Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200629plCC2 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: 06/29/2020 Document dates: 6/10/2020 – 6/17/2020 Set 2 of 3 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:susan chamberlain <suschamberlain@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 4:24 PM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian Subject:Input on updated 2020 S/CAP proposed goals and key actions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Palo Alto City Council and Mayor Fine, We all understand the tremendous stresses that the community, the nation and the planet are dealing with currently. While we’re struggling with these issues we also are seeing, in vivid terms, how they are related to an overarching issue that unites them (and us) all: the health of our planet. Palo Alto has been a staunch supporter and leader in the civic environmental space, and we have residents who are committed to environmental issues. However we haven’t made enough progress to reduce our carbon footprint 80% by 2030 -- achieving this goal will take a major shift in our investments as we shift to low-carbon lifestyles. We must eliminate fossil fuels from our city over time. Although Natural Gas (NG) was touted as the “clean” fossil fuel, the methane and toxic gasses that it emits have outsized health and safety issues (leaks, particulate matter, risk of asphyxiation, and fire risks in an earthquake). Methane is an 80% more potent greenhouse gas than CO2 (within a 20 year time period). In addition, we have not included the NG emitted during its extraction and transmission in our GHG inventory. Please ensure that our plans are clear, actionable, measurable, and can be adjusted quickly to reflect on-the-ground results. In addition, establish year to year targets so we can track our progress to the 80/30 goal. Base the S/CAP on AECOM’s robust cost/benefit analysis of various carbon reduction options. Identify barriers to decarbonizing our City and then provide programs, incentives and process changes to remove those barriers. Finally, please continue to support the Utility’s efforts to electrify our homes, businesses and transportation. To quote The Climate Mobilization movement, “We should treat the climate crisis the way the crisis of World War II was handled. Hardly anyone said after 2 Pearl Harbor, oh-it’s-too-hard-to-defeat-the-Axis, or it’s-too-expensive, or we- don’t-have-and-can’t-create-the-necessary-technology, or most-Americans- don’t-want-to-fight-a-war-so-we-can’t-do-so. The nation just got on with it even though it meant changing deep-seated habits, redirecting resources, and transforming much of the nation’s manufacturing sector. This wasn’t done haphazardly or on the cheap. The social, economic, technological, and management impacts were huge and long-lasting.” Sincerely,  Susan Chamberlain, Debbie Mytels, Sandra Slater, Hilary Glann for 350 Silicon Valley Palo Alto Climate Team   3 Baumb, Nelly From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 1:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gail Price Subject:Comments S/CAP update CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Comments: 2020 S/CAP Update - Agenda Item #1 June 16, 2020 2020 Sustainability and Climate Action Plan Update and Evaluate the 2020 S/CAP Potential Goals and Key Actions Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council Members, I commend the City of Palo Alto and the City Council for work on Sustainability and Climate Action Plan goals, policies and actions. The S/CAP is both urgent and critical. I strongly support a more focused work plan that results in critical outcomes. Without focused work and adjustments now the document will not serve our community well. The pandemic illustrates how the lack of real plans, funding, and specific actions can delay life sustaining outcomes and cause irretrievable damage, suffering and death. The parallels between evolving pandemic impacts and lack of strategies, policies and actions are similar to deficiencies in addressing climate change and sustainability. As noted by many community members, the goals and actions must include clear performance standards and measurable outcomes. Further, using clear metrics and measurable targets will enhance outcomes and be transparent. I strongly endorse the three focus goals: Energy, Mobility and Electric Vehicles and the preliminary list of actions needed to achieve an overall reduction of green house gas emissions. Since GHG emissions are so critical we need to focus on the most ambitious goals —80% below 1990 level by 2030. All of these goal areas relate to land use and housing policies that support compact, smart infill development that use innovative building materials and construction techniques. The focus on changing transportation and mobility options are also important, including funding of transportation demand programs and transit in order to achieve climate action goals. A combination of local and regional funding will be needed. As the staff report notes, higher intervention has a link to higher certainty. The goals and actions all support reduction of GHG. If we choose any time frame beyond 2030, we are simply not aggressive or serious enough to make substantial change. I urge you to direct AECOM to identify as fully as possible the most aggressive measures to achieve goals with funding details for a focused work plan. Utilizing existing research and the multitude of S/CAP plans should inform their work and products. We are not working in a vacuum— many Councils of Governments and US and international cities have created very ambitious plans and have experience. In my earlier comments I mentioned several cities and. counties, such as San Mateo County, Santa Monica, Boulder, Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver and Victoria, BC Canada as research and policy examples. There are many more. The number and quality of the community comments about the S/CAP update illustrate the importance of this plan for the evolution and future of Palo Alto. Gail A. Price Barron Park Palo Alto       5 Baumb, Nelly From:Kevin Ma <kevinma.sd@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 8:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comment on Tuesday Agenda Item 1: S/CAP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    I would like to commend the city for continuing on the S/CAP plans. I recognize that the current situation may shift  resources to more urgent needs, but climate change remains to be an issue, one that if we see physical changes in our  neighborhood may indicate we are too late to solve.    Our city has made policies like the 80x30 goal, but unfortunately in the past few years we have not made much progress.  As such, we need to make up for lost time and act aggressively. As such, for the items the staff have ask you to consider,  I would like to recommend you to choose:   Set the GHG reduction goal for natural gas to be 80%  o This would be inline with the 80x30 goal, and we need to recognize that natural gas use is about 40% of  our current GHG   Choose all Mobility goals  o The other 50% of GHG is from transit, so we should do our best to move away from SOV, especially since  the city has moved planning to use VMT over LOS. We will need a combination of carrots and sticks to  make progress   Choose all EV goals  o While relative goals are better than absolute, both give approximately the same result here.   Adopt all key actions  o These are merely proposals for the consultant to conduct an impact report. We should have a broad set  of items with data backing them to better decide which of them provides the most effective response,  rather than killing them now without the data  o Again, choose the most aggressive ones, such as the 100% residential phase‐out of fossil fuel use. Inertia  should not be a justification for non‐action, especially when natural gas use is both dangerous to the  environment and to us directly (e.g. San Bruno)  I hope the city council will continue to make Palo Alto a leader in environmental endeavors.    Sincerely,  Kevin Ma  Ventura Neighborhood Resident  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Don Jackson <dcj@clark-communications.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:42 AM To:Council, City Cc:UAC Subject:Thoughts on new S/CAP goals (Agenda Item #1, 2020-06-16 meeting) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Honorable Councilpeople:    The S/CAP goals relating to energy, electric vehicles, and water are areas under the purview of the UAC,   on which I am a Commissioner, and as such, I’ve had many opportunities to study, reflect, and receive staff reports on  those topics.    My thoughts regarding updated S/CAP goals:    Energy:    The overarching goal here is to reduce GHG emissions, by reducing the use of natural gas (“electrification”), and by  increasing energy‐use efficiency.    At present, we are not meeting our electrification goals, e.g. "the number of residents who have voluntarily replaced  their water heaters is far lower than the goals”.  Several proposed actions start with “increase awareness…”  Collectively, we are not doing nearly enough to articulate the problems with natural gas, and the need for electrification. When I joined the UAC last Summer, I had NO IDEA that natural gas use was any problem at all,   and it would not surprise me to learn that many/most Palo Altans have yet to hear this message.    I propose:    Council and S/CAP make a definitive proclamation regarding the goal to eliminate the use of natural gas in Palo Alto,  including:   The eventual shutdown of our gas utility   The elimination (or sharp curtailment) of new connections to the gas utility  This proclamation should be sent as an official notice to every Palo Alto home and building owner.    The recent changes to the Reach Code to require all‐electric new residences are a good start,   now Council/Staff must follow through to extend this to include new commerical buildings.    Mandate replacement of gas appliances wherever possible, including:   Prohibit replacement and new installations of gas furnances, hot‐water‐heaters, stoves/cooktops/ovens, and  clothes‐dryers.   Require replacement of gas appliances on remodels  8  Require replacement of gas appliances on sale of home   Require electrification of houses/buildings in lieu of repairing/replacing existing gas lines.  The financial impact of electrification to home and building owners is exacerbated by the higher cost of electricity (than  natural gas).  CPAU must institute an “all‐electric” rate plan, to lower the cost of increased electricity usage resulting from  electrification.  After the implementation of AMI/smart‐meters, explore the possibility of reduced electricity rates for electrification‐ specific usage (EV charging, HVAC, hot‐water‐heating, etc)    Funding the replacement of existing gas appliances will be a challenge to home/building owners, CPAU, and the City.  CPAU must develop and provide the capability to support “on‐bill” financing of electrification improvments for  homeowners.    Electrification projects may require upgrades of electric utility service and electric panel upgrades.    Streamlining permitting, and on‐bill financing would help homeowners.    In May, the UAC unanimously recommened that Council/CPAU institute the sale of CPAUs Bucket‐1 RECs  in order to raise as much as $17MM (over several years) for the electric utility.  It is my understanding that this proposal is scheduled for the August 17th Council meeting.  I strongly support this proposal, and if adopted, urge Council and CPAU to use this money to help fund the  aformentioned electrification initiatives.    Water:    Increasing the use of recycled water is a key goal.     At the CPAU/system level, planned programs regarding water treatment and desalination will increase the supply of  recycled water,  however I don’t see any significant infrastucture plans for distribution of recycled water back into the City.    I am not aware of any effort to collect or use recycled or “gray water” at the household/building level.  Segregating “gray water” from sewage would seemingly require infeasible/unrealistic changes to existing structures,  however, we should explore requiring plumbing support for gray‐water collection for new construction and “whole  home” remodels.    Electric Vehicles:    It is my perception that there is little "lack of awareness” regarding the benefits of EVs among Palo Altans, so minimize  additional spending and Staff time  for this.    Removing obstacles to EV ownership/use remains an important goal, consider:   Mandating/incentivizing EV chargers for rental housing   Streamlining permitting of EV chargers   Streamlining electric panel upgrades required for EV chargers   Provide a lower electricity rate for EV charging  Explore penalizing the use and purchase of gas vehicles, perhaps institute a permit/tax/levy on (new?) gas‐powered  vehicles.    9 S/CAP As A Concept:    The challenges we face regarding climate change are enormous, involving a multitude of efforts over decades.  Having a document that articulates and defines both our near and longer term goals is an incredibly valuable tool that  we all can (and do!) use to evalulate and consider  individual new proposals and initatives.   It is rare and amazing to have our goals and aspirations so well defiined and documented,   and I commend and thank all Palo Altans, Council, and Staff for their past and ongoing contributions, efforts, and  commitment to this process.                              1 Baumb, Nelly From:Bret Andersen <bretande@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 2:41 PM To:Council, City Subject:June 16th Mtg: 2020 S/CAP Climate Action Plan Goals and Actions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable Council Members,    Climate action planning looks pretty daunting given the number and range of proposed policy and program ideas staff  has accumulated internally and from the community.     I would like to offer a few ideas for keeping our destination in mind as you direct staff to evaluate our options for  reaching our goal of 80% GHG reduction by 2030. Two good questions come now for cities dealing with the climate  crisis:   What does the rapid, far reaching and unprecedented action we need look like?   What steps get us there?  We know the answer to the first question is not “low Intervention” (early adopters, voluntary, education, rebates from  Figure 1 in the staff report). These business‐as‐usual approaches won’t get anywhere near 80/30.    For the Energy area of the staff report (mostly about existing building electrification), I suggest that 80/30 means our city must have the following in place within a year or two:   Policies that 100% require electrification of water and space heating upon the replacement of the gas device  o Replace 7% of water heaters and 5% of space heaters that die each year, in line with 80/30  o Redirects the would‐be (stranded) gas investment into electric building and grid upgrades   Programs that make it easy for building owners to follow electric‐only rules  o Remove the barriers to adoption (see below) so the electric policy is attractive  o Accessible financing enables the program to help everyone and pay for itself  o Temporary subsidies to kickstart a reliable local supply chain  We need a stepwise approach to get to there. That means plotting a policy and program path over time from our  starting point of “low intervention” to our “higher Intervention” destination (Figure 1 in the report).     Staff provided a list of 18 “Energy” actions in their May report (link below). Most of what should be considered is there  but there are gaps where other solid ideas must also be evaluated. For example, importantly, the list includes “on‐bill  financing” in item 10 and an electric water heating mandate in 8 but I do not see the corresponding space heating  mandate. The Energy goals section seems to suggest lowering our goal below 80% for Energy but that seems largely  inconsistent with an overall 80/30 intention. I think the action lists in the reports must be viewed as a work in progress  and not a definite scope of work at this stage.     Thank you for the opportunity to help you to provide direction to staff regarding the next steps on our climate action  plan.    2 Bret Andersen, Carbon Free Palo Alto      References:    May 28 Staff Report:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=58649.63&BlobID=76860    June 16 Staff Report:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59513.75&BlobID=77028    Barriers to mass adoption of existing building electrification measures:   High up‐front costs   Split incentives ‐ renters vs owners    Complexity of the buying process for retrofit solutions   Emergency replacement practices that favor gas as business as usual   Energy mispricing – rates that exclude carbon costs, fuel switching efficiency, time of use, etc      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Sven Thesen <sventhesen@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 6:18 PM To:Council, City Cc:uucpagreen Subject:Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto, Go 80% by 2030! 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 on behalf of the Unitarian Universalist Congregation of Palo Alto's Green Sanctuary Committee. We would like to encourage the City to pursue dramatic greenhouse gas emission reductions of 80% below 1990 levels by 2030. To achieve such aggressive goals will require mandatory measures in the building, energy, and transportation sectors.     To realize an 80% reduction of greenhouse gases, we would like to see four things happen:     Incentives that encourage homeowners to replace their space heating, water heating and cookstoves with electric appliances and equipment   An increase of housing density within a one mile walkshed of transit corridors   An emphasis on more active transportation methods enabled by installing protected bike lanes   A focus on expanding EV charging infrastructure and EV ownership    Thank you for the opportunity to weigh in on these important issues. We appreciate the City of Palo Alto’s continued leadership on climate change.    Warmly,    Jeralyn Moran  Co-Chair, UUCPA Green Sanctuary Committee   (as submitted by Sven Thesen on her behalf)    ‐‐   2 Sven Thesen,  EV Consultant & Founder, ProjectGreenHome.org and BeniSolSolar.com; Wonder Junkie  __________________________________________________   Electric Cars are Cheaper than Cell Phones!  