Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout20190826plCC3701-32 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: 08/26/2019 Document dates: 08/07/2019 – 08/14/2019 Set 3 of 3 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Katherine Craig <kmcraig@pacbell.net> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 8:55 PM To:Council, City Subject:The Market at Edgewood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council,   I am writing to you in support of the Market at Edgewood.  My family and I go there at least three or four times each  week and it is wonderful to have a grocery store that we can walk our dog to (the dog loves it too–he gets tons of  attention there!).  Please support the store and keep it here.  All my best,  Katherine  Katherine M. Craig kmcraig@pacbell.net {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Caroline Peres <cperes@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 9:06 PM To:Council, City Subject:Please keep supporting The Market at Edgewood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council My family has lived on Channing Avenue (close to Greer) the last 9 years. We moved in when our son started Kindergarten. He is starting High School tomorrow! This is a great place to raise a family. We are a dual income family, with relatives leaving far away. It is not always easy to juggle work and family. One thing which is extremely helpful is having a grocery store walking distance from our house (The Market). It makes it easy to get dinner and feed veggies and fruits to our kids. In addition, the kids love going to the Market on minimal days or days of Summer to grab lunch with their friends. And it is nice for us to know they are in a safe place. With all that, my family is asking that the City Council does all in its power to keep The Market at Edgewood. Thank you very much Caroline Peres {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ken <lowdown1@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 9:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:Edgewood shopping center CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Please consider retaining the  requirement for the Market.  The Shopping Center has benefited greatly as a  neighborhood hub and provides great employment. i frequent the center 3‐4 times per week. Having a local shopping  center decreases that otherwise traffic and pollution to go other stores 3 miles away  Also consider the ethics of the Realty Company. When originally designed, they were to retain 2 existing structures. One  "mistakenly" was torn done and I was amazed how rapidly the new structures were built, considering that there was not  sufficient time for plans to be drawn up and passed by the City.  I see no reason why they should not be held to the original agreement ans they have greatly profited in many ways.  Kenneth Low  Rhodes Drive  -- 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Gary Hammer <garylhammer@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 10:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Support for requiring a grocery store at Edgewood Plaza CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    PLEASE retain the requirement of a functioning grocery store at Edgewood Plaza. This is an extremely important part of  life in this whole segment of Palo Alto (several neighborhoods), and was the most important public benefit of the deal  struck with the shopping center owner/developers.    Palo Alto has been way too lenient on its public benefit requirements in the past. Please do not do the same again here.   In this case, the store also happens to be a terrific part of the community: nice management & staff, who listen to  community input and respond with appropriate offerings.    Thank you,    Gary Hammer  Sharon Court  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Barbara Shufro <barbarashufro@hotmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 10:29 PM To:Council, City Subject:re: support for The Market at Edgewood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council Members,    This is to express our support for the Market at Edgewood, where I shop at least three times a week, and often arrive by bicycle or walk.  Having this market nearby is a great community resource and adds to the quality of  life here.  I urge you to support it,    Thank you.  Barbara Shufro and David Steuer  Addison Ave.  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Cecilia Willer <cecilia_willer@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 7:56 AM To:Council, City Subject:The Market at Edgewood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I am writing to beg you not to remove The Market at Edgewood. It is a great market and we shop there several times a week. The employees there are amazing and the store is such a community place. It is so much different from what had previously been there. It actually sells healthy quality food versus the prior grocery store that sold mainly candy and junk. I implore you not to remove this market. I bike there and converse with the staff. It is such a welcoming store. We need this in our community. It's not a chain like Whole Foods/Amazon. It is a caring and open market that caters to our community. Thank you for keeping this in the neighborhood. Cecilia Willer {REDACTED} Palo Alto, CA 94301 1 Brettle, Jessica From:elenac1128@yahoo.com Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 10:53 AM To:planning.comission@cityofpaloalto.org; Council, City; French, Amy Subject:Castilleja expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear sirs/madams, My family live two blocks from Castilleja(Casti) on 1570 Bryant St. Everyday my driving is tensed because traffic is congested during their drop off and pick up times. The traffic conductors provided by Casti during their busy times but it's like driving out of a concert everyday. I believe Casti encourage their girls to bike. However majority of the girls don't live close by. Casti usually accept one to two girls from our local elementary public schools and not that many of the local public school girls applied. I would say it's less than 40% of their girls can bike or walk to school. Also, Casti's location is right near the populated hubs/facilities: Paly, Stanford University, Stanford hospital and Pamp hospital. So many cars, buses are driving both lanes on Embarcadero St, El Camino Real and bikes on Bryant St already. I can't believe how's the traffic and the environment like when there are big constructions and when school is expanded. Or any catastrophes happened........... Casti is a wonderful school BUT it needs to consider and respect the residential neighborhood. I truly hope your committee will have a fair and honest review of their plans. Thank you Sincerely, Elena Chiu {REDACTED}, Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Albert Henning <albertkhenning@yahoo.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 11:52 AM To:Council, City Cc:Fbmills; Kevin Mills; Caroline Hicks; Bert Fingerhut; Lee and Kathy Merkle-Raymond Subject:Edgewood Shopping Plaza CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear members of the Palo Alto City Council, I understand you had a closed meeting yesterday, August 12, to discuss whether to appeal the 2017 court ruling, stating an operating grocery store at Edgewood Plaza is not specified in the language of the City's contract with the developer. I hope you arrived at the correct conclusion: that the City should and must appeal; that the judge's ruling is flawed, and that the Developer's assertion is incorrect. This development has been fraught from the beginning. The City has made numerous mistakes, especially with respect to the contract and its execution. Please do not add to the store of mistakes. Please ensure that this resource -- so essential for the services and employment it provides, not only to our neighborhood and our local community, but to many others in the City, to neighboring cities (especially East Palo Alto), and to the values we as a City project -- is sustained viably. Sincerely, Al Henning ======= Albert K. Henning, PhD {REDACTED} Palo Alto, CA 94303 {REDACTED} (mobile) albertkhenning@yahoo.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Catherine Crystal Foster <catherine.crystal.foster@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 12:15 PM To:Council, City Cc:Jon Foster; Eric Foster; David Foster Subject:In support of the Market at Edgewood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. As a neighbor to the wonderful Market at Edgewood, I can say what an incredible benefit to our community it has been  to have this market here. The staff are friendly, the offerings are wonderful, and – most important – having this grocery  in the neighborhood means I don’t need to get into my car to get last‐minute items or produce. It helps Palo Alto as a  whole that cars that would be clogging the roads driving to midtown or Trader Joe’s are sitting in the driveway instead.  Edgewood brings neighbors together, and is a great place for local kids to meet up and get something to eat. Please,  please, please ensure that Edgewood always has a supermarket.  Thanks,  Catherine Crystal Foster  {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Richard H Schwartz <rhslaw@mac.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 1:28 PM To:Council, City Subject:Edgewood Plaza Issue CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  Dear Council Members,  As I have been out of town recently, I am just catching up with current Council events. I understand the Edgewood  Plaza/Grocery Store matter is being discussed in regards to the potential filing of an appeal from the Superior Court’s  prior unfavorable ruling. I strongly urge the Council to pursue an appeal of this poorly reasoned Superior Court ruling.  The developers are brazenly attempting to circumvent the negotiated tradeoffs made by weaseling out of their  commitments  to the City of Palo Alto and it's residents. The developers are unfairly seeking to reap an undo economic  advantage both in walking away from the fines that were reasonably levied by the City and the developer’s commitment  to make sure that a viable grocery store operated in that space.  Please pursue this matter and fight for holding the developers to the terms of the deal that was struck and benefits the  entire City of Palo Alto.  Sincerely,  Rick Schwartz  {REDACTED}  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sam Peck <speck123@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 1:31 PM To:Council, City Subject:The Market at Edgewood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    To the City Council:    I am pleading with you to do whatever is necessary to keep The Market at Edgewood. It is a true asset to the  neighborhood and one that many of us rely on. We went so long without a market and now that we finally have one, we  need to make sure we can keep it!    Sincerely,  Sara Peck  Wildwood Lane    Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Catherine Bannon <catherine@bannons.org> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 3:49 PM To:Council, City Subject:Grocery Store CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Dear City Council,    I love having a neighborhood grocery store at Edgewood Market!  It’s easy to bike to and makes it easier to cook at  home.  It’s such a hassle to drive across town to get to Safeway and even Whole Foods during certain times of the day.  I  love the produce and meats that are available at The Market.  I hope that the city can do everything in its power to  support this business!    Thank you so much,    Catherine Bannon  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Carole Mullowney <carolemull@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 3:51 PM To:Council, City Subject:The Market at Edgewood CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  I cannot begin to express how important The Market is to the Crescent Park Community.  Having a neighborhood market is such a wonderful thing!  Sincerely,  Carole Mullowney  {REDACTED} Palo Alto, CA 94301  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Richard Almond <rjalmond@stanford.edu> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 5:36 PM To:Council, City Subject:grocery CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Unlike many, I do not feel extraordinary steps need to be taken to keep a grocery at Edgewood.  The one there  has great produce, but a rather upscale offering otherwise, not the best for a store that should cater to EPA as  well as PA.  I'm fine with Piazza's.  Richard Almond, MD  {REDACTED}  Palo Alto, CA 94301  Opinion pieces and other recommendations may not always be responded to quickly, due to time constraints, but they are appreciated. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Linda Henigin <linda@brail.org> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:01 PM To:Council, City Subject:Appeal the 2017 Ruling regarding Sand Hill Properties CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear council members,  I am writing to express my strong support for our City to file a strong appeal to the 2017 ruling that allowed Sand Hill Properties to stop paying their fines for not living up to their development agreement at Edgewood Plaza. I strongly request that under no circumstances should you negotiate away requiring an operating grocery store at that site. The Developer agreed to the condition when they redeveloped the property and built their 10 private homes, which they sold for over $3 million each. They assured us at that time that they were "experts" and would have "no problem" filling the space with an operating grocery store. They need to be held to their word, and they need to pay the back fines for the time that they were out of compliance.  The independent administrative hearing official already ruled in the City's favor, so we have a good case. We need to file the strongest possible appeal to force Sand Hill Properties to honor their agreements.  thank you,  Linda Henigin  {REDACTED}, Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Cathy Mathieu <cathymathieu@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 11:20 AM To:Council, City Subject:A walkable Grocery Store CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  My husband & I are delighted with The Market at Edgewood. It took 2 years for this excellent market to arrive in our  neighborhood. We don’t want to lose it.  Regards,  Catherine Mathieu & John Hyde  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nadia Naik <nadianaik@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 1:15 PM To:Gaines, Chantal Cc:Rice, Danille; Shikada, Ed; apexstr@pacbell.net; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; Council, City Subject:Clarifying questions for City Staff Report on RBRC CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi Chantal, I have several clarifying questions on the Staff Report related to the formation of the Rail Blue Ribbon Committee being proposed:  Would Liz Kniss and Eric Filseth be able to appoint members to the RBRC given they're conflicted on rail?  If FPPC rules after the formation of RBRC that Liz and Eric are no longer conflicted, then would they be able to make appointments?  What is legal conflict of interest zone - ie would it be a distance from the entire ROW or only intersections that would be impacted? What about the station areas that could be recommended for improvements?  And would the conflict of interest zone be 1000 feet or 500 feet?  Do the former electeds still need to live in PA?  What if former electeds currently serve in another elected position, does that make them ineligible?  Since the timeline for the RBRC could be lengthy, what if a former elected is appointed to RBRC and then decides to run for council? I'd like to request that you share the responses to these questions with all XCAP members in advance of the CC meeting on Monday. Thanks in advance for your help! Nadia     On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 10:34 PM Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote:  Hello XCAP Members, 2 I hope you are all well. I wanted to send a copy of a recent report that is going to City Council on August 19, 2019. It is a report about the establishment of a Rail Blue Ribbon Committee to advise the City Council on the Selection, Funding, and Support for Grade Separation Projects. This recommendation is going to the City Council as a response to the City Council's interest in additional engagement. Please see the links below for more information and let me know if you have any questions.    Council  Agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43366.45&BlobID=72894   Staff  Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59253.98&BlobID=72902    Thanks!  Chantal C. G.              Chantal C. Gaines | Assistant to the City Manager  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  D: 650.329.2572 | E: Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org                1 Brettle, Jessica From:Phil Burton <philip-b@comcast.net> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 1:44 PM To:'Nadia Naik'; Gaines, Chantal Cc:Rice, Danille; Shikada, Ed; apexstr@pacbell.net; etty.mercurio@aecom.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; Council, City Subject:RE: Clarifying questions for City Staff Report on RBRC CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To Nadia’s list I would like to add the following:     How would the role of the xCAP change, once the RBRC is active?     