The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal About20190812plCC 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: 08/12/2019 Document dates: 07/24/2019 – 07/31/2019 Set 1 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, July 25, 2019 10:20 PM To:Jonsen, Robert; City Mgr; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; paloaltofreepress@gmail.com; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; council@redwoodcity.org Subject:Buena Vista Mobile Home Police Beating -Palo Alto Police Chief ( former Menlo Park Police Chief) remains silent-LaDoris Cordell -speaks out CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ https://www.nbcbayarea.com/on‐air/as‐seen‐on/Questions‐Surround‐Palo‐Alto‐Police‐Officers_‐Use‐of‐Force_Bay‐ Area‐513091112.html?amp=y Sent from my iPhone 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 26, 2019 7:22 AM To:aram james Cc:Jonsen, Robert; City Mgr; Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; council@redwoodcity.org Subject:Re: Buena Vista Mobile Home Police Beating -Palo Alto Police Chief ( former Menlo Park Police Chief) remains silent-LaDoris Cordell -speaks out CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Aram, thank you for sharing..... This incident solidifies that nothing has changed in the Palo Alto police leadership... Minorities, ones sexual orientation, and the disenfranchised continues to be a serious threat to the community at large and for those who visit Palo Alto, by the Palo Alto police department...Palo Alto’s diversity statements are nothing but hollowed words. Unconscious bias training receive by the Palo Alto police department has proven itself to be ineffective by this shocking video and should serve as a warning to our surrounding communities.. Conscious and unconscious bias should be dealt with swiftly and with full transparency. Unfortunately, these incidences historically, continue unabated.... Mark Petersen‐Perez Ticuantepe, Nicaragua 🇳🇮 Sent from my iPad On Jul 25, 2019, at 11:20 PM, aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com> wrote: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/on‐air/as‐seen‐on/Questions‐Surround‐Palo‐Alto‐Police‐Officers_‐Use‐of‐ Force_Bay‐Area‐513091112.html?amp=y Sent from my iPhone 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rita Vrhel <ritavrhel@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Wednesday, July 24, 2019 10:34 PM To:Historic Resources Board Cc:Council, City Subject:Cannery at Fry's site CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello HRB: I am asking you to preserve the historical cannery @ the current Palo Alto Frys. Thomas Foon Chew, the Cannery's owner, also founded Mayfield's first industrial site leading to Palo Alto's importance. Additionally Mr. Foon Chew made meaningful contributions to the canning industry, this in spite of the Chinese Exclusion Act. We again are facing a political culture attempting to limit the dreams and accomplishments of those who are not white. Let's not be part of that horrid trend. Preserving the Cannery and Mr. Foon Chew's accomplishments are worth your efforts. Palo Alto's Asian population is growing, adding vitality and ethnic diversity. Their population is currently around 34% of Palo Alto's popultion. What better way to recognize this growing population and Mr. Foon Chew's historic contributions than by saving and preserving the Cannery? Perhaps it can become an Asian cultural museum or an early industrial museum highlighting the Asian populations contributions to Palo Alto and describing the canning business as it once existed? Santa Clara Valley was once orchards and know as the Valley of Heavenly Delights. Once the Cannery is torn down and replaced with more same old/ same old office buildings, this rich history and heritage will be lost forever. Please remember Penn Station long regretted destruction and Grand Central Station wonderful restoration. It is now a major tourist attraction as well as a fully functioning Grand Central train station. What a beauty! Unfortunately, we do not have a local Jackie Kennedy to lead the fight to preserve and honor our historical Cannery as she did for Grand Central Station! I fear many of our historical buildings are being torn down while other Cities save their unique buildings and preserve their past. This Cannery building was identified as eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources by the consultant Page & Turnbull. Likely the Cannery is eligible for the National Register. 2 Please request a complete and detailed CEQA analysis for the Cannery and do you best to preserve Palo Alto's unique history. Thank you. Rita Vrhel {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Peter Costello <peterwcostello@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, July 29, 2019 1:09 PM To:commission@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City; French, Amy; Castilleja Expansion Cc:PA Neighbor Network; Peter Costello Subject:Castilleja expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I am a Palo Alto resident living less than one block from the Castilleja site, and have a daughter who graduated from Castilleja in 2011. While I am a strong supporter of Castilleja's mission, I also strongly oppose the school's expansion on a site that is already overcrowded. Castilleja has requested a renegotiation of the CUP enrollment cap from 415 to 540 students. This is an increase of 25%. I do not know Castilleja's employment, but there are currently 167 employees with LinkedIn pages (https://www.linkedin.com/school/castilleja‐school/). Assuming a 25% increase in staff, the load on the site would increase by at least 167 people (125 students and 42 staff). Castilleja's density is already significantly higher than comparably sized public schools in Palo Alto. From https://www.pausd.org/business‐services/strong‐schools‐bond, there are links to a "Campus Profile" with acreage, enrollment and square footage numbers for Addison, Hays, Hoover, Nixon, and Palo Verde schools. I picked these five because there was no data on the others. These sites range from 4.6 acres to 10.3 acres. Those five schools average 6.54 acres, have an average enrollment of 425, and have 43,671 square feet of buildings. Assuming 25 teachers/staff per site, these elementary schools have about 450 students/staff per site. If Castilleja is able to annex the residential homes that it owns, its lot size will increase to 6.58 acres. Currently, Castilleja already has 438 students (23 over‐cap), and 167+ employees (per Linked‐in), which totals 605 people. Increasing enrollment to 540 and increasing staffing by 25% would put about 750 people on site during school hours. Castilleja also has significant traffic from sporting events, on‐campus events, and summer‐camps that the public elementary schools lack. The planning commission and city council should reject an increase in Castilleja's enrollment. Castilleja's proposed project represents a huge increase in square footage. The Draft EIR and other documents submitted by Castilleja spin a narrative of "no increase in square footage". Paraphrasing page 1‐3 of the DEIR Executive Summary, the proposal is to replace 6021sf plus 84,572sf with 84,124sf of new construction. This narrative seems intentionally misleading; it refers to a calculation of lot coverage versus the actual construction. 