See:   http://www.projectgreenhome.org/articles.html  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ron Walker <rwalkerwrw@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 17, 2020 11:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Mac’s Smoke Shop - The Banning of selling flavored tobacco and more CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We personally resent the government and bureaucrats telling us what we can and cannot do and forever trying to protect us against ourselves. When will it be politically correct and recognized we can take care of ourselves? We as individuals can do better. Responsibly gives us freedom. Today we have less freedom then we had yesterday. It’s one new law after another. We are tired of the government forever trying to protect us against ourselves. We love our country more than our government. We can think for ourselves. Telling us what we can and cannot Sell or Do Limits or Puts Us Out of Business. I’m the owner, President of a financial services company in Santa Clara County. We work with people helping them have a choice to retire sooner rather than later with smiles. You bureaucrats, government, who have never run businesses well… Enough said. We were taught if you don’t have anything nice to say don’t say it. Experience. Freedom. Ron Walker Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Anneka Mattu <m_anneka@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 6:59 AM To:Council, City Subject:Save Macs Smoke Shop! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Save Macs Smoke Shop!  2 Baumb, Nelly From:deezbuddy@aol.com Sent:Sunday, June 14, 2020 7:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:Save Mac's Smoke Shop CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council: Mac's Smoke Shop is an 85-year old historical business institution in the heart of Palo Alto. Mac's Smoke Shop sells many products along with essential goods such as snacks/food and water. I've bought several newspapers there frequently due to their comprehensive offerings of general, business, and financial newspapers that other establishments do not offer. Plus Mac's Smoke Shop's extensive business hours (6am-11pm) offers all walks of people and professionals extremely convenient hours to shop. Please do not force Mac's Smoke Shop to close their doors especially during the Covid-19 pandemic which has already caused so many businesses to close down already in the Bay Area and Palo Alto. PLEASE SAVE MAC'S SMOKE SHOP! -- Thank You! Sincerely, Andrew H. Dral Andrew H. Dral 1235 Jefferson Ave., Apt. #104 Redwood City, CA 94062-1065 Redacted 3 Baumb, Nelly From:jjc310@aol.com Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 9:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:SAVE MAC'S SMOKE SHOP CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council: Mac's Smoke Shop is a 85-year old historical business institution in the heart of Palo Alto. Mac's Smoke Shop sells many products along with essential goods such as snacks/food and water. I myself, buy several syndicated newspapers there frequently due to their comprehensive offerings of general, business and financial newspapers that other establishments do not even come close to offer. Plus Mac's Smoke Shop's extensive business hours (6am-11pm) offers all walks of people and professionals extremely convenient hours to shop. Please do not propose proposals which will force Mac's Smoke Shop to close their doors especially during the Covid-19 pandemic which has already caused so many businesses to close down already in the Bay Area and Palo Alto also. PLEASE SAVE MAC'S SMOKE SHOP! -- Thank You! Sincerely, Tiffany Stephanie Chen 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Eimi Okano <ekokano36@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 3:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please adopt VAPE SHOP BAN WITHOUT EXEMPTIONS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To: Palo Alto City Council I have lived in Palo Alto since 1966, raised three children and now have three grandchildren living with me and count on Palo Alto leadership to keep our city safe for them. Vaping and its similar myriad smoking temptations is a danger to our children and it has no place in a family-based community like ours. If you agree to the dangers of cigarettes and tobacco and vaping products, please ban them from Palo Alto so our children will not be tempted to be harmed by them. As elected City Council members, I am counting on you to continue keeping Palo Alto safe from drugs and crime. PLEASE VOTE TO BAN Electronic Cigarette Products and Flavored Tobacco Products.in Palo Alto. Eimi Okano 1301 Harker Avenue, Palo Alto   2 Baumb, Nelly From:Chris Colohan <chris@colohan.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 12:07 PM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Cormack, Alison Subject:Vaping ban CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I would like to support the ban on Electronic Cigarette Products and Flavored Tobacco Products.     My name is Chris Colohan, and I have two children attending elementary school at Duveneck.  I've heard many stories  from other parents of slightly older children who have had trouble with their children being exposed to vaping products,  and I worry this problem will be ongoing when my kids reach middle and high school.    Banning them for sale in local stores will make them significantly harder for kids to get, and hopefully will go a long way  in reducing this problem in the future.    Thank you for taking the time to read this!    Chris  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Phine Kiang <phinebean@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 11:04 AM To:Council, City Subject:Vaping is bad for our youth and our community CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council members,  I support the measures in the PTA resolution to protect our youth and our communities from the harms of vaping, and I  urge all of you to support it as well.    Sincerely,  Phine Kiang, MD  Palo Alto resident, parent, and physician  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Amy Kacher <amyewardwell@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 11:00 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please Ban sale of all Vaping products CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear city council     I implore you to ban the sale of vaping and e‐cig products in the City of Palo Alto. The epidemic we have among our  teens and the horrific mental health consequences in addition to long term physical health impact is enough to ban the  sale.     I ask that Palo Alto join surrounding communities to help curb the use, but making it harder to purchase these products.  Of course one can argue that if someone wants to buy, they can order on Amazon. However , removing the ease of  purchasing right in our town is what our town can do. We can help be a part of the solution rather than a part of the  problem.  Let’s put HEALTH first, make HEALTH both physical and metal of our community on the forefront of policy.     Here is a statement from the PTA of CA.   https://capta.org/programs‐events/statewide‐association‐meeting‐2020/business‐of‐the‐association/resolution‐a/    Sincerely   Amy Kacher             Sent from my iPhone  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Anna Itoi <anna.itoi@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 8:58 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: retail tobacco ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Sorry I hit "send" before signing off on behalf of the site councils at Palo Alto High school where the students on site  council have raised the issue of vaping over and over again.  We've done everything we can do educate our students but  at this point we need help on making the supply less available.  Addiction is a very tough thing.  Thank you!!!!!    On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 8:56 AM Anna Itoi <anna.itoi@gmail.com> wrote:  Dear City Council,     I am a parent at Palo Alto High School where we have a significant challenge with vaping.  I respectfully urge you to  mirror the Santa Clara ordinance and have no exemptions for adult only stores for the retail tobacco ordinance.  This is  a huge public health issue and our children are at stake.  I appreciate everything you do to serve this city and I  recognize that you have competing pressures and priorities, but in this area please err on the side of our children who  are our future.  There are kids that are so addicted already that they will find a way to enter these adult‐only stores, or  worse, there are and will be adults who purchase these goods and make them available for kids.  We should have a  zero tolerance for this type of business, which is insidious and wrong.    Thank you so much for your time, and I can imagine that you are getting a lot of these emails!  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Anna Itoi <anna.itoi@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 8:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:retail tobacco ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     I am a parent at Palo Alto High School where we have a significant challenge with vaping.  I respectfully urge you to  mirror the Santa Clara ordinance and have no exemptions for adult only stores for the retail tobacco ordinance.  This is a  huge public health issue and our children are at stake.  I appreciate everything you do to serve this city and I recognize  that you have competing pressures and priorities, but in this area please err on the side of our children who are our  future.  There are kids that are so addicted already that they will find a way to enter these adult‐only stores, or worse,  there are and will be adults who purchase these goods and make them available for kids.  We should have a zero  tolerance for this type of business, which is insidious and wrong.    Thank you so much for your time, and I can imagine that you are getting a lot of these emails!  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Ronald Cohen <nicuron@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 7:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Vaping Law CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  There is no reason to allow ANY vaping stores in Palo Alto. What possible benefit does vaping offer to any one, other  than to make profits for the vaping companies while damaging the lungs & lives of vapers, and all those around them!  Allowing adults to purchase flavored vapes means that youth around them will be exposed, and possible lured into the  vaping habit. We should be doing everything possible to delegitimize vaping, not turn it into an “adult” right of passage  to attract teens!  Ronald Cohen, MD nicuron@yahoo.com     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Issa Abuaita <issa@alfakherus.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 8:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment on Agenda Item 6 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I oppose a ban on flavored tobacco without an exemption for Hookah. Many cultures use hookah like Americans use  beer at a barbeque because drinking alcohol is against their religion.      Hookah is completely different than an e‐cigarette. First, it’s used in a large water pipe and difficult to hide, in a  backpack for instance. It’s difficult to use without someone noticing. It takes time to set up. Setting one up actually takes 20 minutes and at least an hour to consume. Because of this, hookah is not very appealing to youth.     Of course, we don’t want our youth to use any tobacco products nor do we want them using marijuana or alcohol for  that matter. Banning hookah just doesn’t raise the same youth use issues. Specifically, the latest information from the  CDC on youth use of hookah is only 2.6% compared to almost 26 percent for vaping.     Please protect our youth but also save our tax paying businesses, the employees of those business and the important  cultural tradition of hookah by exempting hookah from the flavor ban.     Thank you.  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Lucy W <lcwu76@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 10:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:6/16 Special Meeting about Flavored Tobacco Ban, Item A CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     I’m Lucy Wu, longtime Fremont resident, Proudly Against Tobacco (PAT) Coalition member, and former young person. I encourage the City Council to remove adult store exemptions in banning the sale of flavored tobacco products.    Flavored tobacco products are made to appeal to young people. According to the California Department of Public Health, 80% of young people start with flavored tobacco products first. It is vital that young people can avoid picking up the habit of using tobacco products, and those that have started the habit be given the time, space, and support to kick it to the curb.     Even though I’ve lived in Fremont for all of my formative years, I spent a significant amount of time riding along in my friend’s car as we drove all over the Bay. I have fond memories shopping and eating in Palo Alto. It was very accessible by car.     It’s important that cities that are geographically close together, like Fremont and Palo Alto, can pass local legislation that overlaps in scope, so that the temptation of flavored tobacco products can be removed from all different groups of youth in equal measure. If children are the future, it is so, so important to invest in their health and wellbeing, not only because of what they have to offer someday, but because of their inherent value as people who deserve to be healthy and well today.     Thank you! Lucy Wu   3 Baumb, Nelly From:E Wooding <eriwooding@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 7:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:6/16/20 Action Item A CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,    My name is Erica Wooding and I’m a rising high school senior and a member of the Proudly Against Tobacco  (PAT) Coalition. The pipeline for lifelong cigarette smoking most often begins with an underage smoker trying  a flavored product. 90% of lifelong smokers begin underage, and 80% of underage smokers start with a  flavored product. When 17 year olds in my class at school vape their mango or mint flavored products, they’re  drastically increasing their chances of living with addiction. Making it harder for kids to access flavored  products will decrease the appeal of tobacco products in general and put a wrench in the cycle of big tobacco  hooking children.     Adult stores should not be exempted from the flavor ban. I know for a fact that people my age and even  younger have very little problems going into adult stores and buying tobacco products. This should not be  allowed to continue. To protect kids like my classmates from years or lifetimes of addiction, Palo Alto needs to  adopt a strong TRL.    Sincerely,  Erica Wooding   4 Baumb, Nelly From:feetab@gmail.com Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 12:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Tobacco ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Sent from my iPhone  Sometimes I wonder if people in government remember Prohibition which outlawed alcohol so that people wouldn’t  drink. People found ways to drink and the law against alcohol created the power of the Mafia which supplied the alcohol  people kept drinking.    If kids want to use tobacco, they will find ways to get it.  When my sons were in high school, they couldn’t get alcohol,  but illegal drugs were easy to find.    Controlling substances makes sense, but banning them only creates an underground supply system and, in this case,  ruins a business which has been a Palo Alto fixture for decades.    Please be sensible and heed the lesson learned from Prohibition....outlawing a substance doesn’t keep people from  using it, it only creates an illegal supply chain.    Elizabeth Bishop   Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Felix Cortez <cortezfelix41@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 9:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:macs smoke shop CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Keep macs open we have a crew of construction workers working in the downtown Palo a lot area been here for 3 year  and macs was always here for the drinks on hot days and snacks when we are hungry we build a relationship with the  employees and they we always look forward to our break to come and get a snack here at macs    Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:34 AM To:Council, City Subject:Save Mac's Smoke Shop. Permit Flavored pipe tobacco like Los Altos does and like grandpa smokes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council, My header says it all. Let's have a smart nuanced ruling that doesn't destroy yet another PA landmark. Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Road Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rachel J. Mesia <rmesia@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 12:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Response to City of Palo Alto, Consent Calendar ID# 11372 Attachments:SCI-Letter_PA_ID#11372_06-08-20.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    From: "Rachel J. Mesia" <rmesia@stanford.edu>  Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2020 at 12:21 PM  To: "greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org" <greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org"  <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>, "liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org" <liz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org>,  "eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org" <eric.filseth@cityofpaloalto.org>, "tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org"  <tom.dubois@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org"  <Alison.Cormack@cityofpaloalto.org>, "Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org" <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Response to City of Palo Alto, Consent Calendar ID# 11372     RE: City of Palo Alto, Consent Calendar ID# 11372, 06/16/2020  Dear City Council Members of Palo Alto,  I am writing to you as a representative of the Stanford Cancer Institute and the Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council. I would like to bring to your attention, some important health and research data relevant to the community you served. You are likely aware that tobacco use has cumulative, negative health effects1,2,3 and the use of e-cigarettes are exhibiting harmful consequences mirroring those of tobacco.4,5 Many long-term smokers start when they are teens or young adults.2  There have been many inquiries about the relationship of SARS-CoV-2 with chronic illnesses and behaviors associated with poor health conditions. One of them is tobacco and nicotine use/exposure. Researchers have been investigating and learning more about the relationship of the ACE-2 (Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2) receptor with COVID-19 infection. Preliminary research reveals the following:   In 2004, researchers found evidence suggesting ACE-2 is associated with “hypertension, cardiac function, heart function and diabetes, and as a receptor of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus.” 6   It has been established that SARS-CoV-2 binds its “spike protein” to the ACE-2 receptor. This is believed to be a starting pathway for “endothelial dysfunction”, which is when the inner lining of the small arteries (endothelial layer) become malfunctioning in the regulation of “exchanges between the bloodstream and surrounding tissues.” 