Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200824plCC 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: 08/24/2020 Document dates: 08/05/2020 – 08/12/2020 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Greg Schmid <gregschmid@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 10:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly Subject:Item 5B. Update on Plan Bay Area 2050 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  LETTER TO CITY COUNCIL Item 5B. Update on Plan Bay Area 2050 August 10, 2020 In preparing its Plan Bay Area 2050 and its associated RHNA numbers, MTC/ABAG has taken a series of steps that directly distort the California General Code. We ask for a City legal opinion on these issues before any further steps on the RHNA process are taken. 1. DATA. The California Code used by MTC/ABAG to justify their actions (65584) refers specifically to allocating jobs and housing balances to cities within the region. MTC/ABAG’s Draft Blueprint’s preferred solution is “favoring more growth near existing job centers, particularly in the Peninsula and in the South Bay”. But the Blueprint allocates jobs and housing numbers within “Super districts” (see MTC/ABAG “Plan Bay Area 2050: Draft Blueprint: Key Findings: Technical Appendix). The numbers are particularly high in a single district called “West Santa Clara County”. This district is made up of “partial” sections of Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Milpitas and San Jose plus Sunnyvale. There is no way for cities or residents to track change in these “partial” districts nor for elected bodies to understand and act on impacts of “Super district” changes. 2. COSTS. There have been no discussions in individual cities about the costs of the RHNA allocations. In Palo Alto, for example, the costs of subsidies in some form for the projected RHNA allocations are on the order of $500 million. That is, requiring about 5000 total subsidized housing units over the next 8 years with total cost per unit of approximately $600K; about half of these units will be targeted to low or very low income households with subsidies covering approximately one-third of the costs or: 5000 x $600k/unit x 1/2 x 1/3 = $500m. 3. JOBS-BASED CONSEQUENCES. There has been no public discussion before elected bodies of the viability of a jobs-driven model. It is essential that the full impacts of further jobs-growth in the already jobs-rich areas of the Bay Area be discussed openly. Some of the consequences include dramatic increases in congestion and infrastructure costs, the highest land and housing costs in the country, and growing income inequality. 2 4. IMPROVING INTRAREGIONAL IMBALANCES. The relevant California Code (65584) that is cited by MTC/ABAG to justify their role specifically states that the public process explicitly include “exploring alternate means of improving intraregional jobs-housing imbalances”. Despite repeated urging by the public, MTC/ABAG held no such open public discussions and concluded on their own that they would not look at “caps in jobs-rich cities” nor would they explore obvious strategies that included businesses paying for housing subsidies. In effect, we are left with a non-elected regional body making critical decisions that push for more concentrated jobs-growth in already jobs-rich areas and flout the very California Code that they use to justify their role. There has been no effective public discussion about alternatives before elected bodies like the Palo Alto City Council where the impacts of jobs-based growth are likely to be severe. We ask that the City Council ask the City Attorney to review the relevant legal issues underlying public decision-making under California Codes before MTC/ABAG take any further actions that affect our future. Thank you for your consideration, Gregory Schmid gregschmid@sbcglobal.net Neilson Buchanan Sheri Furman Mary Gallagher Maury Green Joe Hirsch Terry Holzmer Suzanne Keehn Ben Lerner Paul Machado Christian Pease Beth Rosenthal Andie Reed William Ross Rebecca Sanders Doria Summa 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Atkinson, Rebecca Sent:Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:49 AM To:info@planbayarea.org Cc:Paul Fassinger; Dave Vautin; Tanner, Rachael; French, Amy; Klicheva, Madina; Council, City Subject:Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint - Comment Letter - City of Palo Alto Attachments:Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint Letter 080620 Signed Palo Alto.docx.pdf Dear ABAG Executive Board, Metropolitan Transportation Commission and MTC/ABAG staff,    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint materials.     Our Mayor and City Council voted on 8/3/20 to submit the attached comment letter for your consideration.    Regards,     Rebecca          Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner   Planning & Development Services Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org   Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code   Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped        CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100 August 6, 2020 President Jesse Arreguin, ABAG Executive Board Vice President Belia Ramos, ABAG Executive Board Chair Scott Haggerty, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Vice Chair Alfredo Pedroza, Metropolitan Transportation Commission MTC and ABAG Staff Via E-mail to: info@planbayarea.org RE: Comments on Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint Dear Commissioners, Board Members, and Staff, The City of Palo Alto wants to express gratitude for the exceptional long-range planning work that staff, under the leadership and direction of MTC and ABAG, have performed to develop Plan Bay Area 2050, the Draft Blueprint, and other associated reports and documents. The effort aims to ensure that by the year 2050, that the Bay Area is affordable, connected, diverse, healthy, and vibrant for all. As partners in realizing this vision, please accept the following comments on the Plan Bay Area 2050 Draft Blueprint:  Request a time extension from appropriate regulatory bodies and statues in order to provide more time to complete Plan Bay Area 2050. While the COVID-19 pandemic has not eliminated the housing crisis in the State or region, the impacts of COVID-19 on population growth and job growth remain to be seen. While working to address the housing crisis is absolutely necessary, conducting long-range planning processes for a thirty-year cycle may be unwise given the unknown impact of COVID-19 on critical variables. A temporary extension of the timeline may provide sufficient time to gather data, for circumstances to change so that the Plan is more useful to the region and to jurisdictions. Furthermore, smaller cities like Palo Alto are reeling from the impacts of COVID-19, which continue to unfold. Insisting the long-range planning process unfold unabated is out of sync with the demands the global pandemic has placed on residents, elected DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E7A5516-65D4-49E4-88ED-E21923EDD96C CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100 leaders, and staff. In this context, 30 days to review and respond to Plan Bay Area 2050 is insufficient. The outreach efforts are extensive, but the time frame is insufficient.  Revise the near-term projections and long-term projections to accurately integrate the impacts of COVID-19 into the long-range model. The Horizon Initiative “stress tested” Plan Bay Area strategies against a wide range of external forces and commend the foresight to conduct such a planning exercise, the results of which have informed the Draft Blueprint. The Horizon Initiative, however, falls far short of the type of long-range planning required for a regional response to the pandemic. Failing to specifically integrate the ongoing crisis into the near-term of the forecast is a disservice to the millions of households suffering due to the pandemic. The impact of the current recessionary period will stretch into the next decade, as the Blueprint rightly notes. It is unclear how ABAG/MTC staff draw the conclusion that the effects of the pandemic essentially wear off by 2030 and the region returns to the forecasted growth trend. It is unclear what underlying assumptions lead to this conclusion and whether a traditional recessionary analysis is preferable given we are currently experiencing large- scale, and long-term telecommuting. It is not clear if the assumptions include a foreclosure and/or eviction crisis coupled with massive unemployment and the closure of thousands of small business and the associated elimination of both wealth and livelihoods for many throughout the Bay Area. The interest of Palo Alto isn’t to foretell doom from the pandemic, but rather encourage that long-range regional planning pause to more thoughtfully and collaboratively consider the compound impacts of this crisis--which really is the genesis of several crises. Many Bay Area families and communities may not fully recover from these crises for decades to come.  Update telecommuting projections. Telecommuting may be a long-term impact of COVID-19. Many businesses and institutions are, out of necessity, finding ways to shift operations to completely or mostly remote operations. In particular, large employers have shifted to remote operations. Once the pandemic subsides--which could be as long as two years from its inception— many employers may continue a portion of their operations remotely. The potential is very real that telecommuting could represent a large share of jobs, and thus a reduction in the number of commuters and a shift in where jobs are located. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E7A5516-65D4-49E4-88ED-E21923EDD96C CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100 Palo Alto encourages ABAG and MTC to work with CARB to increase the level of telecommuting above 14%. Palo Alto also requests that increased telecommuting be used to forecast shifts in housing demand, decrease in office demand. This adjustment in the model could occur even if 14% needs to be the CARB initiated limit for calculating potential decreases in greenhouse gas emissions. We would like to know how close the Shelter In Place telecommuting levels bring us to meeting the greenhouse gas emission reductions and addressing the regional job/housing imbalance. Further, Palo Alto suggests that increasing telecommuting become a key separate strategy in the Blueprint; it is a strategy the Bay Area can pursue in order to meet our climate action goals and decrease greenhouse gas emissions, which are not currently met by the draft Blueprint.  Revise the Growth Geographies to more accurately represent the accessibility and proximity of transit to adjacent neighborhoods. The Growth Geographies show a ½ mile radius around transit stations and bus stops. While this is meant to indicate an ability to access transit expediently, the reality is that this might not always be the case. These transit-oriented growth geographies may not accurately represent the accessibility of transit in Palo Alto. In many locations, the Caltrain tracks create a physical barrier meaning that a transit stop is not within a ½ mile of a residence, office, or retail location. Furthermore, electrification of the Caltrain system will increase the frequency of train service and diminish the ability of transit users to cross the tracks and access the transit stops. The Growth Geographies must take a more nuanced, user-centered approach to indicating what areas are truly proximate to transit.  Revise and refine the definition of transit rich areas and include a more user-centered view of transit use. The transit-rich growth geographies include proximity to some high-speed and high- capacity transit, such as the Downtown Palo Alto and California Avenue Caltrain stations. The remainder of the Palo Alto Growth Geographies rely on bus service provided by the Valley Transportation Authority. While headways along some of these routes can be 15- minutes or less during peak times, we challenge the inclusion of these bus routes in the definition of transit rich areas. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E7A5516-65D4-49E4-88ED-E21923EDD96C CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100 First, the off-peak capacity of these lines do not provide sufficient service to potential residents of housing units along these transit lines. In off-peak times, these residents may still need and/or use vehicles, which will lead to greater greenhouse gas emissions and traffic increases. Secondly, changes to the service may occur. Recently, despite local objection, VTA changed and decreased service to Palo Alto highlighting a concern about the reliability of such service its ability to meet the needs of future car-light residents.  Confirm the accuracy of underlying data used to map Growth Geographies. The City of Palo Alto seeks confirmation in writing that information provided to ABAG and MTC staff has been received and incorporated into the model and mapping for Growth Geographies. This information includes locations and dimensions of historic districts, areas zoned for single-family homes, location of Priority Development Areas, transit services, and other information. In addition, Palo Alto wants to ensure the Growth Geographies in nearby unincorporated Santa Clara County are not part of Palo Alto’s growth geographies. In particular, Palo Alto wants to ensure that newly designated Priority Conservation Areas are taken into account when creating Growth Geographies. A large portion of Palo Alto’s acreage consists of protected open spaces; these areas cannot be envisioned for housing and/or job growth.  Model the office development cap instituted in Palo Alto. Job growth numbers should consider the fact that Palo Alto has adopted restrictions on the annual amount of office growth that can occur in Palo Alto. The purpose of this cap is to decrease the jobs/housing imbalance locally. Communities like Palo Alto and San Francisco that proactively seek to address their jobs/housing imbalance through local policies should not be subjected to projected job growth that is out of synch with local policies.  Explain the distinction and overlap between the methodologies used to create Plan Bay Area 2050 versus the methodologies used by the Department of Finance and the Housing and Community Development Department to generate the regional housing need determination. Department of Finance (DOF) and Housing and Community Development (HCD) prepared projections for population growth and growth in households. Palo Alto staff understand that MTC/ABAG staff also prepared industry/employment, population by age and ethnic characteristics, and household/occupancy/income information for incorporation into the growth forecast for the region and into small area analysis. The Plan Bay Area 2050 DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E7A5516-65D4-49E4-88ED-E21923EDD96C CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100 Regional Growth Forecast Methodology was presented to the ABAG Executive Board in 2019. At that time the staff memo indicated that further public input would be requested during the 2020 outreach on the Draft Blueprint. However, the latest methodology information was not included in detail at any of three public presentations during the week of July 7, 2020. Toward providing helpful comments on the Draft Blueprint, City staff would appreciate an overview of the aforementioned methodologies used by DOF/HCD and by MTC/ABAG staff and to understand how they are similar or different in their inputs and assumptions.  Palo Alto requests more specific data regarding how ABAG/MTC determined the jobs growth in the plan. With this information, Palo Alto and other jurisdictions can offer more feedback regarding how the job growth projections may be refined.  Explain if or how policies, such as SB 35 Streamlining, were factored into models and methodologies. MTC/ABAG staff included streamlining of housing projects in draft strategy for public consideration in 2019. City staff would like to know how SB35 status or other streamlining was or was not included in methodology assumptions for local jurisdictions. Strategies & Objectives  The City supports inclusion of strategies that locate jobs near housing. All jurisdictions need to support Bay Area residents with employment diversity and options. By locating jobs near housing across the Bay Area, the region can decrease commute times, decrease greenhouse gas emissions, and increase the resiliency of jurisdictions. This could be achieved through office caps in jobs-rich areas, while other jurisdictions might incentivize office and job center development.  The City supports frontloading those strategies that best respond to COVID-19, including those that advance safe bicycle and pedestrian facilities, advance renter protections, advance strategies for childcare which in turn could help essential workers, and advance protecting much-needed open space. The pandemic has made clear the need to address these issues in the near term in order to support households and put the Bay Area back on track for a growing and expanding economy. Transportation  The City of Palo Alto supports the following transportation strategies: o Operate and Maintain the Existing System. o Enable Seamless Mobility with Unified Trip Planning and Fare Payments. o Reform Regional Transit Fare Policy. DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E7A5516-65D4-49E4-88ED-E21923EDD96C CITY OF PALO ALTO | 250 HAMILTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA. 94301 | 650-329-2100 o Build a Complete Streets Network. o Advance Regional Vision Zero Policy through Street Design and Reduced Speeds. o Advance Low-Cost Transit Projects. Economic  The City of Palo Alto supports the following economic strategies: o Expand Childcare Support for Low-Income Families. o Create Incubator Programs in Economically Challenged Areas. o Retain Key Industrial Lands through Establishment of Priority Production Areas. Housing  The City of Palo Alto supports the following housing strategies: o Fund Affordable Housing Protection, Preservation, and Production. o Require 10 to 20 Percent of New Housing to be Affordable. Environmental  The City of Palo Alto supports the following environmental strategies: o Adapt to Sea Level Rise. o Modernize Existing Buildings with Seismic, Wildfire, Drought, and Energy Retrofits. o Maintain Urban Growth Boundaries. o Protect High-Value Conservation Lands. o Expand the Climate Initiatives Program. Thank you for your time and attention to these suggestions, comments, and requests for further information. To follow up on and/or respond to the content of this correspondence, please reach out to Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services for the City of Palo Alto. You can reach Mr. Lait at Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org or at (650) 329-2679. Sincerely, Adrian Fine Mayor of Palo Alto Cc: City Council members Dave Vautin, Assistant Director, Major Plans, Bay Area Metro, DVautin@bayareametro.gov Paul Fassinger, Economist, Metropolitan Transportation Commission, pfassinger@bayareametro.gov DocuSign Envelope ID: 8E7A5516-65D4-49E4-88ED-E21923EDD96C 1 Baumb, Nelly From:rohit sharma <rohit.sharma.mail@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 9:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:Tanaka, Greg Subject:I strongly support Summer Streets to Dec 31, 2020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of Palo Alto City Council:    My family and I strongly support keeping University Avenue closed to vehicular traffic from High St to Cowper St.  through the end of the year.    In this challenging year, Palo Alto’s Open streets (Univ Ave, Calif Ave) have been a singular beacon of civil culture and  with nearly everyone still working from home or sheltering in place, this is a vital and safe relaxation option.    I also support renaming it to PALO ALTO OPEN STREETS and putting up signage around the area to direct pedestrian,  bike, and other traffic.     I hope you will continue to put up more signs for Public Health reminding everyone to wear a mask while they enjoy our  open streets.    Rohit Sharma (Resident and Home Owner since 2001)  Cowper St, Palo Alto CA 94301    ‐‐   /iOS  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Fine, Adrian Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 5:52 PM To:Richard Mamelok Cc:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Subject:Re: Summer streets Thank you both very much; really appreciate these suggestions     Adrian       On Aug 9, 2020, at 16:44, Richard Mamelok <mamelok@pacbell.net> wrote:     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    We support a continuation of the concept of summer streets. In addition we support     fund picnic tables to encourage takeout -provide directional signage to promote surrounding businesses -get the word out to our neighboring communities, more advertising, ---rename “Summer Streets” to “Open Streets” -redirect traffic to make Lytton and Hamilton one-way streets    Richard D. Mamelok and Midori Aogaichi    364 Churchill Avenue  Palo Alto, CA  94301    Mobile: ++1 650 924 0347    Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse embarrassing autocorrects   3 Baumb, Nelly From:Richard Mamelok <mamelok@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 4:44 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Subject:Summer streets CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  We support a continuation of the concept of summer streets. In addition we support    fund picnic tables to encourage takeout -provide directional signage to promote surrounding businesses -get the word out to our neighboring communities, more advertising, ---rename “Summer Streets” to “Open Streets” -redirect traffic to make Lytton and Hamilton one-way streets    Richard D. Mamelok and Midori Aogaichi    364 Churchill Avenue  Palo Alto, CA  94301    Mobile: ++1 650 924 0347    Sent from my iPhone. Please excuse embarrassing autocorrects   4 Baumb, Nelly From:Allen Akin <akin@arden.org> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 4:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:August 10, 2020 Item 6 (Summer Streets) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    As you read in the Staff Report, closing University Ave brought traffic volume on Lytton roughly to its pre‐pandemic  level, and traffic volume on High and Hamilton above their pre‐pandemic levels.    Here in Professorville, the first week of Summer Streets generated a 12% increase over the post‐pandemic baseline, to  55% of the pre‐pandemic level.  On subsequent weeks traffic dropped and then flattened out.  This past week we were  at a 4% increase since the closure, about 51% of pre‐pandemic level, and relatively stable over the last four weeks.    The only concern I'd like to raise is that spillover traffic appears to be extremely sensitive to variations in demand.  As  you consider action on Summer Streets, please resist permanent changes whose side‐effects can't be mitigated.  When  the economy improves, increases in traffic seem likely to make spillover rise dramatically.    Best regards,  Allen Akin  5 Baumb, Nelly From:michael demarzo <mpdemarzo@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 5, 2020 3:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Summer Streets CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   I am a Palo Alto resident who supports the street closures of University and California Ave. Turning these into  pedestrian boulevards creates a more inviting environment. Street closures should definitely be extended to the end of  the year to support our local businesses during Covid, and should be considered as a permanent feature of our two main  commercial corridors.     Unfortunately, the closures have had the unintended consequence of putting restaurants on the side streets at a  disadvantage. I am thinking particularly of Pro Bono on Birch off of Cal. Ave. Akif and the team at Pro Bono have been  fixtures of our community for two decades and invested in expansion. My kids grew up in that restaurant and their  children have attended Palo Alto schools with mine. But Pro Bono doesn't have adequate or nice enough outdoor space  to compete now that Cal Ave is closed to traffic. Pro Bono is disadvantaged enough being across the street from  the massive construction project of the new garage ‐‐now it feels like the city really has it in for them.     The solution: Close one lane of traffic traffic at Birch from the left‐hand‐turn lane by the new garage to Cal Ave, so Pro  Bono can take over the street. The only other business open around there is the Nuthouse across the street and they  have their own parking lot ‐ so are doing fine and this won't affect them.    Please consider keeping University and Cal Ave closed to traffic, and helping out Pro Bono on Birch. If you will go take a  look you can see how easily Pro Bono's plight could be remedied.     Sincerely,    Michael DeMarzo      1 Baumb, Nelly From:Linda Forrester <leforrester@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 12:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for summer streets program and more CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I am writing as a resident of the Professorville neighborhood of Palo Alto to voice my support of the summer streets  program. I think that there is already plenty of parking in the under‐utilized parking garages and I believe more people  should consider walking or biking to enjoy the downtown Palo Alto restaurants. More pedestrians would make the area  safer and cleaner (less cars driving too fast and blowing through stop signs ‐ VERY frequent here). I also want to support  the restaurants building parklets on Emerson, Ramona and Bryant. Most of the restaurants I go to are on Emerson, less  commercial and  better quality food ‐ so I really, really want to encourage letting them set‐up more outdoor dining and  set‐up in a way that this can continue into the rainy season that will be upon us before we know it. COVID‐19 has shown  it is not going away anytime soon, so let’s support our restaurants and other businesses by continuing the Summer  Streets program and expanding it to Emerson, Ramona (which just did happen) and Bryant streets on a permanent basis.   Sincerely,  Linda Forrester  370 Addison Ave.,  Palo Alto, CA 94301  858‐342‐4704  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Arnout Boelens <a.m.p.boelens@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 12:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Summer Streets CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear members of the city council,    I am writing to thank you for setting up the summer streets program and to let  you know I am hoping that the program will be extended and made permanent.    We have been going on bike rides during the pandemic to get our exercise in, and  since Summer Streets has started we have been frequenting California Avenue and  University Avenue on an almost daily basis. It has been great to see people  enjoying the outdoor seating, and local restaurants and stores staying in  business during these difficult times.    Kind regards,    Nicole, Arnout, and Ava Zoeller Boelens  3 Baumb, Nelly From:susan chamberlain <suschamberlain@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 11:37 AM To:Council, City Subject:YES to extending "Summer Streets" CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.       Dear City Council Members and Mayor,    I’m writing on behalf of 350 SV Palo Alto today to encourage you to support (and even expand) on the University  Summer Streets program. We’ve read the Staff Report and fully support its contents. We are pleased that California Ave  has been such a resounding success and we’d like to see a robust effort on University Ave as well.  University Ave presents a terrific opportunity to do four things:   1. become pedestrian friendly (which reduces our carbon footprint and offers a wonderful way to engage with our  community at a distance  2. provide much needed jobs for low income worker  3. helps business owners who otherwise would not have the visibility and space to operate  4. provides sales revenue to the City.    The tech workers these businesses relied on will not be coming back in the near future (or at a substantially reduced  number) so we implore the Council to ensure that University Ave gets some much needed attention with    better signage for the side street operations,    picnic tables and    better marketing to draw more people to the area.  The community has spoken and they’re wildly in favor of the Summer Streets program, it seems there are just a few  landlords who have antiquated ideas about how the downtown area could be revitalized. Making the automobile the  focus of our future is not in line with our stated goals of carbon reduction and community building.  Thanks for your hard work over these past few months ‐ it’s not been an easy time for anyone and we appreciate your  service.    4  Sincerely,   Susan Chamberlain, Hilary Glann, Debbie Mytels, Sandra Slater  Steering committee, 350SV Palo Alto Climate Team     5 Baumb, Nelly From:Steve Pierce <pierce@zanemac.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 9:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Summer Streets CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and Members of the Council,     I am a decades long downtown north resident and am fully supportive of the extension of the Summer Streets program  to Dec 31, 2020.    I am hoping that this program will become permanent. The downtown experience is greatly enhanced by giving the  streets to pedestrians and not cars and parking.     Steve  STEVE PIERCE Real Estate Advisor & Broker ZANE MACGREGOR Real Estate Advisors & Brokers 621 High Street Palo Alto CA 94301 cell 650 533 7006 main 650 324 9900 fax 650 323 5431 zanemac.com     6 Baumb, Nelly From:Eddie Gornish <gornish@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 7, 2020 10:34 AM 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.  I was glad to see a mention of wearing face covering in the daily Coronavirus Report on Tuesday.   I noticed:  ‐ Wednesday, campers at El Carmelo elementary school day camp were wearing face masks. Earlier this summer, the  counselor told me that the campers did not have to wear masks. While that is true, the governor's orders at the time  were that masks should be "encouraged", they were not mandatory. Cleary the camp did not care about "encouraging"  ‐ Wednesday, a group of PA Utility workers were wearing masks, yet the 3 workers taking a lunch break (ok not to wear  a mask) were sitting well within 6 ft. of each other. The rules are really not that hard...  ‐ This morning workers were managing the vegetation in the median on Charleston between Nelson and Carlson. Again,  no masks. I called this one into the police. I'm sure they won't do anything about it.  ‐ Thursday, there was a 3‐man utility crew on Loma Verde near Greer. The youngest worker was wearing a mask. The 2  older workers were not. The oldest worker laughed at me when I asked them to put on a mask. When I talked to the  police officer, he mentioned concerns about racism and not wanting to make it look like certain races were being singled  out. I would like to point out that the youngest worker in this crew was Latino and the oldest, the one who laughed, was  white. I wonder if the younger Latino worker feels empowered to tell his senior white co‐worker to put on a mask? So  not only has the police become too its job, out of fears of being called racist, this whole process ends up backfiring when  they end up not protecting the minorities they want to protect in the first place.    So there is some improvement, but people who don't want to wear masks are not at all concerned about the law,  happily flaunt it, while the police still treat it as a minor health issue and won't do anything about it.    thanks  Eddie Gornish        On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 10:03 PM Eddie Gornish <gornish@gmail.com> wrote:  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:  7 ‐ 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.     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.  8 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    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Kirk Fry <kirkfry@msn.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 8:50 AM To:Council, City Subject:Save the tree! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,    Why does progress always involve destroying nature?  Think of the thousands of birds that lived in that tree over the  years.  Poof, gone.  And we wonder why we only have concrete left and no birds….   Our redwood was saved for the  same reasons this oak tree should be saved.  The neighbor was not allowed to destroy it’s root structure.  The house was  not built.  Do the right thing.  Forget the basement.    Kirk Fry  2604 Ross Rd.  Palo Alto    2 Baumb, Nelly From:Catherine Martineau <catherine@canopy.org> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 8:23 AM To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; Passmore, Walter; Holly Pearson Subject:Valley Oak at 2353 Webster Street - Canopy Comments - August 10, 2020 Council Agenda Item #8 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,    Canopy appreciates all the efforts made by staff, property owner, and architect to retain the magnificent and iconic  valley oak on this lot. It's a tree of exceptional aesthetic, environmental (including carbon sequestration), and ecological  value that was here long before European settlement. Because construction of this magnitude always represents a  threat to a mature tree's welfare, we ask that in addition to staff report conditions of approval #1 and 27‐40, City  Council add the following three conditions for approval of this project. These additional conditions will ensure  consistency with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies that depend on implementing the tree ordinance for  achievement.    1. Reporting tree protection compliance during construction. In addition to daily inspection reporting during demolition  phase, a mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City Urban  Forester beginning with issuance of building permit, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11.  The Contractor and Owner shall implement any corrective actions as directed by project arborist or Urban Forester.    2. Basement and light well excavation should utilize vertical cut, i‐beam and lagging or other minimal‐cut method that  leaves rooting soil intact, if approved by the Urban Forester.    3. The building permit shall include a comprehensive landscape plan prepared by a landscape architect, approved by  both the Project Arborist and Urban Forester. The plan shall include plantings required by Condition #13, and in the rear  yard specify Valley Oak compatible plant species comparable to Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 5, Landscaping  Under Native Oaks.    Respectfully,    Catherine Martineau  ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  Catherine Martineau (she/her)  Executive Director  catherine@canopy.org  Mobile: 650‐575‐5310 (preferred)  Office: 650‐964‐6110 ext. 2 (I will get your voicemail via email)  Working Remotely M‐F      4 Baumb, Nelly From:Pamela Fry <pamfry@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 8:01 AM To:Council, City Subject:300 year old Oak Tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello…    My husband and I believe we need to save our heritage trees. We got to save our beautiful tree under nearly the same  circumstances, and for the same reason; root damage could kill the tree.    I don’t need to write anything else. PLEASE….save the oak tree.    Pam Fry  2604 Ross Rd  PA  650‐269‐2654  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Jolinda Decad <jolindadecad@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 7:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:Save the tree 2353 Webster Street CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am appalled with the idea that homeowners would be allowed to kill a beautiful tree for a ridiculous basement. Here are some of the comments that were posted to NextDoor. Why is the City Council so pro-development? Why are monstrosities like the one on 2551 Webster Street allowed to be built? I sense corruption...  Please City Council pull this item from the agenda. Neighbors: if you value our trees please write the city council and tell them you value a 300+ year old tree rather than a basement. A basement can be build just smaller.     Send a note to city.council@cityofpaloalto.org simply letting them know the Development Department staff is out of touch with the values of the Palo Alto residents when they suggest they could administratively issue a permit to cut the tree down. from the Staff Report (page 4) "if the applicant were to propose to remove the Valley Oak tree, the application would be processed administratively, by the Urban Forestry Team, in accordance with Municipal Code. PAMC 8.10.050(d)(2)." Shouldn't staff be doing what the residents want???    As an architect and general contractor who has been remodeling houses in Palo Alto for forty plus years, I know that basements here are costly endeavors for relatively low value square footage and they are attractive because of other planning constraints such as height limits. The City should negotiate with owners allowing some trade off for no basement. A straight NO! Has in the past resulted in owners or builders “accidentally” killing a tree so there is no longer an issue.  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Dan Mahoney <dan@mahoney.net> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 6:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster St - Save the Tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi, I'm writing to express my concern for the building plans for 2353 Webster St. I live on the next block and  see the tree out our rear windows. From what I understand, the builder/owner plans on digging a basement  for the new home (they will scrape the current home) severely endangering a 300 year old oak tree. Either  they will cut the tree down (which I thought would not be allowed), or severely damage the root system, or  redirect all of the groundwater away from the tree.    We are a city of trees. I thought we would protect them. A new owner does NOT have the right to kill 300 year  old trees. They should have been told this before they bought the house. They should not be allowed to get a  permit to build a basement.    