Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200817plCC 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: 08/17/2020 Document dates: 7/29/2020 – 8/05/2020 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Eisenberg <rebecca@winwithrebecca.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 8:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Video during meetings. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi all! I'm so glad you are discussing these issues.  A couple points, for the written record.    1.  The purpose of the Brown Act is to increase transparency of government decision‐making processes by the public, so  it would be very helpful to have as many city council members and staff presenters on video if possible. (subject to  reasonable breaks of course).    2.  Re the public speaking ‐‐ allow whether or not to speak via video be the choice of the *speaker*.  That way those  who choose anonymity still can have anonymity, and those who recognize that their words are likely to have more  impact if the words are accompanied by videos, should have that opportunity. It currently deprives community members  of a chance to put their faces to their words to prohibit them from using videos if they want to. With optional videos,  there is no privacy concern. This is how most other meetings are run. The consensus of every study ever done to  measure the impact of video to words is that video gives greater impact to words. This is a clear improvement to the  democratic process.     3. Additionally, the risk of "zoom bombing" and other unexpected content on live publicized meetings is overstated.  In  the unusual event that such happens, you as moderators have the immediate ability to end the video and/or audio  stream, and you can remove inappropriate content from the archives, so there is no record of it. Having worked in live  television for several years, I saw first hand how seriously the vast majority of people take the opportunity to have their  voice heard, especially on official matters.     As such, the council can view the advantages and disadvantages of additional use of video as:     Benefit:  100% certainty of a strong improvement to the democratic process, vs    Cost:  An unsupported risk of a very short amount of inappropriate video content (prior to video being shut off by  meeting host)    The choice is clear: enable democracy, transparency, and accountability for the government. Preserve anonymity,  privacy, and protection for the community.  Making video mandatory (when possible) for our city, and optional for the  community, fulfills all goals.     Thank you for considering.     Best,   Rebecca            2 ‐‐   Win With Rebecca! iGana con Rebeca! Rebecca Eisenberg for Palo Alto City Council www.winwithrebecca.com Donate here: https://secure.actblue.com/donate/rebeccaeisenberg Read about Rebecca in the Palo Alto Weekly: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2020/05/12/palo-alto-attorney-plans-to-seek-city-council-seat Contact Rebecca: rebecca@winwithrebecca.com 415-235-8078 1 Baumb, Nelly From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 5:37 PM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Aug. 3, 2020 City Council Agenda Item #5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,     Regarding Council Agenda Item #5:  Approve and Authorize the City Manager or Designee to Execute the Following  Utilities Communication, Graphic Design and Marketing Services Contracts in a Combined Not‐to‐Exceed Amount of  $200,000 Annually and a Combined Not‐to‐Exceed Amount of $1,000,000 Over a Five‐year Term . . . "     My 97 year old blind neighbor heard that the City's contract for use of KZSU was cancelled due to our City's  budget cuts.  She is upset that she can no longer access City Council meetings as KZSU was the only way she had  access.  I am always amazed and inspired by her determination to keep up with what's happening in the City and  I am also upset on her behalf.     Additionally, it was my understanding that in case of a disaster, when cell towers and telephone lines are down  or overwhelmed, we should tune in to 90.1 FM, KZSU for news and instructions from the City.  Now that we can  no longer get local disaster news and instructions via KZSU, what is Plan B?  To me it seems that the City is prioritizing graphics and marketing over the possible loss of life and property during a  disaster from lack of proper notification to residents.  I hope you can carve out from the above proposed contracts, the  $20,000/year I heard was needed to keep this vital radio communications service going.    Thank you for considering my suggestion,  Esther Nigenda  Leland Manor Neighborhood Preparedness Coordinator      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rima Khoury <rima@fumari.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 4:10 PM To:Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Cormack, Alison; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Council, City Subject:City of Palo Alto Flavored Tobacco Ban Attachments:20200707 SB 793 Hookah Exemption Senator Hill.mp4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,     Before you inadvertently vote to ban the thousand year cultural tradition of hookah in the City of Palo Alto please  understand the facts.  There is no teen hookah epidemic.  The FDA and CDC reports have made it clear that hookah is not the problem with  youth. There are no facts that support a ban on hookah.      Hookahs are not being confiscated in schools.  Hookahs are 3 feet tall and cannot be easily concealed in your pocket or  backpack like vape.  Hookahs take 25 – 30 minutes to set up and need hot coals, therefore it cannot be smoked during  recess in the bathroom at school.  Hookah’s cost over $200 for all the parts and accessories, making it out of reach for  most kids.       California Gov. Gavin Newsom stated in his executive order address on September 16, 2019 that “hookah is not the  problem in classrooms”.    Furthermore, FDA recently stated in their Guidance for the Industry dated January 2020 that although data shows that  flavored tobacco entice youth, that such data does NOT appear to raise comparably urgent public health concerns with  youth usage of hookah products because the lower prevalence of youth use of these products suggests that they do NOT  appear to be as appealing to youth at this time. Emphasis added.    Hookah is not the problem.      Yet hookah is becoming collateral damage in the war against vape.  Hookah is not vape.  Hookah has been practiced for  over a thousand years by Arabs, Persians, Armenians, Turks and Indians, many of which have immigrated to America and  still practice their cultural traditions.  Hookah is the center piece of social gatherings and is often offered to guests as a  sign of hospitality and respect.       Many immigrant small business owners have built their business doing what they know from their home country.  Often  times they work 20 hour days, seven days a week to support multiple generations of their family. Rather than banning  hookah and crippling these immigrant small business owners, consider passing reasonable regulations that address  youth usage and access.  Many of these business owners that have been operating legally for years would be happy to  work with law makers to address youth access issues.  These hookah lounge and retailer owners often have several  years remaining on their leases and have personally guaranteed their leases.  They will not only lose their business, but  their homes and no longer be able to support their family and extended family.       A tobacco flavor ban is a ban on hookah because it only comes in flavors.  Even hundreds of years ago hookah was  made with molasses and honey.    The federal government has recently passed a 21 and over minimum for tobacco products across all fifty states.  In  addition, the FDA has passed an e‐cigg ban on flavored cartridges.  September 9, 2020 is the FDA deadline for all vape  and hookah products to be accepted for FDA review, after which any products without FDA authorization will be  unlawfully on the market and their products seized and injunctions restricting sales will be issued along with fines and  2 penalties.  The federal government is addressing the youth access issue and also providing legislation across the board,  eliminating the patchwork of laws from city to city and closing loop holes for bad actors to skirt the law.        Please note that hookah has been exempted from the California State flavored tobacco ban, SB793, because of its  cultural significance and that it is fundamentally different from vape.  Please see attached video of Senator Hill, author  of the bill, explaining why hookah was exempted from SB793 at the Senate Appropriations hearing on June 25th,  2020.  This bill passed with 31 yes and 4 no votes and will now go to the Assembly for a vote.       Senator Hill learned the difference between vape and hookah and understood that hookah was not the problem and  took steps to exempt it due to its cultural significance.  We ask that the City of Palo Alto do the same.      Please exempt hookah and preserve our cultural tradition.  Thank you.       https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9qlUH3hmvUc  The Culture of Hookah | An Exploration of History and Tradition         RIMA KHOURY, ESQ. GENERAL COUNSEL (619) 331-3535 EXT. 723 FUMARI INC.     The information in this email is confidential. It is intended only for the use of the individuals or entities named above. You are hereby notified that if you are not the intended recipient, or employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of the information in this email is strictly prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and delete the original. Thank you.     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Satomi Okazaki <satomi.kabocha@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 10:54 AM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto City Human Relations Commission and Steven Lee CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council,    We recently learned of the City Council’s decision to reduce the size of the Human Relations Commission.  We  understand that this group is comprised of volunteers, and it must be difficult to find people who are able to commit to  giving up their time.  But this group is in a position to do very important work in Palo Alto, especially now.       Given this difficult time we are living through, with the Coronavirus and associated biases as well as racial justice issues  and job/housing losses and inequality, it is a time when the city should especially look for more diversity in a group such  as the Human Relations Commission.  We also need someone who can be a champion for these important issues facing  Palo Alto.  We are deeply disappointed to lose someone like Steven Lee, who has shown himself to be proactive in to  reaching out to the community to hear the concerns of residents and working hard to allay these concerns.  We have  personally seen him advocate passionately and effectively for so many groups of underrepresented and disadvantaged  people in Palo Alto.      There should be more than enough room on the Human Relations Commission for someone like Steven Lee, who is  willing to volunteer his time and work hard for the people of Palo Alto.  Please reconsider and do not reduce the size of  the Human Relations Commission of Palo Alto.    Sincerely yours,    Eimi Okano, Satomi Okazaki, Kim Shimazaki, and Rika Yamamoto    2 Baumb, Nelly From:Harriet Stern <jacobeatrice@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 1:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Reducing the number of Commissioners of Public Art and Human Relation Commission CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    Please do not reduce the number of Commissioners of the Human Relations and Public Art Commissions, respectively.    They both need more diversity of opinion not less.    Now especially, with the country and Palo Alto reeling from social justice issues reducing the number of Commissioners  at this moment in time would be an error.  Palo Alto has its own systemic issues relating to public safety, diversity and  inclusivity,   You have many interesting and qualified candidates as potential commissioners.  Please allow their voices to  be heard.    The Public Art Commission handles a significant budget.  As long as the 1% for art initiative is in place, we need more  commissioners not fewer.  I am an applicant this time around and have observed that you have many qualified  candidates including two incumbents, one who is seeking a third term.  This is my second time applying to be a Public  Art Commissioner.  Just after I settled in Palo Alto, ten years ago I applied.  At that time the other four candidates were  also well qualified.  What has changed entirely though since then is the Public Art Program.    It has grown into a professional organization with a big budget, two full‐time and one part‐time administrator, a growing  permanent collection, a master plan, outside consultants, and high profile and high budget installations and activities.  It  is imperative that you maintain the number of people overseeing this program.  If you contract the eyes and ears of the  Public Art Commission who becomes the checks and balances of the way this budget is spent and who decides how Palo  Alto’s creativity is publicly expressed?  It is extremely important to keep this commission at seven commissioners.    The 1% for art program is culturally and historically significant and should continue.  Right now, in the midst of  economic, human relations and health crisis, please do not reduce the roles of our volunteer commissioners.  Their work  is vital to our multi‐cultural community.    Thank you for your continued hard work on our behalf and for your time and attention to this issue.    Sincerely yours,      Harriet Stern  Middlefield Road  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Bayla Weick <baylaweick@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 8:01 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,     My name is Bayla and I live in Portola Valley. I can see Foothills Park whenever I drive to and from home. I am in full  support of opening Foothills Park to the rest of the world and I urge you not to do so with costly permits. Access to  nature and open space areas is a right and should be normalized. The fullness, awe, and satisfaction that beautiful  nature can elicit in humans ought to be available to all.    Portola Valley's trails (including the famous Windy Hill) are open to all...including Palo Alto residents. I understand that  "fairness" hasn't historically had any sway with Palo Alto, but I will reiterate this is a display of a gross lack of  neighborliness. Imagine if we closed off all our town's natural resources to outside residents? Open spaces don't belong  to our residents and the beauty of nature is rightly accessible for all.    For the record, no one buys the argument that Palo Alto closes off their parks because you're worried about the delicate  ecosystem. The widely accepted perception is that the town is mean‐spirited and closed‐off. If you were to open the  park only with permits, this would only further the perception that Palo Alto sees others, especially those with less  money, as riff raff and undeserving of access to the beauty of nature.    Please consider changing your policies and welcoming equality of access. The removal of this discriminatory policy  against those with less means would be a huge step forward and your neighbors will applaud you.    Sincerely,  Bayla  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Christopher Rowe <chris.lloyd.rowe@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 7:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please make Foothills Park accessible to all CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Greetings,     I am currently an Oakland resident but spent my entire childhood in Portola Valley. Specifically, I grew up in an area of  Portola Valley that looks out onto Foothills Park. Growing up, I never spent much time in those hills because, as non‐ resident of Palo Alto, I was not technically permitted to do so.    Now, with the gift of maturity and a worldview predicated on openness and equality, I am astonished that there exists a  park that is closed off to all but a select few. Nowhere else in this country or another have I encountered a park with  such prohibitions. Natural spaces are a gift that should be accessible to all and I urge the Palo Alto city council to amend  this discriminatory barrier to access.    Thank you for your time and consideration.    Chris Rowe  3 Baumb, Nelly From:alejandra martinez <alej_martinez@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 1:33 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Keep Foothill Park for Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    So sad that you made a political maneuver over the wildlife.  This town is becoming more disappointing between the  politics and developers.  Sent from my iPhone    > On Jun 23, 2020, at 10:19 AM, alejandra martinez <alej_martinez@yahoo.com> wrote:  >  > When we first came to this country, we did not have much money, but we did have a beautiful park, where my parents  taught us to appreciate from a distance. I say this because Foothill park had numerous deer to admire in the meadow  area.  We even had the opportunity to see a Bob cat.  >  > In the late 80 we started to see more folks. The dumpster were full.   > The greens trampled on by children who would catch an kill lizards with no supervision of parents. Not to mention  balloons left in trees. The park had become more and more trashed. And please note, these are folks from Palo Alto.   Prior to Covid‐19, our parks within the city are already overwhelmed, and not always appreciated and by folks from or  outside the city. You can go to Seal park right now and see the dangling balloon strings.  I see many folks that for certain  have not applied for a permit to hold large Picnic parties.  >  > Please don’t destroy this glimps of wildlife, by making it another Mitchell park.  >  > My second ask, is what do we as Palo Alto get back from our investment of paying for the park?  We paid for it , so  how will we be compensated? Will the other cities pay for around the clock rangers and cleaners to monitor the  activities of folks at the park? Will they pay for trail monitors to make sure the wild life will not be harmed or damaged? >  > I really don’t see any positive outcome of making the park open to all. It’s a shame that Palo Alto is playing this Public  Relations game by sacrificing the wildlife.  >  > Thank you for your time,  > Alejandra Martinez  > Palo Verde neighborhood  >  > Sent from my iPhone    4 Baumb, Nelly From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 12:16 PM To:Kou, Lydia; Council, City Subject:Re: Garbage too much Ha, thought is a laugh, what planet are people living on.  If you aren't patrolling it won't get done.  Way too  much money will be spent.  Our current parks aren't even taken care of properley.  Dirty tables, dead  caterpillars all over lamp post, garbage cans. You would think we could hire summer help to take care of  power washing this for cheaper labor.  The thought of spending more money when the city just went through  cuts and layoffs is sooo short sighted.  Maybe some of those pay raises can take care of all the help you will  need    When one says 50 people is that 50 different groups of 6 or 8?  or is it 50 people.  Way too many   sorry    Amy Keohane  650‐346‐5306    From: Kou, Lydia <Lydia.Kou@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 12:03 PM  To: Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com>  Subject: Re: Garbage too much      Dear Ms. Keohane, May I forward your email to the Parks and Recreation Commission? The commissioners believe that people will carry out their trash and stuff and, will also leave the park better than it was before. If only, it applied to...all people. Kindest regards,   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Lydia Kou ‐ Council Member  Contact Info:  https://goo.gl/BcgCQS  From: Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com>  Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 10:50 AM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Garbage too much      5 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Morning so you went ahead and approved Footholl for 50 a day. That is a huge amount of extra. Here is a Pic of Johnson  Park now with covid. We don’t have the money to have garbage pick up here. What is foothill going   To look like. This thing on racism has nothing to do with it. It is money money money. You can’t get enough to find as  many rangers as you need. It is already understaffed     Sent from my iPhone  6 Baumb, Nelly From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 8:11 AM To:Council, City; cma_neighborhood@googlegroups.com Subject:Two thank yous and two reprimands CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Thank you Council Member Tanaka for ensuring that our precious few tax dollars are spent wisely.  When services to our  residents ‐‐ libraries and school programs and park staff ‐‐ are being cut, we should not be spending money on additional  non‐essential programs (especially ones that are targeted to serve non‐residents).     Thank you Council Member Kou for making sure that the Council learn (by ballot) what the residents' wishes really are  for Foothills Preserve before proceeding to open it to the general public. It is unconscionable that the Council would  make major changes to this possession without input from its owners.    Both of you have earned my future support and votes. You are truly protecting Palo Alto.      To Mayor Fine and Council Member Cormack:  I am disappointed in both of you. How dare you think that you know better than the residents' what is best for Foothills  Preserve!  Mayor Fine even stated that he did NOT support a residential vote on Foothills Preserve because it would give  the WRONG result.  How dare you try to spend our tax dollars on non‐essential services for non‐residents when you are  at the same time cutting services to the residents.  I will not vote for you in the future. I find your leadership  irresponsible and non‐democratic.  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Ron Andersen <32dodgelover@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 12:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:Commendation to Council CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I watched with interest the effort, however tentative, to proceed with a  pilot that will allow non‐residents to experience Foothills Park.       When serving in the position you now hold I attempted to change the  residents only policy in 1991.  It was painful.  I know how difficult an issue  this is.  You handled the topic with thoughtfulness and with respect for all  sides.      By the way, the park is about 1400 acres, and Golden Gate Park is about  1100.  When the park was first proposed, they didn't have any interest in  environmental protections.  In fact, they even envisioned making it  another Golden Gate, with many commercial activities for all the new  homes they planned to get built in the Foothills!  Not a relevant issue at this point, but be aware the folks who brought the  park into being, were not envisioning what is now considered  imperative.      May the community discover with this pilot that allowing a limited  number of non‐residents in the park will not upset the environment in  any significant way.  And it will be so nice for Palo Alto residents, and  councilmembers to not have to attempt to justify such an exclusionary  practice.         Finally, now that I'm no longer a resident, I'm hoping I might get a  chance to see the park again.  Kudos.  Ron Andersen     8 Baumb, Nelly From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 9:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Pearson-Arastradero Preserve and Foothills Preserve CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council of Palo Alto:  Are you aware that the Pearson‐Arastradero Preserve is trashed?   Visitors cannot see any wildlife in that Preserve except birds. The Preserve has dozens of places where there are large  eroded shortcut trails. There are huge areas that have been destroyed by bikes. Many trails are actually dangerous due  to over use.  Entire hillsides are eroded away due to overuse by humans. Before you spend a single penny on opening  Foothills Preserve, fix Arastradero !!!!  Increase the funds and the staff to protect and preserve what is left of  Arastradero Preserve. Once you have figured out what it takes to protect a space that is open to the public, THEN (and  only then) open Foothills Preserve.  How can you ask me to support opening Foothills Preserve when I see how the City has failed to preserve and protect  Arastradero? I fully expect you (the City) to do the exact same destruction of Foothills Preserve.  I challenge each of you  to walk the trails of Arastradero Preserve. You will be SHOCKED at its condition.     Carlin Otto  231 Whitclem Court, Palo Alto, CA  94306  3 Aug 2020  9 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 9:36 PM 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 All: Ms Banes is being ridiculous when she talks about having to show "papers" to gain entrance to Foothills Park. I believe the correct term is drivers license. Anyone who falls for that kind of rhetoric is biased and should examine their motives when discussing Foothills Park. If you really want to end racism in our Parks, please install a bathroom @ Eleanor Pardee Park which is heavily used by families from EPA. We have BBQs, a community garden, 2 children's playgrounds and constant sports teams on the weekend and in the summer. YET, no bathroom. Thank you for time. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 10 Baumb, Nelly From:Bill Fitch <facehiker@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 7:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda items CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    1. I support opening foothill park to all. We had a great run with a private park. But that is over.  2. I support regional goals for housing. I think they could have asked us for more given our past failings. But it is a start.  Bill Fitch  178 Park ave.  11 Baumb, Nelly From:Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 4:39 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.  There are sooo many reasons for not opening up our Foothill Park to the greater community. In the beginning other cities did not choose to join us'/pay for it, we voted to pay for the land. It is a wildlife refuge, so many letters stating plastic bags with poop on trails, we will destroy local flora and fauna, it will disturb the wildlife, deer etc. Plus if it was opened it would need more rangers full time, at the gate etc. Now is not the time, with our current budget cutting so many city services, to take on a large additional expense. It has nothing to do with racism, any Palo Alto resident has access to the park. Apparently from what I read the area is much more of a fire hazard then it used to be, a lot of downed brush and logs, which should certainly be checked out sooner than later. Sincerely, Suzanne Keehn 94306 12 Baumb, Nelly From:Linnea WICKSTROM <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 4:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor Filseth, Members of the City Council,    As you discuss the possible pilot plan to open Foothills Park to non‐residents, please consider not allowing dogs in the  park at any time.    Impact to wildlife, both plants and animals, could be ameliorated by allowing only human visitors.     Thank you,  Linnea Wickstrom  Monroe Drive  Palo Alto  13 Baumb, Nelly From:Mark C Lawrence <Mark.Lawrence@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 4:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  It’s time to desegregate Foothills Park. Wait, you say, where did segregation come into this discussion?  Although the original reasons for limiting park access were financial, today racism is at the core of this  issue. Our racism.     I’ve heard all the arguments about the impact of more visitors on wildlife, cost of maintnance, etc., but the fact  is that this park isn’t easy to get to, and removing the restriction isn’t likely to have much negative impact on  the park. But the symbolism of opening the park will have a positive impact on race relations here.    I recall a discussion of this issue at a City Council meeting 20 or so years ago; one of the speakers complained  about misconduct by non‐residents at other city parks. At Rinconada Park she had observed some non‐ residents behaving badly (I don’t recall what their transgressions were), and she had seen some non‐ residents out at the Baylands playing mariachi music too loud. I was listening to the meeting on KZSU, so I could  not question her nor speak in response, but I wanted to ask her: How did you determine these were non‐ residents? I doubt she had checked their ID. Were they, perhaps, the wrong color for Palo Alto residents? I  don’t think the racism is too well veiled there.    At a time of national reckoning about race, itʹs time for Palo Alto to desegregate Foothills Park. It’s a simple  but symbolic measure that sends a needed message of incusiveness.    Mark C. Lawrence  Palo Alto, CA  650 725 4867 office  650 269 1713 mobile  mark.lawrence@stanford.edu        Foothills Park Survey A survey of residents was conducted by Councilwoman Lydia Kou to assess the opinions of the residents of Palo Alto regarding the proposed opening of the Foothill Park to non-residents. The survey ran from July 28, 2020 to August 2, 2020. A total of 1129 responses were received. Results were as follows: 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Linda Drey-Nightingale <dreynight@aol.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 11:52 AM To:Council, City Subject:Non-Resident use of Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Honorable City Council Members, I would like to address a few of the educational benefits for opening up Foothills Park. For almost 20 years I was a Palo Alto School Naturalist. In my last 5 years we brought in school groups from outside Palo Alto for 2 specific tours - Local Native American Life and Foothills Ecosystem. 1) The students were extremely engaged. 2) They learned quickly to be respectful of the natural environment. 3) The tours opened their eyes to what was in their "backyards" and to take care of it. 4) These were often students from Mountain View and Redwood City who did not frequently or ever get out into nature because of their background. 5) Their Foothill experience provided them a base of knowledge to share with their families. Opening Foothill Park can benefit not only Palo Alto but all the surrounding communities by giving them an outdoor experience that gives them awe and respect for their natural environment. Isn't this the ethos that Palo Alto professes? Why only let Palo Altoans have this experience? We all benefit from a community united in this ethos. Thank you for taking my comments into consideration. Linda Drey-Nightingale 2 Baumb, Nelly From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 11:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Opening Foothills Preserve and Park to general public CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council Members and Staff:   I present to you 33 signed postcard petitions from Palo Alto residents in the Charleston Meadows Neighborhood. These  petitions ask you NOT to open Foothills Preserve and Park to the general public, not even as part of a pilot study.   This is the text of our petition (printed on every signed postcard petition):  I do NOT want Foothills Park opened to the general public.  I value its quiet, its uncrowdedness, its pristine  condition, the opportunities to see wildlife. More people in the Park will degrade all of these. I pay my taxes  to keep it in this condition !!     