Would xCAP members be permitted to attend public meetings of the RBRC?  Would RBRC members be  permitted to attend xCAP meetings?       Is contact between RBRC members and xCAP members encouraged?  Permitted?  Not allowed?     What is the role of City staff in supporting the members of the RBRC?     How would the Council’s schedule for making final decisions on the grade crossing separation projects (Oct.  2019 ?) be affected by the operation of the RBRC?     What are the criteria for ending the operation of the RBRC?    Phil Burton    From: Nadia Naik [mailto:nadianaik@gmail.com]   Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 1:15 PM  To: Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org>  Cc: Rice, Danille <Danille.Rice@cityofpaloalto.org>; Shikada, Ed <Ed.Shikada@cityofpaloalto.org>; apexstr@pacbell.net;  etty.mercurio@aecom.com; millette.litzinger@aecom.com; city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: Clarifying questions for City Staff Report on RBRC  Hi Chantal, I have several clarifying questions on the Staff Report related to the formation of the Rail Blue Ribbon Committee being proposed:  Would Liz Kniss and Eric Filseth be able to appoint members to the RBRC given they're conflicted on rail?  If FPPC rules after the formation of RBRC that Liz and Eric are no longer conflicted, then would they be able to make appointments? 2  What is legal conflict of interest zone - ie would it be a distance from the entire ROW or only intersections that would be impacted? What about the station areas that could be recommended for improvements?  And would the conflict of interest zone be 1000 feet or 500 feet?  Do the former electeds still need to live in PA?  What if former electeds currently serve in another elected position, does that make them ineligible?  Since the timeline for the RBRC could be lengthy, what if a former elected is appointed to RBRC and then decides to run for council? I'd like to request that you share the responses to these questions with all XCAP members in advance of the CC meeting on Monday. Thanks in advance for your help! Nadia On Sun, Aug 11, 2019 at 10:34 PM Gaines, Chantal <Chantal.Gaines@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello XCAP Members, I hope you are all well. I wanted to send a copy of a recent report that is going to City Council on August 19, 2019. It is a report about the establishment of a Rail Blue Ribbon Committee to advise the City Council on the Selection, Funding, and Support for Grade Separation Projects. This recommendation is going to the City Council as a response to the City Council's interest in additional engagement. Please see the links below for more information and let me know if you have any questions.    Council  Agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=43366.45&BlobID=72894   Staff  Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=59253.98&BlobID=72902    Thanks!  Chantal C. G.            1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nancy Madsen <nl.madsen@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 10, 2019 8:08 PM To:Council, City Subject:ABAG CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  I am writing to comment on the 02 PBA50 Draft Growth Forecast Methodology.       The current methodology is driven by the assumption that aggressive job growth will occur in priority  development areas.  This assumption should be eliminated.  Instead the methodology should be based on a  range of more moderate and balanced projections of jobs and housing over a greater geographical area.     Finally, the technical discussion should be an open, public process that provides a clear opportunity for other  points of view to be heard.     Thanks for taking my point of view into account.     Regards,  Nancy Madsen  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Rebecca Sanders <rebsanders@gmail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 2:05 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City Cc:Furman, Sheri; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Advocating for a Meaningful and Accurate EIR for Castilleja Attachments:PAN Castilleja Letter.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  August 13, 2019    Dear City Council Members and Planning and Transportation Commissioners:     At the August meeting of Palo Alto Neighborhoods, our membership voted to request formally that the Final Castilleja  Environment Impact Report (FEIR) include — as required by law — the impacts of other significant developments as part  of the cumulative impact of Castilleja’s expansion plans. The Draft EIR excludes this important analysis.    Specifically, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that an EIR specifically include the cumulative  impacts of a project (see Section 15130 http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art9.html; see also Section 15355.  http://resources.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/art20.html):    "When analyzing the cumulative impacts of a project under 15130 (b)(1)(A), the Lead Agency is required to  discuss not only approved projects under construction and approved related projects not yet under construction,  but also unapproved projects currently under environmental review with related impacts or which result in  significant cumulative impacts."     Of the many projects currently planned in and around Palo Alto, two will have particularly severe impacts:  1. The Stanford Medical Center project is nearing completion. Therefore, any traffic analysis must be adjusted by  projected increases from the Stanford Medical Center.  As some of the increased traffic from the Stanford  Medical Center will travel along Embarcadero Road, a roadway also impacted by the Castilleja project, the  impacts of these projects are clearly and cumulatively quite considerable.  2. The new Stanford University General Use Permit (GUP) is currently under consideration by Santa Clara County.  This will increase traffic from Stanford University along Embarcadero Road as well. Again, the impacts of the  new GUP are clearly and cumulatively quite considerable. The DEIR and the analysis provided by the consultants  point to the projects' significant impacts on Palo Alto. Certainly, the GUP must be included in Castilleja’s EIR.  (See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/63291; DEIR, page 47; and Hexagon  Transportation Consultants analysis of the DEIR, page 65.)  Oddly enough, Stanford is never mentioned in Castilleja’s DEIR. (Please see  http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/72444.) Castilleja is situated on Embarcadero just blocks from  Stanford, yet no impact will ensue? Is there no need to consider the possibly hundreds of extra car trips likely caused by  Stanford's expansion? Castilleja will be accommodating more cars than ever in its proposed new garage. Those cars will  have to arrive at and leave from campus somehow. As reported in the Weekly and elsewhere, the City is asking Stanford  to pay millions of dollars in fees to mitigate the impacts of the GUP. (Please see:  https://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/2019/02/05/palo‐alto‐seeks‐more‐influence‐on‐stanford‐expansion.)  2   What are the historical trends of traffic congestion on Embarcadero?  If it has been getting more congested over past  decades, has the study projected what the congestion will be like in 10, 20, and 30 years, all of which are relatively short  compared to the lifetime of Castilleja and other traffic producers in this part of Palo Alto?    While we have specifically cited the traffic impacts, we request all cumulative impacts be considered for these three  projects taken together. If the Stanford GUP and the Stanford GUP FEIR are approved before the preparation of the  Castilleja FEIR, then the Castilleja FEIR can consider the approved Stanford University General Use Permit. Otherwise,  the Castilleja FEIR must consider the highest impacts of any of the alternatives considered in the Stanford DEIR, including  its recirculation.    Additionally, the CEQA analysis of the Castilleja project, as stipulated by law and affirmed by the courts, must not be  segmented. Please see section 15378(a) where “‘Project' means the whole of an action." So even if the Castilleja project  is constructed incrementally, it must be considered for purposes of CEQA as one project.    Which of the dozens of construction projects in the pipeline at any one time should be included in a DEIR? Again CEQA  offers guidance:     "This analysis should include a discussion of projects under review by the Lead Agency and projects under review  by other relevant public agencies, using reasonable efforts to discover, disclose, and discuss the other related  projects. The cumulative impact analysis requires a discussion of projects with related cumulative impacts which  required EIRs, Negative Declarations, or were exempt from CEQA. (See: San Franciscans for Reasonable Growth v.  City and County of San Francisco, (1984) 151 Cal. App. 3d 61.) The court in SFFRG took note of the problem of  where to draw the line on projects undergoing environmental review since application of new projects are  constantly being submitted. A reasonable point might be after the preparation of the draft EIR. Additional project  information could be included in the final EIR if cumulative impacts were originally analyzed in the draft EIR and if  the new project information doesn't warrant the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR as required by  Section 15162 of the Guidelines."    Another concern we have is that the additional traffic on Embarcadero will rule out a major grade‐crossing option  currently being studied by the City, namely the possibility of partly closing Churchill at Alma.  That closure could have a  significant benefit for the safety of students at Palo Alto High School. While no DEIR is yet available for the closure and  the City may not opt to pursue that option, we think it’s appropriate for the DEIR to address whether any additional  traffic will be diverted by a Churchill closure onto Embarcadero, including trips associated with the projected Castilleja  growth. The cumulative impacts would further contribute to traffic problems on Embarcadero and thus reduce or  remove the possibility to close Churchill.  Again, that option is currently being analyzed by the CIty.    We believe it is vitally important that the inadequate and incomplete Castilleja DEIR include these additional projects  and address these additional concerns we have put before you.    As our elected leaders and public servants, we trust you and rely on you to uphold the laws which protect and guide us  and which must apply equally to all of us.    Thank you.  Becky Sanders  Sheri Furman  Co‐Chairs  Palo Alto Neighborhoods      1 Brettle, Jessica From:Shikada, Ed Sent:Saturday, August 10, 2019 8:35 PM To:Ryan Globus Cc:Council, City Subject:RE: Caltrain Trespasser near Churchill - Are Cameras Working? Thank you Mr. Globus, we will look into this.  Best,  ‐‐Ed       Ed Shikada  City Manager  250 Hamilton Avenue | Palo Alto, CA 94301  Ph: (650) 329-2280  ed.shikada@cityofpaloalto.org        From: Ryan Globus <ryanglobus@gmail.com>  Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 8:30:10 PM  To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>  Subject: Caltrain Trespasser near Churchill ‐ Are Cameras Working?      CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Palo Alto City Council,     This morning I was biking to Town & Country along the bike trail parallel to Caltrain, near Churchill, when I saw a man  enter the tracks around 9:55. He looked like he was going for a run. I was trying to figure out what to do when, about 10‐ 30 seconds after he entered the track area, the crossing guards began to sound and a northbound Caltrain passed.  Luckily, the man was not injured. He casually retrieved a soccer ball and ran back to Churchill.    I know that Palo Alto recently installed cameras to monitor trespassing, and I was alarmed that they may have done  nothing. The City says they have loudspeakers to direct trespassers, yet they were not used. Caltrain usually announces  when it enables emergency braking on its Twitter account, yet did not do so, which leads me to worry that the engineer  had no idea there was a trespasser. Would someone from the city please investigate this incident?    There appears to be a strong possibly the camera system did nothing. Given the number of fatal incidents near Caltrain  crossings, this is very concerning.    I believe the train was a Giants special train #607. I have included a picture of the man and a map showing roughly  where the incident occurred (maybe a couple hundred feet north of the pin).    Please let me know if you have any questions.    Thanks,  2 Ryan Globus  Midtown Resident        3   1 Brettle, Jessica From:John Bender <bender@stanford.edu> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 4:13 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council,     As a property owner and long‐time resident of Palo Alto,  I support the proposed expansion of Castilleja School    Yours truly,  John Bender        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Pria Graves <priag@birketthouse.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 3:06 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja DEIR CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  Dear Planning Commissioners,  I have many concerns about Castilleja’s proposed expansion.  First, as a cyclist who regularly uses the Bryant Street bike boulevard, the expected increase in traffic in that area is  unacceptable and will increase risks to cyclists.  I’m particularly concerned about the traffic turning off Embarcadero to  enter the proposed underground garage.  Many drivers seem to feel that it’s ok to make a right on red regardless of  whether there is cross traffic, especially if that traffic happens to be a cyclist.  Adding a major garage entrance just  around the corner is likely to exacerbate this problem.  In addition, the construction process itself will make the bike boulevard essentially unusable for years. There is simply no  way to manage an excavation of that scale without impacting the surrounding area.  Even if the City intends to impose  special rules on where the trucks and equipment necessary may travel/park/etc., such regulations have been  demonstrated repeatedly to be ineffective.  Enforcement is always inadequate.  The hazard to cyclists attempting to  pass the site will be enormous.  Second, the idea of allowing the removal of protected mature oaks and redwoods is absurd.  Apart from the damage to  the aesthetics of the neighborhood, in a time of looming climate change, we need to keep all the trees we have.  Please  do not support the idea that there are sufficient “overriding benefits” to justify their removal.  Finally, apart from these two specific concerns of mine, there is the whole issue of how much growth is enough.  As  economist Kenneth Boulding said, "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either  a madman or an economist.”  It’s time for us to wake up and realize that we need to learn to live sustainably and that  doesn’t mean build, build, build!  Thank you.  Regards,  Pria Graves  {REDACTED}  650.493.2153  1 Brettle, Jessica From:William F Fearon <wfearon@stanford.edu> Sent:Thursday, August 8, 2019 8:02 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja School Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Planning and Transportation Commission,  I am writing to express my full support of Castilleja School’s Draft Environmental Impact Report. It appears that they  have addressed the requirements of the City and have done their best to meet the demands of the neighborhood.  Thank you for your consideration,  Bill Fearon  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Joseph Rolfe <joerolfe@comcast.