HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210301plCC701-32
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: 3/1/ 2021
Document dates: 2/10/2021 – 2/17/2021
Set 1
Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet
reproduction in a given week.
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 2:24 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Lisa Ratner; Mary O'Kicki; Ellen Forbes
Subject:City Council Agenda Feb 22, 2021; SCAP comment
Attachments:LWVPA SCAP Comment ltr 2.22.21.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
Attached is our letter of comment for the Study Session on February 22, 2021 regarding the Sustainability and Climate
Action Plan Update.
We would like this entered into the public record.
Thank you,
Nancy Shepherd, President
‐‐
League of Women Voters of Palo Alto
3921 E. Bayshore Road
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Phone: (650) 903-0600
Web: www.lwvpaloalto.org
Facebook: www.facebook.com/PaloAltoLeague/
Twitter: www.twitter.com/lwvpaloalto
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 www.lwvpaloalto.org
1
February 22, 2021
RE: City of Palo Alto Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Update
Dear Mayor DeBois, Vice Mayor Burt and Council Members,
The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto submits these comments on the City’s Sustainability and Climate Action Plan (S/CAP).
By 2030, the burden of extremely high gas rates will fall on low- and moderate-
income households unable to afford the switch to electricity. LWV Palo Alto
urges the city to adopt policies to prevent this inequitable outcome.
The League recommends the city adopt the following policies:
1. The city should consider electrification as an alternative to expensive
replacement of existing gas infrastructure around older buildings. 2. The city should also adopt policies that help finance the retrofitting of
older homes, especially older multi-family housing, with electric panels,
appliances and insulation. 3. The city should enable the building of new low- and moderate-income
all-electric housing through policies that allow taller, denser, and different types of housing. This will reduce the number of long-distance
commuters and significantly lower the city’s GHG emissions.
Background.
California’s 2019 Energy Efficiency Action Plan and Governor Brown’s
Executive Order B-55-18 commit California to be carbon-neutral by 2045.
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 www.lwvpaloalto.org
2
Buildings are responsible for 12% of California’s direct Green House Gas
Emissions (GHG), primarily through use of natural gas heating of water and
space.1 Transitioning from natural gas heating of buildings to electric has been
recognized as an essential policy to meet our state’s climate goals. Today, our
building codes require new construction in Palo Alto be all-electric.
Discussion
Decommission Portions of Gas Infrastructure Instead of Repair
When aging gas pipes break in a neighborhood serving older buildings, the city’s default position is to replace the gas line with new pipes expected to be
in service well beyond 2045, when the city and state have committed to being
carbon-neutral. The city should, instead, determine whether it would be
economically viable to decommission portions of the existing gas
infrastructure. The City should assess the cost of the electric system upgrades and building electrification in order to evaluate the expected cost savings and
customer acceptance by avoiding natural gas infrastructure costs.
For example, in 2019, the City replaced the gas lines for ten homes along a
cul-de-sac on the 700 block of Homer Avenue. These homes are all under
1,000 square feet and some of them already had electric heat pumps and solar panels. The construction took several months, and each homeowner had to
hire a contractor to replace their existing gas meters at their own expense,
which was reportedly around $2,500 per home. What would the cost per home
have been to convert them to all electric? Would the cost of purchasing all-
electric stoves, ovens, dryers been less for these ten homes than the cost of tearing up the street, replacing the lines and then repairing the street? LWV
1 SB100 California Renewables Portfolio Standard Program: emissions of greenhouse gases, 2018.1 Executive Order B-55-
18 to Achieve Carbon Neutrality, 9/10/20181 Kenney, Michael, Heather Bird, and Heriberto Rosales. 2019. 2019 California
Energy Efficiency Action Plan. California Energy Commission, Publication Number: CEC400-2019-010-CMF, Pg. 6.
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 www.lwvpaloalto.org
3
Palo Alto urges the city to include and consider the alternative of converting
homes to all-electric instead of replacing the gas line to a home when scoping
the project.
Provide Financing for Conversion to Electricity More than half of low-income families in California reside in multi-family
buildings, fifty percent of which were built before 1979—before building
efficiency codes were in place. Updating the electric panels and insulation in
these buildings and retrofitting them with electric appliances could result in a
significant decrease in GHG emissions, but it will be expensive and likely require either public or private assistance. The City, in coordination with state
and/or federal grants and loans available through the Air Resources Board, the
California Energy Commission, or other state or federal agencies, should
enact financial assistance to landlords or renters seeking to transition to
electricity. LWV Palo Alto urges the city to direct its state lobbyist to pursue state funding for this purpose.
Enable Low- and Moderate-Income Housing
California’s goal of carbon neutrality by 2045 requires cities to both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase carbon storage and sequestration. An
effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is to preserve and build
affordable places to live close to jobs and public transit options.2 This
becomes economically feasible in many cases only if buildings are taller and
denser than allowed by present zoning. Zoning that allows types of buildings other than single-family will also increase affordability. These housing types
(bungalows, cottages, plexes) increase density modestly and blend into
existing single-family neighborhoods.3
2 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/policy-research/plans-reports/docs/pb04housing_climate_change0214.pdf
3 https://missingmiddlehousing.com/about/characteristics; https://siliconvalleyathome.org/resources/#housing-missing-middle
3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 www.lwvpaloalto.org
4
Taller and denser buildings can also result in greater urban green space.
Increasing urban green space contributes to carbon storage and sequestration,
which help to cool our city and achieve carbon neutrality.
We therefore urge the city, as part of its Climate Action Plan, to adopt zoning standards that allow taller, denser, and different types of buildings where
appropriate to increase affordability, decrease commutes, and increase urban
green spaces.
The League of Women Voters’ mission is to encourage informed and active participation in government and to influence public policy through education
and advocacy. Our recommendations in this letter are based on our state
League’s Climate Change Action Policy 4 and on our national League’s Social
Policy on Meeting Basic Human Needs.5
Sincerely,
Nancy Shephard
President
4 “Promote solutions that ease the consequences of climate-related hardships to low and moderate income households”, https://lwvc.org/our-work/positions/climate-change
5 “…every person should have decent, safe, affordable housing” and “Government at all levels should develop policies that will assure sufficient land at reasonable cost on which to develop housing…”, https://lwvc.org/position/meeting-basic-human-needs
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 15, 2021 10:52 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Holman, Karen (external); Drekmeier, Peter; Greg Schmid
(external); Summa, Doria; ParkRec Commission; Reckdahl, Keith
Subject:Items 8 and 9, Feb 22, 1921 meeting
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Rather than charging Black people six dollars per carload to enter foothill Park or preserve, why don’t we have them
enter through a separate but equal new entrance from Los Trancos Road?
And we could use the surveillance technology license plate readers from item 9 to enforce this.
Have them nut on our butt as Cardi B might say.
Mark Weiss
No Plessy no messy or the new Brown deal
Sent from my iPhone
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Bette Kiernan <betteuk@aol.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 17, 2021 11:26 AM
To:Council, City; City Mgr
Subject:Bravo!!! Foothills Nature Preserve
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Honorable City Council Members:
I am beyond relieved and happy with the solutions you arrived at re: Foothills. So right for the seven
generations to come.
This is by far the best possible resolution.
Congratulations on your sensitive foresight and evident caring that went into your ultimate decision. It was
well worth journeying through the emotional “dark forest” to arrive at this right place
Sincerely
Bette Kiernan MFT
Palo Alto
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:Cybele LoVuolo-Bhushan <cybele88lb@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 17, 2021 10:57 AM
To:Council, City
Cc:Judy Adams
Subject:FYI-Community Mobile Response (CMR)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council members,
As you are most likely aware. Santa Clara County is now in the process of working out details for a Community Mobile
Response program to handle Mental Health crisis'.
I am bringing to your attention to a program that has had good success in community based solutions. It is an effective,
economical program in Triest, Italy. Attached is a fact sheet that will give more details.
Los Angeles Hollywood County is also interested in utilizing a program like this.
Below is contact information:
Mr. Roberto Mezzina
Departimento de Salute Mentale
Via Weiss, 5, 34125
email: Roberto.Mezzina@ass1.sante.fvg.it
Website: Trieste Salutemente.it
Please give this program your attention and consider it for Palo Alto city Mental Health care.
Thank you.
Cybele LoVuolo‐Bhushan
3838 Mumford Pl
Palo Alto
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 17, 2021 6:59 AM
To:Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Cecilia Taylor; Betsy
Nash; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Kaloma Smith; Greer Stone; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com;
rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Jeff Moore; DuBois, Tom;
Raj; Richard Konda; Council, City; Sunita de Tourreil; Roberta Ahlquist; Raven Malone;
paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Jeff Rosen; wintergery@earthlink.net; mark weiss;
griffinam@sbcglobal.net; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; greg@gregtanaka.org; Shikada, Ed;
Pat Burt; Cari Templeton; Cormack, Alison; Tanner, Rachael
Subject:NYTimes: Police Forces Have Long Tried to Weed Out Extremists in the Ranks. Then Came the Capitol
Riot.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Police Forces Have Long Tried to Weed Out Extremists in the Ranks. Then Came the Capitol Riot.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/16/us/police‐extremists‐capitol‐riot.html?referringSource=articleShare
Sent from my iPhone
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:craig gerber <readinggwk@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 12, 2021 1:19 PM
To:City Mgr; Council, City; Stump, Molly
Subject:muni code violation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City Council / City mgr.
I am filing a complaint about chronic violations of the Cities Municipal Code and other statutes. These violations include,
but are not limited to the following; Section 9.10, Sect. 9.10.40 Noise, Section 9.73.010 [a] Human Rights [b] Freedom
from Arbitrary Discrimination, Calif. Civil Code Section 3479 Nuisances.
The chronic and very stressful noise disturbances occurring throughout the day from multiple sources have occurred in
our neighborhood {Calif. Ave} for years with severe harmful health impacts for many residents especially those of us
living on birch st. and those who are elderly.
These disturbances are particularly harmful when they occur in the early morning , before 6am and often before 5am
and late at night after 10pm. . The most recent of the ongoing disturbances occurred on the following dates: 2‐1,2‐3,2‐
5, 2‐8,2‐13,2‐14 and 2‐15 all of which happened early in the morning and late at night.
Despite years of efforts by myself and other residents seeking serious mitigation of these problems this has not resulted
in any improvement and the city staff has not provided us with any meaningful change or relief.
In a future email i will discuss the devastating health impacts myself and other residents experienced from the
construction projects at 385 and 350 sherman ave. and what i believe will be the overwhelming harm and disruption of
our lives by the upcoming construction on sherman between park and birch st.. and the discrimination residents in our
neighborhood have been and will be subjected to by all of these projects.
greg kerber
.
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:craig gerber <readinggwk@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 12, 2021 12:47 PM
To:City Mgr; Stump, Molly; Council, City
Subject:noise
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
City of Palo Alto February 6 2021
I am filing a complaint about chronic excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable noise disturbances occurring in our
neighborhood {Calif. ave} under sect. 9.10.10, and sect. 9.10.040 of the palo alto municipal code.
On monday feb 1, wed. feb. 3, and friday feb. 5 2021 between 430 am and 500am multiple disturbances occurred. I
believe that these disturbances could have been caused by garbage or recycling. which has been an ongoing
problem/nuisance for years especially on jacaranda between park and ash st.
Our neighborhood has been subjected to harmful levels of noise throughout the day for years and i do not think it is
unreasonable to expect the city to address in a meaningful way this chronic problem.
greg kerber
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:martin@sommer.net
Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 5:03 PM
To:CalMod@caltrain.com
Cc:Board (@caltrain.com); Council, City; Pat Burt
Subject:Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hello Brent,
Thank you for all the additional information, but you failed to answer the fundamental question, of
"putting a price on painting the top half of a pole". It doesn't matter how many Architectural Resource
Board (ARB) and the Historic Resource Board (HRB) meetings have taken place, if a critical mistake was
made. They may have thought a street level beige color would be fine, but they apparently did not take
into account mountain vista views from multi-floor residential units. Fighting hard to retain these views, is
why we do not have an elevated rail structure running though town.
Please give it another try.
Thank you,
Martin
--
Martin Sommer
650-346-5307
martin@sommer.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer
"Turn technical vision into reality."
On 2021-02-16 08:41, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thanks for your patience as I brought this to the appropriate teams internally.
As mentioned previously, the color of the poles in the station have been reviewed and chosen by the Architectural
Resource Board (ARB) and the Historic Resource Board (HRB). The three HRB and ARB public meetings were held in
November 2018 and January 2019. This process for input on the pole colors selection follows the agreed upon
requirements included in the City of Palo Alto/Caltrain Comprehensive Agreement that was approved by City Council
and executed by both parties in January 2019.
6
The poles within the station are power‐coated (long‐lasting paint) and shipped to the Caltrain property. To change the
color would require sand blasting the existing poles which could cause delay and inefficiency claims by the Contractor
for the testing of the Overhead Contact System.
Given all of this information, we are not able to accommodate your request.
For further reference, City staff provided a link to the January 10, 2019 ARB/HRB joint meeting minutes which can be
found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74504. And the staff report for the item is
here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68341. This report provides background from the two
November 2018 public hearings which included color discussions by the commissioners. The City also provided the
attached screenshots from the January 2019 minutes regarding the color selection from the commissioners.
Best,
Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer
SamTrans | Caltrain | TA
1250 San Carlos Ave.
San Carlos, CA 94070‐1306
tietjenb@samtrans.com
From: martin@sommer.net [mailto:martin@sommer.net]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:19 PM
To: CalMod@caltrain.com
Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Pat Burt
<pat@patburt.org>
Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color
Please see attached. The chosen color, is destroying the view of our mountains. Can we please move forward,
on correcting this situation?
Martin
On February 3, 2021 9:46:57 AM PST, Martin J Sommer <martin@sommer.net> wrote:
Hi Brent,
How are you doing with this request? Were you able to put a number on repainting the top half of one or more
poles at the University Ave station? If it is easier, the whole poles could be repainted. I have noticed that the
other two stations in Palo Alto, are either black or the standard forest green.
Martin
On 1/15/21 8:48 AM, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thank you for the call on Wednesday morning. It was helpful to get a better understanding of your
concerns. As I committed on the call, I will bring your request to my management team for
consideration. I aim to get you a response by the end of next week.
Have a great weekend,
7
Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer
SamTrans | Caltrain | TA
1250 San Carlos Ave.
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
tietjenb@samtrans.com
From: Martin J Sommer [mailto:martin@sommer.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 9:59 AM
To: CalMod@caltrain.com
Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Pat Burt
<pat@patburt.org>
Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color
Hi Brent,
Thanks for talking this morning. Yes, please try to put a number on repainting the top half of
one or more poles at the University Ave station. Once we have this number, I will reach out to
the City Of Palo Alto, for potential funding sources.
Best regards,
Martin
On 12/22/20 7:49 PM, Martin J Sommer wrote:
+cc: Pat Bert
Brent, please take a look at the attached photo. I don't think this is what the City,
nor the design engineers, had in mind.
Please tell me, how I can help correct this situation.
Thank you,
Martin
On 11/25/20 10:05 AM, martin@sommer.net wrote:
Hi Brent,
Perhaps your new funding source obtained on Nov 3rd can help
this situation. Can you please look into this, and let me know?
The visual impacts you are creating, are not good.
Thank you,
Martin
--
Martin Sommer
8
650-346-5307
martin@sommer.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer
"Turn technical vision into reality."
On 2020-11-25 09:50, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote:
Hi Martin,
Unfortunately, the project budget does not accommodate
camouflaging of the poles. Caltrain worked with Cities and regulatory
agencies to mitigate the impacts of the infrastructure through the
Project's Environmental Impact Report in 2014.
Thanks,
Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer
SamTrans | Caltrain | TA
1250 San Carlos Ave.
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
tietjenb@samtrans.com
From: martin@sommer.net [mailto:martin@sommer.net]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 1:55 PM
To: CalMod@caltrain.com
Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>;
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color
Thanks Brent,
What about the idea of camouflaging the upper part of the
poles, similar to what is done with cell towers? For some
reason, these poles have been created with an extremely hard
industrial look. This is nothing like, the esthetics put into other
electrified rails systems throughout the world.
Martin
--
Martin Sommer
650-346-5307
martin@sommer.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer
"Turn technical vision into reality."
9
On 2020-11-13 10:09, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thank you again for contacting Caltrain on this question. As Jim
previously mentioned, the selection of the pole color was done in
coordination with the City of Palo Alto and the Historic Resources
Board and Architectural Review Board in 2019. These color selections
are final and poles cannot be replaced or painted a different color after
installation.
Thanks,
Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer
SamTrans | Caltrain | TA
1250 San Carlos Ave.
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
tietjenb@samtrans.com
From: martin@sommer.net [mailto:martin@sommer.net]
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:20 AM
To: CalMod@caltrain.com; Board (@caltrain.com)
<BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>
Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color
Dear Caltrain Board,
The more beige poles that go up at University Ave station, the
more unsightly it becomes. At ground level, you might think
the beige color matches the station, but from the view of local
buildings, you are completely destroying the view of our
Santa Cruz Mountains, and local green vegetation on Stanford
campus.
Can you please look into a way to fix this? Perhaps, painting
any height above 10 feet, to be the standard forest green?
Telecom poles can be camouflaged, the same applies here.
Please look in to it, and let me know some options.
Thank you,
Martin
--
10
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
ATTENTION: This email came from an external source.
Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders.
11
Baumb, Nelly
From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:38 AM
To:Bigelow, Lauren
Cc:Human Relations Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Aram James; Gail Price; Angie Evans; Greer Stone;
chuck jagoda; Planning Commission; Council, City
Subject:Re: Renters - public schools - legal protections
Hi Lauren,
Would you like me to provide you with an introduction? I am in close and positive contact with both the PTSA President
at Paly High School as well as the Deputy Superintendent in charge of Equity. They are high‐quality, hard working
professionals, they do great work, and they always respond to my phone calls and emails. I would be pleased to put you
in touch and I don't think there will be any issue with them speaking with you.
Once you give me permission, I will send introductory emails.
I appreciate your observation that I care about these issues, but of course caring is not enough. It is acting that matters.
Please allow me to assist you do the best job you can serving our community.
Thank you,
Rebecca
Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.
www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg
www.winwithrebecca.com
rebecca@winwithrebecca.com
415-235-8078
On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 9:21 AM Bigelow, Lauren <Lauren.Bigelow@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:
Good morning, Rebecca,
Thanks so much for your thoughtful email and your comments last Thursday. I took copious notes and can tell
that this means a lot to you. Truly, thank you for caring as much as you do and consistently showing up.
I've reached out to PAUSD several times and hadn't received any responses. When I reached out to have
conversations with the PTA last summer, teachers and parents alike were swamped with how to deal with
COVID‐19 and distance learning. I promise I've tried, but the moment we find ourselves in has made many
conversations with potential partners difficult. I think it's just a case of finding the right person to talk to at
the right time, which can be hard. That's okay, though. I'm not afraid of hard work at all, so, I'll reinvigorate
my efforts and would welcome the opportunity to discuss more.
Warmly,
12
Lauren
From: Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>
Sent: Friday, February 12, 2021 12:07 AM
To: Bigelow, Lauren <Lauren.Bigelow@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Human Relations Commission <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>
Cc: Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>; Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>; Gail Price
<gail.price3@gmail.com>; Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com>; Greer Stone <gstone22@gmail.com>; chuck jagoda
<chuckjagoda1@gmail.com>; Planning Commission <Planning.Commission@cityofpaloalto.org>; Council, City
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>
Subject: Renters ‐ public schools ‐ legal protections
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Lauren,
Thank you for your presentation tonight at the HRC meeting. I wanted to follow up with you on three matters: (1)
outreach to the PAUSD; (2) demographic gaps and (3) legal protections to protect tenants. As a means of quick
background, I am an attorney with 3 decades of experience in matters involving tenant/landlord relations, economic
and tax policy, and social justice.
I am cc'ing some like‐minded friends, neighbors, and colleagues, who also have deep experience with working on
solutions for tenants in Palo Alto and similar communities. They undoubtedly have their own perspectives, and you
may have spoken with them already, but in hopes of helping you move this project to launch, I thought including them
again may be efficient.(also cc'ing govt bodies for record‐keeping purposes)
First, as I said at the meeting, I think it would be very helpful for you to reach out to the Palo Alto Unified School District
as you continue your research into how to protect tenants better in Palo Alto. The PAUSD has in the past (and
presumably currently) collected data about public school families, which provides both access to the renters you
described as 'hard to reach' (we're not! we're here!) as well as a possibly more complete picture as to what proportion
of our community rents their homes, as I believe that the percentage is higher than you report.