These petitions were collected on very short notice without any publicity, education, prompting, or neighborhood  conversations. I simply put one postcard petition at the front door of 100 houses in my immediate neighborhood, and 33  people returned the postcards to me within 3 days. This indicates that at least 33% of my neighborhood is strongly  against the proposal to open Foothills Preserve and Park to the general public. If I were to engage in a campaign to  educate and publicize this issue, I am very sure that I could double this number of signatures.  Please stop wasting our tax dollars on plans to open Foothills Preserve and Park to the general public. This issue has  been brought up by various city councils over the years and has always failed due to resident opposition. If you feel that  you absolutely must continue with this idea, put the issue on the ballot in November so that you can know how Palo Alto  residents feel before you proceed any further.   I would sincerely hope that you do not intend nor wish to force this down our throats.  Remember, we the residents of  Palo Alto are the owners of Foothills Preserve and Park, not you. Your job is to manage this resource in accordance with  our wishes. I firmly believe that you do not actually know our wishes and that by spending our tax dollars on plans to  open Foothills (e.g., running a pilot study) you are overstepping your legitimate authority and powers.     Carlin Otto  231 Whitclem Court, Palo Alto, CA  94306  3 Aug 2020  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Evan Goldin <evan.goldin@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 11:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:Open Foothills Park to all CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council,    I'm excited to hear that you'll be considering a pilot program to open Foothills Park to a wider group.     As a native Palo Altan, I grew up going to Foothills Fun Camp and Foothills Day Camp in the summers. I celebrated my  birthday there with friends both as a young child (pictured) and as a teenager. I returned as a camp counselor in my  teens as well, and organized BBQs there when my childhood friends and I were back from college.     When my friend Brian Rozelle, the last us to call Palo Alto home, was getting his final months of chemo treatment at  Stanford Hospital, we regularly drove to the panoramic lookout to take in the sunsets before we lost him.     And then, I got a new driver license with a Menlo Park address, and most of my friends (who can't afford to live in their  hometown) either moved out of the area or moved to more affordable places nearby like Mountain View.     None of us now have Palo Alto addresses, and unless accompanied by our parents, none of us can visit the park that still  has so much meaning to us.     I understand well that Palo Alto fronted the money for the park. And as a result, residents have had decades of exclusive  use of the park. It's time to be more welcome, and open the park to a wider group of Bay Areans.     We want to go back. Let us go, I urge you.  ‐ Evan  Paly '03    4   5 Baumb, Nelly From:Shirley Eglington <shirleyeglington@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 11:22 AM To:Council, City Subject:open Foothills Park to non-residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,    The proposed pilot program is too limited and too cumbersome. Please opt for a plan that will truly address  the problem of inequity.    Shirley Eglington  chair Cool Planet Working Group  First Presbyterian Chuch  1140 Cpwper St.  Palo Alto 94301  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Joy Sleizer <joy.sleizer142@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 11:19 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.  I am in favor or opening Foothills Park to non‐residents.  This is the time for inclusion & Palo Alto can stand up for what I  think has become a moral issue.     The pilot program is too cumbersome & doesn't go far enough.  I would be in favor of everyone who uses the park, paying a fee when entering  Having to make reservations on line is unreasonable‐pay at the gate    I am in favor or rules in order to protect the environment‐‐trails well marked    Thank you!         Joy Sleizer  850 Webster St Apt 706  650‐324‐7425  650‐353‐4481  cell  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Lauren Sparandara <lauren.sparandara@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 11:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:In support of opening Foothills Park! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    My family moved to Palo Alto in 1988 when I was 6. I now live here with my own family, including my two boys who are  4.5 and 6 months old. I loved Foothills Park as a kid and I do now. However, I think it’s wrong that it’s not open to others  outside our City. I am in strong support of opening it up. It is the right thing to do and it is the smart thing to do. The  more people we can get out in nature, the better off we will be, and the more likely we will all be invested in protecting  it.    Thank you for your time in listening.    Sincerely,  Lauren Sparandara  Resident of Barron Park in Palo Alto  8 Baumb, Nelly From:Steven Nelson <nelsononschools@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 11:14 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothill Park as a regional issue -please make as OPEN as MV Shoreline Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto Councilmembers,     I know you are getting a lot of correspondence on this issue.  As a former Mountain View Whisman school board  member, I also got a lot of correspondence on hot‐button issues.    I urge you to support any 'straight uniform' admission policy.      If you charge $6 per party, do it for all parties, no matter their residence.  This would suppress attendance.    Or a policy of "admit until the attendance cap is reached".  Since you have a manned gateway entrance, overuse can be  easily prevented in a 'straight uniform way'.      Shoreline Park in Mountain View acts as an example of the neighborly way to set public policy.  We (MV) paid for it, we  do not exclude Palo Alto residents from its facilities. (unfortunately not even a limit on summer ‐ Overwhelmed ‐  weekend days).  Even Sunnyvale Baylands park, which charges a fee, does not seem to discriminate by residence!    Please ‐VOTE NEIGHBORLY ‐ by voting for one of the possible many OPEN access policies.    Steven Nelson  retired MVWSD Trustee  (The MV community has had an Open Access school field and city park policy since the 1950s. In that aspect of public  policy, we have been much more progressive than Palo Alto)      9 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Kinney <pkinney48235@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 11:04 AM To:Council, City Subject:Opening Foothills Park to non-residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I support opening Foothills Park to non‐residents. I believe that to protect this resource there can be limits on the total  number of visitors or cars, but it doesn’t matter where the visitors live.    I think the pilot program is poised to fail. Why does there need to be online registration? This will definitely make it  much harder for non‐residents. People could pay when they come into the park.    I don't see why allowing perhaps 50 more cars a day is going to require intensive staffing. I think enforcing a total limit  on visitors is more important than where they live.    I would be in favor of charging residents and non‐residents a minimal fee (~$5) to drive their car into the park.    I’ve been a Palo Alto resident for over 40 years and use the park a couple of times per year.    Sincerely,    Patricia Kinney  WIldwood Lane  Palo Alto      10 Baumb, Nelly From:Patty Irish <irishpw@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 10:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothill Park open to public CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please open the park to all for a time to see what happens. Perhaps open it for a year or 3.   Give time for the word to spread and for a time what all activities are less restricted.   Thanks for your consideration.   Patty Irish     850 Webster #628  Palo Alto, CA 94301  650 324 7407  650 245 3906 cell        11 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Vincent <westieluvr@mac.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 10:13 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 member,  I like to think of our community as open and neighborly and caring about others.  We have neighbors in East Palo Alto  and East Menlo whose families have been sheltering in place with their school age children since March.  As good  neighbors, let’s open Foothills Park, giving people a new venue to enjoy the outdoors.  The meadow is perfect for family  picnics and the lake is a new place to explore.  Also, Rev. Kaloma Smith, pastor of Palo Alto AME Church and member of  Palo Alto’s Human Relations Committee, wrote an op ed telling us how to be a more welcoming community.  His very  first recommendation is to open Foothills Park.  In addition, let’s honor the team of community volunteers who developed the pilot program.  They spent many months  developing the program, while seeking input from the community through open meetings along the way.  Let’s start the  pilot program ASAP.  We can make necessary  adjustments during the year, as needed.  Also, it is time to let go of the  grudge we have been carrying for over 50years, about Los Altos Hills not helping to pay for the purchase of the land.  It is  time to move on and focus on our neighbors to the east of us.  Thank you for your service and working to continuously improve our city.  Mary Vincent  86 Erstwild Court  Palo Alto, 94303   12 Baumb, Nelly From:Nodelyn Smith <nodelyn1@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 8:47 AM To:Council, City Subject:LEAVE FOOTHILLS PARK ALONE! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello  LEAVE FOOTHILLS PARK ALONE!  It is a gem for the community and the children of the community.  With the past history  of Palo Alto’s youth and suicides, having Foothills park is a valuable respite for children growing up. When we first  moved to Palo Alto, our kids spent almost the entire summer in Foothills Park summer camps and as school children,  went to Foothills Park to study the Ohlone Indians and camped there overnight.  Please leave Foothills Park alone!    My children have all grown up and loved Foothills park from the time they were at the Foothills Fun Camps to today  when they go there on walks.  All other Palo Alto parks are open to all visitors and they are PACKED on weekends  especially with the lockdown restrictions lifting. FOOTHILLS PARK IS A NATURE PRESERVE and shouldn’t be packed on  weekends with overflowing garbage cans and litter as I have seen at other parks around town.  There is a fragile eco‐ system at Foothills Park.  Let us be responsible stewards of this nature preserve. There are many parks up and down the  peninsula where people can go.  LEAVE FOOTHILLS PARK ALONE!    Best Regards,  Nodelyn Smith  13 Baumb, Nelly From:Paul B Goldstein <marmot@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 8:26 AM To:Council, City Subject:Aug 3, 2020 Agenda Item #10 - Please open up Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Honorable Members of the City Council,    Foothills Park should not be restricted to Palo Alto residents only.    I am long time resident of Palo Alto and I frequently use Foothills Park. Most weeks, I spend at least 5 hours in the park,  hiking the trails. I love the park. I have read the staff report and I think it is a very sensible way to move forward on  opening the park to all people.    Sincerely,  Paul Goldstein  Emerson Street  Palo Alto  14 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeff Acker <jacker_95014@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 7:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:Open Access to Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council, I am writing to support the efforts of Parks for All and to ask you to change Palo Alto's policies restricting access to Foothills Park to Palo Alto's residents. Public spaces belong to the public. White people and affluent people have far more access to open spaces than people of color and people who do not live in resource-rich Bay Area cities. Palo Alto can change this by opening Foothills Park to the public. Please consider this issue not only as a racial justice issue, but also as a policy that normalizes the integration of parks trail systems with surrounding parks and open spaces. The time for this change is now. While the history of the park may have been financially motivated, the Council must face the unintended consequences of this park acting as an exclusive club for Palo Alto residents. Make the choice for "a more perfect union" at the local level and open Foothills Park for all. Sincerely, Jeff Acker 94028 15 Baumb, Nelly From:Keri Wagner <keriwagner@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 1:25 AM To:Council, City; City Mgr Cc:Keri Wagner Subject:Please open Foothills Park on a trial basis CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council members and Mr Shikada — Please open Foothills Park to non‐residents on a trial basis. I believe this  park is a resource we should share with our neighbors, particularly in this time of lock‐downs and remote schooling.    We could open the park Monday‐Friday for non‐residents for a year‐long trial, then look at the environmental impacts  after the trial ends.  We can reserve weekends for Palo Alto residents as that is when the park is most crowded. The park  would provide educational opportunities and respite for our neighboring cities, especially for parents and children who  are likely stir‐crazy with this shutdown. The lake and trails would offer our neighbor families a chance to experience the  fantastic natural resources of our county.    Thank you for your work on behalf of our community.  Keri Wagner  311 Edlee Ave  16 Baumb, Nelly From:Irina Beylin <irina.beylin@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 9:29 PM To:kou.pacc@gmail.com; Council, City Cc:Irina Beylin Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Lydia,     I trust you, as a city council member who's program is to retain Palo Alto's character and livability, would support  Foothills park status remains unchanged.  We love Foothills park and visit this wonderful place 3‐4 times a month.  Last three months, since the park's re‐opening,  the Palo Alto residence requirement has not been enforced. I see a lot of garbage, especially around the lake area.  I am  concerned the official opening to all non‐residents (now it is open if non‐resident is accompanied by a resident) results  in park's deterioration, greatly increased maintenance cost, and will endanger park's animals and plants.  Please keep  the current access requirements to preserve the park's  environment.  Allowing more people will harm the environment,  the serene preserve where you feel as a part of nature will  disappear.  Now we have this unique nature sanctuary for the diverse community of Palo Altans and their guests, a few  years down the road it will become a park with garbage, loud music, booze, narcotics and piles of extrements.  Preserve  and the habitat for many species will disappear,     The change is unfair and hurts the residents.  Palo Alto properties south of Oregon are small, we paid more money for  lesser properties (small houses and lots) as it came with amenities, ‐ schools, sidewalks, lit streets, proximity to Stanford,  Baylands and Foothills park for Palo Altans, Foothills is a part of our property, it is city council responsibility to protect  it.  People in surrounding towns made their choice to have larger parcels and bigger houses, and refused to pay for  Foothills maintenance, we preferred nature and paid for park's maintenance.  Please protect your constituents interests,    The figure of 150 K people visiting the park annually is grossly incorrect, now 300‐400 cars are in the sanctuary daily,  weekdays and weekends, 1000+ people daily.  Please survey.    Once the pilot program strats, it would be practically impossible to stop, as then you would deprive people who would  get used to visiting the park.    Irina and Boris Beylin  771 Ames Avenue  Palo Alto  17 Baumb, Nelly From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 8:31 PM To:Council, City Cc:Gail Price Subject:Support Foothills Park Pilot Program: Agenda Item No. 10 (August 3, 2020) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    August 2, 2020    Dear Mayor Fine and  Palo Alto City Council Members,    I have contacted you in the past regarding your consideration of opening Foothills Park  to non‐residents. I was one of  many community members and former elected and appointed officials who co‐signed a letter in support of increasing  access to non‐residents.    I support the staff recommendation:  a. Direct staff to return with an Ordinance to amend the Municipal Code to allow  non‐residents to access Foothills Park through a pilot plan and a Resolution to define the pilot plan itself.    This important issue has been brought forward on many occasions over the years.  Most recently,  it has been discussed   and recommendations have been made by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the PTC. I appreciate the on‐going  thoughtful deliberation and discussion.    The pilot program connected with increasing access to the  park to non‐residents will be an important structured  opportunity to evaluate how the this new program could be managed and evaluated. A well designed pilot program can  ensure the program serves the needs of all users while maintaining  Foothills Park’s  high quality and beauty.      Thank you.    Gail A  Price  Former Palo Alto School Board Member  Former Palo Alto City Council Member  Barron Park resident  Palo Alto  18 Baumb, Nelly From:Kevin Ma <kevinma.sd@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 8:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comments on Items 10 (Foothills), 11 (PBA 2050 & RHNA), 12 (Caltrain) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,    TL;DR: Support opening Foothills Park (can start with limited pilot), oppose the proposed PBA 2050 and RHNA letters  unless amended, support a letter in favor of the Caltrain measure (especially if specified to be "clean")    ‐‐‐‐‐‐    As a Palo Alto resident, I support fully opening Foothills Park up to non‐residents. My first experience with the park was  actually getting turned away, as I did not have government identification papers yet to show I lived here (and a library  card doesn't count). That experience is the only time I was ever denied a chance to enter any park and gives off an  exclusionary feel, as there's not even any visitor fee mechanism either. The park is already partially open to non‐ residents as part of the Bay to Ridge Trail anyway.    I understand that historically, other cities declined to assist with the purchase. However, to restrict today implies a  certain environmental parochialism, where one should only enjoy things they directly paid for. Same logic could go to  other cities, like Mountain View parks restricted to Mountain View residents, because we did nothing to contribute. In a  time where society is reviewing its efforts of inclusion, reaffirming an us‐only park with the power of misdemeanors  seems to be out of step. Even the organization that handles volunteers at the park would like it seen open to others,  noting that many of those same volunteers would normally be prohibited from the park. If there's a funding problem,  having visitors fees for now or increasing volunteer capacity while everyone's stuck at home (if safe) are possible  options; funding reflects the city we would like to be after all.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐    With regards to the proposed PBA 2050 and RHNA letters, I do not support sending them as they currently stand. To use  existing households as the baseline ignores the well‐known consensus that many in the area who work here don't live  here, especially in our economically‐hit retail sector. At some point, planning does need to take reality into account, or  else we might find a workplace that increasingly chooses to go elsewhere and make our future economic outlook  poorer.    While it is true that planning will need to take into account COVID and its aftermath, I don't think it will need major  delays to do so. As a person who is currently teleworking, I don't quite know if it's going to stick as well as the letter  implies; the current announcements within the tech industry are still expecting people to return for the most part.    A few parts of the letter also point out our flaws rather than the proposal's. "Electrification of Caltrain ... diminishes  crossing the tracks" sounds like our issues regarding grade separation. Off‐peak capacity issues on VTA routes sounds  like our common complaints about VTA governance, which seems to have not changed at all; meanwhile we just cut our  own shuttles. Placing a development cap is commendable, but it merely slows/stops a jobs‐to‐housing balance; it  doesn't necessarily reduce it. (Much like getting to carbon neutral could ignore the carbon we already emitted). And  while I like the city's chosen strategies, the failures of any progress on the previous S/CAP leave much to be desired.    19 ‐‐‐‐‐‐    With regards to Caltrain, I support the staff recommendation for a letter in support of the proposed ballot measure. I  also supported the Mayor's letter sent during the break, understanding that the entire situation is very time‐dependent,  what with the 7 boards needed to approve by Aug 7 and the turbulence of competing measures at the last minute.  Caltrain is an important institution to address many of our common issues, from traffic to environmentalism. To let it die  for petty governance issues is a shame in this region, and criticizing a valid use of authority in line with council policies  (especially on one that reduces a big chunk of our GHG) is a short‐sighted mistake.    I would like the letter to be amended to specify that it's the "clean" version of the ballot measure: a straight, no‐strings‐ attached sales tax measure to fund Caltrain only. This would be the one supported by San Mateo, Samtrans, and SFMTA.  Any others would either threaten the timeliness of the situation, or open up to legal issues as Jerry Hill, the author of the  enabling legislation (SB 797), signaled to the county Board of Supervisors.    I thank you for your time to read a constituent's comments, especially on such an item‐packed agenda.    Sincerely,  Kevin Ma  20 Baumb, Nelly From:Nifer Goldman <nbfasman@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 3:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park Policy CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,  We are current residents of Redwood City, and are writing to you about Pastor Kaloma Smith's editorial regarding Palo Alto’s restrictive policies for Foothills Park use.  We are unsure of the history and current usage of Foothills Park, but we trust Pastor Smith and his priorities. If he believes opening Foothills Park to non-residents in an important step to combating inequality in our local community, then he has our support and we believe he should have the City Council's support as well.  We therefore encourage you to vote to repeal any and all laws which prohibit non-residents from enjoying Foothills Park as fully as residents can.  Respectfully,  Nifer and Aaron Goldman  21 Baumb, Nelly From:Natalie Telis <natalie.telis@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 2:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park -- a resource for all members of the peninsula CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members:  I am a resident of Mountain View and am writing to you about Palo Alto’s restrictive policies for Foothills Park use.  It is hard to know all of the reasons why the current laws exist. In any case, prohibiting non- residents from full use of the Park is exclusionary and disrespectful. In this day and age especially, it is easy to view your policies as elitist and racist, like so many laws and practices in our country that have kept people of color from enjoying full rights and access to outdoor spaces. This is especially harmful in these times when outdoor spaces are a precious resource and some of the only ways that families can get exercise and recreation. These resources should be shared with the community.  I strongly encourage you to vote to repeal any and all laws which prohibit non-residents to enjoy Foothills Park as fully as residents can.  Respectfully,  Natalie Telis  Monta Loma | Mountain View    22 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Kallman <kallmanm@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 2:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Discussion is premature on Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Councillors,    Please defer discussion and votes on expanding admission to Foothills Park to people who don't live in Palo Alto.    Please defer discussion of, and defer implementation of, a pilot program for expanding admission to Foothills Park.    We need you to approach this issue in a very calm, measured fashion ‐ for the fiscal health of the City, and the  environmental health of the Park.    Sincerely,    Margaret Kallman  Palo Alto resident  23 Baumb, Nelly From:Tom Belick <tbelick@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 1:55 PM To:Council, City; Council, City Subject:Defer discussion of Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Sunday, August 2    Dear Council Members:  I ask that the Council defer discussion of whether to expand opening Foothills Park to non‐ residents. Discussion of this issue now, which would have significant financial as well as environmental impacts, is too  early given the City's uncertain finances.    Respectfully,    Tom Belick, Barron Park  24 Baumb, Nelly From:John Bender <bender@stanford.edu> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 12:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park--Agenda upcoming CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     Please do not open Foothills Park to non‐residents.  Palo Alto  has numbers of lovely parks that are open to any and all all comers.    Often, surrounding communities have elected, over time, not to have such parks.     Foothills needs to be the exception because it is not really a park but a nature reserve.    Instead of opening up this “park," rename it as “Foothills Nature Reserve,”  which is what it is.  This would be honest and would prevent future misunderstandings about limited use by Palo Alto  residents. Might deal with legal issues, if they are real.    Most of the “park” is not set up as a classic park with lawns  and barbecue pits.  It is, instead, a nature reserve with paths  for walking.  The park would be damaged by additional use.       The present proposal to open the park to 50 non‐citizens per day obviously  is a slippery slope.   John Bender Resident of Palo Alto, and property owner       25 Baumb, Nelly From:Jane Moss <jgm0ss@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 12:04 PM To:letters@paweekly.com; Council, City Subject:Now IS the time to discuss Foothills Park (as a PRESERVE) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I attended last week's special panel discussion about Foothills Park. Roger Smith was a panelist and the author of "Now's  not the time for full Foothills Park discussion", Palo Alto Weekly, 7/24/2020. Smith prefers the status quo (residents  only) and cites the lack of sufficient City budget and higher priorities as reasons to leave things as they are. I cannot  agree. While it is extremely important to enforce a strict maximum number of daily visitors, who compose that number  is not of consequence to the preservation of the park. Crowds escaping Covid‐19 sheltering pressures have lately come  to Foothills in great numbers and the challenges are many. But I am glad that people are using it. To care about the  future of a resource you must experience it. Why not rename Foothills Park on all web pages, materials, and articles to  "Foothills Biological Preserve", or "Foothills Open Space Preserve"? There is education in using the name "preserve"; it  sets a different expectation than urban "park." It is easier to accept that visitor numbers are purposefully low, and it is a  reminder that visitors need to use it gently. Since Palo Alto is not averse to renaming its institutions, having recently  renamed two middle schools, do this small thing for Foothills. While the larger issue of resident versus non‐resident  access must be resolved in an orderly fashion, it should not be at the expense and abuse of this treasure.  Jane Moss, 347 Ferne Ave, Palo Alto, 650‐862‐5809  ‐‐   Jane Moss  jgm0ss@gmail.com  26 Baumb, Nelly From:claught1@earthlink.net Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 9:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park … do NOT open it up to non-PA residents! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Now is not the time.  At a minimum, put it to a vote of Palo Alto citizens.    Craig Laughton  Harvard St.    Sent from Mail for Windows 10    1 Baumb, Nelly From:susan cole <sccole7@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 11:04 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City Council Members, I have lived in Palo Alto for 40 years. I am an avid hiker and nature enthusiast, and enjoy very much our Foothills Park. I have been shocked and pained over the last few weeks to hear that it was possibly going to be opened to everyone, as opposed to Palo Alto residents only. Here is why. 1. Over the last decade or so, all of the parks on the western fringe of the Peninsula cities have received vastly increased visitation—my estimate is at least ten fold. It is now impossible to find peace and quiet while hiking on Windy Hill (it is not uncommon to encounter a couple of hundred visitors on a two-hour hike), Huddard Park, Wunderlich, the Dish, or San Antonio Co. Park. Foothills Park is the ONLY one that still offers quiet hiking close to home. One of its most valuable assets is the solitude that it provides to its visitors. Opening it to even a few dozen extra vehicles from will without a doubt ruin this invaluable feature. 2. Palo Alto has pioneered over the years many pilot innovations that have been emulated by many other cities around the country. This includes one of the country’s first curbside-recycling programs, the acquisition of more sustainable electricity, and more recently curbside collection of compostibles. Palo Alto also, in this light, pioneered the preservation of a large portion of its real-estate for the enjoyment of its own citizenry. This was a visionary move that is setting an example for other cities around the world. We should not let go of this groundbreaking legacy. Let other cities do the same, and create their own nature sanctuary whenever possible. 3. Regarding the elitist argument for opening the park to non-residents, let me point out that at least portions of Monte Bello belong to Palo Alto, and are open to the public. Foothills is also open to non-residents already provided they are a guest of a resident. Palo Alto is sharing a large and beautiful portion of its land with the rest of the world. This is more than can be said about almost all Peninsula cities. 4. Also regarding the elitist argument, to live in Palo Alto, you have to pay an enormous price, which is the price of our insanely high real estate. No one is arguing that this is elitist. Owning our own park is not, inasmuch as the money that finances it comes in part from our (equally high) property taxes. 5. Opening our park is almost certainly going to result in major changes to it in terms of traffic but also increased noise, increased garbage along the trails, stress to the abundant wildlife that calls it home (especially the large deer and turkey populations), and damage to its small network of trails, and its even smaller road system and infrastructure. 