The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My Public Portal AboutApril 22, 2024 City Council Emails701-32 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: 4/22/2024 Document dates: 4/15/2024 – 4/22/2024 Note: Documents for every category may not have been received for packet reproduction in a given week. From:Ben Christel To:Council, City Subject:Fwd: I oppose the extension of the PAO runway Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 11:16:31 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from ben.christel@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To whom it may concern, I am writing to express my opposition to the extension of the runway at PAO. I note thefollowing points: - Expanding airport operations would negatively impact Palo Alto residents with the noise of low-flying planes.- The runway extension is not required by the FAA. - Enabling PC-12s to land at PAO would not contribute to the airport's services to thecommunity at large. Rather, it would benefit only a tiny elite - the people who fly in PC-12s. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Ben Christel, Barron Park resident From:Navdeep Dhaliwal To:Council, City Subject:Item 11. on City Council April 22nd agenda - Quarry Rd. Letter of Support Caltrain Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 11:05:18 AM Attachments:04222024_Caltrain Quarry Road Connection_LOS_PA CC_Final.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from dhaliwaln@caltrain.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good morning, Attached, please see Caltrain's letter of support for the Quarry Rd. project. Thank you Navi Dhaliwal, MPPA Government & Community Affairs Officer1250 San Carlos Ave San Carlos, CA 94070Cell Phone: 650.730.6077www.caltrain.com PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 (650) 508-6200 April 22, 2024 Palo Alto City Council City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and City Council Members, On behalf of Caltrain, I’d like to express our support for the resolution to un-dedicate a passive section of El Camino Park to enable significant transit and safety improvements via a new linkage between the Palo Alto Transit Center and El Camino Real along Quarry Road. The future Quarry Road Connection Project will help reduce congestion within University Circle and along University Avenue. In addition, the project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian paths at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino which will improve safety and access to our trains. Caltrain provides rail service from San Francisco to San Jose and Morgan Hill/ Gilroy. Serving the region since 1863, Caltrain is the oldest continually operating rail system west of the Mississippi. Beginning this more stations while advancing the agency’s equity goals. The Palo Alto Transit Center is a vital hub as the second most utilized s Caltrain appreciates that the future Quarry Road Connection Project will allow buses and shuttles to exit on to El Camino Real faster. This will reduce bus transit times by an estimated 5-8 minutes per trip and ensure passengers can access our trains efficiently and reach work, home, school or wherever their final destination may be. We look forward to working with the City of Palo Alto, Stanford, and partner transit agencies as conceptual plans for the Quarry Road Connection Project are further developed. Getting voter approval to repurpose this section of minimally-used parkland to enhance multi-model transit access is an important first step in this process. I respectfully ask you to support adding the proposed parkland changes to the November 2024 ballot. Please feel free to contact Navi Dhaliwal, Government and Community Affairs Officer (650-730-6077, Dhaliwaln@Caltain.com ) with any questions. BOARD OF DIRECTORS 2024 DEVORA “DEV” DAVIS, CHAIR STEVE HEMINGER, VICE CHAIR MARGARET ABE-KOGA PAT BURT JEFF GEE RICO E. MEDINA RAYMOND MUELLERSHAMANN WALTONMONIQUE ZMUDA MICHELLE BOUCHARDEXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD 1250 San Carlos Avenue San Carlos, CA 94070 (650) 508-6200 Sincerely, Casey Fromson Caltrain Chief of Staff Cc: Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board of Directors Michelle Bouchard, Caltrain Executive Director From:Daniel Howard To:Council, City Subject:Support for Palo Alto Quarry Road Transit Connection Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 10:46:36 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from dannyman@toldme.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Councilmembers: My name is Danny Howard. I commute to Palo Alto via Caltrain. I serve on the Sunnyvale Planning Commission, and I am speaking only for myself. I would like to voice support for the Palo Alto Quarry Road Transit Connection. Palo Alto Station is a wonderful transit hub, and speeding up the bus access will only gain more passengers and help take some cars off the road. This project kills congestion. As someone who occasionally walks down University Avenue onto the Stanford campus, I like the idea of having fewer buses crossing my path. VTA and SamTrans drivers are courteous and safety-minded, but the walk would be a little more pleasant and low-stress with fewer large vehicles crossing through. Thank you for considering the Palo Alto Quarry Road Transit Connection. I hope you can get it approved and built. Thank you for hearing me! -danny -- http://dannyman.toldme.com From:Emily Sharp To:Council, City Subject:Public Comment for tonight"s meeting: Recognizing Youth Receiving The President"s Volunteer Service Award Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 10:45:38 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from emilys@grassrootsecology.org. Learn why thisis important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I would like to submit a public comment for tonight's City Council meeting, related to theSpecial Order of the Day - Recognizing Youth Living in Palo Alto or Enrolled at PAUSD Who Have Received The President's Volunteer Service Award: Grassroots Ecology congratulates Jaehyoung Park on receiving the President's VolunteerService Award! Jaehyoung has been a dedicated volunteer with our organization. He has participated in our Youth Stewards Program at Redwood Grove Nature Preserve, ByrnePreserve, and Foothills Nature Preserve. Jaehyoung has made a huge impact, removing invasive species and planting native plants to improve the biodiversity of our local parks.Thank you, Jaehyoung, for all your hard work and congratulations on this accomplishment! Best, Emily Sharp -- Emily Sharp (she/her/hers) Project and Operations Lead grassrootsecology.org 3921 East Bayshore Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 650-419-9880 From:Jessica Tsoong To:Council, City Subject:Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory, 4/22 PACC Meeting Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 10:24:44 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jnt2101@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you as property owners at 360 Kellogg Ave who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. We support the staff's recommendation to add the 16 properties who have "affirmatively requested" to be on the City's Historical Resources Inventory. We ask the Council to provide direction to Staff on the following: 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Jessica Tsoong From:Rebecca Leon To:Council, City Cc:Deb Subject:Historical Resources Inventory 4/22 PACC meeting item #12 Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 10:24:24 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rebeccaaleon@me.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. SUBJECT: 4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory TO: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Honorable City Council Members, I am writing to you on behalf of my parents who own the home at 2230 Amherst Street in Palo Alto and who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Rebecca Leon From:Kathy Phung To:Council, City Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 10:18:39 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from kathyphung@sbcglobal.net. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you as property owners at 555 Forest Ave. & 667 Channing Ave. who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers whoseek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome,and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information onour property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections”properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully,-Kathy Phung(408)504-2495 From:Vijay Chakravarthy To:Council, City Subject:PACC Meeting Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 9:54:52 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from vchakrav@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. SUBJECT: 4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory TO: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Honorable City Council Members, My name is Vijay Chakravarthy and I am writing to you as a property owner of 546 Washington Ave who has objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. As a property owner, I wholly object to the existence of an eligible historical inventory list and do not want my property to be placed on this list. Placement on this list is discriminatory against homeowners and subjects us to losses in home and property values and is another example of blatant government overreach. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Vijay Chakravarthy Homeowner of 546 Washington Ave . From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angel, David; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Bryan Gobin; Cait James; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; GRP-City Council; Greg Tanaka; Jax Ajluni; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Kaloma Smith; Linda Jolley; Lotus Fong; Marina Lopez; Pacific GrovePD; Roberta Ahlquist; Rose Lynn; Salem Ajluni; Sally Lieber; Sean Allen; Shikada, Ed; Supervisor Otto Lee; Tim James; Vara Ramakrishnan; Vicki Veenker; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; district1@bos.sccgov.org Subject:LIVE: Over 45 pro-divestment protesters arrested on Beinecke Plaza Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 9:43:22 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. LIVE: Over 45 pro- divestment protesters arrested on Beinecke Plaza https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2024/04/22/live-police-begin-arresting-pro-divestment-protesters-on-beinecke-plaza/ From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Baker, Rob; Binder, Andrew; Bryan Gobin; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; Don Austin; DuJuan Green; Enberg, Nicholas; Jensen, Eric; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Greg Tanaka; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Lewis james; Pacific GrovePD; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Raymond Goins; Robert. Jonsen; Roberta Ahlquist; Rose Lynn; Sean Allen; Supervisor Otto Lee; Vara Ramakrishnan; Perron, Zachary; Barberini, Christopher; chuck jagoda; dennis burns; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Figueroa, Eric; Tannock, Julie; kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Foley, Michael; Burt, Patrick Subject:Israeli airstrikes kill 22, of which 18 are children Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 9:26:13 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Israeli airstrikes kill 22, of which 18 are children Israeli airstrikes kill 22, of which 18 are children https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=087be2dc-3597-4e0a-8011-669912f5739d&appcode=SAN252&eguid=d4e9db51-9f92-459e-aa21- 506b57692f25&pnum=16# For more great content like this subscribe to the The Mercury News e-edition app here: From:Kim, Jason To:Council, City Subject:Written comment in support of Item #11 - 4/22 Council meeting Date:Monday, April 22, 2024 8:20:10 AM Attachments:image001.png Palo Alto City Council_04.19.24.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, On behalf of VTA, Attached is a letter in support of item #11 for the 4/20 council meeting. Jason Kim Senior Transit Planner Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority 3331 North First Street, Building B San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Phone 408-321-7512 ~ anta Clara Val~ey Transportation Authority April 19, 2024 Palo Alto City Council City Hall 250 Hamilton A venue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, On behalf of Valley Transportation Authority (VT A), I'd like to express our support for the resolution to un-dedicate a passive section of El Camino Park to enable significant transit and safety improvements via a new linkage between the Palo Alto Transit Center and El Camino Real along Quarry Road. The Palo Alto Transit Center is a vital hub for VTA's transit operations. The Center is the western anchor for bus route 22 and express route 522, two ofVTA's most productive transit routes. The project would improve overall operations at the transit center and would enable VTA to serve the city of Palo Alto more efficiently. The future Quarry Road Connection Project will allow our buses and shuttles to exit on to El Camino Real faster, reducing bus transit times by an estimated 5-8 minutes per trip. It will also help reduce congestion within University Circle and along University A venue. In addition, the project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian paths at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino, which will improve safety. We look forward to working with the City of Palo Alto, Stanford, and partner transit agencies as conceptual plans for the Quarry Road Connection Project are further developed. Getting voter approval to repurpose this section of minimally used parkland to enhance multi-model transit access is an important first step in this process. I respectfully ask you to add the proposed parkland changes to the November 2024 ballot. With regards, 3331 North First Street San Jose, CA 95134-1927 Administration 408-321-5555 Customer Service 408-321-2300 Solutions that move you From:Victoria S. Ramirez To:Council, City Subject:SHC Letter of Support Item 11 - Quarry Road (4/22/24) Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 11:29:25 PM Attachments:image001.png 2024 04 19 Letter of Support - Quarry Rd PA - SHC.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from vsramirez@stanford.edu. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable Mayor and members of the City Council, Attached you will find a letter of support from Stanford Health Care for Item 11 on the April 22 Council Meeting Agenda –the resolution to undedicate a passive section of El Camino Park to enable significant transit and safety improvements via a new linkage between the Palo Alto Transit Center and El Camino Real along Quarry Road. Please feel free to reach out if you have any questions. Sincerely, VICTORIA S. RAMIREZ, MPA she/her/hers Director of State and Local Government Affairs Stanford Health Care Office of Government Affairs – Stanford University 1840 Embarcadero Road Palo Alto, CA 94303cell: 650-374-8729 vsrmirez@stanford.edu Office of Government Affairs Confidentiality notice: This communication and any attachments may contain confidential or privileged information for the use by the designated recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this communication in error and that any review, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of it or the attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please contact me and destroy all copies of the communication and attachments. Thank you. Office of Government Affairs 450 Jane Stanford Way, Building 170, 1st Floor, Stanford, CA 94305-2040 T 650.725.3320 S OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, STANFORD HEALTH CARE April 19, 2024 Palo Alto City Council City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, On behalf of Stanford Health Care, we’d like to express our support for the resolution to undedicate a passive section of El Camino Park to enable significant transit and safety improvements via a new linkage between the Palo Alto Transit Center and El Camino Real along Quarry Road. The Palo Alto Transit Center is a vital hub for public transit, bike and pedestrian commuters. Stanford Medicine in partnership with Stanford University, operates shuttles from the Palo Alto Transit Center to the Stanford Medicine Palo Alto Hospital to create a last-mile connection for staff that use Caltrain, VTA, and SamTrans transit services. Between Stanford University and Stanford Medicine, a total of 370 bus trips are made between the transit center and Stanford Medicine campus. The future Quarry Road Connection Project will allow our buses and shuttles to exit on to El Camino Real faster, reducing bus transit times by an estimated 5-8 minutes per trip. It will also help reduce congestion within University Circle and along University Avenue. In addition, the project will enhance bicycle and pedestrian paths at the intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino which will improve safety and access to our hospital and other medical facilities. We look forward to working with the City of Palo Alto, Stanford University, and partner transit agencies as conceptual plans for the Quarry Road Connection Project are further developed. Getting voter approval to repurpose this section of minimally used parkland to enhance multi-model transit access is an important first step in this process. We respectfully ask you to add the proposed parkland changes to the November 2024 ballot. Sincerely, Rediet Tesfaye, CPP, MUP Director – Transportation Services Stanford Health Care Victoria Ramirez Director of State and Local Government Affairs Stanford Health Care From:At Amy Sung To:Council, City Cc:Michael Dreyfus; Amy Sung Subject:PACC Meeting 4/22/24, Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 11:21:21 PM Attachments:Realtor Letter to PA Council 04222024.pdf [Some people who received this message don't often get email from amy@amysung.