1. The existing square footage to be demolished includes four spaces that artificially inflate the current square footage. These are 11,389 sf of attic space in the Arrillaga Center, and 6021 sf from the homes at 1263 Emerson and 1235 Emerson (See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57672). The "at grade connection between library/arts and classroom wings" is also included (See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72447, DEIR Table 3‐1, page 3‐9). 2. Above grade classroom space will double from 42,000sf to 84,124sf (DEIR Table 3‐1, page 3‐9). 3. Below grade classroom space will triple from 14,726sf to 46,768sf (DEIR Table 3‐1, page 3‐9). Furthermore, it is my understanding that these classrooms are not really underground, but are technically only below street‐ grade, and will open onto a lowered inner circle. Whether or not these classrooms count towards floor‐area‐ ratio (FAR), they still represent a major increase in the development density on the site. 4. The proposed garage adds a further 50,500sf of uncounted square footage. A commercial garage entrance and exit are incompatible with residential zoning. Furthermore, the site water table is at 23‐31 feet (DEIR, page 12‐ 13). When the Castilleja gymnasium was constructed, pumps ran 24/7 for many months dumping significant amounts of groundwater into the storm drains. 2 5.Total proposed square footage is 244,015 square‐feet versus existing 166,231 sf (DEIR Table 3‐1, page 3‐9). This is an increase of 47%. Excluding the existing residences (6021sf), this is an increase of 52%. Excluding the existing attic (11389sf), this is an increase of 64%. Compared to Palo Alto's elementary schools, the proposed development is 5.6 times more dense (244015 / 43671sf) on comparable parcel‐size. Castilleja is situated in the middle of a residential R‐1 neighborhood. A lightly trafficked and lightly developed school is consistent with a residential neighborhood. However, Castilleja's proposal represents a major redevelopment that is more consistent with commercial zoning. I am particularly triggered by Castilleja's insistence on including a parking garage in their plans, and then insisting that the neighbors have asked for it. I support great education, but Castilleja should not be granted an increase in enrollment, and their redevelopment proposals must be evaluated taking into account all of the proposed square footage ‐ both above and below grade. Sincerely, Peter Costello {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jeff Hoel <jeff_hoel@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, July 26, 2019 3:10 PM To:Council, City Cc:Hoel, Jeff (external) Subject:CAUTION about emails that originated from outside "the organization" Council members, Recently, staff has apparently adopted the policy of adding the following warning to email messages the City receives from outside "the organization" (i.e., from outside City government): "CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links." Usually, but not always, the warning is highlighted in yellow. The warning is added to messages whether or not they have any attachments or clickable links. Occasionally, the warning is NOT added to a message. Would Council be willing to direct staff to provide a staff report that explains why it has adopted this new policy? If there were an Information Technology Commission, then that commission could look into it. But there isn't. Is there a way to automate the policy, so that the warning is added to ALL email messages received from outside "the organization"? And so that it's always highlighted in yellow? Is there a way to automate the policy, so that the warning is added to an email message from outside "the organization" if and only if it actually has clickable links and/or attachments? Is there a way to automate analyzing all email messages received from outside "the organization" to detect whether clicking on a message's links or attachments might be harmful? Thanks. Jeff ------------------- Jeff Hoel 731 Colorado Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 ------------------- PS: Below the "######" line is information about the warning messages that appeared in the most recent six "Letters From Citizens" documents, which are linked to by the 08-05-19 Council agenda document. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=40453.27&BlobID=72560 PPS: On 06-10-19 and 06-27-19, I received messages that said they were from the City of Palo Alto, although they obviously were not. I would be happy to forward them to a City person who would promise not to be victimized by them, and who is interested in figuring out where they came from. ######################################################################################## 07-01-19: 10 CAUTIONs, 7 colored in yellow, 3 not (pages 10,16,17). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=50421.02&BlobID=72574 2 07-08-19: 57 CAUTIONs, 47 colored in yellow, 10 not (pages 22,25,27,34,49,67,68,70,80,99). One email had no CAUTION (page 55). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=48441.63&BlobID=72568 07-15-19: 21 CAUTIONs, 17 colored in yellow, 4 not (pages 30,31,40,79). One email had no CAUTION (page 2). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=48441.64&BlobID=72569 07-22-19: 11 CAUTIONs, 8 colored in yellow, 3 not (pages 2,7,38), https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=48441.64&BlobID=72570 07-29-19: 7 CAUTIONs, 7 colored in yellow. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=48441.64&BlobID=72571 08-05-19: 34 CAUTIONs, 31 colored in yellow, 3 not (pages 35,40,42). One email had no CAUTION (page 71). https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=50421.02&BlobID=72574 1 Brettle, Jessica From:bill@thepowars.com Sent:Tuesday, July 30, 2019 3:25 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City Subject:Draft Castilleja EIR CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I am writing this note because I will be unable to attend the scheduled August 14 hearing regarding the draft EIR for Castilleja School's application for a new CUP as my wife and I will be traveling at that time. I have read portions of the draft report and I believe the commission should reject it as being deficient in assessing the impact of the school's proposal to increase enrollment, build an underground garage and totally rebuild the academic buildings. Among the deficiencies I noted are: 1. There is no estimate of the thousands of cubic feet of dirt that will be necessary to be removed and disposed of to build the underground garage; nor is there any discussion of where that dirt will be removed to (and the consequences of that "dumping"). There is no discussion of the number of truck loads that will be necessary to remove said dirt, the impact on the surrounding streets and the location of a staging area for those trucks. 2. There is inadequate discussion of the air quality consequences of the removal of the dirt and the other construction. Although there are requirements to adopt procedures to minimize these impacts, as a resident during the construction of the underground gymnasium, I can attest to the fact that the air quality will deteriorate dramatically and for many days will be unbreathable. All local residences will have significant dirt residue and will require both power washing of the walls and extensive cleaning of windows. 