stanford’s campus on El Camino Real. I expect  better from this city than to punish people who can’t afford Palo Alto rent by towing their literal homes. I urge you to  support a towing moratorium.    It is gross and inhumane to force longtime residents to leave their homes and uproot their lives during a pandemic, even  while an eviction moratorium is in place. Please do not succumb to the notion that poor people don’t deserve to be in  Palo Alto. In the absence of the Council’s developing affordable housing for Palo Alto’s service workers and  impoverished, residents have found ways to cope on their own. Please just treat them as humans and let them stay.     Thanks,  Mohit Mookim      36 Baumb, Nelly From:Vanessa Young <vanessarae1@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 7:59 PM To:Council, City Cc:Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick Subject:El Camino RVs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council, Today I learned that the city plans to tow the vehicles parked along El Camino. I live near the RVs and am writing to request the city immediately issue a towing moratorium. Forcing these residents to leave their homes in the middle of a pandemic, while a formal eviction moratorium is in place in CA, is absolutely unnecessary and cruel. Who could these residents possibly be bothering? Billing this as a COVID safe practice is also deeply ironic--giving people 72 hours notice and touting a new safety program that fails to guarantee them a permanent new home is not acceptable. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Best regards, Vanessa Young 37 Baumb, Nelly From:Anais Carell <anaismcarell@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 7:33 PM To:Council, City Cc:paul.burt@cityofpaloalto.org; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg Subject:Towing moratorium for El Camino RVs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,     It has come to my attention, as someone who lives very close to the RVs near the Stanford campus, that the city plans to  tow the vehicles that have been parked along El Camino for years.    I am writing to ask that the city puts a towing moratorium in place to prevent the eviction of the Palo Alto residents  living in these RVs. It is shocking and inhumane, after so many years, to ask these residents to leave their homes and  uproot their lives during a pandemic, and while an eviction moratorium is in place.    Thank you,  Anais Carell  38 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 6:26 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly Subject:NO state law requires Palo Alto to ticket RVs. Official Complaint against Palo Alto City Manager CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council and City Attorney:     City Manager Ed Shikada should be censured for his intentional lie that state law requires Palo Alto to ticket and/or tow  vehicle dwellers on El Camino. There is NO state law that requires Palo Alto to ticket RVs parked on El Camino, or  anywhere else. To the extent that California's DMV provides restrictions on RV parking, those rules have been overruled  by virtually every local government in California and carry no weight.  A google search of this issue reveals numerous  California municipalities that have repealed their own local ordinances regarding parking in order to accommodate  vehicle dwellers in the face of nonexistent or limited shelter space for the unhoused population. As you remember, Palo  Alto still is the only city of its size to provide ZERO shelter beds for the unhoused.    The City Manager's irresponsible and malicious misstatement would be more than enough to terminate the employment  of any executive in the private realm. It is time for the City to hold its taxpayer‐paid leaders up to market standards of  professional performance, particularly given their extraordinarily large compensation packages paid for primarily by  residents.     I demand that Mr. Shikada retract his falsehood, apologize for his irresponsible behavior, and immediately halt any and  all ticketing and/or other enforcement actions against El Camino vehicle dwellers and any other vehicle dwellers in Palo  Alto.  I also demand that this incident be noted in Mr. Shikada's permanent record and considered during his  employment reviews.    Sincerely,     Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078  39 Baumb, Nelly From:Andrea Temkin <andreatemkin@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 6:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:RVs on El Camino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members:       I don’t think threatening the folks who are forced to live in RVs on El Camino with being towed is the way to respond to  their needs. Evictions during the pandemic are inhumane.     I’m sure you and the Police Dept in collaboration with the community can come up with better solutions.     Sincerely,  Andrea Temkin    3371 Park Blvd, Palo Alto, Ca 94306    40 Baumb, Nelly From:Christopher H. Kan <ckan91@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 5:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Towing of RVs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     I am Christopher Kan a resident of Palo Alto. I am deeply concerned by the city's plan to tow RV dwellers during a  pandemic and during a housing crisis. It is not only a bad public policy but also deeply immoral at this time. The city  should refrain from towing vehicle dwellers until it is able to provide alternative accommodations such as new shelter  off Embarcadero for every person in need. The city's current plan will make homelessness worse and exacerbate human  suffering. Thank you for your time and consideration.    Best regards,  Chris  41 Baumb, Nelly From:Edie Keating <edie.keating100@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 5:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comments on Ticketing of RVs on El Camino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council ‐      I was just made aware of recent 72 hour notice ticketing of RVs on El Camino. I hope that all the RVs move and repark in  compliance with the ordinance!    Of course, a few may not. For those vehicles, I hope the City will give a big grace period before towing takes place.  During the pandemic, the last thing the city needs is more unsheltered residents. What a great time to make a deal with  RV residents rather than towing them ‐ such as working with them to enter the City's safe parking program. I hope the  City will expend resources supporting RV residents, and finding out what they need to not be at risk of being towed.     Thank you,   Edie Keating  Alma St.  Palo Alto  42 Baumb, Nelly From:McHale Newport-Berra <mchalenb@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 5:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stop evictions on El Camino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am a Palo Alto resident, and am writing to request a stop to the evictions of RVs on El Camino. This is a particularly  inhumane time to be evicting people‐‐when many are short on resources and housing is even more of a challenge. This  is a time for compassion. Instead of making RV residents' lives even more difficult, we should be supporting and  protecting people who have fewer resources.      McHale Newport‐Berra        43 Baumb, Nelly From:Diane Guinta <diane.guinta@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 4:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please do NOT allow Towing of vehicles parked on El Camino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members,  I am one of the coordinators of  Hotel De Zink at St. Mark’s Episcopal Church at 600 Colorado Ave in Palo Alto. I am also  a former 22 year resident of Palo Alto.    I urge you please CANCEL planned to towing of vehicles on El Camino Road in Palo Alto (fir which warning leaflets were  left today) as this will only exacerbate the difficulty faced by people who are homeless in the middle of a pandemic.  Please be compassionate to our brothers and sisters in need. A parking space on El Camino is very little to ask of a  community under these circumstances.    Thank you,  Diane Guinta  Los Altos, CA    Diane Guinta  Sent from my iPhone  44 Baumb, Nelly From:Joan MacDonald <joanmacdonald@berkeley.edu> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 3:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Eviction of RVs CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    During the current housing crisis and the COVID 19 pandemic, evicting anyone from the housing a person needs  regardless of what form it is is at the very least INHUMANE.    STOP! Who is being harmed by an RV parked on El Camino Real?    Joan MacDonald  45 Baumb, Nelly From:Claudia Wu <wu.claudia.p@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 3:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:RV Dwellers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,     Please stop the tow notices on the RV dwellers on El Camino. They have been there for years and we are in the middle of  a pandemic! Where are they supposed to go? I say all this as someone who drives past the RVs everyday that I go to  work. Please rethink these efforts to combat homelessness. You are only making it worse.     Best,    Claudia Wu  46 Baumb, Nelly From:Suzanne Moore <suzyqettu2@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 2:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Evicting motorhomes along El Camino CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Council Members,     My name is Suzanne Moore, and I am a resident of Pacifica California. Since retirement as a primary care provider for  the County of San Mateo at both the Daly City and SSF Clinics, I have advocated for the homeless. I am a co‐founder of  the Safe Parking Working Group in San Mateo, and I know that there are solutions to provide a pathway to permanent  housing for our vehicularly unhoused.     The National Alliance on Homelessness opposes evictions of motorhomes without a plan for placement at another site.  Especially in this pandemic, Palo Alto's choice to traumatize your unhoused through ticketing and threat of towing is  simply wrong. Palo Alto may be putting itself at risk for a lawsuit ‐  this plan to ticket and tow could be considered illegal  in relation to the American Disabilities Act.     Safe Parking has been a demonstrated model that creates a pathway for permanent housing for those in motorhomes.  There are state monies now available to counties through the federal CARES act that would allow your county to  identify, purchase, and service a safe parking program. You will save lives.    Please halt these evictions and do what you need to assist your unhoused.    ‐‐   Suzanne Moore   Home 650.557.0867  Cell 650.243.7310   47 Baumb, Nelly From:Kevin Ma <kevinma.sd@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 12:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Tow Warnings in a Pandemic CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    News has reached to me that PAPD is still issuing Tow Warnings to RV residents. Given that there is still a pandemic and  that our city does not have enough safe parking spots, I believe this to be a misuse of our limited city resources,  especially when we know that all it does is needlessly shuffle people around and penalizes people who have already  suffered much.    I ask the council to suspend these actions for the foreseeable future, as well as put resources into supporting safe  parking programs and affordable housing. It is commendable that the city has opened a lot in conjunction with the  county, but with the delays and appeals in the church‐run safe parking program, we still do not have enough safe‐ parking capacity.    Sincerely,  Kevin Ma  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 10:08 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; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; 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; midge@thebarretts.com; sanchezphilip21@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here 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 6, 2021 at 9:27 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 9:01 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 8:49 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  2 Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 8:43 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 8:38 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 8:11 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 5:25 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 4:47 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 2:24 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  3 Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 2:19 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 2:09 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 1:53 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Mar 6, 2021 at 12:59 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 8:16 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 8:04 PM  Subject: Dr. Campbell, Fri, March 5, 2021. Good #s about Oxford, denied to the suckers here  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>             Saturday, March 6, 2021                To all‐  4         Good data reviewed by Dr. Campbell.  The numbers are coming down, but still high numbers of cases and deaths in  the U.S. Nearly two thousand deaths per day in the U.S. So, he says, the U.S. is still in the grip of a pandemic. He goes  over where the Oxford  Astrazeneca vaccine is being used and that points up the nearly criminal conduct by the Biden  Admin. of denying it to us.             CDC Covid tracker:   COVID Data Tracker Weekly Review | CDC   Good to toss this into your favorites folder.             Here is a good piece from CBS about two weeks ago about the Oxford vaccine. Astrazeneca is developing follow‐on  vaccines to deal with the new variants, says Sarah Gilburt of the Oxford team. They are aiming to have those ready by  autumn, 2021.  In the UK, the Oxford vaccine in real‐world use kept people out of the hospital infected with the Kent  variant, the UK variant, the B.117 variant, even better than the Pfizer vaccine did.  This piece says that Astrazeneca is  conducting trials of the Oxford vaccine in the U.S. before submitting the results to the FDA.  Bet they wonder why  they are doing that, since the trials they conducted in the UK got their vaccine apporved there by January 4, 2021.  Now it is being used all over the world, but not in the U.S. 30 million doses are ready to ship, but the FDA keeps stalling.             Oxford‐AstraZeneca researchers attempt to battle variants ‐ YouTube                 Note there comments by the co‐creator of the Astrazeneca‐Oxford vaccine, Prof. Andrew Pollard, Oxford vaccine  chief investigator. "The Oxford vaccine has impact against the UK variant that is astonishing." "Part of the reason is the  twelve week gap (between shots). If you give the vaccine to many more people, that ends hospitalizations and deaths".  Does he seem at all believable? The Biden administration and its FDA are saying, in effect, that they don't believe him  and so are holding up his vaccine for use in the U.S. The reporter there says that "the more protection the population  has, the less chance the virus has to mutate. With new variants on the horizon, the need to roll out more vaccine quicker  has never been greater".               Here is another co‐creator of the Oxford vaccine, Prof. Adrian Hill, Director of Oxford Unversity's Jenner Institute.  He refers to the huge numbers vaccinated in Scotland with the Oxford vaccine and with the Pfizer vaccine, about half a  million people with each vaccine. The Oxford vaccine was about 94% effective at keeping people out of the hospital v.  85% for the Pfizer vaccine. Those are real‐world numbers. The Oxford vaccine was recently approved for use in Canada,  and he is interviewed here by a reporter in Canada:              AstraZeneca‐Oxford co‐creator on efficacy of vaccine ‐ YouTube              Here is Matt Hancock, the Secretary of Health in the UK, talking ~ March 1 about the Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine  being used on millions of people there. One shot of it is even more effective at keeping people out of the hospital than is  the Pfizer vaccine.                COVID‐19: Single AstraZeneca or Pfizer dose 80% effective at preventing hospitalisations in over 80s ‐ YouTube            Here he is speaking in the House of Commons about the Pfizer and Oxford vaccines:  59 minutes of H. of Commons  discussion:  The British are very analytical and assume that not every citizen in their country is a moron                   In full: Matt Hancock gives Covid‐19 update in the Commons ‐ YouTube                                                   Tonight the news showed someone getting a double lung transplant after a fight with Covid, the first such op. in  the U.S. Think Covid is a joke?              Dr. Campbell:   Update ‐ YouTube  5                Before three weeks after the first shot, i.e., during the first three weeks after the first shot, regardless of which  vaccine, one has very minimal immunity, Campbell says. Over‐80's in the UK have been socializing at the three week  mark, very bad, Campbell says. So message for teachers in the U.S.:  Don't let some Mayor, loud‐mouthed City Council  member or school board browbeat you into returning to a classroom before four weeks after the first shot and before  two more weeks after the second shot.  BUT at least four weeks after the first shot.  At four weeks after the first shot,  you can still get sick with Covid, but you are unlikely to be hospitalized or to die. Then yesterday, Dr. Campbell was  talking about 35 days. That is five weeks. The UK has been giving millions of people the first shot because it is so  efficacious four weeks after it is given. Then, at 12 weeks after the first shot, they will give the second shot. Biden said  in his speech this week they want teachers to have at least one shot, so they are adopting the British plan here a little.  Now if only they would adopt the British plan of approving and using the Astrazeneca‐Oxford vaccine. It is licensed for  production in Maryland and in Phoenix, Dr. Campbell said weeks ago.               Dr. Campbell discussed weeks ago how the UK is building a "super factory" to produce vaccines. Cost: ~US$100  million or US$200 million. We could afford that standing on our heads. We should get with the Brits and see what they  are building. We should build five of them. At a $1 billion for five, that would be what we spend every 12 hours to  defend ourselves and Europe, Japan and S. Korea. Why build those super factories? Dr. Campbell says the next pandemic  could be 10X more transmissible, like measles, and 50X more deadly, like ebola. "We were lucky this time". When that  befalls us, we'll wish we had built the super‐factories.  But, of course, we won't do it. But the Brits are doing it. Congress  should send a delegation over to see theirs when it is finished in about a year.                 The filing deadline for TY 2020 tax returns should be moved to July 15, 2021. To put the American people through  the tax season in April is to impose upon them a super‐spreader event. We'll see an uptick in cases and deaths if the  deadline remains at April 15.                The news media should raise the alarm with the American people about the FDA holding up the safe and effective  Astrazeneca‐Oxford vaccine. The evidence from around the world is now conclusive that it is safe and effective. If Biden  is doing his job he will intervene with the FDA and get the Oxford vaccine the EUA it deserves.                L. William Harding           Fresno, Ca.  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 5:48 PM To:chuck jagoda; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Rebecca Eisenberg; Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; Planning Commission; Raven Malone; ParkRec Commission; Human Relations Commission; Greer Stone; DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia Subject:Move Mountain View CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/06/12/mountain‐view‐nonprofit‐kicking‐off‐2‐year‐trial‐to‐get‐car‐dwellers‐off‐ streets/amp/    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Don Jackson <dcj@clark-communications.com> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 1:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Recent news about broadband standards and access CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Honorable Council,    On Thursday of this week (March 4, 2021) there were two significant news items  relating to broadband:  1. Four US senators called for a “21st century definition of high‐speed broadband of  100 Mbps both upstream and downstream" (emphasis mine)  2. In his State of the City address, Mayor DuBois "voiced support for Fiber to the  Premises, a proposal to expand the municipal fiber ring to all residences and  businesses in the city”  The realization and acknowledgment of the importance of symmetric broadband service  is a potential sea change in national policy.    I’ll note that at my Palo Alto home, I subscribe to a relatively expensive “business class”  Internet service plan offered by Comcast, and the maximum upstream bandwidth is (at  most) 25 Mbps.    The lack of symmetric high‐speed broadband by existing Internet service providers is a  direct consequence of their use of legacy telephone and cable‐TV infrastructures which  have been modified to support Internet access, a capability they were never designed  (or intended) to provide, and unsurprisingly, are not nearly as capable as purpose‐built  networks using fiber.    It is my hope that the upcoming results of CPAU’s Fiber Expansion project (specifically  the phase 3 study/report) will provide us the basis for making a commitment to proceed  with  high speed, symmetric broadband for Palo Alto residents.    References:  8  https://arstechnica.com/tech‐policy/2021/03/100mbps‐uploads‐and‐downloads‐ should‐be‐us‐broadband‐standard‐senators‐say/   https://www.bennet.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2021/3/bennet‐king‐portman‐ manchin‐urge‐biden‐administration‐to‐create‐modern‐unified‐federal‐broadband‐ standard   https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/03/04/in‐state‐of‐the‐city‐speech‐palo‐alto‐mayor‐makes‐a‐pitch‐ for‐stronger‐ties  Respectfully,    Don Jackson      9 Baumb, Nelly From:Sonya Bradski <sonyangary@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, March 6, 2021 4:52 AM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Please Hire City Inspectors & Mainstream Permits CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Manager & City Councilman:      Please maintain and/or add City Inspectors to your staff. Please also figure out how to mainstream getting a permit from  City of Palo Alto.     We are remodeling our house at 4082 Nelson Dr, Palo Alto, since October 2019 and our house is still under construction  mainly because of Covid19.     We have had many delays including waiting 5 weeks for a revised permit from the City of Palo Alto which should have  taken a day. We have also waited a month for a City Inspection which should have been a few days.     We have paid lots of money for City Permits which pay for our City Inspectors. Therefore, we are paying directly for  these City Inspectors. I understand the City of Palo Alto is having financial problems with less revenues but City Inspector  is not a place to make any cuts right now.     (Please note the longer our house construction takes with permits & inspections the longer the City of Palo will be  getting less property taxes on our property and all the other properties under construction in Palo Alto.)     Please maintain and/or add City Inspectors to your staff. Please also figure out how to mainstream getting a permit from  City of Palo Alto.     Please let me know if you have any questions.   Thank you for your time and consideration.     Sonya Bradski   4082 Nelson Dr, Palo Alto, CA 94306  650‐575‐2395           10 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 9:34 PM To:Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Human Relations Commission; chuck jagoda; Raven Malone; Greer Stone; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Kou, Lydia; Greg Tanaka; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Subject:Another Black Lives Matter development: One city's Reparations for Black residents in Evanston, Ilinois CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Roberta,      Thanks so much for sending this important article re how one city, Evanston Illinois, has taken an extraordinary stand in  support of reparations —not just talk‐ but real action.    Let’s see if Palo Alto can step to the plate and take similar actions re reparations NOW!    Best regards.    Aram          fyi  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto <wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com>  Date: Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 8:18 PM  Subject: Another Black Lives Matter development: One city's Reparations for Black residents in  Evanston, Ilinois  To: barbara armentrout <barbj.armen@gmail.com>, Carol Lamont <carol@lamont.com>, Cherrill  Spencer <Cherrill.m.spencer@gmail.com>, chuck jagoda <chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>, Cybele LoVuolo‐ Bhushan <cybele88lb@gmail.com>, Gloria Burd <burdlady@gmail.com>, Iza Predmore  <izapredmore@gmail.com>, jan rindfleisch <janrindfleisch@sbcglobal.net>, Judy Adams  <judyblueeyes1@gmail.com>, Mary Gallagher <writing2win@gmail.com>, Roberta Ahlquist  <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>, Shelly Kosak <shelly.kosak@gmail.com>, Wendy Peikes  <wendypei@yahoo.com>, rebecca <Rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>    forwarded from PopularResistance.org to WILPF  members/supporters:    11 How The First US City To Fund Reparations For Black Residents Is Making Amends   By Ashley Brown, Emilie de Sainte Maresville, and Allie Yang, ABC News. Evanston, Illinois, is like a lot of American cities. The city just north of Chicago appears picturesque, updated and grand on one side -- but not far away, one can see the signs of economic and racial segregation, despite the city's proud, diverse and liberal reputation. What sets Evanston apart from other cities, however, is its groundbreaking plan to address the impact of that segregation and Black disenfranchisement: reparations. The impetus for the city's reparations resolution, first passed in 2019 and spearheaded... -more-   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. 12 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 9:12 PM To:Rebecca Eisenberg; chuck jagoda; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Raven Malone; Greer Stone; Kaloma Smith; Winter Dellenbach; Council, City; DuBois, Tom; Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Shikada, Ed; Dennis Upton; Sunita de Tourreil; ParkRec Commission Subject:Update Regarding Safe Parking Permit at 3373 Middlefield Rd CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Folks:     Please try and attend this important meeting, this coming Tuesday March 9, re the current status of the Palo Alto Safe  Parking Program.    Regards, aram            On Mar 3, 2021, at 2:09 PM, Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org>  wrote:     The City of Palo Alto has tentatively approved a Safe Parking Permit for Highway  Community Church located 3373 Middlefield Rd., Palo Alto, CA 94306.      More information about this project is available at http://bit.ly/3373Middlefield. The  new tentative approval letter includes conditions of approval which respond to some of  the community concerns.      To continue discussion of the permit, the City and the applicant (Highway Community  Church) are hosting a virtual community meeting on Tuesday March 9, 2021 at 6:00  pm.     To Join the meeting, please use the following link or phone number:   Zoom Linkhttps://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/97112706068   Meeting ID: 971 1270 6068   Phone Number: 1 699 900 6833  If you cannot attend the meeting, you may e‐mail questions and comments to the  Manager of Current Planning, Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org.     Information regarding permits at other locations will be provided separately.     Thank you,  Rachael Tanner     14 Baumb, Nelly From:Emily Renzel <marshmama2@att.net> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 4:48 PM To:Council, City Cc:Trish Paetz Subject:Casa Rosa exemptions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Jordan and Members of the City Council:    The Planning Commission and City Council bent over backwards to award significant density bonuses to the proposed  Casa Rosa development without providing any on‐site parking.   Now the owner is requesting to remove the one serious  requirement that came with all that density bonus — some in lieu parking funds to help with the parking impacts of this  intense development.   And this is coming after parklets have already cut into the existing parking upon which the  parking requirement was based.    Please do not allow this exemption.   It will be a burden on the downtown district and our neighborhood.   Thank you.    Emily Renzel  Casa de Anza  101‐103 Third Street  San Juan Bautista, CA. 95045  15 Baumb, Nelly From:E Bennett <thefadedbluecar@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 4:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cubberley Artist rent forgiveness CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,              I am one of the Cubberley Artists hoping for rent forgiveness.                Under the current guidelines I would not qualify.  I am not a 501 c 3 entity, yet the bulk of what I do  makes no money. My work is an attempt to bring social commentary, joy, beauty, creativity, humor, and  perspective to communities through interventions, exhibitions, and dialogue. I do not believe the value of art  lies in the realm of a balance sheet. Within the art world, my professionalism is evaluated by the quality of my  work, my exhibition history, occasionally my education, awards and press coverage, but never my income.  Having any possibility of rent forgiveness linked to a loss of income would automatically exclude me.              Without my studio for three months, and the materials and tools I keep in it, I was very limited as to  what I could create. Even now that I have access, those interested in my work are not allowed to visit.  