Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20200831plCC 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: 08/31/2020 Document dates: 08/12/2020 – 08/19/2020 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Penny Proctor <plumbago1927@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Save 300 year old Oak at 2353 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,    This 300+ year old Oak is a treasure. It is protected, or is supposed to be. If this tree is allowed to be removed  for a huge  basement, then all of our protected trees in Palo Alto are at risk!    My understanding is that the new owners have approval for a large 2 story house, and want a 2000 square foot  basement in addition, even though it would kill the Oak, and they want to remove the protected Oak. A smaller, less  deep basement would likely spare the tree.    Please protect one of the oldest, most beautiful trees in Palo Alto! And please keep the rest Palo Alto's protected trees  actually protected.    Penny Proctor  Greer Road      2 Baumb, Nelly From:marty s <buckabestma@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please save the oak tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I do not live in the neighborhood- However, I know the tree and I assume you do too inasmuch as Palo Alto is named after a tree. Why in this world, or any, would you allow for the slow death of a three hundred year old tree? Margaret Simmons 2910 Waverley Street Palo Alto, California 94306 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Carla Carvalho <ccarvalho98@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:45 PM To:Council, City Subject:Historic Oak on Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,    I am writing regarding the potential removal of the Valley Oak from 2353 Webster. I have been presented with  various aspects of the Code, of which I was previously unfamiliar. It's pretty clear that there is a strong case in  8.10.050 (b) of the code to support maintaining this tree.    Yes, there are nuances of code to debate, but I also call on your sense of environmental stewardship  when voting tonight to preserve this tree.     Your decision tonight, while specifically about 2353 Webster, is very important because it will also affect other  homeowners when they consider the environmental and historical impact of their future construction.    Sincerely,  Carla Carvalho  1924 Edgewood Drive  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Julie Tomasz <julika99@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please save the oak tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please do not allow the Webster Ave. construction to harm the 300‐year old oak tree. The City of Palo Alto was literally  named for a tree—it would be a terrible precedent on many levels to allow this to pass.    Respectfully, and with thanks,  Julie  5 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Feuer <portulaca24@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:38 PM To:Council, City Subject:Webster St. Oak CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Mayor Fine and Members of the Council,     Please stand up for what you believe in: don't allow  developers to destroy the magnificent Webster St.  oak.    Thank you,  Margaret Feuer  1310 University  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Wendy Crowder <wcrowder@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:30 PM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster St proposed tree removal CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  If this protected tree is allowed to be removed, all of the protected trees in Palo Alto are at risk! This is a PROTECTED tree. And that means protected. Please do not allow these homeowners to remove this magnificent old oak. It is possible for them to build a perfectly acceptable house without damage to the tree and its root system. Please see also the letter from Karen Holman. Thank you. Wendy Crowder 1336 Webster St. 7 Baumb, Nelly From:julianneasla@sonic.net Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster - Oak Tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To Mayor Adrian Fine and the City Council, We were fortunate to be able to buy a house in Palo Alto in 1996. We felt fortunate to become part of a community made beautiful in large part because of the grand street trees, and the stately heritage Oaks scattered throughout town. We inherited one of those Oaks at 1175 Channing Avenue. It is upsetting to me as a landscape architect to think that there are architects who lack the interest and imagination to save and feature a heritage Oak that they and the future property owners have been gifted. And yet this appears to be happening at 2353 Webster. The City Council should act to save this heritage Oak. No one property owner should be allowed to kill such a magnificent tree. Thank you Julianne Frizzell Julianne Adams Frizzell / ASLA 650-325-0905 julianneasla@sonic.net     The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been mov ed, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.   Virus-free. www.avg.com   8 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol Kiparsky <ckiparsky@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:09 PM To:Council, City Cc:Ian Irwin 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.  We realize that the usual practice is to send email several days in advance of the meeting where the topic will be  discussed.  However, this issue, the Webster St oak, only recently came to our attention and we strongly urge you to  make an exception and include relevant emails as there are many residents who are very concerned about it.     Carol Kiparsky and Ian Irwin        On Aug 17, 2020, at 1:59 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.     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.    9 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol Kiparsky <ckiparsky@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 1:59 PM To:Council, City Cc:Ian Irwin Subject:Save the heritage oak at 2353 Webster!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Councilpersons,    This evening Palo Alto City Council will decide the fate of a heritage Oak, which some people in the Development  Department apparently consider less valuable than a large basement, or than the interests of a presumably influential  property owner.     We hope that you, our elected officials, will have a different view.    The Development Department has approved the construction of a two story house with a large, deep basement at 2353  Webster.  Neighbors are courageously appealing this approval because the basement and the de‐watering needed for its  construction would endanger a 300 year old Valley Oak on the property.  The approval document includes this verbiage:   "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 other words, “property rights” reign over the right of a tree to live, and over the rights of residents to the benefits that such a tree bestows upon the environment which we all share, not to mention the role of trees in providing clean air for us to breathe and, so vitally, in slowing climate change.     (for details visit: https://savepaloaltosgroundwater.org/construction-dewatering-threatening-300-year-old- oak-council-hearing-monday-8-10/#comment-8623 ) We are counting on you, so please vote with your constituents not with influential property owners.   Vote to save the  oak.      Respectfully,    Carol Kiparsky and Ian Irwin  800 Cowper St, Palo Alto      10 Baumb, Nelly From:Phyllis Sherlock <phyllissherlock2@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 12:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Tree removal at 5383 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  For heavens sake do NOT allow removal of this beautiful, old ,healthy   Oak tree   11 Baumb, Nelly From:Beth Guislin <beth.guislin@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 12:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:Save the heritage oak tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Our ground water is precious. The trees need the water, and the trees provide shade to cool houses, provide homes for  the birds, and enhance Palo Alto's beauty.     Please do not approve underground water removal for 2353 Webster. This protected tree is an integral and essential  part of the neighborhood, and spans 4 lots. It is irreplaceable, and therefore any approval of the project must absolutely  protect this tree, as required by PAMC 8.10.050 (b).     Thank you.    Beth Guislin  Middlefield Rd.    12 Baumb, Nelly From:Casey Cameron <alt.caseyc@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 10:36 AM To:Council, City Subject:I oppose the basement construction at 2353 Webster 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 oppose the proposal to build a deep basement under 2353 Webster that  will endanger the groundwater supply for the heritage oak on the  property. Trees save energy and cool the air ‐‐ they play a huge role in  preserving our ecosystem!    Thank you for your consideration,  Casey Cameron  13 Baumb, Nelly From:Alex Scully <alexscully.design@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 8:07 AM To:Council, City Subject:300+ year old oak threatened by basement construction. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi! I’ve lived in Palo Alto area for the past 10 years and I’m incredibly disheartened to see local government placing  value on an an individual’s basement  rather than an invaluable, 300 year old oak tree we all benefit from.     I do not approve.     All the best,    Alex     ‐‐   Alex Scully | LinkedIn   The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.   14 Baumb, Nelly From:Peter Himes <peterhimes@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 6:49 AM To:Council, City Subject:City Council Hearing on 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I am writing in support of the call to revoke or suspend the building permit for 2323 Webster because of the real and  substantial risk of damage or death of the protected oak tree on the property due to the basement drilling. I am also  writing to object to the council’s decision to apparently overlook the hidden intention to turn a single family residence  zoned property into a multi‐dwelling unit. I call on the council to act responsibly on behalf of the town, its  neighborhoods, and its valued living assets.    Respectfully    Peter Himes  2302 Webster St  Palo Alto  15 Baumb, Nelly From:Barbara Jackson <bb9@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, August 16, 2020 11:50 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.  To members of the City Council, I would like to say that I think that an old oak tree is more important than someone having a home with a deep basement. Our underground water and large trees seem like items we would like to preserve for the area more than have homes with basements. It is obviously possible to build a home without a basement. I hope that you Council members will take into consideration the importance of our lovely trees in Palo Alto and also think about the importance of NOT depleting our groundwater anymore than absolutely necessary. I realize the groundwater isn't just a Palo Alto issue, but we should surely be doing our part, here in Palo Alto, of trying to preserve what we have. Thank you for your consideration of these two important issues and grant the prospective home owner a permit that will be as environmentally friendly as possible. Sincerely yours, Barbara Jackson, a long-time Palo Alto resident 16 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol Hubenthal <carolhubenthal@mac.com> Sent:Sunday, August 16, 2020 8:08 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 Council Members,  It seems to me that this is an easy decision. Oak trees like this are protected by a long‐standing city ordinance, depleting  the aquifer by pumping to build basements is practically insane. Please use your collective heads and vote against this  basement and for the oak and our previous water.  Thank you  Carol Hubenthal  1228 Byron Street    Sent from my iPhone  17 Baumb, Nelly From:Winter Dellenbach <wintergery@earthlink.net> Sent:Sunday, August 16, 2020 10:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster Appeal - Aug. 17 meeting CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Date: 8-16-2020  From: Winter Dellenbach  RE: 2353 Webster – Director’s Appeal    Dear Council Members:  When John C. Fremont rode on horseback from Sacramento to the Tehchapis, he noted in his diary that he seldom left the shade of Valley Oaks (Quercus lobata). When Henri Matisse saw a photo of Valley Oak leaves, he remarked how similar they were to his own now famous brightly colored Oak leaves. To me and many others, Valley Oaks are the most dramatic, the most haunting and huge and lovely of our California Oaks. Less than 5 acres of old growth Valley Oaks are left in the world.   The staff report on page 4 notes:   It is important to state that if the applicant were to propose to remove the Valley Oak 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    I take issue with staff’s reliance on PAMC 8.10.050 section (d)(2) rather than on the appropriate section, (b)(1) that applies to residential development such as at 2353 Webster (see bold sections of PAMC 8.10.050 below).   There is a pre-existing home on this lot. The Valley Oak in question, according to page 3 of the staff report, is 4.5-feet from this home’s foundation (footprint*), some of which should remain as a pre-existing condition of approval. Neither the tree truck nor its basal flare [bottom of trunk] touch the home, therefore the tree cannot be removed under (b)(1). Nor can it be removed under (d)(2) because (d)(2) as you can read, only applies when none of the other sections in 18.10.050 do apply, such as section (b)(1). Conclusion:  Therefore, under section (b)(1) there is no legal basis or justification for removal of this Valley Oak.  *Building footprint. The two-dimensional configuration of a building’s perimeter boundaries measured on a horizontal plane at grade level (Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual)  Recommendations:   18 1. Lack of ability to remove this tree frees you to attach whatever strict conditions of approval you wish to – an 8-foot basement limit, building construction, de-watering, and tree protection mitigations such as leaving some foundation intact near the tree trunk from the existing home, a much longer time to monitor the tree health after the end of construction. A year and a half monitoring is nothing – a tree will not show its slow death in that time and can be lost with no requirement to replace this huge amount of canopy. This sort of shortsighted requirement is folly.  2. Continue your decision beyond tonight so that you may require a second opinion from an independent certified arborist from Canopy’s list (not the city’s), who has expertise with Oaks. This arborist should do a new assessment of the impact on the roots of construction/basement at 8 feet and 10 feet, whether shallow or deep roots, and a new evaluation of the health of the tree. The roots have grown where the current home isn’t, including where the planned house with basement is to be constructed.  3. Or just turn down this project down altogether. Here we are taking a gamble on the long-term survival of a 300-year old Valley Oak, relying on sketchy mitigations. We cannot fully be assured we can protect this tree such for the long term. The way to protect this tree is to have no basement. The owner can return without the basement or sell the property as happened on my block with another 300-year old Oak. The original owners wanted the tree removed which was far into the lot and wanted it removed. Instead they sold the property. The tree remains and the house was built with the needs of the tree in mind.     8.10.050 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 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:  19 (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.                    20 Baumb, Nelly From:Thomas Schwertscharf <thomasschwertscharf@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 15, 2020 3:14 PM To:Council, City Subject:Preserve large oak. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    I am writing in response to a request to save a 300 year oak tree from being destroyed if construction near it is not  carefully completed. I would urge you to speak with someone at the Oak Society to ascertain the dollar amount value for  the tree in addition to the aesthetic, shade, and ecological values. I have seen other trees of this size and age to be  valued at over $150,000. Maybe if the next owner knew that they would want to be more interested in preserving it.  Thank you Thomas Schwertscharf    Sent from my iPhone  21 Baumb, Nelly From:Ruth Benz <rhbenz@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, August 14, 2020 9:31 AM To:Council, City Cc:jack; Mary Ellen White; Sandra Browman; keith Atsuko Bennett Subject:Status of 2353 Webster St. New Construction CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council Members:    I was disappointed that the 2353 Webster St. agenda item was postponed until August 17, and I hope it will be placed  near the beginning of the session.  The City Council has a chance to make a difference between giving in to the selfish  whims of a homeowner who will create a living space to inhabit for maybe 50 years versus a centuries old natural  creation which enhances the environment of countless people over the years.  Does having an oversized basement in  breadth and depth take precedence over the beauty and benefits of the oak tree?  Do we have a report from the  arborist who assessed the safety of the tree, and is this arborist familiar with the dewatering technique planned for this  project?  Thank you for acting upon this by exercising your right to preserve this protected tree and see the bigger Palo  Alto picture, not just the desires of one new homeowner.    Respectfully,  Ruth Benz  22 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Thursday, August 13, 2020 1:06 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.  ________________________________    It doesn’t take construction of a basement to kill a tree. Ground up new home construction can kill trees period. There  are two dead street trees, both Camphors, next door to me (Birch St at Oxford) to prove it. Basement construction (my  house shaking from dirt compaction) at 2105 Birch (different house) almost killed me! Yeah it’s going to kill that tree.    You all put Castilleja through the wringer, yet saying no to a basement is not possible? That’s nuts.    To be clear, basement is not inherently problem. Full foot print basment is.  If that oak is as described, seems to me  basement plans need to be modest at best.    Thank for your time. I will be joining meeting on Monday.    Deb Goldeen, 2130 Birch, 94306, 321‐7375  23 Baumb, Nelly From:wielandkrispin@gmail.com Sent:Thursday, August 13, 2020 9:24 AM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster / Basement construction CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Palo Alto City Council,    My Alexia and I are residents of 2333 Webster street and would like to comment the proposed construction at 2353 and  the potentially harmful effects on the old oak tree on the lot.    After having reviewed the materials, I am honestly shocked that the project was in its current form approved in the first  place.    The arborist report is either ignoring potential affects of the project (e.i the removed of 17% of the roots which  translates to 34% on on side, as well as the affects of dewatering the area.)    It’s sad that it seems like a construction project is valued higher than a 300 year old tree. The current plans essentially  ignore the the presence of the tree and were put together in almost blatant disregard for it.    My wife and I believe that a much thorough review is needed and any approved project should in no way endanger or  even potentially harm to such a magnificent organism such as the tree in the lot.    Best regards,    Wieland and Alexia Krispin  2333 Webster St, Palo Alto CA94301    1 Baumb, Nelly From:KRISTINA P SMITH <jubilada@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 3:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:300+ year old oak at 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Members of the City Council, Please do not allow the Old Oak Tree at 2353 Webster to be removed to satisfy the construction of a 2000 square foot basement. It will set a dangerous precedent for the protected Oak Trees of the City of Palo Alto. Nobody needs a 2000 square foot basement at the risk of the life of this magnificent tree. Such a tree is of far more benefit to the environment and the population than a big basement. It would be criminal. Sincerely, Kristina P. Smith Palo Alto, CA 94301 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Diane McCoy <dianemccoy10@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 3:07 PM 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 Palo Alto Council Members, Please consider saving the Valley Oak at the residential address of 2353 Webster, in Palo Alto. Due to remodeling the resident has requested this tree be killed and removed. It is one of the oldest trees in the city and does not meet the residents' request to remove the tree.* At the very least, give the option of a much smaller basement be permitted rather than the one submitted in the current building plan. Two blocks from my house on Greer and Embarcadero is a city welcoming sign for people entering Palo Alto. It says 'Welcome to Palo Alto The City of Trees.' Please hold true to that by maintaining this historic oak, it's value to the environment and what we believe in; now more than ever. Thank you for your time and consideration. Diane McCoy Resident dianemccoy10@comcast.net *see letter submitted to the council by Karen Holman, dated August 16, 2020. PS Really; a 2000 square foot basement.....in a residence...... 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Jan Rubens <rubens.jan@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:42 PM To:Council, City Subject:cutting down tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please vote no! Cutting down a healthy 300‐year old tree for  a single residence home with two stories plus basement is  just plain WRONG.    Thank you.    Jan Rubens  2115 Oberlin  Palo Alto  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Ruth Benz <rhbenz@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 1:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Agenda item 2353 Webster St. Attachments:City Council Mtg.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,  I wish to speak regarding the 2353 Webster St. item at tonight’s Council meeting.  Please put me on the agenda for  community input.  Here is my content.  My name is Ruth Benz and I live directly across the street from the proposed mega two story construction at 2353 Webster St. For 44 years, my family and I have enjoyed the full view of the canopy and upper trunk of the majestic 300 plus years old oak tree at 2353 Webster. Visitors to my home marvel at this giant environmental gem which houses wildlife, oxygenates the air, and provides shade and respite. When this new construction process first began with the Planning Commission, the 2300 block of Webster St. homeowners all agreed that the tree should be preserved and certain changes needed to be made to the blueprint of the new house. A petition was submitted to the Planning Commission, some changes were made, and the neighbors assumed that the tree was indeed safe. Now, it seems clear that the dewatering methods used to excavate the proposed oversized basement will endanger the tree. It is incumbent upon the City Council to act upon this issue, referring to the Palo Alto Municipal Code, section 8.10.050b (b as in boy) which would allow the Council to save this legally protected oak tree. The proposed basement already will be larger than the footprint of the first floor and is deeper than necessary. The City Council has the opportunity to choose between giving in to the self-centered whims of a homeowner who will create a living space to inhabit for a few decades versus saving a centuries old natural creation which has enhanced the environment of countless people over the years. Does having an oversized basement in breadth and depth take precedence over the beauty and benefits of the oak tree? Thank you for acting upon this by exercising your right to preserve this protected tree and see the bigger Palo Alto picture as a leader in the green movement, not just give in to the desires of one new homeowner. Thank you. 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Ellen White <mewhite@me.com> Sent:Saturday, August 15, 2020 3:19 PM To:Council, City Subject:the ancient oak at 2353 Webster Street Attachments:Kansas.rtf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council Members,    Dear Council Members, I urge you once again to protect the ancient oak at 2353 Webster Street. As a native of Western Kansas and someone who still farms in that area, I am familiar with environmental catastrophe. As a child I was constantly reminded of the fragility of life and of the fact that my family (along with all the other families) had lost everything in the dust storms of the 30’s. I was told stories about driving, lights on, unable to see more than a foot ahead on pitch black roads in the middle of the day. I was told that everyone had to wear masks (sound familiar), but these masks were worn wet to keep the dust out of people noses and throats. Babies were kept in closets with their cribs wrapped in wet cheese cloth. Even now the city hall in my home town has pictures of Black Sunday, and towering dust clouds, an ever present reminder of what could happen again. There have been no major dust storms since the 30’s, but the danger remains ever present. No one forgets. The dust storms were caused not just by dry conditions and terrible winds (those conditions still exist frequently) but by bad farming practices, selfish self-reliance, and a disregard for the neighbors. Now there are strict regulations about land use meant to prevent a reoccurrence of the 30’s era dust storms. If you buy land in Western Kansas, you may or may not be able to farm it. If you are allowed to farm your land, you can only farm half of it. (The other half must be left fallow for a year.) No land can be left bare; you must leave your land covered with stubble or covered with a row crop or ground cover. Farm techniques change frequently: no till, little till, grazing animals moved frequently to imitate the movement of buffalo in the past. There are severe penalties for ignoring these regulations. And, in Kansas (not too different from Texas), there is always the chance that a neighbor will shoot you if you allow your top soil to blow onto their land. The environment is serious business because it affects everyone. Obviously, the protection of ancient trees in Palo Alto is not quite the same matter of life and death, but one day it may be. What we don’t protect can not be reproduced. If early on the Bay had been paved over, there would be no bay now or ever again. Save The Bay was the salvation of the bay area. And the women who championed Save The Bay did not cower or compromise: did not imagine that maybe they should let half the Bay be paved over to mollify the objecters. The environment can’t be saved by half measures or weak regulations. The environment that we count on, the trees that provide us with fresh air, bird life, and noise protection will not grow back. The buyer of 2353 was well aware that there was a 300 year old tree on the property when she bought it. There were plenty of other properties in the area (and still are) which don’t have protected trees on them. We were told that the buyer was a single mother with a daughter just ready for school who she was very anxious to have go to Walter Hays. Of course the buyer never moved into the house which has been rented serially for many years. Just recently at a meeting with staff the neighbors were told that the buyer really needed such a big house because she was a single mother with 4 children and parents to take care of. Frankly none of us believe that this woman will ever move into the house; to us it seems a money making scheme at our expense. Destruction of our environment for no good reason. I beg the council to support the tree protection ordinance and save this magnificent oak without compromise. The life of the tree depends on you. Making a few changes in the depth or size of the basement will only prolong the agony and end up killing the ancient oak slowly. But a slow death is still death. 6 Baumb, Nelly From:dsimoni16@gmail.com Sent:Wednesday, August 12, 2020 9:37 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.  ________________________________    Please do not let this tree die    Sent from my iPhone  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Deborah Goldeen <palamino@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 8:48 AM To:Council, City Subject:The Webster Oak CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members ‐ At 11:15pm, I finally called it quits. The minutes have not yet been posted so I don’t know what  the resolution was in regards to the Webster St Oak, but the discussion was discouraging. Listening to the “what the  experts say” and “what the staff report says” comments ad nauseum had me tearing my hair out. It reminded me of a  Town of Los Altos Hills council meeting discussing use of the public arena. The question at hand was whether or not  horses should be allowed to run loose (turned out) in the arena. The Westwind barn manager was asked, “are you an  expert?”  She said, “Yes, I am an expert,” which she was, and then she told the council that turning horses out in an  arena ruins the footing, which was what the council wanted to hear. Whether or not horses should be turned out in an  arena is such a bitterly contested topic that most people who build the arenas refuse to take a side in it. In other words,  depends on who you ask.    I know “the staff” has worked very hard on their report, but they are still wrong. City staff told me the water table for  the property next to mine was 20’ down, but it couldn’t be because the former owner pumped water out of the crawl  space every winter, all winter long.  I can confirm that the water table in the immediate area of 2353 Webster is very  high as my parents basement at 2350 Tasso, one block to the west, would flood during every storm. Bushy, the  centegenarian who lived several houses over, in the one house in the neighborhood built around the turn of the century  as opposed to the forties, said, “Of course your basement floods. Your house was built where the seasonal pond would  always be. That’s why that oak tree is growing there.”    For all the complicated why’s and where for’s from Walter and the city staff, Valley Oaks need ground water and  building massive houses damages or kills them. Go to 2350 Tasso and see for yourself. Compare the trees.    Also, did you all not hear the woman who said, “you have rules, but they aren’t enforced”?    As for Walter Passmore, because of the dead camphor street trees, people in our neighborhood have had a good deal of  interaction with him.  One of them said to me yesterday, “You didn’t hear it from me, but the problem is Walter. He’s  not very good.”    Falling back on “the staff report” to justify the path of least resistance is cowardly. Doesn’t make any difference how  many words you use to explain yourself, and you all use a lot of words, gutless decisions ultimately gut a city.    Deb Goldeen, 2130 Birch, 94306, 321‐7375  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Nick Maahs <nmaahs11@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 8:51 PM To:Council, City CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,  I write to request that you do not grant permission for someone to dig another basement in Palo Alto, particularly when it puts a heritage tree at risk. In this heat wave and time of excess when we are suffering from the way we treat the earth, please embrace some moderation, say no. Sincerely, Nicholas Diego Maahs 145 Heather Lane Palo Alto 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Sandy Voorhees <sandyvoorh@aol.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 6:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cutting Down of Tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please do not let the tree be cut down.  Palo Alto is famous for its trees so do not keep giving waivers for them to be cut  down just to have a basement and mega house.  They can come up with a better architectural design.    Sandy  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 6:15 PM To:Council, City Subject:300+ year old tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello: I hope you have all taken the time to read Karen Holman's well researched and informative letter as to why this magnificent oak tree IS protected and should not be removed. Her letter provides you specific Codes and sections which you can use to counter Staff's ill informed report. In the City of Trees, this owner's request for removal will be a true test of our values. A amazing tree or amazing profits on what will become a spec house. I have trouble thinking that any buyer would not realize that this tree, looming so large over several properties would not be protected and must be built around. Not removed to allow a huge house and basement. If this tree is removed then every other heritage trees in Palo Alto is endangered; all for the almighty buck! I would also ask that the owners be required to put up a bond of 1+ million dollars, so the tree does not mysteriously die. Many ways to kill a tree. Read John Steinbeck's books. I am encouraged by the sheer outrage in or community over the proposed destruction of this living giant. Please vote to save this tree. Thank you. Rita C. Vrhel Phone: 650-325-2298 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Margaret Row <margaretrow@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 6:09 PM To:Council, City Subject:threat to tree at 2353 Webster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To City Councillors: Please consider the life of the very old oak tree close to 2353 Webster. One of the special things about our city is the tree cover. Have you looked down as you fly over the Peninsula? Palo Alto is GREEN because of the number of trees here, and our lives are enriched by those trees. As we take our evening hikes around town (socially distanced and wearing masks, of course), I'm overwhelmed by the amazing variety of trees we have. We must thank our long ago neighbors who had the forethought to plant our urban forest. The threatened tree is most likely home or host to hundreds of organisms. Each one deserves to live, as much as the tree does. Please vote to allow this tree to live. Sincerely. Margaret Row 651 Wildwood Lane, Palo Alto. 6 Baumb, Nelly From:clara pettegrew <cpettegrew@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 6:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Heritage Tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please do not allow this tree to be cut down. Not only is it against our city policy it is just WRONG!! Thank you Clara Pettegrew 7 Baumb, Nelly From:azieb nicodimos <azieb.nicodimos@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 6:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please save the trees & groundwater CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello, Please be responsible and save our groundwater, we will need it in the future. Also, what makes Palo Alto-- Palo Alto are the trees that we inherited from the generation before us. They planted and took care of them and now it is our turn to protect them and hand them to the next generation. Thank you, Azieb 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Mike Cobb <mike@mikecobbcreative.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 5:30 PM To:Council, City Cc:Maurice Green; John Northway Subject:2353 WEBSTER ... SAVING THE TREE AND THE BIGGER ISSUE CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Council members —     Over the past weeks, I have had numerous conversations with former Councilmember and Vice Mayor, Jack Morton  about the development next to his home on  Webster Street.   