Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20210222plCC701-32 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: 2/22/ 2021 Document dates: 2/3/2021 – 2/10/2021 Set 1 of 2 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Linnea WICKSTROM <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 12:31 PM To:Council, City Cc:Linnea WICKSTROM Subject:YES! to housing proposed for 231 Sherman CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Members of the City Council,    The County wants to build teacher housing in Palo Alto. Simple.    I urge you to give your unqualified imprimatur to the County’s proposal.     Do not let all the usual objections stand in the way of your purported priorities, of your goal to advance your housing  plans, and of your “signaled” desire to focus your efforts on affordable and workforce housing.    Linnea Wickstrom  Monroe Drive  Palo Alto  ljwickstrom@comcast.net  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Glanckopf <annette_g@att.net> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 11:41 AM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:231 Grant Avenue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  February 8, 2021 Dear Council Members I want to weigh in on the project before you – 231 Grant. Teacher housing is good – this project is not. It is out of scale – looming over its residential neighbor. I ask you to require the county to reduce the density - scale and mass. The project defies the 50 foot height limit. 5 extra feet doesn’t sound like much, but then there is the A/C and other roof accoutrements. I am against projects that don’t have enough parking. The city just provided assistance to the Evergreen and Southgate neighborhoods by building a parking garage. Our community is not at the point, where people do not have cars. Because the housing will be available to teachers in nearby school districts, many residents will drive to work. Although we need lower income housing, as well as housing for teachers, first responders and so on, I would rather see housing at the Fry’s site. I also echo the concerns expressed in the PAN (Palo Alto Neighborhoods) letter. Thank you for requiring major modifications to this project. Annette Glanckopf 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Ellen Hartog <elh109@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 11:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:231 Grant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Dear Honorable Member of the City Council,    A glaring lie from page 6 of the staff report:     “Early outreach included a survey to gauge interest in the project and to determine the appropriate unit mix  as well as coordination with a variety of stakeholders. These stakeholders include but are not limited to: the  City of Palo Alto; school districts; teacher associations; Palo Alto Neighborhood Association; Palo Alto  Forward; and nearby residents, businesses and property owners.” (they didn't even get our name right.)     PAN ‐ its co‐chairs and its executive committee, have never been contacted or consulted on this project. So  I’m making noise about that.    Other items to consider:     2. The building’s density is 79 dwelling units per acre, which is double the allowable density in an RM‐40 zone.     3.  A detailed traffic study should be demanded by the City (paid for by the County), showing the impacts on  the arterial roads (Park Blvd., Oregon Expressway, Cal Avenue) and major intersections (Page Mill & Park, El  Camino & Page Mill, Cal Avenue & El Camino, Cambridge & El Camino) – based on pre‐COVID standards.  Residents know the intersections of Page Mill/Park Blvd. and El Camino & Page Mill can be major  “bottlenecks” at peak commute hours.     4. Park Blvd. is not only a ‘bike boulevard’, but it is also a major arterial road especially between the Cal  Avenue Business District and Oregon Expressway. Many residents/businesses depend on and use this segment  of Park Blvd. on a regular and consistent basis. 231 Grant will only add to the strain on the roads and needs to  be studied.     5. Since this building will be “underparked” (112 spaces, but City would normally require 135), a TDM plan  seems to be essential and should be part of this project. Where will the extra cars go? Undoubtedly out into  the street and into the Evergreen Park/Mayfield Parking Permit Area. Can this be handled in an area which  already had parking issues before COVID?     6. Lack of Park Space – the project plans include no meaningful parkland for people to walk or kids to play in.  With the existing huge deficit in park space the City already has plus the fact that this area – the Mayfield  neighborhood – has only one small, “postage‐size” park, Sarah Wallis , which just compounds this  phenomenon of housing people with no natural playground.     4 7. Public Health Impacts ‐ It's a matter of public health to provide space for recreation throughout the city,  especially as we add more housing. "Cramming” more and more people into smaller and smaller areas without  parks is not what Palo Alto is about.     8. Safety Concerns ‐ Adding cars with no traffic study, hoping that some of the teachers will not own cars  pours more cars onto the street, as some tenants will have to park far away from their homes. More cars on  the street, tightly parked and parking at a distance poses concerns for teachers and their families as well as  existing residents.     These considerations need project mitigate by scaling back the project to meet our building standards.    We at PAN believe we can house the people that need it the most without blowing up our building standards.  It can be done through a) stop building apartments for wealthy people, b) moratorium all new office, c)  convert existing empty office to housing, d) choose Alternative M (and its funding model) at the Fry's site and  rezoom sunsetting of the commercial use at Fry's which is actually zoned for housing already.  Thank you for your consideration, Ellen Hartog 330 Victoria Place 5 Baumb, Nelly From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 6:04 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:February 8, 2021 Council Meeting, Item #1: 231 Grant Avenue Teacher Housing Project 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 7, 2021    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301      FEBRUARY 8, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #1  231 GRANT AVENUE TEACHER HOUSING PROJECT      Dear City Council:    The description for this agenda item says that this item is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) because no action will be taken.    The project at 231 Grant Avenue is a Santa Clara County project that is subject to CEQA.    The County has decided to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project.    The first step in the EIR process is to issue a Notice of Preparation (NOP) that begins the EIR Scoping Period that provides an opportunity for interested parties, including the public and the City Council to make comments about the scope of the EIR.    The NOP issued for this project at the beginning of December 2020 began a 30-day period for receipt of comments about the scope of the EIR.    Instead of placing the subject of the EIR scope on your December agenda to obtain comments from the Council and the public on a timely basis, staff sent its own comments to the County.    6 The agenda description says the purpose of this item is to obtain City Council and community input on the project, and that the item is on your agenda at the request of the County.    Is this agenda item for the purpose of making comments about the scope of the EIR? If not, what is the meeting's purpose?    Thank you for your consideration of these comments.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock      7 Baumb, Nelly From:Clerk, City Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 8:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: SV@Home Comment on Item 1: 231 Grant Avenue Teacher Housing Attachments:SVH Letter RE Item 1 - 231 Grant Avenue Study Session.pdf     Thanks and stay healthy.      BETH MINOR  City Clerk  (650)329‐2379 | Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                         From: David Meyer <david@siliconvalleyathome.org>   Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 2:37 PM  To: DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison  <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg  <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burt, Patrick <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stone, Greer  <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Rick Gosalvez  <rick@siliconvalleyathome.org>  Subject: SV@Home Comment on Item 1: 231 Grant Avenue Teacher Housing    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kou, Stone, and Tanaka:    On behalf of Silicon Valley at Home and our members, we write today to express our strong support for the County’s  teacher housing proposal at 231 Grant Avenue. The 110 proposed new homes, undertaken by Mercy Housing and  Abode Communities, will provide more affordable housing opportunities to teachers and school staff that serve our  communities. While Santa Clara County has the majority of control over this proposal, we urge the Palo Alto City Council  to support this initiative moving forward.    We want to thank the County, especially Supervisor Joe Simitian, for all of its work to make this proposal possible.  Supervisor Simitian has been a longtime champion for teacher housing, and we are encouraged by the progress made  on this specific project. It’s also critical to acknowledge the work of the local school districts that are demonstrating  that a collaborative approach to teacher housing can create real opportunities for some of our most important public  servants.    8 The proposal itself is in an excellent location, close to California Avenue amenities and the Caltrain station. It will remove  an existing office building and replace it with housing, ensuring that there is no risk of any direct displacement of existing  residents.    This project is also a perfect example of the County making use of publicly‐owned land to serve the local community  through building housing. We continue to support the County in its efforts to prioritize other pieces of public land for  affordable housing opportunities and look forward to this proposal moving forward.    Sincerely,    David    David Meyer Director of Strategic Initiatives 408‐462‐1572 david@siliconvalleyathome.org Become a member today and join us in making an affordable home a reality for all.     For all other COVID‐19 related housing updates & resources click here    350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 408.780.8411 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org Board of Directors Kevin Zwick, Chair United Way Bay Area Gina Dalma, Vice Chair Silicon Valley Community Foundation Kathy Thibodeaux, Secretary KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC Andrea Osgood, Treasurer Eden Housing Shiloh Ballard Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bob Brownstein Working Partnerships USA Amie Fishman Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Ron Gonzales Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley Candice Gonzalez Sand Hill Property Company Javier Gonzalez Google Poncho Guevara Sacred Heart Community Service Janice Jensen Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Janikke Klem Technology Credit Union Jan Lindenthal MidPen Housing Jennifer Loving Destination: Home Mary Murtagh EAH Housing Chris Neale The Core Companies Kelly Snider Kelly Snider Consulting Jennifer Van Every The Van Every Group Staff Leslye Corsiglia Executive Director February 5th, 2021 Mayor DuBois and City Councilmembers City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton St Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kou, Stone, and Tanaka: RE: Item 1 – 231 Grant Avenue Study Session On behalf of Silicon Valley at Home and our members, we write today to express our strong support for the County’s teacher housing proposal at 231 Grant Avenue. The 110 proposed new homes, undertaken by Mercy Housing and Abode Communities, will provide more affordable housing opportunities to teachers and school staff that serve our communities. While Santa Clara County has the majority of control over this proposal, we urge the Palo Alto City Council to support this initiative moving forward. We want to thank the County, especially Supervisor Joe Simitian, for all of its work to make this proposal possible. Supervisor Simitian has been a longtime champion for teacher housing, and we are encouraged by the progress made on this specific project. It’s also critical to acknowledge the work of the local school districts that are demonstrating that a collaborative approach to teacher housing can create real opportunities for some of our most important public servants. The proposal itself is in an excellent location, close to California Avenue amenities and the Caltrain station. It will remove an existing office building and replace it with housing, ensuring that there is no risk of any direct displacement of existing residents. This project is also a perfect example of the County making use of publicly-owned land to serve the local community through building housing. We continue to support the County in its efforts to prioritize other pieces of public land for affordable housing opportunities and look forward to this proposal moving forward. Sincerely, David K Meyer Director of Strategic Initiatives 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Anita Lusebrink <anita@satakenursery.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 7:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:February 9 Agenda: Rezoning for more flexibility in Creating Palo Alto Housing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and members of the Council in the City of Palo Alto:    I am a property owner in the City of Palo Alto, and I am writing in support of creating inclusive, (mixed‐use?)  affordable housing zoning for 3997 Fabian Way. I actually strongly support a plan that will also include much  needed BMR housing for people with developmental disabilities, elders on fixed incomes, veterans, and other  residents that need assistance in order to be safely housed. This large lot easily has enough area to enrich the  community by providing an opportunity to house myriad types of people. I am also very happy to see that 231  Grant Avenue is being developed by the County as housing for teachers, school staff, and perhaps what we  know are other ‘essential workers’, that do not earn the high “median income” in Silicon Valley. These people  create the Palo Alto school system and other infrastructure that everyone throngs to take advantage of!    The current and continuing housing crisis teaches us how fundamental and precious the ability to live safely  and securely is to everyone.  Although this applies to all the groups I have mentioned, because a member of  my family was born with autism, I must advocate for those with developmental disabilities (DD). They are  especially affected because of their unique differences and difficulties in the ability to work within a typical job  scenario, which then creates direct results in their inability to earn a ‘living wage’.     Having a young adult with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in my family, I can see that though she is  exceptionally intelligent in some ways, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and social protocols stymie her and  make it impossible for her to hold a job. I am so grateful for the additional assistance of Regional Centers,  SSDI, Medi‐Cal, Medicare, and even VTA with discount passes for public transportation; but all of these put  together will not pay for market‐rate housing, or honestly, even what is currently termed ‘affordable housing’  in Santa Clara County.    I hope that Palo Alto will be on the forefront of setting an example of inclusivity in the SF Bay Area by  encouraging people of all abilities to live here, not only young, highly paid tech workers. The richness of the  Life fabric we weave depends on the many colors and textures of the thread that we put into it. We will come  to see that people with differing abilities that want to live happily in a safe neighborhood and near to their  family support systems are important, unique, and brightly colored threads that will make the fabric of Palo  Alto so much richer!    With many thanks for your work in creating a future that will be Palo Alto reaching its highest potential,    Anita Lusebrink  428 Ruthven  Palo Alto, CA 94301    11 Baumb, Nelly From:Ellen Smith <ef44smith@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 4:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Housing proposals at 231 Grant Ave. and 3997 Fabian way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I strongly support both of these housing proposals, which would add a total of 400 units and help provide affordable housing, including for teachers and school staff. The project at Fabian Way would provide 290 homes for individuals and families, including 29 homes at 50% of the area median income and would include a significant contribution to our affordable housing fund. This location provides easy access to 101, transit, jobs, retail and services, and the benefits of the JCC Campus and Cubberley Center. While the 110 new homes for teachers and school staff at 231 Grant Avenue are formally a County project, support by our City Council would demonstrate a commitment to more workforce housing for essential workers for whom Palo Alto housing can be prohibitively expensive. The project’s proximity to transit is also a public health benefit. Together, these projects represent a good opportunity for Palo Alto to begin to meet its housing challenge. Ellen Smith 1469 Dana Ave. 12 Baumb, Nelly From:Hellman-Tincher, Micaela <micaela.hellman-tincher@BOS.SCCGOV.ORG> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 2:48 PM To:Council, City Cc:Raybould, Claire Subject:Teacher Housing Support Attachments:Teacher Housing - Palo Alto City Council 2-5-2021.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Councilmembers,  Please see the attached letter regarding the teacher housing project you will be discussing on Monday that I was asked  to share with you.    Many thanks,  Micaela    445 Cambridge Ave. Suite C  Palo Alto, CA 94306  650-550-0035 Teri Baldwin Palo Alto Educators Association 445 Cambridge Ave, Suite C Palo Alto, CA 94306 February 5, 2021 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: The Palo Alto Educators Association would like to express our sincere gratitude for your support of Supervisor S. Joseph Simitian’s recommendation to develop workforce and affordable housing at the 231 Grant Avenue, Palo Alto site. Our Executive Board has heard from many of our 900 teachers about the need for affordable housing in this area. The vast majority of our teachers cannot live in the community we serve. As median income earners, we earn too much to qualify for low-income housing, but not enough to afford market rate rents, let alone payments on a purchase. Even with newly constructed apartment complexes adding to the housing supply in the area, typical rent can exceed half of the monthly take-home salary of an experienced teacher. Palo Alto is known for its excellent schools and education, but the fear is that we are going to lose great teachers and struggle to recruit new ones because teachers can’t afford to live in this area. We have teachers who commute from Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Aptos, and Dublin (to name just a few places). This long commute takes a toll on our teachers' quality of life and decreases the value of their salaries. It also adds to traffic and pollution problems in the county. When teachers live in or near their school communities, students also benefit. We want to be part of the community we teach in. We want to organize or attend after school events and support and encourage our students. When a teacher has a commute that can exceed an hour each way, such participation in the life of a school community is much more difficult. I hope you vote in favor of setting aside funding for this amazing project. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Teri Baldwin Teri Baldwin, President Palo Alto Educators Association 13 Baumb, Nelly From:LWV of Palo Alto <lwvpaoffice@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 7:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letters for public comment at Feb. 8, 2021 Study Session Attachments:LWV Housing Letter to council 2.8.21 231 Grant.docx; LWV Housing Letter to council 2.8.21 3997 Fabian.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     I am submitting two letters of comment from Palo Alto League of Women Voters regarding the Study Session for  February 8, 2021.        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 February 8, 2021 RE: Study Session: 231 Grant Avenue Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt and Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) supports expanding housing opportunities and affordability in our city with a priority for helping low and moderate income residents. We applaud the council for creating new housing incentive tools and applying them in recent project proposals. We are also aware that an increasing number of residents earn too much to be eligible for BMR housing but not enough to afford most market rate rents on the peninsula. We heard a commitment to expanding workforce housing at the retreat and support this important goal. We encourage the council to give positive feedback to the teacher housing proposal you will hear in study session on February 8th. The county proposed teacher housing project meets several city goals. Many teachers live far from their jobs as even with good incomes, they cannot afford to live near where they work. This project will help them reduce commutes and is located near services, shopping and transit. It supports our housing, equity and environmental goals. The League believes that this project deserves to move forward. Sincerely, Nancy Shepherd President, LWV Palo Alto 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto CA 94303 (650) 903-0600 www.lwvpaloalto.org February 8, 2021 RE: Study Session 3997 Fabian Way Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt and Council Members, The League of Women Voters of Palo Alto (LWVPA) supports expanding housing opportunities and affordability in our city with a priority for helping low and moderate income residents. We applaud the council for creating new housing incentive tools and applying them in recent project proposals. We are also aware that an increasing number of residents earn too much to be eligible for BMR housing but not enough to afford most market rate rents on the peninsula. We heard a commitment to expanding workforce housing at the retreat and support this important goal. The proposed housing on Fabian Way would add nearly 300 apartments to our housing stock located near thousands of jobs. In addition, the project will provide 25% in affordable housing according to the staff report. The proposal converts a job site to housing, something the council has supported. It is made possible and economic by using one of the council’s housing incentive zones. Perhaps this can become a model for more reuse of commercial sites for housing. The League believes that this project deserves to move forward. Sincerely, Nancy Shepherd President, LWV Palo Alto 14 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Forward <palo.alto.fwd@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 1:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Two Housing Proposals Attachments:Teacher Housing_February 8.pdf; Support for Housing on 3997 Fabian Way.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council Members,      Please see both attached letters regarding the housing proposals on the agenda for February 8th, 2021.     Thanks so much,   Palo Alto Forward  February 8th, 2021 RE: Agenda Item #1: 231 Grant Ave Request by Santa Clara County for a Study Session to Obtain City Council and Community Input on its Proposed Teacher Housing Project Dear Mayor DuBois and City Council Members, Palo Alto Forward is a non-profit organization focused on innovating and expanding housing choices and transportation mobility for a vibrant, welcoming, and sustainable Palo Alto. We are a broad coalition with a multi-generational membership, including new and longtime residents. This proposal for 110 new homes for teachers and school staff at 231 Grant Avenue has taken dedicated leadership to move forward. Palo Alto City Council’s informal comments on this proposal may not change the project because it is a County project, but they can demonstrate our commitment to more workforce housing for essential workers. The project’s proximity to transit is also a public health benefit. Palo Alto has consistently failed to meet our regional housing needs in both affordable and market rate production, leaving a gaping hole for community members who neither qualify for subsidized affordable housing nor earn enough for the steep rents and home prices. Without proposals like this one, it is virtually impossible for local teachers to live near their schools. In 2020, Palo Alto Forward surveyed 68 Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) teachers to hear about their housing concerns. Every single participant indicated that the high cost of housing was a problem; many gave examples of colleagues and family members who have moved out of the region because of housing prices and availability. They shared concerns about their ability to remain in the district. Teachers' commutes were long; and some live with their parents or in overcrowded conditions with many housemates. The long commutes were at the expense of their health, more time in classroom preparation and student support, or with their families and friends. The high cost of land and construction in Palo Alto has made it cost-prohibitive for affordable housing developers. Which is why this project to build needed affordable homes on underutilized public land is so important. The creative and collaborative use of available public land can open up housing opportunities for thousands of struggling residents in our county and regionwide. On behalf of our members, we look forward to this positive step in addressing housing for teachers and developing a model of collaboration. Gail A. Price Palo Alto Forward February 8, 2021 Re: Item #2 Pre-screening of 3997 Fabian Way Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto Council Members, I am writing on behalf of Palo Alto Forward in support of the 3997 Fabian Way housing pre-application proposal which includes a request to rezone and demolish​ 35,000 square feet of commercial space in order to construct much needed multi-family housing. The proposal would replace 115 jobs on 6 underutilized lots with 290 homes for individuals and families. Our current median age is about 10% higher than neighboring communities and is expected to exceed that of Florida’s if we don’t begin to make space for current and future generations. The proposed project provides 29 homes at 50% of the area median income while also significantly contributing to our affordable housing fund. If we really want to encourage and support more affordable housing in Palo Alto, we must have resources for non-profit developers to leverage to make projects feasible. Palo Alto must identify dispersed and feasible sites for more than 6,000 new homes and demonstrate a willingness to equitably participate in regional housing goals. This includes supporting projects that provide expanded housing capacities for a variety of incomes. This proposal would build hundreds of new homes in an area traditionally dominated more by commercial and office uses. Its location provides easy access to 101, transit, jobs, retail and services, and the benefits of the JCC Campus and Cubberley Center. It is important to support this pre-application in order for every neighborhood in Palo Alto to do its fair share in becoming a more welcoming, diverse, and equitable city. To demonstrate that Palo Alto wants to make housing at all income levels a priority, please move this project forward to the next review level. It has merit. Gail A. Price President, Palo Alto Forward Board 15 Baumb, Nelly From:Sam Jackson <sam@samjackson.org> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fabian Way and Grant Ave Developments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello city council,     I am writing as a Palo Alto resident and as a neighbor to one of the newly proposed housing initiatives (at 231 Grant  Avenue ‐ I live at 408 Grant Ave).    These are very valuable and important projects to help us to create a more inclusive, diverse, and dynamic community.  There is an enormous housing deficit in the region, and in Palo Alto, and we need bold and immediate action.  I  encourage the Council to adopt and accelerate work on these projects and more like them. As a neighbor, I don't love  noise or disruption from construction, but it's worth it for the result.      I hope that parallel attention is paid to enhancing the transport fabric of Palo Alto to dependency on automobiles when  new, denser developments are put forward.   The area around Grant Ave is fairly bike and pedestrian friendly today but certainly more room to improve and  make everything safer and more inviting. Park Blvd could get a protected bike lane, for example.    And, more could be done to enforce against bad drivers rushing on/off Page Mill ‐‐ there is a fair amount of risky  behavior that should be reined in.   Finally, more could be done to safely connect Cal Ave area with other parts of Palo Alto. The ultimate part of  which would be, to Grand Boulevard‐ize El Camino ‐‐ but even before that, more room to make the bike network  better connected and safer. Improved crossings of El Camino, Embarcadero, Page Mill, perhaps foremost among  these.    Anyway, wanting to make sure that a strong "YES" of support is heard for these projects and more beyond them.    Thanks,  Sam Jackson    P.S. Wouldn't hurt to also encourage more street plantings, facade color or decoration, etc. I think the green wall at  Sheridan and Park, or the plantings at Visa building and new parking garage, are quite nice. They don't seem too  expensive to implement but are nice as a pedestrian and neighbor. I hope both new developments can have nice  greenscaping features.  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Isaacson <annetteisaacson@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 9:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:so glad Palo Alto is considering new housing projects CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, I hope you will approve the two new housing proposals on next week's agenda. Palo Alto desperately needs housing for teachers and those with moderate incomes. IF not NOW, when? I also want the possibility of building duplexes or triplexes in R-1 areas. Look how nice the ones in Downtown North that were built decades ago look. Sincerely, Annette Isaacson Midtown 2 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 1:17 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lait, Jonathan; Shikada, Ed Subject:Monday study session CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor DuBois and council members, The council's housing incentive changes have begun to bring new housing proposals forward. Thanks you for the incentives and implementing them recently for projects like Wilton Court, San Antonio and most recently on El Camino. These moves are in the best spirit of making local control work. I hope this can continue. The project on Fabian Way will be the largest housing project (nearly 300 units) brought forth under one of the housing incentive programs and I urge positive feedback so it can turn into a formal application and then approval. You all know the positives. It converts a job site to housing. It provides 25% BMR units through a combination of fees and direct provision. It is near thousands of jobs and will reduce regional job commutes and allow some by bicycle. I also urge positive feedback toward bringing the teacher housing proposal close to actual building. It targets a group caught in the middle of earning too much to qualify for regular BMR subsidy and not enough to afford much if anything close to where they work. The project is close to services, shopping and transit and will like the Fabian Way project reduce regional commuting. Reducing regional commuting not only minimizes regional GHG but means more family time for the commuters. We are on a roll re housing. Keep it going. Stephen Levy 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 7:53 AM To:Council, City; Joe"Joe Simitian Cc:Shikada, Ed; Kamhi, Philip Subject:considerations for the teacher housing project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I personally can see the benefits of adding this development to our community. I urge you to respond to questions which concern nearby citizens, neighbors and businesses. 1. Does city/county planning address parking demand assumptions and spillover parking from onsite parking? (demand greater than supply, especially during peak downtown parking hours 10am-2pm normal working days)* 2. Will tenants/employees/owners qualify for resident parking permits? 3. Will tenants/employees/owners qualify for city owned and controlled parking assets(garages, lots and street face permitted parking)? 4. Where are credible assurances that housing management will optimize on-site parking? What is the accountability to report on-site parking utilization to the public? 5. How are responsibilities assumed by county and/or city to report semi-annual resident and/or non-resident permits issued to park within RPPs 6. How are responsibilities assigned to report annual resident and/or non-resident permits within Calif Ave commercial core? Will tenants be excluded from parking privileges in public parking garages and lots? 7. Will city manager and Office of Transportation develop new policies to allow tenants access to public parking permits within the commercial core? 8. Will city staff recommend Transportation Demand Management. Will TDM be voluntary or enforceable by county or city? Note: Current TDM policies are not sufficient for meaningful property owner and tenant compliance. 9. Does city council and city manager think that adoption of new, enforceable TDM ordinances are necessary to assure owner/tenant compliance? Based on information experienced by Palo Alto citizens, I feel that failure to adopt new ordinances will promote mythology of parking/traffic mitigation and restrain sustainability goals. * sufficient public parking supply should not be an issue outside those hours Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 1 Baumb, Nelly From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 10:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: 3997 Fabian Way, City Council Agenda 2/8/21, Study Session, item 2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    Many thanks to Jeff Farrar and Far Western Land & Investment Co., Inc. for considering as one of their three options, much-needed housing at this site.    However, when reading the staff's report for the pre-screening, I was surprised to see that there is no mention that the property lies in FEMA's designated flood zone (see map below). The applicant is proposing one level of underground garage and one level above ground. To the best of my knowledge, the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) does not allow underground construction for residential buildings in the flood zone. 1    Map showing location of 3997 Fabian Way in relation to contaminant plumes and floodplain.    As the proposed underground garage is key in providing sufficient parking for the proposed residential development, I request that this concern be addressed before proceeding with this proposal.   2   I am not very familiar with the nearby JCC building which I believe has some underground parking. My understanding is that mixed use buildings such as the JCC may have underground construction as long as none of it is under residential buildings. Please see note 1 below.    Thank you for considering my comments,  Esther Nigenda, Ph.D.    Notes:   1. “Dry floodproofing is permitted for new and substantially improved non‐residential and non‐residential portions of  mixed‐use buildings in Zone A, but not for residential buildings in Zone A or any building in Zone V.”  Requirements for  the Design and Certification of Dry Floodproofed Non‐Residential and Mixed‐Use Buildings, p4,  https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_technical‐bulletin‐3_1‐2021.pd    2. The number 3 in the above map (commissioned by the City and created by Terradex) links to the hydrograph of a  well at that location.  Groundwater levels fluctuate with the seasons, dewatering, etc. The hydrograph shows an average  depth to groundwater of 6.31 ft. at that location.  A copy of the complete map is available  at https://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org/files/PaloAlto_ShallowGroundwater_Update_wPlumes_V3_red.pdf   3 Baumb, Nelly From:Bee Shtulman Cherkas <beerdh@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 7:42 PM To:Council, City Cc:Bee Shtulman Cherkas Subject:3997 Fabian Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We are very concerned about the traffic congestion that the new housing units will cause. We live at 899 E Charleston Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (which is the Moldaw Residences Senior Home) and already making a right turn out of our driveway onto Charleston Road can be very difficult. We sometimes have to wait for a few light changes in order to make a right turn onto Charleston Rd. Traffic is very bad. We also are concerned about the number of proposed parking spaces for residents living in the proposed complex. At this time, most adults have a car. If there is more than one adult person (over 16 years old) living in the proposed apartments they will need parking spaces. Also, are you allowing enough parking spaces for visitor parking? You are proposing 290 units, of these 85 will be two bedroom units. For these 290 units you are only having a total of 373 parking places which will also include parking for visitors. We are very concerned about the traffic congestion and the parking situation. A few days ago, when we were walking on Fabian, we noticed at least 5 other signs advertising places to lease. This is going to be an ongoing problem. What we really need in our area is medical facilities, perhaps satellite facility from Stanford hospital and/or Palo Alto Medical Foundation. We also need skilled nursing facilities. Thank you for keeping us Seniors in mind. Bee & Manny Cherkas 899 E. Charleston Rd K409 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.223.7143 4 Baumb, Nelly From:jeb94025@aol.com Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 8:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:greg@gregtanaka.org; kou.pacc@gmail.com; ericc.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; gblackb999@aol.com; jeb94025@aol.com Subject:3997 Fabian Way, Palo Alto Attachments:2021-02-06 Fabian Way Building Proposal.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Member: Please find attached a letter in opposition to the development at the above-referenced address. Thank you in advance for your consideration of the matter. Jean Blackburn February 6, 2021 To: City Council of Palo Alto From: Jean E. Blackburn Re: 3997 Fabian Way, Palo Alto, CA Dear Members of the City Council: My husband and I with our four children moved to the Green Gables area of Palo Alto in 1972. As our children grew up and left home and we were about to retire, we made the decision to sell our home and relocate some eight years ago. We wanted to stay in Palo Alto and to find a retirement community that had an emphasis on independent living. We settled on Moldaw Family Residences. The criteria were many including an area that was open and not densely populated by apartment buildings and other large structures. Moldaw was adjacent to a high-tech company that had a large campus well spread out and didn’t give you a feeling of an industrial area. There were other businesses in the area but none of the buildings were overwhelming. Furthermore, the location of the campus was ideal to walk to several shopping areas, to the Mitchell Park Library, and also was close enough to the freeway and major corridors that made it convenient to travel beyond the community. As time has progressed, one of the major corridors near Moldaw, San Antonio Road and E. Charleston Road has seen increased traffic. Access to Highway 101 going North and South has always had traffic However it has gotten worse over time as a consequence of new construction permitted by Palo Alto and Mountain View. This has made the intersection of San Antonio Road at E. Charleston Road one of the most dangerous in Palo Alto. Furthermore, the feasibility of walking to the shopping centers south of Moldaw Residences has significantly diminished as traffic has increased and drivers are not as attentive to pedestrians. The intersection of Charleston Road and Fabian Way is one that Moldaw Residents need to cross in order to walk to the Charleston Center at Charleston Road and Middlefield Road. It has always been another dangerous intersection as drivers are impatient to access the main throughfares to get to the freeway or to use the shortcut to San Antonio Road. Should the project on Fabian Way go forward, the above-referenced intersection would become a nightmare for both vehicles and pedestrians. Patience is not a virtue of many drivers and they would clog that intersection during both commute and non-commute hours in order to make a left onto Charleston Road. As a result, both Moldaw pedestrians and drivers would be significantly impacted to their detriment. The driveway ingress and egress to Moldaw Residences is on E. Charleston Road. If one enters Moldaw when going west on E. Charleston, with patience, there are no obstacles other than waiting for room to park while waiting for valet service or to proceed to the garage for those who self-park. Going east on E. Charleston is a hazardous situation even with minimal Page Two traffic. To have additional drivers going west on E. Charleston Rd. in order to turn right onto Fabian to enter the proposed garage parking would create an impossible bottle neck. Moldaw Residence drivers or their guests, or the Moldaw bus would be in a distressing situation. Either going right on E. Charleston, which is the preferred way, or going left onto E. Charleston would be rendered impossible by increased traffic. The proposal of the height of the building on Fabian Way will have a detrimental effect on the Moldaw Residences. The building will overwhelm that part of Moldaw that faces Fabian Way. It will not only interfere with the privacy of the residential units facing Fabian Way but also residents’ enjoyment of their everyday existence. The living rooms of these apartments face northwest providing an open feeling and well-lit room. The proposed Fabian Way apartments facing Moldow Residents would invade the Moldaw Resident’s privacy and their ability to enjoy their environment. In addition, the proposed height of the Fabian Way structure would create a perpetual shadow cast upon them. Thus, the proposed building would interfere with the enjoyment and well-being that the residents anticipated when they uprooted themselves and moved to Moldaw Residences. The population of Moldaw Residences includes some older individuals whose mobility is limited and the environs within their apartments give them joy and deserved peace of mind as they age. Keeping in mind all the aforementioned issues surrounding the proposal for redevelopment of the property at 3997 Fabian Way, I respectively request that the rezoning and redevelopment be denied as presented to the Council. Yours truly, Jean E. Blackburn 899 E. Charleston Rd. #G304 Palo Alto, CA 94303 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Clerk, City Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 8:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:FW: SV@Home Comment on Item 2: 3997 Fabian Way - Prescreening for PHZ Attachments:SV@Home 3997 Fabian Way PA.pdf     Thanks and stay healthy.      BETH MINOR  City Clerk  (650)329‐2379 | Beth.Minor@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                         From: Rick Gosalvez <rick@siliconvalleyathome.org>   Sent: Friday, February 5, 2021 4:18 PM  To: DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Cormack, Alison  <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Stone, Greer <Greer.Stone@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric (Internal)  <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Burt, Patrick  <Pat.Burt@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Clerk, City <city.clerk@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org>; David Meyer  <david@siliconvalleyathome.org>  Subject: SV@Home Comment on Item 2: 3997 Fabian Way ‐ Prescreening for PHZ    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kou, Stone, and Tanaka,     Re: Item 2. 3997 Fabian Way: Prescreening for PHZ    SV@Home is excited by the possibility of 290 new homes coming to Palo Alto at 3997 Fabian Way. This proposal is  evidence that the City Council’s creation of the PHZ designation and inclusionary policies are bearing fruit.     Per the requirements set out in the City’s PHZ program, the proposal by Far Western Land & Investment Company is  meeting its 25% affordable housing requirement by creating 29 inclusionary homes available to families with very low  income (50% of the area median income or less) and paying in lieu fees equivalent to the remaining 15% requirement,  which would go into the city’s affordable housing fund.    While this is only a preliminary prescreening, we are hopeful that the Council will be receptive to the proposal and  consider what steps it can take to enable housing to move forward at this site. To that end, we encourage the Council to  6 be flexible with respect to zoning standards, in accordance with the PHZ process’s stated goal of housing as the  community benefit provided by PHZ projects.      With Palo Alto on the cusp of receiving its next Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 6,086 homes,  the city should be doing everything in its power to enable new housing through its locally‐controlled PHZ program. The  PHZ process is one of the best tools at the city’s disposal for meeting its housing and affordable housing goals. Given the  increased requirements for cities to comply with the next Housing Element cycle, demonstrating that the PHZ program  can lead to new housing production is crucial.    Advancing this project is an opportunity to demonstrate Council’s commitment to addressing housing needs. We urge  the Council to progress this project forward to the next stage of its locally‐created PHZ process.    Sincerely,  Rick Gosalvez  c/o David Meyer, Director of Strategic Initiatives      Rick Gosalvez  |  408.840.3169  Housing Development Senior Assoc.  350 W Julian St. #5, San Jose, CA 95110       For COVID‐19 related housing updates & resources click here  Website   Facebook  LinkedIn  Twitter  Become a Member    350 W. Julian Street, Building 5, San José, CA 95110 408.780.8411 • www.svathome.org • info@siliconvalleyathome.org Board of Directors Kevin Zwick, Chair United Way Bay Area Gina Dalma, Vice Chair Silicon Valley Community Foundation Kathy Thibodeaux, Secretary KM Thibodeaux Consulting LLC Andrea Osgood, Treasurer Eden Housing Shiloh Ballard Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition Bob Brownstein Working Partnerships USA Katie Ferrick LinkedIn Amie Fishman Non-Profit Housing Association of Northern California Ron Gonzales Hispanic Foundation of Silicon Valley Candice Gonzalez Sand Hill Property Company Javier Gonzalez Google Poncho Guevara Sacred Heart Community Service Janice Jensen Habitat for Humanity East Bay/Silicon Valley Janikke Klem Technology Credit Union Jan Lindenthal MidPen Housing Jennifer Loving Destination: Home Mary Murtagh EAH Housing Chris Neale The Core Companies Kelly Snider Kelly Snider Consulting Jennifer Van Every The Van Every Group Staff Leslye Corsiglia Executive Director February 5th, 2021 Mayor DuBois and City Councilmembers City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton St Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice Mayor Burt, and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kou, Stone, and Tanaka, Re: Item 2 - 3997 Fabian Way: Prescreening for PHZ SV@Home is excited by the possibility of 290 new homes coming to Palo Alto at 3997 Fabian Way. This proposal is evidence that the City Council’s creation of the PHZ designation and inclusionary policies are bearing fruit. Per the requirements set out in the City’s PHZ program, the proposal by Far Western Land & Investment Company is meeting its 25% affordable housing requirement by creating 29 inclusionary homes available to families with very low income (50% of the area median income or less) and paying in lieu fees equivalent to the remaining 15% requirement, which would go into the city’s affordable housing fund. While this is only a preliminary prescreening, we are hopeful that the Council will be receptive to the proposal and consider what steps it can take to enable housing to move forward at this site. To that end, we encourage the Council to be flexible with respect to zoning standards, in accordance with the PHZ process’s stated goal of housing as the community benefit provided by PHZ projects. With Palo Alto on the cusp of receiving its next Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) allocation of 6,086 homes, the city should be doing everything in its power to enable new housing through its locally-controlled PHZ program. The PHZ process is one of the best tools at the city’s disposal for meeting its housing and affordable housing goals. Given the increased requirements for cities to comply with the next Housing Element cycle, demonstrating that the PHZ program can lead to new housing production is crucial. Advancing this project is an opportunity to demonstrate Council’s commitment to addressing housing needs. We urge the Council to progress this project forward to the next stage of its locally-created PHZ process. Sincerely, David K Meyer Director of Strategic Initiatives 7 Baumb, Nelly From:Anita Lusebrink <anita@satakenursery.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 7:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:February 9 Agenda: Rezoning for more flexibility in Creating Palo Alto Housing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois and members of the Council in the City of Palo Alto:    I am a property owner in the City of Palo Alto, and I am writing in support of creating inclusive, (mixed‐use?)  affordable housing zoning for 3997 Fabian Way. I actually strongly support a plan that will also include much  needed BMR housing for people with developmental disabilities, elders on fixed incomes, veterans, and other  residents that need assistance in order to be safely housed. This large lot easily has enough area to enrich the  community by providing an opportunity to house myriad types of people. I am also very happy to see that 231  Grant Avenue is being developed by the County as housing for teachers, school staff, and perhaps what we  know are other ‘essential workers’, that do not earn the high “median income” in Silicon Valley. These people  create the Palo Alto school system and other infrastructure that everyone throngs to take advantage of!    The current and continuing housing crisis teaches us how fundamental and precious the ability to live safely  and securely is to everyone.  Although this applies to all the groups I have mentioned, because a member of  my family was born with autism, I must advocate for those with developmental disabilities (DD). They are  especially affected because of their unique differences and difficulties in the ability to work within a typical job  scenario, which then creates direct results in their inability to earn a ‘living wage’.     Having a young adult with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) in my family, I can see that though she is  exceptionally intelligent in some ways, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) and social protocols stymie her and  make it impossible for her to hold a job. I am so grateful for the additional assistance of Regional Centers,  SSDI, Medi‐Cal, Medicare, and even VTA with discount passes for public transportation; but all of these put  together will not pay for market‐rate housing, or honestly, even what is currently termed ‘affordable housing’  in Santa Clara County.    I hope that Palo Alto will be on the forefront of setting an example of inclusivity in the SF Bay Area by  encouraging people of all abilities to live here, not only young, highly paid tech workers. The richness of the  Life fabric we weave depends on the many colors and textures of the thread that we put into it. We will come  to see that people with differing abilities that want to live happily in a safe neighborhood and near to their  family support systems are important, unique, and brightly colored threads that will make the fabric of Palo  Alto so much richer!    With many thanks for your work in creating a future that will be Palo Alto reaching its highest potential,    Anita Lusebrink  428 Ruthven  Palo Alto, CA 94301    9 Baumb, Nelly From:susan chamberlain <suschamberlain@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 5:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item #2 on Council agenda - pre-screening of 3997 Fabian Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto Council Members,    I am writing on behalf of 350 Silicon Valley Palo Alto Team. Our goal is advocate for robust climate policy decisions at the  City and regional level, as well as to take action at the personal level to protect Earth's climate.    