While  an online presence has been better than nothing, most collectors, galleries, and the public respond better  when the color and scale of a piece are not subject to whatever electronic device one has on hand. Open  Studios and individual studio visits provide a chance for dialogue and exposure to my work which is the heart  and soul of why I create. These communal times provide the background and context for curators and galleries  mounting exhibitions. Exhibitions lead to other networking opportunities such as artist talks and workshops.  As you know, most venues have been closed this year so my work has lacked its audience.               I have done my best to adapt and engage with the community in spite of the lockdown, providing free  services (virtual portfolio reviews, art donations,) and have staged rogue interventions such as “VOTE” (at my  own expense.) It is my hope that as a CASP artist I am an asset to the community.              Everyone’s life has been derailed by this crisis. Although I had the funds to cover my studio rent during  the three month shutdown, I do not think it is fair to be charged my full monthly rate for that portion of the  year when we were not allowed to use our studios. I don’t know what would be fair, or if fairness is even  possible. Nonetheless, I hope there is some middle ground that remedies the lopsidedness of the financial  burden and respects us as artists and tenants.  Please value all of us in the Cubberley Artist Studio Program,  not as businesses, but as cultural assets.               Thank you for your consideration,              Elizabeth Bennett  16 Baumb, Nelly From:David Chan <dmchan@cs.stanford.edu> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 11:23 AM To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom Subject:Strongly in support of Fiber to the Premises (RE: Mayor's SotC speech, 3/4/21) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,    I've been a Palo Alto resident since 2006 and studied Computer Science at Stanford for 4 years before that. During the  COVID‐19 pandemic, I've been working‐from‐home and my son has been attending Addison Elementary as a Full‐ Distance Learner. In normal times, I often have responsibilities that require me to work‐from‐home on a regular basis.    I was overjoyed to read about Mayor DuBois's speech on 3/4/21 in support of Fiber to the Premises in Palo Alto in Palo  Alto Online.    Citing the spike in telecommuting over the past year, DuBois voiced support for Fiber to the Premises, a proposal to  expand the municipal fiber ring to all residences and businesses in the city.      "We have the opportunity to create a new city utility and deliver superior service to our residents."    Bravo! This is absolutely the right approach. City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) should be directed and mandated to use  the municipal fiber ring to offer Internet services over fiber directly to residences and businesses throughout the  community. This service could be paired at Equinix Palo Alto (formerly PAIX) offering extremely high‐quality access to  nearby institutions important to our community.    Palo Alto is in a unique position to offer high‐quality services because of its unique municipal utilities arrangement. The  ongoing struggles with PG&E in the larger community demonstrates how much better CPAU is at serving our city. Every  residence and business in the city already has a customer service relationship with CPAU for gas, electricity, water,  sewage, and refuse. Solid, reliable, high‐speed Internet access is absolutely a critical utility just like those.    The commercial marketplace is failing to serve our city. As a long‐time customer of Comcast, it is clearly a poorer choice.  Besides the occasional service outages, it's clear that they are not committed to offering privacy‐sensitive, equitable,  transparently‐and‐fairly‐priced, high‐quality services. They've lobbied against Net Neutrality principles and are eager to  offer prioritized traffic to the highest bidding service, making the work‐from‐home experience worse. They are not  transparent about customer‐unfriendly data‐caps and overage fees. They use limited‐time trials and promotions to hide  the real cost of their on‐going service to customers. And they appear eager to leverage any amount of private data  they're able to glean from their customers's Internet traffic to sell to marketers and advertisers. These are unacceptable  problems and are structural in nature.    In addition, due to their network infrastructure, they're unable to offer symmetric high‐bandwidth download and upload  services at reasonable prices. They're currently offering 1Gbps‐down and 35‐Mbps‐up over cable at a "discounted" price  of $220/month. Compared to Sonic Fiber at $50/month in San Francisco for 1G up‐and‐down, that's an outrageous price.    Sonic Fiber and AT&T Fiber seem interested in expanding their services throughout the Bay Area and should be allowed  to compete in Palo Alto, but they have not made serving our community a priority in any way. Furthermore, in the long‐ run, they too are incentivized to behave the same way as and have the same interests as Comcast.    17 Finally, the city should not be distracted by proposals to rely on wireless links for connectivity to premises. Wireless  technologies that promise to do so have popped up and faded away repeatedly over the last few decades. Although  high‐speeds seem possible over wireless, all wireless technologies are subject to unavoidable interference and  contention. That trade‐off of reliability and occasional glitch is worthwhile when you're on‐the‐go and roaming around  on LTE or 5G, but is unacceptable at a place like home or work where you rely onInternet access to focus on important  activities.    Solid and reliable Internet is achievable with Fiber to the Premises and opens up many possibilities not only during the  pandemic, but for decades to come.    Thanks,  David Chan    18 Baumb, Nelly From:Jennifer Gonsalves <goneolives@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 8:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:Forgiveness of CASP rent during lockdown periods CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,     I am an artist at CASP and my main income for the past dozen years has been through my artform of costume design and  construction for Bay Area theatre and dance companies.   My income is always at or below poverty level, even in the best of times. This year, obviously, has been particularly  difficult, with the performing arts industry having been completely shut down.   I am asking that you please forgive the rental costs for the months when we were not allowed to use our studios. That  seems only fair, as we were explicitly told we were not to make use of our studios, and I complied.   I am on a repayment system right now, that increases my rent from $700 to (approx) $850 per month, which is a great  hardship for me, as I am also a residential renter. I am using up what little I had in retirement funds to keep up on  payments.  I did what I could to support the community, such as making hundreds of masks for the community and volunteering on  the BLM mural.    Thank You,  Jennifer Gonsalves  19 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 2:46 AM 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; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; 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; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; vallesR1969@att.net; sanchezphilip21@gmail.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; midge@thebarretts.com; terry Subject:Fwd: Dr. John Campbell, Monday, March 1, 2021. Latest data. Oxford data soon-good 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 5, 2021 at 2:19 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell, Monday, March 1, 2021. Latest data. Oxford data soon‐good  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:36 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell, Monday, March 1, 2021. Latest data. Oxford data soon‐good  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:25 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell, Monday, March 1, 2021. Latest data. Oxford data soon‐good  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 4:03 PM  20 Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell, Monday, March 1, 2021. Latest data. Oxford data soon‐good  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 2:48 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell, Monday, March 1, 2021. Latest data. Oxford data soon‐good  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 2:21 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell, Monday, March 1, 2021. Latest data. Oxford data soon‐good  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 12:04 AM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell, Monday, March 1, 2021. Latest data. Oxford data soon‐good  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 11:20 PM  Subject: Fwd: Dr. John Campbell, Monday, March 1, 2021. Latest data. Oxford data soon‐good  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 2, 2021 at 2:40 AM  Subject: Dr. John Campbell, Monday, March 1, 2021. Latest data. Oxford data soon‐good  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                       Thursday very late, March 4, 2021                To all‐  Dr. John Campbell in the UK:   21      "Efficacy takes WEEKS to lbuild up after vaccination. We have to wait for the effect to kick in." So says Dr. John  Campbell in this video.   So we vaccinate teachers in California and rush them back into the classrooms? Not if I were a  teacher. You'd "get resistance" if you tried it with me. With the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, you have some immunity  29 days after the first shot.  You have zero immunity at 14 days. Then, 29 days after the first shot,  you get the second  shot. Then you wait two MORE weeks, and now you have some really good immunity. So 43 days, six weeks after the  first shot you are safe to go in and teach.  In all of the BS local news coverage about vaccinating teachers in the San  Joaquin Valley, NOT ONCE has anyone talked about the time between the first shot and the time that that teacher has  the immunity required to re‐enter the classroom. Not one word about that. Teachers tend not to be morons, so good  luck marching them into the classroom soon after they get their first shot.                 So figure six weeks after you give a teacher or other school employee‐ administrators, custodians, cafeteria  workers, school bus drivers‐ six weeks after they get the first shot, they should feel safe in re‐entering a classroom.  That  is the deal with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, anyway.  KCBS‐SF and local TV news in Fresno has loud‐mouthed,  ignorant Bay Area mayors and school "spokes‐persons" talking about the great benefit they are providing for school  workers, as if they can skip into the schools the day they get their first Covid shot. If you can keep all of them away from  sound medical advice, maybe you can pull that off.               Update ‐ YouTube                                            Biden's remarks on Tues. March 2, 2021 on the Covid19 pandemic:                        Biden Delivers Remarks About Ongoing Covid Pandemic | NBC News ‐ YouTube                NBC Nightly News, Tuesday, March 2, 2021                       NBC Nightly News Broadcast (Full) ‐ March 2nd, 2021 | NBC Nightly News ‐ YouTube               Some salient passages from this broadcast:  Start at 1:25   With Merck, we can vaccinate every adult in  America  two months sooner, says Biden. Educators get priortized. (See the first paragraph of this email above).  Every  adult by the end of May. 18 million vaccinations this week, the most ever.                    NBC reporter:   "Vaccinations at mass vaccination sites are slowly picking up."  At 3:35   "But across the country  the frustration is the same: Not enough vaccine and the registration sites are crashing"              LH‐  Does anyone think that the immediate release of 30 million doses of the Oxford vaccine wouldn't help that  situatiobn?              "Tom Frieden, former "C" Director   (listen to him say it. Former C Director).  "Even running at full capacity, it takes  time for vaccine makers to start from zero then ramp up to produce enough for the 180 million Americans who now  qualify for a shot.  A vaccine is hard to make. You must make sure it is completly safe, that it's followed every protocol.  These are vaccines that havn't been made before in the kinds of quantities that are made now".                Guess the network paid him just to say SOMETHING. The rubes won't know what he said. JUST SAY SOMETHING  AND THE DOPES WILL THINK THAT THE BIDEN ADMIN. IS DOING A GOOD JOB.  Who says that Astrazeneca has to start  from zero to make Oxford vaccine? They could tear out their lines and go out of business tomorrow and still ship 30  million doses tomorrow morning!. True, a vaccine is hard to make, but I'll bet that now that Astrazeneca has made 30  million doses, they have the process down pretty well. You have to be sure it's safe. That is determined mostly by the  clinical trials, and the Oxford vaccine has been proven in the trials in the UK, and now, as far as we know, in the  22 duplicate (!) trials run by the FDA.  After THAT, it is a matter of being sure that the production process yields a safe  product‐  one not contaminated, e.g. Bet anything, those 30 million Oxford doses are safe and can be further tested by  random inspection to be sure.  SO, absolutley nothing that Dr. Frieden said above justifies in any way the continued  hold up by Biden's FDA in approving the Oxford vaccine.                 RE Biden invoking the DPA to force Merck to work with J&J to produce the J&J vaccine, that will take some time  to bear fruit. He says that that will allow every adult American to be vaccinated by the end of May.  But the CEO of  Astrazeneca told Congress, under oath, last week that his company can ship 30 million doses of the Oxford vaccine  "instantly" when the FDA approves it. If Biden compelled his FDA to release the Oxford vaccine immediately, we still  would not have enough Covid19 vaccine doses to vaccinate all Americans who need it right away. BUT IT MIGHT ALLOW  THEM TO BE VACCINATED BY THE END OF MARCH!!!!  OR THE END OF APRIL.  And that would save thousands of  American lives. The immediate release of 30 million doses of the Oxford vaccine can only save lives, so why does Biden  not do it? Release it, have the military transport it throughout the U.S. using C‐5As etc., have the National Guard help  inject the vaccine, along with FEMA personnel.  There is massive evidence from clinical trials and real world data from  Scotland and England now that the Oxford vaccine is safe and effective. Millions of people there have received it and  there is no alarm being sounded by the UK that it is not safe. If the FDA has discovered anything to the contrary, they  have a profound moral obligation to announce it to the world so its use can be stopped.                L. William Harding              Fresno, Ca.  23 Baumb, Nelly From:Valerie Lisiewicz <valerie.lisiewicz@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 9:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Rent forgiveness for Dance Visions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am writing to request that you consider reducing or forgiving rent for Dance Visions during the pandemic‐imposed  shutdown.  As someone who has been attending events at Cubberly for over 30 years, I believe that Cubberly is an  amazing resource for Palo Alto and surroundings, and the tenants deserve our support.      Specifically, I am requesting that you forgive rent for Dance Visions, a long‐term Cubberly tenant, and a welcoming  dance environment for all ages and abilities.  I have watched them meet the challenges of remote learning over the past  year, and their commitment is inspiring.    When the restrictions are lifted, we are all looking forward to returning to our community activities.  Please make sure  Dance Visions is there for us.    Thank you ‐    Valerie Lisiewicz  24 Baumb, Nelly From:Disha Chopra <dishac@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 9:38 PM To:Council, City Cc:Narayan Bharadwaj Subject:gas line needed for heating pool CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,     I am a current resident of Palo Alto and I am in the process of building a new home with a swimming pool/spa.The old  house on the property will be demolished.    Per the new building code, we will not be using natural gas for any home related activities and will be using solar.   However, we have found out that electricity is not an efficient or feasible option to heat the pool/spa.  The electricity based technology that exists for the purposes of heating the pool is at max 140000 BTUs , which is much  lower than the desired level needed to heat an average pool size of  20000 gallons. We would need a minimum of  220000 BTUs and such a model does not exist in the electric variety.    This leaves us in a position where we do not have a feasible option to heat our pool. We would very much like our pool  to be heated to be really useful for us. We have family members with severe asthma as well as older parents who live  with us so cool water is not an option for us.    We are considering propane to heat the pool but are uncomfortable having a 500 gallon propane storage tank buried in  our yard. I am not even sure that the city would allow something like that for a residence.     Our goal is to request the city to allow us to keep the existing gas line to the house which would only be used to heat the  pool and not for any other purpose.    Please advise on how I can make an official request to the city regarding this matter. Would the right next step be to  get on the agenda of the city council meetings ? If yes, please add me.    Here is a list of other research that I have done regarding using alternate methods for heating pools:  1. Heat Pumps – don’t work well in our area. I’ve got people who have installed them (with the thought that they  would work) and are disconnecting them. Humidity isn’t where it needs to be in our area. Not effective or  efficient when you compare to the amount of electricity required to run them.  2. Thermal solar – definitely worth it. Keeps the pool water 6‐7 months out of the year. But what is done for the  other months and evenings/nights ?  Also, it won’t get the spa hot enough.  3. Electric heaters – aren’t big enough or efficient enough. An 11 kW electric heater is about the equivalent to  about 140,000 BTUs. Would have to set up the spa on it’s own electric heater and pump to run constantly to  keep spa warm. Won’t do anything for the pool (too much water).  4. Electrical requirements of electric heating sources – heat pumps generally use approx. 40 amps of electricity,  while electric heaters use 30 amps. If you consider the pool pump, pool cover motor (used to help retain heat),  pool cleaner, separate pump for spa (if using electric heater as mentioned in #3), you can easily get up to 125  amps used just for the pool to be able to have it perform the way it’s supposed to (if gas is eliminated).  5. Other municipalities (such as Town of Los Gatos) have looked at these as reasons to allow exemptions to the all  electric rules for outdoor pools/spas.  25        Thank you  Disha    ‐‐   In theory there is no difference between practice and theory, in practice there is.  26 Baumb, Nelly From:Tom DuBois <tomforcouncil@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 9:05 PM To:Neilson Buchanan Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: gentle on my mind CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Thanks.  Love Glen Campbell        On Thu, Mar 4, 2021 at 8:40 PM Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote:  Mayor Tom, Inspiring Theme for your State of City Address! Andiamo, Palo Alto! Neilson PS It is hard to beat a close with a violin chorus. Gentle On My Mind , Glen Campbell , 1967 Vinyl    To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Gentle On My Mind , Glen Campbell , 1967 Vinyl    Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 28 Baumb, Nelly From:Tara de la Garza <tara@taradelagarza.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:35 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rent forgiveness at Cubberley CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the City Council,     I am an artist in the Cubberley Artist Studio Program. Whilst I am thrilled to be receiving subsidised studio space from  the City, I would like to make you aware of the period of time that we were unable to use our studios due to the  mandated stay at home order. Also, I share a studio and for the rest of the time we have been going on different days to  also maintain social distancing.    If there could be rent forgiveness for this 3 month period that would be very helpful.    I am aware that we are not non profits, but artists are often on the fringes of wage earning and especially during this  time could use a break.    Thank you for your time           Tara de la Garza     insta: taradelagarza  www.taradelagarza.com  29 Baumb, Nelly From:Rachelle at TinkerLab <rachelle@tinkerlab.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 10:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Rent forgiveness for Art studio spaces CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     I'm writing to you as an artist in the Cubberley Artist Studio Program to request partial rent forgiveness during the time  of COVID, should this be possible. I understand from our colleagues in the Public Art Program that you're considering  this, and I would like to bring a few points to your attention in case you aren't aware:  1. Cubberley artists were not able to access studio spaces for three months. I did not personally enter my space  until July.   2. Many studio spaces in Cubberley are shared, so when artists like myself did return, we only did so on a half time  basis to maintain social distancing.  3. Many Cubberley artists like myself have school‐age children who were now learning from home, so making use  of the art studio became even more limited. Prior to COVID I used my studio M‐F, 9 am ‐ 2 pm. Since July I've  used the space on Tuesdays from 12 ‐ 5 pm and occasional Wednesdays when I could get extra childcare. I know  that other artists with children have had a similar experience.   Thanks for considering these points as you assess plans for rent forgiveness.    Best wishes,  Rachelle Doorley, Studio U‐5    30 Baumb, Nelly From:b. beekman <cranberrysauce23@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:30 AM To:Mayor Lily Mei.; jkassan@fremont.gov; t; D5. Raj Salwan; D6. Teresa Cox; D2. Rick Jones; D1. Teresa Keng.; Mayor Sam Licarrdo; Mayor's office. Lee Wilcox; Mayor's office. Paul Pereira; C.Mgr. David Sykes; C.Attrny. Nora Frimann; city attorney Shasta Green; cl.d1. Charles "Chappie" Jones; cl.d2. Sergio Jimenez; cl.d3. Raul Peralez; cl.d4. Lan Diep; cl.d5. Magdelena Carrasco; cl.d6. Devora. Davis; cl.d7. Maya Esparza; cl.d8. Sylvia Arenas; cl.d9. Pam Foley; cl.d10. Johnny Khamis; cDoT.Dir.John Ristow; cDOT Laura Wells; c.mgr.Jim Ortbal; C. Manager Angel Rios; OES Director.Ray Riordan; OES.Office of Emergency Services; Police Ofc. Anthony Mata; Police Ofc. David Knopf; Police Lt. Ellen.Washburn -s.op.; Police Lt. Heather Randol; Supervisor Cindy Chavez; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Joseph Simitian; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Supervisor Mike Wasserman; Dana Reed; d.District Attorney; s.PIO; supervisor.carson@acgov.org; Wilma.Chan@acgov.org; Nate.Miley@acgov.org; richard.valle@acgov.org; Scott.Haggerty@acgov.org; David Haubert; amy.shrago@acgov.org; Anika Campbell Belton.; Perkins, Cheryl, CAO; info@alcoda.org; pio@alamedacountysheriff.org; mayor; D1.; D2.; D3.; D4.; D5.; D6.; D7.; D8.; City Clerk.Brkly.; C.Mgr.; attorney@cityofberkeley.info; O.E.S.; planning; Transportation; p.r.c.; berkeley. p.d.; FPD chief. Kim Peterson; John Lindsay-Poland; Sameena Usman; Victor Sin; Roxana Marachi; tessa.darc@gmail.com; council@redwoodcity.org; city.council@menlopark.org; Council, City; cityadministratorsoffice@oaklandca.gov; cityclerk@oaklandnet.com; Craig Dziedzic; Janell Myhre; Phillip White; Corinne Bartshire; Mikyung Kim-Molina; Baker, Ethan (ECD); Lloyd Shand; Maryellen Carroll; Gary Malais; J. George Lippman; atlarge@oaklandnet.com; dkalb@oaklandca.gov; Sheng Thao; Niki Fortuno Bas; Loren Taylor; lreid@oaklandnet.com; Ngallo@oaklandca.gov; Libby Schaaf; District7@oaklandca.gov; District3@oaklandca.gov; Joseph DeVries Subject:Blair Beekman. Thursday. March 4, 2021. __ City of Oakland Finance Committee agenda. 1.25.21. __ Budget Issues. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        Dear Oakland Finance committee,           I would like to follow up, with an informational letter, first sent, after the January 25th Oakland finance committee  meeting.     A Jan. 25, 2021,  KPFA, 7am, morning radio program, had councilperson‐at‐large Rebecca Kaplan, discussing what to  look for & expect, with the upcoming city budget, and surplus issues, for Oakland.     And that can work, to be flexible enough, to find funding, for existing programs.      It was also offered, on the morning radio program, that the gun trafficking program, and its monitoring, is working in  such a way ‐ that it has developed, counterproductive practices, that is ignoring, obvious needs.      And is simply draining, the current city budget, with limited results.    31    To work on gun trafficking issues, at the intra‐state level,  often can be considered, a good reasoned, direct approach.      It can work, to reduce gun violence, at the local level. And at the same time, work to lesson, the blame & burden, on  everyday community.      BAUASI, the federal agency assigned to help, with local emergency services & local law enforcement needs, has recently  re‐started, its Countering Violent Extremism program, CVE.      The state of California, has a similar program, Preventing Violence Extremism, PVE.     NCRIC, has also done much work, with intrastate gun issues, for the past few years.        All of these programs, can help address, how following interstate gun trafficking, can work to reduce, violent gun  activity, in local cities.     All of these programs, have also been working much, in the last few years. And from this, hopefully there should not be  a need, to overreact to the events, at the capital, a few months ago.     And a reminder, that since 2005, advocacy groups, like CAIR, and the ACLU, have been developing, & putting into place,  important civil rights & civil protection concepts, that can help with, overall better decision making, at this time.       The work, of the city of San Jose, along with, its assemblyperson Ash Kalra, is also trying to understand, how a city, can  ease the tensions, and reduce the overall supply of guns, into a city.     From all of this, I hope the city of Oakland, can learn, to better line up, its local health and human services programs, as  how to address, caring, good practices, at the local level.     Along with, interesting new concepts, like the Peoples Budget, to begin to line up, more efficient, organized, equitable,  overall budget practices, in Oakland, as well.     To conclude, a reminder, that more openly addressing, state violence & extremism ‐ including, the important u.s. role,  in intra‐state gun trafficking, over the last 15 years ‐ can do a lot, to alleviate the suffering, it is creating, at the local u.s.  level.     And possibly, help alleviate issues, from the Jan. 6 events, of the u.s. captial, as well.          Sincerely,        Blair Beekman  32 Baumb, Nelly From:EIN Presswire <salescampaigns@einpresswire.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 3:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:Try EIN Presswire’s Distribution 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.EIN Presswire      Questions? +1 202-335-3939          TRY EIN PRESSWIRE’S DISTRIBUTION FOR FREE  We are Everyone’s Internet News Presswire™. Yours too! You can now send your next press release for free as an introduction to our PR distribution services. This offer is valid for 30 days only. Get started at https://www.einpresswire.com/free Unlike our competitors, we combine a press release service with our own media monitoring websites, which annually serve millions of people. Your press releases will be seen by journalists, business, industry & government professionals categorized by geography and topic. Whether you are looking to broaden the reach of your press releases or need to target a specific audience, EIN Presswire is an efficient and cost-effective place to start and a point of distribution that should be added to your strategy. If you have any questions, please call me at +1 (202) 335-3939. If you want to speak with us in Europe, please call +44 20 8036 3949. Best regards, Jeremy Fields EIN Presswire Washington, DC https://www.einpresswire.com 34 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 12:44 AM To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; beachrides; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; 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: Real world data now on the Pfizer vaccine in England. Spectacular. Dr. Campbell 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 4, 2021 at 12:31 AM  Subject: Fwd: Real world data now on the Pfizer vaccine in England. Spectacular. Dr. Campbell  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 8:51 PM  Subject: Fwd: Real world data now on the Pfizer vaccine in England. Spectacular. Dr. Campbell  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Mar 3, 2021 at 3:38 PM  Subject: Real world data now on the Pfizer vaccine in England. Spectacular. Dr. Campbell  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                 Late on Wed. March 3, 2021                 To all‐  Here is Dr. John Campbell with real world data now for England re the efficacy and safety of the Pfizer  vaccine. He gave the real‐world results for the Pfizer vaccine in Scotland a few days ago. Spectacular results. Big  35 plus:  The Pfizer vaccine appears to be effective against the B.117 variant‐ the UK variant, the Kent variant.  Easy to  remember. Our B‐17s and B‐24s getting over to England in the spring of 1942 saved the Brits' necks. Joke.   The Kent  variant is rapidly becoming the dominant variant in the U.S., and it will be the dominant variant here by the end of  March, he says.  