7,8    Growing new evidence is linking cigarette smoke and nicotine to increased ACE-2 receptors, thus increasing the binding sites for SARS-CoV-2. 9,10,11  Although more research is critical to validate evidence and gain more knowledge applicable to various populations and factors, the above research information illustrates the implication of how important health prevention measures are. I hope the knowledge I have provided you will inform your cancer.stanford.edu June 5, 2020 RE: City of Palo Alto, Consent Calendar ID# 11372, 06/08/2020 Dear City Council Members of Palo Alto, I am writing to you as a representative of the Stanford Cancer Institute and the Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council. I would like to bring to your attention, some important health and research data relevant to the community you served. You are likely aware that tobacco use has cumulative, negative health effects1,2,3 and the use of e-cigarettes are exhibiting harmful consequences mirroring those of tobacco.4,5 Many long-term smokers start when they are teens or young adults.2 There have been many inquiries about the relationship of SARS-CoV-2 with chronic illnesses and behaviors associated with poor health conditions. One of them is tobacco and nicotine use/exposure. Researchers have been investigating and learning more about the relationship of the ACE-2 (Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2) receptor with COVID-19 infection. Preliminary research reveals the following: • In 2004, researchers found evidence suggesting ACE-2 is associated with “hypertension, cardiac function, heart function and diabetes, and as a receptor of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus.” 6 • It has been established that SARS-CoV-2 binds its “spike protein” to the ACE-2 receptor. This is believed to be a starting pathway for “endothelial dysfunction”, which is when the inner lining of the small arteries (endothelial layer) become malfunctioning in the regulation of “exchanges between the bloodstream and surrounding tissues.” 7,8 • Growing new evidence is linking cigarette smoke and nicotine to increased ACE-2 receptors, thus increasing the binding sites for SARS-CoV-2. 9,10,11 Although more research is critical to validate evidence and gain more knowledge applicable to various populations and factors, the above research information illustrates the implication of how important health prevention measures are. I hope the knowledge I have provided you will inform your efforts aimed at promoting better community outcomes. Your leadership and decisions as a City Council can be effective towards progressing the health and well-being of Palo Alto! Sincerely, Rachel J. Mesia, PhD, MPH Program Director, Community Research & Capacity-Building at the Stanford Cancer Institute Program Co-Chair, Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council rmesia@stanford.edu | Redacted cancer.stanford.edu Citations 1. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2014). Health effects of cigarette smoking. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/health_effects/effects_cig_smoking/ 2. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2012). Preventing tobacco use among youth and young adults: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. Retrieved from http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/preventing-youth-tobacco-use/full-report.pdf 3. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2010). How tobacco smoke causes disease: The biology and behavioral basis for smoking-attributable disease: A report of the Surgeon General. Atlanta, GA: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Office on Smoking and Health. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK53017/pdf/Bookshelf_NBK53017.pdf 4. Goniewicz, M., et al. (2014) Levels of selected carcinogens and toxicants in vapour from electronic cigarettes. Tobacco Control 23(2),133–139. Retrieved from http://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/23/2/133 5. Hua, M., et al. (2013). Health-related effects reported by electronic cigarette users in online forums. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 15(4), e59. Retrieved from http://www.jmir.org/2013/4/e59/ 6. Warner, F. J., Smith, A. I., Hooper, N. M., & Turner, A. J. (2004). 2181601. What’s new in the renin- angiotensin system?: Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2: a molecular and cellular perspective. Cellular and molecular life sciences, 61(21), 2704-2713. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00018-004-4240-7.pdf 7. Alberts, B., Johnson, A., Lewis, J., Raff, M., Roberts, K., & Walter, P. (2002). Blood vessels and endothelial cells. In Molecular Biology of the Cell. 4th edition. Garland Science. Retried from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26848/ 8. Jain, A., & Doyle, D. J. (2020). Stages or phenotypes? A critical look at COVID-19 pathophysiology. Intensive Care Medicine, 1. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00134-020-06083- 6.pdf 9. Leung, J. M., Yang, C. X., & Sin, D. D. (2020). COVID-19 and Nicotine as a Mediator of ACE-2. European Respiratory Journal. Retrieved from https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/early/2020/04/27/13993003.01261- 2020.full.pdf 10. Russo, P., Bonassi, S., Giacconi, R., Malavolta, M., Tomino, C., & Maggi, F. (2020). COVID-19 and Smoking. Is Nicotine the Hidden Link?. European Respiratory Journal. Retrieved from https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/early/2020/04/20/13993003.01116-2020.full.pdf 11. McAlinden, K. D., Eapen, M. S., Lu, W., Chia, C., Haug, G., & Sohal, S. S. (2020). COVID-19 and vaping: risk for increased susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection?. European Respiratory Journal. Retrieved from https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/erj/early/2020/05/13/13993003.01645-2020.full.pdf 2 efforts aimed at promoting better community outcomes. Your leadership and decisions as a City Council can be effective towards progressing the health and well-being of Palo Alto!     Sincerely,  Rachel J. Mesia, PhD, MPH  Program Director, Community Research & Capacity-Building at the Stanford Cancer Institute  Program Co-Chair, Bay Area Community Health Advisory Council  rmesia@stanford.edu |     Please refer to citations in PDF attachment    –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––   Stanford Cancer Institute | Stanford Profile  We are united for our frontline workers & community!  CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The information contained in this e-mail message may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of any portion of this message or any attachment is strictly prohibited. If you think you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender at the above e-mail address or call 650.723.7119, and delete this e-mail along with any attachments. Thank you.           Redacted 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Beth Rosenthal <bbr550@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 12:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Action Item A Consent Calendar CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Fine and Council Members,    As I walked around downtown Palo Alto, I was saddened by how many stores have signs indicating that they would not  be returning to business. Mac’s is probably the oldest or one of the oldest retail establishments in the City. It has a funky charm and is part of Palo Alto’s history. It is one of the few places one can reliably buy print newspapers these days and  the only place in downtown that one can buy a New York Times now that Starbucks no longer sells them. Mac’s has  been allowed to stay open during the shelter in place  because the newspapers it provides are for many people the only  source of news available. Please remember that 1 in 5 people in the Bay Area have no internet access.  I understand  Council members’ objections regarding concern that Mac's sale of flavored tobacco and vaping products gives minors  access to these items. Mac’s has agreed to eliminate vaping products but wishes to continue to sell flavored tobacco as a  matter of financial sustainability. If you go into the store, you will see that Mac’s has a very visible sign that states that  they do not sell to anyone under 21, a policy it enforces. I hope you will give the owners a chance to figure out a way to  change their business model so they can stay in business and Palo Alto can retain this relic of the past. I am requesting  that you do not adopt Ordinance A  and rewrite it to allow an exception for flavored tobacco.  I would hate to see Mac’s  become another vacant store front.      Sincerely,    Beth Rosenthal, PhD  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Susie Brain <susie_brain@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 12:07 PM To:Council, City Cc:Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Subject:Please Pass Tobacco Retail Ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council members,     As a resident of Palo Alto and volunteer with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, I urge you to pass tonight’s tobacco ordinance (again) with no exemptions. Flavors are driving the epidemic of tobacco and e-cigarette use among teenagers and the best way to address this epidemic is to remove flavors from all retail tobacco sellers with no exemptions for any store or any tobacco product. Here are the facts as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:  The use of e-cigarettes is unsafe for kids, teens, and young adults.  Most e-cigarettes contain nicotine. Nicotine is highly addictive and can harm adolescent brain development, which continues into the early to mid-20s.  E-cigarettes can contain other harmful substances besides nicotine.  Young people who use e-cigarettes may be more likely to smoke cigarettes in the future. Exempting adult-only stores is problematic and weakens what could be a strong policy. If flavored tobacco products remain in the community, they will find their way into the hands of youth. The California Department of Public Health found that “vape” shops and tobacco stores had much higher violation rates for selling to youth when compared to every other category of tobacco retailer. Our youth are inhaling nicotine, flavorants, propylene glycol, to name just a few, and when these components are heated up they can turn into other potentially dangerous chemicals with life-long health consequences. The tobacco industry should not be given a free pass to lure our youth into a lifetime addiction to tobacco and potentially poor health outcomes. Thank you for taking action tonight to protect the youth of Palo Alto and represent the voice of the community that is asking you to choose public health and youth. Susie Brain American Cancer Society Volunteer, Palo Alto resident 5 Baumb, Nelly From:CarolIne Baker <cbaker8942@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 3:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Tobacco ordinance CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    To the members of the Palo Alto City Council,    Thank you for considering the welfare of your young citizens by writing an effective ordinance in December.  It seems  that that ordinance is now in danger of being watered down because of a very small number of “Adult” stores.  I wonder  if you have considered how unfair that would be for the hundreds of stores that will not Get that exception.  ALL stores  should stop selling a tobacco product that is so obviously meant for children.  Please mirror the ordinance adopted by  Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.  Thank you    Carol Baker  Volunteer Ambassador  American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kyle Heller <kyleeheller@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, June 14, 2020 8:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter : Teen Program Funding CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Esteemed City Council of the City of Palo Alto:  What currently faces us as a community is nothing short of a malstrom of poorly-timed coincidences and unfortunate accidents - in the coming months and potentially years, we are likely to be battered by recession, unemployment, and loss on a nearly unprecedented scale. Undoubtedly, we will be forced to cut spending in order to match the unfortunate loss in revenue we are slated to be matched by, and I’m not going to dodge this or attempt to paint a picture of a peachy-perfect world where things are not limited by expense or income. It’s an unfortunate situation we find ourselves in, and I do not envy your job of making the difficult decisions required to keep our city running and to wisely subdivide the limited funds in a system that, simply put, cannot exist in its current state with a diminished incoming cash flow. The task ahead of you is certainly difficult, and will inevitably require some part of our city to take a hit in order to balance the budget, but I beseech of you to hear me out and use this as a form of public opinion to better guide your choice.    To make it clear, I understand that not everything will be salvageable after the budget cuts. I will not pretend like non- essential public services like the entertainment programs surpass the importance of departments like HHS or the Fire Department. Undoubtedly, funds will have to be properly managed, and obviously the non-essential services will be forced to take some hit in order to serve the greater good, but I ask you to reconsider how much they are disadvantaged by. I believe that the budget cuts to programs such as Cubberly’s MakeX makerspace, the Palo Alto Teen Arts Council, and the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre - while considerably better compared to an outright cancellation of these programs - still needs to be mitigated in order to better preserve these programs.    If it was not clear already, the exigence of me writing to you is found in a simple matter - as a teenager who will shortly be leaving in the coming years for college, I find myself in the unique position of someone who has experienced the wonders that the City of Palo Alto has to offer through its public outreach programs. But as someone who is leaving, I will likely not experience any changes brought to these programs through the budget cuts. While it would be assumed this would make me more apathetic to the changes - since I won’t be around to be hindered by them, it would seem that I’m liable to not care - I can assure you it’s the exact opposite. When I hear about these programs shutting down or being massively underfunded, let me be clear - I am not fighting for these to be preserved due to some misplaced sense of nostalgia or simply because I want to experience these for one last time before I outgrow them. I’m fighting for the next generation of students after me, who have not gotten a chance to experience these wonderful contributions that the city provides to the community. I am championing the children who have never gotten the chance to experience the joy of 3D printing something of their own design, of painting and erecting sets for a show, of experiencing the joys of acting on stage, or of meeting with their friends somewhere to enjoy small talk and the finer points of interaction.  I am championing the generation who are too young to know what they are missing out on, or are just beginning to become acquainted with these systems. While I understand that, as Council members, your job lies in serving the best interests of this community, I’d like to remind you that all actions taken in this day and age will not only affect the youth of this community now, but in years to come. An investment into the right areas of these programs is not an investment into the present, but an investment into the future. You find yourselves standing at a crossroad, with the opportunity to maximize the good done in the now, or maximize the public good in the future.    While the popular conception is that there are no services to be provided from these organizations while both shelter-in- place and social distancing are active, this could not be any further from the truth. Granted, some day-to-day operations of these groups will be severely hindered - obviously, the PACT would not be able to pack houses for its shows like it used to, and MakeX - with sawdust shavings and laser-cutting fumes - would not be the greatest place for those avoiding respiratory issues. But the misconception that these services are not capable of still serving a public good requires urgent 2 correction. As I’ve heard through friends and associates within and around the Children’s Theatre, they are still managing to teach dance classes and acting classes online via Zoom, and the children are still capable of being entertained and enlightened even while confined to their homes - especially when confined to their homes - in a public service that has managed to provide a service that no others could while pre-school and daycare centres are closed. The Teen Arts Council has managed to provide escapes and getaways from the dreariness of lock-in by hosting Game Nights and Open Mics in formats that perfectly fit the online presences we have been subjugated to by this Virus. And, although not currently active, with time I’m sure that the MakeX community could discern a way to continue to service the community - obviously with mandatory mask-usage, but also perhaps via sign-ups to use the space or even virtual usage - such as no- contact 3D printing where the files are sent virtually and staged for an easy pickup once completed.    