Today we would like you to consider supporting the project on Fabian Way which satisfies several of the City's priorities;  housing, social equity and sustainability. Higher density housing is more sustainable because it uses the land more  efficiently and aggregates building systems. Its location (and what it replaces) will reduce dependence on automobiles as  residents have easy access to jobs, services and retail. In addition, this project helps provide some desperately needed  affordable housing. We believe 3997 Fabian Way is the right project, in the right location, with the right partners and  deserves careful consideration.    Thank you,   Susan Chamberlain   For the 350 SV Palo Alto Climate Team      10 Baumb, Nelly From:Ellen Smith <ef44smith@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 4:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Housing proposals at 231 Grant Ave. and 3997 Fabian way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I strongly support both of these housing proposals, which would add a total of 400 units and help provide affordable housing, including for teachers and school staff. The project at Fabian Way would provide 290 homes for individuals and families, including 29 homes at 50% of the area median income and would include a significant contribution to our affordable housing fund. This location provides easy access to 101, transit, jobs, retail and services, and the benefits of the JCC Campus and Cubberley Center. While the 110 new homes for teachers and school staff at 231 Grant Avenue are formally a County project, support by our City Council would demonstrate a commitment to more workforce housing for essential workers for whom Palo Alto housing can be prohibitively expensive. The project’s proximity to transit is also a public health benefit. Together, these projects represent a good opportunity for Palo Alto to begin to meet its housing challenge. Ellen Smith 1469 Dana Ave. 11 Baumb, Nelly From:Baq Haidri <baqhaidri@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 8:38 AM To:Council, City Subject:Yes to affordable housing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello City Council members,     I'm a homeowner and resident in Palo Alto, and a member of Palo Alto Forward.  I encourage the council to vote yes on  the housing development proposals at 213 Grant Avenue and 3997 Fabian Way.    I also encourage the council to enter the 21st century and face its unprecedented challenges with courage and urgency,  especially in the area of equitable housing.      Thank you,  Baq  12 Baumb, Nelly From:Judith Krongold <judithk@pacbell.net> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Proposal for 3997 Fabian CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Sent by carrier pigeon       Begin forwarded message:  From: Judith Krongold <judithk@pacbell.net>  Subject: Fwd: Proposal for 3997 Fabian  Sent by carrier pigeon    Subject: Proposal for 3997 Fabian  I request that the proposed construction for 3997 Fabian  be rejected. The traffic it  would generate at the already busy intersections of Fabian, Charleston and San Antonio  would be a major jam for all neighborhood residents and all who commute via this area.  As residents of 899 Charleston exiting our drive would become hazardous with  increased traffic. It would be a disaster.  High rise buildings   on San Antonio a wider road can be accommodated, but don’t  belong in a neighborhood of lovely Eichler style homes. We also object to rezoning and  changing density and height requirements for this over reaching and overblown project.      Thank you for your attention.    Judith & Israel Krongold  899 East Charleston Road   J205        Sent by carrier pigeon  14 Baumb, Nelly From:liz brownell <zilbrown@aol.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 3:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Proposed 3997 Fabian way Project for Feb 8th. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please send copy to all council members I have an apartment behind this project I will nor have any sunlight, no daylight, no view if this is built Please do not pass this project, Thank you for your consideration. Elizabeth Brownell 899 E. Charleston Rd. Palo Alto Phone 650-322-7139 15 Baumb, Nelly From:irene abrams <izabrams@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 2:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:3997 Fabian Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To Palo Alto City Council members : Eleven years ago, I moved to the Moldaw Residences at 899 Charleston Road. I moved because I liked the idea of Senior living, and the proximity to the Oshman JCC. I selected an apartment which is perfect for me , both in size and view. I have a panoramic view looking out toward hills, over trees. And my apartment is just the right size for me. I enjoy watching the activity outside my windows: people walking, bicycling, pushing strollers. And I like checking the traffic.At a non Covid time, both Fabian Way, and Charleston Road were heavily trafficked at rush hours. I am extremely concerned about the proposal before the council to rezone 3997 Fabian Way to Planned Home Zoning and redevelop the site with 290 residential units. I am against a project of this size which will adversely impact me and my fellow residents at the Moldaw Residences. It will bring a huge amount of traffic to an already busy area, it will prevent us from enjoying our view, and it is inappropriate for the neighborhood , and the impact it would cause. If housing is needed, a smaller(2 stories?) less impactful development might be considered. Sincerely, Irene Z. Abrams Member of the Residents Association Committee 17 Baumb, Nelly From:Veronica Tincher <verntin@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 12:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:February 8, 2021 Study Session Item #2 - 3997 Fabian Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members, As a 10 year resident of Moldaw Residences, 899 E. Charleston Road and longtime resident of Palo Alto, I am greatly concerned about the proposed housing project located at the corner of E. Charleston Road and Fabian Way. The proposed apartment building at 3997 Fabian Way would bring even more cars and trucks to the intersection of Fabian and E. Charleston. More than 200 elderly seniors live in Moldaw, Many walk, often with "walkers", along Charleston to reach shopping and Mitchell park on Middlefield. Crossing Fabian, where cars are lined up, coming and going in 4 directions, would put them at even greater risk than is currently experienced. In addition, emergency vehicles entering or departing from Moldaw would be greatly impacted by the additional traffic, thus slowing their emergency response time. In summary, the density of this 5 story, nearly 300 unit building on a 2 acre parcel far exceeds Palo Alto's policies. Yes, Palo Alto needs more housing, but this project is the wrong way to go. Sincerely, Veronica Tincher 899 E. Charleston Road, Apt. G404 Palo Alto, CA 94303 18 Baumb, Nelly From:judith lerner <judalah18@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:14 AM To:Council, City Subject:FEB 8 CITY COU7NCIL MTG CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    RE;  PROPOSED   3997   FABIAN   WAY    PLEASE  SEND  COPY  TO   EACH  MEMBER        THANK  YOU   FOR  NOTICE  THAT  I  WILL  BE       600   FEET    BEHIND   THIS   PROJECT.        I  HAVE  SMALL  APARTMENT  ON   3RD    FL.      I  WILL  NOT  HAVE   ANY   SUNLIGHT,   NO   DAYLIGHT,  NO   VIEW.       PLEASE  DO  NOT  PASS  THIS   PROJECT.         THANK  YOU  FOR YOUR   KIND  HELP  AND   VISION  OF  THIS.        JUDITH  LERNER   899  E.  CHARLESTON   RD,  PALO  ALTO,   CA    94303      TEL    650  223  7105  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Joanne Shapiro <jshapiro03@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 12:14 PM To:Greg Tanaka; Kou, Lydia; Alison Cormack; DuBois, Tom; Council, City Subject:Building Project on Fabian Way in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To my council member representatives:       My name is Joanne Shapiro.  I live  in Moldaw residences.  When I take  a walk, or  use a car and leave Moldaw through the garage exit, I need to  cross over  to Charleston Avenue to reach many stores.  A new ,very  dense building will bring  many more cars for me to  watch out  for,  (especially since I use a walker and walk slowly) ,and make it quite  dangerous for ME to cross, as well as my fellow senior citizens.  Thank  you for caring about my concerns about the Fabian Way building project.             Joanne Shapiro             899 East Charleston Road  Apt. # D 205             Palo Alto  California   94303  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Audrey Brodie <ibrodie@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 3:44 PM To:greg@gregtanaka.org Cc:lydia.kao@citypaloalto.org; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Council, City Subject:Fabian Way Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,  My name is Audrey Brodie and I live with my spouse at 899 E Charleston Rd.  Prior to moving we lived in S Palo Alto for  over 50 years.  Due to poor health we now spend most of our time in our apartment that faces Fabian Way.    Our serious concern is that the new proposed construction project will directly impact our dwelling facilities with major  loss of light caused by large blocking buildings; and views of concrete walls , and windows looking into other people’s  living areas. We would all probably be forced to live in constant artificial lighting.    Another major concern is the amount of traffic that will be generated .  The area now is not pedestrian friendly, how will  an increased  number of vehicles with more pollution  add to the safety of children and seniors who might wish to use  the streets.    We hope the city council will take into consideration the reduced quality of life we would be experiencing if this project  goes forth.  Thank you  Audrey and Ivor Brodie    Sent from my iPad  3 Baumb, Nelly From:David Kleiman <dkleiman@d2realty.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:February 8th housing votes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please vote to approve the housing proposals you will consider on February 8th.    Thank you,  David Kleiman  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy W. Rossen <nancywrossen@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: proposed new building CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        Begin forwarded message:    From: "Nancy W. Rossen" <nancywrossen@gmail.com>  Subject: proposed new building  Date: February 4, 2021 at 11:24:56 AM PST  To: city.councilmembers@cityofpaloalto.org    To the City Council members:      I have lived at Moldaw Residences since it opened its doors.  Prior to that, I lived for 45+years in Palo  Alto.      I have participated in the meetings held to discuss traffic with the city representatives.  We have  talked about San Antonio Rd.   and difficulty crossing the street.  We have talked about the problem of turning on Fabian and  Charleston.  The city has  been  open and collegial.  We have learned about a new proposal for the land adjacent to us.  Our community has objections and  fears.      Although there are other issues, I would like to address traffic.  We have drivers at Moldaw.  We have  families coming and  going; we have delivery people, employees, and we have emergency vehicles that must have access.      Adding a 290 unit building will exacerbate the situation to breaking point, I fear.  They will have the  same problems.  The addition of autos lined up at Fabian and Charleston would make a bad situation worse, and  additionally, an unnecessary  aggravation to the city employees who would have to bear the brunt of hearing from unhappy citizens..      Please consider these issues.  Thank you.    Sincerely,  Nancy Rossen  899 E.Charleston Rd  M 408  Palo Alto, CA 94303    5 Baumb, Nelly From:Diane Claerbout <diane.claerbout@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 2:07 PM To:greg@gregtanaka.org; Kou, Lydia; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Council, City Subject:Fabian Way building CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Honorable City Council members.     I am an 80 year old resident of 899 East Charleston Avenue which is next to the proposed building at Fabian Way.      I am fortunate to be a good walker and before Covid walked almost daily to do all my shopping in the area.  When  leaving my apartment I would always ask my husband to wish me luck as I never was quite sure that I would make it  safely back in one piece.  There are five streets that can be crossed :San Antonio (3 possible crossings) East Charleston  and Fabian Way.    There have been too many close calls to write about.  I always cross with the walk light but am never sure that some  driver will see how close he or she came come to hitting me.  Drivers  coming off 101 on getting on 101 seem to be  practicing their freeway skills. Adding upwards of 100 more cars seems impossible.    Additionally, pre‐Covid the traffic on 101 was very heavy.  I remember a trip 2 years ago to SFO at 3:30 PM with a  LYFT  driver where we were in the fast lane going less than 40 miles per hour.     Less than 2 blocks from 899 East Charleson, there is a large hotel under construction as well as planned construction at  San Antonis and Leghorn.    My husband is a cyclist and could tell you that biking is not a good option either.    Please reconsider the plan to build on Fabian!    Sincerely,  Diane Claerbout  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Stuart Klein <stuartklein77@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 3:08 PM To:Council, City Cc:Larry Marks; Zachary Bodner; Gerson, Elyse; Mark Holtzman; Stuart Klein Subject:Special Meeting on Febriuary 8 -- Agenda Item #2--Comment Letter Attachments:MoldawResidences--CommentsForFeb8.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  On behalf of the Moldaw Residences, attached please find a letter to the City Council regarding Agenda Item #2 for the special meeting on February 8th. Please distribute to the City Council members. Thank you. Sincerely, Stuart Klein   ‐‐   Stuart L. Klein  PO Box 1420                Los Altos, CA  94023    T:  650‐530‐0636               F:  650‐941‐3521  M: 650‐799‐1460             Dear Council Members, MOLDAW RESIDENCES 1NSPIRED RE T IREMENT LIVING Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life 0 Jewish Senior Living Group February 5, 2021 I write as Chairman of the Board of Directors of 899 Charleston LLC, dba Moldaw Residences, a not-for-profit corporation operating a continuing care residential facility located at 899 East Charleston Road in South Palo Alto. Moldaw provides 193 units of housing (including 12 Assisted, 11 Memory Support, and 24 Below Market Rate units) and is licensed to serve up to 270 residents. The purpose of this letter is to express our concerns about the proposal by the owner of 3997 Fabian Way to rezone the property from General Manufacturing to Planned Home Zoning (PHZ) and to redevelop the site with 290 units of rental apartments. We strongly support the addition of housing -particularly affordable housing -in Palo Alto; however, we believe that the project, as proposed, will be detrimental to its neighbors, our community and to the City if significant impacts are not taken into account and fully mitigated. As the immediately adjacent neighbor to the proposed project, we have identified the following significant concerns: SIZE/DENSITY. The scale of the proposed project, at two levels of parking, five stories and 67 feet tall -12 feet higher than the Moldaw buildings at the property line -and nearly 260,000 square feet, is massive. This square footage is comparable to the former SUN Microsystems headquarters building, located on12-acres that are now the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life (which comprises both the Moldaw Residences and the Oshman Family Jewish Community Center, a separate not-for-profit corporation) as well as two residential developments (Altaire and Alta Torre). However, under this proposal, the same amount of square footage that previously sat on 12 acres would be squeezed onto 2.15 acre!. It would be the most densely-developed parcel in the City, at 135 units per acre, far higher than the 40 units per acre that are normally allowed in the city's high-density multifamily zones. The project would dwarf Moldaw, in its mass, height, and absence of set-backs. We request that a subsequent iteration of the proposal push the building mass toward Fabian and Charleston to allow more space between the project and Mold aw. In addition, the proposed project has no setbacks, which means that it will be as close as it can be to Moldaw. Courtyard 2 faces directly toward Moldaw's residential units so any noise or activity in there will be a negative impact to those residents. We hope the developer will mitigate those impacts in every possible way to reduce all the disruptive impacts the project will Age Gratefully 650.433.3629 I MOLDAW.ORG I 899 East Charleston Road I Palo Alto, CA 94303 6. Moldaw Residences welcomes older adults of all faiths, ethnicities and racial backgrounds. RCFE 432594340 ~ Moldaw Residences does not discriminate and does not permit discrimination, includina, but not limited to, bullying. abuse, or harassment. on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, 1ender identity, gender expression, or HIV status, or based on association with another individual on account of that individuaYs actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, 1ender e><presskm1 or HIV status. You may file a complaint with the Office of the State Long-Term care Ombudsman) call 800.231.4024) jf you believe that you have experienced this kind of discrimination MOLDAW RESIDENCES INSPIRED RETIREMENT LIVING Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life 0 Jewish Senior Living Group have on our residents: noise (Moldaw was designed to prevent noise from traveling into units), loss of light and air, and significant loss of privacy. Greater setbacks, terraced upper floors, careful placement of courtyards, etc. would all work in concert to create a more sensitive and appropriate design, and one that is respectful to its neighbor. ADJACENCY. Along the western side of the Moldaw building that is adjacent to the proposed project there is a highly active service drive between the two properties. It includes a loading dock, valet service, trash disposal, access to the OFJCC pool equipment and chemical rooms, and the emergency generator, which is tested frequently. The current proposal does not provide sufficient setback to ensure that this important access is not adversely impacted. ENVIRONMENTAL, The environmental problems burdening to this site are significant and of long-standing. Since the mid-1960's, the Ford Motor Company (and its designees) have continuously extracted from this property groundwater at flow rates ranging between 50 and 80 gallons per minute. While we are aware of mitigation measures that can be taken to reduce environmental risks during site excavation and construction, we are mindful that we house an elderly population, many of them frail with underlying medical conditions. The EIR should carefully investigate, beyond the normal parameters, the effect on a population like ours of moving massive amounts of noise, vibration, dust, and possible excavation at or below the level of the equally contaminated ground water. Measures will need to be taken to ensure that the physical barriers to contamination located on the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life, where Moldaw is located, will not be breached. TRAFFIC. We understand that the most dangerous intersection in Palo Alto is at East Charleston Road and San Antonio Road. That intersection saw more collisions over the preceding five years than any other intersections but one. A member of the City Council once described riding his bicycle through this intersection as "terrifying." Some of our residents walk through that intersection and already find it daunting. Many residents cross Fabian Way and walk to Mitchell Park and to Piazza's. The addition of 375 parking spaces means the addition of 375 more cars and the generation of multiple trips. Housing of this type causes extremely high peak-trip generation. Many people travel by bike or on foot to and from the Taube-Koret Campus for Jewish Life, and many Moldaw seniors walk in the neighborhood, so this should be a significant area of study. All trips, current and future, will pass through the intersection of East Charleston and Fabian Way, which is the only way to ingress in and egress out of Moldaw, as it will be for this project. The applicant should be responsible for improving the traffic light at that intersection to include left tum lanes in all four directions, so that intersection can accommodate more trips. Age Grotefu//y 650.433.3629 I MOLDAW.ORG I 899 East Charleston Road I Palo Alto, CA 94303 6. Moldaw Residences welcomes older adults of all faiths, ethnicities and racial backgrounds. RCFE 432594340 @ Moldaw Residences does not discriminate and does not permit discrimination, includina., but not limited to, bullying.. abuse, or harassment, on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientltion, gender identity, gender expression, or HIV stltus, or based on association with another indiVidual on account of that individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or HIV status. You may file a complaint with the Office of the State Lon&· Term Care Ombudsman) call 800.231.4024) If you believe that you have experienced this kind of discrimlnatk>n MOLDAW RESIDENCES INSPIRED RETIREMENT LIVING Taube Koret Campus for Jewish Life 0 Jewish Senior Living Group SAFETY. Based upon our concern that the addition of vehicular and bicycle traffic will most likely deter our residents from venturing out to walk, we recommend that the applicant be required to add street-level retail to this project in the form of a grocery store, pharmacy, dry cleaner, or hair salon, etc. IN CONCLUSION. The Moldaw Residences is a nonprofit organization providing essential services to the Palo Alto community. Moldaw must continue to be financially viable in order to continue serving the senior citizens who are its current residents, as well as those in future generations. Many of our residents, and their families, made major life decisions when they chose to invest in the units that face toward Fabian Way. They did so based on how the corner property has historically been zoned -with a maximum height of 35 feet. The applicant proposes to nearly double that Our residents' sense of security, health, privacy and comfort, as well as the value of the units they occupy, is at stake. We look forward to being actively involved as the process moves forward and to being a collaborative and welcoming neighbor. Very Truly Yours, ~~ Larry Marks Chairman, Board of Directors Age Gratefully 650.433.3629 I MOLDAW.ORG I 899 East Charleston Road I Palo Alto, CA 94303 6. Moldaw Residences welcomes older adults of all faiths, ethnicities and racial backgrounds. RCFE 432594340 @. Moldaw Residences does not discriminate and does not permit discrimination, including, but not limited to, bullying, abuse, or harassment, on the basis of actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, or HIV status, or based on association with another individual on account of that individual's actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender Identity, gender expression, or HIV status. You may file a complaint with the Office of the State long-Tenn Care Ombudsman) call 800.231.4024) if you believe that you have experienced this kind of discrimination / 7 Baumb, Nelly From:Ho, Jerileen <jho@moldaw.org> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 4:16 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lottie Burger; Henry Burger Subject:Proposed 290 Apartment Project on Fabian Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To All City Council Members  We are totally dismayed about the project proposal of 290 apartments to be built on Fabian Way up to E.Charleston  Road. The amount of congestion with the resulting pollution is absolutely unacceptable in light of the existence of senior  housing presently occupied by approximately 200 elderly, fragile seniors.The entire community will be impacted by this  monstrous structure but 35 apartments facing this proposed new structure will have diminished amount of daylight and  fresh air.  Concerned citizens of Palo Alto,  Lottie and Henry Burger, residing in apt J305 facing the proposed structure    NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail, you are prohibited from sharing, copying, or otherwise using or disclosing its contents. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and permanently delete this e-mail and any attachments without reading, forwarding or saving them. Thank you.   Disclaimer The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast Ltd, an innovator in Software as a Service (SaaS) for business. Providing a safer and more useful place for your human generated data. Specializing in; Security, archiving and compliance. To find out more Click Here. 8 Baumb, Nelly From:BORIS YATOVITZ <anety67@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 4:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Proposed building CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear council members, My husband and I are 50(plus)year residents of Palo Alto, first on Morton Street, then on El Cajon. Our children were students at Garland, Jordan and Palo Alto High School. We have now lived for 4 years at Moldaw Senior Residences at 899 E. Charleston Road. We are very concerned about the building proposed for the corner of Damien and Charleston. (We have long hoped for a much needed skilled nursing facility there.) The building proposed is much too tall and much too big for Palo Alto! We are concerned about the noise and TRAFFIC generated by this huge development looming over us in our now quiet neighborhood. Please reconsider this proposal. We know Palo Alto needs housing, but not this and not here. Sincerely. Annette Yatovitz 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Rosemary Shieh <rshieh619@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 6:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Feb 8 Meeting on Building Proposal Fabian Way CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To Members of the City Council:     It is with dismay that we at Moldaw Senior Residences are hearing of a proposal to build a 5‐story apartment building on  neighboring Fabian Way and Charleston Road.    My personal comment is that my tiny apartment faces Fabian Way and a 5‐story apartment building would block the  only view I have of the "outside" world.    There are many reasons to oppose the building proposal.  I trust you will consider them and also include my humble  request.    Thank you for your consideration.    Rosemary Shieh  Impact Zone for “Controlled Groundwater Pumping” from a single residential site & Relevance to Fabian Project and San Antonio Housing Incentive Program Keith Bennett Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater February, 2021 Dewatering, even for a single residential properties affects a very large area. Impacts for 2361 Louis Total water pumped: 20.85 million gallons 8/6 –10/27 (82 days), typically ~160 gallons / min Starting water level: 7’2” bgs Water level during pumping: ~12’ bgs Circles: 1,900 & 5,800 foot radius Only one dewatering project “east” of Alma during 2020. Enough water to lower the water table by approximately 1 foot over the entire area of the large circle (without inflow) Toxic plume 13” excess drop Fe e t b e l o w g r o u n d s u r f a c e -11 -10 -9 -8 12/31 3/31 6/30 9/29 12/29 1900 feet away Groundwater lowered 13” and 3” at distances of 1,900 ft. and 2,900 ft. from dewatering site -12 -11 -10 -9 12/31 3/31 6/30 9/29 12/29 Fe e t b e l o w g r o u n d s u r f a c e 2900 feet away 3” excess drop Shaded area shows dewatering period: 8/6 –10/27/2020. Request Do not permit underground construction in for the proposed Fabian project (or San Antonio HIP area), and make this a condition of any requested zoning change. This is one of the worst locations in Palo Alto: •FEMA flood zone, •toxic plumes, potentially mobilized by dewatering •Sea level rise, •blocked flow of stormwater, •reduction of stormwater storage capacity 2, 9 0 0 f e e t 3997 Fabian 788 San Antonio Toxic plume from City map Slide for Esther Nigenda’s Comments Slide for Esther Nigenda’s Comments 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Kemp <skemp650@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 3:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Concerns about 231 Grant Avenue Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,     I support housing for local teachers, but I am concerned about some of the aspects of the 231 Grant project that don't reflect Palo Alto guidelines for building standards, parking, density and parks.   1. The building's density at 79 units per acre exceeds the allowable density in Palo Alto.  2. Pre-COVID standards, we residents of Ventura know that the intersections of Page Mill/Park Boulevard and El Camino/Page Mill can be major bottlenecks at peak commute hours. With all of the NVCAP area development that is contemplated, what is the plan for analyzing increased traffic and congestion in this vicinity?  3. In addition, what will the impact be on traffic on Park Boulevard, which is used by not only automobiles, but also by bicycle and pedestrian traffic traveling to and from California Avenue, the Cal Ave Caltrain station and other transit modes? In many places the sidewalks are very narrow and are obstructed by telephone poles. (In particular, for pedestrians wanting to use the bridge crossing Park Boulevard over Oregon on the west side, it is a terrifying trec with cars rushing to the Page Mill/Park right turn onto Oregon on one side and the dead foliage on the other side of a very narrow sidewalk. If you meet someone pushing a stroller coming the other direction, there is no safe way to make way: you have to walk out into the traffic lane or else turn around and go back the way you came.)   4. Similarly, where will 231 Grant residents park if the project is allowed to be built with the proposed lower-than-standard parking spaces? Don't teachers need cars to transport classroom materials back and forth to their jobs? If not all of them, at least many of them?  5. The project plans include no meaningful parkland for residents and their children. With the existing huge deficit in park space in Palo Alto plus the fact that the Mayfield neighborhood only has one very small park, Sarah Wallis, where can 231 Grant residents and their children go to enjoy meaningful park space?  I urge you to remind the County of the above concerns and see what can be done in the way of meaningful mitigation.    Beyond the above project, I urge you to keep the magnitude of the increased density proposed for the Mayfield and Ventura area in general in mind in all of your individual 2 project approval deliberations, and hold to the building standards and park space per acre guidelines to keep a quality of living in Palo Alto in line with the rest of the community.     Thank you.    Sincerely,    Susan Kemp  Ventura Resident    3 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Sylvester <marysylvester@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 3:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:231 Grant Ave. Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council, WhileI support the construction of 231 Grant Ave., the affordable housing project for Santa Clara Co. teachers, I do have concerns about several aspects of the project. The California Ave. neighborhood for decades has been a rich mix of residential, retail and commercial office space that's long had a small town feeling. The neighborhood though has been gradually changing with the overall growth in Palo Alto and the Valley, and feels more like a hodgepodge of ever increasing taller buildings, traffic congestion and a lack of open space. Today, we see a dramatic increase in development impacting the area, and not for the better, with the massive new parking structure, a planned public service building as well as several new residential and retail/commercial buildings. The neighborhood now seems to be carrying a disproportionate amount of local development, forcing more people to co-exist in denser work and residential settings without a commensurate growth in park space. And the new parking structure only encourages people to drive into the neighborhood. Where does this leave residents of the California Ave-Mayfield neighborhood? My concerns about 231 Grant Avenue are: 1. Density: The building's density is 80 dwelling units per acre, which is double the allowable density for a RM-40 zone. I know affordable housing is greatly needed, but we are packing more and more people into smaller and smaller spaces, and this is not good for people's well-being. 2. Traffic Study: A detailed traffic study is required for this already dense and heavily trafficked neighborhood. Arterial roads and major intersections need to be studied. Particular attention needs to be given to Park Blvd. which is only 1 block away from 231 Grant Rd, as it is a "bike boulevard" and a well traveled arterial especially between the Cal. Ave. business District and Oregon Expwy. Many residents and businesses rely on this segment of road for transportation. The impact of 231 Grant will add a strain to this road segment. 3. Parking: The building will be under parked, providing 112 spaces for 110 residents. The City would normally require 135 parking spaces for this size development. Where will the extra cars go? Just hoping some teachers don't own cars is not what any City should call planning. A robust traffic demand management program needs to be developed. 4. Open Space: As more and more adults and children are being crammed into this neighborhood, where is the commensurate growth in parkland and open space? Currently, one very tiny park, 4 Sarah Wallis, serves the entire area. This is completely inadequate for the number of people living and frequenting this neighborhood. Thank you for consideration of my concerns. Mary Sylvester 135 Melville Ave. Palo Alto, CA. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:herb <herb_borock@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 5:41 PM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:February 8, 2021 Council Meeting, Item #9: Contract with Cratus, Inc. for Phase III Cross-Bore Project 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 7, 2021    Palo Alto City Council  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94302      FEBRUARY 8, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #9  CONTRACT WITH CRATUS INC. FOR PHASE III CROSS-BORE PROJECT      Dear City Council:    The Invitation for Bid for the prior phase of this project said that the contractor will provide weekly reports that include videos of laterals on the customer's side of the property line.    As described in my letter to the Council on June 24, 2019 reproduced below, the staff report for that year omitted the scope of services for the contract.    The omission meant that the Council and the public did not know from reading the staff report and its attachments whether the contract scope of work included videos of the laterals on the customer's side of the property.    The contractor needs to take those videos as part of its work looking for cross bores.    If the City receives those videos, then customers could have access to them to observe the status of their underground utility lines to look for potential problems that can be corrected.    The current staff report also omits whether the City will be receiving those videos.  2   I recall that during a prior City meeting that reviewed the results of the Phase I contract, staff said that the contractor offered those videos, but staff did not accept them because they believed staff's objective was only to find cross bores.    Please find out if the contracts for Phase II and Phase III provide for the receipt of the videos of laterals on the customer's side of the property line and, if so, the way that customers can access the videos for their property.    Thank you.    Sincerely,    Herb Borock    -----------------------------------------       Herb Borock P. O. Box 632  Palo Alto, CA 94302  June 24, 2019 Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 JUNE 24, 2019, CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #2 CROSS BORE VERIFICATION PROGRAM CONTRACT Dear City Council: The contract document attached to the staff report for the agenda item (ID # 10222) does not include information I am accustomed to seeing for contracts presented to the City Council for approval. There is no signature from the contractor on the signature page, there is no Schedule of Performance, and there is no Scope of Service (or specifications). The Invitation for Bid (IFB Number 174268) says that the contractor will provide weekly reports that include videos of laterals on the customer's side of the property line. 3 Utility customers should be notified when videos of laterals on their property are available, and of how and when they can access those videos. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, Herb Borock  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 5:23 PM To:Jonsen, Robert; Winter Dellenbach; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Richard Konda; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Council, City; Cecilia Taylor; Betsy Nash; mark weiss; Binder, Andrew; Joe Simitian; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Kaloma Smith; chuck jagoda; Raven Malone; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com Subject:Police dog attack, Daily Post, Feb 8, 2021, by Aram James CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Last week we asked District Attorney Jeff Rosen to consider filing charges re the alleged vicious police dog attack on an  innocent community member. Friday we received our answer: See below:            2 Daily Post Polio Dear your arti ''Cop off · lice dog,~ ed distric 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 12:28 PM To:Honky Subject:IT JUST DOESN'T ADD UP FACT CHECKERS When you CLAIM 159 million votes? and you claim 60% to 65% of 213,799,485 registered voters voted? LOL CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. FACTCHECKERS EH 6 THE BOUGHT AND PAID FOR FACTCHECKERS say A Dec. 21 Facebook post, which pulled a screenshot of a Twitter post, claimed Biden somehow received 22 million phantom votes. The post has over 1,200 shares, as of Dec. 30. "Simple math: Trump got 74 million votes and there are only 133 million registered voters in the USA," the tweet claims. "Even if everyone who's registered actually voted, there would only be 59 million votes left for Biden. So how the hell did Biden get 81 million votes? 22 million extra?" In a follow-up tweet, the MSM Fact Checking Twitter account tries to show its math: "Just to clarify there were 213,799,485 registered voters in 2020 of which conflicting sources say turnout was between 60% - 65%. I averaged it out at 62.5% which means just over 133,500,000 registered voters voted. 74,000,000 Trump + 81,000,000 Biden = 155,000,000." And then, "Just for complete transparency, even at 65% turnout the total would be just over 138,000,000 voters resulting in over 155,000,000 votes. However you look at it, it doesn't add up." A Dec. 21 Facebook post, which pulled a screenshot of a Twitter post, claimed Biden somehow received 22 million phantom votes. The post has over 1,200 shares, as of Dec. 30. "Simple math: Trump got 74 million votes and there are only 133 million registered voters in the USA," the tweet claims. "Even if everyone who's registered actually voted, there would only be 59 million votes left for Biden. So how the hell did Biden get 81 million votes? 22 million extra?" To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Log into Facebook  Log into Facebook to start sharing and connecting with  your friends, family, and people you know.     7 In a follow-up tweet, the MSM Fact Checking Twitter account tries to show its math: "Just to clarify there were 213,799,485 registered voters in 2020 of which conflicting sources say turnout was between 60% - 65%. I averaged it out at 62.5% which means just over 133,500,000 registered voters voted. 74,000,000 Trump + 81,000,000 Biden = 155,000,000." And then, "Just for complete transparency, even at 65% turnout the total would be just over 138,000,000 voters resulting in over 155,000,000 votes. However you look at it, it doesn't add up." 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 6:57 PM To:mark weiss; Human Relations Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Council, City Subject:Stanford Daily April 3 1986 sorry for the poor quality CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  9 ~, ... Untitled (Stanford_Daily_ 19860403_0001 (2) copy) (page 1 of 12) \;Cl rJ111· u...:u:-r uc:·pfo.,~r. tee on Undergradunte Scudi require all departments to 1 track in which students can c only a C average or better. Uike T~ [);i.i!y ··We are proposing that de) gran'6. if thtY do set pcrf orm at higher lhan a 2.0 level (on der to graduate from some o ment. that they O'Ul)' not set higher than a 2.0 level in a .said aassics Prof. ~ M tee ch<Airrmn. The propossl also sar!> tha "" ,...,. socciaJ -pcnonnancc: 11 Untitled (Stanford_Oaily_ 19860403_0001 (2) copy) (page 2 ·Of 12) ~ v -· t 0 Prtge J I Page 6 ---····--I11·d oe SDip1 13 Baumb, Nelly From:Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 6:03 PM To:Ellner, Robin Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Lizkniss@earthlink.net; Reynolds, Brian; French, Amy; Hoyt, George; Nancy McGaraghan; Paula Sozzi Saslow (psaslow@gmail.com); Pat McGaraghan (pat.mcgaraghan@dlapiper.com); scottsaslow@me.com; Ricky Chiu (rchiu2004@yahoo.com); Boyd Smith (boyd@wsjproperties.com); Sandy Liu; Mark Oei; Marvin Feinstein; Steve Dostart; katefei@stanfordalumni.org Subject:RE: Update: 265 Coleridge Avenue - hazard Robin,     Thanks so much for working through this with the neighborhood over the past year. You’ve been fantastic about keeping  us in the loop and letting us know what all the various departments have been doing to make sure the neighborhood is  safe and that this property is appropriately address.     What a fantastic team effort between Code Enforcement, Planning and Building.  I’m copying Council (and Liz), Ed, Brian,  Amy and George as well as the neighbors who have been the most involved as I know it is a rare that cities hear from  citizens when things go RIGHT!   A little worried about celebrating too early, before the house goes down, so will save  and glass clinking until then!  ͧͨͩͪ    Steve    From: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Wednesday, February 3, 2021 1:28 PM  To: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>  Subject: Update: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard    Hi Steve,    It was great speaking with you earlier today. As requested, I am sending this email for you to share with your neighbors.    As you noticed, a construction fence was recently put up around the property to help hide the blight and with the  intention of keeping trespassers out. The property has sold and is expected to close early this month.  Brian will be  putting together a Notice for the Real Estate Agent to provide along with the original Notice of Violation, in the closing  package for the new owners. The new owners will then have 30 days after close in which to comply with the original  notice. The new owners have already committed to this and will be applying for a demolition permit shortly after the  close of sale.     I understand that this has been a long road for you and your neighbors, and while it not always seemed like it, staff did  work diligently to ensure closure.    The City staff involved besides myself are Brian Reynolds, Lead Code Enforcement Officer; Amy French, Chief Planning  Official; and George Hoyt, Chief Building Official.     Have a wonderful day.    Regards,  14     eÉu|Ç XÄÄÇxÜ Administrative Associate III  Planning & Development Services  (650) 329‐2603 | robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                   The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.             From: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>   Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 3:26 PM  To: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard    Thx, Robin.  I’ll update the neighborhood!    From: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 3:06 PM  To: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard    Submit to obtain a building permit to correct all dangerous conditions throughout the property and to resolve any other  violations of the CBC and/or the PAMC that were not observed during the building inspection/investigation process. The  permit would be to either demo the house or for significant exterior modifications.      eÉu|Ç XÄÄÇxÜ Administrative Associate III  Planning & Development Services  (650) 329‐2603 | robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org   www.cityofpaloalto.org                   The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.             From: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>   Sent: Tuesday, January 19, 2021 1:39 PM  15 To: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: Re: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard    Glad to hear there is a deadline.  What do they have to do by February 8th?    On Jan 19, 2021, at 1:18 PM, Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org> wrote:    Hi Steve,     The owners have a deadline of February 8th. There is a Historic evaluation underway and under Compass  Realtor, there is a note stating that the property is “Coming Soon”.  Staff has been working with the  Realtor.           <image002.png>eÉu|Ç XÄÄÇxÜ   Administrative Associate III  Planning & Development Services  (650) 329‐2603 | robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org  <image004.png>   <image013.png>   <image006.jpg>   <image014.png>   <image015.png>     The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.                 From: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>   Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2021 2:17 PM  To: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard     Robin, not seeing anything changing at this residence and wondering if this house is ready to move to  the next phase of the process. Steve     From: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:52 PM  To: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard     That I don’t have off‐hand. The realtor reached out to Amy some time ago regarding the historical  aspect, not code enforcement.        <image005.png>eÉu|Ç XÄÄÇxÜ   Administrative Associate III  Planning & Development Services  16 (650) 329‐2603 | robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org  <image004.png>   <image013.png>   <image006.jpg>   <image014.png>   <image015.png>     The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.                 From: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>   Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:50 PM  To: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard     Aha, who did they pick as agent?     From: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:48 PM  To: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard     Hi Steve,     Brian let both the owner and Real Estate Agent that he and Building Inspections needed access to the  inside of the home. He has yet to hear back. I will know more at our weekly meeting tomorrow.        <image007.png>eÉu|Ç XÄÄÇxÜ   Administrative Associate III  Planning & Development Services  (650) 329‐2603 | robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org  <image004.png>   <image013.png>   <image006.jpg>   <image014.png>   <image015.png>     The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.                 From: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>   Sent: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 3:42 PM  To: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard     Any idea how it is going after the city told the owner to sell the house?     17 From: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 2:53 PM  To: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard     Yes, you can share it. The neighbors need to know that the City is doing something and taking action by  working with the homeowner.           <image008.png>eÉu|Ç XÄÄÇxÜ   Administrative Associate III  Planning & Development Services  (650) 329‐2603 | robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org  <image004.png>   <image013.png>   <image006.jpg>   <image014.png>   <image015.png>     The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.                 From: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>   Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 2:42 PM  To: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard     Great! Step‐by‐step.  Ok if I share with the other neighbors?     From: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 2:40 PM  To: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard     Hi Steve,     I spoke with Brian a bit ago. This is the update, electric and gas meters have been pulled. Brian spoke  with the owner and she is to call him back this week, early next week to discuss a long‐term solution  instead of a short‐term one.        <image009.png>eÉu|Ç XÄÄÇxÜ   Administrative Associate III  Planning & Development Services  (650) 329‐2603 | robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org  <image004.png>   <image013.png>   <image006.jpg>   <image014.png>   <image015.png>     18 The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.           From: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 3:25 PM  To: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>  Cc: katefei@gmail.com  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard     Thank you, Steve.        <image010.png>eÉu|Ç XÄÄÇxÜ   Administrative Associate III  Planning & Development Services  (650) 329‐2603 | robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org  <image004.png>   <image016.png>   <image006.jpg>   <image014.png>   <image015.png>     The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.                 From: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>   Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 3:24 PM  To: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: katefei@gmail.com  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard     Robin, connecting Kate into your reply so she can reply directly to you with any further info since that  other string got moved along without her.  Steve     From: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>   Sent: Thursday, July 2, 2020 2:24 PM  To: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>  Cc: Pat McGaraghan (pat.mcgaraghan@dlapiper.com) <pat.mcgaraghan@dlapiper.com>; Nancy  McGaraghan <chezmcg@hotmail.com>; scottsaslow@me.com; Kniss, Liz (internal)  <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RE: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard     Good afternoon Steve,     Thank you for bringing this back to my attention. I welcome all emails/correspondence from your other  neighbors regarding 265 Coleridge. Before the end of my workday today, I will put together all of the  emails I receive into one email and forward it on to Brian Reynolds, Lead Code Enforcement Officer, Amy  19 French, Chief Planning Official, George Hoyt, Chief Building Official, Korwyn Peck, Building Inspector  Supervisor and James Henrikson, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshall. In this email to staff I will also include the  Google Maps and Google Earth pictures of the home. Any other emails that I receive after today, I will  forward on to staff.     Any break‐ins that you notice, please contact police. With the exception of James Henrikson, Brian, Amy,  George, Korwyn, our code enforcement attorney, a planner and I meet weekly. I will bring up 265 for  discussion if you do not hear back from staff prior to our meeting. I will email or call you afterwards,  your preference to let you know what we had discussed.     You all are also welcome to call me directly at 650.329.2603. I am available Monday – Thursday, 6:00 am  – 4:30 pm.           <image011.png>eÉu|Ç XÄÄÇxÜ   Administrative Associate III  Planning & Development Services  (650) 329‐2603 | robin.ellner@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org  <image004.png>   <image017.png>   <image006.jpg>   <image014.png>   <image015.png>     The City of Palo Alto is doing its part to reduce the spread of COVID-19. We have successfully transitioned most of our employees to a remote work environment. We remain available to you via email, phone, and virtual meetings during our normal business hours.                 From: Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>   Sent: Thursday, July 02, 2020 11:47 AM  To: Ellner, Robin <Robin.Ellner@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Pat McGaraghan (pat.mcgaraghan@dlapiper.com) <pat.mcgaraghan@dlapiper.com>; Nancy  McGaraghan <chezmcg@hotmail.com>; scottsaslow@me.com; Steve Dostart <Steve@dostart.com>;  Kniss, Liz (internal) <Liz.Kniss@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: 265 Coleridge Avenue ‐ hazard     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Robin,      Thanks for speaking with me a couple/few months ago about what we might do to encourage the fire  department to investigate whether this property, 265 Coleridge Avenue, is a fire and possibly health  hazard to the neighborhood and should be condemned and torn down.   As I think the city is aware, the  house has been abandoned for a very long time (I believe the owners moved back east after the 1989  earth quake and have never returned). There are holes throughout the roof system and portions of it  are collapsing,  so the house is becoming increasingly unstable.  The building is likely infested, and  apparently has been used in the past for unlawful events (i.e. people breaking in and doing things they  shouldn’t be doing).  I have recently witnessed a bike hidden inside the half wall there on the front  porch so I imagine that someone is illegally coming and going from the house.     