3. There is no discussion of the length of time necessary for the construction of the total project, the number of construction workers and their parking arrangements, the number of truck deliveries during construction nor the plans for accommodating school sessions while the existing buildings are demolished and the new ones being built. There is no doubt that this multi-year project will lead to significant dislocations as construction equipment and supplies are delivered and removed. Drivers routinely ignore impacts on the neighbors which are likely to be significant given the limited "on campus" space for staging. When the school rebuilt the oval several years ago, I was forced to miss a doctor's appointment because my driveway was blocked for several hours when a large flatbed was picking up a piece of equipment and double parked on Emerson. When I asked the driver to move it so I could get out of my driveway, he refused and responded that I should have moved my car to the street before work hours as I knew there was construction going on. When I called the school, I was told they had no control over the construction workers. 4. In looking at ongoing neighborhood impacts, the report should provide a comparison of student density (number of students per acre or something similar) of the Castilleja proposal against other Bay Area private schools. It does not. There should be a discussion of restrictions imposed on evening and weekend events of these other schools. 5. In the discussion of alternatives, a detailed description of steps taken by other private schools when faced with similar circumstances was missing. The report accepts without question the school's stated objective to have a single 6-12 campus. Other local private school's had similar objectives but eventually agreed to split campuses. The report should include an analysis of the impacts these other schools have experienced of having split campuses. In addition, there should be a comparison of measures of student density (students per acre or something similar) of the existing Castilleja allowed (not actual) and 2 proposed enrollments with other area private schools. This summary should be accompanied by an analysis of these other school's actual neighborhood impacts and ongoing neighborhood complaints. 6. The transportation analysis lacks any analysis of the impact of the proposal on the Embarcadero corridor, other than an analysis of the small spur where westbound Embarcadero traffic can turn right onto Alma. At peak commute times (including morning school hours), traffic tends to back up from the Embarcadero/El Camino and Embarcadero/Town&Country stop lights far beyond Emerson, sometimes to Waverley. school traffic is likely to have some added burden on Embarcadero but there seems to be no discussion of this. Since traffic coming from the proposed garage would exit onto Emerson toward Embarcadero and then turn right onto Embarcadero, there needs to be an analysis of the actual traffics patterns Eastbound on Embarcadero. In addition, although the posted speed limit is 25 mph on Embarcadero, actual traffic flows are usually significantly faster than that. Since the visibility at the intersection is less than ideal, given the angle at which Embarcadero comes up the hill from the Alma/rail underpass, backups onto Emerson will be more significant than as discussed in the report. 7. Also, the transportation section refers to the Emerson Embarcadero intersection as not being a pedestrian cross area. It is my understanding that California law defines any intersection as a pedestrian crosswalk, even those without markings, unless there is a no crossing posting. There is no such posting at this intersection. 8. There is no discussion of the fact that people routinely turn left from Emerson onto Embarcadero Westbound and from Embarcadero Westbound onto Emerson in spite of the signage prohibiting those turns. Police patrols are unlikely to be in the area at prime school commute hours likely resulting in an increase in this illegal and dangerous driving behavior. 9. I found the minimal discussion of the school's failure to abide by the existing CUP in the land use section of the report to be particularly troublesome. Throughout the report, the writers describe mitigation efforts that would minimize negative impacts. Since without these mitigation efforts, there would have been many more negative impacts highlighted. A single sentence in section 4.2 of the draft EIR - "During the 2011-2012 academic school year, the student population exceeded the 2000 CUP enrollment limitation of 415 students." - dramatically understates the school's behavior. I believe the school first surpassed their allowed enrollment limit before the 2000 CUP was in effect (they anticipated it for the 1999-2000 school year, even though it was not effective until January 2000) and their failure to abide by it began before the 2010 school year mentioned in the report. The report fails to mention that the school had applied for 425 in the late 90s, but was limited to 415 by the city and was explicitly told at that time "no more". There needs to be a thorough discussion of the factors that have changed since then for the city to allow what was rejected then. Given that many of the mitigation efforts described in the draft EIR require ongoing actions by the school that are not dissimilar to the non-enrollment conditions of the 2000 CUP, a more thorough discussion of the school's failure to follow them after they were imposed in 2000 needs to be added. I also understand that the recently retired city manager referred to these conditions as unenforceable. A reasonable person should demand more analysis of if these were ignored and unenforceable for the past 19 years, how they will be followed and enforced going forward. 10. It is my understanding that the school would require a modification of the existing underground easement associated with the city's abandonment of the surface easement when the Melville cul-de-sac was turned into a playing field by the school, and possibly the relocation of sewer lines. I may have missed it, but I did not see any discussion of this and the possible impacts on sewer flows and storm runoff. 11. When the school built the underground gymnasium, they encountered water and stopped construction until a detailed water abatement plan was developed and approved. The pump system behind the art building on Emerson is an ongoing feature of the plan. Given this history, there needs to be a more detailed analysis and description based on 20+ years of experience related to the underground stream that is part of the area. 12. The plan calls for the removal of 2 single family residences which the report dismisses as inconsequential without any serious discussion. Given the tremendous housing shortage in Palo Alto, this section needs to be enhanced significantly. 3 I am sure a more thorough reading the hundreds of pages in the report will bring to light many more deficiencies and I call on the commission members to do so and to return the report to the staff as unacceptable. The staff should also be directed to interview impacted neighbors to ascertain their concerns and their individual histories of interactions with the school when the school failed to follow CUP requirements over the past 30 years. Sincerely, Bill Powar 1310 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 bill@thepowars.