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 11:32 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Planning & Transportation Commission Comments for the Regular Meeting August 14, 2019 Castilleja School expansion is the Action Item on the Agenda for this meeting. We fear that in the discussion of what stays and what gets demolished, etc., one great and overarching question is not receiving attention. Castilleja has very ambitious plans for expansion. The school facility that would result does not even belong in this neighborhood. There are several major considerations: Castilleja is on a path of consistent growth and would wind up with the greatest student density of any public or private school in Palo Alto. The traffic and congestion impact on the neighborhood would inevitably be horrendous. The great majority of pedagogical theory recommends separating the middle and high schools for many reasons. However, any discussions about plans to separate the middle and high school campuses have been summarily (and in our minds arrogantly) rejected. The plans indicate that Castilleja would change the entire nature of the neighborhood. Is this what we want for a very old residential neighborhood? We believe that there are far better ways for Castilleja to realize their ambitions. The best solution is to move the campus completely to a new location. Have solutions to building a new campus such as a land swap with Stanford been explored? Stanford would welcome the chance to built faculty and staff housing on 6+ acres five blocks from campus. Possibly, a third-party developer might be interested. Also, Castilleja has shown that they are able to raise any amount of money for any project they would like to do. Castilleja has summarily (and in our minds arrogantly) rejected any discussion of building a new campus or splitting the campus. Finally, for this letter, the Castilleja girls would be poorly served by the required temporary buildings and facilities needed during the demolition and reconstruction of the current campus. We do not believe that the neighbors would tolerate five years of demolition work. We certainly believe in educating girls and young women, but this is a disruptive proposal that would change the neighborhood totally. There are far better ways for Castilleja to achieve its goals. Joe Rolfe Diane Rolfe {REDACTED} Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:James Poppy <jamespoppy@comcast.net> Sent:Sunday, August 11, 2019 9:30 AM To:French, Amy; Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja garage ingress/egress needs to be studied by EIR CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Ms. French,  Why would the planning department allow Castilleja to even consider a single garage entrance on the Bryant Bike  Boulevard, with egress back onto Bryant? Safe Routes to school told me that you are supposed to protect cyclists, but  you appear to only be concerned with getting Castilleja’s plans approved.    Please explain how the traffic flow would work. This must be studied carefully by the EIR. Currently it merely states that  the DAILY volume of traffic is OK for a Bike Boulevard and does not mention the additional 100+ cars that would  converge on the single entrance at peak times (or be avoided, leading to dangerous drop‐offs on side streets).    Sincerely,  Jim Poppy  Melville Ave.        1 Brettle, Jessica From:Sydney Larson <sydney.a.larson@gmail.com> Sent:Sunday, August 11, 2019 6:32 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Castilleja project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hi,  I am writing to express my strong support for Castilleja's proposed development project. Castilleja is an integral member  of the Palo Alto and our broader Silicon Valley community and has been for over 100 years. The education it provides  young women is unparalleled and it would be such an incredible opportunity for more women to experience.     I hope that you will support this project.    Best,  Sydney Larson    ‐‐   _____________________________________  Sydney Larson  sydney.a.larson@gmail.com  408.802.3694  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Hamilton Hitchings <hitchingsh@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:16 PM To:Planning Commission; Castilleja Expansion Cc:Council, City Subject:Castilleja Expansion DEIR Public Comments CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear PTC, The following are my comments to the Castilleja Expansion DEIR. Please limit the growth of the Castilleja Expansion to a maximum student body size of 500 students. Also please do not approve of the underground parking garage. For 12 years Castilleja exceeded its conditional use permit for student size and should not be now let off the hook on fully mitigating its impacts. Furthermore, only 25% of the student body comes from Palo Alto. The current student body size is more than large enough to handle all current and future Palo Altans students. Thus the expansion is for the sole benefit of out of town commuting students. Yet the DEIR admits there are significant unavoidable traffic impacts to Embarcadero, Alma and neighborhood streets, which will continue to compound over time. The best way to mitigate this is to limit the size of the expansion to 500 students and do all the proposed traffic mitigation. There is no reason Castilleja should not maintain or shrink their traffic footprint. Adding a garage with its only entrance into and out of it, onto Bryant Street, which is a bicycle boulevard is not only unsafe, but shows a serious lack of commitment to bicycle usage in the city. Bryant street bicycle boulevard is a direct feeder into downtown Palo Alto and with so many cars entering and exiting the garage each day, will be a major set back for bicycle commuting in the city. We also need to protect our urban canopy and this project's plan to remove mature oak trees is an environmental step backwards. Thank you. Hamilton Hitchings 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Melissa Beville Kepner <mkepner@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:17 PM To:Council, City Subject:Castilleja School Proposal - Please Pass CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City of Palo Alto City Council,     As a long time supporter of girls education in a world where educating girls to be strong, confident citizens is all the  more important, I am writing to express my support for Castilleja School.      The school needs to modernize and it's new plan will help bring women's education to the next generation.    Please pass their proposal.    Thank you.    Regards,  Melissa Kepner‐‐   Melissa B. Kepner  (650) 851‐4499 H  (415) 846‐6161 C  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bob Kocher <bobkocher37@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 9, 2019 7:06 AM To:Council, City Subject:Support for Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council of Palo Alto,   Our family is an Old Palo Alto neighbor to Castilleja, living on Emerson Street for the past 9 years, and we are supportive of Castilleja’s new  campus.  Having an exceptional school in our community is an asset – attracting talented girls and families, increasing engagement and volunteer  work in our community, and adding vibrancy to our neighborhood.   We have been impressed by Castilleja’s sensitivity to the neighborhood.  Castilleja makes a great effort to minimize traffic, on‐street parking, and  adapting their redevelopment plans to minimize impact on our community.  Castilleja has done a good job at meaningfully reducing traffic by  creating car pools, using of CalTrain and buses, and by encouraging biking.    Our community is benefitting from the investments in our community.  We appreciate our neighbors rebuilding and improving their homes, Palo  Alto investing in infrastructure, school, and parks, the growth of local businesses, and Stanford’s success attracting world class students and  faculty.  We should be thrilled that Castilleja is proposing to invest millions in our neighborhood to enhance one of the best girls school in the  country.  This is good for our property values, tax revenues for Palo Alto, and makes Palo Alto more attractive for families and businesses.  When one reviews the plans, the thoughtfulness is impressive.  The proposal is environmentally awesome, reduces noise and blends  more gracefully into the neighborhood, and creates underground parking which reduces cars on the streets.  I am confident that Castilleja  will continue to be a good neighbor and enrich our community.  Thank you for carefully overseeing the project on all of our behalf.  Sincerely,  Bob Kocher  {REDACTED}  Palo Alto, CA 94301  1 Brettle, Jessica From:James Poppy <jpoppy55@icloud.com> Sent:Thursday, August 8, 2019 10:45 AM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Cc:gsheyner@paweekly.com Subject:Castilleja DEIR ignores bicycle safety on Bryant, re-routed traffic flow CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Castilleja DEIR ignores bicycle safety on Bryant and re-routed traffic to a single garage entrance. Hello PTC, Please refer to the Castilleja DEIR Appendix E Traffic Impacts Analysis. The document does not address or measure the number of cyclists at peak times of the day, at Embarcadero and Bryant, Bryant and Kellogg, or Bryant and Churchill (which is already a dangerous intersection at peak school times with Paly). The document does not address the issue of traffic being re-routed from the current flow (surface level dropoffs on Bryant and on Kellogg) to a single subterranean entrance on Bryant, requiring a left-hand turn by motorists traveling south on Bryant who would have normally dropped off students on Kellogg. CURRENT TRAFFIC FLOW - 2 SURFACE-LEVEL DROPOFFS To help protect your privacy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. With traffic re-routed to a single entrance, traffic will be allowed to converge from both directions on Kellogg -- west from Waverly, and east from Emerson/Alma. Currently, traffic can only approach the Kellogg dropoff point from the westbound direction. If cars approach the garage from eastbound Kellogg, they will have to 2 negotiate a lefthand turn onto Bryant, into oncoming bikes and cars on Bryant, and from eastbound cars on Kellogg trying to turn right onto Bryant. PROPOSED TRAFFIC FLOW - 1 ENTRANCE FOR 5 APPROACHES To help prprivacy, Mprevented download from the In Therefore, the single garage entrance would be the destination for all cars from 5 different directions. How can that be safe for cyclists? The document only refers to the number of seconds (14) needed to avoid queuing on Bryant, but the document does not specify where the queuing occurs. Queuing could easily happen on both sides of Bryant, because cyclists also need to get through that area. Cyclists include commuters and students to high school and middle school. It is very easy to imagine how motorists would be discouraged from having to negotiate a street crowded with cars waiting to turn left across traffic and cyclists trying to get to their destination, and simply choose to drop off students on side streets. The Appendix only refers to daily volumes of cars on Bryant, stating that it would remain under the 2,000 threshold of DAILY car trips. There will be at least 200 additional car trips per day with the proposed plan, and they would be concentrated during peak times. Bicycle traffic should be measured at peak commute and school times in order to accurately evaluate how the flow of cars into a single entrance would be impacted. Bicycle safety must be a priority. A revised traffic study must be done to evaluate the impact of re-routing traffic from 2 dropoffs, and how that will impact queuing on Bryant, and on Kellogg, as there will certainly be more cars traveling in all directions. 1 Brettle, Jessica From:just sayin <send.kin.mail@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 7, 2019 11:56 PM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston Arastradero corridor CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,     I'm a home owner on Maybell Ave.  My daily commute takes me pass by the unbelievably senseless Charleston Arastradero corridor twice a day.  I couldn't help but wonder the danger the jetting dividers/barriers jet pose  to drivers young and old, and someday maybe myself.  For the good of all the people who relies on Arastradero daily, please remove the barriers ASAP!    Sincerely,    ‐kin    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Elke MacGregor <bemacgregor@earthlink.net> Sent:Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:12 AM To:Council, City Subject:Charleston Arastraswro rrow CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Esteemed Council members    I just biked along Charleston Arastradero end to end and Love, love, love the improvements.    Our children bicycle from our house to Gunn Highschool daily and I really appreciate the improved safety measures.  My  husband and I bicycle along this road two to three times per week as well.  We thank you for your continued support of  this bicycle friendly connection between Palo Alto residences, the foothills and multiple schools.    With appreciation,    Elke MacGregor and Family  55 Roosevelt Circle  Palo Alto  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kate Shrout <kate.shrout@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 12:23 PM To:Planning Commission; Council, City; Castilleja Expansion Subject:Comment in Support of Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To whom it may concern:     I own a home on the 100 block of Rinconada in Old Palo Alto, and have lived there for 3 years.  I'm writing in support of  Casti's proposed plans.  I do not have children and do not have any relatives who attend Casti.  Even though I don't have  a tie to the school, I strongly support its mission and goals to provide top‐tier education to the next generation of  women leaders.      Regards,    Kate Shrout  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Nelson Ng <lofujai@ymail.com> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 5:41 PM To:Planning Commission; Lait, Jonathan Cc:Council, City Subject:Comment on traffic study for Castilleja DEIR CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Planning Director and Planning and Transportation Commission,    My name is Nelson Ng.   I live at 1260 Emerson Street directly across from the 1263 Emerson Street known as  the Lockey House that is owned by Castilleja School.    I found that the DEIR published for Castilleja’s Expansion is incomplete and the basis for analysis is fatally  flawed.  The baseline traffic study was based on only three days – January 26, 2017; May 16, 2017 and April 10,  2019.  These days were mid‐week and the data was based on Castilleja’s self survey and vehicle counts.  To  provide a more accurate understanding of the project and its impacts, what should be evaluated in the traffic  study for Castilleja’s proposed project are:   Current traffic counts for the full neighborhood (including nearby Palo Alto High School) for a full week while  Castilleja and Palo Alto High is in session.  The traffic count should include vehicles, pedestrians, bicyclists, etc.  This traffic count should be signed off by a Castilleja official certifying that the count is accurate. Bicyclists, both  adult commuters and school children make up the majority of traffic on the Bryant street bike boulevard and  should be included.   Traffic should be counted (car and bike/pedestrians/other) for the full neighborhood for a full week while  o Castilleja and Palo Alto High are in session.  o Castilleja is not in session while Palo Alto High is in session.  o Palo Alto High School is not in session while Castilleja is in session  All intersections within a half‐mile to a mile radius, especially those with traffic signals need to be  included.  Critical intersections missing are:  Embarcadero/Waverley; Embarcadero/Pedestrian crossing at Palo  Alto High School; and Embarcadero Road/Town & Country/Palo Alto High School Driveways. In addition, the traffic study needs to address the construction traffic for the three‐five years of  construction.  The information in the report puts the responsibility on the future contractor for construction  routes, construction staging, and construction parking.  The volume of vehicles and the duration of the project  warrant that a complete study, recommendations, and mitigations for this work be presented in the EIR  instead. 2 The traffic study also needs to include proposed projects such as the CalTrain rail crossing project, the City of  Palo Alto’s modifications to Embarcadero Road for bicyclists, etc.  From this baseline, the traffic report should be rewritten/resubmitted for review.  1. The following 3 Alternatives are listed in the DEIR: 1:  Staying with 415 students and no construction 2:  73% enrollment increase to 506 students and demolish two Single Family Home to build an  underground garage 3:  73% enrollment increase to 506 students and demolish one Single Family Home to build an  underground garage This DEIR is incomplete because the Chapter 7 Transportation section did not analyze impact of any  enrollment increase option without an underground garage.  This report focuses on how to make the  garage achievable by various means to mitigate the three Significant but Unavoidable impacts.  Instead,  it should study other alternatives that allows for a moderate enrollment increase (20% to 30%) without  an underground garage to address the traffic impacts such as satellite parking areas and splitting the  campus to provide a truly unbiased solutions for the community. I am requesting this DEIR to provide the current impact of Castilleja comparing to other streets listed to  be included in item 3 below and to study the impact of an alternative without an underground garage  but using satellite parking for all students being driven in with school shuttles running between the  satellite parking lot and the campus. 2. In page 7‐12,  The peak hour is determined based on the actual traffic volume data; it is defined by the City and Caltrans guidance as the 60- minute period during which the highest traffic volumes were observed. The peak period for morning commute traffic is from 7:00 AM to 9:00AM; … The school afternoon peak period occurs between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM … The evening peak period, between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM, … The commute traffic has increased significantly in recent years.  The peak period has  expanded.  