6. Palo Altans will pay for this through regular taxes, not visitors from other towns, which is also unfair, and speaks strongly too against the elitist arguments. 7. Finally, it is my understanding that it is the people of Palo Alto who voted decades ago for the creation of this park a few decades ago, instead of developing it. It is only fair, and it may in fact be mandated by our laws, that the decision be reverted not by a small group of people, with all due respect, but by Palo Alto residents again. It is much too important a decision. I should also point out that very few people are aware 2 that our park is on the chopping block, and very few people have therefore had the chance to express their view. As a democracy, we should give everyone a chance to be heard, and have a public vote. As a more recent addition to this message, which I originally wrote a year ago, shared with the city council then, and discussed in person with a councilman, I must point out that what has happened to Foothills Park since the COVID outbreak is a good preview of what will happen if the park is opened to non-residents. On a typical weekday, when the main gate is not guarded, the park is literally assaulted by visitors. There are cars everywhere. The deer are hardly ever there any more. The amount of trash along the trails is noticeably greater—I saw one every few minutes along the main loop around the park a few weeks ago, and probably missed quite a few, and I never used to see any. The central portion of the park felt like an amusement park. Visitors were playing music loud at the picnic areas. Hikers were playing music on the trails. I saw several dogs on the trail, on one occasion off leash, and bicycles. Hikers commonly hike in the wrong direction on the trails that have been made one-way to minimize the spread of the virus. I realize that the park was then at 135% capacity, or so I read, but even at half as many visitors it would have been too crowded. The impact of opening the park to a broader fraction of the population will undoubtedly result in the park being at capacity much more often, with all the damage and loss of peace that it entails. Please do not make the mistake of thinking that these problems can be fixed with proper education or enforcement. They are not being fixed now, they will get worse with more visitors, and we will not be able to fix them then. Once we open that door – letting non-residents in – we will also have great difficulty closing it. It would create a nightmare, and kill the quietest large preserve within easy driving distance of our busy cities. This is not right. I very strongly urge you to keep the park open to residents only. Sincerely, Michel Digonnet 1045 College Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650) 723-0719 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Robert Neff <rmrneff@sonic.net> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 10:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parks and Recreation Commission proposal for Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I read the staff report and the Parks and Rec Commission recomendations and considerations.  I think they have done a  great job looking at this, and City Council should move ahead with the pilot program.  I particularly like the way this will  open up Foothill Park for educational visits from schools outside Palo Alto.  The park can be an educational resource for  us and our neighbors.    Especially given the scale of this program, compared to historical use, as described in the staff report, I am not  concerned with overuse at all, and the pilot program includes ways to change the program if there are unexpected  difficulties or issues.  So let's try this out.    Thank you for your service to the city of Palo Alto.    ‐‐  ‐‐ Robert Neff  robert@neffs.net    4 Baumb, Nelly From:Gloria Taffee <gtaffee@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 7:11 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.  Dear City Council members,    I am writing to support the efforts of Parks for All and to ask you to change Palo Alto's policies restricting access to  Foothills Park to Palo Alto's residents.     Public spaces belong to the public. White people and affluent people have far more access to open spaces than people  of color and people who do not live in resource‐rich Bay Area cities. Palo Alto can change this by opening Foothills Park  to the public.     Please consider this issue not only as a racial justice issue, but also as a policy that normalizes the integration of parks  trail systems with surrounding parks and open spaces.    The time for this change is now. While the history of the park may have been financially motivated, the Council must  face the unintended consequences of this park acting as an exclusive club for Palo Alto residents. Make the choice for "a  more perfect union" at the local level and open Foothills Park for all.     Sincerely,  Gloria Taffee    5 Baumb, Nelly From:Carmen Enciso-Steinberg <carmen@findthecat.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 6:50 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.  Dear City Council Members I am a resident of Mountain View and am writing to you about Palo Alto’s restrictive policies for Foothills Park use. I grew up in Palo Alto and have lovely memories of family picnics at Foothill Park with my grandparents, parents, and cousins. Now, I can’t share this lovely place with my daughters because I am no longer a Palo Alto resident. It is hard to know all of the reasons why the current laws exist. In any case, prohibiting non- residents from full use of the Park is exclusionary and disrespectful. In this day and age especially, it is easy to view your policies as elitist and racist, like so many laws and practices in our country that have kept people of color from enjoying full rights and access. It saddens me that when people of color are trying to find a healthy place to spend time with friends and family, their options are severely limited. I strongly encourage you to vote to repeal any and all laws which prohibit non-residents to enjoy Foothills Park as fully as residents can. Respectfully, Carmen Enciso-Steinberg PS. Many business owners, city staff and teachers who work in Palo Alto and benefit the community in many ways cannot visit Foothill Park.. that is not right.   6 Baumb, Nelly From:Lottie Price <lprice1502@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 6:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:I support limited opening of Foothills Park to non-residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council,    I’m a regular visitor to Foothills Park, and I do like how quiet and uncrowded it is. It’s great to see turkeys in the fields  and deer on the lawn. I understand that we need to regulate the number of visitors to maintain its condition and its role  as a refuge for wildlife.    Nonetheless, I’d love to see the park open to non‐residents on a limited basis. I would especially like to see the camping  available to anyone walking the Bay To Ridge trail.    And, if needed, I support an increased budget for rangers to manage the larger numbers of people that opening the park  could generate.    Sincerely,    Lottie Price  350 Edlee Ave.  Palo Alto, CA 94306  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Kingsley <barbara@abcking.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 4:47 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.  ________________________________    Dear council members,     I’ve lived in Palo Alto since the 60s and spent much good time at the park. As much as anyone else, I’ve enjoyed the  peacefulness, quiet, wildlife, etc.    However. It has always been an embarrassment that we treat this like we live in some gated community, excluding  Those Other People from enjoying the same.     Put restrictions on the number of entrants. Charge a small fee (waved for residents). Restrict noise making devices (not  just recorded.. one picnic was seriously disturbed by a group of Palo Alto Residents loudly playing an accordion!)    Our town is getting a bad enough rep with regard to exclusivity without this literal Private Country Club. (And, yes, i  know all about its origin)    I hope you can remedy this unfair situation.    Sincerely yours,  Barbara Kingsley    Sent from my iPhone  8 Baumb, Nelly From:Tricia Kellison <kellison@alum.mit.edu> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 4:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comment on agenda item to open 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 have been following this debate closely, each of the times it has arisen, during the 20+ years I have lived in Palo Alto,  and I have a suggested modification to the currently‐proposed pilot.    To each of you, I would like to ask: what your reaction would be to an interim step, such as opening Foothills Park to  residents of East Palo Alto as well as current Palo Altans? From what I understand, East Palo Alto was not even  incorporated until the 1980’s, helping to mitigate any “Little Red Hen” concerns. Such a step would help us to make  progress in a debate which is often contentious, and would let us all learn what the demand was like from another  community, while at the same time being more generous with our resources. To me this seems much better than a fee  at the gate for everyone outside Palo Alto. (But honestly, there is no reason why we couldn’t do a combo approach:  we  could allow residents of BOTH Palo Alto and East Palo Alto to enter the Park for free, while applying the other terms of  the pilot to everyone who does not live in either Palo Alto or East Palo Alto.)    It seems that such a “half‐way step” might possibly satisfy both sides: the “impact” people could hardly object to us  welcoming one more city, half our size, into the Park: from an impact standpoint, this is significantly better than opening  the Park to everyone. And those who want the Park to be opened to everyone might be be more inclined to accept the  currently‐proposed pilot plan if it included free‐and‐open access to the residents of at least one nearby city that could  benefit from access to this significant open space.    I did run this idea by Roger Smith (Co‐founder and Director of the Friends of Palo Alto Parks) in response to his recent PA  Weekly editorial. I sent him an email pretty much outlining what I have said above, and he responded tersely by saying  "Any change would require the gate to be manned all the the time.  No money for that”. But I don’t see WHY we would  have to “man" Foothills Park gate any more than we do now, merely because we are including one more small  community into the group of residents who are freely entitled use the park. We could continue to staff the booth just as  we do now (during busy times) with no change in operations or costs.    Thank you for taking the time to consider this proposed amendment to your current plan.    Tricia Kellison  Louis Road, Palo Alto  9 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 4:17 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.  Dear Mayor and Council Members,      Please do not approve opening up Foothills Park to non‐residents at this time, not even as  a pilot program.   That this  should be put on the council's agenda for discussion at a time when there are so many pressing issues requiring precious  council time appears completely irresponsible.       There is no rush to open up Foothills Park, except by those impatient advocates pushing the idea, and at this time there  is no evidence that this proposal even has the support of a majority of the community.    Please either table this proposal indefinitely or recommend that it be put to a vote by residents after such time as Palo  Alto's budget improves to the point where we can return funding to the fire department, the many community services  that have been cut, fund our pensions, pay for grade separations, etc.      Thank you for your attention,    Sincerely,  margaret heath  cornell street        10 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Voss <barbvossis@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 3:29 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:make Foothills Park open to all! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council and the Palo Alto Parks & Rec Commission,    I am writing to express my deep support for ending the "residents‐only" policy that makes it a crime for non‐ Palo Alto  residents to use Foothills Park. As a Palo Alto resident, I enjoy other spectacular city‐run parks throughout the Bay area ‐  from San Francisco's Golden Gate Park to San Jose's Kelley Park. Barring non‐residents from Foothills Park is not only  discriminatory,  it is un‐neighborly and begs retaliation from other municipalities. Most damagingly, it has become a  symbol of Palo Alto's white supremecist history and its continued elitism.    Please do the right thing and open the park to all.     Barb Voss  2600 Colubmia Street Unit 200  Palo Alto CA 94304  ‐‐   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Barb Voss ‐ barbvossis@gmail.com  11 Baumb, Nelly From:Terri Weber <tlweber0@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 11:21 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.  I feel as though Foothill Park should less restrictive concerning admissions but that some  guidelines need to be made.    Non Palo Alto residents should be allowed but charged an admission fee of about $5‐ $10 per  car.  Sugar Pines State Park in Tahoe charges $10 per car.  This would help offset the increased  upkeep needed as well as assigning a  ranger at the gate.  There could be an option for a yearly  pass fee for non residents.  Identification would be required and initially could have a trial time  of two years after which time the park use would be revaluated and determinations be made  as to whether to continue. There would need to be a limit as to the number of people allowed.  Our family has enjoyed the park especially when our children used the summer parks program  there years ago. They loved it but are now restricted unless they attend with us.  It is a wonderful perk   Terri Weber  150 Southwood Drive  Palo Alto  12 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Phillips Moskowitz <susanpm@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 9:57 AM To:Council, City Subject:Vote no on opening Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I am a resident of PA for 45 years. I think foothill Park should remain only for Palo Alto residents!  If that means we have an added tax then do be it.  Do Not Open it. I was there yesterday and nobody was at the little house to check my ID. The lake is peaceful and  beautiful.  13     14     Susan Phillips‐Moskowitz   1941 Tasso Street  PA 94301  15 Baumb, Nelly From:Ada Braun <adahbraun@yahoo.de> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 8:04 AM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Access to Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Palo Alto city council members and neighbors,    As a resident of the neighboring city of Portola Valley and a citizen who deeply cares about diversity, equality and  inclusion, I am deeply concerned about the segregation practices that bar non‐Palo Alto residents from accessing and  enjoying Foothills Park and even make the simple enjoyment of a local park a crime.    These restrictions are  antiquated, discriminatory, unethical, and ultimately unlawful.    I wonder how you would feel if Palo Alto residents were not welcome in our Portola Valley parks, the Coalmine Ridge  preserve, Windy Hills, or local beaches along the coast.    As a concerned citizen and neighbor, I call on you to  (1) Repeal this ordinance and  (2) direct staff in the parks and recreation commission to craft a new policy that demonstrates Palo Alto’s commitment  to equality, openness, inclusion and resource protection.    Thank you for your consideration,    Ada Braun  136 Pecora Way  Portola Valley, CA 94028            16 Baumb, Nelly From:Kristi Corley <kristilcorley@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 7:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Open the Park! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please open up Foothills park. I live in Portola Valley and I’d like to hike in the beauty of Foothills Park. What if Windy Hill  was not open to Palo Alto residents? How would you feel? It feels like a Wall around nature. Nature should not be  walled off to surrounding residents.    We all need nature, especially during these times.    Thank you,  Kristi Corley  17 Baumb, Nelly From:Cindy Rowe <crowe@roweweb.net> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 7:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello ‐  I live adjacent to Foothills Park.  The view from my kitchen, dining room and living room window is on Foothill Park.  I  have lived here for 31 years and have never stepped foot in that park ‐ a stone’s throw from my house.  My feeling is   that if you don’t want Portola Valley Residents (or any other residents) in your parks, then we should keep Palo Alto  residents from riding our bike paths, hiking Windy Hill or any of our many, many town trails.  Is that the spirit of what a  public park is ‐ only for the people in the immediate town?  What a restricted view of nature that would present.  Maybe  we should close all of the nature preserves to allow only people in the town or county to visit.  Let’s close Jasper Ridge,  Huddart Park, all of the parks in Foster City, San Mateo, etc. to Palo Alto residents.  Does that make sense to you? Open  your park.  What are you afraid of?    Change your outdated, misdirected policies, please.  Cynthia Rowe  Ramona Road  Portola Valley  18 Baumb, Nelly From:Valerie Quarmby <quarmby.valerie@gene.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 6:40 PM To:Council, City Cc:quarmby Valerie Subject:Foothill Park must be open access CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto's Foothills Park residents-only rule is discriminatory, unlawful and immoral.     By definition, public parks are for everyone.      Please act responsibly and end this decades-long rule NOW.     Valerie Quarmby      19 Baumb, Nelly From:mary cooper <mfcooper47@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 6:26 PM 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 Council,    I am a longtime Ladera resident who loves the outdoors and want to share this love with All the public.. that includes  Foothills Park. You have an opportunity to show the value of inclusion with your vote to open the park to the public. We  all know the value that being in Nature plays in our physical and mental well being. I urge you to show your support for  All the citizens of the Peninsula and beyond that you recognize the legal and moral imperative to share this jewel with  the public.    Thank you for your consideration and your public service.    Mary Cooper  la Mesa Drive  Ladera    Sent from my iPad  20 Baumb, Nelly From:Stephen Harrison <stephenjhcello@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 6:04 PM 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,     We are concerned that any decision regarding Foothills Park will not be directly voted on by Palo Alto residents.  No  change to the status quo should be implemented only by a vote of the Council members. This issue is dear to many of  us, and the issues are very nuanced. People need time to figure out their individual priorities for this gem of a park. And  they need to understand the details in any opening up of the park to non‐residents.  We need to understand the  ecological ramifications and make a plan that equates comfortably with the available parking. What we DO NOT want is  a situation similar to the one at Rancho San Antonio, where parking is a nightmare. Any weekend attempt to hike there  is taking a significant risk that you just won't be able to get in. Finally, we do not understand why the cost of opening up  the park would be borne by the City of Palo Alto. The City already made the initial investment by stepping up to buy the  property when other communities would not! A just solution to paying for increased staffing and other costs associated  with greater use would be to have surrounding communities pay their fair share.      Until these questions are clearly answered it would be a mistake to have increased accessibility to the park decided by  the City Council only. This must be on a city‐wide ballot!    Sincerely,  Susan Freier and Stephen Harrison  lovers of Foothills Park and long‐time Palo Alto residents  21 Baumb, Nelly From:Frances E Liu <franliu@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 5:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Pls keep Foothills Park for residents only. It is a beautiful peaceful spot.  If you open it up to non‐residents, that tranquility will be lost. During tight budget times, I do not think We should  undertake more security and cleaning expenses in connection with The park.    A review of police practices should be undertaken.  In the last couple Of yrs. we’ve made fairly large outlays to  compensate victims of our Overly aggressive police force.    Sincerely,    Fran  22 Baumb, Nelly From:Lee Middleman <lee@leemiddleman.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 4:57 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Palo Alto Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,    I support the opening of the Foothills Park to all.    I live in Portola Valley at the Portola Ranch.  Our town and local community support inclusive use of our open spaces.  I  have been to Foothill Park with Palo Alto friends.  It is a lovely resource that should be shared.  I may never use it, but I  believe it should be open to all.    You can limit the number of outside visitors (perhaps 50/50).   You can charge a modest fee to help support the cost of  maintenance.  But our neighbors in other parts of Santa Clara and San Mateo counties would benefit from your  inclusion.      Thank you, Lee Middleman      *****  I recently opened my ceramics gallery shop on ETSY, take a look and give a "like" to the shop.    The ETSY link is:  https://www.etsy.com/shop/LeeMiddleman  Thanks.      Lee Middleman  www.LeeMiddleman.com  email: Lee@LeeMiddleman.com  Studio Phone: 650.851.0295  Home Phone: 650.851.0535    ETSY Shop:  https://www.etsy.com/shop/LeeMiddleman    23 Baumb, Nelly From:David L Vander Wilt <vanderwilt@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 4:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills park preservation CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear council members:    I have been a resident of Palo Alto for over 40 years and am a frequent user of Foothills Park and many other hiking  venues in the area. Foothills is the only “close in” park to retain a sense of wilderness. ( I was also a backpacker in the  Sierras during my adulthood). This wilderness exists only because of limited human access to the park. One thousand  people per day visiting day after day will change the nature of the park. The deer stay out of the meadow when filled  with people. Rancho San Antonio has had mountain lion attacks perhaps because the lions  are being encroached upon  by too many visitors. With limited budget now is not the time to haphazardly begin a project without a baseline of data  of animal populations and migration in the park. I URGE YOU TO REJECT THIS PILOT PROJECT until it can be done with  more complete data.    Sincerely    David L van der Wilt  Sent from my iPhone  24 Baumb, Nelly From:Leslie Mahoney <leslie.m.mahoney@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 2:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:PLEASE don’t give away Foothill Park! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I went to go for a hike today at 9am and could not find a place to park at Arastradero Preserve.  Thank goodness I could safely distance hike at Foothill Park.  I did not feel COVID safe at Arastradero which I’m sure was so crowded with non‐Palo Alto residents.  We have enough parks in our city that are open to everyone!  Thank you  Leslie Mahoney  2267 Tasso St  Palo Alto  Sent from my iPhone    25 Baumb, Nelly From:Laurie Gamelsky <lgamelsky@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 1:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Expanding Access Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Good Day,    I understand there is currently consideration of expanding access to Fooothills Park to non residents of Palo Alto. During  the time of Covid , it is a blessing to have a beautiful outdoor space that can accommodate social distancing restrictions.  As a Palo Alto resident that is close to 60 with an underlying medical condition  this space has been such a godsend. Is  there any way this can be revisited when social distancing is not as critical?    Thank you for listening    Laurie Gamelsky  650 906 0028                        26 Baumb, Nelly From:Peter Blum <peter.blum@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 1:32 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:re: Foothill Park for all CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,    I live in the Los Trancos Woods neighborhood next to Foothills Park. I grew up in midtown Palo Alto and later returned  to South Palo Alto where I lived with my own family for over six years. I loved going to Foothills Park as a kid, and  enjoyed taking my own children there when we lived in Palo Alto.     While I enjoyed the fact that it was never busy I always felt guilty about having this amazing big park almost to myself on  many visits. Where I live now we have lots of open space which we welcome anyone to use without regard to their  residence or ability to afford the high cost of housing in our direct area.     Right now even with an increase in visitors due to Covid and folks looking to get fresh air there is still plenty of room for  folks to spread out and enjoy nature.     I've heard you are rethinking how you look at access to Foothills Park and I just wanted to voice my support to opening it  up so everyone can enjoy the amazing space I had been so lucky to experience in the past.     Having spent most of my life in Palo Alto plus still having many friends there I always felt in general the culture was  progressive and inclusive despite the high cost of entry. It's a real shame that the policies around Foothills park access  don't reflect that point.     Thanks,    Peter     27 Baumb, Nelly From:Ellen Hartog <elh109@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 12:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:SAVE OUR PARK CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Honorable Members of the Council, I am writing today to express my concern for Foothills Park. I am a long time resident of Palo Alto and part of the initial move to purchase and maintain the park. We took on keeping open space for preservation and succeeded. I remember the restoration of the pond when it leaked and at an enormous cost to keep the park viable. We have done a wonderful job and have managed the land well. We enjoy knowing open space is in the hills and work to preserve and maintain the ecosystems and wildlife. This is the point. It is not designed to be a recreational park but a natural reserve / preserve. It is not equipped to entertain other then spotted picnic tables and two group areas along with the center and restrooms. The pond is only 4 feet deep - it is not for swimming. Our other parks are being used by nonresidents and locals are ousted at that point - we have many parks and I need to wake up early to claim a picnic table. That tells of the scale of use to be expected when open to the public but opening up during a pandemic is not going to show the future attendance - this is bad timing for a prototype. Numbers are off obviously so why is this being addressed now to survey. That's not fair to use bad numbers. Google is closed till July 2021. Please postpone any decisions till we are sure. I am opposed to opening to the park for fear of the overuse and abuse to the environment and wildlife. I am opposed to opening making us liable for a higher risk of loosing all the work to preserve. More people means more risk of fire or vandalism and we do not police the park. Jasper Ridge is off limits to anyone for that reason - it is wildlife to be preserved at the experimental level and Stanford land. Foothills Park is now Palo Alto land and I would want to preserve open space and for the future generations to preserve - we are the guardians and take that responsibility not lightly to protect and preserve open space. Others may think differently how the land should be managed but I am a voice for the trees and wildlife that have no voice. Let's keep our park safe and sound: Please save our park. Thank you for your consideration, Ellen Hartog 330 Victoria Place 28 Baumb, Nelly From:Kim Marinucci Acker <kimacker@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 12:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:Open Access to Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     I am writing to support the efforts of Parks for All and to ask you to change Palo Alto's policies restricting access to  Foothills Park to Palo Alto's residents.     Public spaces belong to the public. White people and affluent people have far more access to open spaces than people  of color and people who do not live in resource‐rich Bay Area cities. Palo Alto can change this by opening Foothills Park  to the public.     Please consider this issue not only as a racial justice issue, but also as a policy that normalizes the integration of parks  trail systems with surrounding parks and open spaces.    The time for this change is now. While the history of the park may have been financially motivated, the Council must  face the unintended consequences of this park acting as an exclusive club for Palo Alto residents. Make the choice for "a  more perfect union" at the local level and open Foothills Park for all.     Sincerely,     Kim Acker  Unincorporated San Mateo County  94028  29 Baumb, Nelly From:netigone@yahoo.com Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 12:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothill Park Discussion and Dog-Owner Access CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear council members,    TL;DR: Opening the park to non‐residents is fine, but please, please, please do not restrict usage to dogs and dog‐owners  during the week as a result.      As a long‐time Palo Alto resident and frequent Foothill Park visitor, I would like to add my comments to the current  discussion of the park’s future. I support the pilot test of opening of the park to some number of non‐residents, though I  share concerns of impacts to the local wildlife and native plants with greater usage, so I also support monitoring any  increased impact and rolling back the usage if there is a negative result.    I have seen some public comments on this issue calling for the elimination of access to dogs and dog‐owners to the park  as part of this process. I do not know if the council is considering anything of the sort, but I want to strongly voice my  support for continuation of the current policy of allowing dogs and dog‐owners during the week. While dog‐owners tend  to be frequent users of hiking trails, the vast majority of open space in our community is not available to dog‐owners.  Foothill Park is one of the few places we have to enjoy the outdoors. Restricting Foothill Park for dog owners would be a  disproportionate impact to us. I think current policy of restricting usage to week days is a very effective compromise that  appears to be working well for everyone.    I share some commenters' concerns about people leaving bags of dog waste on trails or dogs off‐leash, but my  observation is the the users of Foothill Park do a much better job of cleaning up after their dogs and keeping them on  leash than I see in other parks. I think that is a result of the park’s effective deployment of trash cans as well as the  park's overall good management. As a responsible dog‐owner, I always make sure to clean up after my dog and keep  him on‐leash, but I also frequently pick up any other trash I see on the trails to try to do my part to maintain this special  place. If the park were shut off to dog owners, that would only serve to centralize more dogs in the few remaining parks,  such as Arastradero and Baylands, thereby increasing the impact to those parks. And if this becomes more of a problem  if the park is opened up, I would encourage looking at other possible solutions rather than the full prohibition of dog‐ owners to this wonderful local resource.    