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Abby Boyd <abby650@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, July 26, 2019 9:11 AM To:Council, City Subject:Foothill Park CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ I want Foothill Park to remain for residents only. I consider it a Nature Preserve. Deer, bobcats, turkey, and maybe a cougar thrive there and more people will scare them out of their habitat. Foothill Park is used by classes and camps during the summer and exists as a semi‐wild area. Additional staffing will be necessary if it is opened to the public. Palo Alto should do it’s part in maintaining open space, wildlife corridors, and plant diversity, all of which will be threatened by the increased usage if opened to everyone. Please maintain Foothill Park the way it has been for years, and reward the thoughtful management of a semi‐wild area for what it has done for animals, plants, and us. Abby Boyd {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sylvia Gartner <sgartner@ix.netcom.com> Sent:Friday, July 26, 2019 12:41 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. ________________________________ I am absolutely irate about the prospect of opening up Foothills Park to all comers. This hare‐brained idea smells to me like a reaction to Corey Wolbach, who wasn't re‐elected to a council position and has decided to fire at us from outside the circle. I particularly resent his "institutional racism" comment in the Palo Alto Weekly in May. Foothills Park, in the years since I moved to Palo Alto in 1982, has been a haven for quiet hikes and reflection. The park is beautiful and beautifully maintained. Why in the world would I want to pay taxes for the extra expense and upkeep that will, of course, result from increased foot and car traffic? I don't have children in Palo Alto schools, but I don't take a senior exemption from any assessments on my property taxes that help students in our schools. I will certainly re‐think this if the come‐one, come‐all policy takes effect for Foothills Park. Sylvia Gartner Moreno Avenue 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Thursday, July 25, 2019 2:42 PM To:Loran Harding; Dan Richard; dennisbalakian; David Balakian; Mayor; Mark Standriff; Mark Kreutzer; margaret-sasaki@live.com; midge@thebarretts.com; mthibodeaux@electriclaboratories.com; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; nick yovino; bballpod; popoff; Joel Stiner; terry; Council, City; Steve Wayte; steve.hogg; Steven Feinstein; Doug Vagim; Cathy Lewis; info@superide1.com; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com; jerry ruopoli; huidentalsanmateo Subject:Fwd: FRA allows CHSRA to do environmental reviews faster CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 2:27 PM Subject: Fwd: FRA allows CHSRA to do environmental reviews faster To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 2:04 PM Subject: Fwd: FRA allows CHSRA to do environmental reviews faster To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:47 PM Subject: Fwd: FRA allows CHSRA to do environmental reviews faster To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:36 PM Subject: Fwd: FRA allows CHSRA to do environmental reviews faster To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> 2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:17 PM Subject: Fwd: FRA allows CHSRA to do environmental reviews faster To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 1:02 PM Subject: Fwd: FRA allows CHSRA to do environmental reviews faster To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Date: Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 12:53 PM Subject: FRA allows CHSRA to do environmental reviews faster To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Thurs. July 25, 2019 Dan‐ Big news for CHSRA apparently. Assemblyman Jim Patterson said a few mos. ago that it was inevitable that Calif. HSR would be cancelled after Trump demanded the return of $936 million of fed. money. That's some cancellation. The project looks surprisingly alive. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwDqTWfXNHSfRvgcCdVknwcTnfk?compose=CrpPbDzFprLtPJVVWbzJ rvfQfQWNpnxlxfZtQknkZGwmFVHhbWttHVGkqQwDwGrNtJpbzxCTSKbwWCzBhWbV The PBS News Hour had Judy Woodruff announce that Trump was demanding $936 billion of HSR money back from Calif. That plays better on the east coast. CHSRA recently sent out a vid. showing various HSR projects underway in the CV‐ overpasses, etc.: Note that CHSRA has a new website there allowing the media to get information re HSR faster. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgxwChmLnwtDwhzfBpPBCBTPJTkTh So people impersonating HSR contractors are building overpasses, etc. at twelve sites between Merced and Bakersfield. You'd think the police would stop them. You see information there too about CHSRA projects underway in Gilroy, San Jose and San Mateo too. For example, here is information on that website re a grade separation project underway in San Mateo. See the video there, a good one. Rail on the peninsula has to be grade separated for HSR for when it starts running there on the blended system. You see in this video that that will take time to accomplish on the entire peninsula. One more good reason to build in the CV first. https://hsr.ca.gov/communication/news_room/news_releases/?id=2 3 BTW, my dentist, the great Hui Dental Group, is located on El Camino Real in San Mateo and the Caltrain line runs maybe 600 feet east of there. I have never once heard a Caltrain train running there while at his office, and there's 80 per day or something. Those trains run pretty slow on the peninsula, and the HSR trains will slow down there too. I'll bet that HSR will be tolerable on the peninsula in terms of noise. When qualified Fresnans are able to get to Silicon Valley in 45 minutes on HSR, they'll earn enough more to buy a new Corvette. Here is Jay Leno looking at the new mid‐engine 2020 Corvette Stingray. It starts at $60,000 and GM will sell all they can build, I am sure. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NZGCJu2OaAg LH 1 Brettle, Jessica From:News Room <news.room@bayareabusiness.news> Sent:Thursday, July 25, 2019 3:26 PM To:mccomas.b.c@gmail.com Cc:patrick@sdap.org; bill@sdap.org; angelo.tom@hud.gov; markhamplazata@gmail.com; hotline@hudoig.gov Subject:Grand jury cover up Attachments:CoreCompanies_profile_MarkhamPlaza_rent_restrictions_Affordable_30% AMI.pdf; Markham Plaza I & II – EAH Housing.pdf; CA Bureau of Real Estate vs EAH Case#H-11882 SF -Stipulation Agreement.pdf; HomeFirst-Services-of-SCC-2015-audit-report.pdf; 2pgSummary_Markham Plaza I.pdf; Screenshot_20190724-163351_Drive.jpg CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Greetings Mr. McComas, How do you explain this? "You claim that Karleen Navarro dropped my case because she had another job, and that “speculation” about conflict of interest with U.C Berkeley was unfounded speculation. I know very little about Karleen Nararro’s new job or issues with U.C. Berkeley conflict of interest, The hyperlink below however, shows that on January 5th, of this year, an email regarding the conflict was sent to Sixth District Appellate Dallas Sacher. https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68966 3 Days later, on January 8th,2019, you were assigned to this case. which can simply be dismissed as a coincidence." This was to Mr. Dallas Sacher correct? The same Dallas Sacher who was forced into retirement for a case like Crittenden's? There is a link that a witness sent complaint about not being allowed to testify in court. Sound familiar? Now who is acting strange? How often is it that someone is sent to prison 3 1/2 years because a witness came forward. Is that an abuse of discretion for a judge to have man attacked? https://sixthdistrictappellateprogram.com/2019/06/02/attorney-brian-mccomas-from-cary-andrew- crittenden/ Do you think it's kind of strange Grand Jury report was not in your face until a few days ago, but the attacks happened 7 years ago. But this: https://sixthdistrictappellateprogram.com/2019/06/02/attorney- brian-mccomas-from-cary-andrew-crittenden/ happened 3 days in advance. Now are accusing your client of being able to travel time? 2 These people are in Berkeley area, your neck of the woods. Correct? Then again January 8th, the same day you are assigned, here you are in Judge Chatman's court room. ( Case C1807065 / The People of the State of California vs. ARROYO, ISRAEL EDMUND ) Then again, the date on this letter: June 2nd directing you to correct your fraud: https://sixthdistrictappellateprogram.com/2019/06/02/attorney-brian-mccomas-from-cary-andrew- crittenden/ And what do we see here: This is what has been happening from the beginning. They never had videos did they? He was was responsible for what, 1 % of these publications? How do turn that into 99% ? Do you think nobody noticed what happened at Markham Plaza? Judge Manoukian's son was killed and he had melt down! He is human. Fact of the matter is someone died! His name was Robert Moss and there was Grand Jury Cover up. Do you think Mr. Crittenden might have been upset about being attacked for trying to help people? Doesn't it show people like this man? Nobody sees him acting strangely, they see Santa Clara County attacking him and they wonder why? He didn't do anything until you forced him into corner. Isn't that right? http://BayAreaBusiness.News -------- Original Message -------- Subject:Re: Grand Jury Investigation / Markham Plaza Homicide Date:2019‐07‐24 20:32 From:Markham Plaza Tenant Association <markhamplazata@gmail.com> To:News Room <news.room@bayareabusiness.news> Yes as a Fair Housing Advocate like my friend Cary Andrew Crittenden I have been retaliated against in trying to exercise my civil rights for myself and other tenants at Markham Plaza I & II. Below is how Lester Fonchette has retaliated against me. Issues of retaliation and physical threat by Lester Fonchete the Supervising Manager towards myself Jason Smith, on 5-23-2018, during a Resident meeting from 5 - 6 pm in the 2010 Monterey road MP2 community 3 room. I was sitting in the front row when Lester Fonchete started with questions and when he pointed to me I asked him "Why do the only 3 TV's total in both buildings do not have any reception and the screens show only snow?" Lester Fonchete replied "That all amenities were at the sole discretion of management and that the rent was just the rent." When i protested and said "That's not true and that the amenities were listed and budgeted for and paid for by the federal government and it was all recorded into the Grant Trust Deed of the property and the loans from the city of San Jose." Lester Fonchete than got in my face and told me that we needed to step into another room in a very threatening manner and tone." He repeated it menacingly 3 times and I was scared and shocked that he would say that in front of about a dozen other tenants. Luckily another tenant who is big guy stood up and told Lester to "Break it up" and Lester stepped back and repeated "Rent is just for rent" I didn't dare object for fear of him assaulting me right there in front of the other tenants!! This is bullying low income tenants of their federal benefits, denies low income tenants who are disabled or seniors their right to fair housing, makes a hostile environment, is retaliatory and discrimination towards a Fair Housing Advocate and tenant organizer and all the tenants for it spreads fear and anxiety which is not conducive to health or mental health. This type of discrimination against the most vulnerable is unprofessional, abusive, hate motivated and not in the public interest. A week prior to this incident I was in front of the 2010 building when I noticed Lester Fonchete, Supervising Manager, and ATO Walker, Maintenance Manager, talking in front of the 2010 building. I started walking in their direction, they headed back inside the 2010 building and I also went inside. I asked Lester Fonchete when the Computer Lab in the 2000 building would be open again for Tenants to use the Computer Lab as it had been closed for nearly 2 months. Lester replied "Ask Chelsea". I then asked him another question which he told to "Ask Chelsea" I asked him "why I should ask Chelsea who was not on property at that time and he was?" He got really angry and started yelling and then came at me aggressively. Luckily Lester was in the Managers Office and Ato Walker was there in the Management Office and closer to door than Lester. Ato Walker who is a big guy put himself in the middle of the doorway and stretched his big arms out and he was facing inward towards the office. Lester tried to get past Ato Walker to assault me but Ato Walker held his ground and Lester was jumping up and screaming at me that he was going to get me. I was shocked his behavior and grateful that Mr. Walker was there or Lester would have violently assaulted me. I yelled at Lester that he was not got management and then left to go back to my apartment in the 2000 building. Another tenant witnessed this violent and unprofessional display. Below I have included the follow attachments: 1. Screenshot of Tully Gardens II (aka Markham Plaza II) construction loan which states when combining Tax Credit and HOME funds that the max rent can only be used if it is not more than 30% of Adjusted Monthly Income. 2. The CoreCompanies profile for Markham Plaza I & II (aka Tully Gardens I & II) shows the Rent Restrictions as 30% AMI (Adjusted Monthly Income) 3. EAH, Inc profile for Markham Plaza I & II (aka Tully Gardens I & II) shows the rent at $729 which is not affordable housing as required by HUD. 4 4. Is the California Bureau of Real Estate Vs EAH, Inc and Laura Hall. The first 8 pages are the stipulation agreement which is not interesting but the 2 part is the allegations which show that EAH, Inc is breaking many laws and business rules. 5. The 2015 audit of HomeFirst formerly EHC and the original CHDO and from their own accounting they say they owe HUD $1.2 Million dollars in Supportive Housing Grant money that was spent on things that did not qualify. If you go to their property interests for Markham Plaza you will see they devalued their interest in each building from $2.5 Million to $240 each. Well since the original HUD audit which caused EHC to leave as management was because EHC was $6 Million short in Supportive Housing Grant Money that they could not account for. 6. 2 page summary of Core Developments request for more funding which had been granted and they are getting $23+ Million dollars to put in place what should have been there from the start. How Santa Clara County and City of San Jose can allow these crooked companies that have been noncompliant with HUD HOME Regulations and even said they were not funded by HUD is a crime and everyone should write the Santa Clara County Supervisors and the City of San Jose Council Members to complain about this new funding. There is no California Certified Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO) currently managing Markham Plaza as required by HUD. There has been too many deaths, illegal and retaliatory evictions, overcharging rent and denial of amenities to the extremely low income Seniors and Disabled tenants. Let the greed and corruption end now. Feel free to forward this to hotline@hudoig.gov and to your senator and house of representative and the justice department. Jason Smith Markham Plaza Tenant Association markhamplazata@gmail.com 408-706-1889 On Wed, Jul 24, 2019, 2:36 PM News Room <news.room@bayareabusiness.news> wrote: Hello. Would someone care to comment on this issue regarding Markham Plaza? Is EAH Housing still in control of this property? http://BayAreaBusiness.News -------- Original Message -------- Subject:Grand Jury Tampering Date:2019‐07‐24 17:09 From:news.room@bayareabusiness.news To:mccomas.b.c@gmail.com Cc:bill@sdap.org, patrick@sdap.org, caryandrewcrittenden@yandex.com Sounds like quite a story? What is happening with this? You were asked by client to terminate direct appeal on 6th district? 