According to the PAUSD's research, the last I checked, as many as 70% ‐80% of all Palo Alto public school students live
in homes that are rented rather than owned. PAUSD has 12,000 students at its 18 public schools. Without adequate
tenant protection, as many as ten thousand Palo Alto public school students are at risk of losing their homes...
including my own.
Given this risk to our children, the need for adequate rent control is urgent. I would be happy to put you in touch with
appropriate parties at the District, the PTAC and/or local PTSAs. Greer Stone, cc'd, is a renter, a city council member,
the city council liaison to the HRC, and an educator (married to another educator!) in the Palo Alto School District‐ at
the high school my son attends. I am sure he can help as well. I hope you share our perspective that the public schools
are what drew so many of us to live in Palo Alto, and in many ways are the heart of our community.
The School District also can be a valuable resource for you because it operates the largest and (as far as I am aware)
only government‐sponsored meal delivery system in Palo Alto. Thousands of PAUSD students receive free or subsidized
meals. Additionally, many public school students live in subsidized housing developments. You should be able to reach
some of these families through the district, but I would be happy to assist you with introductions as well to my personal
friends who live in Palo Alto's few low‐income housing developments. Finally, the school district can provide insight
into the large percentage of our community who are not easily reached by surveys because the adults do not speak
strong English. PAUSD's students include a large number of families where the children are the strongest English
speakers in the family. All of these are communities that connect through our Palo Alto public schools.
13
Second, I wanted to quickly mention some potential gaps with the survey numbers given by the American Community
Survey. One of the biggest gray areas is the lack of consideration for vacant homes here in Palo Alto ‐‐ a number which
has been steadily rising and is not tracked by our city (although it should be). If vacant homes comprise 15% of housing
stock as some estimate, that means that 45% of our homes are filled with tenants; 40% are owner‐occupied, and 15%
are empty.
This actually is a reason that most tenants here in Palo Alto don't feel embarrassed about renting. As I told my kids
after we moved back here almost 10 years ago, I am not ashamed of the fact that we do not have four million dollars to
spend on a 3‐4 bedroom home! For the vast majority of us, including my partner and myself‐‐a 2‐lawyer couple in our
50's‐‐buying a home of Palo Alto is an unrealistic expectation. And that is ok, as long as renting is a viable long‐term
housing alternative as well, which currently in Palo Alto, it too often is not.
Armed with more complete demographic numbers, I think it may be easier to bring attention to the profound problem
in Palo Alto, that we are a city composed mostly of renters, living without any meaningful tenant protection laws.
Third, legal protections. Decades of work on affordable housing have shown that the only effective way to level the
playing field for tenants is to provide legal tenant protections. You said you are researching other communities for ways
to protect tenants better. I think it's most important to look at the cities that do the best job of protecting tenants, as
many local communities are failing their tenant communities as much or more than we are.
Below is a brief and incomplete, but possibly representative list of legal protections that Palo Alto lacks ‐ but urgently
needs ‐ and that other cities provide:
1. Meaningful rent increase limits. The current cap of 10% is far above market, and does not protect tenants from
exploitative and illegal evictions (as most high rent increases are pretextual evictions)
2. Stronger financial protections for tenants, including opportunities for tenants to partner with nonprofits and
community groups to spread financial resources and reduce financial risk for landlords.
3. Legally available means to report landlord violations, and receive fast remedial actions. Rent Boards often serve this
role extremely effectively. I am very familiar with San Francisco's Rent Board if you would like to discuss. These
reporting channels also must include means to appeal determinations, e.g. through an Appeals Board or even an
Ombudsperson.
4. Clarifications to our Municipal Code that it is illegal to remove housing from the market. Palo Alto is the only city in
the region that does not follow this ubiquitous legal requirement.
5. Enactment of a vacancy tax, or alternatively, the enforcement of existing zoning codes against empty homes. The
vast majority of well‐run cities do not allow homes to remain empty, either by considering them zoning code violations
due to not being used for zoned residential purposes, or enforcing against them as homes removed from housing stock,
or otherwise. Ghost homes harm communities.
5. Tenant unions. Many cities provide public office space and financial resources to enable tenants to share resources
and work collectively to even the playing field with landlords, who almost always have greater financial resources and
institutional power.
These of course are a few of many different ways that strong city governments can protect tenants to preserve
community stability, and to help all residents feel safe that their home today will still be their home tomorrow.
I am grateful for your hard work and close attention to these urgent matters, and I appreciate your consideration of
these ideas. I welcome an opportunity to discuss at your convenience, and can be reached at 415‐235‐8078.
14
With warm regards,
Rebecca Eisenberg
Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.
www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg
rle.medium.com
www.winwithrebecca.com
rebecca@privateclientlegal.com
rebecca@winwithrebecca.com
415-235-8078
15
Baumb, Nelly
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:36 AM
To:Rebecca.Tanner@cityofpaloalto.org; Rebecca Eisenberg; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission;
Human Relations Commission; chuck jagoda; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Raven Malone; Greer Stone;
Council, City; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Greg Tanaka; Joe Simitian; Mark Petersen-Perez
Subject:San Jose may house unhoused along the Guadalupe River—some ideas Palo Alto could adopt on a
smaller scale
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Follow the link below to view the article.
https://mercurynews‐ca‐app.newsmemory.com/?publink=3d3ca40e9_1345c4c
Sent from my iPhone
16
Baumb, Nelly
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:10 AM
To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Planning Commission;
ParkRec Commission; chuck jagoda; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com
Subject:AB 339 -preserving internet -remote- zoom- phone access meeting post Covid 19
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Follow the link below to view the article.
https://mercurynews‐ca‐app.newsmemory.com/?publink=155ea02ba_1345c4c
Sent from my iPhone
17
Baumb, Nelly
From:Priya Chandrasekar <priya_chandrasekar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 11:04 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Castilleja moderzation supporter
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I’m writing today to offer my support for Castilleja’s modernization plan, and in
particular the underground parking facility. I am a current parent of a middle
schooler at the school but more than that I am a Palo Alto resident for almost a
decade now.
My daughter sometimes bikes and sometime I drop her or she walks . I am always
scared as the cars parked open and close and there have been times with
someone unknowing opens the door wide onto the bike and hit someone biking
by mistake . I was so happy to see the underground parking it will certainly solve so
much of the anxiety . When sometime I drive too I have the satisfaction of knowing
that I am not going to hit a bicyclist by mistake.
After years of thoughtful planning and the incorporation of community feedback,
Castlleja has developed a project with an underground parking facility that
removes cars from street level, places them below ground, and features a discreet
entrance and exit that improves circulation. The project implements a robust
traffic demand management program to ensure that traffic will not adversely
impact the community. The project also enhances the neighborhood’s biking
infrastructure by protecting the adjacent Bike Boulevard and including ample bike
parking to encourage Castilleja students and faculty to continue commuting to
the school by bike.
The FEIR indicates that Castilleja’s proposed project is the environmentally superior
alternative, and their commitment to reducing impacts to traffic and the
neighborhood are important factors in the report’s findings. I am happy that
Castilleja and the community have found a way to work together to develop the
18
best possible project for Palo Alto that does not create any negative traffic
impacts for the neighbors. Please support Castilleja’s CUP and approve their
underground parking facility.
Best,
Priya Chandrasekar
Seneca st ( crescent park )
19
Baumb, Nelly
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 15, 2021 8:10 PM
To:Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew; Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; Council, City;
chuck jagoda; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Raven Malone;
Greer Stone; Kaloma Smith; Jonsen, Robert; DuBois, Tom; Jeff Moore; Raj;
wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; wintergery@earthlink.net; Jeff Rosen; mark weiss; Shikada, Ed;
greg@gregtanaka.org; Ed Lauing; Cari Templeton; Cormack, Alison; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com;
griffinam@sbcglobal.net; Pat Burt
Subject:NYTimes: George Floyd Image With the Words ‘You Take My Breath Away’ Prompts Internal Police
Investigation
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
George Floyd Image With the Words ‘You Take My Breath Away’ Prompts Internal Police Investigation
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/14/us/lapd‐george‐floyd.html?referringSource=articleShare
Sent from my iPhone
20
Baumb, Nelly
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 15, 2021 8:03 PM
To:Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Jonsen, Robert; Cecilia Taylor; Human Relations Commission; Joe
Simitian; Sunita de Tourreil; Kaloma Smith; Human Relations Commission;
city.council@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Jeff Rosen; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Richard
Konda; Planning Commission; Council, City; ParkRec Commission;
wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Roberta Ahlquist; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; chuckjagoda1
@gmail.com; Greer Stone; Raven Malone; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; DuBois, Tom;
wintergery@earthlink.net; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Blue Lives Matter is over NYT’s Feb 15, 2021 by Charles M. Blow
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/14/opinion/blue‐lives‐matter‐trump‐impeachment.amp.html
Sent from my iPhone
21
Baumb, Nelly
From:Daniel Qu <danzhang2013@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 15, 2021 3:07 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Summer Work Opportunities
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
To Whom It May Concern,
My name is Daniel Qu, currently a Political Science undergraduate student at UCLA and Gunn High School Graduate. I
was inquiring if there were any opportunities for an internship, paid or not, this summer, working with the city or with
any of the council members in their offices. I was aware of one such opening with council member Tanaka when I was
still in high school, but time constraints meant I was unable to apply.
If such a position is available and a resume is required, please email me here at danzhang2013@gmail.com or contact
me with 1(650)‐213‐6174.
Thank you and stay safe,
Daniel Qu
22
Baumb, Nelly
From:Carol C. Friedman <carolcfriedman465@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 15, 2021 2:51 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Castilleja development project!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Members of the City Council,
At long last, Palo Alto’s City Council has the opportunity to vote on Castilleja’s project. I have followed the
project closely, and as a nearby neighbor living on Lowell Avenue, I want to voice my strong support for the
school’s proposal. I urge you to support the school’s higher enrollment at 540, just as the PTC did, and to
approve the proposed underground garage.
Primarily , I agree with the approach that the majority of Planning & Transportation Commissioners took to
analyzing enrollment. They reasoned that evaluating the impact of the project is far more relevant than the
enrollment number itself. Debating the actual number that the school should enroll misses the most important
point: it’s the impact on the neighborhood that matters. And the PTC voted to support enrollment of 540
because the school can only enroll that number of students if they have no adverse impact on the
neighborhood’s traffic. The proposed CUP, which I urge you to approve, will only allow enrollment to increase
to 540 if there’s no increase in traffic to the neighborhood.
Secondly, I also urge you to support the underground parking garage. As supported by the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) and City’s Comprehensive Plan, the underground facility will remove cars from view at the
street level. It is the environmentally superior option, according to the EIR, and Palo Alto’s zoning code does
not prohibit underground parking for non-residential use in an R-1 neighborhood.
Finally, I request that you make your decision based on facts, not politics. The facts, the zoning law, and the
detailed analyses in the Environmental Impact Report all support this project. I appreciate your consideration of
this important project for Castilleja and "the girls!"
Thank you,
Carol C. Friedman,
465 Lowell Avenue
23
Baumb, Nelly
From:Mehmet Fidanboylu <mehmetf@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 15, 2021 10:16 AM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto Parking Code w.r.t. front yards
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council,
I would like to propose that the city amends the parking code to allow uncovered parking within the front yard setback
for R‐1(8000) and below.
The current code dictates that: Parking regulations affect the appearance of the streetscapes in our residential
neighborhoods by minimizing the number of cars parked on the street and in the front yards by requiring that there are
parking spaces available deeper into the lot.
While this is an attractive proposition in theory, it does not work in practice for houses with smaller lots. Most families
have 2+ cars nowadays and tandem parking is inconvenient. Thus, households with 2+ cars would need a wide driveway.
When the lot is small, two‐car driveways are not feasible.
This is backed up by data as well. I did an informal survey of my neighborhood between St. Francis and Greer. A
staggering 86% of the 132 houses had cars parked in the front yard. Contrary to the goal of the regulation, we are not
able to minimize the number of cars parked in front yards. People are doing it anyway due to practical reasons listed
above.
Is it possible to update the city code to be grounded in reality? At the very least, this requirement should only be
effective with a minimum lot size such as R‐1 (10000) and above.
‐ Mehmet
24
Baumb, Nelly
From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, February 15, 2021 6:08 AM
To:Rebecca Eisenberg
Cc:Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Council, City; Aram James; chuck jagoda;
Roberta Ahlquist; Raven Malone; Pastor Kaloma Smith; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Carol Lamont;
ParkRec Commission; Jeff Moore; alisa mallari tu; Lewis. james; Bunny Chiba; Binder, Andrew;
Elizabeth Collet Funk; Elizabeth Collet Funk; info@lifemoves.org
Subject:Re: First tent in front of city hall, downtown Palo Alto.
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Apropos of my suggestion in a previous letter, below, Democracy’s safeword in Palo Alto could be “motion‐activated
lights set to ‘always on’”
‐Mark B Weiss
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 14, 2021, at 10:08 PM, Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote:
All,
I toured the new six‐floor new and empty publicly‐financed gigantic parking garage to see if it would be
suitable for safe parking. The City needs to clean up the water flood (safe near EV chargers?) and the
trash. Otherwise, it looks to be in good enough shape to host vehicle dwellers. Given that the City
already is paying to keep every single of the thousands of light bulbs on, every hour of the day and night,
how much more hassle can it be to let people park their cars safely there? Also, I measured the spaces
and there is ample room for placement of individual shelter mobile units. As a reminder, the California
Department of Housing has offered millions of dollars in funding to any city for this very purpose, so it
won't even cost anything. Here is a list of some of the many state programs that are excited to give Palo
Alto money to house our growing homeless population: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants‐funding/active‐
funding/index.shtml
Here are a couple of my videos:
Parking Garage Tour Part 2 (midnight on Thursday night; all lights on)
https://www.facebook.com/reisenberg/videos/10158825952918497
Parking Garage Tour Part 1 (Wednesday afternoon)
https://www.facebook.com/reisenberg/videos/10158826050273497
I filed a 311 report regarding the fact that the motion‐activated lights were set to "always on" and also
reported the flood on the second sub‐basement, but when I came back to check a week after filming
these videos, the lights were still all during daylight, even on the roof (as well as on every other floor,
day and night), and the flood in the sub‐basement only had grown bigger rather than smaller. I also
don't think it was very safe for the smokers (whoever they were) to have left their cigarette butts on the
25
floor of the lowest level, next to the used gloves. It is shocking but true that the same contractor who
built the already‐flooded parking garage was just awarded the contract for the new jail next door to this
garage. Although some funds already were spent, isn't it better to avoid a larger sunk cost, and turn this
ship around now?
Let's use this empty, well‐lit parking garage for safe parking, and let's use the empty lot next door for
temporary shelter and affordable housing! We don't need more jail cells or prisons; we need shelter
beds and homes. Palo Alto is the only city in the area without *any* shelter beds for our large and
growing unhoused population. We also have the largest vehicle dwelling population per capita in the
state, if not country. Here, in the most educated and wealthy city on earth, we can and must do better.
Please let me know how I can help. Together, we can save lives, restore dignity, and protect families in
Palo Alto.
Best regards,
Rebecca
Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.
www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg
rle.medium.com
www.winwithrebecca.com
rebecca@winwithrebecca.com
415-235-8078
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 8:30 PM mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote:
Well, as Chief Seattle said “All things are connected”. Chief Seattle the indigenous proto‐
environmentalist. Not to be confused with Chief Adrian Diaz, the current chief of police in Seattle.
Mark Weiss
In Palo Alto
Re: tents at 250 Hamilton, shantytowns as student agit prop in Hanover, Berkeley and Stanford 35
years ago, homelessness, safe parking, Ladoris Cordell, Al Young, ..., and the trees in blue.
I think Democracy in Palo Alto needs a safe word...
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 6, 2021, at 6:46 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Mark,
For a day off you still talking like the great poet I know you to be. Stay on (snip)
You the one with magic pen!! Keep it coming my brother!!
Sent from my iPhone
26
On Feb 6, 2021, at 4:52 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Excuse the digression but in 1985 liberal activists interested in
divestment that is to say stopping apartheid in South Africa built on the
campus green at Dartmouth College a “shantytown” ..
After about six months, right wing activist destroyed it in the middle of
the night. Then we had a one day teach‐in about racism. Then for a
while at the museum, the art museum displayed part of the former
Shanty as artwork per se. I wonder if they still have it in storage.
If the tent in this picture is blue maybe it has something to do with the
art installation by the Australian couple whose name escapes me but
they painted the trees blue so that people will look with fresh eyes at
things that were not made by man i.e. nature.
Personally I was kind of tripping out and in fact had a 10 minute
conversation today with Officer or agent Craig Lee a 22 year veteran of
our police force who was in patrol car was parked on the third floor of
the 445 Bryant garage in my neighborhood and I was wondering if he
should do a welfare check on the person who was sleeping in the
second basement floor still sleeping even at 11 AM on a Saturday.
There were actually two homeless people sleeping there. But What
sent me there is the idea that apparently we paid tesla to sell us some
charging equipment rather than asking them to pay us for the use of
our garage which I think of as a type of corporate welfare.
I’m sorry if my argument is all over the map today is actually my off
day. Jewish Sabbath and all that.
Mark
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 6, 2021, at 12:54 PM, chuck jagoda
<chuckjagoda1@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, yes, and yes!
I would also add a guillotine.
On Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 11:27 AM Roberta Ahlquist
<roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:
m
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
View on Nex
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automati
Shelly Still, Duveneck - St. Francis
27
What are your thoughts on this? What do you think the city or
residents need to do here? Do we watch and let it grow into
tent city?
General ꞏ Feb 5
2
14
See 12 previous replies
Shelly Still
What is your solution? And what is your immediate
solution to prevent tent city all over Palo alto?...
Shelly Still
Is that the solution? So they are encouraging camping in
Palo Alto?
View or Reply
This message is intended for roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu. Unsubscribe here. Nextdoo
Taylor Street, San Francisco, CA 94102
28
Baumb, Nelly
From:Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 14, 2021 7:05 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Wellseley Street Cato Proposal
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor Dubois and Council Members,
You are no doubt receiving an earful of opinions about what is appropriate to build on these two adjacent properties,
from low density duplexes on up to the 24 units Cato proposes.
However, Cato's proposal is a red herring.
The significance of Cato's proposal is not how many units should be allowed on R‐1 properties. The significance is that
Cato's proposal is a direct challenge to Palo Alto's neighborhood R‐1 zoning. Cato has targeted these two adjacent R‐1
zoned properties because they represent the best arguments that can be made for upzoning within Palo Alto's
neighborhoods.
The question is, will the Council establish a precedent that allows upzoning of properties within R‐1 neighborhoods? The
Cato investment company owns other properties in College Terrace, and elsewhere in Palo Alto, that could also become
targets for upzoning. What legal justification would the Council have for refusing similar requests once the precedent is
established?
A decision which could prove immensely profitable and likely being closely watched by property investment and
development companies, Sacramento politicians, lobbyists, and other organizations, whose goal is to eliminate R‐1
zoning restrictions in cities like Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Margaret Heath
2140 Cornell Street
Palo Alto
29
Baumb, Nelly
From:Pamela Mayerfeld <pam.mayerfeld@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Sunday, February 14, 2021 2:05 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal);
kou.pacc@gmail.com; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; pwps@cityofpalolato.org; CSD; ParkRec
Commission; Kou, Lydia; Jensen, Peter; Public Works Public Services
Cc:Arthur Keller; Sharon Elliot; Margie Greenwald; Sharon Elliot; Camille Tripp; Satomi Rogers; Corkie
Freeman; John Jacobs; runlong Zhou; Will Shen; Ram Sunder; Kathy Fei; Olga Rubchinskaya; Lisette
Micek; Yan Jing; Lakshmi Sunder; Linda and Bob Campbell; Sung and Jenny Ryu; Grant Elliot; Nate
Case; Taly Katz; George Greenwald; Pam Mayerfeld; Tim Rogers; Amanda Case; David Cheng; Eliezer
Rosengaus; Brian and Maggie Szabo; Margaret Cheng; Jo Vitanye; tjg@guenzer.com;
arthur@kellers.org; Sue Freeman
Subject:Ramos Dog Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council and Parks and Recreation,
I am writing to urge you to stop proceeding with plans for an enclosed dog park in Ramos Park.