The real world data for the Astrazeneca‐Oxford vaccine in England will come soon. The UK got the Pfizer  vaccine before they got the Oxford vaccine, so the data for Oxford are coming in a little later. They still don't have the  Moderna vaccine at all.             Both UK vaccines working ‐ YouTube                Any day now, the real‐world data for the Astrazeneca‐Oxford vaccine in Scotland, England and perhaps the whole  of the UK will be available.                Unless the CEO of Astrazeneca was committing perjury in front of Congress last week, his company has 30 million  doses of the Oxford vaccine ready to ship out "instantly".  Think of the deluge of life‐saving vaccine that would produce.  He didn't say that that much could be produced in a few days or weeks with a crash effort. He said it is ready to ship out  the minute the FDA clears it. Trump was right about "fake news". The big media tell whatever story they want. The  obscenity of the FDA holding up the Oxford vaccine when they have no good reason to, proves that. Not one word from  the networks about the hold up by Biden's FDA of the Oxford vaccine, 30 million doses of it. Hundreds of lives will be lost  due to this, and not a word from the networks. It's a wonder they covered Viet Nam at all.                The lying bastards.                Congress should step in.                  L. William Harding            Fresno, Ca.                                                                   36 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 9:51 PM To:DuBois, Tom; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Council, City; Human Relations Commission Subject:House passes expansive policing overhaul bill named in honor of George Floyd - The Washington Post CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/george‐floyd‐police‐reform‐bill‐vote/2021/03/03/5ea9ba3a‐7c6c‐11eb‐85cd‐ 9b7fa90c8873_story.html      Sent from my iPhone  37 Baumb, Nelly From:Steve Bisset <steve@bisset.us> Sent:Wednesday, March 3, 2021 2:24 PM To:Council, City Subject:in support of denying rezoning Park Boulevard for office use CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members,    I write in strong support of your clearly negative response to the Jay Paul proposal to rezone properties along Park  Boulevard for office  use:  https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/03/02/city‐council‐rebuffs‐request‐for‐office‐zone‐along‐park‐boulevard    The only correct number of additional office spaces in Palo Alto is zero, given that the net effect of every additional  office space is negative.  The need to address housing and the jobs/housing imbalance can succeed only if, as an  immediate and necessary step, we stop digging the hole deeper.    Further, in no way is there a public interest or Council responsibility to protect the profits of developers.    Well done!  Steve Bisset, Palo Alto resident (and tenant of an office space in Palo Alto)  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 5:51 PM To:Tom DuBois; Council, City; Minor, Beth Subject:community comment re city manager report CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I just wanted to let you know that my hand is raised with regard to the City Manager Report.     I know that it is unusual for a person to comment about the City Manager Report, but I have a valid and brief response  to something the City Manager stated, and I believe it is appropriate and just for the record to include this response,  which will NOT be directed at Mr. Shikada personally.    Thank you,   Rebecca      Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078  2 Baumb, Nelly From:SimpCo <simpcomail@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 5:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vacant storefront CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Cambridge#240CityCouncil030821  Dear City Council Members,  Jag Tax & Bookkeeping, Inc., have enjoyed serving the public since we were first located in the storefront at 490  Cambridge Avenue in 1984. However we are now attempting to move into the vacant storefront at 240 Cambridge  Avenue but our City staff have not yet allowed us to do so.  Emily Foley of the Department PCE Planner stated to us on  03/01/21 that she thinks that our business is offices and since 240 Cambridge Avenue was a pharmacy/market and is  subject to the Retail Preservation Ordinance Jag Tax is not allowed.     Our business, Jag Tax & Bookkeeping Inc., has always served “walk‐in” clients even many pro bono clients who cannot  afford to pay for professional tax preparation.  As such, Jag Tax is not just “offices” but is, in fact, a retail‐type business  with an all‐glass front on the sidewalk and unlocked doors for people to enter at will.  More than half of our current tax  clients are Senior Citizens living in the Palo Alto area, many by now in their 80’s, who will also be walking into our  storefront business.  Although our tax preparers sit at desks to work, the desks are in a wide‐open room visible from the  street.    Jag Tax’s prior location many years ago was two blocks away at 490 Cambridge Ave, which was also our storefront tax  service in the one‐story building (which was shared with Charlie’s Barber Shop), until a developer forced our businesses  to relocate when they built the new First Republic bank there.     Therefore we feel that we are “grandfather’d” in because we already operated a storefront tax service for many years  on Cambridge Avenue before the Retail Preservation Ordinance was passed.    Last month the owner of 240 Cambridge Avenue has been offered a large amount of money for his building.  As in the  past, when this occurs, the new owner will tear down the building and build a behemoth building thus further  destroying the pleasant one‐story atmosphere of that end of Cambridge Avenue and Palo Alto in general.  The other side  of 240 Cambridge is Domino’s Pizza, which serves the community and surrounding neighbors but will also probably be  lost if the building sells. The owner of the building would like to keep the building as‐is but if we cannot obtain City  permission to occupy the vacant half, he plans to sell.  Perhaps you will drive by that address and see for yourself how  “home‐y” the neighborhood feels there.    Additionally, Jag Tax & Bookkeeping Inc. is a small business with four‐to‐six employees and is 100% owned by a Hispanic  female owner.  This is a danger of another small business closing down due to Covid‐19 if the City does not issue a  Permit quickly.  The owner agrees to not sell during March if Jag Tax can obtain the Permit.    Thank you for you help.  Juanita A. “Jag” Gonzales  JAG Tax & Bookkeeping Inc.  265 Cambridge Ave PO Box 60131  Palo Alto CA 94306‐0131  Phone 650/ 321‐9852 Email 2jag@jagtax.com    4 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann Balin <alafargue@mac.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 3:29 PM To:Council, City Subject: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,    I am a native Palo Altan and commercial landlord in another part of the state.    My partner and I have worked with our retail tenants who appreciate our charming building (1865) and the business  relationship with us. We cut their rent in half April 1, 2020 because we value them as our tenants. Continuity is  important. They are more than surviving.    Did Ellis of Town & Country ever negotiate with tenants? My understanding is the Mayfield Restaurant & Bakery tenant  was rejected when they wanted to negotiate with Ellis. That assessment is my opinion. How is our community served  when landlords do not work with their tenants? This proposed zoning change only benefits the landlords’ interests and  NOT the community.    When the former council changed the zoning to permit gyms that did not work out well. They come and go. it is not  appealing to walk by a space full of equipment. They created dead space.    We are beginning to see a dawning in this plague that we are all experiencing. The statistics are showing that we are  headed for better days. Why? People are getting vaccinated. People are itching to be out and about.    Why would the council bend to pressure from wealthy landlords when retail is poised to COMEBACK?  Have you been to  the Mall lately? It is buzzing. Even Town & Country is alive with customers dining alfresco at several venues and  shopping at Books Inc. for example.    Please do not change the retail zoning standard to allow medical services. I feel that having that kind of ‘retail’ will drive  shoppers to the Mall. Who wants to compete for parking with the users of the medical services?    Respectfully yours,    Ann Lafargue Balin    5 Baumb, Nelly From:Leah Russin <leah.russin@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 7:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Run for Fun - SUPPORT CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear councilmembers:    Someone recently complained on NextDoor about the use of Peers Park by Run for Fun.  Please know that as a parent of  an elementary school child, I am a huge supporter of Run for Fun.  It is a well run program that has provided my first  grader with exercise, social interaction, and joy during these long pandemic months at home.  Since we have a low risk  tolerance, he is in full distance learning and rarely sees other children, and gets very few opportunities to work play  cooperatively with other children. Run for Fun has enabled him to get the benefit of time with of his peers and sports  without the COVID risk associated with being indoors.  It has been an amazing outlet for him and has helped his mental  and physical health, as well as his social and emotional growth.  I greatly appreciate that the city worked with Run for  Fun to make Peers Park available.    Best,  Leah Russin  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Victor Tsaran <vtsaran@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 2:41 PM To:Council, City; UAC Subject:Please consider expediting fiber internet all throughout Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi.   This is just to add my voice of support to hundreds of Palo Alto residents who have been requesting fiber Internet for  years now.  I live on Homer Ave and it seems like we have no possibility of getting the high‐speed fiber over here. From what I  understand the infrastructure is not set up accordingly to support the fiberoptic connection.    Looking forward to city's action on that front.    Best, Victor    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 11:14 PM To:allison@padailypost.com; Greer Stone Cc:Dave Price; Shikada, Ed; Tanner, Rachael; Planning Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; mark weiss; Council, City; Roberta Ahlquist; Jonsen, Robert; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; winter dellenbach; ParkRec Commission; Binder, Andrew; Zack; Joe Simitian; shuwei Li; Rosen, Jeff; Raj Jayadev; Nash, Betsy; Taylor, Cecilia; Jeff Moore; Dennis Upton; Stump, Molly; O'Neal, Molly; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; james pitkin Subject:April 5 city council meeting --Safe Parking Program -study session with the police CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  3/9/21 Hi Alison and Geer, (Council members Cormack and Stone) Just wanted to thank both of you, after last night's marathon city council meeting, for attending this evening's Safe Parking Program meeting about the progress of Highway Community Church's efforts towards securing possibly Palo Alto's first ever city approved religious based Safe Parking Program. 1. I understand that the issue of safe parking programs generally (church and city property) will be on the council's agenda for discussion on April 5. 2. I would appreciate it if the two of you would consider taking the lead on the issue of Palo Alto securing a city owned lot where a full service Safe Parking Program could be established, similar to the 2000 Geng Road Safe Parking Program, that is funded by the county. I am requesting that this second city owned land- Safe Parking Program- be funded fully or in part by Palo Alto, one of the richest cities in the country. 3. I also understand the Palo Alto Police Department intends to have a study session with council and the community on that same night, April 5. I have sat through similar police propaganda sessions in police, to tell us all how great they are with no presentation from the other side so to speak. 4. I am asking that we seek out a counter presentation by the ACLU Police Practices Project and Black Lives Matter so the community can have a full discussion of the appropriateness of policing or the lack thereof in our community. 2 5. I believe such a study session (not a marathon PR session solely by the PAPD) would build trust not tear down trust between the community and the PAPD. Please give me your thoughts. Sincerely, Aram James 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 9:57 PM To:Rebecca.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Minor, Beth; Stump, Molly; Greer Stone; Cormack, Alison; Human Relations Commission; Kou, Lydia; DuBois, Tom; Council, City; Dave Price; Rebecca Eisenberg; mark weiss; Joe Simitian Subject:Tonight’s (March 9, 2021) SPP meeting & California Public Records Act request addressed to Beth Minor et al: CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Ms.Tanner:     Just wanted to thank you re the professionalism with which you handled tonight’s meeting regarding the progress of  Highway Community Church’s efforts towards securing a SPP at their facility, with all appropriate city, Move Mountain  View , and Neighborhood agreements/contracts signed off.     I look forward to the day that Palo Alto finally approves its first church/faith based Safe Parking Program. It has been a  very long time coming.....and we are still not quite there.     I appreciated you taking the time to answer each of my chat questions and giving me an opportunity to speak.     Clearly I don’t agree with what I perceive as the city’s long time foot dragging re supporting with full faith, integrity, and  financial support a viable church/faith community robust Safe Parking Program.... involving a cross section of Palo Alto’s  more then 40 faith institutions, churches, synagogues etc.     That said I doubly appreciate your efforts to answer all of my concerns in a professional manner.     And thank you for your timely notice re all of the recent meeting on SPP issues. Of course, I hope to attend all future  meetings on the topic. Please continue to notify me of any such meetings     Best regards & with respect     Aram James   Abjpd1@gmail.com   415‐370‐5056       To:  Beth Minor, Molly Stump, et al:     California Public Records Request.   1. Please provide me with any and all information/documents re any other churches ( i. e. The Unitarian Universalist  Church on Charleston Ave) or other religious institutions...in Palo Alto‐ that currently have pending applications for a  Safe Parking Programs.  Documents reflecting time date set for any community meetings with said applicants.      2. Any documents reflecting community agreements between Highway Community Church and the Neighbors. Between  Move Mountain View and Highway Community Church. Any other relevant documents in the city’s possession.     4 3. Any and all city memos/documents, last 1 year, re any efforts by the city of Palo Alto, city council, city manager et al:  to secure a second piece of Palo Alto property to establish a safe parking program ‐similar to the 2000 Geng Road SPP — but to be funded in whole or in part by the city of Palo Alto.       Sincerely,    Aram James   5 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:21 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; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; 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; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; vallesR1969@att.net; midge@thebarretts.com; sanchezphilip21@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: T 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 9, 2021 at 7:20 AM  Subject: Fwd: T  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 2:16 AM  Subject: Fwd: T  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 2:01 AM  Subject: Fwd: T  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 1:42 AM  6 Subject: Fwd: T  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 1:38 AM  Subject: Fwd: T  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Mar 9, 2021 at 1:37 AM  Subject: The interview and how I see it after 24 hours.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>        Tues, March 9, 2021              To all‐                       Farage discusses the interview:  Farage reacts to Harry & Meghan. ‐ YouTube              Totally unrelated, in no way related, not even tangentially related, I hear that someone wrote this: they didn't give  a name, so until and unless they do, we will not know who wrote it. I don't even know what it means. Maybe the British  will know what it means.                   Never, in the history of well thought‐out, carefully planned cons, have so many rubes and suckers been so well  primed to buy so many movies and other junk from so few sharpies.                             L. William Harding               Fresno, Ca.   7 Baumb, Nelly From:Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 4:48 PM To: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; jharper@vanlevylaw.com; rkeith@bayareanewsgroup.com; sdussault@bayareanewsgroup.com; helbraun@helbraunlaw.com; jcanova@scusd.net; csanfilippo@scusd.net; asgonzalez@scusd.net; askamy@amydickinson.com; 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; bill@sdap.org; patrick@sdpap.org; ukoffice@chinaculture.org; parmit.randhawa@gerogehills.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.anderson@usdoj.gov; david.rose@doj.ca.gov; servesdap@sdap.org; john.bennett@ic.fbi.gov; bill@sdap.gov; mayorlondonbreed@sfgov.org; chesa@sfgov.org; mccomas.b.c@gmail.com; info@siliconvalleydebug.org; galaxy_454@yahoo.com; florestrisha09@gmail.com; Jeremy Schmidt; mike@mikegoldman4mayor.org; adoptions@hssv.org; intake@hssv.org; education@hssv.org; comments@hssv.org; officeofthemayor@oaklandnet.com; jrosen@dao.sccgov.org; Be Judged Subject:Re: KNOW JUSTICE ~ KNOW PEACE #16 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  By thew way; right after writing about the evils of silicon valley the last email thread was called "SPAM" again and disabled haha... On Tuesday, March 9, 2021, 4:47:01 PM PST, Lik Roper <likroper@yahoo.com> wrote: What would you all do without my emotionally intelligent genius insights? 8 Baumb, Nelly From:craig gerber <readinggwk@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 1:12 AM To:City Mgr; Stump, Molly; Council, City; hdtreading@yahoo.com Subject:noise 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 a complaint under the cities policy and procedure 1‐19/MGR    On monday march 8 2021 i was startled awake by very loud noise disturbance at approximately 5;45 am.I believe that in  addition to being a serious disturbance this  was  a nuisance and violation of the cities noise ordinance sect. 9.10.10 and  sect 9.10.050,    This is, unfortunately, a common occurrence and has been a problem for years, often involving city operations,  refuse collection, recycling by the cities contractor etc.    I  know that these operations could be done later in the morning or later in the day because i have seen them done later  in the day.    I do not know why the residents in our neighborhood have been subjected to this for years and that the city seems to be  unconcerned about the degraded quality of life we experience routinely. .    I believe that the residents in our neighborhood deserve to be treated no differently from residentes in any other  neighborhoods in palo alto and that  sect. 9.73.010 of the cities municipal code is applicable.       greg kerber              9 Baumb, Nelly From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 1:20 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Swanson, Andrew; Eggleston, Brad Cc:supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Kristine.Zanardi@bos.sccgov.org Subject:The FAA Federal Register notice CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor, Council, City Manager, Brad, Andy,     First, I want to thank you for the City's attendance at the recent UC Davis Aviation Noise and Emissions Symposium. I  hope that it was helpful and worthwhile.     I don't know if the City will comment to the FAA's solicitation, but if there is comment ‐ I would like to suggest the  following:    1) It would be great if the City can submit documents to demonstrate how much effort and money has gone in - the last 7 years - to address citizen concerns. From copies of City and County resolutions; the Select Committee, SJC Ad Hoc, SCSC. Ideally a ballpark figure of how much of the City's funds have gone into the matter.     2) Irrespective of the diverse views on which "metrics" FAA should adopt - it would help to please underscore that addressing noise in Palo Alto should not be held up by deliberations for groundbreaking changes to FAA policies. FAA's current rules provide for ways to measure and assess the problem and to see what potential mitigations may be available.     3) Encourage the FAA to do Environmental reviews for GBAS and to re-do PIRAT. It takes between 2-18 months to do an EA (MITRE did a study to see how short EA's can be, and it's short).The Covid slow down is a good time to do this. Doing EAs could serve FAA's ongoing aircraft noise research.    FYI ‐ Sky Posse's  entry to the Federal Register is at www.skypossepaloalto.org. A priority that most agree with is to move  forward with current information, tools, and resources to explore potential mitigations.     Thanks,     Jennifer  10 Baumb, Nelly From:Martha <marthalg@sonic.net> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 11:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:office buildings CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please, please don't approve anymore office buildings. How many empty ones are there now?  We need more housing with lots of parking spaces. All the developers asking for office buildings need to change their plans to housing. The ones in question near California Ave. should build housing instead and all of the Fry lot area should be small apartments or condo buildings. Don't forget to include parking spaces for everyone.  Do the right thing!  Thank you for your time,  Martha Gregory  1 Baumb, Nelly From:CHRISTINE MEYER <cjm101@me.com> Sent:Thursday, March 4, 2021 8:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:Outdoor dining — keeping streets closed to traffic 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 here in Palo Alto since 2005. It’s a beautiful community that I feel has often got lost in the hum of fast paced  life. With covid slowing us all down one of the very best gifts has been the feeling of connection that outdoor dining  provides. Even on a quiet Saturday morning like here in this picture, there is a feeling of anticipation knowing that  people will be coming together at these tables. I love that this offers joy. This is the closest feeling I’ve experienced to  the small towns in Europe where people slow down and linger at tables. I would highly encourage the council to  consider, especially as restrictions become looser, that we do our best to identify the best of who we are here in Palo  Alto and what is bringing us together rather than dividing us. Please consider the health benefits to our stressful  community by keeping the streets closed to traffic year round and offering a place for us to relax. It has been amazing!    Warmly,  Christine Meyer    3 Baumb, Nelly From:Keith Reckdahl <reckdahl@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 11:18 AM To:Council, City Cc:O'Kane, Kristen; Jeff Greenfield Subject:Recommendation for Park Impact Fees CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Both of us voted against the PRC recommendation on the Park Impact Fee Study. This email describes our reasoning and our recommendation. While the Study methodology is reasonable, we believe that the Study has some deficiencies: 1. Currently, retail and office space are lumped together under Commercial/Industrial. However, because retail space has lower employee density than office space, retail space has less impact on parks. Including separate Retail and Office commercial fee schedules may be desirable and appropriate. 2. The commercial square footage per employee is too high (250 SqFt/employee). A more reasonable number is 190 SqFt/employee, which would increase the commercial office impact fee maximum by 23% (see "Supporting Data" below). 3. The proposed park land valuation is too low (marginally less than Sunnyvale, just 60% of Los Altos' valuation). The Study assumes $5.7 million/acre, which is not supported by recent real-estate transactions (see "Supporting Data" below). Expanding current parks will likely require acquiring residential property for $20 million/acre or more, but there may be opportunities to buy land in more-remote areas for $12-15 million/acre. 4. The Study assumes an Open Space acquisition cost of $57,000/acre, which is too low. The 2002 Bressler acquisition for Arastradero Preserve cost $3.56 million for 13 acres, or $274,000/acre. (see "Supporting Data" below). 5. The Staff Report compares the Palo Alto Community Center and Library Impact Fees to those of Morgan Hill, Brentwood, Paso Robles, Richmond, and Fremont. This comparison has limited functionality since those cities have vastly different land values, demographics, and levels of service. 6. The proposed 4-year tiered schedule for gradually increasing fees is seriously flawed. The proposal would set fees at 25% of the new maximum level for '21-22, followed by 50%, 75%, and 100% of the max for the 3 following years. This methodology does not consider the net increase between the current fee and the proposed new maximum fee, and would actually result in fee decrease in '21-22 (compared to '19-20 fees) for all categories except multifamily housing. A more reasonable methodology would use the delta between the current fee and new fee as the basis for a graduated increase. To illustrate the impact of these assumptions, the following table evaluates the effect of making the following adjustments:  Adjusting employee space allocation from 250 SqFt/employee to 190 SqFt/employee 4  Adjusting the Park land acquisition cost from $5.7 million/acre to a very conservative $12 million/acre  Adjusting the Open Space land acquisition cost from $57,000/acre to $274,000/acre RECOMMENDATION Since our current impact fees are insufficient, it is imperative that some increases are included in this year's budget cycle.  If the budget cycle has sufficient time, we recommend that the Impact Fee Study be updated with revised input values.  If the budget cycle does not have sufficient time to update the Study, we recommend that Council use the Study's recommended values to set impact fees for the next fiscal year while updating the Study for the next budget cycle. Even with its flaws, the Impact Fee Study is more accurate than the City's existing Impact Fee Structure, although this may preclude the possibility of separate Retail and Office Commercial impact fees. We also recommend that Council carefully consider the length of the phase-in period.  From a parks perspective, extending the duration of inaccurate fees simply extends the period that are parks are impacted.  However, if the goal is to incentivize landowners to build housing now, an impact fee that increases over time may encourage landowners to begin their projects earlier.  Another option would be a combination; enact a significant portion immediately, with the remaining portion phased in over time. Please let us know if you have any questions... Keith Reckdahl Jeff Greenfield SUPPORTING DATA Per-Employee Space Allocation  The Federal GSA's 2012 public-sector survey showed a nationwide average of 190 usable SqFt/employee (218 rentable SqFt/employee). The survey also showed the distribution, with 5 58% of employers allocating 200 SqFt/employee or less, and 25% of employers allocating 150 SqFt/employee or less.  A Cushman Wakefield analysis calculated a 2017 Bay Area value of 193.4 SqFt/employee. It also showed regional trends, including that the Bay Area had one of the fastest shrinking per-employee space.  Levi's recently leased 100,000 SqFt for 670 employees in San Francisco, which is 149 SqFt/employee.  During the March 1st Council meeting, the Jay Paul planner stated that in his experience, tech offices typically allocate 165 SqFt/employee Parkland Acquisition Cost Real estate valuation depends on location and zoning. 1) Recent transactions show single-family houses typically have the following per-acre costs:  $11-20 million in South Palo Alto  $17-24 million adjacent to the railroad tracks by Peers Park  $18-26 million near Rinconada Park  $25-30 million near Johnson Park  While existing structures increase the property value, even an empty lot is quite expensive; for example, a tear-down house near the train tracks in South Palo Alto sold for $13 million/acre in 2017. 2) Depending on the location and zoning, non-residential properties may or may not be less expensive than single-family properties. Transaction data for commercial properties is not only more difficult to find, the net cost can be distorted by undisclosed terms. For example, since environmental contamination is common in Silicon Valley, announced transaction values are affected by which party accepts the cleanup liability. Valuations for a few commercial properties in Palo Alto follow:  GM-zoned properties on Fabian recently sold for $11.4 million/acre and $15.5 million/acre  The small office building at 4151 Middlefield (zoned RM-20) currently has an assessed (not fair-market value) of $19.5 million/acre  Before construction, the Pizza Chicago site at 4115 El Camino (zoned CN) had a land-only assessed value of $22 million/acre.  The North Ventura property at 3001 El Camino (zoned CS) has an assessed value (not fair market value) of $11 million/acre. Open-Space Acquisition Cost The fair-market value for open space land is difficult to assess due to limited transactions. The most relevant example is the 2002 Bressler acquisition for Arastradero Preserve, which cost $3.56 million for 13 acres, or $274,000/acre. Assessed values provide a floor on the fair-market value — however assessed values can be significantly lower than fair-market value since in-family transfers or 1031 exchanges may not trigger a reassessment. A review of County assessed values for empty OS-zoned parcels near Foothills 6 Park range frame $60,000/acre to $1.6 million/acre, although most of these parcels were last sold 20 years ago. Since fair-market values are generally higher than assessed values, it is doubtful that the City will be able to buy appropriate Open Space land if it allocates $57,000/acre. -------- 7 Baumb, Nelly From:College Terrace Residents Association <web@collegeterrace.org> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Letter from the CTRA re: Wellesley Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    March 10, 2021    Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members,    The College Terrace Residents’ Association (CTRA) writes to you today to express our opposition to Cato Investments’  proposed development at the corner of Wellesley Street and College Avenue.    