Thank you for your consideration,    Michael Weber  30 Baumb, Nelly From:neva yarkin <nevayarkin@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 11:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:from neva yarkin, regarding Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    August 31, 2020        Dear City Council:     Growing up in Palo Alto, I would like to see Foothill Park remain open to Palo Alto residents for  the following reasons:     1) Cost for maintenance (we have a deficit of 40 million)  2) Damage to the ecosystem (concerned for the wild life)  3) Great place to go during COVID and also peace and quiet.     I am also concerned that city parks in Palo Alto are used by a lot of non‐residents for their parties,  etc.  I have seen Riconada Park, and Peers Park (closest to me) with all the garbage after the  weekend.  It is not something I am proud of.     Thank you for reading my email.     Sincerely,     Neva Yarkin  Churchill Ave.  Palo Alto  nevayarkin@gmail.com     31 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Weber <susan@webers.org> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 9:52 AM To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment re: Foothills Park agenda item Aug 3rd CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi ‐    I visit Foothills Park nearly every day and have been doing so since I moved here 11 years ago.    I have noticed so much new litter along the trails that I now pack an empty garbage bag in my pocket on all my hikes.  Since April I have been removing 15‐30 items of litter from the park each week.    I do support expanding access to non‐Palo Alto residents, particularly if the number of daily visitors is capped, but you  might consider adopting a city ordinance with a stiff fine for littering, and prominently posting don’t litter signs at the  entrance to each trail.  People are careless and thoughtless, but if they have just seen a sign reminding them to be more  careful and thoughtful, it may help mitigate the damage the additional visitors are guaranteed to do.    Susan Weber  Palo Alto Hills  32 Baumb, Nelly From:Kim <ksuz1981@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2020 11:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please start pilot program for Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I support the pilot program to allow some non‐residents to get permits to use Foothills Park.    I’ve read the report which is posted online in your meeting packet. I’ve also read a few articles in Palo Alto Online  discussing this and the history of the issue and I feel like I’m making an informed decision.    Thanks,  Kim Lemmer  2282 Amherst St  Palo Alto CA 94306  33 Baumb, Nelly From:Gail Thompson <Gail.thompson2018@outlook.com> Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2020 8:35 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.  I support opening up the park to neighboring communities and adding addition staff in the park.    Gail  Thompson  Palo Alto resident          34 Baumb, Nelly From:Carl Darling <cdarling@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2020 8:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stop the foothills park change CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  This will only result in more money being allocated to administer. he must be higher priorities for the council to consider. It must be political 35 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Jensen <susan@sunassembly.com> Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2020 4:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Parks for All CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Palo Alto City Council members,    As a resident of Portola Valley who lives in Los Trancos Woods just over the official border of Foothills Park, I don’t  understand why you have a policy that doesn’t allow me to visit your park.  My husband and I visit Palo Alto regularly,  supporting your stores, restaurants, theaters, libraries and churches.  We allow you to hike on our trails and visit our  parks in Portola Valley.    I think it’s a time in our country to be more unified and more inclusive of others.  Please consider opening your trails to  us as we do to you.  Why should this public land not be accessible to me?    Thank you,  Susan Jensen  1031 Los Trancos Road  Portola Valley, CA 94028  1‐650‐851‐5535      36 Baumb, Nelly From:atkinsonkim@pacbell.net Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2020 6:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Do NOT open Foothills Park to the public CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council          How can you possibly,  and during a pandemic, suddenly plan to turn Foothills Park into a public park on August 3,  after it has been a private city park for 55 years  ?  Funded by Palo Alto taxpayers since 1965 ?  (When Los Altos chose not to co‐buy the land with us ?)          You have given the public little notice.  The city council should have no right to make this  decision.   This needs to be put up to a vote by all the residents of Palo Alto.          You are furthermore endangering Palo Alto residents who use the park, during the pandemic, by inviting more  people in  from other areas.    People are hiking the wrong way up marked one‐way trails, as recently as today.    Your ranger staff cannot possibly manage an increased visitor load and keep us all safe during the pandemic.           Opening Foothills Park up to the public, during a pandemic, with little notice and no city‐wide vote,  reeks of the behavior Donald Trump is exhibiting, undoing decades of environmental laws and protections  while the nation is distracted with the serious issues of the pandemic.     What are you doing here ?           You do not have the right to damage this fragile, beautiful, tranquil park and lake by opening  it up to the public.   The park already has had many visitors this summer.   It will be ruined if you allow more people to enter.          What right do you have to take this park away from Palo Alto residents, who have been  paying for the park for 55 years ?    With no city‐wide vote ?     None.          You will ruin the park.  You will hurt the Palo Alto users who are there.  Parking spaces are full every day.        Where will you put more cars ?  More trash ?   More covid exposure ?       Do not bring in more people.  You will ruin one of the gems of this city, and you will devalue  our lives here, and our property values, which some of us have worked very hard for over many years.    Kim Atkinson                            38 Baumb, Nelly From:Amy Keohane <amykeohane@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 8:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    At this time when money Is not flush and covid surrounding us I would say not a good time to open Foothill. We don’t  have the money to have someone up there during the week and the weekend is very crowded. Time to think about our  downtown that is dying.  Our parks are being used more than ever and garbage is piling up during the week. I love  downtown and the garbage overload is a problem. Time to table the Foothills unless you are getting money from others  cities to support. Charging a fee is not going to pay for the rangers to keep the parks clean.    Sent from my iPhone  39 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Arndorfer <earndorfer@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 12:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Open Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and City Council members,     I am writing to support opening Foothills Park to non‐residents. As an avid hiker, I have used Foothills for years. It is a  gem. Sharing it beyond our residents makes sense and is an important equity move.    I understand that it may cost the City money to expand access. This seems a small price and am supportive of  using resources in this way.    Warmly,    Elizabeth Arndorfer  3505 Laguna Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306      ‐‐   Elizabeth Arndorfer  1 Baumb, Nelly From:mwilliams <moniwilliams@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 9:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park Attachments:Foothills Park 2020-07-29.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council Members, I am in favor of opening up Foothills Park to non-residents on condition they are charged an entrance fee. And to keep the park from being overly-used the numbers of non- resident daily visitors can be restricted. 60 years ago, other cities would not help with the purchase so I see no reason why other city’s residents shouldn’t now help to maintain this beautiful resource. Many opponents to opening up the park say that anyone can enter through the “back door” if they don’t mind the hike. But isn’t this discriminatory to those who are physically challenged? I have lived, worked, volunteered, and paid property taxes in Palo Alto for over 30 years, but can no longer enjoy the park due to moving to a neighboring city. I look forward to the day when this tiny part of God’s Country is shared with all people, no matter who they are, where they were born, or where they now live. Thank you, Monica Engel Williams July 29, 2020 Monica Engel Williams City Hall Palo Alto City Council Chambers 500 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council Members, I am in favor of opening up Foothills Park to non-residents on condition they are charged an entrance fee. And to keep the park from being overly-used the numbers of non- resident daily visitors can be restricted. 60 years ago, other cities would not help with the purchase so I see no reason why other city’s residents shouldn’t now help to maintain this beautiful resource. Many opponents to opening up the park say that anyone can enter through the “back door” if they don’t mind the hike. But isn’t this discriminatory to those who are physically challenged? I have lived, worked, volunteered, and paid property taxes in Palo Alto for over 30 years, but can no longer enjoy the park due to moving to a neighboring city. I look forward to the day when this tiny part of God’s Country is shared with all people, no matter who they are, where they were born, or where they now live. Thank you, Monica Engel Williams July 29, 2020 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Minor, Beth Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 11:42 AM To:Council, City; French, Amy; Lait, Jonathan; Tanner, Rachael; Kirsten Squarcia; Anderson, Daren; Nguyen, Vinhloc Cc:Planning Commission; ParkRec Commission Subject:FW: History of Foothills Park Attachments:History of Acquisition of Palo Alto Foothills Park.docx Please see email below from Enid Pearson and the attached history of Foothills Park.      Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        From: Enid Pearson <enidpearson1@gmail.com>   Sent: Saturday, August 1, 2020 11:37 AM  To: Minor, Beth <Beth.Minor@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: History of Foothills Park    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Beth, Would you please distribute this history of the  Palo Alto Foothills Park to the City Council, the Planning  Commission, Parks Commission, and any on going Foothills Committee  that we have.  Thanks so much,  Enid Pearson    ‐‐        History of Acquisition of Palo Alto Foothills Park as Remembered, 8/1/20 By Enid Pearson, enidpearson1@gmail.com How I got involved with Palo alto politics: My family and I moved to Palo Alto (1200 Bryant St) in September 1953. Within the first few months I was involved with Palo Alto politics. The City Council (15 members) was favorably responding to a City Manager proposal to make Bryant and Waverly Streets one-way streets to encourage traffic into the downtown business area. The purpose was to increase downtown business and eventually expand the business area to Embarcadero Road. Immediately, the neighborhood organized against this and I was assigned the job of watching the council. Within two years, the council brought up the idea almost 24 times and each time opted not to discuss the concept because of the need to notify the public. The council appointed a committee to find a solution. The result was placing stop signs every other block from University to Embarcadero to slow traffic down. I was hooked on the council and attended as many meetings as I could. Foothills Park - How it became for Palo Altans Only: In a late December, 1959 Council meeting, Dr. Russell V.Lee presented a proposal to Palo Alto City Council. He was offering to sell 1,294 Acres of his property in the foothills for $1,300,000 which was less than it was valued. But There was a slight catch, the deal had to be done before the end of December, 1959. The City Manager told the council they needed to do the usual 30-day publication of this proposed action. This would postpone the deal. Neither the council nor Dr. Lee wanted postponement. The Council saw a bargain and Dr. Lee was very firm: Do the deal now or the offer was gone. The council directed the city manager to start the purchase action without the 30 day publication. This was totally illegal. At this time there was a downtown group of merchants who were very active, organized and not supportive of handing over 1.6 million dollars to Dr. Lee. They also inspected the property and they noted the following: the property had no source of water, it was very dry, grass and weeds and there were lots of rattle snakes. Furthermore, the army had used the area as a training ground and purportedly there were landmines buried in the flat area which had to be found and dug up. They launched a crusade against the purchase and they threatened to take the city to court. I think there was some legal action, but can’t remember what. The council was a little nervous about spending $1,300,000 and floated the idea that maybe our neighbors, i.e., Los Altos and Los Altos Hills, might want to join in the purchase and the City Manager was directed to ask them if they wanted to share. Part of the problem was that these were relatively new cities. Remember PA was incorporated in 1894 and Palo Alto was considered a very wealthy city. Palo Alto had the new and thriving Stanford industrial park and a very successful business downtown. Los Altos had just incorporated in Dec. 1952 and had very little industry and Los Altos Hills just incorporated in 1956 and also had little industry. These cities were not loaded with extra cash Page 2 to spend on a park that would need a lot of work (money) to make it usable by the public and so they declined. There was a lot of opposition and grumbling regarding the purchase of this land. Council decided to place the park/land purchase on the ballot. Let the people decide. At the Monday night council meeting, the night before election day, the council promised that if the voters verified the park purchase, the council would make the park available to Palo Alto residents only. The election day issue of the Palo Alto Times had a huge headline stating the council’s promise to the voters. The voters responded verifying the land purchase by 62% of vote. The council immediately kept their promise and passed a resolution declaring use of the park by Palo Alto residents only. There have been several attempts by different councils to revoke this resolution and open the Park to all. Staff’s response always outlines what I consider the worst scenarios – hoards of people will overrun the park. The flora and fauna of the park will be destroyed. All wild animals such as deer, etc, will vanish, the lake Palo Alto installed will be polluted, etc. This usually scares the council into not taking any action, but small changes have been added, such as outsiders can visit the park if accompanied by a Palo Altan (and verify your residence in Palo Alto), or if a Group has a public event (and they are responsible for cleanup) a limited number of guests can visit on the day or evening of the event. Opening the Park to All: In my opinion, Foothills Park should be open to all. The council in 1959 was trying to figure out how it could justify spending this amount of money on what seemed like a pretty awful piece of land. They had no confidence that the grumpy groups of citizens appearing before them might just vote them out of office. I actually think they thought they were doing a good thing. The truth is we have all figured out that this kind of action by governments is bordering on dictatorship and racism and we should not be engaging in such actions. Yes, it is time to open Foothills Park to all. We are perfectly capable of managing the numbers of folks in the park at anyone time and we should, just to protect the whole area from being used to death. And I think we can stay within the bounds of good neighborliness. Just look around us. There are many parks all open and managed, and in my opinion, really well cared for by both the public and each government entity. Foothills Park would definitely survive and thrive. How to fund an increased use and resulting necessary protection of the park is a legitimate question. Palo Alto’s population increases daily to over 100,000 people. These are the many workers employed by our industrial parks and shopping centers and other employers, including households and schools and more. These folks contribute to the income of Palo Alto and if they chose, should be allowed access to all our parks. It should be embarrassing to any Palo Altan that we restrict one of our parks. Also, Foothills Park is not the kind of park that attracts vandalism and destruction and huge crowds of people. It’s a park that urges picnics and hikes and baseball, etc. And there is not a lot of infrastructure (buildings, etc.) which sometimes encourages vandalism. A citizens committee with staff assistance could figure out how to open the park, how to set limits, times, and numbers and how to pay for increased costs. I urge the Palo Alto Council to step up and take charge. Make history, and correct the action taken 61 years ago. It might have been justified for the years the park was being upgraded. It was a new park and needed a lot of work to make it what it is today. We really are better than that and have learned a lot since. Open Foothills Park to all. Enid Pearson Former PA Councilwoman, 1965-1975 1 Baumb, Nelly From:City Mgr Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2020 3:56 PM To:O'Kane, Kristen; Shikada, Ed; leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique; Minor, Beth; Stump, Molly; ORG - Clerk's Office Cc:City Mgr Subject:August 3, Item 10 (Foothills Park) Attachments:2.png Fyi, the attached survey results were emailed to the City Council individually and @City Mgr. It pertains to August 3,  Action Item 10 (Foothills Park).    Thank you.    Danille Rice  Executive Assistant to the City Manager  (650)329‐2105 | Danille.Rice@cityofpaloalto.org  www.cityofpaloalto.org    From: Roger Smith <rogervernonsmith@hotmail.com>   Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2020 3:10 PM  To: Cormack, Alison <Alison.Cormack@CityofPaloAlto.org>; DuBois, Tom <Tom.DuBois@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Filseth, Eric  (Internal) <Eric.Filseth@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>;  lizz.kniss@cityofpaloalto.org; Tanaka, Greg <Greg.Tanaka@CityofPaloAlto.org>; City Mgr <CityMgr@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject:     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Enclosed are the results of my one‐day (24 hrs.) Survey on Nextdoor Palo Alto. 251 people  responded with 78 percent favoring keeping Foothills Park Preserve closed.   We must move on to more important matters so please stop the Gish gallop. I hope we can  make the decision quickly Monday night to keep this Fragile Preserve closed.  Thank you for all your hard work for all of us,  feel free to contact me at (650)327‐7323    Roger Smith    Roger Smith Old Palo Alto • 1 day ago Should we open Foothills Park Preserve to Non-Residents? City Council Meeting Discussion of the Parks and Recreation Commission's Pilot Program to Increase Access to Foothills Park for Non-residents and Provide Direction to Staff (Continued From June 23, 2020) August 3, 2020 at 5:00 PM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY***"' https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 362 027 238 Phone:1(669)900-6833 FYI Opinion Piece: https://www.paloaltoonline.com/print;story /2020/07 /24/guest -opinion-nows-not- the-ti me-for-full-foothills-park-discussion We welcome your comments and suggestions! v YES 22% NO 78% 251 votes Posted to 23 neighborhoods Q Thank CJ 67 Comments :.: 4 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy <ngkrop@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 12:21 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.  Hi     I favor opening Foothills Park to non‐residents. I so enjoy visiting the parks in our neighboring communities. I can not  imagine being excluded from those parks (or having to pay a fee to go to parks in other cities).    Increased costs solutions    Fees? I would rather not charge fees as I enjoy visiting the parks in our neighboring cities without having to pay a  fee each time.    Business taxes? I read we don’t charge large businesses any business fees but they pay those fees in neighboring  cities. If true, then we could charge our large businesses a fee for doing business in our city rather than making  low income people and families pay a park entrance fee.  Thank you for considering my input.    Nancy Krop  Barron Park neighborhood      2 Baumb, Nelly From:Barry Hart <hartb88@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 12:26 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park - Nature or People? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Foothills Park is an amazing nature preserve that will be negatively impacted by increasing the number of visitors, including letting in non-residents. I have noticed this during the pandemic with increased use. I ask that council keep the resident requirement and continue to cap the number of daily visitors Barry Hart 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Ronna Shpall <ralshpall5@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 12:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:defer Foothills Park discussion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council,  I am concerned about what seems to be a rush to start a pilot program on for expanding admission to Foothills Park. I  request that you put off discussion and voting to increase users of the park to non‐residents of Palo Alto. This discussion  of and implementation of a pilot program should be deferred. This issue of opening up the park should be studied  carefully, thoroughly, and calmly  not only because of its fiscal impact, but also its environmental impact on the flora and  fauna of the Park.  Sincerely,  Ronna Shpall  Palo Alto resident  4 Baumb, Nelly From:susan chamberlain <suschamberlain@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 12:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:open Foothills Park to non residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,      Please take action to open Foothills Park to non residents. As a member of First Presbyterian Church, I believe we have  the moral/ethical responsibility to consider social equity and inclusion in our city policy decisions. Excluding non  residents is simply unacceptable in this era of challenging racism and privilege.  Palo Alto should not miss this  opportunity to take action on opening Foothill Park to non residents of our city.      In the proposed pilot program the process for getting a visitor pass online is too cumbersome. I suggest no pass  required.     If you charge an entry fee it should be the same for residents and non residents to achieve equity.     The 50 person limit is too restrictive. Don’t put a limit, then collect data on usage. Make policy decisions based on that  data.     Susan Chamberlain  121 Byron Street  Palo Alto          1.Moral/ethical issue: Social equity and inclusion issues have been headline, critical issues in recent  months in our country. Palo Alto should not lose this opportunity to take action on these compelllng  issues by opening Foothill Park to non residents.  2. In the proposed pilot program the process for non residents is too cumbersome — For example,  getting a visitors pass online.   3. In terms of equity, all visitors (resident and non‐resident) should pay a fee (or it should still be free —  my opinion. — Debbie)  4. The 50 person limitation is too restrictive. Base the number on available parking spaces, not a person  count.  5. This plan is set up to fail. Too cumbersome and restrictive.   6. The pilot program is good but needs to go further. We need to do more to open Foothill Park to non  residents.     5 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne Woodbury <annekwoodbury@mac.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 1:48 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please do not open access to Foothills Park during Covid because it will be hard to distance and there will likely be parking issues CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi City Council,    I am not sure why Foothills Park keeps coming up for opening access.  I can see why you might open access to the  people who live right around it,  but not to open it to everyone.  If you do that it will not be the peaceful respite that it has been for Palo Alto citizens because there will be too many  people to social distance safely and there is limited parking so it will likely be impossible to park.  And also,  if Palo Alto is  the only community that pays for the upkeep of the park then it still makes sense to keep it limited as a place for Palo  Alto.  I love Foothills Park and I hate to see it overrun.  It is such a peaceful place,  a place of solitude and stillness,  but it may  not be if you open it up.    Thank you,  Anne Woodbury  443 Ventura Avenue #10  Palo Alto, CA 94306  annekwoodbury@mac.com  650‐813‐9357 office/home  650‐722‐2681 cell/text  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Joe Hirsch <jihirschpa@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 1:59 PM 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 Council Members, I cannot be at tonight's CC meeting, as a I have a Stanford Continuing Studies Program at the same time, but I do have some comments about the proposed opening of Foothills Park that I wish you to consider. Many years ago, Rinconada Park had many problems with non- Palo Altans using the Park, as it was (and presumably still is) open to the public. Many came on the weekends and camped out early in the morning and throughout the day, leaving little room for Palo Altans. They came in large numbers, blared their boomboxes loudly, and left lots of trash. Neighbors were rightly concerned and complained often. I'm not sure what the resolution of that was or whether that continues on and off to this day. A recent article in the NYT (July 31st edition) entitled "A Hidden Gem, Loved by All, but Now Closed to Everyone" tells of similar occurrences at Lake Solitude in High Bridge, New Jersey. When non-residents (many from out-of-state) found out about the lake and surrounding park, and I quote from the article: "People began pouring in, bringing portable speakers, children and food, and leaving behind trash". City officials had to close the lake and park, even to city residents, when the overcrowding and littering could not be properly controlled. 7 The article reported a similar situation at Big Deep and Little Deep swimming holes in Woodstock, N.Y. because of the "littering and messes left behind by visitors" that made it difficult to "maintain safety during the pandemic". Will the same thing happen if Foothills Park is opened to the general public? Reservations may be limited, but others will walk in and the park soon will be crowded and overrun. It is a beautiful pristine area, home to many deer, and should, in my opinion, be left that way, conservation first. Accordingly, I am in favor of keeping the park open only to Palo Altans and our guests. There many other Palo Alto parks open to the general public, so we should not feel shamed that we are not opening this particular park to all. There are also County and State parks that are open to the general public. People will have the selection of many public places, many in Palo Alto, to go to if they want to. Please keep Foothills Park as it is now for a very limited number of people - and the deer. Thanks for considering these comments. Joe 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Jessica Hyde <jessicaleehyde@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 2:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Vote yes to approve the Foothills Park pilot program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I'm a Palo Alto resident who loves hiking and picnicking at Foothills. Before moving here I worked in Palo Alto for several  years but lived in East Palo Alto, Santa Clara and Menlo Park. I watched the Parks and Recreation commission panel and I  read the pilot proposal and I would like the city council to approve the pilot program to allow non‐residents access to  Foothills Park.      Why is now the time?  In particular during this pandemic when our recreation options are limited and things like domestic abuse are up  (https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/05/covid‐19‐dv‐story/) we all need access to these public lands, these open  spaces for our mental health and physical health. We all benefit from opportunities to get outdoors and see wildlife and  awe‐inspiring, transformational views. Based on personal experience, people who live in more crowded apartments and  smaller homes may benefit even more.    It is not just Palo Alto residents who need open spaces. Our neighbors who happen to live in other city boundaries but  who often work, volunteer or attend schools or religious organizations in our city also benefit from access to open  spaces. Connection with nature is something that bridges the differences we have, it connects us and brings us together  as a species at a time when racism is pulling us apart. Please listen and give us some good, positive news so these  protests are not in vain and we can begin the work of healing bad feelings between cities.    How will this benefit the park?  The more people who can visit the park, the more people who become fans and supporters of the park. In all the many  times I have visited the park I have seen very few people there. If people can't go there they won't have a connection  with the land and won't care about doing volunteer work to help care for the park. It is so sad the current state of affairs  where non‐resident students volunteer at the park but are not allowed to enter the park on the weekend to show their  families the work they did and the beauty of the park. What lesson are we teaching these children?    If this place is "special" to you, do your part to leave it better than you found it  As someone who hikes in many of the preserves up and down the peninsula I would say the wildlife is very similar to  other parks. People who are saying this park is "special" may refer to the fact that it has some very accessible trails and a large picnic area near a forest. But it isn't a completely unique or special place. The main thing that differentiates it is the  bad reputation it gives Palo Alto as elitist and racist. Yes, I know Palo Alto is diverse but there is no denying our  demographic is more privileged than other nearby cities whose residents we are denying access to an open space, public  preserve.     