Therefore, the peak period study should be expanded to the following:  morning commute traffic 7:00AM to 10:00AM   evening  commute traffic to 4:00pm to 7:30PM. 3. The following is stated in page 7‐13, At the time of the existing conditions traffic counts in January 2017, enrollment at Castilleja School was 438 students. Site- specific trip generation rates for the AM, School PM, and PM peak 3 hours were developed based on driveway counts and adjusted based on results from a student travel pattern survey. It is estimated that the school site currently generates 352 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour, 274 vehicle trips during the School PM peak hour, and 176 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour,  Site specific trip generation rates based on driveway counts and adjusted based on results from a student  travel pattern survey is problematic and will not yield accurate results.   Students are routinely dropped  off one to two blocks away from the campus.  For example, Castilleja students are routinely dropped off at  the cul‐de‐sac on Melville between Bryant and Waverley.  Those traffic counts are not included in  Castilleja’s count of cars entering their parking lot.   Student travel pattern survey is conjecture at best.   During the March 2017 scoping letter input for the DEIR, I suggested the following study criteria to  establish a baseline.  The data should be compared with traffic of “what is allowable” for the Single Family  R‐1 neighborhood and not the existing condition. This determines the TRUE impact of Castilleja traffic to  its surrounding neighborhood.  Some surrounding neighbors have observed a 90% traffic reduction on  days when Castilleja is not in session while Palo Alto schools are still in session. Therefore, the study must  measure traffic impact with and without Castilleja in session.  In addition, missing from the study are the  impacts of a hundred of Castilleja school events per school year including evening and weekend events  and the two summer camp sessions per year.    The following are a list of items the Traffic study must  include - Castilleja in session while Palo Alto school in session - Castilleja school is out on holiday with no activities while Palo Alto school in session  - Palo Alto school holiday while Castilleja school in session - The days that Castilleja have evening and weekday events - During the summer, with and without Castilleja Summer School in session.            All studies should be done on a weekly basis of 24x7 period and not just one day in week to avoid  missing significant traffic pattern changes for different days of the week.  Please see item #6 for the  complete set of streets and intersections to be studied. 4. Projects such as Grade Separation at Churchill and Alma, Stanford GUP expansion and bike lane on  Embarcadero Road will have major traffic impacts to this neighborhood.  This study must include the cumulative  impact of Castilleja expansion along with these projects.  This study should show the impact of Castilleja  expansion with the additional impact from each project. 5. The 3 to 5 years construction for this expansion project must be studied.  We need to understand what is  the feasible for this neighborhood to handle with increase in traffic created by the construction related  machinery and staging.  6. A number of streets and intersections that were submitted to be studied as part of the March 2017 EIR  Scoping comment are omitted in the DEIR study listed in page 7‐5 to 7‐7.  Please see attached update to Figure  7‐1 and Figure 7‐2.  Please include them into the study for the final EIR. 7. In Page 7‐30, Table 7‐10 shows the following Daily Trips count for different number of enrolled student  scenarios.   This yields 2.74 Daily Trips per student for all 4 scenarios.     4 Condition # of Students Daily Trips  Existing CUP 415 1,135  2017 Enrollment 438 1,198  2018 Enrollment 434 1,187  Proposed Project 540 1,477    In page 7‐19, it stated “The existing ADT was determined based on 24‐hour machine counts conducted  in January 2017 and September/October 2018”. Is the Daily Trips number for 2018 Enrollment Condition  measured from Sept/Oct 2018 study or just calculated using the rate for 2017 Enrollment.  If it is  measured, please explain how the rates 2017 and 2018 are exactly the same?  If it is calculated, please  provide the actual measured daily trip. 8. In Table 7‐4 of page 7‐14, the following is car trips exiting the garage - AM Peak(7am to 9am): 199 (This works out to be 18.1sec per car) - School Peak PM(2pm to 4pm):  187 (This works out to be 19.3sec per car) - PM Peak(4pm to 6pm): 124 (This works out to be 29sec per car) In table 7‐12 of page 7‐40, it estimates the following Delay time with this project at Emerson right turn  onto Embarcadero  - AM Peak(7am to 9am): 24.7 sec (145.7 cars/hr) - School Peak PM(2pm to 4pm):  24 sec  (150 cars/hr) - PM Peak(4pm to 6pm): 20.1 sec  (179 cars/hr) Majority of the morning drop‐off traffic and afternoon pickup traffic will not be evenly spread out during  the 60 minutes period.  Most traffic will appear within the 15 minutes before and after the  bell.  Therefore, the study should provide a the study of the same traffic volume of within a 30 minutes  window to calculate how many cars will back up through the proposed garage onto Embarcadero from  Bryant entrance due to the delay of cars making a right turn from Emerson onto Embarcadero. 9. The following claim regarding Castilleja expansion impact on bike safety is on page  7‐29.   The project includes a reduction in total curb cut driveways from eleven driveways … to six driveways … The reduction in driveway curb cuts will improve bicycle safety. However, I am unable to find any traffic study data and analysis in the report to substantiate this claim  that significant traffic increases to the Bryant Street Bike Boulevard by combining all incoming Castilleja  traffic entering the proposed garage by making a left turn from Embarcadero onto Bryant Street and  then a right turn from Bryant to enter the garage will not put Bike Boulevard users at risk. Bryant Street  Bike Safety Boulevard is one of the most used commute routes by PAUSD students biking to  school.   Castilleja auto traffic will be competing with the PAUSD students and other adult commuters  for the right of way to use this busy section of the Bike Boulevard during the commute hour.    This study  5 must include data and analysis on the potential risk increase to PAUSD students and other bicyclists due  to significant traffic increase during student commute hour.  The study should include all previous traffic  accidents including bicyclists and use the data to project the potential of increase accidents by the  increased traffic.    Please refer to item 8, on the volume of Castilleja traffic should not be averaged on a  60 minutes basis but rather concentrating on the 15 minutes before and after the school session bell  time. The study should also include scenarios when cars are backed onto Bryant and Embarcadero from the  garage per study of item #8, the increase risk to the bicyclists when cars are blocking the intersection of  Bryant and Embarcadero or abandoning entering the garage and competing with bicyclists to travel  south on Bryant Street.         6   Waverley Street from: ‐ Churchill Ave to Coleridge ‐ Coleridge to Lowell   Bryant Street from: ‐ Churchill to Coleridge ‐ Coleridge to Lowell   7 Emerson Street from: ‐ Churchill to Coleridge ‐ Coleridge to Lowell   Churchill Avenue from: ‐ Embarcadero to Cowper ‐ Cowper to Waverley   Alma Street from ‐ Churchill to Coleridge ‐ Coleridge to Lowell Lincoln Avenue from: ‐ Cowper to Waverley   Kingsley Avenue from: ‐ Cowper to Waverley   Melville Avenue from ‐ Cowper to Waverley ‐ Waverley to Embarcadero (cul‐de‐sac)   Embarcadero Road from ‐ Middlefield to Bryon ‐  Bryon to Webster ‐ Webster to Tasso 8 ‐ Tasso to Cowper ‐ Cowper to Waverley ‐ Waverley to Bryant ‐ Bryant to Emerson ‐ Emerson to El Camino   Kellogg Avenue from: ‐ Alma to Emerson ‐ Emerson to Bryant ‐ Bryant to Waverley   Coleridge Avenue from: ‐ Alma to Emerson ‐ Emerson to Bryant ‐ Bryant to Waverley ‐ Waverley to Cowper   Lowell Avenue from: ‐ Alma to Emerson ‐ Emerson to Bryant ‐ Bryant to Waverley ‐ Waverley to Cowper   Cowper Street from ‐ Lincoln to Kingsley 9 ‐ Kingsley to Melville ‐ Melville to Kellogg ‐ Kellogg to Embarcadero ‐ Embarcadero to Churchill ‐ Churchill to Coleridge ‐ Coleridge to Lowell       Sincerely Nelson Ng 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Susmita Ramani <susmitaramani@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 12:47 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: Complaint CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. I am forwarding this to you at the suggestion of a neighbor on Nextdoor. Thank you.  Sent from my iPhone  Begin forwarded message:  From: Susmita Ramani <susmitaramani@gmail.com>  Date: August 11, 2019 at 9:00:45 PM PDT  To: pwps@cityofpaloalto.org  Subject: Complaint  Re {REDACTED} Palo Alto 94303   We had a gorgeous, shade-giving tree in our front yard. In the past four days when we happened to be out of town, the City's tree trimming people came and butchered it, rendering it skeletal. There's now almost no shade. It's quite an absence. As background, some months ago, a man came out from the City to look at the tree and advised a "conservative end weight trim" of the branches. He said this would be scheduled by the City's tree trimming team. Instead, with no notice it would happen, we've come home to find about 1/4 of the lovely tree we had. :( We've lived here for seven years, and this is the first time such a thing has happened. It's too late to bring back now, and I know it'll grow back eventually, but we don't want this to happen again. Any thoughts for future reference are appreciated. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone  1 Brettle, Jessica From:ree_duff@comcast.net Sent:Saturday, August 10, 2019 8:58 PM To:Council, City Subject:Concrete Abutments on Arastradero Dangers! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Members of the City Council of Palo Alto, Before Those DANGEROUS ABUTMENTS were put in permanently, I along with other Intelligent residents of Palo Alto, objected to having them put in. It was obvious to me that they would do more harm than good! As Staff apparently carries more weight in how my Tax dollars are spent, our opinions opposing these structural monstrosities abutting out of the normal lane markers, etc. were ignored. I would ask the Council to weigh the collateral damage & risks to Automobiles, Bikers & Pedestrians, from “sideswiping” or bouncing off of these blocks of Concrete. Although I was aware of the danger they posed. I didn’t fully appreciate how easily a driver could miss allowing for that concrete, as it isn’t a normal lane width. I wasn’t prepared for the damage caused to the front wheel well, etc. on the side of my car. How do I make a claim for the damage to my car when it bounced off of one of the abutments that sticks too far out into the street, and inappropriately narrowed the lane at the intersection of Arastradero & Coulombe. Why is it that STAFF carries more weight with a Computer generated model for altering our streets, than those of us who are in our cars and driving these roads every day? Sincerely, Ree Dufresne 2   Ree Campaña Dufresne, R.N. (Ret)   Palo Alto, CA 94306  Cell: 650‐224‐8845   1 Brettle, Jessica From:jeffrey lipkin <repjal@att.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 10:56 PM To:lydiakou@lydiakou.emailnb.com; Council, City Subject:Fwd: [GA2] Fwd: Congratulations Lunkheads, the City Will Now Get Sued Over the Corridor Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    Sent from my iPhone    Begin forwarded message:  From: "Betty Thana bthana@att.net [greenacres2]" <greenacres2‐noreply@yahoogroups.com>  Date: August 13, 2019 at 10:31:05 PM PDT  To: ree_duff@comcast.net  Cc: Sheryl Keller <kellersheryl@gmail.com>, "Sheryl Keller kellersheryl@gmail.com [greenacres2]"  <greenacres2‐noreply@yahoogroups.com>, Ron Baker <bakerra@pacbell.net>, Greenacres2  <greenacres2@yahoogroups.com>  Subject: Re: [GA2] Fwd: Congratulations Lunkheads, the City Will Now Get Sued Over the Corridor  Project  Reply‐To: Betty Thana <bthana@att.net>     Hi Neighbors,  I was returning home tonight, around 7:15 PM, turning onto Arastradero from El Camino, then turning  right onto Coulombe, and I noticed how dangerous the newly constructed cement barriers are on  Arastradero, for that 0.3 miles. It is as if someone has constructed an obstacle course for us:    1) midway on Arastradero, between El Camino and Columbe, the new cement barriers directly cut off  the right lane, by being constructed straight across the road, ie perpendicular to the curb, and stretching  out one lane’s length, directly into the lane where people are driving their cars.    I was only alerted to its existence, because there were a few orange flags on top of the cement barrier,  otherwise, I probably would have driven my car straight into the concrete barriers, that is directly in  front crossing my lane.     This was in the day light, and accidents may happen after dark, when the drivers who are not familiar  with this road, and not anticipating a concrete barrier crossing their entire lane, would crash into the  concrete barrier, causing severe injuries to passengers and kids.    2) to make the right turn into Coulombe, there are the concrete barriers butting out as a big triangle,  way into the middle of the road, and if one is not familiar with this road, it may cause an accident,     2 It is a bit ironic that here we are, living in the heart of the Silicon Valley, supposedly full of the smartest  people on earth, making all these innovations, and we have in our own neighborhood these concrete  barriers that do seem in need some help from some smarter road safety designers and legislators..    Regards,   Betty    On Aug 10, 2019, at 1:04 PM, ree_duff@comcast.net [greenacres2] <greenacres2‐ noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:      Before I send this to City Council, do I have my facts straight & does it make sense to the rest of you? Ree Dufresne Members of the City Council of Palo Alto  Before Those DANGEROUS ABUTMENTS were put in permanently, I  along with other Intelligent residents of Palo Alto, objected to having  them put in.  It was obvious to me that they pmwould do more harm  than good!  As Staff apparently carries more weight in how my Tax dollars are spent,  our opinions opposing these structural monstrosities abutting out of the  normal lane markers, etc. were ignored.   I would ask the Council to weigh the collateral damage & risks to  Automobiles, Bikers & Pedestrians, from “sideswiping” or bouncing off  of these blocks of Concrete.  Although I was aware of the danger they posed.  I didn’t fully appreciate  how easily a driver could miss allowing for that concrete, as it isn’t a  normal lane width.  I wasn’t prepared for the damage caused to the front left wheel well,  etc. on the side of my car when I bounced off of one. Is the City of Palo  Alto going to pay for the damages to cars that bounce off of these  abutments?  Why is it that STAFF carries more weight with a Computer generated  model for altering our streets, than those of us who are in our cars and  driving these roads every day?Ree Dufresne  3 On August 7, 2019 at 9:18 PM "Sheryl Keller kellersheryl@gmail.com  [greenacres2]" <greenacres2‐noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:          Agree with Ron Baker.  Where is the city employee who designed this  mess.  Let's find him and have him drive on our "improved" corridor at  8AM and at 5PM.  Same with the city council members who approved  this.  Let them drive this stretch for a week.  See what happens.       On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:58 PM Ron Baker bakerra@pacbell.net  [greenacres2] < greenacres2‐noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:             Forwarding because they bounced my  new email address.  See my message  below.    From: Ron Baker  <rabaker.pa@gmail.com>  Subject: Congratulations Lunkheads,  the City Will Now Get Sued Over the  Corridor Project  Date: August 7, 2019 at 8:48:03 PM PDT  To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org  Cc: Greenacres2  <greenacres2@yahoogroups.com>,  webmaster@paloaltoonline.com    I went to a council session, my wife and  I went to department meetings or  hearings, my neighbors went to  planning meetings, I talked to and  emailed council and staff on the  absolute stupidity of the “traffic  calming” project on Charleston  Arastradero corridor.  ABSOLUTELY  NOBODY WAS LISTENING.  Let me tell  you, there was NO material problem  that a few citations/police speed  patrols and better use of rapid transit  funds wouldn’t solve.   Traffic accidents  were largely due to Gunn kids reading  4 their phones and rear ending people in  stop and go traffic at rush hour.  I know,  as my home fronts Arastradero,and I  work from home most days.     Anyway, today TWO cars just ran into  those stupid new traffic calming forms  today, just in the stretch of  Arastradero between Coulombe and  Cherry Oaks.      This was the first day without the  orange warning blocks.  I only saw what  happened in one of these “accidents",  fortunately the second driver, whose  car will have to be extracted from the  form, was okay, though her expensive  car may need some work..     The prior  accident reportedly involved a double  blowout when the vehicle hit the  form.  My neighbors on and near  Arastradero, some of whom also tried  to complain, were out in force to greet  the fire truck that responded, and all  agreed this was totally predictable, so  from a legal standpoint, that will be a  problem for Palo Alto.  As one  firefighter said, wait til the schools are  in session, and rush hour traffic has  gone to zero.  