20 I live on Coleridge (currently renting 356 and am about to renovate 232, which I own and where I plan to  live long term).  I’m also looping in my neighbors at 200 Coleridge (Pat and Nancy McGaraghan) as well  as at 237 Coleridge (Scott and Paula Saslow) so they can weigh in, or even add in more neighbors so are  worried about this – particularly the neighbors immediately adjacent to the house who are most at risk.      If there is anything else we should be doing, please let me know.  I’m sure we could get a group of  neighbors together for an outdoor, socially distanced, meeting with the fire department or city council  members if that were helpful.  I have known Liz Kniss for a long time through Chop Keenan so am  copying her.   There are some houses very close to this structure where a fire could easily spread and it  could become quite a catastrophe if that happened.      Thanks in advance for your stewardship to our neighborhood.     Steve     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Steve Dostart | President | Dostart Development Company, LLC  650.322.0739 (direct) | 650.644.0333 (fax) |  steve@dostart.com     ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐       21 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 11:10 AM To:Jonsen, Robert; Filseth, Eric (Internal); DuBois, Tom; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Raj; Tanner, Rachael; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Cecilia Taylor; Josh Becker; Council, City; Sunita de Tourreil; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Shikada, Ed; chuck jagoda; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Greer Stone; Pat Burt; Raven Malone; Joe Simitian; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; wintergery@earthlink.net; greg@gregtanaka.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; mark weiss Subject:Major Obstacle to Police Reform: The Whiteness of Union Bosses | The Marshall Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    https://www.themarshallproject.org/2020/06/10/a‐major‐obstacle‐to‐police‐reform‐the‐whiteness‐of‐their‐union‐ bosses      Sent from my iPhone  22 Baumb, Nelly From:Teresa Zepeda Kelleher <tnzepeda@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 10:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja's expansion project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council,    I am a Castilleja parent and a close neighbor to the school. Please consider my family's position at the upcoming March hearings.    Castilleja is vital to Palo Alto. I know that opponents focus on the fact that only 25-30% of students reside in Palo Alto, but they do not add that among the different communities Castilleja draws from, Palo Alto students far outnumber those coming from any other place. The school directory has page after page of names of students who live in the 94303, 94301, and 94306 zip codes.     Still, I’m sure many of you know girls from Palo Alto who were disappointed because they were not admitted. With the high school at about 60 students per grade, it’s incredibly hard to get in; maybe 10 or 12 students are admitted each year. Deserving and talented girls are turned away because there isn’t enough space. Meanwhile, the Environmental Impact Report proves that we can make space for these students without negatively impacting the neighborhood. It completely mystifies me that anyone is struggling over this choice. Allow more girls to benefit from this education without impacting the neighborhood. This should not be a politicized issue, and one very small school is not to blame for the traffic on Embarcadero and the growth in Palo Alto.     Castilleja places Palo Alto on the map of cutting-edge learning for girls because Castilleja is frequently ranked as the #1 girls’ school in the country. This force within our community only serves to elevate the women’s issues and drive for educational equity and professional parity that our entire city cares deeply about. Castilleja is a mission-driven not-for-profit that furthers the ideals of our City and works to amplify women’s voices in all corners of our community.    I urge you to please support Castilleja's expansion project.     Thank you!  Teresa Kelleher  512 Coleridge Ave.  Palo Alto    23 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 10, 2021 7:11 AM To:Anna Griffin; Raj; Jeff Moore; Tanner, Rachael; Roberta Ahlquist; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Sunita de Tourreil; Jeff Rosen; David Angel; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Council, City; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission; Raven Malone; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Greg Tanaka; Greer Stone; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; alisa mallari tu Subject:An extraordinary interview of Bryan Stevenson ...Love is the motive..not a short piece but a most compelling piece CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://onbeing.org/programs/bryan‐stevenson‐love‐is‐the‐motive/    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  24 Baumb, Nelly From:Carolyn Sledge <carsledge@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:22 PM To:Council, City; Carolyn Sledge Subject:Large Building on corner of Wellesley and College - 'college Terrace CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello,    I would like to express my dismay at the prospect of a 24 apartment building (in an R1 Zone)  on the corner of Wellesley  and College Avenue in College Terrace..      This cut de sac is home to a park, library , and Day Care.  It is usually filled with children walkers and bikers.  I feel this  would be very unsafe to have this high density in this location.   Also they all need parking which is not provided.    This company is asking for 4 variances.  As a near by homeowner this is quite disturbing to me.  We followed all  the  rules when remodeling and expect the neighbors to do the same.  Please respect the people in this neighborhood.  We  moved from a high density apartment building on Sand Hill Road and worked long and hard for our down payment.   Please do not take away the character of our neighborhood.  We were not expecting this when we purchased our home.    I am not opposed to affordable housing just put the appropriate number of dwellings on the space.  2  very low income  dwellings for this space  is a great idea.    Thank you ,    Concerned citizen    Carolyn Sledge  25 Baumb, Nelly From:Cherrill Spencer <cherrill.m.spencer@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Attention: Policy & Services Committee. Remarks given at your Feb 9 Meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Remarks to the February 9th 2021 meeting of the Policy and Services Committee during oral communications by Cherrill  Spencer     Good evening Councilors. I am Cherrill Spencer, a longtime resident of Palo Alto and a member of the Cities for CEDAW  Coalition, Palo Alto branch. [ you can learn about this national non‐profit here: http://citiesforcedaw.org ]    Ms Kou and Mr Tanaka have heard me address the City Council and this Policy and Services Committee several times  over the past three years about CEDAW, but let me briefly bring Mr Stone up to date in case he is not familiar with the  CEDAW acronym.     CEDAW stands for the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and our coalition  has been advocating for a city ordinance based on the principles of this longstanding United Nations convention since  February 2018.    We are pleased that last Fall this committee asked the City Manager's office to organize a Community Summit about  Gender Equality and I'm here to ask how that organizing is going ? and to say we have 5 volunteers eager to help City  staff with the design and execution of the Summit. Ms Ziesenhenne has their names and email addresses.    On a related topic I have spoken previously about to your committee ‐‐ I note Palo Alto residents have been asked to  complete the current National Community Survey, which closes tomorrow, and it does ask for the gender of the survey‐ taker. So I hope you will ask POLCO, who runs and analyses this survey, to see if they can discern any significant gender  differences in the responses that might indicate that there is some discrimination against women, even if it be  unintentional, going on in Palo Alto.    Thank‐you for your attention to my comments.    Cherrill Spencer, resident of Barron Park      26 Baumb, Nelly From:Carolyn Sledge <carsledge@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 9:10 PM To:Council, City; Carolyn Sledge Subject:Trail behind palo alto High School CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello,  Yesterday a Landscape company (I think Brighton)  used a weed wacker  along side the trail behind the High School.   While doing this they sprayed small stones all along the trail.    I was riding along on my bicycle and it was very dangerous ‐like riding on small balls‐ and slippery.  I was also concerned  as gravel can often cause a flat tire.  I actually went to a bee shop after this to have my tire checked.    Today I thought the company would have cleaned up after themselves and that all the small stone would have been  removed.  Not at all.  Again today very dangerous.    This needs to be remedied.  The stone need to be removes as soon as possible before someone hurt themself.      I ride this trail every day to go downtown to La Comida  Please help your citizens and clean up this trail!!    Thank you,    Palo  Alto Citizen    Carolyn Sledge  27 Baumb, Nelly From:Bob Kocher <bobkocher37@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 6:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  February 9, 2021    Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I am writing in support of Castilleja’s proposal for their new campus.  As a longtime neighbor on Emerson Street, I  think Castilleja has gone to great lengths to listen to our neighbors and bent‐over‐backwards to be a good neighbor.  We  appreciate the efforts and willingness of Castilleja to respond to feedback from our neighborhood and believe that the  current proposal does a very good job at addressing the concerns and feedback of people in our neighborhood.      Specifically, these commitments by Castilleja make a meaningfully difference:   Very few evening events:  Ending all athletic by 8pm on weekdays and no events on Sundays   Limiting parking:  Ensuring that on‐campus or satellite parking is provided for events   Quieter pool:  Lowering the pool will make it quieter.  Aquatic events are the ones that we can really hear so this  should make a big difference.    Less delivery noise:  Moving deliveries to a below grade and inside‐campus location should be quieter.     Moreover, I feel fortunate to have an exceptional school in our neighborhood that educates highly engaged students  who are invested in making our community more vibrant and better.  It is a good public policy, in my opinion, to support  investment in education and to support the investment of millions of dollars by Castilleja to build a state‐of‐the‐ art school that will help Castilleja continue to succeed.  Castilleja adds a great deal to our community by attracting  talented students, teachers, administrators, and families to Palo Alto.      I hope that the City Council supports Castilleja’s new campus.    Sincerely,    Bob Kocher, MD  1870 Emerson Street  Palo Alto, CA 94301    28 Baumb, Nelly From:Lesley King <lesleykinghome@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 6:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja School renovation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members ‐      Thank you for your service to our town. I am writing to express my support for the Castilleja School renovation project.     I am new to town. My family and I moved here in the fall of 2018 for what we thought would be a one year program at  Stanford. But once we experienced the town of Palo Alto and what the area has to offer, we decided to stay. We could  have purchased a much nicer home in a nearby town but decided to live in Palo Alto because of the wonderful  neighborhood that has developed over the last 120 years around the University. We love the feel that is created by the  mixed use with churches and schools amidst the homes and the two commercial districts close by. The presence of a top  quality school like Castilleja known across the world was a big draw for us even before our daughter was enrolled there  as a high school student. The school and the beauty of the land was a big factor in our decision to purchase the total  fixer upper on the corner of Embarcadero and Waverley.    Our daughter just joined the Castilleja community this year as a 10th grader and is able to walk to school (when it is in  session). The renovations that are planned are well designed and appropriate for the neighborhood. I am frankly  appalled at the selfish opposition that I have educated myself on during my first two years in town. The stubborn  shortsighted arguments made me question my decision to purchase property here in Palo Alto. But I have since spoken  to many neighbors who are thrilled that we are finally fixing up our corner property and look forward to Castilleja doing  the same.  There is much to be proud of in Palo Alto and maintaining historical properties for current use should be one  of them.    I know that you are close to approving the reasonable and necessary Castilleja renovation project and I urge you to do  so. This school and the property is a jewel of this town and should be preserved for generations to come.     Sincerely,  Lesley King  249 Lowell Ave    PS We also have a 7th grader at Greene Middle School and I would be just as supportive of any maintenance and  renovation necessary to keep Greene up to current standards.      ‐‐     "My work with the poor and the incarcerated has persuaded me that the opposite of poverty is not wealth; the opposite of poverty is justice. " - Bryan Stevenson, Just Mercy  29 Baumb, Nelly From:Karlette Warner <karlette46@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 5:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cato proposed development on Wellesley Street CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, I have lived in College Terrace for 43 years. I love its location, its atmosphere, its slightly funky-fun character. I am writing to express my grave concerns about the proposed 24-unit apartment building on Wellesley Street, at College Avenue. This just does not fit! As I understand the proposal, it would be built on land that is now two single-home parcels. Its three-story height is completely out of character for the neighborhood. There are modest apartment buildings in College Terrace, some single-story residences, some two-story residence, some two-story buildings with garage on the ground floor and single-story residences atop the garages. Those fit! The Cato proposal does not! Beyond the physical inappropriateness of the proposed building, other issues are apparent. For example, allowing only 16 parking places for 24 units is completely unrealistic and will just result in overflow street parking. Further, the building site is just steps away from the College Terrace Library and Day Care Center. Parking for those enterprises will be compromised. Apartment buildings are springing up all along El Camino Real and while I find some of these to be less than attractive and practical, I'll concede that El Camino is a more appropriate location for apartment buildings but not the middle of a quiet neighborhood such as College Terrace. Please say "NO" to this proposed development. Very truly yours, Karlette Warner 981 College Ave Palo Alto 30 Baumb, Nelly From:Sudhanshu Priyadarshi <sspriyadarshi@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 5:16 PM To:Council, City Cc:Anu Priyadarshi Subject:Support for Castilleja's Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,     My name is Sudhanshu Priyadarshi and I have been a resident of Palo Alto since 2017 with my daughters (10 and 6 yr old) and my wife, Anu.     We are writing to express our strong support for the Castilleja masterplan and new CUP. Palo Alto is renowned for excellent schools, and to us, Castilleja is a gem among the schools. While many families move to Palo Alto for the excellent public schools, we moved here for Castilleja. My wife, Anu went to an all girls school and we know the benefits of an all-girls education firsthand. The small, all-girls environment and the school’s mission to educate “confident thinkers and compassionate leaders” drew our daughter to apply. The school is nationally renowned, and given its 113 year history here, I’m sure brings tremendous pride to the community. According to Niche, Castilleja is the #2 all-girls high school in the country.     As we’ve learned about the school and their proposal, there are three points that we’d like to emphasize:    1. High school enrollment should be increased. The school has demonstrated their ability to expand their highly successful TDM program, and so they can enroll more students without negatively impacting the surrounding neighborhood. The Final Environmental Impact Report showed that 540 students can be supported with no significant and unavoidable impacts in the neighborhood. By increasing enrollment, the school will be able to broaden the reach of students they can admit, including more girls from Palo Alto.  2. The underground garage should be approved. Again, the Final Environmental Impact Report showed that the garage is the environmentally superior option. The underground garage removes cars from the neighborhood streets, vastly improving the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Opponents will say that zoning does not support the garage. Please review the zoning code: it does not prohibit underground parking in an R-1 neighborhood for non-residential use.  3. The variance for FAR should be approved. This issue should be straightforward, because the school is applying for above ground square footage that is less than they currently have. They only need to apply for the variance because Castilleja’s current permitted above-ground square footage predates the current code.    Thank you for your close attention to the facts. Again, we ask for your support. It’s imperative for you to remember that the Castilleja proposal can be approved with no negative impacts at all nor any violation of zoning codes.    Thank you again,  Sudhanshu and Anu Priyadarshi  410 Marion Avenue, Palo Alto.  Cell-+1.650.308.6695  31 Baumb, Nelly From:Bill Burch <bill.burch@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 5:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Urging you to support Castilleja School's proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council members,   I want to express my strong support for Castilleja’s plans to upgrade their campus and increase their enrollment.  As a  parent of a young girl who many years ago attended Castilleja, I have seen first‐hand the remarkable opportunities the  Castilleja experience created for her and her fellow students.  Our town has benefited tremendously from its  partnership with the school for well over a century. I also know that, with the Council’s support, Castilleja can continue  to support young women leaders for the next century as well.    It seems to me that Castilleja has been transparent and inclusive during the entire expansion proposal process.  They’ve  reached out to the neighbors, followed all City mandates, and have complied and/or compromised on suggestions by  the Planning Department, ARB/HRB and EIR studies.   My hope is that you will take a serious look at the proposal before you, tune out the “noise” and hone in on the  truth.  I’m confident you’ll see that approving the Castilleja proposal will be good for Palo Alto and our Bay Area  community of female students the school serves.  Thank you,  Bill Burch  777 Marion Avenue  Palo Alto, CA  94303  bill.burch@gmail.com  32 Baumb, Nelly From:J.M. Beckett <jmbeckett@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 4:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:impact of construction on Park Boulevard CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members   I am a resident of Palo Alto Central, the large condominium complex near the intersection of Park Blvd. and Grant Ave.  The city has several large construction projects planned or proposed within a block of our homes.     These include the police headquarters at 250 Sherman and the teacher housing at 231 Grant. There is also a proposal to  combine one residence and two small offices into a gargantuan office/housing structure at 123 Sherman, which I  strongly urge you to reject, These projects come on top of years of construction that included 2555 Park, the new city  parking garage, the Tencent building and 195 Park.    Each time, the residents of our complex have endured noise, closed roads, increased pollution and difficulty navigating  the streets around our homes. The new projects will mean more noise and disruption for us.    The problem: The council (and the planning department) typically reviews each project individually without considering  the cumulative impact of all of the construction on our homes and our quality of life ‐‐ the disruption, noise and  environmental impact of the construction, as well as the increasing congestion, parking problems and worsening traffic  that results from added density.    I ask the council to remember that we are a residential complex housing some 140 families. Construction at the scale  being considered will affect our physical and mental well‐being. As you evaluate each project, please keep in mind the  overall impact on the families who live here and give serious consideration to our concerns.     thank you,  Jamie Beckett  2577 Park Blvd., V203  Palo Alto, CA  94306  650‐996‐4552              33 Baumb, Nelly From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 3:44 PM To:Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; Clerk, City; City Mgr; Jonsen, Robert; Dave Price Subject:Take a break, sit down, and hear these messages CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://youtu.be/kiN_-Zz0aR4    Dear Council Members:    White folks, especially, have a lifetime of relearning social justice ethics, and unlearning their racism, especially here in  Palo Alto, and the Bay Area. If you think that there is no racism here, then this is especially for you. Critical, ongoing,  white self‐interrogation is necessary for opening up your hearts and eyes to the reality of individual and particularly  institutional racism. Perhaps then we can build low‐income housing for our ethnically/racially diverse workers and  service sector  workers who travel so far from home to get to their jobs.     Sincerely,  Roberta Ahlquist, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom,   Low‐income Housing Committee, Peninsula Branch    34 Baumb, Nelly From:Liz Lee <liz@funghi.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Gas-powered leaf blowers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Honorable Palo Alto City Council members,     I am writing to request that you bring back enforcement of the  ban on gas‐powered leaf blowers because they cause both air and  noise pollution. A possible solution to help the mow‐and‐blow  gardeners is to offer a buy‐back program where they can  exchange their gas‐powered blowers for electric or battery  operated ones and brooms and rakes.     The California Environmental Protection Agency estimated that  operating a gas‐powered leaf blower for one hour emits more  pollution than driving a 2016 Toyota Camry for 1,100 miles.  Enforcing the ban is essential to significantly lower our city’s  carbon footprint.     The noise pollution they cause lowers our quality of life as well. I  work at home, as I have more many years. The noise is disruptive,  especially while meeting with clients during video or phone calls.  35 Right now during the pandemic many people are in this same  predicament. Night workers, such as our essential medical  personnel also get sleep‐deprived when they must sleep during  the day. I also crave enjoying my garden to de‐stress, but there is  usually a loud blower going somewhere and so I cannot. During  the years when the ban was enforced, the clean, peaceful, quiet  streets were a Godsend. I could take walks and bike rides in fresh  air, without having to dodge the fumes and dust several times on  every block. Now it’s as if we have returned to the dark ages, and  it has caused me to lose interest in keeping up my yard.     We all share the same air to breathe and the same sound waves  to hear, and we need to be respectful of everyone else where we  live and work. Please bring back enforcement of the ban on gas‐ powered leaf blowers, perhaps with a buy‐back program for  gardeners and make having a cleaner, greener, quieter Palo Alto a  priority. Thank you for your time and consideration.     Sincerely,    Rev. Elizabeth Johnson Lee, MA, LMFT     36 Baumb, Nelly From:Patty Boas <pattylboas@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,    Now that the Castilleja project is finally on your agenda, I am writing to ask your support for the project. Specifically, I urge you to vote in favor of the variance to maintain their Floor Area Ratio (FAR).     The Castilleja project is NOT an “expansion,” as their opponents have misrepresented. The new building actually has less above ground square footage than the current structures. The school has applied for a variance, however, because new codes have been passed since the current campus was built, and the school needs to apply for a variance just to maintain their current above ground square footage. As I said, though, the school is proposing to slightly reduce their above ground square footage (from 84,572 square feet to 81,942 square feet). The variance is a technical issue that should be very easy to support. It simply allows the school to replace aging and unsound structures. I emphasize again, this project is NOT an expansion.    Thank you for your consideration and support,  Patty Boas, 1533 Dana Avenue, Palo Alto    37 Baumb, Nelly From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 11:18 AM To:Aram James Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Jeff Moore; Rebecca Eisenberg; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; chuck jagoda; Council, City; Mark Petersen-Perez; Lewis. james; John Abraham; alisa mallari tu; Kaloma Smith; Human Relations Commission; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission Subject:Re: Tomorrow’s Palo Alto HUMAN RELATIONSHIP COMMISSION annual retreat -priority setting for 2021 ...9am-1pm ( see link to the agenda below) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Related:     https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021‐02‐09/name‐changes‐tell‐stories‐of‐la‐black‐history  Mbw  Sent from my iPhone      On Feb 4, 2021, at 4:59 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Yes, definitely let’s talk it up on no racist poll tax fees at the Ladoris Cordell Foothill Preserve.     Low low income housing on Fry’s prop and a 20% reparation set aside in perpetuity for all units built on  Fry’s property. See u all tomorrow. aram         Sent from my iPhone      On Feb 4, 2021, at 12:16 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:     I hope we can also rescind the fees on Foothill Park get them to apply for CAREsact  funds for LOW, LOW income houosing on the Sobrato Fry's property   and get % of housing for low‐income people of color , essential workers, and....    On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:27 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  FYI: Folks: at tomorrow’s HRC retreat from  9am to 1pm ‐ see agenda below‐ chance to speak to what you think should be the  HRC’s priorities for the year.    I plan to speak re the HRC pushing the city council to consider renaming Foothills Park  in honor of Judge Cordell, ending the coverup re the Zack Perron matter in 2021,  developing a robust safe parking program, my anger that the council process for  38 approving a new $150 million dollar police station jail ( on Monday feb 1) was  essentially a Kangaroo court stacked decked for the pro jail ‐folks. 8‐10 witnesses for  building the police station jail none for opponents of this unnecessary monument to  our failed criminal prison jails industrial complex.     Ok, hope some of you can attend and state your own priorities for the HRC to address  in 2021. You don’t have to be a Palo Alto resident to express yourself.     Aram    https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80103    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  39 Baumb, Nelly From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:3997 Fabian Way Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council     Please tell the developer of 3997 Fabian Way  that you REQUIRE their architectural conceptual drawings  to be done TO SCALE.    The drawings that they are currently showing have  the streets ‐ Fabian and E. Charleston ‐ way TOO WIDE.  This reduces the feeling of mass and height of the  building which is MISLEADING.  Make the developer  understand that you require their presentations to be     ‐ HONEST     ‐ IN GOOD FAITH     Thank you.  I support more housing and this is a promising location !!  As an aside, why can't you require MORE units for below‐average income?    Carlin Otto  231 Whitclem Court  Palo Alto, CA 94306  40 Baumb, Nelly From:YANTING ZHANG <ytzhang@aol.com> Sent:Tuesday, February 9, 2021 10:33 AM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja extension CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    I am a neighbor of Castilleja School; I live on Bryant Street just a couple of blocks away. I write in strong support of the underground garage. I am glad that this project will finally be addressed and voted on by Council so that our community can move forward.    With the underground garage, we now have the opportunity to move most of the school’s parked cars below ground, away from surface streets. This will dramatically improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood; that’s not just my opinion, it’s affirmed by the Final Environmental Impact Report. I can’t understand why any of my neighbors would prefer to have cars parked in front of their homes or in surface level parking lots in plain view. Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan prefers underground parking to surface lots and street parking, and the zoning code does not prohibit underground parking in R-1 neighborhoods for non-residential use. The school’s architects have designed a garage entrance and exit that blend gently into the landscape; there is nothing at all commercial looking about the design, in my opinion. Further, moving parking underground can improve bike safety, because cars won’t need to park on the neighborhood streets as they do now, including the bike boulevard.    My guess is that opponents of the garage are fighting to avoid its construction. They don’t want the inconvenience that will last several months. But I urge you to focus on long-term benefits and not short-term eyesores. The neighborhood will absolutely benefit in the long-term by the construction of this underground facility.    Thank you for your consideration, and I do hope you take the time to carefully read the Final Environmental Impact Report, which shows that the school’s Project Alternative 4 has no significant or unavoidable impacts.    Thank you very much,  Yanting Zhang  1680 Bryant Street      41 Baumb, Nelly From:judy glaes <judy.glaes@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 10:15 PM To:supervisor.simitian@bos.sccgov.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Thank you for the “No Wrong Door” system CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi Joe,    Thank you for your efforts, including your January 31st town hall, that led to our county’s adoption of the “No Wrong  Door” system for COVID‐19 vaccine distribution. Under that system, I was vaccinated today at the Berger facility with an  appointment made late last Saturday night. The first dose was in my arm within 10 minutes of my arrival. Staffing and  management of the site was top‐flight!  Parking was aplenty!  My experience was pretty much perfect. I am so relieved,  and so very thankful.    I’m in the 65 and older eligibility crowd, but due to the State’s uneven rollout, wasn’t able to make a vaccine  appointment with my healthcare provider, Kaiser. I am proud to live in a place where stakeholders came together and  quickly implemented a system that increased access to these life‐saving vaccines, regardless of ones healthcare provider  or insurance. I also thank you for your efforts to provide medical and dental services to the north county needy, and for  prompting Palo Alto to share its CDBG funds for the mobile clinic to be operated by Ravenswood Family Health  Networks. As COVID‐19 has reminded us, our health is fundamental. It should treated that way.    With thanks for your many years of service,    Judy Glaes  42 Baumb, Nelly From:Joanne Koltnow <joanne.koltnow@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 5:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:Thanks for closing Cal Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members-- Thanks for closing California Avenue for outdoor dining. The first round of closing worked well and this current one seems off to a good start. --Joanne Koltnow, Evergreen Park 43 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeanne Fleming <jfleming@metricus.net> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 5:19 PM To:Council, City Cc:Clerk, City Subject:231 Grant Development CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor DuBois, Vice-Mayor Burt and Councilmembers Cormack, Filseth, Kou, Stone and Tanaka, As you know, Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN) has carried out a thoughtful analysis of the 231 Grant Avenue development. What they have determined is that, unfortunately, the project as it is currently configured does not come close to meeting the City of Palo Alto’s standards. I am writing to urge you to ensure that PAN’s parking, traffic, recreational, safety, density and other objections to the 231 Grant Avenue project are addressed and, in particular, that the development is significantly scaled back. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Jeanne Fleming   Jeanne Fleming, PhD JFleming@Metricus.net 650-325-5151   44 Baumb, Nelly From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 4:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:321 Grant Road CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council,    These points below abot 321 Grant road were sent to you  previously, I  totally support the idea of teacher housing, but do urge you to take into  account the input of community members.  I will highlight the issues I  believe are very important to address and hopefully put into the plan.    Thank You,    Suzanne Keehn, 94306    Concerns         “Early outreach included a survey to gauge interest in the project and to  determine the appropriate unit mix as well as coordination with a variety  of stakeholders. These stakeholders include but are not limited to: the  City of Palo Alto; school districts; teacher associations; Palo Alto  Neighborhood Association; Palo Alto Forward; and nearby residents,  businesses and property owners.” (they didn't even get our name right.)     PAN ‐ its co‐chairs and its executive committee, have never been contacted or consulted on this project. So I’ll  be making some noise about that tomorrow.      2. The building’s density is 80 dwelling units per acre, which is double the allowable density in an RM‐40  zone.     45 3.  A detailed traffic study should be demanded by the City (paid for by the County), showing the impacts on  the arterial roads (Park Blvd., Oregon Expressway, Cal Avenue) and major intersections (Page Mill & Park, El  Camino & Page Mill, Cal Avenue & El Camino, Cambridge & El Camino) – based on pre‐COVID standards.  Residents know the intersections of Page Mill/Park Blvd. and El Camino & Page Mill can be major  “bottlenecks” at peak commute hours.     4. Park Blvd. is not only a ‘bike boulevard’, but it is also a major arterial road especially between the Cal  Avenue Business District and Oregon Expressway. Many residents/businesses depend on and use this  segment of Park Blvd. on a regular and consistent basis. 231 Grant will only add to the strain on the roads  and needs to be studied.      5. Since this building will be “underparked” (112 spaces, but City would normally require 135), a TDM plan  seems to be essential and should be part of this project. Where will the extra cars go? Undoubtedly out into  the street and into the Evergreen Park/Mayfield Parking Permit Area. Can this be handled in an area which  already had parking issues before COVID?     6. Lack of Park Space – the project plans include no meaningful parkland for people to walk or kids to play  in. With the existing huge deficit in park space the City already has plus the fact that this area – the Mayfield  neighborhood – has only one small, “postage‐size” park, Sarah Wallis , which just compounds this  phenomenon of housing people with no natural playground.     7. Public Health Impacts ‐ It's a matter of public health to provide space for recreation throughout the city,  especially as we add more housing. "Cramming” more and more people into smaller and smaller areas  without parks is not what Palo Alto is about.     8. Safety Concerns ‐ Adding cars with no traffic study, hoping that some of the teachers will not own cars  pours more cars onto the street, as some tenants will have to park far away from their homes. More cars on  the street, tightly parked and parking at a distance poses concerns for teachers and their families as well as  existing residents.     These considerations have led PAN to advocate for a strong response by the City Council to the County, asking  that the project mitigate these concerns by scaling back the project to meet our building standards.    We at PAN believe we can house the people that need it the most without blowing up our building  standards. It can be done through a) stop building apartments for wealthy people, b) moratorium all new  office, c) convert existing empty office to housing, d) choose Alternative M (and its funding model) at the  Fry's site and rezoom sunsetting of the commercial use at Fry's which is actually zoned for housing already.      T  46 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Kemp <skemp650@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 2:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Fund Boulware Park Renovations CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of the CIty Council,     I urge the City Council to fully fund the renovation of Boulware Park. This is not an ordinary request for funds to be spent on a local park. There are unique reasons why Boulware Park renovation deserves full funding now even in the face of current budgetary challenges.     First, Boulware Park was approved for capital improvement funding back in 2017, but the money was never spent due to an opportunity to purchase the Birch Street property and add it to the existing park making it a waste of money to improve facilities in a park that would soon be improved through expansion. But it means that upgrading of Boulware Park is even more overdue now than it was then.     Second, the Birch Street property has now been purchased, and expansion of Boulware Park complete with a full design plan that was praised by the Parks and Recs Commssion during their recent meeting is ripe. To realize the benefit that the City’s investment was intended to provide, the new Boulware Park footprint must now be made into a fully coherent, usable space. That requires the City to re-allocate capital improvement funding that was already approved and provide for the integration of the Birch Street property into the Park. Failure to fund this last step would waste all of the funds and effort expended to date on this multi-year effort.    Third, Boulware Park renovation should be prioritized because the Ventura neighborhood has less parkland per resident than other Palo Alto neighborhoods and has been historically underserved. That unfavorable ratio will worsen as more residents are added in the NVCAP development area and nearby office spaces whose workers use the park come back online. Local parks have never been more important to our community than they are now. While the City spends extraordinary amounts of time and resources about issues related to Foothills Park, let us remember the spaces that are closest to us and most likely to be used frequently by people of all ages, incomes, and abilities. Peter Jensen has done a wonderful job designing a fun and thoughtful park space that is much more inclusive for children of differing abilities and adults of varying interests.     47 The City Council should fully fund the renovation of Ventura’s primary park and transform Boulware Park into a legacy that makes us all proud and gets us all outside together. Anything less would be a betrayal of trust upon which Ventura’s children and families sacrificed the previously approved renovations for the hope of an even better park in the future. Ventura deserves better.     Sincerely,    Susan Kemp  Ventura Neighborhood Resident      48 Baumb, Nelly From:Judith Schwartz <judith@tothept.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 2:12 PM To:Council, City Cc:City of Palo Alto; Shikada, Ed; info@urbanvillageonline.com Subject:Please do not introduce a weekly superspreader event in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    I have been a loyal supporter and very vocal fan of the Cal Avenue Market and appreciate the many  precautions that were being taken to keep this valuable resource open during the pandemic. Unfortunately,  the City of Palo Alto and Urban Village Farmers’ Markets—bowing to pressure from the Cal Ave Merchants  Association—decided that the vendors should be squeezed between open air dining spots where people will  be eating unmasked, thereby putting everyone at risk.        Yesterday the Sunday Cal Ave Market, with only a handful of restaurants open as a test, was extremely  stressful. It was now crowded, dense, and there was no social distancing possible in areas where popular  vendor booths were crammed together. Many booths had to be concentrated on the side streets and the bank  parking lot. The extra people in the aisles going to the restaurants didn’t seem to take social distancing  seriously. When there are 20 venues all packed with people laughing and talking without masks along the  Avenue, that will put shoppers waiting in lines and vendors’ staff nearby at greater risk too.    I am afraid, with good reason (see linked articles below), the market will become the new weekly Bay Area  superspreader event. What has been for my family, friends, and neighbors, the safest place to acquire healthy  food will become a high risk option. I predict the local farmers (also small businesses) who rely on this as their  best market are going to suffer and seriously doubt the Sunday brunch revenues will be enough to save  restaurants teetering on the edge. It’s a lose‐lose‐lose situation IMHO.    To be told by the market manager that it wasn’t any more crowded than a grocery store (it was), that there  are no possible alternative locations (that seems unlikely) and that even more restaurants will be opening in  the coming weeks are not acceptable answers. And yes, we can abandon the farmers we’ve been supporting  for the last decade and take our business to farmers’ markets in other communities if we are afraid.  Unfortunately, introducing a new vector for transmission in our City will harm us anyway if more sick residents  spread the virus and fill up the ICUs.     If you will not rescind the ill‐advised opening of the outdoor dining within a single four hour window, how  about using your clout to relocate the market to another location on a temporary basis? Can’t we be a little  creative here? Some obvious options with sufficient space and parking are: Palo Alto High School, Cubberley  Community Center, Palo Alto Square, or 1050 Page Mill which is a large new corporate campus that is  completely unoccupied. It’s not unreasonable for local landlords, Stanford, and developers to support the  community and make otherwise empty parking lots available on Sundays for a few hours.    Thank you for your time.  49   https://www.theguardian.com/us‐news/2021/jan/27/covid‐surge‐california‐lifts‐stay‐at‐home‐ order?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other    https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2021/02/06/in‐race‐to‐vaccinate‐could‐california‐see‐another‐ surge?utm_source=express‐2021‐02‐08&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=express    Judith Schwartz  Palo Alto, CA 94301 USA    50 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 12:52 PM To:City Mgr; Council, City; Rebecca Eisenberg; mark weiss; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; chuck jagoda; Winter Dellenbach; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com Subject:......please circulate .....Please Help Local Holocaust Survivors Living In Poverty CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  FYI: please circulate widely! Aram               To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.    To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.        Dear Friends, Two out of three Holocaust survivors in Silicon Valley are living at or near the  poverty line. The income these survivors receive does not allow them to afford what is needed to  live a dignified life. Many are choosing between heat or food, medicine or rent.  Others have dire living conditions because they cannot invest what is needed to  repair their homes. Please join us to help Jewish Family Services of Silicon Valley ensure that the urgent  and critical emergency needs of Silicon Valley’s Holocaust Survivors do not go unmet.  Every dollar donated to Operation Dignity will be matched by KAVOD SHEF in  partnership with Seed the Dream Foundation up to $45,000. Every dollar raised goes  directly to our community's Holocaust survivors. Last year, our community raised over $68,000 to support Holocaust survivors, and  people's lives were changed. Here is what one low‐income Survivor told us: “I got assistance from Operation Dignity so I could go to Target to buy  warm clothes, shoes, and one winter sweater. Now, when I wear my new warm jacket,  I am so grateful to those generous people who gave me the opportunity to feel their  warmth and care.”  51 This year's Operation Dignity campaign will continue through February 22, 2021 so  please don't wait to help improve the lives of our community's survivors. As Anne  Frank said, “How wonderful it is that nobody need wait a single moment  before starting to improve the world.”     Please donate today by clicking here. L'Shalom,   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.    Lael Gray CEO, Jewish Silicon Valley       To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Addison-Penzak Jewish Community Center dba Jewish Silicon Valley.   To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.     To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.            Addison-Penzak Jewish Community Center dba Jewish Silicon Valley | 14855 Oka Road, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Unsubscribe abjpd1@gmail.com Update Profile | Our Privacy Policy | Customer Contact Data Notice Sent by jerami@jvalley.org powered by   To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Trusted Email from Constant Contact - Try it FREE today. Try email marketing for free today!       52 Baumb, Nelly From:Lucy LaPier <lucy.lapier@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 11:49 AM To:Council, City Cc:Lorraine Brown Subject:upcoming Castilleja project review CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council    I see that the Castilleja project is on your agenda in March.  I have been following Castilleja's plan to rebuild their  campus with interest, as I am a nearby neighbor of 20+ years.  Casti has always been an asset to our community and  their new plans, which take into consideration requests for a smaller garage and other modifications, show a project  which is very well designed, environmentally thoughtful and beautiful.  I have walked and biked past Casti for many  years and never been bothered by the school's students or traffic either during the day or at pickup or drop off times, or  during events.  The underground garage is an excellent plan and has been well designed to minimize disruptions to the  neighborhood. And their new design incorporating street trees and other environmental features will make it very  attractive as well.    Please don't get bogged down with the catastrophic predictions we have all heard from those who oppose the  project.  The school has been there over 100 years, and everyone who lives in the neighborhood was well aware there  was a school there when they moved in.  As a neighbor, I can vouch for their respect for the neighborhood and their  willingness to be good neighbors.    I think they have been particularly responsive to concerns and addressed the issues that need to be resolved.  I strongly  encourage you to approve their project and let this beautiful design come to fruition.  It will be a school we can all be  proud of for many years to come.     Thank you,  L Lapier      53 Baumb, Nelly From:Michelle Long Held <michelle@visitwidget.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 11:27 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Digital Needs Review CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Just a quick follow‐up to see if you wanted to learn anymore about our technology.      Our tools will support continue to drives visitors to your city as you transition with your tourism marketing strategy with  out a CVB.     A 15 min call will not be a waste of anyone's time.     Who is best connect to get a time on the calendar?    Michelle    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.   Michelle Long | Business Development P: 512.608.3399 | E: michelle@visitwidget.com     Wed, Jan 13, 2021 10:42 AM, Michelle Long <michelle@visitwidget.com> wrote:   Members of the City Council and Mayors Office for Palo Alto, Recently it looks like Palo Alto has left the San Mateo County CVB. Wanted to see if we could provide any technology support and connect with you on your upcoming digital needs for your next budget cycle. We create interactive maps for your existing website, mobile apps with push- messaging and we recently released our popular kiosk technology - great for the Visitor Centers, hotels, airports, festivals, etc. And can develop most anything you might be considering. Another great tool we design includes Augmented Reality, which is a great tool to help engage and entertain the visitor when they are in your area - maybe just let us show how that works on a quick demo. Who is the best person to contact to get a preliminary review to see if we can get a meeting with the hoteliers and the city council? Michelle 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. Michelle Long Held | Business Development P: 512.608.3399 | E: michelle@visitwidget.com Here is a link to our apps that are part of the trip planning solution and a link about our visitor kiosk option. https://visitwidget.com/clients/ 54 https://visitwidget.com/interactive-kiosk/   We are currently working with over 120 destinations in 21 states, and this includes 4 statewide instances.     Check out our website at www.visitwidget.com    Also, 2 case studies we created in the past:     https://visitwidget.com/brenham-case-study/  https://visitwidget.com/travelok-case-study/   Here is a live client example: Widget: https://www.visitflorida.com/en-us.html (Click "Plan your visit" in bottom right) iOS: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/visit-florida/id1468501064 Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.visitwidget.visitflorida (These applications can run in airplane mode; which is great for international visitors!)          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.   Michelle Long | Business Development P: 512.608.3399 | E: michelle@visitwidget.com     55 Baumb, Nelly From:Teri Vershel <teri@vershel.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 10:09 AM To:Council, City Subject:Close University to through traffic CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please close University street as it was before the December 2020 shutdown. It made downtown much more pleasant  and helped the restaurants as there was more outdoor dining space. You should keep this closed permanently not just  during virus, in my opinion.   Thanks.  Teri Vershel, 381 Guinda Street  56 Baumb, Nelly From:Sajjad Jaffer <sajjad@fivexxiv.com> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 6:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja School Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,     I am writing in support of Castilleja school’s proposal, but I want to draw attention to my concern about the PTC's vote  to require daily electronic traffic monitoring. When this vote comes before Council, I urge you to dismiss this  requirement. I am concerned   for two reasons, first of all because it seems that the commission believed they are in common use in Palo Alto and  second because the commission seemed to feel they are justified in this project. In both cases, they are NOT.    First of all, Stanford does not employ daily electronic traffic monitoring, as was stated at the PTC hearing. Instead,  Stanford only counts eight times a year for a week with temporary equipment. If Castilleja is going to be held to the  same standard as Stanford,   which is questionable in itself given the difference in scale, but anyway,   if they are going to be held to the same standard, that does not   involve daily electronic counts and the expense of permanent equipment. And, Stanford’s measures are only of the  peak inbound and peak outbound traffic. Their model does not monitor all trips. Asking Castilleja to do MORE than  Stanford seems very unreasonable.      