We oppose the plan by developer Cato Investments because it is the wrong project in the wrong location. The plan  proposes to replace two single family lots with a 24‐apartment, 3‐story building surrounded by R‐1 zoned homes. The  proposed complex does not fit with the proportionally smaller neighboring homes, violates many planning regulations,  and ignores the reality that there are no 3‐story buildings of any sort in the College Terrace neighborhood off of El  Camino Real. Finally, the project lacks adequate parking and poses a potential traffic‐safety liability due to its close  proximity to an active childcare center and a public library.    As one of Palo Alto’s oldest neighborhoods, College Terrace is home to a warm, eclectic collection of residents and an  even wider variety of charming architectural styles–from high‐end modern to modest and humble. The atmosphere is  that of a small community where residents closely identify with their environment and each other. College Terrace  boasts a welcoming community filled with a wide variety and healthy mix of multi‐unit, multi‐family home structures,  single family homes and pre‐war cottages on substandard‐sized lots.    The purpose of the CTRA is to enable residents to work together to maintain and enhance the quality of life in College  Terrace.    The CTRA’s objection starts with posture of the developer, Cato Investments, towards the neighborhood, followed by  the adverse characteristics of the project, and finally their stated goal of making this their chosen “flagship” project that  they would repeat in our neighborhood and others, if successful.  It should be noted Cato currently owns at least 9 lots  in the neighborhood, as well as more in other parts of Palo Alto.    The developer deliberately avoided the CTRA and city by first contacting the press to debut the project. They continue to  demonstrate avoidance behavior by neglecting to answer calls or respond to email inquiries by neighbors and have yet  to even schedule their promised “community meeting” nearly two months after the project was first announced.    Thus, the developer has clearly demonstrated their modus operandi, which is not only blatantly disrespectful, but should  also serve as a warning to the City of what to expect if this project moves forward. Since they have decided to not  engage with the community, College Terrace residents used public information requests and research to understand  Cato Investments.  We learned their mission is to create wealth for ultra‐high net worth individuals and not, as they  seem to imply, seek a path for affordable housing for many. They avoid building large apartment complexes in their own  hometown, but instead seek to do so and repeat a profitable formula in Palo Alto neighborhoods – not just College  Terrace.  8   The developer asks for special, preferential treatment, through several means we see as unreasonable and adverse to  our community:    1. A 3‐story building: No other building in College Terrace compares to this size and bulk and this plan would be better  suited along El Camino Real, perhaps as a mixed business/residential space.    2. 24 units: Most of the multi‐family complexes in the surrounding area are four units – as mentioned above College  Terrace features several multi‐family, multi‐unit homes but they are four units or less per property, with on‐property  parking.    3. The plan indicates building 24 units on two lots; this would be equivalent to 72 units per acre, far greater than any  existing density in the neighborhood.    4. Planning issues: This oversized complex would require numerous planning and building variances setting new  precedents within Palo Alto. The variances include, but are not limited to, the following:    a. a variance to build above current height limits b. a variance to build a very steep increase in units per acre c. a  variance to join two single family lots together d. a variance to violate existing regulations on setbacks and parking  requirements e. a variance on existing regulations of daylight plane and sightlines affecting surrounding properties    The volunteer CTRA board meets monthly and seeks to engage our residents. In January,  we enjoyed one of the largest  (virtual) gatherings of our neighbors in recent memory. At that meeting, residents spoke overwhelmingly in support of  the neighborhood and ten to one against this developer proposal. The message was clear – speakers support affordable  housing, but oppose this project in this location.    Additionally, Cato’s timing is also clearly poor as we are experiencing a record number of vacant rentals in the  neighborhood–and at significantly reduced rental rates.    Since Cato has introduced the subject of affordable housing (we believe in bad faith), we want our city council to  understand two very important points.  But first, we want to remind you that, even including commercial corridors like  San Antonio and downtown, College Terrace has the 7th highest housing density of the 31 neighborhoods in Palo Alto.   The many small cottages on undersized lots and multi‐unit apartments in our neighborhood are regarded by everyone  who has chosen to live here as one of its great strengths.  This originally zoned assortment of mixed used housing adds  to the socioeconomic diversity and architectural character of our little neighborhood. Thus, the character of our  community is naturally inclined to be affordable housing supporters, when affordable housing planning is done right.    However, where new affordable housing needs to be built to meet new policy goals embraced by the city, it must be  genuine, not fraudulent, and it must be pursued with a rational plan and map developed by the city, not driven by  opportunistic developers engaging in land speculation.  Here is where our two points come in: (1) City Council should  clear up the ambiguity in the Planned Housing Zone, which Cato's proposal has targeted, by formally clarifying that the  PHZ tool is, and was always intended, as some council members have already indicated, to be restricted to commercial  areas, and (2) affordable housing policy cannot be responsibly driven through ad‐hoc zoning tools that allow land  speculators to opportunistically disguise their extractive profit‐motive as public‐minded leadership; instead, affordable  housing goals should be pursued through a thoughtful planning process to develop a city‐wide map that, among other  things, strives to make housing density from neighborhood to neighborhood more equal.  College Terrace supports  affordable housing goals when they are pursued responsibly.  Cato's proposal has inadvertently demonstrated the above  two ways Palo Alto can improve its pursuit of affordable housing goals.    The CTRA opposes this project and requests the City of Palo Alto oppose it, too.  Although the intentions of the  developer are not communicated clearly, it is easy to trace their records and presume their interest is to serve their  billionaire investors who are not necessarily connected in any other way to our community.  Our intentions are clear: we  9 welcome new residents with open arms and seek housing projects better suited to the space and the neighborhood.   The CTRA strongly advocates for more affordable housing but views this proposal as ill‐suited to both the space and the  community.    In closing, the CTRA requests that the City provide guidance to landowners and developers about where and what to  build, rather than cede this responsibility to developers. Without clear guidelines, we end up with misguided projects  like this one, not to mention other projects like this throughout our City and neighboring areas, as detailed in  communications unearthed through the freedom of information request.    Sincerely,    The College Terrace Residents’ Association Board      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary B. <mab9999@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, March 10, 2021 11:15 AM To:Council, City Subject:Cato Investment's Wellesley Street Project in College Terrace 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. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Forward <palo.alto.fwd@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, March 9, 2021 9:50 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Subject:March 10th, 2021 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Study Session Attachments:NVCAP PTC - March 10 (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Chair Hechtman and PTC members, Palo Alto Forward is a non-profit organization focused on innovating and expanding housing choices and transportation mobility for a vibrant, welcoming, and sustainable Palo Alto. We are a broad coalition with a multi-generational membership, including new and longtime residents.   Thank you for revising the NVCAP alternatives to provide additional guidance around their financial feasibility and affordability. It is paramount that the serious discussion focus on Alternative 3 because it has the greatest potential for addressing the housing crisis through the creation of housing.   Palo Alto Forward continues to believe that we must fully explore and expand Alternative 3 for several reasons:  1. 2. It provides the broadest 3. vision for an inclusive neighborhood with homes for residents at all income levels and requires the least public funding for financial feasibility 4. 5. 6. It addresses our climate 7. change goals (S/CAP) by incentivizing public transit use over single occupancy vehicle use through the reduced parking minimums (which reduces development costs) 8. 9. 10. It promotes flexibility 11. in building heights, intensity, and designs while creating the greatest amount of open space 12. 13. 14. It supports forward-thinking 15. approaches to better address current and future neighborhood needs that value diversity, equity and inclusion and 16. 17. 18. It enables a more balanced 19. mix of office, commercial, and residential uses to complement economic viability of the NVCAP area, California Avenue, Page Mill/Oregon and El Camino Real. 20. The decisions we make now will constrain near and long term planning; we should exhibit concerns about 2 environmental, public health, and economic vitality of our community. There is no requirement to build on every lot identified for housing or office, but by failing to zone for dense, multifamily and infill development we will limit what is possible on this 60 acre area plan. The NVCAP is a critical long-range plan that requires us to be thoughtful about the current and projected need. The NVCAP provides significant opportunities to demonstrate our willingness to meet RHNA goals, while prioritizing climate change, public transit, and open space. But we have to plan for the greatest number of homes on these sites.   Failure to exercise local control by selecting enough feasible sites to support the number of housing units needed will likely result in state intervention. The City of Palo Alto met just 37% of our current regional housing goals and will need to permit 6,086 new homes in the next cycle. If we fail to meet our housing needs again this cycle - or we demonstrate that we’re not going to be cooperative, the state can levy fines, disqualify us for funding, appoint an agent to take over our Housing Element, remove or reinstate land use policies, and even approve housing proposals irrespective of our local zoning policies. This issue has been raised many times by community members and various organizations. Land in Palo Alto is too scarce and development is too expensive to resist opportunities like this one. Every neighborhood can responsibly make space for new neighbors. The NVCAP area is uniquely positioned as a great site for new and varied housing. It is close to services, shopping, transit, and jobs, which would set new families and low-income residents up for success. In order to ensure this happens, we must adjust our height limits, parking policies, fees, and FAR to accomodate for more homes and make it economically feasible to build.   Unless Palo Alto is willing to create incentives that enable appropriate development, the property owners will not be inclined to create bolder and imaginative solutions and will largely retreat to what is feasible under the current development standards. Lastly, without identifying dedicated funding and inventizing land dedication in our inclusionary zoning policies to subsidize affordable housing construction we will not see the number of Extremely Low Income and and Very Low Income homes we need. Funding will not materialize without new options and increased responsiveness by the City Council to development proposals brought forward to you.  Sincerely,   Gail Price, Board President Palo Alto Forward      cc: Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council Members   cc: NVCAP Working Group     March 10, 2021 Re: March 10th, 2021 North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Study Session To: Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) Dear Chair Hechtman and PTC members, Palo Alto Forward is a non-profit organization focused on innovating and expanding housing choices and transportation mobility for a vibrant, welcoming, and sustainable Palo Alto. We are a broad coalition with a multi-generational membership, including new and longtime residents. Thank you for revising the NVCAP alternatives to provide additional guidance around their financial feasibility and affordability. It is paramount that the serious discussion focus on Alternative 3 because it has the greatest potential for addressing the housing crisis through the creation of housing. Palo Alto Forward continues to believe that we must fully explore and expand Alternative 3 for several reasons: 1) It provides the broadest vision for an inclusive neighborhood with homes for residents at all income levels and requires the least public funding for financial feasibility 2) It addresses our climate change goals (S/CAP) by incentivizing public transit use over single occupancy vehicle use through the reduced parking minimums (which reduces development costs) 3) It promotes flexibility in building heights, intensity, and designs while creating the greatest amount of open space 4) It supports forward-thinking approaches to better address current and future neighborhood needs that value diversity, equity and inclusion and 5) It enables a more balanced mix of office, commercial, and residential uses to complement economic viability of the NVCAP area, California Avenue, Page Mill/Oregon and El Camino Real. The decisions we make now will constrain near and long term planning; we should exhibit concerns about environmental, public health, and economic vitality of our community. There is no requirement to build on every lot identified for housing or office, but by failing to zone for dense, multifamily and infill development we will limit what is possible on this 60 acre area plan. The NVCAP is a critical long-range plan that requires us to be thoughtful about the current and projected need. The NVCAP provides significant opportunities to demonstrate our willingness to meet RHNA goals, while prioritizing climate change, public transit, and open space. But we have to plan for the greatest number of homes on these sites. Failure to exercise local control by selecting enough feasible sites to support the number of housing units needed will likely result in state intervention. The City of Palo Alto met just 37% of our current regional housing goals and will need to permit 6,086 new homes in the next cycle. If we fail to meet our housing needs again this cycle - or we demonstrate that we’re not going to be cooperative, the state can levy fines, disqualify us for funding, appoint an agent to take over our Housing Element, remove or reinstate land use policies, and even approve housing proposals irrespective of our local zoning policies. This issue has been raised many times by community members and various organizations. Land in Palo Alto is too scarce and development is too expensive to resist opportunities like this one. Every neighborhood can responsibly make space for new neighbors. The NVCAP area is uniquely positioned as a great site for new and varied housing. It is close to services, shopping, transit, and jobs, which would set new families and low-income residents up for success. In order to ensure this happens, we must adjust our height limits, parking policies, fees, and FAR to accomodate for more homes and make it economically feasible to build. Unless Palo Alto is willing to create incentives that enable appropriate development, the property owners will not be inclined to create bolder and imaginative solutions and will largely retreat to what is feasible under the current development standards. Lastly, without identifying dedicated funding and inventizing land dedication in our inclusionary zoning policies to subsidize affordable housing construction we will not see the number of Extremely Low Income and and Very Low Income homes we need. Funding will not materialize without new options and increased responsiveness by the City Council to development proposals brought forward to you. Sincerely, Gail Price, Board President Palo Alto Forward cc: Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council Members cc: NVCAP Working Group 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Dennis Martin <dmartin@biabayarea.org> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 1:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:City Council 3.8.21 Agenda Item #8, Development Impact Fees Attachments:BIA_PaloAlto_DevelopmentImpactFees_3.8.21.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Greetings Mayor DuBois and City Council Members,  On behalf of BIA BAY AREA, I respectfully request that you please accept and consider the comments contained in the  attached letter. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.    Dennis Martin  BIA Government Affairs  408‐499‐2739      March 8, 2021 Mayor Tom Dubois City Council Members City of Palo Alto, CA TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY RE: City Council Agenda 3.8.21 Item #8. Park, Community Center and Library Impact Fees Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members, BIA Bay Area (BIA), representing for-sale and rental residential builders who constitute a primary housing production stakeholder’s group in the region, continues to be very concerned regarding the extremely high impact fees proposed by the City of Palo Alto. BIA requests that the City reveal and discuss the true level of fees on housing. In October 2020, the City Council agenda included a proposed installment program on a 16-unit single family development at 567 Maybell. The Staff Report on this item notes that the City charges 8 separate development impact fees (not 4 fees). The combined impact fees on the 567 Maybell development per unit were $62,278 not $16,883. And this example does not include affordable housing in lieu fees of nearly $300,000 per unit which would make the current level of development impact fees combined with affordable housing in lieu fees on a single-family home $362,278. The proposed fee increases would add tens of thousands of dollars to this already extremely high fee extraction. While BIA supports the proposed phase-in of fees increases over a four-year period, the proposed fee increases are extreme because projected increase to the maximum justifiable levels would increase fees on housing by approximately 900%, from the current $5,557 to the proposed maximum $47,707 fee on market rate multifamily rental housing. Phase-in alone will not be enough to mitigate fee increases. In addition to phased-in fee increases, BIA makes the following recommendations: • Covert impact fees to per square foot calculation from per unit calculation and apply the fee only to “net rentable/livable” square footage; • Set impact fees at the earliest point in the entitlement process, i.e., planning application deemed complete; • Make all City impact fees payable at the latest point in the process, i.e., Certificate of Occupancy; • Exempt all deed restricted affordable units from PDO/PIO fees or requirements; i.e., VLI, LI, and Mod affordability levels; The City has severely underperformed on RHNA housing goals despite repeated declarations that Palo Alto needs to build more housing, especially affordable housing. The development of new housing has been stymied in part because the cost of new development is exceedingly high as shown in many studies, including the City’s own BMR Housing Program Analysis prepared for the City of Palo Alto by Strategic Economics. Studies show that housing development benefits from reduced fees, less parking, and moderate mixed-use requirements. For instance, a 2018 study by the Terner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley entitled “It All Adds Up; the Cost of Development Fees in Seven California Cities”, found that fees can be very expensive; the Terner Center’s analysis of fees found that they represented anywhere from 6 to 18 percent of the local median home price, often with additional exactions, such as development agreements, which, if project-specific, are not captured in any fee schedule. In an August 2019 Terner Center report entitled Making it Pencil, The Math Behind Housing Development multiple analyses showed that a 15% inclusionary requirement did not pencil in representative Bay Area jurisdictions during the strong housing market conditions that existed pre- COVID and must be coupled with significantly enhanced (non-discretionary and pre-defined) incentives such as tax abatements, reduction of other fees and exactions, alternative compliance options, relaxation of design and zoning requirements, required parking reductions, and greater density bonuses. Another crucial development metric, rental income, has been steadily declining across the San Francisco Peninsula region, threatening the feasibility of new projects. Revenue from new rental housing has fallen precipitously in Palo Alto due to the devasting impacts of the Covid-19 induced economic downturn. Despite the COVID 19 pandemic and the resulting economic slowdown, Silicon Valley still faces a housing crisis and the construction of new housing is in the vital interests of the City. Fee increases of the magnitude proposed by the City of Palo Alto will impose new additional constraints on the development of housing, especially multifamily housing. Respectfully submitted, Dennis Martin Dennis Martin BIA Government Affairs 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Wong <elizabethwong2009@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, March 8, 2021 9:49 AM To:Shikada, Ed; Apple, Kara; Eggleston, Brad; Ellner, Robin; Rius, Rafael; Bhatia, Ripon; Stump, Molly; Justin Williams; Council, City; Andrew Wong Subject:Time to Change Parklet Ordinance Attachments:parklets2.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good morning,    Please respond to the attached letter regarding Parklets on City Streets.    Thank you.    Elizabeth Wong    650 814 3051      Today's Date: March 7, 2021 What is wrong with the Parklet Encroachment Ordinance and Execution? 1. Transparency There is lack of transparency. The ordinance is is not clearly understood and explained to the major parties involved such as Tenants and Landlords. Landlords, at least myself, have not been contacted at all for Parklets built in front of their properties. In regard to the Tenants, the contact has been to employees, many of whom are part time and not familiar with the lease and Lessee's wishes on the subject of Parklets. When I contacted the employees and Lessee at 532 Ramona, all said that they were not aware that an encroachment for Parklets was being sought and that, if had they known, both would have referred the City to the Landlord and would have contacted Landlord themselves personally. No resolution sought by very senior staff member. Instead of finding resolution, the staff member was very negative. Essentially he stated that the City owns the sidewalk and the street and property owners have no say in regard to these areas, and that the City has free range of action on public property. Basically, he was not interested in hearing my perspective even when I opined that the City existed for the benefit of all constituents; it is its responsibility to hear input and to be inclusive of all affected parties. 2. Blockage of Neighboring Store Fronts There is no logic in blocking ANOTHER property's frontage and visibility. Insurance carriers do not extend coverage to OTHER OWNERS' properties. In the attached letter from Heffernan's Insurance which is my insurance broker, it clearly states that insurance carriers: * Do not extend coverage beyond the insured's property store frontage * Are not liable for other Business clientele infringing on my side of the property And the issue goes beyond insurance coverage. It is about visibility and location of the premises. These are major reasons why store owners pay a premium to rent property in downtown Palo Alto. By the City's logic, Apple Store's neighboring restaurant should be entitled to use the sidewalks and street in front of the Apple Store. After over a decade of being Apple's landlord, I can assure you that Apple would rightly argue this would cause irreparable harm to its business and would never consent to such encroachment. 3. "Automatic Extension of All Parklets": Same senior staff member stated that Council will "automatically extend all existing encroachments permits, possibly ad infinitum" and Landlords have no recourse to Council's enacted Ordinance which are "not likely to change". Again, total resistance from one senior staff member when I suggested to him that since the encroachment at Ramona expires on September 17, 2021, this is a good time to reconsider the Parklet ordinance. 4. Beyond Insurance Liability. The City's suggestion of sharing tables and chairs is unworkable. Not only such operation is uninsurable, it is risky and dangerous specially in a pandemic environment with easily transmitted COVID even with constant spraying and disinfecting of the Parklets. 5. Landlord Needs Parklet for its Own Tenants. Visibility infringement of storefronts is a major complaint. In my particular case, Landlord also needs Parklet area for its own tenants with competing businesses. No new tenants can be procured nor existing tenants retained when the Parklet advertises a neighboring competing tenant. TIME TO CHANGE THE PARKLET ORDINANCE. 1. City needs to provide full disclosure and be totally transparent to Landlords and Tenants at least within 100' of any Parklet. Full disclosure should be on its size, location, and duration, and City needs to keep a history of people contacted and memorialize their input and the process. 2. City needs to allow sufficient time to respond. 3. City needs to have a grievance process. It builds a lot of resentment when constituents are not heard and given an opportunity to appeal in an effective manner. So far, I had to meet, call, email at lease 6 senior City Staff members, department heads, and council members to get to this point. 4. City needs to set up standards for the Parklets and enforce the standards. Many Parklets have dead plants around them, others are totally obscured and are hardly visible from the exterior, and other Parklets are so poorly built that they bring down the desirability of coming to and staying downtown. Elizabeth Wong 532, 534, 536 Ramona Street 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Rubinson, Dean J. <Dean@ellispartners.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 7:52 PM To:Council, City Cc:Ellis, James F.; Sarah MacIntyre; Evers, Melinda Ellis; Leigh F. Prince; Raybould, Claire; French, Amy; Gerhardt, Jodie Subject:Letter from Town & Country Village regarding Item #6 for the March 8, 2021 Council Meeting Attachments:Palo Alto City Council Letter 3-7-21.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please see the attached letter stating the concerns of the owners of Town & Country Village with the current draft of the  ordinance.  We have been raising these concerns with staff since the original drafting of the ordinance in December and  hope that our concerns can be addressed before the ordinance is formally adopted.    Thank you.    