5 Can we schedule on camera interview stating your reasons? http://www.BayAreaBusiness.News Dear Mr. Robinson, In addition to your obligation under Rule 3-110 as supervising attorney, you are obligated under USC Title 18, section 1001, and you understand, and that covering up a felony is a federal crime. You are responsible for the supervision of Brian McComas, as his supervisor, you must take corrective action. Mr. McComas has committed fraud on the opening brief to case H045195 , to derail habeas corpus H046743 on sixth district court of appeal at the following hyperlink: https://www.docdroid.net/ZcIsZoN/declaration-of-facts-in-support-of-petition-for-habeas-corpus- relief.pdf This demonstrates that a murder was covered up in Grand Jury Investigation from 2013: http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/2014/PublicGuardian.pdf In no disrespect for the court or any of it's officers, this is not under jurisdiction and this is fraud on the court, and orders were obviously passed down from presiding judge. A judgment may not be rendered in violation of constitutional protections. The validity of a judgment may be affected by a failure to give the constitutionally required due process notice and an opportunity to be heard. Jurisdiction was procured by fraud, and all judgements are VOID. Please review the case law below: A void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded a valid adjudication, but may be entirely disregarded, or declared inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It has no legal or binding force or efficacy for any purpose or at any place. ... It is not entitled to enforcement ... Markham Plaza I & II Markham Plaza I & II Markham Plaza I and II is part of the Gateway Project for the Monterey Corridor in San Jose and provides affordable workforce housing and apartments for the formerly homeless. The SRO (single room occupancy) community of apartment homes has features that include a computer room with scheduled classes, a library, TV rooms, a fitness center, a community room with a pool table, and on-site laundry facilities. There is also a three story gated parking structure. Job training is available to residents, along with other social services. Professionally managed by EAH Housing Apartment Description Type Sqr Footage Monthly Rent Status Studio 290 sq ft $729 Wait List Open 2-bedroom –$916 Wait List Closed **Vacancy status is updated on a monthly basis and is subject to change. Please contact the property directly for current status. Community Features Community Room with pool tables Computer room Library TV Room Fitness center On-site laundry Gated parking structure Apartment Amenities Full size refrigerator Microwave Wall-bed 1) Markham Plaza I and II Application Form (/wp- content/uploads/2019/05/MP_eahhousing_ApplicationForm_2019May.pdf) 2) Markham Plaza I and II Resident Selection Plan (/wp- content/uploads/2019/05/MP_eahhousing_RSP_2019May.pdf) 3) Markham Plaza I and II Floor Plan (/wp- content/uploads/2017/10/MarkhamPlazaFloorPlan2015March.pdf) *We are accepting and giving out applications every Tuesdays only. INFO@THECORECOMPANIES.COM | (408) 292-7841 | W WW.THECORECOMPANIES.COM San Jose Artist Housing, L.P. HomeFirst of Santa Clara County PNC 2003 Carrasco & Associates Core Builders Inc. $43$43,000,000 Affordable, 30% AMI Owner: Non-Profit Partner: Investor Limited Partner: Year Completed: Architect: General Contractor: TTotal Development Cost: Rent Restrictions: Management: EAH, Inc. Leasing: Please contact management Phone: 408-278-7081 | Email: MP1-management@eahhousing.org 2000 & 2010 Monterey Road, San Jose, CA 95112 (map) Studios and 2 bedrooms | 305 Units Markham Plaza I & II 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Larry Alton <lalton@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, July 28, 2019 2:10 PM To:Council, City Subject:Foothills park was paid for by Palo Alto so it should remain for Palo Alto Residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Members, Please control use of Foothills Park for Palo Alto Residents. If others want to use it they should pay like Palo Alto residents did, Thank You for your dedication to our wonderful city! Larry Alton 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Richard Placone <rcplacone@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Friday, July 26, 2019 9:44 PM To:ParkRec Commission Cc:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Subject:Fw: Please do NOT open Foothills Park to non-residents CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Commissioners, I agree completely with the views expressed by Ms. Marriott below my letter. Here are my additional thoughts: Residents of Palo Alto are blessed with a unique reserve open only to city residents and their guests. Of all the parks in Palo Alto, this is the one park that comes close to a wilderness area right at our back door. With the current restricted use provisions, the city has been able to maintain this park as a place of refuge for its residents. As Palo Alto is made up of a racially diverse population (last I heard, for example, about 30% of our residents are Asian) there is no need to heed the claim, (if such is being made or considered) that Palo Alto is discriminating against minority groups of any kind. That claim, if that is what is behind this move to open the park to the entire county, is specious at best. Palo Alto has many large, well developed parks open to the general public without regular admission procedures. Simply go and spread a blanket. The larger parks will even accommodate large special interest gatherings by offering reserved sections for the use of that group. Palo Alto citizens, at the time the park site became available for purchase, asked neighboring cities to join in the purchase of the site. All refused, so Palo Alto went it alone, and ever since has maintained and developed the park for the exclusive use of its residents. This was an excellent idea then, and remains even more so today. Here is a personal experience where this park is playing a significant part in the welfare of my family. My middle daughter is staying with us while she is being treated for cancer. Twice now she and I have gone to the park to seek a quite place to read, to just soak in the quietness and the well preserved beauty of this backdoor wilderness. We will continue to do this as long as her treatments continue. The benefit to her is priceless, and is making a big difference to her well being at this time in her life. I am sure other residents can relate similar experiences. Leave well enough alone. Palo Alto does more than its share in being a good peninsula neighbor. We don't have to give up this one priceless wilderness we can call our own. Thank you for your consideration. Richard C. Placone Chimalus Drive Palo Alto 2 Resident