The issue has devolved into an effort to save a 300 year old Heritage Oak Tree by limiting the size of  the ‘basement’ proposed for the development, which basement would very likely intrude on the root system of the tree  and ultimately kill it.  That is reason enough to limit the size of the ‘basement’ … the City has ordinances in place to  protect these special trees that help define our community, and if we aren’t going to support the goals defined by those  ordinances, you should be honest enough to repeal them!  A terrible mistake, but at least honest.    Please be sure to read the letter by Karen Holman which suggests that there is a petition to actually remove the tree,  which if true would exacerbate and already  bad situation.  What an insult that would be … a complete capitulation to the offshore owners who are adding to the  erosion of Palo Alto’s historic environmental heritage.    I fully support Jack in his efforts to preserve the tree, but I would like to point out that, in my view, there are two larger  issues at play in this controversy.  The first is the fact, as I implied by putting the word basement in quotes, that these  oversized basements are just away to circumvent the rules about allowable square footage and   permit building a three story house where only two stories are allowed … with one story below street level to maximize  profits for the developer while densifying   a long standing R1 neighborhood.  The other issue is the role of staff which increasingly seems much more concerned  about those developer profits than the wishes  of the community.    A suggestion.  Make a clear, enforceable ordinance that prohibits these oversized basements from ever being converted  to an effective residential (rentable?)  third floor.    Respectfully submitted.    —  Mike Cobb, former Councilmember and 2‐time Mayor        Mike Cobb mike@mikecobbcreative.com Mike Cobb Creative 721 Colorado Ave., #103 9 Palo Alto, CA 94303 t: 650.328.2622 www.mikecobbcreative.com       10 Baumb, Nelly From:Nancy McClenny <mcclenny@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 5:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Save the heritage oak at 2353 Webster! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Mayor Adrian Fine, Vice Mayor Tom DuBois, City Council Members,    Please save the 300 year old oak at 2353 Webster St from removal or vulnerability to decline by underground  construction.  In  striving for enormous wealth, as well as possibly greed, elitism and ignorance of and/or disrespect of  the environment, HUGE mansions are popping up all over Palo Alto. And you are allowing it to happen. We, as residents,  are losing privacy, safety, a sense of place, and, more recently, big threats to the integrity of our environment.      It is unconscionable to destroy or make vulnerable to decline an oak that now attracts a huge diversity of insects, birds,  and mammals that are necessary to sustain the food web on which human life depends*.  You will not be killing a tree, you will be killing a mature, incredibly complex and wondrous environment if you ignore  the law and allow this oak to be destroyed.    Think about it.  Are you as a City Council going to kowtow to monied interests or save the City of Palo Alto from  continuing degradation of our environment?    Thank you for your attention.    Sincerely,  Nancy McClenny, Palo Alto resident for 32 years        11 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Heller <Susan@hyfloor.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 5:00 PM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster Street please save the tree! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am writing to ask the City Council to deny the application to build a basement at 2343  Webster and send the plans back to the owners for revision.      The City of Palo Alto website says that “Trees directly improve the quality of life for Palo  Alto.”  It goes on to outline how Palo Alto supposedly protects those trees.   I have a protected  Coast Live Oak that is twice as high as my house, the canopy has an approximately 42’  diameter and it takes up my entire front yard.  The tree is 35’ from the neighbor’s former  house and 20’ from the property line.  The owner tore down that house this Spring.  This  project has a Tree Protection Plan.  The City has a very comprehensive Tree Technical  Manual.  Both were ignored during the deconstruction of this house.  The owner’s arborist  abrogated their responsibility to enforce the plan they had submitted to get the demo  permit.  I could point to 4 violations off the top of my head including the fact that the proper  tree protection fencing was not in place.  I spoke to the owner of the project and I spoke to the  contractor.  All assured me that the tree would not be impacted.  That was not the case. I  woke up one day to see a terrifying piece of machinery ripping up the ground and everything  on it.  I called and emailed Urban Forestry but it took them 3 days to come out and inspect the  project due to staff cuts.  When they finally were able to come out, they found that some  roots of my tree had been severed.  All of this drama happened before the building of this new  house has even begun!  Across the street from me they are building a new pool and  house.  There is a beautiful old protected oak tree in the rear of the property and the pool  works have been built right under the tree.  Again, the fencing and protection is not per the  Tree manual.  I’m sure that this tree will suffer damage.  Feel free to ask me for photos of  either of these projects.    I strongly disagree with the statement in the Staff Report that says “Tree protection is  achievable through the implementation of standard project conditions of approval, adopted  City regulations, and project‐specific conditions of approval.”   I am here to say that based on  my recent experience, tree protection plans and city planning requirements are all  meaningless when builders and owners don’t care and there aren’t enough City resources to  monitor the situation.  Damage to oak trees does not usually appear right away ‐ it can take 5  12 to 10 years to be fully visible.  By that time the builder and developer will be long gone and the  neighbors and unsuspecting buyer will be left to pick up the pieces.  Building a basement can  significantly harm surrounding trees under the best of circumstances.   If our City leaders really  cared about large, protected trees and their contribution to the quality life of Palo Altans, they  would not allow basements to be built close to them.  They would write laws with more teeth,  charge developers more for the City Tree Inspection (in the case of my neighbor it is $162,  which wouldn’t even cover 30 minutes of a private arborist’s time) and then use that extra  money fund the staff to enforce the laws.  They would make sure that the planning process  was followed as prescribed by the laws already on the books.     I do believe in Owner’s property rights but I also believe that Owners and Builders have a duty  to be responsible and respect the importance of the trees on their property.  In this case does  the owner have the right to destroy a significant neighborhood resource so they can have a  yoga room?  Does City Staff have the right to bypass the rules in the approval process?   It’s a  question of priorities.  Please do the right thing and save the tree.  Please deny the Approval of  this project and send the plans back to the owner for revision.      Thank you,     Susan Heller  809 Northampton Dr    13 Baumb, Nelly From:Susan Bradley <sibnotes@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 4:37 PM To:Council, City Subject:Protect the Oak Tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I'm writing to add my name to those people concerned with protecting the Oak tree that will be discussed at tonight's  council meeting.   I've lost the email that described this tree and the owners of the house who will threaten the tree by putting in a  basement next to it.  Please vote against allowing this certain death of a 300 year old tree.  Susan Bradley  1312 Parkinson Ave  Palo Alto  14 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Ellen White <mycek@earthlink.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 4:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster Street Attachments:2353 Webster.rtf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Please put me on the schedule to speak tonight.  Thank you, Mary Ellen White    2353 Webster Street I live at 2343 Webster Street, next door to 2353. I have lived a large part of my life, if not most of it, with the ancient oak as part of my environment. Having that beautiful old oak threatened with destruction also threatens my environment and that of many others. I feel as people must feel when their neighborhood is at risk in a forest fire or their hillside home and surrounding area slides downhill in an earthquake. Fires and earthquakes are natural disasters, but like most disasters there is always a human element: the untended campfire, the tossed cigarette, the poorly built house. And laws and regulations are enacted to try to minimize that human destructive addition to the natural threat. Building along the California coast, for instance, is tightly regulated. Not all construction gets approved. And, despite private ownership, the environment and access to it is protected. No one owns the ocean, the beach, the sky. Currently there is an ongoing case which most people are probably familiar with where an extremely rich man who owns property on the San Mateo coast refuses to allow access to the beach. So far, I believe, this man has lost his case twice in court, but he has enough money to continue to fight. But if we are to protect the environment that belongs to all of us, we must also continue to fight. Palo Alto has a tree protection ordinance. I believe it is important that that ordinance be upheld for the benefit of all and not ignored for the temporary benefit of one person, a person who knew full well when purchasing the property that it held an ancient oak. If this oak goes, then surely over time all trees will be in danger. If you don’t support the tree protection ordinance now; no trees in the future will be protected.The tree is 300 years old; it can not be replaced. This is not a case of last year I planted string beans, and this year I decided to plant zucchini. The oak tree is not an annual nor does it benefit only one person. It is the beloved environment of many of us. 15 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 4:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:2353 Webster - Save the Tree CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members:     The symbol of our city is a tree. Trees are among our ways to avert the immense problems of global climate change. Trees cool our streets and homes and make our neighborhoods beautiful. So why in Palo Alto are we allowing the removal of a 300-year-old Valley Oak when our laws say otherwise?     Staff has cited a rule allowing the removal that's unrelated to the residential site. Furthermore, since the tree trunk and basal flare are not touching or within the building footprint, the tree should remain under the rule for residential sites like the one on Webster. Any development on the site should be required to preserve the tree, as our laws require and allow nothing that would endanger it     Please act accordingly tonight to protect the tree.     Thank you,     Jeff Levinsky        16 Baumb, Nelly From:Jacqueline Raine <jaqraine@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 4:23 PM 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.  ________________________________    What a shame that the new owners at 2353 Webster are even contemplating a basement of such size and depth. Is that  worth it as compared to a tree that has been growing, shading us, adding oxygen to the air and above all being a thing of  enormous beauty? Please don’t allow it. Remember what is important in this rapidly changing Palo Alto, with monster  houses taking precedence over trees, plants,  gardens,clean air and beauty. Trees were what made Palo Alto stand out.  Now what do we see....huge houses.  Jacqueline Raine  2648 Marshall Drive  Palo Alto  ...    Sent from my iPad  17 Baumb, Nelly From:Mani Varadarajan <manimani@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 4:18 PM To:Council, City Subject:Tree at 2353 Webster Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council,     I understand a heritage oak tree may be at risk due to a very large and aggressive basement plan at 2353 Webster. I  oppose damaging the oak tree. We should be doing whatever we can to preserve our ancient trees ‐‐ it's better for the  world and sets a better precedent for future construction.    Sincerely,  Mani Varadarajan  1524 Dana  18 Baumb, Nelly From:Christine Walravens <cfwalravens@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 4:03 PM To:Council, City Subject:Heritage tree at risk due to basement CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,   In this heat wave and time of excess when we are suffering from the way we treat the earth, please do not grant  permission for someone to dig another basement in Palo Alto, particularly when it puts a heritage tree at risk.    Sincerely,  Christine Walravens  145 Heather Lane  Palo Alto  FOR THE RECORD: On Friday August 14, city staff set up a meeting between myself plus Keith Bennett and the 2353 replacement house designer plus the owner. I think staff was trying to determine how much of a super basement the neighbors might be willing to accept. The ancient oak has never had to compete for sustenance with a basement. Its roots have not had to develop around a subterranean structure, and it shouldn’t have to do so now. The house was bought with the full knowledge that there was a 300 year old PROTECTED tree on the property. Our presentation tonight will show that Binghams lovingly cared for the Oak for all the 60 or so years that they had lived at 2353 Webster. And, for the 240 years before that, this Giant had stretched its limbs while the Ohlone ceded the land first to the Spanish and then to western expansion. The Binghams made clear that they wanted the new owner to continue to care for the tree as it spread its canopy over the middle field. City Staff has no choice but to accept the application for a Building Permit and has to give the application due process. Super basements have now become “a dime a dozen,” but they are not an inalienable right. Section 8.10.010 of the TREE PRESERVATION AND MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS defines the purpose of the Regulations as being "to promote the health, safety, welfare and quality of life of the residents of the city through the protection of specified trees located on private propery within the city and the establishment of standards for removal (and) maintenance (in order) to encorage the preservation of trees." Removal" is further defined in Section 8.10.020(k)(2) as : Taking any action foreseeably leading to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health; including but not limited to excessive pruning, cutting, girdling, poisoning overwatering, …trenching, excavating, altering the grade , or paving within the dripline area. It is our position that Staff could have originally taken the position that the property was bought with a Protected Tree on it so the property needs to be maintained with the safety of the Oak paramount. Instead staff seems to have relied on Davey Tree to give it cover which claims that the Oak can survive a severe root cutting which the tree has not ever been subject to in its 300 years of existence. Has Davey Tree ever before hacked off the roots of a 300 year old tree? Is Davey Tree looking forward to advertising its success in extensive root cutting of an ancient Protected Tree? The answer, of course, is NO. Davey Tree is happy to oversee this experiment, take its fee, and walk away. More to the point, we, the neighbors of this majestic oak, do not believe that Council has to sit quietly by while the city staff fails to protect one of our heritage trees and violates the ordinance meant to protect it. The destruction of this tree will lead inevitably to the destruction of more such trees. The neighbors and members of the wider community do not believe that any construction including exposure of the roots can occur within the drip zone and question whether demolition of the existing structure might not be a violation of the regulations. While we neighbors have worked with staff to minimize the above ground mass, our concern to minimize the bulk of a potential mega house should not be taken as a consent in any way to "any action foreseaeably leading to the death of the 300 year old Magnificient Oak or to consenting to measures that would result in "premanent damage to its health. Jack Morton for the Neighbors To: Palo Alto City Council From: Kevin Raftery, Arborist The magnificent Quercus lobata, or Valley Oak, in the back yard at 2353 Webster St has happily resided in that location for 200-300 years. It has had growing conditions of relatively undisturbed soil, a thriving root zone, and respectful and appreciative property stewards for all of those years which have been the main reasons for the success of this iconic and noble California species. Meanwhile, many thousands of other Valley Oaks up and down the peninsula and throughout the state have died and have been removed due to the cumulative effects of extensive grazing, agriculture, and urbanization. These human activities are actually not necessarily mutually exclusive of the continued existence of long standing heritage trees. The difference is when citizens and cities step up to use their imaginations, and to appreciate and preserve the history and unique features, like their heritage trees, that make where they live a special place. This tree is one of Palo Alto's most enduring and valuable assets. As a long time Palo Alto resident, founding Canopy arborist, Foothill College horticultural educator, and soon to be grandfather, we need to do our very best as citizens and as city council members to ensure that trees such as this one are here to be loved and appreciated by all those who come long after us. There is a planned large basement that potentially threatens this tree. I would strongly urge that Council prohibit any debilitating root damage and require subsequent landscape and irrigation procedures that are all important elements to this tree's short and long term survival. If we can't honor and respect our city's oldest and most distinguished members with simple measures to ensure their preservation, then what do we tell our grandchildren about our failure to act when we could have? Thank you. Respectfully, Kevin Raftery☘ 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, th~ 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 cou ld have been easily converted into 3 separate rental units. In our May appecl, we enumerated three conditions that discussion with Dave Dockter of Canopy's Advocacy Committee helped us formalize. We are including our May 181h presentation to Council as Attachment #1 and request again that Council ensure that those conditions are included in its builjing 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 tie staff report has not considered which, if any, of the proposed dewatering methods are feas· ble for this project, nor what the impacts and risks is for each of the dewatering alterna:ives. In fact, staff seems to think that this project is the just the same as any other residenti31 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 tiikely 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, tt-e application would be processed administratively, by the Urban Forestry Team, in accordance with Municipal Code. Staff appears to b3 claiming, that in spite of the neighbors appeal of the Planning Director's approval, and Cou ncil'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 8.1 O.D50(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 f ootprint 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 woulj 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 requ ire 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 sim~·ly 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 smalller, 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 appr·Jve. 