Make no mistake, these services provide an essential service to the community - especially during a time when we are itching from cabin fever and are looking for ways to relieve our boredom and stress from the tyranny of staying at home with our family. They have adapted rather quickly and are capable of serving this community in a time when civic programs and communal togetherness are needed more than ever. Our community desperately needs these services in order to entertain, to captivate, to teach, and to empower us with the skills needed for lives. While I could speak about the life skills that theatre has taught me in the nine-and-a-half years I’ve been attending the Children’s Theatre, I’m sure you’ve heard it one thousand times before, and so I’ll cut the cliche. My point is simply that these aren’t programs that are some superficial investment in keeping the people mildly amused - they serve a real, social purpose that we need now more than ever.    We are facing a time when children are becoming more and more distant from each other due to social media. While I’m sure I could play the oft-used “Screenagers” card and turn this into a social examination on our incessant need to distract ourselves, I’d rather focus on the real good these programs do for our city. In a time when the country needs unification more than ever, I’d say these organizations are needed desperately. I can count on one hand the amount of friends and associates I’ve made through contributions such as the Fire Department or Police Department, but I can’t even begin to explain the scores of people I have had the personal pleasure of meeting through these programs (obviously the comparison is a little unfair, but the point stands). These programs allow us to connect with people we wouldn’t otherwise connect with, to broaden our horizons, and to learn to come together as a group. To remove or lessen these staples of our community would be to doom future generations to a more limited selection of activities and people they can perform.    These are community programs that we are dealing with. Not because they are intended for the community, but because they build a community around them. I’m sure you are familiar with the national motto, E Pluribus Unum - “Out of many, we are one” - it couldn’t be more applicable here. The letters you are receiving from concerned citizens and students aren’t some motley band of teenagers loosely rallying behind a small organization - they’re from a community that is railing and rallying in an attempt to save the very things that formed it and brought it together. We aren’t separate students who are each writing on our own to protect some pet cause - we are fighting for every foot, every inch we can to preserve the systems that brought us together, that gave us lives to live, that gave us purpose and gave us each other. We need these programs just as much as we need the fire department or janitorial services.    I understand the difficulty of the decision that faces you. You may be tempted to simply say “we’re still funding them, just less so” and call it a day. You may think that funding these programs partially will suffice.    Every member of these programs is as much a member of the community as the brilliant young minds the programs produced. I’ve on countless occasions leaned on members of the Children’s Theatre staff when I needed assistance in Letters of Recommendations, and I’ve had the pleasure of serving with them on internship assignments that gave me tangible job experience over the summer. You would be hard pressed to present to me a single staff member I haven’t worked with or talked to, and one I wouldn’t call a positive influence, adult mentor, or friendly face. The idea of any of them being removed from the equation that made me the person I am today is a concept that brings me on the verge of tears as I write this letter. They are hardworking, honest, caring individuals who have each contributed to these programs, who are each as essential to it as the children themselves, and who have put their hearts and souls into the jobs they have. If, for all their years of loyalty and dedication to these programs, they are rewarded with being given the slip at the first sign of trouble, I would call the system harsh and unfeeling; uncaring towards those who have given their all to serving a community that, when the time came, couldn’t support them when they needed it most.    3 I understand that it would normally be customary to dictate the many services that these programs have granted me; to list the shows that I’ve participated in or the projects I’ve worked on, and to give a list of all the things this community has given me. To be frank, I think that’s a little misguided. It’s a fallacy to assume that the 14 shows that I’ve participated in at the Children’s Theatre, the six projects I’ve produced at MakeX, and the 7 events I’ve attended at the Teen Arts Council are all that they’ve provided to me. The atmosphere, the people, the experiences, and the memories are all easily far more valuable than any monetary value or return produced by the shows or the investments by the council. They say you can’t buy happiness, but if the money provided was really what allowed me to make such great friends and have such a good time, I’d say they were wrong. These programs are a fundamental part of who I am, and what I’ve been able to do. The idea of them being diminished in any capacity is a thought that shakes me to my very core, and the idea that a child in the coming days may never have the chance to experience what I did is a deeply disturbing thought. I’m not someone who is moved by many things, but the realization of how much these programs have served me, of how much they’ve contributed to my life, and how much I’ll never be able to repay the people who served me in my formative years is bringing me to tears. The realization of how much I took these for granted and how they’ve managed to mold me into the person I am today, to give me memories and experiences I’ve never really understood the magnitude and impact until now, retrospectively, is deeply and profoundly moving. I would be a different person if it were not for these programs. I wouldn’t be me.    I urge you to continue funding these programs as much as possible. I understand that keeping things the way they are now is impossible and I understand the difficult decisions that you will have to make in the coming years to balance the checkbooks and serve our community for the best in the coming years. But investing in these programs is investing in the future of so many children’s lives, and produces people like me at the end, produces people like some of my best friends and closest confidants, and serves them for life. I urge you to preserve as much funding for these organizations as possible. This is not an investment in a program. This is an investment in the community. Our community.    I feel sorry that you have to make this call in the coming days, months, and years. That you are faced with such a difficult decision and that you will undoubtedly face some flak or outcry regardless of the decision you make. But I trust you will make the right decision.    Sincerely,  Kyle Heller    4 Baumb, Nelly From:Joseph Hirsch <jihirschpa@comcast.net> Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 10:52 AM To:Council, City Cc:O'Kane, Kristen Subject:New PAUSD-CPA Lease Agreement re: Cubberley CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I sent the following this morning, but am not sure it was received, so I'm sending it again. Joe Hirsch ################################################################################ ############## Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor Dubois and Council Members: The Cardiac Therapy Foundation of the Midpeninsula (CTF), a cardiac rehabilitation program now operating under its program name of HeartFit For Life, is in our 50 th year of continuous operation in Palo Alto since our inception at the Ross Road YMCA in 1970-1971. After many years at the Terman JCC, CTF has been renting continuously at Cubberley since January 2003, first under the auspices of the JCC and for the past 10 years or so directly from the City. Our rental spaces (G5, G8 and Gym B) are listed in the definition of the rented Premises that are covered by the new Lease Agreement and are shown on the map of Exhibit B (Premises) attached to the Lease Agreement. With the City’s continuing support we hope to continue our mission of helping people with cardiovascular disease (or risk factors for cardiovascular disease) for many years to come. Accordingly, we urge you to approve the new PAUSD-CPA Lease Agreement for the Cubberley site, which comes before you for your formal approval on June 15 th. Thank you, in advance, for the City‘s continuing support of the Cardiac Therapy Foundation, for which we are extremely grateful, and all of the other Cubberley tenants who will continue to have space, as many have had in the past, on the Cubberley site. That is very meaningful to all of us, and the people we serve throughout Palo Alto and the community at large. Joe Hirsch Georgia Avenue, Palo Alto Cardiac Therapy Foundation ex-officio Board Member 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Kenneth Dauber <kdauber@pausd.org> Sent:Sunday, June 14, 2020 2:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Error in Cubberley item on your June 15 agenda CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,    I write to correct an error in your June 15 agenda item regarding the lease agreement between the City and  PAUSD. The City Manager states, in his executive summary, that:    "Due to the negative impacts to the City’s budget from the events surrounding COVID‐19 and the request by  PAUSD to retain portions of Cubberley, a new lease for Cubberley has been negotiated to reduce the City’s  use of the premises and the corresponding cost, while a new lease for the Extended Day Care sites has been  created to extend the existing terms through the 2021‐2022 school year" (emphasis added).    However, there was no request from PAUSD to the City to retain portions of Cubberley for the district's use.  The Board of Education discussed the lease agreement at two public meetings. At both of those meetings  Superintendent Austin stated that the decision to reduce the scope of the lease agreement was entirely at the  request of City staff. At no point did the district ask the City to give up any of the space it leases at Cubberley.  If you approve the amended agreement and the City does vacate space at Cubberley, I expect that the district  will make use of some of it for educational purposes ‐‐ but that's in the nature of trying to make lemonade out  of lemons.    In addition to the question of fact, I thought it important to correct the record in the light of the City  Manager's statement, under the "Policy Implications" subhead, that "[a]mending the Lease Agreement at  Cubberley Community Center is consistent with policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan promoting  City‐PAUSD collaboration and the effective provision of community services." I'm not in a position to evaluate  the City's policy tradeoffs, but while I think the district has been forthcoming in meeting the City's desire to cut  back community services at Cubberley, I wouldn't say that the decision stems from our collaboration.    I'll also note that I'm writing on my behalf, and not on behalf of the Board of Education.    Best regards,  Ken Dauber  Trustee, Palo Alto Unified School District  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeremy Erman <jeremy_erman@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, June 14, 2020 8:57 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Clerk, City; Administrative Services; CSD; leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique Cc:Council, City Subject:Please discuss Cubberley earlier in the evening CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Manager Ed Shikada, City Staff, and City Council I do not understand why the discussion of the proposed Cubberley Community Center lease is the second-to-last item on the City Council meeting agenda for June 15. This is a major issue which the Council has not discussed yet, and it is being shoe-horned in at the end of the meeting. I urge you to move this item earlier in the evening, or call a special meeting just to discuss Cubberley. City staff is supposed to follow Council's directives, not take matters into their own hands; yet your report to the Council on Cubberley says you have already sent eviction notices to the affected tenants, even though the Council has not discussed or voted on the new lease. You have apparently not even identified who these tenants are to the public or City Council. This is outrageous and cruel. The entire plan to divide Cubberley is the creation of City staff, yet your report to the Council misleadingly makes it sound as if it was partly prompted by a request from PAUSD: "Due to the negative impacts to the City’s budget from the events surrounding COVID-19 and the request by PAUSD to retain portions of Cubberley, a new lease for Cubberley has been negotiated to reduce the City’s use of the premises and the corresponding cost, while a new lease for the Extended Day Care sites has been created to extend the existing terms through the 2021-2022 school year." https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=69053.63&BlobID=77073 There was NO request from PAUSD to "retain portions of Cubberley" until City staff said they wanted to stop leasing the whole site. PAUSD was happy with the old arrangement and wanted it to continue. I have that in writing from multiple members of the School Board, so if City staff cannot stomach taking responsibility for their decisions, I advise you to tear up this terrible lease and apologize to the community for this poor decision which removes funding for PAUSD when it is most needed, and locks in a divided Cubberley through 2024, years after other proposed coronavirus cuts are intended to be in effect, Thank you, -Jeremy Erman 7 Baumb, Nelly From:Lanie Wheeler <hswdw14@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 3:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cubberley Lease CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I understand that you will be discussing the extension of the Cubberley Lease (and Extended Child Care agreement) this  evening.  I apologize for not being able to attend in person.  Hence these written comments.     I also apologize that I have not followed this issue from the beginning and, therefore, did not make my sentiments  known to the PAUSD Board of Trustees prior to their adoption of the agreements.    In short, I am terribly disappointed in the direction of both of these items although I will direct my comments tonight to  the Cubberley lease portion.  We have worked as a community, both City and School District to keep the Cubberley site  in public usage to benefit our shared citizens.  Cubberley has housed numerous nonprofit organizations which have  served adults and especially children for decades, nonprofits that would not be able to deliver their services anywhere  near our community without this affordable home.  To ignore this reality and be satisfied with the statement that staff is  looking for new accommodations is truly disappointing.  I have had contact with one of those tenants and as far as they  know at this point, two weeks prior to their eviction, they have nowhere to go but out of business.  You should not be  complicit in these evictions unless you do have space identified into which these tenants can move.    We are also past the point in time where the City and the School District formally pledged to work together to propose  and hopefully adopt a plan for long term joint use of the property.  Now it seems we are further apart rather than closer  to the finish line on that project.  COVID 19 is not and should not be used as the excuse to sweep the years of planning  away.      The mathematics of tonight's  action may look good on the City's ledger; maybe not so good on the School  District's.  Fundamentally we are the same community and the price to maintain Cubberley in public usage will be borne  by virtually the same citizens.  I would say to you...and the PAUSD...work harder, work together.    Lanie Wheeler  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Burt <patburt11@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 2:14 PM To:Council, City Cc:'Mike Cobb'; Lanie Wheeler; Ellson, Penny Subject:Item 9 Cubberley Comments Attachments:Item 9 Cubberley Lease Joint Comments.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,  Please consider the attached comments.  Sincerely,  Lanie Wheeler  Mike Cobb  Penny Ellson  Pat Burt    Cubberley Lease/Space Abandonment For over 30 years the City has leased the Cubberley site for use as the primary community center serving south Palo Alto. The 1987 Utility Users Tax was, in large part, passed by the voters to preserve the Cubberley site and convert it to community services. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2013/03/15/editorial-so-far-all-take-no-give-on-cubberley-site Policy Implications Over the last several years, the city-funded and facilitated a Cubberley master planning effort to develop a long-term investment in the revitalization of the Cubberley facilities in collaboration with PAUSD. The current action abandons the city lease on much of the community facility with little public awareness or policy discussion by the council. Instead, a very significant change to community services is being made under the guise of a budgetary decision while the impacted Cubberley users, and the community, and the council are distracted by an avalanche of impacts on the city budget and personal impacts of the emergency. Comprehensive Plan Consistency. Rather than being consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as asserted in the staff report, the abandonment of the current Cubberley lease is inconsistent with multiple Polices and Programs, including: • Healthy Culture o Support creativity through visual, performing, and digital arts; o Promote and provide opportunities for social interaction; o Support youth development through a connection to the arts, educational opportunities, and recreational programs. • Program C1.1.1 Based on identified needs, continue to provide and expand the provision of multilingual literature, program information, and educational displays at public community facilities. • Policy C-1.2 Promote public participation in civic life and neighborhood associations and promote the suite of community services and facilities available to local residents and businesses in Palo Alto. • Policy C-1.15 Continue strong support for and coordinate delivery of childcare services, addressing the needs of infants, toddlers, and pre-kindergarten, as well as school-aged children. Program C1.15.1 Support and promote the provision of comprehensive child care services in Palo Alto by public and private providers, including employers. • Policy C-1.18 Support existing senior programs and seek opportunities to expand programs, including programs promoting health, life-long learning, recreation, arts, and cultural experiences designed for seniors at all public community facilities and parks. • GOAL C-4 Plan for a future in which our parks, open spaces, libraries, public art, and community facilities thrive and adapt to the growth and change of Palo Alto. Policy C-4.1 Develop new community facilities as needed to meet the evolving needs of residents and employees of Palo Alto, including the need for amenities for seniors within existing parks. • Policy C-5.2 Promote access to programs that enhance and increase the physical and mental health, well-being, recreation, safety, and cultural opportunities of all residents and visitors. Stakeholder Outreach. Outreach has been minimal and with little transparency. Users and providers of services were not informed in advance of staff recommendations that would end their leases and rents, and most do not have substitute locations available to continue their services. 