since 1962 *************************************************************************************************** From: Pat Marriott Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2019 8:19 PM To: 'parkrec.commission@CityofPaloAlto.org' Subject: Please do NOT open Foothills Park to non-residents Dear Commissioners: Please don’t be guilt-tripped into opening Foothills Park to the general public. It’s not racist or immoral or elitist to have a park just for Palo Altans. You bought it. You paid for it, when no other city was interested. Remember the story of The Little Red Hen. In the tale, the little red hen finds a grain of wheat and asks the other farm animals if they will help her plant it, harvest it, etc. all the way through to baking bread. All reply, “Not I.” To which the hen replies, “Then I’ll do it myself.” When it comes time to eat the bread she made, all the animals are eager to help. But once again, the little red hen says, “I’ll do it myself. Palo Alto has lots of parks open to anyone. Every surrounding city has parks. And the Arastradero Preserve is open to all. It’s not like you’re keeping the public from the one and only green space in the Bay Area. Palo Alto has become a target because it’s a unique city, thus it’s accused of gentrification, discrimination, and now racism. These words are bandied about with impunity by people like Cory Wolbach, who doesn’t seem to realize that just about every city – not just Palo Alto – had racist land- use policies in the 50s and 60s. I don’t see how that relates to Foothills Park. Political correctness has taken over logic. Palo Alto paid for Foothills and it should be kept for residents and wildlife only. Don’t succumb to outrageous accusations. Keep Foothills wild, pristine and free of crowds. Thank you, Pat Marriott Los Altos Former Palo Alto resident 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kusum Pandey <wordpress@castillejamasterplan.com> Sent:Monday, July 29, 2019 4:45 PM To:greg.scharff@cityofpaloalto.org; Kniss, Liz (internal); DuBois, Tom; Filseth, Eric (Internal); Fine, Adrian; Holman, Karen; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Wolbach, Cory; Clerk, City; Council, City Subject:Please Support Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Mayor Kniss and Members of the Palo Alto City Council, My name is Kusum Pandey and I live in Palo Alto, CA. I am writing to you as a community member and supporter of Castilleja School. Castilleja was founded 110 years ago to equalize educational opportunities for women. Today, Castilleja seeks to close the female leadership gap by gradually adding students over four years. Making this opportunity available for more young women is central to furthering that mission. As a Palo Alto resident, I am proud to have Castilleja in our city. The school has been an indispensable community partner and is committed to maintaining its neighbors’ current quality of life. Castilleja has already implemented robust Traffic Demand Management initiatives, and has repeatedly pledged to neighbors not only to do more, but that the admittance of new students will be dependent on the continued success of the school’s traffic programs. Now more than ever, at a time when national politics has devolved into shouting matches and one‐upmanship, Castilleja’s mission of serving girls and young women from Palo Alto and other nearby cities is critically important. Please do not let the loudest voices in the conversation obscure the robust support for Castilleja found throughout our wonderful city. Sincerely, Kusum Pandey pandey.kusum@gmail.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ed Supplee <edsupplee@hotmail.com> Sent:Sunday, July 28, 2019 3:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Underfunded pension Liability CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Attached is an article from the Wall Street Journal. In a nutshell it says that Calpers is assuming a 6.1% return over the next 10 years which will yeild a pension funding shortfall of about 30%. Their more realistic return assumption over the ten years is 3.8% which will give us a shortfall of about 65%! I know this year you are contributing about $4 million extra to the Calpers which of course is better than nothing, but it is not even enough to close the 30% gap under the 6.1% return assumption. A 3.8% return will be a disaster. When do you think Palo Alto will declare bankruptcy? Ed Supplee 327‐3284 https://www.wsj.com/articles/americas‐public‐pensions‐are‐stuck‐in‐the‐clouds‐11564133400 To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. America’s Public Pensions Are Stuck In The Clouds - WSJ The hardest part about being a public pension manager is admitting you’re wrong. American state and local pensions have less than 73% of the assets they need to fund future obligations to public ... www.wsj.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:ed@edklinenberg.com Sent:Wednesday, July 24, 2019 5:12 PM To:Filseth, Eric (Internal); Council, City Subject:Unnecessary Police Brutality in Palo Alto Feb 17 arrest CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Filseth and All City Council Members: I just found and watched a video, posted online by Palo Alto Weekly, of the arrest of a man on Feb 17 who lives in the Buena Vista Mobile Home community. It is obvious on the video that the man was not acting violently, and he was not threatening the police officer who evidently followed him home because he suspected that the man was driving without a valid driver's license. The man made a bad decision by going inside his home and closing the door to the police officer who had said he was going to be arrested. The officer returned with two additional officers and they yelled for the man to open his door or they were going to break it down. The man clearly yelled back, through the locked door, to ask if the policemen had a warrant to enter his home. One officer replied immediately, "We don't need a warrant." This story should have ended at that point--at least until the police returned at a future time with a valid warrant. They did not have the right to break down the man's door and pull him out violently! We do have the U.S. Constitution to protect us all--and--NEWS FLASH--even Palo Alto Police officers must obey the U.S. Constitution. After the police pulled the man out of his home, they used what I consider--by watching the video-- excessive force to illegally arrest the man! He is a small-frame guy while two of the police officers are big, strong men! I did not perceive the man using any force or threatening the police--yet one officer immediately drew his pistol! Then, while the man's hands were restrained behind his back, the police deliberately banged the man's head into his car to hurt him! I am a resident of Palo Alto. I am a citizen of the U.S.A. I am outraged by what I see in this video! Yes, I acknowledge that I know nothing about the circumstances of the police officer following this man to his mobile home, but the violence and anger demonstrated by these three officers is completely wrong in my opinion. As a local resident, I now have real reason to fear being stopped for any reason by a Palo Alto police officer. In the past I have usually waved when I see a police car because I have considered the police to be my protectors. Seeing this video, though, has changed my mind. Now whenever I see a Palo Alto police officer I will become alarmed and afraid. I now know that I cannot trust these officers to be reasonable or even