We purchased a home on Waverley Street in 1983. As our children became older we found we regularly walked to
Ramos Park and looked to purchase a home in the neighborhood. We hoped to buy on Ortega Court but ended up
buying on East Meadow instead. Simply put, we sought out this neighborhood because of Ramos Park. It has a
wonderful neighborhood feel and gets used for volleyball, soccer, Tai Chi, basketball, picnics, birthday parties, SPUD (our
usual family game between dinner & dessert on holidays), etc etc. It is not uncommon to see ALL the grass areas as well
as the picnic areas used by different groups.
Quite honestly, I am surprised to see the push for the dog park. To my knowledge, there are already two in South Palo
Alto, neither far from Ramos and never "fully occupied" when I walk by. (I consider Hoover Park to be midtown, but it's
not that far either.) Both the Mitchell and Greer dog parks are away from the street so the ugliness can't be seen and
away from houses so nearby homeowners don't feel invaded. Placement at Ramos would be both ugly and invasive.
I understand some people don't feel safe in Ramos at times when dogs are unleashed. I appreciate their concern
although I have never had an issue with an unleashed dog there. I support the suggestion of having off‐leash hours so
concerned people can go elsewhere during these times.
Our family loves this neighborhood park and would hate to see it become less beautiful, less useful, and less family‐
friendly by the addition of the dog park.
Thank you,
Pam Mayerfeld
30
Baumb, Nelly
From:Micheline Horstmeyer <mhorst1950@hotmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 13, 2021 6:45 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:An apartment building in College Terrace
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City Council:
DO NOT ALLOW THE SAN FRANCISCO DEVELOPER TO BUILD HIS 24 UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING IN COLLEGE
TERRACE! Preserve our single‐family home neighborhoods.
Micheline Horstmeyer
31
Baumb, Nelly
From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 13, 2021 6:50 PM
To:Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Constantino, Mary; Kaloma Smith; Sunita de Tourreil; Human Relations
Commission
Cc:Council, City; City Mgr; mark weiss; Rebecca Eisenberg; Palo Alto Free Press; chuck jagoda; Jonsen,
Robert; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; winter dellenbach; Joe Simitian; Binder, Andrew; Taylor, Cecilia;
Rev. Lorrie Owens; Minor, Beth; Nash, Betsy; Richard Konda; Raj Jayadev; Jeff Moore; Perron, Zachary;
supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Rosen, Jeff; Angel, David; city.council@menlopark.org; Anna
Griffin; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Greer Stone; Pat Burt; Patrice Ventresca; patthurston2
@yahoo.com; Lewis james; Sara Tabin; Dave Price; Bill Johnson; Gennady Sheyner; Tanner, Rachael;
ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission; Raven Malone
Subject:Fwd: Time for a critical conversation re hate crimes in Palo Alto and the Bay Area
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
‐
2/13/2021
Dear HRC members and staff,
Below is a detailed story ( in today’s New York Times, 2/13/2021) outlining the
recent increase in hate crimes against members of Asian American community in San
Francisco, Oakland, and other parts of the Bay Area. (see link below to the full
article : A Lunar New Year of Safety Whistles Instead of Confetti Cannons
HRC Hate Crimes
discussion
I know the HRC will be taking up the subject of hate crimes in March ( likely at
a 2nd March meeting). As a community member I am very concerned about the ongoing
proliferation of hate crimes here in Palo Alto.
Here is language from today’s New York Times piece that I ask the HRC and staff
to consider:
Language form
today’s NYT’s
But in 2021, some community organizers and advocacy groups, including Stop AAPI
Hate, have said Asian Americans must look beyond calling for increased police
presence in neighborhoods to achieve that justice. “We recognize that policing
has led to the criminalization of communities of color, and mass Incarceration,”
Dr. Jeung said. “ Why perpetuate a system that doesn’t work? “The people arrested
in both the Chinatown incident in Oakland and the fatal assault on Mr.
Ratanpakdee are Black, which community organizers said has brought to the fore
some anti-Black racism particularly as outrage about the attacks has spread on
social media.
Police spokesperson &
BLM speaker
32
I understand that the only speaker currently slated to address the issue of hate
crimes at the March HRC meeting is a member of the Palo Alto Police Department.
Given the mistrust of many members of our community towards our current police
department, and law enforcement generally, and to encourage a balanced discussion
of the hate crimes issue, I am requesting that the HRC invite/recruit a BLM
spokesperson to also address the issue. Both speakers ( BLM & Police) to be given
the same time thirty minutes, as an example, to address the HRC and members of
the public.
Conclusion
Too often, in my many years of advocating for best police practices in Palo Alto,
when either the HRC or City Council have action items or special studies related
to our police department on their respective agenda, the conversations are
dominated by members of the Palo Alto Police Department. Given the current social
justice movement in Palo Alto, and across this country, it is critical that
voices other than the police be given equal time to address the many civil rights
issues that come before our governmental bodies. Absent equal access by speakers
on both sides of police practices issues the public will continue to lack trust
in our police and governmental bodies that allow such one sided conversations to
occur .
Sincerely,
Aram James
A Tense Lunar New Year for the Bay Area After Attacks on Asian-Americans
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/us/asian-american-
racism.html?referringSource=articleShare
Police resistance to time-sharing
proposal anticipated
P.S. I would anticipate stiff, behind the scenes resistance by the PAPD command
staff and the POA to sharing time with BLM spokespersons on any police practices
issue, even the topic of hate crimes. In fact I would not be surprised if at
least one member of the HRC might attempt to exercise undue influence over the
other HRC members to prevent such a shared time agreement. I request that both
the HRC and our City Council not cave to such pressures and, moving forward,
insist that equal time be given to speakers who have a different perspective on
police practices issues then our police.
33
Baumb, Nelly
From:Marjory Greenwald <margiebgreenwald@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 13, 2021 5:57 PM
To:Eliezer Rosengaus
Cc:Jensen, Peter; pwecips; Council, City; DuBois, Tom; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Cormack, Alison;
Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Public
Works Public Services; CSD; ParkRec Commission; Arthur Keller; Sharon Elliot; Camille Tripp; Satomi
Rogers; Corkie Freeman; Rick Hallsted; John Jacobs; runlong Zhou; Will Shen; Ram Sunder; Kathy Fei;
Olga Rubchinskaya; Lisette Micek; Yan Jing; Lakshmi Sunder; Linda and Bob Campbell; Sung and
Jenny Ryu; Grant Elliot; Nate Case; Taly Katz; George Greenwald; Pam Mayerfeld; Sharon Elliot; Tim
Rogers; Amanda Case; David Cheng; Brian and Maggie Szabo; Margaret Cheng; Jo Vitanye; Teddie
Guenzer; Arthur Keller; sue.freeman9@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Problems with Dog Park at Ramos Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
We have lived on Ortega Court for 33 years. We enjoy walking around Ramos Park, and our children and our
grandchildren (who live a few blocks away) spend many hours almost daily in Ramos Park. Our grandchildren like to use
the play structures as well as play in the central grass area. We and our neighbors use the picnic table area for "block
parties." Over the years, we have enjoyed watching our children participating in youth sports in Ramos and many
people use the park for Tai Chi, Dancing, Zumba, and Volleyball games. The list of activities goes on and on.
We are VERY OPPOSED to a dog park in Ramos Park, and would personally be affected by the many negatives, including
noise, smells, and unsanitary health effects. The park is only 4 acres (one of the smallest in our city), with limited open
field space. There is a very nice dog park in nearby Mitchell Park. Actually, there are three dog parks already in South
Palo Alto. North Palo Alto has only one. If there is a need for another, a new dog park should be built in one of the
North Palo Alto parks.
We do not want to see an ugly, smelly, unsanitary dog park in our lovely, small, friendly neighborhood Ramos Park. It
would not be an improvement to our lifestyle or to the lifestyle of our friends and neighbors. We do not want to be
subject to barking dogs, dog excrement and odors, ugly fencing etc.
Ramos Park has houses around the park and people will be living too close to this unseemly sight. It is hard to believe
that any park architect could think our little park is a good candidate for this addition.
We expect the DOG PARK to be REMOVED from the renovation plans for Ramos Park.
Margie and George Greenwald
3708 Ortega Court
650‐269‐8337
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:36 AM Eliezer Rosengaus <erosengaus@gmail.com> wrote:
Re: objections to Jesus Ramos Park dog‐park project
34
Sirs:
I write to you in regards to the project to build a dog park at Ramos Park. The project as proposed is in violation of
several guidelines:
1. There needs to be at least a 150 to 200 foot separation between the dog park and a residential area
2. Violation of sanitary guidelines for fecal contamination of mulch and consequent disease breeding
3. Lack of an Environmental Impact Report
Discussion:
The project, as described to us involves the takeover of about 1/3 of the area of the park to install a fenced area for
dogs. The area in question is in close proximity to the property line we share with the park (a 10 foot separation is
being proposed). The area would be covered with some form of mulch. A dog park already exists in the much larger
Mitchell park, less than 5 minute walk distant. I have been a pet owner myself, and have used the Mitchell park area
often, so I am highly aware of the practical consequences of a dog park.
1. The project at Ramos Park is deeply flawed. There are many guidelines for designing a good dog park. Most of them
recommend a separation from residential and athletic‐use areas of 150 to 200 feet. See for example
https://www.a2gov.org/departments/Parks‐
Recreation/play/Documents/Recommendations%20and%20Guidelines%20for%20Dog%20Park%20Site%20Selection%2
0updated%204‐10‐15.pdf and https://legistarweb‐
production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/52147/Dog_Parks_‐_Risk_Management.pdf.
The rationale for the separation is both for noise control and health concerns. Disease transmission between pets is
common at dog parks and a significant risk of zoonotic disease transmission to humans also exists, particularly because
of the close proximity proposed. Separation from the property line by the margins suggested is not possible at Ramos
Park (the project sandwiches the dog run between the property line and the picnic area, and is immediately adjacent to
areas commonly used for badminton, volleyball and other sports).
2. The use of mulch as a cover is problematic, since it becomes difficult to isolate dog feces from the mulch itself, and
the mulch cannot be cleaned. This will result in cumulative effects such as odor, insects and disease transmission to
vulnerable humans (children, senior citizens, people with existing co‐morbidity).
35
3. The above paragraphs point out environmental risks that need to be evaluated. There should be an Environmental
Impact Report prepared, as has been settled in courts and existing regulations. This has not been done.
Beyond the noise, odor and potential health issues, the construction of the dog park would have severe repercussions
on the property values of all neighbors on Ortega court, but particularly on the 2 homes (mine included) immediately
adjacent to the proposed project. Please put yourselves in my shoes: nobody wants to live right next to a dog park.
Note that home proximity to the dog park at Mitchell park is not an issue. Given that alternatives exist currently within
walking distance of this area, the project is unnecessary and causes deep harm. If the purpose of the city is to be able
to ensure that the ordinances forbidding off‐leash pets elsewhere are obeyed, this should be done by actively enforcing
those ordinances with citations and fines.
I respectfully ask you to cancel this project and keep me informed. I am seeking legal counsel to understand what my
options are as a homeowner who would see grievous harm immediately and for as long as the dog park operates
(forever?).
Eliezer Rosengaus
3704 Ortega Ct
Palo Alto, CA 94303
36
Baumb, Nelly
From:Sally Heaton <x40trout@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 13, 2021 3:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Cato Investments proposal in College Terrace
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on
links.
________________________________
Council Members,
Why do we have for profit developers in charge of our zoning? It was a disaster when it was called “Planned
Communities”, and it will be a disaster as “Planned Housing”. We seem to be in the middle of a housing crisis with many
people calling for changes to R1 zoning. This is something for the citizens of Palo Alto and the city council to debate and
figure out. There are a lot of ideas out there, let’s hear them and solve our problems together. We can even consider the
ideas of for profit developers, but they should never be in charge of the process through variances.
Let’s do this the right way. Reject the Cato investments variances.
Sincerely
Whit Heaton
Bowdoin Street
Palo Alto
Sent from my iPad
37
Baumb, Nelly
From:Barbara Ann Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 13, 2021 12:54 PM
To:Council, City; DuBois, Tom; patburt11@gmail.com; gstone22@gmail.com; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou,
Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Cormack, Alison
Cc:Shikada, Ed
Subject:Castilleja Neighbor and CUP Supporter
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
February 13, 2021
Palo Alto City Council
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Honorable Council Members:
I am sending this letter in advance of your March meetings concerning Castilleja School's CUP application. My name is
Barbara Hazlett. I am a neighbor of Castilleja and have lived near the school, just across Embarcadero, for 40 years.
It is a privilege to write in support of Castilleja's CUP application and another century, of educating young women to
become leaders. Castilleja is a treasure, and as a Palo Alto voter who strongly supports protecting neighborhoods, I feel
that schools, churches, libraries, and community centers are crucial civic elements. There is a vocal residentialist
movement in our city - of which I am one - and I want to make clear that residentialists and neighbors support Castilleja’s
proposal.
Castilleja is a very respectful neighbor, having gone to great lengths to mitigate traffic and parking demands as the town
has grown up around it. Pre-pandemic, its TDM plan had reduced traffic by > 25% over the last few years. Going forward,
they will be independently audited for their ongoing compliance. This is not the case for any other local schools.
Also, the proposed plan to build under-ground parking, an expensive proposition, clearly demonstrates Castilleja's earnest
response to neighbors' requests to mitigate street parking and traffic noise. The alternative to underground parking is
surface level lots. Think about the ugly aesthetics of surface parking lots. Is that what people want to see from their homes
and while driving along Embarcadero?
The school provides a park-like buffer from Embarcadero for neighbors. The school's master plan enhances this in every
way by proposing a green and inspired design and asks for no additional square footage above ground. This has not
been the case for any of our other local schools' renovations.
PTC Commissioner Alcheck identified an important issue at one of PTC's Castilleja hearings, asking, " Are the demands
being placed on this girl's school in line with other schools in Palo Alto?" Clearly not. Council certainly wants to be
on the right side of supporting women's education in our town, and not put it at a disadvantage, as have the myriad of
stringent requirements and an astounding excess of 8 years for this application process. Please approve this application
in its entirety, without further changes or delay.
Why should one of our most historic and consequential neighborhood treasures, the 100+ year old Castillja School, be
denied critical improvements and to extend its reach to a modest number of new students? To do so is in opposition to
what I believe is a core Palo Alto value of superior education. Schools are a public good and Castilleja is undeniably good.
Among its many attributes, the school provides growing opportunities for girls from local under-served communities, who
leave Castilleja as first generation college attendees, and go to some of the best schools in the country. How lucky are we
to have this institution in our back yard?
In conclusion, the school is an excellent neighbor and a preeminent institution. The notion that it has no business being in
an R-1 neighborhood is preposterous as the school predates all of the neighbors having been at this location since
1910. Castilleja should have the opportunity to modernize as have Ohlone, Paly, Addison and Stanford. Please support
38
the school's application to modernize, to expand its enrollment and to continue its century long mission of educating
young women. Please ensure that exceptional education continues as a foundational and timeless value in Palo Alto.
Sincerely,
Barbara Hazlett
cc: Ed Shikada, City Manager
39
Baumb, Nelly
From:cathy williams <cathycwilliams@yahoo.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 13, 2021 7:31 AM
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 Council,
I am a Palo Alto resident and neighbor of Castilleja, just down the street on Bryant. I am writing in strong
support of the school’s conditional use permit, and I urge you to support the project’s inclusion of an
underground parking facility.
Castilleja’s underground parking facility is a win-win, providing parking for Castilleja employees and students
while reducing the school’s impacts on the neighborhood. Castilleja’s project plan indicates thoughtful planning
of the parking structure which will include substantial landscaping, well-disguised entrance and exit points and
increased open space.
After a years-long and community-driven planning process, Castilleja has more than demonstrated their
willingness to work with neighbors and the city to design the best possible project. The project before you
today reflects that process and the underground parking facility is essential to ensure the project meets the
needs of both the school and neighbors. Thank you for your consideration, and I hope you will approve
Castilleja’s efforts to build underground parking.
Thank you,
Cathy Williams
40
Baumb, Nelly
From:LLF <fei41817@gmail.com>
Sent:Saturday, February 13, 2021 6:29 AM
To:taly katz
Cc:pwecips; Council, City; DuBois, Tom; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric
(Internal); kou.pacc@gmail.com; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; CSD; ParkRec Commission;
Michelle Rosengaus; Jensen, Peter; Public Works Public Services; Kou, Lydia; Arthur Keller; Sharon
Elliot; Margie Greenwald; Sharon Elliot; Camille Tripp; Satomi Rogers; Corkie Freeman; Rick Hallsted;
John Jacobs; runlong Zhou; Will Shen; Ram Sunder; Olga Rubchinskaya; Lisette Micek; Yan Jing;
Lakshmi Sunder; Linda and Bob Campbell; Sung and Jenny Ryu; Grant Elliot; Nate Case; George
Greenwald; Pam Mayerfeld; Tim Rogers; Amanda Case; David Cheng; Eliezer Rosengaus; Brian and
Maggie Szabo; Margaret Cheng; Jo Vitanye; tjg@guenzer.com; arthur@kellers.org; liora gerzberg;
sue.freeman9@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Objection to the proposed fenced-in dog park at Ramos park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you Levy, Liora, and Taly. We completely agree with you.
Kathy
On Feb 13, 2021, at 1:39 AM, taly katz <talyk@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dear Mr. Jensen,
Thank you for virtually meeting with us about this proposed project and listening to our
concerns. We have lived near Ramos park for 36 years and we are dog-owners.
We would like to voice our strong objection to the proposed plan of a fenced-in dog park at
Ramos park for the following reasons:
1) Proximity to private residences - The proposed site of the dog-park is adjacent to residences
(10 feet) and will therefore create a nuisance to the surrounding residents. Ramos park is a small
neighborhood park located in a residential area, surrounded by single family homes on all four
sides. The proposed plan is much too close to the residences to be legal. Ten feet is nowhere near
a sufficient buffer zone to filter out the noise and smells that naturally come from a dog park.
The other dog parks in both Palo Alto and the surrounding cities have a buffer zone of at least 50
feet and in most cases much more than that. All the dog parks in Palo Alto are strategically
located hundreds of feet away from homes. Mitchell dog park is mid-park, located near schools,
the magical bridge playground and a great expanse of open space (21 acres) in all directions,
nowhere near private residences. Greer dog park is also acres away from private residences and
located mid-park (22 acres) (it borders a commercial zone on one side). Hoover dog park has a
wide creek creating a buffer between the park and a small number of residences and borders a
large open space and a play ground on other sides.
41
The newest dog park in Palo Alto, Peers dog park is hundreds of feet away from any residence
and borders the train tracks. In fact, this was one the justifications for building it on this site as
stated in section 1D(3) of the city council meeting dated 1/29/18 – “The location of the dog off-
leash area was selected due to the Park’s existing trees, which will provide shade, as well as the
proximity to the train tracks, which help negate the noise issue.” At Ramos park there will be no
barrier, train track or distance, to buffer the noise and smells from the dog park a mere 10 feet
away.
2) It is not in accordance with the language and spirit of the Parks Master Plan and
proximity to Mitchell dog park – The master plan states (page 94) – that the city should strive
to develop new dog parks in underrepresented areas (namely north Palo Alto). Ramos park can
hardly be called underrepresented as it in south Palo Alto where 3 out of the 4 existing dog parks
are located and it is located in close proximity to Mitchell dog park, a 7-10 minute walk, only 0.5
miles away! We regularly walk our dog to Mitchell park.
Policy 2.D of the Master Plan states that the dog parks should be equally distributed between
north and south Palo Alto (again south Palo Alto is already well represented) and Policy 2.D.1
identified 11 parks as potential dog park sites (including expansion of Greer and Mitchell dog
parks). These parks were strategically chosen based on their location, size (most are much larger
than the Ramos proposed park) and proximity to homes. Ramos park is not on that list.