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Honorable Council Members: Attached please find a letter from 62 local real estate agents for PACC Meeting 4/22/24, Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. Respectfully, Michael Dreyfus and Amy Sung To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: PACC Meeting 4/22/24, Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory Statement to Eliminate Objectors From the Eligible List, Allow Nominations Only from Property Owners or Council, and Require Property Owner Agreement for Designation April 21, 2024 Honorable Council Members, The following 62 members of the residential real estate community wish to address several issues regarding Item #12 – Historical Resources Inventory” for the April 22nd Council meeting. This is the third letter from the real estate community as a result of the many clients who have sought our insights regarding the implications of the City’s initiative to designate their properties as “Historical Resources Inventory”. The previous two letters are appended. We support the staff recommendation to add 16 properties to the Historical Resources Inventory since the property owners provided their agreement with the historical designation. We urge the Council to direct staff to: 1. Eliminate Objectors from the Eligible List The property owners have already objected to being on the Historical Inventory list and certainly do not want to remain on an “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. Such an “eligible” designation should not apply to Objecting property owners because it is a new categorization that causes uncertainty for real estate processes by confusing potential buyers, could restrict owner rights in the future, and there is a “taint” to “eligible status”. What does an “eligible for Historical Inventory” designation mean? The staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, mentions that the HRB could clarify language in the nomination process, “the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. Objectors are forfeiting any benefits by being removed from the eligible list because any Historical Inventory property candidate is subject to documentation of the integrity of the property. Simply designating a property as “eligible” could diminish its value. The City uses “eligible” status for the National Register of Historical Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) for many purposes such as the properties required in the Historical Inventory Survey, land use, and improvements. A property buyer is unlikely to be able to distinguish between eligible for Historical Resources Inventory, HRHP or CRHR. If an eligible status for Historical Resources Inventory is to exist (the City has authority) it should be at the consent of the homeowner. 2. Allow Nominations Only From Property Owners or Council Palo Alto Ordinance 16.49.010 allows any individual or group to nominate your property, then reviewed by the HRB, and then reviewed by Council for the final decision. In the Mt. View Ordinance, a city with high property values like Palo Alto, only the property owner or Council can nominate a property and “an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This provides clarity and predictability for property owners and the real estate process. 3. Require Property Owner Agreement for Designation Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection for Historical Inventory designation. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. We understand many of our clients have undergone an arduous and prolonged Historical Inventory Process over the last year. This was unnecessary when the outcome of the process resulted in requiring the owner's agreement for designation. Therefore, Palo Alto’s Ordinance should be updated accordingly to avoid future processes that the 83 objectors recently endured. Also in the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement simplifies the process, provides clarity and predictability for property buyers and owners, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. The purpose of the Historical Preservation per Palo Alto’s Ordinance, “(c) Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures, districts and neighborhoods” is in direct contradiction to any disruptions to the clarity and predictability that should be inherent in real estate processes that reduce property value. Therefore, we urge the Council to direct staff to: 1) eliminate objectors from the eligible list, 2) allow nominations only from property owners or council, and 3) require property owner agreement for designation. Our previous two letters to HRB and Council members are appended. The following 62 local real estate agents have indicated support for, and agreement with, the points raised here. Respectfully, Michael Dreyfus, Leannah Hunt, Jennifer Buenrostro, Sherry Bucolo, Carol Carnevale, Nicole Aron, Pat Kalish, Xin Jiang, Brian Ayer, Terri Kerwin, Greg Celotti, Katherine Celotti, Lucy Berman, Sharon Witte, Erika Ameri, Shena Hurley, Mary Gullixson, Steve Niethammer, Brian Chancellor, Laurel Robinson, Monica Corman, Lori Buecheler, Mandy Montoya, Arti Miglani, Umang Sanchorawala, Nancy Mott, Terry Rice, Adam Touni, Jennifer Pollock, Denise Simons, Mary Gilles, Julie Lau, Jenny Teng, Gloria Young, John Young, Mary Jo McCarthy, Michael Hall, Morgan Lashley, Christy Giuliacci, Alan Loveless, Lynn Wilson Roberts, Annie Wilson Roberts, Leika Kejriwal, Desiree Docktor, Ashley Banks, Bob Gerlach, Brett Carviness, David Gray, Kristin Galvin, Carolyn Keddington, Courtney Charney, Omar Kinaan, Steve Pierce, Nancy Goldcamp, Jolaine Woodson, Jack Woodson, Noelle Queen, Nadr Essabhoy, Peter Carson, Harry Chang, Tom LeMieux, and Amy Sung. Subject: An Updated Open Letter to the Palo Alto Historic Resources Board, the Palo Alto City Council and Palo Alto Homeowners January 24, 2024 Honorable Council Members and Board Members, The following members of the residential real estate community wish to address issues we are experiencing with Palo Alto’s current historic resource practices and the current plan to shift approximately150+ properties from being eligible for historic status to the local Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Many of us have lived in Palo Alto and have owned historic homes. Collectively, we have sold much of Palo Alto historic inventory. This letter is a result of the many clients who have sought our insights regarding the implications of the City's recent initiative to designate their properties as “Palo Alto Historic Inventory" and selling listed, eligible, and potentially eligible historic homes. 1.Historic status reduces a property’s value We would like to first address the claim by some City officials and Historical Resources Board (HRB) members that assigning a property historic status doesn't devalue it, and may in fact increase its worth. Based on our extensive experience, we can categorically refute this. In Palo Alto, a historic classification can reduce a property's value by 10% to 20%. This is essentially common sense; owning property is about the rights that come with it. The more these rights are limited, the lower the property's value becomes. Historic designation constrains the alterations one can make to a property, and thus directly decreases the values of homes with that designation. Many of us can point to concrete examples where historically designated homes have sold for less than they would have without the designation. We also know from direct experience that home buyers in Palo Alto view historic homes as problematic and shy away from engaging with them. Local realtors would unanimously prefer to lift the historic designation if possible. While it's arguable that such a status preserves a property's existing condition, it must be acknowledged that this preservation comes at a considerable financial cost to the owner. The purpose of Historical Preservation per Palo Alto Ordinance 16.49.010 to “(c) Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures, districts and neighborhoods” is in direct contradiction to the reduction in property values. 2. There should be no “eligible” for Historic Status on the Palo Alto Inventory List The HRB voted (6-1) at the January 11, 2024 meeting that it would not recommend listing properties over the objections of the property owner. This is good news that properties will not be recommended to council to be placed on the inventory list over owner objections. However, the staff recommendation for the January 25th meeting to “affirm the eligibility [emphasis added] for local inventory listing of the properties with owners who have objected to listing on the local inventory”. Such an “eligible” list should not exist because it’s a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights, etc. For example, all properties included in the current survey are designated “eligible for the National Register of Historic Places” which the City of Palo Alto is using to determine local land use process and restrictions which are ambiguous and not transparent and to require inclusion in the present-day process for nomination to the local inventory. What does “eligible” for Palo Alto’s Inventory mean? Palo Alto’s Historical Preservation Ordinance is planned to be updated and those updates could have implications to an “eligible” Palo Alto Inventory list in the same way as “eligible” for the National Register has implications. If an eligible status is to exist it should also be at the consent of the home owner. 3. The existing historic ordinance is ambiguous and results in arbitrary and capricious interpretation For over two decades, Palo Alto has contended with the effects of an unofficial historic preservation policy, despite a 52% majority defeating Measure G in 2000. In the subsequent 23 years, this de facto policy has been inadvertently strengthened, by City staff and consultants, leading to the categorization of previously unmarked homes as historic. This has bred confusion within the real estate sector due to constantly evolving interpretations and a lack of consistent procedure. The 1-4 category classification system currently in place is ineffectual. The terminology used to qualify homes is subjective and highly interpretative such as “identified with the lives of historic people” or “a type of building which was once common, but is now rare”. What makes a person historic? How rare is it, one of a kind? 4. Current code statement that recommendations from historic review are “voluntary” is not true in practice Decisions by the Historic Review Board and staff seem capricious and lack clear directives. Although the ordinance states “Compliance of the property owner with the recommendations (HRB) shall be voluntary, not mandatory”, this does not include the direction from staff or the Architectural Review Board. We have collectively witnessed clients (and some of our personal properties) experience required compliance with review decisions to proceed through the planning process. There is a great deal of process and direction that is mandatory, not voluntary, and is instituted through the review process. 5. Overreach on what qualifies as historic and the taint of “eligible” status There's a growing ambiguity and overreach surrounding what qualifies as historic. The City now tentatively considers any property labeled "eligible" for historic status as such, burdening homeowners with the responsibility, and expense, to prove otherwise. This involves engaging a City-appointed consultant at the owner’s expense (often $7,000 to $10,000) and securing an affirmative ruling. This presumptive approach to historic status is not only burdensome for property owners but also disrupts the clarity and predictability that should be inherent in real estate processes. Moreover, there appears to be a conflict of interest to have the same historic consultants perform a survey to determine if properties are historic and also be hired by the City and residents to consult on historic design and preservation of properties for improvements or to pursue affirmative rulings. Each property deemed historic becomes the “Total Available Market (TAM)” of paying customers for historic consulting firms. 6. Changes a current homeowner or prospective buyer can make to a home is made on an ad-hoc basis with no rules or established guidelines to follow There are no established rules to read to tell you what you can do with an historic home. Can you expand it, can you change the windows, can you change the floorplan, can you change the back or sides, can you add a story? Can solar panels be installed on the front of the home? Instead, you must go to the cost and expense of drawing up plans to get comments on what will or won't be allowed. Home buyers are lost and so run from buying historic homes. At the December 14, 2023 HRB meeting, it was mentioned a subcommittee will form to discuss financial implications of historic homes. If you are interested in information from the real estate community we are available to contribute to your effort. It is time for the City to acknowledge the negative financial and procedural burden the historic system is placing on Palo Alto homeowners. The decision to declare a house “historic” should be brought out of the shadows and have a clear set of qualifications and process that requires the “informed consent” of the homeowner, not an “opt-out” that requires an objection letter. The following 31 local real estate agents have indicated support for, and agreement with, the points raised here. Michael Dreyfus, Lucy Berman, Leannah Hunt, Laurel Robinson, Brian Chancellor, Mary Gullixson, Brent Gullixson, Tom LeMieux , Julie Lau, Umang Sanchorawala, Terri Kerwin, Monica Corman, Mandy Montoya, Morgan Lashley, Greg Celotti, Xin Jiang, Arti Miglani, Jennifer Pollock, Adam Touni, Mary Jo McCarthy, Noelle Queen, Kristin Galvin, Gloria Young, John Young David Gray, Omar Kinaan, Ashley Banks, Mary Gilles, Brian Ayer, Shena Hurley, Ryan Selby Hollland. Michael Dreyfus, Broker Associate Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty 650.704.7928 | m.dreyfus@ggsir.com | License No. 01121795 Honorable Council Members and Board Members, My name is Michael Dreyfus, and with over three decades of experience as a real estate agent, 24 years of which I've worked in Palo Alto, I've sold more than 300 homes in the area and remain a dedicated participant in its market. I lived for 15 years in a historic home in Professorville. Many community members have sought my insights regarding the implications of the City's recent initiative to designate their properties as “Palo Alto Historic Inventory." I'd like to first address the claim by some City officials and Board members that assigning a property historic status doesn't devalue it, and may in fact increase its worth. Based on my extensive experience, I can categorically refute this. In Palo Alto, a historic classification can reduce a property's value by 10% to 20%. This is essentially common sense; owning property is about the rights that come with it. The more these rights are limited, the lower the property's value becomes. Historic designation constrains the alterations one can make to a property. For example, I handled the sale of a home in the Old Palo Alto area, where the land alone was worth $5.5 million, but due to historic restrictions, it sold for only $4.5 million. Local realtors would unanimously prefer to lift the historic designation if possible. While it's arguable that such a status preserves a property's existing condition, it must be acknowledged that this preservation comes at a considerable financial cost to the owner. For over two decades, Palo Alto has contended with the effects of an unofficial historic preservation policy, despite a 52% majority defeating Measure G in 2000. In the subsequent 23 years, this de facto policy has been inadvertently strengthened, by City staff and consultants, leading to the categorization of previously unmarked homes as historic. This has bred confusion within the real estate sector due to constantly evolving rules and a lack of consistent procedure. The 1-4 classification system currently in place is ineffectual. Decisions by the Historic Review Board seem capricious and lack clear directives. I recall an incident where, during a review concerning my property in Professorville, half of the board objected to replacing windows due to their "historic" nature, while the other half insisted on new windows to distinguish the historic sections of the house. We were left without a clear verdict and eventually abandoned our renovation plans. Furthermore, there's a growing ambiguity and overreach surrounding what qualifies as historic. The City now tentatively considers any property labeled "eligible" for historic status as such, burdening homeowners with the responsibility, and expense, to prove otherwise. This involves engaging a City-appointed consultant at the owner’s expense (often $7,000 to $10,000) and securing an affirmative ruling. This presumptive approach to historic status is not only burdensome for property owners but also disrupts the clarity and predictability that should be inherent in real estate processes. It is time for the City to acknowledge the negative financial and procedural burden the historic system is placing on Palo Alto homeowners. The decision to declare a house “historic” should be brought out of the shadows and have a clear set of qualifications and process that requires the informed consent of the homeowner. Michael Dreyfus The following local real estate agents have indicated support for, and agreement with, the points I have raised here. Mary Gullixson, Compass Realty Sherry Bucolo, Compass Realty Umang Sanchorawala, Compass Realty Monica Corman, Compass Realty Noelle Queen, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty John Young, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty Mary Gilles, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty Omar Kinaan, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty Shena Hurley, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty Mary Jo McCarthy, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty David Gray, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty From:Lian Bi