6/15/20 Staff Report and comments (in italics): https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=69053.63&BlobID=77073 Policy Implications Amending the Lease Agreement at Cubberley Community Center is consistent with policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan promoting City-PAUSD collaboration City of Palo Alto Page 5. The engagement with PAUSD was a unilateral decision by the city and not a collaborative decision. Once the city notified PAUSD of its decision to not renew the lease, PAUSD worked cooperatively with the city to negotiate the new lease terms. PAUSD made clear that they did not favor ending the lease agreement. Policy C-1.12 Maintain an effective, collaborative relationship with the PAUSD to optimize the use of school services and facilities for public benefit, particularly for children, youth, teens, seniors, and people with disabilities. Effective provision of community services. This is a distortion of the Comp Plan. What inconsistencies are there with the Comp Plan? This citation appears to be based on Policy C-1.3. Streamline and improve delivery and provision of services and to meet the changing needs of our population. Program C1.3.1 Develop and implement a plan to collect and analyze data on demographics, use of community service facilities, and needs of the community as related to parks, open spaces, recreation, arts, and culture. Stakeholder Engagement. The City and PAUSD collaborated on development of new agreements containing these terms. City staff have delivered termination notices and are proactively seeking potential alternative spaces to relocate those tenants and renters affected at Cubberley. PAUSD was presented with a fait accompli which they did not have the power to oppose. This was not a “mutual agreement or collaboration in principle”. It was a unilateral decision by the city which PAUSD acquiesced to by necessity. User stakeholders were not engaged in the decision process. Staff states that they “are working on” alternative placements, but there is not a promise of providing such in Palo Alto. Previously, staff has said we have a shortage of affordable space for these programs. The recommendation to terminate the lease preceded efforts to relocate tenants and does not obligate the city or PAUSD to provide for comparable relocations. Sincerely, Lanie Wheeler, former Mayor Mike Cobb, former Mayor Pat Burt, former Mayor Penny Ellson, Resident and former Cubberley Community Advisory Committee Member 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Subodh Iyengar <mani.subodh@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 12:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:community center CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hearing the arguments around cubberly during the council meeting, it seems clear that cubberly is an unsustainable  situation. It doesn't seem good for stability for the city, PAUSD, or the existing tenants.   It might serve the community better to use the money that we spend on cubberly to instead invest longer term to  expand and modernize the existing community centers like Lucie Stern, rinconada library to accommodate activities like  classes and childcare. We could facilitate sharing the space between the children's theatre and other theatre activities  and make that a flexible space.  In addition, we could also develop the land that the city does own near cubberly.   While this does not subsume all the functions of cubberly it at least gives everyone long term stability. If we need to  support PAUSD we can do that in other ways than this indirect mechanism of paying rent.    Subodh  Resident  3 Baumb, Nelly From:pellson@pacbell.net Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 5:50 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cubberley Lease CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council,    Along with fellow residents, I have dedicated many hours to two Cubberley Community Advisory Committees over the  years, and I worry that the work of those committees is being disrupted without a good plan for moving forward.    I am trying to understand how this latest Cubberley lease agreement benefits your constituents. How does the public  benefit when one local governmental agency transfers costs for community services to another local governmental  agency that essentially is supported by the same tax base? Understand, I am disappointed in both agencies, PAUSD and  CoPA.  I am disappointed in the city and PAUSD for not proactively supporting Cubberley, for allowing Cubberley to  become underused and to fall into disrepair over the years when there was UUT money approved to care for it. I am  disappointed at the finger pointing and barbs pointed in both directions that has ensued over time rather than creative  problem‐solving. I am disappointed in PAUSD for their lack of cooperation during so much of the planning process. Given  the current state of things, it seems to me much more efficient to have one agency managing this facility than this  patchwork lease arrangement which sets a stage for more conflict between the agencies. We need better cooperation.     In 2011, I said this to PAUSD and CoPA, “Old agreements will either be discarded or evolve.  We need our representatives  at PAUSD and the city to start working together with community members, actively and transparently, to find a new path  forward—or we will find ourselves at a crisis point when the Cubberley lease is up.  We all need to be at the table  together to find a solution that works for the community…Palo Alto can find a new, creative solution to this old problem  if we work together.  We have done it before.”    I still believe that it is possible to good people to work together in good faith to solve this important community  problem.     City staff says they are “working on” finding homes for valued community services though they make no promise to  make sure these services stay in Palo Alto and they do not provide much in the way of specifics about where those  future placements might be.       We are all frustrated by current circumstances, however,  I think that it is premature to make this change when:     PAUSD voted to approve the lease because they felt the city’s unilateral announcement that they were changing  the lease left them with no other alternative. I worry that this is bad for any future cooperation between the  agencies.   Staff says they “are working” to find homes for valued community services that currently are at  Cubberley.  When pressed,  staff did not offer a clear answer on this.  They said that PAUSD has the list of the  month‐to‐month tenants and “may”  lease to them, probably at higher rates more consistent with what PAUSD  gets at other sites. (If PAUSD can get higher tent, why couldn’t the city?  Staff was not certain, however, that  these lease agreements would be realized. If not at Cubberley, where else in Palo Alto will organizations like the  Chamber Orchestra go?)  4  We don’t understand what will happen to the Children’s Preschool Center play yard, and this important child  care provider cannot function under state licensing without that outdoor space.   We don’t understand what will happen to the music groups in M wing.    I’m sure there are many more questions like these that haven’t occurred to me since I saw the staff report for the first  time this morning. Suffice to say,  I am disappointed that these cuts are being made before PAUSD has figured out their  plan for the fall term and before the city has made sure that valued services will not be lost.  It seems premature.    I have worked in good faith on finding a path for Cubberley, and watched the process disrupted both by the city and  PAUSD at different times.  This disruption does not reflect concern about delivering the distribution of services across  town that the Comp Plan requires.    Thank you for considering my comments.    Sincerely,    Penny Ellson                Virus-free. www.avg.com   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Sbcglobal Fred <fkohler@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, June 17, 2020 12:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cubberley lease CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I strongly support the proposed 54‐month lease for Cubberley.  It has been public for weeks and already approved by  the school district.  There has been no public forum supporting a shorter lease term.    To try to shorten the terms at the last minute without the opportunity for community input demonstrates regrettable  lack of transparency.  The council should not renegotiate the terms without clearly stating its rationale and providing the  opportunity for members of the public to provide rebuttal to their thinking.      Fred Kohler  Resident of University South  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Mike Cobb <mike@mikecobbcreative.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 17, 2020 2:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:RECONSIDERATION OF CUBBERLEY LEASE ... COMMENTS FOR SPECIAL MEETING TONIGHT CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  NOTE:  The following is an updated/edited version of a note previously sent to Councilmembers Kou, DuBois, and Filseth  … I would like to share these thoughts              with the entire Council.    Honorable Councilmembers —   I understand that tonight you will again be considering the future of Cubberley. As I consider Cubberley, I am reminded of the Larry O’Brien book from the 70s: “No Final Victories”! Going back some 30 years, I have had a leadership role in the on-going effort to save Cubberley for the benefit of the entire community. We have had some victories over those many years, but are now in danger of losing all that has been accomplished and gained. The City’s apparent effort to use the pandemic as an excuse to end the historic lease agreement with the PAUSD could have major negative consequences for the future of community services and benefits in Palo Alto. All with virtually no public outreach and discussion. Based on the responses to Councilmember Kou’s recent survey, we know that preservation of community services is a very high priority for the public — a priority that surely takes precedence over some the capital projects anticipated in the current City budget. Given that the PAUSD is not in the land management business … and really doesn’t want to and shouldn't be … both the maintenance and future uses of Cubberley will be seriously compromised if they have to take over the site. Given their need for revenues, they could easily be tempted to make short term or even long term decisions which could seriously compromise or even eliminate some of the options that have been proposed by community studies to develop the site in a way that would benefit the entire community. Cubberley is the last large parcel of land in Palo Alto that is in public ownership. Two studies, the more recent professional study and the earlier community-based study (which I co-chaired), both suggest a number of creative ways to use the site to the benefit of the entire community … both the PAUSD and the City. I cannot imagine the PAUSD successfully managing a long-term project of that magnitude and importance … or even being willing to take it on. Dealing with the budget impacts of the pandemic has put both the City and the PAUSD in a difficult financial position. Throwing the Cubberley situation at the PAUSD, whose only interest in Cubberley is for it to be available IF needed for a third high school … which it is likely may never happen … will virtually guarantee a bad outcome and a great opportunity lost. It will leave the site in limbo where it will further deteriorate and be subject to damaging and option-limiting short-term decisions which will severely compromise if not entirely eliminate its long-term benefit to both the PAUSD and the City. During the pandemic, everyone is taking a hit. Many are out of work, Many businesses will struggle to return. And, yes, the City will also have to struggle to return to its pre-pandemic situation. We all have to pay a price. I submit that you should lead the City to a short term ‘solution’ where the lease is either temporarily 2 significantly reduced or even put on hold until circumstances have improved and then restored after we have been able to return to something resembling normal. This reduction in income to the PAUSD would be one of the ‘hits’ that the PAUSD would have to bear in the short term to preserve our options for the long term. The ‘price’ the City would pay would be to fund an agreed-to short term reduction in rent by postponing one or more capital projects that do not have to be done in the near term. Please, don’t make the City pay the larger price of losing the benefits of Cubberley to future generations. Surely, there are some capital projects in the coming year that could be delayed to cover the reduced Cubberley lease payment for this period when we all have to step back. Whether you are a preservationist (as I am) or one who encourages significant housing growth, one thing we can surely share is that Palo Alto will always be able to provide exceptional services to its residents. In my State of the City speech during my last term as Mayor, I said that we (the Council) are “the custodians of the present and the architects of the future.” Someday, you will leave the Council. How will you care for the present so we can preserve the community vision in the design of Cubberley for the future? Don’t make the loss of Cubberley … and that vision ... the legacy of your Council service. — Mike Cobb   Mike Cobb mike@mikecobbcreative.com Mike Cobb Creative 721 Colorado Ave., #103 Palo Alto, CA 94303 t: www.mikecobbcreative.com       Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com> Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 11:28 AM To:Neilson Buchanan Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Kamhi, Philip; Dave Price; Jocelyn Dong; Gennady; Norm Beamer; J T Gusilin; planningcommission@cityofpaloalto.org; Allen Akin; Mary Dimit; Marion Odell; Tricia Dolkas; Geetha Sirkantan; Jan Merryweather; Sallyann Rudd; Ted Davids; Vita Gorbunova; Geoff Ball; Chris Selberg; Sally-Ann Rudd Subject:Re: President Hotel parking questions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Tricky, aren’t they?      The senior care center could sell its parking to restaurants and retailers under the new ‘Summer Streets’ program, I  believe. Just shove everything to the neighborhoods . . . .  Carol Scott   Sent from my iPad      On Jun 12, 2020, at 11:17 AM, Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> wrote:     Dear Council, Ed, Jonathan and Philip Please note the President Hotel article today on Palo Alto Online Here is my post today to Palo Alto Online Murky Math..... Here is my challenge to Mayor and City Manager. The developer apparently has cut a deal with a senior care facility at 330 Everett to use their onsite parking. OK? or maybe not OK! 1. Does the senior care facility have excess parking capacity to "sell/lease" to private organizations such AJ Capital and Epiphany Hotel? If so, what are the long-term provisions to assure parking, presumably valet, for guests? A vague promise to lease parking space for unknown terms is not a solution. This is old Palo Alto Council and Staff kicking the can down the road. Possibly bad city policy and administration. When will we ever learn? 2. Where will the hotel employees, executives and guest park? Aren't they ineligible for city garage parking due to archaic, unpublished allocation rules out of public view? 3. Is the valet parking agreement with Epiphany Hotel still valid and in play? 4. The onsite parking at the senior care facility was required by the city and intended for guests and employees. Is the 330 Everett senior care facility "selling off" its required 2 parking capacity to two private hotels and obtaining non-resident permits for employees? This is not a good neighbor situation. 5. Palo Alto residents now have a professionally staffed Office of Transportation. Their analysis is vital to understanding impact. Promises from only a Chicago developer and Jonathan Lait would be subpar. Palo Alto prepares to approve conversion of President Hotel    Palo Alto prepares to approve conversion of President Hotel A plan to convert the iconic President Hotel building from residences to a boutique hotel could be approved this...     Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Redacted Redacted 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 11:18 AM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Kamhi, Philip Cc:Dave Price; Jocelyn Dong; Gennady; Norm Beamer; J T Gusilin; planningcommission@cityofpaloalto.org; Allen Akin; Mary Dimit; Marion Odell; Tricia Dolkas; Geetha Sirkantan; Jan Merryweather; Sallyann Rudd; Ted Davids; Vita Gorbunova; Geoff Ball; Chris Selberg; Sally-Ann Rudd Subject:President Hotel parking questions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council, Ed, Jonathan and Philip Please note the President Hotel article today on Palo Alto Online Here is my post today to Palo Alto Online Murky Math..... Here is my challenge to Mayor and City Manager. The developer apparently has cut a deal with a senior care facility at 330 Everett to use their onsite parking. OK? or maybe not OK! 1. Does the senior care facility have excess parking capacity to "sell/lease" to private organizations such AJ Capital and Epiphany Hotel? If so, what are the long-term provisions to assure parking, presumably valet, for guests? A vague promise to lease parking space for unknown terms is not a solution. This is old Palo Alto Council and Staff kicking the can down the road. Possibly bad city policy and administration. When will we ever learn? 