3) Favoring one group of residents while hurting another group – this shouldn’t be a
majority vote – As we understood from your presentation, there was a survey given to a group
of residents whereby a majority said they wanted some kind of dog park at Ramos park. Firstly,
we along with several of our neighbors didn’t know about the survey and were not given the
opportunity to participate. Secondly, the survey did not ask specifically about a fenced-in dog
park. Thirdly, and most importantly, this shouldn’t be a case for a “majority vote” because you
are taking away one group’s rights in order to favor another group. This is the right of a
homeowner to live in peace and quiet without the nuisance of a dog park 10 feet away from their
property line during all hours of the day (7am to 10pm). Other members of the community, or
the commission or the city council for that matter, we contend, cannot “vote” to take away this
basic right from other community members.
4) Safety concerns due to Covid 19 – As any dog park, this dog park will attract dog owners
from around the city and surrounding areas, many more than frequent the park today. Due to the
smaller size of the proposed park (0.25 acres) we are concerned that it will get overcrowded and
the dog owners will not be able to properly social distance. In fact even before Covid 19 it was
suggested that the existing dog parks at both Greer and Hoover parks are too small to be
considered dog parks according to the master plan, more so during this pandemic.
5) It will not solve the problem of off-leash dogs at Ramos park, the problem you were
trying to solve for - As we understood this proposal had started as a pilot for an off-leash dog
area at limited hours of the day. Due to the small size, the location of the proposed fenced-in
park being so close to the street (East Meadow), and the mulch as opposed to grass, the dogs and
owners that currently congregate at the park will continue to do so outside of the fenced-in area,
especially during Covid-19.
As of now we are not voicing our agreement to the proposed pilot program for off-leash hours,
we would like to hear more details about the times it will be open for off-leash activity and how
it will be regulated.
42
At this time we would like only to object to the fenced-in dog park proposal and have it be
taken off the table for consideration in accordance with the Parks Master Plan.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Levy and Liora Gerzberg, Taly Katz
Ortega Ct.
43
Baumb, Nelly
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Friday, February 12, 2021 9:47 PM
To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred
beyerlein; bballpod; beachrides; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net;
Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; 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; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; leager; lalws4
@gmail.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff;
mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; midge@thebarretts.com; newsdesk;
russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net
Subject:Fwd: Good Nat. Geographic article on the vaccines. 2 wks past 2nd shot, ful immunity
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, Feb 12, 2021 at 9:16 PM
Subject: Good Nat. Geographic article on the vaccines. 2 wks past 2nd shot, ful immunity
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Thursday, Feb. 12, 2021
To all‐
This says that one to two weeks after the second shot, apparently talking about Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, you
have full immunity. THAT has been a well‐kept secret. So now we know. Probably two weeks for older people. The
teachers' unions should take note of that. "We'll return to the classrooms four weeks after the first shot and then two
additional weeks after the second shot". Ignorant governors, mayors and loud‐ mouthed city councilmen
notwithstanding. At least that is what I would do if I were a teacher. It would be a minimum of six weeks after the first
shot before I would return to a classroom.
After you get a COVID‐19 vaccine, what can you do safely? (nationalgeographic.com)
With those two, Pfizer and Moderna, you get some good immunity after one shot, at least you do with,
alternatively, the Astrazeneca‐Oxford vaccine now being injected by the millions of doses in the UK and the EU, and
being kept off the market in the U.S. by Biden's FDA. Dr. John Campbell says that after the first shot, and it takes 12 days
to get any benefit at all, it takes 29 days total to get the benefit of the first shot. You may get sick after the first shot is
fully effective, but you won't get severe illness. That is the term used over and over. You won't get severe illness, which
means not just normal Covid symptoms, but hospitalization, ICU and ventilation.
44
So it sounds like 29 days to get the full benefit of the first shot with Pfizer, Moderna (?) or Oxford, then you get the
second shot, and then one to two weeks later, depending on your age, you get maximum immunity. If I were a teacher, I
would keep repeating that over and over to my union reps.
In the UK, they are giving the first shot of Pfizer or Oxford‐ the two they have‐ and then waiting for twelve weeks
before giving the second shot. That is to keep as many people as possible from getting severe illness and requiring
hospitalization. ALSO, the Brits have discovered that if they wait twelve weeks between the first and second shot,
the pt has better LT immunity than if there had been a one month gap between the shots.
See Dr. John Campbell's ~30 minute vids on UTube. He does one almost every day. The above comes from
those.
Regarding the FDA and, until two weeks ago, the European Medicines Agency, keeping the Oxford vaccine off the
market, Dr. Campbell has said "What part of emergency don't they understand?"
That Biden's FDA is keeping the Oxford vaccine off the market in the U.S. is now a growing cancer on his presidency.
I notice that the big networks are cahooting with him on that too. Not one word about the FDA keeping the safe,
effective Oxford of the market. I guess you don't irriate a President if you can avoid doing so. You want access.
Every night we see the colosium in Los Angeles, and big vaccination venues around the U.S., with no vaccine to
inject. Mayors saying they got 10% of their allotment this week. The problem is not people being unwilling to be
vaccinated, or a lack of people to administer the shots. The problem is not enough vaccine, and the FDA continues to
stall at giving an EUA for the Oxford vaccine. How loud does the volume need to get before Biden puts his boot in the
back of the FDA and gets the Oxford vaccine rolled out? This is developing nto a very strange deal.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
45
Baumb, Nelly
From:lakshmi sunder <lakshmi3733@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 12, 2021 1:25 PM
To:taly katz
Cc:pwecips; Council, City; DuBois, Tom; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric
(Internal); kou.pacc@gmail.com; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; CSD; ParkRec Commission;
Michelle Rosengaus; Jensen, Peter; Public Works Public Services; Kou, Lydia; Arthur Keller; Sharon
Elliot; Margie Greenwald; Sharon Elliot; Camille Tripp; Satomi Rogers; Corkie Freeman; Rick Hallsted;
John Jacobs; runlong Zhou; Will Shen; Ram Sunder; Kathy Fei; Olga Rubchinskaya; Lisette Micek; Yan
Jing; Linda and Bob Campbell; Sung and Jenny Ryu; Grant Elliot; Nate Case; George Greenwald; Pam
Mayerfeld; Tim Rogers; Amanda Case; David Cheng; Eliezer Rosengaus; Brian and Maggie Szabo;
Margaret Cheng; Jo Vitanye; tjg@guenzer.com; arthur@kellers.org; liora gerzberg; sue.freeman9
@gmail.com
Subject:Re: Objection to the proposed fenced-in dog park at Ramos park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mr.Jensen,
We are dog owners and live on Ortega Court. We support all the objections raised by our neighbors against building a
fenced‐in dog park in Ramos park.
We also feel the needs of residents along the park should be prioritized over a survey, since the impact on their lifestyle
will be greatest.
Sincerely,
Lakshmi and Ram Sunder.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 9:39 AM taly katz <talyk@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Dear Mr. Jensen,
Thank you for virtually meeting with us about this proposed project and listening to our concerns. We have
lived near Ramos park for 36 years and we are dog-owners.
We would like to voice our strong objection to the proposed plan of a fenced-in dog park at Ramos park
for the following reasons:
1) Proximity to private residences - The proposed site of the dog-park is adjacent to residences (10 feet) and
will therefore create a nuisance to the surrounding residents. Ramos park is a small neighborhood park located
in a residential area, surrounded by single family homes on all four sides. The proposed plan is much too close
to the residences to be legal. Ten feet is nowhere near a sufficient buffer zone to filter out the noise and smells
that naturally come from a dog park. The other dog parks in both Palo Alto and the surrounding cities have a
48
Baumb, Nelly
From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, February 12, 2021 1:00 PM
To:Honky
Subject:Truth11.com | Truth11.com is an alternative media news site that is dedicated to the truth + true
journalism. The truth will set us free, it will enlighten, inspire, awaken + unite us. Armed with the
truth united we stand, for peace, freedom, health + ...
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.
Truth11.com | Truth11.com is an alternative media news site that is
dedicated to the truth + true journalism. The truth will set us free, it will
enlighten, inspire, awaken + unite us. Armed with the truth united we stand,
for peace, freedom, health + happiness for all.
Truth11.com is an alternative media news site that is dedicated to the truth + true journalism. The truth will set us free, it will
enlighten, inspire, awaken + unite us. Armed with the truth unit…
https://truth11.com/
49
Baumb, Nelly
From:Angie Evans <angiebevans@gmail.com>
Sent:Friday, February 12, 2021 7:58 AM
To:Rebecca Eisenberg
Cc:Bigelow, Lauren; Human Relations Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Aram James; Gail Price; Greer
Stone; chuck jagoda; Planning Commission; Council, City
Subject:Re: Renters - public schools - legal protections
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Thanks, Rebecca. I spoke to the registrar last year as well and they told me something like 65% of students were renters.
I believe this may have gone up during COVID ‐ it also could've gone down. I look forward to getting that data point
again after registration for PAUSD ends today. They don't publish the datapoint or share addresses ‐ I don't believe they
can legally share addresses. They may be able to share which schools have the highest percentage but they certainly
cannot provide contact info or anything to identify them.
Best,
Angie
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:08 AM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote:
Hi Lauren,
Thank you for your presentation tonight at the HRC meeting. I wanted to follow up with you on three matters: (1)
outreach to the PAUSD; (2) demographic gaps and (3) legal protections to protect tenants. As a means of quick
background, I am an attorney with 3 decades of experience in matters involving tenant/landlord relations, economic
and tax policy, and social justice.
I am cc'ing some like‐minded friends, neighbors, and colleagues, who also have deep experience with working on
solutions for tenants in Palo Alto and similar communities. They undoubtedly have their own perspectives, and you
may have spoken with them already, but in hopes of helping you move this project to launch, I thought including them
again may be efficient.(also cc'ing govt bodies for record‐keeping purposes)
First, as I said at the meeting, I think it would be very helpful for you to reach out to the Palo Alto Unified School District
as you continue your research into how to protect tenants better in Palo Alto. The PAUSD has in the past (and
presumably currently) collected data about public school families, which provides both access to the renters you
described as 'hard to reach' (we're not! we're here!) as well as a possibly more complete picture as to what proportion
of our community rents their homes, as I believe that the percentage is higher than you report.
According to the PAUSD's research, the last I checked, as many as 70% ‐80% of all Palo Alto public school students live
in homes that are rented rather than owned. PAUSD has 12,000 students at its 18 public schools. Without adequate
tenant protection, as many as ten thousand Palo Alto public school students are at risk of losing their homes...
including my own.
Given this risk to our children, the need for adequate rent control is urgent. I would be happy to put you in touch with
appropriate parties at the District, the PTAC and/or local PTSAs. Greer Stone, cc'd, is a renter, a city council member,
the city council liaison to the HRC, and an educator (married to another educator!) in the Palo Alto School District‐ at
the high school my son attends. I am sure he can help as well. I hope you share our perspective that the public schools
are what drew so many of us to live in Palo Alto, and in many ways are the heart of our community.
52
Baumb, Nelly
From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>
Sent:Friday, February 12, 2021 12:07 AM
To:Bigelow, Lauren; Human Relations Commission
Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Aram James; Gail Price; Angie Evans; Greer Stone; chuck jagoda; Planning
Commission; Council, City
Subject:Renters - public schools - legal protections
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi Lauren,
Thank you for your presentation tonight at the HRC meeting. I wanted to follow up with you on three matters: (1)
outreach to the PAUSD; (2) demographic gaps and (3) legal protections to protect tenants. As a means of quick
background, I am an attorney with 3 decades of experience in matters involving tenant/landlord relations, economic and
tax policy, and social justice.
I am cc'ing some like‐minded friends, neighbors, and colleagues, who also have deep experience with working on
solutions for tenants in Palo Alto and similar communities. They undoubtedly have their own perspectives, and you may
have spoken with them already, but in hopes of helping you move this project to launch, I thought including them again
may be efficient.(also cc'ing govt bodies for record‐keeping purposes)
First, as I said at the meeting, I think it would be very helpful for you to reach out to the Palo Alto Unified School District
as you continue your research into how to protect tenants better in Palo Alto. The PAUSD has in the past (and
presumably currently) collected data about public school families, which provides both access to the renters you
described as 'hard to reach' (we're not! we're here!) as well as a possibly more complete picture as to what proportion
of our community rents their homes, as I believe that the percentage is higher than you report.
According to the PAUSD's research, the last I checked, as many as 70% ‐80% of all Palo Alto public school students live in
homes that are rented rather than owned. PAUSD has 12,000 students at its 18 public schools. Without adequate tenant
protection, as many as ten thousand Palo Alto public school students are at risk of losing their homes... including my
own.
Given this risk to our children, the need for adequate rent control is urgent. I would be happy to put you in touch with
appropriate parties at the District, the PTAC and/or local PTSAs. Greer Stone, cc'd, is a renter, a city council member, the
city council liaison to the HRC, and an educator (married to another educator!) in the Palo Alto School District‐ at the
high school my son attends. I am sure he can help as well. I hope you share our perspective that the public schools are
what drew so many of us to live in Palo Alto, and in many ways are the heart of our community.
The School District also can be a valuable resource for you because it operates the largest and (as far as I am aware) only
government‐sponsored meal delivery system in Palo Alto. Thousands of PAUSD students receive free or subsidized
meals. Additionally, many public school students live in subsidized housing developments. You should be able to reach
some of these families through the district, but I would be happy to assist you with introductions as well to my personal
friends who live in Palo Alto's few low‐income housing developments. Finally, the school district can provide insight into
the large percentage of our community who are not easily reached by surveys because the adults do not speak strong
English. PAUSD's students include a large number of families where the children are the strongest English speakers in
the family. All of these are communities that connect through our Palo Alto public schools.
53
Second, I wanted to quickly mention some potential gaps with the survey numbers given by the American Community
Survey. One of the biggest gray areas is the lack of consideration for vacant homes here in Palo Alto ‐‐ a number which
has been steadily rising and is not tracked by our city (although it should be). If vacant homes comprise 15% of housing
stock as some estimate, that means that 45% of our homes are filled with tenants; 40% are owner‐occupied, and 15%
are empty.
This actually is a reason that most tenants here in Palo Alto don't feel embarrassed about renting. As I told my kids after
we moved back here almost 10 years ago, I am not ashamed of the fact that we do not have four million dollars to spend
on a 3‐4 bedroom home! For the vast majority of us, including my partner and myself‐‐a 2‐lawyer couple in our 50's‐‐
buying a home of Palo Alto is an unrealistic expectation. And that is ok, as long as renting is a viable long‐term housing
alternative as well, which currently in Palo Alto, it too often is not.
Armed with more complete demographic numbers, I think it may be easier to bring attention to the profound problem
in Palo Alto, that we are a city composed mostly of renters, living without any meaningful tenant protection laws.
Third, legal protections. Decades of work on affordable housing have shown that the only effective way to level the
playing field for tenants is to provide legal tenant protections. You said you are researching other communities for ways
to protect tenants better. I think it's most important to look at the cities that do the best job of protecting tenants, as
many local communities are failing their tenant communities as much or more than we are.
Below is a brief and incomplete, but possibly representative list of legal protections that Palo Alto lacks ‐ but urgently
needs ‐ and that other cities provide:
1. Meaningful rent increase limits. The current cap of 10% is far above market, and does not protect tenants from
exploitative and illegal evictions (as most high rent increases are pretextual evictions)
2. Stronger financial protections for tenants, including opportunities for tenants to partner with nonprofits and
community groups to spread financial resources and reduce financial risk for landlords.
3. Legally available means to report landlord violations, and receive fast remedial actions. Rent Boards often serve this
role extremely effectively. I am very familiar with San Francisco's Rent Board if you would like to discuss. These reporting
channels also must include means to appeal determinations, e.g. through an Appeals Board or even an Ombudsperson.
4. Clarifications to our Municipal Code that it is illegal to remove housing from the market. Palo Alto is the only city in
the region that does not follow this ubiquitous legal requirement.
5. Enactment of a vacancy tax, or alternatively, the enforcement of existing zoning codes against empty homes. The vast
majority of well‐run cities do not allow homes to remain empty, either by considering them zoning code violations due
to not being used for zoned residential purposes, or enforcing against them as homes removed from housing stock, or
otherwise. Ghost homes harm communities.
5. Tenant unions. Many cities provide public office space and financial resources to enable tenants to share resources
and work collectively to even the playing field with landlords, who almost always have greater financial resources and
institutional power.
These of course are a few of many different ways that strong city governments can protect tenants to preserve
community stability, and to help all residents feel safe that their home today will still be their home tomorrow.
I am grateful for your hard work and close attention to these urgent matters, and I appreciate your consideration of
these ideas. I welcome an opportunity to discuss at your convenience, and can be reached at 415‐235‐8078.
With warm regards,
54
Rebecca Eisenberg
Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.
www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg
rle.medium.com
www.winwithrebecca.com
rebecca@privateclientlegal.com
rebecca@winwithrebecca.com
415-235-8078
55
Baumb, Nelly
From:Lisa Van Dusen <lvandusen@mac.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2021 7:01 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please support Castilleja - it's time!
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council members,
I am writing purely as an individual and not as a representative of my employer or any other organization.
I am pleased that the Palo Alto City Council will at long last be voting on the Castilleja project. It is high time for the
City Council to approve this project as currently proposed. Castilleja - and this project - should be recognized for
prioritizing education, equity and justice (including but not limited to their large financial aid program), climate
action and sustainability, and traffic mitigation. In addition, this project will contribute to the economic well being
of our city. ALL of Castilleja’s priorities are consistent with Council’s stated 2021 goals.
I’d also like to address the theme of trust, which opponents continue to raise as rationale for blocking Castilleja’s
project.
It’s been 9 years since Nanci Kauffman, at her own initiative, reported the school’s over-enrollment to the City.
Since then, the school has complied with all required enrollment decreases. The school has exemplary good-
neighbor practices, and I am sure Castilleja would open its campus for community benefit if its CUP permitted it
(which it currently doesn’t.) Parking is not allowed in front of neighbors’ homes, parking attendants manage traffic
flow at all events and every day at drop-off and pick-up, and the school regularly communicates with neighbors
regarding campus activities and events. Their Transportation Demand Management program (TDM) should be a
model for all. From everything I know, Castilleja has gone above and beyond to seek neighbor input regarding
every aspect of this project, investing a staggering level of resources to ensure that all community voices were
heard and stakeholder needs met.
Castilleja deserves your trust, the trust of its immediate neighbors, and the trust of the entire community. As
insurance, the school’s proposed CUP has enforcement measures to ensure compliance going forward. Think of it as
a money‐back guarantee!
Please, do not let the theme of mistrust color your judgment as you decide the future of the school. This venerable
institution was here well before any of us, and hopefully will well after we are “gone” - so I respectfully ask that you
represent our community well in March by voting “YES” to approve the Castilleja CUP and project. I am a mother of
boys with no affiliation to the school and am proud to advocate for the future of this important community asset.
Thank you,
Lisa Van Dusen
Greenwood Avenue
56
Baumb, Nelly
From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2021 3:58 PM
To:Honky
Subject:AWESOME COMPILATION 9/11 REMEMBER NEVER FORGET
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
http://www.chuckmaultsby.com/?fbclid=IwAR2AXYdOfCQXIcph8D4AvQdC58jTYGaNWU9WRratMn4zrRYmav821-46Mls
57
Baumb, Nelly
From:Michelle Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2021 3:03 PM
To:peterjensen@cityofpaloalto.org; pwecips; Council, City; DuBois, Tom; tomforcouncil@gmail.com;
Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); lydiakou@cityofpaloalto.org; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Tanaka,
Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; pwps@cityofpalolato.org; CSD; ParkRec Commission
Cc:'Arthur Keller'; Sharon Elliot; Margie Greenwald; 'Sharon Elliot'; 'Camille Tripp'; 'Satomi Rogers';
'Corkie Freeman'; 'Rick Hallsted'; 'John Jacobs'; 'runlong Zhou'; 'Will Shen'; 'Ram Sunder'; 'Kathy Fei';
'Olga Rubchinskaya'; 'Lisette Micek'; 'Margie Greenwald'; 'Yan Jing'; 'Lakshmi Sunder'; 'Linda and Bob
Campbell'; 'Sung and Jenny Ryu'; 'Grant Elliot'; 'Nate Case'; 'Taly Katz'; 'George Greenwald'; 'Pam
Mayerfeld'; 'Sharon Elliot'; 'Tim Rogers'; 'Amanda Case'; 'David Cheng'; 'Eliezer Rosengaus'; 'Brian and
Maggie Szabo'; 'Margaret Cheng'; 'Jo Vitanye'; tjg@guenzer.com; arthur@kellers.org
Subject:Objection to the Proposed Ramos Park Dog Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I am very strongly voicing my objection to the construction of a fenced dog park
at Ramos Park.