I’m guessing that  residents now ! take longer getting to  the local freeways then actually  traveling on them.    Meanwhile, wait til a bicyclist who  doesn’t understand the design runs into  a form.   This is just pathetically  stupid.       The city is going to get sued for this  project, and the the hazards it  presents.  This city is run by a part time  council that leaves decisions in the  hands of staff who couldn’t figure out  best practices if their lives depended on  it, but fortunately for them, they collect  great pensions, no matter how bad  their recommendations.  Clearly, the  incentives here are all wrong.  At least  half the council is funded by  developers, or depend on incomes in  real estate or property development,  5 the other half move on to higher office  with the support of the public  employee unions.  Few members of the  council are willing to challenge the  reports and proposals prepared by the  bureaucrats, or challenge the  assumptions on which they are based.      The council and departments run  interminable meetings where many of  the people with something real to say  have to leave because the council is  running way too far behind.  When the  citizens on rare occasions rebel, as with  the original Maybell housing project,  council members seem to have no clue  because they almost never go door to  door to canvas residents in the affected  area, and the bureaucrats are even less  inclined to do that.  The process here is  a total failure.         Ron Baker Greenacres 2                __._,_.___    Posted by: Betty Thana <bthana@att.net>     Reply via web post • Reply to sender •Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (16) TO DO THE FOLLOWING: Post a message: greenacres2@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: greenacres2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com [Include your real name and street address - for use of moderators only] 6 Unsubscribe: greenacres2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com List owner: greenacres2-owner@yahoogroups.com VISIT YOUR GROUP To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use     .      __,_._,___  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ron Baker <bakerra@pacbell.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 10:39 PM To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: [GA2] Fwd: Congratulations Lunkheads, the City Will Now Get Sued Over the Corridor Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  FYI, I’m seeing lots of these types of comments.   Please note that there are black tire marks on many of these forms,  indicating vehicles have hit them but not necessarily run over them. The city will be exposed until it fixes this  problem.   Just a terrible design.  Plenty of blame to go around, but foremost, the council needs to stop accepting a staff  solution as having any validity until that has been thoroughly demonstrated.      Begin forwarded message:    From: Betty Thana <bthana@att.net>  Subject: Re: [GA2] Fwd: Congratulations Lunkheads, the City Will Now Get Sued Over the Corridor Project  Date: August 13, 2019 at 10:31:05 PM PDT  To: ree_duff@comcast.net  Cc: Sheryl Keller <kellersheryl@gmail.com>, "Sheryl Keller kellersheryl@gmail.com [greenacres2]" <greenacres2-noreply@yahoogroups.com>, Ron Baker <bakerra@pacbell.net>, Greenacres2 <greenacres2@yahoogroups.com>    Hi Neighbors,  I was returning home tonight, around 7:15 PM, turning onto Arastradero from El Camino, then turning  right onto Coulombe, and I noticed how dangerous the newly constructed cement barriers are on  Arastradero, for that 0.3 miles. It is as if someone has constructed an obstacle course for us:    1) midway on Arastradero, between El Camino and Columbe, the new cement barriers directly cut off  the right lane, by being constructed straight across the road, ie perpendicular to the curb, and stretching  out one lane’s length, directly into the lane where people are driving their cars.    I was only alerted to its existence, because there were a few orange flags on top of the cement barrier,  otherwise, I probably would have driven my car straight into the concrete barriers, that is directly in  front crossing my lane.     This was in the day light, and accidents may happen after dark, when the drivers who are not familiar  with this road, and not anticipating a concrete barrier crossing their entire lane, would crash into the  concrete barrier, causing severe injuries to passengers and kids.    2) to make the right turn into Coulombe, there are the concrete barriers butting out as a big triangle,  way into the middle of the road, and if one is not familiar with this road, it may cause an accident,     It is a bit ironic that here we are, living in the heart of the Silicon Valley, supposedly full of the smartest  people on earth, making all these innovations, and we have in our own neighborhood these concrete  barriers that do seem in need some help from some smarter road safety designers and legislators.    1 Brettle, Jessica From:joe urbassik <joeu1218@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 8, 2019 7:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:arastradero corridor CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________  I live in Green Acres 2 neighborhood. I am very disturbed by the traffic islands and barriers that have been installed  recently between El Camino Real and Gunn High School. Recently a neighbor posted information about a couple of cars  that encountered barriers, causing serious auto damage. Many of us who live in this neighborhood were not surprised  by this turn of events, and we expect there will be more issues with this new configuration.  It is unclear  that the ‘solution’ is better than the problem the city is trying to solve. Arastradero is a main traffic corridor,  and trying to force it to become something else is unlikely to work. The result most certainly will be more people cutting  into the side streets and traveling on Maybell Ave, a residential street with few sidewalks and intense student bike and  pedestrian traffic. It seems obvious, to me anyway, that this is a much more dangerous situation than whatever the city  is currently trying to resolve by putting up unnecessary cement curbs, barriers, and islands on Arastradero. This is not to  mention the extreme cost involved, money that could certainly be better used elsewhere to deal with housing and  traffic issues.  I am disappointed in this project. These are costly and disruptive changes, trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist.  The city’s salaried traffic manager should be fired.  Sincerely,  Joe Urbassik  {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Kimberley Wong <sheepgirl1@yahoo.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 9:45 AM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; French, Amy Subject:Fwd: DEIR Comments: 1263 Emerson Lockey house and 1235 home Attachments:Lockey House.png; Front Door and Plaque of Lockey Alumnae House.jpg; Screen Shot 2017-02-17 at 4.26.01 PM.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear PTC Board, My name is Kimberley Wong. My family has lived in Palo Alto for a long time starting with my grandfather who moved her in 1900. I currently live at {REDACTED} opposite the Lockey house, the 100+ year old home dedicated to Castilleja's founder Mary Lockey a beloved educator who was encouraged by her mentor David Starr Jordan to open an all girls prep school in 1907. In Chapter 6 of the DEIR Cultural Resources study the architects were named for every building on campus except for the Lockey house and the nextoor home that are planned to be demolished. I believe that it should be determined who the architect is of the Lockey house is before they decide against recommending the home is not historic. They were were only few architects at the time so there is a high probability that a notable architect such as Gustave Laumeister, involved in designing the Administration Building and many Professorville homes may have designed the Lockey home. This would satisfy one of the National Historic Registry criteria. It already should satisfy Criteria #2 which states that the property is "associated with lives of persons important to the nation or California's past". Ms Mary Lockey founded the longest lasting Non-sectarian preparatory girl's school in the country. This home also "retains enough of the historic character with lead glass in the decorative archway between the entry and living room, crown moldings in the upstairs bedrooms and gracious dining room. Other additions were made but the main house upstairs and downstairs retain their original style and charm. Only one of these criteria plus keeping the integrity of the house is actually required for the house to be on the National registry. 2 3 I also would like the Dudek staff to explain how they came to the conclusion that removing 2 story homes with mature landscaping (minus the 100 foot tree which was already removed already) can be deemed "Insignificant"? And how can a long wall punctuated by a underground garage exit from which cars emerge be an insignificant impact to the aesthetics of the residential streetscape of Emerson? Lastly, I would ask again as I did in March of 2016 during the last PTC hearing to consider alternatives to demolishing 2 homes when there is such a great need for housing: 1. Reduce traffic to the Embarcadero corridor through shuttling all students, staff and students to the campus without building a garage and taking down 2 homes 2.Turn part of the Lockey house into a historical museum to showcase 100+ years of Castilleja history and retain housing for out of town visitors. 4 I find that removing the Lockey house is historically significant when retains its historic character, is associated with the founder of Castilleja, and could possibly be designed by a notable architect. No amount of fencing and greenery can mask the loss of two homes and the opening of a garage. In fact, introducing a garage with only one way onto the Bryant street bike boulevard introduces significant impact to traffic flow and bike safety on an already busy intersection which cars and cyclists, many of which are schoolchildren, cross daily. Many accidents and near accidents have occurred on that intersection. And as recently as Feb 13, 2018 there was a serious injury to 2 commuters, one a Castilleja teacher who was on his scooter and sent to the hospital for several days. These dangers can be reduced and CAN be avoidable if we don’t build the garage and require all drivers to park offsite and shuttle everyone onto campus. Thank you, Kimberley Wong {REDACTED} 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Steve Rock <rock_js@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 10:07 PM To:Council, City Subject:Downtown Banners CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Folks, I was just in downtown San Jose for the Jazz Festival. There are colorful cloth banners hanging from various lamp posts (similar to those in downtown PA). However, the SJ banners proclaim: LEARN, LOVE, THRIVE, ENJOY, BELONG, CREATE. The PA banners: EAT, SHOP, DRINK (If I remember correctly). This is a very big difference in outlook and what life is about and what the city thinks that we should strive for. I hope that the PA banners are not a real reflection of our city, but merely what the local businesses would like us to be. -Steve Stephen Rock {REDACTED} Palo Alto CA 94303 ser84@columbia.edu 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sent:Wednesday, August 7, 2019 1:51 PM To:Loran Harding; Chris Field; diffenbaugh@stanford.edu; Mayor; esmeralda.soria@fresno.gov; paul.caprioglio; Mark Kreutzer; Mark Standriff; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Dan Richard; David Balakian; dennisbalakian; huidentalsanmateo; Cathy Lewis; Council, City; terry; Joel Stiner; beachrides; nick yovino; kfsndesk; newsdesk; kwalsh@kmaxtv.com Subject:Fwd: DW documentary- FSC, greenwashing global logging. Yikes! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 1:34 PM  Subject: Fwd: DW documentary‐ FSC, greenwashing global logging. Yikes!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 2:44 AM  Subject: Fwd: DW documentary‐ FSC, greenwashing global logging. Yikes!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Tue, Aug 6, 2019 at 4:56 PM  Subject: Fwd: DW documentary‐ FSC, greenwashing global logging. Yikes!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Wed, Jul 31, 2019 at 1:25 AM  Subject: Fwd: DW documentary‐ FSC, greenwashing global logging. Yikes!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Mon, Jul 29, 2019 at 4:06 PM  Subject: Fwd: DW documentary‐ FSC, greenwashing global logging. Yikes!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>      ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>  Date: Sun, Jul 28, 2019 at 3:29 AM  Subject: DW documentary‐ FSC, greenwashing global logging. Yikes!  To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org                 Wednesday, August 7, 2019                To all‐                              Here is a good piece on DW re the conceivably and occasionally, and, no doubt, inadvertently, fraudulent FSC, or  at least the sometimes less than perfectly effective FSC, the Forest Stewardship Council. Forest products companies  from wood floor makers to TT makers to other paper makers, to cardboard makers for packaging, all put the FSC logo on  products. See how effective the FSC really is in protecting old‐growth forests and tropical rain forests which serve as the  lungs of the planet. Peru to Brazil to Congo to Russia to British Columbia. Look out for the word "mix" by the logo. Some  of that wood came from properly managed forests, and some probably did not. This video leaves the impression that  the falsifying of documents, deception and fraud are common in logging and beyond the power of the FSC to prevent.                      See especially comments by Simon Counsell, Executive Director of the Rainforest Foundation in the UK, at 7:19  and at 14:03.  He is not a big fan of the FSC. He discusses what the word "mix" means on a wood product and what the  term "controlled wood" usually means. (It means uncontrolled).                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMp0IFAV41Q               See how logging companies can cheat, not that any would actually do so, certainly not just to make more money.  This is an eye‐opener. Please take a look. I'm sending this to climate change experts Chris Field and Noah Diffenbaugh at  Stanford. Trees take in CO2 and release O2, so cutting them down does damage to efforts to reduce climate change. The  trees shown here don't get burned, releasing CO2, but instead get turned into paper and o. wood products. BUT trees  take in the CO2 produced when hydrocarbons are burned‐ oil, gas, even wood, and so in reducing their number we lose  the mechanism which absorbs the CO2 which we do release into the atmosphere.                       Hydrocarbons in wood:   https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question43.html               The number of trees felled annually may not exacerbate climate change a lot now as some trees do indeed then  grow to replace them, but what happens when we go from 7.5 billion people to 10 billion and 15 billion people? Those  extra people will need wood‐sourced products too, and so the number of trees logged seems likely to rise. As population  rises, it will be harder and harder to keep the number of trees constant by growing new ones. We may have reached  that point already. The video above does not address that.               And, of course, people cut down forests in Central and South America to make space to raise cattle. Those forests  do not get replaced.     3           Climate change‐ drought, drier, warmer conditions‐ have killed 129 million trees just in the Sierras. That and a bark  beetle infestation. These trees are orange instead of green, so they are fairly easy to count. Then, as dead trees, they are  more likely to burn. SO, when they die they are no longer absorbing CO2, and then, catching both barrels of the shotgun,  they are more prone to burning which puts CO2 into the atmosphere. So this mechanism represents climate change  feeding on itself. It helps kill trees, they stop taking in CO2, and then they are more likely to burn, producing more CO2,  which causes climate change which kills more trees.                Trump and his backers want those extra tens of billions of people since they enable the top 1% to get even richer.  The public be damned, humanity be damned, science be damned.                     