2. Where will the hotel employees, executives and guest park? Aren't they ineligible for city garage parking due to archaic, unpublished allocation rules out of public view? 3. Is the valet parking agreement with Epiphany Hotel still valid and in play? 4. The onsite parking at the senior care facility was required by the city and intended for guests and employees. Is the 330 Everett senior care facility "selling off" its required parking capacity to two private hotels and obtaining non-resident permits for employees? This is not a good neighbor situation. 5. Palo Alto residents now have a professionally staffed Office of Transportation. Their analysis is vital to understanding impact. Promises from only a Chicago developer and Jonathan Lait would be subpar. Palo Alto prepares to approve conversion of President Hotel       4 Palo Alto prepares to approve conversion of President Hotel A plan to convert the iconic President Hotel building from residences to a boutique hotel could be approved this...    Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com Redacted Redacted 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Arthur Keller <arthur@kellers.org> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 11:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Two Agenda items CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council,    Re President Hotel Apartments  How can this possibly be back on the agenda after it was thoroughly shown to be incompatible with current zoning?  Maybe a few dollars of impact fees?    Re 3300 El Camino Real  How do you take a piece of land with parking for another project, and create one building with offices just barely offset  by a building taller than others, and call it a project?    If you turned down both projects, you would be further ahead in reducing the jobs‐housing imbalance.    Best regards,  Arthur      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ian Klaus <ianrklaus@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 17, 2020 8:04 AM To:Council, City; PAC Subject:On the Reduction of PAC Membership Numbers CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,     On May 11, the Council voted to reduce the number of Public Art Commission (PAC) members from seven to five.  Council Member Tanaka proposed that the Council consult the PAC. That suggestion was not supported, so while I have  served as a Commissioner on the PAC since 2018, I send along my views only as a Palo Alto resident.    The value of public spaces, and access to them and the art therein, has been again demonstrated during the Shelter‐in‐ Place orders, during the recent protests at City Hall and subsequent public art proposals in support of Black Lives Matter,  and in the campaign to enable wider access to Foothills Park.     The recent decision to suspend the "percent‐for‐art" program puts at risk art in public spaces that can be accessed by all.  While that decision is hopefully an ongoing conversation, and one taking place in the context of larger budgetary  pressures, the decision to reduce the number of PAC members threatens public art from another perspective. Just as  budgetary resources are often necessary to acquire, develop or support art, a diversity of perspectives, expertises, and  professional and personal backgrounds is necessary when championing art for public spaces.     Council discussion in advance of the vote to reduce the number of members referenced the difficult budgetary moment.  I know this cannot be dismissed. But PAC members volunteer their time, and a reduction from seven to five will not  significantly reduce the number of meetings or meeting time.     With five members, the PAC could perhaps be slightly more efficient, and it might be easier to make progress on the  issues I think most pressing; but I cannot know for certain which issues will fail to be advanced by the overall reduction  in perspective, nor can the Council. As such, I write to encourage the Council to reconsider the reduction as it likely  means not just fewer people, but fewer perspectives.    Regards,  Ian Klaus  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nicole Hindley <nicolesyoga@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Calm traffic on university ave or side streets CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi Council,  Please consider more traffic calming downtown as restaurants and retail open. It will keep pedestrians and bikes save.  It will also make the atmosphere more enjoyable for all of us.  Thank you!!    Nicole Hindley    674 Webster St. Palo Alto CA 94301    Sent from my iPhone  Redacted 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Nicole Zoeller <nicole.zoeller@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, June 14, 2020 4:30 PM To:Council, City Cc:Arnout Boelens Subject:THANK YOU! We're enjoying the new California Ave! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council ‐      Our family would like to thank you for moving forward with the closure of California Avenue to vehicles; early  observations indicate it's quite a success! With ample space to walk/ride and seating available at a safe social distance,  after months of staying home, we finally feel comfortable enjoying local businesses.     We also noticed that chalk lines were added on Friday through the middle of the street to help guide bikes and  pedestrians safely through as some seating from restaurants was making for a tight squeeze and crowded areas. We're  glad this was thoughtfully done.    And, while we understand this is a temporary closure as part of the "Summer Streets" program, we certainly hope  residents and businesses alike come to appreciate the sense of community a ped & bike‐friendly thoroughfare brings.  There's something very special about enjoying an iced latte outside and observing the hustle and bustle of people and  bikes! We would love to see this become a permanent installation in our city.    Thanks again for helping make this happen. Fingers crossed that University Avenue follows soon!    Sincerely,   Nicole, Arnout, and Ava Zoeller Boelens  3 Baumb, Nelly From:john@kovalfamily.com Sent:Thursday, June 11, 2020 1:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support of Closing University Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council,    Please move forward with the program you are contemplating to jumpstart small businesses in Palo Alto return to  solvency in Palo Alto. Our city is made up of unique contributors to our city character and need help ASAP!    In order to build our economy up quickly, I am asking the city council to temporarily close the downtown core of  University Avenue from Middlefield to Alma and the side streets (i.e. Cowper, Bryant, etc.) from Hamilton to Lytton to  vehicle traffic. A similar closure should be put in place on California Avenue in the area where the farmers market is  held. We have plenty of unused parking garages for the patrons and most people from the neighborhood walk anyway!    The area would become a pedestrian and outdoor eating area for 6 months to promote social distancing, while allowing  these small business to get back in action with more customers (us!!). This would help everyone with improving  revenues and give Palo Alto a unique advantage over other cities in the bay area!    Regards,  John Koval  Palo Alto  4 Baumb, Nelly From:S S Feldman <ssfeldman1@me.com> Sent:Thursday, June 11, 2020 11:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:University Ave. Closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I support closing off the downtown area of University Ave. to cars to make more room for pedestrians and outdoor  diners.  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Ashish Gupta <ashish@helionvc.com> Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 9:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:support for shutting down streets in favor of restaurants CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Hi,  i am writing to support that we shut down univ ave, cal ave etc to allow  restaurants to use the streets    regards.      Ashish     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Franco Campilongo <info@terunpizza.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 5:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:Thank you. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Thank you city council.    Thank you Palo Alto !   Thursday , Friday , Saturday and Sunday people enjoyed California Ave outdoor  seating, we were very very busy , numbers on sale are going back to BC (  before  covid 19) , that’s Amazing, yes we can hire more people, less  unemployment, I had time to reach to some new Costomers , many first timers  on California Avenue Palo Alto , coming from San Jose , Los Gatos, Santa Clara ,  Cupertino  they said that the reason they came was because they saw on the  news that California Ave was close , and everyone loved it , Palo Alto  becomes a  destination place like Santana Raw .   Palo Alto is leading the way of “innovation “ again, not only in the high tech  world.  Honored of being part of this community.  Thank you .     Maico Campilongo Owner Of Terùn and iTalico Restaurant & C.   My cell.     Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Karen Kesner <karen.kesner@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 6:29 PM To:Council, City; Patrik Westin Subject:2nd Request, please: Budget for Palo Alto Childerns Theatre (PACT) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council, We understand the final budget decision is June 22. We are writing again to respectively ask for your re-consideration and support of PACT budget for the upcoming year to support the breath of opportunity, development and creativity theatre offers. Severe budget cuts discontinues a lot of the incredible opportunity theatre offers our children that include virtual and hybrid programs and loss of key staff members in this unfortunate pandemic where interaction and brian stimulation is so, so important. Please may we ask that you review the proposal sent to the Council by FOPACT which helps maintain more needed staff and relies on community donations and fundraising to help with the budget. We are happy to provide any further feedback. Do not hesitate to reach out. Kind Regards, Karen Kesner Patrik Westin   On Wed, May 27, 2020 at 12:46 PM Karen Kesner <karen.kesner@gmail.com> wrote:  Dear City Council, We have respectively asked Kimberly Thacker to keep us informed of City Council review of Children's Theatre budget. Our 9 year old daughter has been involved in classes and a play at PACT for the last 2 seasons. She is enrolled for a July summer camp and planning her next school hear entering 4th grade at Walter Hays to say very involved in theater. She has been so inspired by the incredible staff and program she is passionate to continue her pursuant. I am sure you have received a lot of feedback how much theatre helps with the development of children - their confidence, memorization, teaming, managing when they are not cast for a part, and inspiring their school learning - writing stories for plays, sharing their stories with classmates. Children's Theatre has been life changing for our daughters confidence, and passion. We saw the news the morning under the revised budget, the Children's Theatre will see major cuts. https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/05/26/facing-budget-shortfall-palo-alto-agrees-to-cut-more-than-70- positions We are emailing our plea, please! First, thank you to the Council for adding back in the budget for performances and for all the hard work the City Council is doing during this unfortunate pandemic. We do very much appreciate the City Council support of the Children's Theatre. We are concerned the high level of staff cuts will not allow the theatre to continue in creating and implementing virtual programs during these tough times when they are so needed for our children. These cuts will make future programs and performances difficult because we need each of their unique talents and areas of expertise, and will put artists out of work during a time of economic crisis where they will have extreme difficulty finding other positions - plus we may lose them in the mean time when the budget recovers (hopefully) after the pandemic and we want them back. Please may we ask that you review the proposal sent to the Council by FOPACT which helps maintain more needed staff and relies on community donations and fundraising to help with the budget. 2 Do not hesitate to reach out for any further feedback about the positive significant impact Palo Alto Children's Theatre has had on our daughter, and the wonderful support she has experienced through the classes, program, and staff. Kind Regards, Karen Kesner Patrik Westin 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Kim <kmevel703@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 8:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Children's Theater CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I'd like to strongly ask you to re‐consider funding for the Children's Theater!!!    This is the third email I am writing because of how important this institution is to Palo Alto!   Elizabeth Kim   169 Tasso Street  Palo Alto, CA 94301  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Anant Singh <anant@acubedadvisory.com> Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 9:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Children’s Theater: FOPACT Request CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Member,    My name is Anant Singh. I am a Palo Alto resident and President of the Board for the Friends of the Palo Alto Children's Theatre (FOPACT).     FOPACT has worked in a public/private partnership with the City of Palo Alto for more than 50 years to support the Palo Alto Children's Theatre; providing volunteer help and funds for outreach, creative projects, and teaching artists not included in the City budget. FOPACT is proud to work with Children's Theatre staff to produce performing arts programs that serve 64,000 + community members each year. Annually increased revenue, participation numbers and award- winning programs are all marked indicators of organizational success. During an average season, the Children’s Theatre structure is divided into four programming elements: 1) Main Stage Season, a season of seven professionally realized theatrical productions, on both indoor and outdoor stages; 2) Playhouse Production Series, featuring local teen performers, presenting familiar fairy-tales for pre-k audience members; 3) Outreach Initiatives, serving all twelve Palo Alto Unified School District elementary schools with Dance in Schools programs for K-2 students and on-site theatrical productions for grades 3 – 5; 4) Low-cost and subsidized education programs, with classes and camps for youth age 3 and up. In March, as soon as Spring Classes and Productions had to be postponed and canceled due to the Covid-19 crisis, the Children's Theatre staff pivoted, creating virtual classes and events online, providing their community with program continuity and support. Now, the Children's Theatre is currently serving more than 800 community members each week with virtual performing arts classes. In addition to the classes, which include the Dance in Schools classes for all K-2 PAUSD Elementary School students, the theatre has multiple workshops in progress, including a collaborative script writing project with Children's Theatre participants, virtual Playhouse Productions with teens, and FOPACT has commissioned multiple professional Bay Area Artists to produce original works of theatre for young audiences.     We understand current conditions and corresponding budget challenges. FOPACT is also looking at a year of significant revenue loss, as most of our funding comes from individual donations which are tied directly to the theatre's live performances, as well as advertising and concessions revenue, and in-person fundraising events. Though extremely difficult at this time when live events and fundraising activities are not possible, FOPACT is hoping to work with the City of Palo Alto to maintain an important subset of the Children's Theatre's core staff; the professionals who are critical to the foundational programs that we provide to the community. To this end, we will pledge to help offset the City's revenue shortfalls through a direct donation to the City of $90,000 and in-kind support of $150,000 toward non-personnel program costs. The theatre staff is equally committed to reduce program-related expenses, which will enable us to continue class and camp programs, as well as produce 2 Main Stage productions and the 2020-21 Playhouse Series (with social distancing measures in place).    However, the theatre cannot continue to meet the community demand for their programs if their staff is reduced by the nearly 50% that is now planned. The current reduction to the Children's Theatre budget is $700,000 from a base budget of $1.7 million, and a reduction of FTE from 12.66 (6 full time, and 6.6 part-time) down to 7.16 (5 full time and 2.16 part- time), which is insufficient to maintain the theatre's vital core functions, whether virtual or in-person. With our pledge of $240,000 of support, we are hoping that the Council will consider restoring 2.52 FTE to the Children's Theatre staff (1.0 in full-time and 1.52 in part-time), at a cost of approximately $190,000, to maintain the programs that continue to serve thousands of Palo Alto youth and their families, year-round.  Thank you for your generous service to the City of Palo Alto,   and for your time in considering this proposal.   5 Please feel free to let me know if you have any questions.   You can also call me anytime at 650-269-7865    Best regards,  Anant Singh    https://www.linkedin.com/in/anantsingh1/  Redacted 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Vered Maor Semel <vsemel@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 9:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Children Theater - so important to our community CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Dear Council board members,    I would like to urge you to please reconsider the funding and cuts which are almost half of the theatre's budget. The theatre is so important to our kids' lives, including virtual and hybrid programs during the pandemic and also important as part of our community. We are all concerned about losing staff who all have unique experiences and need your support to continue this wonderful program.    