My house is at 3704 Ortega CT, adjacent to Ramos Park. I have lived in this home for 35 years. I am the original owner,
as are most of my neighbors along the park. We are horrified at the City’s proposed plan to build a fenced dog park in
Ramos Park. This small neighborhood park is a beautiful green oasis, where people come to enjoy some peace, breath
some fresh air and get some needed exercise. The park is used by a multitude of groups for picnics, parties, organized
sports, martial arts classes, volley ball, soccer coaching, children activities and dog owners. Sometimes it is bustling with
energy and other times blissfully peaceful.
I want to list a series of objections to this proposed dog park:
1. The dog park will take away from people a third of the usable space to devote it to dogs. It is a small park as it is,
why would you want to lose a third of the green space? People use this area for volley ball games, soccer
coaching, lying in the sun, reading a book, sitting around with friends.
2. The dog park will be adjacent to the picnic area. Who wants to have a barbecue, a picnic or a party, sitting next
to a dog park?
3. The fence is to be a 42” black metal fence. The grass will be replaced by mulch. This is ugly, a visual blight on the
park. A loss of a large precious green area to be replaced by brown mulch.
4. The proposed area floods frequently due to a problem in the irrigation system. It will be a muddy mess with the
dogs.
5. Dog parks are dirty, dusty, smelly, ugly places. They generate flies. How often is the City going to clean the
mess?
6. The dog park hours are to be 7 AM to 10 PM, 365 days a year. When is the neighborhood going to have some
quiet time? Dog barking is loud, the sound is not contained inside the fences, it can be heard farther out than
the immediately adjacent houses, affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood.
7. The dog park is to be built 10 feet away from the adjacent houses. How is this small area to be maintained if
machines are unable to get in there? Will it be a yard of overgrown weeds?
8. Inside the dog park is not a pleasant place to congregate. Currently, dog owners are meeting every day at 5 PM
in this green area for a time to socialize and let the dogs play. It attracts people of all ages and all kinds of dogs.
The dog barking lasts about one hour every day. My guess is that these dog owners will not step inside the dog
park to socialize, they will continue using the grass areas to meet anyway.
58
9. As word gets out that Ramos Park has a dog park, it will attract people from outside the neighborhood. This does
not follow the City’s plan for small neighborhood park use.
My house is the second one from East Meadow. It is built on the only flag lot of Ortega CT. The lot was zoned this way by
the City of Palo Alto, therefore the length of my house abuts the park fence with only the driveway for street access to
Ortega CT. My house is the one that will be most affected by the construction of a fenced dog park. My dining room,
kitchen, family room and bedrooms all face the park and will be 15 feet away from the dog park. In essence, you are
condemning my house. I will not be able to open half the windows of my house, especially during the summer, because I
will get the smell of excrement, flies, dust and noise from the dog park built right under our noses. My husband and I are
close to retirement, when we decide to sell, who is going to buy a house adjacent to a dog park?
I would strongly like to suggest that all the green areas of the park be preserved for everyone to enjoy. Rather than a
dog park, spend the money on fixing the irrigation system and uneven, muddy turf of this park area. You could specify a
daily time for owners to unleash their dogs, so people know ahead of time that there will be loose dogs running around.
Coordinate the times with organized sports groups. If no one is in the park, dog owners could let their dogs be
unleashed, but the moment there are other people present, they need to put the dogs back on the leash immediately.
The dog owners need to be responsible for the behavior of their dogs. The City can help by establishing a system of
reporting owners of unruly aggressive dogs. These owners would receive citations.
Do not ruin this beautiful little neighborhood park.
Respectfully,
Michelle Rosengaus
59
Baumb, Nelly
From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net>
Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:12 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org; Dave Price; gsheyner@paweeky.com; Shikada, Ed
Subject:Complaint - PAMF continues to deny covid testing to community
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
February 11, 2021
COMPLAINT: PUBLIC ACCESS TO COVID TESTING DENIED
Dear Mayor Dubois, Vice Mayor Burt and Council Members,
Here is what I learned on the phone this morning. It is serious and deserves your attention and action.
I called PAMF for a covid test before dental work. I’ve been a pamf patient for many years.
Here is what I was told by staff:
‐ I first needed an order from the dentist to get a pamf appointment for a covid test unless I currently have covid symptoms,
and
‐ Unless you are a pamf patient, you cannot be covid tested at pamf under any circumstances.
As you know, refusing to test non‐patients is counter to our public health orders and subject to fines. Mayor DuBois has
spoken from the dais of pamf’s refusal to test and it being subject to fines. This is a continuing pattern of non‐compliance that
has not changed at a time when we are desperate for more testing, now due especially to covid variants.
I ask that you issue a Council letter, ASAP, signed by the Mayor, to Sutter Health and pamf, that addresses this critical public
health issue, stating that it must test all that request a covid test. I also ask that you release the letter as a press release to
enhance its effectiveness.
Pamf's lack of testing continues to endanger our community and cannot simply go on being ignored by our city, or just totting
up fines that clearly don’t matter if it even pays them (does it?). Please put a spotlight on their dangerous behavior ‐ to ignore
it is not responsible by elected representatives, our community voices we depend on to speak for us.
I am depending on you to take action.
Keep the faith,
Winter Dellenbach
60
Baumb, Nelly
From:Lama Rimawi <lrimawi1@gmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 10:26 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 City Council Members,
I am writing to let you know that I am strongly in support of Castilleja's proposed plans. In particular, the underground
parking facility and the increased student enrollment would be very important in terms of providing more opportunities
for girls to succeed while minimizing impact to the neighborhood. I have a medical practice (at 145 N. California Ave) a
short walk from the school and have found the presence of the school reassuring for the community and inspiring for
the families that have the opportunity to send their daughters there.
Please do allow their proposed plan to move forward this March. Thank you for your time and dedication.
Kind Regards,
Lama Rimawi, M.D.
61
Baumb, Nelly
From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:54 PM
To:Planning Commission; Council, City
Subject:Re: Gratitude to Commissioner Alcheck, and a few more thoughts on the City's extreme proposal to
change T&C
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Quick but important TYPO correction highlighted in yellow/red below. (And one clarifying question added). I still don't
know what was decided because I was writing this while they voted 3‐2 (1 absent) to approve something the specifcis of
which I missed! Of course, whatever was decided was a recommendation for City Council's ultimate review and
determination.
Thank you again for your hard work, and thank you for considering!
Best,
Rebecca
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 9:21 PM Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> wrote:
Hi all,
Although I have criticized Commissioner Alcheck in the past, and still have questions, I wanted to take the time to call
out Michael Alcheck for his courage and integrity in going against what I previously thought would be his script. In
particular, I am grateful to be proven wrong, watching Commission Alcheck stand up to the over‐reaching demands of
Town & Country's landlord, and instead propose less extreme measures.
Also, I wanted to amplify two observations and thoughts that Commissioner Alcheck mentioned, that I was
disappointed to see was missing from the Staff Report:
1. Commissioner Alcheck argued that interfering with the markets by changing the law to accommodate one specific
party is usually an inappropriate course correction in the context of a larger shift. (I think I heard him correct to say
that ‐‐ I had hopped back on after my PTC interview!) The general point made here is that it is generally unwise to
correct a problem for one party that is certain to impact many parties. The Staff Report failed to mention this, instead
acting on the unproven assumption that Town & Country's downward rental pressure was unique.
2. Commissioner Alcheck pointed out that a permanent zoning change is far from the only remedy to this (temporary)
problem. For example, because the City has declared a State of Emergency due to the pandemic, Commission Alcheck
said, the City has the ability to pass emergency ordinances that will have short‐term impact (please refer to the email I
sent last month listing and describing legal authority for cities to use States of Emergency to pass emergency
resolutions, which I asked either body to run past the City Attorney's Office). Also, Commissioner Alcheck pointed out
that if temporary changes are not permitted by the Municipal Code, that the City Council has the authority to make
changes to the Municipal Code to allow for temporary changes. (The fact that the Planning Depart failed to propose a
change to the Muni Code to enable temporary changes, but instead proposed an extremely impactful permanent
change, demonstrated, in my mind, a lack of judgment & critical reasoning on the part of the Planning Department.)
I think and hope that Commissioner Alcheck's points are important, even though the City Staff appeared to reject them,
and unfortunately they may not change this outcome.
62
As of time of writing, both Chair Hechtman and Commissioner Templeton stated support for the City's
recommendation to permanently alter Town & Country by removing a full one‐quarter of its retail
establishments. Both the Chair and Commissioner Templeton agreed that this drastic permanent change was
warranted by current conditions ‐‐ even though all 50,000 Stanford students & employees are very likely to return
within a year, and the closures of Paly & Castilleja, as well as the lockdowns and quarantining of residents and local
employers will end eventually as well.
I also am grateful to Commissioner Alcheck to have the courage and creativity to propose a compromise that allows
Town & Country to sign medical offices, but only if those leases are signed this calendar year, 2021.
But given the incomplete report, the failure to publicize this potential huge shift to any impacted groups or
stakeholders, including Stanford, PAUSD, local residents, and in particular small businesses... I cannot for the life of me
understand why the Commission would do anything other than continue this matter to see how the market shakes out,
and to enable input from any of the numerous impacted parties.
The owners of Town and Country claim that Town & Country cannot survive if this permanent change is not made to
expand their market. Yet, that owner, Ellis Partners boasts that it is worth more than $2.5 billion dollars ‐‐ and it has
not revealed whether or not it has applied for and/or received any of the trillions of dollars of CARES relief money that
has been provided to other companies in the real estate industry. It also did not state whether how much the landlord
has raised rent over the past 10 years, and how low would Ellis have to lower the rent now in order to fill the vacancies‐
‐ specifically whether the rent now would have to be lowered to a point less than what rent was charged 10 years ago.
At very least, shouldn't the Commission demand that the City speak with small businesses, ask the applicant more
questions, and seek input from the community before recommending such an extreme and detrimental impact to our
community?
Or at very least, isn't reasonable to require a landlord to endure the downside risk that makes its industry so uniquely
lucrative? Why do all other landlords (like my husband and myself!) have to lower our rents to adjust to declining
rental markets, but this particular landlord (worth $2.5 billion by its own website) needs to be protected from the well‐
documented, ever‐present swings in the Silicon Valley real estate market?
Without knowing yet the results of this meeting, at very least I appreciate the appropriate critical eye that
Commissioners Alcheck, Summa, and Lauing gave to this flawed staff report.
Thank you to the Commissioners who stood up to the city, and thank you for all reading this long note. No matter the
result, I know that we share an interest in acting on behalf of Palo Alto's community.
And to PACC, thank you for interviewing me tonight.... again!
Best regards,
Rebecca
Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.
www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg
www.winwithrebecca.com
rebecca@winwithrebecca.com
415-235-8078
63
Baumb, Nelly
From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:21 PM
To:Planning Commission; Council, City
Subject:Gratitude to Commissioner Alcheck, and a few more thoughts on the City's extreme proposal to
change T&C
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Hi all,
Although I have criticized Commissioner Alcheck in the past, and still have questions, I wanted to take the time to call
out Michael Alcheck for his courage and integrity in going against what I previously thought would be his script. In
particular, I am grateful to be proven wrong, watching Commission Alcheck stand up to the over‐reaching demands of
Town & Country's landlord, and instead propose less extreme measures.
Also, I wanted to amplify two observations and thoughts that Commissioner Alcheck mentioned, that I was disappointed
to see was missing from the Staff Report:
1. Commissioner Alcheck argued that interfering with the markets by changing the law to accommodate one specific
party is usually an inappropriate course correction in the context of a larger shift. (I think I heard him correct to say that
‐‐ I had hopped back on after my PTC interview!) The general point made here is that it is generally unwise to correct a
problem for one party that is certain to impact many parties. The Staff Report failed to mention this, instead acting on
the unproven assumption that Town & Country's downward rental pressure was unique.
2. Commissioner Alcheck pointed out that a permanent zoning change is far from the only remedy to this (temporary)
problem. For example, because the City has declared a State of Emergency due to the pandemic, Commission Alcheck
said, the City has the ability to pass emergency ordinances that will have short‐term impact (please refer to the email I
sent last month listing and describing legal authority for cities to use States of Emergency to pass emergency resolutions,
which I asked either body to run past the City Attorney's Office). Also, Commissioner Alcheck pointed out that if
temporary changes are not permitted by the Municipal Code, that the City Council has the authority to make changes to
the Municipal Code to allow for temporary changes. (The fact that the Planning Depart failed to propose a change to
the Muni Code to enable temporary changes, but instead proposed an extremely impactful permanent change,
demonstrated, in my mind, a lack of judgment & critical reasoning on the part of the Planning Department.)
I think and hope that Commissioner Alcheck's points are important, even though the City Staff appeared to reject them,
and unfortunately they may not change this outcome.
As of time of writing, both Chair Hechtman and Commissioner Templeton stated support for the City's recommendation
to permanently alter Town & Country by removing a full one‐quarter of its retail establishments. Both the Chair and
Commissioner Templeton agreed that this drastic permanent change was warranted by current conditions ‐‐ even
though all 50,000 Stanford students & employees are very likely to return within a year, and the closures of Paly &
Castilleja, as well as the lockdowns and quarantining of residents and local employers will end eventually as well.
I also am grateful to Commissioner Alcheck to have the courage and creativity to propose a compromise that allows
Town & Country to sign medical offices, but only if those leases are signed this calendar year, 2021.
But given the incomplete report, the failure to publicize this potential huge shift to any impacted groups or stakeholders,
including Stanford, PAUSD, local residents, and in particular small businesses... I cannot for the life of me understand
64
why the Commission would do anything other than continue this matter to see how the market shakes out, and to
enable input from any of the numerous impacted parties.
The owners of Town and Country claim that Town & Country cannot survive if this permanent change is not made to
expand their market. Yet, that owner, Ellis Partners boasts that it is worth more than $2.5 billion dollars ‐‐ and it has
revealed whether it has applied for and/or received any of the trillions of dollars of CARES relief money that has been
provided to other companies in the real estate industry.
At very least, shouldn't the Commission demand that the City speak with small businesses, ask the applicant more
questions, and seek input from the community before recommending such an extreme and detrimental impact to our
community?
Or at very least, isn't reasonable to require a landlord to endure the downside risk that makes its industry so uniquely
lucrative? Why do all other landlords (like my husband and myself!) have to lower our rents to adjust to declining rental
markets, but this particular landlord (worth $2.5 billion by its own website) needs to be protected from the well‐
documented, ever‐present swings in the Silicon Valley real estate market?
Without knowing yet the results of this meeting, at very least I appreciate the appropriate critical eye that
Commissioners Alcheck, Summa, and Lauing gave to this flawed staff report.
Thank you to the Commissioners who stood up to the city, and thank you for all reading this long note. No matter the
result, I know that we share an interest in acting on behalf of Palo Alto's community.
And to PACC, thank you for interviewing me tonight.... again!
Best regards,
Rebecca
Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.
www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg
www.winwithrebecca.com
rebecca@winwithrebecca.com
415-235-8078
65
Baumb, Nelly
From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 9:15 PM
To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; bballpod; David Balakian;
fred beyerlein; beachrides; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council,
City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; 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; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; 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; vallesR1969@att.net
Subject:Fwd: Feb. 10, 2021 Wed. PM Johnson: Astrazen- Oxford vaccine safe and effective
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: Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:48 PM
Subject: Fwd: Feb. 10, 2021 Wed. PM Johnson: Astrazen‐ Oxford vaccine safe and effective
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Date: Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 8:15 PM
Subject: Feb. 10, 2021 Wed. PM Johnson: Astrazen‐ Oxford vaccine safe and effective
To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>
Wed. Feb. 10, 2021
To all‐ Here is PM Boris Johnson today holding a Downing Street briefing. 27:48. He says that the Astrazeneca‐
Oxford vaccine, being held up in the U.S. mysteriously, and fatally, by the FDA, is safe and effective. All the UK has is the
Oxford vaccine and the Pfizer vaccine. Both are safe and effective and they are producing good results, as discussed
here. The UK has been using the Oxford vaccine now since Monday, Jan. 4, 2021 with no ill effects. That represents a
huge trial of the vaccine in and of itself. Here is a chance to hear from some real, and honest, experts.
Covid‐19: 'Now is the moment', Boris Johnson's vaccine plea එඒ @BBC News live ‐ BBC ‐ YouTube
It is a crime without a name for the FDA to continue to withhold the Oxford vaccine for use in the U.S. It is very
effective against the Kent variant, a major variant circulating in the U.S., as well as the original Covid virus circulating
66
here. The CDC forecasts that the Kent variant, now in 40 States, will be the dominant variant in the U.S. by mid‐March.
When that happened in the UK and in Ireland, they had to go to a severe lockdown. The alternative is a huge increase in
cases, hospitalizations and deaths.
You see in the crawl here that the WHO recommends the use of the Oxford vaccine even if variants are present. It
recommends its use for all age groups. The crawl here also says that PM Boris Johnson welcomes the support of the
WHO for the Astrazeneca‐Oxford vaccine.
The European Medicines Agency, the EMA, approved the Oxford vaccine for emergency use in 27 countries nearly
two weeks ago.
It has been approved for use in India and Argentina. The Phillipines is about to approve it.
President Biden should take strong and convincing action against the people at the FDA who are holding up the
Oxford vaccine. Firing them would be a good place to start, but it should go well beyond that. Americans are dying every
day due to their intransigence.
This scandal re the Oxford vaccine being held up unnecesarily by the FDA should now be damaging the Biden
administration. Biden's refusal to move against the FDA here is inexcusable. He is just being pig‐headed at this point
given all of the available evidence re the Oxford vaccine.
L. William Harding
Fresno, Ca.
67
Baumb, Nelly
From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 8:10 PM
To:Honky
Subject:How the military helped push the fraud
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
===================
BrasscheckTV Report
===================
We knew this was going on in the
background...
Now we have the smoking gun.
This was a war against the public ‐
and the military was involved.
Video:
Click here to view the video
‐ Brasscheck TV
P.S. We can't make this unique news
service available without the help of
our subscribers.
Please consider joining the ranks
of BrasscheckTV.com supporters
Thanks!
Details here:
https://www.brasscheck.com/video/donate/
================================
Going on vacation? Write us back and
we'll turn your subscription off and back on.
Just give us the start and stop dates.
================================
How Brasscheck TV works:
You'll receive two videos every day.
68
Brasscheck TV
2380 California St.
San Francisco, CA
94115
Unsubscribe Change subscriber options
One at 9 AM (US eastern time) and a
replay at 9 PM.
(Don't worry, you don't have to watch them all!)
You can watch them later or delete ‐‐ whichever you prefer.
If your email box is getting filled up you can unsubscribe
at any time by clicking the link at the bottom of every
Brasscheck e‐mail.
You can also follow us on Facebook, but
frankly we think email is more private and
the better option.
If you are a Facebook person...
Click here to follow us:
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/BrasscheckTV
69
Baumb, Nelly
From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 5:10 PM
To:Clerk, City; Nguyen, Vinhloc; Kang, Danielle; Planning Commission; Minor, Beth; Cari Templeton; Cari
Templeton; Council, City
Subject:Public Comment at Tonight's Meeting / PTC Interviews
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Clerk's Office (Vinh or Beth) and Planning Commission:
As you know, tonight is the night that the City Council is interviewing applicants for the Planning Commission. These
interviews unavoidably conflict with tonight's Planning Commission Meeting. Although I requested an interview time
that does not overlap with the Planning Commission Meeting, that was not possible.
Thus, I am to ask the City Clerk assigned to the PTC Meeting to please include me on the list of speakers regarding these
agenda items, towards the very beginning or end of the speaker lists if at all possible. My interview is scheduled for 7.45
PM.
Being able to accommodate this scheduling request is very important to me because the matters being discussed this
evening could negatively impact the community permanently. Specifically, the PTC is scheduled to decide:
(1) whether the Muni Code should be changed to allow almost one‐third of Town & Country to convert permanently
from retail to medical. I oppose this permanent conversion strenuously, and speak on behalf of fellow parents of Paly
students, and fellow residents in my neighborhood (Old Palo Alto) and surrounding North Palo Alto neighborhoods.