PLEASE DON'T ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN.    Dan Mahoney  2267 Tasso St  Palo Alto    ‐‐   Dan Mahoney  dan@mahoney.net  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Lee Merkle-Raymond <lee.merkle.raymond@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 12:38 AM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster: Save 300 yr old Live Oak CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    City Council,  Please do not permit the new house application to include a basement greater than 8ft below ground. The proposed  10ft basement will require groundwater removal and, per the City’s environmental report, will damage the heritage tree  on the back of the property.    I appreciate City Council keeping a balance between development and the environment and blocking a basement deeper  than 8’ (feet).    Lee Merkle‐Raymond  211 Heather Lane  Palo Alto, CA    8 Baumb, Nelly From:Annemarie Lekkerkerker <annemarie.lekkerkerker@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 10:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Protect 300 year old Oak tree at 2353 Webster ! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear council,    As resident of Palo Alto, I think a  300+ year old protected oak, with a canopy spanning over 100 feet and  trunk over 6'  across at 2353 Webster is more important than a basement at a new home. Please consider a more thoughtout solution  and save this valuable neighborhood tree.  There should be NO permission given to cut this tree.    Regards      Annemarie Lekkerkerker  650 391 4619  9 Baumb, Nelly From:Miriam Green <mirgreen@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 8:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:300 Old Heritage Tree @ 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To Whom It May Concern, I am expressing my deep concern that city not allow the removal of a viable 300 year old Heritage Tree for the construction of a basement that can be done at 8 feet deep instead of 10 feet deep. It’s time the city council started maintaining the look and charm of Palo Alto. Part of that look is the architecture of the homes that are built here, the landscaping, the older trees, the setback from the street, the diversity and style of homes built, and the care into maintaining the community. Building these monstrous houses on these lots with no yards destroys the charm of the community, makes us look like every other community and lowers property values. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Sincerely, Miriam Green   Sent from My Yahoo Mail for iPad  10 Baumb, Nelly From:Kris Yenney <kyenney@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 7:54 PM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster Oak CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council ~ I am writing to express my concern about the impending remodel at 2353 Webster. This Heritage Tree is irreplaceable and classic emblem of our fair city. Great Care must be taken to preserve it's integrity and root system. Thank you for protecting Palo Altans (Even our Plant Life) which cannot speak for themselves. I await your decision and know you will do the responsible things with the responsibilities with which you are entrusted. Kris Yenney ~ longtime Palo Altan (since 1958) 11 Baumb, Nelly From:Patricia Jones <pkjones1000@icloud.com> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 5:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Monday, August 10, Palo Alto City Council Agenda item #8, the neighbors’ appeal of the Development Department’s approval of a two story house with a large, deep basement at 2353 Webster. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am counting on you and City Staff to uphold the objectives of Palo Alto’s Tree Protection Plan and Dewatering Ordinances, and that you agree with Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater’s proposals for protecting this community treasure. The construction of the proposed 10-foot deep basement at 2353 Webster, where the groundwater level is high, would necessitate dewatering, the pumping out of groundwater in order to build below ground surface. Drilling the dewatering wells will damage the canopy and roots, while dewatering will stress the tree from sustained loss of soil moisture on which the tree depends. I am not asking for any change in the 2,953 square foot above ground floor area , footprint, or location of the residence. And, while the safest alternative is to simply not build a basement so as to minimize mechanical disturbance within the critical root zone, a basement may be acceptable under appropriate conditions. I request that: 1. The City not allow this magnificent 300-year old oak tree, in the prime of its life, to be cut down under any circumstances 2. If a basement is constructed: A. Limit the basement floor surface to a maximum depth of 8’ 0” below ground surface. Dewatering will not be required if the bottom of the excavation is sufficiently above the water table (and you have a good and careful architect and contractor). A basement deeper than 8’ will almost certainly require dewatering, however, the applicant will need to determine the depth of the basement that can be constructed without requiring dewatering. B. No groundwater shall be discharged to either the storm drains or sanitary sewer. Any incidental groundwater discharged onsite shall be outside the critical root zone, so as to not increase risk to the heritage oak. Thank you for your consideration.   Patricia Jones  1407 Hamilton Ave.  Palo Alto, CA 94301   Patricia Jones www.pkjones.com pkjones1000@icloud.com 13 Baumb, Nelly From:Marilyn Bauriedel <mbauriedel@ursu.com> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 4:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:Saving the magnificent heritage oak at 2353 Webster St. 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 am writing to urge you not to approve a deep dewatering of the property a 2353 Webster St., on your Council agenda  for Aug. 10 meeting.  The magnificent 300‐year‐old heritage oak that will be endangered by the approval and that may  very well not survive such a decision,  should be kept in healthy condition. The City has passed a Heritage Tree ordinance  and should not ignore it. It appears that the dewatering proposed is a very great threat to the oak’s continued existence.  I can imagine that there is another solution that can be a win‐win for the property owners in their rebuilding project and  for the oak.  The amount of damage to our natural environment in terms of loss of habitat and life of thousands of  organisms whose lives depend just one ancient oak of that size and age is worth the effort, in my opinion as a long‐time  amateur naturalist docent, to stop the deep dewatering that is proposed and to aid in finding a compromise that will  save the oak.  Our environment suffers every day in the Bay Area from the trickle of one project after another in cities  and towns that chase away organisms on which our very lives on this planet depend.  We are losing our old large oaks at  too rapid a rate already in Palo Alto.    Thank you.    Marilyn Bauriedel  3673 South Ct  14 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Roberts <proberts@shschools.org> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 4:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item 8 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    City Council Members,    Please do not allow the 300 year old heritage oak tree at 2353 Webster to be cut down under any circumstances!  15 16     Thank you,    Pat Roberts   857 Southampton Dr  Palo Alto CA 94303  17 Baumb, Nelly From:Judy Hulse <hjudy64@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 3:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:RE: Agenda, item #8; 2353 Webster Appeal = Monday, August 10 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I would like to register a 'protest' to the plans for a New development at this address. There needs to be some consideration for the natural trees of this real estate plot. Please mark my note as: NO. Judy Hulse, citizen of PA 3784 Grove Ave, Apt A Palo Alto, California 94303 18 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Heath <maggi650@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 3:34 PM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster Basement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear Mayor and Council Members,    Palo Alto's tree canopy is precious and an oak tree of the size and canopy such as the one at 2353 cannot be replaced, at  least not within our or our children's lifetimes.    If an oak of this size is not properly protected it will eventually  become stressed. While this may take a number of years to become evident, the tree will eventually become a danger  and cut down.      Please hold the developer of this new construction to the highest standards in protecting this beautiful and healthy oak  tree.      City standards for tree root protection on construction sites is the bare minimum and only extends to the drip line.  It  has been claimed in council chambers that trees have shallow roots, but tree roots follow the water table down as far as  necessary and if the water table is suddenly and possibly permanently lowered due to construction plus the permanent  basement pumps required for deep basements, eventually the tree will be stressed and begin to slowly die.  Also, trees  rely on tiny feeder roots near the surface that extend beyond the tree drip line, and these are not required to be  protected which further stresses trees.      While it is a developer's job to maximize their profits, it is the council's job to protect the city's resources, and our tree  canopy rates highly among residents.      Please deny any applications, such as the one for 353 Webster, that involve any and all construction methods where  there will likely be an impact on the health of a large tree, and most particularly our heritage trees.    Sincerely,    Margaret Heath    19 Baumb, Nelly From:Gregory Zicarelli <gregory.zicarelli@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 3:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:8/10 Agenda #8 - 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Palo Alto City Council,     Please do not risk the life of the 300 year old Valley Oak tree at 2353 Webster Street for any reason.  The tree may  survive 200 gallons/minute of de‐watering for three months, but can that be guaranteed?  New construction should be  designed with the existing natural landscape in mind, especially the trees like the magnificent oak on Webster Street.    I ask the Council to follow the recommendation of Kieth Bennett and Save Palo Alto's Groundwater to limit the depth of  the planned basement to 8'0" below grade to eliminate the need for de‐watering during construction.  This will decrease  the risk to the Valley Oak significantly.      Sincerely,  Greg Zicarelli PhD  20 Baumb, Nelly From:hjc@cohensw.com Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 1:46 PM To:Council, City Cc:Howard Cohen Subject:Construction Dewatering Threatening 300+ Year Old Oak CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Councilfolk:    I am very concerned about the proposed two story house with a large, deep basement at 2353 Webster.  Construction  of this basement, as proposed, risks damage and possibly death to the 300+ year old heritage quality oak tree at the  back of the property.    The construction of the proposed 10‐foot deep basement at this location, where the groundwater level is high, would  necessitate dewatering, the pumping out of groundwater in order to build below ground surface.  Drilling the  dewatering wells will damage the canopy and roots, while dewatering will stress the tree from sustained loss of soil  moisture on which the tree depends.    We are not asking for any change in the 2,953 square foot above ground floor area , footprint, or location of the  residence.  And, while the safest alternative is to simply not build a basement so as to minimize mechanical disturbance  within the critical root zone, a basement may be acceptable under appropriate conditions.  I, along with Save Palo Alto Groundwater, request that:        The City not allow this magnificent 300‐year old oak tree, in the prime          of its life, to be cut down under any circumstances      If a basement is constructed:          Limit the basement floor surface to a maximum depth of 8’ 0” below          ground surface. Dewatering will not be required if the bottom of          the excavation is sufficiently above the water table (and you have          a good and careful architect and contractor).  A basement deeper          than 8’ will almost certainly require dewatering, however, the          applicant will need to determine the depth of the basement that          can be constructed without requiring dewatering.      No groundwater shall be discharged to either the storm drains or sanitary          sewer. Any incidental groundwater discharged onsite shall be outside          the critical root zone, so as to not increase risk to the heritage oak.    I am counting on you and City Staff to uphold the objectives of Palo Alto’s Tree Protection Plan and Dewatering  Ordinances, and that you agree with Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater’s proposals for protecting this community treasure.    Thank you for your consideration and appreciation of infinitely valuable living things and our shared environment.            Howard J Cohen, Ph.D.          3272 Cowper Street          Palo Alto, CA 94306  21 ‐‐          Howard J. Cohen, Ph.D., President       howard@cohensw.com          Cohen Software Consulting, Inc.         http://www.cohensw.com          Applications, Algorithms, GUI, RDBMS    (650) 856‐8123          Bioinformatics                          (650) 856‐4273 (fax)          Litigation Support                      (650) 269‐1467 (cell)  22 Baumb, Nelly From:Lara Sox-Harris <larasox37@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 12:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Dewatering heritage tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello ‐     It came to my attention that a residential construction project at 2353 Webster Ave. contains plans for a basement that  would go into the groundwater level, necessitating pumping the groundwater out.  In general, I think this is a wasteful  and shortsighted practice that should be banned, especially since basements can be built so that they do not interfere  with the groundwater. In this particular case, this process would also threaten a heritage oak, which the City has  promised to protect. I agree with Save Palo Alto's Groundwater's Proposal, listed below. Please do protect it.    Thank you for your time and consideration,  Lara Sox‐Harris  (1150 Harker Ave.)      1. The City not allow this magnificent 300-year old oak tree, in the prime of its life, to be cut down under any circumstances 2. If a basement is constructed: A. Limit the basement floor surface to a maximum depth of 8’ 0” below ground surface. Dewatering will not be required if the bottom of the excavation is sufficiently above the water table (and you have a good and careful architect and contractor). A basement deeper than 8’ will almost certainly require dewatering, however, the applicant will need to determine the depth of the basement that can be constructed without requiring dewatering. B. No groundwater shall be discharged to either the storm drains or sanitary sewer. Any incidental groundwater discharged onsite shall be outside the critical root zone, so as to not increase risk to the heritage oak. 23 Baumb, Nelly From:joyce <joycebee@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 9:30 AM To:Council, City Subject:300 year old oak CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I have lived at 2266 Webster Street for 50 years. I taught elementary school in Palo Alto for 31 years. We went on Noticing walks. What could be more important for children to Notice than a 300 year old tree.? Palo Alto was named for a tree that is in bad shape. This one is Palo Vivo1 Please do all possible to save this tree of history. Joyce Bryson 24 Baumb, Nelly From:Sharleen Fiddaman <sf@sharleenfiddaman.com> Sent:Saturday, August 8, 2020 8:38 AM To:Council, City Cc:jack; kbennett@luxsci.net Subject:Heritage Oak tree: 2343 Webster St. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  TO: City Council of Palo Alto RE: Heritage Valley Oak tree at 2343 Webster Street Imagine the landscape in the mid-1700’s….wide open space with this Valley Oak standing sentry! Perhaps the early explorers camped by or under its canopy. 300+ years later it still stands giving shelter and shade and oxygen to our environment. As a neighbor I enjoy seeing it as I walk around the block, or enjoy a block party picnic beneath it. Now today, a new homeowner chooses to build a 3-story mega-mansion with a basement beside it – all out of character with our block of more modest homes, like the famous Stedmans. Digging the proposed basement is likely to severely damage the roots and kill this rare heritage tree. Palo Alto has an ordinance to protect such magnificient precious trees! Please see that the basement is greatly modified to protect and preserve it! Sharleen Fiddaman 2255 Webster Street Palo Alto     Virus-free. www.avast.com   25 Baumb, Nelly From:Sandra Browman <sandra.browman@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 7, 2020 6:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda 8/10 Item Public Hearing 2353 Webster st. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I’ll be happy to invite any members of the council to view this wonderful tree from my backyard (at a six foot distance of  course), so that you can view it's true beauty. Once you see this magnificent tree you will understand why the neighbors  on Webster st. are working so hard to save it.       Please let me know if anyone is interested. I can have an open house whenever it’s convenient to you.  Thank you!  Sandra Browman          26 Baumb, Nelly From:Joan Zwiep <joan@hosterfamily.com> Sent:Friday, August 7, 2020 11:33 AM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster Street CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the City Council, This is to let you know my objection to the current plans at 2353 Webster. The plans include a 10 foot basement. This will clearly affect the health of the tree, and may even kill it. This beautiful 300 year oak should be preserved as it gives much joy and ambience to the street. I am on Byron Street, one block away. Yet, I can see the tree looming high in the sky line. Palo Alto has a strong heritage tree ordinance which has been on the books for many years now. Please make sure that this law is not seen as capricious and is enforced in all conditions. Please deny the request to build a basement. Thank you. Joan Zwiep 2345 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-906-7275 27 Baumb, Nelly From:Sandra Browman <sandra.browman@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 6, 2020 5:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda 10 Item Public Hearing 2353 Webster St. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear City Council Members,    I, Sandra Browman totally agree with the e‐mail below of my neighbor Ruth Benz about saving the tree. What is the  best decisions of how big and how this basement should be build lays in your hand at this point.  But a wrong decision can definitely kill the tree or even worse, the tree could fall on my house!  At this point, I’m very worried about what could happen to the tree or my property.    I’m enjoying this tree for the last 37 years and would like to do so for years to come.     Thank you.  Sandra Browman  2397 Webster st.    ——————————————      There seems to be enough confusion regarding the preservation of the 300 plus years old heritage oak tree at 2353  Webster St. to warrant close scrutiny of the plans concerning the basement construction.  The confusion is not whether  to save/not save the tree.  The tree must be saved.  I am speaking for several concerned neighbors who enjoy the  beauty, canopy, shade, and history this tree offers.  The confusion rests in the manner of how the basement is  constructed, and the fact that the equipment used to install secant walls could injure this tree. A recent basement  construction only a few houses away at 2333 would make one wonder if this would happen. Is it possible to review the  method for constructing the basement at 2353, decide on the best method, and possibly even reduce the size and depth  of the basement in order to save this tree?  Please take the time to look at the proposed plans again in order to save this  oak tree and to responsibly build this basement.     Thank you,  Ruth Benz  2360 Webster St.    28 Baumb, Nelly From:Ruth Benz <rhbenz@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, August 6, 2020 3:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:August 10 Agenda Item Public Hearing 2353 Webster St. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council Members,    There seems to be enough confusion regarding the preservation of the 300 plus years old heritage oak tree at 2353  Webster St. to warrant close scrutiny of the plans concerning the basement construction.  The confusion is not whether  to save/not save the tree.  The tree must be saved.  I am speaking for several concerned neighbors who enjoy the  beauty, canopy, shade, and history this tree offers.  The confusion rests in the manner of how the basement is  constructed, and the fact that the equipment used to install secant walls could injure this tree. A recent basement  construction only a few houses away at 2333 would make one wonder if this would happen. Is it possible to review the  method for constructing the basement at 2353, decide on the best method, and possibly even reduce the size and depth  of the basement in order to save this tree?  Please take the time to look at the proposed plans again in order to save this  oak tree and to responsibly build this basement.    Thank you,  Ruth Benz  2360 Webster St.    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Zheng Qiang <zheng12@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 11:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item #8, August 10, 2020-2353 Webstart Street Attachments:Jack's Council Remarks 8-10-20.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council members, This is John Zheng, resident at 2250 webster street. We fully support the attached note by Jack to save the 300 year pol oak tree. Specifically, we request the following conditions of approval to protect the oak tree: 1) Approve the project with the condition the oak tree is not cut down (as suggested in the Staff Report) 2) Limit the basement floor surface to a maximum depth of 8’ 0” below ground surface. Dewatering will not be required if the bottom of the excavation is sufficiently above the water table. A basement deeper than 8’ will certainly require dewatering, however, the applicant will need to determine the depth of the basement that can be constructed without requiring dewatering. 3) No groundwater shall be discharged to either the storm drains or sanitary sewer. 4) Any approved plans shall include detailed dewatering plans as part of the tree protection plan. The location of the Tree Protection Fence shown on the current plans shall not be moved further towards to rear of the lot. Any groundwater discharged onsite shall be outside the critical root zone, so as to not increase risk to the heritage oak. We would like to emphasize we are not requesting any changes to the proposed 2-story, 2,953 square foot structure above grade, nor are we prohibiting a basement as long as it is constructed under the above conditions. Best, John 650 208 8699 Council Members I am responding on behalf of my neighbors and other members of the community to item 8 on Monday night's Agenda. We are concerned about the Urban Forest that it has taken our community many decades to produce and preserve and about the impact of a proposed mega-house development that impacts our section of town and our block in a unique way. The neighbors, and in fact, our entire community are counting on, you, the Council to uphold the values of our City as embodied in the spirit and intent of the Tree Protection Ordinance and the Dewatering Regulations by taking action to minimize the risks to this irreplaceable component of our natural heritage. Loss of this 300 year old oak tree cannot be simply compensated by planting other trees. Council has both the right and responsibility to attach conditions of approval to this project to protect this heritage oak tree. Since 2018, we, the neighbors of one of the oldest living Oaks in the city, have been trying to assure its survival in face of a development proposal for a super residence. We formally responded to the initial proposal, which was to build a three level structure, including independent entries for each level, and a single car garage on a mid-sized, single family lot, each of the three levels being larger than the existing Stedman, one-level home, without a basement that it replaces. We are grateful to the applicant and staff for the changes that neighbor input has initiated and which we trust have been included in the latest version: a slight reduction in height, elimination of a wrap-around balcony that looked directly into neighboring properties, removal of the independent entries to each of the three levels as well as the in-ground skylights, with seven (7) bedrooms that could have been easily converted into 3 separate rental units. In our May appeal, we enumerated three conditions that discussion with Dave Dockter of Canopy's Advocacy Committee helped us formalize. We are including our May 18th presentation to Council as Attachment #1 and request again that Council ensure that those conditions are included in its building permit approval. Community members should not be expected to have the technical skill needed to determine whether all 3 of the conditions have been made a part of the Approval that staff is now requesting the Council uphold. Construction Monitoring and reporting to the City Urban Forester does seem to have been strengthened and some elements of a landscape plan do now seem to be required. However, it seems to us that the staff report has not considered which, if any, of the proposed dewatering methods are feasible for this project, nor what the impacts and risks is for each of the dewatering alternatives in the Staff Report. The Tree Protection Plan does not address the process of basement construction at all. For example, Staff’s preferred method, shoring (alternative (b)) does not mention drilling 24” diameter and 25 – 30 foot deep dewatering wells outside the excavation footprint, which would be likely be required. Critical issues overlooked include such as where will the wells be placed relative to the tree protection fence? Can the 30+ foot high drills operate under the oak canopy? Will the drilling disturb tree roots in the critical root zone? The biggest threat to the ancient Oak at 2353 is construction of the requested super basement. On page 4 of its request that Council uphold the approval of the Planning and Development Services Director's approval of the Individual Review (IR) (File No. 18PLN-00339), staff seems to be defending its request for immediate Council approval with what many of us, including the Executive Director of Canopy, have reluctantly taken to be a threat to us and possibly the Council. Staff seems to be threatening that if we, the residents, don't accept what Staff is recommending; we should pack our bags, go away and leave the fate of this magnificent heritage Oak to staff. Staff will, then, have no choice but to approve removal of the 300 year old heritage Oak: It is important to state that if the applicant were to propose to remove the Valley Oak tree, the application would be processed administratively, by the Urban Forestry Team, in accordance with Municipal Code. Staff appears to be claiming, that in spite of the neighbors appeal of the Planning Director's approval, and Council's agreement to hear our appeal, Municipal Code would make the Oak's future an administrative decision, not subject in any way to Council approval: PAMC 8.10.050(d) (2) states: Removal is permitted as part of project approval under Chapter 18.76 (permits and Approvals) of this Code, because retention of the tree would result in reduction of the otherwise permissible buildable area by more than 25%. In such a case, approval shall be conditioned upon tree replacement in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual. Preserving and reducing risks to this magnificent Arboreal Giant, in no way requires reducing the square footage or footprint area or location of the “2” story structure for which staff recommends Council approval. While staff may be forced to approve demolition under the Tree Technical Manual if this were 'a typical Individual Review project', Council has the power to include conditions of approval for construction to minimize the deadly impact that this development would cause to this unique, protected Heritage Oak. Basement floor space is not counted in Palo Alto’s floor area calculations, and therefore any restriction on basement construction does not restrict the permissible building area of the lot. Staff does admit that: However, the City also has policies to ensure "no net loss of canopy" which would require any such removal to include a combination of replacement trees and potentially in-lieu payment to achieve this goal. We would like to note that the loss of the canopy and habitat cannot be compensated within our lifetimes simply by planting other trees and making an in-lieu payment. This tree is irreplaceable. Therefore, if a basement is constructed, we would request Council to add the condition that a deposit or bond be posted that would compensate for the loss of this tree, should it die prematurely. We request the bond should be at least $2,500,000 and should be maintained for a minimum of three decades, 1/10 of the life of this magnificent giant. Full replacement of the canopy should not be bought off with three or four trees that in many, many decades will replace the current magnificent canopy but should mean that Palo Alto takes as a sacred duty protecting, preserving and replacing special elements of our much valued Urban Forest. Subsequent to the May meeting when Council agreed to this full hearing, excavation for a contemporary mega- basement has been undertaken at 2323 Webster (3 lots away). This basement is smaller, and one foot "shallower" (basement floor height of 9 feet below grade, in comparison to the 10 foot depth proposed for 2353 Webster). Pictures of this excavation are attached for your information. This location is mostly free of an overhanging canopy and the basement is being constructed using the secant wall method; therefore significant dewatering is not required. We encourage Council to actually view a similar excavation to the one staff is asking you to approve. The root removal of what is a relatively young oak on the street edge of 2323 was extensive. In a way, this project has become a test case for our Community: Do we believe in upholding our Tree Protection Ordinance enough to limit somewhat the endangering construction? Ask yourselves which is more important to our community and voters: a large media room with 10 foot ceilings or a 300+ year old Heritage Oak. It is up to Council to exercise your full authority to conserve and protect one of the main features that make us the respected community in which people want to live and own property. 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 2:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:Letter on Agenda item # 8, 8/10/20 CC meeting Attachments:8-9-20 Agenda Item #8, 8-10-20.doc CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please see attached; thank you Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 I am writing on behalf of the 300- year old oak tree at 2353 Webster St., Agenda Item #8. I call your attention to the 11 -page detailed document sent to Council by Keith Bennet on behalf of Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater. I am appalled that anyone would seek permission to remove this over 300 year- old majestic oak tree. The greed in this request symbolizes all that is wrong with Palo Alto, the City of trees. The new owner bought this property fully aware of the oak tree's presence and root print. It should not have been a surprise that the tree would dictate the type of house which could be built. This tree did not suddenly materialize overnight. The 9/2019 Delon Realty Report contains an article "Which City is Best to Build In". On page 26, Palo Alto is listed as #1. “This was empirically proven with Palo Alto having the highest return on investment among all local cities with an average profit of 39% for speculation homes built by developers.” I have no doubt this is another “spec” home despite what the owners say. Please say NO to this destruction of this one of a kind tree. Thank you. Rita Vrhel Channing Ave, Palo Alto 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Keith Bennett <pagroundwater@luxsci.net> Sent:Saturday, August 8, 2020 3:00 PM To:Council, City Cc:jack Subject:Comments, 2353 Webster Appeal, Agenda Item #8, 8/10 Attachments:Council_Comments_20200810_SPAGW_V4.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Honorable Council Members:  Please find the comments of Save Palo Alto's Groundwater on the proposed basement construction at 2353 Webster St. An appeal of the Development Department approval of this project is Agenda Item #8, for the Council Meeting Monday  8/10.    Thank you for your kind consideration.    ‐‐  Keith Bennett  http://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org    Comments to Council 2353 Webster St. Permit Agenda Item #8, August 10, 2020 Keith Bennett On behalf of Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater has studied the impacts from underground construction where groundwater management is required and advocated policies to reduce these impacts. Our analyses of the scale and impacts are now accepted for accuracy; we have identified important issues that had not been previously recognized. The community and Council has repeatedly shown support for our recommendations, including the adopting policies intended to reduce these impacts. We appreciate the City’s actions. However, current dewatering regulations do not adequately address special situations, such as this, where there is significant risk of death or serious injury to an irreplaceable asset of our environment, a 300+ year old Valley Oak, worthy of official designation as a heritage tree. These risks can be substantially reduced with several modifications to the current proposal, which do not reduce the footprint or 2,953 floor square foot area (above grade) of the house, nor do they prohibit construction of a basement. However, constructing a home without a basement would have reduced impact and risk. 300+ year old heritage oak tree at 2353 Webster. Request to Council The safest alternative is simply to not build a basement. A building without a basement minimizes mechanical disturbance within the critical root zone. We hope the applicant values the oak tree and respects the importance this tree to their new neighbors, realizes the risks of basement construction and decides protecting the tree is more important than a basement. However, we also realize the applicant may still desire a basement. As noted in comments to Council on May 18 (attached for reference), within the last 2 years at least three single family homes in this area with basements have been built without requiring dewatering: 1975 Webster, 846 N. Greenwich, and 704 Moreno. Due to the presence of a tree, the N. Greenwich project was slightly redesigned to avoid dewatering after considering the various alternatives for dewatering. Shallower basements require thinner concrete slabs, and therefore less additional excavation depth, and are significantly less expensive. To re-iterate our statements on May 18 – the City’s current dewatering ordinance does not protect this tree. Furthermore, the Tree Protection Plan provided in the approved plans does not address the impacts of the construction activities required for dewatering, nor the impacts on the tree of dewatering itself. The Staff Report treats these issues very lightly and is materially inaccurate. Any approval of this project must address these critical issues. Specifically, we request the following conditions of approval to protect the oak tree: 1) Approve the project with the condition the oak tree is not cut down (as suggested in the Staff Report) 2) Limit the basement floor surface to a maximum depth of 8’ 0” below ground surface. Dewatering will not be required if the bottom of the excavation is sufficiently above the water table. A basement deeper than 8’ will certainly require dewatering, however, the applicant will need to determine the depth of the basement that can be constructed without requiring dewatering. 3) No groundwater shall be discharged to either the storm drains or sanitary sewer. 4) Any approved plans shall include detailed dewatering plans as part of the tree protection plan. The location of the Tree Protection Fence shown on the current plans shall not be moved further towards to rear of the lot. Any groundwater discharged onsite shall be outside the critical root zone, so as to not increase risk to the heritage oak. We would like to emphasize we are not requesting any changes to the proposed 2-story, 2,953 square foot structure above grade, nor are we prohibiting a basement as long as it is constructed under the above conditions. A detailed response to the Staff Report follows as an Appendix. Our responses documents: 1. Valley Oak Trees require access to year-round access to groundwater. The only way to meet the requirements of the Tree Protection Plan is to maintain the groundwater level under the tree during construction. Oak trees, including the Quercus lobate, or valley oak, requires year around access to groundwater, including groundwater in the capillary zone above the water table for survival. Mature specimens can live to be 600 years old. The tree on this property, at 300 years old is still in the prime of life. Adding surface water during summer is not a replacement for groundwater. 