Looking for a local nearby site that uses real‐time electronic monitoring, Facebook has real‐time equipment that reports  to Menlo Park, but Facebook has 15,000 employees on site and is one of the most valuable companies in the world with  $71 billion in annual revenue.    Castilleja has just over 100 employees and is a not‐for‐profit. I know that you CAN ask them to employ real‐time  monitors, but that doesn't mean that you SHOULD. I hope that you will not support this condition of approval because:    Stanford does not use them, so this is not a parallel application.    It is a stretch to put Stanford and Castilleja in the same category, but if you must, that would call for periodic third‐party  counts, not every day.      Castilleja’s volume does not warrant this kind of monitoring.     It seems onerous to place this cost on the school; this is NOT Facebook.     Please look closely at the plans outlined in the FEIR. There is a way to do this by third party counts, at much less cost to  the school and in a way that is not an undue burden on the school. The condition approved by the PTC does not feel fair  or justified to me.     Thank you for your service and for your consideration of my request.     ‐Sajjad Jaffer, Bryant Street    58 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 2:37 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; beachrides; bballpod; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; 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; margaret- sasaki@live.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; david pomaville; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; lalws4 @gmail.com; leager; sanchezphilip21@gmail.com; midge@thebarretts.com Subject:Dr. Michael Osterholm on MSNBC Darkest days 6-14 wks ahead. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.         Very late on Sunday night, 2‐7‐2021         To all‐  If you've run out of things to worry about, watch this: He says EXACTLY what Dr. John Campbell in the UK has  said about the U.S.  See the recent emails I have sent out containing his vids.  About 2 weeks ago, on a Saturday, he sent  a "warning to the U.S."  He shows there the charts for new cases when the Kent variant became dominant in Ireland and  Portugal. Total, Draconian lockdown imposed in Ireland,. Severe lockdown now in UK due to the Kent variant. Denmark  will have it dominant in mid March, as will the U.S. according to the CDC. Denmark sequences every Covid case so they  know which variants they have. The U.S. sequences 0.3% of cases so we do not know how much of what variant we  have! But we spend $2 billion a day to defend the whole world.               Dr. Osterholm: Variants Will Cause A Huge Case Surge | Ayman Mohyeldin | MSNBC ‐ YouTube               When that happens cases can quadruple and the hospitals can be over run. So we may not have seen the worst  yet. The slow vaccine roll out can't possibly prevent the Kent variant becoming dominant here. One thing that could  help, but not prevent this disaster, would be for the FDA to provide an EUA for the safe and effective Oxford vaccine, as I  say in every email.               Biden should intervene with the FDA. Plans should be drawn up now to totally shut down the entire United States.  That will have to be done by the military and so the Pentagon should be working to get ready 24‐7.                 L. William Harding              Fresno, Ca.                      59 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, February 8, 2021 1:05 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; beachrides; bballpod; 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; lalws4 @gmail.com; leager; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; nick yovino; sanchezphilip21@gmail.com Subject:Fwd: UK Dr. John Campbell- Cases down in U.K. and U..S. They have Pfizer and Oxford 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: Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 9:21 PM  Subject: Fwd: UK Dr. John Campbell‐ Cases down in U.K. and U..S. They have Pfizer and Oxford  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 9:03 PM  Subject: Fwd: UK Dr. John Campbell‐ Cases down in U.K. and U..S. They have Pfizer and Oxford  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 4:12 AM  Subject: Fwd: UK Dr. John Campbell‐ Cases down in U.K. and U..S. They have Pfizer and Oxford  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:34 AM  60 Subject: Fwd: UK Dr. John Campbell‐ Cases down in U.K. and U..S. They have Pfizer and Oxford  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Feb 7, 2021 at 2:12 AM  Subject: Fwd: UK Dr. John Campbell‐ Cases down in U.K. and U..S. They have Pfizer and Oxford  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 9:54 PM  Subject: Fwd: UK Dr. John Campbell‐ Cases down in U.K. and U..S. They have Pfizer and Oxford  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 9:26 PM  Subject: UK Dr. John Campbell‐ Cases down in U.K. and U..S. They have Pfizer and Oxford  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>            Sunday, Feb.7, 2021                     Dr. Campbell on Saturday, Feb. 6, 2021 with numbers for U.S. and U.K. on new cases, deaths, etc.  Bear in mind  that what the UK is using is the Pfizer and the Oxford vaccines. They don't have Moderna and we don't have Oxford.  If  the Oxford vaccine wasn't working, or if it were harming people or making their trajectory worse, the UK would not have  the good results they are seeing. Conclusion: it is madness, or worse, for the FDA to keep holding up the Oxford vaccine  for use in the U.S.              Update ‐ YouTube                Here is the announcement in the news on December 30, 2020 of the approval of the Oxford vaccine in the  UK.  The UK is very glad to have it and if it were not working or was making people sick, they would be telling the whole  world about it. Instead, they trumpet the great results it is producing there. This just makes inexplicable the refusal of  the FDA to release it here. That refusal is killing people.  When will Biden and Congress step in and end this stupidity, or  worse? The American public should be outraged. Over and over I send emails saying that the Oxford vaccine has been  used in the UK since Monday, Jan. 4, 2021 and that the EU regulators approved it for 27 countries a week ago.             I believe that this national scandal of the FDA holding up approval of the Oxford vaccine will start to engulf the  Biden administration. Lots of  unnecessary deaths in the US. caused by a federal agency usually lands on the President's  desk. Watergate was bad, but nobody died as a result.     61         Virologist: UK‐approved Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine is a ‘ray of hope’ ‐ YouTube              BTW, Dr. Campbell mentions that with the Oxford vaccine, I think, one gets no immunity for the first 12 days after  the first shot, and then immunity builds quickly. He also mentions that this will be a two or three year fight before we  eradicate the Covid virus.             So if you get a two shot regimen of that vaccine, and the shots are 28 days apart, you would start to gain immunity  at day #12, Then at 28 days, you would have been building immunity for 16 days. Then you'd get the second shot, the  booster. Some time after that, you would have serious immunity, maybe in two to four weeks after the second shot(?).  Say two weeks. SO you'd have good immunity 42 days after the first shot (28 days after the first shot and then 14 days  after the second shot).  If good immunity is achieved 28 days after the second shot, then that would be the full 56 days  after the first shot. This probably varies with different vaccines. Check for your vaccine. The San Francisco teachers'  union is negotiating an agreement with the school board there to re‐open the schools. They demand vaccination of the  teachers, good PPE, social distancing of students, masks, hand washing, good ventilation, excellent cleaning of the  schools. BUT if they get the vaccination of the teachers they demand, note that lag in immunity once they get the first  shot.  I'd agree to return to teaching a minimum of six weeks after my first shot, maybe eight week after. All of this BS  coming out of Chicago and SF and Sacramento and Fresno about opening up the schools should see the teachers' unions  getting expert opinions about how long after the first and second shot they have good immunity. If they don't they are  just stupid and it could cost them their lives.   Dr. Campbell says you have zero immunity for the first 12 days the first  shot with one vaccine, Oxford or Pfizer.                Here is GMA for Thursday Feb. 4, 2021 discussing with an expert the Oxford vaccine. The fact that it cuts  tranmissibility. "The UKs new vaccine  (in use since Jan. 4)  could be a gamechanger". LH‐ Not unless Congress and the  President get the FDA to change their game.                 How UK's new vaccine trial could be gamechanger in race to beat COVID‐19 l GMA ‐ YouTube                 "Why isn't the Astrazeneca vaccine available in the U.S.?" she asks the expert a day or two ago.  Hear his long‐ winded response about a phase 3 trial underway now in the U.S. Yes, we know doctor, but what part of the phase 3 trial  in the UK that led to their appoving the vaccine don't you trust?  What part of the data the EU's European Medicines  Agency used to approve the Oxford vaccine in the EU don't you trust? I think he didn't want to say what he thinks of the  Oxford vaccine being held up by the FDA. Professional courtesy. Don't be an alarmist. Don't rattle cages in high places.  Don't speak ill of other physicians.                  What if the federal government had said that Alexander Flemming's discovery of penicillin was impressive, but  that our scientists would have to study it for years before it got approval here. And did the UK government run trials for  months or years on the Salk vaccine, or did they start vaccinating people with it as soon as they got it?                  Oxford AstraZeneca vaccine prevents spread of COVID from person to person ‐ YouTube             So now the news media is starting to ask questions about the hold up of the Oxford vaccine in the U.S. They report  the daily death toll but they don't ask a lot about the FDA holding up the Oxford vaccine, proven to be safe and effective,  at least in the UK and the entire EU. What is that, for 500 million people? Now toss in India and Argentina. The news said  it is about to be approved for the Phillipines. The news media should get persistent in asking why the FDA is holding up  the Oxford vaccine! Keep asking Biden about it.                BTW, Dr. Campbell has said repeatedly that one should not take antipyretics‐ fever reducers, before and after a  covid vaccination. Not sure how long before or after. A fever is good for producing antibodies. Don't try to knock down a  mild fever after a shot. Now I have found an article saying don't take them before a shot to prevent getting a sore arm or  headache after the shot. Who would do that? Ibuprofen, acetamenaphen, aspirin. Lay off those if you can. Check it out.  Kaiser has not said one word about this, esp. in the 4pp. info sheet I got when I got the first shot. I've now abandoned all  of those. Apparently Kaiser thinks there is nothing to this.     62          L. William Harding         Fresno, Ca.  63 Baumb, Nelly From:Radhika Dhall <radhidhall@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 11:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Opening Libraries CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council Members,    I am a Palo Alto resident and I am writing to ask you to please open the libraries. I can understand the need to have shut  them in the early months of the pandemic but I really don’t understand why they are still closed. If retail stores  (including completely non essential luxury stores) and restaurants (albeit outdoors) are open why should libraries be  closed?    I can understand the need to restrict capacity. We can restrict capacity like the retail stores but still allow people inside.  Or if we don’t want people to sit and linger, at least allow people to go in to pick up their books. Right now to borrow a  book we have to log into the library account, keep a hold on a book, then we get a link several days later with an  appointment scheduling link and then we can schedule an appointment for several days after that. This is just  completely unnecessary. You don’t want people to hang around inside a library ‐ I can somewhat understand that. But at  least people should be allowed to go in to get books as per their convenience. They can stand in line if there are too  many people at one time. People are shopping for handbags and shoes and jewelry and we are being denied the right to  read.    I believe the restrictions on library usage are too strict and not justified. Masks and social distancing rules can be  followed inside the library like in other indoor retail locations.    I urge you to please open our libraries. It’s been a year and we really need  some access.    Thank you,  Radhika Dhall    Sent from my iPhone  701-32 DOCUMENTS IN THIS PACKET INCLUDE: LETTERS FROM CITIZENS TO THE MAYOR OR CITY COUNCIL RESPONSES FROM STAFF TO LETTERS FROM CITIZENS ITEMS FROM MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS ITEMS FROM OTHER COMMITTEES AND AGENCIES ITEMS FROM CITY, COUNTY, STATE, AND REGIONAL AGENCIES Prepared for: 2/22/ 2021 Document dates: 2/3/2021 – 2/10/2021 Set 2 of 2 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 64 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 9:46 PM To:Honky Subject:BEST PART ! ELECTION FRAUD 101 "IF THE LIGHTS GO OUT HERE THE LIGHTS GO OUT EVERYWHERE" CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  GO VIRAL AS FAR AS YOU CAN AS FAST AS YOU CAN Here is a link to the last 24 minutes of the two hour documentary that Mike Lindell did. It is the best part and as such I have posted the final 24 minute stand-alone clip. Folks are more likely to watch it. https://www.brighteon.com/6d23a63d-739d-462d-bf54-d899c6fdbd3c 65 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 10:40 PM To:chuck jagoda; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Raven Malone; Bains, Paul; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Greer Stone; Joe Simitian; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed; Pat Burt; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Dennis Upton Subject:NYTimes: After Abuse Allegations, $2 Billion Shelter Network Faces Scrutiny CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    FYI: Article reminds me of the Down Town Streets Team scandal but on a much larger scale. Also very interesting that  New York City mandated by law to provide shelter for all of its homeless. Maybe Palo Alto should consider a similar local  ordinance. Any takers?? Thanks, aram      After Abuse Allegations, $2 Billion Shelter Network Faces Scrutiny  https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/07/nyregion/victor‐rivera‐investigation.html?referringSource=articleShare      Sent from my iPhone  66 Baumb, Nelly From:Daniel Ennis <daniel.ennis@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 6:18 PM To:Council, City; Filseth, Eric (Internal); gstone@pausd.org; pat@patburt.org; Cormack, Alison; Kou, Lydia; gltanaka@gmail.com; DuBois, Tom Subject:Opposed: College Terrace Wellesley Apts. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello ‐ I'm writing to voice my opposition to the plan under consideration to build a large apartment complex on  Wellesley Street in the College Terrace neighborhood. I'm not opposed to higher density housing and more affordable  options, but the submitted proposal is pretty far out of alignment with the current neighborhood. In particular, the three  story size and the unclear plan to accommodate off‐street parking for the planned density needs to be resolved. A scaled  back version could be considered.    Thanks for your consideration.                  ‐Daniel Ennis (2070 Columbia Street)‐  67 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 1:37 PM To:Winter Dellenbach; Council, City; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Shikada, Ed; Greer Stone; Jeff Moore; Rosen, Jeff; Raj Jayadev; Anna Griffin; Joe Simitian; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Human Relations Commission; mark weiss; Rebecca Eisenberg; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; O'Neal, Molly; Richard Konda; Sunita de Tourreil; Pat Burt; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Subject:Here is the article I attached to my 1/7/2005 letter re police dog bites in palo alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Use of Police Dogs Raises Debate About Use-of-Force Fairness July 30 - As two officers and a police dog staked out Takoma Park, Md., in September 1995 for suspected burglars, they came upon two men sitting on the roof of a printing business and ordered them to descend and surrender. What happened next placed the Prince George's County police canine unit in the cross hairs of federal investigators and prosecutors, and has raised questions about how police dogs are used in departments across the country, especially against minority suspects. According to a criminal indictment, the two men followed police orders and surrendered. But Cpl. Anthony Delozier allegedly asked his partner if the police dog could "take a bite out of" one of the men. Officer Stephanie Mohr allegedly released the canine, which attacked one of the men, an unarmed, homeless Mexican immigrant whose wounds required stitches. On Tuesday, the two police officers will go to trial in federal court on civil rights and conspiracy charges related to the 1995 attack, and the judge has allowed into evidence several prior claims that Mohr allowed or caused her dog to attack unresisting people, all of whom were minorities. Following the 1995 incident, the FBI launched a probe of the canine unit and scads of lawsuits have been filed against the department. Dogs With Metal Teeth The Prince George's County saga is just one of several recent police use-of-force cases involving suspects or innocent civilians claiming to have been wrongly targeted by police canines. In many cases, the alleged victims were minorities, who civil rights groups say are disproportionately attacked by police dogs. In one notable incident, a man who was bitten several times during a 1999 arrest in Salt Lake County, Utah, filed a federal lawsuit earlier this month against Bear and Ben, the dogs that bit him. The man also claims the dogs' handlers taunted him, calling him "doggie boy" and barking at him. Dogs have been used increasingly over the last few decades in police work to help sniff out everything from suspects in hiding to missing persons, explosives, narcotics, and even illegally poached meat.Most police dogs are German shepherds imported from Europe because of superior breeding and characteristics. These dogs have extremely powerful jaws that can exert between 1,000 and 2,000 pounds of pressure per square inch. Their bite, of course, can be quite devastating, often leaving gaping puncture wounds, torn flesh and searing pain. These days, police dogs are even being fitted for titanium teeth on their canine incisors to protect their teeth. The effect is even more frightening for those who find themselves in the glare of a snarling canine officer. 68 Although police dogs are living beings, they are in reality no different from any lethal weapon police officers wield, says David Harris, a professor of law and values at the University of Toledo College of Law. Highly trained police dogs rarely attack unless at the command of their handlers. "They're considered tools of the police officer just like a radio or a Mace can or a billy club," he said. Bitten While Black In a dubious moment in police dog history, they were used during the race riots and civil rights marches of the 1960s to control crowds. Images of vicious dogs being used against blacks by white police commissioners such as the infamous "Bull" Connor of Birmingham, Ala., are legendary. For civil rights groups, recent alleged misuse of police canines is a bit too reminiscent of the 1960s."This is just part of long legacy of the treatment of people of color in this country," says King Downing, the national racial profiling coordinator for the American Civil Liberties Union, who calls this phenomenon "Bitten While Black. The ACLU argues that police dogs should only be used when a suspect has committed a violent felony, is believed to be armed, or where there's probable cause the suspect poses a serious threat. It also calls for better training of handlers and recordkeeping of incidents involving canines. Amnesty International has called for police departments to follow the lead of the Los Angeles Police Department and adopt a less aggressive "find and bark" policy as opposed to the self-explanatory "find and bite." Under "find and bark," police dogs trail a suspect and then corner him instead of biting. Since the 1995 incident involving the unarmed homeless man, Prince George's County has also adopted the "find and bark" strategy. "Dogs need to be used as a last resort - not a first line of defense for the officer," says Van Jones of the San Francisco-based Ella Baker Center for Human Rights. The Bark As Good As the Bite But Jim Watson, national secretary of the North American Police Work Dog Association, says canine policy must be left up to police departments. In some cases, "find and bark" could end up being deadly for the handler if confronted with an armed suspect. In the end, he says, what's important isn't so much which policy is used but how much power the handler has over the dog's actions. "Both rely on the same basic principle of control. Without control you will not have the finished product," Watson says. Allegations of police brutality involving canines must be looked at on a case-by-case basis, Watson says. Investigators must look at the initial training of the canine officers and whether they are required to continue training while on the job. Fewer than 10 states have mandatory testing for canine units before the dogs can hit the streets, Watson says. In a situation where a canine has allegedly been misused, says Harris, investigators first must look to see if the department had the proper training, procedures, and a policy in place for the use of the dogs. Then, the focus falls on the officers themselves and whether they acted in accordance with the policy. "Dogs can be a big help like any other tool, but they have to be used properly," Harris says. "There has to be training on both ends of the leash, and there has to be good policy on using the dogs properly." 69 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 1:12 PM To:Winter Dellenbach; Council, City; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Shikada, Ed; Greer Stone; Jeff Moore; Rosen, Jeff; Raj Jayadev; Anna Griffin; Joe Simitian; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Human Relations Commission; mark weiss; Rebecca Eisenberg; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Stump, Molly; molly.o'neal@pdo.sccgov.org; Richard Konda; Sunita de Tourreil; Pat Burt; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal) Subject:From the archives of Aram James re some history of the use of police dogs in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  1/7/2005 To members of the city council et al: Here is the link (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/cityagenda/publish/cmrs/4091.pdf ) to the CMR, ( City manager's report) dated 1/10/05, to the Palo Alto city council analyzing the canine bite info for the last 36 months. This report attempts to give an overview of the history and function of the PAPD canine unit but, in my mind, glosses over, or altogether ignores, some of the most important issues. The report does not directly address the striking statistics ( 9 of the 13 dog bites were inflicted on people of color) that suggest that the canine bites, as a weapon, are used in an extremely disproportionately fashion against people of color. As the attached article suggests, see below, (Use of Police Dogs Raises Debate About Use-of-force fairness), the PAPD’s apparent pattern of racially targeting minorities by their canine unit may well reflect a national trend. Clearly more data is needed to confirm this proposition (I did a brief search on the Internet on the topic and discovered the below attached article), but before the PAPD allows the continued use of canine units this information needs to be gathered and analyzed in light of the critical issues raised by the CMR dated 1/10/05, and the attached article. At minimum the city council and City manager should consider a moratorium on the use of the canine units in Palo Alto until these issues are fully researched and addressed. Palo Alto is a city that is approximately 75% Caucasian with an African-American population making up approximately 2% of the city's population. Based on the statistics provided, it would appear that nearly 70% of those bitten by the dogs are people of color. As an aside, I'm most certain Chief Lynne Johnson, consistent with her dismissive attitude re the troubling statistics on racial profiling in Palo Alto generally, will attempt to artfully explain away this information/data as well. The report does not address the severity of the injuries inflicted by the police dogs or provide details of the necessary medical attention needed to mend the wounds of those subject to these vicious canine attacks. What do the photos of these injuries look like? How many stitches were needed to close the wounds? Will Lynne Johnson claim this information is confidential? But then, without missing a beat, attempt to reassure us that if she could disclose this info the attacks/injuries are of the most benign nature? Were any of the victims bitten in the area of the face or other vital areas? What were the medical bills for these 13 dog attacks? Are the injuries inflicted consistently more severe when the victim of the canine attack is a minority or is there no distinction in this regard? 70 Are the dogs being used to patrol the border (so to speak) between East Palo Alto and Palo Alto, more than in other areas of the city? Are the PAPD canines fitted with metal teeth (titanium), ( allegedly to protect the dogs teeth, but surely increasing the torture of those bitten)? sar Does PAPD have any reason to have a policy that allows for their dogs to bite the alleged suspect, as opposed to a less aggressive "find and bark," only policy, see below, (Use of Police Dogs Raises Debate About Use-of Force Fairness) used by other departments? Should the city of Palo Alto ban the use of canine’s altogether? Or limit their use to rescue operations only? How much money is budgeted annually for all canine related resources? Why the increase from 4 canine units from two? Given the disclosures revealed by the canine statistics of the last 36 months should the city council request data going back at least another 36 months-- to see if in fact a long term pattern of racial targeting by the PAPD canine unit is a reality? I ask that all concerned citizens receiving this email consider reading the CMR ( see link above) and then developing their own set of questions for Chief Johnson on the issue of canine units in Palo Alto. It's time we find out what our police department is up to. It's time the citizens of Palo Alto take an active part in formulating police policy that is administered in our names. Sincerely, Aram James (650) 424-1249 abjpd1@juno.com 71 Baumb, Nelly From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 11:21 AM To:Council, City; City Mgr Subject:Misleading "Survey" sent to Palo Alto residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members: Neighbors would like to voice a strong objection to Castilleja School sending a misleading "survey" to Palo Alto residents, received in our email boxes early February, directly on the heels of the official City of Palo Alto survey. The questionnaire (a copy of the email invitation to participate is copied below in blue) appears official, inviting voters to weigh in on “Palo Alto issues” and the web site is labeled “Palo Alto Voter Survey.” The survey offers up factual inaccuracies about the school’s expansion plans and provides false choices, including biased and misleading statements about trees, parking, floor area, and other contentious issues. It seems clear the results will ultimately be presented to the Council as widespread support of the school’s efforts. We would like to caution city staff and council members to regard this as a PR tactic, and to regard any results it presents as deeply suspect. Those who have been following the project since it was submitted to the city four years ago (not eight, as the school is now claiming), take exception to the patently leading questions. For one example, it asks “Do you want an underground garage or an above ground garage”, disregarding whether a commercial garage, inviting more traffic into an R-1 neighborhood, should be permitted at all, and planting the assumption they will win such a large increase in enrollment that would require one. Among the questions that Council should be pondering is why does a non-compliant applicant, who regularly misrepresents engagement with the neighbors, appear to assume the City will grant them exceptions to the rules and accede to their demands. This private school has the deep pockets to pay for a deceptive “survey” such as this, while frustrated neighbors contend daily with this private entity in an R-1 zone that has violated its CUP maximum enrollment for the past 19 years. We hope the council and staff will not be swayed by the biased “findings” it will undoubtedly present as a factual accounting of local citizens’ wishes. 72 The proposed expansion of this private school in an R-1 district is out of compliance, wildly outsized for its small site, incompatible with the neighborhood, and impactful to the entire City of Palo Alto. We urge you to censure the school for its attempt to deceive the public by riding on the coattails of the City's official survey without providing a disclosure of its source, and to reject the biased results as nothing more than a well-orchestrated PR effort. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Signed (a few dozen signatures from close-by neighbors of Castilleja, collected in 24 hours): Andie Reed Carla Befera Mary Sylvester Rob Levitsky Hank Sousa Jim Poppy Neva Yarkin Kimberley Wong Nelson Ng Dr. Jean Waltuch David Quigley Pam McCroskey Nancy Strom Debby Fife Amber La Kathy Croce Gogo and Art Heinrich Chi Wong Terry Rice Marie Macy Bill Powar Patricia Wong Yanhua and Guohua Zhu Carolyn and Bill Schmarzo Dr. Richard Mamelok Midori Aogaichi Alan Cooper Joan McDaniels Val Steil 73 Wally Whittier Erika Jurney Diane and Joe Rolfe Stan Shore Peter Costello Lucia Ugarte Rich Spott ################################# misleading "survey" email ###########################################   -----Forwarded Message----- From: Survey Research Sent: Feb 3, 2021 6:51 AM Subject: Reminder: Palo Alto Voter Survey  Dear resident:    We are an independent public opinion research company that has been hired to conduct a voter survey to obtain  feedback on some key issues facing Palo Alto.    Your participation and responses to this survey will be completely confidential. The identity of individual  respondents and their individual answers to survey questions will not be shared.    Please click here to take the survey or copy and paste the link below into your web browser.    https://research‐opinions.com/index.php/survey/index/sid/547378/newtest/Y/lang/en/token/4365CB099577    Please do not forward the survey link to others or share it to social media as it is personalized for each recipient of  this invitation to ensure that the survey link will only work once.    Thank you for participating in this important research.            To unsubscribe, click: Unsubscribe  Survey Research, 8174 Las Vegas Blvd S Suite 109, Las Vegas, NV 89123  ############################################# misleading "survey" email###########################         ‐‐   Andie Reed CPA 160 Melville Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809   74 Baumb, Nelly From:Roy Maydan <roy.maydan@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 11:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support of Castilleja Proposal for CUP Amendment CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Thank you in advance for your upcoming consideration of the Castilleja proposal for amending their CUP.  I am a 25+  year resident of Downtown North and have been friends with Castilleja students since my own high school days in the  80's.  In all that time, I have known Castilleja students to be the most polite and respectful people.  I bring this up as a  reference point as to why I am confident that if you approve the school's CUP Amendment #4 plan, the school will abide  by the agreement and manage any impacts.  Specifically, I would like to address the following points.     1) Traffic management.  The school has committed not to expand enrollment if traffic demand management goals are  not met.  In the past decade, car traffic to the school has decreased by 25‐30% and the school aggressively offers  alternatives like shuttles from the CalTrain station while pushing students to take the train, carpool, or ride their bikes.  I  have every reason to believe that this will continue as the school meets its traffic goal.    2) Parking garage.  This is one of many examples of the local opposition to the school shifting the goalposts.  Originally,  these people wanted to take the cars off the streets instead of parking in the neighborhood, hence the school proposed  a garage.  Then, we heard how terrible the garage was for the neighborhood environment so the school modified the  garage proposal primarily to allow for more landscaping around it to improve the look and feel of the  neighborhood.  Now, we hear how the garage is seriously flawed and will affect the bikers on Bryant.  The garage will  not increase traffic; it is just to remove cars from the streets and allows for less conspicuous traffic flow including bikes.      3) Events.  Being a school, Castilleja is going to hold a number of events.  PNQLnow has a chart that claims that Castilleja  holds significantly more events than other local schools.  This chart is laughable on its face and I have no idea how the  creator of the chart came up with the definition of events.  For example, the chart notes that Pinewood has only 12 on campus events a year. I took a quick look at the Pinewood athletic calendar for October of 2019 ( https://www.pinewood.edu/athletics/athleticscalendar?cal_date=2019‐10‐01) and counted 5 junior high sporting events, 2 football games, 6 girls tennis matches, and 8 girls volleyball matches all on campus. This is just one month and does not count basketball games later in the winter or the 3 theater productions done annually in the high school or back to school nights or graduations (middle and high school) or anything else. Now, Castilleja does not have a football team or on campus tennis courts, so it will have less athletic events on campus than Pinewood, but otherwise events should be comparable. Given that, the school's original proposal of 90 events is more than reasonable.    Finally, while I completely understand the desire to maintain Palo Alto's neighborhood integrity, this is not the project that will have a major impact on that. In the past decade or so, the neighborhood has seen severe impacts of  the growth of Paly, Stanford, and the revitalization of Town & Country and those are not going away.    Castilleja has been a local institution for over a century. To continue to be one for the next century, it needs to modernize and change. The school has come up with a good proposal to do that in an eco-friendly way with minimal impact on the existing neighborhood. I encourage the council to approve this project next month.    Sincerely,  Roy Maydan  131 Byron Street  75 Baumb, Nelly From:Charles & Barbara Stevens <charbra@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 10:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please support Castilleja's proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,    We have lived in Palo Alto for 45 years and witnessed the dramatic changes in our city resulting from the vibrancy of our  economy. Palo Alto is now a city known internationally for its tech companies, culture of innovation, and proximity to  outstanding education, including Stanford, PAUSD, and Castilleja School. Change is a constant in this dynamic city, and  we as residents are lucky to live here.    Castilleja School now would like to evolve, just as the public schools in our city have done. The school would like to  modernize their campus and modestly increase enrollment: ~ 25/students per year for four years. We ask you to vote in  favor of Castilleja's new CUP and master plan. The Environmental Impact Report showed that the school can increase  their enrollment and cause no significant and unavoidable impacts on the neighborhood, including on traffic. If the  school can offer opportunity to more young women AND cause no impact on traffic, Council has no reason to deny the  project. Instead, we urge you to follow the decisions made by the HRB, ARB, and PTC and vote in favor of the project.    The one decision that was undecided by the PTC (because of Commissioner Riggs' absence) is the underground garage.  We believe you should also vote in favor of the underground parking facility. Just as Congregation Kol Emeth built an  underground facility in an R‐1 neighborhood, so should Castilleja be allowed. It is not against zoning rules, and has the  great benefit of removing cars from neighborhood streets. The Environmental Impact Report stated that the  underground garage is the environmental superior option.    Thank you for leading our city and for listening to our input.    Barbara and Charles Stevens      76 Baumb, Nelly From:Amy Asin <amytasin@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 8:05 AM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilmembers,    My name is Amy Asin, and I am writing to encourage you to support Castilleja’s master plan to modernize their campus and expand educational opportunities for young women in Palo Alto. This project is a true win for our community, and I hope to see it approved by the Council.    One of the issues raised by Castilleja’s opponents is trust - that the school violated their CUP by over-enrolling students (by 33 students). I strongly believe that it is now time for our community to move beyond this issue for the following reasons:     After she became head, Nanci Kauffman came forward to the City to inform them of the over- enrollment. She did not ever hide it when she learned about it.  Since then, the school has worked closely with the City to gradually reduce enrollment, and the school is fully complying with the city mandated enrollment reductions.  The school is doing everything possible to be a good neighbor. They don’t allow parking in front of neighbors’ homes, they have parking attendants manage traffic flow at all events and at drop-off/pick- up, they communicate with neighbors regularly  The proposed CUP has strict teeth and enforcement to ensure compliance going forward, and the school has indicated their firm commitment to comply.  The school is a non-profit organization, not a deep-pocketed developer or profit seeking entity. All of their efforts are in the name of educating more young women!   Castilleja has been held to standards that no other schools or entities in Palo Alto have come close to. Councilmembers, now it is your responsibility to read the facts in the FEIR and recognize that this project should be approved.    Sincerely,  Amy Asin  2210 St. Francis  77 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 7:49 PM To:mark weiss Cc:Jonsen, Robert; Perron, Zachary; Cary Andrew Crittenden; Binder, Andrew; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Sunita de Tourreil; Kaloma Smith; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Jeff Moore; Anna Griffin; raj@siliconvalleyde-bug.org; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; chuck jagoda; james pitkin Subject:From the archives of Aram James --letter to DA George Kennedy as assistant DA Karyn Sinunu CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  5/3/2005 To: District Attorney George Kennedy & Assistant District Attorney Karyn Sinunu Re: Request that your office retry the criminal case against Palo Alto officers Craig Lee and Michael Kan Dear Mr. George Kennedy & Ms. Karyn Sinunu: I am writing to you to request that your office retry the criminal case against Palo Alto police officers Michael Kan and Craig Lee. I would like to make some observations and comments regarding the recently completed trial in this matter wherein the jury ultimately hung 8 to 4 for guilty. I would then like to comment on the importance of this case being retried. I hope you will consider all of my comments in the constructive manner in which they are intended. Comments re the recently completed trial of Defendants Kan & Lee  First I think it is important to acknowledge the fine work performed during the course of all of the proceedings in this matter by Deputy District Attorney Peter Waite. Not only was his preparation and presentation of the case outstanding, but it was apparent that his confidence in the strength of the case grew as the matter proceeded. No doubt the case was not tried without some mistakes and at least one questionable judgment call, but, given all of the many pressures and roles being balanced, it was an outstanding job. By the time the case went to the jury it was my observation/opinion that Mr. Waite had out performed the very talented attorneys for the defendants. (I sat through the entire PX and trial in this matter.)  From the perspective of a former public defender and trial lawyer it was clear to me that Mr. Waite and his investigative team (Sgt. Mike Denson and Sgt. Ron Watson from the PAPD) left few stones unturned in an effort to assure that the prosecution in this matter was both professionally managed and aggressively pursued.  I had no sense during the trial of this matter, despite the obvious political pressures and ramifications for the entire prosecution team, that at anytime that the prosecution team treated this case lightly or in any fashion differently than any other serious felony matter. Finally, Mr. Waite, in an example that more public servants should model, made himself available to members of the public who had endless questions for and observations to share with him.  During the jury selection process in this case Mr. Waite’s questions and the nature of the responses by prospective jurors re the role of race, racial profiling, the right of citizens to be free of undue 78 and unwarranted harassment by the police etc., were both fascinating and instructive re the current public mood towards law enforcement. Had the voir dire process been taped it would have made a provocative documentary on the current status of the relationship between law enforcement and the community. As indicted by the responses during voir dire, as it currently stands, the relationship appears tenuous at best.  There were numerous jurors who expressed just barely restrained anger re the recent killing of Bic Cau Tran by San Jose police officer Chad Marshall and similarly deep concern re other recent high profile killings by members of the SJPD.  What came across strongest from the jury selection process is that both the depth and width of anger and concern over misconduct by law enforcement in this county is much greater than reflected by the mainstream media in Santa Clara County. Whereas the conventional wisdom has been that police cases are hard to successfully prosecute in this county the current dynamically shifting demographics, combined with a well informed citizenry re police misconduct issues, may well have changed the landscape permanently. Given the above, it would appear that police prosecutions are much more like to be successful in this county now and in the future.  During the course of the jury selection the defense exercised a peremptory challenge against the one black female who made it into the jury box. Given the quality of her responses to the questions posed by attorneys for both sides it was clear that this prospective juror was totally free of bias for either side.  Despite the fact that Mr. Waite made an appropriate Batson/Wheeler objection that the defense, specifically attorney Harry Stern, had exercised the challenge in a in a racially discriminatory fashion the judge, Andrea Bryan, declined to ask defense council for a showing of specific bias (to establish a race–neutral reasons for the strike) or to find a prima facie case for requiring a response by the defense. The judge should have reseated the juror in the presence of the entire panel as a clear message to the defense that the racist removal of a fair minded juror would not be tolerated. (Case law clearly supports the notion that one race based peremptory challenge is sufficient to trigger the remedies contemplated by Batson/Wheeler and its descendants.)  Given that only three African-Americans were in the initial jury panel of approximately 160 perspective jurors called for in this case, there is little doubt that the discriminatory strike of the one black female to make it into the jury box denied the people a jury made up of a cross-section of the community and thus a fair trial.  The following quotes serve as a reminder of the impact of a discriminatory challenge based on race in the context of this case: … “The harm from discriminatory jury selection extends beyond that inflicted on the defendant and the excluded juror to touch the entire community.” Batson V. Kentucky, 476 U.S, at 77 (1986).  “The need for public confidence is especially high in cases involving race-related crimes. In such cases, emotions in the affected community will inevitably be heated and volatile. Public confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system is essential for preserving community peace in trials involving race related crimes.” (Citations omitted). Finally, as to Judge Bryan’s role in denying the community a fair trial the following is pertinent: “Be it at the hands of the state or the defense, if a court allows the juror to be excluded because of group bias, it is a willing participant in a scheme that could only undermine the very foundation of our system of justice—our citizens’ ” (citations omitted).  In addition to the failure of Judge Andrea Bryan to perform her constitutional responsibility to insure the selection of a fair jury in this matter it was apparent that the court allowed the atmosphere surrounding the trial to favor the defense. Not only did the court appear to bend over backwards to rule in favor of the defense on issues where you would normally not expect such favorable rulings, but the court personnel, including the bailiffs, routinely acted with favoritism to members of law enforcement. This included providing preferential seating in the courtroom to members of law enforcement, to allowing outbursts by law enforcement spectators to go 79 unpunished while, at the same time, closely monitoring the conduct of non-law enforcement citizens in the courtroom to the point of a constitutional chill on access.  Despite all of the efforts by the court and its personnel to tamper with the jury selection, evidentiary rulings, deny equal access to the courtroom to the public versus members of law enforcement, all in a thinly veiled attempt to direct a verdict of acquittal, 8 members of the community still rendered a verdict of guilty refusing, in the greatest tradition of independent jurors, to buckle under the weight of the intimidating atmosphere allowed to exist by Judge Andrea Bryan. All of this speaks volumes re the strength of the evidence in this case and the fine job done by the prosecution team.  Despite the fact that only 8 of the 12 jurors in this case voted for guilty the verdict was still one of historic proportions in Santa Clara County. I know of no other case in recent Santa Clara County history where 8 jurors have voted to convict police officers for the beating of an African-American citizen. This result calls out for a retrial. Conclusion re why case should be retried.  Community sentiment: I have enclosed an editorial from the Palo Alto Daily News, Accused officers should be retried, April 20, 2005, outlining some of the reasons why this case should be retried and encouraging your office to do so, both in the interest of the Palo Alto Police Department and the Community at large.  Given the statements attributed to Karyn Sinunu in the San Jose Mercury News (enclosed), (April 19, 2005), that the district attorney usually retries hung juries and given that in this case 8 citizens voted for guilty under the difficult conditions described in the first section of this letter, failure to do so in this case would feed into the perception that there is two standards of justice in this community, one for the ordinary citizen and one for police officers.  Given comments in a recent article in The Recorder, April 27, 2005, that there will be a chase for endorsements by police and law enforcement groups by the presumed candidates for District Attorney in 2006, and given Ms. Sinunu’s apparent intent to run for this position, failure to retry this case might well be seen as decision based on political expediency rather than the merits of retying this case.  It is clear that this case would likely not have come to light but for the courageous act of a few “whistle blowing” members of the PAPD willing to break down the traditional “code of silence” that so perniciously permeates much of law enforcement in this community. By the jury’s verdict in this case the community has spoken: it is time, once and for all, to send the message that the so-called “code of silence” will not longer be tolerated by those we entrust with the awesome power of the badge. Failure to retry this case would discourage officers in the future to speak out against rogue officers in their ranks and, as result, put the public at risk of more unwarranted beatings and deaths.  Given all of the above, the strength of the evidence presented in the first trial, the resources and efforts expended by the prosecution, the strong likelihood of a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt at a second trial, the efforts of the trial judge to sabotage the prosecution’s case in the first trial, and the strong public support for a retrial in this matter it is my request that you exercise your prosecutorial discretion in favor of a retrial in this case. Sincerely, Aram James Citizen Advocate 81 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 7:33 PM To:mark weiss Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Jonsen, Robert; Council, City; Jeff Moore; Human Relations Commission; Binder, Andrew; Shikada, Ed; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission; Rosen, Jeff; chuck jagoda; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Supervisor Simitian; Perron, Zachary; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:Kan & Lee PX from the archives of Aram James CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  9/10/2004 To: Palo Alto City Council, City Manager, Assistant City Manager, Police Chief Lynne Johnson and the Citizens Of Palo Alto. From: Palo Alto Citizen Aram James Comments on the Kan and Lee Preliminary examination (The Hopkins’s case). I recently sat through the entire proceedings in the Kan and Lee matter and despite PAPD Chief Lynne Johnson's protestations to the contrary the evidence presented was compelling, in fact overwhelming, that officers Kan and Lee engaged in an extreme case of police brutality. My review of the evidence suggests that the case was undercharged by the DA’s office and that the evidence presented, including the injuries sustained by the victim, easily supported multiple counts of assault with a deadly weapon and the possibility of sustaining an attempted murder charge against the officers. As is the tradition, if police are charged at all, the number and seriousness of the charges are reduced from the outset. Similarly, where an ordinary citizen would be faced with high bail often resulting in being held in custody during the pendency of the case, the police are most often allowed to remain out of custody – without bail --while being paid not to work. In the case of officers Khan and Lee, they were paid not to work for nearly a year. The city has yet to disclose the cost to the taxpayers of this paid vacation policy. Despite the overwhelming evidence presented by the prosecution, Chief Lynne Johnson, who, by the way, sat in on none of the proceedings, made the following statement reported in the San Jose Mercury News on Saturday September 4, 2004: "All the information I have leads me to believe they should not have been held to answer." Not only did Superior Court Judge Diane Northway find the evidence at the preliminary examination convincing, but the Palo Alto City Council after reviewing the case, (a former long time judge among its members) awarded the victim of this brutal attack $250,000. 