If you care so much about the wildlife, why do you get to trample all over the fields and trails but someone who lives  across a city border doesn't get to? I'd gladly stay home or go to another park if Foothills ever gets a lot of visitors. We  can all do our part to clean up trash, volunteer to remove invasives, report issues, ask people to follow guidelines, etc  and truly show that we value this place and that we will help take care of it while sharing it and teaching others how to  care for it.    A step in the right direction  9 I'd love to see a day where access is the same for residents and non‐residents (we all pay fees or no one pays fees) but  for now I think the pilot program is a good first step to start opening access to everyone. Let us be humble and admit the  mistakes we made in the past in keeping others out. I'm super curious why it costs about $90K to monitor the gate on  weekends. It seems like mechanical counters and gates or a minimum wage worker could reduce this cost and let the  senior rangers work on other tasks.     Thank you for representing my voice,    Jessica Hyde    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne Cribbs <acribbs@basoc.org> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 2:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter to City Council regarding opening of Foothill Par CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good afternoon. Please see below… and thank you.     Mayor Fine and City Council Members:     I will be part of the PRC presentation to you tonight about the pilot program for opening  Foothill Park, representing the Commission as Vice Chair.     Speaking for myself, it is important for me as a long time resident of Palo Alto ‐ and one who  loves Foothill Park ‐ to let you know that I hope that your action tonight is to repeal the restrictive ordinance, welcome our neighbors – especially the children who will be responsible for the future.     I hope that we can commit to working together to continue to protect the incredible environment that we know and love as Foothill Park. I believe a citizens committee can work with our great city staff to figure out how to open the park, set limits and figure out how to pay for increased costs.    Please, in this understandably challenging time, “meet this moment”, make history and open the Park to all - demonstrating Palo Alto’s commitment to equality, access, openness and resource protection.     Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of the future of Foothill Park.     2 Anne Warner Cribbs, OLY  415.264.2067                     Anne Warner Cribbs OLY President and CEO BASOC - the bay area sports organizing committee 1960 Olympian 2450 Agnes Way Palo Alto, CA 94303 Ph. 650.323.9400 Fx: 650.323,9403 415.264.2067 acribbs@basoc.org www.basoc.org               3 Baumb, Nelly From:Rabbi Amy Eilberg <rebamy1@gmail.com> on behalf of Rabbi Amy Eilberg <rebamy@eilberg.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 2:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please accept the proposal to begin opening Foothills Park to non-residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Rabbi Amy Eilberg  899 Lundy Lane  Los Altos, CA 94024  rebamy@eilberg.com     I am a rabbi and a resident of Los Altos, and I provide leadership at Congregation Kol Emeth, and serve on the steering  committee of Multifaith Voices for Peace and Justice, a grassroots organization in Palo Alto that works with dozens of houses of worship and community organizations in Palo Alto for the dignity and well‐being of all.     I am deeply concerned about the exclusionary policy of allowing only residents of Palo Alto to use Foothills Park.   I am  moved by the leadership of Pastor Kaloma Smith of AME Zion Church, whose community feels the sting of marginalization due to this policy.  The policy may not have been originally instituted for expressly racist reasons.  But as we are all learning,  “innocent”  policies  can  have  unintended  impact,  sending  messages  of  rejection  and  degradation  to  minority  and oppressed communities.        We all care about the park, which is a gem in our area.  No one wants to harm the beautiful ecosystem in the park.  We  understand  that  there  are  concerns  about  how  many  people  the  park  can  accommodate without being  hurt.  But  restricting people by zip code (and skin color) in no way benefits the park.  On the contrary, it creates harm for individuals  and communities within Palo Alto, and it leaves a stain on the reputation and self‐image of Palo Alto as a progressive and  inclusive, anti‐racist city.     I urge you to accept the proposal, which will a create a thoughtful and cautious experiment with opening up the park, hoping that this will lead to a fuller opening at a later time.     Rabbi Amy Eilberg     4 Do not get lost in a sea of despair. Be hopeful, be optimistic. Our struggle is not the struggle of a day, a week, a month,  or a year, it is the struggle of a lifetime. Never, ever be afraid to make some noise and get in good trouble, necessary  trouble. (John Lewis)    Rabbi Amy Eilberg  (she/her/hers)  Spiritual Director, Kindness Coach, Peace and Justice Educator    rebamy@eilberg.com  www.rabbiamyeilberg.com     Author, From Enemy to Friend: Jewish Wisdom and the Pursuit of Peace (Orbis Books)    5 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Goldstein Alexis <ealexis@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 2:46 PM To:Council, City Subject:Item 10 - Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am writing to propose a compromise to provide wider access to Foothill Park. The city should consider a short‐term  lease (1 to 5 years) to Santa Clara County Parks and/or  Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (MROSD), which  would help achieve a number of goals.     The debate about Foothill Park has been very heated. It is important to appreciate that the city of Palo Alto has a history  of open access to its many city parks and other public facilities.  Our libraries remain open to any resident of California  unlike some other library systems, Cubberley (normally) hosts many regional events and the city's playing fields are used  by teams from all over the Bay Area. We have invested in new playgrounds and recreational facilities that welcome all  comers.    Foothill Park is a little bit of an oddity beyond being the one facility not open to non‐residents. This can be observed by  looking at the map of the city limits where it is only attached to the core part of Palo Alto by a string. In some ways, it  functions as a nature preserve that is simply managed by Palo Alto, rather than a park ‐ almost like Berkeley Family  Camp.    6       Foothill Park, however, is not located in the Sierras. It is in the foothills of our own Santa Cruz mountains, where other  similar natural spaces are either County Parks or Open Space Preserves. In fact, if MROSD had existed when Foothill Park  came into being, it seems likely the property might have been included in their holdings, given that it is contiguous to  other preserves.    Coronavirus has made us appreciative of the incredible outdoor spaces that are available to Bay Area residents. We  should be taking any action we can to increase the accessibility to nature, including Foothill Park which is a real gem.  Palo Alto has been an incredible steward of the land and the investment in maintenance and upkeep over the years has  paid off.    I hear the concerns that Foothill will become overcrowded and the desire to go slow with any change in policy. The staff  proposal, while well‐meaning, seems like it adds a lot of complication and overhead.    Why not simply lease the park to the regional authorities who already maintain similar facilities? This could be for a  limited time period which would allow reconsideration and include a provision for the city summer camps to continue.    This has several advantages:    1) Save taxpayers money. This would allow the city to maintain other services, most of which are open to all.    2) Better integrate Foothill with adjacent open spaces.    3) Piggyback off existing ways that the County and MROSD balance access and crowding.    8 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth De Oliveira <elizabeth.deo@me.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 2:39 PM To:Council, City; ParkRec Commission Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council and Parks and Recreation Commission,    It is time to end the policy of reserving Foothills Park for the exclusive use of Palo Alto residents. Whether or not it made sense at the time the park was created, it doesn't feel right now. Yes, as a resident of the Los Trancos neighborhood  overlooking the park, I resent that Palo Alto residents use my neighborhood as a playground while I am subject to  penalties if I walk across the creek. A second generation Palo Alton myself, I have remained silent about that for years.  What I cannot remain silent about anymore is the de facto exclusion of people of color and diverse backgrounds from  our natural areas. Many people grow up feeling our parks and open spaces are not for them. Rarely is such exclusion so  explicit as in the case of Foothills Park, however. This is not who Palo Alto is nor what it wants to be.      Thank you,    Elizabeth de Oliveira    1 Baumb, Nelly From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 10:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:How to submit petition for tonight's meeting? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council:     I have a petition with signatures that I want to submit  to you at your meeting this evening (3 Aug).  How can I submit this petition to you?    Due to Covid‐19, the petition is a stack of signed postcards,  not a single sheet of paper.    Carlin Otto  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Forward <palo.alto.fwd@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 2:48 PM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kniss, Liz (internal); Planning Commission Subject:Agenda Item #11, August 3rd - Summary Title: PBA 2050 / RHNA Update Attachments:ABAGRHNA-Final060920(r).pdf; RHNA Letter August 2020 (1).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Council members,    Palo Alto Forward thanks the staff for the excellent summary of the Bay Area RHNA development process. The material summarized the progress of the ABAG methodology committee discussions regarding allocating the regional total to cities.   As the memo notes, roughly half of the regional allocation is not related to growth but to statutory state requirements, some of which are new to this cycle. I have attached the HCD determination letter so council members can see the contribution of the new factors--reducing the number of overcrowded and cost-burdened households and the contribution of existing factors--moving toward a more “normal” vacancy rate and replacing demolished units as a means to not create a further deficit of housing units.    With regard to the allocation methodology Palo Alto Forward favors the three allocation metrics shown on page 5 of the staff report. These metrics will prioritize communities with access to high opportunity areas and communities with large excesses of jobs versus housing units. Palo Alto Forward supports efforts to increase housing in resource rich cities like ours. The proposal the committee currently favors has a 50% weight for access to high opportunity areas and a 40% weight to job factors including access to transit..     While these allocation factors will result in more units allocated to Palo Alto than the staff proposal, we believe they are the fairest way to allocate new housing. A lower target for Palo Alto will simply shift housing allocations to communities that less meet the equity and job imbalance criteria.    Achieving these goals will be hard for all communities but the Housing Element requirement is to identify sites, zoning and policies to meet the requirements To that end Palo Alto Forward encourages the council and staff to begin now to think about the Housing Element update, which will require thoughtful and innovative elements no matter what Palo Alto’s allocation is.    Gail A. Price  President, Palo Alto Forward Board     STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT 2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500 Sacramento, CA 95833 (916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453www.hcd.ca.gov June 9, 2020 Therese W. McMillan, Executive Director Association of Bay Area Governments 375 Beale Street. Suite 700 San Francisco, CA 94105 Dear Therese W. McMillan, RE: Final Regional Housing Need Determination This letter provides the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) its final Regional Housing Need Determination. Pursuant to state housing element law (Government Code section 65584, et seq.), the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is required to provide the determination of ABAG’s existing and projected housing need. In assessing ABAG’s regional housing need, HCD and ABAG staff completed an extensive consultation process from March 2019 through May 2020 covering the methodology, data sources, and timeline for HCD’s determination of the Regional Housing Need. HCD also consulted with Walter Schwarm with the California Department of Finance (DOF) Demographic Research Unit. Attachment 1 displays the minimum regional housing need determination of 441,176 total units among four income categories for ABAG to distribute among its local governments. Attachment 2 explains the methodology applied pursuant to Gov. Code section 65584.01. In determining ABAG’s housing need, HCD considered all the information specified in state housing law (Gov. Code section 65584.01(c)). As you know, ABAG is responsible for adopting a methodology for RHNA allocation and RHNA Plan for the projection period beginning June 30, 2022 and ending December 31, 2030. Pursuant to Gov. Code section 65584(d), the methodology to prepare ABAG’s RHNA plan must further the following objectives: (1)Increasing the housing supply and mix of housing types, tenure, and affordability(2)Promoting infill development and socioeconomic equity, protecting environmental and agricultural resources, and encouraging efficient development patters(3)Promoting an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing(4)Balancing disproportionate household income distributions(5)Affirmatively furthering fair housing Pursuant to Gov. Code section 65584.04(d), to the extent data is available, ABAG shall include the factors listed in Gov. Code section 65584.04(d)(1-13) to develop its RHNA Therese W. McMillan Director Page 2 plan, and pursuant to Gov. Code section 65584.04(f), ABAG must explain in writing how each of these factors was incorporated into the RHNA plan methodology and how the methodology furthers the statutory objectives described above. Pursuant to Gov. Code section 65584.04(h), ABAG must submit its draft methodology to HCD for review. Increasing the availability of affordable homes, ending homelessness, and meeting other housing goals continues to be a priority for the State of California. To support these goals the 2019-20 Budget Act allocated $250 million for all regions and jurisdictions for planning activities through the Regional Early Action Planning (REAP) and Local Early Action Planning (LEAP) Grant programs. ABAG has $ 23,966,861 available through the REAP program and HCD applauds ABAG’s efforts to engage early on how best to utilize these funds and HCD looks forward to continuing this collaboration. All ABAG jurisdictions are also eligible for LEAP grants and are encouraged to apply to support meeting and exceeding sixth cycle housing element goals. While the SB 2 Planning Grant deadline has passed, ongoing regionally tailored technical assistance is still available through that program. In addition to these planning resources HCD encourages local governments to consider the many other affordable housing and community development resources available to local governments that can be found at https://www.hcd.ca.gov/grants- funding/nofas.shtml HCD commends ABAG and its leadership in fulfilling its important role in advancing the state’s housing, transportation, and environmental goals. ABAG is also recognized for its actions in proactively educating and engaging its board and committees on the RHNA process and the regional housing need, as well as creating tools to aid the public understanding in the process. HCD especially thanks Paul Fassinger, Gillian Adams, Aksel Olsen, Dave Vautin, Bobby Lu, Matt Maloney, and Elizabeth Bulgarin for their significant efforts and assistance. HCD looks forward to its continued partnership with ABAG and its member jurisdictions and assisting ABAG in its planning efforts to accommodate the region’s share of housing need. If HCD can provide any additional assistance, or if you, or your staff, have any questions, please contact Megan Kirkeby, Acting Deputy Director, at megan.kirkeby@hcd.ca.gov or Tom Brinkhuis, Housing Policy Specialist at (916) 263- 6651 or tom.brinkhuis@hcd.ca.gov. Sincerely, Megan Kirkeby Acting Deputy Director Enclosures ATTACHMENT 1 HCD REGIONAL HOUSING NEED DETERMINATION ABAG: June 30, 2022 through December 31, 2030 Income Category Percent Housing Unit Need Very-Low* 25.9% 114,442 Low 14.9% 65,892 Moderate 16.5% 72,712 Above-Moderate 42.6% 188,130 Total 100.0% 441,176 * Extremely-Low 15.5% Included in Very-Low Category Notes: Income Distribution: Income categories are prescribed by California Health and Safety Code (Section 50093, et. seq.). Percents are derived based on Census/ACS reported household income brackets and county median income, then adjusted based on the percent of cost-burdened households in the region compared with the percent of cost burdened households nationally. ATTACHMENT 2 HCD REGIONAL HOUSING NEED DETERMINATION: ABAG June 30, 2021 through December 31, 2030 Methodology ABAG: PROJECTION PERIOD (8.5 years) HCD Determined Population, Households, & Housing Unit Need Reference No. Step Taken to Calculate Regional Housing Need Amount 1. Population: December 31 2030 (DOF June 30 2030 projection adjusted + 6 months to December 31 2030) 8,273,975 2. -Group Quarters Population: December 31 2030 (DOF June 30 2030 projection adjusted + 6 months to December 31 2030) -169,755 3. Household (HH) Population 8,159,280 4. Projected Households 3,023,735 5. + Vacancy Adjustment (3.27%)+98,799 6. +Overcrowding Adjustment (3.13%)+94,605 7. + Replacement Adjustment (.50%)+15,120 8. -Occupied Units (HHs) estimated June 30, 2022 -2,800,1859. + Cost-burden Adjustment +9,102 Total 6th Cycle Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) 441,176 Detailed background data for this chart is available upon request. Explanation and Data Sources 1-4. Population, Group Quarters, Household Population, & Projected Households: Pursuantto Gov. Code Section 65584.01, projections were extrapolated from DOF projections. Population reflects total persons. Group Quarter Population reflects persons in a dormitory, group home, institute, military, etc. that do not require residential housing. Household Population reflects persons requiring residential housing. Projected Households reflect the propensity of persons within the Household Population to form households at different rates based on American Community Survey (ACS) trends. 5.Vacancy Adjustment: HCD applies a vacancy adjustment (standard 5% maximum tototal projected housing stock) and adjusts the percentage based on the region’s currentvacancy percentage to provide healthy market vacancies to facilitate housing availability and resident mobility. The adjustment is the difference between standard5% vacancy rate and regions current vacancy rate based (1.73%) on the 2014-2018ACS data. For ABAG that difference is 3.27%. 6.Overcrowding Adjustment: In regions where overcrowding is greater than the comparable region’s overcrowding rate, or in the absence of comparable region the national overcrowding rate. HCD applies an adjustment based on the amount theregions overcrowding rate (6.73%) exceeds the comparable region’s rate (3.60%). ForABAG that difference is 3.13%. Data is from the 2014-2018 ACS. 7.Replacement Adjustment: HCD applies a replacement adjustment between .5% and 5% to the total housing stock based on the current 10-year annual average percent of demolitions the region’s local government annual reports to Department of Finance(DOF). For ABAG the 10-year annual average multiplied by the length of the projectionperiod is .40%, and the minimum .50% adjustment is applied. 8. Occupied Units: This figure reflects DOF’s estimate of occupied units at the start of the projection period (June 30, 2022). 9. Cost Burden Adjustment: HCD applies an adjustment to the projected need by comparing the difference in cost-burden by income group for the region to the cost-burden by income group for the comparable regions, as determined by ABAG. The very-low and low income RHNA is increased by the percent difference (66.64%-66.00%=.64%) between the region and the comparable region cost burden rate for households earning 80% of area median income and below, then this difference is applied to very low- and low-income RHNA proportionate to the share of the population these groups currently represent. The moderate and above-moderate income RHNA is increased by the percent difference (16.25%-13.10%=3.15%) between the region and the comparable region cost burden rate for households earning above 80% Area Median Income, then this difference is applied to moderate and above moderate income RHNA proportionate to the share of the population these groups currently represent. Data is from 2012-2016 CHAS. August 1st, 2020 Re: Item #11, August 3rd - Summary Title: PBA 2050 / RHNA Update To: Mayor Adrian Fine, and City Council Members Dear Mayor Fine and Council members, Palo Alto Forward thanks the staff for the excellent summary of the Bay Area RHNA development process. The material summarized the progress of the ABAG methodology committee discussions regarding allocating the regional total to cities. As the memo notes, roughly half of the regional allocation is not related to growth but to statutory state requirements, some of which are new to this cycle. I have attached the HCD determination letter so council members can see the contribution of the new factors--reducing the number of overcrowded and cost-burdened households and the contribution of existing factors--moving toward a more “normal” vacancy rate and replacing demolished units as a means to not create a further deficit of housing units. With regard to the allocation methodology Palo Alto Forward favors the three allocation metrics shown on page 5 of the staff report. These metrics will prioritize communities with access to high opportunity areas and communities with large excesses of jobs versus housing units. Palo Alto Forward supports efforts to increase housing in resource rich cities like ours. The proposal the committee currently favors has a 50% weight for access to high opportunity areas and a 40% weight to job factors including access to transit.. While these allocation factors will result in more units allocated to Palo Alto than the staff proposal, we believe they are the fairest way to allocate new housing. A lower target for Palo Alto will simply shift housing allocations to communities that less meet the equity and job imbalance criteria. Achieving these goals will be hard for all communities but the Housing Element requirement is to identify sites, zoning and policies to meet the requirements To that end Palo Alto Forward encourages the council and staff to begin now to think about the Housing Element update, which will require thoughtful and innovative elements no matter what Palo Alto’s allocation is. Gail A. Price President, Palo Alto Forward Board 2 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 12:00 PM To:Council, City; Planning Commission Cc:Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan Subject:council letter on RHNA allocation to jurisdictions CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Fine and Council members, I thank staff for their fine technical memo laying our the regional and sub-regional issues and history with regard to the new RHNA cycle. I oppose the suggestion that Palo Alto ask for the lowest possible allocation of the regional RHNA need as I read in the current draft letter. I support the ABAG methodology committee direction shown in the staff memo to allocate an above average share of the regional allocation to communities that are considered "high opportunity" areas (their equity criterion) and to communities with large existing excesses of jobs over housing and also good access to public transit (their jobs criterion). I find the current letter in deep conflict with the evidence on the relationship of good neighborhoods (high opportunity areas) and education. I find the research of Raj Chetty and Sean Reardon at Stanford compelling on the benefits to children in low income families of being in neighborhoods with good schools and social infrastructure like Palo Alto. I also note that council used this evidence as one piece of their Buena Vista decision and funding. The implication of the letter is that council prefers to reallocate housing shares to communities that rank well below Palo Alto on high opportunity areas and imbalances of jobs versus housing. This sends a signal both that Palo Alto does not accept the criteria of equity and mitigating jobs--housing imbalances, which is in direct opposition to public council statements and can only be seen as the intent to avoid our fair share responsibility. However ABAG chooses to allocate the regional total to jurisdictions, Palo alto will receive a minimum of double the current 5th cycle allocation. In order to show good faith in what will be a difficult task, I ask council to immediately begin work on the next Housing Element in identifying sites, zoning and policies. Among other things council will need to know how sites such as North Ventura fit into meeting the minimum possible 4,000+ unit goal and what expansions of the policies adopted more than 18 months ago are needed. What role can ADUs and missing middle housing by design play in meeting our RHNA and Housing Element requirements. Background I served on the technical advisory committee advising HCD on the options foe incorporating new state laws into the 6th cycle RHNA methodology and have closely followed the ABAG subcommittee discussions- -all in a volunteer capacity. 3 As pointed out in the staff memo, roughly half of the regional allocation was in response to state law addressing existing imbalances and shortages in our housing stock. The HCD determination letter identifies nearly 100,000 units each to address reducing overcrowding and maintaining a healthy vacancy rate that does not put upward pressure on rents and prices. In general HCD chose application of the allocation criteria that resulted in a lower Bay Area allocation, much lower than if they had used the metrics used for SCAG. It is important that councils here and around the region understand that the higher cycle 6 regional allocations are not the result of higher projected growth or have anything to do with the Plan Bay Area 2050 growth forecast. The higher regional need determination is the result of state law adopted by the legislature to redress as best we can, the harm to families and communities from the large existing housing shortages affecting low and middle income residents. 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Burt <patburt11@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 10:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Aug 3, 2020 Palo Alto City Council Meeting, Item #11 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  RHNA/SB35 Comments to PACC  Item #11 ‐ PBA 2050/RHNA Update  Dear City Council,  The COVID emergency and recession are having drastic impacts on the regional economy that will be felt for years,  including long term changes to work locations, commuting, and housing needs. Yet, unknown to most residents and  even many elected officials, cities throughout the Peninsula are about to be hit with a radical double‐whammy of state  mandates that will trigger replacing historic municipal decision making with new state control over many land use and  zoning decisions. The real impacts will be more office buildings along with less housing than is needed from the new  offices and little low‐ or moderate‐income housing.   The first mandate, based on Plan Bay Area 2050, is a drastic and unachievable increase in the Regional Housing (RHNA)  mandates. It will likely TRIPLE the housing assignment for cities like Palo Alto from 2000 units for the current 8‐year  period to 6,000 units for each coming period – about a 20% growth in Palo Alto’s population every 8 years.   The second impact is from SB35, a 2017 law by Scott Wiener that is just now becoming implemented and understood.  Historically, cities were required to zone to be able to meet their RHNA requirements, with the state approving their  Housing Plans. SB35 completely changed the requirements. Cities must now issue building permits for their drastically  increased requirements. This is essentially a “trap door” where communities are virtually guaranteed failure, resulting  in state and big developer takeover of our development processes.   SB35 was billed as “incentivizing” affordable housing. Instead, it penalizes cities for not meeting unachievable mandates.  While SB35 purports to focus on affordable housing, its primary impact will be to increase high‐income jobs and high‐ income housing. It will worsen the jobs/housing imbalance and exacerbate the need for affordable and moderate‐ income housing. Meanwhile, in 2018‐2019, Palo Alto implemented major zoning incentives for affordable housing over  other development. But affordable housing still needs huge subsidies and the city and other resources can only meet a  small fraction of those needs. Insufficient public funding from a business tax or increases in impact fees and from the  state is what is holding back affordable housing.   Meanwhile, SB35’s real impact is to mandate automatic approval of big mixed‐use developments that produce high‐ income housing (with only a small fraction of units being affordable). These projects will be allowed to include new  office development generating more new jobs than the housing component provides, exacerbating rather than  reducing the problems. Worse yet, other recent state legislation limits cities’ ability to charge developers the full costs of  providing for the infrastructure needed by those developments – schools, parks, public safety, and community services.   The City Council should take the following actions:   Strengthen its letters to strongly oppose the timing and substance of the ABAG proposals.    Collaborate with other cities to seek a pause in the Plan Bay area 2050 and RHNA allocation processes while  cities contend with the drastic impacts of the COVID emergency.  When the economic and work pattern  5 implications of the COVID Recession become better understood, ABAG must incorporate these updates to the  plans.      Meet with our state legislators to inform them of the actual impacts of the SB35 and request them to take  legislative action to correct the law so that it complies with its declared purpose.  The effects of these mandates will be drastic and counterproductive to the important goals of reducing jobs/housing  imbalances, promoting jobs near where workers live, and meeting the housing needs of all income levels.   Respectfully,   Pat Burt         1 Baumb, Nelly From:Greg Schmid <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 9:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:Monday night's meeting Attachments:Aug 2 Plan Bay Area.