L. William Harding                  Fresno  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Albert Henning <albertkhenning@yahoo.com> Sent:Friday, August 9, 2019 1:54 PM To:Police; Council, City; City Mgr Subject:I disapprove of PAPD police behavior related to the incident of 17 February 2018 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To the Administrative, Elected, and Public Safety leadership of the City of Palo Alto, The video of the 17 February 2018 events, which has only emerged publicly in the last several weeks, appalls me. It should appall you. The recorded behaviors (some actually illegal, some 'merely' flouting the norms of reasonable human behavior) of at least four sworn officers, combined with their dishonest and disingenuous reporting of the incident, combined with the ongoing 'management' of the incident by city leadership -- has in an instant caused all the trust and respect I have had for the police in our community (developed over my 25 years here) to evaporate. Why did officers make untruthful statements surrounding the issue of Mr Alvarez's suspended license? Why did officers lie about not needing a warrant to enter his home (there were no exigent circumstances; and, an arrest was not yet performed [Mr Alvarez was never told he was under arrest], so that entry incidental to lawful arrest did not apply)? Why did officers threaten a violent, illegal act (to break down the door)? Why did officers unholster weapons, and threaten with lethal force an unarmed, unthreatening individual? Why did officers use force excessively, causing physical harm to Alvarez? Why did officers escalate, rather than de-escalate, the tensions on-scene? Why did the officers present dissemble and/or make untruthful statements about the events in their report? Why do other officers, including the Chief of Police, support the officers in their untruthful narrative, in nearly complete contradiction to the unambiguous video evidence? Who designed the policies and training programs which undergird the self-evident threatening, harmful, unreasonable, and illegal behaviors? What point is there in calling upon our police for help or assistance, if this is the manner in which they treat a citizen whom they apparently don't like? Even if Mr Alvarez numbers among 'the least of us', should he not still be accorded the respect and deference due every human being? After seeing this video, I will want nothing to do with our police. I will avoid them. Except under duress, I will not render assistance or support. I no longer feel safe in their care and keeping. My tax money helps to pay for their salaries and benefits, their policy-making, their training, and equipment to secure the peace while preserving their personal safety; but clearly it is money poorly spent. And, I have a small fear -- borne of anxiety and not entirely unreasonable -- that making my critical reactions known to you all, will lead to trouble for me: if Mr Alvarez is on some sort of list maintained among sworn officers (a list whose members are treated unlawfully and with unnecessary aggression), perhaps there are other lists -- for instance of citizens who criticize public safety, administrative, and/or elected officials -- of those who will be treated similarly? One of our biggest problems as a society, both local and national, centers on safety and security in general, and specifically on the effect of fear for their personal safety on our police forces. This 2 problem is compounded by the ongoing controversies surrounding the Second Amendment, and our political inability to enact the sort of legislative controls outlined by Justice Scalia (in his landmark DC v Heller opinion), which would be both Constitutional, and reduce the risks of gun violence for both the general population and for our law enforcement officers. This video of this incident shows Palo Alto police officers are not immune to the degradation in professional behavior, caused by the seduction of their not-unreasonable fear for personal safety. As a society, we must do our part. In particular, we must force our legislators to enact Constitutional gun controls. And, we must force our legislators to fund research and development of policing tools, which at once protect the public, ensure rights of the arrested and accused (especially their right to life), and secure the safety of the law enforcement professionals whom we enlist to act on our behalf. I believe deeply we can accomplish all these goals simultaneously. I do not accept that we must sacrifice any one of these three goals for the other two. Absent such actions: the behaviors evident in this incident instead invite paranoia and anxiety and distrust of police. They invite more barriers between police and the community. They invite citizens to obtain more weapons, not fewer, toward the goal of self-protection arising out of distrust of police. These invitations increase risks of gun violence for the police, and create an out-of-control feedback loop, of escalating violence: more 'bad' police behavior, then more private guns and less community; more private guns and less community, then more police isolation and fear; more police isolation and fear, then more 'bad' behavior; and so on. And, covering this incident up for a year-and-a-half, amplifies the paranoia and anxiety and distrust: because transparency and honesty and self-regulation and -criticism are essential to trust. Complicit actions by City management and government, further erode trust in elected government. As I said, for me, all the good, done by the Department over all the years, is now for naught. Perhaps the Chief and other officers, the Mayor, and the City Manager, speaking up against this behavior, rather than hiding and dissembling, could overcome and reverse the loss. But, in the absence of our leadership speaking up, no amount of deflection, of 'waiting for the furor to die out', will erase the indelible impressions of this video. I am left with questions such as: If this behavior is normative today (and has been for some time), then how long has it been going on, hidden similarly from view? What other citizens have been subjected to this kind of behavior? Why does the Department, through its policies and training, tolerate and even promulgate this type of behavior? Michael Gennaco is a former college roommate. Mr Gennaco has evaluated and reported upon many police departments in the State, including in the past Palo Alto. I respect Michael's expertise and knowledge in these matters. I don't believe my criticisms are out of line. But if they are, I trust Michael's review of this incident -- if it is requested, and when it is made public -- will set me straight. Most sincerely, Al Henning ======= Albert K. Henning, PhD 199 Heather Lane Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-380-5309 (mobile) albertkhenning@yahoo.com 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Anna Verwillow <averwillow@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 12:42 AM To:Council, City Subject:I Support Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,     I grew up a few blocks from Castilleja and attending the school for seven years. I stayed in the area, just graduating from  Stanford this past June, and come home frequently enough. I ended up missing most of the struggle between the school  and the neighbors by graduating in 2015, only having a few years at the end of high school with increased parking  restrictions. That meant I then mainly learned of the extent of the issue when yard signs saying "Block Castilleja  Expansion" or "Put Your Project On Hold and Start a Conversation with the Neighbors" (seemingly more moderate but in  the same font as the former) cropped up over the last few years. And they cropped up not just in the surrounding area  but literally all over Palo Alto; I don't see what impact this issue would have with residents in the extended Palo Alto  area.     Castilleja has listened to every one of the concerns voiced by the neighborhood (immediate and beyond) and  incorporated all of the feedback into a thoughtful and well‐laid out proposal. It has been so many years of making  changes in plans and including delays to accumulate more feedback. We park on the grass field during school events  instead of in the neighborhood—that to me is such a clear demonstration of thought and effort from the entire  community. I almost start to worry that it's an issue of sexism, that the women's school is being kind but that people  continue push around the girls' school. Paly increased enrollment to no comment and Stanford has huge housing  projects proposed that the county is worried about but the neighbors are not. Why have they singled out Castilleja?    I meant to write a couple sentences, show support, but this topic is unfortunately divisive. My response has been  brewing for years because I now feel alienated from my community, like they are targeting me or like they don't see  value in what I learned and how that shaped the person I have become. Ultimately, I support Castilleja's plan to bring  their world‐class education to more women. I will forever be shaped by the caring and long‐lasting community, brilliant  and compassionate peers, insightful and invested teachers, and wide‐reaching and particular lessons I've gained because  of Castilleja.     Thank you for your time and consideration.    Best,  Anna Verwillow  Palo Alto resident (all 22 years)  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Elizabeth Upton <elzupton@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 9, 2019 9:35 AM To:Council, City Subject:In Support of Women CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Hello,     I wanted to email to show my support for Castilleja and their expansion efforts. Educating women should be a priority  whenever possible. Palo Alto has the opportunity to be a role model for other cities, let's make sure we take ownership  for the success of future generations of women.    Regards,  ‐Elizabeth Upton  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bill Schmarzo <schmarzo@yahoo.com> Sent:Saturday, August 10, 2019 6:44 AM To:Castilleja Expansion; Planning Commission; Council, City; William Schmarzo Subject:Learnings from Crystal Springs with respect to Castilleja expansion demands CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Crystal Springs (CSUS) and the Belmont City Council found a way for Crystal Springs to be a net contributor (versus a net debtor) to the community. In particular, you might find the following paragraph relevant to the Castilleja expansion demands. CSUS agreed to give the city a one-time $1 million payment, $250,000 a year in-lieu of property taxes increased for inflation, have a robust as well as enforceable traffic demand management plan, install a traffic signal at South Road and Ralston Avenue and stagger its start times so as not to align with other local schools. I'd hope that the Palo Alto City Council is as effective as the Belmont City Council in holding Castilleja likewise accountable. Private school seeks loan for expansion: Crystal Springs Uplands wants to develop property in Belmont     Private school seeks loan for expansion: Crystal Springs Uplands wants t... Bill Silverfarb Daily Journal Staff Crystal Springs Uplands School is seeking a $32 million tax- exempt loan to pay for the new middle school campus ...      1 Brettle, Jessica From:annette <annette_g@att.net> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 9:14 PM To:Planning Commission Cc:Council, City; Clerk, City; French, Amy Subject:Letter on Castilleja CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Palo Alto Planning Commission, I strongly oppose the proposed plans for the major expansion of Castilleja in a single-family neighborhood for many reasons. While I support the excellent education that young women receive, the desired addition of 125 students should be on another campus. This is a benefit of $7.25 million per year to a school that has violated their CUP for years with few to no repercussions. Why is the city bending over backward to approve a project that violates multiple zoning codes and setbacks and will deteriorate our quality of life, causing much chaos with such little to no benefit for the city? How many Palo Altans will this benefit? Palo Alto has a long history of supporting public schools which are rated as some of the best in the country. Only 25% of the Castilleja attendees are from Palo Alto --- about 100 young Palo Alto women benefit from this education. The school states it gives scholarships. How many -- geographically, number of students and financial amounts? SHORT TERM IMPACTS  Embarcadero at El Camino is the worst intersection in Palo Alto. Major construction on this corridor as well as the opening of Stanford Hospital and the potential closure of Churchill are a recipe for even more traffic disasters and backups creating difficult to impossible driving conditions. Furthermore, Embarcadero is not meant for trucks with heavy loads and the construction/excavation will result in major damage to the roads themselves.  I oppose having a single entrance garage on Bryant. This will require all cars to enter on Bryant -- our first bike boulevard. The city is justifiably proud of the bike usage as the predominate bike boulevard in our fair city. Palo Alto has already paid a significant amount to facilitate bike traffic along Bryant Street, including closing the southbound intersection at Bryant on Embarcadero.  3-5 years of construction and future car traffic into the garage at all times of day will surely result in accidents, as this is a major route for students to Paly, Greene and Addison…not to mention other city workers and/or commuters passing through Palo Alto. Bike usage of this stretch will diminish with resulting confusion and overflow to other residential streets.  Emerson Street as an egress will also be impacted by the construction. LONG TERM IMPACTS  Our nearby neighbor Stanford University offers significant benefits and events for the community. What does this private school offer?  This project will severely impact the quality of life and ambiance of the neighborhood as well as affecting all of us with impossible to mitigate traffic jams and hazards on Embarcadero and elsewhere.  A dedicated lane for private school traffic on Embarcadero is unacceptable. There are far most pressing needs for traffic mitigation throughout Palo Alto that benefit more than a single entity. ADDITIONAL ISSUES 2 Others will mention the removal of mature trees and loss of canopy, increased noise due to many more evening/weekend events, significant ground water removal for the garage, particularly because Castilleja -- as a non-profit – pays no taxes and all of these impacts have long-term effects on the city with few, if any, direct benefits. Annette Glanckopf   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Lee Christel <lee_xtel@pacbell.net> Sent:Sunday, August 11, 2019 11:29 AM To:Council, City Subject:MTC/ABAG Growth Projection Model CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear City Council, I am very concerned about the impact of Priority Development Areas (PDA) being proposed for Palo Alto’s residential neighborhoods. We cannot have 50 ft high apartment buildings taking over our neighborhoods just a few blocks from El Camino Real. Please urge MTC/ABAG to eliminate their model assumption that planning be driven by aggressive job-growth in priority development areas. This should be replaced with a requirement that the process will include a range of more moderate and balanced projections of jobs and housing that explore a greater geographical dispersion of jobs. In addition, please demand that they make the technical discussions an open, public process with a clear opportunity to hear other points of view. Sincerely, Lee A Christel La Donna Ave Palo Alto 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Ken Poulton <ken@poulton.net> Sent:Sunday, August 11, 2019 12:15 AM To:Zero Waste; pacustomerservice@greenwaste.com; UAC; Council, City Cc:Ken Poulton. Subject:New Clean Up Days way too infrequent CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on  links.  ________________________________    Having two fixed dates a year for bulky item pickup is a terrible plan.  Forcing everyone to align to just two days a year is  ludicrous. Do you think we want to organize our yard cleanup to your schedule?  Should we only purchase furniture in  September and March?  This also defeats the intention for reuse ‐ I don’t have space in the house to store an old sofa, so  it will have to go outside for up to six months.    Please rethink this.    Ken Poulton  Los Robles Ave  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Eva Gal <evahgal@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 9:43 AM To:Council, City Cc:Reply to group Subject:Nightmare on Arastradero corridor CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Members of the City Council of Palo Alto:    I have read the many notes written about the disastrous Charleston/Arastradero corridor, and I agree with the details and sentiments expressed in them.     We were away from home for almost five weeks this summer. As we were driving home last week, I thought I was prepared for the worst, but of course I was wrong. Driving on Charleston and then Arastradero, I had a sense of what it must be like to to be hallucinating-roads curving in odd directions, abutments sticking out in unexpected places, roads so narrow that an SUV touches both sides of the markings, insufficient turning radius for cars due to unnecessary bump- outs, green boxes, green lines, jagged lines, red markings, white stripes, etc. One does wonder about the state of mind of City Council who directed these changes, and City Staff, who interpreted and implemented these directions in a truly nightmarish way. As a person who gets sick on roller coasters, and stays away from Ferris wheels and bumper cars for the same reason, Arastradero and Charleston feels equally nauseating and dangerous-yet unfortunately unavoidable. Shame on you City Council and City Staff for wasting millions of dollars on a project that has caused so much grief for residents and created possibly the most unsafe corridor in Palo Alto or any area in the Bay Area.     