82 Chief Johnson continues to protect and defend her worst offending officers even when the facts are clear to any unbiased observer that a particular officer or officers have engaged in a pattern of criminal brutality or violations of the constitutional rights of our citizenry. Chief Johnson’s actions/words continue to show that she does not fully understand her role as police chief. The chief's Job is not to simply be a rubber stamp for her officers, right or wrong, but rather to protect and defend the community by closely scrutinizing the facts of alleged criminal behavior whether the source is an ordinary citizen or a rogue officer or officers. When the alleged criminal is one of her own officers, Chief Johnson appears to lose all desire or ability to analyze the facts in any reasonably objective fashion. Unfortunately chief Johnson’s most recent comments, in clear contradiction to the evidence presented in the Kan and Lee matter, are not an aberration. She has consistently spoken out in support of her officers regardless of the extreme nature of their criminal misconduct and before being fully informed of the facts. The Hopkins' case, Jameel Douglas’ (Skateboarder) case, the forced and false confession of Jorge Hernandez etc., as well as the ongoing and escalating problem of racial profiling of minority citizens by the PAPD all continue to go unpunished by Chief Johnson. As the great American civil rights leader Julian Bond has said: its one thing to collect data on racial profiling and or police abuse, but absent punishment of individual officers who engage in such conduct it is simply a hollow act. Equally troubling is the fact that Lynne Johnson consistently reminds the community how hard she is working to ensure that her officers are not engaged in racially motivated conduct. In fact she has gone to great lengths to appear as though she is reaching out to the minority community with her public relations campaign to convince the minority community that things will change. Chief Johnson’s PR tactics are nothing more than a thinly veiled bait and switch scam— on the community she has sworn to protect. As an example she continues on a quarterly basis to collect data establishing beyond any reasonable doubt that certain of her officers continue to engage in racial profiling but no action is taken to punish the offending officers. Every time the chief is asked for hard information on an offending officer, she invokes officer confidentially as a shield to providing any answers of substance. Time and again she raises the hope of the community that real change will occur but when the rubber hits the road it’s the same tired mantra—my officers have done nothing wrong. Ultimately the victim of the initial police misconduct becomes the Chief’s scapegoat and is blamed for the officer’s misconduct—thus; the endless cycle of police violence continues unabated. Lynne Johnson for all practical purposes and based on her repeated public pronouncements appears to be doing little more than the bidding of the admittedly biased adversarial organization--- designed legitimately to protect the rights of police officers -- the POA ( In this case the Palo Alto Police officer association.) 83 The Palo Alto Police Officers Association already has a capable spinmister in Agent Dan Ryan -- and surely doesn't need Chief Johnson to echo in a knee jerk fashion his every pro cop -- 100% support sentiment sound bites. The Chief’s recent irresponsible statements, regarding the nature of the testimony at the just completed Kan and Lee preliminary examination, only encourages her officers to engage in more of the same criminal/brutal racially motivated conduct—knowing that she will always be there to excuse their conduct. Ask yourself how long Chief Johnson would last if the majority of the citizens of this community were people of color. How long will the citizens of Palo Alto tolerate a chief who says one thing and does another? How many more citizens will have their constitutional rights violated by the PAPD? How many mores citizens will be beaten or brutalized by the PAPD? How many more civil judgments need be exacted from the taxpayers of this city before the City Manager and the City Council takes steps to rein in or fire Chief Johnson? It's time for a change. Lynne Johnson may well be a fine human being but her tenure as Police Chief has been a dismal failure. Sincerely, Aram James (Recently retired Santa Clara County Deputy Public Defender and co-founder of Santa Clara County Citizens to Elect Our Public Defender www.electpd.org ) Palo Alto, Ca 94306 (650) 424-1249 abjpd1@juno.com 84 Baumb, Nelly From:Kathy Burch <kburch777@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 6:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja School CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,     I was thrilled to learn that you will soon be reviewing and deliberating on important decisions regarding Castilleja  School's plans for its future, which include a remodeled campus and an increase in enrollment.    I write in support of  the school's plans to modernize its campus and expand enrollment. As you know, Castilleja has met  with its neighbors many times over the past years, and has listened closely to them. The School has also taken City  feedback into consideration. As a result, the School has altered its original plans numerous times in order to  accommodate these requests and suggestions. The end result is a wonderfully aesthetic and energy‐efficient plan that  meets both Castilleja's needs and those of its neighbors ‐‐ and it deserves to see the light of day as soon as possible.     Castilleja's plan includes a scaled‐down underground garage, preserves housing on Emerson Street, replaces four  existing buildings with sustainable energy‐efficient learning spaces, along with a number of other features that reduce  noise and impact on Castilleja's immediate neighbors. As you know, both the ARB and HRB have recommended approval  of Castilleja's design plan. With regard to the proposed underground garage, the EIR states that underground parking is  the environmentally superior option; removing parking from surface lots and the street by putting those vehicles  underground mitigates the visual and noise impacts of cars on surface streets.    Additionally, Planning and Transportations members argued that impacts should be managed, rather than enrollment  numbers. Castilleja is asking to increase enrollment to 540 students, which is a critical number for enhancing programs  in the high school. The PTC also recommended that the school reduce the number of annual events on campus, and  Castilleja has agreed to this compromise.    Castilleja has proved, over and over again, that it has everyone's best interests at heart. A new, beautiful, and  environmentally sound campus would benefit not only its students, but also Castilleja's neighbors. If Castilleja could  accommodate more girls, it would be a blessing for those students and our community.    I strongly urge you to approve Castilleja's project so that the school can move forward at long last.    Thank you for your consideration.    Kathy Burch  777 Marion Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94303  85 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 4:45 PM To:Donna Wallach Cc:Council, City; Rebecca Eisenberg; Human Relations Commission; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Molly O'Neal; Stump, Molly; Anna Griffin; Raj; Lewis. james; alisa mallari tu; Patrice Ventresca; Drekmeier, Peter; Winter Dellenbach Subject:Re: Mary Hughes Thompson CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Donna,     Thanks so much for sending this sad news my way. I will copy others in on your message. I’m guessing you likely  accompanied Mary Hughes on at least one of her boat trips to break the siege in Gaza. You are an amazing activist for  justice on so many fronts. Thanks for all you do.     Best,     Aram       On Feb 6, 2021, at 3:53 PM, Donna Wallach <cats4jazz@gmail.com> wrote:     Greetings all,      Please read below the message sent out yesterday from Jane Jewell. In addition to what Jane wrote  about Mary Hughes‐Thompson, Mary was also one of the originators of the idea of breaking the siege of  Gaza by boat. She was one of the tens if not hundreds of solidarity activists who had been illegally  deported by War Criminal Terrorist Apartheid Israeli govt with a stamp in her passport not to let her  back in for at least 10 years. She knew that Palestinians did not want to wait another 10 years for her to  return to work with them in solidarity, meaning the Palestiians are the leaders and she would be there  to do the solidarity work. Although she had also thought of other ways of entering, the idea of entering  by boat seemed the best option. The Free Gaza Movement was born in 2006. It took 2 years and  many volunteers and volunteer hours to raise funds, find the first two original Free Gaza Movement  boats, purchase the boats, build up a team to support the boat trips and vet all the people who signed  up for the first and then 4 more boat trips from Cyprus to Gaza in an ongoing effort to break the illegal  siege/blockade/collective punishment on the Palestinians living in Gaza Strip. Besides being a kick‐a**  Palestine solidarity activist, Mary was also a mother, an avid knitter, a lover of animals. I think she had a  license to fly. She was involved in the film arts in some way. And so much more. She was an amazing  woman.    She was diagnosed with terminal lymphoma cancer in her sinuses back in October 2020. Thanks to the  Right to Die Act, she could choose when she had enough of suffering with pain and chose to drink the  prescription to end her suffering on Friday 5th February 2021. Mary Hughes‐Thompson Presente!    86 Please read below    in solidarity,  Donna Wallach  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Jane <14friendsofpalestine@gmail.com>  Date: Sat, Feb 6, 2021 at 10:11 AM  Subject: Mary Hughes Thompson  To: <14FP@googlegroups.com>    Just to let everyone know, Mary Hughes Thompson, cofounder of the Free Gaza Movement, passed  away yesterday at her home in Los Angeles with her son by her side.   She was 87.  She was a determined activist for Palestine, with great courage and enterprise.   Palestinians and her many friends mourn her lose.    Jane Jewell  ‐‐   You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "14fp" group.  To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to  14fp+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.  To view this discussion on the web visit  https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/14fp/CAAZ%3D3UAGNYvTM4sAj70%2B‐Lb2rUaj6gCmCpfFn3‐ 1fqK9_fCHQg%40mail.gmail.com.        ‐‐   2 books you must read:   "Against Our Better Judgement: The hidden history of how the U.S. was used to create Israel" by  Alison Weir  http://www.againstourbetterjudgment.com/    "State of Terror: How Terrorism Created Modern Israel" by Thomas Suarez  http://thomassuarez.com/SoT.html    Other important websites to visit  http://www.ifamericansknew.org  http://www.councilforthenationalinterest.org/new/  https://wearenotnumbers.org/    End the Blockade/Siege on Gaza!  Tear down the Apartheid Walls in West Bank & Gaza!  End the War Criminal Israeli collective punishment on the Palestinian people!   End the illegal Apartheid Israeli Occupation of all of Palestine!  Right to Return to their homes and land in Palestine for all Palestinians!  End all U.S. aid to Israel  Free Palestine! Long Live Palestine!    Support Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) &   Palestinian Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) Campaigns!  87 http://www.bdsmovement.net  http://www.WhoProfits.org  http://www.pacbi.org    Support Solidarity with Gaza Fishers  https://sgf.freedomflotilla.org/   https://freedomflotilla.org/  https://sgf.freedomflotilla.org/category/we‐are‐not‐numbers    Support ISM volunteers in West Bank and Gaza Strip!  http://www.palsolidarity.org    Donna Wallach  cats4jazz@gmail.com  Skype: palestinewillbe  Twitter: @PalestineWillBe  (cell) 408‐569‐6608  88 Baumb, Nelly From:Ann DeHovitz <rossde@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 2:49 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,   I understand that Council will be holding hearings in March on the Castilleja School's plans for expansion and improvement. There has been a very long process of outreach, collaboration, and compromise to get to this point. I am writing to express my support for Castilleja School’s plans as they currently stand. They have done all that has been asked of them and I think that they should be allowed to maintain their current footprint, increase their enrollment and construct the underground parking garage as proposed. A strong and improved Castilleja is a benefit to our community and to our future.  Thank you,   Ann DeHovitz  Sharon Court  89 Baumb, Nelly From:Chris Robell <chris_robell@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:55 PM To:Council, City; Tanner, Rachael; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly Subject:City Staff Recommendation: Increase Population - Lydia Kou - Palo Alto City Council CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council and Ed/Molly/Rachael,    I hope you will NOT move forward with any strategy to increase the population of Palo Alto. I believe this is contrary to  what the majority of voters and residents want.  Furthermore, we do not have the infrastructure (schools, roads, etc) to  handle this. As I’ve said many times before, New York City is a great place, but it would be hell without subways. We  don’t have subways. And I think most people like Palo Alto as a suburban city with charm.     I know during election season, when Joe Simitian asked what city the candidates admired most, responses included  Mountain View, Redwood City, and East Palo Alto. Lydia said Los Gatos. I think that was a great answer and likely in line  with what most people want. Might be a good question for a city survey.    Please do NOT pursue any strategies to increase population of our city.     Thank you,  Chris Robell        https://www.lydiakou.com/increase_population  City Staff Recommendation: Increase Population Posted by Lydia Kou 369.20sc on February 04, 2021 On the September 14th, 2020 meeting during the Verbal Update and Possible Direction to Staff on COVID-19 related to Business Recovery Efforts, the City Staff presented the Long-Term and Large-Scale Recovery Strategies on slide 20 to – 1. Increase local customer base by growing the city’s population and by planning for more walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods with housing, retail, and services (e.g., NVCAP, Downtown Plan, El Camino Real, etc.) 2. Support experience retail through destinations and place marking in downtown and other shopping districts. 90 3. Retain major employers, producers, and start-ups to continue drawing workers to Palo Alto. To watch City Staff comments, here is the link at https://midpenmedia.org/city- council-152-9142020/ (starts at 4:02:04), the long term strategies which the City Manager proposes growing Palo Alto’s populations and consideration to adjust ground floor retail preservation. 91 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:55 PM To:chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Council, City; Greer Stone; Raven Malone; Human Relations Commission; Kaloma Smith; Sunita de Tourreil; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission; Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Stump, Molly; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Dennis Upton; David Angel; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Winter Dellenbach Cc:Stump, Molly; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com Subject:See In re Eichorn re the application of the Defense of Necessity -in cases involving those who are unhoused (application to a tent or tent city in front a city hall-will the defense fly)? Read the case and you decide CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  See re the application of Defense of   Necessity in cases involving the persons who are involuntarily unhoused, u can Google it: In re Eichorn (1998).      Hi Folks,  Each case will need to stand on its own facts. But checkout this appellate decision.    Arresting folks for being involuntarily unhoused raises at least the possibility of the putting on a Necessity Defense. A  tent or tents city in front of a city hall‐depending again on the specific facts ...is certainly a distinct possibility.     And, of course, the county jails needs no unnecessary arrests leading to the possibility of more Covid victims. My bet  neither the DAs office or the Public Defender, or the courts for that matter, would want these cases further backing up  and already overloaded system. We need housing solutions not arrests and further criminalization of our unhoused  population.   I know a little bit about the necessity defense in a slightly different context‐re the application of the defense in a nuclear  weapons protest case In re Weller (1985) 164 Cal App 3d 44. I had the honor, as a public defender of trying the case ‐and  handing the appeals over 6‐7 years. Lost at every stage...but learned a little bit along the way.   Weller is an interesting read for any legal nerds out there.    Aram       https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court‐of‐appeal/4th/69/382.html   Sent from my iPhone  92 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 1:09 PM To:Honky Subject:How the military helped push the fraud and DOCTORS are being banned from sites for EXPOSING the fraud of pandemic 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:     https://youtu.be/IrextDJBVig                https://www.brasscheck.com/video/doctors‐are‐being‐censored‐over‐hydroxychloroquine/              https://youtu.be/pQeePaTYgzY            https://www.brasscheck.com/video/the‐new‐vaccine‐has‐not‐been‐properly‐tested/              ‐ Brasscheck TV  93 Brasscheck TV 2380 California St. San Francisco, CA 94115 Unsubscribe Change subscriber options   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.    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          94 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, February 6, 2021 12:51 PM To:Honky Subject:GO FIGURE The MSM is OWNED by GANGSTERS and their employees SELL ALL the LIES to the WE THE PEOPLE CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Trump Reportedly Offers Support for Canceled Fox Business Host Lou Dobbs     To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Trump Reportedly Offers Support for Canceled Fox Business Host Lou Dobbs Former President Donald Trump reportedly issued a statement in support of television host Lou Dobbs, whose show ...      95 Baumb, Nelly From:Heidi Hopper <hhopper@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 8:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council members,    I am a resident of Palo Alto and have lived here since 2003 and I have also been a parent and board of trustees member  at Castilleja. I have attended most of the neighbor meetings over the last 7 years and I have heard direct feedback from  neighbors requesting a garage be built to remove cars from the neighborhood streets. When we first started discussing  the Master Plan, that was the major request by neighbors of the school. I still have the SJ Mercury news article quoting  them saying that in 2015.    Now the garage has been designed, and the Final EIR says that having the underground garage is the superior alternative  to having no garage. It improves the neighborhood by removing cars from being parked all along the frontage of  Castilleja. Also, I have seen the beautiful renderings that WRNS has created of the new campus. The garage entrance  and exit are very tasteful and not at all commercial looking. I think these details blend seamlessly into the landscape and  look far better than a surface parking lot and parking on the streets. Further, the garage is not prohibited by the zoning  code. Because Castilleja operates in an R‐1 zone under a conditional use permit, there is nothing in the Palo Alto  Municipal Code that prevents Castilleja from incorporating an underground parking facility in its design. Last, there is  nothing in the code that would require the square footage to be counted in the Floor Area Ratio (FAR).     The aesthetics of the school will be much improved by the rebuilding of the classroom buildings, and I appreciate that  the ARB and HRB have both recommended approval of the design plan. I love the updated modern design and the  thoughtful way that it has been developed to fit better in scale and look with the surrounding neighborhood, while also  preserving Castilleja traditions such as the Circle. I am inspired by the design's choices to be green and sustainable and  love that the roof is being so well used for photovoltaic energy generation. I've observed the meetings during which the  architect, WRNS, sought neighbor input. It has been a clear priority to design a building that fits well into this residential  neighborhood.    I also urge you to support the PTC's recommendation to increase high school enrollment to 540 students. The majority  of PTC members agreed that the impact of the enrollment increase should be analyzed ‐ and that is exactly what the  Environmental Impact Report did. It analyzed the traffic impact with 540 students and found no significant and  unavoidable impacts of any kind due to the enrollment increase. Given that data, I strongly urge you to support the  increase so that more girls who seek an all‐girls education can do so. We are so fortunate to live in a city with excellent  public schools, but some girls ‐ including Palo Altans ‐ recognize that they'd learn better in an all‐girls environment.    So many other local schools, both public and private, have modernized their campuses. Castilleja needs to do this, too,  to support the program and allow the young women beautiful places to learn and grow. I am asking your support of the  Project Alternative with the smaller garage and distributed drop‐off. It is a great compromise and will work well in the  community and for Castilleja.    Thank you for your time,  Heidi Hopper  96 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 3:26 PM To:Roberta Ahlquist; Aram James; Jeff Moore; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Lewis. james; Council, City; Mark Petersen-Perez; Kaloma Smith; ParkRec Commission; Human Relations Commission; Planning Commission Cc:mark weiss; chuck jagoda; John Abraham; alisa mallari tu; Stump, Molly; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Tomorrow’s Palo Alto HUMAN RELATIONSHIP COMMISSION annual retreat -priority setting for 2021 ...9am-1pm ( see link to the agenda below) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Because I had to miss this meeting due to a conflicting meeting for Paly High School parents, I will take this opportunity  to share my thoughts on goals for 2021:     ‐ City Council just approved the spending of unprecedented taxpayer (aka residential) sums (truly, the most in PA  history) to build a new, large police HQ and Jail off California Ave. We need HOMES not JAILS.     ‐ City Council accepted only two bids for the $110 million project ‐‐ both by white‐owned firms ‐ and did not allow any  minority‐ or women‐owned firms to submit bids.  We must demand that people of color and women receive an  opportunity to compete for city projects.     ‐ City Council approved a poll tax on Foothills Park, claiming that there is "no other way" to pay for maintenance. We  must stop taxing the poor and start taxing the rich       - At every meeting, City Council has had an opportunity to put an emergency ballot measure to tax ONLY the largest and most profitable companies, yet has refused to do so, even though 80% of our land is owned by large corporations/billionaires, and every other city in California taxes its largest businesses. We must require billionaires and the wealthiest few to pay their fair share.    - In a few weeks, City Council officially will allow a wholly-private commercial school to take 3 more homes off the Palo Alto market (evicting tenants), destroy 200 ancient trees, and place a large commercial garage and regulation-sized high-tech swimming pool (with no entry opportunities for residents, even for money) on the only bike boulevard that serves North Palo Alto's public schoolchildren. Palo Alto must protect our residents and natural environment from exploitation by wealthy private interests.     - When City Council directs the Palo Alto Planning Commission to use its limited resources to require the community to enable Castilleja's unprecedented commercial expansion onto 60 residential lots, without finding a "Public Benefit" as is required by local and state law, it will subsidize a private group of billionaires at the expense of the Palo Alto community and Palo Alto Public Schools, whose budget City Council hit with a $6 million annual deficit when Palo Alto City Council terminated its Cubberley lease this past spring. Palo Alto must stop taking money from our public schools in order to give windfalls to walled cities and billionaire private interests.     - Every week, Palo Alto City Council continues to give freebies to the richest commercial interests while asking nothing in return, including over this past week, granting Stanford University the right to remove two more College Terrace homes off the Palo Alto residential market permanently, and signing a lease agreement with Tesla, where Palo Alto will be paying the most profitable company in the world for the use of chargers-- instead of demanding that Tesla, who has never paid ONE CENT in tax to Palo Alto, provide 97 chargers, solar panels, and electric shuttle to our community to compensate for its cost-free use of our public services and community resources. We must stand up for our community, rather than giving billionaire private interests everything they ask for, and more.     ‐ City Council continues to approve commercial projects that dig basements into the ground near El Camino, despite the  presence of one of the country's biggest toxic waste spills ‐ the HP Superfund Site ‐ underground. We must stop forcing  residents, especially low‐income and minority residents, to live and work in contaminated environments.    ‐ Palo Alto's lowest income workers suffer the largest housing shortage in our country, with only one affordable home  for each SEVEN low‐income workers. Palo Alto must recognize if low income workers are good enough to deliver life‐ saving health services, service and deliver our groceries and meals, and clean up our toilets and parks, they are good  enough to live here.  We MUST house every low income essential worker, first responder, health care worker,  teacher, janitor, service worker, food worker, child care provider, and laborer!!    - Palo Alto continues to protect wrongdoing committed by its police force, failing to demand any accountability for its violent acts and harassment, despite a proven record of violence against black people and other people of color, per FBI and ACLU investigations. We demand 100% transparency into police actions, personnel files, reprimands and terminations (if any), and radio communications. There is no safety without full accountability.    Thank you for considering, and please consider reading my updates on my new blog at rle.medium.com .     Best,   Rebecca Eisenberg    Rebecca L. Eisenberg Esq.  rle.medium.com   www.linkedin.com/in/eisenberg  www.winwithrebecca.com  rebecca@winwithrebecca.com  415-235-8078      On Fri, Feb 5, 2021 at 10:50 AM Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:  I hope that folks were able to speak. Keep us posted.   r    On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:59 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Yes, definitely let’s talk it up on no racist poll tax fees at the Ladoris Cordell Foothill Preserve.     Low low income housing on Fry’s prop and a 20% reparation set aside in perpetuity for all units built on Fry’s property.  See u all tomorrow. aram         Sent from my iPhone      On Feb 4, 2021, at 12:16 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:     98 I hope we can also rescind the fees on Foothill Park get them to apply for CAREsact funds for LOW,  LOW income houosing on the Sobrato Fry's property   and get % of housing for low‐income people of color , essential workers, and....    On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:27 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  FYI: Folks: at tomorrow’s HRC retreat from  9am to 1pm ‐ see agenda below‐ chance to speak to what you think should be the HRC’s priorities for  the year.    I plan to speak re the HRC pushing the city council to consider renaming Foothills Park in honor of  Judge Cordell, ending the coverup re the Zack Perron matter in 2021, developing a robust safe  parking program, my anger that the council process for approving a new $150 million dollar police  station jail ( on Monday feb 1) was essentially a Kangaroo court stacked decked for the pro jail ‐folks.  8‐10 witnesses for building the police station jail none for opponents of this unnecessary monument  to our failed criminal prison jails industrial complex.     Ok, hope some of you can attend and state your own priorities for the HRC to address in 2021. You  don’t have to be a Palo Alto resident to express yourself.     Aram    https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80103    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  99 Baumb, Nelly From:Laura Stark <laura.s.stark@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 2:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:I support Castilleja's campus modernization and enrollment increase CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,    I have a son at Palo Alto High School and a daughter at Castilleja. One of my favorite things about Palo Alto is the educational opportunity it offers to so many in our community. The strength of our public schools, private schools and access to Stanford University is what makes our community special, and keeps our property values strong. I enthusiastically support Castilleja's proposed project to modernize their campus and expand enrollment for the High School. Like our public schools that are benefitting from local bond measures to modernize, our private schools also deserve the same opportunities to modernize their campuses, albeit with private funding.    Since the inception of Castilleja's project, the school has incorporated an underground parking facility in its plans in order to remove parking from surface streets and place it below ground. The garage will improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood according to the Final Environmental Impact Report, and the CUP will not allow for any additional car trips to the neighborhood. The garage is also 100% compliant with Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan which prefers underground to street parking. It is also of note that the garage was initially included in the design because neighbors asked for it.    Castilleja is seeking a very modest increase in Upper School enrollment to no more than 540 students. This modest increase will enable more extremely qualified girls to attend Castilleja.     For all of these reasons, I hope you will support Castilleja's proposal to modernize its campus and expand enrollment.    Sincerely,  Laura Stark    ‐‐   Laura Stark  645 Hale St. Palo Alto, CA  94301  100 Baumb, Nelly From:Stewart Raphael <stewraph@aol.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 2:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja's Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  February 5, 2021 Dear City Council, The City Council hearing is coming in March. I am very pleased and appreciative of the meticulous work of the City Council Staff in reviewing Castilleja’s project. Your team has undertaken a thoughtful analysis during this process. I am a Palo Alto resident and I have followed the details of this project and I am delighted with the careful and detailed work also conducted by other entities (i.e., PTC, ARB, HRB, etc). I am informed of these comprehensive assessments and community responses and the thoughtful responses that Castilleja worked on to accommodate any concerns raised. I wholeheartedly support and urge the City Council to support: Castilleja's gradual increase in high school enrollment, garage footprint, and maintaining the school’s footprint. The reason why I feel this way is because: High School Enrollment Increase: Castilleja’s buildings are very old and in need of upgrading in a sustainable way. Building improved spaces will allow more girls and young women to receive an exceptional education from an architecturally strengthened infrastructure that aligns with its programs. Please support their gradual increase in high school enrollment by 25-27 students per year until their total school enrollment is 540. It’s a small ask in this pandemic- stricken economy that is decimating families and businesses. We need every bit of support possible from Castilleja’s all- girls educational efforts. The distributed drop-off in this alternative plan fixes the traffic impact seen in Castilleja's original project. I am glad for an improved solution that prevents any neighbors from being negatively impacted while still allowing for the school's enrollment increase. Garage: The smaller garage serves the benefit of taking parked cars and delivery traffic off the neighborhood streets, yet the garage has a reduced size in order to save two homes on Emerson Street and numerous trees. Housing is in short supply in Palo Alto, and because two homes were not demolished/removed in the alternative plans is outstanding. School Footprint: It is of paramount importance that Castillej’s current school footprint be maintained. The school's master plan proposes a green architectural design and isn’t asking for more above ground square footage. All over Palo Alto, we see real estate development. Why should Castilleja, a nationally ranked school over 100 years old be denied crucial improvements to reach a modest number of new students? I am ready for this project to move forward and my sentiments are shared by many of my neighbors and friends in Palo Alto. This community wants this project to commence. I sincerely believe as City Council you acknowledge the work Castilleja has done to consistently improve its plans to respond to the neighbor’s concerns. Thanks for your thoughtfulness, attention, and consideration and I urge the City Council to support Castilleja’s proposal. Respectfully yours, Stewart Raphael 571 Military Way, Palo Alto 101 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 11:54 AM To:Human Relations Commission; Council, City; chuck jagoda; Raven Malone; roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu; Kaloma Smith; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Greer Stone; Steven D. Lee; DuBois, Tom; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Jeff Moore; Stump, Molly; Anna Griffin; Raj; Richard Konda; alisa mallari tu; Jonsen, Robert; Lewis. james; Bunny Chiba; Perron, Zachary Subject:Malcolm X quote -in Cornell West’s book RACE Matters —see quote below CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    >  > “ You don’t stick a knife in a man’s back nine inches and then pull it out six inches and say you’re making progress.  >  > No matter how much respect, no matter how much recognition, whites show towards me, as far as I’m concerned, as  long as it is not shown to every one of our people in this country, it doesn’t exist for me.”    Malcolm X (1964)  >  >  >  > Sent from my iPhone  102 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 11:26 AM To:Roberta Ahlquist; Human Relations Commission; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Council, City; Raven Malone; Kaloma Smith; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com Subject:Felt like an excellent zoom retreat to me —agree wish we had more public participation-I tried to get folks to the meeting .....process felt good .... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  103 Baumb, Nelly From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 10:51 AM To:Aram James Cc:Jeff Moore; Rebecca Eisenberg; mark weiss; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; chuck jagoda; Council, City; Mark Petersen-Perez; Lewis. james; John Abraham; alisa mallari tu; Kaloma Smith; Human Relations Commission; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission Subject:Re: Tomorrow’s Palo Alto HUMAN RELATIONSHIP COMMISSION annual retreat -priority setting for 2021 ...9am-1pm ( see link to the agenda below) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I hope that folks were able to speak. Keep us posted.   r    On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:59 PM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Yes, definitely let’s talk it up on no racist poll tax fees at the Ladoris Cordell Foothill Preserve.     Low low income housing on Fry’s prop and a 20% reparation set aside in perpetuity for all units built on Fry’s property.  See u all tomorrow. aram         Sent from my iPhone      On Feb 4, 2021, at 12:16 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:     I hope we can also rescind the fees on Foothill Park get them to apply for CAREsact funds for LOW,  LOW income houosing on the Sobrato Fry's property   and get % of housing for low‐income people of color , essential workers, and....    On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:27 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  FYI: Folks: at tomorrow’s HRC retreat from  9am to 1pm ‐ see agenda below‐ chance to speak to what you think should be the HRC’s priorities for  the year.    I plan to speak re the HRC pushing the city council to consider renaming Foothills Park in honor of  Judge Cordell, ending the coverup re the Zack Perron matter in 2021, developing a robust safe parking  program, my anger that the council process for approving a new $150 million dollar police station jail (  on Monday feb 1) was essentially a Kangaroo court stacked decked for the pro jail ‐folks. 8‐10  witnesses for building the police station jail none for opponents of this unnecessary monument to our  failed criminal prison jails industrial complex.     Ok, hope some of you can attend and state your own priorities for the HRC to address in 2021. You  don’t have to be a Palo Alto resident to express yourself.   105 Baumb, Nelly From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Friday, February 5, 2021 10:05 AM To:CSD.HRC Subject:No response to my Qs?? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Human relations covers all things. Is there any representation of low‐   income tenants on any city committees? We need essential worker housing  now and Sobrato's Fry's property is zoned for residential housing. Help  tenants ‐‐ get this land for low‐income apartments for our essential workers.    Reallocate $$ from police to social service, tenants rights programs,  housing. We don't need another police station at this time. Ban tasers!    Pass CEDAW so we can monitor discrimination in our city.    No fee for Foothill Park: flat fees discriminate against low income people.  Unlearning racism: it takes years, not a few sessions. Ongoing white self  interrogation is critical.  Roberta Ahlquist Women's International League for Peace & Freedom    106 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 10:07 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; bballpod; beachrides; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; 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; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; grinellelake@yahoo.com; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; midge@thebarretts.com Subject:Fwd: Scott Gottlieb re Oxford-Astrazeneca vaccine, why not apprvd in U.S.? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 8:09 PM  Subject: Fwd: Scott Gottlieb re Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine, why not apprvd in U.S.?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 7:57 PM  Subject: Fwd: Scott Gottlieb re Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine, why not apprvd in U.S.?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 5:16 PM  Subject: Fwd: Scott Gottlieb re Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine, why not apprvd in U.S.?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:28 PM  107 Subject: Fwd: Scott Gottlieb re Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine, why not apprvd in U.S.?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 4:07 PM  Subject: Fwd: Scott Gottlieb re Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine, why not apprvd in U.S.?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 3:27 PM  Subject: Fwd: Scott Gottlieb re Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine, why not apprvd in U.S.?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 2:15 AM  Subject: Fwd: Scott Gottlieb re Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine, why not apprvd in U.S.?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 1:03 AM  Subject: Scott Gottlieb re Oxford‐Astrazeneca vaccine, why not apprvd in U.S.?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>             Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021                     Thursday, Feb. 4, 2021                     To all‐   Here is Dr. John Campbell in the UK on Wednesday, Feb. 3, 2021 discussing the big news about the  Astrazeneca‐Oxford vaccine. Phase 3 trial data have just been released for both the Oxford and J&J vaccines. The Oxford  vaccine seems to limit the transmissibility of the virus by those vaccinated with it. He shows the URLs for the reports  and studies he discusses. He doesn't gin up a pack of lies and try to sell that to the world. He has data and he shows  where to find it. How efficacious is Oxford after one dose?  How long should be the wait between the first and second  dose? It seems to provide better long‐term protection if the second dose is given at 12 weeks after the first dose.  Dr.  Fauci and Dr. Scott Gotlieb, former FDA Commissioner, should watch this and read the reports to which Dr. Campbell  refers and then comment upon what Dr. Campbell says. They should tell the American people, who are dying by the  108 thousands every day from Covid, why Dr. Campbell and the reports he discusses are all wrong, suspect, dangerous, and  downright fraudulent. Dr Gottlieb said on the news yesterday that Astrazeneca has not been as transparent as have  been Pfizer and Moderna about their vaccines. Congress should subpoena him in and have him detail where the lack of  transparency is. Congress should do the same with the people at the FDA who are keeping the Oxford vaccine off the  market in the U.S. Then they should invite the members of the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory  Agency, the MHRA, to testify before Congress and respond to Dr. Gottlieb's assertions regarding a lack of transparency  by Astrazeneca. The UK approved the Oxford vaccine in November or December, 2020 and they have been injecting it  into arms in the UK since Monday, January 4, 2021. I think the frauds are in Washington, D.C. and I think they should  face charges for holding up the Oxford vaccine.              Our officials like to project the idea that the U.S. has the best researchers, the best doctors, the best regulators,  the best experts on everything. That propoganda starts to wear  thin when one considers the Challenger explosion,  getting lots of Americans killed by invading the wrong country,  the loused up response so far to Covid, the fact that a  drunken murderer murdered his way into the Presidency and then murdered 33,000 Americans, and that Congress  granted him the aurthority to do it by a unanimous vote in the House and with two "no" votes in the Senate. Since then,  the American people have just about lost all respect for their government. I don't think that Dr. Fauci and Dr. Gottlieb or  the FDA have information that justifies keeping the Oxford vaccine off the market in the U.S. If they do have it, let's see  it in detail. Get before Congress and spell it out.                 Update ‐ YouTube                 To all‐  I have been repeating Dr. John Campbell's howling, day after day, about the FDA not giving an EUA for the  Oxford vaccine.  Here is the former U.S. FDA Commissioner in late Nov. 2020 talking about the Oxford vaccine.                   He says it was approved in the UK. True, it was. Approved and in use there since Monday, January 4, 2021. The  reporter then asks him why, if it was deemed safe by UK regualators, that is not good enough evidence for him. He then  presents the argument that, while he has great respect for the UK scientists and regulators, the population of the UK is  different than the population of the U.S. and that, you see,  you want to see it tested on your own population, he says.  80 million or so Brits and trial participants in Brazil may be  a lot different than the avg. Americano, and so we have to test the Oxford vaccine for additional months and months on  our population  EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE A SEVERE SHORTAGE OF THE PFIZER AND MODERNA VACCINES IN THE U.S.                 Note that he winds up here saying that if the need for vaccines in the U.S. becomes serious, we can always  authorize the Oxford vaccine quickly.  Can you believe what you are reading? He made these statements in late  November, 2020. I wonder if he would make the same statements today.                FDA will want to see more data from the AstraZeneca vaccine before approval: Fmr. chief ‐ YouTube                 Here he is talking on January 22, 2021 about how to increase the supply of vaccine, which we desperately need in  the U.S. now. He mentions approval of the J&J vaccine as a possibility, AND HE SAYS THAT THAT COULD GET  AUTHORIZED FAIRLY QUICKLY BASED ON THE INTERIM DATA, but he does not mention the approval of the Oxford  vaccine, as if it is an unknown quantity: The UK have been injecting it since Monday, Jan. 4, 2021, the EU approved it for  use in 27 countries last Friday, and it has been approved for use in India and Argentina. It is not an unknown quantity  and the FDA should stop stalling. The FDA has at least interim data on the Oxford vaccine, and the UK and the EU have  complete data.                         Dr. Scott Gottlieb on Covid‐19 vaccine distribution, case counts and new variants ‐ YouTube             U.S.trial of the Oxford vaccine was underway in December, 2020:                   AstraZeneca COVID‐19 vaccine trial underway in the U.S. ‐ YouTube    109          Dr. Campbell shows the charts for new cases in Ireland and Portugal when the Kent variant became dominant. See  his alarming video of Jan. 23, 2021 below. He calls it a warning to the U.S. The curves went straight up in Ireland until  they instituted a severe lockdown. Portugal will have to do the same thing and probably now is. The UK is under a severe  lockdown because the Kent variant is the dominant one there. Denmark predicts that the Kent variant will become  dominant there in March, and anticipates the need for a severe lockdown when it does.  The Kent variant is now in 33  States of the U.S. and the CDC forecasts that it will become the dominant variant here in mid‐March. We are now in a  race between vaccinations and the spread of the deadly Kent variant in the U.S. It is 55% more transmissible than the  original Covid virus and it may be more lethal. It may become necessary to impose a severe lockdown in the U.S. in  March or April if the Kent variant outruns the vaccination effort here. What is hindering the vaccination effort here is the  lack of vaccine, and that problem would be addressed if the FDA would grant an EUA for the Oxford vaccine. It has been  licensed for production in Maryland, and in Phoenix, Dr. Campbell said.                  Here is Dr. John Campbell on Saturday, Jan. 23, 2021 warning of a possible huge increase in Covid cases,  hospitalizations and deaths in the U.S. when the Kent variant, the UK variant, becomes dominant here. It is in 33 States  as of Feb. 4, 2021, or was several days ago.:  The CDC says it will be dominant in the U.S. in mid‐March. We are now in a  race between vaccinations and the exponential spread of the Kent variant. We desperately need the Oxford vaccine to  be approved by the FDA. It has been tested and trialed to death and if it is dangerous, the FDA, Dr. Scott Gottlieb and Dr.  Fauci should say so in sworn testimony before Congress. President Biden and Congress are remiss if they do not apply  pressure on the FDA to approve the Astrazeneca‐Oxford vaccine or else make public persuasive evidence that the  vaccine is unsafe. All of the substantial data indicate that it is safe and effective.                  New variant dangers ‐ YouTube                              L. William Harding          Fresno, Ca.       110 Baumb, Nelly From:Annie Turner <arturner2012@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 9:34 PM To:Council, City Cc:Cameron Turner Subject:Castilleja Support: March hearings CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    To Palo Alto City Council:    We are writing in support of Castilleja’s renovation project.  The school’s mission of offering a unique and supportive  education to girls should be expanded and encouraged.  There are so many girls who would benefit from the all‐girls  caring environment and top‐notch academics that Castilleja offers.  Castilleja has gone out of their way, in time and  expense, to be flexible and accommodating to the neighborhood.  For example, the expense of adding underground and  out‐of‐sight parking is a blessing the the neighborhood.  As Professorville residents, we appreciate this and other sincere  efforts!   The school understand the concerns of the neighborhood and has respectfully addressed and compromised on  these concerns.  Castilleja should be allowed, as other schools are, to upgrade their campus in a thoughtful and  meaningful way.    Sincerely,  Annie and Cameron Turner  1027 Emerson St, Palo Alto    111 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:49 PM To:Dennis Upton Cc:chuck jagoda; Jeff Rosen; Jonsen, Robert; Council, City; Raj; Anna Griffin; Jeff Moore Subject:Re: Dog Attack coverup, Daily Post, Feb 1, 2021 by aram james CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Dennis,      Great to hear from you. You’ve asked a pivotal question. Thus far both our police chief Robert Jonsen and our District  Attorney Jeff Rosen have exercised their option to remain silence re the questions posed in my short piece, Dog attack  coverup.     I will continue to ask the questions. Hopefully both government officials have enough of a belief in our democracy that  they will eventually answer the questions. I won’t hold my breath that either official will respond personally to me.  Maybe once members of our city council or local press push for answers they will finally respond.     Stay well my good friend,     Aram        Sent from my iPhone      On Feb 4, 2021, at 7:43 PM, Dennis Upton <denkafer1@yahoo.com> wrote:  I clean up dog hair in the City Hall garage on Downtown Streets Team. It’s my responsibility, yet I  wonder if I could be cleaning up the hair of the perpetrator.    Sent from my iPad      On Feb 2, 2021, at 12:42 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:      Hi Jeff, ( Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen):     I would greatly appreciate your office looking into the allegations  referred to in my short piece. I have not seen any body camera footage,  medical records, police reports, witness accounts, the alleged victim’s  statements to the police, etc....obviously you have access to this  112 information not me. I look forward to any information you are allowed  to share with the public re this matter.    Best regards,    Aram James    415‐370‐5056   <IMG_0617.jpg>    113 Baumb, Nelly From:Glenn Fisher <gfisher@mac.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:Housing and state law CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Palo Alto Council members,    I am not at all surprised to read that you are again up in arms that the State of California has the temerity to tell us what  to do about housing.    Perhaps you haven’t realized that we here in Palo Alto have managed to create very few new housing spaces in the last  10 years.  We’ve watched large apartments and condominiums go up in Menlo Park and Mountain View adding  hundreds of new housing spaces — but not here.  We can’t even get 30 new housing spaces built because it “isn’t  appropriate for our neighborhood.”    It seems NO housing is appropriate for Palo Alto, except for bigger and bigger houses on the same lot but with no  increase in housing capacity.    It’s time to wake up and face the facts.  We have to build more housing in Palo Alto.  If you won’t do it, the State or  ABAG will step in to make it happen on their terms, not ours.  So let’s get to work and get more housing built in Palo  Alto!!!    Thank you,    Glenn Fisher  Adobe Meadow  114 Baumb, Nelly From:Nanou <cnanou@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Supporting Castilleja's Remodeling Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council, I hope my letter finds you well. I’m following up on my previous letter and would like to reinforce my support for the development of Castilleja School, which will soon be presented to the City Council. This decision validates top priorities: educating more female students to be leaders in a space that will be more appropriate for the XXIst century. We need more than ever stronger students who could thrive in such a special environment. I insist that the school's current footprint should be maintained. I’m confident that the measures, taken both by the school and the city, will ensure that Castilleja’s neighborhood will maintain its peaceful, residential character while providing more girls and young women an opportunity for an all-girls education. For these reasons, I hope Castilleja can count on your support at the upcoming hearing in March. Sincerely, Anne Guionnet Midtown resident 115 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 6:36 PM To:Jonsen, Robert; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Council, City; Kaloma Smith; Human Relations Commission; Dave Price; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Raj; Richard Konda; Jeff Moore; Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission; Mark Petersen-Perez; Greer Stone; Pat Burt; Bains, Paul; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Roberta Ahlquist; Winter Dellenbach; Shikada, Ed; mark weiss; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:police-misconduct-reports-released-for-the-first-time-with-officer-names ( Hawaii ) CLEARLY THIS IS A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION —CALIFORNIA ( including PAPD) —need similar legislation now!