To:Council, City Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 11:10:33 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lian_bi2002@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you as property owners at 380 Coleridge Ave, Palo Alto who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully Lian Bi From:Amy Laden To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Square Theatre space Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 10:41:42 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from amy.laden@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, As one of the thousands who enjoyed so many films at this wonderful theatre, I am dismayed to hear that it is once again being considered for office space. It's hard to understand howadditional office space, especially at this time of hybrid work and an uncertain economic future in this area, can be more beneficial to the community than a theatre. As you well know,indie theatres are disappearing and this one was a treasure. I hope that the city council will make every effort to retain the space as a theatre. I'm sure it will be well patronized if put intouse again. SIncerely, Amy Laden From:geetha srikantan To:Council, City Cc:geetha srikantan; geetha srikantan Subject:City Council - City"s Historical Resources Inventory - homeowner inputs Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 9:52:37 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from gsrikantan@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, I am writing to you as property owner at 385 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301, who has objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. I SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. I ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Dr Geetha Srikantan From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Wagner, April; Baker, Rob; Braden Cartwright; Bryan Gobin; Cecilia Taylor; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; Don Austin; DuJuan Green; EPA Today; Ed Lauing; Emily Mibach; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Greg Tanaka; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; KEVIN JENSEN; Kaloma Smith; Karen Holman; Lewis james; Lotus Fong; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Palo Alto Free Press; Penni Wilson; Roberta Ahlquist; Sean Allen; Supervisor Otto Lee; Vara Ramakrishnan; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Perron, Zachary; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; district1@bos.sccgov.org; districtattorney@sfgov.org; editor@paweekly.com; Burt, Patrick Subject:Rabbi associated with Columbia University recommends Jewish students ‘return home’ amid tense protests oncampus By By Celina Tebor and Zoe Sottile, CNN, 8 hrs ago CNN CNN Follow Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 9:40:45 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Rabbi associated with Columbia University recommends Jewish students ‘return home’ amid tense protests on campus By By Celina Tebor and Zoe Sottile, CNN, 8 hrs ago CNN Follow https://share.newsbreak.com/6p8llvg4 From:Julia Zeitlin To:Council, City Subject:City Council Meeting 4/22 Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 9:36:03 PM Attachments:Earth Day 2024_ City Council Presentation.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Clerk Prior, I hope you are doing well. Two representatives of the Palo Alto Student Climate Coalition and I will be speakingtomorrow night at Public Comment. Would it be possible for us to present this slideshow? Thank you so much! Best, Julia From:Aram James To:Julie Lythcott-Haims; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Baker, Rob; Binder, Andrew; Bryan Gobin; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell;Daniel Kottke; Don Austin; DuJuan Green; Enberg, Nicholas; Jensen, Eric; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; GregTanaka; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Lewis james; Pacific GrovePD; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Raymond Goins; Robert. Jonsen; Roberta Ahlquist; Rose Lynn; Sean Allen; Supervisor Otto Lee; Vara Ramakrishnan; Perron, Zachary;Barberini, Christopher; chuck jagoda; dennis burns; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Figueroa, Eric; Tannock, Julie;kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Foley, Michael; Burt, Patrick; sean james Subject:New Documentary ‘California’s Case for Reparations’ by ABC7/KGO-TV San Francisco Apr 4, 2024 — by admin in Alliance Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 8:34:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. New Documentary ‘California’s Case for Reparations’ by ABC7/KGO-TV San Francisco Apr 4, 2024— by adminin Alliance https://alliancefor.org/?p=19&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0BMQABHTxaKPo-zA5WdeoVeKKci8pWh3c0k_Wp8SQIcHh6NorMTF_ar3JO408Biw_aem_AS5xTogmueA4zOCpl-S2_-cK_3zc70Qw0pQl46oQ0eEp6SDYztf3wfKuVcWB_qo1cLE From:Daniel Marshall To:Council, City Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting #12- HIstoircal Resources Inventory Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 8:23:01 PM Attachments:letter to the city.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from dmarshall62@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members Please see the attached letter sent in support of removing our names and "eligible" designation for our home at 538 Churchill Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94301 from the Historical ResourcesInventory. Thank you for your time. Dan & Ana Marshall 650 -269 2862 Honorable City Council Members, Subject: 4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory My wife and I are writing to you as property owners at 538 Churchill Avenue. We have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION •Add the 16 properties who have “aﬃrmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1.Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. •In the staﬀ report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modiﬁcations, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clariﬁcations, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objection properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. •As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. •The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. In fact, the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is likely to result in confusion by property buyers and restrict owners rights. 2.Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. •This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. •Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% aﬃrmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. •For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staﬀ, and now we are here today. Page of 1 2 •In the staﬀ report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modiﬁcations, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clariﬁcations, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. •Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Daniel and Ana Marshall 538 Churchill Ave Palo Alto, Ca 94301 Page of 2 2 From:shayase@onemain.com To:"Aram James"; michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com; "Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association"; "Braden Cartwright";"Bryan Gobin"; "Cait James"; "Cecilia Taylor"; Council, City; "D Martell"; "Daniel Kottke"; "Dave Price"; "DonAustin"; "DuJuan Green"; "EPA Today"; "Emily Mibach"; "Friends of Cubberley"; Human Relations Commission;"Jeff Moore"; "Jeff Rosen"; "Joe Simitian"; "Julie Lythcott-Haims"; "KEVIN JENSEN"; "Kaloma Smith"; "KarenHolman"; "Lewis james"; "Lotus Fong"; Kou, Lydia; "MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz"; "Marina Lopez"; Zelkha, Mila;Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Bains, Paul; "Richard Konda"; "Sean Allen"; "Supervisor Otto Lee"; "Supervisor SusanEllenberg"; Tanaka, Greg; "Tim James"; "Tom DuBois"; "Vicki Veenker"; "chuck jagoda"; "dennis burns";District1@bos.sccgov.org; jeff_conrad@msn.com; "ladoris cordell"; Burt, Patrick; "yolanda" Cc:"Susan Hayase" Subject:RE: California Today: How a new reparations effort changed an expert’s understanding of history Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 7:31:16 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from shayase@onemain.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. If you’re interested, Don Tamaki delivered the keynote at the local observance of Fred Korematsu Day in San Jose Japantown. The text of his speech is reproduced in issue #55 of The Californian – a publication of the California History Center at DeAnza College. https://www.deanza.edu/califhistory/documents/californian/Californian_2024-03.pdf -SusanH From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2024 6:47 PM To: <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com> <michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association <paloaltorenters@gmail.com>; Braden Cartwright <bcartwright@padailypost.com>; Bryan Gobin <appeal.bryan.gobin@gmail.com>; Cait James <caitlin.a.james@gmail.com>; Cecilia Taylor <cmrstaylor@gmail.com>; CityCouncil <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>; Daniel Kottke <daniel.k@earthlink.net>; Dave Price <price@padailypost.com>; Don Austin <daustin@pausd.org>; DuJuan Green <dujuang@sbcglobal.net>; EPA Today <epatoday@epatoday.org>; Emily Mibach <emibach@padailypost.com>; Friends of Cubberley <friendsofcubberley94303@gmail.com>; Human Relations Commission <hrc@cityofpaloalto.org>; Jeff Moore <moore2j@att.net>; Jeff Rosen <info@jeffrosen.org>; Joe Simitian <joe.simitian@bos.sccgov.org>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <julieforpaloalto@gmail.com>; KEVIN JENSEN <KP14him@aol.com>; Kaloma Smith <pastor@universityamez.com>; Karen Holman <rsvp.paloalto.2022@gmail.com>; Lewis james <alphonse9947@gmail.com>; Lotus Fong <lyfong@pacbell.net>; Lydia Kou <Lydia.Kou@cityofpaloalto.org>; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz <mdiaz@redwoodcity.org>; Marina Lopez <marinalopez8@gmail.com>; Mila Zelkha <mila.zelkha@gmail.com>; Minka Van Der Zwaag, <minka.vanderzwaag@cityofpaloalto.org>; Paul Bains <pbains7@projectwehope.com>; Richard Konda <rkonda@asianlawalliance.org>; Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>; Supervisor Otto Lee <supervisor.lee@bos.sccgov.org>; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg <supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org>; Susan Hayase <shayase@onemain.com>; Tanaka, Greg <greg.tanaka@cityofpaloalto.org>; Tim James <TJames@crsslaw.com>; Tom DuBois <tom.dubois@gmail.com>; Vicki Veenker <admin@siblingcitiesusa.org>; chuck jagoda View in browser|nytimes.com Continue reading the main story Ad California Today April 19, 2024 By Amy Qin It’s Friday. How a new reparations effort changed an expert’s understanding of history and racism. Plus, a Californian prince. <jagodachuck@gmail.com>; dennis burns <dennis.r.burns@gmail.com>; District1@bos.sccgov.org; jeff_conrad@msn.com; ladoris cordell <judgecordell@icloud.com>; pat.burt@cityofpaloalto.org; yolanda <yolanda@rocketmail.com> Subject: California Today: How a new reparations effort changed an expert’s understanding of history Don Tamaki was integral to getting redress for Japanese Americans. He says serving on a California task force transformed his view on racism in America. A man stands in a garden that includes a bonsai tree. Don Tamaki and his colleagues who reopened the Korematsu v. United States case paved the wayfor Japanese Americans in 1988 to secure redress, which included $20,000 for each survivor. Mike Kai Chen for The New York Times When California set up a reparations task force in 2020 to study the generational effects of slavery and other racist policies in the state and propose specific policy ideas for restitution, it was the first such statewide effort in the nation. The nine-member team included lawmakers, scholars, community leaders and lawyers. Eight of the nine members were Black. The ninth was Donald K. Tamaki, a Japanese American lawyer with valuable experience to share. In the 1980s, Tamaki worked pro bono on the legal team that reopened the landmark 1944 Supreme Court case Korematsu v. United States. The court’s decision in that case had been used to justify the federal government’s forced relocation and internment of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans and people of Japanese descent during World War II. A black and white image of Japanese Americans standing in a sandy area between buildings. Manzanar, an internment camp, 200 miles north of Los Angeles, in 1943. Ansel Adams/Library of Congress Tamaki and his colleagues persuaded a federal court in 1983 to overturn Fred Korematsu’s conviction for refusing to comply with the internment order, paving the way for Japanese Americans in 1988 to obtain redress, which included $20,000 for each survivor and an official apology from President Ronald Reagan. It remains one of the few examples in the U.S. of a successful reparations effort. The Japanese American redress movement has taken on a fresh relevance as state lawmakers — acting on guidance from the reparations task force — consider a Black reparations legislative package. Last month, I visited Tamaki at his home in Piedmont, hoping to hear more about the insights that he had shared with the task force. But over the course of our 90-minute conversation, it became clear to me that Tamaki had learned just as much from serving on the task force as he had contributed. “I thought I knew something about American history,” Tamaki said over peanut butter cookies and coffee. “But I realized after taking a deep dive into this that I really didn’t know a whole lot.” Tamaki left the sunroom where we were sitting and came back a few minutes later with a hardback copy of the task force’s doorstop report. It shows how Black people were enslaved in California even though it had joined the union as a free state. And it details how discriminatory housing, voting and criminal justice policies have hampered the ability of Black Californians to accumulate wealth for generations. Tamaki said that working on the report had transformed his view of race and racism in America. For years, he said, he would start his talks on Japanese American incarceration by referring to the alien land laws of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when Asian immigrants were banned from buying or leasing agricultural property. Or he would talk about the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, which effectively banned immigration from China. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Ad But these days, Tamaki said, he begins his lectures by reaching much farther back into history, to 1619 — when a ship carrying more than 20 enslaved Africans arrived in the English colony of Virginia. “I now see these things that happened to us in our community as essentially a subchapter in a racial pathology that began long before we arrived on these shores,” Tamaki said. “And that origin is not 1882 — it’s 1619.” Signs at a reparations task force meeting at Mills College at Northeastern University in Oaklandlast year. Jason Henry for The New York Times Decades ago, his parents had come to a similar conclusion, Tamaki said. In 1942, 8,000 Japanese Americans from the Bay Area, including Tamaki’s parents and his extended family, were rounded up and sent to temporary detention facilities at Tanforan Racetrack, now a shopping center in San Bruno. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Ad One of the first things his parents noticed after arriving at the racetrack were the signs reading “white” and “colored” hanging above the segregated toilets and drinking fountains, he said. “They didn’t miss the irony that basically what began as anti-Black sentiment and animus, that whole construct — it just shifted to include this population,” he said. Prince Harry holds hands with his wife, Meghan, as they walk across a green lawn. Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, were in Florida on Friday. The online filing dated his U.S.residency to June 2023. Rebecca Blackwell/Associated Press The rest of the news A coalition of law enforcement officials, politicians and businesses like Walmart and Target says it has collected enough signatures to propose a ballot measure to stiffen criminal penalties for shoplifting and drug dealing, The Associated Press reports. Prince Harry and his wife, Meghan, have updated their residency at Britain’s corporate registrar to reflect their California home. Continue reading the main story ADVERTISEMENT Ad Southern California A man who impersonated a priest to steal from churches around the United States was arrested in Riverside County. A mistrial was declared in the case of a former California school safety officer charged with murder for fatally shooting an 18-year-old woman, CNN reports. Northern California Sacramento International Airport experienced major flight delays after an AT&T cable was deliberately slashed, cutting off internet service to at least two major airlines. Brooke Jenkins, the San Francisco district attorney, said that motorists who were stuck on the Golden Gate Bridge during a pro-Palestinian protest might be considered victims entitled to “restitution” under California law, The Los Angeles Times reports. Giant pandas will return to the San Francisco Zoo for the first time in decades, under a memo of understanding that Mayor London Breed and Chinese wildlife officials signed in Beijing on Thursday, The San Francisco Chronicle reports. How many pandas will arrive, and when, had yet to be determined. WHAT WE’RE EATING David Malosh for The New York Times. Food Stylist: Simon Andrews. Turnip Greens By Vallery Lomas About 1 1/2 hours Makes 6 servings A flag with a marijuana leaf and the numerals 420. A Waldos 420 flag from 1972. Eric Risberg/Associated Press And before you go, some good news Known as 4/20, the annual April 20 pot party has been celebrated for decades across the nation. But where did it come from? The answer: a group of teenagers at San Rafael High School in Marin County. In the early 1970s, the group, who called themselves the Waldos, would meet at 4:20 p.m. to smoke marijuana and scour the Point Reyes National Seashore for marijuana that had been surreptitiously planted there, according to the History Channel. Soon “420” became their shorthand for weed, and the term took off. Thanks for reading. We’ll be back on Monday. P.S. Here’s today’s Mini Crossword. Soumya Karlamangla, Maia Coleman and Briana Scalia contributed to California Today. You can reach the team at CAtoday@nytimes.com. Sign up here to get this newsletter in your inbox. Continue reading the main story Need help? Review our newsletter help page or contact us for assistance. You received this email because you signed up for California Today from The New York Times. To stop receiving California Today, unsubscribe. To opt out of other promotional emails from The Times, including those regarding The Athletic, manage your email settings. To opt out of updates and offers sent from The Athletic, submit a request. Subscribe to The TimesGet The New York Times app Connect with us on: Change Your EmailPrivacy PolicyContact UsCalifornia Notices The New York Times Company. 