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 f eatures t hat make us the respected community we are and in which people want to live and own property. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster St. Keith Bennett 2225 Webster St. Sharleen Fiddaman 2255 Webster St Elizabeth Whitson 2245 Webster St. Ruth Benz Mary Ellen White 2343 Webster St. 2360 Webster St. Sandra Browman 2397 Webster St. Peter & Bettina Himes 2302 Webster St. Joyce Bryson 2266 Webster St. John Zeng & Yinzi Cai 2250 Webster St. Harriet & Rick Lehrbaum 596 California Ave Will & Alexis Krispin 2333 Webster St. Rena and Bill Gretz 2310 Webster St. 2353 Webster St. Appeal of Director's Decision on Individual Review Application Presentation to Palo Alto City Council Aug. 17, 2020 Keith Bennett, Save Palo Alto’s Groundwater Applicant wants to build a basement at 2353 Webster. In areas where the water table is high such as 2353 Webster, Palo Alto allows two main methods for underground construction: 1.Cut-off walls (aka secant walls) -limit the groundwater removed by enclosing via walls the area to be dewatered. 2.Broad area dewatering –the groundwater is pumped from all the surrounding area until the water table is several feet below the lowest proposed building surface. Appellant wants to protect the Valley Oak Tree at 2353 Webster 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 Cut-off walls are likely not practical for 2353 Webster Cut-off walls are very effective at limiting groundwater loss. However, the equipment required for installation rises 40’ or more above ground surface, and would interfere with the tree canopy Broad area dewatering, recommended by Staff for this project, lowers the water table 8 –10 feet, inducing intense, localized drought at the site and surrounding area. Projected groundwater depression contours (feet below initial conditions) for the dewatering at 2151 Byron. Measured drop of groundwater: monitored during construction, 7.5 feet Impacts of dewatering are omitted in the Tree Protection Plan •Dewatering per se & construction of the dewatering system, represent significant risks to the tree; these impacts are not addressed in the Staff Report nor the Tree Protection Plan. •Palo Alto’s Dewatering Ordinance alone does not limit the drawdown of the groundwater level and provides insufficient protection for this tree. •Modifications to the basement design to eliminate the need for dewatering would reduce risk to the tree, although risks from loss of ()roots remain. The locations of the sinker roots are not known and may be concentrated in the basement area. Dewatering is a significant risk to the tree We request: •Construction without a basement minimizes risk to the tree. Larger area and deeper basements increase risks. •Conditions of approval (next slide) on any basement construction to prohibit dewatering. •The Tree Protection Plan must explicitly address basement construction equipment access . Requested conditions of approval •If a basement is constructed: o 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. o No groundwater shall be discharged to either the storm drains or sanitary sewer. If needed, any incidental groundwater must be recharged onsite, but outside of the critical root zone. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Phil Metz <philmetz@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 11:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Oppose: Staff & UAC Recommendations for Amending the City's Electric Supply Portfolio Carbon Neutral Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I urge the City Council to reject the staff recommendations 1) b. and 1) c. to authorize the exchange and purchase of unbundled RECs (“Bucket 3 RECs”) These recommendations focus on electricity revenue and cost, not renewable energy, and by driving us toward greater use of “Bucket 3 RECS” – which do nothing to make our electric energy supply more renewable (which is why Bucket 3 RECs are cheap!) – would actually impede the City’s ability to reduce GHGs. Instead, the City should focus its renewable energy efforts on actually generating renewable energy, reducing energy consumption, as well as on electricity supply resilience and emergency response. RECs (renewable energy credits) are financial instruments – NOT energy. They do not increase the renewable character of the City’s electricity supply. And Bucket 3 RECs do not even need to be associated with electricity scheduled in the same year as the RPS-eligible generation. (https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/RPS_Procurement_Rules_50/) That is why Bucket 3 RECs are disfavored by the State. So, recommendation 1) a. that the City use an hourly carbon emissions standard is bogus if the City seeks to accomplish this by purchasing Bucket 3 recs. These recommendations are not renewable and do nothing to enhance the resilience of the City’s energy supply or our ability to provide energy in an emergency. We need a renewable energy plan that actually generates renewable energy and reduces electric energy consumption. That will reduce GHG production AND increase resilience and enhance emergency response. Sincerely, Phil Phil Metz   philmetz@gmail.com +1 (408) 821-8059   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:Civil Grand Jury <CGJ@scscourt.org> Sent:Friday, August 14, 2020 1:43 PM To:Council, City Subject:2021 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Recruitment Attachments:2021 Civil Grand Jury Brochure.pdf; 2021 Civil Grand Jury Application.pdf; Palo Alto City Council.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good afternoon, Members of the Palo Alto City Council: The Court is pleased to announce that the recruitment for the Civil Grand Jury has now been relaunched. Please find attached to this email a letter from Superior Court Presiding Judge Deborah A. Ryan and Assistant Presiding Judge Theodore C. Zayner, an informational brochure explaining the role of the Civil Grand Jury, and an application to be considered for service on the 2021 Civil Grand Jury. More information about the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is available on our website, www.scscourt.org. The Court will be accepting applications until September 25, 2020. Please do share this information with your contacts that may be interested in this opportunity. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to let me know. Thank you for your consideration of our appeal for applicants! Best, Britney Britney Huelbig | pronouns: she, her, hers Deputy Manager - Civil Grand Jury, Administration Temporary Judge Administrator Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara 191 North First Street San José, CA 95113 Office: (408) 882-2721 | Cell: (408) 318-2451 bhuelbig@scscourt.org Confidentiality Notice: This message, together with any attachments, is intended only for the review and/or use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential or privileged information. If you think you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete this and any copies of the message. 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 15, 2020 7:38 PM To:Honky Subject:SAITH 911 MASTERMINDS ? METHINKS ONLY SOME 911 MASTERMINDS CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://youtu.be/ahat9YOKOxs 2 Baumb, Nelly From:D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com> Sent:Saturday, August 15, 2020 5:01 PM To:Sara.Cody@hhs.co.santa-clara.ca.us; Jonsen, Robert; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Council, City Cc:Binder, Andrew; Becchetti, Benjamin; Maloney, Con; Smith, Sean; Lee, David Subject:Pandemic Hero: Police SGT. DAVID LEE (Palo Alto) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.      August 14, 2020      Sara H. Cody, Santa Clara County Public Health Director  Robert A. Jonsen, Palo Alto Police Chief  Edward K. Shikada, Palo Alto City Manager  Molly S. Stump, Palo Alto City Attorney     Palo Alto City Council     Dear Colleagues:    The Law: Palo Alto City "no smoking" Ordinance No. 5376, Municipal Code 9.14, protects "the public health, safety, and general welfare by prohibiting smoking in commercial areas."    Palo Alto, We have a Problem: Throughout the pandemic, daily chain-smoking has prevented safe access to a downtown Assisted Living building, 649 University Avenue, at Lytton Gardens Senior Communities*. Smoking has persisted despite (1.) complaints to management, including providing management with Palo Alto's "no smoking" ordinance, and (2.) complaints to sympathetic city, county, and state officials, and government agencies.   -------------  * Lytton Gardens is a subsidiary of Covia Foundation, a successful non-profit paying their CEO an annual-salary of about $750k. Lytton Gardens is also a HUD federal-funded Section-8 Project Housing; HUD promises our priced-out elders a safe home.  -------------     Seniors at Risk:   With the COVID-19 crisis, smoking is even more dangerous in making one's lungs even more vulnerable to the potentially deadly impact of the disease, particularly on older adults and those with lung maladies. 🚭   Seniors seventy and older are at a greater risk of mortality than surviving COVID-19, and 40% of all COVID-19 deaths are linked to retirement homes.    Studies prove second-hand smoke is more harmful than smoking.    Santa Clara County remains on Governor Newsom's watchlist.    Since the end of June, the number of north Palo Alto cases is rising sharply with about 1 in 250 residents having been infected.   Lytton Gardens Senior Communities is GROUND ZERO for Palo Alto's COVID-19.     3 Bullying: Retaliation, for tenant complaints about the smoking, was severe. Management sent letters, which literally threatened eviction if complaints continued. It is against the law for a landlord to retaliate against a tenant who has exercised a legal right, including complaining about unsafe or illegal living conditions. Refer to California State Law (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1940.35, 1942.5 (2020)) prohibits landlords for retaliating against tenants.    Saving Lives: SGT. DAVID LEE intervened. He stopped administrators from telling smokers the front of the Assisted Living facility is Lytton Gardens' "city-designated" smoking area. Lytton Gardens knowingly created a dangerous situation for their non-smoking tenants, resulting in multiple police conversations with a stubborn tenant-smoker, who is resentful about giving up a convenient haunt, and disinclined to follow police instructions. SGT. DAVID LEE's steps to educate the Housing Administrator (t: 650 617.7317), about health risks to non-smoking seniors, and penalties for breaking the "no smoking" ordinance, is admirable. His continued monitoring of this situation is praiseworthy.     SGT. DAVID LEE's diligence is potentially saving lives.    Pandemic Hero Award: I propose we create a Pandemic Hero Award, to be presented to SGT. DAVID LEE. During the pandemic, SGT. DAVID LEE has shown himself to care about our most vulnerable citizens, to be accessible to seniors, and a champion for senior safety and well-being.     SGT. DAVID LEE is a Pandemic Hero.      Very truly yours,  -Danielle Martell   Palo Alto City Council Candidate 2016 & 2005                4 Baumb, Nelly From:Mary Vincent <westieluvr@mac.com> Sent:Saturday, August 15, 2020 1:04 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council member,     I have been following the discussion on Foothills Park with interest. At the August 3 meeting, the motion passed included these two items: 1) renaming of the Park and 2) running the pilot program revenue neutral.     Renaming the Park  Please do not spend any money on a new sign for the park. The city is keeping a tight rein on expenses for this year, as it should. Let’s change the sign when we have the money. I realize that the money may come out of a capital budget, not expenses. However, it is all cash. Keeping the current sign would help send a message that money is not being spent on anything other than essential services.    Revenue Neutral  Right now, the City’s revenue is expected is to be reduced and expenses have been reduced accordingly. Currently residents do not pay a fee to enter the park. We could charge Palo Alto residents to enter the park, exempting people 65 years or older. We could charge the same $6 fee in the pilot for non-residents, or a reduced fee, perhaps $3 or $5. This fee for residents would only be temporary, being kept in place during these difficult times.    The community realizes that these are extraordinary times and that the city must operate in accordance. Thank you for your service and working to continuously improve our city.  Mary Vincent 86 Erstwild Court Palo Alto, 94303 5 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Saturday, August 15, 2020 1:26 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; dennisbalakian; Doug Vagim; Dan Richard; Daniel Zack; dallen1212 @gmail.com; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; eappel@stanford.edu; fmbeyerlein@sbcglobal.net; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Pam Kelly; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; Mayor; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; newsdesk; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; Tom Lang; vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu; Mark Standriff; dlfranklin0@outlook.com Subject:Fwd: Good question put to Trump on Thurs. Gotta see this. 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 15, 2020 at 1:05 AM  Subject: Good question put to Trump on Thurs. Gotta see this.  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>           Friday, August 14, 2020  late.              To all‐  Here is a gem. Don't miss this:              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TONfGHGVwss         I think he WAS the senior White House correspondent for the Huffington Post.                LH      6 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 14, 2020 8:10 PM To:Honky Subject:9/11 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    9/11 9/11 9/11 SERIES 9/11: EXPLOSIVE EVIDENCE 9/11 ZERO - 2008 (FULL LENGTH) INCONTROVERTIBLE - NEW 9/11 DOCUMEN...    OLDIE BUT GOODIE THE WAYSEER MANIFESTO - [Official Video] (HQ)    THE WAYSEER MANIFESTO - [Official Video] (HQ)    7 Security Check Required Security Check Required    Ongoing Suppression Of 9/11 Truth -The Last American Vagabond interviews David R. Meiswinkle 4/18/20    Ongoing Suppression Of 9/11 Truth -The Last American Vagabond interviews...    https://www.meetup.com/sandiegansfortruthgroup/events/268223220/?fbclid=IwAR0D9CMAjKAZgS36rtUdAyCKq8Y FokWXRTw4W3T58er_aZoYUmmldtjj9y0 If ever a QUESTION or just need a chat LEAN ON ME I'll back atcha ASAP THERE WILL BE CHANGE WHEN ENOUGH OF US KNOW In Any Event KEEP STRONG BROTHERS AND SISTERS 📷🙂 📷❤ BOTTOM LINE FOLKS, IT'S WE THE PEOPLE (OR BUST) Ongoing Suppression Of 9/11 Truth -The Last American Vagabond interviews David R. Meiswinkle 4/18/20 8    Ongoing Suppression Of 9/11 Truth -The Last American Vagabond interviews...    Ed Asner: 9/11 Government Obstruction and Misconduct    Ed Asner: 9/11 Government Obstruction and Misconduct    NY Fire Commissioner Christopher Gioia in NYC December 11, 2019    NY Fire Commissioner Christopher Gioia in NYC December 11, 2019     9 “Ed Asner: 9/11 & Shanksville, PA” \https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKlQJSrIvc... (2 min.) “Ed Asner: 9/11 & the Pentagon” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4E-WbCCxk4... (3 min.) David Meiswinkle Interview - Ongoing Suppression Of 9/11 Truth & Proof Of Controlled Demolition    David Meiswinkle Interview - Ongoing Suppression Of 9/11 Truth & Proof O...    "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter" - Dr. Martin Luther King https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/exhibits-in…/ Lawyers' Committee President David R. Meiswinkle in NYC 12/11/19    Lawyers' Committee President David R. Meiswinkle in NYC 12/11/19    10 Ed Asner Launches Lawyers' Committee Fund Raising Drive    Ed Asner Launches Lawyers' Committee Fund Raising Drive    Please Contribute: Donate | Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry    Donate | Lawyers' Committee for 9/11 Inquiry We are a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization so donations are tax deductible If you prefer to mail a check, please ...    TRUMP'S GREATEST FLIP FLOP OF ALL TIME : Johnny Gat : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive    11 TRUMP'S GREATEST FLIP FLOP OF ALL TIME : Johnny Gat : Free Download, Bor... http://keepvid.com/ or http://www.clipconverter.cc/ They used the Alt Right for political gain just as they have...    LET'S GET IT TOGETHER PEOPLE PLEASE SHARE WITH ALL YOU KNOW https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/exhibits-in… https://www.lawyerscommitteefor9-11inquiry.org/sign-the-gr…/ SHARING IS CARING SILENCE IS BETRAYAL SEEKING THE TRUTH AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET US FREE 9/11 REMEMBER NEVER FORGET WHEN THE GRAND JURY CONVENES NO ONE WILL DIE FOR A LIE WE ARE A MILLION STRONG NOW AND THERE WILL BE NO STOPPING US FROM BRINGING ALL OF THE 9/11 CONSPIRATORS TO JUSTICE BY THE EVIDENCE BEING PROVIDED FROM THE NATIONWIDE LAWYERS INTO A COURT OF LAW AND THE PLACING OF ALL THAT READILY AVAILABLE INFORMATION IN THE HANDS OF WE THE PEOPLE? THE RESULT IS ON US? WE THE PEOPLE (OR BUST) Justice for 911 Heroes – Join Us    Justice for 911 Heroes – Join Us    Franklin Sq. NY Fire Commissioner Chris Gioia Speaks at LCfor911 Memorial New York, 7 SEPT 2019 12    Franklin Sq. NY Fire Commissioner Chris Gioia Speaks at LCfor911 Memoria...    An Inconvenient 9/11 Truth [Part I] (2017) HD, 2nd edit    An Inconvenient 9/11 Truth [Part I] (2017) HD, 2nd edit    IN THE BEGINNING Christopher Bollyn CIA WhistleBlower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything! "Extreme Prejudice"    CIA WhistleBlower Susan Lindauer EXPOSES Everything! "Extreme Prejudice"     14 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 14, 2020 7:09 PM To:james pitkin; Fine, Adrian; Winter Dellenbach; Donna Wallach; Keith Mccord; Cecilia Taylor; Yolanda G. Trevino; pushpinder.lubana@gmail.com; David Angel; chuck jagoda; Jeff Rosen; Madhumita Gupta; Rebecca Eisenberg; Supervisor Simitian; Jeff Moore; Kniss, Liz (internal); Dennis Upton; vramirez@redwoodcity.org; cindy.chavez@bos.sccgov.org; Alison Cormack; Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Courtney Elyse Cooperman Subject:The time has come to create police crimes units... don’t forget to checkout the comment section and the end of the article. CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  https://www.sanjoseinside.com/opinion/op‐ed‐the‐time‐has‐come‐for‐das‐to‐create‐police‐crimes‐units/    Shared via the Google app    Sent from my iPhone  15 Baumb, Nelly From:Lori wainen linberg <loriwainenlinberg@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 14, 2020 5:59 PM To:Council, City Subject:8/14/2020 Webster Wood No Mail Since 8/7/2020 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council Members,    I want you aware of what is happening with the USPS in Palo Alto.  On 8/7 they discovered that someone used a master  key to break into all the mailboxes at Webster Wood Middlefield location, effecting me and my neighbors.  They felt it  happened 8/6 pm.  Our postman Jamar is great, but I can’t even find out where my mail is.  I cannot reach anyone by  phone, cannot get help going in.  They said they have no funds to get a new master key.  Interesting with all the news  about mail in ballots?  In ERROR AND IN DANGER OF THEFT AGAIN, when Jamar had a day off the mailman delivered  that days mail 8/13 ( one Netflix) and at 11 pm the boxes were left open with nothing in them.  They say they will not fix  it for at least another week.  Today is 8/14, I need my pay.  Webster Wood is a Section 8.  I am waiting for pay check,  surgery instructions and need medications delivered, but I cannot get them nor any answer or responses as to what to  do from the USPS.  I am in pain and scheduled for surgery, I will not be able to send someone else to where ever my mail  is, you yourself are only allowed to pick up mail.  My son is working ER Covid Done so he cannot help me, as he is  exposed.  I already had to call all my credit cards and banks.  We need your help, as this is unreasonable and dangerous  to be unable to find your mail or get it delivered.  Please help us and our Postal Services.  I will not be able after surgery  to get to the polls and they are doing this in several places, trying to  prove that we cannot vote by mail.  Get us a new  master key/ lock and our mail delivery returned and some communication about what is going on.    Sincerely,    Lori Wainen‐Linberg  Webster Wood  924 Middlefield Road  (650) 853‐1764    Sent from my iPad  16 Baumb, Nelly From:Lisa Steinback <lisasteinback@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 14, 2020 1:27 PM To:Council, City Subject:library has a severe hold pickup problem CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi City Council,    Yesterday I was notified that I have a book on hold ready for pickup at Mitchell park. I called and they told me the soonest appointment was in one week. That is totally unacceptable. Each appointment should only take about 5 minutes -- person comes to door, shows library card or ID and attendant hands them their book(s). Therefore, 10 hold pickups should occur per hour, 6 hours per day. At that rate there's no way it could take an entire week to pick up one book. I have never run into this problem until now.  Please get involved to creatively fix this situation. Covid or not there must be a way to improve.  Thank you,  Lisa Steinback, Creekside Dr. 17 Baumb, Nelly From:Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> Sent:Friday, August 14, 2020 9:27 AM To:Perla Simmons; Rachel Joy Simmons; Rachel Simmons; Joanne Casey; Camille Lachica; Carol Macannico; Nancy Brais; Richard Gage; Andres Lorraine; Frank Agamennon; Dennis Tiernan; Lou Basile; Philip Hussa; Steve Kormondy; biotica@aol.com; Haydee Bill Mooney; NJ Electrician; drmeiswinkle@aol.com; ezrider67@verizon.net; mkormondy@yahoo.com; Patty LaPlaca; mon.tp.coalition@gmail.com; Jackie Andres Schnell; Sandy and Jason Khneiger; David Gahary; Sea Girt Medical; Cheryl & Erin Hough Al; Tom & Beth Simmons; Activist Post; Advance Media; Advance Media; Coast Star; Coast Star; Coast Star; Coast Star; John Dilberger; Cook-Simmons Dot; Craig Simmons; BBC ONLY; Biotica; BriellePolice@Verizon.net; Spring Lake Police; Wall Police; Rutherford Police; Rutherford Police; Sea Girt Police; Gene Kolich; BBC ONLY Cc:BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; editor@reliablenewsnow.net; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Council, City; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Ammo Land; Global Research News; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY Subject:It Begins: Black Lives Matter Mob Demands White People Move Out of Homes and Leave Them for Black People (VIDEO) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    The Kommies are on the march big time now !!!   With their pie in the sky demands, they can go to hell.  I paid a mortgage for 30 years and never missed a payment, so that those dirtbags can take it away from me ???  Molon  Labe, Mo Fo !!!!!  I DONT THINK SO !!!!!    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/08/begins‐black‐lives‐matter‐mob‐demands‐white‐people‐move‐homes‐ leave‐black‐people‐video/      Best Regards, & Stay Healthy !  Arm up and Lock & Load !!!!!  RJS  18 Baumb, Nelly From:Gail Price <gail.price3@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 13, 2020 6:55 PM To:Council, City Cc:Joe Simitian Subject:USPS Blue Mail boxes closing ?? 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,    Based on observation and friends’ reports, it appears that blue USPS mail boxes are displaying notices about 30‐day  closure and directing people to post offices on Cambridge and elsewhere.    This is outrageous. 1. The upcoming election during pandemic rests on ability to conveniently mail ballots.   2. People  without access to transportation will be hurt the most: ADA, elderly, infirm, or most isolated. 3. Mail service remains an  important social and critical communication for many people —‐especially if someone does not have internet or does  not use these effectively..often the oldest, poorest and most vulnerable.  4. This is voter suppression.    I urge you to contact our local USPS Postmaster and our members in Congress to clarify if this is growing as a  current  practice and, if so, strongly  protest such moves which could easily become  widespread.  I plan to do so.    Thank you,  Gail Price  Palo Alto CA      Sent from my iPhone  19 Baumb, Nelly From:Ellen Hartog <elh109@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Thursday, August 13, 2020 5:36 PM To:councilmember.tanaka.office@gregtanaka.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: Foothills Park Thank you for your reply. I was in a zoom meeting with Council Member Tanaka. I have expressed my opinion. I have written many emails and I have discussed with neighbors. What is it going to take to convince Council to continue the pledge our previous council made to the previous owners that this land remain an open space preserve? This park is not a recreational park. The lake is not intended for swimming. We have done a good job. The need for weekday rangers is not needed. "Open to the public," is a different protocol and has different requirements exceeding the intention Palo Alto signed up for. Others are arguing the point we are being racist. That is insulting to my viewpoint which has to do with environmental protection. My view point screams in favor for the voiceless ecosystems and wildlife to minimize exposure. No environmental impact report has been done !!! We are the trustees of this land and assured its protection. Where is the fairness? It is unfair that the council proceeded approval of a pilot program without previous study. It is not that kind of park. It is not to be compared to other locations. It stands alone. There are many of us in Palo Alto that are on the side of protection. A vote is the only way to hear from those for and those against - why is it we are not heard? Why is it a pilot program is conducted during a pandemic? Is it all politics? All the more reason I am inclined to protest. I have seen protesters at the park saying we are racist at the gate. The City should be explaining to the new comers or leavers who want to be able to still come to the park that it is not that kind of park. We made a commitment upon the purchase to preserve and protect the last open space! in Palo Alto. The council is not protecting the goals of the park. What happened to preservation and conservation, the hometown movement by the Hogals and Spanenbergs in the 60's. There will be extra traffic on Page Mill as if it were La Honda Road though Page Mill Road is more like old La Honda Road. Like I said, a report needs to be done. Will we need a traffic light at Altamont and Page Mill? Just saying we don't know and it should be addressed as well as other points - Fire Protection, surveillance, impact of trails and off trail mediation measures, etc. So much for preservation and conservation. Am I suppose to rely on chance? The pilot is not going to have correct numbers. I am so saddened by this non-negotiated decision. Maybe it was but the general public was not given the chose. I hope this is not the end. I hope a better type of methodology is used to assure the protection, conservation and preservation of the lands of Foothill Park. I'm happy to join the meeting on Sunday. Please send me the zoom link. Thank you for your time reading and consideration, Ellen Hartog On Thursday, August 13, 2020, 04:10:31 PM PDT, <councilmember.tanaka.office@gregtanaka.org> wrote: Dear Ms. Hartog, My name is Aidan, and I am a legislative aide for Councilman Tanaka. Thank you for voicing out your opinion to the city council. I invite you to come speak with Councilman Tanaka directly about this issue at his office hours. Do you have time to meet with Mr. Tanaka this Sunday, August 16th at 3:30 PM? Office hours are currently held online via Zoom meetings. 20 Please let me know if you are willing to attend, and I will send you an event invite with more details. If you have any further questions, please feel free to let me know. Best Regards, Aidan Pasamonte Legislative Aide for Councilman Tanaka On 2020-08-11T10:37:18-07:00, Ellen Hartog <elh109@sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > 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 > 21 Baumb, Nelly From:Gary Wesley <gary.wesley@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 13, 2020 11:14 AM To:citycouncil@mountainview.gov Cc:Gary Wesley Subject:Evictions to resume CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Mountain View City Council: The California Judicial Council is in the process of repealing its April 6 ban on use of the eviction process. Voting on the repeal or "sunset" of the emergency court rule ends at 12 noon today (Thursday, August 13). While the proposal is also to not have courts set trials in any eviction ("unlawful detainer") case sooner than 60 days following the tenant's filing of an answer and the (landlord's) subsequent written request for trial, even such contested cases could be shortened by the filing of a motion for summary judgment that - in such cases - is set and heard on as little as 5- days notice. If the tenant has no legal basis for contesting the eviction, the court would grant the motion and enter a judgment. Including the restoration of possession by the county sheriff. Actual restoration of rented property to landlords would take only a few weeks - depending on the capacity of the sheriff to complete so many evictions. The cases to be filed by landlords starting in early September would mostly be based on the expiration of a 30-day or 60-day notice terminating the tenancy (which may have already been given) or the expiration of a 3-day notice to pay past due rent or "quit" (i.e., return possession to the landlord). Whether more than just the rent for September could be demanded in such a 3-day notice would depend upon the particular case. Just having to pay the full rent for September could be beyond the means of many tenants - far too many tenants than could be helped by loans or grants provided through a non-profit agency. While the Governor or State Legislature might act to head off this potential onslaught of residential evictions arriving in a few weeks, local governments should consider their own measures. Reportedly, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors on August 11 expressed support for extending its ordinance limiting eviction of tenants financially affected or devastated by the pandemic. But the Board placed consideration of an actual extension or enactment on its August 25 agenda. That night, you also have a meeting scheduled. The matter of extending or enacting an ordinance limiting eviction for not paying the full rent should be placed on your August 25 agenda. Sincerely, Gary Wesley, resident. 22 Baumb, Nelly From:Steve <sreller@randmproperties.com> Sent:Thursday, August 13, 2020 8:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:Message from the City Council Home Page CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,     Hello. I just wanted to share this article on affordable housing in Palo Alto. Thanks    https://suburbs.substack.com/p/local‐politics‐is‐the‐reason‐your  Regards   ~Stephen Reller    1 Baumb, Nelly From:Minor, Beth Sent:Wednesday, August 19, 2020 11:50 AM To:Hamilton Hitchings Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Re: Ballot Drop off Boxes ASAP? Hi Hamilton,  The boxes are regulated and dispersed by the Registrar of Voters.  They usually put the boxes out about a week before  the ballots are mailed, which I believe is around 10/3.  All ballot counting is done by the Registrar of Voters staff and  machines.  All cities and districts within Santa Clara County contract with the Registrar to conduct their elections.  I  believe we may have 3 boxes, I will confirm, and we  will once again have Vote Centers that will open the Friday before  the election and will be open until 8 pm on November 3.  Sent from my iPhone    On Aug 19, 2020, at 10:20 AM, Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com> wrote:     CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.   