intelligent enough to react calmly. As the Mayor and City Council members of Palo Alto, you are the people responsible for training your Police Chief Robert Jonsen, and all of his officers, to behave as civilized people--not as storm troopers! Please tell the citizens of Palo Alto how you will implement a brand-new training agenda immediately for your police officers. Please reassure us citizens that we will not be brutalized by your people. Please put an immediate end to this kind of inhumane behavior! Really--how could an officer in 2019 tell a person that the police "don't need a warrant to enter your home??" That basic right against illegal search goes back to the Revolutionary War!! Cordially, Edward L. Klinenberg {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Tony Ciampi <T.Ciampi@hotmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, July 24, 2019 12:14 PM To:Shikada, Ed; Council, City; Binder, Andrew; HRC; pbains7@projectwehope.com; Bains, Paul Cc:Cody@SalfenLaw.com Subject:Video of another assault and battery by PAPD officer CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Eric Filseth and City Manager Ed Shikada Officer Benitez has been placed on administrative leave, has Ofc. Daniel Fino been placed on administrative leave regarding is unlawful detainment, assault and battery that occurred a month ago? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EJHO0LCn9o&t=8s Fino 1 - YouTube This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue www.youtube.com The question isn't about the actions of Officer Wayne Benitez, the question is why the police and city command staff covered up Benitez' actions for over a year? https://padailypost.com/2019/07/24/video‐released‐of‐palo‐alto‐police‐beating/ I guess the answer is self evident based upon the DOJ condemning current Palo Alto Police Chief Robert Jonsen for violating the Constitutional rights of Minorities when he was in charge of the Lancaster and Palmadale Sheriff's stations: https://www.scpr.org/news/2013/06/28/37967/doj‐deputies‐at‐la‐county‐sheriff‐s‐stations‐in‐la/ 2 DOJ: Deputies at LA County sheriff's stations in Lancaster, Palmdale discriminated (Update) | 89.3 KPCC - Southern California Public Radio A Department of Justice investigation into the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department found that deputies in the Antelope Valley "engaged in a pattern or practice of stops, searches, and seizures ... www.scpr.org https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/06/28/antelope_findings_6‐28‐13.pdf u.s. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division u.s. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division . Assistant Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Ave, NW - RFK Washington, DC 20530 . JUN 2 8 2013 . VIA ELECTRONIC AND U.S. MAIL www.justice.gov http://www.publiccounsel.org/press_releases?id=0022 Federal Lawsuit Aims to End Antelope Valley 'War' on African American and Latino Residents - Press Releases - Public Counsel Press Releases June 07, 2011 Federal Lawsuit Aims to End Antelope Valley 'War' on African American and Latino Residents. LOS ANGELES -- Antelope Valley residents are going to court on Tuesday, June 7, to stop racial discrimination against people seeking a better life for their families in Lancaster and Palmdale. www.publiccounsel.org https://corruptpaloaltopolice.weebly.com/ https://chiefburns.weebly.com/ 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Art Liberman <art_liberman@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, July 27, 2019 6:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:We need housing along El Camino, not another Sand Hill office building Attachments:CPI property parcel report.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Council - The citizens of Palo Alto will know whether you are serious about creating new housing when they see how you will deal with a proposal for 3300 El Camino. The proposal has not yet been submitted, but there are indications that Sand Hill Property, LLC, is putting the pieces together. It will be up to you to decide if there is going to yet another office building (and Sand Hill has listed 3300 El Camino as an 'Active Project' on its website, including an image of an office building) or whether some needed housing should belong on this property. 3300 El Camino is an 2.7 acre parcel, part of Stanford Research Park (parcel 142-20-046). Sand Hill and its Principal, Peter Pau, bought the lease for this parcel when they purchased the lease for 3175 Hanover St (the site of the offices for the law firm Cooley LLP) for $140 million in 2016. 3300 El Camino is now part of an empty parking lot in front of some existing CPI buildings. The location on a major thoroughfare with public transit makes it an ideal location for workforce or affordable housing. It is now zoned as RP, so creating housing on this site would require the Council to rezone the property. The Barron Park residents who are the immediate neighbors to the CPI property support housing on this site. In 2017, Peter Pau took the next steps to create an even larger parcel in September 2017 by purchasing the lease (actually he purchased the sub-lease that CPI had from Varian) for the entire CPI property on Hansen Way, (parcel 142-20-098), identified in property records as 607 Hansen Way (parcel property report attached). Peter Pau is the Principal of the entity listed in the purchase agreement, 607 Hansen Way, LLC. The site includes the original CPI office building near the corner of Hansen Way and El Camino (street address is 607 Hansen Way) and the large building at 811 Hansen Way, the site of CPI's plating shop and their Tier 2 hazardous materials and hazardous waste. The 607 Hansen Way, LLC company then turned around and gave CPI a long term sub-lease for the use of the building at 811 Hansen Way, and a short term sub-lease to the building near the corner of El Camino and Hansen Way, the former office building of CPI that borders 3300 El Camino Real. CPI is in the process of closing their operation on the short term lease area, vacating their former office building and several associated small buildings and emptying that portion of the site of hazardous materials. CPI has re-located its corporate headquarters to 811 Hansen Way. Thus, Peter Pau and the investors in Sand Hill have assembled the leases for a very large parcel adjacent to their 3300 El Camino property. Once that happens, the 3300 El Camino property and some of the 607 Hansen Way property that is part of the short-term sub-lease area will be greater than 300' from any of CPI's Tier 2 hazardous materials, allowing for the construction of an office building - or housing if directed by Council - on that property. At that time, you will likely see a proposal for another office building by Sand Hill, LLC. Are you ready to push back, to say enough is 2 enough and that what Palo Alto needs is more housing, not more offices? If so, you should lay the ground work and take action now and re-zone 3300 El Camino. Arthur Liberman {REDACTED} Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:aram james <abjpd1@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, July 25, 2019 7:17 PM To:Council, City; city.council@menlopark.org; City Mgr; Jonsen, Robert Subject:Why are the other officerS not out on leave? CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ FYI: https://www.kron4.com/news/federal‐lawsuit‐filed‐against‐palo‐alto‐alleges‐excessive‐force‐by‐officers/amp/ Sent from my iPhone