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 From:John Kelley To:Council, City Subject:PA-POLI-letter to PACC re Historic Designations 2024-04-21 Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 7:11:27 PM Attachments:PA-POLI-letter to PACC re Historic Designations 2024-04-21.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from jkelley@399innovation.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. TO: Palo Alto City Council (City Council) RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #12, “Addition of 16 properties to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory based on Owner interest. [etc.]” and Comments re Staff Report 2402-2684 (Staff Report) DATE: April 20, 2024 FROM: John Kelley RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommendation no. 1, adding properties to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory based on the expressed written consent of their respective owners, is not objectionable, although it would be reasonable to ask additional questions regarding any such designation of (a) the Cistern and Pump House or (b) 201 Alma Street. Reject City Staff recommendation no. 2, and, instead, direct City Staff: to provide a draft ordinance to the City Council within 30 days: to amend the current historic ordinance to require prior, express, written owner consent before listing any property on any Palo Alto “eligible for inventory” list or historic inventory; and to remove any properties currently listed on any such “eligible for inventory” list or inventory for which such express, written owner consent has not previously been obtained; to provide to the City Council within 30 days at least a rough (+/- 10%) estimate of the amount of City Staff and consultant time and equivalent cost spent to date on obtaining the expressions of owner interest for the 16 properties being considered; and to postpone any further consideration of any “eligible for inventory” listings or historic designations until further requested by the City Council. Please see the attached letter for additional details. TO: Palo Alto City Council (City Council) RE: Recommendations re Agenda Item #12, “Addition of 16 properties to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory based on Owner interest. [etc.]” and Comments re Staff Report 2402-2684 (Staff Report) DATE: April 20, 2024 FROM: John Kelley RECOMMENDATION City Staff recommendation no. 1, adding properties to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory based on the expressed written consent of their respective owners, is not objectionable, although it would be reasonable to ask additional questions regarding any such designation of (a) the Cistern and Pump House or (b) 201 Alma Street. Reject City Staff recommendation no. 2, and, instead, direct City Staff: ● to provide a draft ordinance to the City Council within 30 days: ○ to amend the current historic ordinance to require prior, express, written owner consent before listing any property on any Palo Alto “eligible for inventory” list or historic inventory; and ○ to remove any properties currently listed on any such “eligible for inventory” list or inventory for which such express, written owner consent has not previously been obtained; ● to provide to the City Council within 30 days at least a rough (+/- 10%) estimate of the amount of City Staff and consultant time and equivalent cost spent to date on obtaining the expressions of owner interest for the 16 properties being considered; and ● to postpone any further consideration of any “eligible for inventory” listings or historic designations until further requested by the City Council. DISCUSSION 1. Underlying Principles The City has spent considerable time, and likely a significant amount of scarce City Staff resources, pursuing poorly considered policies that do not reflect Palo Alto’s widely shared values. Rather than deciding in advance whether a given structure may or may not have some historic value, since Palo Alto offers homeowners and others relatively few incentives for historic designations of their properties, the City should reverse its default assumptions. A more sensible policy going forward would be to say, simply and clearly, that no property will be listed on any Palo Alto historic inventory without the prior, express, written consent of the homeowner or other property owner. 1 2. Specific Designations Being Considered Based upon the Staff Report’s statement that “eleven property owners have affirmatively requested their [respective] propert[ies] be listed on the City’s historic resources inventory,” Staff Report: 2, there is little basis for objecting to the designations of the privately owned properties numbered 1-13. Staff Report: 3-6. It appears, however, that nearly all of these properties have been identified as Category 2 resources. Municipally owned properties numbered 1-3 “were reviewed by staff from Administrative Services, Community Services, and Utilities prior to the HRB nominations hearings; staff did not identify any impediments to City operations or uses.” Staff Report: 7. Given the critical importance of past, present, and future water facilities to our community, particularly with regard to emergency preparedness, one might well ask whether, in the case of municipally owned properties numbered 1-2, (a) any emergency preparedness personnel or (b) any S/CAP personnel were asked whether they might see any benefits in deferring or rejecting any such historic designations. Emergency preparedness and sustainability lenses ought to be focused on proposed historic designations of city property, if reasonably detailed such evaluations have not occurred already. 3. Future Action City Staff has recommended that the City Council: Direct staff to continue outreach to eligible property owners among the properties discussed in this report and to place future additions to the Historic Resources Inventory with expressed owner interest on the Consent Calendar. Staff Report: 1. Following this recommendation would be a poor use of scarce city resources. More fundamentally, Palo Alto can do far better by its homeowners. On multiple occasions — both this year and during preceding years — and as recently as April 15th — the City Council has been told, when requesting that City Planning and Development Services (PDS) staff provide information or take certain actions, in effect, that such staff do not have sufficient time to do so, because such staff are already actively engaged in completing other actions that the City Council has previously directed. If our community’s government is constrained by limited staff resources — from, for example, doing all that it could either (a) to promote actual housing production, or (b) to submit a Housing Element to HCD that is most likely to result in HCD certification — then there are better uses of PDS staff’s time and energy than “continu[ing] outreach to eligible property owners among the properties discussed in this report and [placing] 2 future additions to the Historic Resources Inventory with expressed owner interest on the Consent Calendar.” Staff Report: 1. Even apart from making better policy choices (discussed next below), pragmatic considerations require a different approach. Current processes are yielding scant public benefits. While it is not known with certainty the amount of City Staff and consultant time and equivalent cost spent to date on obtaining the expressions of owner interest for the 16 properties being considered at present, both are likely considerable. And thinking that additional time and energy will have a lower marginal cost is not sensible. The original list of 167 properties has been picked over, with an overall yield to date of less than 10%. Nearly all of the privately owned properties for which owner consent has been obtained are not Category 1 resources. Future endeavors based on existing policies are likely to yield even less and to be of lower value. A far better approach would be to listen to the community. Years ago, a plebiscite demonstrated that a prior council’s actions regarding historic designations did not reflect Palo Alto’s values. One would hope that the reactions of numerous homeowners, especially over the past year, would be sufficient to demonstrate that the current approach also fails to reflect actual community values. A recent article, Gennady Sheyner, “ Bowing to backlash, Palo Alto curbs plans for ‘historic’ designations City planners recommend advancing just 16 properties to local Historic Resources Inventory ,” Palo Alto Online , April 17, 2024, summarized the strong concerns of many Palo Altans: [After] a year of heated hearings in which dozens of residents pushed back against proposals to list their properties on the local Historic Resources Inventory. While the designation carries some clout for local history buffs (Caroline Willis, a member of the city’s Historic Resources Board, was pleased to see her home added to the list), critics contend that it would bring down their property values and complicate any future plans to renovate or redevelop their properties. Let’s not beat the historic bushes again, and let’s avoid these problems in the future. Instead of adopting staff recommendation no. 2 (Staff Report: 1), a sounder public policy approach, one that acknowledges the concerns of homeowners, and one that would far better reflect community values, would be to direct City Staff: ● to provide a draft ordinance to the City Council within 30 days: ○ to amend the current historic ordinance to require prior, express, written owner consent before listing any property on any Palo Alto “eligible for inventory” list or historic inventory; and ○ to remove any properties currently listed on any such “eligible for inventory” list or inventory for which such express, written owner consent has not previously been obtained; // // 3 ● to provide to the City Council within 30 days at least a rough (+/- 10%) estimate of the amount of City Staff and consultant time and equivalent cost spent to date on obtaining the expressions of owner interest for the 16 properties being considered; and ● to postpone any further consideration of any “eligible for inventory” listings or historic designations until further requested by the City Council. 4 From:Gallagher, Thomas F (tfg) To:Council, City Cc:Darlene Yaplee Subject:council meeting Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 6:54:10 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from tfg@virginia.edu. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, W I am writing to you as a property owner at1011 Fulton St. who has objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. I SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. I ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Thomas F. Gallagher From:Brian Tucker To:PAO Planning Cc:Council, City Subject:contemplated expansion of Palo Alto airport Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 6:13:03 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from brianedwintucker@gmail.com. Learn why thisis important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council and Palo Alto Planning Department: I am writing to express my strong objection to any expansion of the Palo Alto airport, which I understand is being considered. It seems to me that even the current level of usage of the airport benefits far fewer people thanit harms, by way of noise and air pollution. Further, I wonder how many of the airport users are Palo Alto residents, whereas all of Palo Alto's residents pay its cost, in terms of taxes andnoise and pollution. An expansion of the airport - resulting in more flights, noise, pollution, and construction and maintenance costs -- would further decrease the benefit/cost to Palo Altocitizens. How would an expansion help meet the City Council's goals, concerning "Climate Change & Natural Environment - Protection & Adaptation" and "Community Health, Safety, Wellness & Belonging"? Given that the city should be planning for sea level rise, enlarging a facility located on theshore of the bay is particularly ill advised. For my tax dollars, it would be far better for the city and the environment if the existingairport were converted to an expansion of the existing Baylands Nature Preserve. Thank you for your consideration of my concerns. Brian Tucker1750 Guinda StPalo Alto 94303 From:Sheila Kothari To:Council, City Cc:Ketan Kothari Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 5:23:27 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sheila_kothari@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you as property owners at 2025 Columbia Street who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Sheila & Ketan Kothari From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net;David Balakian; fred beyerlein; Leodies Buchanan; boardmembers; Cathy Lewis;cramirez.electriclab133@gmail.com; Council, City; dennisbalakian; dallen1212@gmail.com; Doug Vagim; ScottWilkinson; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; IrvWeissman; Sally Thiessen; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; kfsndesk;Kevin.Nower@bestbuy.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; Mayor; merazroofinginc@att.net;maverickbruno@sbcglobal.net; MY77FJ@gmail.com; Mark Standriff; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com;newsdesk; russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; tsheehan; vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu Subject:Fwd: Tesla Austin. Don"t miss this: Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 4:51:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 3:42 PM Subject: Fwd: Tesla Austin. Don't miss this:To: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Sunday, April 21, 2024 To all, including to Elon Musk and Mary Barra- Tesla Gigafactory Austin. Sandy Munroe, former engine engineer at Ford, et. al., tours withTesla Chief Engineer Lars Moravy. How some elements of the Cybertruck are blanked, bent, and built. After watching this, ponder whether Tesla is a real company producing realvehicles. Some, or a lot, of their manufacturing is cutting edge. Don't miss this. The stock market is signaling that Tesla is finished. I'm betting it's wrong and I won't sell any TSLA shares. BTW, this is viewed best on your computer with headphones. I watched itfirst on the big-screen via Roku and could hardly understand a word from across the room. TSLA c. at $176.80 on Tuesday, April 9, 2004 and at $147.05 on Friday, April 19, 2024, Tuesday to Tuesday to Friday. A 17% drop in 10 days. Tesla Manufacturing: See how the Cybertruck HFS Panels are Blanked, Bent, and Built! (youtube.com) L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. PS- A vid on YouTube is saying that TSLA has cancelled, for now, the $25,000 Tesla. If true, very smart, especially if it was going to be another tiny car that anyone over 5'5" tall wasgoing to have serious problems getting in and out of. Re the $25,000 car, Tesla should buck the trend of the auto industry, and of their own design, and build a car that looks like a Jeep or a 1978 Chevy Caprice, at least regarding the A pillar and the roof. Nice, tall, vertical A pillar with a bend at the top and a nice tall roof goingall the way back. Easy for 6 footers, and more, to enter and exit. This fetish the auto industry has about making the severely sloping A pillar and the low roof such that the vehicle is toughto enter and exit is costing them millions of sales. Taller people won't hand over good money for such a nightmare. Elon should announce that he hates failure and that the $25,000 Teslawill be built, eventually, with human engineering top of mind. Re the robotaxi, See miles of vids on Youtube showing Zoox. In San Francisco, Zoox drives all over the city in instrumented Toyotas mapping. Mapping tricky intersections,construction sites, and most of the features the Zoox taxis will encounter. They map continuously because things change on the streets of a city. Then that information is fed intothe Zoox robotaxis. What's wrong with doing that?? It is not full autonomy, it is "informed autonomy". The vehicles are "geo-fenced" to run in the mapped city only. You have to see thelong vid taken from a Zoox as it moves all over SF. I think now they are testing and maybe taking paying riders, in Las Vegas. They call Vegas "a one-steet town". Zoox has the formulafor a robotaxi, and Tesla should benefit from that. So should GM. Tesla should cancel the unveiling on August 8, 2024 of the proposed robotaxi UNLESS it is engineered for humans to enter and exit without contortions. To take a current small car,hard to get in and out of for taller people, remove the steering wheel and pedals, and call it a robotaxi seems misguided to me. Make it along the lines of a Zoox, only a little taller.Running in a geo-fenced city at moderate speeds, it won't roll over unless hit by another vehicle. As an alternative, I think Tesla Model X could get good acceptance as a robotaxi. Tallpeople in the back, shorter ones in the front two, or three, seats. People would be well impressed with Model X as a robotaxi. Tesla will be getting them at cost if it runs the