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Here is a note for the Council on Item #11 on the Agenda for Monday August 3. Thank you. Greg Schmid PLAN BAY AREA 2050 IS FAILING… …STOP IT NOW MTC’s Starting Point MTC’s Plan Bay Area is based on a jobs-driven model. An aggressive jobs forecast is used to target already jobs-rich areas for growth and then translated into population and housing needs. Plan Bay Area 2040 Completely Missed the Jobs Concentration One of the secondary goals of Plan Bay Area 2040 was to disperse jobs through the major urban centers of the Bay Area. But they accepted the local businesses goal of concentrating jobs in small areas. They thought they could control and create incentives to reach their moderate dispersion targets. They failed completely. Measuring the Failure Look at jobs growth in two areas: the six cities of the original Silicon Valley (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Menlo Park, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara and Cupertino) and the huge population centers around them (San Jose, Oakland and the rest of Alameda County, and Contra Costa County). Plan Bay Area 2040 (2017) used as a driving principal the growth of jobs in already jobs-rich priority development areas. MTC’s growth projections seemed reasonable: growth in the six cities of Silicon Valley would continue high but would proceed at about one-third the rate of jobs growth in the huge population centers around them (San Jose, Oakland and the rest of Alameda County and Contra Costa County). This seemed to be a reasonable growth distribution because the population of Silicon Valley is only one-seventh of the population in those nearby population centers. But it didn’t happen that way. According to the Census Bureau, between 2010-2018 the aggressive concentration of jobs in the jobs-rich areas of Silicon Valley grew ten percent faster than the total new jobs in these population centers around them! Expanding businesses made the decisions. The Consequences The consequences for the whole Bay Area were disastrous! Land prices at the center of jobs- growth have sky-rocketed. Median housing costs and rents are now the highest in the country. Income inequality is among the highest in the country and growing the fastest. Traffic and congestion have been growing rapidly. The share of workers using transit fell in Silicon Valley over the last three years before COVID. Workers with young families have been forced to move farther and farther from their jobs. Local control of zoning is under threat. And the areas that need new jobs are not getting them. MTC Refused to Explore the Issue of Job Concentration As MTC was developing their new Plan Bay Area 2050, they refused to explore the undeniable consequence of job concentration. But the California Code demands that this issue be examined The very Code that is cited by MTC for justifying their planning process (California Government Code 65584) states clearly that MTC explore alternative means to achieve “an improved intraregional relationship between jobs and housing, including any imbalances”. In December, without public discussion, MTC announced that they would not explore the possibility of capping jobs in jobs-rich cities. Instead they are moving ahead with more of the same: rapid jobs growth in jobs-rich areas with housing requirements that exceed the budgets of any but the richest. Conclusion As a City Council, you must stop this process NOW. Businesses believe productivity is highest when companies cluster together. But congestion eventually takes that benefit away. We need to have a public discussion on this trade-off between productivity and congestion, not just blindly assume that businesses are right. You must demand that MTC follow the Government Code and explore the real reasons behind the jobs/housing imbalances in the Bay Area and alternate ways of working to disperse jobs through the Bay Area. Or explain to the residents of your community why you allowed control over our city to be given over to non-elected bodies like MTC. Greg Schmid August 2, 2020 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Betty Howell <anderwell2@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 12:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:CALTRAIN - we need it CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Caltrain's vital to the Peninsula growing, thriving, attracting new residents. Please   support a 1/8-cent sales tax measure. There will be life and needs for public transportation after Covid.  Thank you,  Betty Howell   2 Baumb, Nelly From:Gregory Brail <greg@brail.org> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 11:06 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please support CalTrain CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council:     Things are looking bleak for CalTrain, but it doesn't have to be that way forever.     At some point, Silicon Valley workers will return to their offices, commuters will return the roads, and rail commuters  will return to the trains. Silicon Valley will remain in demand as a place to live and work. Stanford will re‐open. Stanford  Hospital isn't going anywhere.    This will all be much more painful without CalTrain. Pre‐COVID, nearly 9000 people used the two Palo Alto stations every  day. A good number of them commute either to Stanford or to Stanford Hospital. Putting those people on the road, in  their own cars or even in buses, would affect many parts of the City.    Please look past historical issues of inter‐County jurisdiction and your current differences and do what you can to  support this important regional transportation corridor for the good of us all. Thanks!    Greg Brail    3 Baumb, Nelly From:Ernie Tompkins <etompkins@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 11:03 AM To:Council, City Subject:Caltrain sales tax proposal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councillors, I am writing in favor of Palo Alto supporting the proposed eighth-percent sales tax. Yes, there is a great deal of bad blood, particularly between San Francisco and San Mateo County, which have put forward competing measures. Yes, it would take a great effort to get a two-thirds majority of voters to approve the measure. But given Caltrain's cratered ridership, we face a post-vaccine situation in which passengers are ready to take the train but the trains never arrive at the station because the commuter service will have run out of operating funds. San Mateo County objects to demands for restructuring Caltrain's governance, but something has to be done to keep catastrophe at bay—and frankly, the managerial performance of SamTrans and the currently constituted JPB have been less than stellar. And now the SFMTA, at a special meeting on 31 July, has thrown a monkey wrench into the works. It seems to me that political egos and turf battles need to be swept out of the way. If the day comes when Caltrain halts operation, it may spell the end of the service, ironically as it's on the verge of successful electrification and expansion of service. The virus and organizational intransigence will have succeeded where Southern Pacific failed decades ago in its attempt to shut down the line. Some compromise is needed to get San Francisco and San Mateo County on the same side. The more government entities that get on board, the more pressure they can exert to get a compromise measure ready for the November ballot. Time is flying, and options will disappear if no action is taken. Sincerely, Robert Tompkins Everett Avenue Palo Alto 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Kinney <pkinney48235@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 10:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please Support the 1/8-cent sales tax measure for CalTrain CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Without CalTrain, Palo Alto will not be able to meet our transportation and climate change goals.   I appreciate that the governance of CalTrain is complicated, but it’s an essential part of our economy,   Patricia Kinney Wildwood Lane Palo Alto  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Elizabeth Greenfield <elizabethg15@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 10:35 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Caltrain, Summer Streets 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 urge you to support the 1/8‐cent sales tax ballot measure to fund Caltrain and to extend the Summer  Streets program.    I would like to express my support for adding a ballot measure for a 1/8‐cent sales tax measure to preserve and expand  Caltrain service. As someone living a climate‐conscious "car‐lite" lifestyle, Caltrain is an important pairing with bike  commuting to get to work and other activities. Without Caltrain, I don't know how I would travel to San Jose and San  Francisco as easily. Additionally, the two Caltrain stations in Palo Alto have historically attracted some of the highest  ridership. Caltrain is an important traffic congestion alleviation strategy for Palo Alto commuters and helps us continue  our progress to cut transportation‐related greenhouse gas emissions.    Additionally, I want to express my support for adopting the staff‐recommended resolution to extend the Summer  Streets program to a "rest‐of‐2020 program" (and maybe a "forever program"?) I have passed by both University Ave  and California Ave numerous times on bike rides and they look like a tremendous success. The street closures  provide much needed public space for the community to stroll, shop, and hang out, gives restaurants a chance to stay in  business, and doesn't seem to have created a huge traffic or parking problem. While unfortunate circumstances  necessitated the rapid creation of this Summer Street program, I think the benefit to businesses and the community  during non‐covid times is becoming apparent as well. This is a terrific opportunity to create a stronger sense of place in  Palo Alto's commercial centers by extending the street closures to at least the end of the year.    Thank you for your service to the community and your consideration.     Sincerely,      Elizabeth Greenfield  3476 Waverley St.  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Tompkins <margaretmtompkins@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 10:14 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please support Caltrain! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members, I encourage you to support putting a 1/8 cent sales tax measure on the November ballot in order to save CalTrain. Without it, cities like Palo Alto will not be able to achieve our transportation and climate change goals. Many people will desperately need Caltrain and other forms of public transportation going forward into the post-Covid-19 era, when they will have become even poorer and less able to afford housing and personal transportation. And large companies and institutions such as Stanford depend on Caltrain to get their employees to work. I urge you to pass this measure! Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Margaret Tompkins Palo Alto, CA 7 Baumb, Nelly From:Geoff Browning <browninggeoff@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 9:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:We Must Support CalTrain CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear PA City Council Members, I am writing to ask you to support the sales tax measure to ensure CalTrain is properly funded. Without this funding and without CalTrain, our transportation infrastructure will be severely compromised and we will not be able to achieve our climate change goals. This is critical for the sake of future generations. Thank you, Rev. Geoff Browning Parish Associate First Presbyterian Church of Palo Alto Geoff (he/him/his) Peacemaking Advocate Presbytery of San Jose “We have no right to hope to harvest what we have not sown.” Fr. Miguel d’Escoto 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Jake Millan <biodieselmillan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 9:19 AM To:Council, City Subject:Please Save Caltrain! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We absolutely need a vibrant and functioning Caltrain for once the pandemic is over. Please approve the small increase  in taxes to support the Caltrain.      Thanks,  Jake        ‐‐                 Jake Millan (206.409.5606 mobile)  biodieselmillan@gmail.com     "Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." - Ralph Waldo Emerson  9 Baumb, Nelly From:Shannon Rose <shannonrmcentee@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 11:10 PM To:Council, City CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members:    Please support Caltrain and help make sure it receives the dedicated funding needed to ensure it continues to  serve the Peninsula.  Why?  Because from a selfish point of view, Caltrain helps reduce traffic, parking issues,  traffic noise, and air pollution.  Thinking globally, reducing car traffic is one important part of our huge  challenge to stop climate change.  No doubt you read that the temperature reached 125 degrees in Baghdad  last week ‐‐ the hottest temperature ever recorded.  Fires have raced across California and Australia,  Bangladesh is inundated with rising sea water.  We can't keep putting our heads in the sand.  We have to face  reality.  We must not only sustain our current public transportation, we must improve it.    Sincerely,    Shannon Rose McEntee  410 Sheridan Avenue        10 Baumb, Nelly From:Marianne Mueller <mrm@sonic.net> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 8:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:caltrain CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I would like to add my voice to those supporting the eighth cent sales tax to help keep Caltrain afloat. thank you,    mRianne  11 Baumb, Nelly From:Megan Kanne <kanne.megan@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 12:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support sustainable Caltrain funding CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    I hope that you will support sustainable funding for Caltrain. I ask that you send a letter to the Santa Clara Board of  Supervisors supporting a clean version of the 1/8th cent sales tax ballot measure. The people of Santa Clara county  should be allowed to decide.    Caltrain is essential to Palo Alto's economy and to the city's sustainability goals. Keeping the train running for essential  workers who need it should not be optional. I agree that Caltrain governance should be reformed, but not at the  expense of maintaining its service.    As a former daily Caltrain rider, I know firsthand that the train is the only efficient transit option for thousands of  residents on the Peninsula. To shut down Caltrain now would seriously harm the perception that it is a reliable public  service and would negate years of work to build transit oriented housing along the corridor.    Thank you for your consideration,  Megan Kanne  12 Baumb, Nelly From:David Coale <david@evcl.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 8:39 PM To:Council, City Cc:Kamhi, Philip; Shikada, Ed; Star-Lack, Sylvia Subject:Support Caltrain tax - no strings attached! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and Council Members,  I am writing you to support a 1/8th cent sales tax to support CalTrain with no strings attached – a straight up funding of  Caltrain.  Anna Eshoo recently wrote a great opinion piece in the San Jose Mercury outlining the case for this, see:  https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/07/29/opinion‐caltrains‐future‐is‐at‐stake‐peninsula‐must‐unify‐to‐win/   While Rep Anna Eshoo points out many good reasons to support this “clean” tax with no strings attached, I would like to  add a few more:  1) CalTrain is one of the best‐managed transit systems in the country.  While VTA is one of the worst as determined by a  Grand Jury investigation just last year, the second such investigation.  See:  https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/07/04/grand‐jury‐report‐blasts‐vta‐for‐inefficiencies‐poor‐oversight  for  the full article on this. Santa Clara County board of supervisors wants more say in the running of Caltrain but they really  don’t have a leg to stand on given the poor performance of VTA.   2) The north county cities have been paying various sales tax measures for years and will be paying more in the decades  to come for BART to San Jose, which will not serve the north county cities.  The north county cities have been milked for  San Jose transit project and it is time for the north county and the Peninsula to get its fair share with a transit system  that actually works and is proven.  3) Santa Clara County is just making a power grab for money and influence at our expense and jeopardizing the funding  that Caltrain needs in doing so.  They would take money from Caltrain to prop up failing VTA and would mess with an  already best‐in‐the‐country management of Caltrain.  It is also questionable if this would be even legal under the state  law that allows for this tax to be levied.  Please support a resolution for a clean 1/8 cent sales tax to fund CalTrain with no strings attached.  This is the best  option for Palo Alto, which by the way has the second most boardings than any other station other than San Francisco.   Sincerely,  David Coale      13 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Isaacson <annetteisaacson@comcast.net> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 4:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:I support the new tax to Save CalTrain CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members, I can't imagine having to deal with the auto traffic on 101 and 280 if CalTrain has to cut services. We can't afford the extra CO2. I support putting a new tax to support CalTrain. Sincerely, Annette Isaacson Midtown 14 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Forward <palo.alto.fwd@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 2:48 PM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kniss, Liz (internal) Subject:Agenda Item 12 : Caltrain ⅛-cent Sales Tax Measure Attachments:Caltrain 1_8 tax letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and the Palo Alto City Council Members,      We strongly support the staff recommendation that the City Council send a letter requesting that the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors support placing a Caltrain 1/8-cent sales tax measure on the November 2020 ballot. We agree with the core elements of Mayor Fine’s letter to the Board of Supervisors. Further, the issues of governance and oversight of the tax measure need to be addressed to ensure appropriate and equitable outcomes. All counties, transit agencies and communities have a vested interest in a strong economy with viable and sustainable transit that incorporates strong public health measures to protect workers and transit users. As noted, Caltrain has no dedicated funding source and relies on receiving 70% of its operating funding from farebox revenues. Both the pandemic and volatile economic conditions underscore the urgency of structuring a dedicated source to help address Caltrain’s forecasted $71 million deficit over the next fiscal year; without enough funding Caltrain could shut down for years.      The vitality and importance of Caltrain is clear both now and in the future. Caltrain service provides a significant alternative to single-occupancy travel to the City of Palo Alto; these outcomes are supported by our Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, including our S/CAP Climate Action Plan. Transit operations with related public health requirements will have environmental, transportation and public health benefits related to improved air quality.     Supporting the existence and needed improvements to Caltrain operations and service is clear for our community and the region. In fact, the entire benefit of the Caltrain modernization and electrification project, costing $1.98 billion, will not be realized if Caltrain does not exist.     Transportation and land use policies and actions taken now will impact current and future generations. The design and evolution of the Caltrain corridor and its service, operations, capacity and performance and accompanying funding plan will constitute the most critical and significant capital project for the region.        Sincerely,      Gail A. Price President, Palo Alto Forward Board     Re: Agenda Item 12 : Potential Placement of a Caltrain ⅛-cent Sales Tax Measure on the November 3, 2020 Ballot Dear Mayor Fine and the Palo Alto City Council Members, We strongly support the staff recommendation that the City Council send a letter requesting that the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors support placing a Caltrain 1/8-cent sales tax measure on the November 2020 ballot. We agree with the core elements of Mayor Fine’s letter to the Board of Supervisors. Further, ​the issues of governance and oversight of the tax measure need to be addressed to ensure appropriate and equitable outcomes. ​All counties, transit agencies and communities have a vested interest in a strong economy with viable and sustainable transit that incorporates strong public health measures to protect workers and transit users. As noted, Caltrain has no dedicated funding source and relies on receiving 70% of its operating funding from farebox revenues. Both the pandemic and volatile economic conditions underscore the urgency of structuring a dedicated source to help address Caltrain’s forecasted $71 million deficit over the next fiscal year; without enough funding Caltrain could shut down for years. The vitality and importance of Caltrain is clear both now and in the future. Caltrain service provides a significant alternative to single-occupancy travel to the City of Palo Alto; these outcomes are supported by our Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, including our S/CAP Climate Action Plan. Transit operations with related public health requirements will have environmental, transportation and public health benefits related to improved air quality. Supporting the existence and needed improvements to Caltrain operations and service is clear for our community and the region. In fact, the entire benefit of the Caltrain modernization and electrification project, costing $1.98 billion, will not be realized if Caltrain does not exist. Transportation and land use policies and actions taken now will impact current and future generations. The design and evolution of the Caltrain corridor and its service, operations, capacity and performance and accompanying funding plan will constitute the most critical and significant capital project for the region. Sincerely, Gail A. Price President, Palo Alto Forward Board 15 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 3:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support CalTrain CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Fine and Council members, CalTrain is important for Palo Alto and the region. Thousands of workers come here (last time I looked we were the second largest destination behind SF) and without CalTrain our local roads would be more crowded. But Caltrain also helps people who drive by reducing freeway and road traffic around the peninsula. Please be a voice for sustained independent funding so Caltrain is here when the pandemic ends. Stephen Levy 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Blake Putney <putneyb@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 7:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:Cal Train tax CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hi,  I would like Palo Alto to demand that funding for Palo Alto grade separation be included in the scope of funding for the  proposed sales tax to support Cal Train...otherwise I will vote against it and support the opposition....    Blake Putney  263 Whitclem Dr  Palo Alto  650‐533‐6852    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Anita Lusebrink <anita@satakenursery.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 6:53 PM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian Subject:Please save CalTrain for all of us! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor ansd City Council members,    I would like to speak up in favor of the 1/8% sales tax proposed for the 3 counties supported by CalTrain, and hope that  Palo Alto stands for this small uptick in contributions for keeping one of our vital lifelines alive. The Covid‐19 situation is  completely unprecedented ‐ none of us could have truly foreseen the scope of its effect. Yet this is a good time and  situation to learn how to preserve our infrastructure ‘for the duration’, and come back stronger and more resilient when  the current crisis situation is over. A similar situation could happen again, and most people agree that in any case, our  society will never be quite the same.    Let’s work hard to preserve the valuable infrastructural assets that we as a community, county, and state have, and look  to the future for having more diverse ways of funding and support for them in the future. In the meantime. 1/8th of a  cent…is nothing in in the larger scheme of things.    Thank you supporting our historic, valuable, environmentally sound, and well‐loved CalTrain!    Sincerely,  Anita Lusebrink  And the Lusebrink Family  428 Ruthven  Palo Alto  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Linnea WICKSTROM <ljwickstrom@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 4:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:I support sales tax for CalTrain CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor Filseth, Members of the City Council    Please support the 1/8 cent sales tax for CalTrain.    I understand that there are governance issues and that sales taxes are regressive. But saving CalTrain is paramount. This  crisis will not last forever and the Peninsula must not be left without a major public transit system between San Jose and  San Francisco with stops all up and down the route. Transit is key for getting people to and from work, in a much more  environmentally healthful way than hundreds of thousands of cars.    Thank you for your vote to put this on the ballot and for your support,  Linnea Wickstrom  Monroe Drive  Palo Alto  CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 20 AUG-~ AH II: 45 Monday, July 27, 2020 Palo Alto City Council Office of the City Clerk 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Palo Alto City Council, Channing House 850 Webster Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 We residents and friends of Channing House, a retirement community in Palo Alto, write to urge you to work for Senate passage of the Voting Rights Advancement Act (HR.4) at the earliest possible date. Last week we lost Congressman John Lewis, who devoted his life to freedom and justice for all. In honor of his exceptional life and legacy, we must pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act to restore the Voting Rights Act, crucial legislation that John Lewis fought for. This bill passed the House of Representatives in December but has since sat untouched in the Senate. With Presidential elections only three months away, the need to protect voting rights is urgent! We urge the Senate to pass the Voting Rights Advancement Act in honor of Congressman John Lewis and his lifelong commitment to combating voter suppression. Thank you for all you can do to make this happen. Sincerely, . Ji.A "' :J~ 1-// r vrJ-'\L€.-- Jan Aarts Carol Sacchetti Gwendolyn Barry * Leon Beeler Margaret Beeler Dirk Bennett * Mary Grace Bertsch Barbara Bowden Prudence Breitrose Carolyn Caddes Jeanne Celle Miriam DeJongh Cynthia Dillon Cathy Dolton Lynne Faust Nancy Fiene Tom Fiene Nancy Flowers * Lois Fowkes Florrie Forrest * Keith Gilbert * Sue Gilbert * David Golden Helen Golden Kathleen Goldfein Barbara Gordon 0-~ Michele Grundmann Joan Gurasich Marcia Harrison Harry Hartzell Susan Hartzell * Chuck Hebel * Selina Hemiup Carolyn Hofstetter Ilse Hopkins Betty Howell * Pat Irish* Joan Jack Mildred Jones Kathleen Kelly Joanna Liston Laurie Liston Kent Mather Pam McKee Mary Ann Michel Charles Milford Florence Moloney Albert Moon Karen Morrison * Frances Morse** John Morse ** Mary Munter Merrill Newman Tammy Okuda Joanne Payne Helene Pier Mary Piniella Kathryn Plock Robert Polhemus Jean Pressey Fran Price Marcia Pugsley * Katherine Remsen * Nancy Robinson Billie Sarzin Kathryn Schauer Allan Seid Mary Seid Joy Sleizer Alice Smith Sandra Songy * Laurie Spaeth Gloria Spitzer Peter Stangl Lennie Stovel * Joanne Taylor Dave Thornton * Mary Alice Thornton * Janet Wright Jean Wren Betsy Young *Member Channing House Racial and Social Justice Committee **Co-Chair, Channing House Racial and Social Justice Committee Section 23803 -Business and Professions Code Effective January 1, 1998 Section 23803: Statutes of 1997, Chapter 454: SB 609 (Karnette) Section 23 803 has been amended to require the department to notify the local governing body of any petition to remove or modify conditions. The local governing body has 30 days in which to object to the modification or removal. A hearing shall be held on the objection ifthe department recommends approval of the petition. Section 23803 will read as follows: 23 803. The department, upon its own motion or upon the petition of a licensee or a transferee who has filed an application for the transfer of the license, if it is satisfied that the grounds which caused the imposition of the conditions no longer exist, shall order their removal or modification, provided written notice is given to the local governing body of the area in which the premises are located. The local governing body has 30 days to file written objections to the removal or modification of any condition. The department may not remove or modify any condition to which an objection has been filed without holding a hearing as provided in Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 11500) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code. Any petition for the removal or.modification of a condition pursuant to this section shall be accompanied by a fee of one hundred dollars ($100). To the City Council of Palo Alto: I do NOT want Foothill Park opened to the general public. I value its quiet, its uncrowdedness, its pristine condition, the opportunities to see wildlife. More people in the Park will degrade all of these. I pay the taxes that keep it in this condition ! ! Today's date (printed): ____ ·7_/_5'---l_/_Z.V __ 2-0 ________ _ My name (printed): --""--'X ...... t"""""A ....... ·iJ..._6~F-=&1....__..~.....___...Ctt"'"'-'--'aJ'"------- My address (printed): 426 o uJ I I k.ie LJ ~ / P~D Arfu, Clt1<t-">p' Mysignature: ~ -:-~ • I 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Forward <palo.alto.fwd@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 2:48 PM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kou, Lydia; Cormack, Alison; Tanaka, Greg; Kniss, Liz (internal) Cc:Angie; Shikada, Ed Subject:Summer Streets Program Attachments:Summer Streets letter.pdf 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,      Thank you for making our business districts a priority during this pandemic by implementing the Summer Streets pilot. This program has made it possible for our small businesses and their employees to recuperate from financial losses related to COVID-19. The street closures have allowed for restaurants and retail to operate safely under new social distancing guidelines. In spite of initial concerns from some community members, we have seen office workers return as customers and businesses are starting to thrive. To quote an employee at CVS on University Avenue, “We’re busy again! Workers stock up on items Monday through Wednesday but the rest of the week is basically normal.”      City Council must re-evaluate this program by August 16th for University Avenue and September 7th for California Avenue. Many small businesses have recently made financial and operational adjustments to participate in Summer Streets. Please extend this program through the end of this year in order to ensure that those investments continue to preserve the vibrancy of our downtowns.   Thank you for focusing on helping Palo Alto move forward in this difficult time.      