Dean Rubinson  Partner, Director of Development     111 Sutter Street, Suite 800  San Francisco, CA 94104  415.373.7706  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 March 7, 2021 Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council: I am writing to you on behalf of the Town & County Village, which our firm, Ellis Partners, has proudly owned and operated since 2005. As you may be aware, our team participated in the City Council meetings on November 9, 2020 and December 14, 2020 at which the subject of changes to the retail and restaurant use regulations was a primary focus. We have reviewed the proposed changes and discussed our concerns with city staff. The intent of this letter is to provide the Council with our feedback, which we believe it uniquely relevant, as we are the operators of one of the primary retail and restaurant properties in the City of Palo Alto. Our team has been carefully managing the merchandising and leasing of Town & Country Village for over 15 years in a manner that is intended to create a rich, unique, and vibrant customer experience while balancing the demands on our parking supply. As you know, different use categories require different parking ratios and for our team it is most critical that the interpretation and application of these categories is clear and consistent, so our team can target tenants of a particular type with a clear understanding of the parking ratios that will be applied by city staff. While we believe the proposed changes to the Eating and Drinking Service, Intensive Retail Service, and Take-Out Service are geared toward providing improved clarity in this regard, we believe that the drafted definitions will continue to lead to confusion and variable interpretations that could in many cases be catastrophic to our leasing efforts. Below are the definitions as currently drafted in the ordinance under consideration at the March 9, 2021 Council meeting. “Eating and drinking service” means a use providing preparation and retail sale of food and beverages with a full menu and providing indoor seating area. Eating and drinking service include presence of a full commercial kitchen and commercial dishwasher. including restaurants, fountains, cafes, coffee shops, sandwich shops, ice cream parlors, taverns, cocktail lounges and similar uses. For establishments with incidental sale alcoholic beverages, a minimum of 50% of revenues from an ‘eating and drinking service’ must be derived from the sale of food. Related definitions are provided in subsections (45) (Drive-in/drive-through service), (125)(B) (Intensive retail service) and (136) (Take-out service). “Intensive retail service” as used with respect to parking requirements, means any retail service use not defined as extensive retail service and including limited food service (i.e. ‘ready-to-eat’ food and/or beverage shops without a full commercial kitchen, where food and/or beverages are ready to consume at the time of sale and any seating area is limited; examples include sandwiches, frozen desserts, non-alcoholic beverages, and baked items). “Take-out service” means a characteristic of an eating or drinking service which encourages, on a regular basis, consumption of food or beverages, such as prepared or prepackaged items, outside of a building, in outdoor seating areas where regular table service is not provided, in vehicles parked on the premises, or off-site. Take-out service does not include intensive retail service uses, as defined in subsection (125)(B). Our concerns and suggestions are as follows: FULL COMMERCIAL KITCHEN IS NOT A CLEAR OR APPROPRIATE STANDARD Since there is no definition included in the ordinance or available reliable definition of a “Full Commercial Kitchen,” there will inevitably be variable interpretations as to whether a space is “Eating and Drinking” or “Intensive Retail” (which has far different parking ratios). This distinction will be made at the discretion of the project planner, during the building permit review process, which typically occurs many months after our execution of a long-term lease. This lack of clarity could result in us having signed a long-term lease for which we do not have the parking supply required by staff’s interpretation of the unclear use definition. In short, we believe a more clear and consistent distinction between these two use types is critical. As a part of our discussions on this matter with staff, we have conducted a review (which has been shared with staff) of many nearby municipalities to determine what characteristics are most commonly used to distinguish between restaurant and retail tenants. Our review could not find a single other example where the type of kitchen equipment was the factor. In fact, there was general consistency that primary characteristic used to identify a Full Service Restaurant is the type of service, in that patrons are typically served at tables, by waitstaff, with hand-held menus and they pay after they eat, i.e. a sit-down, table-service restaurant. It is logical this would require more parking since it takes a relatively long time to eat. In our experience, there are many quick-serve food venues that have all the components of a Full Commercial Kitchen, but sell the food in a counter-service, ready-to-eat format that would not justify the same parking ratios as a full service, sit-down restaurant. As such, we request the Council direct staff to evaluate changing the definitions for “Eating and Drinking” or “Intensive Retail” to focus on the type of service operation (i.e. counter-service vs table-service) rather than on whether a tenant has a commercial dishwasher, for example, which has no relevancy to the length of stay or the parking requirements. TAKE OUT SERVICE IS BEING APPLIED TOO BROADLY The Take-Out Service use appears to be geared toward restaurants at which the primary practice is for patrons to consume their food IN their vehicles ON the premises, like the formerly popular “drive-in” restaurants. The parking ratio for Take-Out Service in the Municipal Code is 1 stall per 30 square foot, which is over five times more parking per square foot than a typical restaurant. Due to the extended duration of each patron’s stay and the use of the parking lot as a dining area, this makes sense for this unique use, if it is limited to “consume in your vehicle on-site” locations. However, the current use definition requires this level of parking if food is consumed “in outdoor seating areas where regular table service is not provided, in vehicles parked on the premises, or off-site.” Firstly, this language seems to conflict with the Eating and Drinking and Intensive Retail definitions and will likely lead to confusion and misinterpretation. Secondly, it appears to allow for staff to require a 1 stall per 30 square foot parking requirement for any tenant that sells food for consumption ANYWHERE beyond its premises, whether at outdoor seating areas or off-site. In fact, we have had recent experience where staff, during the permitting process, considered for several weeks whether to require 33 parking spaces for a 1,000sf tenant space. This particular tenant serves pre-made meals, primarily for off-site consumption, in a counter-service retail type setting, which would only require 5 parking spaces (at a 1 stall per 200 square foot ratio) if classified as Intensive Retail. We have thankfully worked through this matter, but if the higher ratio would have been applied, we would have found ourselves unable to comply with the terms of a lease we had executed several months earlier. As such, we request the following simple redaction of the definition to avoid this potentially catastrophic confusion. “Take-out service” means a characteristic of an eating or drinking service which encourages, on a regular basis, consumption of food or beverages, such as prepared or prepackaged items, outside of a building, in outdoor seating areas where regular table service is not provided, in vehicles parked on the premises, or off-site. Take-out service does not include intensive retail service uses, as defined in subsection (125)(B). We appreciate your attention to these concerns and we look forward to an opportunity to work with staff to resolve them in a manner that will result in staff presenting to Council a revised ordinance that allows staff to apply these use definitions throughout Palo Alto in a manner that is clear, consistent and predictable by property owners in the city. Thank you, Dean Rubinson Director of Development ELLIS PARTNERS LLC 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Op Madera <reformingplanningandzoning@outlook.com> Sent:Sunday, March 7, 2021 8:37 AM To:Council, City Cc:News; City Mgr; PlannerOnDuty; Transportation; Sustainability Team Subject:Reform Ideas for Palo Alto Elections, Housing, and Planning Attachments:Reforming American Transportation and Zoning.pdf; Reforming American Housing Policy.pdf; Reforming American Metropolitan Governance.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Greetings,     I wanted to highlight some reforms to elections, housing, planning and governance policy that may be of help  to Palo Alto. One of those is ranked‐choice voting, which, as a charter city in California, Palo Alto has the  authority to implement. I wanted to provide some resources from one of the groups that advocates for this  type of reform:  https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#rcvbenefits    Obviously, it's an advocacy organization, but I think they still make some good points. Importantly, Palo Alto  could seek information from other cities across the US that have adopted it (with many recently adopting it):  https://www.fairvote.org/rcv#where_is_ranked_choice_voting_used    Thus, Palo Alto could reach out to some of these cities to ask how things went and what elected officials and  voters in those locations thought of the system. One variant of ranked‐choice voting is with multi‐member  districts or it's proportional representation form that is used in Albany, CA which could also help increase  diversity of views and has been used as a remedy in certain voting rights cases. There are also some variants  that allow for top‐four primaries to give voters more choice, and I think this could be useful as well (especially  if you wanted to use RCV to narrow down a field and advance, say, a final four to the general election).    In any case, I hope the Council will give a fair amount of thought to such reforms, even if it ultimately chooses  not to pursue it. Allowing voters to more‐fully articulate their views and preferences, and making politicians  more likely to have a majority of support versus a plurality would be good for democracy writ‐large. While  some of the benefits of reduced negative campaigning may not be as great at the local level, getting more  citizens used to the system would help pave the way for electoral reforms at the state and federal level, the  latter of which there is no doubt room for significant improvement.    I also wanted to highlight some reforms that I think could be key to keeping Palo Alto and the broader region  affordable, efficient, and equitable. I know a lot of regions are interested in improving housing affordability  and I know this is an absolute avalanche of information, but I wanted to provide resources to your staff for  tackling all these major housing, transportation, and governance challenges at once.     Upzoning, Missing Middle housing and Accessory Dwelling Units are becoming more popular across the United  States and Canada. Some examples of proposed and enacted reforms include:     The State or Oregon  The City of Portland, OR   7 The State of Washington  The City of Minneapolis, MN (Notes of caution)   The State of California (AB68, SB50, SB902)  The City of Vancouver, CAN (Laneway Houses)   The State of Vermont  The City of Edmonton, CAN   The State of Nebraska  The County of Montgomery, MD   The State of Maryland  The City of Madison, WI   The State of Virginia     The State of Minnesota        Additionally, some jurisdictions have altered other related regulations such as FAR, minimum lot size, and parking  restrictions that would otherwise implicitly bar Missing Middle Housing. These regulations can implicitly bar  Missing Middle Housing by rendering certain types of real estate projects financially infeasible. Off‐street parking  requirements in particular can significantly increase the construction costs of a project per unit. Some examples of  jurisdictions that have enacted changes to these related regulations in parts or all of their jurisdiction include:    The City of Houston, TX (Note, Houston does have de‐facto zoning restrictions)    The City of San Francisco, CA    The City of Buffalo, NY    The City of Hartford, CT    The City of Minneapolis, MN    The City of Sacramento, CA   The City of San Diego, CA   The City of Sandpoint, ID    Many others      To craft effective land use regulations that allow Missing Middle Housing, a jurisdiction must consider both explicit  (use restrictions, unit restrictions, etc.) and implicit (parking requirements, density restrictions, setback  requirements, etc.) legal hurdles to such real estate projects. Additional policy solutions might include:   Ensuring building conversions to other uses face fewer regulatory hurdles, and lowered or no minimum  parking requirements (the Adaptive Reuse Ordinance in Downtown Los Angeles may be a useful model  here, but could be expanded beyond just residential conversions); allowing for maximum flexibility of use,  even small‐scale industrial or PDR uses that the Council deems compatible with commercial or residential  neighborhoods should be on the table to aid local economic development, foster local jobs, and repopulate  neighborhoods.    Historic buildings can be preserved, but their interior uses can be flexible; the City could consider allowing  conversions of vacant single‐family homes to mixed‐use (ex: store or office on the first floor) or live‐work  housing units helping to increase local job opportunities for residents.   Working with the state to legalize unique housing types, such as SROs or clusters of "tiny homes" to give  people a bridge to economic mobility and housing security.   Legalizing unique building typologies, such as live‐work units and smaller mixed‐use buildings to allow for  more small businesses and economic development, again ensuring maximum use flexibility to anything that  will not be an obvious neighborhood nuisance in an effort to spur more local employment opportunities  and home‐grown businesses.   Broadening representation in the city by switching elections to ranked‐choice voting with multi‐member  districts or proportional representation, helping to reinvigorate local democracy.    Lastly, the attached issue briefs might help solve some of the transportation, housing, and governance challenges  Palo Alto faces (they were originally written with larger and perhaps more left‐leaning cities in mind like San  Francisco, but I think can still be relevant on some points). These proposed reforms are focused on sustainability,  equity, and efficiency. Thank you so much for your time and consideration, and I hope some of these ideas are  useful in making Palo Alto the best place it can be!  8   Op Madera    P.S. I would very much appreciate a confirmation that this email went through!    Greetings urban planners and policymakers, In the 1950-1970s, investments in grade separated freeway infrastructure and urban renewal hollowed out major American cities, particularly their urban cores and core-adjacent neighborhoods. This occurred through direct dis-amenity effects of freeways and demolition from urban renewal, as well as a redistribution of metropolitan growth from core urban neighborhoods to the metropolitan fringe, induced by freeways. These public policy choices, as well as generally weak regional governance structures and highly fragmented local governments in many American metropolitan areas led to a rapid depopulation of American urban centers at a magnitude not seen in any other developed country. In recent decades, this trend of depopulation and decentralization has slowed, and in some cases, even reversed. Many core cities are beginning to see a rebirth in their urban cores, and populations ticking upwards for the first time in over half a century. Unfortunately, due to increasingly strict zoning laws adopted over this same time period, many American cities have “forgotten how to grow,” in a sense, with zoning codes set to freeze neighborhoods in amber rather than accommodate new growth. When depopulation was at its peak, this wasn’t a major policy issue, but as cities have begun to revitalize and their population base has begun to grow, many cities are quickly running up against their own land use restrictions as they become binding constraints. Many local governments, for a variety of reasons, have been unable to accommodate the rising demand for urban housing with commensurate housing supply. A policy debate now rages nationwide, searching for solutions to the housing crisis gripping many large American metropolitan areas, and the hope is that this paper can provide a brief overview of the debate, the nuances of housing and zoning policy, and potential paths to reform being looked at around the Nation. Recent efforts in Minneapolis, Oregon, and Seattle have shown that substantial increases in up-zoning and housing supply can be possible when the focus is on a city-wide conversation, rather than allowing the conversation about zoning to get bogged down by parochial neighborhood commissions. Neighborhood-based groups often are density-phobic and can wield inordinate veto-power over zoning and development changes. While local neighborhood concerns must be taken into account, those local concerns must be weighed against the broader concerns of regional and citywide housing organizations and tenant advocates. After the major recent zoning reform in Minneapolis, the Century Foundation summed up the arguments for, the backlash from, and the response to the backlash in reforming single- family zoning. Though focused on single-family zoning in particular, the conclusion of the piece could apply to excessive land use restrictions in any city or region: “There has long been a consensus among researchers that single-family zoning is bad for housing affordability, bad for the environment, and bad for racial justice. As a matter of basic human dignity, moreover, it is humiliating for local governments to tell people of modest means that they are not welcome in that community and that their children are not welcome in the public schools. It is one thing for a market to discriminate by income; markets function by providing incentives and rewards. It is an entirely different thing for a government to put its heavy thumb on the scale of a market in favor of the wealthy, and to say that those who cannot afford to live in single-family dwellings should be banned from entire communities—that their presence would be, in essence, a “nuisance” to be kept out, akin to an industrial factory or slaughter house.” The major crisis at the moment in many major American cities is one of a lack of sufficient housing units. In the face of regional economic and job growth and the corresponding increase in housing demand, housing supply is not keeping pace, driving up rents and home prices. The problems are similar across many supply-constrained markets such as New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco and other major American metropolitan areas. When demand for housing increases in an area, vacancy rates will begin to drop, and when vacancy rates drop to a certain point (generally around five percent or so) renters will begin bidding for a dwindling amount of available housing units, eventually causing upward pressure on rental prices for all existing units (and I mean all, while it’s true housing markets are segmented, there are substitution effects between each market segment). When rental prices begin to rise, new private real estate development projects will begin to “pencil out” for developers, and supply will be increased to accommodate increasing demand. This increased supply raises vacancy rates, removing upward pressure on rents, which helps to stabilize rental rate growth and keep areas more affordable in real terms. However, in the majority of American metropolitan area, increased supply can only be delivered on land that is zoned for higher capacity than what is already used on a current parcel of land. Though it is true that land can be “scarce” in large metropolitan areas, land that is zoned for higher density (i.e. available zoned-capacity) is far scarcer than land generally (so much so that land zoned for higher density development often comprises a miniscule fraction of total metropolitan land). In some metropolitan areas, developers can receive “re-zonings” relatively easily, thus allowing supply to be increased commensurate with demand, while in others zoning restrictions are not only strict but also rigid, meaning that developers and investors end up competing not for land generally, but mostly for land with sufficient zoned-capacity. This prevents new market entrants while dramatically driving up the price of those scarce land parcels, impeding new housing supply. Additional zoned capacity, while raising land values in the particular land parcels where up-zoning occurs, also increases competition in the land markets for developers, and thus helps to increase housing supply as well by lowering the cost of production of housing, increasing investor returns and attracting more investment into housing supply. Unfortunately, the fact that rising rents tend to increase development as more potential projects become financially feasible has caused some well-intentioned liberals (and the focus is on liberals here because most large metropolitan areas are left-leaning on average) to believe that increased development causes increases in rent, when in actuality lower vacancy rates cause both rising rents and additional development (or, additional development to the extent allowed by zoning, of course). Thus, many get the causality backwards, believing market-rate development increases rents. In an additional unfortunate happenstance, this view of “bad developers” coming in to “raise rents” also fits with other liberal priors, as most liberals have a healthy skepticism of the benevolence of large corporations or the wisdom of unfettered free market dogma. While in many cases these priors and healthy skepticisms serve us and society well, in the case of housing it unfortunately has had a disastrous impact on the outcomes most liberals believe in: environmental sustainability, upward social mobility, housing affordability, and alleviating racial and income inequality. In many ways, and in many liberal cities, well-intentioned (and often well-educated) people who generally have a healthy skepticism that market forces alone may not always be the answer to every problem have adopted a near-dogmatic belief that market forces simply cannot be a major solution to a problem. Nowhere is this clearer than when it comes to housing policy, where many believe that no amount of supply can lower rental rates, despite all empirical evidence and expert consensus to the contrary. Housing market denialism on the left is in many ways analogous to climate change denialism on the right. Now, if you’re a wonk in the area of the housing and planning debate who accepts the basic economic arguments, you’re probably already ahead of us and about to point out that the old supply argument has a hole: the time-old hypothesis about amenities and induced demand. For those not aware of it, it goes something like this: “When a bunch of new market rate units deliver in a neighborhood, they usually deliver towards the top of the market, and thus attract buyers or renters with higher incomes. These buyers or renters, in turn, can attract particular retailers (think Whole Foods or Starbucks) which may have some amenity value in and of themselves, and an influx of more individuals (think Jane Jacob’s ‘eyes on the street’) can increase the safety of a neighborhood (or at least the perception of safety). As rental rates and home prices for individual units are determined by both market-wide housing demand and supply, as well spatial amenities and local neighborhood characteristics, increasing development that brings higher income individuals to an area may drive up rents.” This is a great argument, and one that seems to have just enough elements of truth to it that it could give an economist pause. Setting aside for a moment the morality of the implicit idea here that we should allow neighborhoods to deteriorate, experience high crime, or be deprived of amenities in hopes of keeping them “affordable,” we should investigate if this general idea has merit. The idea appears theoretically plausible: increasing the supply of market rate units in one area, while putting downward pressure on regional rents, could raise them locally (i.e. it could increase affordability globally while reducing it locally). However, theoretical ideas about housing markets are a testable hypothesis, and empirical evidence is all we can rely on in the face of ambiguous theory. In fact, such empirical studies have been done, finding that the supply impacts of new market rate housing dominate any potential induced demand effects. According the studies testing this niche hypothesis, in neighborhoods where new apartment complexes were completed, rents in preexisting units near the new apartments declined relative to those in neighborhoods that did not see new construction. Professor Monkkonen of UCLA, responding to planning documents from the Southern California Association of Governments, sums up the flaw in the induced demand analogy for housing: “The package compares housing supply and affordability to [freeway expansion-] induced demand on freeways… …which they properly note is unlikely to alleviate congestion in the long run. This comparison is not apt, because freeway access is free and housing is not. Congestion occurs when the absence of prices causes a shortage. A housing crisis occurs when a shortage of housing causes high prices. This crucial difference means that new supply is almost useless in the former and incredibly important in the latter.” Why would the supply effect of new housing dominate any theoretical “induced demand” effect? One must remember that new private development itself is a response to market pressures, namely increased market demand for housing at a particular location that is not being met with supply. In the absence of new housing, wealthy individuals will still come to an increasingly desirable neighborhood, regardless of if new housing is built to accommodate them. In the absence of new construction, these individuals will simply take the next best thing, bidding up rents in existing units, with substitution effects slowly pushing people down different market segments, ultimately increasing prices in even the most affordable market rate units. A simple analogy is the game of musical chairs, but instead of each chair going to the person who runs the fastest, it goes to the buyer willing to pay the most. Now imagine adding more players to the game, but keeping the number of chairs constant. While simplistic, this is functionally what is happening in housing markets across many major American metropolitan areas. Many in the planning world (though none in the housing economics world) have tried to get around housing affordability issues with rent control measures. While rent stabilization measures are often seen positively for protecting the public against sudden and sharp rate increases, any long-term binding rent control will ultimately put downward pressure on housing supply. This area of debate has been so long- settled in the economics sphere, with near unanimous consensus from both theoretical and empirical research, that we won’t bother rehashing it here, but will simply provide a link for those interested. Even rent stabilization is likely to be ineffective in the long run, as it too hinders housing supply: “On rent stabilization, the strongest finding in Jenkins’s overview appears to be that tenants in noncontrolled units pay higher rents than they would without the presence of rent control; one reason being that landlords need to make up the difference for lower rents in controlled units. Interestingly, one study found that New York City tenants in controlled units also had higher rents initially, because they were willing to pay more to get into a rent-controlled unit with the understanding that they would have smaller rent increases in the future. The net effect, however, is that tenants [in rent-controlled units] don’t save much in the long run—they simply trade higher rents now for lower rents later… …Given the current research, there seems to be little one can say in favor of rent control. What, then, should be done to help renters obtain affordable, decent housing? A better approach may be adopting policies that encourage the production of more diverse types of housing (different densities, tenure types, unit sizes, etc.), implementing strong regulations and practices to ensure housing quality and to protect tenants from abuses; and providing targeted, direct subsidies to people who need help paying their rents.” Even those direct rental subsidies mentioned above can be counter-productive in zoning- and supply- constrained markets, as they effectively increase “demand” for housing while supply is artificially held constant, driving up equilibrium prices. Ironically, landlords and investors, those most often chastised by well-meaning liberals vouching for public rental assistance, are often the main beneficiaries of direct rental subsidies unless rental vacancy (and, thus, competition among landlords) is high. While rental subsidies for poverty alleviation may be a prudent policy in rust belt housing markets such as Milwaukee or Detroit, they make little sense in major supply-constrained markets as a policy to improve housing affordability writ large. Furthermore, any well-intentioned policy that attempts to saddle real estate developers with fees and exactions beyond the marginal public expenditures needed to accommodate the development itself (i.e. development impact fees), will end up counter-productively harming housing affordability overall. This is because developers, and the investors who fund housing development, require a certain return on investment, and anything that unnecessarily adds to those development costs or lowers potential revenue (such as with rent control or inclusionary zoning) will lead investment to shift away from housing production, thus lowering supply and raising equilibrium rents and prices. While such policies are often popular among the public, given the stereotypical view of developers as deep-pocketed and parasitic, it is ultimately renters and first-time homebuyers who will be the ones paying for any exactions thrown upon developers in the form of higher equilibrium prices stemming from reduced housing supply. Additionally, existing homebuyers stand to benefit financially from this in three ways: (1) reduced rental and for sale housing supply increases equilibrium prices, creating a windfall in property value for existing homeowners who resist new development in the first place, (2) shifting the financial burden of providing public goods onto developers means the tax burden is shifted off of homeowners, and (3) any spatially- related public amenities paid for by fees on developers also capitalize into existing home values, providing a second property value windfall. Given that existing homeowners are almost always wealthier than renters and first-time homebuyers, this arrangement allows the wealthiest individuals in a community to free-ride and capitalize on exactions that are ultimately paid by those who are less affluent, sometimes dramatically so, an ironically regressive form of wealth transfer. If you didn’t catch it above, inclusionary zoning, something in vogue within contemporary urban planning circles, was mentioned as something detrimental to housing supply and affordability. This is because, similar to unwarranted exactions or rent control, inclusionary zoning comes at a cost to a developer (either by being required to add extra units, increasing costs, or by forgoing a portion of revenue for added units). Thus, the policy can create a few lucky winners, those who happen to get a below-market rate apartment, at the expense of all other renters (whether they