2. Dewatering will be required, as the proposed excavation will definitely extend well below the groundwater level. Dewatering will lower the groundwater level over substantially the entire property, including under the oak tree by 8 to 10 feet for ~ 3 months, thereby drying out the soil, risking harm to the oak tree based upon the dewatering plans and data from dewatering at 2151 Bryon, a similar project, constructed with a combination of shoring and 1:1 cutback. 3. Staff has outlined three alternative dewatering options, however the actual construction processes for each of these method are inconsistent with the Tree Protection Plan, and pose significant risk to the health of the tree: a. a secant wall (option a) would be effective and maintain the groundwater level, however, the canopy will interfere with the construction equipment required, b. The other alternatives (b or c) will lower the groundwater level, drying out the soil. In addition, neither method is practical either because the equipment will interfere with the canopy or setbacks required for the 1:1 cut. In addition, both the Staff Report and Tree Protection Plan completely ignore the impacts of the dewatering wells themselves, including access of the drilling equipment, which will interfere with the canopy. Appendix: Detailed Response to Staff Report and Plans Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater 1. Valley Oak Trees require access to year-round access to groundwater. The only way to meet the conditions of the Tree Protection Plan is to maintain the groundwater level under the tree during construction. From Wikipedia: “Quercus lobata, commonly called the valley oak or roble, grows into the largest of North American oaks. It is endemic to California, growing in interior valleys and foothills from Siskiyou County to San Diego County.[4] Mature specimens may attain an age of up to 600 years. This deciduous oak requires year-round access to groundwater.[5][6]” Research in the 1960’s documented that California oak trees obtain a significant fraction of their water in summer and fall months from groundwater, including water in the capillary zone immediately above the saturated water table level: The Tree Protection Plan (Figure 1) requires maintenance of soil moisture during construction. As discussed below, the impacts of dewatering extend over the entire property and beyond, including drying out soils on neighboring properties, on which the tree also depends; dewatering must be prohibited as a condition of approval. Figure 1: Detail from Tree Protection Plan (Davey Tree), sheet T-2, Approved Plans 2. Assume dewatering will be required. Any approvals of this application must be made assuming dewatering will be required for construction of the current plans. These plans show a basement floor 10 feet below ground surface. The depth of the excavation will almost certainly be approximately 13+ feet below ground surface (considering the additional depth required for the basement slab, sub-floor water barrier, and depressions for pumps, etc.). Currently, a home with a basement is being constructed at 2323 Webster using a cutoff (secant) wall. The water level at this site is currently being monitored and is 10 to 11 feet below ground surface, consistent with the values shown on the City’s depth to groundwater map. (Figure 1). Figure 2A. City of Palo Alto Depth to Groundwater Map showing typical depth to groundwater at the subject property of about 11 feet below ground surface. This value is accurate in summer and consistent with current measurements at 2225 and 2323 Webster. https://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org/files/PaloAlto_ShallowGroundwater_Update_wPlumes_V3_red.pdf Figure 2B: Graph of groundwater level at 2225 Webster, March 23 – August 7, 2020. The depth to groundwater is between 10 – 11 feet below ground surface for this period. 3. Staff has outlined three alternative dewatering options, however the actual construction processes for these methods are entirely inconsistent with the Tree Protection Plan, and pose significant risk to the health of the tree. The Staff Report analysis has omitted significant impacts. a. Secant walls (not a practical alternative). Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater is generally an advocate of secant walls, which have successfully reduced groundwater extraction on many projects in Palo Alto. However, the secant wall methods typically used here use very large equipment rising 40 – 50 feet to install the I-beams and concrete / bentonite / earth mixture forming the dam. Operation of this equipment requires cutting a significant amount of the canopy. See photo 1 below. Construction of the secant walls will destroy all roots along the entire perimeter to a depth of 35 feet for at least 2- 3 feet beyond the exterior of the concrete foundation for the house. Equipment access may require additional space. It is likely this construction method would extend beyond the Tree Protection Fence line shown on the Tree Protection plan. In short, this is not a practical alternative for the current design. Photo 1: Equipment installing the secant wall at 2323 Webster, July 2020. Note the size and especially height of the equipment. The drills penetrate 35 to 40 feet below ground surface. In addition, 35’ long steel pilings need to be raised to a height of at least their length above ground to be inserted. b. I-beam shoring (staff’s preferred alternative; large impacts not consistent with tree canopy protection or groundwater protection). As with secant walls, I- beams need to be installed. I-beams are typically 35 feet long, and therefore the top of the I-beams need to be lifted with a pile driver rising 40 feet or more above ground surface, requiring cutting of the existing canopy. The use of shoring does not result in significant reduction of groundwater pumped or flow rates compared to 1:1 shoring. Dewatering wells, 2 feet in diameter, are a drilled outside the excavation to a depth of 25 – 30 feet below ground surface. The staff’s assertion that dewatering will “extend a few feet beyond the basement footprint” is absolutely contradicted by abundant data and analyses from other neighborhood construction sites (see dewatering discussion below). c. 1:1 cutback (inconsistent with current basement size and location of the tree protection fence). This approach is inconsistent with the plans in several areas: i. Inadequate setback on the sides of the property to support the 1:1 cutback. Using 13 feet as the estimated excavation depth, 8 feet (13 feet – 5 feet allowing for the 5’ vertical exclusion) is required for the cutback. The side setbacks from the property line are only 6 feet, so this method cannot be used on the sides. ii. The basement would need to be narrowed by approximately 8 feet to allow room for the cutback and maintaining the planned position of the tree protection fence iii. As with (b), very large amounts of groundwater would be extracted, lowering the groundwater table significantly over a very large area extending well beyond the property boundary (see graph below). All of the issues with dewatering (see below) apply. 4. Dewatering wells and Impacts a. Groundwater levels at the property site: For dewatering alternatives (b) and (c), the water table will be lowered by at by 6 to 10 feet below the undistributed groundwater level nearer the construction over substantially the entire property. The dewatering plan for 2151 Byron estimates drawdown of at least 8’ over substantially all of the property (Figure 3). Figure 3: Projected groundwater depression contours (feet below initial conditions) for the dewatering at 2151 Byron. Groundwater levels are estimated to be lowered 8 to 10 feet over substantially the entire property. Figure 4 shows excerpts from the dewatering log (per City) for 2151 Byron shows the groundwater level was lowered by 7.5 feet (from 7.5 to 15 feet below ground surface) at the monitoring well located near the edge of the property. Note the pumping rates generally range from 200 – 265 gallons per minute (gpm). The flow rates estimated in the dewatering plan was substantially lower, 152 gpm. In total, 36.6 million gallons was pumped. Figure 3: Dewatering logs from 2151 Byron showing a 7.5 foot drop in groundwater (7.5 to 15 feet below ground surface) and pumping rates as high as 265 gallons per minute. A total of 36.6 million gallons was pumped, mostly discharged to the storm drains. b. Changes in groundwater levels on neighboring properties. The dewatering plan for 2151 Byron estimates the groundwater will be lowered 7 to 10 feet on adjacent properties. From Page 2 of the letter dated August 10, 2018 from the dewatering plan from Dale Hinkle, PE, PLCC: c. Changes Groundwater levels over an extended area. Dewatering for 2151 Byron lowered groundwater at least 3 feet (the monitoring well went dry) at a distance of more than 500 feet from the construction site. Figure 4 shows measurements of groundwater levels near sites of other underground construction using broad area dewatering shows measured groundwater drops between 2.5 and 6 feet at distances of 45, 115 and 220 feet respectively of the pumps. Note that recovery after project 2 took several weeks. Figure 4 Measurements of groundwater levels near sites of underground construction using broad area dewatering shows measured groundwater drops between 2.5 and 6 feet at distances of 45, 115 and 220 feet respectively of the pumps. We have documented groundwater levels dropping 2 feet due to dewatering from two dewatering 2019 sites, 1,100 feet and 1,900 feet from the monitoring location. The impacts of dewatering for (residential) basement construction extend over an extremely very wide area. d. Construction of dewatering wells. Neither the Staff Report nor the Tree Protection Plan address impacts of the dewatering wells themselves on the tree. This is surprising as the City has abundant records of the designs for dewatering as all recent construction projects must submit detailed dewatering plans for approval along with dewatering reports including actual measurements of groundwater levels, pumping rates and water extracted. Dewatering (available from Public Works) for 2151 Byron, constructed using shoring, used six (6) wells, each 24” in diameter and 27 feet in depth. 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Sandra Browman <sandra.browman@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 7, 2020 6:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda 8/10 Item Public Hearing 2353 Webster St. Attachments:Council.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        Dear City Council Members, For the last 37 years I have enjoyed the beautiful 300 years old tree that lives in my neighbor’s backyard. I feel fortunate to have the best view of this magnificent tree from my property. All year long it attracts wildlife birds,squirrels, butterflies,bugs and many others. The tree is an ecosystem on its own and is located approximately ⅓ of a block from the busy Oregon Expressway. Since the 1700’s the tree cleans the polluted air around this neighborhood. What a great service this magnificent tree is doing for the environment! You, council members, have the authority to acquire and set conditions of approval for the new basement construction in order to maximize and protect the tree. The footprint of the basement needs to be revised. The basement excavation needs to be shallow enough so it does NOT require dewatering. It will be essential for the survival of the tree and It will also protect our water table. It’s the responsibility of the council to protect our canopy for future generations! Please Council, pass an ordinance to cut the footprint of this project to save the Heritage Oak tree. How would you feel if the tree is damaged or killed under your watch? Thank you! Sandra Browman 2397 Webster St. 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Carl Darling <cdarling17@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 5, 2020 7:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:I support Keith Bennett on his request on the depth of basement. As attached Attachments:Council_Letter_2353_Webster_Save_Palo_Alto's_Groundwater.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. As Keith has stated the depth of basement is the issue. The city business. permit  proposes,to allow a depth of  groundwater  drainage[p;''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' Carl Darling   NPC PA Midtown 5  590 Ashton Ave Palo Alto  650‐804‐6263  cdarling17@gmail.com  To: Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council From: Keith Bennett / Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater May 18, 2020 Re: Consent Calendar Item 5 (May 18) Quasi-Judicial: 2353 Webster St. We request this item be removed from the Consent Calendar and re- approve the project only after incorporating sufficient conditions to greatly reduce the risk of death or damage to the 300 year old Heritage Oak Tree. Ask yourselves these questions: 1. Should the City of Palo Alto protect this heritage tree? 2. Do the City’s current regulations for dewatering adequately protect this tree? 3. Who will be held responsible if the tree dies? Figure 1: 300+ year old Heritage Oak at 2353 Webster St. (subject property) This letter is to provide information on the impacts of dewatering in support of the comments of many neighbors on Webster St. who feel the presence of this tree adds significant values to the neighborhood and their properties. Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater is particularly concerned about the underground construction for the proposed basement and the dewatering likely required. The Palo Alto City regulations for dewatering do not take into account the specific requirements to protect this tree. Dewatering should be explicitly prohibited at this site. Dewatering causes “local drought,” even if the tree trunk and canopy are physically protected. a) Our strongly preferred alternative is to eliminate the basement (providing the greatest protection for the tree), as cutting into the existing root system will be required for the basement construction, risking reduced support for the tree and other adverse impacts. b) If, considering the impacts on the tree root system, it is decided to permit the construction of a basement, the basement should be designed so that neither dewatering nor a cut-off wall are required during construction. This is a practical and feasible solution. 1995 Webster, 704 Moreno and 846 E. Greenwich are examples of homes recently constructed with basements at locations with similar groundwater levels: Figure 2: Locations of subject property (4) relative to homes with basements recently constructed without dewatering: (1) 1995 Webster, (2) 704 Moreno, and (3) 846 E. Greenwich a) While cut-off walls are very effective at controlling groundwater, installation of the cutoff walls involves the use of heavy equipment, generally rising over 30 feet above ground surface. While we generally support the use of cutoff walls, for this project installation of the cutoff walls is likely not consistent with the recommendation of Dave Dockter of Canopy's Advocacy Committee and with Canopy's Executive Director, as use of such heavy equipment will damage both the tree roots and canopy. Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater has detailed data available on the effects of basement construction dewatering on groundwater levels in the area, and is happy to provide it upon request. In summary, to protect this oak tree any permit including a basement for this project must include sufficient detailed and strict specifications for underground construction, including dewatering. The existing permit does not, and this item should be pulled from the Consent Calendar. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Tom Wachter <wachter.tom@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 3:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster Street Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The  native  oak  tree  at  2353  Webster  Street  is  a  beautiful  tree that enhances the neighborhood. It is one of the few native trees in this part of Webster Street where the City chose many years ago to plant a bunch of non‐native magnolia trees as street trees. It's ironic that the City is now seriously considering the approval of a project that is likely to severely damage  or  kill  a beautiful,  native  tree  while  it  diligently  prevents  the removal any of the non‐native and, in my opinion, ugly, dirty magnolia trees that blight the neighborhood.    Tom Wachter  Owner and Resident, 2334 Webster Street    2 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Ellen White <mewhite@me.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 2:57 PM To:Council, City Subject:re: council meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I would like to speak at the meeting tonight concerning the oak tree at 2353 Webster Street.  Mary Ellen White  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 1:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster Street 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 understand that Item #8 on this evening’s agenda concerns an appeal to the City’s approval of a permit to construct a  two story home and basement on this site.  The appeal primarily concerns the spectacular Valley Oak tree in the rear  yard of the property.    I share the appellants concern that the construction of the basement, including potential dewatering, is risky at best,  especially as the project including the basement excavation intrudes into the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ).    One of the big difficulties with such a project is that if it compromises the tree’s health, the effects may not be  immediately apparent.  Trees this large do not typically die instantly ‐ they take some time to decline.    If it is allowed, it should be limited to a partial basement, under the portion of the house farther from the tree.  The least  invasive construction approach must be used, and any dewatering must be carefully managed to avoid any impact to the  tree.    Best of all, however, would be if the basement were disallowed. I strongly encourage you to take this step for the good  of the tree, the community, and the planet.    Thank you for your consideration.    Regards,    Pria Graves  2130 Yale Street  Palo Alto, 94306  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Carlitz <barbara.carlitz@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 1:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:save the oak! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    We are losing too many of the valuable old oaks to construction, sidewalk buckling, winds etc.  Please save the currently  threatened oak on Webster St.  in Old Palo Alto.  It’s on the agenda tonight.    Thanks!  Barbara Carlitz  Old Palo Alto resident for 50 years….  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Dianne E. Jenett <djenett@serpentina.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 1:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Saving 300 year old oak trees - policy changes CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  It has just come to my attention that a proposed project at 2353 Webster threatens a protected 300 year old oak tree  and that policies exist which make it possible for it to be purposely or “accidently” killed and removed for the purpose of  constructing a 10 foot basement.  Those trees were there long before these houses were constructed, people knew they  were there, and the trees should take priority over any construction.  These trees are our responsibility as good  stewards and, incidentally,  add to everyone’s property values because most people treasure them.     Please remove this item from the council agenda until a solution can be found that absolutely protects that tree and  similar trees.     Thank you,    Dianne Jenett      Dianne Jenett, Ph.D.  330 Cowper Street  Palo Alto, CA 94301  djenett@serpentina.com      6 Baumb, Nelly From:Peter Drekmeier <pdrekmeier@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 12:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comments - Item 8 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 write regarding Item 8 on tonight’s agenda.  The application to replace an existing one‐story structure at 2353 Webster  Street with a two‐story house with a basement could lead to the death of a magnificent 300‐year‐old valley oak.  If ever  there were a heritage tree, this is one, and it should be fully protected under Palo Alto’s Heritage Tree Ordinance.    In its younger years, this oak likely provided food, resources and shade for the native Muwekma Ohlone people who  inhabited our region for thousands of years.  Perhaps members of the Portola Expedition or early Missionaries  experienced the splendor of this tree upon their arrival.  It has graced the landscape for a long, long time.    For the past 10 years, a group of us in my neighborhood between Middlefield and Chaucer have been restoring wildlife  habitat along the banks of San Francisquito Creek.  We have raised and planted more than 100 oaks, and a number of  other native species.  What is quite noticeable is how slowly oaks grow — only a few inches per year.  The thought of  allowing a healthy, mature oak tree to die brings sadness to my heart.  Think of all that has happened over the past  three centuries.  Humanities' sense of time can be narrow.    The applicant was certainly aware of the oak, and likely Palo Alto's Heritage Tree Ordinance, at the time the property  was acquired.  There should have been no surprises.  To deny actions that would harm the oak would not be a taking.     Please do everything in your power to protect this tree.  Our canopy makes Palo Alto a very special place to live.  Our  ancient oaks provide food and habitat for hundreds of other species.    Thank you for considering my comments.    Sincerely,  Peter Drekmeier  ----------------------------------- Peter Drekmeier pdrekmeier@earthlink.net (650) 223-3333     7 Baumb, Nelly From:Alison McNall <amcnall7@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 12:40 PM To:Council, City Subject:Groundwater CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I firmly believe that allowing houses to construct basements is a real  threat to our groundwaters.  This particular construction is very concerning to me  Development Department’s approval of a two story house with a large, deep basement at 2353 Webster. Construction of this basement, as proposed, risks damage and possibly death to the 300+ year old legally protected oak tree at the back of the property.  I am asking for this not to happen and also the city not allowing any more basements to be constructed.  Thank you  Alison McNall  8 Baumb, Nelly From:James McIntyre <jrmac1011ace@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 12:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Tree @ 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Palo Alto City Council Members,    Reject the proposed development at 2353 Webster, which will be a death sentence for the 300yr old oak tree on the  property.  Trees make Palo Alto and it’s neighborhood... mega houses for rich people, do not.  SAVE THE TREE.    Jim McIntyre    Sent from my iPad  9 Baumb, Nelly From:Kasiana McLenaghan <kasiana@fastmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 12:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Construction plans for 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello,    I’m a Palo Alto resident (I live at 237 Rinconada Ave), and I want to flag my concerns about the construction plans for  2353 Webster. I really value the giant old trees that we have throughout Palo Alto, and I’m concerned that the basement  included in this project would doom the gorgeous tree on the lot. If possible, I think that the City Council should request  that the plans be reworked to protect the tree, rather than allowing it to be endangered for the sake of a basement.    Thank you for your consideration,    Kasiana  10 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne Goess <anne@goess.org> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 11:39 AM To:Council, City Cc:Patricia Goity Subject:Protect the Heritage Tree at 2353 Webster (Agenda item 8, Aug. 10 mtg) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council, I understand that the Appeal of the Director's approval for the proposed project at 2353 Webster is on the agenda for tonight's meeting. I know that Staff has made recommendations to ensure the safety of the heritage-quality oak tree on the property. However, I and many others do not feel that these recommendations go far enough to protect the tree. I urge the Council to A) deny the project (per PAMC 18.75.075(g)(2), or at least B) require additional modifications to the scope of the project. If the project is approved, it should at the very least be on the condition that the tree is not removed. The Municipal Code states that removal might be permitted because "retention of the tree would result in reduction of the otherwise-permissible buildable area by more than 25% In such a case, the approval shall be conditioned upon tree replacement in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual." While this is an admirable policy in terms of retaining the urban canopy of Palo Alto, it does not adequately protect a heritage-quality tree like the quercus lobata at 2353 Webster. No amount of replacement tree planting could hope to compensate for this stunningly beautiful, healthy, 300+-year-old specimen. Secondly, I would strongly urge the council to consider the recommendations of the Save Palo Alto's Groundwater report, which advises A) denying the basement (the safest and least expensive option), or, if the basement is non-negotiable, requiring that it be less than 8 feet deep. As the Report states, the building of the cut-off walls requires large equipment which would interfere with the canopy of the tree, and the Tree Protection Plan in the approved plans does not adequately address the impacts of dewatering or construction. I grew up in the home at 2353 Webster, a charming Stedman, and my parents lived there from 1965 until 2014. My folks have given so much to Palo Alto. My father, John A.C. Bingham, was a Silicon Valley pioneer, one of the inventors of both the modem and DSL, plus an AYSO coach and high-school math tutor. My mother, Lu Bingham, who passed away Aug. 11, 2018, coordinated meals for seniors at the Palo Alto Co-op, volunteered with the Palo Alto Chamber Orchestra, and worked for many years with the Environmental Volunteers, Roots & Shoots and Canopy programs. I am sure the City would want to honor their legacy by doing all in its power to protect the magnificent tree they loved so much. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Anne Bingham Goess 904 Carmel Ave., Albany, CA 94706 11 (510) 525-5217 12 Baumb, Nelly From:Dan Garber <dan@fg-arch.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 10:28 AM To:Council, City Subject:ID #11246 2353 Webster Street: Appeal of Director’s Decision on Individual Review Application CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Date: August 9, 2020 To: Palo Alto City Council From: Daniel Garber, FAIA Re: ID #11246 2353 Webster Street:   Appeal of Director’s Decision on Individual Review Application   I am an architect and an ardent supporter of Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater, who has asked me for my opinion regarding  this item because I live about a block from the proposed project.     While I do not support the Council’s decision to remove this item from the consent calendar, I do generally support the  Staff’s recommendations. Below are further comments regarding the tree and basement issues and why issues between  homeowners should be resolved at the Staff level and not be played out publicly in a Council Meeting.     The Tree.  I’ll note that the property owner’s Arborist Report by Davey Tree Expert Company does not call for the removal of the  large valley oak. Davey Tree Expert Company is a highly respected arborist with a long history of working in Palo Alto.   The Arborist’ Report instead outlines a series of requirements the property owner and consequently, the property  owner’s general contractor must take to protect the tree in its place. These requirements are further amplified by the  conditions that the City’s arborist has also made. While I am not an arborist, these requirements appear to be  significantly in excess of the conditions that I typically see the City and professional arborists require for tree protection.    It is very common that Palo Alto’s properties have large heritage and or other significant trees that can highly constrain  the design of the houses on these properties. We have designed houses on properties smaller than this property with  large heritage trees as close to the existing home as this property has. As noted in the Staff Report, the tree is likely to  have fewer roots under the existing house. In fact the projects that we have been part of that have this condition we  typically have found no roots under the existing house. Presumably, because there is no surface water there to feed a  root.   Consequently, I’m somewhat surprised by two things. First that digging a hand‐dug trench has not been proposed by the  City, Arborist or property owner, at some line within the tree’s canopy or at least behind the existing foundation (when  the existing house is demolished) to determine if there are any tree roots under the house and if there are ‐ where they  actually are. Secondly that the foundation of the existing house is apparently to be left in place ‐ when removing it will  likely increase the opportunity for the tree to expand its root area which I assume would benefit the tree.    We have designed many homes in Palo Alto and we routinely have trenches dug well before the design process is  started. In this way the specific location of the roots of the tree can be avoided and protected and where building within  in the tree’s canopy can be allowed without harming the tree.   A hand‐dug trench is an inexpensive undertaking and is typically completed in less than a day allowing for the  observation by the property owner and the City’s arborists to take photos and measurements of the revealed conditions  13 and then filling the trench back in shortly after that. Perhaps there are reasons that this was not recommended or  allowed, but if so I didn’t see them articulated in my reading of the Staff Reports.   A final observation regarding the tree: as the Staff report notes (#11411 page 4) , it is likely that the property owner  could have argued for the tree to be removed given its overwhelming size relative to the property. Although I am not an  adjacent neighbor to the property and do not see the tree every day, I have enjoyed the tree as I can see it from afar,  and I would be saddened if the tree were taken down.   I laud the property owner (who I do not know) for apparently making the decision to keep the tree in place despite the  additional cost and burden that they are likely to incur to do so.     The Basement.  Save Palo Alto's Groundwater has done important work with the City to protect the City’s underground aquifer that has  resulted in the City’s additional requirements for constructing basements in areas where a basement may extend into  the aquifer.   I am not a general contractor, a soils engineer, a structural or civil engineer involved with the design and means and  methods of constructing subsurface shoring. However, many of our projects include basements, and I am generally  familiar with the types of shoring available to be utilized to construct basements.  The most effective way to reduce the amount of water taken from the excavation of the site is to employ secant wall  shoring. But I understand from discussions with Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater that the equipment for constructing a  secant wall shoring will not fit under the tree’s canopy. In the Staff report (#11411 page 5) the City recommends using  “I‐beam and wood lagging shoring” which is tried and true and I take no exception to.   The I‐beam and wood lagging shoring method requires dewatering if groundwater is encountered and if it is  encountered the amount of water that may have to be taken out of the excavation can be in the millions of gallons if the  property owner and general contractor are not fully committed to actively planning and managing the dewatering on a  daily basis throughout the construction of the basement. This has been emphasized by Save Palo Alto’s Ground Water  repeatedly because historically, it has not been done or not been done well.   Because the forces that the groundwater creates that a foundation needs to resist and Palo Alto's other requirements,  basements are expensive ‐ not everyone can afford them. Even a reduction of one foot can result in significant cost  savings and the potential to avoid the need for any dewatering. Save Palo Alto’s Ground Water anticipates that the  project basement’s proposed depth will extend into the aquifer; it is possible that the depth of the basement could be  reduced avoid extending into the aquifer entirely further reducing the cost of the basement.   The required geological and hydrological reports will document where the underground water actually is relative to the  depth of the proposed basement. If dewatering is to occur, the Council may consider asking Staff if the conditions they  have articulated will ensure that the active management of the dewatering will be done more successfully than it has in  the past.   Dewatering planning and management is not magic and can result in the amount of water needing to be taken out of  the excavation being little different from the secant shoring method though straightforward and thoughtful construction  coordination that Save Palo Alto’s Ground Water advocates.     Regarding the Council’s removal of the item from the consent calendar.   While it is appropriate to publicly share the issues that the development and improvement of commercial properties  raise with the entire community in a public forum, in principle, I do not support challenges to staff recommendations  regarding applications for single‐family homes.   14 In years past, I have spoken to the PTC forcibly about resolving issues related to single‐family homes >particularly issues  between neighbors< such as this at the Staff level and to keep them out of the public forum of a Council hearing  (Wednesday, August 10, 2016).   It has been my observation over the last 20 plus years that bringing these sorts of issues into the public realm calcifies  the differences between the appellant and the applicant who then have to live next to each other for years to come. The  airing of these sorts of issues in a public forum necessarily simplifies the issues that require much nuance and  understanding to thoughtfully value and parse their resolution that only the Staff has the time to do one on one with the  appellant and the applicant.   Our City should seek to resolve differences and not celebrate them in public displays. As I stated four years ago, as a  homeowner I’d rather my neighbor and I be mad at the City's Staff for their decisions than with each other.   This means that the City’s Staff has to be empowered and supported by the Council to make these decisions. The  Council’s focus should be on the policy, resources and politics that define us all and avoid if at all possible the weighing  of the differences between individual homeowners.  This appeal raises no new topics that have not been addressed in other actions and or problems that need to be  substantially reconsidered and will only result in the politizing of these otherwise technical and code‐related issues. In  my opinion, this item should not have been taken off the consent calendar.   15 Baumb, Nelly From:Virginia Van Kuran <virginia@vankuran.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 10:17 AM To:Council, City Subject:City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 8 - Proposed Basement at 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    Please let the owners of the amazing heritage oak on their property at 2353 Webster know that this tree can be their  single greatest contribution to preserving our local environment.  Oak trees, especially large ones are a habitat for a  large variety of life and they are part of the wildlife corridor for our watershed.   They have a very valuable asset on their  property!    In the future the value of their home will be enhanced because they have this oak tree not a basement.    I urge the council and the owners to consider the greater value of the oak tree and to make a decision that will preserve  this valuable tree.    There is a very large pine tree in the property next to us.  We are thankful the owner treasures it also.  It provides  habitat, carbon sequestration and shade.   The small amount of extra yard maintenance is far outweighed by its value in  every other area.    Regards,    Virginia Van Kuran  879 Garland Drive  Palo Alto, CA      16 Baumb, Nelly From:E Nigenda <enigenda1@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 9:35 AM To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan Subject:Aug. 10, 2020 Item 8. 2353 Webster Street: Appeal of Director's Decision on Individual Review Application CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,   Re: 2353 Webster Street: Appeal of Director's Decision on Individual Review Application   Staff’s report, page 4 states:    It is important to state that if the applicant were to propose to remove the Valley Oak tree, the application would be processed administratively, by the Urban Forestry Team, in accordance with Municipal Code. PAMC 8.10.050(d)(2) states: Removal is permitted as part of project approval under Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of this Code, because retention of the tree would result in reduction of the otherwise-permissible buildable area by more than 25%. In such a case, the approval shall be conditioned upon tree replacement in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual.    At best this paragraph is an honest mistake; at worst neighbors told me they took it to mean “accept what we recommend, or you won't like the consequences (i.e. cutting down the valley oak)”.   I trust that it’s an honest mistake because paragraph 8.10.050 (d) and its subsections do NOT apply for the project at 2353 Webster. The cited Municipal Code, paragraph 8.10.050 (d) applies "In all circumstances other than those described in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section". Because paragraph (b) applies to "development on a single-family residential lot" and 2353 Webster is a single-family residential lot, paragraph (b) and NOT paragraph (d) applies.    