Sincerely, Palo Alto Forward Board     August 1st, 2020 To: Mayor Adrian Fine, and City Council Members   Dear Mayor Fine and Palo Alto City Council Members, Thank you for making our business districts a priority during this pandemic by implementing the Summer Streets pilot. This program has made it possible for our small businesses and their employees to recuperate from financial losses related to COVID-19. The street closures have allowed for restaurants and retail to operate safely under new social distancing guidelines. In spite of initial concerns from some community members, we have seen office workers return as customers and businesses are starting to thrive. To quote an employee at CVS on University Avenue, “We’re busy again! Workers stock up on items Monday through Wednesday but the rest of the week is basically normal.” City Council must re-evaluate this program by August 16th for University Avenue and September 7th for California Avenue. Many small businesses have recently made financial and operational adjustments to participate in Summer Streets. Please extend this program through the end of this year in order to ensure that those investments continue to preserve the vibrancy of our downtowns.   Thank you for focusing on helping Palo Alto move forward in this difficult time. Sincerely, 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Neilson Buchanan <cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 5, 2020 9:08 AM To:Council, City Cc:finance.committe@cityofpaloalto.org; Shikada, Ed; Nose, Kiely; Kamhi, Philip Subject:Summer Streets and Adam Smith's brutal hand CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Popular opinion is running strongly for Summer Street effort to sustain downtown businesses. This is commendable triage effort but a bigger picture is not being presented.  What about retail and restaurant businesses outside the two downtowns? Don't they deserve some advantage of city resources?  When will Finance Committee frame the Summer Street investment of staff and subsidy support?  Public expectation for traffic and parking is being hardened without any sense of a Coordinated Area Plan. This will create a deferred issue comparable to the grade crossings throughout Palo Alto. Ready, fire, aim management works in the short-term but won't be productive in the long-run. I appreciate the uncertainties throughout 2020 and there is no gain in being paralyzed in search of the perfect. However, broader economic issues and capital flow must be discussed and considered by the current Council soon or punt to the next council. For example, below is a really big picture. Some of the macroeconomics are clear and will impact Summer Streets through September 2021. Neilson Buchanan 155 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650 329-0484 650 537-9611 cell cnsbuchanan@yahoo.com 3 Wednesday, Aug 05          The Fed can only do so much to help th           Bank lending collapsed in the second quarter. According to the latest Senior Loan Officer Opinion Survey — or SLOOS report — from the Federal Reser by the most since the financial crisis. Across all parts of the commercial lending business and all ares of consumer lending except housing, banthe months covering the most acute phase of the pandemic crisis. Only residential real estate, essentially the mortgage market, has seen increased demand, though standaincrease in lending is consistent with the strong housing market data we’ve tracked through the summer. “Overall, the results of the July SLOOS are consistent with a much more uncertain economic outlook as bulending standards tighten,” said Lewis Alexander, chief U.S. economist at Nomura. “The results suggest stronger headwinds for business investment, although the resilience of [residential reacross consumers.” And the pullback in the commercial side showed worries about the business sector come from all direction “Major net shares of banks that reported reasons for tightening lending standards or terms cited a less fav industry-specific problems, and reduced tolerance for risk as important reasons for doing so,” the SLOOS “Significant net shares of banks also mentioned deterioration in the bank’s current or expected capital pos nonbank lenders; decreased liquidity in the secondary market for C&I loans; and increased concerns abouchanges in accounting standards.” In short, just about any macro, industry-specific, or regulatory concern that banks address when extending lending. And while banks tend to ease standards quickly when recessions end, the second quarter shows though many economists see the second quarter as the trough of the current drop in activity.     4    And this report also reminds investors that while Fed policy may help heal financial markets to some degremonetary policy. Consumers did get a boost from extra unemployment benefits and one-time stimulus payhomeowners refinancing mortgages are still not seeing a huge impact from what’s happening at the Fed. “The pandemic is a fiscal policy problem rather than a central bank policy problem,” said UBS strategist Pa “Lockdowns meant government policy took away peoples' incomes. Fiscal policy needed to replace those survey emphasized the limits on what central bank policy can do – credit conditions tightened, signaling theconomy.” Cash transfers can keep consumers spending and meeting some (but not all) of their obligations. This at le But bank lending — and the curtailment of this credit extension — is where we see signs of just how sharphave hunkered down, how fast borrowers dried up, and how long the road ahead is to get the economy ba By Myles Udland, reporter and co-anchor of The Final Round. Follow him at @MylesUdland               1 Baumb, Nelly From:Tom Hoster <tom.hoster@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 6:31 PM To:Council, City Cc:Foley, Emily Subject:2353 Webster Construction CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the City Council:     I am writing to express my objection to the plans at 2353 Webster to construct a new house with a basement.      The property includes a huge heritage oak tree.  Although my residence is perhaps 400 or 500 feet from the tree, it is  clearly visible on the horizon from our property.      The tree is a magnificent specimen ‐‐ clearly more than 100 years old (the City Arborist will be able to say just how old it  is).  It would be a shame to lose it.  And digging a basement and draining the groundwater that goes along with that  construction will surely kill this tree.      I respect people's ability to do what they want with their property.  It is, in my book, a fundamental right.  But that  freedom has to be tempered by the laws and regulations imposed by the City.  Building Codes come to mind.  So do  regulations regarding heritage oaks.      If the rules imposed by the City were arbitrary or capricious, I would object to them and would argue in favor of the  owner's right to build the house they want. But the rules regarding heritage oaks like the one on this property have been  on the books for decades, and the property owner, and their architect, surely have known about them.  Their desire to  have a basement does not trump the loss of this magnificent tree.      Please deny their request to build a house with a basement.      Thank you,    Tom Hoster  2345 Byron Street  650‐619‐1972   1 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, August 5, 2020 1:31 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; bballpod; David Balakian; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; Leodies Buchanan; paul.caprioglio; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; Chris Field; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Steven Feinstein; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Pam Kelly; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; russ@topperjewelers.com; tsheehan; vallesR1969@att.net; dallen1212@gmail.com; dlfranklin0@outlook.com Subject:Fwd: Trump efforts to slow the Postal Service, damage the election. Mad about it? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:15 PM  Subject: Fwd: Trump efforts to slow the Postal Service, damage the election. Mad about it?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 8:09 PM  Subject: Trump efforts to slow the Postal Service, damage the election. Mad about it?  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>            Tues. August 4, 2020               Here is the PBS News Hour for Monday, August 3, 2020.  The sabotage of the U.S. Postal Service begins here at  13:22  and ends at 36:40.  If you only get mad for 23 minutes this year, these should be them, I think.  Mark  Dimondstein, Pres. of the American Postal Workers' Union is interviewed. I got mad while watching this as I never have  before re Trump's actions:                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLa5vxV7qYk                 Congress can and should provide money to the USPS to reverse this sabotage of the election well before the  election. Mr. Dimondstein says that the money should be part of the Covid19 relief package currently being negotiated.                          I hope that the news media who receive this email will forward it to of members of Congress. Trump is  attempting to improve his chances in November by damaging the Postal Service and mail‐in voting. Am I alone in getting  angry about that? Congress should call Mr. Dimonstein to testify as to what he said on the PBS News Hour in the vid  2 above. And Congress should countermand the directives of Trump's rich pal the Postmaster General who is sabotaging  the Postal Service. This administration is beginning to smell like the Nixon administration.                                             L. William Harding              Fresno  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Eddie Gornish <gornish@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 10:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Palo Alto needs to be stricter about face coverings CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Today, I saw another utility crew at Colorado and South Court without masks. When I asked them to please put on  masks they did.   I'm not sure sure if this was a Palo Alto Utilities crew ‐ it was not clear from their truck.    These are not isolated issues ‐ they are daily.    I was pleased to see that The Coranavirus Report had a section on face coverings.  Still, without empowering the police to enforce the law, it will be ignored.    thanks  Eddie Gornish    On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 8:54 PM Eddie Gornish <gornish@gmail.com> wrote:  Two of you have contacted me since I sent this email.   Today:  ‐ Around 11:20AM, I saw 2 Palo Alto Utility workers talking to each other, without masks, at the corner of Loma Verde  and Lewis. I told them they needed to wear masks. They didn't say anything and walked back to their truck. I couldn't  see if they put masks on.  ‐ At 12:15PM, I saw 2 contractors (wearing orange vests) at 3597 South Court. They were not wearing masks. I told  them that they needed to wear masks. They just stared back at me. I told them they were violating a city and state  ordinance. They said, sarcastically, thanks for the information. I told them I was calling it into the police. They said go  ahead. So I did. A police officer called me more than 2 hours later after the contractors had left.    Again, Palo Alto's law is a joke. It's not being enforced. It's considered such a minor offense, that even when it's called  in, the police usually don't respond ‐ and if they do it's too late.  I read articles today about how face mask fines are being issued in Florida and Houston.  So when are we going to take this seriously? Once we reach the death levels of Florida and Houston?    thanks  Eddie Gornish        On Thu, Jul 30, 2020 at 8:05 PM Eddie Gornish <gornish@gmail.com> wrote:  Every day I go for a 1 hour bike ride around 11AM.   And at least 3 days a week, I spot a face mask violation:  ‐ City of Palo Alto Utility workers doing road work (Colorado, Loma Verde, Meadow)  ‐ 4 young male teens who out at the 7/11 on Colorado near Middlefield  ‐ A soccer camp in Greer park (I know that campers aren't required to wear masks, but counselors are supposed to  encourage safety (according to the state guidelines), and these kids are sitting right next to each other with no masks.    4 Also, every time I go to California or University Ave. (where the streets are blocked off) to take out food from a  restaurant, I see a violation ‐ often bikers (yes, I understand that people eating don't need to wear masks).      At times I've asked these people to put on masks. Sometimes they listen to me, sometimes they ignore me.    So I've started calling the police when I see a violation. After about 5‐10 calls, and in particular, after seeing the same  utility crew at Loma Verde and Maddux without masks several times in 2 weeks, I called the police again and asked  what happens when someone calls in a mask violation?    An officer called me back and said that they will only send someone out if there are no other more important  emergencies and that they will try to educate about mask wearing. I asked after how many times do you stop  education and issue a citation? The officer said that as far as he knows, the Palo Alto Police have *never* issued a  safety citation since the pandemic started. He offered many reasons why, including recent heightened concern about  police actions in light of racial protests.    So basically, we have a law that is not enforced. And people who do not want to wear a mask, know that there are no  consequences. The case count keeps going up in California and Santa Clara County (I have no idea how many cases  there are in Palo Alto, but some of the violators that I see probably do not live in Palo Alto).    I empathize with the recent protests. I don't want to see a homeless person arrested. I don't think that protestors  should be arrested (though they should be forced to wear masks).    But frankly, mask wearing is critically important.  You need to empower the police to enforce this law.  You need to make sure that people know that law will be enforced equally, without any racial/gender/age bias.  Then give the law some "teeth".  Basically, someone who doesn't want to wear a mask knows there are no consequences.    I'd like to compare this to smoking. I rarely see someone violating a smoking ordinance in Palo Alto. And I'm old  enough to remember smoking on airplanes. But people learned. And if 2 people are smoking together in a park,  they're only hurting themselves. But if 2 people are together in a park without masks, they're potentially hurting  everyone.    Thank You  Eddie Gornish    5 Baumb, Nelly From:john kunz <johnclaytonkunz@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 5:41 PM To:timothy.johnston@sfgov.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Southern Skyline Boulevard Ridge Trail Extension Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mr. Johnston –  I live in Palo Alto. I am writing in support of the proposed Southern  Skyline Boulevard Ridge Trail Extension Project. I support the staff  recommended project and access program. None of the project  alternatives achieve the stated project goals, nor the Ridge Trail mission  to create a continuous trail, for all users, that encircles San Francisco Bay. Public access to the outdoors is important to me and my community. I  hike often and mountain bike very frequently. For decades, I have always  done so locally, but especially in our era of COVID, to do so locally is  wonderful because we and I are not driving or flying any  distance to hike  or bike.  Thank you for your support for opening the southern Peninsula  Watershed lands for responsible and inclusive recreational use.  Sincerely,  John Kunz, Palo Alto 94303  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Melissa Toteda <melissa@toteda.org> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 11:08 AM To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto History Museum - Roth Building Location CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Vice Mayor DuBois, and Council Members, Cormack, Filseth, Kniss, Kou, and Tanaka,     I am writing to voice my support for keeping the future Palo Alto History Museum in the Roth Building.     As a long‐time resident and mother of two PAUSD students, I understand well the value that the PA History Museum will  bring – not only as a site to display artifacts and inform residents about the many important contributions that have  been made locally and worldwide from our town over the generations, but also to do so in a building that is itself an  historical treasure and a jewel that deserves to be shared with the entire community.     Several years ago, I worked with the original team of volunteers setting the groundwork for fundraising and public  relations. I volunteered my time and that of my agency for the project. This past year, my son volunteered on the Teen  Advisory Committee of the History Museum. So, we have been following the steps forward (and the numerous delays) of  the museum over the years even while watching many projects similar in scope be planned and come to fruition.    As a volunteer, I took a hard hat tour of the site at the time – before any construction/cleaning out had begun – and I  recall thinking even amidst all the debris, how utterly perfect the Roth Building would be – everything: size, location, and  of course, the gorgeous Birge Clark building itself. It was almost as if it was built specifically to be a museum and not a  hospital! Very few towns can claim such an ideal site for their history museum, next to a park no less! And although I  hope it is not the case, perhaps this is the real issue about the lack of traction on this project – a lot of people probably  think the same thing….    If so, please resist.    Now more than ever, it’s important for each of us to understand the historical context of where we’ve come from, so  that we can truly appreciate where we are going and what is possible in the future!  What better gift to current and  future generation of Palo Altans than ensuring the Roth Building is used specifically for this purpose.     I assume each one of you will do everything in your power to ensure this location remains home to the Palo Alto History  Museum and that this project gets approval to proceed immediately.    Sincerely,   Melissa Toteda              7 Baumb, Nelly From:Hiral Parekh <hiral.parekh@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 11:41 AM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,     I read about Castilleja's expansion plans and the environmental impact report on Palo Alto Online.  While I support  private schools to flourish in our community, I find it problematic that Castilleja is proposing expanding its student  population and footprint in the most central part of Palo Alto, an area that is already extremely congested en route to  Stanford, downtown Palo Alto, shopping areas (Town & Country), etc.      As it stands, traffic and safety are persistent and growing issues within Palo Alto.  Our own public schools have  challenges in creating routes that streamline this ‐ I am part of the Hoover Elementary community and the school has  had to address traffic on Charleston Road.  Castilleja is flanked by multiple schools including our very own Palo Alto High  School.  We should evaluate what the private school is offering to the community and my sense is that the contribution  is pretty limited as compared to Paly and an institution like Stanford with its free events, open campus, and the hospital  system.      I would like to see the city focus on our public schools and private institutions that deliver value (Stanford) over a school  like Castilleja. We are at the stage as a city where trade‐offs must be made.    My recommendation is that Castilleja move to pockets of Palo Alto on the other side of 101 where there is ample office  space and/or split their campus.  There are many optimal locations for commuting students off of 101 and I presume the  land is much cheaper.  In addition, they should consider splitting their campus.  Many private schools have split  campuses and it works very well.     Best,  Hiral Parekh  3905 Duncan Place,  Palo Alto, CA 94036  Cell: 617‐990‐2958  8 Baumb, Nelly From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 10:13 AM To:Council, City Subject:How to submit petition for tonight's meeting? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council:     I have a petition with signatures that I want to submit  to you at your meeting this evening (3 Aug).  How can I submit this petition to you?    Due to Covid‐19, the petition is a stack of signed postcards,  not a single sheet of paper.    Carlin Otto  9 Baumb, Nelly From:Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> Sent:Monday, August 3, 2020 7:27 AM To:David Meiswinkle; Frank Agamennon; Rachel Simmons; Carol Macannico; Joanne Casey; Nancy Brais; Perla Simmons; Richard Gage; Andres Lorraine; biotica@aol.com; Camille Lachica; Dennis Tiernan; ezrider67@verizon.net; Haydee Bill Mooney; Lou Basile; mkormondy@yahoo.com; Philip Hussa; Steve Kormondy; NJ Electrician; Rachel Joy Simmons; Patty LaPlaca; David Meiswinkle; Sea Girt Medical; Cheryl & Erin Hough Al; Sandy and Jason Khneiger; Jackie Andres Schnell; lorraineandres4158 @gmail.com; Tom & Beth Simmons; Messina Mary; sevensisters@q.com; Craig Simmons; Activist Post; Advance Media; A Son Of RevWar; Advance Media; Perla Simmons; Apple & Anthony Jaraza; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Council, City; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Brother Nathanael; BBC ONLY; TheBlueBeads; Michael Bolden; Paul John Bernabo; senator_menendez@menendez.senate.gov; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads Subject:Twitter Poses a National Security Threat…Just say no | Freedom Bulldog CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    The TWITTER accounts of many were hacked.  Obama, Trump, Congress Critters, they all had their accounts hijacked by  anonymous individuals from around the world who gained access by bribing TWITTER insiders for their passwords. Once  access was gained, they changed the password and took over the account.  Now isn't that just perfect from a National Security point of view ?    https://freedombulldog.com/twitter‐poses‐a‐national‐security‐threatjust‐say‐no/      Best Regards, & Stay Healthy !  RJS  10 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Sunday, August 2, 2020 11:19 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; bballpod; David Balakian; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; Leodies Buchanan; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dlfranklin0@outlook.com; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Steven Feinstein; francis.collins@nih.gov; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Pam Kelly; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969 @att.net; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; Mark Standriff; Mayor; dallen1212@gmail.com; nick yovino; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Tom Lang Subject:Fwd: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 4:33 PM  Subject: Fwd: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 4:24 PM  Subject: Fwd: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 4:17 PM  Subject: Fwd: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 3:56 PM  11 Subject: Fwd: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 3:39 PM  Subject: Fwd: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 2:26 AM  Subject: Fwd: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:57 AM  Subject: Fwd: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 2:37 AM  Subject: Fwd: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 4:06 PM  Subject: Fwd: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 2:26 PM  12 Subject: Fwd: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:54 AM  Subject: Fwd: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 12:40 AM  Subject: 5 yr. development for Hilo Ingenuity, much of it at Ames.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>         Friday, July 31, 2020                 To all‐  Good piece re the development of helicopter Ingenuity, destined to fly on Mars, if all goes well:              https://www.nasa.gov/aeroresearch/nasa‐aeronautics‐experts‐help‐prepare‐ingenuity‐to‐fly‐on‐mars               That is a great idea: Hilos that can travel out, up and down, from a lander or rover to explore places the rover can't  go. Ingenuity will fly on Mars 118 years after the Wrights' first flight at Kitty Hawk. I still can't get over what the Wrights  did. For that matter, I still can't get over radio.               When you click on the link above, see the small photo on the right with the caption,   "Watch the video from which  this image was captured". That is well worth seeing, 3 minutes, 20 seconds.  SEE NOTE BELOW to THEN see the 2 hour  28 minute NASA presentation.                 Note at the 39 second mark of the 3:20 video that they show a photo of the target on Mars. Big circle with a dot  inside for the target. Notice the dry river channel coming in from the upper left and the fan‐shaped river delta inside the  crater. The rover is apparently planned, after a lot of work in the crater, to then rove off to the west and out of the big  crater‐ see the line heading west.               NOTE: By Friday night, the follow‐on to the 3 minute 20 second piece re the hilo is NOT the excellent 2 hours, 27  min, 59 seconds presentation. So, here is it:                     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIB3JbIIbPU              I stayed up to see the launch, 4:50 AM PT Thursday morning. An Atlas 5 with four solid rocket boosters attached is  used for the lift‐off and to get the craft above the atmosphere, and up to ~13,590 mph at an altitude of 325 miles, and  then a second‐stage (upper stage) Centaur fires twice to get the craft on the way to Mars. The rocket people call the  Atlas 5 "The Dominator", it is so powerful. Once the Atlas and the Centaur have both separated from Perseverance, I  wonder to what extent they can make adjustments in the trajectory of the craft over six months. Read on.     13             Answer:  the Centaur fires up twice, for six or seven minutes soon after the Atlas falls away, and then again for  eight minutes after a 30 minute coast. The first Centaur burn puts the spacecraft into a parking earth orbit. The Centaur  then coasts for ~30 minutes while they do things with it, cause it to roll, etc. Then it fires again (at just the right time,  oddly enough) for eight minutes to get Perserverance up to 25,000 mph and on its way to Mars. Once both are going  25,000 mph, Perseverance separates from the Centaur and is on its way. A spring mechanism is used to separate them,  and that was invented by one of the Marx Bros.                When the Centaur and Perseverance separate, neither is headed on the final trajectory to Mars because they  don't want the Centaur to follow along and hit Mars (!). Remember how the famous S4‐B which gave the final push  during TLI to the Apollo moon mission craft would follow along and hit the moon‐ some of them? They did so  deliberately on Apollos 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17. They didn't want the Centaur here to do that with Mars on this mission, so  it is not headed to Mars when it separates from the spacecraft (if that's the right term. It is the lander and the hilo and  attendant equipment that are going to Mars. Is that package "a spacecraft?). However, the Centaur still travels along,  and "it won't intersect with Mars for 50 years" they said. They'd better remember that and warn the people living on  Mars fifty years from now. It won't hit Mars for at least 50 years because, after it separates from Perseverance, the  Centaur does a third, "propellant blow‐down" burn.               As for mid‐course corrections, the Perseverance spacecraft can do that without a big rocket like the Centaur  attached. It can make the small corrections needed to get it properly aimed at Mars and it will have to do that due to its  trajectory at separation from the Centaur. The landing on Mars will occur on Feb. 18, 2021. I'll be there‐ I mean I'll be at  my computer.               There is lots in the 2 hour 28 minute vid about the helicopter Ingenuity, et. al. Big money and expertise were  needed to develop that, as were needed for the rover, of course. Years of work by teams of big‐gun experts. The rover is  powered by a nuclear battery using eleven pounds of Pu 238, and the battery should last at least 17 years. It is two years  old now, so 15 years to go, probably longer.               BTW, the rover and its hilo will land in a big crater that was once filled to the brim with water‐ i.e. a lake. They  show photos of it from Mars orbit and one sees a riverbed feeding into it from the west‐ from the left. The remains of a  big fan‐shaped river delta are clear inside the west edge of the crater, so there's no doubt about all of the water that  once flowed in. One sees a small crater inside that big crater, in the delta. Don't mistake that little crater for the target.  The target is the large crater with the delta on the west side and the large crater happens to have a smaller crater  located in the delta. This rover will for certain rove where there was once a lot of water and a lot of water for a long  time.               Other tid‐bits I jotted down:  Perseverance separated from the Centaur about one hour after launch.                  You see live video from the Centaur of the separation of the Atlas from the Centaur and that is dramatic. When  the Centaur is firing for its first burn, the only way you can tell is by seeing a white glow around the rim of the housing.  You see no fire thrusting out.                The four solid rocket boosters attached to the sides of the Atlas produced 350,000 lbs of thrust each, so 1.4 million  lbs. of thrust just from them. At lift‐off, the Atlas and its four SRBs together produced over two million lbs. of thrust.               The second Centaur burn of eight minutes took the craft from a "parking orbit" around earth on up to 25,000 mph,  escape velocity. Perseverance was then in its "transfer orbit", also referred to as its solar orbit.              The location of the launch was the "Cape Canaveral Air Force Station"  and the "Kennedy Space Center". Not sure  how they relate to each other.              Re the Centaur traveling along to Mars and eventually hitting Mars, which they estimate won't happen for fifty  years, recall the Saturn S‐IVB upper stages in Apollo. On Apollo 12, that rocket was supposed to go into earth orbit, but  14 recently they have found that it is in a very elongated earth orbit. It orbits the earth six times and then makes one  heliocentric orbit. It loops way out toward (around?) the sun and then heads back to earth. Astronomers have given it  the designation J002E3. Its orbit crosses that of the moon, so eventually it could hit the moon. They'll have to keep track  of it and warn any people living on the moon if and when it is on a collision course with the moon. It could also hit the  earth, but its mass and speed make it unlikely that any of it would reach the ground.            Beginning with Apollo 13, the S‐IVBs were deliberately aimed at the moon and impacted the moon to allow  seismometers placed there by earlier missions to study the impacts. So those rockets from Apollo 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17  all impacted the moon. These final rocket stages pushing a payload tend to go where the payload goes.  And, of course,  all six LEM ascent stages were allowed to crash on the moon after the moon walkers were back in the CM. That's eleven.  If the Apollo 12's S‐IVB ever hits the moon that would be twelve big debris fields we've caused on the moon. I wish they  would let up causing those. I suppose they could be cleaned up someday.                             L. William Harding              Fresno  15 Baumb, Nelly From:Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> Sent:Saturday, August 1, 2020 9:34 AM To:Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School; Class Of '67 Manasquan High School Subject:EPIC. Colorado City Runs ANTIFA out of Town. All of America needs to see this! - YouTube CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    BLM & ANTIFA got headed off at the pass by armed townsfolk on horse back. Before any trouble could get started, they  were kicked out of town.  All of America has to see this, so pass it on to everyone you know !    