be wealthy or poor) and first-time homebuyers. But we know what you might be thinking: what about offsets? Yes, oftentimes offsets or other compensation (such as a density-bonus, negated fees, etc.) is given to developers in exchange for additional income-restricted units. Thus, developers, if given offsets, should theoretically not reduce supply in response to inclusionary zoning requirements, which is technically true. It all sounds too good to be true, and, unfortunately, it is too good to be true. You see, many offsets have a cost to the public, even if that cost isn’t immediately apparent. Frankly, you can’t get something for nothing, and there is a downside to every artificial market distortion. Even density-bonus offsets, or allowing developers to build more units in exchange for including income-restricted units, comes at an unseen cost. The very fact that the existing zoning did not allow those units to be built without the density bonus was the hidden cost to renters and first-time homebuyers because it was already implicitly restricting housing supply. Even in the hypothetical example of inclusionary zoning coupled with a land tax, as proposed in the appendix of this article, there would still be a market response, as the example fails to consider that: (1) land uses may not be fixed, and (2) investment in real estate is also not fixed. Thus, investors could redistribute their investments to other types of land uses (hotels, offices, etc.) or other investment types altogether. We are not advocating to get rid of inclusionary zoning requirements, even if they are secretly counter-productive, because attempts to get rid of inclusionary zoning would also likely be counterproductive to increasing housing supply. However, it is imperative that inclusionary zoning is not looked to as a sort of panacea for housing affordability writ large, and indeed the proportion of housing units delivered under inclusionary zoning remains a tiny fraction of the overall housing supply. Increasing housing supply is the only long term and sustainable strategy for achieving some form of overall housing affordability, and much of this will need to be done through the private market (given the status of local, state, and federal budgets, a mass public infusion of housing supply appears unlikely). While it is true the private market may not provide for those who are most desperate, diminishing the overall affordability burden will help shrink the pool of those requiring housing assistance, allowing social programs to be targeted towards those who need help the most. While many instinctively want to reject this market-based assertion for housing policy, policymakers ignore market forces at their own peril, as market forces will assert themselves independent of whether or not one believes they exist. Zoning restrictions that prevent the private market from delivering the maximum amount of housing units that they otherwise could in our cities must be seen for what they are, the moral equivalent of tearing down people’s homes, and anti-development advocates must acknowledge this fact point blank if they believe that restricting more people from living in our neighborhoods is claiming some sort of moral high ground against displacement. So often at public meetings the sentiment is expressed in terms of “what are the developers giving back to this community?” Well, first of all, they’re providing places for people to live! Yes, they’re building places for people to live, so that those new residents don’t push existing residents out of their places to live. Some may focus on potential demolition impacts, and we should indeed be cognizant that large scale development may involve disruptions to the lives of renters in the existing units to be demolished, and, as a matter less of economic efficiency and more of moral imperative, that those renters receive some compensation. But for housing affordability writ large, as long as the increase in density over existing numbers of units is substantial, more development will ultimately make more poor people better off than it makes worse off (i.e. as long as we’re not simply replacing, say, four older units with four nicer units at a one-for-one ratio). Second of all, new developments, and the corresponding residents, help to stabilize the city’s fiscal position, which helps fund the social programs many want in our cities, including the programs that provide more affordable housing. Zoning restrictions also have the effect of incentivizing additional sprawl, as development that cannot be accommodated through infill in existing neighborhoods will ultimately be shifted to other areas, often on the suburban fringe (or to other potentially less sustainable regions, for that matter). This outward redistribution of metropolitan growth leads to larger distances between origins and destinations, and thus higher vehicle miles traveled per capita, increased household transportation costs, degraded regional air quality, and poorer health outcomes. Additionally, it hits the public and private sector’s finances due to the invariable need to provide extra infrastructure to serve more dispersed development patterns, adding to private sector, as well as local, state, and federal government capital and operating budgets (for example, more roads, school buses traveling further, more miles of utility lines, less efficient heating and cooling, increased health costs, etc.). As a double-whammy, it hampers the farebox recovery ratio of mass transportation systems by legally barring additional businesses and residents from locating in mass transit walksheds. Though many localities and their residents are concerned about the environment, and in particular climate change, restrictive zoning does more to undermine our climate change goals than just about any other major government policy, increasing energy use and greenhouse gas emissions per capita by putting origins and destination further apart and accessible only using energy-intensive modes. There are those who want some fundamental change to private property rights, to throw over the table on our current housing system, or other goals to de-commodify housing or put it under something like collective public ownership (perhaps even abolishing private home ownership). Such solutions may or may not ultimately achieve the goals they intend to, but perhaps someday more substantial change will be politically viable (for better, or for worse). But if the argument is that we can’t work to change the system we have in place right now to make it more just, and that we must wait for a “revolution” of sorts, consider the words of author Alan Mallach: “I have little tolerance with the line of argument that holds that all efforts are in vain as long as the underlying economic or political system falls short of the ideal. Representative democracy and the capitalist economic system, for better or for worse, are the two conjoined frameworks that have defined the reality of American life for well over a century and are likely to do so for the next century as well, assuming Western civilization survives. Moreover, should they be replaced by anything fundamentally different, whatever that is will probably be much worse. Finally, although I share many people’s belief that many things about American society need fundamental change, including the racism that remains so resistant to change, I see radical change as being at best a distant prospect. I do not believe that we should forgo the opportunities that exist to change the lives of people and their communities in important ways, even while injustice and racism may continue to exist, in the interest of a far-off and most probably illusory better society. That posture is a luxury of the affluent that the poor cannot afford.” In response to this national crisis, many regions are exploring and implementing reforms to zoning laws. In some egregious cases, the repeated inability of local jurisdictions to make meaningful headway in allowing enough new housing units is leading states to implement and explore preemption of local jurisdictional zoning police powers to boost housing unit production. In Canada, much of the planning and zoning powers have been regionalized or done at the provincial level, to ensure parochial interests that attempt to exclude new residents from neighborhoods are less able to weaponize local zoning and degrade regional housing affordability. Even the United States federal government and presidential candidates have taken notice of this issue, along with several conservative think tanks who recently supported legalizing density and transit-oriented development (did we ever imagine Cato and Smart- Growth America on the same side of an issue? Housing crises make for interesting bedfellows). Other options include having at-large representatives in charge of land use decisions rather than district-based representatives. Examples of this include proportional representation-based elections, or ranked-choice voting for multi-member at-large seats, helping to ensure transportation investments and land use decisions are efficient and best for the city or region overall, while counteracting some of the challenges of fragmented and district-based representation. American cities have come a long way since their freeway-induced fall from grace in the 1960s-1990s, and for some lucky cities the fundamental question has changed from how to attract growth to how to accommodate it. This is, at its core, a problem many metropolitan areas and central cities wish desperately to have, and this fact should not be lost on us. Many existential questions remain for dying rural areas on the Great Plains or Rust Belt cities that continue to suffer under the weight of deindustrialization, depopulation, and fragmented regional governance. There are not clear policy solutions to the problems in those areas. To the contrary, the major housing crises facing regions such as DC, San Francisco, and New York are at least partially artificial and self-inflicted by current policy decisions, and, more importantly, the policy solutions to these problems actually exist. Policymakers, planning staff, and the public at large must understand the moral imperative of increasing housing production substantially, even if this ultimately changes neighborhood character. Every part of our cities, rich and poor, has a role to play in accommodating growth, and more must be done to make sure high-opportunity neighborhoods share in that burden. Furthermore, though the belief is in vogue, we must vigilantly reject the notion that market-rate housing supply is somehow antithetical to solving the housing affordability crisis. Preventing market-rate housing supply will not prevent gentrification or displacement, it will in fact accelerate gentrification and displacement. Some claim that we cannot “build our way to housing affordability,” yet we also cannot simply “subsidize our way to housing affordability” nor can we “not build” our way there. There will simply never be enough tax dollars to deliver the sheer number of units needed to address this crisis, and inclusionary zoning programs will produce paltry numbers of units at best, creating a few lucky winners among the vast majority of working-class people left with the dire choices of staying or leaving, or having a place to live or not. Market rate development, and a substantial amount of it at that, is the only sustainable way to keep overall housing affordability in check over the long run. We must, as policymakers, understand the difference between policies that people feel good about (often the policies that give a false sense of security that we are making meaningful progress on our goals), and those that actually work and bring us closer to our goals. Our hope is this letter has helped frame the crisis we face, as well as what policy solutions exist that can actually bring us closer to the places we all say we want to live in. While neighborhood character is an important consideration, we leave you with a quote from Better Institutions which sums up the cognitive dissonance we must face up to if we are to overcome this crisis and help the people we care about: “We've been convinced that the built environment—not the people who inhabit it—is what makes a community; that neighborhood integrity is about the character of buildings, not that of our neighbors. This is not a liberal ideal. Rather than turn these people away, we need to recognize that new residents are just people like us, looking for a better life and new opportunities. Adding enough new homes so that they can find somewhere to live is a very small ask. We have to stop acting as though the subjective value of ‘neighborhood character’ (which has always been and will always be a moving target) is of equal importance to the hard economic realities of unaffordable housing, inequity of opportunity, and homelessness. The latter issues are clearly of greater importance, and if you're willing to sacrifice them at the altar of ‘neighborhood character’ then you need to take a moment and seriously question your commitment to progressive, inclusive values.” Thank you for your time, we hope you found this interesting and that you’ll share this, or the ideas contained within it, with anyone that you think may find it a worthwhile read. Remember, each and every one of us, even doing something small, can make a big difference. That change begins with you. Greetings policymakers, Governance structure is not something the average American spends much time thinking about, but it has impact on the outcomes of our lives, shapes the cities we live in, and affects the health and vitality of our economy in many ways. While there is much debate in the United States regarding the structure of the federal government, as well as the philosophy of federalism and delegation of power between the federal and state governments, there is relatively little discussion about the structure of local and metropolitan governance, outside of a few select areas. We think that this lack of discussion is unfortunate, and we hope this issue brief can be the start of a healthy and robust debate that brings about positive change. The American system of governance is built on a principle of federalism, or the division of powers between two levels of government of equal status (in the United States, this would be between the Federal government and the State governments). The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "all powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Inherent advantages of this decentralized system include individual States acting as “laboratories of democracy,” where, being that there are 50 semi-autonomous states, different policies can be enacted and tested at the state level without directly affecting the entire country. As a result, a diverse patchwork of state- level government practices is created, allowing for innovations in public policy. If any one or more of those policies are successful, they can be expanded to the national level by acts of Congress. Additionally, this decentralized approach follows a general Jeffersonian maxim of “the government closest to the people serves the people best,” emphasizing the American cultural belief in the greater transparency and accountability of lower levels of government. An individual is generally more likely to be able to get a few minutes to discuss an issue with their local representative in their state legislature than they are with, perhaps, their federal representative, for example. By and large, Americans tend to have greater levels of trust in lower levels of government. Finally, this approach allows for competition between individual governments, which can increase economic freedom. As summarized by the Mercatus Center, many individual governments enable each of us to choose the one that best matches our preferences for government goods and services. If a city or state raises taxes but doesn’t use the money to improve services, citizens will leave for a better- managed city or state. More generally, the threat of exit by people, firms, and entrepreneurs creates competition among governments that limits governments’ ability to exploit its citizens. However, there can be discrepancies between local, regional, state, and national interests, and policymakers must use caution when deciding which level of government is suitable for which task. While competition can breed innovations, under certain conditions competition can encourage “race to the bottom” or “free-riding” behavior. In the context of governance, race to the bottom behavior often occurs when different levels of government, often competing to lower taxes, end up cutting public services (such as education) in such a way that the region would be significantly better off if each maintains those public services. Free-riding behavior is a related concept, where one local government may benefit from regional public services but fail to contribute to the funding of those public services. While there are many sources and examples of such deleterious behavior, the genesis that most often comes up in the context of metropolitan governance stems from the spatial nature of many benefits, costs, externalities, and taxation policies. In such instances, state legislatures may justifiably intervene. Within the constitutional framework of the United States, state legislatures are uniquely positioned to solving these types of problems. Many local powers are generally delegated by state governments to local governments to implement and enforce, and how and at what level of government those authorities are implemented is at the sole discretion of the state government, unless a state’s constitution declares otherwise. While it may not be a well-known case to much of the American public, the Supreme Court case Hunter v. City of Pittsburgh (1907) makes clear the authority of states over their local governments or other lower political jurisdictions: “Municipal corporations are political subdivisions of the State, created as convenient agencies for exercising such of the governmental powers of the State as may be entrusted to them… …The number, nature and duration of the powers conferred upon these corporations and the territory over which they shall be exercised rests in the absolute discretion of the State… …The State, therefore, at its pleasure may modify or withdraw all such powers, may take without compensation such property, hold it itself, or vest it in other agencies, expand or contract the territorial area, unite the whole or a part of it with another municipality, repeal the charter and destroy the corporation. All this may be done, conditionally or unconditionally, with or without the consent of the citizens, or even against their protest. In all these respects the State is supreme, and its legislative body, conforming its action to the state constitution, may do as it will, unrestrained by any provision of the Constitution of the United States. Although the inhabitants and property owners may by such changes suffer inconvenience, and their property may be lessened in value by the burden of increased taxation, or for any other reason, they have no right by contract or otherwise in the unaltered or continued existence of the corporation or its powers, and there is nothing in the Federal Constitution which protects them from these injurious consequences. The power is in the State and those who legislate for the State are alone responsible for any unjust or oppressive exercise of it.” As such, states have a wide latitude and clear responsibility to intervene to promote the general welfare, particularly in cases of misalignment between local government behavior and regional and state needs. Generally, consistent with the maxims and ideas laid out at the beginning of this issue brief, such interventions should only be applied where there is a clear and logical case for improving overall societal welfare and efficiency by altering, reorganizing, or preempting local government authority. However, the remainder of this brief will give examples of when such interventions may be warranted. Zoning Examples: “Not In My Backyard”-ism, or NIMBY-ism, and its relationship to zoning, housing, and land use policies is one of the most straightforward examples for understanding this concept. To illustrate this, consider two general facts about increased development intensity and density: (1) Many of the benefits of additional density and development intensity are broadly distributed regionwide, such as more housing units putting downward pressure on regional home and rental prices, more space for businesses putting downward pressure on regional commercial rents, more efficient use of existing infrastructure and transportation facilities meaning less need for regional expenditures on new infrastructure, higher farebox recovery ratios on mass transit systems (meaning less need for taxpayer subsidies), lower transportation costs per capita and improved regional air quality stemming from reduced vehicle miles traveled per capita. (2) Many of the costs or dis-benefits of additional density and development intensity are highly localized, such as more challenges for local residents finding on-street government-provided parking spaces, higher levels of local traffic congestion (even as density reduces vehicle miles traveled globally), aesthetic concerns about changes to neighborhood character, light, shadows, or open space, or a perception of increased burden on local government services such as schools (notwithstanding of course that new development also helps fund local government services through property taxes). This dichotomy between regionally distributed upsides and highly localized downsides means that local neighborhoods, and likewise smaller local governments, are going to nearly always be more resistant to new development, housing, businesses, or other intensification of land uses than is socially optimal and economically efficient for the region (unless a local government is desperate for investment). For some countries, such as Japan where land use regulations are administered at the federal level, this isn’t a problem. In the United States, however, land use regulations are a state police power that has generally been delegated, all or in part, to local governments to enact and enforce.1 This means that the level of government least able to achieve an efficient outcome for the metropolitan region or the state is often tasked with decision-making power over land use regulations. To illustrate why this can be an issue, imagine a simplified metropolitan area, where the entire area is made up of only single unit rental houses. The metropolitan area is a simple 4x8 grid (32 squares total), with each square containing 20 rental houses (640 units total). For simplicity, let’s assume each rental house has only one person. Now let’s assume the metropolitan area is split in half, with City A on the left and City B on the right, with each city controlling land use within its own borders: 1 A police power is the capacity of a state to regulate behavior and enforce order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants. Now assume a rezoning proposal (signified by a yellow star) is under consideration near the center of City B. Assume people in both cities believe the metropolitan area should build enough new housing units to accommodate new residents and keep down regional rents (we’ll color those residents green). However, because the downsides of additional density are localized in nature, assume residents near a development proposal will come out against the new development project due to concerns about local traffic, parking, neighborhood aesthetics, etc. (we’ll color those residents red). As you can see, within City B, 180 residents are against the rezoning, and 140 residents are in favor, and thus the rezoning fails. In City A, all 320 residents are in favor of the rezoning within City B, but they have no say in the land use decision that City B makes, even if they are harmed by higher regional rents as a result of City B’s choice. Now imagine the metropolitan area is only one city, we’ll call it City AB: Now, in City AB, the same 180 residents are still against the rezoning, but 460 residents are in favor, and the rezoning passes. The real world is obviously more complicated, residents’ views on development and the planning process are more complex, cities and metropolitan areas are generally larger than a handful of blocks, zoning decisions are usually not decided by simple citywide vote, and concerns about increased development can extend over a larger area than a one-block radius. Nevertheless, this simplified example illustrates part of why, at least in the abstract, smaller municipalities and more fragmented metropolitan areas can have added difficulty in allowing enough new development to keep up with population and job growth, and to keep business and residential rental rates in check. Some empirical evidence also supports this effect when looking within cities. The example also illustrates a useful lesson about delegation of authority in governance structures. In any area of public policy or regulation where the dis-benefits of decisions are highly localized and the benefits of the decisions are highly disbursed or regional in nature, it makes sense to delegate that authority to the lowest level of government that can effectively and efficiently weigh the full benefits and costs of those decisions. If the regulatory or policy behavior of a local jurisdiction, such as a single municipality or other sub-entity, is likely to have a deleterious effect on the metropolitan area or region as a whole, it makes sense to instead delegate that regulatory or policymaking authority to a higher level of government such as a metropolitan or regional government. Transportation Planning Examples: Similar to land use policy, transportation planning and investment in the United States suffers from similar coordination problems. There are three general areas in which this manifests itself: 1. Transportation planning and investment in the United States is generally characterized by a highly decentralized approach, with many overlapping jurisdictions and separate entities having authorities in the process and decision-making. Metropolitan planning organizations, or MPOs, were created with the intent of rationalizing transportation investment in metropolitan areas, though their effectiveness at doing so has varied substantially. While a few MPOs play an active role in decision-making, have a high technical capacity, and improve the efficiency of regional investment outcomes, many remain relatively low-resourced with limited in-house technical capacity, acting more as “pass-through” entities for transportation funds that simply “rubber stamp” transportation plans created by local governments, rather than harmonizing or focusing a regional strategy. 2. Transit agencies themselves often vary wildly in their ability to efficiently provide transit service or to build and sustain mass transportation infrastructure. Some transit agencies are simply a department of a local municipal government, while in other regions transit agencies serve a large portion (though usually not all) of the metropolitan area. A few are even entities of a state government, though this is still relatively rare in the US. More common still, many regions have multiple overlapping transit agencies, with some agencies serving portions of the region overlapping with local city- or county-provided transit agencies. Additionally, local transit agencies almost never have direct authority over zoning and land use regulations near transit stations, even on land that they own, irrespective of the tantamount importance of station area land use to transit ridership and transit agency financial performance. 