taxibusiness themselves. Maybe the coming Tesla Van would work as a robotaxi. We have only seen drawings of it but they show nice, tall doors. Mapping a city, as Zoox does now, would allow the current level of autonomy of Tesla torun robotaxis as soon as they are ready and approved. I agree that that would be a money- making business. Run the taxi business in-house or sell the taxis to others, but maybe Tesladoes the mapping and keeps doing it. It has to be continuous mapping and updating of the taxis. Doing the mapping itself would help Tesla sell its robotaxis and impose quality controlon that process. L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. From:herb To:Council, City; Clerk, City Subject:April 22, 2024 Council Meeting, Item #5: 261 Hamilton Avenue Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 4:49:08 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. APRIL 22, 2024 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, AGENDA ITEM #5 261 HAMILTON AVENUE I urge you to remove this item from you Consent Calendar agendaand either reject staff's recommendation or direct staff toreturn to you with a complete project description as requiredby the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations. CEQA Regulation 15378(c)says, "The term 'project' refers to theactivity which is being approved and which may be subject toseveral discretionary approvals by government agencies. Theterm 'project' does not mean each separate governmentalapproval." The staff report for this agenda item (Report #2403-2834)identifies four segments of the project: 1. The restoration work that was done in 2015; 2. The staff recommendation to upgrade the building'sHistoric Inventory classification from Category 3 to Category1; 3. The granting of a floor area bonus; and 4. The location where the floor area bonus would be used. The only reason a property owner in the Commercial Downtownzone district would want a change in a building's HistoricInventory classification is to take advantage of the floor areabonus, in which case the request for the reclassification andthe request for a floor area bonus should have been included inthe 2015 CEQA project description if the reclassification andfloor area bonus were part of the project. Since the 2015complete project did not include those items, the propertyowner is prohibited from claiming that he can now segment theproject in violation of CEQA by having one segment approved in2015 and another segment approved in 2024. Staff also recommends that the project be further segmented inviolation of CEQA by first recommending that the Councilapprove this agenda item for historic reclassification and thenhave staff decide at a later date "whether the bonus isavailable for already-completed rehabilitation projects". Does anybody believe that the property owner would berequesting approval of a CEQA project segment forreclassification nine years after the rehabilitation work wasdone if the property owner did not already know what staffwould decide about a request for a floor area bonus? Does anybody believe that the property owner would berequesting approval that would lead to a floor area bonus nineyears after completing historic rehabilitation work if theproperty owner didn't know the location where the floor areabonus would be used? Herb Borock From:Aram JamesTo:Binder, Andrew; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; DuJuan Green; Enberg, Nicholas; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Jose Valle; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Kaloma Smith; Lewis james; Palo Alto Free Press; Bains, Paul; Paul George @ PPJC; Raj Jayadev; Raymond Goins;Reifschneider, James; Rick Callender; Robert. Jonsen; Rose Lynn; Sean Allen; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Vara Ramakrishnan; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Perron, Zachary; Barberini, Christopher; dennis burns; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Figueroa, Eric; Tannock, Julie;kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; ladoris cordell; Foley, MichaelSubject:Re: Man speaks out after police release K-9 on him during traffic stop: "Traumatized" Police had mistakenly pulled over his pickup truck, body camera footage shows. ByMeredith Deliso April 20, 2024, 7:31 PMDate:Sunday, April 21, 2024 4:26:43 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Raymond,You always on point so profound. You hit it out the park again. aram On Sun, Apr 21, 2024 at 4:20 PM Raymond Goins <goinsrayl@gmail.com> wrote:This is a clear example of when implicit bias is shown through these tragic results. Even implicit bias training does not stop the actions of a person born and raised to be racist. Sent from my iPhone On Apr 21, 2024, at 4:08 PM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: Man speaks out after police release K-9 on him during traffic stop: 'Traumatized' Police had mistakenly pulled over his pickup truck, body camera footage shows.ByMeredith DelisoApril 20, 2024, 7:31 PM https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-speaks-after-police-release-9-traffic-stop/story?id=109463145&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dhfacebook&utm_content=app.dashhudson.com%2Fabcnews%2Flibrary%2Fmedia%2F401764135&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0BMQABHZeP-Wyy_xvXVWxlwJDYld6IQGyMxuUeCkdLv4YMpgdfd0fvsFI7upxJCA_aem_Ab0ifKpSGIbusrzT6FLWIHBV8Q4XlIInQS3Wt76R-JyfM39MZWdCcsnP-L81rNRPXQc From:Alice Smith To:Council, City Cc:Dave Price; letters@padailypost.com Subject:Extending Quarry Road Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 4:11:28 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. I recommend trading an equal amount of Graceland from Stanford in exchange for the newroad. We can’t afford to lose Parkland. It’s not something you can rejuvenate. Stanford has plenty of land. If they want this then I strongly urge you to bargain don’t give it away. Alice Schaffer Smith850 Webster Street Palo Alto 943016502832822 (do not publish my #) Update the Voting Rights Act : Click this LINK for telephone/addresses to write or call your US Senators and Congressperson - Ask them to pass the John R Lewis Advancement Act now! From:Aram JamesTo:Supervisor Susan EllenbergCc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angel, David; Bill Newell; Binder, Andrew; Braden Cartwright; Bryan Gobin; Council, City; Clerk, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; Dave Price; Emily Mibach; Enberg, Nicholas; Jensen, Eric; GRP-City Council; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Jose Valle; KEVIN JENSEN;Kaloma Smith; Lewis james; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Raymond Goins; Reifschneider, James; Rose Lynn; Sean Allen; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Perron, Zachary; Barberini, Christopher; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Lee, Craig; cromero@cityofepa.org; Figueroa, Eric; Tannock, Julie;kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Foley, MichaelSubject:Man speaks out after police release K-9 on him during traffic stop: "Traumatized" Police had mistakenly pulled over his pickup truck, body camera footage shows. ByMeredith Deliso April 20, 2024, 7:31 PMDate:Sunday, April 21, 2024 4:08:21 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Man speaks out after police release K-9 on him during traffic stop: 'Traumatized' Police had mistakenly pulled over his pickup truck, body camera footage shows.ByMeredith DelisoApril 20, 2024, 7:31 PM https://abcnews.go.com/US/man-speaks-after-police-release-9-traffic-stop/story?id=109463145&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=dhfacebook&utm_content=app.dashhudson.com%2Fabcnews%2Flibrary%2Fmedia%2F401764135&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0BMQABHZeP-Wyy_xvXVWxlwJDYld6IQGyMxuUeCkdLv4YMpgdfd0fvsFI7upxJCA_aem_Ab0ifKpSGIbusrzT6FLWIHBV8Q4XlIInQS3Wt76R-JyfM39MZWdCcsnP-L81rNRPXQc From:John Bard To:Council, City Cc:Maureen W Bard Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 3:29:53 PM Attachments:johnbard.vcf Some people who received this message don't often get email from johnbard@comcast.net. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you as property owners at 947 Waverley Street who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. We have attended numerous HRB meetings over the past year to ensure that the review process and final recommendation considered and reflected our objection to the designation of our property to the historic resources list. We support the HRB staff's recommendation to add the 16 properties who have "affirmatively requested" to be on the City's Historical Resources Inventory. We ask the Council to direct the HRB to update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to the Mt. View Ordinance, to clarify that an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB should update the language to formalize the same process that evolved for today's recommendation, “allowing a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward objecting properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, John and Maureen Bard 947 Waverley Street, 94301 johnbard@comcast.net mwestenberger@gmail.com 650-906-4183 From:Laura Burakreis To:PAO Planning Cc:Council, City Subject:Expansion of Palo Alto Airport Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 3:03:40 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from lburakreis@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ To whom it may concern: We love the beautiful and peaceful wetlands. Please do not expand the Palo Alto airport. The city and municipal agencies should be looking to discourage high carbon producing activities rather thanfacilitating them and increasing the space for them. Noisier planes like the PC12 turbo prop is another source of concern. Thank you for giving due regard to the needs of our wetlands and our environment. Best regards. Laura Burakreis and Greg Madejski Sent from my iPhone From:Alana Karen To:Council, City Cc:Michael Popek Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 2:51:46 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from alanakaren@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you as property owners at 959 Waverley St who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. With thanks, Alana Karen and Mike Popek From:a hamilton To:PAO Planning Cc:Council, City; info@skypossepaloalto.org Subject:Say no to Palo Alto Airport Expansion Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 1:43:55 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from alexishgpr@yahoo.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ Dear City Council; The Palo Alto skies are already overrun with airline noise since the implementation of the newFAA navigation system. Please don’t vote to add more small plane noise to our once quiet skies, and especially notmore small plane flights. Not only does this increase noise pollution. It increase our carbon footprint for a benefit ofa small number of privileged people. Say no to the airport expansion. Alexis Hamilton3364 St. Michael DrivePalo Alto From:RAS To:PAO Planning Cc:Council, City Subject:NO MORE AIRPORT EXPANSION - SHUT IT DOWN ALREADY LIKE REED-HILLVIEW Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 12:11:34 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from fogz9000-1@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. “NO” “NO” “NO” “NO” “NO” to any further PAO expansion, including extending the runway and building additional hangars and storage. We Palo Alto residents and neighboring communities are already highly impacted by the noise and lead pollution of aircraft from PAO and other airports. And the Stanford life flight helicopter further pollutes our air with toxins and noise numerous times every single day of the year, holidays included. STOP ALREADY. In addition, how about the City focus its PAO efforts on sustainability and reducing today’s environmental impacts (incl. selling only unleaded fuel, now available and FAA approved)? And let Stanford fuel up its helicopter on campus. The fuel used is not a huge risk toStanford; it's simply diesel which I learned talking to their pilots at the PA air show. The pilots said it's very doable. Expanding an airport in the middle of a nature preserve makes no sense whatsoever and is not aligned with the City Council priorities on Climate Change & Natural Environment - Protection & Adaptation and on Community Health,Safety, Wellness, Well-Being and Belonging. Work out the protection against sea level rises independently of any airport expansion. Live up to what the city is always espousing regarding the environment. STOP THE NOISE AND TOXIC POLLUTION NOW. Do the right thing. I live 1 mile as the crow flies from the airport and it really is a public nuisance. Think about the kids playing in the playgrounds and their yards and having NOISE POLLUTION and TOXIC AIR POLLUTION raining down on them every day of the year. Stop the madness now. The city talks a good game, but repeatedly fails to live up to its own words. Start walking the talk, instead of just talking constantly. Residents are no longer believing you and many have no faith in our council whatsoever. I know because I've talked to many residents about this kind of stuff and I'm amazed at the retirees who would not even contact you because they have no absolutely no faith in our council whatsoever. I'm beginning to agree with them. ~~~Rich Skalsky, resident for 30+ years P.S. READ THIS IMPORTANT PART TOO! Also, of note; I've been walking with hikers down Embarcadero to the end right by the airport and Baylands and we've gottencaught in exhaust from helicopters warming up their engines. Even though we were across the street on the winding asphalt sidewalk, a few of us almost passed out from the exhaustgases overwhelming us. And we had no escape because it took another 5 minutes either direction to get away from it. But it messed up our eyes and lungs even affected our thinking. A couple of the lady hikers actually threw up. Another could no longer walk andwe had to semi-carry her out because we couldn't leave her there to breathe more of the exhaust - it was really nasty. I need to get this information sent to some state or federalagency because it was really bad and it has happened several times to us. At the very least, I think the state may require you to put a cancer warning sign on that sidewalk trail because thatis seriously a health danger when people almost pass out or vomit. PRIVATE: This is Not A Public Communication! This private email message, and any attachment(s) is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is for the sole use of the intended recipient and contains privileged and/or confidential information. From:Lydia Callaghan To:Council, City Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 10:44:59 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lydiacallaghan2011@gmail.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you as property owners at 855 Hamilton Avenue who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Lydia Callaghan Lydia CallaghanPronouns: she, her917/887-3995 From:Grace Popple To:PAO Planning Cc:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto airport expansion plans Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 10:44:13 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from grace.webber@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello. I'm a resident of East Palo Alto, living on Jasmine Way looking out at the Palo Alto airport. I frequently walk and run from my house around the airport on the trails. I have a backyard and a balcony from which I can see and hear the airport traffic. I have several friends who fly private planes and I enjoy watching their adventures through social media. I wantthem to have safe places to take off and land, and for others to learn to fly like them. I'm a huge fan of Palo Alto airport putting in provision to have eVTOL (electric vertical takeoff and landing) planes served well. It's important these are well supported: Multiple bay area companies are active in the business of creating these vehicles as a new transportation system, and they need willing municipalities to showcase their workMulti-model transit brings faster more convenient transportation closer to where people need to go and with less environmental impactThe bay area has tons of traffic congestion on the roads and having electric transport through the skies to connect, say Stanford and UC Berkeley, or Tesla manufacturingplant in Fremont with Tesla research plant in Palo Alto, or people who live in the North Bay with offices in Mountain View and Sunnyvale, rather than having these peopledrive on the roads, just makes sense It doesn't make sense to make any changes to the PA Airport at this time without puttingin eVTOL provision (charging, battery swap-out, and easy, fast terminal access for passengers). This need is coming and it's well-enough defined at this point to buildsomething appropriate. As for the runway expansion, I understand FAA's safety concerns. What I want to know is,when the runway is expanded, in the various scenarios published at 0%, 13%, 55% and 100% of extra recommended length, 1. What, if any, additional classes of plane will be allowed to use the runway vs. today? 2. What is the typical noise level put out by a plane of that type on takeoff vs. the planeswe hear today from PA Airport? 3. What is the expected additional demand in # of flights/day from these other types ofplane that today cannot land at PA Airport? 