I believe I am reading the Code correctly and respectfully request that Staff be more diligent when quoting Municipal Code so that neighbors do not interpret their actions as biased towards development at any cost.   The cited Municipal Code paragraphs follow for your convenience.   Thank you for your service to our community, Esther Nigenda      Palo Alto Municipal Code      8.10.050   Prohibited acts.     It shall be a violation of this chapter for anyone to remove or cause to be removed a protected tree, except  as allowed in this section:  (a) In the absence of development, protected trees shall not be removed unless determined by the director of  planning and development services, on the basis of a tree report prepared by a certified arborist for the  applicant and other relevant information, that the tree should be removed because it is dead, is hazardous, is  a detriment to or crowding an adjacent protected tree, or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2) of  17 this code.    (b)   In the case of development on a single‐family residential lot, other than in connection with a subdivision:        (1)   Protected trees shall not be removed unless the trunk or basal flare of the protected tree is touching  or within the building footprint, or the director of planning and development services has determined, on the  basis of a tree report prepared by a certified arborist for the applicant and other relevant information, that the  tree should be removed because it is dead, is hazardous, is a detriment to or crowding an adjacent protected  tree, or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2) of this code.         (2)   If no building footprint exists, protected trees shall not be removed unless the trunk of the tree is  located in the building area, or the director of planning and development services has determined, on the  basis of a tree report prepared by a certified arborist for the applicant and other relevant information, that the  tree should be removed because it is dead, is hazardous, is a detriment to or crowding an adjacent protected  tree, or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2) of this code.         (3)   If removal is allowed because the tree trunk is located in the building footprint, or the trunk or basal  flare is in the building area, or because the director of planning and development services has determined that  the tree is so close to the building area that construction would result in the death of the tree, the tree  removed shall be replaced in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual.    (c)   In connection with a proposed subdivision of land into two or more parcels, no protected tree shall be  removed unless removal is unavoidable due to restricted access to the property or deemed necessary to  repair a geologic hazard (landslide, repairs, etc.). The tree removed shall be replaced in accordance with the  standards in the Tree Technical Manual. Tree preservation and protection measures for any lot that is created  by a proposed subdivision of land shall comply with the regulations of this chapter.  (d)   In all circumstances other than those described in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this section, protected  trees shall not be removed unless one of the following applies:         (1)   The director of planning and development services has determined, on the basis of a tree report  prepared by a certified arborist for the applicant and other relevant information, that the tree should be  removed because it is dead, dangerous or constitutes a nuisance under Section 8.04.050(2). In such cases, the  dripline area of the removed tree, or an equivalent area on the site, shall be preserved from development of  any structure unless removal would have been permitted under paragraph (2), and tree replacement in  accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual shall be required.          (2)   Removal is permitted as part of project approval under Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals) of this  code, because retention of the tree would result in reduction of the otherwise‐permissible building area by  more than twenty‐five percent. In such a case, the approval shall be conditioned upon replacement in  accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual.  (Ord. 5494 § 3, 2020: Ord. 4826 § 4, 2004: Ord. 4680 § 3, 2001: Ord. 4568 § 1 (part), 1999)        18 Baumb, Nelly From:Marilyn Bauriedel <mbauriedel@ursu.com> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 5:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:Saving the magnificent heritage oak at 2353 Webster St. 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 am writing to urge you not to approve a deep dewatering of the property at 2353 Webster St., on your Council agenda  for Aug. 10 meeting.  The magnificent 300‐year‐old heritage oak on the property should be kept in healthy condition,  and it appears that the dewatering proposed is a very great threat to the oak’s continued existence.  I can imagine that  there is another solution that can be a win‐win for the property owners in their rebuilding project and for the oak.  The  amount of damage to our natural environment in terms of loss of habitat and life of thousands of organisms whose lives  depend on an oak of that size and age is, in my opinion as a long‐time amateur naturalist docent, staggeringly large. The  loss of thousands of organisms that exist in a special balance in this mini‐ecosystem of the oak, if the oak is damaged  significantly or fails to survive, will mean a loss for the planet. These oaks are special in their ability to improve our air  quality, too, which is a serious issue in Palo Alto.  It is of great consequence in our Bay Area to let one more ancient oak  go in order to get on with a new home project.  Please help craft a solution to this project that will be a win‐win for the  oak and for the homeowner.    Thank you.    Marilyn Bauriedel  3673 South Ct  19 Baumb, Nelly From:Carl Darling <cdarling17@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 5, 2020 9:05 PM To:Council, City Subject:Re: I support Keith Bennett on his request on the depth of basement. As attached CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  2353 Webster st ‐ agenda 8 on previous email    Carl Darling   NPC PA Midtown 5  590 Ashton Ave Palo Alto  650‐804‐6263  cdarling17@gmail.com      On Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 7:15 PM Carl Darling <cdarling17@gmail.com> wrote:  As Keith has stated the depth of basement is the issue. The city business. permit  proposes,to allow a depth of  groundwater  drainage[p;''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 21 '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''    Carl Darling   NPC PA Midtown 5  590 Ashton Ave Palo Alto  650‐804‐6263  cdarling17@gmail.com  1 Baumb, Nelly From:jack <jack@mortoncpa.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 12:11 PM To:Shikada, Ed Cc:Keith Bennett; Council, City; Tanner, Rachael Subject:Re: Agenda Item #8- 2353 CONSTRUCTION CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    ED: Sorry, our roles blend since we neighbors are all on the same page.  Keith is the technical guru of the block and we didn't think to have my name on the email as well. An earlier time would  be much preferable to a later time. But a better alternative might be to move it to a later date and a scheduled earlier  time.  JACK MORTON    On 2020‐08‐10 11:51, Shikada, Ed wrote:  > Hello Jack and Keith ‐  >  > I'm just following up to the suggestion I received this morning from   > Keith Bennett that tonight's item be deferred.  It's highly unusual   > for a deferral to come from a third party, but in any case I'd like to   > ensure that you're both aware that the Mayor will suggest moving the   > item before item 7 tonight, to about roughly 8:15pm.  >  > Best,  > ‐‐Ed  >  > Ed Shikada  > City Manager  > 250 Hamilton Avenue  > Palo Alto, CA 94301  > (650) 329‐2280 ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org  >  >  >  > ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  > From: jack <jack@mortoncpa.com>  > Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 11:20 AM  > To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  > Subject: Re: Agenda Item #8‐ 2353 CONSTRUCTION  >  > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be   > cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  > ________________________________  >  > Attached please find presentations for tonight's Agenda Item #8  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Shikada, Ed Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 11:52 AM To:jack; Keith Bennett Cc:Council, City; Tanner, Rachael Subject:RE: Agenda Item #8- 2353 CONSTRUCTION Hello Jack and Keith ‐    I'm just following up to the suggestion I received this morning from Keith Bennett that tonight's item be deferred.  It's  highly unusual for a deferral to come from a third party, but in any case I'd like to ensure that you're both aware that the  Mayor will suggest moving the item before item 7 tonight, to about roughly 8:15pm.    Best,  ‐‐Ed    Ed Shikada   City Manager  250 Hamilton Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301  (650) 329‐2280 ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org           ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: jack <jack@mortoncpa.com>   Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 11:20 AM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Re: Agenda Item #8‐ 2353 CONSTRUCTION    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Attached please find presentations for tonight's Agenda Item #8  3 Baumb, Nelly From:jack <jack@mortoncpa.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 11:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:Re: Agenda Item #8- 2353 CONSTRUCTION Attachments:Council_Letter_2353_Webster_Save_Palo_Alto's_Groundwater.pdf; Council_Comments_20200810 _FINAL.pdf; Jack's Council Remarks 8-10-20.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Attached please find presentations for tonight's Agenda Item #8  Comments to Council 2353 Webster St. Permit Agenda Item #8, August 10, 2020 Keith Bennett On behalf of Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater has studied the impacts from underground construction where groundwater management is required and advocated policies to reduce these impacts. Our analyses of the scale and impacts are now accepted for accuracy; we have identified important issues that had not been previously recognized. The community and Council have repeatedly shown support for our recommendations, including the adopting policies intended to reduce these impacts. We appreciate the City’s actions. However, current dewatering regulations do not adequately address special situations, such as this, where there is significant risk of death or serious injury to an irreplaceable asset of our environment, a legally-protected 300+ year old Valley Oak, with a canopy spanning over 100 feet and four properties. These risks can be substantially reduced with several modifications to the current proposal, which do not reduce the footprint or 2,953 square foot floor area (above grade) of the house, nor do they absolutely prohibit construction of a basement. However, constructing a home without a basement would greatly reduce impact and risk, as a basement will destroy all roots within a section of the critical root zone. 300+ year old heritage oak tree at 2353 Webster (front) and canopy view Request to Council The safest alternative is simply to not build a basement. Building without a basement minimizes mechanical disturbance within the critical root zone. We hope the applicant values the oak tree, respects the importance of this tree to their new neighbors, realizes the risks of basement construction and decides protecting the tree is more important than a basement. However, we also realize the applicant may still desire a basement. As noted in comments to Council on May 18 (attached for reference), within the last 2 years at least three single family homes with basements have been built in this area without requiring dewatering: 1975 Webster, 846 N. Greenwich, and 704 Moreno. Due to the presence of a tree, the N. Greenwich project was slightly redesigned to avoid dewatering after considering various alternatives for dewatering. Shallower basements require thinner concrete slabs, and therefore less additional excavation depth, and are significantly less expensive. To re-iterate our statements on May 18 – the City’s current dewatering ordinance does not protect this tree. Furthermore, the Tree Protection Plan provided in the approved plans does not address the impacts of dewatering (which is essentially localized intense drought for 3 months) nor the impacts on the tree of construction activities required for dewatering. Note: According to Wikipedia and citations therein, “This deciduous oak requires year-round access to groundwater.[5][6]. The Staff Report treats these issues very lightly and is materially inaccurate. Any approval of this project must address these critical issues. Specifically, we request the following conditions of approval to protect the oak tree: 1) The oak tree is not cut down (as suggested in the Staff Report). This tree is protected pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code 8.10.050 (b), which applies to single family residences. 2) If a basement is constructed: a. Limit the basement floor surface to a maximum depth of 8’ 0” below ground surface. Dewatering will not be required if the bottom of the excavation is sufficiently above the water table. A basement deeper than 8’ will certainly require dewatering, however, the applicant will need to determine the depth of the basement that can be constructed without requiring dewatering. b. No groundwater shall be discharged to either the storm drains or sanitary sewer. If needed, any incidental groundwater recharged onsite, but shall be outside the critical root zone. 3) The location of the Tree Protection Fence shown on the current plans shall not be moved further towards to rear of the lot. We would like to emphasize we are not requesting any changes to the proposed 2-story, 2,953 square foot structure above grade, and a basement could be permitted as long as it is constructed under the above conditions. A detailed response to the Staff Report follows as an Appendix. 1. Valley Oak Trees require access to year-round access to groundwater, including water in the capillary zone above the water table for survival. The only way to meet the requirements of the Tree Protection Plan is to maintain the groundwater level under the tree during construction. Mature specimens can live to be 600 years old. The tree on this property, at 300 years old is only midlife. Adding surface water during summer is not a replacement for groundwater. 2. Basement construction, as proposed, will require dewatering. The proposed excavation will definitely extend well below the groundwater level. Dewatering will lower the groundwater level over the entire property, including under the oak tree, by 8 to 10 feet for ~ 3 months, thereby drying out the soil and risking harm to the oak tree. These predicted impacts are based upon the dewatering plans and data from dewatering at 2151 Bryon, a similar project, constructed with a combination of shoring and 1:1 cutback. 3. Staff has outlined three alternative dewatering options, however the actual construction processes for each of these methods are inconsistent with the Tree Protection Plan, and pose significant risk to the health of the tree: a. a secant wall (option a) would be effective and maintain the groundwater level, however, the canopy will interfere with the construction equipment required, b. The other alternatives (options b or c) will lower the groundwater level, drying out the soil. In addition, neither method is practical either because the equipment will interfere with the canopy or with the setbacks required for the 1:1 cut. Both the Staff Report and Tree Protection Plan completely ignore the impacts of the dewatering wells themselves, including soil dehydration or access of the drilling equipment, which will interfere with the canopy. Appendix: Detailed Response to Staff Report and Plans Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater 1. Valley Oak Trees require access to year-round access to groundwater. The only way to meet the conditions of the Tree Protection Plan is to maintain the groundwater level under the tree during construction. From Wikipedia: “Quercus lobata, commonly called the valley oak or roble, grows into the largest of North American oaks. It is endemic to California, growing in interior valleys and foothills from Siskiyou County to San Diego County.[4] Mature specimens may attain an age of up to 600 years. This deciduous oak requires year-round access to groundwater.[5][6]” Research in the 1960’s documented that California oak trees obtain a significant fraction of their water in summer and fall months from groundwater, including water in the capillary zone immediately above the saturated water table level: The Tree Protection Plan (Figure 1) requires maintenance of soil moisture during construction. As discussed below, the impacts of dewatering extend over the entire property and beyond, including drying out soils on neighboring properties, on which the tree also depends; dewatering must be prohibited as a condition of approval. Figure 1: Detail from Tree Protection Plan (Davey Tree), sheet T-2, Approved Plans 2. Assume dewatering will be required. Any approvals of this application must be made assuming dewatering will be required for construction of the current plans. These plans show a basement floor 10 feet below ground surface. The depth of the excavation will almost certainly be approximately 13+ feet below ground surface (considering the additional depth required for the basement slab, sub-floor water barrier, and depressions for pumps, etc.). Currently, a home with a basement is being constructed at 2323 Webster using a cutoff (secant) wall. The water level at this site is currently being monitored and is 10 to 11 feet below ground surface, consistent with the values shown on the City’s depth to groundwater map. (Figure 1). Figure 2A. City of Palo Alto Depth to Groundwater Map showing typical depth to groundwater at the subject property of about 11 feet below ground surface. This value is accurate in summer and consistent with current measurements at 2225 and 2323 Webster. https://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org/files/PaloAlto_ShallowGroundwater_Update_wPlumes_V3_red.pdf Figure 2B: Graph of groundwater level at 2225 Webster, March 23 – August 7, 2020. The depth to groundwater is between 10 – 11 feet below ground surface for this period. 3. Staff has outlined three alternative dewatering options, however the actual construction processes for these methods are entirely inconsistent with the Tree Protection Plan and pose significant risk to the health of the tree. The Staff Report analysis has omitted significant impacts. a. Secant walls (not a practical alternative). Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater is generally an advocate of secant walls, which have successfully reduced groundwater extraction on many projects in Palo Alto. However, the secant wall methods typically used here use very large equipment rising 40 – 50 feet above ground to install the I-beams and concrete / bentonite / earth mixture forming the dam. Operation of this equipment requires cutting a significant amount of the canopy. See photo 1 below. Construction of the secant walls will destroy all roots along the entire perimeter to a depth of 35 feet for at least 2- 3 feet beyond the exterior of the concrete foundation for the house. Equipment access may require additional space. In short, this is not a practical alternative for the current design. Photo 1: Equipment installing the secant wall at 2323 Webster, July 2020. Note the size and especially height of the equipment. The drills penetrate 35 to 40 feet below ground surface. In addition, 35’ long steel pilings need to be raised to a height of at least their length above ground to be inserted. b. I-beam shoring (staff’s preferred alternative; large impacts not consistent with tree canopy protection or groundwater protection). As with secant walls, I- beams need to be installed. I-beams are typically 35 feet long, and therefore the top of the I-beams need to be lifted with a pile driver rising 40 feet or more above ground surface, requiring cutting of the existing canopy. The use of shoring does not result in significant reduction of groundwater pumped or flow rates compared to 1:1 cutback. Dewatering wells, 2 feet in diameter, are drilled outside the excavation to a depth of 25 – 30 feet below ground surface. The Report’s assertion that dewatering will “extend a few feet beyond the basement footprint” is absolutely contradicted by abundant data and analyses from other neighborhood construction sites (see dewatering discussion below). c. 1:1 cutback (inconsistent with current basement size and location of the tree protection fence). This approach is inconsistent with the plans in several areas: i. Inadequate setback on the sides of the property to support the 1:1 cutback. Using 13 feet as the estimated excavation depth, 8 feet (13 feet – 5 feet allowing for the 5’ vertical exclusion) is required for the cutback. The side setbacks from the property line are only 6 feet, so this method cannot be used on the sides. ii. The basement would need to be narrowed by approximately 8 feet to allow room for the cutback and maintaining the planned position of the tree protection fence iii. As with (b), very large amounts of groundwater would be extracted, lowering the groundwater table significantly over a very large area extending well beyond the property boundary (see Figure 4 below). All of the issues with dewatering (see below) apply. 4. Dewatering wells and Impacts a. Groundwater levels at the property site: For dewatering alternatives (b) and (c), the water table will be lowered by 6 to 10 feet below the groundwater level at the start of dewatering construction. The plan for the 2019 dewatering at 2151 Byron estimated a drawdown of at least 8’ over substantially all of the property (Figure 3). b. Figure 3: Projected groundwater depression contours (feet below initial conditions) for the dewatering at 2151 Byron. Groundwater levels are estimated to be lowered 8 to 10 feet over substantially the entire property. The dewatering log (Figure 4, below, per City) for 2151 Byron shows the groundwater level was lowered by 7.5 feet (from 7.5 to 15 feet below ground surface) at the monitoring well located near the edge of the property. Note the pumping rates generally range from 200 – 265 gallons per minute (gpm), much higher than estimated in the dewatering plan (152 gpm). In total, 36.6 million gallons of groundwater were pumped into the storm drain for 2151 Byron. Figure 4: Dewatering logs from 2151 Byron showing a 7.5 foot drop in groundwater (7.5 to 15 feet below ground surface) and pumping rates as high as 265 gallons per minute. A total of 36.6 million gallons was pumped, mostly discharged to the storm drains. c. Changes in groundwater levels on neighboring properties. The dewatering plan for 2151 Byron estimates the groundwater will be lowered 7 to 10 feet on adjacent properties. From Page 2 of the letter dated August 10, 2018 from the dewatering plan from Dale Hinkle, PE, PLCC: d. Dewatering changes groundwater levels over an extended area. Dewatering for 2151 Byron lowered the groundwater level at least 3 feet (the monitoring well went dry) at a distance of more than 500 feet from the construction site. Figure 5 shows measurements of groundwater levels for other underground construction sites. Notice groundwater level drops of between 2.5 and 6 feet at distances of 45, 115 and 220 feet from the pumps. Note that recovery after project 2 ended took several weeks. Figure 5 Measurements of groundwater levels near sites of underground construction using broad area dewatering shows measured groundwater drops between 2.5 and 6 feet at distances of 45, 115 and 220 feet of the pumps. In 2019, we documented groundwater levels dropping 2 feet due to dewatering from two dewatering sites located at 1,100 feet and 1,900 feet from the monitoring location. The impacts of dewatering for (residential) basement construction extend over an extremely wide area. e. Construction of dewatering wells. Neither the Staff Report nor the Tree Protection Plan address impacts of the dewatering wells themselves on the tree. This is surprising as the City has abundant records of dewatering plans and designs, given that recent construction projects have submitted detailed dewatering plans for approval along with dewatering reports including actual measurements of groundwater levels, pumping rates and water extracted. Dewatering plans (available from Public Works) for 2151 Byron, constructed using shoring, used six (6) wells, each 24” in diameter and 27 feet in depth. Summary Based on the above observations and data from Palo Alto Public Works on various dewatering projects over the past four years, we strongly feel that dewatering will greatly damage and possibly kill the 300 year old valley oak at 2353 Webster. Although prohibiting a basement at this site would lead to the most beneficial outcome for this tree, the worst impacts to the tree might be avoided by permitting a shallower basement that does not require dewatering. To: Honorable Members of the Palo Alto City Council From: Keith Bennett / Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater May 18, 2020 Re: Consent Calendar Item 5 (May 18) Quasi-Judicial: 2353 Webster St. We request this item be removed from the Consent Calendar and re- approve the project only after incorporating sufficient conditions to greatly reduce the risk of death or damage to the 300 year old Heritage Oak Tree. Ask yourselves these questions: 1. Should the City of Palo Alto protect this heritage tree? 2. Do the City’s current regulations for dewatering adequately protect this tree? 3. Who will be held responsible if the tree dies? Figure 1: 300+ year old Heritage Oak at 2353 Webster St. (subject property) This letter is to provide information on the impacts of dewatering in support of the comments of many neighbors on Webster St. who feel the presence of this tree adds significant values to the neighborhood and their properties. Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater is particularly concerned about the underground construction for the proposed basement and the dewatering likely required. The Palo Alto City regulations for dewatering do not take into account the specific requirements to protect this tree. Dewatering should be explicitly prohibited at this site. Dewatering causes “local drought,” even if the tree trunk and canopy are physically protected. a) Our strongly preferred alternative is to eliminate the basement (providing the greatest protection for the tree), as cutting into the existing root system will be required for the basement construction, risking reduced support for the tree and other adverse impacts. b) If, considering the impacts on the tree root system, it is decided to permit the construction of a basement, the basement should be designed so that neither dewatering nor a cut-off wall are required during construction. This is a practical and feasible solution. 1995 Webster, 704 Moreno and 846 E. Greenwich are examples of homes recently constructed with basements at locations with similar groundwater levels: Figure 2: Locations of subject property (4) relative to homes with basements recently constructed without dewatering: (1) 1995 Webster, (2) 704 Moreno, and (3) 846 E. Greenwich a) While cut-off walls are very effective at controlling groundwater, installation of the cutoff walls involves the use of heavy equipment, generally rising over 30 feet above ground surface. While we generally support the use of cutoff walls, for this project installation of the cutoff walls is likely not consistent with the recommendation of Dave Dockter of Canopy's Advocacy Committee and with Canopy's Executive Director, as use of such heavy equipment will damage both the tree roots and canopy. Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater has detailed data available on the effects of basement construction dewatering on groundwater levels in the area, and is happy to provide it upon request. In summary, to protect this oak tree any permit including a basement for this project must include sufficient detailed and strict specifications for underground construction, including dewatering. The existing permit does not, and this item should be pulled from the Consent Calendar. Council Members I am responding on behalf of my neighbors and other members of the community to item 8 on Monday night's Agenda. We are concerned about the Urban Forest that it has taken our community many decades to produce and preserve and about the impact of a proposed mega-house development that impacts our section of town and our block in a unique way. The neighbors, and in fact, our entire community are counting on, you, the Council to uphold the values of our City as embodied in the spirit and intent of the Tree Protection Ordinance and the Dewatering Regulations by taking action to minimize the risks to this irreplaceable component of our natural heritage. Loss of this 300 year old oak tree cannot be simply compensated by planting other trees. Council has both the right and responsibility to attach conditions of approval to this project to protect this protected heritage oak tree. Since 2018, we, the neighbors of one of the oldest living Oaks in the city, have been trying to assure its survival in face of a development proposal for a super residence. We formally responded to the initial proposal, which was to build a three level structure, including independent entries for each level, and a single car garage on a mid-sized, single family lot, each of the three levels being larger than the existing Stedman, one-level home, without a basement that it replaces. We are grateful to the applicant and staff for the changes that neighbor input has initiated and which we trust have been included in the latest version: a slight reduction in height, elimination of a wrap-around balcony that looked directly into neighboring properties, removal of the independent entries to each of the three levels as well as the in-ground skylights, with seven (7) bedrooms that could have been easily converted into 3 separate rental units. In our May appeal, we enumerated three conditions that discussion with Dave Dockter of Canopy's Advocacy Committee helped us formalize. We are including our May 18th presentation to Council as Attachment #1 and request again that Council ensure that those conditions are included in its building permit approval. Community members should not be expected to have the technical skill needed to determine whether all 3 of the conditions have been made a part of the Approval that staff is now requesting the Council uphold. Construction Monitoring and reporting to the City Urban Forester does seem to have been strengthened and some elements of a landscape plan do now seem to be required. However, it seems to us that the staff report has not considered which, if any, of the proposed dewatering methods are feasible for this project, nor what the impacts and risks is for each of the dewatering alternatives. In fact, staff seems to think that this project is the just the same as any other residential rebuild that has come before the Planning Department. But this project is like no other project ever. The question staff should be asking is not be how to build the biggest mega basement but whether any basement should be allowed to invade the root space of a 300 year old Protected Heritage Tree. The Tree Protection Plan does not address the process of basement construction at all. For example, Staff’s preferred method, shoring (alternative (b)) does not mention drilling 24” diameter and 25 – 30 foot deep dewatering wells outside the excavation footprint, which would be likely be required. Critical issues overlooked include such as where will the wells be placed relative to the tree protection fence? Can the 30+ foot high drills operate under the oak canopy? Will the drilling disturb tree roots in the critical root zone? The biggest threat to the ancient Oak at 2353 is construction of the requested super basement. On page 4 of its request that Council uphold the approval of the Planning and Development Services Director's approval of the Individual Review (IR) (File No. 18PLN-00339), staff seems to be defending its request for immediate Council approval with what many of us have reluctantly taken to be a threat to us and possibly the Council. Staff seems to be threatening that if we, the residents, don't accept what Staff is recommending; we should pack our bags, go away and leave the fate of this magnificent heritage Oak to staff. Staff will, then, have no choice but to approve removal of the 300 year old PROTECTED heritage Oak: It is important to state that if the applicant were to propose to remove the Valley Oak tree, the application would be processed administratively, by the Urban Forestry Team, in accordance with Municipal Code. Staff appears to be claiming, that in spite of the neighbors appeal of the Planning Director's approval, and Council's agreement to hear our appeal, Municipal Code would make the Oak's future an administrative decision, not subject in any way to Council approval: PAMC 8.10.050(d) (2) states: Removal is permitted as part of project approval under Chapter 18.76 (permits and Approvals) of this Code, because retention of the tree would result in reduction of the otherwise permissible buildable area by more than 25%. In such a case, approval shall be conditioned upon tree replacement in accordance with the standards in the Tree Technical Manual. Preserving and reducing risks to this magnificent Arboreal Giant, in no way requires reducing the square footage or footprint area or location of the two story structure for which staff recommends Council approval. Furthermore, it has been pointed out that this code section is a commercil not a residential code section. Staff may wrongly think it is forced to approve demolition under the Tree Technical Manual if this were a typical Individual Review project, Council, however, has the power to include conditions of approval that mandate any construction minimizes the deadly impact that this development would cause to this unique, protected Heritage Oak. Basement floor space is not counted in Palo Alto’s floor area calculations. Therefore any restriction on basement construction does not restrict the permissible residential building area of the lot. Staff does admit that: However, the City also has policies to ensure "no net loss of canopy" which would require any such removal to include a combination of replacement trees and potentially in-lieu payment to achieve this goal. We would also like to note that the loss of the canopy and habitat cannot be compensated within our lifetimes simply by planting other trees and making an in-lieu payment. This tree is irreplaceable. Therefore, if a basement is approved, we would request Council to add the condition that a deposit or bond be posted that would compensate for the loss of this tree, should it die prematurely. We request the bond should be at least $3,000,000 and should be maintained for a minimum of three decades, 1/10 of the life of this magnificent giant. Full replacement of the canopy should not be bought off with three or four trees that in many, many decades will replace the current magnificent canopy but should mean that Palo Alto takes as a sacred duty protecting, preserving and replacing special elements of our much valued Urban Forest. Subsequent to the May meeting when Council agreed to this full hearing, excavation for a contemporary mega- basement has been undertaken at 2323 Webster (3 lots away). This basement is smaller, and "shallower" (basement floor height of 9 feet below grade, in comparison to the 10 foot depth proposed for 2353 Webster). Pictures of this excavation are attached for your information. This location is mostly free of an overhanging canopy and the basement is being constructed using the secant wall method; therefore significant dewatering is not required. We encourage Council to actually view this similar excavation to the one staff is asking you to approve. The root removal of what is a relatively young oak on the street edge of 2323 was extensive. In a way, this project has become a test case for our Community: Do we believe in upholding our Tree Protection Ordinance enough to limit somewhat the endangering construction? Ask yourselves: Which is more important to our community and voters: a large media room with 10 foot ceilings or a 300+ year old Heritage Oak. It is not Council's role to compensate for an unwise real estate investment. Rather, it is the duty of Council to exercise your full authority to uphold the letter and spirit of our Tree Preservatio Ordinance and to conserve and protect one of the main features that make us the respected community we are and in which people want to live and own property. Jack Morton, Mary Ellen White Ruth Benz Sandra Browman 2343 Webster St. 2343 Webster St. 2360 Webster St. 2397 Webster St. Keith Bennett Peter & Bettina Himes Harriet & Rick Lehrbaum 2225 Webster St. 2302 Webster St. 596 California Ave Sharleen Fiddaman Joyce Bryson Will & Alexis Krispin 2255 Webster St 2266 Webster St. 2333 Webster St. Elizabeth Whitson John Zeng & Yinzi Cai Rena and Bill Gretz 2245 Webster St. 2250 Webster St. 2310 Webster St. 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Sandra Browman <sandra.browman@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 10:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda 8/10 Item Public Hearing 2353 Webster St. Attachments:Speech.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.        Dear Council Members, My name is Sandra Browman and I’m the owner of 2397 Webster. My house is located next to this new construction. From my backyard, I feel fortunate to have the best view of this magnificent oak tree. Once you see this beautiful tree you will understand why the neighbors on Webster St. are working so hard to save it. I want to make sure that you understand that the tree was under protection before this new owner bought the house. Council should no be misled by the information in Staff report stating Urban Forestry could process an application to remove the tree under PAMC 8.10.050(d)2. The relevant section of the code for single family residences is 8.10.050(b). The basement needs to be eliminated from the plans. Basement excavation will damage the roots of the tree and likely require dewatering. No dewatering is essential for the survival of the tree and it will also protect our water table. After all... the responsibility of the Council is to protect our canopy for future generations!