3. Lastly, infrastructure ownership varies widely by jurisdiction. In some areas local roads are owned by local governments, with a few major roadways owned by state governments. In others, all but the smallest roads are planned, constructed, and maintained by state governments, and local governments have varying levels of authority over the design of such facilities. Transit agencies, with their buses usually relying on such roadways, almost never have decision-making power over the design of the infrastructure that they operate upon. All of these features of local governance, how transportation investment and decision-making is organized and executed, how transit agencies are organized and what authorities they have, and what entities control and own infrastructure, can hinder the development of efficient metropolitan transportation systems. Many metropolitan areas in the US have highly balkanized, overlapping, and sometimes competing transportation agencies and investment portfolios, leading to significant coordination problems and inefficiency. To illustrate the issues with metropolitan coordination, imagine a metropolitan area with three separate cities, with each having various nodes that are given a certain number of points for ridership potential: Now imagine each of the three cities has a separate transportation budget and its own planning process, and let’s say each city has enough money to buy three “segments” worth of mass transit (for simplicity, assume they can only be built under the roads). Imagine each city gets “points” for each node it connects, corresponding to the number on the node, and the entire region gets extra points for the longest chain of nodes connected. Within each city, residents and planners decide on the following transit lines meant to maximize their individual point totals, signified here in red: In the above example, the optimal strategy for each city when not taking into account the benefits beyond their own borders when making investment decisions produces 175, 200, and 40 points for Cities A, B, and C, respectively, for a total of 415 points. The longest chain is four nodes (we’ll say four points), so the grand total points for the region is 419. Let’s say the MPO for the metropolitan area simply “rubber stamps” each individual city’s transportation plan, leading to this overall outcome. Now consider an MPO that takes a more active role in transportation planning, and imagine the transportation funds are given to and controlled by the MPO directly, rather than the individual cities. The MPO looks at regional needs, and after analyzing different investment options, decides to maximize the total points for the entire region by investing as below shown below in red: In this example, with the same amount of “transit segments” available (i.e. the same cost) the MPO connected nodes worth 450 points, with the longest chain being 10 nodes long, so 460 points in total. In fact, the optimal choice given these conditions actually precludes any mass transit segments being allocated to City C, even if residents in City C are contributing taxes to the regional mass transit system. This example used that edge case to illustrate the fact that the most efficient allocation of mass transportation infrastructure in a region could very well mean that some parts of the region paying for the overall system may not receive any service (again, purely on efficiency grounds, of course). Not all parts of a metropolitan area are necessarily well-suited for mass transportation investments. Now, one could reasonably make the argument that, absent an MPO or regional/metropolitan government, the three cities could have negotiated amongst themselves to plan and build the second more efficient alternative that serves more riders (or, gets more “points” in this illustrative example). In some situations, this could certainly be true, especially in the case of three similar cities. However, the reality in many parts of the United States is that metropolitan areas are fragmented into multiple counties, and sometimes hundreds (or even thousands) of cities, villages, towns, or townships. This type of coordination and negotiation becomes far more difficult with increasing numbers of local governments, compounded by the fact that local governments will have a strong incentive to “free-ride” and not pay into projects that benefit the region as a whole (i.e. they prefer to get the benefits of regional infrastructure without paying the costs of it). Additionally, similar to land use policy, the optimal transportation investment portfolio for each individual city is likely to be quite different from the optimal transportation investment portfolio for the entire metropolitan area. Thus, there is little compelling reason to expect that the ability of local governments to coordinate and negotiate would lead to the optimal regional outcome, even if such coordination were easy and costless (and it usually isn’t). Lastly, the more fragmented the metropolitan area, the more likely that each independent jurisdiction will want their “slice of the pie” in exchange for the regional taxes they pay in, causing further deviation from the infrastructure provisioning that would be most efficient for the region as a whole. Transit agencies in the United States are often on the receiving end of substantial criticism, but not all of these criticisms are warranted when taking into account governance structures. In fact, given how we’ve structured most transit agencies, some of the poor outcomes are quite predictable. Oftentimes there’s a negative sentiment towards mass transportation investment because transit agencies “don’t make money” or require subsidies to operate. Setting aside for a moment that something paying for itself directly through user fees and being cost-beneficial to society are not the same thing, and that other modes of transportation also don’t pay for themselves directly via user fees (see Exhibit 6-1 here), financial sustainability is still a legitimate concern when attempting to provide a public service to help the most people possible at the lowest societal cost. For mass transit systems, this financial sustainability is called a “farebox recovery ratio,” or the percentage of operating costs that are recovered via passenger fares. High ridership is a key element to high farebox recovery ratios, and substantial (and walkable) commercial and residential density in a station’s walkshed is crucial for achieving high ridership (with a few key exceptions, including end of line termini stations which draw from outlying markets, stations at major intercity rail or airport facilities, or major transfer facilities). However, as discussed in the earlier example on zoning, the fragmented governance structure in metropolitan areas creates barriers to the allowance of additional density, hampering ridership the financial viability of mass transportation investments, devaluing investments by higher levels of government, and burdening taxpayers at large with higher levels of taxes to subsidize the capital and operating costs of said systems. Misplaced incentives from governance structure decisions may add additional challenges. To illustrate the issues of misplaced authorities, imagine we have a metropolitan region of an urban core city and several suburbs, served by a regional transit system with 30 stations. Assume any system operating costs above and beyond the fare revenue collected by the system is paid for by a regional tax, a practice common in many metropolitan areas. Assume Suburb C is doing station area planning around its transit stop, and assume, being just outside the urban core, there is demand for enough residential and commercial development in the station walkshed to produce an average daily ridership at that station of 20,000. Assuming a flat $1 fare for simplicity and a two-way trip, that yields $14.6 million in annual fare revenue for the transit system. However, given the relatively small geographic size of Suburb C, assume the land use planning process around the station is more easily swayed by those living near the station who do not want more development, similar to what is shown in the first example of this piece. Thus, the zoning that is ultimately adopted for the station’s walkshed only allows enough residential and commercial development such that the average daily ridership at that station is 2,000, yielding $1.46 million in annual fare revenue for the transit system (for simplicity let’s assume the headways of trains that run on the line is the same in both scenarios, and thus no change in operational cost). Thus, the transit agency loses $13.14 million annually in fare revenue due to the zoning decision implemented by Suburb C. But herein lies the key issue: Suburb C only pays for a small fraction of that cost because the transit system is funded by regional taxes. Thus, Suburb C is able to offload most of the cost of its regulatory decision onto the other municipalities in the metropolitan area. Every other municipality in the region would be better off if Suburb C allowed more development near its transit station, as it would reduce the subsidy need for the transit system and lower regional tax burdens, but none of them have any say in Suburb C’s decision to prevent most development. Moreover, if Suburb C had to pay the full costs of its decision, it’s very possible that it would have allowed more development around its station. If the entire metropolitan area had been a single city, that entity would been much more likely to allow the maximum amount of development possible around the transit stop, since it would pay the full costs of not allowing it. Similarly, if the transit agency itself had land use authority over station-adjacent land, it too would have likely allowed the most development possible to increase its fare revenue and farebox recovery ratio. This example illustrates another useful lesson about governance structures. To the extent possible and practicable, governance structures and fiscal policy should ensure that each sub-entity with decision- making power bears the full costs (and reaps the full benefits) of their behaviors, thus ensuring that their decision-making is as close to optimal as possible for the region and society at large. This is analogous to economic theories about how to deal with externalities, ensuring the actor making the decision internalizes the full costs of benefits of their decision. This idea can also be illustrated in our third example on infrastructure jurisdiction. Imagine there is a job center in Suburb D, designated by the star. The job center is large enough that the regional transit agency runs a connector bus from a nearby rail stop, passing along the dashed arterial through Suburb D and Suburb C. Imagine this roadway facility is four lanes and mostly serves local traffic. Let’s say this bus route costs $2.0 million annually in fuel and labor to run, and the route receives $1.0 million in fare revenues each year (a farebox recovery ratio of 50 percent, requiring a subsidy of $1.0 million annually that gets paid by regional taxes). Assume in this scenario Suburb C has jurisdiction over all the roadways within its municipal limits. Imagine the arterial roadway in question experiences heavy peak period congestion, which dramatically slows down the buses that the regional transit agency runs between the job center and the rail stop in Suburb D. Roadway expansion is not feasible nor desirable, given the already built-up nature of Suburb C. Given this, the regional transit agency asks that, during the next routine street reconstruction, Suburb C designate the center two lanes on the arterial as bus-only lanes to ensure bus speeds are not dramatically reduced by peak period traffic congestion (for simplicity let’s assume that reconstruction needed to occur anyways, and thus there is no extra capital or maintenance cost to adding the bus-only lanes). However, given that most users of the bus route do not reside in Suburb C, the local elected officials in Suburb C have very little interest in speeding along non-residents to their jobs in Suburb D. As such, the speeds on all buses on the route drop by half, requiring double the amount of buses to keep the same headways than would be needed in free-flow conditions, raising the regional transit agency’s cost to $4.0 million annually for the route. At the same time, the longer travel times for riders on the slowed buses results in some riders opting to drive to their workplace instead, lowering fare revenue to $0.5 million annually. These two factors together lower the farebox recovery ratio on the bus route to 12.5 percent, and raise the annual subsidy need to $3.5 million, paid via regional taxes. Again, here we see an example where Suburb C’s jurisdiction over an infrastructure decision leads to higher costs for the entire region, yet Suburb C bears only a small fraction of those costs (only to the extent it pays the regional tax for the regional transit agency). If Suburb C were directly charged the $2.5 million in added subsidy needs owing to its decision, it may make a different decision about its infrastructure. Let’s say the arterial in question was instead owned by a State DOT rather than Suburb C. While the political and economic interests of a state-level agency may better-internalize pressures to ensure efficient metropolitan-scale transportation systems, the state government would also not directly bear the cost of not allowing the regional transit agency to have bus-only lanes on the arterial (unless of course the regional transit agency was part of the state government or run by the State DOT). Given this, even a higher level of government would not directly bear the cost of its decision. Only when the agency that runs the regional transit system is the same agency with infrastructure decision-making authority can it fully internalize the costs and benefits of its decisions. In summary, throughout most of the United States, transit agencies often (1) inherit systems created through a balkanized transportation planning process that almost guarantees sub-optimal infrastructure provisioning, (2) don’t have authority over station area land use, even on land that the transit agency itself owns, a key deficiency given the tantamount importance of station area employment density, residential density, and walkability as generators of ridership, and (3) run buses on roads over which they do not have decision-making power to ensure designs that allow buses to move quickly and independently of congestion to lower operating costs, increase ridership, and lower subsidy needs, nor do they generally have a say in making areas around their bus and rail stops actually “walkable,” with sidewalks, street trees, full crosswalks, and other features to encourage transit compatible streetscaping, urban design and land use. In nearly all cases, these infrastructure planning, infrastructure design, and land use authorities and decisions lie with separate entities that do not directly internalize most of the short- or long-term costs of poor station area or transportation planning. Given these governance structure deficiencies, it’s a miracle that transit agencies are able to operate effectively at all! Taxation and Equity Examples: Carefully designed metropolitan governance structures can preserve the benefits of local competition while preventing some of the predictable downsides. Fragmented local governance, common in the United States, creates unique challenges for taxation and equity, with numerous openings created for free-riding, race to the bottom, and opportunity hoarding behaviors. Metropolitan governance is focused on preventing several common behaviors, which often occur simultaneously, that tend to damage overall societal welfare: (1) “Free-riding behavior,” a common concept across the economics field, occurs in the metropolitan governance context when smaller units of government benefits from regional public services but fail to contribute proportionately (or at all) to the funding of those public services. (2) “Race to the bottom behavior” occurs when different levels of government, often competing to lower taxes and poach one another’s firms, end up cutting public services (such as education) in such a way that the region would be significantly better off if each maintains those public services. (3) “Opportunity hoarding behavior” occurs when lower levels of government with high opportunities (high job access, excellent public services such as schools, etc.) effectively “wall themselves off” from new entrants through the use of local authorities. In the metropolitan governance context, free-riding behavior occurs when smaller units of government benefits from regional services but fail to pay into them. Without taxation authority and public goods provisioning of a higher level of government, such as a metropolitan government or a state government, many metropolitan areas are forced to fund regional goods using loose agreements and negotiations between major municipal governments within a metropolitan area. However, smaller (and often wealthier) local governments will refuse to enter such agreements if they know that the largest government (or group of largest governments) in the region will still agree amongst themselves to finance major regional infrastructure. They can do this because they know that citizens of these local governments, and the taxable value of assets in the local government’s borders, cannot be easily excluded from the benefits of major regional improvements (such as a regional airport or mass transportation system expansion). To illustrate, imagine a metropolitan region is contemplating the creation of a new airport, located in Suburb B below: To pay for the initial capital construction cost, the municipalities in the region begin to negotiate on a regional tax. The urban core jurisdiction and Suburb A supports the negotiations, as major stakeholders in the Central Business District and suburban office parks realize the region’s competitiveness depends on a well-functioning and accessible transportation system. Suburb B supports the proposed measures as well, as it stands to benefit from expected airport-adjacent development. However, Suburbs C, D, E, and F opt out of the negotiations, as they correctly predict that the Urban Core will fund the new airport construction along with Suburbs A and B regardless of whether they choose to participate in a regional tax. The potential outcome of this hypothetical arbitration is that Suburbs C, D, E, and F will free-ride on regional infrastructure. Even worse, perhaps, if the region is too fragmented, not enough jurisdictions and their associated tax bases will opt in for the airport to be built at all, harming the entire region’s competitiveness. These governance structure issues can also exacerbate equity concerns, as oftentimes in the U.S. metropolitan context such small suburban jurisdictions are disproportionately wealthy compared to the metropolitan region as a whole. Thus, jurisdictions with lower per capita incomes may end up footing the entire bill for infrastructure assets that benefit the most economically prosperous portion of the population. Race to the bottom behavior is another common problem within metropolitan areas (and even between higher levels of government), as local jurisdictions offer competing tax breaks or policies to poach firms from one another. This can lead to the creation of the metropolitan equivalents of parasitic “tax havens” or simply the defunding of public services that promote upward social mobility and economic growth for the metropolitan region. As mentioned at the beginning of the piece, some competition can be healthy; the threat of exit by people or firms constrains the taxation ability of local governments. However, such competition can also lead to lower overall societal welfare when the effects of tax revenue loss on public services are taken into account. To illustrate, imagine a relatively consolidated metropolitan area with four local governments. The metropolitan area consists of an urban core jurisdiction, Suburb A, Suburb B, and a very small Suburb C: Imagine Suburb C consists mainly of land zoned and used by commercial and industrial activities, with a relatively limited residential population. Race to the bottom behavior could occur if Suburb C were to adopt business tax rates that are significantly lower than the rest of the region. Suburb C may start to become home to numerous firms or corporate headquarters that relocate from the central business district or suburban office parks in Suburbs A or B. Given Suburb C’s relatively small residential population, the jurisdiction has the ability to maintain extremely low business taxes since it does not have much of a population to use city services (almost all the workers at the relocated firms in Suburb C drive in from the other jurisdictions when they come to work). The firms in the region benefit greatly from the metropolitan area’s investments in public educations, infrastructure, and other public goods, adding to their bottom lines and competitiveness. However, these firms no longer pay their fair share of the costs to provide those public services, as they have relocated out of the jurisdictions where most of their workers live. This represents a classic case of “privatizing the benefits and socializing the costs.” The public investments by other jurisdictions help the firms maintain their high levels of productivity and profit, but they no longer share in those benefits. While this arrangement is no doubt positive (even if unfair) for the firms that experience the greatly reduced taxes in Suburb C, these relocations can deplete the tax revenues in the other jurisdictions, which could lead them to cut public funding of local education or regional infrastructure. These cuts could ultimately harm the region’s long-term economic growth as well of the economic growth of the state and national government. Whether this long-term loss exceeds the increased economic growth due to lower taxes remains a fair question, but the secondary and long-term negative consequences of this arrangement should not be ignored. In highly fragmented metropolitan areas, this behavior can be compounded by an even easier ability of firms to relocate among many different jurisdictions, especially in cases with very small local governments. This can lead to overall spending on public goods to fall below the optimal amount across the entire region, as individual municipalities engage in a “race to the bottom” on taxes and spending to poach one another’s firms. Some of this can be alleviated by state-level taxation and distribution of state funding, but attempting to solve such issues can be politically difficult for state governments, as redistribution between local jurisdictions tends to creates winners and losers (Kaldor-Hicks improvements are almost always controversial for the jurisdiction that loses). The last common category, opportunity hoarding behavior, stems largely from the fact that in the U.S. a vast array of public goods and social services are provisioned by either local governments or local districts. This situation leads to a very common condition among local governments where the local jurisdictions that are home to those with high incomes end up having the best public services while those jurisdictions with the poorest residents will often have struggling public services. Thus, the jurisdictions with the populations most in need of public assistance, or upward social mobility-producing public goods like schools have the fewest resources (per person) to provide such services. Nowhere is this truer than with local school districts, which are often funded by local property taxes. Under the idea of a “free market of local jurisdictions,” where local governments compete to offer the best public services at the best price point (lowest taxes), there at first glance appears to be some merit to local control, funding, and decision-making over the provisioning of public goods and social services. Different local governments can compete on taxes and public services, and individuals can “vote with their feet” to move to those jurisdictions that do the best job. But here-in lies the practical flaw of this idea in the American context: local governments can use their control over land use regulations to act as exclusionary policies (such as single-family zoning, minimum lot sizes, and bans on apartment buildings), effectively banning lower-income residents from moving to the jurisdiction. While local governments cannot legally prevent residents from lower economic classes from entering a jurisdiction, many local governments in the US, particularly smaller and wealthier suburbs and exurbs, have land use policies and restrictions on housing supply that create a de facto “entry fee” to living in certain communities, a fee often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Even the few apartments that are permitted are often so rare that their rents will be out of reach of many lower income potential residents. Just as nefarious, the ability to bar lower income residents from entering a community also means less required spending on social services for that particular jurisdictions, ultimately meaning that such areas can have lower effective tax rates since their populations require fewer public services per person. The exclusionary behavior of such local jurisdictions can also drive up the value of individual homes, since local housing supply is constrained and local public services are excellent, such that only the wealthiest can live in such communities. This is what is meant by opportunity hoarding behavior, as local governments can behave analogous to an offshore tax haven, allowing the wealthy to skirt away from any investment in the broader upward-social mobility-producing public services and infrastructure, but not suffering the downside of regional degradation in public services since they can still fund good services locally. To the extent economic conditions correlate with racial groups, such a setup amounts to an effective continuation of residential segregation by class and race. While there is much that can and should be done to revitalize and aid local governments with concentrated poverty, opportunity hoarding by nearby wealthy local governments in the same metropolitan area is an invisible yet pernicious reason that such concentrated poverty in certain jurisdictions continues to exist. Setting up conditions that allow lower-income individuals to escape concentrated poverty to other wealthier jurisdictions with better public services also helps the poorest jurisdictions get a handle on serving their neediest residents by reducing the scale of the challenge. Being born into a poor local jurisdiction with poor public services, combined with exclusionary behavior by nearby wealthier jurisdictions with good public services that prevent moving, contributes to continued intergeneration poverty and lowered upward social mobility in the United States. By the same token, it calcifies economic and racial inequality, and prevents citizens from achieving their potential, often regardless of their individual efforts to work hard and improve their lives. While society may cling to the feel-good stories of those who beat the odds, it at times forgets the vast majority for whom the deck is stacked against, forgetting those who never make it out, and not interrogating why the odds are so rare to be beaten in the first place. Policy Options: Metropolitan governance policy generally seeks to alleviate some of the deleterious incentives local governments face due to intra-metropolitan competition and enhance coordination and efficiency in metropolitan investments and social policy. It also seeks to align local incentives to aid regional goals, and overcome issues with externalities that are spatial in nature. State governments are best-suited to addressing these types of issues, given their authorities over local jurisdictions, but certain policy approaches can allow for more local control than others. The Federal government can also play an indirect role, by creating incentives and attaching objective and measurable strings and criterion to federal funding, particularly with housing, transportation, and education funding. Before we get into what actions higher levels of government can take, it’s important to recommend what strategies they should avoid. Generally, higher levels of governments should avoid any actions that do not change the fundamental underlying incentives for certain local government behaviors. No amount of reporting requirements, or other planning processes that are qualitative in nature, will change underlying behaviors (i.e., shaming local governments is unlikely to be successful at exacting behavioral changes). Local governments and their planning departments will always excel in the production of lengthy government reports and plans, and will always be able to write detailed prose about how and why their actions are acceptable. States should avoid adding to local government planning burdens with things that do not actually produce measurable results or where assessing results is ambiguous, such as adding non-binding planning requirements or setting qualitative metrics instead of quantitative metrics. Similarly, states should avoid setting performance targets with no costs if they go unmet, as such targets are unlikely to change behavior. Attempts to facilitate regional collaboration, while certainly not harmful, will generally not produce local behavior that differs from local incentives (for example, a local mayor or councilmember of a small exclusionary suburb may indeed believe the region would be better off if their community provided more housing, but politicians still need to be reelected within that jurisdiction and by that jurisdiction’s constituents, and they ultimately answer to them regardless of regional needs). If a state desires to maintain some semblance of local control while still alleviating some of the governance challenges dealt with in this issue brief, there are actions that effectively “regionalize” decision-making authority while keeping the state government out of local and metropolitan affairs thereafter. One such policy, common in Canada, is known as amalgamation, or the consolidation and merger of units of local government, generally in an effort to rationalize decision-making authorities and public service provisioning. An example of an amalgamation is shown below, where all independent cities are effectively merged into one local jurisdiction which contains all the authorities and responsibilities previously held by the former jurisdictions: Such types of amalgamations are common in Canada, notable examples being Toronto, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Quebec and many others. The number of municipalities in Canada’s Ontario Province, for example, fell from 815 in 1996 to 447 in 2001. Though much rarer in the United States, some amalgamations, at a smaller scale, occur in the form of city-county mergers or consolidations (Jacksonville, Nashville, Indianapolis, Louisville, Philadelphia, etc.), or, rarer still, the consolidation of several counties into a new municipality (City of New York). However, unlike in Canada, U.S. mergers tend to create cities that ultimately have a much smaller proportion of the overall metropolitan population within their municipal limits, and have usually happened with an affirmative vote on a local referendum amongst affected entities. The common U.S. approach of relying on city-county mergers via local referendums has two major disadvantages: (1) when economic inequality between two jurisdictions is high (i.e. the particular case where mergers or amalgamations could do the most good for the regional provisioning of public goods and alleviation of spatial inequality), wealthier jurisdictions are understandably likely to resist consolidation as they do not see it in their interest; and (2) U.S. city-county mergers generally don’t end up creating a unified government with a significant proportion of the metropolitan area’s population under one jurisdiction (for example, the merged city-county of Indianapolis had around 820,000 people in 2010, while the Indianapolis metropolitan region had around 2.1 million people at that time). Thus, the recent deference by states to local referendums in such cases means consolidations that could do the most potential good for regional equity will likely not end up occurring without state action, and the ones that do occur, while certainly helpful, are often still too small to alleviate many of the governance challenges dealt with in this issue brief given that most U.S. metropolitan areas are significantly larger than an individual county. In Canada, such mergers often happen at a larger or even metropolitan-wide scale, and often occur without the consent of those cities to be merged. Another option for solving regional governance problems, if further localized control is desired, is the establishment of “upper-tier” or metropolitan governments. Under this governance reform, a state government establishes a regional or metropolitan government over a metropolitan area, and transfers specific authorities from lower level governing bodies to the new metropolitan government. An example of this governance reform is shown below, where individual local authorities are reorganized between the lower-tier cities and the new upper-tier city: Under this governance reorganization, state governments can decide which authorities and responsibilities are best-handled at which level of government. In the above example, land use regulation, long range transportation