4. Does the community, the City of Palo Alto or the local residents represented by the Cityof East Palo Alto have any ability in future to regulate what types of planes are allowed to take off and land at this airport, or their fuel type? If so, what regulations areplanned? I do see potential harm to our neighborhood and the surrounding wildlife areas from therunway lengthening, especially if we find that executive jets flying from other states, or other heavier, noisier planes now come directly into PA Airport instead of landing at Hayward. I would prefer they still land at Hayward, SJC or SFO and then their passengershave a neat and quiet multimodal connection via eVTOL to PA Airport or any number of other eVTOL ports that get set up on the peninsula. I would not want our neighborhood to become atransfer point for long-distance jets. Please don't approve runway expansion without knowing and publicizing to stakeholders the answers to my questions above. I would appreciate it if you could ensure that future meetings and packages of materials aboutPA Airport are noticed to the residents of East Palo Alto such as myself who will be most impacted by any downside of airport expansion. Please send packs to EPA City Staff and askthem to distribute to us as well as keeping an email database to reach out to directly. Thank you. Grace Popple Jasmine WayEast Palo Alto -- ________________________________________________________Grace Popple, nee Webber From:Mala Narasimharajan To:Council, City Subject:Eligible Historical Inventory List - Objection Letter and Updating PA Historical ordinance Date:Sunday, April 21, 2024 10:29:52 AM Attachments:MalaNarasimharajan_546WasingtonAve_SUBJECT_ 4_22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory (1).pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from mnaras@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, Attached you will find my objection letter and support for updating the PA HistoricalOrdinance to be in line with its neighboring city (Mt View). I am submitting this letter for your review and inclusion. Regards, Mala Narasimharajan Owner of 546 Washington Ave SUBJECT:4/22 PACC Meeting,Item #12 -Historical Resources Inventory TO:city.council@cityofpaloalto.org Honorable City Council Members, My name is Mala Narasimharajan and I am writing to you as a property owner of 546 Washington Ave who has objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION ●Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested”to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1.Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory”list. ○In the staff report for HRB,April 11th 2023,regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications,the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications,“(a)the nominations process,to clarify:the HRB does not forward ‘objections’properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory,but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. ○As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory”list. ○An “eligible for Historical Inventory”list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes.The “eligible”for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible”list. ○As a property owner,I wholly object to the existence of an eligible historical inventory list and do not want my property to be placed on this list.Placement on this list is discriminatory against homeowners and subjects us to losses in home and property values and is another example of blatant government overreach. 2.Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance)similarly to Mt.View Ordinance,an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. ○This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted,burdensome,and time consuming. ○Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded:84%objected (83)and 16%affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. ○For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information,followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping,then the meeting with all the Objectors,reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response,sending in an objection letter,some Objectors met with staff,and now we are here today. ○In the staff report for HRB,April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier,regarding the future HRB work plan -PAMC 16.49 modifications,the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications,the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects”and “HRB does not forward ‘objections”properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. ○Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers,eliminates the fear of government overreach,and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Mala Narasimharajan Homeowner of 546 Washington Ave . From:Isaac@ITOPcorp.com To:Council, City Subject:No to Palo Alto expansion of the air port ! Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 11:18:48 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from isaac@achler.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. From:trinh nguyen To:PAO Planning; Council, City Cc:Peter Nguyen Subject:No to Palo Alto airport expansion Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 10:42:23 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from trngyen@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. “No” to any PAO expansion, including extending the runway and building additional hangars and storage. I am a Palo Alto resident. Palo Alto residents and neighboring communities are already highly impacted by aircraft from PAO and other airports. Please focus the PAO efforts on sustainability and reducing today’s environmental impacts. Expanding an airport in the middle of a nature preserve does not make sense. Expanding PAO is also not aligned with the City Council priorities on Climate Change & Natural Environment - Protection & Adaptation and on Community Health,Safety, Wellness and Belonging. Please address protection against sea level rises independently of any airport expansion. From:Lee Redden To:PAO Planning; Council, City Subject:PAO expansion Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 10:06:32 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from leeredden@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Palo Alto city council, I’m a 14 year resident and a homeowner in Palo Alto. I support the airport expansion andbuilding more hangers. PAO is a critical piece of infrastructure in the Bay Area allowing friends to easily visit, transport to other parts of California and easy access to flying recreationally. Please take thisas my full support to extend the runway and build more hangers. I use the wetlands area for wing foiling (wind sport in the water) from the Baylands Sailing Station, kayaking and walking, and an extended airport would have no downside to all theseactivities. Thanks, Lee Redden From:Rami Jioussy To:PAO Planning Cc:Council, City Subject:Oppose Palo Alto Airport Expansion Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 7:33:14 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sramij@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi; I hope this email finds you well. I am writing to express my strong opposition to theproposed expansion of the Palo Alto Airport (PAO). As a concerned resident and advocate for our community, I believe it is crucial that we voice our concerns regarding this development. The proposed expansion includes extending runways, constructing additionalhangars, and facilitating access for larger planes. However, I firmly believe that such expansion would have detrimental effects on our environment, safety, and overall quality of life. Here are my key points: 1. Noise and Pollution Impact: Palo Alto residents and neighboring communities are already significantly impacted by the noise and lead pollution generated by aircraft from PAO and other nearby airports. Expanding the airport would exacerbate these issues, affecting our health,well-being, and enjoyment of our homes. 2. Safety Concerns: Allowing airplanes to fly at low altitudes poses a safety risk, regardless of FAA regulations.3. Environmental Responsibility: Instead of expansion, I urge the City to focus its efforts on sustainability and reducing environmental impacts. 4. Preserving Nature and Community Priorities: Expanding an airport within a nature preserve contradicts our City Council’s priorities on Climate Change & Natural Environment - Protection & Adaptation. Our community values health, safety, wellness, and belonging, and anairport expansion does not align with these principles I kindly request that you consider these points and take action against the proposed PAO expansion. Thank you for your attention. Rami From:Amy Christel To:PAO Planning; Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Airport Long Range Facilities and Sustainability Plan Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 6:38:35 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to submit a comment regarding The Palo Alto Airport Long Range Facilities and Sustainability Plan (LRFSP). I agree with the position of 'Concerned Residents of Palo Alto' opposing any expansion of the Palo Alto Airport. Neighbors already suffer from noise impacts of flight operations at PAO. Yet, when we report disturbances we are told "no standards were violated" since the minimum altitude of 1500ft over homes is "voluntary". The Baylands Nature Preserve is already degraded by circling lead-fueled piston-engine planes in pattern training. Adding more noise from the larger PC12 engines will be especially devastating to neighboring communities and the Baylands. My concerns: ● Extension of the PAO runway and the addition of structures will expand PAO with negative consequences; it converts natural land to airport land, increases the number of operations and size of aircraft using PAO thus resulting in more aircraft noise and emissions. Expansion is not in the best interest of Palo Alto or neighboring residents, and is not aligned with the City Council priorities on Climate Change & Natural Environment - Protection & Adaptation and on Community Health, Safety, Wellness and Belonging. ● In light of the safety concerns expressed by the FAA, PC-12 pilots should be encouraged to use the nearby airports that have longer runways, including San Carlos Airport and the Hayward Executive Airport. It is disingenuous to say that the FAA requires us to extend the runway. Those aircraft have other options. ● Sustainability should not be equated with expansion. Rising sea levels should be accommodated by adding wetlands, not building runways. Electrification goals should be aimed at reducing the current impacts of operations, not used as justification for more operations. Improve sustainability by supplying only unleaded, UL100 fuel to piston aircraft. This fuel has recently been FAA approved and requires no aircraft modification, so leaded fuels should not be sold at PAO. ● Expanding the airport could create a hub for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) that will result in higher noise impacts and complaints due to visual pollution, loudness, number of overflights, and privacy and safety concerns as well as potential unintended consequences. The City should not extend the PAO runway or expand the airport capacity with additional hangars or storage infrastructure. None of these changes are required by the FAA. Such changes to airport use should require voter approval. Airport expansion benefits a small minority of elites while degrading the lives of the majority. Sincerely, Amy Christel Midtown From:jerry.smith@sonic.net To:Council, City Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 6:17:12 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jerry.smith@sonic.net. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you as property owners at 162 Bryant St. who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Jerry Smith From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angel, David; Bill Newell; Braden Cartwright; Bryan Gobin; Cait James; Cecilia Taylor; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Dan Okonkwo; Daniel Kottke; Dave Price; Diana Diamond; Don Austin; DuJuan Green; EPA Today; Ed Lauing; Enberg, Nicholas; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Greg Tanaka; Human Relations Commission; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott- Haims; KEVIN JENSEN; Kaloma Smith; Karen Holman; Lewis james; Marina Lopez; Palo Alto Free Press; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Raymond Goins; Roberta Ahlquist; Rose Lynn; Salem Ajluni; Sally Lieber; Sean Allen; Supervisor Otto Lee; Tim James; Tom DuBois; Vara Ramakrishnan; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Perron, Zachary; cfisk@law.berkeley.edu; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; cromero@cityofepa.org; dennis burns; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Tannock, Julie; Foley, Michael; Burt, Patrick; walter wilson Subject:Watch "Palestine Talks | Norman Finkelstein" on YouTube Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 5:56:12 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. https://youtu.be/AOdRk7Wptjg?si=RhV334KL4NGWmlFv From:Darlene Yaplee To:Council, City Cc:Darlene E. Yaplee; Don Subject:PACC Mtg 4/22/24, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 5:22:02 PM Attachments:Realtor_PAHistoricFinal_01242024.pdfMichaelDreyfushistoric.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from darlene.yaplee@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable Council Members, We are property owners at 845 Waverley Street. Thank you for honoring the objections of 83 property owners (including us) to be placed on the Historical Resources Inventory. Of the 99 property owners who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% agreed to historic status for their property (16). To date, 47 other properties have not responded. We support Staff’s recommendation to add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. Additionally, we ask Council to direct staff to: #1 Remove objecting properties from the “Eligible for Historical Inventory” list. Just being on the list could compromise the value of our property, especially since there are two other “eligible” lists that the City uses to restrict changes to historical properties - eligible for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and eligible for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Unlike the other two lists, the City has the authority to remove properties from its eligible Historical Inventory list. #2 Update the City Ordinance to reflect Monday’s outcome from Council, HRB, and Staff that all applications for historical listing will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation. We nor anyone else should go through this same burdensome and resource consuming process again, especially since the Council, HRB, and Staff are not overruling the objections by owners to be listed on the Inventory list. We have provided additional background on our two requests below and attached the two previous letters from the Palo Alto Realtor Community including “In Palo Alto, a historic classification can reduce a property’s value by 10-20%”. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Darlene Yaplee and Don Jackson ========================== BACKGROUND #1 Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)” As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may in itself compromise the value of our property, be used to restrict owner rights in the future, and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. Being on the “eligible” list is not a benefit unless it is something you desire. Furthermore, all properties will be subject to documentation for the ongoing/current integrity of the resource whether or not the property is on the “eligible” list. All the properties that were surveyed are already on two other “eligible” lists that the City uses to restrict historical properties - eligible for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and eligible for California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). We don’t need a third “eligible” list with its unclear meaning and likely misinterpretation. #2 Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) to align with what is practiced in this current process and similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Subject: An Updated Open Letter to the Palo Alto Historic Resources Board, the Palo Alto City Council and Palo Alto Homeowners January 24, 2024 Honorable Council Members and Board Members, The following members of the residential real estate community wish to address issues we are experiencing with Palo Alto’s current historic resource practices and the current plan to shift approximately150+ properties from being eligible for historic status to the local Palo Alto Historic Inventory. Many of us have lived in Palo Alto and have owned historic homes. Collectively, we have sold much of Palo Alto historic inventory. This letter is a result of the many clients who have sought our insights regarding the implications of the City's recent initiative to designate their properties as “Palo Alto Historic Inventory" and selling listed, eligible, and potentially eligible historic homes. 1.Historic status reduces a property’s value We would like to first address the claim by some City officials and Historical Resources Board (HRB) members that assigning a property historic status doesn't devalue it, and may in fact increase its worth. Based on our extensive experience, we can categorically refute this. In Palo Alto, a historic classification can reduce a property's value by 10% to 20%. This is essentially common sense; owning property is about the rights that come with it. The more these rights are limited, the lower the property's value becomes. Historic designation constrains the alterations one can make to a property, and thus directly decreases the values of homes with that designation. Many of us can point to concrete examples where historically designated homes have sold for less than they would have without the designation. We also know from direct experience that home buyers in Palo Alto view historic homes as problematic and shy away from engaging with them. Local realtors would unanimously prefer to lift the historic designation if possible. While it's arguable that such a status preserves a property's existing condition, it must be acknowledged that this preservation comes at a considerable financial cost to the owner. The purpose of Historical Preservation per Palo Alto Ordinance 16.49.010 to “(c) Stabilize and improve the economic value of certain historic structures, districts and neighborhoods” is in direct contradiction to the reduction in property values. 