Thank you,  Vered Semel  ‐‐         Redacted 7 Baumb, Nelly From:Ella Thomson <ehthomson007@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 9:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Children‘s Theater Funding CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To whom it may concern,    My name is Ella Thomson, and for the past five years, I have participated in programs at the Palo Alto Children’s Theater regularly. I recently heard that the theater may receive a cut in funding, meaning there wouldn't be performances for at least two years. I advise you change your decision.  The Palo Alto Children’s Theater provides children of all ages a place to perform. Unlike many school productions, Children’s Theater performances are well-organized, and actors must attend performances for two or three weeks. The experience is much different and actors meet people they wouldn’t at school, as well as learning valuable lessons about acting. For two year’s worth of eight-year-olds to miss performing at PACT would be terrible; so many kids would not experience the wonderful place that is the Palo Alto Children’s Theater.  The Children’s Theater is not only for actors. There are stage crew members, who control things that are usually run by adults in school plays, and learn how to use things like fly rails, which might not even be available at their schools. There are also ushers, children who hand out programs, check tickets, and clean up after the audience leaves. The audience members also have great experiences. I remember as a young child, we went to see a performance in the outdoor theater. I almost instantly knew that I wanted to act at the theater, and, when I was finally eight, even counted down the days on my calendar until my first audition. It is often from seeing PACT performances that kids are inspired and hope to be a part of them one day themselves. If for two years people cannot see these performances, some children may never learn of the wonders of acting.  Finally, PACT is like a second home to so many people. The adults who work there are caring, kind, funny, and break the barriers between adults and children. The actors and stage crew members always make you feel welcome, and it would be upsetting not to see them because there are no plays or musicals to participate in. The memories I have from PACT are so interesting, meaningful, and funny, and I would like to have time to make some more.  In short, the Palo Alto Children’s Theater deserves its usual funding because it provide children with an amazing place to be. The performances are well above school-level, and it is not only a place for actors. The friendships, memories, and experiences it brings to so many children are worth the funding, and certainly many others would agree. Thank you for your consideration.    Best,  Ella Thomson  8 Baumb, Nelly From:Yair Blumenfeld <yairb@stanford.edu> Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 6:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Supporting the Palo Alto Children's Theatre CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear council,    As you are considering budget cuts in the coming months I strongly request that you maintain the funding for the Palo  Alto Children’s Theatre. The theatre affects so many families in Palo Alto, and is a cultural gem for both attendees and  the children who perform there.     Sincerely,    Yair    Yair J. Blumenfeld, MD  Associate Professor  Division of Maternal‐Fetal Medicine  Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology  Stanford University School of Medicine    Director, Fetal Therapy  Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Stanford    9 Baumb, Nelly From:sherry heller <Sherry_Mark@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, June 11, 2020 7:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Children’s Theatre CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Councilmembers,  I am writing to ask you to please find a way to redirect additional City funds to save our Palo Alto Children’s Theatre. While I was heartened to hear that some funds had been reinstated, the current cuts still planned will be devastating to this organization. These drastic cuts jeopardize the theatre’s ability to continue creating and offering virtual programs, which are lifelines right now for many creative youth who have been forced into near isolation. Furthermore, they will severely hamper the theatre’s ability to bring back live performances once it is safe, due to the loss of critical staff who may not be available to come back. I understand that FOPACT has submitted a proposal that can help maintain more staff via increased community funding. I hope that you will fully consider this proposal and do everything possible to help keep this treasured community asset intact. Thank you, Sherry Heller Sent from my iPad  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Michele Wang <meeshwang@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 6:24 PM To:Clerk, City Cc:Council, City Subject:Question - Will the City Council Approve the Proposal from the Friends of the Palo Alto Children's Theatre (FOPACT)? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi, My name is Michele Wang and I’ve lived in Palo Alto for 20 years.  I have raised my 2  children here and I am a proud resident.   I am also a proud Board Member of the Friends of the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre  (FOPACT).  Sadly, in the latest budget the city has proposed to cut 41% of the operating budget for  the Palo Alto Children’s Theatyre (PACT).  If this is the case, the Children’s Theatre will NOT be  able to do all the amazing programming planned to help our youth feel connected and heard.  The  Palo Alto Children’s Theatre will be losing over 5 FTE employees.   However, The FOPACT have a PROPOSAL.  If the city restores $190K (or just over 2.5 FTE), then  FOPACT will be willing to give $90K back to the city and offer $150K for direct support (non‐ personnel program costs) to the PACT.     It’s a true win win proposal.  We have submitted this, but we feel like FOPACT is not being  heard.  We want to partner with the city and help keep the PACT running to serve our  community and youth.  I urge you to look into this proposal and please restore a small portion of the funds so that we  can keep this valuable resource serving our community.      Thank you,     Michele Wang    Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Teri Llach <llachteric@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 1:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Close Churchill CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello again     I live on Churchill and I wanted to ask once more for you to please close Churchill.     I have been to many meetings and have talked about this for some time and I thank you for the opportunity to talk and  email you again.     Bottom line is that we all want what is best for Palo Alto and our neighborhood. But we need to listen to the facts not a  handful of mistruths!     I think, unfortunately, a few individuals in Southgate are representing those of us who want Churchill closed as money  hungry folks who want a park in front of their house. I know for a fact that no one on the long list of people who want a  quieter neighborhood and a safe Churchill have ever said anything about property values or having a park. I have no  interest in these type of mistruths.     We certainly don’t want to lose our homes or have part of our property taken. We don’t want a bunch of cars driving  fast to get over the tracks and to 101. I have lost pets to cars that didn’t even stop. I bought here 20 years ago and have  lived in this area my entire life. I don’t mind a busy street but over 20 years, Churchill has changed and it’s not local  traffic, it is not safe.  I am sorry that some small group of people want to misrepresent our motives (pls note that many  of the close Churchill group don’t even live on Churchill).     I also have NO doubt that if this small group lived anywhere near Churchill, they would want it closed just like the street  by Peers Park. They would drive an extra few minutes and use one of the many crossing to the other side of Palo Alto if  the road they lived on was as difficult, unsafe and noisy as Churchill is today. We need to think about the facts and doing  a partial underpass and leaving Churchill is not the best option.     We will all get used to a closed Churchill, we have gotten used to face masks at the grocery store so we can get used to a  few extra minutes driving. The facts say close Churchill   1. MILLIONS to build a partial underpass. We can’t spend that money when it’s not needed. Just fix Embarcadero  and Oregon.  2. Years to build and disruption of our streets, kids  3. Safety of the neighborhood – the police and fire said no problem closing Churchill and biking will be so much  easier – isn’t biking better than cars!     The facts are clear – close Churchill, save millions, make our streets quieter and safer.     Please close it    Teri Llach p: Redacted 2 w: www.terillach.com e: llachteric@gmail.com       3 Baumb, Nelly From:Amber G. La <amber_la@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:33 AM To:Council, City; Transportation; Expanded Community Advisory Panel Cc:Ann Nguyen; Kathy Johnson; Diane Rolf; Zaid A. Kahn; Diane Rolfe Subject:XCAP Churchill Closure Option #2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, Department of Transportation and the XCAP community members, I am a concerned and dedicated resident of Palo Alto. Thank you for detailing the Alma projects with photos and map overviews. I am grateful for the information in a clear manner. I live on the 100 block of Kellogg. I strongly oppose placing a bike tunnel at the end of my block. I support bicycles and Palo Alto High students. However a tunnel on the 100 block of Kellogg is not the solution. Historically the bike route to Paly has been via Churchill. I am not sure why it should be rerouted to my block. Can someone please explain this? I would like to point out that the three hundred, two hundred and one hundred blocks of Kellogg already deals with increased drop off and pick up traffic from Castilleja. Castilleja adds a lot of traffic to our neighborhood and they still do not abide by the student cap that they agreed to years ago. From drop off until well after 7PM many cars past through our block to drop off and pick up students at Castilleja. Many of these cars are large SUV driven by those who do not follow the 25 mile speed limit. There are many young families on the one hundred block of Kellogg including my own family. Our children have to be constantly cognizant of outsiders zooming pass our block. Adding a stream of Paly bicycles will only further exacerbate the traffic patterns and affect the lives of the families on Kellogg. We already struggle with Castilleja and their reluctance to follow the rules and who constantly disrespect this neighborhood. Kellogg can not handle the traffic of one more school! I bought my house in 2018 with the knowledge of Castilleja but there was nothing on the radar to indicate that we will be a bike lane for Paly students as well. How will the city indemnify my family and the other property owners for our property value loss due to increase school traffic and congestion? A bike tunnel brings a lot of crime, graffiti and a host of other undesirable activities we do not welcome on our block. How will the city maintain the safety of the families, students and community members who will use the tunnel? Why is a tunnel the only solution? What about an exposed bike overpass which does not harbor crime and graffiti? My street's appeal, accessibility, parking availability and property value will be affected negatively. I am acutely aware of the issues with the California Avenue tunnel and the crime and undesirable activities in that tunnel. How will the city indemnify my family and other property owners for the loss of property value to due to crime, graffiti and other associated problems? I would like to be fully involved in this process and speak about it publicly to advocate for the residents of Kellogg. Thank you for reading my concerns. I look forward to being involved in tomorrow's meeting. I would like my concerns addressed by the city council, department of transportation and XCAP. Respectfully, Amber La 160 Kellogg Ave Redacted 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Zaid Kahn <zaid@udp7.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 10:40 PM To:Council, City; Transportation Cc:Amber La Subject:Concerns on new Churchill Partial underpass option CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello, my name is Zaid Kahn and I am a resident of Kellogg Avenue, Palo Alto. I am writing to raise concerns over putting  a pedestrian/bike ramp on Kellogg ave. Speaking with my family and a number of residents from the street we strongly  disapprove of a pedestrian/bike ramp half way on Kellogg ave. This proposal will make Kellogg a bike street for Paly and  an additional burden to what we are already experiencing with Castilleja school. In the mornings and afternoons during  school rush hour, our street is already a busy street due to Castilleja pick up and drop off. Turning Kellogg into a bike  street will cause much more traffic and will be difficult to get in and out of our driveways. Another challenge is due to  the divider in the middle of Kellogg some of the residents will have a difficult time getting their car out to the street and  also placing trash bins.      Since Castilleja traffic is already a burden to Kellogg residents, enabling Kellogg as a bike street with a bike ramp will add  to more traffic to the street which is also unsafe for the number of children living on Kelogg. For the reasons above we  are in opposition of a pedestrian/bike ramp on Kellogg Ave.    Zaid  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Nicole Hindley <nicolesyoga@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Churchill intersection CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi Council,  Please finish the Churchill intersection at Alma and el Camino. We use it almost daily with our kids on bikes to cross. It  needs to be more bike friendly.  Thank you!!!    Nicole Hindley    674 Webster St. Palo Alto CA 94301    Sent from my iPhone  Redacted 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Baq Haidri <baqhaidri@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:snewzy@gmail.com Subject:Concerning Southgate Churchill Closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi City Council,     I am a resident homeowner in the Southgate neighborhood.  I wanted to raise my voice against closing Churchill.  I  would prefer one of the hybrid solutions that would allow traffic to continue to flow through.      Thanks,  Baq  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Transportation Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 12:00 PM To:Council, City Cc:Transportation Subject:FW: Concern related to the New Churchill Partial Underpass option     From: Hyunkyu Lee <psykyu@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 11:51 AM  To: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Kwangmoo Koh <deneb1@gmail.com>  Subject: Re: Concern related to the New Churchill Partial Underpass option    Hi Sarah,     Thank you for your quick response. I will send my comments to XCAP@CityofPaloAlto.org as well.     Best regards,   Kyu      Best,   Kyu      On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:55 AM Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Hello Ms. Lee,     Thank you for your email.  I will forward it along to personnel here within the Office of Transportation.      Another email box you are welcome to send grade‐separation related emails to is:  XCAP@CityofPaloAlto.org. Emails  sent there are viewable by XCAP members and the public; they are included in the meeting materials (agenda packet)  for XCAP meetings.     Sarah Wilson, Administrative Assistant  City of Palo Alto, Office of Transportation  Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org  8 (650) 329‐2520        From: Hyunkyu Lee <psykyu@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 9:59 AM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Kwangmoo Koh <deneb1@gmail.com>  Subject: Concern related to the New Churchill Partial Underpass option     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,       I am Kyu, a resident of Palo Alto.      First of all, I would like to thank you for your effort to make Palo Alto a better place.      Related to the "new Churchill underpass option", I would like to raise some concerns as a resident of Kellogg Avenue. It would be great if you consider those in your decision making.      I concern that the pedestrian/bike ramp on Kellogg will cause a lot of issues for the residents on the block. With the ramp extended to 2-3 houses on Kellogg, cars around the ramp might have a hard time to get out or into the driveway. There might not be enough space for garbage bins for their pick-up. Given there are many flag lots on Kellogg relying on street-parking, this change might cause a serious parking issue. According to the rendered image, Kellogg is one way street for those houses around the ramp, which limits the residents' access to Alma or to the east of Palo Alto.      I was wondering if you have considered those issues and have any plans to resolve them.   I really appreciated your hard work, and it would be great if you could answer the above concerns.     