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    https://www.khon2.com/local‐news/annual‐police‐misconduct‐reports‐released‐for‐the‐first‐time‐with‐officer‐ names/amp/      Sent from my iPhone  116 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 5:35 PM To:ParkRec Commission; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda; Raven Malone; Jethroe Moore; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Kaloma Smith; mark weiss; Joe Simitian; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; DuBois, Tom; Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Planning Commission; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com Subject:More background on the amazing accomplishments of judge Ladoris Cordell CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://www.thehistorymakers.org/biography/honorable‐ladoris‐cordell    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  117 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 5:00 PM To:Roberta Ahlquist Cc:Jeff Moore; Rebecca Eisenberg; mark weiss; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; chuck jagoda; Council, City; Mark Petersen-Perez; Lewis. james; John Abraham; alisa mallari tu; Kaloma Smith; Human Relations Commission; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission Subject:Re: Tomorrow’s Palo Alto HUMAN RELATIONSHIP COMMISSION annual retreat -priority setting for 2021 ...9am-1pm ( see link to the agenda below) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Yes, definitely let’s talk it up on no racist poll tax fees at the Ladoris Cordell Foothill Preserve.     Low low income housing on Fry’s prop and a 20% reparation set aside in perpetuity for all units built on Fry’s property.  See u all tomorrow. aram         Sent from my iPhone      On Feb 4, 2021, at 12:16 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:     I hope we can also rescind the fees on Foothill Park get them to apply for CAREsact funds for LOW, LOW  income houosing on the Sobrato Fry's property   and get % of housing for low‐income people of color , essential workers, and....    On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:27 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  FYI: Folks: at tomorrow’s HRC retreat from  9am to 1pm ‐ see agenda below‐ chance to speak to what you think should be the HRC’s priorities for  the year.    I plan to speak re the HRC pushing the city council to consider renaming Foothills Park in honor of  Judge Cordell, ending the coverup re the Zack Perron matter in 2021, developing a robust safe parking  program, my anger that the council process for approving a new $150 million dollar police station jail (  on Monday feb 1) was essentially a Kangaroo court stacked decked for the pro jail ‐folks. 8‐10  witnesses for building the police station jail none for opponents of this unnecessary monument to our  failed criminal prison jails industrial complex.     Ok, hope some of you can attend and state your own priorities for the HRC to address in 2021. You  don’t have to be a Palo Alto resident to express yourself.     Aram    119 Baumb, Nelly From:Irene Au <irene.au@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 3:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:In support of Castilleja's new CUP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I am writing in support of Castilleja's new CUP and their Project Alternative #4.    Enrollment and Neighborhood Impact  My family has been part of the Castilleja community for 8 years and during this time they have proven to be  conscientious, considerate neighbors. Castilleja's robust TDM plan, which they have demonstrated and expanded  successfully, will enable more students to attend without bringing any more cars to the neighborhood. I am confident  that Castilleja can increase their enrollment by 100 people and not have adverse effects on traffic around the school.  Therefore I urge you to vote in favor of increasing enrollment to 540.    Parking Facility  The City's Comprehensive Plan and the school's Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) both support an underground  parking facility. Removing cars from the street is certainly more visually appealing, and according to the FEIR, the drop‐ off plan in Alternative #4 effectively distributes traffic during the short drop‐off and pick‐up hours. Because Castilleja  operates in an R‐1 zone under a conditional use permit, there is nothing in the Palo Alto Municipal Code that prevents  Castilleja from incorporating an underground parking facility in its design, nor does it require the square footage to be  counted in Floor Area Ratio. An underground parking facility is also something the neighbors asked for throughout the  years of community meetings. Please vote in favor of the underground parking facility.    Floor Area Ratio  I urge you to approve the variance to allow Castilleja to maintain their current above‐ground square footage. Their new  buildings actually slightly reduce their above‐ground square footage, and their current permitted above‐ground square  footage predates the current code.    I hope the City Council will focus on facts and analyses and not on politics or misinformation when voting on this project.  The Final Environmental Impact Report supports this project with no significant and unavoidable impacts, and I hope  you vote in accordance with Castilleja's aspirations to upgrade its facilities and increase enrollment.    Thank you,  Irene Au  Oxford Avenue  120 Baumb, Nelly From:Tina Chen <hengting@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 2:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Urging your Support for Castilleja's Proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mr. Mayor and Council Members,     We are midtown residents and urge you to support Castilleja's proposal to increase their Upper School enrollment and  modernize their campus, including an underground garage. I currently serve as the Hoover PTA Treasurer, a Volunteer at  the Office of St. Thomas Aquinas Parish, and a Grader at Kumon Math and Reading Center on Middlefield. We support  the Castilleja proposal for the following reasons:    ‐ Demand for Castilleja's high school far exceeds current capacity, and many, many applicants ‐ including those from Palo  Alto ‐ are not given the opportunity they seek for their daughters. An all‐girls education is not for everyone, but for  those families who seek it, the experience can be life changing. Right now, Castilleja can only admit a handful of high  school students every year, and this proposal will expand that opportunity for the families who seek an all‐girls  experience.    ‐ We consider Castilleja Palo Alto's crown jewel of private schools. Especially in a pandemic year of mass exodus and  declining public school enrollment, Castilleja gives Palo Alto families education options as well as a reason to stay.    ‐ Many of Castilleja's buildings have not been renovated since the 1960s. If these spaces could be reimagined and  transformed, it would enrich Castilleja's current offering.    ‐ Underground parking is essential to Castilleja's compliance with city requirements and is more environmentally  friendly. In fact, the Environmental Impact Report deemed underground parking as the environmentally superior  alternative, and Palo Alto's Zoning code does not prohibit it. It is also more pleasant visually, as opposed to cars  surrounding the School or on surface level lots.     ‐ Castilleja has forged strong relationships with PAUSD and non‐profits; it is a cooperative group that listens and  responds. Ms. Kauffman has been forthcoming since she realized any violations. The transparency, mindfulness, and  respectful attitude have permeated Castilleja's communication and events. Dismissal pick‐up is but a 15‐minute affair,  with attendants tirelessly directing and flagging down cars for traffic flow, parking, and go‐around. How many schools,  public or private, have to endure neighborhood yard signs when students come and leave? Castilleja has shown  tremendous humility and deference throughout, and will be committed to compliance. Their TDM has been very  effective, and their proposed CUP makes clear that the school can not increase enrollment if traffic increases. Castilleja  has demonstrated their commitment to being a strong neighbor who limits traffic and impacts.    Thank you for your patience and receptiveness.    Tina Chen and Anthony Lin  121 Baumb, Nelly From:Judy Adams <judyblueeyes1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 1:47 PM To:Palo Alto Free Press Cc:Aram James; Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; Representative Anna G. Eshoo; chuck jagoda; Cherrill Spencer; Carol Lamont; Mary Gallagher; Mark Mollineaux; Rebecca Eisenberg; mark weiss; Shikada, Ed; Anna Griffin; Winter Dellenbach; Cecilia Taylor; Human Relations Commission Subject:Re: Renaming Foothills Park - Ladoris Cordell CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  An excellent idea, but I favor keeping the name of Foothills Park, as  straightforward.    Judy Adams  former Palo Alto resident  currently Menlo Park resident    On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 1:21 PM Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> wrote:  What greater honor can we as a society bestow upon an individual for there outstanding contributions then to name a  bridge, highway, park regional or state for such an individual.    As suggested in the case of renaming “Foothills Park” after Ladoris Cordell.      This prestigious honor should be fully transparent and vetted.  There should be no questionable behavior which could  be viewed, construed or distract from bring greater harm to the social changes she helped augment.    Ladoris Cordell was instrumental in bring deadly Tasers, a device known to the United Nations Commission on  Human rights, then and now as an instrument of torture. To the city of Palo  Alto..... https://www.asisonline.org/security‐management‐magazine/articles/2018/03/tasers‐and‐the‐united‐ nations/       The latest reported death count in the US alone now links Tasers to having caused or contributed to well over 1000  deaths.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us‐usa‐taser‐deaths‐insight/as‐death‐toll‐keeps‐rising‐u‐s‐communities‐ start‐rethinking‐taser‐use‐idUSKCN1PT0YT    The vast majority of those impacted, were those from the African American and Latino communities. Including, the  unarmed and disenfranchised.     To say Ladoris Cordell was unaware of this data long before rendering her vote, would be unconscionable.      Council approves Palo Alto Police getting Tasers.      https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2007/05/08/council‐approves‐palo‐alto‐police‐getting‐tasers    122 Lets not forget she sat on the Judicial Bench rendering legal decision after legal decision and reviewing untold number  of legal documents during her career as a Judge......      But, I would say, that the vast majority of you despite the facts, despite the facts, and unmoved, would remain  undisturbed and unconvinced  moving forward with the proposed name change......    Editor Palo Alto Free Press        Sent from my iPad      On Feb 3, 2021, at 6:25 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:    Thanks Roberta!! Well done! I’m still working on having the park named after Judge Ladoris Cordell.  When Rebecca and I, and I’m  pretty sure Mark Weiss, memory fading a bit with so many meetings, attended the latest Parks and  Recreation Commission meeting.... we received a boarder line hostile response to our name change  suggestions.    Although I’ve had major disagreements with Judge Cordell ‐ we go back to at least 1980‐ when she was  a young judge and me a young criminal defense attorney/public defender—her contributions to civil  rights, a wide scope of sociol justice issues, a culture warrior on so many levels ...are nearly unmatched  anywhere. One woman who zoomed into the meeting said no way to the Cordell name change —‐not  verbatim here ...but she essentially said: Cordell shoved the Foothills Park open to all idea down our  throats ..and she’s a controversial woman!!! I kid you not!     If Ladoris was white with the same remarkable contributions to justice for all —this would not even be  a close call. The Park would in fact be named after her. Straight up vile sexism and racism still carries  the day in majority white wing Palo Alto. Just my thoughts and I’ll own them...take full responsibility for  them ...speaking on my own behalf ......     Best regards,    Aram     Sent from my iPhone    On Feb 3, 2021, at 2:46 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:    Dear Council Member Cormack:  You were the only council person who considered the impact of a fee on people with a  limited income wishing to visit Foothill Park. We believe that the park should have NO  fees, as parks all over the bay area are, for the most part, open and free to all. This park  123 has been paid for. The city has ample funds for cleanup, and if needed people can  donate to a park fund, and even help with cleanup days. After the holidays we visited  the park during 'peak hours' (between 10am and 3pm) several times, and found the  park clean, quiet, and we counted only 18 cars in the parking lots.  The council once  again has reacted in the interests of keeping some folks out of the park. What a limited  vision we have for the health and interests of the larger community. Thank you for  your concerns. Let's hope that the Parks folks, and Council reconsider their reactive  response and drop the fee.  Sincerely,  Roberta Ahlquist, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom‐low  income Housing Committee  124 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 1:35 PM To:chuck jagoda; Rebecca Eisenberg; Roberta Ahlquist; Raven Malone; Human Relations Commission; Council, City; Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Hazard pay for Palo Alto grocery works? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://sanjosespotlight.com/rodan‐grocery‐store‐hazard‐pay‐decision‐showed‐true‐colors‐of‐san‐jose‐council‐ members/    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  125 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 1:22 PM To:Aram James Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; Judy Adams; rebecca; Representative Anna G. Eshoo; chuck jagoda; Cherrill Spencer; Carol Lamont; Mary Gallagher; Mark Mollineaux; Rebecca Eisenberg; mark weiss; Shikada, Ed; Anna Griffin; Winter Dellenbach; Cecilia Taylor; Human Relations Commission Subject:Renaming Foothills Park - Ladoris Cordell CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  What greater honor can we as a society bestow upon an individual for there outstanding contributions then to name a  bridge, highway, park regional or state for such an individual.    As suggested in the case of renaming “Foothills Park” after Ladoris Cordell.      This prestigious honor should be fully transparent and vetted.  There should be no questionable behavior which could be  viewed, construed or distract from bring greater harm to the social changes she helped augment.    Ladoris Cordell was instrumental in bring deadly Tasers, a device known to the United Nations Commission on Human  rights, then and now as an instrument of torture. To the city of Palo Alto..... https://www.asisonline.org/security‐ management‐magazine/articles/2018/03/tasers‐and‐the‐united‐nations/       The latest reported death count in the US alone now links Tasers to having caused or contributed to well over 1000  deaths.  https://www.reuters.com/article/us‐usa‐taser‐deaths‐insight/as‐death‐toll‐keeps‐rising‐u‐s‐communities‐start‐ rethinking‐taser‐use‐idUSKCN1PT0YT    The vast majority of those impacted, were those from the African American and Latino communities. Including, the  unarmed and disenfranchised.     To say Ladoris Cordell was unaware of this data long before rendering her vote, would be unconscionable.      Council approves Palo Alto Police getting Tasers.      https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2007/05/08/council‐approves‐palo‐alto‐police‐getting‐tasers    Lets not forget she sat on the Judicial Bench rendering legal decision after legal decision and reviewing untold number of  legal documents during her career as a Judge......      But, I would say, that the vast majority of you despite the facts, despite the facts, and unmoved, would remain  undisturbed and unconvinced  moving forward with the proposed name change......    Editor Palo Alto Free Press        Sent from my iPad      126 On Feb 3, 2021, at 6:25 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:    Thanks Roberta!! Well done! I’m still working on having the park named after Judge Ladoris Cordell.  When Rebecca and I, and I’m  pretty sure Mark Weiss, memory fading a bit with so many meetings, attended the latest Parks and  Recreation Commission meeting.... we received a boarder line hostile response to our name change  suggestions.    Although I’ve had major disagreements with Judge Cordell ‐ we go back to at least 1980‐ when she was a  young judge and me a young criminal defense attorney/public defender—her contributions to civil  rights, a wide scope of sociol justice issues, a culture warrior on so many levels ...are nearly unmatched  anywhere. One woman who zoomed into the meeting said no way to the Cordell name change —‐not  verbatim here ...but she essentially said: Cordell shoved the Foothills Park open to all idea down our  throats ..and she’s a controversial woman!!! I kid you not!     If Ladoris was white with the same remarkable contributions to justice for all —this would not even be a  close call. The Park would in fact be named after her. Straight up vile sexism and racism still carries the  day in majority white wing Palo Alto. Just my thoughts and I’ll own them...take full responsibility for  them ...speaking on my own behalf ......     Best regards,    Aram     Sent from my iPhone    On Feb 3, 2021, at 2:46 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:    Dear Council Member Cormack:  You were the only council person who considered the impact of a fee on people with a  limited income wishing to visit Foothill Park. We believe that the park should have NO  fees, as parks all over the bay area are, for the most part, open and free to all. This park  has been paid for. The city has ample funds for cleanup, and if needed people can  donate to a park fund, and even help with cleanup days. After the holidays we visited  the park during 'peak hours' (between 10am and 3pm) several times, and found the  park clean, quiet, and we counted only 18 cars in the parking lots.  The council once  again has reacted in the interests of keeping some folks out of the park. What a limited  vision we have for the health and interests of the larger community. Thank you for your  concerns. Let's hope that the Parks folks, and Council reconsider their reactive response  and drop the fee.  Sincerely,  Roberta Ahlquist, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom‐low  income Housing Committee  127 Baumb, Nelly From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 12:17 PM To:Aram James Cc:Jeff Moore; Rebecca Eisenberg; mark weiss; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; chuck jagoda; Council, City; Mark Petersen-Perez; Lewis. james; John Abraham; alisa mallari tu Subject:Re: Tomorrow’s Palo Alto HUMAN RELATIONSHIP COMMISSION annual retreat -priority setting for 2021 ...9am-1pm ( see link to the agenda below) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I hope we can also rescind the fees on Foothill Park get them to apply for CAREsact funds for LOW, LOW income  houosing on the Sobrato Fry's property   and get % of housing for low‐income people of color , essential workers, and....    On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 11:27 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  FYI: Folks: at tomorrow’s HRC retreat from  9am to 1pm ‐ see agenda below‐ chance to speak to what you think should be the HRC’s priorities for the year.    I plan to speak re the HRC pushing the city council to consider renaming Foothills Park in honor of Judge Cordell, ending  the coverup re the Zack Perron matter in 2021, developing a robust safe parking program, my anger that the council  process for approving a new $150 million dollar police station jail ( on Monday feb 1) was essentially a Kangaroo court  stacked decked for the pro jail ‐folks. 8‐10 witnesses for building the police station jail none for opponents of this  unnecessary monument to our failed criminal prison jails industrial complex.     Ok, hope some of you can attend and state your own priorities for the HRC to address in 2021. You don’t have to be a  Palo Alto resident to express yourself.     Aram    https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80103    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  128 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:53 AM To:Roberta Ahlquist Cc:Rebecca Eisenberg; chuck jagoda; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; mark weiss; Mary Gallagher; Carol Lamont; Jeff Moore; Anna Griffin; Winter Dellenbach; chuck jagoda; Kaloma Smith; Lewis. james; Bunny Chiba Subject:Re: Palo Alto City Council Agenda for Monday Feb 8, 2021 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Totally agree!! And modeled after (AB 3121) California’s recently passed and signed by our Governor, Reparations Act,  primary author, our now California Secretary of State, Shirley Weber........at least 20 percent of the units set aside in  perpetuity for African American families who have systemically been excluded or driven out of Palo Alto by racist  policies and actions by white folks, including the KKK. Time to make reparations.   Aram      Sent from my iPhone      On Feb 4, 2021, at 11:00 AM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:     We'd like to pressure this council to make the majority of this housing for essential workers,  extremely low and low income w/ a tiny moderate   income mix. Your take?  r    On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:25 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:    https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80093          Sent from my iPhone  129 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne Gregory <xagregoryx@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:46 AM To:Council, City Subject:sea level rise and our waste treatment plant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council: I hope the city is being proactive about protecting our waste treatment plant from sea level rise: Bay Area Sewage Systems at Risk as Seas Rise     Bay Area Sewage Systems at Risk as Seas Rise When sewage spewed out of a shower in a San Francisco home, climate change experts say it may be a sign of thing...    Sincerely, Anne Gregory   130 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 11:27 AM To:Jeff Moore; Rebecca Eisenberg; mark weiss; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Roberta Ahlquist; chuck jagoda; Council, City; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Lewis. james Cc:John Abraham; alisa mallari tu Subject:Tomorrow’s Palo Alto HUMAN RELATIONSHIP COMMISSION annual retreat -priority setting for 2021 ...9am-1pm ( see link to the agenda below) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  FYI: Folks: at tomorrow’s HRC retreat from  9am to 1pm ‐ see agenda below‐ chance to speak to what you think should be the HRC’s priorities for the year.    I plan to speak re the HRC pushing the city council to consider renaming Foothills Park in honor of Judge Cordell, ending  the coverup re the Zack Perron matter in 2021, developing a robust safe parking program, my anger that the council  process for approving a new $150 million dollar police station jail ( on Monday feb 1) was essentially a Kangaroo court  stacked decked for the pro jail ‐folks. 8‐10 witnesses for building the police station jail none for opponents of this  unnecessary monument to our failed criminal prison jails industrial complex.     Ok, hope some of you can attend and state your own priorities for the HRC to address in 2021. You don’t have to be a  Palo Alto resident to express yourself.     Aram    https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/80103    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  131 Baumb, Nelly From:Judy Adams <judyblueeyes1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 10:45 AM To:Mary Gallagher Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; Aram James; rebecca; Representative Anna G. Eshoo; chuck jagoda; Cherrill Spencer; Carol Lamont; Mark Mollineaux Subject:Re: Desegregate Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Thanks Mary and Roberta!    Judy A    On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 10:44 AM Mary Gallagher <livebuoyantly@gmail.com> wrote:  Dear Activist Friends of Foothills Park: First, I appreciate Roberta's letter to the council objecting to the fee and our collective objections to a Foothills Park entrance fee. Controlling the numbers of visitors each day as well as preserving the park can be achieved in other ways that don't offend anyone. Second, I ask: What are the objections to keeping the name of Foothills Park as is? The name, Foothills Park, aligns with what the hills naturally are Foothills. The name, Foothills Park, seemingly would offend no demographic or political group. With appreciation, Mary   On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 1:09 AM Judy Adams <judyblueeyes1@gmail.com> wrote:  excellent letter!      On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:46 PM Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:  Dear Council Member Cormack:     133 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Gallagher <livebuoyantly@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 10:44 AM To:Judy Adams Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; Aram James; rebecca; Representative Anna G. Eshoo; chuck jagoda; Cherrill Spencer; Carol Lamont; Mark Mollineaux Subject:Re: Desegregate Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Activist Friends of Foothills Park: First, I appreciate Roberta's letter to the council objecting to the fee and our collective objections to a Foothills Park entrance fee. Controlling the numbers of visitors each day as well as preserving the park can be achieved in other ways that don't offend anyone. Second, I ask: What are the objections to keeping the name of Foothills Park as is? The name, Foothills Park, aligns with what the hills naturally are Foothills. The name, Foothills Park, seemingly would offend no demographic or political group. With appreciation, Mary   On Thu, Feb 4, 2021 at 1:09 AM Judy Adams <judyblueeyes1@gmail.com> wrote:  excellent letter!      On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:46 PM Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:  Dear Council Member Cormack:     You were the only council person who considered the impact of a fee on people with a limited income wishing to visit  Foothill Park. We believe that the park should have NO fees, as parks all over the bay area are, for the most part, open  and free to all. This park has been paid for. The city has ample funds for cleanup, and if needed people can donate to a  park fund, and even help with cleanup days. After the holidays we visited the park during 'peak hours' (between 10am  and 3pm) several times, and found the park clean, quiet, and we counted only 18 cars in the parking lots.  The council  once again has reacted in the interests of keeping some folks out of the park. What a limited vision we have for the  health and interests of the larger community. Thank you for your concerns. Let's hope that the Parks folks, and Council  reconsider their reactive response and drop the fee.  135 Baumb, Nelly From:Hector Hoyos <hoyos.ayala@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Proposal for new dog parks in College Terrace CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear council members,     Since the pandemic started, the canine population of Palo Alto has grown significantly. Meanwhile, suitable fenced  spaces for our four legged residents remain the same. It would be most beneficial for Paloaltan’s mental health, safety,  and enjoyment to add to this easily overlooked, important public infrastructure. It’s an inexpensive way to touch many  families and make their daily lives measurably better.  Fencing off sections of Donaldina Cameron park and William C Werry Park Is  eminently feasible and architecturally sound. Ample anecdotal evidence suggests the initiative  would easily garner neighbor support. The closest existing dog park is Peers park, at the other  side of El Camino, by the train tracks. It is often overcrowded and too distant for many  residents (a mile and a half away from Kite Hill, for reference).     Another spot worth considering is the vicinity of Gunn school. Adding 1‐3 new dog parks in the  area makes good sense, as all those adorable pandemic puppies are here to stay.  Thank you kindly for your consideration,  Name withheld  136 Baumb, Nelly From:Moore, Jeff <moorej@esuhsd.org> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 6:13 AM To:mark weiss Cc:ParkRec Commission; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Planning Commission; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Human Relations Commission; Jeff Rosen; Council, City; City Mgr; Aram James; Roberta Ahlquist; Judy Adams; Representative Anna G. Eshoo; Cherrill Spencer; Mary Gallagher; Mark Mollineaux; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Shikada, Ed; Anna Griffin; Winter Dellenbach; Cecilia Taylor; Joe Simitian Subject:Re: Desegregate Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Yes, I like wise support naming the Park after the judge. But do believe our best energy would be to define the steps in  renaming process,     On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 9:43 PM mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote:  Dullards. Our squirrels are not dullards. Let’s rename the park    Let’s rename the park Let’s rename the park, for a Black man.We’re all equal, not a sequel.With 2020 hindsight, we’d repair the funkAl...   I know our bleeding stops. ---submitted by Mark Weiss, as a follow up to a 2 minute comment on same topic to Parks and Recs On Wednesday, February 3, 2021, 08:02:18 PM PST, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Mark, I only wish I could borrow your mind, even for a minute . You’re way more cool -then I could ever even imagine being. Your poetry in motion says it all with humor and wit, while the best I can do is hit it with a hammer. Keep it up! 137 Aram Sent from my iPhone On Feb 3, 2021, at 6:50 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote: Let’s rename the park, for a Black man. We’re all equal, not a sequel. With 2020 hindsight, we’d repair the funk All the other parks, they want the darks. darkness We charge the poor to park the car, but we don’t tax the man, and drive Tesla. Poet laureate, poet laureate; the epitome of literacy. Life’s a brief candle, but he lit it. He hit it, he didn’t shit it. For his game, he’s like the Willie Mays or Willie Mac, the Barry or the Bobby, meanings clearly or at bottom. We can’t change our past, but we can change our minds. There’s more than 1s and 0s, there’s more than of’s and “ahvs” A temple of listening. To see it glistening. Let’s rename the park. Let’s rename the park. aeiou! aeiou! We want to mingle, to hit a single. Even our squirrels think the new rules are uncool. They’re not dolts. dullards Sent from my iPhone On Feb 3, 2021, at 6:25 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Roberta!! Well done! I’m still working on having the park named after Judge Ladoris Cordell. When Rebecca and I, and I’m pretty sure Mark Weiss, memory fading a bit with so many meetings, attended the latest Parks and Recreation Commission meeting.... we received a boarder line hostile response to our name change suggestions. Although I’ve had major disagreements with Judge Cordell - we go back to at least 1980- when she was a young judge and me a young criminal defense attorney/public defender—her contributions to civil rights, a wide scope of sociol justice issues, a culture warrior on so many levels ...are nearly unmatched anywhere. One woman who zoomed into the meeting said no way to the Cordell name change —-not verbatim here ...but she essentially said: Cordell shoved the Foothills Park open to all idea down our throats ..and she’s a controversial woman!!! I kid you not! If Ladoris was white with the same remarkable contributions to justice for all —this would not even be a close call. The Park would in fact be named after her. Straight up vile sexism and racism still carries the day in majority white wing Palo Alto. Just my thoughts and I’ll own them...take full responsibility for them ...speaking on my own behalf ...... Best regards, Aram 138 Sent from my iPhone On Feb 3, 2021, at 2:46 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote: Dear Council Member Cormack: You were the only council person who considered the impact of a fee on people with a limited income wishing to visit Foothill Park. We believe that the park should have NO fees, as parks all over the bay area are, for the most part, open and free to all. This park has been paid for. The city has ample funds for cleanup, and if needed people can donate to a park fund, and even help with cleanup days. After the holidays we visited the park during 'peak hours' (between 10am and 3pm) several times, and found the park clean, quiet, and we counted only 18 cars in the parking lots. The council once again has reacted in the interests of keeping some folks out of the park. What a limited vision we have for the health and interests of the larger community. Thank you for your concerns. Let's hope that the Parks folks, and Council reconsider their reactive response and drop the fee. Sincerely, Roberta Ahlquist, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom-low income Housing Committee 139 Baumb, Nelly From:Judy Adams <judyblueeyes1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 1:09 AM To:Roberta Ahlquist Cc:Council, City; Aram James; rebecca; Representative Anna G. Eshoo; chuck jagoda; Cherrill Spencer; Carol Lamont; Mary Gallagher; Mark Mollineaux Subject:Re: Desegregate Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  excellent letter!      On Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:46 PM Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:  Dear Council Member Cormack:     You were the only council person who considered the impact of a fee on people with a limited income wishing to visit  Foothill Park. We believe that the park should have NO fees, as parks all over the bay area are, for the most part, open  and free to all. This park has been paid for. The city has ample funds for cleanup, and if needed people can donate to a  park fund, and even help with cleanup days. After the holidays we visited the park during 'peak hours' (between 10am  and 3pm) several times, and found the park clean, quiet, and we counted only 18 cars in the parking lots.  The council  once again has reacted in the interests of keeping some folks out of the park. What a limited vision we have for the  health and interests of the larger community. Thank you for your concerns. Let's hope that the Parks folks, and Council  reconsider their reactive response and drop the fee.  Sincerely,  Roberta Ahlquist, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom‐low  income Housing Committee  140 Baumb, Nelly From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 9:44 PM To:ParkRec Commission; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Planning Commission; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Human Relations Commission; Jeff Rosen; Council, City; City Mgr; Aram James Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Judy Adams; Representative Anna G. Eshoo; Cherrill Spencer; Mary Gallagher; Mark Mollineaux; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Shikada, Ed; Anna Griffin; Winter Dellenbach; Cecilia Taylor; Joe Simitian; Jeff Moore Subject:Re: Desegregate Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dullards. Our squirrels are not dullards. Let’s rename the park     Let’s rename the park Let’s rename the park, for a Black man.We’re all equal, not a sequel.With 2020 hindsight, we’d repair the funkAl...   I know our bleeding stops. ---submitted by Mark Weiss, as a follow up to a 2 minute comment on same topic to Parks and Recs On Wednesday, February 3, 2021, 08:02:18 PM PST, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Mark, I only wish I could borrow your mind, even for a minute . You’re way more cool -then I could ever even imagine being. Your poetry in motion says it all with humor and wit, while the best I can do is hit it with a hammer. Keep it up! Aram Sent from my iPhone   143 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 8:02 PM To:mark weiss; ParkRec Commission; chuckjagoda1@gmail.com; rebecca@winwithrebecca.com; Planning Commission; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org; Human Relations Commission; Jeff Rosen; Council, City; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; City Mgr Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; Judy Adams; Representative Anna G. Eshoo; chuck jagoda; Cherrill Spencer; Mary Gallagher; Mark Mollineaux; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; ParkRec Commission; Shikada, Ed; Anna Griffin; Winter Dellenbach; Cecilia Taylor; Joe Simitian; Jeff Moore Subject:Re: Desegregate Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mark,    I only wish I could borrow your mind, even for a minute . You’re way more cool ‐then I could ever even imagine being.  Your poetry in motion says it all with humor and wit, while the best I can do is hit it with a hammer. Keep it up!   Aram      Sent from my iPhone      On Feb 3, 2021, at 6:50 PM, mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> wrote:           Let’s rename the park, for a Black man. We’re all equal, not a sequel. With 2020 hindsight, we’d repair the funk All the other parks, they want the darks. We charge the poor to park the car, but we don’t tax the man, and drive Tesla. Poet laureate, poet laureate; the epitome of literacy. Life’s a brief candle, but he lit it. He hit it, he didn’t shit it. For his game, he’s like the Willie Mays or Willie Mac, the Barry or the Bobby, meanings clearly or at bottom. We can’t change our past, but we can change our minds. There’s more than 1s and 0s, there’s more than of’s and “ahvs” A temple of listening. To see it glistening. Let’s rename the park. Let’s rename the park. aeiou! aeiou! We want to mingle, to hit a single. Even our squirrels think the new rules are uncool. They’re not dolts.     146 Baumb, Nelly From:mark weiss <earwopa@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 6:51 PM To:Aram James Cc:Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; Judy Adams; Representative Anna G. Eshoo; chuck jagoda; Cherrill Spencer; Carol Lamont; Mary Gallagher; Mark Mollineaux; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Rebecca Eisenberg; Shikada, Ed; Anna Griffin; Winter Dellenbach; Cecilia Taylor Subject:Re: Desegregate Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        Let’s rename the park, for a Black man. We’re all equal, not a sequel. With 2020 hindsight, we’d repair the funk All the other parks, they want the darks. We charge the poor to park the car, but we don’t tax the man, and drive Tesla. Poet laureate, poet laureate; the epitome of literacy. Life’s a brief candle, but he lit it. He hit it, he didn’t shit it. For his game, he’s like the Willie Mays or Willie Mac, the Barry or the Bobby, meanings clearly or at bottom. We can’t change our past, but we can change our minds. There’s more than 1s and 0s, there’s more than of’s and “ahvs” A temple of listening. To see it glistening. Let’s rename the park. Let’s rename the park. aeiou! aeiou! We want to mingle, to hit a single. Even our squirrels think the new rules are uncool. They’re not dolts.     Sent from my iPhone      On Feb 3, 2021, at 6:25 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:  Thanks Roberta!! Well done! I’m still working on having the park named after Judge Ladoris Cordell.  When Rebecca and I, and I’m  pretty sure Mark Weiss, memory fading a bit with so many meetings, attended the latest Parks and  Recreation Commission meeting.... we received a boarder line hostile response to our name change  suggestions.    Although I’ve had major disagreements with Judge Cordell ‐ we go back to at least 1980‐ when she was a  young judge and me a young criminal defense attorney/public defender—her contributions to civil  rights, a wide scope of sociol justice issues, a culture warrior on so many levels ...are nearly unmatched  147 anywhere. One woman who zoomed into the meeting said no way to the Cordell name change —‐not  verbatim here ...but she essentially said: Cordell shoved the Foothills Park open to all idea down our  throats ..and she’s a controversial woman!!! I kid you not!     If Ladoris was white with the same remarkable contributions to justice for all —this would not even be a  close call. The Park would in fact be named after her. Straight up vile sexism and racism still carries the  day in majority white wing Palo Alto. Just my thoughts and I’ll own them...take full responsibility for  them ...speaking on my own behalf ......     Best regards,    Aram     Sent from my iPhone      On Feb 3, 2021, at 2:46 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:      Dear Council Member Cormack:    You were the only council person who considered the impact of a fee on people with a  limited income wishing to visit Foothill Park. We believe that the park should have NO  fees, as parks all over the bay area are, for the most part, open and free to all. This park  has been paid for. The city has ample funds for cleanup, and if needed people can  donate to a park fund, and even help with cleanup days. After the holidays we visited  the park during 'peak hours' (between 10am and 3pm) several times, and found the  park clean, quiet, and we counted only 18 cars in the parking lots.  The council once  again has reacted in the interests of keeping some folks out of the park. What a limited  vision we have for the health and interests of the larger community. Thank you for your  concerns. Let's hope that the Parks folks, and Council reconsider their reactive response  and drop the fee.  Sincerely,  Roberta Ahlquist, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom‐low  income Housing Committee  148 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 6:26 PM To:Roberta Ahlquist Cc:Council, City; Judy Adams; rebecca; Representative Anna G. Eshoo; chuck jagoda; Cherrill Spencer; Carol Lamont; Mary Gallagher; Mark Mollineaux; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; Rebecca Eisenberg; mark weiss; Shikada, Ed; Anna Griffin; Winter Dellenbach; Dave Price; Cecilia Taylor Subject:Re: Desegregate Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Thanks Roberta!! Well done! I’m still working on having the park named after Judge Ladoris Cordell. When Rebecca and  I, and I’m pretty sure Mark Weiss, memory fading a bit with so many meetings, attended the latest Parks and Recreation  Commission meeting.... we received a boarder line hostile response to our name change suggestions.    Although I’ve had major disagreements with Judge Cordell ‐ we go back to at least 1980‐ when she was a young judge  and me a young criminal defense attorney/public defender—her contributions to civil rights, a wide scope of sociol  justice issues, a culture warrior on so many levels ...are nearly unmatched anywhere. One woman who zoomed into the  meeting said no way to the Cordell name change —‐not verbatim here ...but she essentially said: Cordell shoved the  Foothills Park open to all idea down our throats ..and she’s a controversial woman!!! I kid you not!    If Ladoris was white with the same remarkable contributions to justice for all —this would not even be a close call. The  Park would in fact be named after her. Straight up vile sexism and racism still carries the day in majority white wing Palo  Alto. Just my thoughts and I’ll own them...take full responsibility for them ...speaking on my own behalf ......    Best regards,    Aram    Sent from my iPhone    > On Feb 3, 2021, at 2:46 PM, Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> wrote:  >  >   > Dear Council Member Cormack:  >  > You were the only council person who considered the impact of a fee on people with a limited income wishing to visit  Foothill Park. We believe that the park should have NO fees, as parks all over the bay area are, for the most part, open  and free to all. This park has been paid for. The city has ample funds for cleanup, and if needed people can donate to a  park fund, and even help with cleanup days. After the holidays we visited the park during 'peak hours' (between 10am  and 3pm) several times, and found the park clean, quiet, and we counted only 18 cars in the parking lots.  The council  once again has reacted in the interests of keeping some folks out of the park. What a limited vision we have for the  health and interests of the larger community. Thank you for your concerns. Let's hope that the Parks folks, and Council  reconsider their reactive response and drop the fee.  > Sincerely,  > Roberta Ahlquist, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom‐low   > income Housing Committee  149 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Dunn <susan@thedunns.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 5:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi, City Council,     I'm happy that Castilleja's plan is moving forward.    I am no expert on the details.  I'm sure the plan isn't perfect.      Nevertheless, I support Castilleja's plan.  I don't know what school or other institution could have done more to take  input, research alternatives, and balance goals.  It is easy to criticize an initiative.  Change is hard.  But, there are costs to  inertia, too.    I hope the City Council will allow Castilleja to move forward.    Regards,    Susan Dunn  509 Coleridge Avenue  Palo Alto, California  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Susan Dunn <susan@thedunns.com>  Date: Fri, Oct 9, 2020 at 6:45 PM  Subject: Castilleja  To: <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>    Dear City Council:                 We support Castilleja’s CUP and Master Plan.     1. Castilleja is an asset to our neighborhood.  It attracts student families, which increases property  values.  Castilleja’s physical plant – current and planned – is tastefully designed and well‐maintained.  2. Diverse uses make a city vibrant.  We don’t want to live in a single‐family home  monoculture.  Businesses, schools, religious institutions, recreational facilities and government offices  add variety and interest.    3. Palo Alto needs to do its part.  Our residents take advantage of businesses, schools, churches and  parks in other municipalities.  Palo Alto needs to support its share of these amenities.  4. Castilleja has been working for a decade to obtain permission to modernize its campus.  Castilleja  has been forthright, cooperative, and professional.  Palo Alto should reward those behaviors.    150 Regards,  Susan and Eric Dunn  509 Coleridge Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301  151 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 3:29 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; fred beyerlein; beachrides; bballpod; boardmembers; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; Council, City; Chris Field; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; david pomaville; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; Steven Feinstein; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; Irv Weissman; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; lalws4 @gmail.com; leager; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; news@fresnobee.com; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: B some JNJ since their 1 shot vaccine ended Phase 3 trial Monday- good results 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 3, 2021 at 2:35 PM  Subject: Fwd: B some JNJ since their 1 shot vaccine ended Phase 3 trial Monday‐ good results  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:23 PM  Subject: Fwd: B some JNJ since their 1 shot vaccine ended Phase 3 trial Monday‐ good results  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Feb 3, 2021 at 2:19 PM  Subject: B some JNJ since their 1 shot vaccine ended Phase 3 trial Monday‐ good results  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                  Wed. Feb. 3,  2021                 B some JNJ today. J&J, market symbol JNJ.  Their Covid vaccine got good results in phase 3 trial and they are  applying for EUA in U.S.  It would be a third vaccine to be approved here. It's  a one‐shot vaccine and does not need very  152 low temps to keep.  I still don't know what's holding up an EUA from the FDA for the Oxford vaccine. The EU approved it  for 27 countries on Friday. The UK has now been injecting it for 31 days. Biden and Congress should intervene.           Trade Notification ‐ Account ending in 130 ‐ loran.harding@alumni.stanford.edu ‐ Stanford Alumni Mail (google.com)                Here is NBC News about the JNJ vaccine:               Johnson & Johnson Covid Vaccine 72 Percent Effective In U.S. | NBC Nightly News ‐ YouTube                               Here is the JNJ website. Full of information re their Covid vaccine:  It's a great Co. Rated A by Schwab.and it has a  wide moat.                    Johnson & Johnson Homepage | Johnson & Johnson (jnj.com)                 Here is the UK's Dr. John Campbell discussing the Novavax and the JNJ vaccines, both just out with phase 3  results:                     Two new vaccines work ‐ YouTube               Re Novavax, I paid ~$150 a share for it and was under water for months. Here are closing prices for NVAX starting  last Thursday:                      Thurs. 1‐28‐21         $134.01                   Friday, 1‐29‐21         $220.94                   Monday, 2‐1‐21        $268.30                   Tuesday, 2‐2‐21       $264.41                   Wed. 2‐3‐21             $284.21                             The news was full of talk about their vaccine for months, so sort of a no‐brainer.                                   L. William Harding               Fresno  153 Baumb, Nelly From:Ben Ayed <bena@autoservice.ai> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 3:03 PM To:mayor@mayors.gov Subject:Fwd: Vaccination Phone Scheduling Assistance Service CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor My startup company Allio offers AI-powered phone scheduling, and would like to help with the vaccination effort. We provide unlimited appointment by phone capacity, 24x7, at very affordable prices, sometimes 5X less than a call center, and we deploy within hours. Can you please direct me to the right authorities that may need our help? Kindest Regards, Ben Ayed AutoService AI 154 Baumb, Nelly From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 2:49 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gail Price Subject:Public Safety Building: Vote to Approve the COP and related documents (Feb. 1, 2021) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor DuBois and Palo Alto City Council Members,    Thank you for your thoughtful deliberations and comments  and vote to approve the issuance of  COP and related  documents needed to finance and construct the Public Safety Building.  This is a critical project and so very long overdue  (after decades of study and recommendations to construct it). Without a doubt, both the Public Safety staff and the  community appreciate and celebrate your wisdom. You have made a legacy decision impacting improved operations,  efficiency, and safety of Palo Alto both now and in the future.    In appreciation,    Gail A. Price  Barron Park  Palo Alto, CA  155 Baumb, Nelly From:Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 2:46 PM To:Council, City; Judy Adams; Aram James; rebecca; Representative Anna G. Eshoo; chuck jagoda; Cherrill Spencer; Carol Lamont; Mary Gallagher; Mark Mollineaux Subject:Desegregate Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Member Cormack:     You were the only council person who considered the impact of a fee on people with a limited income wishing to visit  Foothill Park. We believe that the park should have NO fees, as parks all over the bay area are, for the most part, open  and free to all. This park has been paid for. The city has ample funds for cleanup, and if needed people can donate to a  park fund, and even help with cleanup days. After the holidays we visited the park during 'peak hours' (between 10am  and 3pm) several times, and found the park clean, quiet, and we counted only 18 cars in the parking lots.  The council  once again has reacted in the interests of keeping some folks out of the park. What a limited vision we have for the  health and interests of the larger community. Thank you for your concerns. Let's hope that the Parks folks, and Council  reconsider their reactive response and drop the fee.  Sincerely,  Roberta Ahlquist, Women's International League for Peace & Freedom‐low  income Housing Committee  156 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 1:43 PM To:Dennis Upton; chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; Raven Malone; Rebecca Eisenberg; Anna Griffin; Raj; james pitkin; Tony Dixon; Cecilia Taylor; ParkRec Commission; ParkRec Commission; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Binder, Andrew; Perron, Zachary; Jonsen, Robert; Winter Dellenbach; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com Subject:Floyd Case Fit Pattern of Roughness by Officer Accused in Killing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    FYI: here is the readable version    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/11/us/derek‐chauvin‐george‐floyd‐trial.amp.html      Sent from my iPhone  157 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 1:37 PM To:chuck jagoda; Dennis Upton; Roberta Ahlquist; Council, City; Human Relations Commission; ParkRec Commission; Planning Commission; Rebecca Eisenberg; Winter Dellenbach; Raven Malone; Greer Stone; Perron, Zachary; Binder, Andrew; Jonsen, Robert; Anna Griffin; raj@siliconvalleyde-bug.org; james pitkin; A M; Cecilia Taylor; Tony Dixon; mark weiss; Jeff Moore Subject:Floyd case fir pattern of roughness by Officer Accused in killing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://blendle.com/i/time/floyd‐case‐fit‐pattern‐of‐roughness‐by‐officer‐accused‐in‐killing/bnl‐newyorktimes‐ 20210203‐1_3    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  158 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, February 3, 2021 12:20 PM To:Honky Subject:The Impending Doom of the so-called "ELITES" for what they have PLANNED for ALL of us WE THE PEOPLE (OR BUST) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  THANKS to ALL of YOU for FRIENDING me    If ever a QUESTION  or just need a chat  LEAN ON ME  I'll back atcha ASAP  In Any Event    KEEP STRONG BROTHERS AND SISTERS ϠϡϢ  ᤻᤹᤺        YOU TUBE TOOK THESE DOWN? LOL   BUT THERE ARE OTHER VENUES TO BEAT THE GOONS   AND FROM BANNING THE TRUTH FROM THE PEOPLE    GO VIRAL    AS FAR AS YOU CAN  AS FAST AS YOU CAN    WE ARE A MILLION STRONG NOW WE KNOW  But for those NOT aware this is MIND BOGGLING    Catherine Austin Fitts Full Interview Planet Lockdown     159 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.   