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jZQk1e66e7s#dialog      Best Regards, & Stay Healthy !  RJS  16 Baumb, Nelly From:gee2mag@aol.com Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 3:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Marketing for utilities CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  -----Original Message----- To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.otg <city.council@cityofpaloalto.otg> Sent: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 3:35 pm Subject: Marketing for utilities Please, City Council members, stop the nonsensical spending for marketing on behalf of Palo Alto Utilities. This part of the government is already a most powerful monopoly which is able to raise our rates over and over without our say. One million dollars is much better used on infrastructure and other needs, especially when you have had to cut funds to other services because of the covid virus. Be responsible. VOTE NO. Grace Lenhart 17 Baumb, Nelly From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 3:30 PM To:Kou, Lydia Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Council, City; Supervisor Simitian; Kleinberg, Judy; Drekmeier, Peter; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov Subject:Lydia Kou has my vote !! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Lydia Kou, Councilwoman  Palo Alto City Council    Dear Lydia,    As my preferred City Councilmember, I am so pleased and excited that you are seeking re‐election.      You have proven yourself to be an excellent asset to our City Council.  Palo Alto needs leaders with your maturity, skills,  and accessibility.     Please let me know how I can contribute to your important campaign.    Very truly,  ‐Danielle  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Danielle Martell  Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005    18 Baumb, Nelly From:Hannah Lewis <hannahlewis433@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 3:21 PM To:Council, City; Fire Subject:Problem with fired department CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi PA City Council,      Fire Dept response to a call was wonderful, but I was quite ashamed of the lack of diversity. Not a single one of your  responders is black. Could you tell me how many black responders you have and % of responders of the total? In  addition, at what scale are they in salary?  Even in organizations where there are token blacks, they are generally  relegated to the bottom of the salary scale.    I am wondering what steps you are taking to address systemic racism. The lack of blacks in the fire department really  makes systemic racism and white supremacy quite blatant!    Thanks,  Hannah  19 Baumb, Nelly From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 31, 2020 2:47 PM To:DuBois, Tom Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Stump, Molly; Bill Johnson; Jay Thorwaldson; Dave Price; Drekmeier, Peter; Kleinberg, Judy; Supervisor Simitian; Senator.Hill@senate.ca.gov; AnnaEshoo@mail.house.gov Subject:Impeach Adrian Fine (Palo Alto Mayor) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      Tom DuBois, Vice Mayor  Palo Alto City Council    Dear Vice Mayor DuBois:    Thank you for publicly speaking out against Mayor Adrian Fine's inappropriate and deceitful letters, to dozens of  government officials and transit agencies, regarding Palo Alto's position on Caltrain tax.  Thank you for your attempts to  remedy Mayor Fine's latest faux pas.     Adrian Fine routinely undermines the credibility of our town.  In my opinion, Mr. Fine should be impeached because he  has repeatedly proven himself too inept and inexperienced to hold the honorable position of Palo Alto Council  Member.  A growing number of residents find him to be a public embarrassment.    Thank you for your leadership, and your many efforts to keep Palo Alto a great town.    Very truly,  ‐Danielle Martell  Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005      20 Baumb, Nelly From:Nicole Hindley <nicolesyoga@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, May 23, 2020 8:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:El Camino/Churchill intersection CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Council, More bikes and pedestrians are using the El Camino and Churchill intersection because of SIP. I use this intersection regularly to ride my bike to Stanford with my kids. Every time I’m at the light there are more bikes and pedestrians than ever before. I don’t think this intersection prioritizes bikes and pedestrians. The cars make a left turn into the cross walk while pedestrians are crossing! It’s a busy intersection with access to Stanford. Please, please consider updatinv this intersection with bikes and pedestrians in mind. Could you also make the light change faster? El Camino seems to have priority over Churchill and the cars are driving so fast and running the light.... with kids and people all around. Super dangerous. Please consider updating the the Churchill El Camino intersection. Traffic calming at this busy intersection is needed!! Thanks for making Palo Alto bike friendly!!! This is why we live here. Nicole Hindley (650) 814-0173 674 Webster St. Palo Alto CA 94301  21 Baumb, Nelly From:Michael <michael@mac-archcon.com> Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2020 11:27 AM To:Inder Monga; xcap@cityofpaloalto.com; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal; Kamhi, Philip; Nadia Naik Cc:Rachel Kellerman; Kathy Jordan; Susan Newman; Barbara Hazlett Subject:RE: Neighborhood communication to XCAP, City Council, City Staff CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  All – I fully support the letter and find it succinct without the (metaphorical) “hammer.”  Great job and thank you all for  your time and effort.  Michael    MAC Architecture | Construction  135 Embarcadero Road  Palo Alto, CA 94301  o‐(650) 521‐0109  m‐(650) 796‐8895  www.mac‐archcon.com    This e‐mail is subject to all applicable privileges and is otherwise protected by law. Any unintended dissemination of this message is expressly not to be considered and  express or implied waiver of any applicable privilege. This e‐mail is the property of MAC Architecture | Construction. If you received this message in error, please  forward to michael@mac‐archcon.com, disregard the message and delete if from your computer. Please call (650) 796‐8895 if you have any questions about the e‐ mail or this message.    From: Inder Monga <imonga@gmail.com>   Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2020 11:26 PM  To: xcap@cityofpaloalto.com; city.council <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Ed.Shikada  <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; Chantal.Gaines <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>; Philip.Kamhi  <Philip.Kamhi@cityofpaloalto.org>; nadianaik@gmail.com  Cc: Rachel Kellerman <kellermanr@yahoo.com>; Kathy Jordan <kjordan@stanfordalumni.org>; Susan Newman  <snewzy@gmail.com>; Michael <michael@mac‐archcon.com>; Barbara Hazlett <bthazlett@aol.com>  Subject: Neighborhood communication to XCAP, City Council, City Staff    July 29th, 2020      Ladies and Gentlemen:    I do hope everyone and their families are keeping safe during these trying times. We are writing as a representative  group of Palo Alto citizens residing in Professorville, Embarcadero Corridor and Southgate areas. All of us are much  appreciative of all the work, volunteer time and tough conversations that have happened around this project.  As a set  of neighborhoods, we have the best for Palo Alto in our hearts and are communicating with that intention.     Through our regular neighborhood zoom calls every Saturday morning, we have become increasingly concerned about  the recent decision within XCAP to develop recommendations based on stale traffic data and considerations around  Caltrain future. This is not representative of the phase change in progress due to the recent pandemic. On the other  hand, XCAP does feels bound by the original charge from the City Council and unable to change direction.     This letter signed by many residents (addresses available on request) from these areas would like to urge the City  Council, City Manager and XCAP to reconsider the charge and adapt its mission based on the current situation.   22   As a representative of that group, I do hope that you will take this concern under serious consideration, and as a set of  Palo Alto citizens, would like to hear back from you. We would also like to invite you to our Saturday zoom calls if you  would like to hear these concerns in person.     Best Regards,  Inder    p.s. we are constantly getting more signatories, and will add more names as they come in.    23 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2020 12:33 AM To:Frank Agamemnon Subject:Top medical org demands FDA make COVID treatment hydroxychloroquine more widely available CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Top medical org demands FDA make COVID treatment hydroxychloroquine more widely available     Top medical org demands FDA make COVID treatment hydroxychloroquine more... LifeSiteNews.com Recent evidence shows the drug to be effective and to drastically reduce the mortality rate in countries where t...       24 Baumb, Nelly From:Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 8:03 PM To:Bob J Simmons; David Meiswinkle; Rachel Simmons; Simmons Perla; Camille Lachica; Carol Macannico; Joanne Casey; Nancy Brais; Richard Gage; Andres Lorraine; Frank Agamennon; biotica@aol.com; Dennis Tiernan; ezrider67@verizon.net; Haydee Bill Mooney; Lou Basile; mkormondy@yahoo.com; Philip Hussa; Steve Kormondy; NJ Electrician; Rachel Joy Simmons; Patty LaPlaca; Sea Girt Medical; Jackie Andres Schnell; Sandy and Jason Khneiger; Cheryl & Erin Hough Al; Tom & Beth Simmons; Mary Messina; Craig Simmons; Activist Post; Advance Media; A Son Of RevWar; Advance Media; James Perucho; Mila LaChica; Perla Simmons; tellallwtc7@gmail.com; Ammo Land; Ammo Land; Ed Durfee; mon.tp.coalition@gmail.com; BBC ONLY; Tea Party Patriots Action Jenny Beth Martin; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Michael Bolden; Elisha van Deusen; Council, City; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Global Research News; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Forbidden Knowledge TV; George Kneisser; LIST Dutchess County; BBC ONLY; Secretary@NJOathKeepers.org; SCORE 36; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Nikki Haley; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Rick Engel; Jason Hanson; BBC ONLY; Tom Price; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; John Dilberger; Coast Star; Coast Star; Keepers Oath; M. S. King; Main Street Patriot; BBC ONLY; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; Brother Nathanael Subject:BLM Speaker EXPOSES the Left’s Plan to Wipe Out White People | Right Wing Videos CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Arm up, carry on !   There is no secret of what their intent is now.  If you are WHITE, you are targeted for extinction. Have you ever heard anything more rascist than that  ???    https://rightwingvideos.com/blm‐speaker‐exposes‐the‐lefts‐plan‐to‐wipe‐out‐white‐people/        1 Baumb, Nelly From:Inder Monga <imonga@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 29, 2020 11:26 PM To:xcap@cityofpaloalto.com; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Gaines, Chantal; Kamhi, Philip; Nadia Naik Cc:Rachel Kellerman; Kathy Jordan; Susan Newman; Chacon, Michael; Barbara Hazlett Subject:Neighborhood communication to XCAP, City Council, City Staff Attachments:Community letter to XCAP City Council July 28 2020 FINAL.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  July 29th, 2020       Ladies and Gentlemen:    I do hope everyone and their families are keeping safe during these trying times. We are writing as a representative  group of Palo Alto citizens residing in Professorville, Embarcadero Corridor and Southgate areas. All of us are much  appreciative of all the work, volunteer time and tough conversations that have happened around this project.  As a set  of neighborhoods, we have the best for Palo Alto in our hearts and are communicating with that intention.     Through our regular neighborhood zoom calls every Saturday morning, we have become increasingly concerned about  the recent decision within XCAP to develop recommendations based on stale traffic data and considerations around  Caltrain future. This is not representative of the phase change in progress due to the recent pandemic. On the other  hand, XCAP does feels bound by the original charge from the City Council and unable to change direction.     This letter signed by many residents (addresses available on request) from these areas would like to urge the City  Council, City Manager and XCAP to reconsider the charge and adapt its mission based on the current situation.     As a representative of that group, I do hope that you will take this concern under serious consideration, and as a set of  Palo Alto citizens, would like to hear back from you. We would also like to invite you to our Saturday zoom calls if you  would like to hear these concerns in person.     Best Regards,  Inder    p.s. we are constantly getting more signatories, and will add more names as they come in.    1 Date: July 25th, 2020 Dear City Council, City Manager, and Palo Alto Expanded Community Advisory Panel, We would like to acknowledge and thank the tireless work being done by the XCAP committee, the city staff and the City Council as all of us work through the challenging issues of grade separation across the multiple crossings in Palo Alto. This letter is from a collection of residents of Professorville, Southgate and the Embarcadero Corridor who have been actively participating in and monitoring the deliberations of the XCAP and City Council regarding mitigation of the Caltrain corridor’s effect on the Churchill crossing and beyond. We are strongly of the view that neither the XCAP nor the City Council has developed sufficient data or community input to adopt specific recommendations or approve a specific solution for this crossing at this time. Moreover, in light of current circumstances and uncertainties, we believe that the adoption of a recommendation now is both unnecessary and inappropriate. The points below articulate the sentiments of the neighborhood residents: Pandemic Phase Change The pandemic has caused a radical, possibly permanent “phase change” in our environment in a number of ways: Caltrain: A projected increase in the number of commuter trains prompted the discussion of grade separation in Palo Alto (https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp- content/uploads/2020/07/2020-07-08_Item3a_Memo-to-XCAP-from-Chair.pdf - Item 1.1). However, ridership is down 95%+ since March, with as few as 15 riders per train (PA Daily Post, ‘Caltrain tax battle escalates,’ 7/20/20). Moreover, as we heard from Caltrain representatives last week, deep funding issues all but guarantee that Caltrain won’t increase the number of trains in the foreseeable future. Caltrain’s pre Covid 19 business plan, calling for increased service (increased number of trains), has been paused (https://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/Business_Plan.html), and Caltrain has shifted its focus to recovery planning. Vehicle Traffic and Remote Work: Because of the Covid 19 crisis, car usage has dropped substantially throughout Palo Alto and Silicon Valley (https://www.ite.org/about- ite/covid-19-resources/covid-19-traffic-volume-trends/) as substantial numbers of commuters have shifted to working remotely. Even though the shift was occasioned by the pandemic, a May 2020 Bay Area Council survey of 100 businesses found that 20% of the firms surveyed expect to go fully remote post-Covid 19. Executives in the other 2 firms surveyed said they expect only 74% of their workers to return to working in the office. Just today, Siemens announced it will permit its employees to work remotely up to three days/week - permanently (https://www.inc.com/justin-bariso/this-companys- new-2-sentence-remote-work-policy-is-best-ive-ever-heard.html?cid=search), while Google announced its employees can work from home for another year, until July 2021 (https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live- updates/2020/07/27/895734132/google-employees-can-work-from-home-until-july- 2021). Covid 19 Timeframe: There may still be a lengthy wait before a Covid 19 vaccine is developed and made available for everyone, which portends continued social distancing and continued associated impact on mass transit, including Caltrain. “Even if the optimists are right and a COVID-19 vaccine is approved for widespread use as early as this fall, it is likely to be in short supply at first.” https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/line-forming-covid-19-vaccine-who-should- be-front This phase change is causing a dramatic shift, with virtual space being swapped for physical space. “Work at home” and more dramatically “work anywhere” is the new reality for large portions of the workforce. We can’t currently predict the future impact on either mass transit or traffic. Caltrain Corridor Study At the same time, Caltrain is commencing a two-year study of grade separations along the entire rail corridor with the aim of producing coordinated design, construction, and funding solutions and streamlining the exceptions process. Palo Alto may well forfeit the benefits of this process if the City proceeds with recommendations for Palo Alto grade crossings before it is even underway. XCAP Representation When the City Manager and City Council reconstituted the CAP as the XCAP, the neighborhood representatives who served on the CAP largely stayed in place and pledged to shift their focus from neighborhood engagement and advocacy to a community-wide perspective. New members from various constituencies were supposed to further broaden the group’s expertise. Representation has now dropped from 14 members to 9, including 4 of the 5 members who represented the broader view (PAUSD, Chamber of Commerce, Friends of Caltrain, and a rail crossing safety organization). Ongoing lack of representation from Stanford and Palo Alto Bike/Ped safety groups clearly adds to this concern. Moreover, with the resignation of Megan Kanne, the CAP/XCAP member who originally engaged with the communities north of and around the western portion of Embarcadero, residents in those neighborhoods are concerned that their voices are not being heard. 3 Similarly, a large portion of Southgate residents who favor a solution that keeps the Churchill crossing open, share the same worry. Further, neighborhoods adjacent to Embarcadero corridor, which will be impacted by any decision, are troubled by the lack of community outreach. We understand that a primary goal of XCAP and City Council is to garner broad community support for grade crossing decisions. With the disruptions caused by the pandemic, plans to engage the community through Town Halls and other means have not been enacted, which should itself be a reason for pause. Traffic Studies and Mitigation Proposals As XCAP and City Council Members may be aware, the traffic studies conducted by Hexagon failed to take into account a number of critical, real-world factors likely to shift their analysis. Examples of such factors include population and traffic increases in line with Caltrain and regional projections, the interactions between peak hour traffic and the large numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians traveling to Palo Alto schools, among others. Requests from both XCAP members and the public to address these issues have yet to be addressed. There are a number of other areas in which the Hexagon’s report appears incomplete and inadequate. ● The traffic study only looks at car traffic (LOS) and ignores the impacts to the very busy school/community bicycle and pedestrian route that runs along the north side of Embarcadero. Indeed, Embarcadero Road is an official Palo Alto bicycle route, but that fact not reflected in the conceptual design ● While the traffic study looks at impacts of increased rail traffic and various rail crossing alternatives to car traffic, it does so in a limited way, focusing only on wait times at a few intersections (LOS). Effects of closure or other rail separation alternatives on Vehicle Miles Traveled, total transit times, or other important measures are not considered. ● The traffic study does not even provide a current count of cars traveling Embarcadero and other affected corridors because the consultants were not asked to do so. It makes no sense to design a plan that routes thousands more cars onto Embarcadero Road when there is no baseline count of the number of cars that take this busy roadway before mitigations are enacted. ● Similarly, the traffic analysis fails to provide a count of bicycle and pedestrian traffic and to base mitigation proposals on the study of interactions between cars and bike/ped traffic. Residents did a daily count of bicycles and pedestrians that crossed the busy intersection of Emerson/Kingsley/Embarcadero between 7:30-8:30 am on a typical school day and counted 300 bike/ped crossings and 100 cars that stopped or “paused“ at the stop sign; however that data has not been considered in the mitigation plan. ● Traffic mitigation plans for this area should include a Kingsley/Embarcadero bike/pedestrian route that is safe enough to qualify for “safe route to school” designation. Requests from both XCAP members and the public to address these issues have yet to be answered. 4 In addition to our concerns about the traffic study, we question the cost allotted to the Churchill closure alternative and associated mitigation plan, as well as the characterization of the engineering challenges represented in the Summary Matrix and Factsheet. Specifically, we anticipate that retrofitting and substantially expanding the Embarcadero overpass will likely entail considerable time, seismic upgrades and other technical challenges, and substantial expenses that are not reflected in the current documentation. We are aware of no detailed, publicly available analysis of this part of the project, so any plans that include modifications to the overpass are merely speculative at this time. As a result, the rosy conclusions about the efficacy of the proposed mitigations on Embarcadero are not viewed as credible by most area residents. Palo Alto Avenue Crossing Changes to the Palo Alto Avenue crossing will have reverberating effects on other crossings in town, particularly Embarcadero, Oregon, and El Camino Real, with spill-over effects on neighborhood streets. It is unrealistic and unfair not to consider how residents may be affected by changes to Palo Alto Ave when choosing among alternatives elsewhere, like Churchill crossing and Embarcadero traffic mitigation. XCAP Deliberations XCAP is going into deliberations before these issues can be raised and discussed in front of the City Council and changes in guidance formulated. Currently, XCAP can only issue recommendations based on incomplete and overly-conceptual traffic studies, a soon-to-be- outmoded Caltrain review process for grade separations, and other work done pre-COVID. We do recognize that the XCAP was given a charge to provide these recommendations. However, that charge was based on certain underlying assumptions at that time, assumptions which are now outdated and no longer valid. Given this, any recommendations the XCAP makes based on outdated assumptions, may also end up - outdated. Time to Pause The new normal in work and commute patterns is an opportunity for the City Council, XCAP, and the City Manager. With increased Caltrain service no longer a motivator, there is no driver for Churchill closure, and postponing a recommendation for the time being is a viable and workable option. There is time to do what needs to be done, namely to address the following issues and developments: ● Caltrain’s changing operating plans ● Possible shifts in work/commute patterns throughout Silicon Valley ● Gaps in neighborhood representation & drop in the diversity of the committee’s members ● Omission of the impact of the Palo Alto Avenue crossing ● Major inadequacies in the existing traffic/mitigation analysis 5 ● Opening of possibilities with Caltrain’s comprehensive study of rail crossings across the entire corridor and reconfiguring of their exceptions process More positively, this disruptive pandemic should be seen as an opportunity for City Council and the people of Palo Alto to pause the current process and regroup, in order to consider a holistic view of ALL the crossings in town, incorporate the principles behind the Comprehensive Plan, address inconsistencies in XCAP guidance, remove any neighborhood bias by improving representation of the various impacted communities, and proceed with a more harmonized view of the city inclusive of both east and west sides of the tracks. XCAP’s Excellent Work We reiterate our appreciation of the volunteer XCAP committee and their committed engagement over the past year. Although we believe they are not in a position to issue recommendations, their efforts should not go to waste. City Council, Staff, and Palo Alto residents will benefit from the review of what they have learned about the many constraints and considerations involved in modifying our at-grade crossings, as well as their qualitative assessments of the alternatives. They are also in a uniquely qualified position to articulate the questions that remain to be answered and the aspects that need to be studied further. Our Request With all due respect to the City Council, the City Manager, the volunteer XCAP committee, and the Palo Alto citizens, we request that XCAP’s goal be modified to acknowledge the dramatically altered state of current affairs as well as the limitations of their investigations and analyses, and to refrain from making final recommendations. Sincerely Inder Monga Reshma Singh Michael Chacon Mary Chacon Rachel Kellerman Tom Kellerman Kathy Jordan William Chandler Susan Newman James O’Donohue Steven Carlson Husna Hashmi Jahangir Hashmi Dexter Girton Sara Girton Beverly Sarver 6 Dan Nitzan Susan Nitzan Susan Mitchell Terry Rice Barbara Hazlett William (Butch) Hazlett Lisa Nissim Katherine K Wilson Lucia Ugarte Rich Spott Rob Levitsky Carl Dowds Margaret Kim Nancy Patterson David Schellinger Caroline Japic Haris Japic Eileen Fagan Loreto Ponce de Leon Karen Hohner Yoriko Kishimoto Prasad Chakka 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, July 30, 2020 12:25 PM To:chuck jagoda Cc:wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com Subject:Time for police crime units in every DA Office across this country by Aram James & Richard Konda Attachments:Aram James (DJ 7-23-20).pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    FYI: Chuck  >  >   >>  >>   >>   >>   >> Sent from my iPhone  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 3:14 PM To:joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org Cc:Del Fava, Julie; david.anderson@usdoj.gov Subject:Fwd: Investigation Attachments:~$james-malloy-38-cases-in-38-years-linked-to-scott-malloy.xlsx; ~$probate-docket-2013-1- PR-172495-events.xlsx; Habeas Corpus Cary Andrew Crittenden Civil Grand Jury Public Guardian.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello Joe.      I Haven’t had the chance to fully look into these dockets on this spread sheet, but many of them seam suspicious to  me.  The identities may be synthetic.   No records can be located on appellate court level which is very strange, but on  Supreme Court, name appears to be changed to Maloy.            And look at this:  https://trellis.law/rulings/party/Malloy,‐Scott‐A.?sort=relevance.  ( So many hearings on the same day  with different judges?  That seams impossible.    As far as attorneys with the last name “Malloy”, State Bar records do not seam consistant with records from judicial  council.   There is a Victoria Malloy who worked with judge James Towery on issues with Judicial Council. She is not  showing up in State Bar attorney search.      Cary Andrew Crittenden        Begin forwarded message:    From: Cary Andrew Crittenden <caryandrewcrittenden@icloud.com>  Subject: Investigation  Date: August 4, 2020 at 2:39:24 PM PDT  To: Bill Robinson <bill@sdap.org>  Cc: Brian McComas <mccomas.b.c@gmail.com>, gjury@sonoma‐county.org    Hello Mr. Robinson,   Would you mind explaining to me the reason why Karleen Navarro , an attorney from Sonoma County  was assigned to the appeal & the procedures filed pertaining to habeas corpus.     In the mock trial proceedings that occurred in judge Chatman’s court room, a deliberate attempt was  made to put on the record information relating to the Facebook page belonging to detective David  Carrol’s dog. , who’s name happens to be “ Sonoma Carroll”.    4 Karleen Navaro, The attorney assigned happed to be from Sonoma County.   Another  Interesting  coincidence?          License Status, Disciplinary and Administrative History Below you will find all changes of license status due to both non-disciplinary administrative matters and disciplinary actions. Date License Status Discipline Administrative Action Present Active 12/1/2010 Admitted to The State Bar of California     C. SCOTT MALLOY – OF COUNSEL   Mr. Malloy has been practicing Family Law since 2010. Prior to becoming a resident of Sonoma County., Mr. Malloy had a solo practice in Silicon Valley, Santa Clara County and volunteered as a member of the Modest Means Panel. In 2014, Mr. Malloy moved to Santa Rosa and was an Associate Family Law Attorney at Beck Law for over 4 years. In November of 2019, Mr. Malloy began a solo practice and is of counsel with Carroll Law Office. At Carroll Law Office, Mr. Malloy provides representation and services in the areas of Divorce and Legal Separation, Parentage Actions, Spousal & Child Support, Child Custody & Visitation, Property Division & Settlement, Restraining Orders, 5 Modification and Enforcement of Prior Orders, Limited Scope Representation and Unbundled Family Law Services. A divorce, separation, and other family related issues are difficult for anyone to experience. Mr. Malloy works with closely with his clients to help them understand the process and their options regarding all aspects of the case. Mr. Malloy believes understanding the legal process, your options, and being fully informed, helps to reduce client anxiety. He represents each client personally to insure your matter will receive the attention it deserves. Mr. Malloy takes the time to listen carefully to your concerns and asks the questions needed to assist you with your goals and keep legal costs affordable. ————————————————      6 Baumb, Nelly From:Mora Oommen <mora@youthcommunityservice.org> Sent:Tuesday, August 4, 2020 5:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:Youth Panel discussion on Thursday, Aug 6 Attachments:JPEG Youth Forum Ad.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council, Youth Community Service is thrilled to offer an online youth panel this Thursday that includes Divya Ganesan, the president of the Palo Alto Youth Council. We'd love for you to tune in! Warm regards, Mora Oommen, YCS Embarcadero Media and Youth Community Service (YCS) Present Youth Rising Up: Can Gen Z Lead on Social Change? Aug 6, 2020 7:00PM-8:30PM online, Register online at: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_FrrvGwppTVWaVy9Cw4MfxQ A panel of five young adults from the Midpeninsula who have been leaders in recent local protests and advocacy on racial justice issues will discuss how their generation can best influence public policy. Moderator Julie Lythcott-Haims is a former corporate lawyer and Stanford dean of freshmen and undergraduate advising. She is the best-selling author of "How to Raise an Adult" and will publish "Your Turn: How to Be an Adult" in April, 2021. She earned her B.A. from Stanford University, J.D. from Harvard and an MFA in Writing from California College of the Arts. Panelists are: Ayinde Bomar Olukotun, a 2020 graduate of Menlo School Divya Ganesan, a rising senior at Castilleja School Cleo Goodwin, a 2018 graduate of Gunn High School Hele'ine Grewe, a rising senior at Menlo Atherton High School Makayla Miller, a 2020 graduate of Palo Alto High School