Although I oppose further conversion from retail to commercial (medical or otherwise) as a general matter, I strongly
oppose City Staff's recommendation that a large percentage of T&C should permanently change from retail to medical!
This modification would serve T&C's commercial owner & developer Ellis Partner's financial interest (Ellis Partners being
worth more than $2.5 billion; see below) but would greatly, permanently harm Palo Alto's resident and small business
communities at a time when the City has committed to help residents and small businesses! Staff does not provide a
public benefit to this conversion, which by itself makes the conversion legally suspect (at best), and never once discusses
why this change cannot be temporary, e.g. for one year. The Staff report points out that the conversion would negative
impact public revenues by reducing sales tax revenue. Also, conversation will reduce retail and restaurant options for
consumers, thereby likely increasing prices by reducing competition and supply, and it also will increase rents for small
businesses by means of eliminating a large portion of the already‐limited supply of locations for small businesses. Both
of these impacts will harm our community.
I predict that the Planning Commission will approve this extremely harmful and unjustified permanent change, because
three of the members of the Planning Commission represent commercial developers like Ellis Partners for a living, and
succeeding in passing this change in the valuable Palo Alto real estate market will make it easier for them to attract new
commercial developer clients, and to enact similar changes on behalf of clients elsewhere ‐ both in Palo Alto and outside
of Palo Alto. Despite their self‐interest in this agenda item, none of the three commercial developer representatives on
the Planning Commission (a lawyer being a representative, and Alcheck being a commercial developer himself) are likely
to disclose conflicts or recuse themselves. All three commissioners are almost certain to provide (false) legal reasons
justifying this conversion and (misleading) market data justifying the conversion. The opportunity to give a consumer‐
and small‐business legal perspective and voice to this critical matter, and to have a chance to sway the other three
members towards a resident‐focussed perspective are examples of exactly why I seek to serve on the Planning
Commission (and how I regret the inability to be at both places at one time).
70
(2) The other matter tasked to the PTC tonight involves deciding whether certain modifications should be made to Palo
Alto's Municipal Code with regard to Accessory Dwelling Units. Although I strongly favor certain modifications to the
Code's provisions on ADUs, and am certain to want to comment on this extremely important issue, I don't yet know my
position on these recommendations without completing my review of the staff report, and watching the staff
presentation. As such, I can't provide questions or insights to the Commission prior to their taking action by providing
recommendations to staff, as requested in the report.
I send this email in order to ask the Planning Commission and the City Clerk representative to allow me to "raise my
hand" on these two issues, and allow me to be one of the first (or last) speakers on these matters if they come up
during the time I will be interviewing with City Council, scheduled at 7.45‐8 PM, but possibly later if the City Council is
delayed.
Given the unavoidable conflict between the PTC Meeting and the interview schedule for PTC applicants, I greatly hope
that you can accommodate this request if at all reasonably possible to do so.
Thank you so much in advance.
Best regards,
Rebecca Eisenberg
SOURCES regarding Ellis Partners, & Landlords generally receiving pandemic relief packages:
1. According to Ellis Partners' Website, it owns more than $2.5 Billion in commercial property; query why its financial
needs should be placed above our small businesses (who seek to RETURN to Town & Country) and our community ‐ who
is benefited directly by Retail, as written into Palo Alto's Municipal Code to serve that important public benefit. (There is
no public benefit from allowing the conversion of 1/3 of Town & Country from retail to medical permanently!) Also,
eliminating 1/3 of the supply of retail in this essential retail mall will inevitably result in higher prices to consumers and
residents, per the universal laws of supply & demand. (Ellis Partners overview on its
website: https://ellispartners.com/about/#:~:text=Who%20We%20Are,valued%20at%20over%20%242.5%20billion. )
2. According to the SBA, more than 65,000 businesses in "Real Estate and Rental and Leasing" in California alone
received PPP loans (most forgivable) greater than $150,000.
See https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/business/sba‐ppp‐data/
3. One of many articles describing the many ways that landlords received windfalls via Coronavirus stimulus loans and
other payments: https://www.wsj.com/articles/landlords‐were‐never‐meant‐to‐get‐bailout‐funds‐many‐got‐it‐anyway‐
11590494400
Landlords Were Never Meant to Get
Bailout Funding. Many Got It Anyway.
At least dozens of property companies are said to have received in aggregate tens of
millions of dollars or more due to legal loophole
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
71
Unlike previous SBA programs, companies that applied for the loans didn’t have to
prove that they tried and failed to get money elsewhere, attorneys say. The skyline of
lower Manhattan on April 21.
PHOTO: ANGELA WEISS/AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSE/GETTY IMAGES
By
Will Parker
and
Konrad Putzier
May 26, 2020 8:00 am ET
o SAVED
o PRINT
o TEXT
o
77
Real-estate companies are cashing in on the government’s emergency-spending
program, despite rules meant to bar landlords and other property owners from
the funds.
Congress created the Paycheck Protection Program to help smaller companies
keep workers on payroll during the coronavirus pandemic, but not so-called
passive businesses that collect rent and businesses that profit primarily off of
price speculation. The Small Business Administration specifically excluded
companies that primarily develop or lease real estate.
Because most real-estate firms are private, tracking the number of aid recipients
or the total amount of funds the industry has received is next to impossible, say
real-estate attorneys and accountants. But they are aware of at least dozens of
property companies that have received in aggregate tens of millions of dollars or
more because of a legal loophole that allows them to apply through related
business units, such as management companies or construction companies.
This means SBA funds could flow to property investors, something that was
never intended. Representatives of the real-estate industry have said that even
passive real-estate owners employ essential workers and should be eligible for
the government funds like any other business.
Time Equities Inc., which controls more than 30 million square feet of real estate,
is one recipient. The New York City-based property investor and developer
received $3.6 million in PPP loans, the company’s chief executive, Francis
Greenburger, said.
72
From the Archives
Mayday: Landlords Brace
for Impact as More Tenants
Can’t Pay Rent
YOU MAY ALSO LIKE
UP NEXT
0:00 / 4:54
4:54
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Mayday: Landlords Brace for Impact as More Tenants Can’t Pay Rent
Mayday: Landlords Brace for Impact as More Tenants Can’t
Pay Rent
Hundreds of thousands of renters may miss rent payments for May as the coronavirus
crisis enters its third month in the U.S. For smaller landlords, that means facing their
own financial crisis. WSJ’s Jason Bellini reports. Photo: Fadhila Hussein (Originally
published April 30, 2020)
Aside from some small stakes, the company doesn’t directly own any buildings.
Properties are held by separate special-purpose entities that Mr. Greenburger
controls with other investors, making Time Equities eligible for these loans.
Time Equities designs, builds, leases and manages the buildings for a fee, and
also provides services like real-estate brokerage and construction management
to third parties.
The firm’s PPP lender did minimal due diligence and didn’t check whether the
company was eligible for the money, Mr. Greenburger said. “It was really a self-
approved process based on the guidelines they set forth, which were so vague
as to be basically impossible to understand,” he explained.
STAY INFORMED
Get a coronavirus briefing six days a week, and a weekly Health newsletter once the
crisis abates: Sign up here.
73
Trion Properties, a privately held California property manager and developer that
oversees roughly 1,300 apartments on the West Coast, also through business
entities obtained PPP loans of around $765,000, according to co-founder Max
Sharkansky.
Mr. Sharkansky said his company needed the funds. While most of his tenants
have paid their rent, Trion depends on revenue from other sources, such as
selling buildings and refinancing existing holdings, which have all but dried up.
“We’re not on such a huge scale where we can survive strictly based on
operations,” Mr. Sharkansky said.
Critics say that well-financed real-estate companies shouldn’t be eligible for
government cash grants. They can raise capital in other ways, by taking out
mortgages or selling buildings. A company affiliated with Dallas hotelier Monty
Bennett, for example, had an agreement to sell a Florida hotel for $120 million,
but backed out of the deal after learning it had been approved for millions in PPP
loans, according to people familiar with the matter.
“Unfortunately…the real-estate sector getting money from a program meant for
actual small businesses isn’t an anomaly,” said R.J. Cross, a tax and budget
policy advocate for the liberal U.S. Public Interest Research Group. “It’s more
evidence that the Treasury and related programs in the Federal Reserve need
more oversight.”
Unlike previous SBA programs, companies that applied for the loans didn’t have
to prove that they tried and failed to get money elsewhere, attorneys say.
The SBA declined to comment. The Treasury department didn’t respond to
requests for comment.
Some real-estate firms have returned the funds after political or public pressure.
They followed the lead of a number of publicly traded companies, which repaid
their loans after the Treasury Department updated guidance to say that large
companies with access to capital markets shouldn’t be eligible.
74
Veritas Investments, which manages $3 billion in real estate and is one of San
Francisco’s largest landlords, received $3.6 million from PPP, the company said.
The firm obtained the funds through a management entity that is separate from
the pooled investment funds that own its buildings.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), whose district covers parts of San
Francisco, has called on Veritas to return the money. “Larger companies like
Veritas…which has billions in assets and access to liquidity through other
sources, were not the intended beneficiaries of PPP loans,” she said in a
statement.
Veritas has said it would eventually pay back the loan amount, instead of
applying for loan forgiveness from the SBA.
Not every real-estate-loan candidate succeeded. Some property managers said
their applications were rejected because the bank didn’t believe they qualified,
said Sam Gilboard, manager of public policy at the National Apartment
Association. Smaller real-estate owners, like family businesses that may own
just one building, are less likely to have separate entities for their property-
management operations.
But now, real-estate trade groups are lobbying Congress and the SBA to allow
multifamily real-estate companies to qualify for the loans. They argue that
building workers are essential employees, regardless of whether they are
employed by a landlord or by a separate property manager.
Write to Will Parker at will.parker@wsj.com and Konrad Putzier
at konrad.putzier@wsj.com
Corrections & Amplifications
An earlier version of this article misspelled the last name of Trion Properties co-
founder Max Sharkansky as Sharkanksy in one reference. (Corrected on May
26)
Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.
www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg
75
www.winwithrebecca.com
rebecca@winwithrebecca.com
415-235-8078
76
Baumb, Nelly
From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 3:53 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Wellesley Project Development by Cato Investment Company
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members,
I am writing to ask you to reject the application by Cato Investment Company for a PHZ zoning change to allow their
proposed Wellesley Project Development. The massive three‐story box with 24 tiny units (only five of which will qualify
as “affordable”!), is completely inappropriate in this area.
Over its 130 year history, College Terrace has developed as a dense tapestry of housing, including tiny cottages, a variety
of larger houses (many of which have second units on the same lot, legal or otherwise), and, closer to El Camino, a
significant number of two‐, three‐ and four‐unit dwellings dating back to earlier zoning codes. We have four tiny pocket
parks, two churches, and the oldest library in the City. Our neighborhood is eclectic and charming, but while dense,
none of the buildings are taller than two stories. Even the apartment buildings typically have some amount of
landscaping around them and the whole neighborhood has a large number of mature trees, providing shade, pleasant
vistas, and sequestering carbon. It is a neighborhood ideal for walking and biking, but this would be eroded by allowing
an out‐of‐scale monstrosity smack in the middle of our special neighborhood.
There are other problems with the proposed project as well. Because of the density of our neighborhood, there are
typically a large number of cars parked on the street. You may recall, we were the first neighborhood requesting a
permit system! Adding 24 additional residences without supplying even basic parking will only exacerbate the
problem. And the street on which Cato is proposing to do this is the access to our library. It also appears that they
aren’t even planning to provide the required amount of bicycle parking! The additional traffic and parking to be
generated by this oversized project will endanger our residents and will destroy our quality of life.
There is also a serious concern about the precedent such a project would create. I do understand the push to encourage
more affordable housing, but plopping mammoth PHZ projects down in the middle of R1 zones is not the right
answer. If we are to modify our lower density zoning, it must be done in a coherent fashion, reviewing where and under
what circumstances denser development might be allowed without compromising the neighborhoods that many of us
have chosen to live in.
As a 36‐year resident in the RMD‐NP area of College Terrace, amongst the older 2 – 4 unit dwellings, I am hardly adverse
to a bit more density. But this project and its precedent are absurd. This is not about benefitting the community. It’s
about greed!
Please say NO.
Regards,
Pria Graves
78
Baumb, Nelly
From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 3:18 PM
To:Council, City
Cc:Supervisor Simitian
Subject:231 Grant Avenue
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear Mayor DuBois and Council Members,
I am pleased to hear that there generally seems to be support within the Council for the proposed teacher housing at
231 Grant Avenue. While there are certainly a number of issues still to be worked out, I believe that it is a good project
and the right location.
The building will be large, but it is not out of scale with the surrounding buildings and fits within our 50’ height
limit. And clearly the design team is striving to retain as many trees as possible and to allow both residents and the
community to benefit from open areas around the building. It should be a much more pleasant place than the current
expanse of asphalt!
One of the benefits of locating the development at 231 Grant is its proximity to shopping, Caltrain, VTA busses, and the
Park Ave. bike boulevard. This range of options should allow residents to minimize their car‐dependence. A strong TDM
plan would compliment the location advantages.
This might also be a good opportunity to push to have better Caltrain service restored to the California Avenue
station. The commute period frequency of trains stopping at this station was gutted when the bullet trains were added,
making it much harder for nearby residents to rely on the train. As we keep adding density nearby, having frequent
convenient train service, particularly during commute times, becomes increasingly crucial to reducing car dependence.
While this may be of less importance to the teachers, it could be critical for their partners. We have no idea where the
partners might work so being able to reach their workplaces by Caltrain could be key to keeping cars off the road.
One specific suggestion I have made to the team is to make the driveway on Park an “entrance only” access, allowing
exit (and perhaps entrance?) on Birch. As a long‐time cyclist, I believe this would make it safer for cyclists and
pedestrians since the driver won’t be “popping out” of the building onto the street, focused only on oncoming
automobile traffic. I’ve experienced such near misses a number of times while biking and walking down Cambridge
Avenue near the exits from the parking structures and I’d hate to see such hazards increased along Park.
I hope the Council will do everything you can to support the County’s wonderful effort to house our teachers locally!
Thank you,
Pria Graves2
2130 Yale Street
Palo Alto, 94306
80
Baumb, Nelly
From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:08 PM
To:Planning Commission
Cc:Raybould, Claire; Council, City
Subject:February 10, 2021 P&TC Meeting, Item #2: 855 El Camino Real [20PLN-00252]
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
February 10, 2021
Planning and Transportation Commission
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
FEBRUARY 10, 2021 PLANNING AND TRANSPORTATOIN COMMISSION MEETING
AGENDA ITEM #2: 855 EL CAMINO REAL [20PLN-00252]
Dear Planning and Transportation Commission:
I urge you to remove this item from your agenda, because the proposed
project is not exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
and requires either a Mitigated Negative Declaration or Environmental
Impact Report before the Commission can hold a public hearing on this
application.
The staff report alleges that the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to
CEQA Regulation Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).
CEQA Regulation 15301 says,
"15301. EXISTING FACILITIES Class 1 consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing,
licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or
topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use." (Emphasis Added)
Staff is recommending a smaller increase in medical office uses than the
applicant has requested, but the fact that staff has reduced the
applicant's request does not make the recommended increase "negligible".
The recommended percentage increase in office uses is not "negligible".
81
The recommended absolute increase in gross floor area that can be used as
offices is not "negligible".
Proceeding with your scheduled hearing on the basis of staff's proposed
CEQA exemption is a violation of CEQA and a prejudicial abuse of
discretion.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
cc: Claire Raybould, Project Planner
82
Baumb, Nelly
From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 1:02 PM
To:Rebecca Eisenberg
Cc:James Aram; Council, City; Tom DuBois tom.dubois@gmail.com; Shepherd, Nancy; Raven Malone
Subject:business taxes san jo versus palo
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Three quick takes from the SV Biz Journal
Posted on February 10, 2021 by markweiss86
To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In
1) San Jose gets twice as much revenue from business tax than from TOT. They get $70 m per year in business
tax. We get zero. It’s possible that we would get more than that, despite the population differences, as we have
Tesla, Amazon and the like.
2) 1050 Page Mill a new build by Sand Hill Peter Pau, is the 8th greatest lease, at 170,000 square feet, between
Dec. 1, 2019 and November 30, 2020. Palo Alto has #4, 3000 Hanover, 250,000 sf also SHP; #16 607 Hanson
110,000 Stanford, Stanford Industrial Park — tho SHP is a broker — ???; #20 1501 Page Mill also Stanford,
100,000 sf; 1050 stood out because I went to some of the meetings, and wrote and maybe spoke up about it.
Video games replacing devices.
3) Richard Florida, the creative class, still relevant? Was he ever?
oh there’s a bonus track on the back of the tear sheet for 2) above, ranking 25 property management firms: CW,
CBRE, Essex, Ventana #7, Sobrato of MV #10. More later
Share this:
Twitter
Facebook
Related
What role did super-model play in Palo Alto council approval of flawed redevelopment plan, 1050 Page Mill?In "filthy lucre"
Kudos to Ann Killion of the Chron for her support of gay sporting life on The FarmIn "media"
Bol Park donkeys outbid by Wall St bullsIn "Plato's Republic"
Mark Weiss in Palo Alto
downtown north
on and off since 1974
83
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jensen, Peter
Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:00 PM
To:Brian Szabo; pwecips; Council, City; DuBois, Tom; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Cormack, Alison; Filseth,
Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Public Works
Public Services; CSD; ParkRec Commission
Subject:RE: REMINDER: Tomorrow is the Last Meeting on Ramos Park Renovations
To All –
I wanted to clarify that last nights meeting concerning the addition of a dog park in Ramos Park was the first community
meeting on the topic not the last.
The purpose of the meeting was to capture community input to facilitate further discussion.
Thank you for your comments below.
Peter Jensen
Landscape Architect & Arborist
Public Works Engineering
P: (650) 617‐3183 C: (650) 444‐5024
www.cityofpaloalto.org
From: Brian Szabo <b.szabo@comcast.net>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 7:35 PM
To: Jensen, Peter <Peter.Jensen@CityofPaloAlto.org>; pwecips <pwecips@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City
<city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; tomforcouncil@gmail.com;
Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou,
Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
greg@gregtanaka.org; Public Works Public Services <pwps@CityofPaloAlto.org>; CSD <CSD@CityofPaloAlto.org>;
ParkRec Commission <parkrec.commission@CityofPaloAlto.org>
Subject: FW: REMINDER: Tomorrow is the Last Meeting on Ramos Park Renovations
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Dear City of Palo Alto:
I’d like to add our voice to the large and growing number of my neighbors’ who are very strongly opposed to the
creation of a dog park in Ramos Park. This proposal would take away a third of the green space in this small
neighborhood park!
We’re original owners of our home on Ortega Court, have lived here for 35 years, raised our kids here, and hope to
enjoy our retirement here as well. Ramos Park has been an integral part of our decision to move and live here all these
years. A dog park crammed into such a small and beautiful green sanctuary would be a great intrusion into and loss for
84
us and our neighborhood. And it’s totally unnecessary, since there is a wonderful dog park minutes away at Mitchell
Park.
Please read the comments and evidence below and help cancel this plan for a Ramos Park dog park.