Best regards,   6 Baumb, Nelly From:Amber G. La <amber_la@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:33 AM To:Council, City; Transportation; Expanded Community Advisory Panel Cc:Ann Nguyen; Kathy Johnson; Diane Rolf; Zaid A. Kahn; Diane Rolfe Subject:XCAP Churchill Closure Option #2 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members, Department of Transportation and the XCAP community members, I am a concerned and dedicated resident of Palo Alto. Thank you for detailing the Alma projects with photos and map overviews. I am grateful for the information in a clear manner. I live on the 100 block of Kellogg. I strongly oppose placing a bike tunnel at the end of my block. I support bicycles and Palo Alto High students. However a tunnel on the 100 block of Kellogg is not the solution. Historically the bike route to Paly has been via Churchill. I am not sure why it should be rerouted to my block. Can someone please explain this? I would like to point out that the three hundred, two hundred and one hundred blocks of Kellogg already deals with increased drop off and pick up traffic from Castilleja. Castilleja adds a lot of traffic to our neighborhood and they still do not abide by the student cap that they agreed to years ago. From drop off until well after 7PM many cars past through our block to drop off and pick up students at Castilleja. Many of these cars are large SUV driven by those who do not follow the 25 mile speed limit. There are many young families on the one hundred block of Kellogg including my own family. Our children have to be constantly cognizant of outsiders zooming pass our block. Adding a stream of Paly bicycles will only further exacerbate the traffic patterns and affect the lives of the families on Kellogg. We already struggle with Castilleja and their reluctance to follow the rules and who constantly disrespect this neighborhood. Kellogg can not handle the traffic of one more school! I bought my house in 2018 with the knowledge of Castilleja but there was nothing on the radar to indicate that we will be a bike lane for Paly students as well. How will the city indemnify my family and the other property owners for our property value loss due to increase school traffic and congestion? A bike tunnel brings a lot of crime, graffiti and a host of other undesirable activities we do not welcome on our block. How will the city maintain the safety of the families, students and community members who will use the tunnel? Why is a tunnel the only solution? What about an exposed bike overpass which does not harbor crime and graffiti? My street's appeal, accessibility, parking availability and property value will be affected negatively. I am acutely aware of the issues with the California Avenue tunnel and the crime and undesirable activities in that tunnel. How will the city indemnify my family and other property owners for the loss of property value to due to crime, graffiti and other associated problems? I would like to be fully involved in this process and speak about it publicly to advocate for the residents of Kellogg. Thank you for reading my concerns. I look forward to being involved in tomorrow's meeting. I would like my concerns addressed by the city council, department of transportation and XCAP. Respectfully, Amber La 160 Kellogg Ave Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Teri Llach <llachteric@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 1:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please Close Churchill CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello again     I live on Churchill and I wanted to ask once more for you to please close Churchill.     I have been to many meetings and have talked about this for some time and I thank you for the opportunity to talk and  email you again.     Bottom line is that we all want what is best for Palo Alto and our neighborhood. But we need to listen to the facts not a  handful of mistruths!     I think, unfortunately, a few individuals in Southgate are representing those of us who want Churchill closed as money  hungry folks who want a park in front of their house. I know for a fact that no one on the long list of people who want a  quieter neighborhood and a safe Churchill have ever said anything about property values or having a park. I have no  interest in these type of mistruths.     We certainly don’t want to lose our homes or have part of our property taken. We don’t want a bunch of cars driving  fast to get over the tracks and to 101. I have lost pets to cars that didn’t even stop. I bought here 20 years ago and have  lived in this area my entire life. I don’t mind a busy street but over 20 years, Churchill has changed and it’s not local  traffic, it is not safe.  I am sorry that some small group of people want to misrepresent our motives (pls note that many  of the close Churchill group don’t even live on Churchill).     I also have NO doubt that if this small group lived anywhere near Churchill, they would want it closed just like the street  by Peers Park. They would drive an extra few minutes and use one of the many crossing to the other side of Palo Alto if  the road they lived on was as difficult, unsafe and noisy as Churchill is today. We need to think about the facts and doing  a partial underpass and leaving Churchill is not the best option.     We will all get used to a closed Churchill, we have gotten used to face masks at the grocery store so we can get used to a  few extra minutes driving. The facts say close Churchill   1. MILLIONS to build a partial underpass. We can’t spend that money when it’s not needed. Just fix Embarcadero  and Oregon.  2. Years to build and disruption of our streets, kids  3. Safety of the neighborhood – the police and fire said no problem closing Churchill and biking will be so much  easier – isn’t biking better than cars!     The facts are clear – close Churchill, save millions, make our streets quieter and safer.     Please close it    Teri Llach Redacted 2 w: www.terillach.com e: llachteric@gmail.com       3 Baumb, Nelly From:Nicole Hindley <nicolesyoga@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, June 11, 2020 3:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Churchill intersection CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi Council,  Please finish the Churchill intersection at Alma and el Camino. We use it almost daily with our kids on bikes to cross. It  needs to be more bike friendly.  Thank you!!!    Nicole Hindley  (  674 Webster St. Palo Alto CA 94301    Sent from my iPhone  Redacted 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Baq Haidri <baqhaidri@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 8:29 PM To:Council, City Cc:snewzy@gmail.com Subject:Concerning Southgate Churchill Closure CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi City Council,     I am a resident homeowner in the Southgate neighborhood.  I wanted to raise my voice against closing Churchill.  I  would prefer one of the hybrid solutions that would allow traffic to continue to flow through.      Thanks,  Baq  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Transportation Sent:Wednesday, June 10, 2020 12:00 PM To:Council, City Cc:Transportation Subject:FW: Concern related to the New Churchill Partial Underpass option     From: Hyunkyu Lee <psykyu@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 11:51 AM  To: Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Kwangmoo Koh <deneb1@gmail.com>  Subject: Re: Concern related to the New Churchill Partial Underpass option    Hi Sarah,     Thank you for your quick response. I will send my comments to XCAP@CityofPaloAlto.org as well.     Best regards,   Kyu      Best,   Kyu      On Wed, Jun 10, 2020 at 10:55 AM Transportation <Transportation@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Hello Ms. Lee,     Thank you for your email.  I will forward it along to personnel here within the Office of Transportation.      Another email box you are welcome to send grade‐separation related emails to is:  XCAP@CityofPaloAlto.org. Emails  sent there are viewable by XCAP members and the public; they are included in the meeting materials (agenda packet)  for XCAP meetings.     Sarah Wilson, Administrative Assistant  City of Palo Alto, Office of Transportation  Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org  6         From: Hyunkyu Lee <psykyu@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, June 10, 2020 9:59 AM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Transportation <Transportation@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Kwangmoo Koh <deneb1@gmail.com>  Subject: Concern related to the New Churchill Partial Underpass option     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,       I am Kyu, a resident of Palo Alto.      First of all, I would like to thank you for your effort to make Palo Alto a better place.      Related to the "new Churchill underpass option", I would like to raise some concerns as a resident of Kellogg Avenue. It would be great if you consider those in your decision making.      I concern that the pedestrian/bike ramp on Kellogg will cause a lot of issues for the residents on the block. With the ramp extended to 2-3 houses on Kellogg, cars around the ramp might have a hard time to get out or into the driveway. There might not be enough space for garbage bins for their pick-up. Given there are many flag lots on Kellogg relying on street-parking, this change might cause a serious parking issue. According to the rendered image, Kellogg is one way street for those houses around the ramp, which limits the residents' access to Alma or to the east of Palo Alto.      I was wondering if you have considered those issues and have any plans to resolve them.   I really appreciated your hard work, and it would be great if you could answer the above concerns.     Best regards,   Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Zaid Kahn <zaid@udp7.com> Sent:Monday, June 15, 2020 10:40 PM To:Council, City; Transportation Cc:Amber La Subject:Concerns on new Churchill Partial underpass option CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello, my name is Zaid Kahn and I am a resident of Kellogg Avenue, Palo Alto. I am writing to raise concerns over putting  a pedestrian/bike ramp on Kellogg ave. Speaking with my family and a number of residents from the street we strongly  disapprove of a pedestrian/bike ramp half way on Kellogg ave. This proposal will make Kellogg a bike street for Paly and  an additional burden to what we are already experiencing with Castilleja school. In the mornings and afternoons during  school rush hour, our street is already a busy street due to Castilleja pick up and drop off. Turning Kellogg into a bike  street will cause much more traffic and will be difficult to get in and out of our driveways. Another challenge is due to  the divider in the middle of Kellogg some of the residents will have a difficult time getting their car out to the street and  also placing trash bins.      Since Castilleja traffic is already a burden to Kellogg residents, enabling Kellogg as a bike street with a bike ramp will add  to more traffic to the street which is also unsafe for the number of children living on Kelogg. For the reasons above we  are in opposition of a pedestrian/bike ramp on Kellogg Ave.    Zaid  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Alex Woo <wooalex@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 10:16 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  While I don't mind opening this park, I think Palo Alto should charge for car entry just like other parks in the area and  close the entrance when it is full.  Alum Rock is $8.   Castle Rock is $10.  Huddard is $8.   Something in this ballpark.     On weekdays, the gate isn't manned now and non‐Palo Alto residents are already using this park.   Why not install a  kiosk where people can pay and put a tab on their dashboard like Huddard?    Alex Woo  3720 Redwood Cir, Palo Alto, CA 94306  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy Panayides <nancyp01@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 8:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I think the park should be kept for Palo Alto residents to 1. Help limit number of people in the park 2. Protect the wildlife habitat 3.  Reduce incidence of fire 4. It is paid for by Palo Alto    I don’t think we need to apologize for what we have in PA‐we work hard to pay to live here.    Consider letting other cities “buy‐in” if costs are the concern but make it be a significant cost( based on prorated share   by city size) on a 20‐25 year contract as it has been maintained by Palo Alto for all these years. Then set a quota of  entries per day to address # 1‐3 above. PA residents won’t be happy but at least not a budget issue    Nancy Panayides  974 Elsinore Ct  Sent from my iPhone  3 Baumb, Nelly From:rogersac@aol.com Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 7:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members I think it is more important to keep the overall number of people in the park fairly low. Irrespective of who may be allowed in, I think that only a certain number of cars should be allowed in at any one time. It is a very fragile nature preserve and having too many people in at any one time would be bad for the habitat. Perhaps open to all PA residents, but a certain number of outside residents allowed in on a reservation and charge per car basis. Additional to the keeping the nature preserve quality of the park, I am also very concerned about the safety issue. There is poor cell phone reception in the park and if something like a fire were to occur people would be hard to discover this unless or until they saw flames and smoke. If too many cars were trying to exit the park along with all those bikes and go down the hill on winding Page Mill Road, with all the resident cars doing the same while emergency vehicles were trying to go up the hill to the fire, there is just not enough alternative roads for the traffic to go. In a certain situation it may be a better idea to go up the hill to get away from the fire, but there is no way of knowing. So from the point of view of safety, the park is very vulnerable in an emergency as it only has one exit/entrance. I hope you will consider the fragility of the nature preserve as well as the safety aspects in a possible emergency situation. Thank you. Carol Rogers, Stockton Place. 4 Baumb, Nelly From:stephen wang <stephen_wang2000@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 6:32 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothill park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear members of the council,    As a Palo Alto resident, I do not support opening up foothill park to non Palo Alto residents.    The history of the park dictates that other communities were offered the chance to participate by also sharing the cost  of the land. This was declined by the other communities.    Keep Foothill park for our Palo Alto Community.    Respectfully,    Stephen Wang      5 Baumb, Nelly From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, June 14, 2020 6:07 PM To:Fine, Adrian; Council, City; Clerk, City; Planning Commission; Architectural Review Board Subject:Staff Vs COUNCIL Why is the CITY COUNCIL so Passive? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  From where I sit I see the Staff pushing the agenda to the City Council, then the Council has to respond. I always thought the the Council, who residents do elect, are in charge of the staff. It certainly doesn't look like that to me. Over the years the Staff has really NOT included/respected citizen committees, certainly has all but ignored their opinions, and their experience and knowledge. Now with the June agenda, organized by the staff, you are pushing an exhausted Council, who have since May 4th, two meetings a week lasting over 11 hours. Now huge decisions that supposedly have to be made before the summer break on June 29th. Some council members also have full time jobs. My opinion is that we NEED to keep the President hotel as low income housing, not a high class hotel, of which we already have many! Plus again no parking etc. Pre-screening for a major project at 3300 El Camino Real from what I see has not been vetted, what about the toxic gases that would be released near homes if this project would be approved. First we do not need more office buildings, we need LOW income housing, not market rate. Isn't it time for the developers who actually make these decisions to be held accountable to the environment and how it affect the surrounding community. There should be no allowence for any such toxicity. Foothills Park, Since Palo Alto residents paid for the park we have the final say in opening it up to others. Especially since other cities didn't join to help buy the land. Plus residents of P. A. have repeately been opposed to this, others can join as friends. Suzanne Keehn 4076 Orme St. 94307 6 Baumb, Nelly From:Danielle <danimewes@hotmail.com> Sent:Friday, June 12, 2020 5:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello to you all,  Thanks for the work you do; it is much appreciated.    I am writing about opening up Foothill Park.  What a wonderful gesture it would be at this time when White  Supremacy culture is being called out with protests across the world.  We privileged Palo Altans hold on tight  to what we have, including this wonderful piece of land.  It is time to let go of old grievances and give the  community at large access to Foothill Park.    Yes, it may become a bit more crowded.  Yes, it may require a bit more up keep, but I think we can handle it.  It's a park and parks are meant to be visited and enjoyed by everyone, not just the privileged few. We should  demonstrate that PA is making some changes.  We have an ugly history of redlining, particularly when it  comes to EPA.  It's time to do things differently.   Thanks,  Danielle Mewes    539 Seale Ave  Redacted 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Olivia Eck <olivia.eck@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 3:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good afternoon,     I am emailing to voice my opinion on the possibility that foothill park will be opened to all citizens, not just Palo Alto  residents. I think this would be a terrible shame and should absolutely not be done. The park is already crowded on  weekends and I fear that people coming from outside of Palo Alto would not treasure the land and treat it the way it  should be. As Palo Alto residents we pay a premium to maintain and upkeep the park. These costs would surely increase  with more traffic flow, trash and wildlife displacement from noise. I seriously urge you to keep the park private for Palo  Alto residents. It is already easy enough to get into the park without an ID (they have never checked when I go on the  weekdays) so at the very least, it should absolutely remain private on the weekends.     Thank you for your time,  Olivia Eck   2 Baumb, Nelly From:Eric Anderson <eta99@me.com> Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 3:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Opening Foothills Park? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi ‐    I am against opening Foothills Park to the world without restrictions.    If you believe the current political climate requires you to open Foothills Park to the world, then you should have a plan  to keep the numbers down.    Also, are you going to open camp site reservations to anyone? Again, restricting to residents keeps the number of  visitors down which enhances the experience for people who do camp there on occasion.    By the way, if Foothills Park isn’t something for the benefit of the people of Palo Alto, why not just give it up to MROSD  and let them handle it? In my view, any proposal that handles Foothills Park admission the same as MROSD does for the  OSP’s is equivalent to giving up the Park entirely. So why not just do that? It seems like the reason why is that the Park is seen as something of value to the citizens of Palo Alto.    ‐Eric Anderson  2321 Middlefield Rd.                Sent from my iPhone