 We all know on Webster St. what extensive dewatering means….it means damages to our homes and trees. Enough is enough! You, Council Members, have the authority to set conditions of approval for the new construction to definitely protect the tree and require a minimum bond of $2.5 millions for 30 years just in case the tree dies prematurely, because this 300 years old oak tree is irreplaceable. Thank you! 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Keith Bennett <kbennett@luxsci.net> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 3:09 PM To:Foley, Emily Cc:Council, City; Jack jack@mortoncpa.com Subject:Presentation re 2353 Webster Attachments:Council_Presentation_2353_Webster_Bennett.pptx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Emily,    Thanks for offering to ask someone to share their screen while I present.  Here's my presentation for tonight.  I trust this  is in time ‐ previously I've brought the presentation with me to the Council Meetings.  Jack Morton has asked me to talk  during part of his time.  It would be appreciated if I could use the leftover time from Jack's presentation plus the 3  minutes I would have as an individual.    Best regards,    Keith    Agenda Item #82353 Webster St. Palo Alto City CouncilSave Palo Alto’s Groundwater comments Impacts of dewatering need to be explicitly addressed in the Tree Protection Plan •Valley oaks obtain water from groundwater, not surface irrigation. •Dewatering, including construction of the dewatering system, represent a significant risk to the tree; these impacts are not addressed in the Staff Report and the arborist has not demonstrated a detailed knowledge dewatering construction or impacts. •Palo Alto’s Dewatering Ordinance alone provides insufficient protection for this tree. •If a basement is approved, minor modifications of the design would eliminate the need for dewatering and would significantly reduce risks to the tree. Valley Oak Trees require access to year-round access to groundwater The only way to meet the conditions of the Tree Protection Plan is to maintain the groundwater level under the tree during construction. “Quercus lobata, commonly called the valley oak or roble, grows into the largest of North American oaks. It is endemic to California, growing in interior valleys and foothills from Siskiyou County to San Diego County.[4]Mature specimens may attain an age of up to 600 years. This deciduous oak requires year-round access to groundwater.[5][6]” -Wikipedia Broad area dewatering lowers the water table 8 – 10 feet, inducing intense, localized drought Projected groundwater depression contours (feet below initial conditions) for the dewatering at 2151 Byron. Measured drop of groundwater monitored near property boundary during construction: 7.5 feet Construction of dewatering wells must be explicitly considered in the Tree Protection Plan •2151 Byron used 6 dewatering wells, 24” in diameter and 27 feet deep, located outside of the shoring. 36.6 million gallons of groundwater were pumped into the storm drain. •How are the wells going to be drilled? Does the tree canopy interfere? Staff’s recommended option mirrors the plan used for dewatering at 2151 Byron: Secant walls are likely not practical for 2353 Webster Secant walls are very effective However, the equipment required for installation rises 40’ or more above ground surface, and would interfere with the tree canopy Dewatering is a significant risk to the tree We request: •Meet with the applicant team and Staff to agree on changes to eliminate the need for dewatering if a basement is approved. •Conditions of approval on any basement construction and dewatering. Requested conditions of approval •If a basement is constructed: •Limit the basement floor surface to a maximum depth of 8’ 0” below ground surface. Dewatering will not be required if the bottom of the excavation is sufficiently above the water table. •No groundwater shall be discharged to either the storm drains or sanitary sewer. If needed, any incidental groundwater recharged onsite, but shall be outside the critical root zone. •To protect the tree roots, the location of the Tree Protection Fence shown on the current plans shall not be moved further towards to rear of the lot 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Vance Jochim <jochimvance@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 6, 2020 12:23 PM To:Council, City Subject:Here is some information to help with your search for an internal audit director CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council: I am a retired Fortune 500 Internal Audit Director and Certified Internal Auditor in Florida who watched the entire 4-hour zoom meeting of your committee interviewing four internal audit outsourcing applicants. I am not seeking a job, but just want to share my insight into what you should expect from a good internal audit director. I worked as an internal auditor or manager in Southern California at the County of Los Angeles, ARCO (the oil company), Nissan Motor Corp., the Iraq Reconstruction program, etc. I even knew one of your candidates, David Sundstrom, when he ran internal audit at Orange County. And I sat on the City of LA interview committees for internal auditors. I have written a watchdog blog on local government in Lake County, FL for 12 years. I posted a draft of internal audit performance audit case histories on the blog HERE, which you should read to compare to what your applicants are telling you.   My opinion is you should only choose a director who LIVES in your area if you want results, not just polished reports. With the pandemic, every city is losing tax revenues and you need someone there 100% to roam the halls and find issues and savings. Most governments do not run decent performance metrics to evaluate efficiency and economy and that is why you need a trained CIA following IIA standards for performance audits. Leave the routine audits to the external auditor. To hire someone, even highly skilled, from Chicago or ABQ will not serve your interests. An alternative is to hire a highly experienced LOCAL Certified Internal Auditor from a major company (like Robert Half) on a contract basis and let him outsource work to fit your special needs. I have always found millions in savings from Construction audits, benefits audits, etc. and you need a guy with the same track record and you need to verify THEY did it, not some other staffer. Keep in mind, since internal audit projects are not fixed in nature, it is easy for an outsourcer to underestimate to "save costs", then find problems to justify more fees. Except for the firm that focuses only on internal audit, that is why they are salivating at getting a foot in the door of your $700-million budget. Generally, you should have one auditor per $100-million in revenue, but most governments shortstaff internal audit and give up potential savings. I am on the audit committee of the local $700-million county school district and they refuse to hire more than one auditor but he has consistently found major savings.   If any of you want further opinions (BakerTilly has too many CPA's and not CIA's, and CPA's are compliance-oriented, not performance focused), feel free to contact me. All governments need better internal auditors, so let me know, otherwise, good luck! 2 PS: I could not find your names, pictures, or individual contact info anywhere on the website. Why? It is common to provide that for the 14 city councils in my county (Lake County, FL - near Orlando). ‐‐   Vance Jochim  352‐638‐3578  Tavares, FL  Lake County, FL Fiscal Watchdog blogger  FiscalRangers.com  FiscalRangers@gmail.com    YouTube:  FiscalRangersFlorida channel  Twitter:  FiscalRangers     3 Baumb, Nelly From:Vance Jochim <fiscalrangers@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 5, 2020 8:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Who was selected for the new city auditor? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I watched the July 28 interviews of four firms, but did not find out who was chosen by the City Council on July 29/   Thanks,      ‐‐   Vance Jochim   FiscalRangers.com  Fiscal Watchdog Blog for Lake County, FL  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Patricia Goity <trishgoity@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 9:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster Street Appeal 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 City Council Members, I am writing to you in regard to Item #1 on next week’s agenda (postponed from last night’s meeting), the appeal to the approved project at 2353 Webster Street. I write with a deeply rooted connection to the property: 2353 Webster was my childhood home. My parents lived in the house for 48 years, selling the property in 2014 to the current owners. One of the unique features of this lot is the towering Valley Oak in the backyard which has grown and flourished there for over 300 years. This magnificent tree is one of the largest and oldest of its kind in Palo Alto. It is irreplaceable treasure and immeasurable asset to the property and the surrounding community. As a child I liked to imagine what the property looked like before any European settlers, when our beautiful oak stood tall in its natural setting. I am greatly concerned that the health of this ancient oak will be threatened by the proposed construction of a mega-basement in the project plans. The imminent depletion of groundwater for a basement of this magnitude and the severing of the tree’s extensive root system will surely have a devastating effect on the oak, despite all precautionary drilling techniques. The only way to mitigate risk to the continued health of this tree is to eliminate the construction of a basement in the plan or at the very least substantially decrease the basement’s depth and scope. Palo Alto’s beautiful trees are an integral part of what makes Palo Alto such a delightful and desirable place to live. The Valley Oak at 2353 Webster Street is outstanding in size and age and merits heritage status and protection. I urge the council to take its tree protection ordinances to heart and weigh the issue carefully. Is building a huge basement worth risking the life of this beautiful arboreal giant that predates us all by hundreds of years? I implore you to put this construction project into perspective and consider the ramifications of its approval as it stands. If groundwater depletion and root damage cause the tree to sicken and die, the council and neighborhood will surely regret not amending the project plan. My family and I greatly appreciate the council’s careful consideration in this appeal and sincerely hope for an outcome that benefits the entire community. Respectfully, Trish Bingham Goity 2825 Garfield Street San Mateo, CA 94403 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Dan Knickerbocker <dknicker@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 9:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:Construction dewatering CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I have noticed redwood trees in my yard and neighbors brown for a year after construction draining of groundwater a  block away. A year later a block away more construction draining of ground water and the foundation of my wooden  house shifted 1.5 inches. I had to reset door frames and rebuild my deck at my own expense.     We need more responsible groundwater draining legislation. There are better more efficient ways to do this. Granted  they are more costly to the builder but why should we suffer and waste our natural resources?    Daniel Knickerbocker  Palo alto resident  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Geraldine Hraban <singsosweetly@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 9:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:SAVE THE TREE! NIX THE BASEMENT! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I urge you NOT to issue a permit to cut down the 300-year-old oak tree at 2353 Webster. Please protect our heritage trees and our groundwater. A basement is NOT a necessity. G Hraban 921 Webster 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Elaine Johnson <elaine@swagman.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 9:12 PM To:Council, City Subject:Comment about item 8, 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Palo Alto City Council,    I’m writing in protest of the proposal to demolish the home at 2353 Webster Street and build a two‐story home which  will involve extensive dewatering, lowering of the groundwater by 8 feet, and destruction to a 300‐year‐old protected  oak tree.    Groundwater is a shared community resource that does not begin and end at property lines. I am completely opposed to  pumping out this precious resource so that one family can dig a basement. Heritage oaks are also a community resource,  shared not only by people but by wildlife, and should not be put under threat because someone wants a basement.    Please vote NO.    Sincerely,    Elaine Johnson  251 Chestnut Ave.  (Ventura)      5 Baumb, Nelly From:Lynn Hollyn <lynn.hollyn@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 8:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:This tree must be preserved: the code is clear CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Of course the oak must be saved. And it is the law!! There is no question that the basement cannot be constructed! In addition, post and beam construction must be used anywhere within the canopy, and care of the tree is first and formost. This is the essence of Palo Alto. A tree like this is priceless. It should have been a disclaimer in the sale of the property. This is simply, follow the laws in palo alto about oaks and redwoods. Codes are codified. As an architect, I myself have followed the code and tree preservation for 25 years. Best, Lynn Hollyn   ‐‐   lynn hollyn www.lynnhollyn.com 1.650.799.1129     6 Baumb, Nelly From:Penny Proctor <plumbago1927@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 7:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Protect 300 yr Oak on Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Fine and City Council Members,    Please protect the heritage Oak at 2353 Webster! Modifications to the huge basement could prevent damage to the  tree. How come City staff thinks it is ok to cut down this tree?    Penny Proctor  Greer Rd  7 Baumb, Nelly From:mankos@att.net Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 7:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Oak Tree at 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    I urge you to reconsider the building of the basement that could potentially damage the 300+ year oak tree, by  damaging the root system and draining the ground water.  It is unconceivable to me that the Development Department  would be so out of touch with our values and allow to proceed with this project under these conditions!  Please let me  know how this plays out, I’d like to know the vote count.    Best regards,    Marian Mankos  2331 Tasso Street (within a few hundred feet of said oak) Palo Alto  8 Baumb, Nelly From:Sarah Curtis <scurtis@sfsu.edu> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 7:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:oak tree at 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council members,    Please save this oak tree.  New residents to Palo Alto are being allowed to build monster homes  with no consideration of Palo Alto's natural beauty.  It is up to the City Council to keep Palo Alto  green.    Sincerely,  Sarah Curtis  820 Forest Ave.  Palo Alto  9 Baumb, Nelly From:Esther Rubin <emrubin36@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 6:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Tree at 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please do not allow the digging of a basement on the adjacent property to 2353 Webster which will place this  magnificent tree in peril.  Aesthetics aside, we all know the value that trees provide to the wellbeing of our planet and all who live here.  Building another over‐sized house adds nothing and certainly will detract from the neighborhood and the  health of the tree and our environment should permission be granted to remove this tree and build the basement.  Go  back to the drawing board and try again.  Thank you,  Esther Rubin  Greer Rd    Sent from my iPad  10 Baumb, Nelly From:dedra <dedra@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 5:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:Do not set a terrible precedent by allowing the removal of a 300 year old protected oak CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council Members,    I am really dismayed to hear you approved the removal of a 300 year old protected oak tree so that the owners of 2353  Webster can dig a basement, overturning the City's tree ordinance. Presumably these home buyers knew it was a  protected tree when they bought the property. Why would you aid and abet them in defying city rules and the  community's widespread support of our urban canopy? As a landscape designer and frequent volunteer for Canopy, I  know that you are undermining the environment of the entire neighborhood for many decades to come. Is their ability  to build a 10 foot deep basement worth the degradation of the neighborhood and the setting of a dangerous precedent  that will encourage home buyers to expect the same breaks from this short‐sighted City Council?    I entreat you to reverse your decision. I will be tracking this issue carefully, and will campaign actively to remove City  Council members who have so little concern about the value of trees and the health and well being of the community.    Sincerely,  Dedra Hauser  410 Stanford Avenue          11 Baumb, Nelly From:Linda Anderson <andersonlinda911@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 5:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Old Palo Alto Oak Tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Members of the City Council:     It is appalling you are considering sacrificing a 300 year old oak tree in order for a mega home to have a mega  basement. I thought one of Palo Alto's identifying slogans is City of Trees. Is the tree diseased? Is it a danger to  the public? If not, please spare the tree.    Hope hope my message is not too late.    Linda Anderson  401 Webster Street #306  Palo Alto CA 94301  12 Baumb, Nelly From:Stephanie Desmarais <stephanie.cox@sjsu.edu> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 5:22 PM To:Council, City Subject:Oak Tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As a Palo Alto resident, I wanted to express that I do not support  the cutting down of the 300 year old oak tree at 2353  Webster to allow for basement construction. This is disgraceful.The owners need to find other options, of which many  exist. This is not conducive to the values of Palo Alto residents. Furthermore, it is detrimental to the survival of many  native species and birds, which could contribute to other issues down the line.     Sincerely,  Stephanie Desmarais  Palo Alto Resident  13 Baumb, Nelly From:Bill Gargiulo <bill_gargiulo@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 5:20 PM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Council       I am sure you will listen to the property owner plans and advise appropriately on modifications so as to not harm this  tree.  As a 30 year resident of PA I appreciate the great canopy that we have and want to make sure we preserve our old  healthy oaks.  Thanks  Bill Gargiulo  1730 Middlefield rd      Sent from my iPhone  14 Baumb, Nelly From:Philip Levy <levy24@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 5:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:300 Year Oak Tree - please Preserve it! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  City council,   Please take note that it would be shameful if city Council ignored the tree which is the Valley Oak and issued a permit to  cut it down. Preserve the tree and please tune in to the values of Palo Alto residents.    Thank you,    ‐Phil    Philip Levy  levy24@comcast.net  (650) 533‐6625  15 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne Rosenthal <greategret2018@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 5:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:NO on approval of construction with deep basement / 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,     Absolute NO on approval of construction with deep basement at 2353 Webster.    This is negligence on the part of the Development Department. A 300‐year old oak should NEVER be placed at risk  because a house is being constructed.    I request that: 1. The City not allow this magnificent 300-year old oak tree, in the prime of its life, to be cut down under any circumstances 2. If a basement is constructed: A. Limit the basement floor surface to a maximum depth of 8’ 0” below ground surface. Dewatering will not be required if the bottom of the excavation is sufficiently above the water table (and you have a good and careful architect and contractor). A basement deeper than 8’ will almost certainly require dewatering, however, the applicant will need to determine the depth of the basement that can be constructed without requiring dewatering. B. No groundwater shall be discharged to either the storm drains or sanitary sewer. Any incidental groundwater discharged onsite shall be outside the critical root zone, so as to not increase risk to the heritage oak. As a science writer specializing in ecosystem complexity, I would like to convey that a 300-year old oak is absolutely irreplaceable in terms of the insect and avian life it supports.     I would like to request that the Development Committee be further educated by the City Arborist as to what constitutes protecting venerable oaks, since their decision indicates that they are not knowledgeable in this regard.    Sincerely,    A. Rosenthal  45-year resident of Palo Alto  16 Baumb, Nelly From:Laura Michele <lmagigian@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 5:02 PM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council Members,    Please, I implore  you, do not allow one home on her to destroy 300 years worth of beautiful growth. Please do  whatever is necessary to save this beautiful tree that has been here for centuries. Let’s please respect them. It is not like  a pine tree which can grow back in a few years.    Palo Alto is known for its trees, thus its namesake. People who move here, or have lived here for a long time, value the  greenery dearly.  This is too big of an issue to be decided at one city Council meeting.    Please protect our city treasures!    Thank you,    Laura Agigian (and the Lorax!)           Laura  17 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Castle <scastle@therapeias.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 4:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda item #8, 2353 Webster Appeal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council,     As someone who grew up in Palo Alto and whose mother still lives there after 55 years, I write with great concern about  the fate of the majestic, grand, and vital oak tree that stands at 2353 Webster Street. You don't have to be an arborist to  know the value of trees and this oak is no exception.     The Webster Oak not only provides shade and cooling to those about it in this time of global warming and releases  countless amounts of oxygen into our atmosphere, but it greatly enhances the value of the property not just at 2353,  but also for that of many of its neighbors. Significant disruption of its root system will surely threaten the life of the tree.  Loss of this tree will result in the change in the microclimate of the neighborhood and probable loss of whole gardens  that depended on the oak for its shade. Monetary loss aside, this neighborhood and the city as a whole will suffer the  aesthetic loss of a living entity that graced us with its beauty for three centuries.     I don't know about you, but I don't have three centuries to wait around for another such as The Webster Oak. Please  stop the overbuilding of Palo Alto and save its treasures instead.    Thank you,  Susan Castle  Claremont, CA     1 Baumb, Nelly From:Minor, Beth Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 4:15 PM To:Mary Ellen White Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: council meeting Hi Mary Ellen,      Below is the information on how to participate in the meeting.  I don’t know if that item is going to stay where it is on  the agenda, move up sooner, or moved out to September.  Please let me know if you have any questions.    Public Comment Instructions    Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by  phone.    1.  Written public comments may be submitted by email to  city.council@cityofpaloalto.org.    2.  Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the  Council, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully.  A.  You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you  are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality  may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer.  B.  You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this  will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak.  C.  When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers  in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak.  D.  When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted.  E.  A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments.    3.  Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address  the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter  the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions B‐E above.    4.  Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an  agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last  name before addressing the Council. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your  remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted.    https://zoom.us/join   Meeting ID: 362 027 238    Phone:1(669)900‐6833    Thanks and have a great day.    B‐    Beth Minor, City Clerk  City of Palo Alto  250 Hamilton Avenue  2 Palo Alto, CA 94301   (650)329‐2379        ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐  From: Mary Ellen White <mewhite@me.com>   Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 2:57 PM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: re: council meeting    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I would like to speak at the meeting tonight concerning the oak tree at 2353 Webster Street.  Mary Ellen White  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Harriet Lehrbaum <harriet.lehrbaum@gmail.com> on behalf of Harriet Lehrbaum <harriet@lehrbaum.net> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 4:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:2343 Webster (corrected address) Attachments:2343 Webster.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Sorry! I had the wrong street address on my document emailed a few moments ago. Please discard 2353 Webster.pdf    Thanks,    Harriet Lehrbaum        Aug. 10, 2020 A protected Valley Oak tree at 2343 Webster Street is in danger of being severely injured and possibly killed by the construction of a replacement home with a large deep basement, if the excavation and dewatering required by the current building plans are permitted to proceed as they currently stand. I understand that this oak has been growing on this spot since before the Gold Rush. It was part of the canopy of this area before the houses around it were built. It was treasured by the previous owners of the property, and due to its grandeur it is an important part of the landscape of the neighboring property owners, who treasure it as well. This tree has a 77-inch diameter truck, a 100-foot spread, and a height of 60 feet. It towers over the house that has existed on this property during only a small fraction of the tree’s lifespan. Its beauty and majesty are admired by the entire neighborhood and whoever else is fortunate enough to see it. This beautiful specimen of the protected species Quercus lobata is being endangered by a basement. A basement! This tree deserves respect, and is indeed respected by those who know it. It should not be casually compromised by the lack of foresight and inadequate technical planning in the building plans that, as they stand, will endanger its life. As I understand it, the current owners of the property can have a basement that can be built with the safety of the tree in mind, provided the plans are modified. This should certainly be required for the benefit of all. Sincerely, Harriet and Rick Lehrbaum 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Anne Anderson <aa@andpac.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 5:53 PM To:Council, City Subject:Do NOT approve CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    The cutting down of a protected, 300 year old oak in my neighborhood!    The “workaround” on this is the worst kind of public policy. Please get back to the basics of why this protection exists.  The people bought the lot knowing there was a huge oak on it.  😳    Respectfully,  Anne Anderson  2080 Tasso Street  Palo Alto, CA  650‐566‐9234    Sent from my iPhone  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Sylvia Gartner <sgartner@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 5:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda Item #8 - Groundwater - Heritage Oak CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Speaking as a homeowner who has significant damage to my property from new basement construction on my street, I  can definitely weigh in.    This magnificent oak should not die from someone digging a basement.    There were about 3 basements dug on my street with in the last 3 years.   My deadbolt locks had to be replaced because  the lock part would hit the wood instead of the hole.   My toilet rocks unless I put wood shims under it.   Palo Alto  plumbing tried twice to re‐seal the toilet, but the house has just sunk because of loss of groundwater.    I have a large crack in the ceiling of my Living Room.    I have lived in my house since 1982 and none of these physical changes happened until the basements were dug on my  street.    Sylvia Gartner  824 Moreno Avenue    1 Baumb, Nelly From:leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 9:34 AM To:Palo Alto Art Protest Cc:Fine, Adrian; Council, City Subject:Re: University Avenue Youth Art Protest - August 8th Good morning,     Thank you for your email message. I am sorry you felt there was a lack of communication on this issue.     As mentioned, the City supports peaceful protests in our community. The City retains the right to remove  items placed in the roadway and other right of way areas without warning or reason.     The vandalized posters no longer shared your intended message. The negative comments added were  intended to harm one aspect of our community. We believe in supporting our whole community and they  were removed accordingly.     Best Regards,                MONIQUE ZIESENHENNE, PhD      Assistant City Manager      (650) 329‐2403 | Monique.Ziesenhenne@cityofpaloalto.org      www.cityofpaloalto.org                        From: Palo Alto Art Protest <payouthartprotest@gmail.com>  Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 12:05 AM  To: leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique <Monique.leConge@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Cc: Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Re: University Avenue Youth Art Protest ‐ August 8th      Hello,     We, the organizers of the Youth Art Protest, would like to know the reasoning behind appointing city workers to remove  the posters from downtown. We did send a message to the city council email on Saturday at 5:00 with the following  paragraph:    2 "We ask that the city does not remove this demonstration. We believe that this youth art protest is more important than the aesthetics of the cement pavement of our city’s streets. However, if the city’s leaders are opposed to this demonstration, we do not want janitorial staff or city workers to have to remove the art. This would be counterproductive to the message and the movement, and disrespectful to our community workers. Please contact us and we will personally remove it. We hope the city recognizes the importance of the message our youth are trying to send and embraces this temporary artistic creation."    It seems as though there was a lack of communication between Mr. Fine and the City Manager department. We just  want to be clear on the city's position and reasoning. We have been trying to be communicative and appreciate your  responses.     Sincerely,   PA Youth Art Protest organizers     On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 6:58 PM leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique <Monique.leConge@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Dear PA Art Protest Organizers,    On behalf of the City Manager, I wanted to reach out to you to let you know that earlier today we removed  the protest posters on University Avenue placed there over the weekend. Unfortunately, the posters were  defaced and obscured by vandalism.  We are supportive of our community’s First Amendment rights and  wish you the best in your continued efforts.    As an aside, if you or your organizers are teens, I'd like to suggest that interested teens consider applying for  youth leadership opportunities  (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/recreation/teens/teen_leadership/default.asp) if they are  not already participants.  This group reconvenes once school has started and applications are currently open.   Thank you again for your communications over the weekend.    Sincerely,                MONIQUE ZIESENHENNE, PhD      Assistant City Manager      (650) 329‐2403 | Monique.Ziesenhenne@cityofpaloalto.org      www.cityofpaloalto.org                           From: Palo Alto Art Protest <payouthartprotest@gmail.com>   Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 6:16 PM  To: Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;  alisonlcormack@gmail.com  Subject: Re: University Avenue Youth Art Protest ‐ August 8th  3      As you know, at 10 in the morning a white male with a spray paint can defaced almost every poster of this youth art  installation with “Maga” and racist commentary. He blocked every source and covered important and informative  content as well as art. We do not believe that our protest was heard, or seen the way it deserved to be.      We were informed by a Palo Alto police officer that because the technique of wheat‐pasting is not permanent, that he  did not see our installation as vandalism. He said if the organizers were to want to do it again, that in his opinion, there  wouldn't be a problem from the city's side. We are emailing to confirm this information.      Sincerely,  PA Art Protest Organizers     On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:55 PM Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Thank you all... looks like some of them have already been defaced with paint and/or “maga”     Sigh. But keep up the good work     Adrian     On Aug 8, 2020, at 05:01, Palo Alto Art Protest <payouthartprotest@gmail.com> wrote:     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   To the City Of Palo Alto,     We are the organizers of the Youth Art Protest that you see on University Avenue. This protest was designed, organized, and executed by youth members from your community. The art was made by young People of Color who sent in their artistic creations speaking on the Black Lives Matter movement that has rallied the nation. The collection of informational posters decoding statistics and facts were thoughtfully researched by a team of high school and college students.      We hope that as people walk down University Avenue and see this installation, they are left with new thoughts, new information, and new ideas on how to enact change in their own daily lives to combat the systemic inequities that exist here in Palo Alto.      The purpose of this email is not to explain why this protest is occurring, but to ask for the city to respect it. We urge you to see this as it is: a beautiful exhibition of art and youth minds coming together to speak and share knowledge with our community. As comedian and political commentator Trevor Noah said, “There is no right way to protest. Because that’s what protest is. It can’t be considered ‘right’ by the system that it is protesting.”      The technique we used is called ‘wheat pasting’, which historically is used to get art and messaging into public spaces. It is a plastic-free glue made solely of flour, water, and sugar. The paper used for the posters is recycled. This technique has no harmful effects on the environment, lasts between three to seven days, and can be removed using water.     We ask that the city does not remove this demonstration. We believe that this youth art protest is more important than the aesthetics of the cement pavement of our city’s streets. However, if the city’s leaders are opposed to this demonstration, we do not want janitorial staff or city workers to have to remove the art. This would be counterproductive to the message and the movement, and disrespectful to our community workers. Please contact us and we will personally remove it. We hope the city recognizes 4 the importance of the message our youth are trying to send and embraces this temporary artistic creation.      This is the beginning of a movement, not a moment.      