Thank you,
Brian & Maggie Szabo
3738 Ortega Court
From: William Shen [mailto:bokuishen@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:39 PM
To: John Jacobs <johnajacobs@comcast.net>
Cc: lakshmi sunder <lakshmi3733@gmail.com>; Grant Elliot <aeliot3@gmail.com>; Camille Tripp
<cpt2947@hotmail.com>; George Greenwald <george.greenwald@gmail.com>; Taly Katz <talyk@sbcglobal.net>;
Michelle Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com>; AnaMaria Garcia Walker <garciawalker@hotmail.com>; Sharon Elliot
<sharonelliot@stanfordalumni.org>; Satomi Rogers <Satomirogers@gmail.com>; Corkie Freeman
<rkfreeman@sbcglobal.net>; Rick Hallsted <mysemite@yahoo.com>; runlong Zhou <runlongz@yahoo.com>; Ram
Sunder <ramamurthy.sunder@gmail.com>; Kathy Fei <fei41817@gmail.com>; Olga Rubchinskaya
<m.olgaru@yahoo.com>; Lisette Micek <slmicek@yahoo.com>; Margie Greenwald <margiebgreenwald@gmail.com>;
Yan Jing <yjing@yahoo.com>; Linda and Bob Campbell <lmaidl2000@yahoo.com>; Sung and Jenny Ryu
<sungwookryu@yahoo.com>; Grant Elliot <agrante@stanfordalumni.org>; Nate Case <nacase@gmail.com>; Pam
Mayerfeld <pam.mayerfeld@stanfordalumni.org>; Sharon Elliot <saelliot7@gmail.com>; Tim Rogers
<taroger@pacbell.net>; Amanda Case <ammcgraw@gmail.com>; David Cheng <dmcheng34@aol.com>; Eliezer
Rosengaus <erosengaus@gmail.com>; Brian and Maggie Szabo <b.szabo@comcast.net>; Margaret Cheng
<mccheng34@aol.com>; Jo Vitanye <jo.vitanye@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: REMINDER: Tomorrow is the Last Meeting on Ramos Park Renovations
I've done some quick searches, and multiple sources suggest that a reasonable minimum distance between dog
park and residence is at least 200 ft, including multiple park & rec departments of multiple cities:
sources:
1. link (City of Pittsburgh, PA - Department of Parks & Recreation): An ideal distance between the OLEA and
adjacent residences and businesses is two hundred (200) feet.
2 link (City of Santa Barbara, CA - Parks and Recreation Department): an off leash park area be situated at
least 150 feet away from the nearest residence or other noise sensitive land use
3. link: Do not establish a dog park immediately adjacent to residential property lines. There should be a
minimum distance of 200 feet between a dog park and any businesses or residences and a minimum
distance of 100 feet to any bodies of water.
4. link: Buffer from Residential: A few cities provide definitive distances from residences, varying from 50
feet to 200 feet.
5. link: A dog park shall not be located within 100 yards [or other designated distance] of a school
playground or designated children’s play area, or of an athletic field or court, or near a sensitive wildlife
habitat area as determined by an environmental protection agency operating in the area.
85
A simple measurement suggests that it's obviously impossible to maintain a reasonable distance for the
proposed dog park.
In fact, any location in Ramos park will affect residences in either Ortega Ct. or Ross Rd. On that note, maybe
we should include Ross Rd residences in this conversation as well?
What do you all think?
-Will
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 10:53 AM John Jacobs <johnajacobs@comcast.net> wrote:
Lakshmi’s idea seems perfectly sensible to us, a good compromise for all. The only issue that would have to be
resolved would be how to accommodate the youth sports leagues. Soccer games in the fall tend to start around
8:30 a.m., but are usually only played on Saturday, while the t-ball/baseball games begin around 5 p.m. several
days a week during the spring. Perhaps those games could be moved to Mitchell, but there might not be
enough fields to accommodate all the games without using the smaller parks as well. If that were true, it might
not be possible to have off-leash hours and we’d be left with what we have now- not perfect, but maybe the
best we could do given the competing interests.
John Jacobs
On Feb 11, 2021, at 9:52 AM, lakshmi sunder <lakshmi3733@gmail.com> wrote:
Grant,
I have already expressed my preference for official off leash hours in all Palo Alto
parks based on the success of the program in Brookline, Massachusetts to parks and rec.
https://www.brooklinema.gov/752/Green-Dog-Program
This will ensure that small parks like Ramos will accommodate the needs of its neighbors,
restrict the time when dogs are off leash, allow everyone to share public spaces safely and
happily! If all parks implement off leash hours then Ramos park will not attract crowds. It will
be mostly used by neighbors. Making it official forces people to follow the rules for off leash
hours. I do not trust people to self regulate. I have seen people letting dogs off leash at 3 and 4
in the evening and not cleaning up. It will also be more cost effective than constructing dog
parks.
86
I will send my thoughts again.. but it seems it is getting lost somewhere.
Ram and I feel that official off leash hours in all Palo Alto parks are a good compromise for
sharing public spaces.
Best,
Lakshmi
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 8:29 AM Grant Elliot <aeliot3@gmail.com> wrote:
Lakshmi,
Send your great comments to: peter.jensen@cityofpaloalto.org
Grant
On 2/11/2021 6:49 AM, lakshmi sunder wrote:
Hi all,
Ram and I are dog owners and we do not favor a dog park. We don't use any
dog park because we would rather be with dogs and owners we know.
We did not get any survey in the mail or online.
I remember the survey Camille mentioned and that was a long time ago.
Camille, Michelle, and I attended a meeting at city hall after the initial meeting
asking for off leash hours in the evening since residents are doing it anyway.
This was modelled after a Massachusetts program that has been very
successful.
We prefer this mainly because we have seen dogs chase children and seniors
with dogs. We have also seen many socialize in Ramos park and they don't
pay attention to the dogs who are off leash. They do not pick up either. Ram
constantly picks up and cleans on Ortega court and Ramos park. For this reason
we have stopped using Ramos park.
87
We would prefer just a sign mentioning off leash hours as a warning for people
who are not comfortable with dogs off leash.
I am really confused as to when the conversation changed from "off leash
hours" to a dog park. My understanding was that the city did not have the
budget for this.
Lakshmi
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 10:44 PM Camille Tripp <cpt2947@hotmail.com>
wrote:
I believe he is using the data gotten at the very first Ramos Park meeting (at
Cubberly). There were 164 in attendance and we were asked to vote on
certain things by using stickers. The dog park idea was raised there ‐ the city
had not considered it before. They asked if you would have any interest in a
dog park ‐ 100 replied yes and 64 replied no. But that was before any
placement etc. was determined or anything like that. The city then took the
ball and ran with it. It seems they have funds specified for dog parks that are
not being used. So I guess they want to use them!
As far as I know there has not been any other survey.
Correct me if I am mistaken about this.
Camille
From: George Greenwald <george.greenwald@gmail.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 11, 2021 4:56 AM
To: Taly Katz <talyk@sbcglobal.net>
Cc: Michelle Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com>; AnaMaria Garcia Walker
<garciawalker@hotmail.com>; Sharon Elliot <sharonelliot@stanfordalumni.org>;
Camille Tripp <cpt2947@hotmail.com>; Satomi Rogers <Satomirogers@gmail.com>;
Corkie Freeman <rkfreeman@sbcglobal.net>; Rick Hallsted
<mysemite@yahoo.com>; John Jacobs <johnajacobs@comcast.net>; runlong Zhou
<runlongz@yahoo.com>; Will Shen <bokuishen@gmail.com>; Ram Sunder
<ramamurthy.sunder@gmail.com>; Kathy Fei <fei41817@gmail.com>; Olga
Rubchinskaya <m.olgaru@yahoo.com>; Lisette Micek <slmicek@yahoo.com>;
Margie Greenwald <margiebgreenwald@gmail.com>; Yan Jing <yjing@yahoo.com>;
88
Lakshmi Sunder <lakshmi3733@gmail.com>; Linda and Bob Campbell
<lmaidl2000@yahoo.com>; Sung and Jenny Ryu <sungwookryu@yahoo.com>; Grant
Elliot <agrante@stanfordalumni.org>; Nate Case <nacase@gmail.com>; Pam
Mayerfeld <pam.mayerfeld@stanfordalumni.org>; Sharon Elliot
<saelliot7@gmail.com>; Tim Rogers <taroger@pacbell.net>; Amanda Case
<ammcgraw@gmail.com>; David Cheng <dmcheng34@aol.com>; Eliezer Rosengaus
<erosengaus@gmail.com>; Brian and Maggie Szabo <b.szabo@comcast.net>;
Margaret Cheng <mccheng34@aol.com>; Jo Vitanye <jo.vitanye@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: REMINDER: Tomorrow is the Last Meeting on Ramos Park Renovations
Yes, we should pursue options simultaneously, including the city council, Palo
Alto Weekly letter or guest opinion writer. Can someone volunteer to do this?
Our park is too little for a fenced dog park that even dog owners don't want!
(Which is why the first thing I asked him was about his data, that 60% of local
residents want this. I bet that many who voted yes are a part of an organized
bloc of dog park supporters, which supports any change that benefits them, and
they probably were all notified that a vote was happening. Of course, we are
the ones to bear all the negatives.)
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 7:40 PM Taly Katz <talyk@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
Hi all,
I think we should write and sign an official letter to the city about our
opposition to a fenced dog park, of course everybody who opposes it on this
thread. If not there is a chance it will be similar to the implementation of the
roundabout on Ross where they act without receiving community input.
I can tell you as a dog owner that has been to the dog park at Mitchell park
and Hoover park many times that it’s a nuisance, the smell is horrible, the
barking etc. it will completely change our quaint neighborhood park for the
worst. Also we may think of contacting oh the residents who opposed to the
dog park at Eleanor Purdee park to ask what they did.
Best,
Taly
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 10, 2021, at 6:00 PM, George Greenwald
<george.greenwald@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi. No link yet - but he emailed me some hours ago that he'd
send me a link "a couple hours" before the meeting!
BTW, I spoke with my friend, Howard Hoffman, who heads
the Palo Alto Dogowners Assoc. He said he's spoken to Jensen
about 50 times! Ironically, Howard agreed that Michelle's
solution of having a kind of
legalization of dogs congregating from around 8-10AM, and 5-
7PM, for example, as being fair to the homeowners, and NOT
tear up any landscaping and putting up a fenced area. He's
permitting me to say this to Jensen.
89
On Wed, Feb 10, 2021 at 5:42 PM Michelle Rosengaus
<mrosengaus@yahoo.com> wrote:
I haven't received it either.
Michelle
Get Outlook for Android
From: AnaMaria Garcia Walker <garciawalker@hotmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, February 10, 2021 5:39:51 PM
To: Michelle Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com>
Cc: Sharon Elliot <sharonelliot@stanfordalumni.org>; Camille Tripp
<cpt2947@hotmail.com>; Satomi Rogers
<Satomirogers@gmail.com>; Corkie Freeman
<rkfreeman@sbcglobal.net>; Rick Hallsted
<mysemite@yahoo.com>; John Jacobs
<johnajacobs@comcast.net>; runlong Zhou
<runlongz@yahoo.com>; Will Shen <bokuishen@gmail.com>; Ram
Sunder <ramamurthy.sunder@gmail.com>; Kathy Fei
<fei41817@gmail.com>; Olga Rubchinskaya
<m.olgaru@yahoo.com>; Lisette Micek <slmicek@yahoo.com>;
Margie Greenwald <margiebgreenwald@gmail.com>; Yan Jing
<yjing@yahoo.com>; Lakshmi Sunder <lakshmi3733@gmail.com>;
Linda and Bob Campbell <lmaidl2000@yahoo.com>; Sung and
Jenny Ryu <sungwookryu@yahoo.com>; Grant Elliot
<agrante@stanfordalumni.org>; Nate Case <nacase@gmail.com>;
Taly Katz <Talyk@sbcglobal.net>; George Greenwald
<george.greenwald@gmail.com>; Pam Mayerfeld
<pam.mayerfeld@stanfordalumni.org>; Sharon Elliot
<saelliot7@gmail.com>; Tim Rogers <taroger@pacbell.net>;
Amanda Case <ammcgraw@gmail.com>; David Cheng
<dmcheng34@aol.com>; Eliezer Rosengaus
<erosengaus@gmail.com>; Brian and Maggie Szabo
<b.szabo@comcast.net>; Margaret Cheng
<mccheng34@aol.com>; Jo Vitanye <jo.vitanye@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: REMINDER: Tomorrow is the Last Meeting on Ramos
Park Renovations
Hello!
Is the link available? Or not yet?
I don’t have any emails from Peter.
AnaMaria Garcia Walker
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 9, 2021, at 5:41 PM, Michelle
Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com> wrote:
90
Dear Neighbors,
Tomorrow, Wednesday February 10 at 6:30 PM, is
the last community meeting for comments on the
planned renovations for Ramos Park. This is your
last chance to provide feedback to the City before
they finalize the plans for Ramos Park. Among the
decisions to be finalized are:
1. Creation of a dog park along the houses built
next to the park, with off leash hours from 7 AM to
dusk. It is my personal opinion that they should
just leave the dog issue as is. The dog community
seems to be self‐regulating, meeting daily around
5 PM. If it is advertised in Palo Alto that Jesus
Ramos is an off‐leash park, it will attract many dog
owners beyond the immediate neighborhood,
which is not the purpose of Palo Alto’s City Plan of
small “Neighborhood Parks” scattered throughout
the city. Designating a dog park is giving priority to
dogs over people in the use of this park.
2. Placement of a double bathroom. Can it be a
smaller single restroom?
3. All night lighting. Needs to be low intensity
so as not to bother the surrounding houses’ sleep.
4. Finishing the concrete path out to the street.
5. New playground facilities.
6. Not included, but I think it should be a part
of the plan, fixing the grass area that floods, gets
muddy and is very uneven by the unfinished
concrete path.
Invitation postcards were mailed to 474 addresses
in a half mile radius around the park. Hopefully
you received one of these postcards. To attend
the zoom meeting, you need to RSVP to Peter
Jensen at peter.jensen@cityofpaloalto.org as
soon as possible. He will be sending the zoom link
a few hours before the meeting.
91
Michelle Rosengaus
From: Sharon Elliot
[mailto:sharonelliot@stanfordalumni.org]
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2021 11:03 AM
To: Camille Tripp <cpt2947@hotmail.com>;
Satomi Rogers <Satomirogers@gmail.com>; Corkie
Freeman <rkfreeman@sbcglobal.net>; Rick
Hallsted <mysemite@yahoo.com>; John Jacobs
<johnajacobs@comcast.net>; runlong Zhou
<runlongz@yahoo.com>; Will Shen
<bokuishen@gmail.com>; Ram Sunder
<ramamurthy.sunder@gmail.com>; Kathy Fei
<fei41817@gmail.com>; Olga Rubchinskaya
<m.olgaru@yahoo.com>; Lisette Micek
<slmicek@yahoo.com>; Margie Greenwald
<margiebgreenwald@gmail.com>; Yan Jing
<yjing@yahoo.com>; Ana Maria Arjona
<garciawalker@hotmail.com>; Lakshmi Sunder
<lakshmi3733@gmail.com>; Linda and Bob
Campbell <lmaidl2000@yahoo.com>; Sung and
Jenny Ryu <sungwookryu@yahoo.com>; Grant
Elliot <agrante@stanfordalumni.org>; Nate Case
<nacase@gmail.com>; Taly Katz
<Talyk@sbcglobal.net>; George Greenwald
<george.greenwald@gmail.com>; Michelle
Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com>; Pam
Mayerfeld <pam.mayerfeld@stanfordalumni.org>;
Sharon Elliot <saelliot7@gmail.com>; Juan Garcia
<garciawalker@hotmailcom>; Tim Rogers
<taroger@pacbell.net>; Amanda Case
<ammcgraw@gmail.com>; David Cheng
<dmcheng34@aol.com>; Eliezer Rosengaus
<erosengaus@gmail.com>; Brian and Maggie
Szabo <b.szabo@comcast.net>; Margaret Cheng
<mccheng34@aol.com>; Jo Vitanye
<jo.vitanye@gmail.com>
Subject: Feb 10: Meeting on Ramos Park
Renovations
Hello Ortega Court Neighbors,
I’m forwarding this announcement to you in case
you’re interested in the plans for a dog area and a
restroom at Ramos Park.
92
Sharon
Adobe Meadow NPC
VP AMNA
We're all in this together
Ramos Park Community ‐
The City of Palo Alto formally invites you to a
community meeting to discuss a dog park
in Ramos Park.
The meeting will be help on Wednesday February
10th at a 6:30pm web‐cast
The community is encouraged to attend and
participate in the discussion.
Please RSVP to peter.jensen@cityofpaloalto.org to
join the meeting.
For more project information visit the project’s
web page at www.cityofpaloalto.org/ramospark
Please help promote the meeting by forwarding
this to invite to others that would be interested in
the discussion.
Please contact me with questions.
Respectfully
93
<image001.jpg>
Peter Jensen
Landscape Architect & Arborist
Public Works Engineering
P: (650) 617‐3183 C: (650) 444‐5024
www.cityofpaloalto.org
<image002.png>
<image003.png>
<image004.jpg>
<image005.png>
94
Baumb, Nelly
From:William Shen <bokuishen@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2021 8:49 PM
To:Jensen, Peter; pwecips; Council, City; DuBois, Tom; tomforcouncil@gmail.com; Cormack, Alison;
Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; kou.pacc@gmail.com; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Public
Works Public Services; CSD; ParkRec Commission
Cc:Michelle Rosengaus; peterjensen@cityofpaloalto.org; lydiakou@cityofpaloalto.org;
pwps@cityofpalolato.org; Arthur Keller; Sharon Elliot; Camille Tripp; Satomi Rogers; Corkie Freeman;
Rick Hallsted; John Jacobs; runlong Zhou; Ram Sunder; Kathy Fei; Olga Rubchinskaya; Lisette Micek;
Margie Greenwald; Yan Jing; Lakshmi Sunder; Linda and Bob Campbell; Sung and Jenny Ryu; Grant
Elliot; Nate Case; Taly Katz; George Greenwald; Pam Mayerfeld; Sharon Elliot; Tim Rogers; Amanda
Case; David Cheng; Eliezer Rosengaus; Brian and Maggie Szabo; Margaret Cheng; Jo Vitanye;
tjg@guenzer.com; arthur@kellers.org
Subject:Re: Objection to the Proposed Ramos Park Dog Park
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
I second the objection.
There are convergent views from different sources stating that a reasonable minimum distance between dog park and
residence is at least 200 ft, including multiple park & rec departments of multiple cities:
sources:
1. link (City of Pittsburgh, PA ‐ Department of Parks & Recreation): An ideal distance between the OLEA and adjacent
residences and businesses is two hundred (200) feet.
2. link (City of Santa Barbara, CA ‐ Parks and Recreation Department): an off leash park area be situated at least 150
feet away from the nearest residence or other noise sensitive land use
3. link: Do not establish a dog park immediately adjacent to residential property lines. There should be a minimum
distance of 200 feet between a dog park and any businesses or residences and a minimum distance of 100 feet to any
bodies of water.
4. link: A dog park shall not be located within 100 yards [or other designated distance] of a school playground or
designated children’s play area, or of an athletic field or court, or near a sensitive wildlife habitat area as determined by
an environmental protection agency operating in the area.
95
A simple measurement suggests that it's obviously impossible to maintain a reasonable distance for the proposed dog
park. Without a reasonable distance, the problems listed in the previous email will be serious concerns for the
surrounding residences:
1. Noise
2. Smell
3. Bugs
4. decreased access to green space
And I second Mrs Rosengaus's proposal of alternatives.
Respectfully,
William Shen
On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 3:03 PM Michelle Rosengaus <mrosengaus@yahoo.com> wrote:
I am very strongly voicing my objection to the construction of a fenced dog park
at Ramos Park.
My house is at 3704 Ortega CT, adjacent to Ramos Park. I have lived in this home for 35 years. I am the original owner,
as are most of my neighbors along the park. We are horrified at the City’s proposed plan to build a fenced dog park in
96
Ramos Park. This small neighborhood park is a beautiful green oasis, where people come to enjoy some peace, breath
some fresh air and get some needed exercise. The park is used by a multitude of groups for picnics, parties, organized
sports, martial arts classes, volley ball, soccer coaching, children activities and dog owners. Sometimes it is bustling with
energy and other times blissfully peaceful.
I want to list a series of objections to this proposed dog park:
1. The dog park will take away from people a third of the usable space to devote it to dogs. It is a small park as it is,
why would you want to lose a third of the green space? People use this area for volley ball games, soccer coaching,
lying in the sun, reading a book, sitting around with friends.
2. The dog park will be adjacent to the picnic area. Who wants to have a barbecue, a picnic or a party, sitting next to
a dog park?
3. The fence is to be a 42” black metal fence. The grass will be replaced by mulch. This is ugly, a visual blight on the
park. A loss of a large precious green area to be replaced by brown mulch.
4. The proposed area floods frequently due to a problem in the irrigation system. It will be a muddy mess with the
dogs.