Catherine Austin Fitts Full Interview Planet  Lockdown       The COVID‐19 Jab IS NOT A VACCINE! It's a PATHOGEN CREATOR! ABSOLUTELY MUST WATCH!     The COVID‐19 Jab IS NOT A VACCINE! It's a  PATHOGEN CREATOR! ABSOLUTELY...  Check out the sequel to this video: "It's Not A Vaccine 2" for  more details: https://www.bitchute.com/video/YhB...     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Denise Salles <denise.salles@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, February 7, 2021 6:28 PM To:Council, City; City Mgr; Shikada, Ed; Anderson, Daren; Fine, Adrian; Dave Price Subject:Time critical issue with Pets In Need spay/neuter clinic - Palo Alto Attachments:PIN PA CITY CONTRACT.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council  Daren Anderson, Asst. Director of Community Relations  Ed Shikada, City Manager  Adrian Fine, Mayor   Dave Price, Editor Palo Alto Daily Post      Subject: Pets in Need services relative to agreement/contract with City of Palo Alto     Dear City Representatives,    This letter outlines a great concern regarding Pets In Need (PIN) services after subsuming Palo Alto Animal Services (PAAS) services in January 2019.     According to their contract with the City, and outlined in Exhibit A, Scope of Services, there are several areas not being fulfilled - most importantly, that the low-cost spay and neuter clinic is still not open to the public/community, as promised (2.e.) Medical Services, page 15, (PDF attached).    Because the city is giving PIN $3M over a five-year-period (Exhibit B, Compensation - $708K year one, $663K year two, and 676K year three, where we are now), I feel like it’s very important for PIN to uphold their responsibilities to the city and the public.      My experience with PAS Since 2000, I have used PAAS for spay and neuter of my personal animals and many rescue animals, both dogs and cats, so my experience with PAAS is over a 21-year period. And they were fantastic. No better low-cost spay/neuter and shot clinics, and unmatched Animal Control Officers.    Spay/neuter clinic - not open, promised opening date September 2020 o When PIN absorbed services previously provided by PAAS in Jan 2019, they agreed to provide low-cost spay neuter program. (II. Pets in Need Responsibilities, 2. e. Medical Services, pages 15-16.) o While it was known that they wanted to update/redo the medical clinic, they ceased spay neuter immediately, said it would be "a few months." Services for the public community have not resumed since that time, but they are conducting spay/neuter for someone - perhaps organizations outside the community? Two "surgery drop-off" signs are posted at the front of the building, and they are not legacy signs from PAAS. 2 o The spay/neuter telephone number, 650-496-5933, states that the S/N clinic 'will' open September 2020. o Now, kitten and puppy season is around the corner (Feb - April) and there is still no spay/neuter clinic available to the public, which is a huge problem. o It is my understanding the the Director of PIN said that shelter community in general does not does not consider spay/neuter essential at this time. Not true! Please see the following list of the shelters in the community that are definitely offering spay/neuter and Trap Neuter Return (TNR) services, and how they are managing Covid-19. There is no evidence outside of PIN that any shelter does not consider this an essential service. Peninsula Humane Society https://www.sfspca.org/vet-services/hospital/spay-neuter/ Currently scheduling appointments by phone Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority (SVACA) https://www.svaca.com/services/spay-and-neuter Currently open for cat spay and neuter only San Francisco SPCA https://www.sfspca.org/vet-services/hospital/spay- neuter/ Restarted limited spay/neuter service to the public June 1, 2020 SPCA Monterey County https://www.spcamc.org/for-pet-owners/veterinary-services/ Make online appointments; feral cats are accepted for TNR on a walk-in basis *San Jose Animal Control - currently closed but partnering with *Humane Society Silicon Valley (HSSV) to provide free dog spay/neuter for specific zip codes.   Please, please help us get the spay/neuter clinic OPEN - unfortunately, local vets are cost prohibitive to many people who simply cannot pay $600-$1000 at a local vet to have a kitten or puppy spayed or neutered. What happens? No sterilization, more unwanted pets.    Palo Alto Humane Society has provided a huge number of vouchers over the years (20+) to people at a very low cost, and subsidized the full cost of spay and neuter at the shelter. It's a winning partnership for Palo Humane Society and people who want and need low-cost options for stray and owned animals. (Note: Stray animals are typically unowned animals found or reported by people who call various organizations or a shelter to ask for help after finding a dog or cat with puppies or kittens - unowned, and yes, left behind by irresponsible people.)     If PINs real mission is to help animals, then get them to help the people who really want and need the services they've promised. And please don't accept "It's Covid" as the reason/excuse - based on what other shelters, clinics, and vets are doing, it's simply not true. There are several other issues, but this one is so important and needs immediate action.  Sincerely,    Denise Salles 650-269-9494    PIN contract attached       CITY OF PALO ALTO CONTRACT NO. C 1917 4493 AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND PETS IN NEiD FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES This Professional Services Agreement ("Agreemenf') Is entered into on this ..1L. day of January .~by and between the CITY OF PALO ALTO, a California chartered municipal corporation ("CITY" or "City of Palo Alto"), and PETS IN NEED, a California non-profit public benefit corporation, located at 871 Fifth Ave, Redwood City, CA 94063 ("CONSUL TANT" or UPets In Need"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive portion of this Agreement and are hereby incorporated herein by this reference. A. CITY intends to provide animal sheltering and veterinary care, as more fully described in Exhibit UA" (Scope of Services), attached to and made a part of this Agreement, for the City of Palo Alto, and for the City of Los Altos and the Town of Los Altos Hills (the ucontract Cities"}, at the Palo Alto Animal Shelter, 3281 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 (the "Palo Alto Animal Shelter" or the "Premises"). B. CITY and CONSULTANT desire for CONSULTANT to perform the Services {as defined below) at the Palo Alto Animal Shelter pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. C. CITY acknowledges that CONSUL TANT is entering into this Agreement in furtherance of its no-kill mission, and that, to the extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT will operate the Palo Alto Animal Shelter as a no-kill shelter. D. CITY and CONSULTANT are entering Into this Agreement with the intention of establishing a long -term partnership to offer exceptional shelter services for Palo Alto and its partner cities of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, while working together towards building a new Pets in Need Palo Alto animal shelter facility. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals, covenants, terms, and conditions, in this Agreement, the parties agree: AGREEMENT SECTION 1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. CONSULTANT shall perform the services described at Exhibit "A• ("Services·) in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in this Agreement. SECTION 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be from the date of its full execution (the "Effective Date0 ) and continuing for five (5) years from the Effective Date, unless terminated earlier pursuant to Section 19 of this Agreement. The term of this Agreement may be renewed or extended upon the mutual written agreement of the parties. One year prior to the expiration of the term (or other such timeline as may be mutually agreed upon by the parties), either party may request the parties to begin negotiating in good faith a renewal or extension of this Agreement. Page 1 of25 SECTION 3. USE OF PREMISES. CONSULTANT's use of the premises shall be subject to the additional terms set forth on Exhibit "D" (Use of Premises} attached hereto. SECTION 4. NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION. The compensation to be paid to CONSULT ANT for performance of the Services shall be in the amount of, and shall not exceed three-million, four-hundred forty thousand six-hundred twenty six dollars and ten cents ($3,440,626.10) as detailed in Exhibit "B" {Compensation). CONSUL TANT agrees to complete all Services within this amount Any work performed or expenses incurred for which payment would result in a total exceeding the maximum amount of compensation set forth herein shall be at no cost to the CITY. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a contingency fund of two-hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) (the MContlngency Fund") shall be available; as well as a fund for the compensation of renovation delays CUCompensation of Renovation Delays Fund") of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000) shall be available, as detailed in Exhibit "B" (Compensation). In the event the Contingency Fund and the Compensation of Renovations Delays Fund are utilized as provided for herein, the total compensation for Services, reimbursable expenses and the costs payable by CITY to CONSULTANT under this Agreement, shall be and shall not exceed three million, seven- hundred thousand, six-hundred twenty-six dollars and ten cents ($3,700,626.10) as detailed in Exhibit •e" (Compensation), subject to Section 19 (•TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES"). SECTION 6. INVOICES. In order to request payment, CONSULTANT shall invoice the CITY for payment on a monthly basis. Invoices shall describe the services performed and, if reasonably requested by CITY, supporting documentation. CONSUL TANT's invoice shall be submitted to the City's project manager for payment at which point the CITY has 30 business days from the date of the submission to render payment to the CONSUL TANT. Invoices must also include CONSUL TANT name, address, contract number, description of services, date of services, and compensation amount. SECTION 6. QUALIFICATIONS/STANDARD OF CARE. All of the Services shall be performed by CONSUL TANT or under CONSUL TANT's supervision. CONSUL TANT represents that it possesses the professional and technical personnel necessary to perform or supervise, as applicable, the Services required by this Agreement and that its personnel have sufficient skill and experience to perform the Services assigned to them. CONSULTANT represents that it, and its employees have and shall maintain (and that it shall require its subcontractors, if any, to have and maintain} during the term of this Agreement all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatever nature that are legally required to perform the Services. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, the representations and warranties in this Section 6 are exclusive and are in lieu of all other warranties of any kind, whether express or implied {including, without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement, and all warranties that may arise from course of dealing, course of performance or usage of trade), all of which are hereby expressly disclaimed. SECTION 7. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. CONSULTANT shall keep itself informed of and in compliance with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances, regulations. and orders that are applicable to the performance of the Services or those engaged to perform Services under this Agreement. CONSUL TANT shall procure all pennits and licenses, pay all charges and fees, and give all notices required by law in the performance of the Services. Page 2 of25 SECTION 8. ERRORS/OMISSIONS. CONSUL TANT is solely responsible for costs, including, but not limited to, increases in the cost of Services, arising from or caused by CONSUL TANT's errors and omissions, including, but not limited to, the costs of correcting such errors and omissions, any change order markup costs, or costs arising from delay caused by such errors and omissions or unreasonable delay in correcting such errors and omissions. SECTION 9. [RESERVED]. SECTION 10. INDEPENDENT CONTBACTOR. It is understood and agreed that in performing the Services under this Agreement CONSUL TANT, any person employed by CONSUL TANT, and any subcontractor retained by CONSUL TANT to perform any of CONSULT ANT'S obligations under this Agreement, shall act as and be an Independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY. SECTION 11. ASSIGNMENT. The parties agree that the expertise and experience of CONSULTANT are material considerations for this Agreement. CONSUL TANT shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of CONSULTANT's obligations without the prior written consent of the City Manager. The City Manager shall have sixty (60) days from receipt of Consultant's notice of proposed assignment to accept or decline the proposed assignment in writing. If the City Manager declines the proposed assignment, he or she shall state the basis for the decision in the written notice to CONSULTANT. Consent to one assignment shall not be deemed to be consent to any subsequent assignment. Any assignment not expressly contemplated under this Agreement, or made without the approval of the City Manager shall be void. SECTION 12. SUBCONTRACTING. Notwithstanding Section 11 above, CITY agrees that subcontractors may be used to perform CONSULTANT'S obligations under this Agreement. The subcontractors authorized by CITY to perform work on this Project are: a. Sage Veterinary Center; and b. Pets Rest Cemetery, and c. Any other subcontractors retained by CONSULTANT to perform CONSULT ANT'S obligations under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for directing the work of any subcontractor and for any compensation due to subcontractors. CITY assumes no responsibility whatsoever concerning subcontractor compensation. CONSULTANT shall be fully responsible to CITY for all acts and omissions of a subcontractor as more fully set forth in Section 16 of this Agreement CONSUL TANT shall change or add a subcontractor to perform the Services set forth on Exhibit A hereto only with the prior approval of the City Manager or his designee (such approval not to be unreasonably withheld, delayed or conditioned). The City Manager shall have thirty (30) days from receipt of CONSUL TANT's request to approve or decline in writing CONSULTANT's request to change or add subcontractors. SECTION 13. PROJECT MANAGEMENJ. CONSULTANT shall assign its executive director, who currently is Al Mollica, as the project manager to have supervisory responsibility for the performance, progress, and execution of the Services and as the project coordinator to represent CONSULTANT during the day-to-day performance of the Services. If circumstances cause the substitution of the project manager (including if, at Page 3 of25 any time, Al Mollica no longer serves as executive director of CONSULTANn. CONSUL TANT shall promptly notify the CITY's project manager of such substitution and consider in good faith CITY's requests with respect to such substitution. The parties agree that during the term of this Agreement and for all purposes of this Agreement, CONSULTANTS project manager shall be authorized to act as the "Superintendenr of the City's animal services division pursuant to Section 6.04.100 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, for purposes of [Sections 6.12.010, 6.12.030, 6.12.050, 6.16.050, and 6.32.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. CITY's project manager is the Director of Community Services, Community Services Department, 1305 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303, Telephone (650) 463-4900, who is currently Monique leConge Ziesenhenne. The project manager shall be CONSULTANT's point of contact with respect to performance, progress and execution of the Services. CITY may designate an alternate project manager from time to time with prompt written notice to CONSULTANT. SECTION 14. INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS. 14.1 Definition of Intellectual Property Rights. "Intellectual Property Rights• means patents of any type, design rights, utility models or other similar invention rights, copyrights, mask work rights, trade secret or confidentiality rights, trademarks, goodwill, trade names, logos and service marks and any other intangible property rights, including applications and registrations for any of the foregoing, in any country, arising under statutory or common law or by contract and whether or not perfected, now existing or hereafter filed, issued, or acquired. 14.2 "Pets In Need" Ownership. The parties acknowledge and agree that, as between the parties, Pets In Need owns all Intellectual Property Rights in its name ("Pets In Need•), logos and marks, as may be amended from time to time by Pets In Need. 14.3 "City of Palo Alto" Ownership. The parties acknowledge and agree that, as between the parties. the City of Palo Alto owns all Intellectual Property Rights in its name ("City of Palo Alto"), logos and marks. as may be amended from time to time by the City of Palo Alto, and in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code as may be amended from time to time. 14.4 "Palo Alto Animal Shelter'' Ownership. The parties acknowledge and agree that, as between the parties, the City of Palo Alto owns all Intellectual Property Rights in the name •Palo Alto Animal Shelter". 14.5 Grant of License by City of Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto hereby grants to Pets In Need a royalty-free, non-transferable term license, for the term of this Agreement, to use, reproduce, make derivative works, display, and perform publicly the name •pa10 Alto Animal Shelter" solely in conjunction with •pets in Need", for example, and without limitation, "Pets in Need Palo Alto Animal Shelter" and "Palo Alto Animal Shelter, operated by Pets in Need," for purposes of the performance of this Agreement, as provided for herein. 14.6 Name Changes; Development of Logos or Marks. Any name changes, derivative works, or logos or marks as may be developed by Pets In Need with regard to such animal shelter are required to be approved in writing by the City of Page 4 of 25 Palo Alto City Manager or designee prior to any publication, or any other public use, in any form or media. The City Manager shall approve or deny such requests in writing within 45 days of receipt of CONSULTANT's complete written proposal, and shall set forth its basis for any denial in writing. During the term of this Agreement, the City of Palo Alto shall not change such name of such animal shelter, nor develop any derivative works, or logos or marks, with regard to such animal shelter, except as is mutually agreed in writing with the Pets In Need Executive Director or designee prior to any publication, or any other public use, In any form or media. The City Manager shall approve or deny such requests within 45 days of Consultant's complete written proposal, and shall set forth its basis for any denial In writing. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this Agreement, CITY agrees that CONSULTANT may offer naming rights for any wing, room, kennel, or other area within the shelter in compliance with the City's Naming Policy and Procedure. ·14.7 Limitations on "Pets In Need Palo Alto Animal Shelter". The City of Palo Alto agrees that its use of the name ~Pets In Need Palo Alto Animal Shelter", and as may be changed as provided for herein, with regard to the animal shelter that is the subject of this Agreement, as well as any logos or marks that may be developed and approved as provided for herein with regard to such shelter, are strictly limited to the term of this Agreement, and that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties in writing, upon expiration or termination of this Agreement, the City of Palo Alto shall cease and desist all use of such names, logos and marks with regard to such animal shelter in relation to the ongoing operation of such shelter as of the date of such termination or expiration. 14.8 Use of City of Palo Alto Seal or Logo. Any use by Pets In Need of any City of Palo Alto seal or logo Is required to be approved in writing by the City of Palo Alto City Manager or designee prior to any publication or any other public use, in any form or media, and in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code as may be amended from time to time, provided that the City Manager or his designee shall approve or deny in writing a written request by Pets in Need within ten (10) days of the date of the request, and shall set forth his or her basis for any denial in writing. 14.9 Use of Pets in Need Seal or Logo. Any use by the City of Palo Alto of any Pets In Need seal or logo is required to be approved in writing by the Pets In Need Executive Director or designee prior to any publication, or any other public use, in any form or media, provided that the Executive Director of PIN or designee shall approve or deny In writing a written request by CITY within twenty (20) days of the date of the request. 14.10 Reservation of Rights. All Pets In Need Intellectual Property Rights not expressly granted under this Agreement are reserved to and retained by Pets In Need. All City of Palo Alto Intellectual Property Rights not expressly granted under this Agreement are reserved to and retained by the City of Palo Alto. SECTION 15. AUDITS. CONSUL TANT shall permit CITY to audit, at any reasonable time during the term of this Agreement and for three (3) years thereafter, CONSUL TANT's records pertaining to CONSULTANT'S performance of the Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT further agrees to maintain and retain such records for at least three (3) years after the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. SECTION 16. INDEMNITY; LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. 16.1. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its Council members, officers, employees and Page 5 of 25 agents (each a ·c1TY Indemnified Party-) from and against any and all third party demands, claims, or liabmty of any nature, including death or injury to any person, property damage or any other loss, including all costs and expenses of whatever nature including reasonable attorneys' fees, experts fees, court costs and disbursements ("Claims") to the extent resulting from, or arising out of (i) any act or omission of CONSULTANT that is outside the scope of CONSULTANT's authority under this Agreement and/or (ii) the negligence or willful misconduct of CONSUL TANT or its officers, employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement. To the fullest extent permitted by law, CITY shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless CONSUL TANT, its directors, officers, employees and agents (each a ·coNSUL TANT Indemnified Party") from and against any and all third party Claims to the extent resulting from or arising out of {I) the negligence or willful misconduct of CITY or its officers. employees, agents or subcontractors in the performance of this Agreement , (ii) any condition in or about the Premises, except to the extent caused by the negligence or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT or a CONSULTANT Indemnified Party. or (iii) CITY's decision to transition to a consultant-provided service delivery model and City's decision, based on CONSULTANT's representations contained in its proposal to the City and herein, to contract with CONSUL TANT to provide the Services. 16.2. In the event of concurrent negligence of more than one party, its Council members (or directors), officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, the liability for any and all Claims shall be apportioned under the California theory of comparative negligence as presently established or as may hereafter be modified. Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or limitation of any rights that a party may have under applicable law in the event of concurrent negligence of persons or entities other than the parties to this Agreement. 16.3. The parties agree to cooperate with each other in the Investigation and disposition of third~party Claims hereunder. It is the intention of the parties to reasonably cooperate in the disposition of all such Claims. Such cooperation may include joint Investigation. defense and disposition of claims of third parties hereunder. The parties agree to promptly inform one another whenever an incident report, claim or complaint is filed or when an investigation is initiated concerning this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of a conflict in Interest, each party may conduct its own investigation and engage its own counsel. 16.4. Each party agrees to mitigate any loss or damage which it may suffer in consequence of any breach by the other party of the terms of this Agreement. or any fact, matter, event or circumstance giving rise to a Claim. 16.5. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED HEREIN OR ELSEWHERE, NEITHER PARTY SHALL BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER PARTY FOR ANY SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, PUNITIVE OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOST PROFITS IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT, EVEN IF THE PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF ANY SUCH POTENTIAL CLAIM, LOSS OR DAMAGE. 16.6. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF CITY. EXCEPT WITH REGARD TO CITY'S OBLIGATIONS TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CONSULTANT PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION 16, CITY'S PAYMENT OBLIGATIONS UNDER THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE LIMITED TO THE PAYMENT PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 4 (NOT TO EXCEED COMPENSATION) OF THIS AGREEMENT. Page 6 of 25 16.7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY OF CONSULTANT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE TOTAL AGGREGATE LIABILITY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT OF CONSUL TANT TO CITY EXCEED FIVE MILLION DOLLARS. 16.8. CITY represents and warrants that (i) it has complied with Section 2.30.250 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and (ii) the CITY's indemnification obligations contained in this is Section 16 represent the valid and enforceable obligations of CITY. SECTION 17. WAIVERS. The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any covenant, term, condition or provision of this Agreement, or of the provisions of any ordinance or law, shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term, covenant, condition, provisions, ordinance or law, or of any subsequent breach or violation of the same or of any other term, covenant, condition, provision, ordinance or law. No waiver of a condition or nonperformance of an obligation hereunder is effective unless it is in writing signed by the authorized representatives of the parties hereto and, as applicable, approved as required under the Palo Alto Municipal Code or Charter. SECTION 18. INSURANCE. CONSULTANT, at its sole cost and expense, shall obtain, as soon as practicable following the date of this Agreement, and maintain, in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit "C". CONSUL TANT shall be responsible for ensuring that its subcontractors retained to perform Services under this Agreement, if any, shall obtain and maintain in full force and effect during the term of the subcontractor's engagement, the insurance coverage described in Exhibit ~c." as well as a policy endorsement naming CITY as an additional insured under any policies required in this Section 18. 18.1. All insurance coverage required hereunder shall be provided through carriers with AM Best's Key Rating Guide ratings of A-Vil or higher which are licensed or authorized to transact insurance business in the State of California. 18.2. CONSULTANT shall file with CITY certificates evidencing such insurance as soon as practicable following the date of execution of this Agreement but in any event prior to the first day any of CONSULTANT'S obligations are performed hereunder. The certificates shall be subject to the approval of CITY's Risk Manager and shall contain an endorsement stating that the insurance is primary coverage and shall not be canceled, or materially reduced in coverage or limits, by the insurer except after filing with the Purchasing Manager thirty (30) days' prior written notice of the cancellation or modification. If the insurer cancels or modifies the insurance and provides less than thirty (30) days' notice to CONSULTANT, CONSULTANT shall provide the Purchasing Manager written notice of the cancellation or modification within five (5) business days of the CONSUL TANT's receipt of such notice. CONSULTANT shall be responsible for ensuring that current certificates evidencing the insurance are provided to CITY's Chief Procurement Officer during the entire term of this Agreement. 18.3. The procuring of such required policy or policies of insurance will not be construed to limit either party's liability hereunder nor to fulfill the indemnification provisions of this Agreement. SECTION 19. TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES. 19.1. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement or suspend Page 7 of 25 the performance of the Services, in whole or in part, in the event of a material breach of CONSUL TANT's obligations to CITY under this Agreement, which breach is not cured by CONSULTANT within (60) days of receipt of written notice from CITY to CONSULTANT detailing the nature of such failure. The City Manager may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving one-year prior written notice thereof to CONSULTANT. 19.2. CONSULTANT may terminate this Agreement or suspend its performance of the Services, in whole or in part, in the event of a material breach of CITY's obligations to CONSUL TANT under this Agreement, which breach is not cured by CITY (i) with respect to material breach of CITY's payment obligations herein, within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice from CONSULTANT to CITY, or (ii) with respect to material breach of all other CITY obligations hereunder, within sixty {60) days of receipt of written notice from CONSULTANT to CITY detailing the nature of such breach. CONSUL TANT may terminate this Agreement without cause by giving one-year prior • written notice thereof to CITY. 19.3. In the event of any suspension or termination hereunder. CITY shall pay CONSULTANT for the Services rendered and materials delivered to CITY (i) on or before the effective date of such suspension or termination and (ii) in accordance with this Agreement. CITY shall pay such amounts to CONSUL TANT within thirty (30) days after receipt of CONSULTANT's invoice. To the extent that CITY has prepaid any fees, CONSULTANT shall fund to CITY any prepaid fees on a pro-rata basis to the extent such fees are attributable to the period after the termination date, and CITY shall have no obligation to pay unpaid fees that would have become due during the remaining Term had this Agreement not been terminated. 19.4 The following Sections shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: 14, 15, 16, 17, 19.3, this 19.4, 20, 25, and 27. SECTION 20. NOTICES. Any notice provided for in this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be either (i) personally delivered, (ii) received by certified mail, return receipt requested, or (iii) sent by reputable overnight courier service (charges prepaid) to the recipient at the address indicated below. To CITY: City of Palo Alto, City Manager's Office 250 Hamilton Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94301 With a copy also to the CITY's Project Manager. To CONSULTANT: Attention of the project director at the address of CONSULTANT recited above. Notices will be deemed to have been given hereunder (i) when delivered personally to the recipient, (ii) one ( 1) business day after being sent to the recipient by reputable overnight courier service (charges prepaid) or (iii) five (5) business days after being mailed to the recipient by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid. SECTION 21. CONFLICT OF INTERESI 21.1. In accepting this Agreement, CONSULTANT covenants that it presently has no interest, and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, financial or otherwise, which would conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. Page 8of25 21 .2. CONSULTANT further covenants that, in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not employ subcontractors or other persons or entities having such an Interest. CONSUL TANT celtifies that no person who has or will have any financial interest under this Agreement is an officer or employee of CITY; this provision shall be interpreted in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Government Code of the State of California. 21 .3. CITY agrees and acknowledges that, as of the date of hereof, CONSUL TANT is not a "Consultant" as that term is defined by the Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, and that therefore CONSULTANT shall not be required to file the financial disclosure documents required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code and the Political Reform Act. SECTION 22. NONDISCRIMINATION. As set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.510, CONSULTANT certifies that in the performance of this Agreement, it shall not discriminate in the employment of any person because of the race, skin color, gender, age, religion, disability, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, housing status, marital status, familial status, weight or height of such person. CONSUL TANT acknowledges that it has read and understands the provisions of Section 2.30.510 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code relating to Nondiscrimination Requirements and the penalties for violation thereof, and agrees to meet all requirements of Section 2.30.510 pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. SECTION 23. ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERRED PURCHASING AND ZERO WASTE REQUIREMENTS. CONSULTANT shall comply with the CITY's Environmentally Preferred Purchasing policies which are available at CITY's Purchasing Department {and copies of which have been provided to CONSULTANT by CITY), incorporated by reference and may be amended from time to time. CONSULTANT shall comply with waste reduction, reuse, recycling and disposal requirements of CITY's Zero Waste Program. Zero Waste best practices include first minimizing and reducing waste; second, reusing waste and third, recycling or composting waste. In particular, CONSUL TANT shall comply with the following zero waste requirements: (a) All printed materials provided by CONSULTANT to CITY generated from a personal computer and printer including but not limited to, proposals, quotes, invoices, reports, and public education materials, shall be double-sided and printed on a minimum of 30% or greater post-consumer content paper, unless otherwise approved by CITY's project manager. Any submitted materials printed by a professional printing company shall be a minimum of 30% or greater post- consumer material and printed with vegetable based inks. (b) Goods purchased by CONSUL TANT on behalf of CITY shall be purchased in accordance with CITY's Environmental Purchasing Policy including but not limited to Extended Producer Responsibility requirements for products and packaging. A copy of this policy is on file at the Purchasing Division's office, and a copy of the current policy has been provided to CONSULTANT by CITY. (c) Reusable/returnable pallets shall be taken back by CONSULTANT, al no additional cost to CITY, for reuse or recycling. CONSULT ANT shall provide documentation from the facility accepting the pallets to verify that pallets are not being disposed. Page 9 of 25 SECTION 24. COMPLIANCE WITH PALO ALTO MINIMUM WAGE ORQINANCE. CONSULTANT shall comply with all requirements of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 4.62 (Citywide Minimum Wage), as it may be amended from time to time. In particular, for any employee otherwise entitled to the State minimum wage, who perfonns at least two (2) hours of work in a calendar week within the geographic boundaries of the CITY, CONSUL TANT shall pay such employees no less than the minimum wage set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 4.62.30 for each hour worked within the geographic boundaries of the City of Palo Alto. In addition, CONSULTANT shall post notices regarding the Palo Alto Minimum Wage Ordinance in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code section4.62.060. SECTION 25. NON-APPROPRIATION. This Agreement is subject to the fiscal provisions of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Municipal Code. This Agreement shall terminate without any penalty (a) at the end of any fiscal year in the event that funds are not appropriated for the following fiscal year, or (b) at any time within a fiscal year in the event that funds are only appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year and funds for this Agreement are no longer available. This section shall take precedence in the event of a conflict with any other covenant, tenn, condition, or provision of this Agreement. SECTION 26. PREVAILING WAGES AND DIR REGISTRATION FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACTS. The Services are not subject to prevailing wages. CONSUL TANT is not - required to pay prevailing wages in the performance of the Services in accordance with applicable law including without limitation SB 7. SECTION 27. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS. 27 .1. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California without regard to its conflict of laws provisions. 27.2. In the event that an action ls brought, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the state courts of California in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 27.3. The prevailing party in any action brought to enforce the provisions of this Agreement may recover Its reasonable costs and attorneys' fees expended in connection with that action. The prevailing party shall be entitled to recover an amount equal to the fair market value of legal services provided by attorneys employed by it as well as any attorneys' fees paid to third parties. 27 .4. This document represents the entire and integrated agr~ement between the parties and supersedes al1 prior negotiations, representations, and contracts, either written or oral. This document may be amended only by a written instrument, which is signed by the parties. 27.5. The covenants, terms, conditions and provisions of this Agreement shall apply to, and shall bind, the heirs, successors, executors, administrators, assignees, and consultants of the parties. 27.6. If a court of competent jurisdiction finds or rules that any provision of this Agreement or any amendment thereto is void or unenforceable, the unaffected provisions of this Agreement and any amendments thereto shall remain in full force and effect. Page 10 of 25 27. 7. AH exhibits referred to in this Agreement and any addenda, appendices, attachments, and schedules to this Agreement which, from time to time, may be referred to In any duly executed amendment hereto are by such reference Incorporated in this Agreement and shall be deemed to be a part of this Agreement. 27.8. In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and the exhibits hereto or CONSUL TANT's proposal (if any), this Agreement shall control. In the case of any conflict between the exhibits hereto and CONSUL TANT's proposal, the exhibits shall control. 27.9. If, pursuant to this contract with CONSULTANT, CITY shares with CONSULTANT personal information as defined in Callfomi·a Civil Code section 1798.81.S(d) about a California resident ("Personal Information"), CONSULTANT shall maintain reasonable and appropriate security procedures to protect that Personal Information, and shall inform CITY as soon as practicable, but no later than 24 hours after learning that there has been a breach in the security of the system or In the security of the Personal Information. CONSULTANT shall not use Personal !nfonnation for direct marketing purposes without CITY's express written consent. 27 .10. All unchecked boxes do not apply to this Agreement. 27 .11. The individuals executing this Agreement represent and warrant that they have the legal capacity and authority to do so on behalf of their respective legal entities. 27.12. This Agreement may be signed in multiple counterparts, which, when executed and delivered by the parties hereto, shall together constitute a single binding agreement. This Agreement may be signed using the City's Docusign platform. [signature page follows] Page 11of25 CONTRACT No. Cl9174493 SIGNATURE PAGE IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have by their duly authorized representatives executed this Agreement on the date first above written. CITY OF PALO ALTO PETS IN NEED City Manager Officer 2 B~~ Name: , ~.,,,., Tltle~-.t'<'c;?r( APPROVED AS TO FORM: ' Attachments: EXHIBIT "A": EXHIBIT "B": EXHIBIT ·c·: EXHIBIT *O": SCOPE OF SERVICES COMPENSATION INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS USE OF PREMISES Page 12 of25 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES PETS IN NEED ("CONSUL TANr) agrees to provide Animal Shelter Services as described in Section II below at the Palo Alto Animal Shelter, 3281 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA, for the City of Palo Alto ("CITY") and the Contract Cities. CITY agrees to perform the obligations as described in Section Ill below. I. DEFINITIONS The following terms as used in this Exhibit ~A" Scope of Services shall have the meaning provided below: A. "Diseased and crippled animar means those animals which are known or believed to be infected with any dangerous or communicable disease, or which have an Incurable, crippled condition or which are afflicted with any painful disease which is believed to be incurable. B. "Dangerous animal" means any dog or other animal which demonstrates a propensity to assault, bite, scratch or harass people or other animals without provocation. There shall be a rebuttable presumption that any animal that bites a person is a dangerous animal. Capitalized terms used but undefined herein shall have the meanings set forth in the Agreement for Professional Services (this "Agreement") to which this Exhibit is attached and of which it forms a part. 11. PETS IN NEED RESPONSIBILITIES: 1. Animal Shelter Services. CONSUL TANT shall perform the following sheltering services and shall provide shelter supplies, animal attendants, supervisors and administrative personnel, and any other personnel, supplies and equipment, reasonably required to perform the following services ("Shelter Services•): a) Shelter of abandoned, surrendered, impounded, lost or stray domestic animals brought to the shelter by CITY or its Contract Cities, its residents, or personnel. b} CONSULTANT may shelter and provide services to animals outside the scope of paragraph (a) above ("non-City animals") including moving animals between the Palo Alto Animal Shelter and Pets In Need Redwood City facility on a space-available basis and at CONSULTANT's sole expense for all costs, Including labor, equipment, supplies, food, and medication. At no time shall animals within the scope of paragraph (a) above be denied services due to services provided to non-City animals at the Pets in Need Palo Alto Animal Shelter. c) For the avoidance of doubt, to the maximum extent Page 13 of25 permissible by law, CONSULTANT shall have exclusive discretion over how long an animal is sheltered, including exclusive discretion to shelter an animal for a longer period than the statutory minimum number of days This section shall not be interpreted to authorize funds in addition to those specified in this Agreement, and CONSULTANT shall be responsible for managing the length of animal sheltering within the funds and resources authorized by this Agreement. d) Quarantine of biting animals. e) Rabies testing of suspect animals. f) Provision for reclaim of abandoned, lost or stray domestic animals during established business hours. g) Shelter staff shall make every effort to identify lost animals (through ID tags and microchips) and to contact owners. h) Be CITY's and Contract Cities' main point of contact (by phone, in-person, and electronic means) regarding animal shelter services, including inquiries regarding missing pets. i} Provide medical evaluation and treatment, if necessary. to all incoming animals. This includes vaccinations, and spay and neuter surgeries to domestic animals. j) Euthanasia and disposal of abandoned, lost, impounded, or stray domestic animals that are unclaimed by their owners and found to be diseased and crippled and/or dangerous as defined by Palo Alto Municipal Code and California State Law. k) For purposes of clarity, CONSULTANT shall not be required to provide owner-requested euthanasia at any time, and CITY acknowledges that CONSUL TANT has elected not to provide or subcontract this service. I) CONSULTANT shall maintain a public website, separate from the CITY's website, with information including without limitation: shelter hours, volunteer opportunities, adoption information, medical services offered and information about those services and contact information. m) Consultant shall allow CITY Animal Control Officers access to the shelter at all times for purposes of dropping off animals and provide reasonable accommodation for Animal Control Officers to begin and end their shifts, and complete administrative work in the shelter. n) CONSULTANT shall maintain, repair and replace all surgical room equipment. cages, hoses, and other equipment at the facll!ty. o) CONSUL TANT shall comply with all federal, state, and local laws in effect applicable to the Services upon commencement of the provision of the Services, and shall be subject to inspection by the CITY and other duly authorized federal, state, and local authorities to insure Page 14of25 such compHance. This includes the applicable provisions of Palo Alto Municipal Code Trtle 6, as amended from time to time. For the avoidance of doubt, this provision shall not be construed to expand the scope of the Services as expressly setforth in this Exhibit •A". p) CONSULTANT shall use commercially reasonable efforts to offer comprehensive volunteer and educational programs which may include, without limitation: animal fostering programs, dog walker programs, and animal care trainings. q) When appropriate, in CONSULTANTS sole discretion, CONSULTANT may partner and/or coordinate with adoption programs, rescue groups, and other no-kill shelters to maximize the shelter's adoption rate and/or place animals in suitable foster care. CONSUL TANT shall seek CITY's approval for partnerships in which CONSULTANT pays or receives money or other financial consideration, solely to the extent that such partnership relates to CONSULTANT'S performance of the Services. CITY shall approve or deny in writing any such request within thirty (30) days after receipt of such request. r) Develop and maintain communication with CITY by: 1. Responding In a timely. manner to emails and phone calls. 2. Communicating and resolving Issues and concerns promptly. s) Develop, in cooperation with CITY, a feral cat plan. The plan shall Include how PIN handles feral cats, spay/neuter provisions, and release of feral cats. CONSUL TANT shall not release feral cats within the City of Palo Alto or any of its Partner Cites. t) Develop, in cooperation with CITY, a disaster preparedness plan. 2. Medical Services a) CONSUL TANT shall provide supplies, and professional and trained personnel, employed or under subcontract or contract, necessary to perform the following services ("Medical Servicesb): Provision of veterinarian services twenty-four (24) hours per day to treat and provide veterinarian care for impounded animals, including for animals picked-up by Animal Control Officers. CONSULTANT may, in its sole discretion and at its sole expense, arrange after-hours emergency care through any veterinary subcontractor. b) Monitor quarantined animals. c) For a fee, conduct vaccination clinics and have available, free of charge to the public, rabies control information. d) Conduct microchipplng. e) For a fee, which shall be posted on CONSULTANT's website, Page 15 of25 at the same rate established for City residents and Contract Cities, provide access to the CONSUL TANT's low cost spay and neuter clinic. f) The City's Animal Control Officers shall be licensed through CONSULTANT'S medical authority to administer euthanasia as necessary for animals that are unclaimed by their owners and found to be diseased and aippled and/or d~gerous as defined by Palo Alto Municipal Code. g) Comply with all laws requiring reporting of animal-bome diseases, including rabies. This includes Municipal Code section 6.32.020, as amended from time to time. 3. Operating Schedules a) CONSULTANT shall provide Shelter Services for the animals twenty-four (24) hours a day, seven (7) days a week. b) CONSULTANT shall provide emergency veterinary services in accordance with Section 597(f} of the California Penal Code. c) CONSULTANT shall have shelter staff on site for care of shelter animals seven (7) days per week, 365 days per year. d) CONSUL TANT shall have business offices and public access areas of shelter to be open to the public on a schedule designed to benefit the public and facilitate the services established in this Agreement, provided that the public hours and access be a minimum of six (6) days per week and forty (40) hours per week. CONSULTANT shall post the public hours on its website, and inform CITY and Contract Cities in writing of any change in hours. e) CITY acknowledges and agrees that, until the renovations described in Exhibit Dare completed, CONSUL TANT may be unable to be fully staffed and operational in accordance with this Paragraph 3, and may request to operate at a reduced schedule at its reasonable discretion. Consultant's project manager shall make any such request to City's project manager, whose consent shall not be unreasonably denied, delayed, or conditioned. f) CONSULTANT shall observe the following holiday closures for public hours: January 1 (New Year's Day) Martin Luther King's birthday Memorial Day July 4th (Independence Day) Labor Day Thanksgiving Day Day after Thanksgiving Christmas Eve (1/2 Day) Christmas Day 4. Dead Animal Services a) CONSULTANT shall provide storage facilities, disposal Page 16 of 25 mechanisms, administrative personnel, and any other personnel, supplies and equipment reasonably required to perform the following services ("Dead Animal Services"): i. Identification of and notification to the owner of the dead animal, whenever possible; and ii. Disposal of the body of the dead animal. CONSULTANT shall offer animal owners the option to pay for cremation services, In which case, CONSULT ANT shall arrange for cremation with the appropriate subcontractor. b} CONSULTANT shall subcontract with one or more subcontractors for the maintenance of a dead animal storage facility as well as collection of dead animals and maintenance of the facility and equipment, all at CONSUL TANT's sole expense. 5. Wildlife a} The impoundment of wildlife shall be managed by CONSUL TANT staff. An assessment of wildlife shall be done by medical staff, if necessary. If the animal is severely injured or sick, a licensed veterinarian shall be consulted, and the case shall be fully documented in accordance with AVMA guidelines. This Agreement assumes that all wildlife animals will continue to be transferred to the Peninsula Humane Society at no cost to the CITY or to CONSULTANT, as set forth In the Memorandum of Understanding between CONSUL TANT and Peninsula Humane Society dated November 17, 2017. Should Peninsula Humane Society request fees for wildlife intake, CONSULTANT and the CITY shall negotiate in good faith to amend this Agreement per Section 27.4 herein, to provide for the reimbursement by CITY to CONSULTANT of such fees (upon documentation of such fees by CONSULTANT reasonably satisfactory to CITY}. 6. Records Management a} CONSUL TANT and CITY's Animal Control shall maintain joint access to the Chameleon database, as provided for in this section. CONSUL TANT is responsible for keeping the Chameleon database updated in a timely fa!hion. Chameleon data is designated "For Official Use Only," meaning, CONSULTANT may only use such data for the performance of this Agreement, and not for marketing or any other purposes without the prior written consent of the CITY's City Manager or designee. Annual maintenance fees for the Chameleon software shall be paid by CITY. Repair and replacement cost of the server and supporting hardware, if any, shall also be paid by CITY. CONSULTANT shall not have access to certain areas of the database, such as saved criminal information (as required by law). CITY shall work with the database programmer/vendor to ensure that such areas of the Page 17 of25 database are not accessible by CONSUL TANT. All data entered into the Chameleon database by any party shall be property of CITY. b) Monthly Report i. CONSULTANT shall deliver to CITY during the term of this AGREEMENT, and within thirty (30) days of the end of each month, a monthly Animal Shelter and Impound Report summarizing monthly and year-to-date services provided by CONSULTANT for CITY. This report shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: ( 1) Licensing statistics (2) Medical statistics including spay and neuter, microchips, and vaccinations (3) Volume of animals in and out of facility by type of animal and type of outcome. (4) For each animal, which city in which it was picked up (if known). c) Financial Reporting i. CONSULT ANT shall deliver to CITY during the term of this Agreement, and within ninety (90) days of the end of each May. an audited financial report covering CONSUL TANT's operation of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter. d) Retention of Records, Right to Monitor and Audit i. CONSUL TANT shall maintain records relating to CONSUL TANT's operation of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter for a period of four (4) years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement or until any audits or reviews are completed, whichever comes later, and such records shall be subject to examination and/or audit of CITY, a Federal grantor agency, and the State of California for a period of four (4} years after the expiration or termination of this Agreement or until any audits or reviews are completed, whichever comes later. ii. Records/accounts relating to CONSUL TANT's operation of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter shall be open and accessible to inspection upon reasonable notice during normal business hours throughout the term of this Agreement and for a period of four (4) years thereafter or until any audits or reviews are completed, whichever comes later. iii. Parties, upon request by either party to the other, shall meet on occasion to consider revisions which may be needed to the reporting forms created to document performance of the Services provided. 