Sincerely,      The PA Art Protest Organizers     5 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Art Protest <payouthartprotest@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 12:05 AM To:leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique Cc:Fine, Adrian; Council, City Subject:Re: University Avenue Youth Art Protest - August 8th Hello,    We, the organizers of the Youth Art Protest, would like to know the reasoning behind appointing city workers to remove  the posters from downtown. We did send a message to the city council email on Saturday at 5:00 with the following  paragraph:    "We ask that the city does not remove this demonstration. We believe that this youth art protest is more important than the aesthetics of the cement pavement of our city’s streets. However, if the city’s leaders are opposed to this demonstration, we do not want janitorial staff or city workers to have to remove the art. This would be counterproductive to the message and the movement, and disrespectful to our community workers. Please contact us and we will personally remove it. We hope the city recognizes the importance of the message our youth are trying to send and embraces this temporary artistic creation."    It seems as though there was a lack of communication between Mr. Fine and the City Manager department. We just  want to be clear on the city's position and reasoning. We have been trying to be communicative and appreciate your  responses.     Sincerely,   PA Youth Art Protest organizers     On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 6:58 PM leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique <Monique.leConge@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Dear PA Art Protest Organizers,    On behalf of the City Manager, I wanted to reach out to you to let you know that earlier today we removed  the protest posters on University Avenue placed there over the weekend. Unfortunately, the posters were  defaced and obscured by vandalism.  We are supportive of our community’s First Amendment rights and  wish you the best in your continued efforts.    As an aside, if you or your organizers are teens, I'd like to suggest that interested teens consider applying for  youth leadership opportunities  (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/recreation/teens/teen_leadership/default.asp) if they are  not already participants.  This group reconvenes once school has started and applications are currently open.   Thank you again for your communications over the weekend.    Sincerely,            6     MONIQUE ZIESENHENNE, PhD      Assistant City Manager      (650) 329‐2403 | Monique.Ziesenhenne@cityofpaloalto.org      www.cityofpaloalto.org                           From: Palo Alto Art Protest <payouthartprotest@gmail.com>   Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 6:16 PM  To: Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;  alisonlcormack@gmail.com  Subject: Re: University Avenue Youth Art Protest ‐ August 8th       As you know, at 10 in the morning a white male with a spray paint can defaced almost every poster of this youth art  installation with “Maga” and racist commentary. He blocked every source and covered important and informative  content as well as art. We do not believe that our protest was heard, or seen the way it deserved to be.      We were informed by a Palo Alto police officer that because the technique of wheat‐pasting is not permanent, that he  did not see our installation as vandalism. He said if the organizers were to want to do it again, that in his opinion, there  wouldn't be a problem from the city's side. We are emailing to confirm this information.      Sincerely,  PA Art Protest Organizers     On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:55 PM Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Thank you all... looks like some of them have already been defaced with paint and/or “maga”     Sigh. But keep up the good work     Adrian     On Aug 8, 2020, at 05:01, Palo Alto Art Protest <payouthartprotest@gmail.com> wrote:     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   To the City Of Palo Alto,     We are the organizers of the Youth Art Protest that you see on University Avenue. This protest was designed, organized, and executed by youth members from your community. The art was made by young People of Color who sent in their artistic creations speaking on the Black Lives Matter movement that has rallied the nation. The collection of informational posters decoding statistics and facts were thoughtfully researched by a team of high school and college students.      7 We hope that as people walk down University Avenue and see this installation, they are left with new thoughts, new information, and new ideas on how to enact change in their own daily lives to combat the systemic inequities that exist here in Palo Alto.      The purpose of this email is not to explain why this protest is occurring, but to ask for the city to respect it. We urge you to see this as it is: a beautiful exhibition of art and youth minds coming together to speak and share knowledge with our community. As comedian and political commentator Trevor Noah said, “There is no right way to protest. Because that’s what protest is. It can’t be considered ‘right’ by the system that it is protesting.”      The technique we used is called ‘wheat pasting’, which historically is used to get art and messaging into public spaces. It is a plastic-free glue made solely of flour, water, and sugar. The paper used for the posters is recycled. This technique has no harmful effects on the environment, lasts between three to seven days, and can be removed using water.     We ask that the city does not remove this demonstration. We believe that this youth art protest is more important than the aesthetics of the cement pavement of our city’s streets. However, if the city’s leaders are opposed to this demonstration, we do not want janitorial staff or city workers to have to remove the art. This would be counterproductive to the message and the movement, and disrespectful to our community workers. Please contact us and we will personally remove it. We hope the city recognizes the importance of the message our youth are trying to send and embraces this temporary artistic creation.      This is the beginning of a movement, not a moment.      Sincerely,      The PA Art Protest Organizers     8 Baumb, Nelly From:Fine, Adrian Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 8:04 PM To:Palo Alto Art Protest Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: University Avenue Youth Art Protest - August 8th Bah. Really sorry all. I asked the city manager to please not do this.      From: leConge Ziesenhenne, Monique <Monique.leConge@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 6:58 PM  To: Palo Alto Art Protest <payouthartprotest@gmail.com>  Cc: Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Re: University Avenue Youth Art Protest ‐ August 8th      Dear PA Art Protest Organizers,    On behalf of the City Manager, I wanted to reach out to you to let you know that earlier today we removed  the protest posters on University Avenue placed there over the weekend. Unfortunately, the posters were  defaced and obscured by vandalism.  We are supportive of our community’s First Amendment rights and wish  you the best in your continued efforts.    As an aside, if you or your organizers are teens, I'd like to suggest that interested teens consider applying for  youth leadership opportunities  (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/csd/recreation/teens/teen_leadership/default.asp) if they are not  already participants.  This group reconvenes once school has started and applications are currently open.    Thank you again for your communications over the weekend.    Sincerely,                MONIQUE ZIESENHENNE, PhD      Assistant City Manager      (650) 329‐2403 | Monique.Ziesenhenne@cityofpaloalto.org      www.cityofpaloalto.org                        9    From: Palo Alto Art Protest <payouthartprotest@gmail.com>   Sent: Saturday, August 8, 2020 6:16 PM  To: Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>;  alisonlcormack@gmail.com  Subject: Re: University Avenue Youth Art Protest ‐ August 8th       As you know, at 10 in the morning a white male with a spray paint can defaced almost every poster of this youth art  installation with “Maga” and racist commentary. He blocked every source and covered important and informative  content as well as art. We do not believe that our protest was heard, or seen the way it deserved to be.      We were informed by a Palo Alto police officer that because the technique of wheat‐pasting is not permanent, that he  did not see our installation as vandalism. He said if the organizers were to want to do it again, that in his opinion, there  wouldn't be a problem from the city's side. We are emailing to confirm this information.      Sincerely,  PA Art Protest Organizers     On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:55 PM Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Thank you all... looks like some of them have already been defaced with paint and/or “maga”     Sigh. But keep up the good work     Adrian     On Aug 8, 2020, at 05:01, Palo Alto Art Protest <payouthartprotest@gmail.com> wrote:     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   To the City Of Palo Alto,     We are the organizers of the Youth Art Protest that you see on University Avenue. This protest was designed, organized, and executed by youth members from your community. The art was made by young People of Color who sent in their artistic creations speaking on the Black Lives Matter movement that has rallied the nation. The collection of informational posters decoding statistics and facts were thoughtfully researched by a team of high school and college students.      We hope that as people walk down University Avenue and see this installation, they are left with new thoughts, new information, and new ideas on how to enact change in their own daily lives to combat the systemic inequities that exist here in Palo Alto.      The purpose of this email is not to explain why this protest is occurring, but to ask for the city to respect it. We urge you to see this as it is: a beautiful exhibition of art and youth minds coming together to speak and share knowledge with our community. As comedian and political commentator Trevor Noah said, “There is no right way to protest. Because that’s what protest is. It can’t be considered ‘right’ by the system that it is protesting.”      The technique we used is called ‘wheat pasting’, which historically is used to get art and messaging into public spaces. It is a plastic-free glue made solely of flour, water, and sugar. The paper used for the 10 posters is recycled. This technique has no harmful effects on the environment, lasts between three to seven days, and can be removed using water.     We ask that the city does not remove this demonstration. We believe that this youth art protest is more important than the aesthetics of the cement pavement of our city’s streets. However, if the city’s leaders are opposed to this demonstration, we do not want janitorial staff or city workers to have to remove the art. This would be counterproductive to the message and the movement, and disrespectful to our community workers. Please contact us and we will personally remove it. We hope the city recognizes the importance of the message our youth are trying to send and embraces this temporary artistic creation.      This is the beginning of a movement, not a moment.      Sincerely,      The PA Art Protest Organizers     11 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Art Protest <payouthartprotest@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 8, 2020 6:16 PM To:Fine, Adrian; Council, City; alisonlcormack@gmail.com Subject:Re: University Avenue Youth Art Protest - August 8th As you know, at 10 in the morning a white male with a spray paint can defaced almost every poster of this youth art  installation with “Maga” and racist commentary. He blocked every source and covered important and informative  content as well as art. We do not believe that our protest was heard, or seen the way it deserved to be.     We were informed by a Palo Alto police officer that because the technique of wheat‐pasting is not permanent, that he  did not see our installation as vandalism. He said if the organizers were to want to do it again, that in his opinion, there  wouldn't be a problem from the city's side. We are emailing to confirm this information.     Sincerely,  PA Art Protest Organizers    On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 3:55 PM Fine, Adrian <Adrian.Fine@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Thank you all... looks like some of them have already been defaced with paint and/or “maga”    Sigh. But keep up the good work    Adrian      On Aug 8, 2020, at 05:01, Palo Alto Art Protest <payouthartprotest@gmail.com> wrote:     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   To the City Of Palo Alto,    We are the organizers of the Youth Art Protest that you see on University Avenue. This protest was designed, organized, and executed by youth members from your community. The art was made by young People of Color who sent in their artistic creations speaking on the Black Lives Matter movement that has rallied the nation. The collection of informational posters decoding statistics and facts were thoughtfully researched by a team of high school and college students.     We hope that as people walk down University Avenue and see this installation, they are left with new thoughts, new information, and new ideas on how to enact change in their own daily lives to combat the systemic inequities that exist here in Palo Alto.     The purpose of this email is not to explain why this protest is occurring, but to ask for the city to respect it. We urge you to see this as it is: a beautiful exhibition of art and youth minds coming together to speak and share knowledge with our community. As comedian and political commentator Trevor Noah said, “There is no right way to protest. Because that’s what protest is. It can’t be considered ‘right’ by the system that it is protesting.”     The technique we used is called ‘wheat pasting’, which historically is used to get art and messaging into public spaces. It is a plastic-free glue made solely of flour, water, and sugar. The paper used for the 12 posters is recycled. This technique has no harmful effects on the environment, lasts between three to seven days, and can be removed using water.    We ask that the city does not remove this demonstration. We believe that this youth art protest is more important than the aesthetics of the cement pavement of our city’s streets. However, if the city’s leaders are opposed to this demonstration, we do not want janitorial staff or city workers to have to remove the art. This would be counterproductive to the message and the movement, and disrespectful to our community workers. Please contact us and we will personally remove it. We hope the city recognizes the importance of the message our youth are trying to send and embraces this temporary artistic creation.     This is the beginning of a movement, not a moment.     Sincerely,     The PA Art Protest Organizers    13 Baumb, Nelly From:Palo Alto Art Protest <payouthartprotest@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 8, 2020 5:00 AM To:Council, City; Fine, Adrian Cc:editor@paweekly.com Subject:University Avenue Youth Art Protest - August 8th CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the City Of Palo Alto,    We are the organizers of the Youth Art Protest that you see on University Avenue. This protest was designed, organized, and executed by youth members from your community. The art was made by young People of Color who sent in their artistic creations speaking on the Black Lives Matter movement that has rallied the nation. The collection of informational posters decoding statistics and facts were thoughtfully researched by a team of high school and college students.     We hope that as people walk down University Avenue and see this installation, they are left with new thoughts, new information, and new ideas on how to enact change in their own daily lives to combat the systemic inequities that exist here in Palo Alto.     The purpose of this email is not to explain why this protest is occurring, but to ask for the city to respect it. We urge you to see this as it is: a beautiful exhibition of art and youth minds coming together to speak and share knowledge with our community. As comedian and political commentator Trevor Noah said, “There is no right way to protest. Because that’s what protest is. It can’t be considered ‘right’ by the system that it is protesting.”    The technique we used is called ‘wheat pasting’, which historically is used to get art and messaging into public spaces. It is a plastic-free glue made solely of flour, water, and sugar. The paper used for the posters is recycled. This technique has no harmful effects on the environment, lasts between three to seven days, and can be removed using water.    We ask that the city does not remove this demonstration. We believe that this youth art protest is more important than the aesthetics of the cement pavement of our city’s streets. However, if the city’s leaders are opposed to this demonstration, we do not want janitorial staff or city workers to have to remove the art. This would be counterproductive to the message and the movement, and disrespectful to our community workers. Please contact us and we will personally remove it. We hope the city recognizes the importance of the message our youth are trying to send and embraces this temporary artistic creation.     This is the beginning of a movement, not a moment.     Sincerely,     The PA Art Protest Organizers    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Sally Keyes <keyesmom@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 12, 2020 9:51 AM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel; Council, City Subject:Churchill Train Crossing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of XCAP and City Council,    We are concerned about the results of a survey conducted in Southgate that is being shared with all of you. Data was gathered by a group calling itself the Southgate Committee on the Churchill Rail Crossing. In fact, it was not an elected committee of Southgate residents, nor does it represent the Southgate neighborhood.     In fact, a fair number of us did not receive an email regarding this survey from this group. Their email was sent to only a portion of Southgate residents and individuals receiving this email were encouraged to forward to other Southgate residents. Since this group’s primary focus is to not close Churchill, one can reasonably assume that the majority of recipients were like minded in their desire to keep Churchill open.    Additionally, we heard from a neighbor that they requested two surveys, one for each household member. He was informed that there was only one survey per household. However, another neighbor informed other Southgate residents that his household received two surveys, one per adult in the home.    This inconsistency, in our opinion, makes this survey invalid. This issue was somewhat addressed by remarks from this group of residents when they stated that a household could have more than one survey if there were differing opinions. Who is to say whether there really were differing opinions or not and how consistently this statement holds true.    It was refreshing to see that this survey shows that Southgate residents, in general, do not wish to have the viaduct. Thank goodness! A viaduct, in our opinion, is an awful choice.    As to the partial underpass, we believe that the survey does not show a preponderance of support for the overpass vs. the closure of Churchill. Thus, we believe that looking at cost and quality of life for Palo Alto residents are two crucial aspects for XCAP and City Council.     Just a note, we originally responded for the partial underpass and were undecided regarding Churchill. However, upon looking more carefully at the details of the construction of this partial underpass and its massive size as well as its impact on Old 2 Palo Alto, Southgate, and the community feel of the City, we support the closure of Churchill Avenue over the partial underpass.    Richard and Sally Keyes  Mariposa Avenue  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Inder Monga <imonga@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 8:02 PM To:Nadia Naik; Expanded Community Advisory Panel; Shikada, Ed; Kamhi, Philip; gblack@hextrans.com Cc:Council, City; Chacon, Michael; Mary; Reshma Singh; Gaines, Chantal Subject:Proposed correction of the final draft traffic report CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Nadia, XCAP, Gary, Ed, and Philip,    We appreciate the updated traffic report fixing the comments received by many members of the public (Link  from https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp‐content/uploads/2020/08/2020‐08‐12_XCAP‐Agenda.pdf). We reviewed with  interest the updated Figure 8 and the corresponding text on Page 47 and Page 48. In fact, I especially point to one of the  paragraphs dealing with the Alma #1, #2, #3 intersections as reproduced verbatim from the report below:       "Note that Figure 8 shows a conceptual design of potential improvements at the Embarcadero Road and Alma Street  interchange. If this project were to be pursued, many design details would need to be worked out with regard to  maintaining access to existing residential driveways on Embarcadero Road, Kingsley Street, High Street, and the  Embarcadero slip ramp."    As had been pointed out to Meghan (ex‐XCAP member), and to Hexagon almost six months ago, the main issue with this  design is not only about maintaining access to existing residential driveways, but also eliminating the on‐street parking  that exists today both on High Street and Embarcadero slip road, plus interfering with safe access to the underbridge  through the steps.   We actually measured the Embarcadero Slip Road again the day before, and there is less than 24' of space to the curb,  contrary to indicated in the diagram Figure 8, even if you get rid of on‐street parking thus requiring further engineering  or compromises to the street.    This road is also used extensively by parents to drop off and pick up high‐school kids who then walk to Palo Alto High  School. The Embarcadero slip road is not wide enough to allow two way lanes, parking, and a shoulder along the  underpass. The design to add the light on alma,  left‐turn and right‐turn lanes added to Embarcadero Slip Road  is going  to eliminate the on‐street parking and safe access for several residences, exacerbate the traffic jam in the mornings and  afternoons, and importantly, be dangerous for the kids getting dropped off.    We believed we had an agreement to update the report to address the above points.By ignoring the issues pointed out  repeatedly, it is concerning to us that there is a systematic neglect of the voice of the residents of Embarcadero Road,  Kingsley Street, High Street, and the Embarcadero slip ramp. We would strongly request Hexagon, XCAP and the City  staff to remedy this.     Our suggested wording of that paragraph is:    "Note that Figure 8 shows a conceptual design of potential improvements at the Embarcadero Road and Alma Street  interchange. If this project were to be pursued, many design details and mitigations would need to be worked out with  regard to maintaining access to existing residential driveways, on‐street parking, safety risks in accessing the  underbridge on Embarcadero, as well as, potential traffic congestion during the peak times due to school drop off and  pick ups on Embarcadero Road, Kingsley Street, High Street, and the Embarcadero slip ramp."    4 Best regards, and look forward to a productive XCAP meeting this Wednesday,   Inder Monga  Reshma Singh  Michael Chacon  Mary Chacon      5 Baumb, Nelly From:Donna Legge <dlegge@losaltosca.gov> Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 5:10 PM To:Pat Marriott; Los Altos Parks & Recreation Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: bocce ball courts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Thank you Pat. The City is in receipt of your email.  Sincerely, Donna  Donna Legge, Recreation & Community Services Director  City of Los Altos | 1 N. San Antonio Road | Los Altos, CA 94022  Office: 650.947.2790 | Direct: 650.947.2889 | dlegge@losaltosca.gov        From: Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>   Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 3:26 PM  To: Los Altos Parks & Recreation Commission <PARCommission@losaltosca.gov>  Cc: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: bocce ball courts    Commissioners:  Once again, bocce ball courts at Grant Park will be on the PARC agenda at the August 12th meeting. My  concerns:   SENIOR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION  According to a July 2nd letter from King Lear, “The Senior Commission supports adding bocce ball courts to  Grant Park to benefit seniors.”  That is not true.   6 On March 2, 2020 the Senior Commission recommended that bocce ball courts be included the Grant Park  master plan process, which would include a public process to survey and engage the community/seniors at  that time. From the minutes:   Action: Commissioner Torbeck motioned that the Bocce Ball Court proposal be included as a part of the  greater Master Plan process to include desired improvements of Grant Park and Grant Park Community  Center.   If there will be community outreach/surveys/whatever as part of the master plan, why is PARC pulling bocce  ball out of that process?  FINANCIAL OFFER EXPIRES IN DECEMBER  In response to the question as to why Lear and the Legacies put an expiration date on their financial offer, Lear wrote:   “I think it is embarrassing to suggest that City bureaucracy requires more than one year to decide.  If  the City should decide in some other year to build bocce ball courts in Grant Park, then presumably the  City would have had time to plan the expenditure in their normal budget cycle.  $30K is a small amount  in the city’s budget.”    The dog park has been under discussion for at least two years, but apparently Lear doesn’t have a vested  interest in that project. He makes it sound as if the city has no other projects on the table, e.g., the police  building, completing the new community center, finalizing objective zoning codes, making Hillview Park an  official park, etc. And $30K – of taxpayers’ money – is NOT a small amount, given COVID and the economic  crisis the entire state, country, world is suffering.  ELECTIONS  Jonathan Weinberg, chair of PARC, is running for city council. His campaign manager is Pete Dailey, also a  PARC commissioner. Scott Spielman, another PARC commissioner, is also running for council.  King Lear and his associates have always been vocal and financial backers of council candidates. A cynical  person might think there was a link between a PARC decision on bocce ball and campaign contributions.   With elections just months away, why is a bocce ball decision so urgent that it must be made before  December?   I strongly urge you to fold bocce ball courts into the Grant Park Master Plan, where they will be fairly  considered with all other ideas. If the Legacies’ only interest is serving Los Altos seniors, their money should  still be on offer when the master plan is completed – if bocce ball is deemed a high priority. If it is not, draw  your own conclusions.  Thank you for listening,              Pat Marriott    7 Baumb, Nelly From:slevy@ccsce.com Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 4:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: 788 San Antonio project and HIP expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. -------- Original Message -------- Subject:788 San Antonio project and HIP expansion  Date:2020‐08‐10 12:01  From:slevy@ccsce.com  To:Planning Commission <planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc:Jonathan Lait <jonathan.lait@cityofpaloalto.org>, Ed Shikada <ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org> Dear Chair Templeton and PTC members, Supporting the staff recommendation for the 788 San Antonio housing development and expansion of the Housing Incentive Program (HIP) to a broader area along San Antonio will provide three positive outcomes: 1. It will expand the available housing sites in our city, something urgently needed on several grounds, 2. It will move forward a project adding more than 100 new homes including 16 reserved for low income residents, and 3. It will send a signal to regional and state agencies that Palo Alto is serious about expanding housing opportunities and affordability Background This will be the first housing proposal to come before PTC since the 6th cycle (2022-2030) regional housing needs determination for the Bay Area was approved by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Palo Alto’s new city allocation will be between just over double the current allocation to probably three times or between 4,500 snf 6,000 units. The new Housing Element that Palo Alto needs to prepare must identify sites and policies to meet the overall unit goals and also by income group. The staff recommendation will be a step forward in meeting both of these goals. 8 The regional and Palo Alto RHNA goals include units for low, middle and higher income groups. A focus solely on units reserved for low income residents is not only difficult (only one has been approved recently after a long process) but also is contrary to the RHNA guidelines. And such a focus overlooks or dismisses the great need for housing that is affordable and available for moderate/middle income residents who do not qualify for subsidy but also cannot afford the $2-3 million median prices for single family homes. It is also true that many units reserved for low income residents come about as part of market rate developments that must meet the city goal of 15% BMR units including the proposed housing at 788 San Antonio. I urge the commission to adopt the staff recommendation and not add conditions that affect project feasibility as housing projects must make financial sense (pencil out) to get financing and move forward, The EIR The proposals both for the project and HIP expansion got good marks in the EIR with many insignificant findings and some that can be easily mitigated. Please approve the staff recommendation for a Statement of Overriding Consideration for the potential historical building. There are ways proposed by the developer to preserve the memory of this building as with the cannery site in North Ventura that do not prevent the much needed housing from being built. Local Control I support local control if it means, as it should, that Palo Alto gets to decide how best to meet our housing goals. I do not support local control when it means Palo Alto gets to decide not to meet our housing goals. We do not have local control that says in Palo Alto you do not need a driver’s license or sales of alcohol and tobacco to 10 year olds is legal. We do not get to pick which state laws and goals we wish to meet. Support the staff recommendation and send a signal that Palo Alto intends to find ways to broaden housing access and affordability. Stephen Levy 9 Baumb, Nelly From:Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 3:26 PM To:PARCommission@losaltosca.gov Cc:Council, City Subject:bocce ball courts CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Commissioners:  Once again, bocce ball courts at Grant Park will be on the PARC agenda at the August 12th meeting. My  concerns:   SENIOR COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION  According to a July 2nd letter from King Lear, “The Senior Commission supports adding bocce ball courts to  Grant Park to benefit seniors.”  That is not true.   On March 2, 2020 the Senior Commission recommended that bocce ball courts be included the Grant Park  master plan process, which would include a public process to survey and engage the community/seniors at  that time. From the minutes:   Action: Commissioner Torbeck motioned that the Bocce Ball Court proposal be included as a part of the  greater Master Plan process to include desired improvements of Grant Park and Grant Park Community  Center.   If there will be community outreach/surveys/whatever as part of the master plan, why is PARC pulling bocce  ball out of that process?  FINANCIAL OFFER EXPIRES IN DECEMBER  In response to the question as to why Lear and the Legacies put an expiration date on their financial offer, Lear  wrote:   “I think it is embarrassing to suggest that City bureaucracy requires more than one year to decide.  If  the City should decide in some other year to build bocce ball courts in Grant Park, then presumably the  City would have had time to plan the expenditure in their normal budget cycle.  $30K is a small amount  in the city’s budget.”    The dog park has been under discussion for at least two years, but apparently Lear doesn’t have a vested  interest in that project. He makes it sound as if the city has no other projects on the table, e.g., the police  building, completing the new community center, finalizing objective zoning codes, making Hillview Park an  official park, etc. And $30K – of taxpayers’ money – is NOT a small amount, given COVID and the economic  crisis the entire state, country, world is suffering.  10 ELECTIONS  Jonathan Weinberg, chair of PARC, is running for city council. His campaign manager is Pete Dailey, also a  PARC commissioner. Scott Spielman, another PARC commissioner, is also running for council.  King Lear and his associates have always been vocal and financial backers of council candidates. A cynical  person might think there was a link between a PARC decision on bocce ball and campaign contributions.   With elections just months away, why is a bocce ball decision so urgent that it must be made before  December?   I strongly urge you to fold bocce ball courts into the Grant Park Master Plan, where they will be fairly  considered with all other ideas. If the Legacies’ only interest is serving Los Altos seniors, their money should  still be on offer when the master plan is completed – if bocce ball is deemed a high priority. If it is not, draw  your own conclusions.  Thank you for listening,              Pat Marriott    11 Baumb, Nelly From:Fred Castro <fcastro@bayareametro.gov> Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 3:13 PM To:Atkinson, Rebecca; MTC-ABAG Info; Regional Housing Need Allocation; rhna@TheCivicEdge.com Cc:French, Amy; Klicheva, Madina; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Tanner, Rachael Subject:RE: RHNA Methodology Options - Comment Letter - City of Palo Alto - August Agenda Item 5a CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good afternoon, Ms. Atkinson.    The letter from Mr. Shikada to the ABAG Housing Methodology Committee and staff will be forwarded to committee  members and staff.    Thank you.      Fred Castro  Office (415) 820‐7913  Cell (415) 690‐0529    From: Atkinson, Rebecca [mailto:Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org]   Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2020 2:15 PM  To: MTC‐ABAG Info <info@bayareametro.gov>; Fred Castro <fcastro@bayareametro.gov>; Regional Housing Need  Allocation <rhna@bayareametro.gov>; rhna@TheCivicEdge.com  Cc: French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Klicheva, Madina <Madina.Klicheva@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Council,  City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Lait, Jonathan  <Jonathan.Lait@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Tanner, Rachael <Rachael.Tanner@CityofPaloAlto.org>  Subject: RHNA Methodology Options ‐ Comment Letter ‐ City of Palo Alto ‐ August Agenda Item 5a    *External Email* Dear Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) Members, ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation Staff, and Fred  Castro, Clerk of the Board, Association of Bay Area Governments,     Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the RHNA Methodology Options under consideration by the HMC.     Our City Council voted on 8/10/20 for our City Manager to submit the attached comment letter for your consideration.  The comment letter pertains to Item 5a on your August HMC agenda and reflects review of materials through July 2020.    Regards,     Rebecca        Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner   Planning & Development Services Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 12   T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org   Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code   Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped        13 Baumb, Nelly From:Miriam Kelman <miriam_kelman@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 10:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Conserve issue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor and City Council, I live at 559 Matadero Ave, unit 15, in a one bedroom large apartment complex. I was just laid off from the city as an hourly librarian at the end of July. The last couple of months, my utility bill from Conserve has gone up almost 30% from $70 to $98.50. There is no separate meter per apartment. I called Conserve and they said that they divide up the bill according to how many people are living in these apartments. Many people have left the apartments and there are many empty ones. As a result, even though my water usage has not changed, my bill has gone up, not the 5% for residential usage, but almost 30%. Conserve is unwilling to change their policy. I am writing you concerning the unfairness of this billing. Also, the rent on the empty apartments is at least $100 below what I am paying on my apartment. I have lived here eight years. When I contacted V-Rent, the owners of the apartment complex, they said that since I have a lease, I must continue to pay this rent until the lease is up in January, and there will be no change in the amount they expect from me. Thank you, Miriam Kelman 559 Matadero Ave, Unit 15 Palo Alto, CA 94306 14 Baumb, Nelly From:Ellen Hartog <elh109@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 10:37 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.  