planning, provisioning of public transportation, and regional parks and recreation are moved up to the new metropolitan government and out of the control of the lower level municipal governments. However, unlike in the amalgamation example, the lower levels of government remain, continuing to carry out some authorities and responsibilities. Additionally, spending and taxation authority are shared in this reorganization, and the upper-tier government is given new authority over infrastructure megaproject delivery, just as an illustrative example. This governance reform is ideal if state governments want to maintain intra-metropolitan competition but also want to prevent types of competition that would harm the region, prevent exclusionary land use practices, and rationalize transportation and land use planning by delegating both authorities to the same entity. This method of metropolitan governance, again common in Canada (for example, in Vancouver), also has some analogous examples in the United States, such as the Met Council in Minnesota’s Twin Cities and Metro in the Portland, OR metropolitan area. Metropolitan Planning Organizations, or MPOs, assuming they are consolidated and semi-coterminous with the metropolitan area, make ideal organizations to designate as upper-tier governments to re-delegate certain authorities to, particularly transportation planning, mass transit planning, and land use and zoning authority. The advantage of this method is it allows for high flexibility. State governments could delegate long range transportation planning to an upper-tier government, or they could delegate that as well as ownership of transportation assets in the region, land use regulatory authority, public transportation operations and capital construction, or any other functions or authorities they deem efficient for the metropolitan government to have. It also allows lower-tier governments to maintain some level of control over authorities that may be more controversial to regionalize, whatever those may be. Additionally, rearrangement of local authorities could take place over time, as the metropolitan government proves its worth and competence, rather than having citizens gamble on having all authorities go to a brand-new entity. Such an entity can also be set up internally in ways that improve transportation planning efficiency by having at-large representatives (for example, proportional representation-based elections, or ranked-choice voting for multi-member at-large seats), ensuring regional transportation investments and land use decisions are efficient and representative for the region overall, while counteracting some of the challenges of fragmented and district-based representation. Such governance structures can also be a stepping stone to eventual full regional amalgamation, as was the case in the Toronto region. The added benefit of both amalgamation or establishment of tiered government is that it allows state governments to remain less involved in local affairs. While initially heavy-handed, the goal of both approaches is to designate a new local government or reorganize local government so that such entities can provide for local needs and solve local problems without the state government having to get further or permanently involved. In essence, both of these approaches are an attempt to “help local government help itself.” Additional details on these reforms can be found in Ray Tomalty and Alan Mallach’s America’s Urban Future: Lessons from North of the Border, delving into many of the advantages (and some shortcomings) of metropolitan governance reforms, an area of innovation where Canada is a world leader. Such reforms could of course be implemented from the bottom up, but in both Canada and the U.S. such instances are almost unheard of; no local government, mayor, or councilmember generally has interest in giving up their authorities, regardless of the merit of such an action. Thus, we believe state governments are the appropriate entity with the correct incentives and authorities to make such governance reforms. Some U.S. states, such as Illinois, have been considering such proposals, usually from the standpoint of reducing expenditures (having high numbers of local governments creates a lot of duplicated administrative spending), rather than gains in coordination, equity, or rationalizing of regional planning. Evidence of the effect of government reorganizations on overall government expenditures is, however, mixed. While consolidation can improve the efficiency of how tax dollars are used, consolidated regional governments may be more likely to enact a higher level of regional public services, offsetting some or all of the cost-savings (though, presumably gaining some benefit of better or increased public goods). One-off or occasional reorganizing of local government authorities or municipal boundaries themselves aren’t the only ways to achieve the efficiency, equity, on coordinated planning that higher levels of governments may be interested in. State governments have other tools at their disposal. One such tool is revenue sharing mechanisms that seek to foster greater collaboration between local governments in a metropolitan region. In an effort to fight against race to the bottom behavior and opportunity hoarding behaviors, the Minnesota Legislature instituted a program of commercial-industrial tax-base sharing program within the Twin Cities metropolitan area in 1971, colloquially known as the Fiscal Disparities Program. Originally enacted in response to local governments offering competing tax breaks to poach one- another’s local businesses, supporters of the program claim it has increased equity in the region and fostered more cooperation on regional needs. The program, combined with related historical efforts to locate affordable housing around the entire metropolitan area, has often been cited as a contributor to reduced income inequality and a reduction in concentrated poverty, removing some of the burden on individual cities in the region. Even if one locality ends up being home to a disproportionate amount of the region’s low-income residents, it doesn’t automatically mean public services in that jurisdiction will be significantly worse. None of these efforts of programs would have been possible without state actions. State governments can indirectly incentivize certain behaviors by attaching strings to state funding. Some bills, such as SB 34 in Utah, mandate that local governments choose from a menu of state- approved steps aimed at encouraging additional housing. The bill requires cities to adopt at least three of those strategies as part of their state-mandated land-use and transportation plans to become eligible for cash from the Utah Department of Transportation to invest in transportation corridors in their communities, known as TIFF money. Even more direct and ongoing interventions by states, such as states increasing their oversight of local land use planning, can achieve more efficient local government behavior. This approach is also common in Canada, and occurs to a looser extent in Oregon and Washington State. While land use controls in Canada still are implemented by local or regional governments, local land use plans often must follow input and be approved by the provincial level governments (and the key here is that provinces can and do overrule local governments, this is not a “rubber-stamp” exercise). A more recent U.S. reform along these lines includes the strengthening of California’s Housing Element Law, which until recently was a relatively toothless ceremonial planning activity that did not hold local governments accountable for failing to meet affordable housing needs (though challenges and inadequacies in the process remain). Such oversight in assigning objective housing targets to local governments, with consequences for not zoning for enough housing, can force local jurisdictions to allow enough housing while leaving them some discretion in how to provide it (but, of course, not so much discretion that local governments can find loopholes to implicitly bar the housing from being built). Perhaps the most unambiguous reform available to state governments, and potentially the most controversial, is the authority of states to directly implement land use decisions themselves or preempt certain exclusionary activities. While preemption of local governments by states is not new, preemption of local land use authority is relatively recent in the United States, but had increased in popularity given increasing housing affordability issues. A timely summary from the Boston College Law Review found: ▪ “Commentators have long decried the pernicious effects that overly restrictive land use regulations, which stifle new development, have on housing supply and affordability, regional and national economic growth, social mobility, and racial integration. The fragmented nature of zoning rules in the United States, which are set primarily at the local level, renders it seemingly impossible to address these concerns systematically. Although there have been some efforts to address local exclusionary tendencies and their suboptimal effects by means of greater state control, these efforts, which remain contentious, have been limited to just a few states. In the past few years, a new wave of state interventions in local zoning has appeared. These interventions are motivated in part by the harsh reality of housing shortages and skyrocketing costs in significant parts of the country, which have made housing affordability a salient issue for a broader segment of the population. At the same time, states have grown increasingly willing to preempt local governments across a range of policy realms. This Article contends that the confluence of these and other factors suggests the potential for a recalibration of the balance of power between state and local governments in the realms of housing and land use regulation. State governments are increasingly displacing local restrictions on new development, mandating that municipalities permit certain forms of housing, and providing incentives for local governments to adopt certain forms of housing. I argue that the current housing crisis justifies bold new forms of state intervention. Such interventions should expressly preempt certain narrow elements of local law, rather than, as an earlier generation of interventions did, add additional planning requirements, procedural steps, or potential appeals. At the same time, these interventions can, and should, provide clear mechanisms for addressing significant countervailing local interests.” This type of preemption is becoming more common, with a flurry of bills being seen in many states. The recently passed bill in Oregon as well as proposed but failed bills in Virginia, Nebraska, Washington State and Maryland, preempt local governments from pursuing exclusionary land use practices such as mandating only single family homes. They leave significant discretion to local governments, but implement more direct involvement in local zoning by explicitly prohibiting certain regulations. Perhaps the most direct proposal, and, arguably, by far the most controversial, has been SB-50 in California. The bill, first submitted as SB-827, opened the door to similar preemption bills across the United States, and proposed to directly rezone areas near mass transportation lines statewide while implementing other deregulations. A similar, but less direct form of California’s bill was proposed in Washington State to apply an automatic increase in zoned capacity in areas near transit only if more than 20% of households in a municipality are rent burdened, allowing local governments to have a first crack at alleviating housing affordability issues before direct intervention. Finally, though the Federal Government of the U.S. plays an indirect role in land use and metropolitan governance, it retains the ability to attach requirements and incentives to federal funding. Similar to state governments, the federal government can incentivize certain lower level government behaviors through strings attached to federal funding. While most federal transportation funding goes to states via formula, Congress could tie certain requirements to the receipt of those funds, or attach strings to discretionary grant programs. The Capital Investment Grant Program at the United States Department of Transportation currently encourages, but does not require, transit-compatible land use policies near proposed mass transportation facilities. This program could be altered to either mandate a certain amount of deregulatory action surrounding proposed transit facilities, or to encourage it through policy guidance and scoring criteria. Recently, the proposed bipartisan Build More Housing Near Transit Act received 19 co-sponsors, indicating further congressional interest in this issue. If recent state level activity is any indication, such proposals are likely to continue to be put forward. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, responding to an executive order, had been exploring what requirements could be attached to their Community Development Block Grants for similar purposes of addressing deficiencies in local government behavior. Additionally, federal programs and funding could be used to encourage more state-level involvement on these issues. Every level of government has a critical role to play in carrying out essential activities for our population, and every level of government, working together, can bring-better functioning metropolitan areas to the United States. Additionally, putting local and regional governments on an achievable path to work through their own problems can free up capacities for higher levels of government to take on other problems. A key point to remember is that, if metropolitan governance issues are not addressed, higher levels of government will ultimately pay the price for shortcomings and inefficiencies, and the American people will pay the price of opportunity costs. We hope this issue brief has illuminated a wonky and previously hidden world of metropolitan governance policy, the challenges of getting efficient and equitable behavior from local governments, and the potential policy options higher levels of governments can take to tackle some of these daunting structural challenges. We believe that local government, the government closest to the people, serves the people best, but we also believe in setting up an overall framework where local governments can succeed; drawing on more of the strengths of local governance, and fewer of its weaknesses. This requires us to get the delegation of authorities, local governance structures, and incentives right, so that each level of government can do what it is best-suited for, and so that regional and national interests are protected as well. We hope this issue brief will lead to metropolitan areas that are more fiscally and resource-efficient, more sustainable, more equitable, cleaner, happier, healthier, better-planned, and perhaps, even more beautiful. Thank you for your time, we hope you found this interesting and that you’ll share this, or the ideas contained within it, with anyone that you think may find it a worthwhile read. Remember, each and every one of us, even doing something small, can make a big difference. As we stated in the beginning, we hope this can be the start of a healthy and robust debate that brings about positive change for the American people. That change, of course, begins with you. Greetings transportation planners and policymakers, Are you a fiscal conservative who wants to lower the overall cost of our infrastructure? Are you a liberal who cares deeply about climate change and environmental sustainability? Are you a libertarian who believes governments should work to maximize freedom? What if we told you there was a set of policy changes that could do all of those things? If you live in the United States, there is a single performance metric that shapes your life in ways you probably never realized, shaping the places that you live, and deciding what mobility options you will have. This performance metric is called “level-of-service,” or LOS. LOS is a relatively straightforward metric that grades roadway facilities with letters A through F depending on the amount of peak period vehicle delay. A simple example is illustrated in the table below. Traffic Light Stop Sign Freeway Level of Service Delay (seconds/vehicle) Delay (seconds/vehicle) Traffic Flow A 0-10 0-10 Free flow B 11-20 11-15 Reasonably free flow C 21-35 16-25 Stable flow D 36-55 26-35 Approaching unstable flow E 56-80 36-50 Unstable Flow F >80 >50 Flow breakdown Traffic engineers often use LOS to understand where congestion is occurring on roadway networks to assist them in planning and prioritizing capacity expansion projects or other congestion mitigation plans. Urban planners often use LOS to understand the impacts of new development, changes to comprehensive city plans, new specific plan re-zonings, or other land use plans and regulations on the existing roadway network. In many states, analyzing the environmental impact of a transportation project also includes looking at LOS impacts. This is due to the U-shaped curve for many emissions per mile as a relationship to travel speed. Generally, an increase in travel speed beyond very low speeds tends to decrease emissions per mile, which then begin to climb up again at higher speeds (with the specific relationship depending on the engine, vehicle, and roadway characteristics). Thus, many traffic engineers deduce that congestion is also the cause of added air quality problems and greenhouse gas emissions, and strive to ensure cars can move relatively quickly and unhindered. Though the federal government does not require it, LOS has often been used to measure the environmental impact of transportation projects. But there’s an underlying problem with LOS, or at least a problem with the common uses of and implicit messages sent by LOS. One of the major problems is on the economic side. The economic problem with LOS is that it generally fails to consider the concept of latent and induced demand. You can understand this concept quite simply as “if something is made cheaper, people will do or consume more of it.” LOS is an intrinsically engineering-based approach that often leads traffic engineers to propose capacity expansion as the main method to cut down on congestion. Unfortunately, capacity expansion, particularly in the context of metropolitan freeways and arterials, unleashes latent demand (people make more trips) in the short term and causes induced demand in the long term (because the new roadway capacity causes redistribution of metropolitan-area growth from the core to the periphery). Now, not all “induced demand” is inherently bad, freeway capacity expansions can provide additional mobility and give people more choices on where to live, shop, and work (keyword, “can,” not necessarily will). However, it also means that the congestion-mitigation impacts of capacity expansion are likely to be vastly overstated, and that such capacity expansions are likely to increase overall vehicle-miles traveled, as well as any negative externalities associated with higher vehicle miles traveled such as air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, while the traffic engineers correctly point out that increasing speeds from very low to mid-range will reduce emissions per mile, the analyses will often fail to account for the additional emissions from the higher vehicle miles traveled (VMT) induced by the capacity expansion project (sometimes referred to as “VMT-clawback”). In effect, roadway capacity expansion can fail to meaningfully reduce congestion in the long term while adding to regional air quality problems, increasing overall greenhouse gas emissions, and leaving behind ever increasing amounts of infrastructure and pavement that will ultimately need to be maintained with tax dollars (and we’ll take this opportunity to note that less than half of all roadway expenditures in the U.S. are paid for by user fees, as noted in Exhibit 6-1 here). Capacity expansions on major freeways have other effects, as they put economic and political pressure on exurban jurisdictions to zone for additional fringe development. While some jurisdictions charge developers impact fees to build the new local roads and infrastructure for this new development, many do not, and oftentimes the financial responsibility for long-term O&M will still fall on public works departments even if there are impact fees for initial development. Furthermore, fringe development will often increase congestion on networks downstream and in other jurisdictions, causing the local jurisdiction or neighboring jurisdictions to expend additional resources to expand their own roadway capacity, with such costs not being internalized by the development creating the impact. Local jurisdictions may not always internalize these costs either, as transportation funding is often transferred to them from higher levels of government and taxpayers in other jurisdictions, meaning that said jurisdictions will likely allow fringe development beyond what is economically efficient because they don’t bear the full tax burden of the long-term infrastructure impacts of their decisions. The other major issues with LOS are philosophical and practical. The implicit philosophical message sent by focusing on LOS alone is that the primary goal of a transportation network is to “move more cars faster.” While doing so can have benefits, it can also have important drawbacks that LOS often fails to capture. Additional urban freeways can separate communities and destroy the urban fabric that knits neighborhoods together, making local travel by walking more difficult and circuitous while lowering the quality of life in freeway-adjacent neighborhoods due to air and noise pollution. For commercial property owners whose businesses rely on foot traffic from local neighborhoods, or residential property owners whose tenants rely on walking for local goods, services, or to access jobs, it can end up harming local property values due to the lowering of the accessibility of said properties to their own walk shed. A heavier reliance on cars instead of walking can further incentivize the erosion of the urban fabric and the proliferation of surface parking lots or parking structures, or even incentivize local governments to require parking minimums, all of which often create large “dead-zones” that hamper the quality of the walking environment. What’s more, the focus on automobile delay often comes at the expense of other modes, as anything that hinders the movement of automobiles is seen as a negative. Traffic engineers and planners, guided by LOS, often end up removing crosswalks or never installing them in the first place. Furthermore, guided by LOS, traffic impact “mitigations” charged to new developments often involve roadway capacity expansions, intersection grade-separations, narrowing sidewalks for more travel or turn lanes, or other “improvements” that degrade mobility for pedestrians. As such, we have some of the major problems with LOS: (1) it makes infill development look bad because infill development loads traffic onto a congested network, even if infill loads substantially less VMT per capita onto the network; (2) it uses an analysis scale that is often too small and focused on local impacts to congestion instead of regional reduction in VMT; (3) it often includes mitigations that exacerbate the problem, such as pushing development to the metropolitan fringes and roadway widenings that induce more VMT; (4) it implicitly views pedestrian, biking, and transit improvements as a negative because they might obstruct cars even if such improvements can increase person-throughput in a corridor; and (5) it focuses on minimizing vehicle delay instead of maximizing access to destinations, and these might not always be equivalent. In response to these and other concerns about LOS, some states and local jurisdictions are taking a harder look at alternatives. California is changing the long- standing practice of estimating environmental impacts of transportation and zoning decisions from LOS to another metric, VMT. The California Office of Planning and Research found that measuring VMT, instead of vehicle delay, more accurately captures the environmental impacts of different development, zoning, and transportation choices than LOS, while providing other benefits as well. Aside from aiding more informed decision-making when it comes to transportation planning, assessing VMT impacts can also lead to more efficient decision-making on zoning issues. Strict zoning regulations that explicitly, through height, FAR, density, and bulk restrictions, or implicitly, through other requirements such as parking minimums that can make infill development financially unviable, have been blamed for the rapidly increasing housing crisis in major U.S. metropolitan areas. Zoning restrictions also often prevent increases in density, forcing more development and growth from existing urban neighborhoods (with existing infrastructure) to the exurban fringe. Sometimes zoning restrictions are defended using the framework of LOS, arguing that density should not be allowed to go beyond what the roadway network can support without peak period delays. However, this ultimately leads to higher infrastructure needs, vehicle miles traveled, and energy use per capita, and thus creates higher criteria pollutant emissions, CO2 emissions, and tax burdens per capita. Additionally, the added costs of parking and maintaining additional infrastructure for telecommunications, water lines, and other utility lines are ultimately passed on to consumers by private companies and utilities as a hidden tax. Strict zoning regulations are a limitation on individual property rights, and prevent property owners from using their property for its highest and best use. When zoning restrictions are onerous, often the only “up-zonings,” or the acts of allowing additional development on a given parcel of land, are given to politically connected and large developers, effectively shutting smaller developers and businesses out of the market. Zoning restrictions prevent more supply from being created in areas with increasing demand, artificially driving down rental vacancy rates and for-sale housing supplies, which in turn drive up rents and house prices, leading to increased gentrification and displacement. Additionally, the induced suburban sprawl created by freeway investments combined with forced suburban sprawl created by strict zoning regimes harms public transportation viability. First, for coverage-focused modes like buses, the modes must travel farther and through less dense areas, sacrificing ridership and revenue while driving up operating costs. Second, for throughput-focused modes such as bus- rapid transit, light rail and heavy rail (notice streetcars are not included), zoning restrictions prevent residents and businesses (and the employees who would work at those businesses) from locating in the walkshed of mass transportation stops. This reduces transit agency ridership and revenue, decreasing farebox recovery ratios, and thus leaves additional subsidies to be borne by taxpayers while devaluing major public investments in mass transit. All of this also drives up costs for companies to hire workers due to increased commuting costs and increased housing prices, another hidden tax on businesses. Given these and other issues with strict local land use regulation, local jurisdictions, state legislatures, and the federal government should consider whether zoning reform is needed, as many states are in the process of doing, such as S.B. 50 in California. Other countries may also offer additional lessons. While there may be no singular one-size fits all approach, every bit of work on this issue by states and other countries offer lessons and ideas for improving transportation, housing, environmental, and fiscal policy. Those who argue the current built environment is the free market at work should ask themselves some tough questions (and before you start bringing up Houston as proof that sprawl is the free market, here is something you should read first). It’s difficult to argue that government-planned, financed, engineered, constructed, policed, plowed, salted and maintained roadways are truly the free market at work. Similarly, zoning regulations that require minimum amounts of parking or substantially restrict density are far from laissez-faire. This is not to say government intervention to construct and maintain roadways is a bad thing, or that all zoning regulations are inherently bad, it is just to say these things should not disguise themselves as the “free market,” and represent market distortions that require justification for their existence and public conversations about what the appropriate level of intervention should be. If you explored the links during this journey you’ve ended up hearing from academics, think tanks, government agencies, free market conservatives, environmentally- and socially-conscious liberals, anti- regulation libertarians, housing advocates, radical socialist video creators, bloggers, urban planners and engineers. They raise important questions about the policies that have shaped the places we live and the way in which we live in those places, often to an incalculable degree. Many of them ask whether those policies are actually leading to the creation of places we want to live in or the results we’d like to see, and beg the question of whether or not it is time to reexamine or alter those policies. The point of this was not to pretend we have all the answers, but to get people asking the right questions. We hope this small piece here goes on to become part of the broader change towards a more efficient, sustainable, and equitable society. Thank you for your time, we hope you found this interesting and that you’ll share this, or the ideas contained within it, with anyone that you think may find it a worthwhile read. Remember, each and every one of us, even doing something small, can make a big difference. That change begins with you. 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Wheatley <robert@wheatleyproperties.com> Sent:Friday, March 5, 2021 6:51 PM To:Council, City; Lait, Jonathan Subject:For Your Consideration Monday Evening Attachments:RT Zone Inclusion Letter 3-5-21.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members:    Please see the attached letter relating to the temporary ordinance amending Title 18 of the municipal Code that you are  working on Monday evening. Thank you.    Robert Wheatley  650‐856‐0926 (office)  650‐444‐0110 (cell)  755 Page Mill Road, Ste BT‐100  Palo Alto, CA  94304