7. Fundraising, Marketing and Branding a) CONSUL TANT shall create and manage fundraising, marketing, volunteer development and education programs. Local volunteer Page 18 of 25 groups shall be integrated into fundraising and other activities and events when reasonably possible. The "Pets In Need Palo Alto Animal Shelter" shall be the initial brand name of the shelter to be operated by CONSUL TANT pursuant to this Agreement, and any logo or name change shall be approved in writing by CONSUL TANT and the CITY's City Manager or designee prior to use. 8. Licensing and other fee collection a) CONSULTANT shall charge fees for services according to the CITY's municipal fee schedule or according to state or local laws. Fees for any services not covered by CITY's municipal fee schedule or state or local laws shall be set by CONSULTANT. CONSULTANT shall take CITY's comments into consideration when setting such fees. CITY shall take CONSUL TANT's comments into consldefatlon when setting its municipal fee schedule. b} CONSUL TANT shall manage dog licensing Including processing, issuance, and renewals on behalf of CITY and Contract Cities. Licensing Information shall be included on all Incident Reports and, additionally, provided to CITY on an as requested basis. CONSULTANT shall collect all associated license fees on behalf of CITY, at the fee amounts set by CITY. Licensing includes the licensing of dogs as defined in Municipal Code Chapter 6.16 as amended from time to time. c) CONSUL TANT shall process citation fees, and shall remit 100% of these fees to the CITY on a quarterly basis. PETS IN NEED shall process and retain all other fees and revenues, including without limitation adoption fees, spay, neuter, impoundment, permit, license, and other fees as listed in the municipal fee schedule. 9. Contract Cities; WeCare Alliance a) CITY and CONSULTANT shall provide services to the City of Los Altos and the Town of Los Altos Hills (the "Contract Cities"} pursuant to the CITY's amended Regional Animal Care and Control contracts approved by City Council on June 2, 2014. These contracts are valid through June 30, 2019 with an option for an additional five-year extension. The Parties agree that this Agreement assumes that the Contract Cities' contracts will be in effect during the entire term of this Agreement b) CITY shall consult with CONSUL TANT should the contracts with the Contract Cities be amended or terminated, provided that if any such amendment or termination is reasonably expected to result in increased costs to CONSULTANT, such amendment or termination {if initiated by CITY) shall be subject to Page 19 of 25 CONSUL TANT's prior written consent. CONSULTANT shall notify CITY in writing of its consent or lack thereof within forty-five (45) days after receipt of CITY's written request, which request shall include the precise language of such amendment or all relevant details of such termination (whichever applies). If CONSULTANT consents, the parties shall amend this Agreement (I) to adjust the scope of Services accordingly and (ii) to cover any reasonable cost increases to CONSULTANT. c) CITY may contract with additional cities, subject to CONSUL TANT's prior written consent. CONSUL TANT shall notify CITY in writing of Its consent or lack thereof within forty- five (45) days after receipt of CITY's written request, which request shall Include the text of such proposed contracts. If CONSUL TANT consents, CONSUL TANT and CITY shall amend this Agreement (i) to adjust the scope of Services accordingly and (ii) to cover any reasonable cost increases to CONSUL TANT. d) CONSUL TANT shall continue membership in the WeCare Alliance (www.shettersfirst.org). 10. Cost Overruns or Changes a) If CITY or state laws are passed during the term of this Agreement that require a greater level of service, CITY and CONSULTANT agree to negotiate in good faith regarding the reimbursement of CONSUL TANT for additional costs associated with implementing the new laws. If Parties are unable to agree on reimbursement costs, CONSUL TANT shall document the increased costs and submit to the City Auditor. The City Auditor shall conduct an independent audit. Parties agree to accept the City Auditor's determination of any increased costs. b) If current state laws are amended, repealed, otherwise changed or suspended during the term of this Agreement that reduce, alter, or remove existing relevant mandates, either party may require the other party to meet to discuss possible financial and operational impacts of levels of service per the change in law, including but not limited to any decrease in contract amounts paid to CONSULTANT, provided that no such decrease shall be effective unless agreed by CONSUL TANT. 111. CITY RESPONSIBILITIES. CITY shall: 1. Provide an adequate and safe facility for CONSUL TANT to perform the Services. 2. Provide Animal Control Officers (ACOs) and their services for CITY and Contract Cities. This shall include maintenance of ACO vehicles Page 20 of25 and equipment Establish fees for dog licensing and animal impounding. 3. With regard to the shelter facility, provide and!or pay for utilities, taxes, electricity, water, gas, waste water, recycling, waste (not animal disposal), internet, Chameleon software/database and associated support, and Chameleon server hardware and support (if any), which collectively is estimated to cost approximately $55,000 peryear. 4. Develop and maintain proactive and consistent communication and rapport with CONSULTANT a) Respond in a timely manner to emails and phone calls b) Communicate and resolve issues and concerns immediately c) Provide excellent customer service to CONSUL TANT staff and customers 5. Develop, in cooperation with CONSULTANT, a disaster preparedness plan 6. Administer the agreements between the CITY and the Contract Cities regarding animal shelter services. Page 21 of25 EXHIBIT "B" COMPENSATION CITY agrees to compensate CONSULTANT for professional services performed in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and as set forth in the schedule below. SCHEDULE Year1 Year2 Year3 Year4 Years Sub-total Basic Services Reimbursable Expenses TO EQUAL AND NOT TO EXCEED (SUBJECT TO SECTION 19 •TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION OF AGREEMENT OR SERVICES•) $708,000.00 $663,000.00 $676,260.00 $689,785.20 $703,580.90 $3,440,626.10 $0.00 Total Basic Services and Reimbursable expenses $3,440,626.10 Contingency Funds $200,000.00 (not to exceed $40,000 per year) Additional Compensation for Renovation Delays $60,000.00 Maximum Total Compensation ONE-TIME ADVANCE (not to exceed $5,000 per month; see Exhibit D. Section 15.7) $3, 700,626.10 Simultaneous with the execution of this Agreement, CITY shall pay to CONSUL TANT One Hundred Seventy Eight Thousand dollars ($178,000) as an advance against the first three months of CONSUL TANT's fee. CONSUL TANT shall not submit an invoice for the remainder of its fee for the third month until the end of such third month. CONTINGENCY FUNDS CITY shall provide contingency funds to CONSULT ANT in the following circumstances, subject to written approval by the CITY's project manager, and to equal and not to exceed the amount in this Exhibit C: 1. CITY shall provide contingency funds for after-hours and emergency veterinary care if: a. CONSULTANT has already spent at least $10,000 in the past 12 months on a rolling basis on after-hours or emergency veterinary care that was reasonable based on A VMA guidelines; and b. The emergency or after hours treatment being sought Is reasonable based Page 22 of25 on AVMA guidelines. 2. CITY shall provide contingency funds for hoarding cases if: a. CONSULTANT has already served more than 600 animals from the CITY or the Contract Cities in the past 12 months; and b. The hoarding case involves a minimum of 12 animals brought at once that are expected to stay in the facility for at least 30 days each. 3. CITY shall provide contingency funds for the actual costs of wildlife intake at the Peninsula Humane Society if: a. The Peninsula Humane Society begins charging for the costs of wildlife services; and, b. This Agreement has not yet been amended to reflect the additional costs of such services. 4. CONSUL TANT may also request contingency funds in other unforeseen circumstances. To request contingency funds, the CONSULTANT shall submit a detailed written proposal including a description of the scope of services, schedule, level of effort, and CONSULTANT's proposed maximum compensation, for such services. In addition to the factors above, CITY may consider whether contingency funds are appropriate within existing funding and workload, and contingency funds shall not be released if CONSULTANT has not exhausted unused or unallocated funds. The CITY shall notify CONSUL TANT in writing of its approval or lack thereof within ten (10) days after the date of CONSULTANT's proposal. If CITY's project manager does not approve CONSULTANT's request, CONSULTANT may appeal that decision to the City Manager. If authorized by CITY, the contingency services scope, schedule and maximum compensation shall be negotiated and agreed to in writing by the CITY's project manager and CONSULTANT, and payment shall be made to CONSUL TANT, no later than ten (10) days after the date of CITY's authorization. Contingency funds are subject to all requirements and restrictions in this Agreement. ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR RENOVATION DELAYS The City shall pay Consultant up to $5,000 monthly for up to twelve consecutive months pursuant to the terms of Exhibit D, Section 15.7 (8Addltional Compensation for Renovation Delays•) of this Agreement. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES No Reimbursable Expenses are authorized by CITY through this Agreement. unless pursuant to a written amendment to this Agreement as provided for herein. ADDITIONAL. SERVICES No Additional Services are authorized by the CITY through this Agreement, unless pursuant to a written amendment to this Agreement as provided for herein. Page23 of25 REQUIRED YES YES YES YES YES YES NSURAN'"'S: YES YES EXHIBIT "C" INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS CONTRACTORS TO THE CITY OF PALO ALTO (CITY), AT THEIR SOLE EXPENSE, SHALL FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN INSURANCE IN THE AMOUNTS FOR THE COVERAGE SPECIFIED BELOW, AFFORDED BY COMPANIES WITH AM BEST'S KEY RATING OF A· :VII, OR HIGHER, LICENSED OR AUTHORIZED TO TRANSACT INSURANCE BUSINESS IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AWARD IS CONTINGENT ON COMPLIANCE WITH CITY'S INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS, AS SPECIFIED, BELOW: MINIMUM LIMITS TYPE OF COVERAGE REQUIREMENT EACH OCCURRENCE AGGREGATE WORKER'S COMPENSATION STATUTORY EMPLOYER'S UABILl'N BODILY INJURY $5,000,000 $5,000,000 GENERAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING PERSONAL INJURY, BROAD FORM PROPER'N DAMAGE $5,000.000 $5,000,000 PROPERTY DAMAGE BLANKET CONTRACTUAL, AND FIRE LEGAL LIABILITY BODILY INJURY $1,000,000 $1,000,000 . EACH PERSON $1,000,000 $1,000,000 . EACH OCCURRENCE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY, INCLUDING ALL OWNED, HIRED, NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $1,000,000 $1,000,000 BODILY INJURY ANO PROPER'N $1.000,000 $1,000,000 DAMAGE, COMBINED PROPERTY INSURANCE ALL RISK, FULL REPLACEMENT INSURANCE V.41111:: BUSINESS INTERRUPTION PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY, INCLUDING, ERRORS ANO OMISSIONS, MALPRACTICE (WHEN APPLICABLE), AND NEGLIGENT ALL DAMAGES $2,000,000 PERFORMANCE THE CITY OF PALO AL TO IS TO BE NAMED AS AN ADDITIONAL INSURED: CONTRACTOR. AT ITS SOLE COST AND EXPENSE, SHAU. OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN, IN FUU. FORCE AND EFFECT THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TERM OF ANY RESULTANT AGREEMENT, THE INSURANCE COVERAGE HEREIN DESCRIBED. INSURING NOT ONLY CONTRACTOR ANO ITS SUBCONTRACTORS, IF ANY, BUT ALSO, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION, EMPLOYER'S LIAB1UTY ANO PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE. NAMING AS ADDITIONAL INSUREDS CITY, ITS COUNCIL MEMBERS, OFFICERS, AGENTS, AND EMPLOYEES. I. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: A PRIMARY COVERAGE WITH RESPECT TO CLAIMS ARISING OUT OF THE OPERATIONS OF THE NAMED INSURED, INSURANCE AS AFFORDED BY THIS POLICY IS PRIMARY AND IS NOT ADDITIONAL TO OR CONTRIBUTING WITH ANY OTHER INSURANCE CARRIED BY OR FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ADDITIONAL INSUREDS. B. CROSS LIABILITY THE NAMING OF MORE THAN ONE PERSON, FIRM, OR CORPORATION AS INSUREDS Page24 of25 UNDER THE POLICY SHALL NOT, FOR THAT REASON ALONE, EXTINGUISH ANY RIGHTS OF THE INSURED AGAINST ANOTHER, BUT THIS ENDORSEMENT, AND THE NAMING OF MULTIPLE INSUREDS, SHALL NOT INCREASE THE TOTAL LIABILITY OF CONSULTANT UNDER THIS POLICY. C. NOTICE OF CANCELLATION 1. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, CONSUL TANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A THIRTY (30) DAY WRITIEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. 2. IF THE POLICY IS CANCELED BEFORE ITS EXPIRATION DATE FOR THE NON-PAYMENT OF PREMIUM, CONSULTANT SHALL PROVIDE CITY AT LEAST A TEN (10) DAY WRITIEN NOTICE BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF CANCELLATION. II. INSURANCE COVERAGE MUST INCLUDE: 1. A PROVISION FOR A WRITIEN THIRTY (30) DAY ADVANCE NOTICE TO CITY OF CHANGE IN COVERAGE OR OF COVERAGE CANCELLATION; AND 2. A CONTRACTUAL LIABILITY ENDORSEMENT PROVIDING INSURANCE COVERAGE FOR CONSULTANT'S AGREEMENT TO INDEMNIFY CITY. 3. DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS tN EXCESS OF $5,000 REQUIRE CITY'S PRIOR APPROVAL. Vendors are required to file their evidence of Insurance and any other related notices with the City of Palo Alto at the following URL: https://www.planetbids.com/portal/portal.cfm?CompanylD=25569 OR http://www.s;ltyofpaloalto.org/gov/deptslasd/planet bids how to.as Q Page 25 of25 . EXlllBITD USE OF PREMISES SECTION 1. USE OF PREMISES. Consultant shall have the exclusive right to enter and use the Premises during the term of this Agreement for the sole purposes of performing the Services and fulfilling Consultant's obligations under the Agreement, as detailed in this Section 1 ("Use of Premises") of this Exhibit D. Consultant shall have the right to permit Consultant's employees, agents and subcontractors to enter and access the Premises for the sole purposes of performing the Services and fulfilling Consultant's obligations under this Agreement. Consultant shall have the right to exclude third parties and trespassers onto the Premises. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City's Animal Control Officers and their supervisors have the right to enter the Premises at any time. In addition, City has the right to enter Premises at any time for the purposes of inspection, emergency response and the performance of City obligations under this Agreement. Consultant shall, at City's request, promptly remove any of Consultant's property or Consultant-installed improvements on the Premises to allow City access to the utilities or other City owned facilities/property. In the event City deems it necessary, for purposes of health, safety or building code requirements, in City's sole discretion, City shall have the right to move, alter or remove any such property or improvements and City shall be responsible for promptly restoring or returning the same to its prior condition. SECTION 2. CONDITION OF PREMISES. CLEANING AND MAINTENANCE. 2.1 Condition of Premises, Routine Interior Cleaning and Janitorial Activities. In connection with its use, Consultant shall maintain the Premises in a clean, safe, secure, orderly, and sanitary condition, consistent with a commercially reasonable standard for a well-run animal shelter facility, so far as the Premises may be affected by Consultant's activities under this Agreement. Specifically, Consultant shall undertake routine cleaning and janitorial activities as necessary to maintain the interior of the Premises in an orderly condition, as above, provided that nothing in this section shall obligate Consultant to make any alterations or capital improvements to the Premises. Consultant shall maintain all of its own equipment, furnishings and trade fixtures upon the Premises which are required for the maintenance and operation of the Palo Alto Animal Shelter. 2.2 Maintenance and Utilities. Outside of Consultant's responsibilities for routine interior cleaning and janitorial activities in Section 2.1 of this Exhibit, City shall be responsible for the maintenance of the interior and exterior of the Premises and the surrounding grounds, including (without limitation) the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the roof, building structure, improvements, and the HV AC, electrical, plumbing, and other building systems. City shall perfonn any alterations to the Premises (l) required by applicable laws or laws of general application (i.e. ADA, seismic regulations, and building codes) and (2) to ensure that utilities (including, without limitation, water, gas, and electricity) are available to the Premises, in amounts sufficient for Consultant to perform the Services. In the event of a utilities outage, the City will work diligently to restore availability as quickly as possible. City shall promptly perform its obligations under this Section 2.2 ("Maintenance and Utilities"). In the event of a maintenance issue that impacts the health and safety of the operations, the City shall respond within 24 hours of receipt of notice from Consultant to develop an action plan to address the issue in an expedited timeframe. SECTION 3. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. 3.1 Environmental Laws. "Environmental Laws" means any applicable federal, state or local laws and regulations relating to Hazardous Material (including, without limitation, its use, handling, transportation, production, disposal, discharge or storage) or to human health and safety, industrial hygiene or environmental conditions in, on, under or adjacent to the Premises, including without limitation soil, air and groundwater conditions. 3.2 Hazardous Materials. "Hazardous Materials" means any substance, material, waste, pollutant or contaminant which is regulated by applicable Environmental Laws as being hazardous, toxic, flammable, carcinogenic, explosive or radioactive, or is potentially injurious to the public health, safety or welfare or the environment. 3.3 Release. "Release," when used with respect to Hazardous Materials, means any actual or imminent spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring. emitting, emptying, discharging, iajccting, escaping, leaching, dumping, depositing. or disposing on, in, under or adjacent to the Premises, or any improvements constructed hereunder by or on behalf of the Consultant, or in, on, under or adjacent to the Premises or any portion thereof in violation of Environmental Laws. 3.4 Remediation. "Remediation" (and derivatives thereof such as an without limitation "remediate"), when used with reference to Hazardous Materials, means any activities undertaken to clean up, remove, contain, treat, stabilize, monitor or otherwise control Hazardous Materials located in, on or under or adjacent to the Premises, or which have been or are being, or risk of being Released into the environment. Remediation includes, without limitation, those actions included within the definition of "remedy" or "remedial action" in California Health and Safety Code Section 25322 and "remove" or "removal" in California Health and Safety Code Section 25323, and as may be amended from time to time. 3.5 No Hazardous Materials. Consultant covenants and agrees that Consultant shall not, nor shall Consultant permit any of Consultant's officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors, to cause or permit any Hazardous Material to be brought upon, kept, used, stored, generated, deposited or disposed of in, on, under or adjacent to the Premises in violation of Environmental Laws, provided that Consultant may store and use such substances in and on the Premises in such limited amounts as are customarily used in the operation of an animal shelter such as the Premises so long as such storage and use is at all times in full compliance with all applicable Environmental Laws and pennits. Consultant shall notify the City as soon as possible within 24 hours if and when it learns or has reason to believe that there has been any Release of Hazardous Material in, on, under or adjacent to the Premises. The City may request Consultant to provide adequate information for City to detennine that any Hazardous Material permitted hereunder is being handled in compliance with all applicable Environmental Laws, and Consultant shall promptly provide all such information. In the event that any Hazardous Material is Released in, on, under or adjacent to the Premises by Consultant or any of Consultant's officers, agents, employees, or subcontractors, Consultant shall promptly undertake all necessary actions to Remediate the contaminating Hazardous Material from the Premises and to return the Premises and other City property affected thereby, to the condition existing prior to such Release, or its reasonable equivalent or better, and otherwise investigate and Remediate the Release in accordance with applicable Environmental Laws, at no cost to City. Notwithstanding the foregoing, and excluding Consultant's notice obligations under this Section, Consultant shall have no Remediation obligations under this Section for (i) the mere discovery of any preexisting condition, or (ii) any conditions arising out of any action or inaction of City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, and not contributed to by any action or inaction of Consultant or Consultant's officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors, (iii) any conditions arising out of any action or inaction of third party vendors that are not an agent or subcontractor of Consultant, and not contributed to by any action or inaction of Consultant or Consultant's officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors, (iv) any conditions arising out of any action or inaction of a third party, not an agent or subcontractor of Consultant, and not contributed to by any action or inaction of Consultant or Consultant's officers, employees, agents. or subcontractors. 3.6 Hazardous Material Indemnity. Consultant shal~ on behalf of itself and its successors and assigns, indemnify, defend and hold harmless City, its Council members, officers, employees and agents (each a "City Indemnified Party,.) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, penalties, forfeitures, losses and/or expenses (including, without limitation, diminution in value of the Premise, damages for the loss or restriction on use of the rentable or usable space or of any amenity of the Premise, damages arising from any adverse impact or marketing of the Premises and sums paid in settlement of claims, response costs, cleanup costs, site assessment costs, reasonable attorneys' fees, reasonable expert fees, judgments, administrative rulings or orders, fines, penalties, costs of death of or injury), to any person or damage to any property whatsoever (including. without limitation, groundwater, sewer systems and atmosphere), arising from, or caused or resulting, in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, by the presence or discharge in, on, under or adjacent to the Premises by Consultant, or Consultant's officers, employees, agents or subcontractors, of Hazardous Material, or by any such party's failure to comply with any applicable Environmental Law, whether knowingly or by strict liability. Such Consultant indemnity obligations include, without limitation, and whether foreseeable or unforeseeable, all costs of any Hazardous Materials management plan, closure, investigatjon, repairs, and Remediation and restoration of the Premises to its prior condition. For purposes of such indemnity obligations, any acts or omissions of Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors (whether or not they are negligent, intentional, willful or unlawful) shall be strictly attributable to Consultant. Consultant shall provide the City with written notice of and afford City a full opportunity to participate in any discussions with governmental regulatory agencies regarding any settlement agreement, Remediation or abatement agreement, consent decree, permit, approvals, or other compromise or proceeding involving a Release of Hazardous Materials in, on, under, or adjacent to the Premises by Consultant or Consultant's officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors as detailed in this Section. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Consultant shall have no obligation to indemnify the City or any City Indemnified Party for (i) the mere discovery of any preexisting condition, or (ii) any conditions arising out of any action or inaction of City, its Council members, officers, employees, agents or subcontractors and not contributed to by any action or inaction of Consultant or Consultant's officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors, (iii) any conditions arising out of any action or inaction of third party vendors that are not an agent or subcontractor of Consultant, and not contributed to by any action or inaction of Consultant or Consultant's officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors, (iv) any conditions arising out of any action or inaction of a third party, not an agent or subcontractor of Consultant, and not contributed to by any action or inaction of Consultant or Consultant's officers, employees, agents, or subcontractors. SECTION 4. DAMAGE TO UTILITIES. Consultant shall exercise reasonable care to not do anything in, on, under or adjacent to the Premises that damages any City utilities (e.g. gas, water, wastewater, fiber, electric) located in, on, under or about the Premises. Consultant agrees to reimburse City within thirty (30) calendar days of City's written request for any damages caused to City owned utilities caused by a failure of PIN to exercise reasonable care the Premises. SECTION S. [RESERVED BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES) SECTION 6. SURRENDER; DUTIES UPON TERMINATION OR EXPIRATION. Upon the expiration or earlier tennination of this Agreement, Consultant shall immediately surrender the Premises in the same condition as received upon completion of the improvements detailed in this Agreement and any other improvements completed by City during the term of this Agreement (excepting reasonable wear and tear; casualty not caused or contributed to by Consultant or its officials, employees, agents or subcontractors; or condemnation not caused or contributed to by Consultant or its empl9yees, agents or subcontractors), broom cleaned, walk-through with City staff completed, and free from hazards that are not pre-existing and were not introduced by the City or its officials employees, agents or subcontractors and clear of all debris that is not pre-existing and was not introduced by the City or its officials, employees, agents or subcontractors. At such time, Consultant shall remove all of its property from the Premises hereunder, and shall repair, at its cost, any damage to the Premises caused by such removal. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall survive any termination of this Agreement. Consultant shall deliver to the City the originals of all books, permits, plans, records, licenses, contracts, and other documents pertaining to the Premises and its operation, any insurance policies, bills of sale or other documents evidencing title or rights of the City, and any and all other records or documents pertaining to the Premise, whether or not enumerated herein, which are requested by the City or necessary or desirable for the ownership and operation of the Premise, which are in the Consultant's possession. Consultant shall also deliver to City all keys, alann codes, passwords, and other items used to secure the Premise. Consultant further agrees to do all other reasonable things reasonably necessary to cause an orderly transition of the management and operation of the Premises. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or earlier tennination of this Agreement until the obligations of the Consultant under this Section are fulfilled to the reasonable satisfaction of the City. SECTION 7. REPAIR OF DAMAGE. If any portion of the Premises or any property of City located in, on, under or adjacent to the Premises is damaged or at risk of damage by any of the activities conducted by Consultant or anyone acting by or through Consultant, Consultant shall immediately notify City in writing of such damage or risk of damage. City may remedy, but shall not be obligated to remedy, such damage or risk of damage at Consultant's sole cost, or City may elect to witness Consultant's repair work. In the event City elects not to remedy such damage or threat, Consultant shall repair any and all such damage and restore the Premises or such property to its previous condition subject to City's inspection, review and approval. SECTION 8. CITY'S RIGHT TO CURE DEFAULTS BY CONSULTANT. If Consultant fails to perfonn any of its obligations under this Exhibit D to restore the Premise, remove or alter improvements or repair damage, or if Consultant defaults in the performance of any of its other obligations under this Exhibit D within a reasonable time after demand by City, then City may, at its sole option, remedy such failure at Consultant's expense; within ten (JO) days of receipt of a bill, Consultant shall promptly reimburse the City's actual reasonable costs (including without limitation all costs, damages, expenses or liabilities incurred by City, reasonable attorneys', experts' and Consultants' fees) in remedying or attempting to remedy such failure, or City may reduce any outstanding amount due to Consultant under the Agreement by the cost to City of such remedial action. In the alternative, the cost thereof may be made a lien on Consultant's property as provided in section 12.12.010 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. Any such remedial action by City shall not be construed as a waiver of any rights or remedies of City under this Exhibit D or the Agreement, and nothing herein shall imply any duty of City to do any act that Consultant is obligated to perform. Consultant's obligations under this Section shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this EKhibit D. SECTION 9. GENERAL PROVISIONS. (a) If Consultant consists of more than one person, the obligations of each person shall be joint and several. (b) Consultant may not record this Exhibit Dor any memorandum hereof. (c) Any sale or conveyance by City of the Premises, the provisions of Section 19 ("Termination or Suspension of Agreement or Services") of this Agreement shall govern. SECTION 10. HOLDING OVER. If Consultant remains in possession of the Premises or any part thereof after the expiration of the tenn of this Agreement, or any renewal option thereto, such occupancy shall be a revocable license from month to month with all the obligations of this Exhibit D applicable to Consultant. Nothing contained Exhibit D or in the Agreement shall give to Consultant the right to occupy the Premises after the expiration of the term of this Agreement, or any renewal option thereto, or upon any earlier tennination. SECTION 11. WAIVER OF CML CODE. Consultant expressly waives. the benefit of any statute now or hereinafter in effect, including the provisions of sections 1941 and 1942 of the Civil Code of California, to the extent applicable, which would otherwise afford Consultant the right to make repairs at City's expense or to terminate this Agreement because of City's failure to keep Premises in good order, condition and repair. SECTION 12. ALTERATIONS BY CONSULTANT. Consultant shall not make any alterations or improvements to the Premises without obtaining the prior written consent of the City Manager, except for alterations or improvements that cost less than Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) and which do not affect any building systems or the structural integrity or any structural components of the Premises. 12.1 Owaenbip of Improvements. All improvements constructed, erected, or installed upon the Premises by Consultant must be free and clear of all lienSs claims, or liability for labor or material and shall become the property of City. at its election, upon expiration or earlier termination of the term, and shall remain upon the Premises upon expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement. Any furniture, trade fixtures installed by Consultant, equipment or other property of Consultant (whether obtained prior to or during the tenn of this Agreement) shall remain the property of Consultant. Consultant shall restore the Premises to the condition prior to Consultant's installation of such trade fixtures, consistent with Section 6 ("Swtender; Duties Upon Tennination or Expiration'') .. 12.2 Indemnity for Claims Arising Out of Construction. For the avoidance of doubt, included in Consultant's obligations under Section 16 ("Indemnity; Limitation of Liability") of the Agreement to which this is an exhibit, is Consultant's obligation to indemnify, defend and hold hannless City Indemnified Parties against all Claims arising out of construction and maintenance work perfonned on the Premises by Consultant or caused to be performed on the Premises by Consultant 12.3 Certificate of Inspection. In the event Consultant will perform, or cause to be performed, any construction, improvement or alteration or any other work on or to the Premises for which City requires a certificate of completion, then upon completion of any such construction, improvement or alteration, Consultant shall submit to the City Manager a Certificate of Inspection, verifying that such construction, improvement or alteration was completed in conformance with Title 20 of the California Code of Regulations for residential construction, or in conformance with Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations for non-residential construction, as applicable. 12.4 As Built Plans. Consultant shall provide the City Manager with a complete set of reproducible "as built plans" reflecting actual construction within or upon the Premises upon completion of any: (i) new construction or (ii) structural alterations. SECTION 13. ASBESTOS NOTIFICATION. Consultant acknowledges that City has advised Consultant that the Premises contains. or because of its age, is likely to contain asbestos-containing materials ('4ACMs"). If Consultant undertakes any alterations, additions, or improvements to the Premises, Consultant shall do so in a manner that avoids disturbing any ACMs present on the Premises. If ACMs are likely to be disturbed in the course of such work, Consultant shall encapsulate or remove the ACMs in accordance with an asbestos-removal plan approved by the City and otherwise in accordance with au applicable laws, including giving all notices required, if any, by California Health and Safety Code§§ 25915-25919.7, as may be amended. SECTION 14. MATERIAL CASUAL TY 14.1 Damage and Repair. If a Material Casualty (as defined herein) occurs, then the City shall detennine, in its sole and absolute discretion, whether it wishes to continue to operate the Premises as an animal shelter. The City's failure to provide written notice to Consultant of such election within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of a Material Casualty or other damage or destruction of the Premises shall constitute the City's election to continue the operation of the Premises as an animal shelter. If the City elects (or is deemed to elect) to continue the operation of the Premises as an animal shelter after a Material Casualty, or if the Premises is damaged but such damage does not constitute a Material Casualty, then the City shall promptly reconstruct or repair the destroyed or damaged portion of the Premises. City shall pay all costs of repairing and reconstructing the Premises. A "Material Casualty" is a total destruction of the Premises or any damage to the Premises the repair of which would exceed the City Manager's Council-delegated contracting authority under Palo Alto Municipal Code section 2.30.210, depending on the applicable contract types in relation to the repairs required. 14.2 Termination. If City notifies Consultant in writing within thirty (30) days after the occurrence of a Material Casualty that the City elects to not continue the operation of the Premises as an animal shelter after such Material Casualty, then the Agreement shall immediately terminate as of the date such notice is delivered to Consultant. In the event of such tennination, (i) City shall pay Consultant's reasonable costs in winding down the operations at the Premises, including, but not limited to, any costs associated with the termination of employees by Consultant and (ii) Consultant shall be entitled to retain its prorated compensation amount for the quarter in which tennination occurs (prorated for the number of days in such quarter that elapsed up to the date oftennination). 14.3 Continuation. If the City elects (or is deemed to elect) or is obligated to reconstruct or repair the damaged portions of the Premises because such damage does not constitute a Material Casualty pursuant to Section 14.1 ("Damage and Repair''), the City and Consultant shall make a determination as to whether the Premises will continue to operate during the reconstruction/repair period. If the parties mutually determine (in their respective reasonable discretion) that the Premises will operate during such period, this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Otherwise, Consultant's obligations to provide animal shelter services under this Agreement shall be suspended during such period. In the event of such suspension, (i) City shall pay Consultant's reasonable costs incurred by Consultant during any such suspension of operations and (ii) Consultant shall be entitled to retain its prorated compensation amount for the quarter in which suspension occurs (prorated for the number of days in such quarter that elapsed up to the date of suspension). City shall further pay all reasonable costs incurred by Consultant due to such suspension. If the parties desire, during the suspension period, the parties may negotiate in good faith to try to provide for animal shelter services to the best of the parties' reasonable abilities under the circumstances of such a suspension. SECTION 15. CITY IMPROVEMENTS TO PREMISES. The City has worked with Consultant to identify improvements to the Premises. The City shall improve the Premises as follows, subject to the Contingencies described in this section: 15.1 Expansion of Existing Medical Suite. The City shall expand the medical suite at the Premises to accommodate more animals and offer more privacy to customers. The remodeled medical suite shall expand into the office area for the shelter and shall offer separate entrances for medical customers, separate treatment, recovery, and preparation areas, as well as a lobby for medical customers. The expansion will not be inconsistent with the plans entitled "Floor Plan -New Medical Area" that Consultant provided to City, attached as (Exhibit D-1), to the extent practicable and feasible based on site requirements and architectural-or engineering-based considerations. The City shall abate asbestos and lead paint within the medical suite area of the Premises. Expected Timeline: Design and Review Timelines: A/E Consultant Procurement: November 8 -December 30, 2018 Schematic Design I Design Development: January 2, 2019 -February 25, 2019 Construction Documents: February 28-March 22, 2019 Building Pennit: April 4-May 5, 2019 Procurement and Construction Timelines: General Contract Bidding/Procurement April 25 -July 7, 2019 Construction: July 24 -November 14, 2019 Note: During construction, the building will be closed, and staff will need alternative worksites. All other parts of the building should still be open. 15.2 Addition of New Modular Building. The City shall place a modular building on the site to supplement the existing building. The building shall be used for offices as well as for meetings and educational programs for the public. The modular building shall be connected to utilities and will likely require a concrete pad. The modular building will not be inconsistent with Exhibit D-2, to the extent practicable and feasible based on site requirements and architectural-or engineering-based considerations. The City will place one (1) construction-type trailer within sixty {60) days as temporary accommodations until the modular building is installed and operational. Expected Timeline: Design and Review Timelines: Design: November 8, 2018-February 25, 2019 ARB Review: January 10, 2019 -February 8, 2019 Building Permit (concurrent): January 11, 2019 -May 4, 2019 Procurement and Construction Timelioes: Procurement (9 steps): February 28 -May 12, 2019 Construction (4 major steps): May 1, 2019-July 28, 2019 15.3 Renovation of Existing Dog Kennels. The City shall renovate the existing dog kennels located at the Premises to ensure that all kennels are operable and expected that this work shall be done by March 1S, 2019. The renovation shall be as described in Exhibit D-3, to the extent practicable and feasible based on site requirements and architectural-or engineering-based considerations. 15.4 Construction of New Dog Kennels. The City shall construct 16 new kennels on the Premises. Construction is expected to be complete by July 30, 2020. The new kennels will be constructed of galvanized steel, will be air-conditioned and heated, and located as close as possible to the existing dog kennels and medical area, to the extent practicable and feasible based on site requirements and architectural-or engineering-based considerations. Interior and exterior runs shall be of material size and quality not inconsistent with the applicable items as set forth on Exhibit D-4, to the extent practicable and feasible based on site requirements, architectural-or engineering-based considerations, and procurement requirements applicable to the City as a public entity. 15.5 Total Cost. The total cost of these improvements above is expected to be approximately $3.4 million, not including staff time, as estimated at the time as of the execution of this Agreement, and shall be fully paid for by the City of Palo Alto. 15.6 Contingencies. The Parties acknowledge that the improvements in this Section are subject to conditions which may alter the scope of the aforementioned improvements and could prevent one, some, or all of them from being constructed. These conditions include, but are not limited to: (a) Pennitting and architectural review; (b) Appropriation of sufficient funds, as decided by the City Council; (c) Compliance with all laws, regulations, pennits, and conditions, including CEQA; and (d) Changes in the prices for construction and materials. 15. 7 Additional Compensation for Renovation Delays. Due to facility inadequacies, that would be remedied by the completion of the renovations outlined in sections I S.l, I 5.2, and 15.3, the City will provide additional compensation to Consultant up to five-thousand dollars ($5,000) per month, should the City be unable to substantially complete the renovations in the time periods outlined in sections 15.l, 15.2, and 15.3. The additional compensation must be specifically documented and related to costs Consultant incurs as a result of facility inadequacies that would be remedied by the completion of renovations. 15.8 All work performed by the City shall be performed in a workmanlike manner, in compliance with all applicable laws., City shall take reasonable steps to perfonn such work in a manner which results in minimal disruption to Consultant's activities in the Premises. Consultant will take reasonable steps to accommodate City's work. The City shall enforce all applicable third party warranties at the request of Consultant. City shall promptly obtain final certificates of occupancy for all applicable portions of the Premises. 15.9 Renovation Timeline Updates. City shall provide renovation timeline updates to Consultant on a quarterly basis or more frequently upon request. Six months after the commencement of the construction of the improvements detailed in this Agreement, the parties will meet to review whether the renovation timelines stated herein are on track. City shall provide renovation timeline updates to Consultant on a quarterly basis or more frequently upon request. lf, in Consultant's reasonable determination, there is excessive delay in any renovation timelines stated herein, and City is not diligently pursuing completion of the improvements detailed in Section IS.I, 15.2, or 15.3, Consultant may terminate this Agreement upon sixty (60) days' written notice to City. ~3'~~, Palo Alto Animal Shelter 3281 East Bayshore Rd., Palo Alto, CA 4_4;.•C(j " Premises 3 Baumb, Nelly From:stephanie werner <stephanie_werner@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 8:35 PM To:Police; Council, City Subject:Noise ordinance/Harassment of Dr. Cody Attachments:IMG_3754.m4v CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council and PAPD, Upon returning home from a walk last evening at about 10 o’clock, I heard the sound of a bullhorn. I was relatively close to Castilleja so I wondered if they were possibly holding a school event outdoors, but that didn’t really make sense given the hour. Then I realized where the sound was coming from: around the corner, at Dr. Cody‘s house. I walked over there and saw 10 to 15 unmasked people screaming and blaring bullhorns at the front of her family’s home. I made the mistake of engaging them and asked them to leave Dr. Cody alone. I’ve attached a brief video of their reaction, and though I wasn't able to measure the decibel level of their bullhorn/siren, I think you'll agree that it was quite loud. After they eventually decided to leave, they all got in their cars and drove back and forth, up and down the block honking their horns. I had already called the police to make a noise complaint and they said that an officer was either there or would be at the scene soon. At some point, I saw a PAPD vehicle pull up in front of Campbell Gardens, stop briefly and drive away. I’m wondering why we have a noise ordinance if no one is willing to enforce it. The entire block was subjected to a prolonged disturbance and that seems worthy of some action. I’m also wondering what would have happened if I had called and said there was a large, loud, raucous group of black people in front of a public official's home? Might the police might have reacted differently? There's obviously no way of knowing, but I found the level of inaction interesting, especially given that at least 2 of us called to report what was going on. I realize that I don’t have all the background on what Dr. Cody goes through every day, and maybe she’s requested that the police don’t show up every time someone protests in front of her house, but I have to say the whole scene was very disconcerting. Let’s remember, people threaten her life on a regular basis, so I find it unfortunate that we're not doing more to support her safety and well-being. Thank you, Stephanie Compton City of Palo Alto noise ordinance It is hereby declared to be the policy of the city that the peace, health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Palo Alto require protection from excessive, unnecessary and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the community. It is the intention of the city council to control the adverse effect of such noise sources on the citizen under any condition of use, especially those conditions of use which have the most severe impact upon any person. Sent from my iPhone 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, February 4, 2021 12:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:CatEx declarations for airspace changes affecting Palo Alto Attachments:June 16 Letter to SCSC Technical Working Group-1.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,      I was extremely concerned when the City never provided a new staff liaison on airplane noise after Michelle Flaherty  left, and despite appeals to the P&S committee to put airplane noise on an agenda, the City has not kept residents  abreast of the city's activities or lack thereof, on jet noise. It has remained unclear what the City's policy is on airplane  noise issues.     While council members have their own relationships with interested parties, the City has not sought out public input or  engaged residents to hear residnet's concerns or to provide an update on how the City is choosing to represent Palo Alto  on FAA activities in the Bay Area.    Now, after trying really hard to work with all bodies and anyone who would listen to avert yet another abuse of Palo  Altans and the National Environmental Policy Act, there is a new round of CatEx which are totally hidden. I do not trust  your aviation attorney ‐ who also represents San Mateo County ‐ or your usual advisors to fully understand how  egregious this is.     For now, I share a letter that Sky Posse Palo Alto sent to the SCSC Roundtable on June 16, 2020   FAA and the SCSC roundtable must strive to develop communications tools and methods to resolve the various problems that result in citizens being “last to know '' about changes in impacts on the ground, and so that communities can enjoy the same consideration that is given to airspace users and operators.  While the roundtables don't care about why adequate and documented environmental processes matter, I believe that  the City has an obligation to at least disclose what Palo Alto's position is on this. I urge you to put this on an Agenda  ASAP.     Thank you,     Jennifer    Sky Posse Palo Alto 2225 East Bayshore Avenue, Suite 200, Palo Alto, CA 94303 June 16, 2020 SCSC Roundtable Technical Working Group Dear Chair, and members of the SCSC Technical Working Group, On the occasion of your inaugural meeting, we want to commend and thank you for Agenda Item 6. ​Briefing on Potential Collaborative Work Regarding Night Operations​. Night-time operations are a top community priority and the one item during the Select Committee for which the FAA provided specific recommendations to the Committee to address community concerns. We think it is critical to follow the model FAA recommended - a multi-stakeholder effort, with airports, airlines, FAA, and communities reaching an agreement. We welcome having the SCSC roundtable take the lead on this for the residents of Santa Clara, and Santa Cruz counties, as well as many of the South San Mateo cities,who share similar concerns. Regarding other items on your ​Agenda​ - the ​IFP Gateway​, the website where FAA publishes new airspace procedures or modifications - we suggest that it is imperative for the SCSC to first establish a position on FAA and Roundtable environmental disclosure processes and practices, which are simply currently not working to adequately advise communities about changes. As the FAA disclaimer on the IFP Gateway states, The Instrument Flight Procedure (IFP) Information Gateway is a communication tool the FAA uses to disseminate information about proposed changes to flight procedures to solicit comments from civil aviation organizations, affected military and civil air traffic control facilities, and airport owners and sponsors. The website is intended only for an aeronautical audience who can provide technical aeronautical comments. ​The website is not intended to fulfill obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act and/or other applicable environmental regulations, or to solicit comments about environmental impacts of proposed changes to flight procedures. ​By clicking "Continue", you acknowledge that comments submitted to the IFP Information Gateway related to potential environmental impacts will not be considered. FAA and the SCSC roundtable must strive to develop communications tools and methods to resolve the various problems that result in citizens being “last to know '' about changes in impacts on the ground, and so that communities can enjoy the same consideration that is given to airspace users and operators. Please also consider the following list of questions that Sky Posse Palo Alto gathered since the Select Committee, which remain unanswered. We hope these can serve as a starting point for discussion by your group. Unanswered Questions to SFO on GBAS submitted October 16, 2018 to SFO Unanswered Questions to FAA about FAA Initiative submitted April 20, 2018 via our Member of Congress Kind regards, Sky Posse Palo Alto Sky Posse Palo Alto is a grassroots group of citizens deeply concerned about increased aircraft noise and pollutants from Nextgen. Many have invested substantial effort in studying the issues, attending public hearings and meetings, and engaging in outreach.For more info see: http://www.quietskiesmidpeninsula.org​ and ​www.skypossepaloalto.org​.