Palo Alto has been the trustee of the open space preserve, Foothills Park since the 60's - today the City has opened the park as a recreational park. I am saddened by the Council ill will and saddened that a pilot program during a [pandemic is approved! We have to drive to the Park up a winding road all that screams global warming if Page Mill is used by more than its residents. All this is the opposite of environmental protection. Where is the conservationists and protection activists? We only have one park and this trial is no example of what is to come. It is a very sad day in the history of Palo Alto conservation efforts. Shame on you. Ellen Hartog 15 Baumb, Nelly From:Shaila Sadrozinski <sadro@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 9:32 AM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel; Council, City Subject:Southgate survey regarding Churchill rail crossing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of XCAP and City Council, I am concerned about the results of a survey conducted in Southgate that will soon be shared with you. Data was gathered by a group calling itself the Southgate Committee on the Churchill Rail Crossing. In fact, it was not an elected committee, nor does it represent the Southgate neighborhood: the members of this group, though they do not disclose the fact, are composed solely of residents opposed to closing Churchill at the rail crossing. Because of their bias, and the fact that they did not consult others with differing points of view, the questions they asked, and the way they were framed on the survey are tilted to support their preference. Furthermore, a breakdown by street on percentage of participants, reveals that the highest participation was on streets (Escobita and Miramonte) where members of this group live. Since my home is on Churchill Ave, I am for the closure of Churchill. The two other options will result in an increase of traffic on Churchill (most of which is not neighborhood traffic), since it will become easier than at present to cross the tracks. The argument that with closure of Churchill, the Southgate neighborhood will be cut off from the rest of Palo Alto is weak -- it will not be any more cut off than College Terrace or Evergreen Park; it also applies only to residents in cars: the closure will be accompanied by a bicycle/pedestrian underpass giving free access, much like the underpasses at Homer and California Avenues. While the viaduct or partial underpass will every day adversely affect residents on Churchill and Mariposa, the closure of Churchill will result in a less-than-5-minute inconvenience for residents when they want to access Alma by car. For this minor inconvenience, is it worth spending the huge sums of money needed to construct the viaduct or the partial underpass and increase Churchill Avenue's role as a thoroughfare? Shaila Sadrozinski, 62 Churchill Avenue 16 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 2:28 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dallen1212 @gmail.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; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Pam Kelly; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; dlfranklin0@outlook.com; Mark Standriff Subject:Fwd: Sorrento Therap. SRNE: UP 30.51% today. Products on their website 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 11, 2020 at 2:14 AM  Subject: Fwd: Sorrento Therap. SRNE: UP 30.51% today. Products on their website  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 9:16 PM  Subject: Fwd: Sorrento Therap. SRNE: UP 30.51% today. Products on their website  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 4:45 PM  Subject: Sorrento Therap. SRNE: UP 30.51% today. Products on their website  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>             Monday, Aug. 10, 2020    17             To all‐ SRNE was up 30.51% today, Monday, to $18.82. Up 180% since I bought it on May 13, 2020, 89 days ago.  That starts to sound like an average gain of 2% per day, every day. One analyst has a price target on it of $30.  Up 100%  means that it has doubled, so SRNE has almost tripled since I bought it. Makes me feel mighty guilty.                   Here are their products as shown on their website:              https://sorrentotherapeutics.com/research/covid‐19/              Their new saliva test for Covid19 from Columbia University is called COVI‐TRACE. No lab equipment needed, no  sending of a sample to a lab and waiting for days, or even for 24 hours.  Get a saliva sample with a dropper, place saliva  in the tube of chemicals, (That's Sorrento's entire test kit), heat for 30 minutes, if sample turns yellow, donor is positive  for Corona virus. A 30 minute test. Columbia Univ. says it works. Now Sorrento will test it themselves. How could the  FDA deny an emergency use authorization? I predict they will not deny one.                 We desperately need a cheap, accurate, 30 minute test. A fast positive test leads to fast contact tracing, isolation  and maybe quarantine of those infected. That is how we get the pandemic under control. That and wearing a mask  outside of the home, keeping at least six feet away from others, washing one's hands often, avoiding groups. I personally  avoid unnecessary forays out: grocery store, gas, bank, and WM maybe every six weeks‐ that's  about it.  My last haircut  was in February.             Dr. Jon LaPook was on Colbert tonight‐ Monday. He said that once you get infected, it can take from 4 to 14 days  before you are shedding virus, i.e. before you are infectious.               He also said that if a corona virus test result takes a week to come back, you may test positive but you won't know  about that for a week. In that week, you can infect many people. So a test result that takes a week to come back is  essentially useless.  LH‐ That is why the Sorrento 30 minute COVI‐TRACE test is so important. If you are positive, you  know it right away, at the test site.                I personally think that trying to re‐open the schools is a Rx for disaster. I can see how kids can learn a lot with a  computer run by a teacher. Tough to do Chem lab experiments, but most subjects can be taught that way. The pandemic  will end, with all of the impressive results from the vaccine trials. The kids might even learn more using a computer at  home. As teachers get trained better in how to teach that way, and as teaching aids designed for this purpose improve,  more learning will occur. Local news tonight in Fresno said the school district here is buying teaching software.              The head of the National Teachers Association said recently that unions of teachers ordered back to the classroom  should tell the people ordering them back that nothing is off the table, meaning a strike is a possibility.                What if we did this:  When the schools re‐open, continue then with the at home computer learning of the subjects  that will be taught now via distance learning. A blend of on‐site and home learning might be better than pure on‐site.  What, study on Saturday? When you hit college you sure will. And Sunday too. Eat, sleep and study is the way most  people get through college. And some have to work too. Huge credit to them. Work and borrow. I've known people who  were doing that to get a college education. I didn't have to do either, and that was hard enough.             In San Jose, Ca. in the 50's there were still thousands of acres of fruit trees and lots of canneries in the Santa Clara  Valley. San Jose State was $30 a semester. People would work in a cannery all summer and make enough to pay for  tuition, books, etc for the nine mos. Lots of people got a degree that way at that time. Now there are two acres of fruit  trees left so people can see what they looked like. (At Saratoga‐Sunnyvale Hwy and El Camino). All the rest was torn out  to build Silicon Valley companies and housing. Stanford, last I heard, was $60,000 per year for room, board and tuition.  Crummy little apartments on the peninsula are $3,000 per month.      18           So Europe now has what we had in the 50's wrt higher ed:  Very low cost college costs because the American  people (known as "the suckers" inside the beltway) are bled white to provide a free military defense for the people of  Europe. 75 years after we won WWII, the people of Europe are permanent wards of the American taxpayers.               I can see how more learning could happen if the kids are watching lessons on a computer than happens in a  classroom. There will have to be rules established. How long a class can run, how long a break between classes.  Also,  the schools and the police should announce that the wilful subverting of the learning process by parents and others at  the student's remote location can result in police action. That will happen. Some parents would not send their kids to  school if it were not the law. They have utterly no respect for learning or learned people.                  Sorrento says that their saliva test might cost $10. As a country, we can afford a LOT of that test. I'll bet the  current, obnoxious and slow test costs at least that much.                             LH              19 Baumb, Nelly From:Jim Cornett <jbcornett@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 10:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:Churchill Rail Crossing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,    In encourage you to adopt the partial underpass option for the Churchill rail crossing.      This option provides for access to Alma when eastbound on Churchill (a typically highly congested traffic flow).  Even  then, I encourage improvements for increased traffic flow at Embarcadero and Page Mill Blvd in conjunction with this  option.    Sincerely,    James Cornett  420 Sequoia Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94306  20 Baumb, Nelly From:Stacey Olgado <staceyolgado@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 8:42 PM To:Council, City; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Subject:2610 signatures and counting-- supporting Summer Streets, and Beyond.... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  As you vote tonight to hopefully extend and expand this program, we’d like share this petition with you, to understand the strong community support for Summer Streets- and Beyond..    https://www.change.org/SupportPAdowntownbusinesses   Thank you,  Stacey Olgado  Palo Alto Resident   21 Baumb, Nelly From:Minor, Beth Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 5:56 PM To:Harriet Lehrbaum; Council, City Subject:RE: Your e-mail to City Council was received Hi Harriet,      Council will still see your email and it will go online later this week.    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: Harriet Lehrbaum <harriet@lehrbaum.net>   Sent: Monday, August 10, 2020 5:03 PM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Re: Your e‐mail to City Council was received    CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Does this mean I missed the cut off?    On Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 4:35 PM Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Thank you for your comments to the City Council. Your e‐mail will be forwarded to all seven Council Members and a  printout of your correspondence will also be included in the next available Council packet.     If your comments are about an item that is already scheduled for a City Council agenda, you can call (650) 329‐2571 to  confirm that the item is still on the agenda for the next meeting.     22 If your letter mentions a specific complaint or a request for service, we'll either reply with an explanation or else send it on to the appropriate department for clarification.     We appreciate hearing from you.  23 Baumb, Nelly From:Richard Gianuario <richardgianuario@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 5:55 PM To:Council, City; Tanaka, Greg; greg@gregtanaka.org; Fine, Adrian; Cormack, Alison; DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Kniss, Liz (internal); Kou, Lydia; City Mgr; Fire Subject:Fire on Matadero Ave and Public Safety Concerns CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Letter to the Palo Alto City Council The following pertains to a fire that occurred in the early morning hours today on Matadero Avenue, and to overall public safety concerns in the city of Palo Alto. We, Robert and Karen Gianuario, are the owners of the multi-family dwelling and carport affected by the fire. The fire appears to have started on the side of the detached carport, which is now a total loss. Two of our tenants’ cars and all of their belongings stored in the carport/storage area were also destroyed by the fire. We want to take this opportunity to thank our local firefighters for their hasty response. The fire crews successfully put out the fire and stopped it from spreading to the homes of our tenants, and thankfully no one was hurt. We had the opportunity to speak with the fire captain of the first arriving engine company, who informed us that we were lucky that the second arriving engine, Engine 62, was in service last night, or else his crew would have likely had issues getting a water supply from a hydrant in time, allowing the fire to possibly spread out of control, into the adjacent apartment structure. When asked why Engine 62 would ever be out of service, the captain informed us that the city has been “browning out”, or taking the engine out of service during many hours of the day and noted that more and more Palo Alto fire companies have been “browned out” and “down-staffed” in recent years. As property owners and landlords providing homes for Palo Alto citizens, we find this shocking, upsetting, and unacceptable. After further research, we have learned that over the past 10 years this city has cut 2 engines, 1 ambulance and 33% of its fire department staff, all while call volume has doubled. We are baffled as to why a government entity, who prides itself in providing a safe environment for its citizens, would willingly make such drastic cuts to public safety. Its unsettling that one of the wealthiest suburban cities in silicon valley could be so cheap that it puts its citizens lives at risk. Members of this city council, we respectfully ask that you do better. Staff the engines, staff the ambulances, staff the trucks, before lives are lost due to budget concerns. Respectfully, Robert and Karen Gianuario Property owners of 482, 484, 486 and 488 Matadero Ave. 24 Baumb, Nelly From:tom@tomvlasic.com Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 11:11 AM To:Expanded Community Advisory Panel Cc:Council, City; Rachel; dshenster@gmail.com; John Monroe; Anne Kramer Subject:8/12 XCAP Meeting -- Churchill Crossing Options CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear XCAP members, Thank you for your work on the rail crossing issues and your efforts to formulate recommendations to the City Council. We are SIP out of state right now, but wanted to share some comments with you relative to the Churchill crossing options and, generally on the process as it is proceeding. First, generally, it has been disappointing to us that the process has not been placed on hold until there is a better understanding of the overall impacts of the pandemic, including funding realities. The "facts" on the options continue to be cautioned based on the lack of any ability to predict the impacts and therefore, it is likely that any "decision" will be tentative at best and have to be revisited. Churchill Options. As we have stated in the past, we strongly favor closing Churchill with adequate attention to bike and pedestrian access, particularly to and from Paly. Based on the most recent studies and "conclusions" it appears that this option and the viaduct are getting the most support in the consultant analysis. You will be receiving another Southgate "neighborhood survey" that has been circulated by those with leanings to keeping Churchill open. The "survey" is one attempt to gauge neighborhood sentiment, but no matter how well-meaning and careful the survey effort has been, it has its biasses, particularly in the manner in which it was initially shared with "neighbors" and distributed for responses. Further, it is another reflection of the City's approach to decision making that seems to encourage conflict between neighbors and neighborhoods (e.g., the Castilllija CUP--"for" and "against" signs up for years, and now a referendum for Foothills Park access). In any case, we do appreciate that the "survey" results as they are coming to you and were shared with neighbor responders includes what appear to be all of the comments that were offered as part of the "yes" or "no" responses to questions. These comments provide a fair perspective on the scope of the problems of trying to reach a real neighborhood consensus on the Churchill crossing issues. Based on the input received to date, we believe the viaduct is actually the least preferable and worst option now before you. It will truly divide Palo Alto both physically and emotionally, creating an ugly visual barrier between the North and South sides. It will dramatically alter the character of Palo Alto for the worst, and it places the full burden of the Churchill crossing "solution" on the properties immediately along the viaduct rail corridor when the studies show there is no true need for such burdens to be placed on these properties. The closure option is far superior in terms of conformity with the basic principals of the City's comprehensive plan, and relative to overall impacts and the financial realities as they can be gauged at this point. So if you must proceed with a decision in these uncertain and unprecedented times, we hope you will support the Churchill closure option. Thank you for the opportunity to share our views with you and, again for your extensive work on this matter. Regards, Tom and Linda Vlasic Southgate 25 Baumb, Nelly From:Don McDougall <mcdougall.don@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 7:09 AM To:Council, City Cc:Shikada, Ed; O'Kane, Kristen; Anderson, Daren Subject:Fwd: New Report: Civic Assets for More Equitable Cities CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine, Council and related staff,     The attached Civic Commons  report here should be useful as consider the future  (or what might have been the future)  of Palo Alto Parks and particularly Foothills Park.  It is not exactly the same but consistent with what I have suggested to  many of you that a city must consider Physical, Natural and Social Infrastructures together in order to thrive,  You have  chosen in this case to focus on Natural Infrastructure in an area that has 100 acres that is truly not natural at the  expense of an opportunity to also consider Social Infrastructure.  And by the way, if Foothills is now a Preserve, please  immediately ban ALL dogs, leash or no, (that's the implication of calling something a Preserve) (dogs leaving  their "marks" confuse the wildlife) and ask staff for other recommendations to "Preserve".    Thank you for considering the report in your efforts,      Don  650 815 1455                   ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Reimagining the Civic Commons <info@civiccommons.us>  Date: Mon, Aug 10, 2020 at 5:59 AM  Subject: New Report: Civic Assets for More Equitable Cities  To: <mcdougall.don@gmail.com>      View this email in your browser   27   How Our Public Spaces Can Build a More Equitable Post-Pandemic World “Public spaces are being revived to build trust and public life, connect people of all backgrounds and bridge social capital, develop more environmentally resilient neighborhoods, and create real economic value for communities.” —Urban Institute, Civic Assets for Equitable Cities, 2020 The United States is at a pivotal moment, and many are calling for bold solutions to mend our socially, economically and politically fragmented union. We have a promising solution for the country: let’s restore the connections between Americans in and through the public spaces we share. Our parks, libraries, trails, and recreational centers have tremendous potential to connect people of all backgrounds, cultivate trust and create more resilient communities. Now is the time to invest in this critical civic infrastructure. A new report from Urban Institute shows us how. This report, which examined Reimagining the Civic Commons efforts in cities across the country, details how thoughtful and intentional investments in the design, operations and programming of our shared public spaces is countering the trends of social isolation, economic inequity, social and racial segregation and mistrust. Civic Assets for More Equitable Cities is a comprehensive look at Reimagining the Civic Commons and our new way of working for cities. The report describes how the emphasis on four outcomes of civic engagement, socioeconomic mixing, environmental sustainability and value creation, paired with a portfolio approach to civic assets yields a shift in how stakeholders lead, govern, manage, and think about civic assets. This ultimately paves the way for more meaningful, potentially lasting community and systems change. Specifically, through this new approach to civic assets cities are moving away from:  siloed leadership practices to more collaborative leadership,  traditional structures and practices to more strategic operations, and  accepting the status quo to adopting an innovation mindset. 28     READ MORE ON MEDIUM   DOWNLOAD THE REPORT         Copyright © 2020 Reimagining the Civic Commons, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website: www.civiccommons.us 29   Our mailing address is: Reimagining the Civic Commons 30 S. 15th Street 15th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.     30 Baumb, Nelly From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 10, 2020 6:38 AM To:Council, City Cc:Gail Price; Shikada, Ed Subject:Fwd: New Report: Civic Assets for More Equitable Cities 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,      This recent report will be useful to you in your discussion of how the greater access to Foothill Park and the composition  of our Board and Commissions can be more inclusive and reflective of our community.   These are two of many examples which need to be addressed.  A truly inclusive community constantly reviews how its  policies and actions  demonstrate a core commitment to equity and inclusion.    Gail Price  Barron Park   Palo Alto       Begin forwarded message:    From: Reimagining the Civic Commons <info@civiccommons.us>  Subject: New Report: Civic Assets for More Equitable Cities  Date: August 10, 2020 at 5:59:22 AM PDT  To: <gail.price3@gmail.com>  Reply-To: Reimagining the Civic Commons <info@civiccommons.us>    31   View this email in your browser       32   How Our Public Spaces Can Build a More Equitable Post-Pandemic World “Public spaces are being revived to build trust and public life, connect people of all backgrounds and bridge social capital, develop more environmentally resilient neighborhoods, and create real economic value for communities.” —Urban Institute, Civic Assets for Equitable Cities, 2020 The United States is at a pivotal moment, and many are calling for bold solutions to mend our socially, economically and politically fragmented union. We have a promising solution for the country: let’s restore the connections between Americans in and through the public spaces we share. Our parks, libraries, trails, and recreational centers have tremendous potential to connect people of all backgrounds, cultivate trust and create more resilient communities. Now is the time to invest in this critical civic infrastructure. A new report from Urban Institute shows us how. This report, which examined Reimagining the 33   Civic Commons efforts in cities across the country, details how thoughtful and intentional investments in the design, operations and programming of our shared public spaces is countering the trends of social isolation, economic inequity, social and racial segregation and mistrust. Civic Assets for More Equitable Cities is a comprehensive look at Reimagining the Civic Commons and our new way of working for cities. The report describes how the emphasis on four outcomes of civic engagement, socioeconomic mixing, environmental sustainability and value creation, paired with a portfolio approach to civic assets yields a shift in how stakeholders lead, govern, manage, and think about civic assets. This ultimately paves the way for more meaningful, potentially lasting community and systems change. Specifically, through this new approach to civic assets cities are moving away from:  siloed leadership practices to more collaborative leadership,  traditional structures and practices to more strategic operations, and  accepting the status quo to adopting an innovation mindset.   READ MORE ON MEDIUM   DOWNLOAD THE REPORT     34       Copyright © 2020 Reimagining the Civic Commons, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in at our website: www.civiccommons.us Our mailing address is: Reimagining the Civic Commons 30 S. 15th Street 15th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list.     36 Baumb, Nelly From:Press strong <pressstrong@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 9, 2020 1:08 AM To:laurie.smith@shf.sccgov.org; laurie.smith@sheriff.sccgov.org; James.Jensen@shf.sccgov.org; James.Jensen@sheriff.sccgov.org; chris@schumb.com; harpaul@nahallaw.com; BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org; gerald.engler@doj.ca.gov; Council, City Cc:David.Anderson@usdoj.gov; Adam.Reeves@usdoj.gov; Stephanie.Hinds@usdoj.gov; Hallie.Hoffman@usdoj.gov; Sara.Winslow@usdoj.gov; stephen.boyd@usdoj.gov; john.moran@usdoj.gov; brian.rabbitt@usdoj.gov; rachel.parker-bissex@usdoj.gov; claire.murray@usdoj.gov; jesse.panuccio@usdoj.gov; john.durham@usdoj.gov; kerri.kupec@usdoj.gov; william.levi@usdoj.gov; will.levi@usdoj.gov; hannah.murphy@mail.house.gov; david.grossman@mail.house.gov; Matthew.McMurray@mail.house.gov; wendell.primus@mail.house.gov; dick.meltzer@mail.house.gov; robert.edmonson@mail.house.gov; Abigail.Grace@mail.house.gov; Sean.Misko@mail.house.gov; Joe.Jankiewicz@mail.house.gov; James.Min@mail.house.gov; Braden.Murphy@mail.house.gov; Trevor.Smith@mail.house.gov; Jilian.Plank@mail.house.gov; Mattheus.Wagner@mail.house.gov; Jack.Langer@mail.house.gov; rjfoley@ap.org; jsekulow@aclj.org; mkasowitz@kasowitz.com; raymond.hulser@usdoj.gov; info@sanjosenaacp.org; asoltani@aclunc.org; btucker@aclunc.org; PFernandez@aclu.org; jnewell@aclu.org; mrisher@aclunc.org; schlosser@aclunc.org; vbenitez@aclunc.org Subject:Rule of Law does not exist in Santa Clara County CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Is the evidence Beyond Reasonable Doubt that DA Jeff Rosen Violated California Penal Code 32 and the United  States Constitution and the Rule of Law when he allowed the Palo Alto Police to destroy and falsify evidence including  video evidence and a crime scene to conceal their crimes while using that false evidence to incriminate a citizen of a  crime?    https://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐7.html   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrA7ehMi0Lg&feature=youtu.be  https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/  37 https://chiefburns.weebly.com/  https://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐5.html  https://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐7.html    Penal Code ‐ PEN  32.  Every person who, after a felony has been committed, harbors, conceals or aids a principal in such  felony, with the intent that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having  knowledge that said principal has committed such felony or has been charged with such felony or convicted thereof, is  an accessory to such felony.      PC 182  (a) If two or more persons conspire:  (1) To commit any crime.  (2) Falsely and maliciously to indict another for any crime, or to procure another to be charged or arrested for any crime. (3) Falsely to move or maintain any suit, action, or proceeding.   (5) To commit any act injurious to the public health, to public morals, or to pervert or obstruct justice, or the due  administration of the laws.            Sheriff Campaign Scandal: 4 Indicted in Concealed Carry ‘Pay to Play' Scheme   Rosen said there were two paths when it came to the issuing of concealed gun permits by the sheriff's office: One for  average citizens and one for campaign donors and VIPs. Whether applicants received a permit depended on which group  they belonged to.  "If you made a campaign donation and if Captain Jensen knew you to be a VIP, then you got special treatment and you  got a CCW license," Rosen said.  "CCW licenses should not be given in exchange for campaign donations," Rosen said. "They should not be for sale."   https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/da‐to‐announce‐results‐of‐grand‐jury‐probe‐into‐sheriffs‐campaign‐ scandal/2340155/      38 DA won’t charge ex‐cop in videotaped beating  Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen will not bring criminal charges against former Palo Alto Sgt. Wayne  Benitez, who was caught on video slamming a resident’s head into the hood of a car.  Sean Webby, a spokesman for Rosen, said Benitez violated victim Gustavo Alvarez’s civil rights, but the statute of  limitations for a misdemeanor case has passed.   “Wayne Benitez violated Mr. Alvarez’s civil rights, and for that, Mr. Alvarez was justly compensated in a separate lawsuit  and Benitez deservedly lost his job,” said Webby. “By those measures, justice has been served.”     https://padailypost.com/2020/06/14/da‐wont‐charge‐ex‐cop‐in‐videotaped‐beating/    DA reconsidering whether to charge retired cop over  videotaped beating  Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen announced today that he is reconsidering his decision not to bring  charges against retired Palo Alto police Sgt. Wayne Benitez, who was caught on video slamming the head of Buena Vista  Mobile Home Park resident Gustavo Alvarez on the hood of a car.  Last week, the DA’s office said it could not bring misdemeanor assault charges against Benitez because the one‐year  statute of limitations had expired since the incident happened on Feb. 17, 2018.  But today DA’s spokesman Sean Webby said Rosen is reconsidering his legal options “after determining, in fact, there is  legal authority that establishes a longer statute for this crime when charged as a misdemeanor.”  “We apologize for the error. And will promptly communicate our decision to the public at the conclusion of our review,”  Webby said, reading from a prepared statement.  https://padailypost.com/2020/06/16/da‐reconsidering‐whether‐to‐charge‐retired‐cop‐for‐videotaped‐beating/                        39 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, August 8, 2020 5:27 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dallen1212 @gmail.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; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Pam Kelly; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Mark Standriff; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; Steve Wayte; dlfranklin0 @outlook.com; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu Subject:Fwd: Good write-up on Infinera. I have it on my spreadsheet. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 5:05 PM  Subject: Fwd: Good write‐up on Infinera. I have it on my spreadsheet.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:47 PM  Subject: Fwd: Good write‐up on Infinera. I have it on my spreadsheet.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 4:20 PM  Subject: Good write‐up on Infinera. I have it on my spreadsheet.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>             Saturday, Aug. 8, 2020                 Fred‐  Here is a good article on your Infinera:    40 https://seekingalpha.com/article/4365930‐infinera‐positive‐q2‐kickstarts‐growth‐ engine?utm_medium=email&utm_source=seeking_alpha&mail_subject=business‐quant‐infinera‐positive‐q2‐kickstarts‐ growth‐engine&utm_campaign=rta‐author‐article&utm_content=link‐1             It is going up, but not like a rocket. It c. at $8.32 yesterday and at $8.96 on Thursday.  It c. at $5.75 on June 24,  2020, so a gain there of 56% from June 24 to Aug. 6, about six weeks. Maybe that does have the quality of a rocket. I  wish my whole portfolio would go up 56% every six weeks. I'd be unlivable if it did.             My silly little Sorrento Therapeutics, SRNE c. Friday at $14.42. a gain of 114% from the $6.73 per share I paid for 200  shares on Friday, May 13, 2020, a span of 86 days. One analyst has a PT of $30 on it.                 The issue jumped a huge amount one day in May when they said they have a cocktail of neutralizing antibodies  that stops the Corona virus cold. That made news, and that is when I bought. About ten days ago they announced that  they have a deal with the Columbia University fertility lab to produce and distribute a 30 minute test for the virus. The  entire test consists of one little vial of chems. No lab equipment needed. No sending the sample off to a lab. It's a 30‐ minute point of treatment test.They take some saliva from your mouth with a little dropper and put it in the vial. Warm  it up and, in 30 minutes, it may change color to yellow. Yellow means you test +. Sorrento is submitting an emergency  use application to the FDA.  Products have to be both safe and effective to get FDA approval. Columbia says it works, so  it is effective. How safe is having someone take a bit of saliva from your mouth with a dropper, like an eye dropper?  Unless you bite down on the dropper and the pieces cut your tongue, it seems that safety is a non‐issue here. The FDA  should insist they take an emergency use authorization and the President should then invoke the DPA, if necessary, to  get huge production going, I think.            My silly little Square,  SQ, c. Friday at $129.93. a gain of 128% from the $57 I paid for it in mid‐March.           Then there is Nvidia,  NVDA, which c. Thursday at $453.42. Big improvement over the $204 per share I paid in mid‐ March with a gain of 122%.            Notice the pattern there. Gains of 114%, 128% and 122% from mid‐March or mid‐May to now.  It shows the big up‐ draft in the market in recent months.             If one goes back to the dark days of April 1, 2020, your Lumentum, LITE, c. at $68.61. It c. last Tues. August 4, 2020  at $95.56, a gain of 39% in a little over four months. 10% per month v. 1% per year in a savings account.  Hard to decide.        Some of the virus stocks can make big news and then seem to fade. I've bought Gilead (GILD)  (Remdesivir),  Thermogenesis (THMO)  (very accurate test), Pfizer (PFE) (promising vaccine), Astrazeneca (AZN) (merely the very  promising Oxford Univ. vaccine),  Moderna (MRNA) (a promising vaccine developed with the NIH now entering a stage 3  trial) and Novavax (NVAX) (promising vaccine), and the investment results are mixed.  GILD, THMO, MRNA and NVAX are  all down from what I paid.  PFE and AZN are higher.  Of course, SRNE is way higher.                  Here is a good piece from July 15, 2020, tax day, about Moderna's vaccine with a discussion by Dr. David Agus at  USC: Note that it produces antibodies and also stimulates the T‐Cells, both of which can disable the virus:               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RV2xlCHPclc               One or more of these meds‐ products  could prove out, and then that stock will probably soar.                L. William Harding           Fresno                   42 Baumb, Nelly From:Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 8, 2020 2:10 AM To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Evictions are blocked by court rule CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The latest article online in the Mountain View Voice reports that employees of non-profit corporations looking for more money are claiming that residential evictions may commence as soon as early next month. Not possible under existing law. Evictions are blocked by the state Judicial Council's emergency rule (No. 1) adopted in early April. The rule will not expire until 90 days after the Governor declares that the Covid-19 emergency is over (or until sooner ended by the Judicial Council). Among other things, the emergency rule precludes court clerks in all 58 counties from issuing a "summons" on an eviction (unlawful detainer) complaint. With no summons to serve, there is no requirement that a defendant file a response to the case. No default can be obtained based on the failure to respond because - without a summons - there is no obligation to respond. Just so you know. Gary Wesley 43 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 7, 2020 8:35 PM To:Honky Subject:WOWSER COMPILATION 9/11 REMEMBER NEVER FORGET CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  9/11 Conspiracy Solved: Names, Connections, & Details Exposed! by AlienScientist Was 9/11 really an Inside Job? After reviewing this documentary, and checking the evidence, I think the answer will be clear to you. http://www.alienscientist.com/911/911%20two%20sides.jpg Special thanks to Michael C. Ruppert, Mark H. Gaffney, and Kevin Ryan for solving the crimes of 9/11 with their amazing research. This video is a compilation of evidence they have uncovered. "Crossing the Rubicon" - The Decline of American Empire at the end of the age of oil http://www.fromthewilderness.com "Black 911" by Mark H. Gaffney: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/05/25/black-911-a-walk-on-the-dark-side- part-3/ Was 9/11 an Inside Job? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20521.htm A guide to 9/11 Whistleblowers http://www.corbettreport.com/articles/20100305_911_whistleblowers.htm Project Hammer http://decryptedmatrix.com/live/bushs-project-hammer/ 44 WTC 6 http://www.whale.to/b/wtc_6_h.html SEC Act Section 12(k)2: http://www.sec.gov/rules/other/34-44791.htm Richard Grove's testimony (complete transcript) http://www.freewebs.com/abigsecret/grove.html "Collateral Damage" by E.P. Heidner http://www.wanttoknow.info/911/Collateral-Damage-911-black_eagle_fund_trust.pdf The CIA's forty-year complicity in the narcotics trade by Alfred W. McCOY http://www.cob.sjsu.edu/facstaff/davis_r/fallout.htm Executive Order 12333 created an agreement between the CIA and Justice Department (DEA) to look the other way on Government Drug Trafficking: http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12333-2008.pdf AIG and Drug Money http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ciadrugs/part_2.html Maurice Greenberg's report for the CFR http://www.fas.org/irp/cfr.html Richard Armitage, Frank Carlucci, Herbert Winokur, and company http://digwithin.net/2012/04/08/911-as-a-sequel-to-iran-contra/ Post 9/11 Promotions: http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/911-incompetence-sabotage- and.html#_edn10 9/11 Gold Theft and other smoking guns: http://911review.org/Wget/Killtown/9_11-Smoking-Guns.html http://killtown.911review.org/oddities.html#February26,1993-WTC_gold Kevin Ryan's landmark article on who had "Demolition access to the WTC Towers": Tenants: http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html Security: http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p2.html Convergence: http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/carlyle_kissinger_saic_halliburton.html Clean Up: http://www.911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html Kevin R. Ryan, et al, Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Center: evidence 45 for energetic materials, The Environmentalist, Volume 29, Number 1 / March, 2009, http://www.springerlink.com/content/f67q6272583h86n4/ Kevin R. Ryan, The Top Ten Connections Between NIST and Nanothermites, Journal of 9/11 Studies, July 2008, http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2008/Ryan_NIST_and_Nano-1.pdf Website for In-Q-Tel, http://www.iqt.org/technology-portfolio/index-by-practice- area.html Wikipedia page for Jerome Hauer, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerome_Hauer Peter Jennings interview with Jerome Hauer, ABC, on 9/11, 14:53, available on You Tube, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dj0Rz9ZsDAg Taku Murakami, US Patent 5532449 - Using plasma ARC and thermite to demolish concrete, http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/5532449/description.html Albert Gibson et al, Integral low-energy thermite igniter, US Patent number: 4464989, http://www.google.com/patents/about?id=rKl1AAAAEBAJ&dq=US+4464989 Michael C. Ruppert, Suppressed Details of Criminal Insider Trading Lead Directly into the CIA's Highest Ranks, October 9, 2001, http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html Kevin R. Ryan, Mahmud Ahmed's itinerary from his Washington DC visit the week of 9/11, 911blogger.com, 11/27/2009, http://www.911blogger.com/node/21978 The agreement between LLNL and Savannah River can be found here - https://www.llnl.gov/str/News597.html Savannah's reference to developing sol-gels can be found here - http://srnl.doe.gov/mat_sci.htm SEC document for Washington pre-payments - http://www.secinfo.com/dRqWm.4G1Vx.c.htm The Ties That Bind, Descended from family business empires, six huge business groups dominate the Japanese economy, Multinational Monitor, October 1983 - http://multinationalmonitor.org/hyper/issues/1983/10/ties.html Securacomm Consulting Inc. v. Securacom Incorporated, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, January 20, 1999, 49 U.S.P.Q.2d 1444; 166 F.3d 182, http://altlaw.org/v1/cases/1099498 Wikipedia page for Stratesec, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratesec 46 SEC filing for Stratesec, May 2, 1997, http://www.secinfo.com/dS7kv.82.htm Kroll Inc website, http://www.kroll.com/about/ 47 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Friday, August 7, 2020 11:57 AM To:Loran Harding; bballpod; David Balakian; Leodies Buchanan; bearwithme1016@att.net; beachrides; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dallen1212@gmail.com; dlfranklin0@outlook.com; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg; hennessy; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Pam Kelly; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; margaret- sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969@att.net Subject:Fwd: Voting in the pandemic era: Fresno and Tulare Co. preparations CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 11:21 AM  Subject: Voting in the pandemic era: Fresno and Tulare Co. preparations  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>               Friday, Aug. 7, 2020             Good article on how voting will be conducted in Fresno and Tulare Cos. in the fall in the middle of a deadly  pandemic:             https://gvwire.com/2020/08/06/election‐challenge‐safe‐accurate‐voting‐in‐pandemic‐ era/?utm_source=Morning+Roundup&utm_campaign=72284f5b29‐ EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2020_08_07_03_21&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_165ffe36b2‐72284f5b29‐ 78450701&mc_cid=72284f5b29&mc_eid=7afa3a94f3                 Last night the network news showed a map of the U.S. where the virus is out of control. Several counties in the  eight‐county San Joaquin Valley of California, including Fresno County, and Portland, Oregon, were shown on the map.  One has to go east as far as Omaha or St. Louis to find counties where the virus is as bad. That's about 1,500 miles east  across the U.S., and from Canada to Mexico, to find a situation as bad as Fresno Co. or Portland, Oregon.  I'm not sure  what they were meassuring. Positivity rates, cases per thousand?              As of yesterday, August 6, 2020, Fresno County had 16,625 cases of Covid19, 353 more than the day before, and  157 deaths so far. Fresno, County has ~ one million people.                When I was grocery shopping in Fresno on Friday, July 31, 2020, there was a man at check‐out ahead of me not  wearing a mask. For a while, that business had a person at the entrance saying masks were mandatory. They have  stopped that. Also, for a while, they set aside 6 AM to 7:30 AM for seniors and first responders only to shop there two  days per week. They have ended that.     49 Baumb, Nelly From:Julie Griffin <julieannegriffin@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 7, 2020 9:37 AM 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.  Dear Palo Alto City Council,     Thank you for your consideration of the matter of accessibility to Foothills Park. I am writing to urge you to open the  park to all citizens, whether they are residents or not.     By opening Foothills Park to the wider community, you have an opportunity to make a significant positive impact to the  health of the surrounding communities. Here are some reasons why:    Foothills Park trails have been well‐designed and built, and provide excellent opportunities for recreation, exercise,  observing nature up‐close and a break from the densely populated residential areas. Everyone in this region deserves to  access them. Their excellent design means that they provide a great way for socially distant exercise and socializing  (gentle gradients, extensive trail network, single‐tracks that provide up‐close viewing of nature) and appear to me to be  resilient to erosion from additional users.    There are a myriad of benefits that you should consider for opening Foothills Park, here are just a few:   Opening Foothills Park would contribute to increased human health and well‐being for the Bay Area community  ‐ and as Covid‐19 has shown us, health is a community problem. The more people from more  different communities that stay healthy, the better for everyone.   At the present time, exercising and socializing in open spaces is one of the healthiest ways for people to  maintain physical and emotional health while protecting themselves and others from Covid‐19. If anything, we  need more open space and trail access now than ever.   As more people experience nature, particularly by hiking on single‐track trails where they are up close to nature  and have more encounters with wild plants and animals, the more they become champions for protecting open  space, creating healthy ecosystems, and general care for their surroundings.   Foothills Park specifically is one of the closest open space areas that would allow these benefits, and has  therefore an especially high potential to deliver these benefits to many people.  In addition to benefits to opening Foothills Park access to all, there are important rights issues and conservation access  issues. Conservation has an unfortunate history and lasting reputation of 'fence and exclude' ‐ the idea that humans  must be removed from a natural area to protect it. Not only has this been proven to be an ineffective strategy, it has  disproportionately affected marginalized and minority communities. Right now, Covid‐19 is also disproportionately  affecting people of color ‐ all the more reason to add Foothills Park to the areas available to help increase the  opportunities for access to nature, and safe recreation and exercise.    In Urban protected areas : profiles and best practice guidelines, published by the IUCN World Commission on Protected  Areas, the first best practice guidelines is "Provide access for all; reach out to diverse ethnic groups and the  underprivileged". IUCN is the world's oldest and largest network of conservation organizations.     50 I sincerely hope you will open the park to all. When you do, I see three elements that will be particularly important to  make it a success:   1. Communication: make sure everyone knows it is open. Don't hide it. If it is perceived as closed it will only be a  partial success. Also make sure Palo Alto residents understand the rationale for opening it, and how any  perceived risks will be mitigated.  2. Environmental awareness: increased visitation to a natural reserve may have negative effects if poorly managed.  Learn from other open space managers about the most effective signage, ranger engagement with visitors, and  environmental education and apply these.  3. Co‐create an inclusive outreach strategy. At a minimum, marketing and communications about the park and on‐ site signage should be bilingual. However, as a white person I am not in a position to say what will make this  open space feel welcoming to people of color. The sense of belonging and welcome to parks is nuanced and  cannot be guessed at ‐ therefore a process of co‐creating a strategy for communication, education, access and  safety (emotional safety, environmental safety for people and wildlife, and Covid‐19 safety) will be key. Again,  the IUCN guidelines linked above provide excellent guidance.  I hope you will take this chance to make a lasting and memorable positive impact on the health of our communities.    Sincerely,  Julie Griffin  Project Manager, Hadly Lab, Biology Department, Stanford University  Member of the IUCN Commission on Education and Communication  San Mateo County resident 1983‐1997 and 2019‐present     51 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 6, 2020 11:00 PM To:honkystar@yahoo.com Subject:[ParanoidTimes] ALERT! NYC FULL LOCKDOWN!! FORCED CHECKPOINTS & IMPRISONMENT!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  ALERT! NYC FULL LOCKDOWN!! FORCED CHECKPOINTS & IMPRISONMENT!! https://youtu.be/9fYMXxfjHqE My dear friends in the USA, The moderator of this video is 100% right. One hundred thousand at least Germans in Berlin demonstrated against masks and social distancing. If you allow the government to continue instead of push back, the government will railroad you right into the FEMA camps. The government is trying to starve you by eliminating food from being produced from what I understand. Don't allow this. Send this to everyone you know. God bless you all, Arlene ==== NYC to Set Up Checkpoints to Enforce Quarantine Order https://www.wsj.com/articles/coronavirus-latest-news-08-05-2020-11596615261 -- NYC sheriff to set up quarantine checkpoints at crossings into city https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyc-sheriff-to-set-up-quarantine-checkpoints-at-crossings-into-city -- NYC Setting Up Quarantine Checkpoints For Travelers From COVID-19 Hot Spots https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/08/05/899337278/nyc-setting-up-quarantine-checkpoints-for-travelers-from-covid-19-hotspots __._,_.___ Posted by: || <smacko9@comcast.net> Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (1) 52 ============================================== IF YOU ARE NOT PARANOID, THEN YOU ARE NOT PAYING ATTENTION! ============================================== To Post: ParanoidTimes@yahoogroups.com Home Page: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/ParanoidTimes/info Subscribe: ParanoidTimes-subscribe@yahoogroups.com ================================================== NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ================================================== VISIT YOUR GROUP • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use . __,_._,___ 53 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Ann Young <mayoung632@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 6, 2020 4:11 PM To:Office of the CIO; Council, City Subject:Utilities login CPAU CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I have lived in Palo Alto for 50 Years and I have been pleased with the login process of the City of Palo Alto Utilities to  check my accounts.The ease of pulling up both my accounts was pleasantly easy and quick.  Now the CPAU  changed the  login and account information process and it became redundant, time consuming and plainly inefficient.  I have 2 City of  Palo Alto Utilities accounts and before, this unnecessary change, I was able to use one email address, one password and  bring up both accounts on one page.  Simple, easy and logical.     However, when you changed to the new "and improved" system you have eliminated the process of viewing both  accounts at the same time with one password and one username. Now it is  a severe headache to login and bring up the 2 accounts on one page.      Now I have to use 2 totally different emails, 2 totally different passwords to visit my accounts one at a time!   Please  inform me as to how this improves the availability of my 2 accounts.  I only have 2, what in the world do people do when  they have multiple accounts!      It is a fast and busy world in Silicon Valley and this system is just ridiculous. I'm composing this email after spending 45  minutes trying to figure it out and calling the utilities department 2 times.     The staff was very supportive but it was still so unnecessary to make these changes. I know if there was a way to view  the accounts with one username and password, they would have let me know.  Hopefully I'm missing something, I hope  so.    Mary Ann Young  667 Tennyson Avenue  Palo Alto, CA 94301  54 Baumb, Nelly From:Micheline Horstmeyer <mhorst1950@hotmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 6, 2020 1:47 PM To:Council, City; letters@padailypost.com Subject:Opening Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Last time I checked, we live in a representative democracy.  The city councilmen and women of Palo Alto  represent the views of the citizens who voted them into office.    I suspect that if we put the issue of opening Foothills Park to a citywide vote, the citizens who bought the park  (after others refused to join them in the purchase), paid for improvements, and maintained the park for  decades will vote to keep the park closed to non‐residents.  This is an economic, legal, and ultimately a  political issue.  Have the residents of Palo Alto vote on it.    If Mayor Fine wants to instruct the residents of Palo Alto on ethical behavior vis‐a‐vis Foothills Park, I suggest  he direct his energies to a ministry of his choice.  In that setting, he is free to lecture his audience about ethics  and civil rights.    Sincerely,    Bob and Micheline Horstmeyer  55 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, August 5, 2020 11:31 PM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; bballpod; David Balakian; Leodies Buchanan; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; boardmembers; paul.caprioglio; Council, City; Cathy Lewis; Chris Field; Doug Vagim; dennisbalakian; Dan Richard; dallen1212@gmail.com; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Mark Kreutzer; Pam Kelly; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; tsheehan; terry; vallesR1969 @att.net; yicui@stanford.edu; Daniel Zack Subject:Fwd: Tues. Aug. 4, 2020- Amanpour- Dr. Francis Collins, Dir. NIH: Slow test results CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 11:18 PM  Subject: Fwd: Tues. Aug. 4, 2020‐ Amanpour‐ Dr. Francis Collins, Dir. NIH: Slow test results  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 11:09 PM  Subject: Fwd: Tues. Aug. 4, 2020‐ Amanpour‐ Dr. Francis Collins, Dir. NIH: Slow test results  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:56 PM  Subject: Fwd: Tues. Aug. 4, 2020‐ Amanpour‐ Dr. Francis Collins, Dir. NIH: Slow test results  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 10:17 PM  56 Subject: Fwd: Tues. Aug. 4, 2020‐ Amanpour‐ Dr. Francis Collins, Dir. NIH: Slow test results  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Aug 5, 2020 at 9:45 PM  Subject: Tues. Aug. 4, 2020‐ Amanpour‐ Dr. Francis Collins, Dir. NIH: Slow test results  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>                 Wednesday, August 5, 2020               Here is an interview of last night with Dr. Francis Collins, Dir. of NIH, discussing vaccines for Covid19, testing,  therapeutics, etc.                   At 10:33 here, he says "We do have a serious testing issue right now with the slow turnaround.... We need point  of care testing where you can get the answer right away".  He is also widely quoted saying here that "We have a tough  several months ahead".                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AzbTvUXsedg             Sorrento Therapeutics,  SRNE, of which I own 200 shares, is in the news wanting to scale and deploy a fast Covid  saliva test developed by fertility researchers at Columbia University. It gives a result in 30 minutes. Mix a small amount  of saliva with some chems in a test tube and in 30 minutes the color indicates + or ‐ for Corona virus. Red color changing  to yellow means positive.  97% accurate for false negatives and 100% accurate re false positives. No lab equipment  needed. The test is all contained in one test tube. SRNE is calling the test COVI‐TRACE. Isn't that the fast, point of care  test we need? Here is an article about it:                https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/sorrento‐picks‐up‐color‐changing‐covid‐19‐saliva‐test‐built‐by‐ columbia‐university                    Sorrento was saying in May that they have a cocktail of antibody treatments that "stops the virus cold", and  that could be in a phase 1 clinical trial before October, 2020. That could be a treatment or a preventative. I bought 200  shares of SRNE on May 13, 2020, some 84 days ago, for $6.73 per share. It closed today at $13.785 per share, up 105% in  84 days.  It was as low as $7.75 a share as recently as a week ago today. Since then it has taken off with daily gains of  10.32%, 4.33%, 9.53%, 31.42%, and today's 7.36%. Such easy money in the market makes me feel guilty, of course, but  it's for a good cause.                 Maybe this saliva test warrants invoking the DPA, if necessary, to get it widely available. I hope that the FDA will  look at the Sorrento‐Columbia University saliva test and see if its production can and should be ramped up fast. If  invoking the DPA is needed to make the test widely available and soon, it should be done. Chairman Henry Ji of Sorrento  says that they will seek emergency use authorizaton from the FDA.            Here is an interview with Dr. Henry Ji, CEO of SRNE, discussing the saliva test.  Re price, he mentioned a couple of  times that it could be the cost of a "copy" I thought. No, he said the cost of a couple of coffees!. Later he said maybe $10  per test. Consider that the current slow, and unpleasant, test costs something, maybe $10. When we spend $2 billion  per day to defend the whole world, we can afford of lot of this test.      57           https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/08/04/sorrento‐therapeutics‐on‐the‐companys‐covid‐19‐saliva‐test.html                Good results reported with the vaccine by Novavax   NVAX.  It soared overnight last night, so I put in a limit order.  Got some when the mkt opened today.               https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwJXLcXmrgttDXcnZcXJDfPjhxD                               LH  58 Baumb, Nelly From:Lori wainen linberg <loriwainenlinberg@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 5, 2020 12:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Stop The Brown Out of College Park Fire Department CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members,    I am very concerned about this decision, please reconsider. This is a sad commentary of how the wealthy city of Palo  Alto cares for their essential workers and citizens.  When they need you, they want you to risk your lives, and then this?   It is seriously unsafe, as we are in a pandemic and it is fire season.  These essential workers risk their lives to save our  homes, businesses and loved ones, we need a full force now more than ever, treated with the care and respect they and  the citizens of Palo Alto deserve.  In the event of an emergency in one area, we rely on each station and you need to end  the brown out.  You are risking the safety of too many and disrespecting the work our Firefighters and Paramedics do.   Are you going to respond if we need help and cover these services needed?  If not, you should consider that you and  your decisions should be held responsible for anything that might happens due to your inaction.    Change the plan now, please.    Sincerely,    Lori Wainen‐Linberg        Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 6, 2020 1:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:The Daily Average Foothill Visitor Count is 416 to 474 Attachments:Foothill_averagedailyuse.xlsx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council:     The attached spreadsheet calculates the average occupancy  of Foothills Preserve from the statistics that were presented to   you by the PRC on 3 Aug.  From these statistics,  the average daily occupancy is between 416 and 472,   depending on whether you calculate it from the Annual Use figure  of 152,000 per year of from the monthly breakdown.    POINT:    This is the usage that maintains the preserve in its CURRENT CONDITION.  Any additional usage will degrade it.  The current 1000 maximum is NOT USEFUL in making any decision.  The Preserve has not contained that many people for over 20 years.    You approved  up to 50 additional cars (approx. 135 people)   per day for the Pilot Study.    This increases the visitor count by  28% to 32%.    If this scenario comes to pass, the impact on Foothills will be significant !!!!  How much degradation are you willing to accept?  How about asking your constituents?    I ask that you reconsider the maximum number of additional cars allowed.  Please reduce it to about 10 (which would mean increased usage of 5%).    Carlin Otto  Foothills Preserve Stats Total Daily Ave 20 Year Annual Total 152000 416 2019 Mem Day Weekend 729 365 2nd Weekend aft Mem Day 931 466 3rd 1398 699 4th 700 350 5th 622 311 6th 1025 513 7th 739 370 8th 787 394 June 11040 368 July 11731 378 2013 Mem Day Weekend 1017 509 2nd Weekend aft Mem Day 763 382 3rd 1224 612 4th 1081 541 5th 561 281 6th 937 469 7th 1121 561 8th 1178 589 June 7360 245 July 7593 245 2011 Mem Day Weekend 1447 724 2nd Weekend aft Mem Day 1261 631 3rd 1041 521 4th 907 454 5th 1041 521 6th 907 454 7th 811 406 8th 940 470 June 24459 815 July 18413 594 103764 474 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Tom Shannon <tshannon2@cs.com> Sent:Friday, August 7, 2020 2:40 PM To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:akcooper@pacbell.net; carlab@cb-pr.com; mcleod.bruce@gmail.com; Tom Shannon Subject:Castilleja Alternative Plan - Neighbors may have a solution Attachments:Castilleja Alternative Plan - Draft 8.04.2020.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To members of Palo Alto's ARB, PTC and City Council: Attached for your review and study is a new alternative plan to Castilleja's current proposed plan. This new plan was developed by myself, a neighbor of the school, in collaboration with other nearby residents (copied on this email). As you know, the school’s current plans are meeting with considerable resistance from the broader neighborhood, and its recent FEIR contains multiple “significant and unavoidable impacts” to the city and environs. When compared to Castilleja's current plan, we think this plan is orders of magnitude more favorable to all stakeholders - Castilleja, the neighborhood, City, bicyclists, Palo Alto students commuting to Walter Hayes, Greene Middle or Palo Alto High School, cars, traffic and all surrounding residents. Advantages of this alternative plan: it dramatically improves bicycle safety on the Bryant Street bike corridor, it greatly enhances the future possibility of using Kellogg as a safer bike corridor to Palo Alto High School, it relieves all car congestion traffic and parking on all the surrounding neighborhood streets, it eliminates the garage entrance or exit off of public streets and it could actually improve traffic flow on Embarcadero. We hope you agree this approach has significant merit, and could deliver a win-win outcome for this thorny issue. We welcome your study, review and comments. Tom Shannon – 256 Kellogg Ave. Alan Cooper – 270 Kellogg Ave. Carla Befera – 1404 Bryant St. Bruce McLeod – 1404 Bryant St August 4, 2020 Alternative plan to Castilleja’s proposed plan: The following alternative plan we propose has the ultimate goal of mitigating the extreme traffic environmental impacts stated in the FEIR and thereby benefiting the City, Castilleja, the neighborhood and bicycle riders. The plan is to create a “Castilleja Educational Village” with traffic flow into and out of the Village from Embarcadero. Plan Benefits - Immediate: The plan would dramatically improve bike safety along the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard adjacent to Castilleja by eliminating the interaction of cars with bicycles and pedestrians. The plan enhances Castilleja’s concept of preserving their historic presence and permits them to grow in a unified and self-contained 6 acre educational village, while being a congenial neighbor without adding massive traffic and parking issues. The plan leads to better traffic management, not more traffic, on Embarcadero Road, and would enhance safety for bicyclists and pedestrians crossing Embarcadero Road along Bryant Street. Implementation Plan: All of these benefits can readily and realistically be achieved with minimal adjustment to existing development plans by Castilleja and the City (e.g. future high speed rail). Castilleja: 1.Castilleja would adjust their design to incorporate a historic "Castilleja Gate” (i.e.similar to UC Berkeley’s Sather Gate) along Embarcadero Road thru which allCastilleja traffic would ingress and egress its Educational Village.2.Traffic entering the Village could be routed along an internal, extensive queueaccess route to accommodate cars and student drop-off/pick-up and give access toVillage parking. This can be done without any back-up of cars on Embarcadero.3.Parking in the Village could be accommodated in the current underground garageand potentially a larger underground garage under the Circle (new).4.Castilleja would revamp their design to eliminate entry to the Village fromsurrounding streets, thereby providing added space for buildings and campusactivities. City: 1.The City would close both sides of the Bryant Street intersection at Embarcadero toall cars, and would install a limited traffic signal at the current intersection. Onlybikes, pedestrians and emergency vehicles could cross Embarcadero along BryantStreet by using this on-demand triggered signal.2.A controlled signal would be installed at the “Castilleja Gate" entrance. This wouldbecome the dominant signal on Embarcadero between Waverley and Emerson.Streets.3.Additional speed control signage/monitoring would be put along Embarcadero toenhance safety at the Castilleja Gate intersection. August 4, 2020 Plan Benefits – Long term: 1.Improved quality of life: The plan would dramatically reduce traffic through theneighborhoods surrounding Castilleja thereby greatly enhancing quality of life inthese neighborhoods (compared to traffic in pre-Covid times and FEIRpredictions). Neighbors would not endure the projected 1000+ car trips/day alongwith shuttles and busses for Castilleja’s student pick-ups, drop-offs, faculty, staff,visitors and student trips, and daily garbage-truck pickups and 16-18 wheel truckdeliveries.2.Enhanced bicycle safety: The plan provides greater bike safety near Castilleja byeliminating the interaction of cars and bicycles at Bryant and Embarcadero. This isconsistent with the City’s stated goal of limiting traffic on the Bryant BicycleBoulevard. And, because residential streets would not be needed to access theCastilleja Village, this would dramatically improve bike safety on Emerson, Bryantand Kellogg streets3.Greater Castilleja autonomy: The plan would provide Castilleja greater flexibilityin their design, scheduling and handling of Village buildings, activities and events,with all Castilleja traffic flow and parking within the Village.4.Greater Embarcadero Traffic Safety: The plan would provide greater control oftraffic and safety for students and bicycles in the area around Castilleja with twoon demand signals. Traffic would flow more uniformly because signals would onlybe activated when needed. The Castilleja internal access road would be longenough to queue all student drop-offs and pick-ups to prevent back-up ontoEmbarcadero. Added Bonuses: 1.Bike safety improved for Palo Alto HS students: If the Alma bicycle crossing ismoved from Churchill Ave. to Kellogg Avenue with high speed rail, then thisKellogg underpass/interchange would dramatically improve bicycle safety, if thereis no Castilleja traffic on Kellogg Ave.2.Future Castilleja traffic impediments removed:The Churchill/Embarcadero/Caltrain High Speed Rail dilemma is currently understudy. By containing all of Castilleja’s traffic to its Village entrance on Embarcaderoand keeping car traffic within the boundaries of its campus, this plan wouldremove any future impediment that Castilleja’s traffic might have on the finaloutcome of resolving the Churchill/Embarcadero/Caltrain/High Speed Railconflicts.The attached diagram illustrates one possible surface traffic flow diagram for the Castilleja Educational Village, based on the current Castilleja plan drawings. Other flow patterns are possible. Thank you for your time and attention in considering this alternative. Tom Shannon - 256 Kellogg Ave.Alan Cooper - 270 Kellogg Ave.Carla Befera - 1404 Bryant St.Bruce McLeod - 1404 Bryant St. Red line shows one traffic flow possibility (i.e. like Sather Gate at US Berkeley) 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Atkinson, Rebecca Sent:Tuesday, August 11, 2020 2:15 PM To:info@bayareametro.gov; Fred Castro; Regional Housing Need Allocation; rhna@TheCivicEdge.com Cc:French, Amy; Klicheva, Madina; Council, City; Shikada, Ed; Lait, Jonathan; Tanner, Rachael Subject:RHNA Methodology Options - Comment Letter - City of Palo Alto - August Agenda Item 5a Attachments:RHNA Methodology Options Letter 081120 Signed.pdf Dear Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) Members, ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation Staff, and Fred  Castro, Clerk of the Board, Association of Bay Area Governments,     Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the RHNA Methodology Options under consideration by the HMC.     Our City Council voted on 8/10/20 for our City Manager to submit the attached comment letter for your consideration.  The comment letter pertains to Item 5a on your August HMC agenda and reflects review of materials through July 2020.    Regards,     Rebecca          Rebecca Atkinson, PMP, AICP, LEED Green Associate | Planner   Planning & Development Services Department   250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301 T: 650.329.2596 | F: 650.329.2154 |E: rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org   Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code   Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped        Date: August 11, 2020 Housing Methodology Committee (HMC) Members, info@bayareametro.gov ABAG Regional Housing Needs Allocation Staff, RHNA@bayareametro.gov Fred Castro, Clerk of the Board, Association of Bay Area Governments, fcastro@bayareametro.gov Re: City of Palo Alto Initial Comments on 6th Cycle RHNA Methodology Options Thank you, Committee members, for your time, expertise and commitment to designing a methodology that fairly distributes housing in our region. Based upon the review of materials through July 2020, the City of Palo Alto requests that the Housing Methodology Committee recommend use of the 2019 existing households as a baseline allocation for the RHNA methodology and continue its review of an appropriate mix of weighted factors using up to a 150% Income Shift multiplier to distribute new housing units across the region. The alternative baseline approach being considered by the Committee is unattainable for some Bay Area jurisdictions and the imposition of this standard ensures some communities will dramatically fail to meet their housing obligation. While those communities will need to contend with that result, including implications associated with SB35, the risk is also that the region as a whole will produce far less housing than it otherwise could achieve. Plan Bay Area 2050 is a long range plan that requires significant economic investment and an extraordinary amount of regional policy collaboration to implement its vision. Building a methodology today that is actionable over the next eight years and relies on an idealized model depicting a regional housing distribution thirty years from now ignores the reality that the infrastructure, funding and local regulatory framework is simply not yet present to achieve this goal. Palo Alto supports the regional efforts of Plan Bay Area 2050 and commends agency leadership and staff for their tireless work to create a framework for our future. Palo Alto is a partner in this endeavor and recognizes its role to stimulate more housing – especially more equitable and inclusive housing for all. At the same time, Palo Alto cannot reasonably be expected to increase its housing supply by more than 50% over the next eight years, as would be required under some early modeling results that use the Draft Blueprint as a baseline. DocuSign Envelope ID: BE9F7361-B4A4-4098-A7F9-6F9A48CC5139 There will be three and a half regional housing need cycles before the region meets the horizon year of Plan Bay Area 2050. It is imperative that the RHNA methodology be used to shift local policies toward a more inclusive and better balanced future to achieve housing equity and environmental goals. This RHNA methodology needs to bridge where we are today as a region with where we want to go tomorrow. Using the 2019 existing households as a baseline reflects where we are today, shares the responsibility for adding more housing units throughout the region and is consistent with, but not dependent upon Plan Bay Area 2050. Moreover, weighted factors can be used that stretch communities toward our housing, transportation and environmental goals. Thank you for your consideration, Ed Shikada, City Manager DocuSign Envelope ID: BE9F7361-B4A4-4098-A7F9-6F9A48CC5139 5 Baumb, Nelly From:carlin otto <carlinotto@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 12, 2020 9:10 AM To:Council, City; cma_neighborhood@googlegroups.com Subject:Pearson-Arastradero Nature Preserve Attachments:ArastraderoPreserveReport.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto City Council:       Pearson‐Arastradero Nature Preserve is overused and abused. There are almost no places left where  wildlife can hang out or where a visitor can view wildlife (except birds). In many of the places where  official trails have tried to allow large buffer zones, illegal visitor‐cut trails have encroached (abuse). All  the trails that I walked are too wide; some by design in order to accommodate large numbers of  people and bikes (overuse), and others are widened by spillover from traffic that has chosen not to use  the official part of the trail (abuse). All of the trails that I walked are over engineered (graveled and  leveled) in order to protect the land from erosion by large numbers of bikes and feet (overuse), or,  when not graveled, are heavily eroded.  I did not find any of these trails enjoyable for walking / hiking  and viewing of nature. They did have spectacular views of the wider Bay Area. If this property were a  “MOUNTAIN BIKE PARK” the condition would be excellent. If it were a “CITY PARK”, it would be  mediocre. As a “PRESERVE” its condition is horrendous. Since this property is no longer a nature  preserve in any sense of that word, maybe you should rename it and define a different set of goals for  this property.    Attached are photographs of some of the overuse and abuse that I observed during a recent walk on a  couple of the trails in this property.    Carlin Otto  231 Whitclem Court  Palo Alto     Report of a Walk on Some Trails at Pearson-Arastradero Nature Preserve 10 Aug 2020, 2:00 - 3:30 pm 1. 16 cars in the parking lot on Arastradero. 2. Encounters with humans during the hike: Man + woman in 30s 2 Hiking Man + woman in 50s 2 Hiking Man + 3 children 3 Hiking Man in 40s 1 Biking Teenage girl 1 Biking No helmet; far off trail Man + 2 boys 3 Biking No helmets Man in 70s 1 Hiking Woman in 60s + dog 1 Hiking Dog off leash near lake Man, woman, 2 children, dog 4 Hiking Dog on 15-foot leash, often far off trail Man in 20s 1 Biking 3. Photos of damaged areas. New trails created by visitors: Official trails widened by overuse: 4. SUMMARY (My Opinion) Pearson-Arastradero Preserve is overused and abused. There are almost no places left where wildlife can hang out or where a visitor can view wildlife (except birds). In many of the places where official trails have tried to allow large buffer zones, illegal visitor-cut trails have encroached (abuse). All the trails that I walked are too wide; some by design in order to accommodate large numbers of people and bikes (overuse), and others are widened by spillover from traffic that has chosen not to use the official part of the trail (abuse). All of the trails that I walked are over engineered (graveled and leveled) in order to protect the land from erosion by large numbers of bikes and feet (overuse), or, when not graveled, are heavily eroded. I did not find any of these trails enjoyable for walking / hiking and viewing of nature. They did have spectacular views of the wider Bay Area. If this property were a “MOUNTAIN BIKE PARK” the condition would be excellent. If it were a “CITY PARK”, it would be mediocre. As a “PRESERVE” its condition is horrendous. Since this property is no longer a nature preserve in any sense of that word, maybe you should rename it and define a different set of goals for this property. URGENT: time is of the essence, please take care of this TODAY RETURN THIS CARD TO: the large, black, metal mailbox in the carport at 231 Whitclem Court, Palo Alto, CA 94306. It will be delivered to the City Council. oR MAIL THE cARD To: z 1 =01 wv L-snv oz City of Palo Alto, City Council, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 331.:1.:10 S.>W31J AJIJ VJ '0!1V 01\td :W J.!13 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 I! Today's date (printed): __ 1 _/_..z_r_,/_2._o_z_o ________ _ My name (printed): X \AN I~ YAAJ My address (printed): 4~2 WI( ~1~ WVVJ My signature: ~-zs