Dear City Council, Given the attempts to suppress voting by the USPS, and that a mail sorting machine has already been removed from the downtown Palo Alto USPS branch on Hamilton Ave, can the City of Palo Alto put drop off ballot boxes out as soon as mail in ballots are sent out so we don't have to use the US Post Office? Also, is there any chance the city can start counting ballots before election day? Thank you. Hamilton Hitchings 2 Baumb, Nelly From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:23 AM To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:EIR conflicting Mitigation Measures CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Comment Letter C45.4 regarding Mitigation Measures: There are 3 impacts noted in the Draft EIR as “significant and unavoidable”. The Final EIR includes an option that was not included in the Draft EIR but that has now risen to the top as the school’s alternative of choice because, so the FEIR states, the school will disburse the traffic and thus mitigate these traffic problems. It is important to note that the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage still contains an underground garage exit facing Emerson and Melville, leading into Embarcadero and Alma respectively, which the FEIR states will cause delays and increased traffic (Table MR5-2, school daily trips of 1,477). Added to the underground garage are the loop driveways at Bryant and Kellogg, and not mentioned but still important are driveway entrances on both Kellogg and Emerson Streets into a parking lot on the corner and also a delivery driveway on Emerson. Table 1-2 in the Revised DEIR states that Impact 4-2 Create Land Use Incompatibility or physically divide an established community will be mitigated using Measure 4a to reduce this traffic impact. Mitigation Measure 4a is totally concerned with Events traffic. The school has over the years continually abused its Conditions of Approval by hosting 10x as many events as the current CUP allows, and now is claiming to reduce events from 100 to 90. This mitigation measure is not related in any way to the traffic caused by this Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage option. In fact, in the Response to my Comment Letter C45.4-1, the Final EIR states “The DEIR concluded that the project would result in a significant and unavoidable land use compatibility impact for the sole reason the project would generate a substantial increase in daily traffic volumes on the sedent of Emerson Street between Melville Avenue and Embarcadero Road… Not because of events, but because of daily traffic. This contradicts the Mitigation Measures described above. This Final EIR is inadequate because of the Disbursed Circulation/Reduced Garage alternative being submitted very late in the process without allowing for a Public Comment period, as required by CEQA, and because Mitigation Measures, an example of which is described above, do not relate to the very grave and overwhelming daily traffic issues introduced by this overreaching expansion plan. Thank you for your consideration of my input. Andie Reed Melville Ave   ‐‐   Andie Reed CPA 160 Melville Ave  3 Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809   4 Baumb, Nelly From:Andie Reed <andiezreed@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 19, 2020 9:12 AM To:Architectural Review Board; Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion; Council, City Subject:Castilleja FEIR CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Comment Letter 45.2-10: Events It is important to re- state that using a reduction to 90 events per school year from the current 100 as a mitigation for traffic congestion is misleading and inaccurate. The school is not allowed 100 events per year but has been holding them anyway, despite continuous complaints from the neighbors over many years. There is not ONE school, public or private, in a residential neighborhood in Palo Alto without large acreage to absorb it, that allows weeknight and weekend events. The Conditions of Approval allow 5 major events and several other”. The Response states that there is “no quantitative limit on the number of and frequency of special events”. That statement is factually inaccurate. It is true that the current Conditions do not do a good job describing the allowed numbers (the Conditions allow 5 major and “several” other events”), but the intent is clear. “Several” does not, in anyone’s book, mean 100, so one has to rely on intent. The Response ignores the intent, and that is inadequate. I point out a set of letters to the PNQL attorney from the Planning Director agreeing with the neighborhood group that “the INTENT IS TO LIMIT THE NUMBER AND SIZE OF EVENTS” and a letter from the Planning Director to the School’s attorney that the intent is being misinterpreted. This correspondence, from Feb 2018, has been brought to the attention of City staff and the EIR report preparers ignore these facts. The current CUP also states no back-to-back weekends and no Sundays and etc., but none of that has ever been abided by. This is the context under which the report uses 100 events as a baseline, and it should be pointed out to the public and the decision makers that the EIR and the Comment Response statement makes a mockery of the Current Conditional Use Permit which the school has disregarded with impunity. Please limit the school’s events to 10 to 20 or define very specifically its Hours of Operation. Thank you, Andie Reed ‐‐   Andie Reed CPA Melville Ave  Palo Alto, CA 94301 530-401-3809   5 Baumb, Nelly From:Martin J Sommer <martin@sommer.net> Sent:Wednesday, August 19, 2020 8:23 AM To:Council, City Subject:BLM art CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,    How soon can we expect to see the BLM artwork removed from Hamilton Ave? As a resident, I believe it is time to clean  the street, open it up to traffic, and move forward.    Thank you,  Martin  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Weber wifi <heywebers@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 8:16 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foot Hills park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear Council,  My husband and I reside at 3325 Cowper Ave, Palo Alto and fully support the effort to open the park to all.  Julia and Jeff Weber    Sent from my iPad  7 Baumb, Nelly From:Miriam Madigan Brown <mrmadigan@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 6:05 PM To:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan; Council, City Subject:Community Member Input: Please balance housing allocations across Palo Alto, not all in Ventura CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Greetings: I have been a resident and homeowner in the Ventura neighborhood for 16 years. My family and I, including two school- age children, live / shop / walk / bike / actively participate in community life here. We hope that, through the work of NVCAP, we can continue to strongly consider the needs of the Ventura community as we move decision-making forward for housing in the North Ventura neighborhood. While there are many opinions and needs arising in the dialogue about housing and the jobs / housing / transportation imbalance across the Bay Area and in Palo Alto, the general sentiment in Ventura (acknowledging a wide range of diverse opinions) is that we must balance our efforts to address housing needs across all of Palo Alto - and not jam it all into Ventura. I hear the arguments about North Ventura being a really attractive area given its proximity to Caltrain and Stanford Research Park. Guess what else is right near Stanford Research Park, and could also have some dense housing added to it? Town and Country Village! There are many, many other options, ruining the Ventura neighborhood to meet Palo Alto's housing needs can't be the solution. The SV@Home proposal is far too dense for this area. Come visit us sometime - it's actually a relatively small space (60 acres!) and could not reasonably accommodate 3,000 units of housing. Housing needs must be spread across all of Palo Alto, not addressed in this small neighborhood with a total of one small semi-neglected park. Further, I would encourage you to consider whether aspects of this planning might take fast-moving current trends into account. For example, as a result of the pandemic, jobs may be much less "location fixed" (and Caltrain may go bankrupt). If that were the case, would we need all this, and would it make sense to have it right next to a potentially defunct Caltrain station? I appreciate the work of the NVCAP and encourage this important working group to continue to take a balanced approach on this important issue. Best regards, Miriam Brown 8 Baumb, Nelly From:Ken Joye <kmjoye@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 2:35 PM To:Council, City Subject:belated thanks regarding Summer Streets program CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am overdue in saying “THANK YOU” for the great Summer Streets program (I am still trying to come up with a  suggestion for a non‐seasonal name).  The opening of our streets for dining and strolling has been a wonderful  transformation of our civic spaces.     Thanks to all the city staff who have made this possible and to you on the council for endorsing this program.    appreciatively,  Ken Joye  Ventura neighborhood        On Aug 11, 2020, at 5:47 PM, City of Palo Alto <news@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Council Approves Summer Streets Extension At their August 10 meeting, City Council approved the extension of the Summer Streets program to December 31, 2020, and pushed the expiration of the temporary parklet program to September 7, 2021, continuing the temporary program seeking to support local businesses by offering safe outdoor dining and retail experiences for the community to enjoy.     9 Baumb, Nelly From:Jeff Levinsky <jeff@levinsky.org> Sent:Tuesday, August 18, 2020 11:54 AM To:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan; Council, City Subject:NVCAP Needs to Solve Problems, Not Create Them CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear NVCAP Working Group Members and City Council Members:     The latest staff report for today’s NVCAP meeting is disturbing.  Two top priorities of Palo Alto are affordable  housing and traffic reduction.  The staff report doesn’t focus on solving those problems.  Rather, it talks about  creating more density, more market‐rate housing, and more offices in North Ventura.  Dong so will hurt rather  than help.    Adding offices and thousands of market‐rate housing units will make the neighborhood’s traffic problems far  worse.  The staff report talks about traffic mitigation, but it doesn’t admit that putting new offices and  thousands of new housing units into a small area housing just a few hundred residents right now will create  unmitigatable traffic nightmares.  When trying to get onto El Camino and Page Mill, which are already  extremely congested during rush hours, the added cars will jam the few streets that exit from North Ventura,.   The traffic light at El Camino and Page Mill is already considered the worst in the city.  Far too few residents  take the train and bus to reduce traffic significantly.  We have no community in Palo Alto as dense as what’s  being proposed, so the proposal is extraordinarily unfair to existing residents in Ventura.  And why create such  density in a spot so far away from freeways, thereby impacting residents and commuters in other  neighborhoods as well?    Simply put, adding offices and more market‐rate housing are not solutions but instead impediments to solving  our priorities.  Let’s focus instead on actual solutions.  Two ideas stand out    1) Convert office sites to housing.  We have too many jobs and not enough housing.  A good start for  conversion is the Fry’s site, which is already zoned for housing and was scheduled to have converted over  already, were it not for the extension afforded to Fry’s.  Fry’s departure makes that decision simpler.  The  site was never a particularly good retail location.  The latest notion to have just 30,000 sq. ft. of the site  be retail and the other 87% or so remain offices hardly seems worth the trouble since the retail  tenant will pay less rent per square foot and the landlord might opt just to keep the space vacant.    2) Fund affordable housing.  Let’s stop pretending that we can obtain the 1,000+ affordable units still  required to meet our 2015‐2023 RHNA allocation through fees and inclusionary housing.   We would need  to build about 261 new offices to raise enough in impact fees to pay for one new affordable housing unit.   So even adding a quarter million new office workers to city could not fund the affordable housing units  we need.  Clearly this approach is preposterous – it shouldn’t even be discussed.   Inclusionary housing is  another dead‐end.  Even if 15% or 20% of new housing built were below market‐rate, we would exhaust  our housing element and available space for housing long before we met our affordable targets.  And  none of that would be in the lower income categories that RHNA requires of us – and our problems with  traffic and inadequate parks and community amenities would intensify immeasurably.  Why waste NVCAP  time on these impractical ideas?  Let’s instead adopt policies that can reach the goals.  For example, a $60  10 per year employee tax would fund 400 units of affordable housing on the Fry’s site, as well as creating  new parkland and a community center.  $60 a year per employee is not going to bankrupt any company in  Palo Alto.   Once our economy recovers, past polling suggests voters in Palo Alto will likely approve such a  tax or even a larger one focused on our top priorities.    In short, the NVCAP process needs a strong dose of reality.  Building more offices and upscale housing won’t  solve our problems‐ they’ll make them worse.  Instead, let’s reduce traffic and make huge strides in providing  the affordable housing desperately needed by responsible zoning and funding choices.    Thank you,    Jeff Levinsky  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Vic Befera <vicbefera@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 11:00 PM To:Shikada, Ed; French, Amy; Council, City Subject:Castilleja growth plans CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the City Manager, Chief Planning Official, and City Council members:     At 94 I am perhaps the oldest resident and one of the longest neighbors of Castilleja School, and can offer a  historical perspective spanning over 50 years of dealing with the school.     In 1968, when it was still a small boarding school with limited enrollment of students, many living in resident  dormitories, the school blended easily with the character and charm of old Palo Alto. However, when the  school converted to a day school it began an explosion of new enrollment that continues to the present.  Traffic and parking problems erupted, with illegal parking, blocked driveways, noisy delivery trucks, and  weekend social and athletic events lasting long into the night. Parents bringing and picking up students both  mornings and afternoons double‐park, clogging streets. Our appeals for relief to the school went unheeded.  Elsewhere you can read details of the city‐imposed student enrollment cap and traffic demands management  requirements – which we neighbors negotiated over 18 months in 1998‐1999 ‐  and the school’s flagrant,  years‐long code violations.     Now Castilleja, bursting at the seams, is embarked upon a proposed multi‐million dollar expansion and  campus redevelopment while requesting yet another increase in enrollment, despite the City’s unequivocal  statement in 2000 that “any subsequent  request for additional students will not be favorably looked upon by the City. … the City is not willing to  continue to approach increasing school enrollment for Castilleja School in an incremental manner.”  What  neighbors accepted as a final directive has been blithely ignored by the school and gone unenforced by the  city.     Demolition and construction in several phases will become a multi‐year ordeal of dust, noise, and traffic  dislocation. A proposed underground parking garage entered on Bryant Street will endanger bikers traveling  via the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard. The Environmental Impact report is unblinking: it will cause “significant  and unavoidable increase in traffic.” The growth will impact cross‐town traffic on Alma Street, Embarcadero  Road, Bryant Street, and other school access thoroughfares. Congestion delays and accidents are inevitable,  especially when heavier traffic resumes after the coronavirus pandemic abates. This neighborhood dispute  becomes a serious city‐wide problem.     The pricey, elite private school with tuition rivaling Stanford’s is in fact a “non‐profit” commercial business  operating in one of the city’s earliest residential zones. It pays income or property taxes,  yet enjoys full city  services of police and fire protection. Lacking adequate campus parking, it forces many students, teachers,  staff, and visitors to park on city streets.     2 Architecturally the outsized expansion design will bring a sterile, industrial look and big box wholesaler  exterior with a jarring contrast to the patina of age in surrounding homes.     I applaud the school’s impeccable scholastic ranking. Quality education of our children is of supreme  importance in a democratic society. Unfortunately Castilleja’s management has lost our trust with its broken  promises and lack of transparency in flouting city codes. A school that professes to teach high standards of  integrity and morality and good citizenship to young minds has flunked Ethics 101.     Long after we have all passed from the scene, the deeds of your commissions for planning, architecture, and  traffic will endure permanently. Ask yourselves what course is best for the face and future of Palo Alto.     Vic Befera  1404 Bryant Street  Palo Alto CA 94301          3 Baumb, Nelly From:Yahoo Mail.® <honkystar@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 10:12 PM To:Honky Subject:END GAME? VACCINES NOPE METHINKS TRANS HUMANISM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  DS18 - The End of Life as You Know It Has Arrived, GO VIRAL!!! f/ bro Danny     DS18 - The End of Life as You Know It Has Arrived, GO VIRAL!!! f/ bro D...     Security Check Required Security Check Required    Security Check Required Security Check Required      4 Baumb, Nelly From:Carol Scott <cscott@crossfieldllc.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 9:29 PM To:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan; Council, City Subject:New Surprise Proposal for the Ventura Area CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Committee and Council Members,    I am resident of Palo Alto, and I write with shock and dismay after seeing yet another, new proposal for the  development of the Ventura neighborhood being submitted for your consideration by SV at Home your  meeting on Tuesday, August 18.    In short, this proposal is likely to do a horrific amount of damage to the Ventura neighborhood and the City of  Palo Alto, and is an affront to the members of the NVCAP committee who have been working diligently for the  last two years to try to create a workable plan for this area that will provide for additional affordable housing  but will also not destroy the community that currently lives there.    Really?   Approximately 3,000 new homes in this tiny neighborhood ‐‐ very few of which will be "below  market" ‐‐ along with large commercial office buildings and yet no park or other amenities.  No traffic analysis  for a project near one of the busiest and in pre‐covid times one of the most congested intersections in Palo  Alto, i.e., Oregon Expressway/Page Mill and El Camino Real.  