On a different note, this Morning, I went to observe the traffic at 7:45 am at the corner of Donald and Arastradero. Here are some thoughts and observations:    Good News:  - No one got hurt this morning. - On the whole, the students and the crossing guard did a good job observing the traffic rules.    Bad news:  -There is a significant increase in traffic on side streets as a consequence of traffic on Arastradero. Thank you, Council Member Kniss !!!!!  -As the students stack on bikes in the green slime box waiting to cross Arastradero, and as the students stack on bikes on the green stripes on Arastradero waiting to either cross to Fletcher or to go to Gunn, there is no space for cars to make a right turn to Donald even at the slowest speed-without jutting into the bike box or the waiting students. What. A. Nightmare!!! We warned staff about this, to no avail.  -With all the so called planning that has gone into this realignment, the City has not bothered to activate/place a "no turn on red when students are present” sign at the four corners. (There is one well hidden at one corner, which is ignored by all) Safety concerns, City Staff??????  -The four corners at Donald/Arastradero and Terman Drive/Arastradero are still not painted red. Therefore, parents are stopping and dropping kids off at the corners; parking at the corner (I almost hit a car as as I turned right on to Donald from Arastradero going West)-all legally. Safety concerns, City Staff????  -The traffic inside Fletcher is equally problematic: cars are going in four different patterns, no turning areas for cars to drive by, and Bowman pre-school drop-off has not even started!  -Parents making u-turns on Donald right into oncoming walkers, parked cars, double yellow lines, bicycling kids, etc. is a major hazard-no police presence at all to help with traffic!!!!    These are but a few observations from one morning. City Council and Staff, you have managed to endanger lives and create a traffic snarl that benefits no one. I do not know what base you are catering to or whose interests you are accommodating. It is certainly not the residents of Green Acres ll.    2 Eva Gal  Green Acres ll    -------- Original message -------- From: "'A.J.' ajlumsdaine@gmail.com [greenacres2]" <greenacres2-noreply@yahoogroups.com> Date: 8/14/19 3:38 PM (GMT+08:00) To: Betty Thana <bthana@att.net> Cc: Ree Dufresne <ree_duff@comcast.net>, Sheryl Keller <kellersheryl@gmail.com>, "Sheryl Keller kellersheryl@gmail.com[greenacres2]" <greenacres2-noreply@yahoogroups.com>, Ron Baker <bakerra@pacbell.net>, Greenacres2 <greenacres2@yahoogroups.com> Subject: Re: [GA2] Fwd: Congratulations Lunkheads, the City Will Now Get Sued Over the Corridor Project The most serious is the separated bike lane which is basically designed to kill someone. Separating bike and car traffic is not a bad idea, but there needs to be integrated signaling so the bikes don’t just think they have the right of way. As it is, the cars have to know about this separated lane in order to not turn right in front of bikes on that separated lane, otherwise called a right hook, the most common car-bike accident. The new streetscape is so confusing and unorthodox, and set up to be such an obstacle course, I have noticed that I have to spend so much attention on the street scape it’s making it impossible to safely keep an eye on pedestrians and especially bicyclists (especially erratic bicyclists, which unfortunately, is just par for the course with middle schoolers). The crazy thing is that I spent a lot of effort trying to explain to the City how the previous jut-out curb was an accident waiting to happen, and so it seems like they went back to the drawing board to make absolutely certain they kill someone. Absolutely crazy. Anne On Aug 13, 2019, at 10:31 PM, Betty Thana bthana@att.net [greenacres2] <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Hi Neighbors, I was returning home tonight, around 7:15 PM, turning onto Arastradero from El Camino, then turning right onto Coulombe, and I noticed how dangerous the newly constructed cement barriers are on Arastradero, for that 0.3 miles. It is as if someone has constructed an obstacle course for us: 1) midway on Arastradero, between El Camino and Columbe, the new cement barriers directly cut off the right lane, by being constructed straight across the road, ie perpendicular to the curb, and stretching out one lane’s length, directly into the lane where people are driving their cars. 3 I was only alerted to its existence, because there were a few orange flags on top of the cement barrier, otherwise, I probably would have driven my car straight into the concrete barriers, that is directly in front crossing my lane. This was in the day light, and accidents may happen after dark, when the drivers who are not familiar with this road, and not anticipating a concrete barrier crossing their entire lane, would crash into the concrete barrier, causing severe injuries to passengers and kids. 2) to make the right turn into Coulombe, there are the concrete barriers butting out as a big triangle, way into the middle of the road, and if one is not familiar with this road, it may cause an accident, It is a bit ironic that here we are, living in the heart of the Silicon Valley, supposedly full of the smartest people on earth, making all these innovations, and we have in our own neighborhood these concrete barriers that do seem in need some help from some smarter road safety designers and legislators.. Regards, Betty On Aug 10, 2019, at 1:04 PM, ree_duff@comcast.net [greenacres2] <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Before I send this to City Council, do I have my facts straight & does it make sense to the rest of you? Ree Dufresne Members of the City Council of Palo Alto Before Those DANGEROUS ABUTMENTS were put in permanently, I along with other Intelligent residents of Palo Alto, objected to having them put in. It was obvious to me that they pmwould do more harm than good! As Staff apparently carries more weight in how my Tax dollars are spent, our opinions opposing these structural monstrosities abutting out of the normal lane markers, etc. were ignored. I would ask the Council to weigh the collateral damage & risks to Automobiles, Bikers & Pedestrians, from “sideswiping” or bouncing off of these blocks of Concrete. Although I was aware of the danger they posed. I didn’t fully appreciate how easily a driver could miss allowing for that concrete, as it isn’t a normal lane width. I wasn’t prepared for the damage caused to the front left wheel well, etc. on the side of my car when I bounced off of one. Is the City of Palo Alto going to pay for the damages to cars that bounce off of these abutments? 4 Why is it that STAFF carries more weight with a Computer generated model for altering our streets, than those of us who are in our cars and driving these roads every day?Ree Dufresne On August 7, 2019 at 9:18 PM "Sheryl Keller kellersheryl@gmail.com [greenacres2]" <greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Agree with Ron Baker. Where is the city employee who designed this mess. Let's find him and have him drive on our "improved" corridor at 8AM and at 5PM. Same with the city council members who approved this. Let them drive this stretch for a week. See what happens. On Wed, Aug 7, 2019 at 8:58 PM Ron Baker bakerra@pacbell.net [greenacres2] < greenacres2- noreply@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Forwarding because they bounced my new email address. See my message below.. From: Ron Baker <rabaker.pa@gmail.com> Subject: Congratulations Lunkheads, the City Will Now Get Sued Over the Corridor Project Date: August 7, 2019 at 8:48:03 PM PDT To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Cc: Greenacres2 <greenacres2@yahoogroups.com>, webmaster@paloaltoonline.com I went to a council session, my wife and I went to department meetings or hearings, my neighbors went to planning meetings, I talked to and emailed council and staff on the absolute stupidity of the “traffic calming” project on Charleston Arastradero corridor. ABSOLUTELY NOBODY WAS LISTENING. Let me tell you, there was NO material problem that a few citations/police speed patrols and better use of rapid transit funds wouldn’t solve. Traffic accidents were largely due to Gunn kids reading their phones and rear ending people in stop and go traffic at rush hour. I know, as my home fronts Arastradero,and I work from home most days. Anyway, today TWO cars just ran into those stupid new traffic calming forms today, just in the stretch of Arastradero between Coulombe and Cherry Oaks. 5 This was the first day without the orange warning blocks. I only saw what happened in one of these “accidents", fortunately the second driver, whose car will have to be extracted from the form, was okay, though her expensive car may need some work.. The prior accident reportedly involved a double blowout when the vehicle hit the form. My neighbors on and near Arastradero, some of whom also tried to complain, were out in force to greet the fire truck that responded, and all agreed this was totally predictable, so from a legal standpoint, that will be a problem for Palo Alto. As one firefighter said, wait til the schools are in session, and rush hour traffic has gone to zero. I’m guessing that residents now ! take longer getting to the local freeways then actually traveling on them. Meanwhile, wait til a bicyclist who doesn’t understand the design runs into a form. This is just pathetically stupid. The city is going to get sued for this project, and the the hazards it presents. This city is run by a part time council that leaves decisions in the hands of staff who couldn’t figure out best practices if their lives depended on it, but fortunately for them, they collect great pensions, no matter how bad their recommendations. Clearly, the incentives here are all wrong. At least half the council is funded by developers, or depend on incomes in real estate or property development, the other half move on to higher office with the support of the public employee unions. Few members of the council are willing to challenge the reports and proposals prepared by the bureaucrats, or challenge the assumptions on which they are based. The council and departments run interminable meetings where many of the people with something real to say have to leave because the council is running way too far behind. When the citizens on rare occasions rebel, as with the original Maybell housing project, council members seem to have no clue because they almost never go door to door to canvas residents in the affected area, and the bureaucrats are even less inclined to do that. The process here is a total failure. Ron Baker Greenacres 2 6 __._,_.___ Posted by: etecm <etecm@aol.com> Reply via web post • Reply to sender •Reply to group •Start a New Topic •Messages in this topic (18) TO DO THE FOLLOWING: Post a message: greenacres2@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: greenacres2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com [Include your real name and street address - for use of moderators only] Unsubscribe: greenacres2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com List owner: greenacres2-owner@yahoogroups.com VISIT YOUR GROUP To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.Yahoo! Groups • Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use .  __,_._,___   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Daniel Lilienstein <dlilienstein@gmail.com> Sent:Thursday, August 8, 2019 3:27 PM To:Council, City Cc:Lydia Kou Subject:I oppose ABAG plan to increase density in Palo Alto CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Our quality of life has suffered due to increased road traffic, deterioration of roads, poor public transportation,  crumbling infrastructure, increased airplane noise, "traffic calming" (better known as "Driver Enragement"), etc.     STOP IT STOP IT STOP IT!    I will organize and vote to punish anybody that falls for the ABAG/developer mantra. We don't need more density in  built‐out suburban towns.     Daniel Lilienstein  Palo Alto    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Steve Rock <rock_js@sbcglobal.net> Sent:Tuesday, August 13, 2019 9:25 PM To:Council, City Subject:Park Blvd Bicycle Blvd CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Folks, I encourage you to quickly approve the plan for improving Park Blvd for bicycles. It is very unlike Ross Rd. There are already 2 car traffic diverters and very few cars. One one side are the RR tracks, so there is no cross traffic most of its length. It connects with Stanford, and the other branch with Paly HS, PA Medical foundation and downtown. At the other end it would be connected to Mtn View via an existing bridge on Wilke. Not much is required, compared to Ross. Removing some stop signs just south of Lambert and improving the connection to Wilke are important. Please do not let the controversy over Ross (which I think was over designed, poorly designed, and not needed, but others disagree), interfere with the very straight forward, relatively inexpensive improvements to Park Blvd. -Steve Stephen Rock 3872 Nathan Way Palo Alto CA 94303 ser84@columbia.edu 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Duco Pasmooij Pasmooij <wordpress@castillejamasterplan.com> Sent:Wednesday, August 14, 2019 10:16 AM 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 Duco Pasmooij Pasmooij and I live in Los Altos, California. I am writing to you as a parent 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,    Duco Pasmooij Pasmooij  pasmooij@icloud.com    1 Brettle, Jessica From:Jacquelyn Glidden <jacquelyn.t.glidden@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 7:26 AM Subject:Please support the Castilleja expansion project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  To whom it may concern,     I am writing this message to urge you to support and approve the Castilleja expansion project. I believe it is our duty to  support and encourage the young women who will one day be our doctors, lawyers, mothers, and leaders. Castilleja  creates a unique and extraordinary environment for young women to learn and develop. The school has jumped through  hoops to make their expansion go as smoothly as possible for the community and especially the residents nearby. With  the release of the DIER, it is clear that they have gone above and beyond in their efforts to mitigate any negative effects  and to support the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan.     It seems that the only point where Castilleja does not exceed expectations is in the number of cars that will be traveling  to campus. However, consider this: how many other businesses and schools can say they have taken such measures to  reduce their car traffic? And how many other independent businesses would be held to such a high standard? It is nearly  impossible for the school to increase capacity without increasing traffic. The question becomes, are you willing to deny  young women the best education and experience available to them because there would be a few more cars on the road  in the morning? I'm certainly not.     I hope you consider this message and truly think of the young women who will so clearly benefit, excel, and thrive with  the Catilleja expansion. Once you consider them, the answer is clear, the Palo Alto community should support these  women.    Best,  Jacquelyn Glidden   Palo Alto resident and supporter of women's rights      PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICE APPLICANT DISQUALIFICATION POLICY I. PURPOSE The City and Police Department have a very strong commitment to equal employment opportunity and prohibitions against unfair employment practices under the Title VII ( 41 U.S. Code 2000e), the Americans With Disabilities Act (42 U.S. Code 12112), the State· Unruh Civil Rights Act (Government Code Section 12940) and other applicable fair employment practices as outlined in the California La:bor Code. The dilemma facing the Department is one of developing a job-valid and nondiscriminatory set of policies which allow it to lawfully exclude persons who do not meet the City's or State's hiring standards. The Peace Officer Standards and Training Commissions of California and Nevada (P.O.S. T.) have developed a list of guidelines, identified as "15 Job Dimensions'', which are used as a professional standard in background investigations. Individual agencies set their own standards (within applicable law) to interpret these guidelines. The following standards have been adopted by the Palo Alto Police Department as a prima facie disqualification for police officer applicants: . II. ST AND ARDS POLICY 1. Operation of a Motor Vehicle Ability to possess a valid California Driver's License. Ability to drive safely. Ability to control a motor vehicle at high speeds. Ability to operate a motor vehicle in all types of weather conditions. A. Receipt of two or more moving violations within three years prior to application shall be disqualifying. Moving violations for which there is a factual finding of innocence shall not be included. B. Involvement as a driver in two or more chargeable collisions within three years prior to date of application shall be disqualifying. C. Conviction of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs within four years prior to application or any two convictiOns of driving under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs shall be disqualifying. D. Suspension of a driver's license two or more times within the past five years shall be disqualifying. 