5. Dog parks are dirty, dusty, smelly, ugly places. They generate flies. How often is the City going to clean the mess?
6. The dog park hours are to be 7 AM to 10 PM, 365 days a year. When is the neighborhood going to have some
quiet time? Dog barking is loud, the sound is not contained inside the fences, it can be heard farther out than the
immediately adjacent houses, affecting the quality of life in the neighborhood.
7. The dog park is to be built 10 feet away from the adjacent houses. How is this small area to be maintained if
machines are unable to get in there? Will it be a yard of overgrown weeds?
8. Inside the dog park is not a pleasant place to congregate. Currently, dog owners are meeting every day at 5 PM in
this green area for a time to socialize and let the dogs play. It attracts people of all ages and all kinds of dogs. The dog
barking lasts about one hour every day. My guess is that these dog owners will not step inside the dog park to socialize,
they will continue using the grass areas to meet anyway.
9. As word gets out that Ramos Park has a dog park, it will attract people from outside the neighborhood. This does
not follow the City’s plan for small neighborhood park use.
My house is the second one from East Meadow. It is built on the only flag lot of Ortega CT. The lot was zoned this way
by the City of Palo Alto, therefore the length of my house abuts the park fence with only the driveway for street access
to Ortega CT. My house is the one that will be most affected by the construction of a fenced dog park. My dining room,
kitchen, family room and bedrooms all face the park and will be 15 feet away from the dog park. In essence, you are
condemning my house. I will not be able to open half the windows of my house, especially during the summer, because
I will get the smell of excrement, flies, dust and noise from the dog park built right under our noses. My husband and I
are close to retirement, when we decide to sell, who is going to buy a house adjacent to a dog park?
97
I would strongly like to suggest that all the green areas of the park be preserved for everyone to enjoy. Rather than a
dog park, spend the money on fixing the irrigation system and uneven, muddy turf of this park area. You could specify a
daily time for owners to unleash their dogs, so people know ahead of time that there will be loose dogs running
around. Coordinate the times with organized sports groups. If no one is in the park, dog owners could let their dogs be
unleashed, but the moment there are other people present, they need to put the dogs back on the leash immediately.
The dog owners need to be responsible for the behavior of their dogs. The City can help by establishing a system of
reporting owners of unruly aggressive dogs. These owners would receive citations.
Do not ruin this beautiful little neighborhood park.
Respectfully,
Michelle Rosengaus
1
Baumb, Nelly
From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 7:27 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Palo Alto - Finance Committee - Electric Rates --- February 16, 2021, Action Item 1, “Preliminary
Financial forecasts and Proposed Rate Projections....”
Attachments:PA-PTC-letter to PTC re ADUS 2021-02-10.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 Alison Cormack, Chair
Honorable Pat Burt, Vice Mayor
Honorable Eric Filseth, Council Member
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94301
Re: February 16, 2021, Finance Committee, Special Meeting, Action Item 1, “Preliminary Financial forecasts and
Proposed Rate Projections....”
Dear Chair Cormack, Vice Mayor Burt, and Council Member Filseth,
Please see the attached copy of my letter to the PTC dated February 10, 2021.
For the purposes of tonight’s meeting, I would like to draw your attention, in particular, to part (2)(c) of that letter,
which is found at p. 2.
Respectfully submitted,
John Kelley
John Kelley 555 Bryant St., No. 714 Palo Alto, CA 94301 jkelley@399innovation.com (650) 444-2237 February 10, 2021 Via Email: Planning.Commission@CityofPaloAlto.org Honorable Bart Hechtman, Chair Honorable Giselle Roohparvar, Vice Chair Honorable Planning and Transportation Commissioners City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: February 10, 2021, Action Item 2, “ADU Code Changes to PAMC Chapter 18.09”1
Dear Chair Hechtman, Vice Chair Roohparvar, and Planning and Transportation Commissioners,
I write for two reasons:
1. At tonight’s meeting, I urge you:
a. to pay particular attention to the expected presentations by Randy Popp, Architect, and other speakers who have been members of the Palo Alto ADU Task Force; and
b. to consider in greater detail the proposals detailed in the letter to the City Council from Jessica Resmini, Architect, and Randy Popp, Architect, dated October 5, 2020 (“October 5, 2020 Letter”), a copy of which is attached to the Staff Report, at Packet Pgs. 66-71.
While the Staff Report begins to address some of the issues discussed in the October 5, 2020 letter, much greater consideration should be given to the specific proposals set forth in that letter.
2. The fundamental question that the PTC and our entire community should be addressing is: What kind of community do we want to live in? At the highest level, facilitating actual construction of greater numbers of ADUs and JADUs of different sizes can fundamentally reinvigorate and enhance the Palo Alto community by expanding housing opportunities across a much wider range of income levels. While it is important to change particular zoning rules to enable more and better ADUs and JADUs to be built quickly, other changes must be made as well. Such changes will require considerably greater cooperation between the PTC and other branches of our municipal government.
a. To fulfill the state mandate for 60-day approval of ADUs, staffing levels must be increased within the Planning & Development Services Department. This will require recommendations to and consultation with the Finance Committee.
1 See the agenda and Staff Report (ID # 11756) (“Staff Report”).
2
b. In addition to increasing staffing levels, respecting state law will also likely require changing workflows within the Planning & Development Services Department. Repeated delays in evaluating permit applications act to discourage construction of new housing, and that is simply not acceptable given the present housing crisis. In principle, it should be possible to approve a reasonable ADU or JADU application within a week. Other cities appear to have solved this problem; Palo Alto needs to solve it as well. Members of our community seeking to build more homes deserve much quicker responses to permit applications for ADUs and JADUs. If there are specific requirements that form the basis for review of ADU and JADU permit applications, they should be detailed in ADU- and JADU-specific checklists to which all applicants can be directed. Furthermore, permit applications should be reviewed by a select, specially trained group of planning and building reviewers. These may well be issues that require consultation with the Policy and Services Committee.
c. Palo Alto has specific goals for housing and for addressing global warming, but, in many respects, different parts of our municipal government are working at cross-purposes in meeting those goals. For example, policies and rates established by the City of Palo Alto Utilities, especially those that were designed to encourage conservation for single dwelling units on a parcel, become completely inappropriate when more than one dwelling unit is built on a parcel. Such polices and rates may be well intentioned, but they operate to discourage production of more ADUs and JADUs. To resolve these issues, consultation with the Utilities Advisory Commission is also likely required.
d. Obtaining reasonable financing for building additional ADUs and JADUs is another critical issue that requires attention. On-bill payment systems and using municipal assets to make it easier for homeowners and others building ADUs and JADUs to obtain financing quickly and easily are two alternatives that require greater investigation. For example, Palo Alto could become one of the first cities to utilize a portion of its reserve portfolio to provide, guarantee, or backstop ADU and JADU construction loans. Similarly, Palo Alto could help create means for allowing ADU and JADU financing payments to be made through utilities or property tax bills. Creatively exploring such alternatives would probably require cooperation with both the Finance Committee and the Utilities Advisory Commission.
To become a better, more diverse, and more resilient community, we should make it easier to build more ADUs and JADUs. This requires that the PTC work diligently with other parts of Palo Alto’s government. The PTC could begin this process by encouraging City Staff to require what types of coordinated consultation and cooperation could be undertaken immediately, and making appropriate recommendations to the City Council.
Thank you for your kind consideration of these concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
John Kelley
2
Baumb, Nelly
From:Caryn Banqué <caryn.banque@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 16, 2021 10:08 AM
To:City Attorney; Council, City; City Mgr; DuBois, Tom; Macartney, Cody
Cc:Sally Cooperrider; brandon.camarillo@pdo.sccgov.org; Robert Banqué; Chris Crone
Subject:Is Palo Alto so privileged as to believe dogs have a right to healthcare when people do not?
Attachments:Notice of Intent to Seize.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
My uncle, Raymond Banqué, is a 60 year resident of Palo Alto. He lives on less than $20,000 a year. He has a 14 year old
dog. The dog is elderly. The dog has been diagnosed with arthritis and vertigo. He has had his shots. He enjoys quality of
life. He eats his food. He is active.
The City of Palo Alto wants to seize the dog and euthanize him because he isn’t receiving prescription pain medications
and the monthly blood work required by the prescription medications suggested by his vet. The City states this is cruelty
and neglect per Penal Code Section 597.a(1)[see attached notice].
The prescription medications and monthly vet visits with blood work are expensive. My uncle cannot afford it.
Furthermore, he personally has concerns about the medications' known side effects (side effects which necessitate the
blood work).
Are the poor not allowed to own dogs in Palo Alto? Are they incapable of making decisions about their pets' care? The
decision to euthanize a pet is extremely difficult and personal. Who is the City of Palo Alto to make this decision for my
uncle?
Furthermore, I have no doubt there are human beings in the City of Palo Alto who go without prescribed medications
because they cannot afford them. What does Palo Alto do for them? Does the City of Palo Alto value the dogs comfort
over the lives of people? Healthcare isn’t a right for people but veterinary care is a right for dogs?
Now my elderly father plans to leave my invalid mother (for whom he provides the only full time care) and drive 600
miles one way to take my uncle and the dog back to the vet to ask the vet to provide documentation that this isn’t
cruelty. A vet visit for which my father will pay with funds he doesn’t have to spare.
Ironically, my father cares full time for his wife who suffers from moderately severe dementia because his income is too
high to qualify for help and too little to pay for it out of pocket. Such care is not a right for people in our country.
I am concerned for my father’s health due to the stress that trying to protect his brother's dog has put on him. I am
concerned for my mother’s safety while he is gone to meet the demands of the City of Palo Alto.
This matter should be dropped. If it isn’t, perhaps it should be shared with the media or tweeted to one of Palo Alto’s
more affluent citizens. I believe others would see this as I do.
Leave my uncle and his dog alone.
Caryn Banqué
PALO ALTO ANIMAL SERVICES
3281 East Bayshore Road
Palo Alto Ca 94303
(650) 496-5971
NOTICE OF INTENT TO SEIZE ANIMAL(S)
Date .J(£//k1 Time C \ j {;A rvr-ease # L{ 00<:.{CX:O q
Under the authority of Penal Code Section 597.1, the animal(s) described below could be
seized in violation of the following:
Code Section : 5q7, a( 'J Q(/
From: 18 0 CJ-ARA ... 1-c
Address/location
PAI o AJro j lA
Zip
Animal(s)
Identification/Description:
su.e,,1c+ 1µl-\t--r6 1 MAw;:,, 1'1 v\' oUD @BDErL.-&lite: / /lA<:,sy
Arr135BL
Statement: The owner or person authorized to keep the
Seizure Hearing by returning the enclosed declaration with"
Notice date. Return the declaration by personal delivery or
Statement: Costs for care/treatment ofanimal(s) properly seized are liens against the animal(s). No
animal will be returned until liens are paid. Failure to request or attend a scheduled hearing shall result in a
conclusive determination that the animal(s) may be properly seized and that the owner shall be liable for all
charges. \
Statement: The owner or keeper shall produce the animal(s) at the hearing unless prior arrangements are
made with Palo Alto Animal Services or unless the owner or keeper provides verification that the animal(s)
was/were humanely destroyed.
3
Baumb, Nelly
From:John Kelley <jkelley@399innovation.com>
Sent:Monday, February 15, 2021 10:14 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:PA-PACC-letter to CPA re political disourse - 2021-02-15
Attachments:PA-PACC-letter to CPA re political disourse - 2021-02-15.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: February 22, 2021, Special Meeting, Oral Communications
Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and City Council Members,
Please see the attached letter concerning political discourse in our community.
Respectfully submitted,
John Kelley
John Kelley 555 Bryant St., No. 714 Palo Alto, CA 94301 jkelley@399innovation.com (650) 444-2237 February 15, 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: February 22, 2021, Special Meeting,1 Oral Communications
Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and City Council Members,
Five weeks and five days ago, former President Trump “made statements that, in context,
encouraged—and foreseeably resulted in—lawless action at the Capitol, such as: ‘if you don’t
fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore’.”2 Last Tuesday, Mr. Trump’s
second impeachment trial began in the United States Senate, and last Friday, February 12, 2021,
the defense presented its case, including “a rapid-fire video montage of Democrats saying the
word ‘fight’ in their political speeches….”3 That evening I noticed the cover of the February 12,
2021 issue of the Palo Alto Weekly, and I began reading the article at the bottom of page 5.4
Two-thirds of the way down the first column of the first jump page of the article, I read a
quotation that stunned me. I subsequently looked for reactions to that quotation from you; so far,
I have not found any. Whatever one thinks of the merits of the specific or more general housing
issues discussed in that article, we should all be concerned about the future of our community
and the evolution of our political discourse, particularly at this singular historical moment. If
any of you have voiced your reactions to that quotation, I would appreciate knowing where you
have expressed them. Particularly now, language and silence both matter. Thank you.
1 See the agenda for the Meeting of the City Council:
https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80248
2 “RESOLUTION Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and
misdemeanors,” 117TH CONGRESS, 1ST SESSION, H. RES. 24, January 11, 2021; see
https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hres24/BILLS-117hres24ih.pdf
3 Eileen Sullivan, “Takeaways From Day 4 of Trump’s Impeachment Trial,” The New York Times, February 12,
2021; see https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/12/us/politics/impeachment-donald-trump.html
4 Gennady Sheyner, “Housing plan stirs opposition in College Terrace, Proposal for three-story apartment building
tests the limits of city’s new zoning tool,” Palo Alto Weekly, February 12, 2021, p. 5; see
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/morguepdf/2021/2021_02_12.paw.section1.pdf and see also
https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print/story/2021/02/12/housing-plan-stirs-opposition-in-college-terrace.
Screenshots of the front and rear covers of this issue are attached.
2
Respectfully submitted,
John Kelley
Attachments
4
Baumb, Nelly
From:Jeannine Marston <jeannine.marston@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2021 2:47 PM
To:Council, City
Subject:Please support Castilleja's plan
Attachments:Letter to City C. 21021.docx
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Thank you for your time and your service. Please see the attached letter.
To: City Council, City of Palo Alto February 10, 2021 From: Ted and Jeannine Marston, 1921 Waverley Street Re: Castilleja School Project
The pandemic has highlighted the need for quality education and spotlighted many women scientists and doctors. It is time to give Castilleja the thumbs up and allow it to move ahead with its modernization. Recently, neighbors have
asked me if I know what is happening to the Castilleja project and expressed
support for the school. Eight years and thousands of dollars later, Castilleja has
submitted a plan that will expand educational opportunity and enhance our city
and the neighborhood.
Increasing the high school enrollment aligns perfectly with other Palo Alto goals
to democratize housing opportunities, our parks and other areas of city life.
Allowing more upper school students grants spaces for girls from different
backgrounds, including more first-generation college students, a category
Castilleja has tripled the past four years. Students of color represent over 50% of the enrollment. Diversification efforts can help address old city-wide disparities. Recently, two African American Castilleja alums, one a local physician and one an engineer, spoke about their education as empowering. Palo Alto has an opportunity to increase equity and inclusion by supporting Castilleja’s plan. Increasing the size also makes for a much stronger program - and having a better program is better for Palo Alto. Castilleja is the only high school in the region - public or private - that doesn’t increase its size between middle and high school. The council support of the school translates into support for a Palo Alto excellent education.
The garage under a modernized school makes tremendous sense. I trust
Castilleja to manage the flow in and out of the garage as they have so
successfully managed drop offs and pick-ups at the school recently. Neighbors
have historically wanted the street parking for themselves---the garage is how to
achieve that goal and manage parking, a scare resource. We are moving to
many more hybrid and electric vehicles; both will reduce noise and air pollution in
and out of the garage. This solution can work.
The school is committed to doing this project carefully and will create a beautiful,
green campus. For eight years they committed precious resources to meeting the
neighbor’s and city’s requirements. Other schools in Palo Alto have grown and
modernized. Castilleja is asking to do both responsibly. I believe they have the will and sincere commitment to make this project a success, respect the neighbors, and honor Palo Alto City Council’s trust in them with the Council’s affirmative vote. Thank you for your service, from Jeannine and Ted Marston
5
Baumb, Nelly
From:martin@sommer.net
Sent:Thursday, February 11, 2021 12:19 PM
To:CalMod@caltrain.com
Cc:Board (@caltrain.com); Council, City; Pat Burt
Subject:Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color
Attachments:IMG_20210211_121244.jpg
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening
attachments and clicking on links.
Please see attached. The chosen color, is destroying the view of our mountains. Can we please move forward,
on correcting this situation?
Martin
On February 3, 2021 9:46:57 AM PST, Martin J Sommer <martin@sommer.net> wrote:
Hi Brent,
How are you doing with this request? Were you able to put a number on repainting the top half of one or more
poles at the University Ave station? If it is easier, the whole poles could be repainted. I have noticed that the
other two stations in Palo Alto, are either black or the standard forest green.
Martin
On 1/15/21 8:48 AM, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thank you for the call on Wednesday morning. It was helpful to get a better understanding of your
concerns. As I committed on the call, I will bring your request to my management team for
consideration. I aim to get you a response by the end of next week.
Have a great weekend,
Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer
SamTrans | Caltrain | TA
1250 San Carlos Ave.
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
tietjenb@samtrans.com
From: Martin J Sommer [mailto:martin@sommer.net]
Sent: Wednesday, January 13, 2021 9:59 AM
To: CalMod@caltrain.com
Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org; Pat Burt
<pat@patburt.org>
Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color
6
Hi Brent,
Thanks for talking this morning. Yes, please try to put a number on repainting the top half of
one or more poles at the University Ave station. Once we have this number, I will reach out to
the City Of Palo Alto, for potential funding sources.
Best regards,
Martin
On 12/22/20 7:49 PM, Martin J Sommer wrote:
+cc: Pat Bert
Brent, please take a look at the attached photo. I don't think this is what the City,
nor the design engineers, had in mind.
Please tell me, how I can help correct this situation.
Thank you,
Martin
On 11/25/20 10:05 AM, martin@sommer.net wrote:
Hi Brent,
Perhaps your new funding source obtained on Nov 3rd can help
this situation. Can you please look into this, and let me know?
The visual impacts you are creating, are not good.
Thank you,
Martin
--
Martin Sommer
650-346-5307
martin@sommer.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer
"Turn technical vision into reality."
On 2020-11-25 09:50, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote:
7
Hi Martin,
Unfortunately, the project budget does not accommodate
camouflaging of the poles. Caltrain worked with Cities and regulatory
agencies to mitigate the impacts of the infrastructure through the
Project's Environmental Impact Report in 2014.
Thanks,
Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer
SamTrans | Caltrain | TA
1250 San Carlos Ave.
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
tietjenb@samtrans.com
From: martin@sommer.net [mailto:martin@sommer.net]
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2020 1:55 PM
To: CalMod@caltrain.com
Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>;
city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color
Thanks Brent,
What about the idea of camouflaging the upper part of the
poles, similar to what is done with cell towers? For some
reason, these poles have been created with an extremely hard
industrial look. This is nothing like, the esthetics put into other
electrified rails systems throughout the world.
Martin
--
Martin Sommer
650-346-5307
martin@sommer.net
http://www.linkedin.com/in/martinsommer
"Turn technical vision into reality."
On 2020-11-13 10:09, CalMod@caltrain.com wrote:
Hi Martin,
Thank you again for contacting Caltrain on this question. As Jim
previously mentioned, the selection of the pole color was done in
coordination with the City of Palo Alto and the Historic Resources
8
Board and Architectural Review Board in 2019. These color selections
are final and poles cannot be replaced or painted a different color after
installation.
Thanks,
Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer
SamTrans | Caltrain | TA
1250 San Carlos Ave.
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
tietjenb@samtrans.com
From: martin@sommer.net [mailto:martin@sommer.net]
Sent: Friday, November 6, 2020 10:20 AM
To: CalMod@caltrain.com; Board (@caltrain.com)
<BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>
Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org
Subject: Re: University Ave Beige Pole Color
Dear Caltrain Board,
The more beige poles that go up at University Ave station, the
more unsightly it becomes. At ground level, you might think
the beige color matches the station, but from the view of local
buildings, you are completely destroying the view of our
Santa Cruz Mountains, and local green vegetation on Stanford
campus.
Can you please look into a way to fix this? Perhaps, painting
any height above 10 feet, to be the standard forest green?
Telecom poles can be camouflaged, the same applies here.
Please look in to it, and let me know some options.
Thank you,
Martin
--
‐‐
Sent from my Android device with K‐9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.