It is near this same intersection that we have  endured massive traffic jams (even in covid times) due to the construction of new housing developments on  both the north and south sides of  Oregon/Page Mill.  Just wait until those units become available.  Tenants of  these developments must enter and depart from either Oregon/Page Mill or El Camino.  What are you possibly  thinking to increase the current housing stock of this neighborhood by well over 200%, and put 10% of the  total amount of housing stock in Palo Alto in it.      We need affordable housing in Palo Alto ‐‐ not more luxury units.  We do not need more commercial office  space.  If retail is needed to serve the residents of this area, it should be services like dentists, medical  services, dry cleaners, personal services such as psychologists, etc., and restaurants.  I cannot imagine a more  tone deaf proposal for the current environment.    If we are to come close to meeting the need for affordable housing, and yet not totally destroy the character  of Palo Alto (there already is a Mountain View and Redwood City ‐‐ we do not need to become another one of  these), then modest scale affordable housing must be embedded in neighborhoods throughout the city.  Only  in that way can neighborhoods absorb new developments and not be overrun by them.  Instead, the current  City trajectory appears to be to pick off one small, and relatively defenseless neighborhood at a time for  special "treatment" and destruction.  Meanwhile other, more privileged neighborhoods remain pristine in  their isolation from the traffic and urbanization inflicted on others.      Further, introducing yet another new plan not arising out of the deliberations of the NVCAP committee  deliberations is an insult to those committee members who have worked so hard for so long to come up with  5 creative and innovative solutions that will create a sustainable and livable community.  What an affront to  ignore the people who know this problem the best.    I urge you to dismiss this new proposal as quickly as you can, and return to the collaborative effort of the  committee which includes residents and others most affected by changes in this neighborhood.  They deserve  to be listened to.    Sincerely,  Carol Scott    ‐‐   Carol Scott  6 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 6:24 PM To:Council, City 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.  I did not send CC a message today so I have no idea what you are speaking of.      On Aug 17, 2020, at 5:38 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.     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.    7 Baumb, Nelly From:Annette Ross <port2103@att.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 5:32 PM To:Jo Ann Mandinach Cc:Council, City; Mary Gallagher; CeCi Kettendorf Subject:Re: California’s Shift From Natural Gas to Solar Is Playing a Role in Rolling Blackouts | Greentech Media CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  There’s an abundance of absurdity and stupidity ‐ can we convert that to energy?      On Aug 17, 2020, at 4:49 PM, Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> wrote:      Dear City Council, As you rush blindly to force us into more costly electrical use without regard to capacity and the consequences, please give this some thought before rushing to take away our cheaper more reliable gas appliances and natural gas! Here's the short version from Business Week: California Governor Gavin Newsom called for an investigation into why officials failed to anticipate the need for rolling blackouts that have left millions of people without power. This month is the first time the state has resorted to intentional outages since the 2001 energy crisis. Part of the problem is the California's rapid shift away from natural gas, according to BloombergNEF.         And the more detailed version:     https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how‐californias‐shift‐from‐natural‐gas‐to‐solar‐is‐ playing‐a‐role‐in‐rolling‐blackouts  9 Baumb, Nelly From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 4:50 PM To:Council, City Cc:Mary Gallagher; Port Ross; CeCi Kettendorf Subject:California’s Shift From Natural Gas to Solar Is Playing a Role in Rolling Blackouts | Greentech Media CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Dear City Council, As you rush blindly to force us into more costly electrical use without regard to capacity and the consequences, please give this some thought before rushing to take away our cheaper more reliable gas appliances and natural gas! Here's the short version from Business Week: California Governor Gavin Newsom called for an investigation into why officials failed to anticipate the need for rolling blackouts that have left millions of people without power. This month is the first time the state has resorted to intentional outages since the 2001 energy crisis. Part of the problem is the California's rapid shift away from natural gas, according to BloombergNEF.         And the more detailed version:     https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/how‐californias‐shift‐from‐natural‐gas‐to‐solar‐is‐playing‐a‐role‐in‐ rolling‐blackouts  10 Baumb, Nelly From:Minor, Beth Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 4:00 PM To:Carol Kiparsky; Council, City Cc:Ian Irwin Subject:RE: Your e-mail to City Council was received We will be posting the emails before the meeting tonight.      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: Carol Kiparsky <ckiparsky@sbcglobal.net>   Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 2:09 PM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Ian Irwin <ian.irwin@sbcglobal.net>  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.  We realize that the usual practice is to send email several days in advance of the meeting where the topic will be  discussed.  However, this issue, the Webster St oak, only recently came to our attention and we strongly urge you to  make an exception and include relevant emails as there are many residents who are very concerned about it.     Carol Kiparsky and Ian Irwin      On Aug 17, 2020, at 1:59 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.     11 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.     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.    12 Baumb, Nelly From:Jim Colton <james.colton10@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 2:21 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fry's Site CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  The current plan of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Committee has several shortcomings.  This plan       Doesn't adequately address the BMR housing that Palo Alto desperately needs.  BMR housing should be the top  priority, not an add‐on.   Brings more traffic to an area that is already saturated with traffic 6 hours a day; needs a traffic analysis   Doesn't have enough parking in an area that is already a parking problem.     Calls for more offices that produce more traffic and parking problems.  Please require extensive modifications of the plan to address these issues.    Jim Colton  Green Acres II    ‐‐     JimColtonPhotography.com  1 Baumb, Nelly From:Pc User <pc77user@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, August 16, 2020 8:56 PM To:David Meiswinkle; Frank Agamennon; mon.tp.coalition@gmail.com; Richard Gage; Dennis Tiernan; Lou Basile; Philip Hussa; Steve Kormondy; biotica@aol.com; Rachel Simmons; Simmons Perla; Joanne Casey; Carol Macannico; Nancy Brais; Andres Lorraine; Camille Lachica; Haydee Bill Mooney; NJ Electrician; ezrider67@verizon.net; mkormondy@yahoo.com; Rachel Joy Simmons; Patty LaPlaca; Jackie Andres Schnell; Sandy and Jason Khneiger; Sea Girt Medical; Cheryl & Erin Hough Al; Tom & Beth Simmons; Messina Mary; sevensisters@q.com; lorraineandres4158@gmail.com; Activist Post; Advance Media; A Son Of RevWar; Advance Media; Craig Simmons; Mila LaChica; janet darcey; BriellePolice@Verizon.net; Spring Lake Police; Rutherford Police; Gene Kolich; Sea Girt Police; Rutherford Police; Wall Police; Bob Nichols; David Gahary; M. S. King; Detective N. Montgomery; BBC ONLY; Biotica; perla_simmons1@yahoo.com; Cook-Simmons Dot; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Council, City; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; editor@reliablenewsnow.net; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Dudley Brown; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Ammo Land; BBC ONLY; Michael Bolden; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Brother Nathanael; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Charles G. Backfish; Tea Party Patriots Action Jenny Beth Martin; Patriotic Freedom Fighter; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Courthouse News; Ammo Land; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; governorsununu@nh.gov; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; SCORE 36; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Paula Dassbach; Ed Durfee; OathKeepers; Bob & Hazel Terhune; Main Street Patriot; BBC ONLY; Gary Flanagan; BBC ONLY; BBC ONLY; Patriot Powered Products & Gear; BBC ONLY; secretary@njoathkeepers.org; BBC ONLY; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads; TheBlueBeads Subject:1000s upon 1000s of cages for humans In CA CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    KommieFornia Kages‐‐For People !!!  For Whom Does The Door Close ???    https://rense.com/general96/1000s‐upon‐1000s‐of‐cages‐for‐humans‐In‐CA.php      Best Regards, & Stay Healthy !  RJS  2 Baumb, Nelly From:Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 16, 2020 6:18 PM To:Rebecca Eisenberg; Rev. Lorrie Owens; chuck jagoda; Roberta Ahlquist; madhumita@gmail.com; WILPF.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; Winter Dellenbach; Jeff Moore; Sandy Perry-HCA; wilpf.peninsula.paloalto@gmail.com; city.council@menlopark.org; City Mgr; Council, City; greg@gregtanaka.org; Tom DuBois; Kou, Lydia; Fine, Adrian; dhorsley@smcgov.org Subject:More on the history of vile local housing segregation -by developers and financial institutions - whose names we recognize -with support and complicity by local government officials and the community at large —today’s ( Sunday) NYT ( past time we discu... CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/14/opinion/sunday/blm‐residential‐segregation.amp.html      Sent from my iPhone  3 Baumb, Nelly From:Patrick Muffler <patrickmuffler@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, August 16, 2020 2:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Cal Ave continued CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Following up on my emails of 28 July 2020 and subsequent Zoom meeting with Greg Tanaka.       Since 28 July, Pat and I have eaten breakfast and lunch at restaurants on California Avenue several times.  Each time it  has been a vibrant, safe experience.  The success of the experiment is demonstrated by the increased staff at Joanie’s  Cafe.  In addition to the regular staff, whom we have known for years, there were at least two new waiters this last  Saturday morning.  Joanie’s wouldn’t be adding staff if the street tables were not a success.    The entrance from Jacaranda Way to California Avenue by the Christian Science Reading room has been improved  strikingly, with the major trash (e.g., fluorescent light bulbs) having been removed.  The entryway, however, is still a  magnet for paper trash; I try to pick up what I can every time I walk through there.  And the paint pealing from the  windowsills is a real negative.  It must be decades since those windows were opened. It is a shame that the entryway to  California Avenue is not more inviting.    I strongly recommend that the California Avenue experiment be extended indefinitely.  This is the kind of support and  assurance that the restaurants need in order to recoup their investment in chairs, tables, lamps, heaters, barriers etc.  and to give them confidence about the future.       Patrick Muffler       4 Baumb, Nelly From:Laura Bajuk <lsb417@aol.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 12, 2020 5:44 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills Park coverage in the Los Altos Town Crier - fyi CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Interesting to see how our neighbors are thinking.    Best to you all!    Laura Bajuk  3469 Bryant  6 1 Baumb, Nelly From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 9:04 AM To:North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan; Council, City Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com Subject:NVCAP - Why SV At Home Now? What are you all thinking? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear NVCAP Working Group Members, Planning Staff and City Council: I have read tomorrow's NVCAP meeting agenda and was surprised and disappointed to see 3000 homes - only 20% of which are below market rate, proposed for NVCAP by SV at Home people. That's plopping roughly an additional 10% of the city's current housing stock in one neighborhood: Ventura. Plus the proposal adds more office and commercial development there as well. This proposal is NEW (the working group has been going on for two years, tomorrow is the second to last meeting) and Councilmembers, you can find the proposals starting on page 18 of the meeting packet at this link. The proposal includes:  Giant new office complexes serving out-of-town commuters, not our local community  Having North Ventura become as dense as Manhattan - why push megagrowth into our little neighborhood?  Traffic jams from all the new office commuters, who will feed into the city’s most congested intersection (El Camino at Page Mill)  3,000 or more mostly luxury-priced apartments crammed into a part of Ventura where only a few hundred residences exist currently, likely displacing existing residents  Utter failure to meet our city’s current affordable housing needs - the new offices and luxury housing will put us even further behind  Allowing developments to be built with insufficient on-site parking, which will worsen street parking and hamper the design safe bicycle routes  Designing the developments without any sort of traffic analysis. How can the community evaluate these designs with no insight into the resulting traffic?  Since the designs do not include any significant parkland, they do not provide the densely- packed residents with the same recreational opportunities that other Palo Alto residents enjoy. We (Terry Holzemer, Keith Reckdahl, both on the Working Group, and I) have been pushing for an alternative offering better solutions that would reduce traffic, create true affordable housing, and make Ventura more like other valued neighborhoods in the city. The Working Group has not been provided the time to properly refine these neighborhood-centric concepts and yet will be devoting half a meeting to this new flawed proposal. I don't understand the rationale behind staff's ignoring the residents' preferences for housing to serve our most vulnerable community members and to create a community with adequate parks that we 2 can all enjoy. We could put all affordable housing there if folks would seriously consider Alternative M or come up with another idea. We can make Ventura better, if we have the will.    Please don't dump 3000 market rate housing units in Ventura. It just seems out of all proportion to what is fair and just.   Thank you for hearing me.  Kind regards and I hope you are all well. Becky Sanders 3 Baumb, Nelly From:Soren Telfer <soren.telfer@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 8:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Complaint against Comcast in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Hello  I am a resident of Palo Alto at 4143 Hubbartt Drive. Comcast has been down in our neighborhood since yesterday 8/16  following the power outage. We still do not have service. As this is the first day of school, and our students are being  educated remotely, this is having a tremendously negative impact on our community. Comcast has not been responsive  to my persistent attempts to escalate within their service deliver organizations. I also called the CPUC this morning and  was told they have no jurisdiction and forwarded me to the FCC.     I find it hard to believe that as a resident of Palo Alto and California, we have no recourse to compel Comcast to  perform other than appeal to the Federal regulatory agency. I am certain that Comcast is required to obtain local  licenses and is subject to local and state commercial regulation. Please take action.    Thanks    Soren Telfer  4 Baumb, Nelly From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 1:02 AM To:Loran Harding; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; David Balakian; bballpod; Leodies Buchanan; beachrides; bearwithme1016@att.net; 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; francis.collins@nih.gov; Steven Feinstein; fmerlo@wildelectric.net; grinellelake@yahoo.com; huidentalsanmateo; steve.hogg; hennessy; Irv Weissman; jerry ruopoli; Joel Stiner; kfsndesk; Mark Kreutzer; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; Pam Kelly; lalws4@gmail.com; leager; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; Mayor; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mark Standriff; newsdesk; nick yovino; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; tsheehan; terry; Tom Lang; vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu; shanhui.fan@stanford.edu Subject:Fwd: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway 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: Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:07 AM  Subject: Fwd: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 8:23 PM  Subject: Fwd: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 8:18 PM  Subject: Fwd: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 5:05 PM  5 Subject: Fwd: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 4:13 PM  Subject: Fwd: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 4:02 PM  Subject: Fwd: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 3:24 PM  Subject: Fwd: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 3:05 PM  Subject: Fwd: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 3:09 AM  Subject: Fwd: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Aug 16, 2020 at 2:19 AM  6 Subject: Fwd: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 10:12 PM  Subject: Fwd: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sat, Aug 15, 2020 at 5:20 PM  Subject: What happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>              Sunday, August 16, 2020               To all‐               Sad event, what happened to the USS Yorktown at the Battle of Midway . A Japanese torpedo bomber put a  torpedo into its port side. They tried to save her, but a couple of days later, a Japanese sub put two more torpedos into  the starboard side of Yorktown. At that point, the Navy abandoned attempts to save her. She sank on June 7, 1942.  