1 PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT with a child, indecent exposure, except: acts of consensual unlawful intercourse accomplished between two minors shall not be included, unless more than 4 years' difference in age existed at the time of the acts. 4. Dependability Having the habit of submitting reports on time, not malingering at calls, etc., well motivated. Dependable; follows through on assignments. Taking the extra effort required to be accurate in all details of work. Willingness to tum in the hours needed to complete ajob. A. Missing any scheduled appointment during the process without prior ·permission shall be disqualifying. B. Having been disciplined by any employer (including military) as an adult for abuse of leave, gross insubordination, dereliction of duty or persistent failure to follow established policies and regulations shall be disqualifying. C. Having been involuntarily dismissed (for reasons other than lay-off) from two or more employers as an adult shall be disqualifying. D. Having undergone personal bankruptcy more than once; having current financial obligations for which legal judgements have not been satisfied or; currently having wages garnished shall be disqualifying. E. History of poor credit shall be disqualifying. F. Resigning from any paid position without notice may be disqualifying. G. Having any outstanding warrant of arrest at time of application shall be disqualifying.· 5. Leaming Ability Ability to comprehend and retain a good deal of factual information. Ability to recall factual information pertaining to laws, statutes, codes, etc. Ability to learn and apply what is learned. Capability of learning the factual material which is required of a law enforcement officer. A. Being under the current academic dismissal from any college or university where such dismissal is still in effect and was initiated within the past 2 years prior to the date of application shall be disqualifying . . B. Having been academically dismissed from any P.O.S.T. certified Basic Law Enforcement Academy wherein no demonstrated effort has been 3 PALO ALTO POLICE DEPARTMENT A. Any adult use or possession of a drug classified as a hallucinogenic within 7 years prior to application for employment. B. Any adult use of possession of marijuana within 3 years prior to application for employment. C. Any other illegal adult use or possession of a drug not mentioned above (including cocaine) within 5 years prior to application for employment. D. Any illegal adult use or possession of a drug while employed in any law enforcement capacity, military police, or as a student enrolled in college accredited courses o£1or related to the criminal justice field. E. Any adult manufactured or cultivation of a drug. F. Failure to divulge to the police department during the background investigation any information about personal-illegal use of possession of drugs. 2. The disqualification of a candidate for the following types of illegal drug use or possession will be considered in relationship to the overall background of that individual: A. Any illegal juvenile use of possession of a drug. B. Any illegal adult use or possession of a drug that does not meet the criteria: of automatic disqualification specified above; e.g. marijuana use longer than 3 years ago or cocaine use longer than·5 years ago. 3. All the information obtained during a background investigation is confidential and will not be released to the candidates or others. Effective date: September 17, 2001 5 1 Brettle, Jessica From:Mike Swenson <ms1ca@yahoo.com> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 10:54 PM To:jrosen@dao.sccgov.org; BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org; adl@adlmail.org; central-pacific@adl.org; mrisher@aclunc.org; schlosser@aclunc.org; Karen.byanes-dunning@splcenter.org; morris.dees@splcenter.org; Council, City; Binder, Andrew Cc:weisberg@law.ucla.edu; karst@law.ucla.edu; pkaneb@scu.edu; lstarr@scu.edu; lbazelon@usfca.edu; rleo@usfca.edu; mcconnell@law.stanford.edu; karlan@stanford.edu; egjensen@stanford.edu; dersh@law.harvard.edu; ccrump@law.berkeley.edu; ihaneylopez@law.berkeley.edu; mdancohen@law.berkeley.edu Subject:Fw: P.O.S.T. standards verify Sgt Benitez' violations Attachments:PAPD Employent Qualifications.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Jeff Rosen DA of Santa Clara County Mr. Rosen, Based upon California's Peace Officers own guidelines and interpretation of the law Palo Alto police Sgt. Wayne Benitez violated PC 149 and PC 147; PC 149 when Sgt. Benitez struck Gustavo Alvarez and then smashed Alvarez' face into the vehicle and then PC 147 when Sgt. Benitez told Alvarez to, "Shut up," and then mocked Alvarez by stating; "You think you're a tuff guy?," and then threatening Alvarez by stating to Alverez that, "You're going to be bleeding a whole lot more." Additionally by telling Alvarez to "shut up," coupled with the use of force and the threat of more force Sgt. Benitez violated Alvarez' 1st Amendment Right to Free Speech. According to P.O.S.T standards Palo Alto police officer Chris Conde appears to have violated PC 31 or PC 32 and or PC 182 by not reporting the offenses committed by Sgt. Alvarez. Excerpts of the P.OS.T standards pertinent to the incidents described herein can be viewed here: https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/post-stamdards.html P.O.S.T standards: https://post.ca.gov/Download-Student-Workbooks/CAv5POSTACC-Workbooks-1 3 6 It is quit clear these officers are violating the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics: http://libertyless.weebly.com/code-of-conduct.html In August 2017 I was informed that Palo Alto Police Officers were coercing homeless people to sign a yellow paper and give a thumb print so that other officers would know who the homeless were It would be one thing if the PAPD were demanding this compliance form all citizens including Asst. DA Jay Boyarsky who lives in Palo Alto but to discriminate against a specific economic/housing group hearkens to how the NAZIS targeted specific groups in the 1930s and 40s. I could not confirm the conduct cited above because once it was brought to the attention of the city council on 8/31/2017 the practice came to an abrupt halt. Given the facts listed below it would not surprise me or those of Antelope Valley that 7 Palo Alto Police Chief Robert Jonsen would implement such a policy and practice given his history of targeting minorities through his anti-American policies and conduct of targeting African Americans and condemned by the U.S Department of Justice for doing so. https://www.scpr.org/news/2013/06/28/37967/doj-deputies-at-la-county-sheriff-s-stations-in-la/ https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2013/06/28/antelope_findings_6-28-13.pdf After running out of town from Lancaster to Menlo Park Chief Jonsen was then widely criticized for targeting African Americans there as well: 8 https://almanacnews.com/news/2017/02/21/cover-story-people-of-color-speak-up-about-personal-impact-of-police-stops So its no supersize that Robert Jonsen would implement his anti-American policies in Palo Alto. 10 Why not just attach a yellow star to all of the homeless in Palo Alto so that it will make it easier? https://www.holocaustcenter.org/visit/library-archive/holocaust-badges/ So Mr. Rosen it is a slippery slope from the homeless to include all of the groups that Hitler and the Nazis went after before they came after those of Jewish ancestry. First they came for: 1 Brettle, Jessica From:betty cho <betty_cho@yahoo.com> Sent:Thursday, August 8, 2019 12:28 AM To:Council, City Subject:REMOVE The BARRIERS ASAP!!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.  Dear Council Members,   I live on Maybell Ave. Have you seen the barriers installed on Charleston Arastradero corridor? Have you reviewed the HAZARDS with these barriers? The barriers will not make anyone safer but cause more fatal accidents. The traffic was bad enough on Arastradero and Charlston. These barriers will make the traffic even worse and cause more cars flowing on the Maybell Ave.     This is totally waste of our tax money, totally stupid design. With this money you could have fixed hundreds of the pot holes on El Camino Real in Palo Alto.   PLEASE REMOVE the BARRIERS IMMEDIATELY and SAVE OUR CHILDREN"S LIFE!!! Sincerely, -Betty   1 Brettle, Jessica From:Barry Addington <baraddington@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 9, 2019 12:51 PM To:Council, City; Binder, Andrew Subject:Fwd: Rule of Law doomed due to hate CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.    ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐  From: Barry Addington <baraddington@gmail.com>  Date: Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 9:15 PM  Subject: Rule of Law doomed due to hate  To: <jrosen@dao.sccgov.org>, <BoardOperations@cob.sccgov.org>, <adl@adlmail.org>, <central‐pacific@adl.org>,  <mrisher@aclunc.org>, <Karen.byanes‐dunning@splcenter.org>, <morris.dees@splcenter.org>  Cc: <weisberg@law.ucla.edu>, <karst@law.ucla.edu>, <pkaneb@scu.edu>,  <lbazelon@usfca.edu>, ,  <egjensen@stanford.edu>, <dersh@law.harvard.edu>,    Jeff Rosen   Santa Clara District Attorney  Mr. Rosen,    Moments after Sgt. Benitez slams the face of the hand‐cuffed Gustavo Alvaez into a vehicle  Benitez refers to Alvarez as a "low‐life.......gay, (homosexual)"    Looks and sounds like a hate crime:  Video and Story:   https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Questions‐surround‐Palo‐Alto‐police‐officers‐use‐of‐force‐ 513069571.html       Yes or No; was this use of force by Ofc. Benitez lawfully necessary in the context of the  circumstances?  If you say "yes" people will say you are lying to cover up the illegal act.    If you say "no" people will ask why aren't you prosecuting Ofc. Benitez for violating PC 149.  2 If you do not prosecute Ofc. Benitez than you are telling the American People that all people are  not equal under the law and that some people, police officers, are above the Rule of Law including  yourself.      Video:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtuIzpMohyA           Yes or No did Ofc. Benitez threaten to cause a more serious injury to Alvarez?  3   https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Questions‐surround‐Palo‐Alto‐police‐officers‐use‐of‐force‐513069571.html     Complete Story here:  https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/rule‐of‐law.html      PART TWO:    Yes or No; did Palo Alto Police Officer Christopher Conde verbally acknowledge at the scene of the  incident that he did not see Alvarez driving the vehicle?  If you say "no" people will say you are lying.    Yes or No; at later time did Ofc. Conde falsely states under penalty of perjury in the police report  that he viewed the suspect driving the vehicle and then submit this report to your office with the  intent to have criminal charges filed against Alvarez ?    If you say "no" people will say you are lying.    If you do not prosecute Ofc. Conde for making false statements the police report you will be  telling the American people that it is okay for officers to make false statements in police reports in  violation of the Law, PC 118 and 118.1 and to use those false statements as written evidence to  incriminate a person of a crime in violation PC 134.  4 If you do not prosecute Ofc. Conde than you are telling the American people that police officers  are not subject to the Rule of Law including yourself.            5      https://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Questions‐surround‐Palo‐Alto‐police‐officers‐use‐of‐force‐513069571.html  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6209552‐Alvarez‐Police‐Report.html  https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6209553‐Gustavo‐Alvarez‐Complaint.html    35 years ago Alan Dershowitz stated the following:  Controlling the Cops; Accomplices To Perjury  By Alan M. Dershowitz  Published: May 02, 1994 The New York Times    For anyone who has practiced criminal law in the state or Federal courts, the disclosures about rampant  police perjury cannot possibly come as a surprise. "Testilying" ‐‐ as the police call it ‐‐ has long been an open  secret among prosecutors, defense lawyers and judges......    6 Without the complicity of judges, police perjury would be reduced considerably. Officers know that in many  courtrooms they can get away with the most blatant perjury without judicial rebuke or  prosecution.....................    Many trial judges were prosecutors, and they know perjury when they hear it ‐‐    http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/02/opinion/controlling‐the‐cops‐accomplices‐to‐perjury.html     Based upon DA Jeff Rosen's actions he condemns hate and violence committed by private citizens  but condones hate and illegal violaence perpetrated by police officers in his jurisdiction.        There is injustice when secrets abound.     That is correct Mr. Rosen, there are no secrets when justice is obtained and therefore there is NO JUSTICE when there are secrets like your secrets about how the Palo Alto Police used fake videos to incriminate a citizen of a crime:    7     Video of Jeff Rosen being confronted with the irrefutable evidence:     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrA7ehMi0Lg    The Evidence:   https://jeffrosenda.weebly.com/da‐cover‐up.html  and:  https://chiefburns.weebly.com/  https://chiefburns.weebly.com/exhibit‐5.html          8 "No state shall deprive any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."   14th  Am. U.S. Const.   If states do not provide equal protection of the law at all times possible than the Constitution  does not exist for equal protection, equality before the law, is the essence of the Constitution and  a free society.  The Constitution cannot exist as a whole without equality.  No equality, no  Constitution.   When government agents like you, who have been entrusted to ensure the supremacy of the law,  base your decisions not on the facts and the law but on preconceived bias and prejudice   render  the Rule of Law, which is the foundational support to equality before the law, dead.          You profess to uphold the Constitution and the Rule of Law but by your deeds you revoke the  Constitution and the Rule of Law.  9 Your very own actions are laying the ground work for the appearance of a tyranny that you so  adamantly oppose.    Tyranny like this when on June 25, 2019 Palo Alto Police Officer Daniel Fino unlawfully detained a  citizen and then assaulted and battered that citizen without legal necessity because the citizen  was of low economic means and therefor knew he could get away with it.            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EJHO0LCn9o&t=8s    http://libertyless.weebly.com/      PC149   Every public officer who, under color of authority, without lawful necessity, assaults or beats any person, is punishable by a fine not exceeding ten thousand dollars  ($10,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year,.....    PC 422  (a) Any person who willfully threatens to commit a crime which will result in death or great bodily injury to another person, with the specific intent that the statement,  made verbally, in writing, or by means of an electronic communication device, is to be taken as a threat, even if there is no intent of actually carrying it out, which, on its face  and under the circumstances in which it is made, is so unequivocal, unconditional, immediate, and specific as to convey to the person threatened, a gravity of purpose and an  10 immediate prospect of execution of the threat, and thereby causes that person reasonably to be in sustained fear for his or her own safety or for his or her immediate family’s  safety, shall be punished by imprisonment in the county jail not to exceed one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.  https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=11.5.&part=1.&chapter=&article=     1 Brettle, Jessica From:Bonny Parke <bonny.parke@gmail.com> Sent:Friday, August 9, 2019 10:44 AM To:Council, City Subject:Shocked at PA police behavior! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members,  I just saw this video of our police visiting a resident of Buena Vista Mobile Home Park.  Please view this.  https://www.nbcbayarea.com/on‐air/as‐seen‐on/Civil‐Rights‐Lawsuit‐Filed‐Against‐Palo‐Alto‐Police_Bay‐Area‐ 529464161.html  Surely, as our elected representatives, you can do something about this.  What is the culture at our police station that  allows this to occur?  What is the tone that the police chief sets to enable serious breaches of our rights to be breached  in this fashion?    Please investigate this.  As a psychologist who has investigated the culture in many organizations, I encourage you to be  proactive in this matter so as to reflect the values of our city.  Sincerely,  Bonny Parke, Ph.D.  {REDACTED}  Palo Alto, CA 94306  1 Brettle, Jessica From:Anne Avis <aavis@mac.com> Sent:Monday, August 12, 2019 10:53 AM To:Council, City Subject:Supporting Casti's plan! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council,   I heartily support Castilleja’s growth plan! We live one block away in Old Palo Alto. It is a privilege to live near this  school, a gem in our neighborhood. I respect Castilleja’s thoughtful leadership and all their efforts to seek community  input and feedback. It is a responsible proposal that should be approved!  Anne Avis  {REDACTED}  Anne Avis aavis@mac.com 650-387-7085