But  the Navy, at the Battle of Midway, sank four of the six carriers from which the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor. They  brought those four carriers out to Midway, and only four, and none returned to Japan.                Here you learn what happened to the first Yorktown at Midway.                 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQjDk7HSVyA              In the above link, it starts with parts 2, 3 and 4 and then, one used to see part 1. No more, apparently. You still get  a pretty clear picture of how the battle unfolded. I was born 4 mos. later.                     I once saw this comment:  "By losing four carriers at Midway, the Japanese lost the war in the western Pacific in  one afternoon".   Maybe an over‐statement, considering what had to be done to defeat them after June, 1942.              Wth the loss of the first Yorktown (CV‐5) on June 7, 1942, the Navy changed the name of another carrier then  under construction to "Yorktown" (CV‐10). It was commissioned in 1943.  One film I saw on the net talked about the first  Yorktown for a minute or two, and then the rest of the film was about the exploits of the second Yorktown, but they  don't use the term "second Yorktown".  It in no way to detracts from the fighting done by the second Yorktown, but if  they don't say which ship it is, it can be confusing. If it is 1936‐1942, it is the first Yorktown. If it is 1943 or later, it is the  second Yorktown.            The ship who's name was changed to Yorktown in 1943 was originally to be called the USS Bonhomme Richard.  Later in WWII another carrier was named the Bonhomme Richard and it was commissioned on 26 November, 1944. It  7 was ultimately designated CVA‐31. It was one of 24 Essex‐class aircraft carriers completed during or shortly after WWII.  In 1959, my sister married a man who had recently served aboard that ship. It was decommissioned in 1971 and  scrapped in 1992.          The ship which caught fire on July 12, 2020 while tied up at Naval Base San Diego is named the USS Bonhomme  Richard (LHD‐6). She is a Wasp‐class amphibious assault ship of the United States Navy commissioned on 15 August,  1998.            The first Lexington, CV‐2, was sunk at the Battle of the Coral Sea in May, 1942. The next month another carrier under  construction had its name changed to "Lexington" and it was designated CV‐16. It too saw action in WWII. It was  launched on 26 September, 1942 and commissioned for the first time on 17 February, 1943. It was re‐designated CVA 16  on 1 October, 1952.  I have read that the second Lexington shows damage caused by a Kamakazi. I know an electrical  engineer in Palo Alto who served aboard the second Lexington in the late 50's. The ship is now, since 15 June, 1992, the  "USS Lexington Museum on the Bay" at Corpus Christi, Texas.               History of the second Lexington, launched 26 Sept. 1942:                 http://www.navsource.org/archives/02/16.htm                            LH  From: Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2020 10:05 AM To: scscroundtable@gmail.com Cc: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: Re: Public Comment today's SCSC Leg meeting - Agenda Item #4 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Correction to auto type. ...Is it appropriate to concentrate noise? Everything you are proposing about health issues relates to this... On Mon, 17 Aug 2020 at 09:58, Jennifer Landesmann <jlandesmann@gmail.com> wrote: Dear SCSC Legislative Committee: For item 4 - I suggest you please clarify if your goal is to influence "appropriateness of airspace changes" OR "appropriateness of process." As you are aware, FAA's NEPA regulations (FAA Order 1050.1F) are about process - a process of consultation with communities. As I have been alerting you throughout the year - you have power to improve FAA NEPA practices now and not have to wait for a future bill or legislation to make the process work better. Remember: • Last year the FAA asked YOU to help decide the level of environmental reviews, and you haven't taken any positions. You could start by getting baseline analysis done for the major procedures affecting citizens. Noise maps, noise maps, noise maps. • The FAA has also recently gone on record to ENCOURAGE the use metrics beyond DNL in assessment. There is an abundance of data, technology, and experts who can do this today. An extra push of a button outputs more metrics than DNL.Noise maps, noise maps. Your document rightly points to an appropriateness of process as fundamental to evaluate changes (using right tools and metrics). I assume that just like making changes about roadways, say changing a traffic light to a stop sign - appropriate and realistic analysis is necessary. Appropriateness of airspace changes should develop from proper consultation - and why the level of review for changes matter. Say Nextgen is meant to build airport capacity yet it barely uses EA's when it should require fuller reviews. About the complaints you mention - you need to start clarifying that these complaints are due to concentration of noise and pollution. Is it appropriate to concentrate on noise? Everything you are proposing about health issues relates to this. I have made some quick/informal notes in blue for the Item 4 document. Since we just heard about this meeting on Friday, I would be happy to elaborate and send more info on each point after. Thank you, Jennifer My public omments in blue Agenda Item #4 Language/Concepts the SCSC Roundtable Requests be Added to Appropriate Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Legislation Issue: Current regulations and guidance that govern the FAA’s environmental reviews do not include sufficiently specific language to direct the FAA to adequately consider the impact of aircraft noise on residents and noise sensitive resources when it is making determinations about the appropriateness of flight procedure changes. NEPA calls for appropriateness of PROCESS; the proposed changes themselves are then evaluated for appropriateness with proper consultation. Failure of appropriateness of process I suggest is due to the following 3 reasons – not just FAA’s doing: 1) FAA Noise Policy thresholds for process: That FAA has set thresholds of significance (for disclosure, public engagement and mitigations) that DENY an appropriate process all for areas outside a 65 dnl. What are the regional committees and roundtables for? To just keep saying we need new legislation? Why not press both FAA and airports to do full disclosure starting at 45 DNL and to develop a menu of alternatives beyond insulation such as night time procedures. 2) FAA environmental practices: Since nobody asks otherwise, FAA and airports go out of their way to avoid showing before/after noise projections despite public outcry about the problems. FAA says they encourage the use of alternative metrics, where's the action? What happens if you never ask? 3) Airports and Regional help FAA and airports hide impacts: Committees and roundtables have not been sufficiently proactive to get the noise analysis (fundamental to an “appropriate process”). Noise assessments are not even time consuming; the technology is available, there is abundant data. The SCSC Roundtable could right now ask for the FAA to supplement DNL in the EA’s ahead (especially because you repp communities which are all FAR away from 65 DNL)– and demand for airports to track impacts with more than DNL. Has the SCSC asked? The intent of the proposed language changes is to protect residents and noise sensitive resources as the FAA considers changing the flight procedures/path/frequency over them. Recommendation: The following conceptual language changes need to be included in the appropriate FAA Reauthorization bill or similar bills regarding the FAA – until this language has been approved and adopted for use by the FAA. • The millions of aircraft noise complaints and public discord that has resulted from the FAA’s implementation of the NorCal Metroplex and other Metroplex projects throughout the country has demonstrated that the FAA’s existing tools (FAA TOOLS LIKE AEDT CAN WORK FINE -OTHERWISE ALL FAA ACTIONS WOULD BE INVALID), noise metrics (ITS PERMISSIBLE IN FAA NOISE POLICY TO EMPLOY MORE METRICS THAN DNL _ FAA JUST WROTE A REPORT ENCOURAGING THEIR USE), and thresholds of significance (SIGNIFICANCE FOR DISCLOSURE, FOR MITIGATION?) have not effectively or accurately assessed the impact of aircraft noise on residents and noise sensitive resources. Therefore, the FAA must establish new reasonable and realistic noise metrics and noise standards (FAA SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT THIS SHOULD BE PROPOSED BY COMMUNITIES – BECAUSE ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL, THAT MAKES SENSE) for accurately assessing the noise impacts of flight procedure changes. This includes the application of cumulative and single-event noise metrics to assess impacts on human annoyance, sleep, health, learning, public spaces, and natural quiet. YOU/WE CAN PROPOSE A GROUP OF METRICS – WHAT ARE WE WAITING FOR? FAA's recent 188 report to Congress has a MENU of options. What needs to be discussed is for example for a metric like N above, what should the "above" be? For an airport runway community N70 but that is inappropriate for a rural area. The level needs some trial and testing to see together WITH the folks who know the noise (people on the ground, not an outdated FAA manual). The FAA must modify their existing flight procedure approval processes to include and utilize the new noise metrics when approving any flight procedure modification. The current approval process appears to be “community consensus” which is devoid of any objective criteria and requires all of the above to be trustworthy. • When the FAA is reviewing/approving any flight procedure, they must collect noise measurements at homes and noise sensitive uses (using the new metrics defined above). These noise measurements will include actual pre-change conditions, actual post-change conditions, and a post- implementation review process to ensure the “after” condition is the same or an improvement in aircraft noise exposure as measured at homes and noise sensitive uses than was defined in the approved flight procedure. THERE APPEARS TO BE A NEW PROCESS TO GET AIRPORT MONITORS outside the 65 DNL (using federal funds). THE SCSC could be instrumental in securing permanent monitors for our communities. • If the post-implementation noise measurements are higher than those defined in the approved flight procedure’s environmental documentation, the FAA would be required to modify the flight procedures until the noise levels are at or lower than the approved levels. 
 • The SCSC Roundtable agrees that safety of air travel is paramount. However, the SCSC Roundtable believes that the rules governing the FAA’s environmental processes should be amended to ensure that “the impact of aircraft noise on people and noise sensitive resources” is given the same decision making weight as “the efficient use of the airspace for aircraft operators”. 
 1 Baumb, Nelly From:richard mamelok <mamelok@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 10:45 AM To:Council, City Subject:CASTILLEJA CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  RE Castilleja expansion and campus footprint  We do not support the increased in enrollment and its attendant expansion of their physical footprint, specifically the plan for a garage (revised plan  currently under review) for the following reasons:   The school’s plan for expansion is likely to increase traffic around the school despite efforts to prevent that; there is no precedent for an increase  in a physical plant leading to decreased traffic.   The inevitable changes to crossing the railroad tracks at Churchill Avenue will also affect traffic in the area in yet undetermined ways and  therefore an additional action that would affect traffic is ill advised at this time   While Castilleja provides a good education for those who can attend, Castilleja is NOT a community resource, claims to the contrary  notwithstanding. o  A large majority of its students do not live in Palo Alto o The school does not pay taxes to support infrastructure.  o Their programs featuring guest speakers are not open to the public.     The city staff and ultimately the city council should protect neighborhoods and act in the interest of the city’s citizens, not in the narrow interest  of a private entity that contributes little to the palo alto community at large.      Richard D. Mamelok, MD and Midori Aogaichi, MD 364 Churchill Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 mobile: +1 650 924 0347 mamelok@pacbell.net This email transmission and any documents, files or previous email messages attached to it may contain information that is confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient or a person responsible for delivering this transmission to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you must not read this transmission and that any disclosure, copying, printing, distribution or use of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify the sender by telephone or return email and delete the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner.   2 Baumb, Nelly From:Joyce McClure <joyce@differnet.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 10:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:Ventura Neighborhood Plan CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am dismayed to see the proposal set forth by "SV Home" which disregards the work put in by the neighborhood  committee and would result in an overly dense, high cost housing situation with minimal recreation or open space  considerations, which would dwarf the current charming and close knit neighborhood. (I lived here for 15 years.)     I urge you to scrap this plan and consider something that will enhance this city that we love, not disrespect it.    Sincerely,    Joyce McClure  45 year resident of Palo Alto    1005 Bryant St.  Palo Alto, CA 94301   3 Baumb, Nelly From:L. Rob Robinson <latinafro@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 10:02 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Good day - As a former resident of Palo Alto, I encourage the city to make the space available to everyone. This was my experience. After college, I remained living in a shared house on Channing Street downtown. I got my driver’s license renewed with that address. One beautiful afternoon I decided to go to Foothills Park for the first time. When I arrived, the guard at the gate asked where I was going, then stated that the park was only for Palo Alto residents. I said, “I know,” and gave him my license. He looked at it and said, “I don’t know that street. Is that in East Palo Alto?” I replied calmly, “does it say East?” (at the time, East Palo Alto was still mostly African-American and economically distressed). I drove into the park and felt so disgusted I left immediately and never returned. Reading Mark Nadin's quote in today's San Francisco Chronicle reminded me of this. Thank you. L. Rob Robinson San Francisco CA 4 Baumb, Nelly From:Jo Ann Mandinach <joann@needtoknow.com> Sent:Monday, August 17, 2020 9:18 AM To:Council, City Subject:Ventura: Let's stop pretending you're serious about housing CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Give that only 20% of the housing there is BMR and that the proposal includes yet another non-resident-serving office building that will only contribute MORE traffic to the few major arteries we have left, please stop the ridiculous rhetoric that you're in favor of housing. STOP BUILDING MORE OFFICES and concentrate on BMR housing. Focus on serving residents, NOT future commuters. Jo Ann Mandinach 1699 Middlefield Rd Palo Alto, CA 94301 Nick Yeager 575 Addison Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 August 5, 2020 Mayor Adrian Fine City Hall 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Fine: CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 20 AUG I 3 PH 3: I 0 •4 . , . J.-""'" ' ' \, c • ,,1 I ' . ·--· / ...:·.~ ..,, ~ Hello, I'm Nick Yeager and I reside in Palo Alto. I am writing about the "Black Lives Matter' Mural in front of City Hall. It is disturbing to see a bank robber, thief and a cop killer portrayed as heroes. Are these the city's concept of role models? Black Lives Matter is not a good organization; they support and sponsor violent protest, always attempt to get people fired, and in many cities their protests have led to vandalism, destruction and theft. They engage in extortion and Mafia-like tactics. I do not believe Palo Alto should be supporting this. If the city wants to honor the Black community, there are many other fine organizations. There is the NAACP, which is an excellent group, the United Negro College Fund, and others. Additionally, there have been many great leaders over the years such as Martin Luther King who advocated non-violence. A mural with any of these would be OK. Palo Alto is an important town and as such, has a responsibility to do the right thing. In this case, the city needs to step away from Mafia, strong arm and Marxist groups and embrace the morally sound. How about a mural of Ghandi? I urge the city to remove the mural. At the very least, you should replace the painting of the cop killer which is offensive. Sincerely yours, Nick Yeager