2. There should be no “eligible” for Historic Status on the Palo Alto Inventory List The HRB voted (6-1) at the January 11, 2024 meeting that it would not recommend listing properties over the objections of the property owner. This is good news that properties will not be recommended to council to be placed on the inventory list over owner objections. However, the staff recommendation for the January 25th meeting to “affirm the eligibility [emphasis added] for local inventory listing of the properties with owners who have objected to listing on the local inventory”. Such an “eligible” list should not exist because it’s a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights, etc. For example, all properties included in the current survey are designated “eligible for the National Register of Historic Places” which the City of Palo Alto is using to determine local land use process and restrictions which are ambiguous and not transparent and to require inclusion in the present-day process for nomination to the local inventory. What does “eligible” for Palo Alto’s Inventory mean? Palo Alto’s Historical Preservation Ordinance is planned to be updated and those updates could have implications to an “eligible” Palo Alto Inventory list in the same way as “eligible” for the National Register has implications. If an eligible status is to exist it should also be at the consent of the home owner. 3. The existing historic ordinance is ambiguous and results in arbitrary and capricious interpretation For over two decades, Palo Alto has contended with the effects of an unofficial historic preservation policy, despite a 52% majority defeating Measure G in 2000. In the subsequent 23 years, this de facto policy has been inadvertently strengthened, by City staff and consultants, leading to the categorization of previously unmarked homes as historic. This has bred confusion within the real estate sector due to constantly evolving interpretations and a lack of consistent procedure. The 1-4 category classification system currently in place is ineffectual. The terminology used to qualify homes is subjective and highly interpretative such as “identified with the lives of historic people” or “a type of building which was once common, but is now rare”. What makes a person historic? How rare is it, one of a kind? 4. Current code statement that recommendations from historic review are “voluntary” is not true in practice Decisions by the Historic Review Board and staff seem capricious and lack clear directives. Although the ordinance states “Compliance of the property owner with the recommendations (HRB) shall be voluntary, not mandatory”, this does not include the direction from staff or the Architectural Review Board. We have collectively witnessed clients (and some of our personal properties) experience required compliance with review decisions to proceed through the planning process. There is a great deal of process and direction that is mandatory, not voluntary, and is instituted through the review process. 5. Overreach on what qualifies as historic and the taint of “eligible” status There's a growing ambiguity and overreach surrounding what qualifies as historic. The City now tentatively considers any property labeled "eligible" for historic status as such, burdening homeowners with the responsibility, and expense, to prove otherwise. This involves engaging a City-appointed consultant at the owner’s expense (often $7,000 to $10,000) and securing an affirmative ruling. This presumptive approach to historic status is not only burdensome for property owners but also disrupts the clarity and predictability that should be inherent in real estate processes. Moreover, there appears to be a conflict of interest to have the same historic consultants perform a survey to determine if properties are historic and also be hired by the City and residents to consult on historic design and preservation of properties for improvements or to pursue affirmative rulings. Each property deemed historic becomes the “Total Available Market (TAM)” of paying customers for historic consulting firms. 6. Changes a current homeowner or prospective buyer can make to a home is made on an ad-hoc basis with no rules or established guidelines to follow There are no established rules to read to tell you what you can do with an historic home. Can you expand it, can you change the windows, can you change the floorplan, can you change the back or sides, can you add a story? Can solar panels be installed on the front of the home? Instead, you must go to the cost and expense of drawing up plans to get comments on what will or won't be allowed. Home buyers are lost and so run from buying historic homes. At the December 14, 2023 HRB meeting, it was mentioned a subcommittee will form to discuss financial implications of historic homes. If you are interested in information from the real estate community we are available to contribute to your effort. It is time for the City to acknowledge the negative financial and procedural burden the historic system is placing on Palo Alto homeowners. The decision to declare a house “historic” should be brought out of the shadows and have a clear set of qualifications and process that requires the “informed consent” of the homeowner, not an “opt-out” that requires an objection letter. The following 31 local real estate agents have indicated support for, and agreement with, the points raised here. Michael Dreyfus, Lucy Berman, Leannah Hunt, Laurel Robinson, Brian Chancellor, Mary Gullixson, Brent Gullixson, Tom LeMieux , Julie Lau, Umang Sanchorawala, Terri Kerwin, Monica Corman, Mandy Montoya, Morgan Lashley, Greg Celotti, Xin Jiang, Arti Miglani, Jennifer Pollock, Adam Touni, Mary Jo McCarthy, Noelle Queen, Kristin Galvin, Gloria Young, John Young David Gray, Omar Kinaan, Ashley Banks, Mary Gilles, Brian Ayer, Shena Hurley, Ryan Selby Hollland. Michael Dreyfus, Broker Associate Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty 650.704.7928 | m.dreyfus@ggsir.com | License No. 01121795 Honorable Council Members and Board Members, My name is Michael Dreyfus, and with over three decades of experience as a real estate agent, 24 years of which I've worked in Palo Alto, I've sold more than 300 homes in the area and remain a dedicated participant in its market. I lived for 15 years in a historic home in Professorville. Many community members have sought my insights regarding the implications of the City's recent initiative to designate their properties as “Palo Alto Historic Inventory." I'd like to first address the claim by some City officials and Board members that assigning a property historic status doesn't devalue it, and may in fact increase its worth. Based on my extensive experience, I can categorically refute this. In Palo Alto, a historic classification can reduce a property's value by 10% to 20%. This is essentially common sense; owning property is about the rights that come with it. The more these rights are limited, the lower the property's value becomes. Historic designation constrains the alterations one can make to a property. For example, I handled the sale of a home in the Old Palo Alto area, where the land alone was worth $5.5 million, but due to historic restrictions, it sold for only $4.5 million. Local realtors would unanimously prefer to lift the historic designation if possible. While it's arguable that such a status preserves a property's existing condition, it must be acknowledged that this preservation comes at a considerable financial cost to the owner. For over two decades, Palo Alto has contended with the effects of an unofficial historic preservation policy, despite a 52% majority defeating Measure G in 2000. In the subsequent 23 years, this de facto policy has been inadvertently strengthened, by City staff and consultants, leading to the categorization of previously unmarked homes as historic. This has bred confusion within the real estate sector due to constantly evolving rules and a lack of consistent procedure. The 1-4 classification system currently in place is ineffectual. Decisions by the Historic Review Board seem capricious and lack clear directives. I recall an incident where, during a review concerning my property in Professorville, half of the board objected to replacing windows due to their "historic" nature, while the other half insisted on new windows to distinguish the historic sections of the house. We were left without a clear verdict and eventually abandoned our renovation plans. Furthermore, there's a growing ambiguity and overreach surrounding what qualifies as historic. The City now tentatively considers any property labeled "eligible" for historic status as such, burdening homeowners with the responsibility, and expense, to prove otherwise. This involves engaging a City-appointed consultant at the owner’s expense (often $7,000 to $10,000) and securing an affirmative ruling. This presumptive approach to historic status is not only burdensome for property owners but also disrupts the clarity and predictability that should be inherent in real estate processes. It is time for the City to acknowledge the negative financial and procedural burden the historic system is placing on Palo Alto homeowners. The decision to declare a house “historic” should be brought out of the shadows and have a clear set of qualifications and process that requires the informed consent of the homeowner. Michael Dreyfus The following local real estate agents have indicated support for, and agreement with, the points I have raised here. Mary Gullixson, Compass Realty Sherry Bucolo, Compass Realty Umang Sanchorawala, Compass Realty Monica Corman, Compass Realty Noelle Queen, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty John Young, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty Mary Gilles, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty Omar Kinaan, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty Shena Hurley, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty Mary Jo McCarthy, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty David Gray, Golden Gate Sotheby’s International Realty From:Lara Sox-Harris To:PAO Planning; Council, City Subject:re: PAO expansion Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 5:13:39 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from larasox37@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello - I have recently heard about a potential plan to expand the Palo Alto airport, and I would like toexpress my strong reaction to this concept - there should be NO expansion of the airport. It is surrounded by a vital wetlands nature preserve which is a crucial component of a healthyecosystem as well as a buffer to sea level rise. Countless people use the preserve and countless animals depend on it. Expanding the airport into the preserve any more than italready is goes against the communities that appreciate the Baylands. The city should rather focus its efforts on keeping the airport in line with the sustainability message the cityespouses. Keep PAO podunk (which, coincidentally, etymologists have apparently traced back to an Algonquian word for "marshy meadow."). Thank you for your consideration,Lara Sox-Harris From:Lee Christel To:PAO Planning Cc:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Airport Long Range Facilities and Sustainability Plan (LRFSP) Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 12:07:23 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lee_xtel@pacbell.net. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. To Whom It May Concern, Thank you for the opportunity to submit a comment regarding The Palo Alto Airport Long Range Facilities and Sustainability Plan (LRFSP). I want to express my agreement with the position of 'Concerned Residents of Palo Alto' opposing any expansion of the Palo Alto Airport. Most importantly, we already suffer from noise impacts of many flight operations at PAO. WE DO NOT NEED MORE NOISY AIRCRAFT over us. Any expansion benefits a small minority of elites at the expense of the degradation of our living environment. IN SUMMARY The City should not extend the PAO runway or expand the airport capacity with additional hangars or storage infrastructure. None of these are required by the FAA. ● Any extension of the PAO runway and building of additional storage or hangar space is an expansion of PAO with negative consequences: converts natural land toairport land, increases the number of operations and size of aircraft using PAO thus resulting in more aircraft noise and emissions, is not in the best interest of Palo Altoresidents (or neighboring residents), is not aligned with the City Council priorities on Climate Change & Natural Environment - Protection & Adaptation and on CommunityHealth,Safety, Wellness and Belonging, and could be a financial burden on the Palo Alto budget. ● There are already high impacts of aircraft noise and emissions over Palo Alto and neighboring communities from PAO as illustrated by the large number of PAO noisecomplaints received by SFO (over 135,000 complaints/year on average for 2021 and 2022 per SFO Airport Director’s reports) and the significant number of PAO noiseevents recorded near Eleanor Pardee Park on a typical day (they were 66 PAO recorded overflights on May 19, 2023, which represented 20% of the 328 aircraftnoise events recorded that day). ● Expanding the airport could also create a hub for Advanced Air Mobility (AAM) thatwill result in higher noise impacts and complaints due to visual pollution, loudness, number of overflights, and privacy and safety concerns as well as potentialunintended consequences. ● Any electrification benefits should be to reduce the current impacts of operations, not a justification for more operations. Sustainability should not be equated with expansion. ● In light of the safety concerns expressed by the FAA, PC-12 users should be encouraged to use other Bay area airports that have longer runways, including theHayward Executive airport located about 20 miles away from Palo Alto. Sincerely, Lee A Christel Midtown From:Jeff Levinsky To:Council, City Subject:739 Sutter Avenue Appeal – Item #11 Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 9:35:46 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jeff@levinsky.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members: Please pull 739 Sutter off this Monday’s consent calendar, as the project plans do not provide the neighbor-protecting plantings required by 18.24.050(b)(2)(A) of our Municipal Code. That law says, with my highlighting: (2) Privacy and Transitions to Residential Uses When a building abuts a residential use at an interior side and/or rear property line, the building shall break down the facing façade and maintain privacy by meeting all ofthe following applicable standards: (A) Landscape Screening: A landscape screen that includes a row of trees with aminimum one tree per 25 linear feet and continuous shrubbery planting. This screening plant material shall be a minimum 72 inches (six feet) in height when planted.Required trees shall be minimum 24" box size. The latest plans available show that the project is: (1) Not providing the required continuous shrubbery planting, but instead interspersing benches between the shrubs, (2) Installing three-foot tall Carpenteria Californica as the shrubbery, not the six-foot tall plant material required, and (3) Since Carpenteria Californica doesn’t reliably grow to six feet in our climate, clearly not complying with the intent that the shrubbery provide useful screening. The staff response to the appeal neither quotes the law above nor addresses the benches and inadequate installed height of the proposed shrubbery. The extra trees do not meet the continuous shrubbery requirement. Please note that this law is part of our new Objective Standards, which were enacted by the Council to provide enforceable rules after the state blocked the City from using our older subjective Contextual Design Criteria. It would be a horrible precedent to ignore this clear violation, as that would demonstrate the City is treating these new laws as subjective ones it can interpret and waive rather than as fixed requirements projects absolutely must meet. Why imperil the huge price we paid in Council, staff, ARB, PTC, and consultant time to establish the new objective standards by then demonstrating, in perhaps the very first appeal based on them, that the City doesn’t intend to enforce them? The cost to 739 Sutter to comply is minor by comparison. Please also note that the staff report contains a serious error regarding the trash handling for the project. Page six of the report states: The plan set inadvertently refers to these waste receptacles as bins, which are larger metal receptacles, versus carts, which are the smaller plastic receptacles more typically used by low density residential uses. Bins require at least two-foot spacing between each for service. Carts require 6 inches between. The complaint by the appellants is that the project’s 36 trash carts, when placed out on the street and properly spaced, will require more space than the entire non-driveway frontage of the property. The report is incorrect in saying that carts require 6 inches between them. GreenWaste’s rules at https://www.greenwaste.com/palo-alto/wp- content/uploads/2023_Residential-Guide.pdf clearly state that you must, “Place front of cart facing the street with a minimum of 2 feet between carts.” Staff provides no documentation of why GreenWaste would make an exception for this project. I submitted a public records request for 739 Sutter that should have covered any emails or documents related to this and received none. As others have pointed out, the trash carts will displace cars and negatively impact neighboring properties, which could all be avoided by a more rational trash plan, such as sharing carts or not putting all carts out each week. Thank you, Jeff Levinsky From:Tony Svensson To:Council, City Subject:Gas Leaf Blowers Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 7:30:27 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Honorable City Council Members: Please ASAP put some teeth into the City’s almost twenty-year-old ordinance that prohibits gas blowers in residential neighborhoods and add industrial users to that ordinance. Use continues essentially unabated and reflects poorly on a City that positions itself as environmentally sound. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards, Sharon and & Tony Svensson Owners 2264 Bowdoin Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Tony Svensson To:Council, City Cc:Sharon Svensson Subject:PACC Meeting, 22 April 2024, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 6:38:32 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members: Since 1990, we are the 2264 Bowdoin Street property owners and have objected to being onthe City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical ResourcesInventory. We continue to object. Remove objecting properties from the Eligible for Historical Inventory list.Edit and/or add clarifying language so that all applications for historical listing will beprocessed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards,Sharon and & Tony Svensson2264 Bowdoin Street Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Bryan Gobin To:Aram James; cwest@uts.columbia.edu; glater@berkeley.edu; heather.k.gerken@yale.edu;marilyn.glater@tufts.edu; mark.regev@runi.ac.il; mccraw@nytimes.com; udi.mokady@cyber-ark.com Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angel, David; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Wagner, April; Binder, Andrew; Cecilia Taylor; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; Don Austin; DuJuan Green; Ed Lauing; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Greg Tanaka; Jack Ajluni; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Jose Valle; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; KEVIN JENSEN; Kaloma Smith; Karen Holman; Lewis james; Linda Jolley; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Palo Alto Free Press; Raj Jayadev; Raymond Goins; Robert. Jonsen; Roberta Ahlquist; Rodriguez, Miguel; Rose Lynn; Rosen, Jeff; Salem Ajluni; Sally Lieber; Sean Allen; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Tom DuBois; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Perron, Zachary; Zelkha, Mila; chuck jagoda; editor@paweekly.com; Figueroa, Eric; kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Foley, Michael; walter wilson; yolanda Subject:Does NYT+ Columbia have guts of East Palo Alto City Council calling for Ceasefire in Gaza Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 12:17:30 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from appeal.bryan.gobin@gmail.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Bravo East Palo Alto. They apparently care more about Jews than those living in the city of Palo Alto. Yeah, we need more than a cease-fire. We need a cease massacre and we need a cease usingriot police against students in Claremont, California. And we need a cease being a coward at the New York Times in the Columbia university in New York City. Please take note of The Claremont Colleges sending Riot Police to lay Siege on a peacefulSit-in. We have Zionist Board members to thank for this violence and endangerment of public safety – Sam Glick-Oliver Wyman, Paul Eckstein, Perkins Coie…. Subject: NYT/Columbia Cowardice-Selling Out America to Plutocrats, Pigs, Putin-onCounterfeit Claims of Anti-Semitism David McCraw, General Counsel, New York Times, Dear David, Let me offer you a perspective from Occupied Westside about you paper’s editorial decisionto define “anti-semitism = truth.” We cannot have the fourth estate pandering to lunaticJewish extremists who are the Proud Boys or Oath Keepers—or their plutocratic Zionistmaster race deities like Mr. Ackman on copy, and IAC board member Udi Mokady on copy,and the war criminal whose TV promotions for Holocausting and Pogromming Palestiniansare revolting—spokesman Goebbels Amb. Regev on copy. I am extremely distressed—but not the least bit surprised—that NYT is bamboozlingAmerica with fake news about the Holocaust in the Holy Land according to the leakedmemo acquired by The Intercept (link attached). You may recall the NYT has done this kindof sensationalist nonsense around anti-semitism before—your coverage of the conflict between Brownsville-Brooklyn neighborhood parents seeking local control v. entrenchedunion---Or black parents v. Jewish teacher union, and the usual BS about anti-semitism which is the “spade” thrown down to suppress, censor and exercise power. Your paper haddone the dubious deed of pandering to fascists and Jewish supremacists who arguably are the worst Jew-haters since they despise Jews not Hasbara-echoing-Apartheid-Denying andfalling short in buying Zionist myths and alternative realities now rebranded as “the truth” according to the Times. Again, Let us recall that neither of the last to intra-Jew wars ended well for Jews. First, the Jews lost emancipation while Haredi and Hasidic were squabbling amongstthemselves during the 1780s & 1790s while the Ashkenazi homeland was being destroyed— partitioned three times—until it existed no more for over a century—and the Russian tzarcared nothing for intra-Jew conflict; he just revoked emancipation, and of course, the pogromming started because Russians were serfs so why treat Jews any better? Second,there was the Zionist movement, which could have been less insane than organizing a national strike of Jews in Britain against Germany—with headlines screaming “Jews declarewar on Hitler.” But besides Zionist megalomania in believing they can control everything and have Carl Schmitt ‘freedom’ to cause carnage, the obvious reason for both Hitler andStalin to hate Jews and Ukrainians is because these totalitarians sought to destroy the eastern/central European states, as Yale Historian Tom Snyder has said. Ukrainians andJews both resist conquest and collectivism, and of course in the Pale of Settlement, a percentage of Jews had become integral to the state--and therefore, had to be killed so thestates could not be reconstituted and German’s would forever have lebensraum (so-called ‘living space’ or Hitler’s ‘Manifest Destiny.’) The point here is that we are entering a period of societal trauma, paranoia, schizophrenia,fear, and disinformation. The Zionists of today are fueling fascist assaults on liberal democracies everywhere—in the US, Israel, Hungary, across Eastern Europe, and probablyelsewhere. They are creating conditions from a historical standpoint that are EXTRAORDINARILY dangerous for Jews EVERYWHERE—and for ALL racial minoritiesor Vulnerable Populations who can be scapegoated. The function of the scapegoat is to justify taking away rights and liberties from the majority. To compound fascist interests in destroying liberal democracy, we have Columbia U sellingout New York City on national TV under the spotlight of congressional hearings that the LA TIMES—under my leadership—would NOT even cover—because we on the West Coastand across this great nation don’t give a flying fck about fascist grandstanding that serves no legitimate public interest. That’s is how the LA Times would deal with jackasses on theHill. Likewise, we would tell the Truth to our readers because that is our mission. There is ONLY one Truth—we do NOT care about “both sides.” We care about the Truth, and thiscountry needs a unabashedly PRO-AMERICA media service that is witty, entertaining, wide-circulating as a mass-media Wal-mart shopper publication that is written in ananalytical style rather than the way journalism is today…The NYT sets the national agenda as you well know—and you’re NOT doing a good job on Gaza or this BS anti-semitismIHRA definition that is OUTRAGEOUS---most Jews have NO idea that the ADL’s Jonathan Greenblatt is now the Bernie Madoff of Holocaust Racketeering. They are being SOLD out and SCAMMED by Zionist Hebrew Hucksters! See links below. I think my essay in the Harvard Cartoon Controversy is pretty good---I talkabout the CENSORSHIP in HAIFA and professors STANDING up for the SAME values Columbia no longer stands for. – Regards, Goldstein. APARTHEID FACT OF THE DAY, from O.G. on the OCCUPIED WEST SIDE | Sponsoredby Republicans Democrats Criminal Conviction Rates: California 97%| U.S. Federal Courts 99%| RUSSIA 99% | Occupied Palestine Sham Courts 99.99% Zionists Order Student Arrests at Claremont Colleges /Bibi's War on Trees / Stop theS.S. Warmongers (Joe Biden & Kabbala Harris & Blitzkrieg Blinken) Zionists arresting students, threatening to bump off non-compliant presidents—Pomona, Harvard, USC, Columbia…No Balls, No Standing Up for American Education and American Values CAMPUS ANALYSIS *** CLAREMONT COLLEGES - Riot Police Assault peaceful Campus-Sit-in----Zionist Overlords rule the day---Black Prez-I ain’t getting fired like Harvard’s Claudine Gay! Orders ARRESTS of Students engaged in Peaceful Sit-in - ARMY OF RIOT POLICE, GRENADE LAUNCHERS Guardian Opinion by Columbia Professors Marianne Hirsch & Alison Solomon Intercepted-NYT leaked Memo Reveals Anti-Truth Bias against REALITY andJournalistic standards-SHAME on NYT-FIRE the EDITORS!(btw, I’ve been jailed for saying ‘FIRE’ somebody by Chief Stank Skipworth Harvard’s Greatest Cartoon Controversy– Altman’s Jewbot ChatGPT and MuhammedAli Belt Zionism!—Dean & Prez Cry! Cancel Jews against Apartheid & Holocaustingalong with other Pro-American values e.g. Racial Miniorities, Twofer-Black-femalePresident—Ackman’s Whatsapp 50-billionaire Group goes Gangbusters! Israel’s Zionist war on College Campuses and Assault on American Education Campus Case Studies-Zionists Assault on Academic Freedom and Students in Israel &America USC’s Cancellor in Chief--Miriam Adelson-Holocaust Hobbyist, Promoter of Jew-Hating Trumpism, Fascist, Democracy-hater (in US & Israel), No Free Speech *** CLAREMONT COLLEGES - Riot Police Assault peaceful Campus-Sit-in----Zionist Overlords rule the day---Black Prez-I ain’t getting fired like Harvard’s Claudine Gay! Orders ARRESTS of Students engaged in Peaceful Sit-in - ARMY OF RIOT POLICE, GRENADE LAUNCHERS Meet the Head of Claremont Colleges Campus Safety---Heil Hallinan, ADLTrained…with Univ of Phoenix helping him earn $400k/year!!!!! Israel Analysis…. Silence of the Lambs - Bibi – Hamas is Scapegoat, Hostages Sacrificial Lambs, TheGoal is Forever War-Crush Opposition to Bibi; Kill All PalestiniansBibi’s Trusted Confidante & Kushner Pal – National Security Advisor Ben-Shabbatsays Wipe them all Out; All hamas; All of Gaza; All of the Inhabitants of Gaza—Don’t STOP until they Drop Dead or Be Gone!*** Israel’s War on Trees, Holodomor (Siege Starvation Stalin-style) and Little RockArkansas (same land area as the Gaza Strip) *** Research Page: Why Terrorism Works for Zionists, but Not for Palestinians Lessons from Yom Kippur – 7Oct war-- work in progress—bottom line, we (the US),will as Nixon said, “need to squeeze the hell out of them.” My Criminal Gangster Case-Convicted—Proving the Criminal Justice System isfcking joke—Angeles Apartheid in Action! *** My Criminal Gangster Goldstein MAIN PAGE: Skipworth & CPD Conspiracy | Claremont Colleges | Krooked HK Kounsel *** Chief SKIPWORTH Dedicated Page [just Skipworth's LIES & LIBEL] My Linkedin Profile-Connect with O.G. Goldstein on Orwell’s 1984 Occupied Westside On Friday, April 19, 2024, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: East Palo Alto City Council calls for Ceasefire in Gaza https://www.epatoday.org/post/east-palo-alto-city-council-calls-for-ceasefire-in-gaza From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Braden Cartwright; Bryan Gobin; Council, City; D Martell; Damon Silver; Daniel Kottke; Dennis Upton; Don Austin; DuJuan Green; EPA Today; Ed Lauing; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Human Relations Commission; JIM MINKLER1; Jack Ajluni; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; KEVIN JENSEN; Kaloma Smith; Karen Holman; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Palo Alto Free Press; ParkRec Commission; Roberta Ahlquist; Salem Ajluni; Sally Lieber; Sean Allen; Tom DuBois; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Zelkha, Mila; editor@paweekly.com; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; yolanda Subject:TANTURA” EXPOSES THE LIE AT THE HEART OF ISRAel Date:Saturday, April 20, 2024 12:10:19 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. TANTURA” EXPOSES THE LIE AT THEHEART OF ISRAEL https://theintercept.com/2022/11/25/tantura-movie-israel-palestine/ From:mark weiss To:Council, City Cc:Julie Lythcott-Haims; Shikada, Ed; Rebecca Eisenberg Subject:F&@) the trees (and people) Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 7:38:14 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from earwopa@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Apropos the proposal by the multigenerational billionaire dynasty to cram 63 housing units at 660 University( The proposal from Smith Development would bring 63 apartments and 9,115 square feet of office space to 660 University Ave., between Middlefield Road and Byron Street. T ) Let’s not let the concerns of the neighbors getting the way of fair profit in the last stages of capitalism leading towards fascism. Mark Weiss I got mine but I side with the little peeps Blocks away Sent from my sitting by the barbi, roasting dead cow, waiting for the misses From:Art Liberman To:ParlRec.commission@cityofpaloalto.org Cc:Council, City Subject:Some people need to ride an E-bike to enjoy nature Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 6:54:40 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from bpawebman@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. PRC members- A few years ago the PRC voted to prohibit e-bikes on the wide,crushed granite Adobe Creek Trail in the Baylands. I was a member of a PABAC subcommittee that engaged with you on(the losing side of) this issue. Have you evaluated that policy? How have you enforced that decision? What conclusions have you made as a result of your decision? To be honest, a number of members in my senior bicycle riding group continue to feel thatyou made an incorrect decision. These are mature men and women who wish to enjoy the outdoors and the vistas available in our area but, because of various physical limitations andthe infirmities of aging, are unable to ride a manual bicycle. Here is a NY Times article in today's paper about a woman who, having suffered the pain and grief of losing a child, found joy in life again and the pleasure of immersing herself in natureby riding an e-bike: After Unthinkable Loss, Biking Helped Me Embrace Life Again After Unthinkable Loss, Biking Helped MeEmbrace Life Again A grieving mother finds a new beginning on two wheels. From:ANDY CHOU To:Council, City Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 6:34:09 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from andychou902@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. We are writing to you as property owners at 326 Waverley St who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Regards,Andy From:Fan Yang To:Council, City Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 5:32:24 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from yangfancornell@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you as property owners at 755 Hamilton Ave who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Fan Yang -- Fan Yang From:Tran, Joanna To:Council, City Cc:Executive Leadership Team Subject:Council Consent Questions: Items 6, 8, and 9 (4/22/24) Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 5:17:50 PM Attachments:image001.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage006.pngimage007.pngimage008.pngimage009.png Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please view the following links for the amended agenda and staff responses to questions submitted by Council Member Tanaka: April 22 Amended Agenda Items 6, 8, and 9 Staff Responses Thank you, Joanna Joanna Tran Executive Assistant to the City Manager Office of the City Manager (650) 329-2105 | joanna.tran@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Charlsie Chang To:Council, City Cc:Jessica Epstein Subject:RE: Quarry Road Transit Connection Project Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 5:05:38 PM Attachments:Outlook-45xdikxs04-19-24 SamTrans LOS Quarry Road Transit Connection Project.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from changc@samtrans.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing, and Councilmembers Burt, Kou, Lythcott-Haims, Tanaka, and Veenker, Please find attached a letter of support from SamTrans for the Quarry Road Transit Connection Project which will be discussed at the upcoming special city council meeting on Monday, April 22. Thank you and please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Charlsie Charlsie Chang (she/her)Government & Community Affairs Officer1250 San Carlos Ave., San Carlos, CA 94070Office: (650) 551-6172 Cell: (650) 647-3494 Websites: SamTrans | TA From:Daniel To:Council, City Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 5:04:21 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from danerduder@hotmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, I’am writing to you as property owner at 643 College Avenue who has objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Daniel Robertson Sent from my iPhone From:Loran Harding To:Loran Harding; antonia.tinoco@hsr.ca.gov; alumnipresident@stanford.edu; bballpod; bearwithme1016@att.net;fred beyerlein; Leodies Buchanan; David Balakian; Cathy Lewis; cramirez.electriclab133@gmail.com; Council,City; dennisbalakian; dallen1212@gmail.com; Doug Vagim; dan.richard@earthlink.net; eappel@stanford.edu;Scott Wilkinson; George.Rutherford@ucsf.edu; Gabriel.Ramirez@fresno.gov; huidentalsanmateo; hennessy; IrvWeissman; Sally Thiessen; Joel Stiner; jerry ruopoli; karkazianjewelers@gmail.com; kfsndesk;Kevin.Nower@bestbuy.com; margaret-sasaki@live.com; maverickbruno@sbcglobal.net; MY77FJ@gmail.com;Mark Standriff; merazroofinginc@att.net; nick yovino; news@fresnobee.com; newsdesk;russ@topperjewelers.com; Steve Wayte; terry; tsheehan; vallesR1969@att.net; yicui@stanford.edu; Mayor Subject:Fwd: Why so many EV cos. fail Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 3:24:17 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org>Date: Fri, Apr 19, 2024 at 3:11 PM Subject: Fwd: Why so many EV cos. failTo: Loran Harding <loran.harding@stanfordalumni.org> Friday, April 19, 2024 To Elon Musk and Mary Barra- Worth seeing. Only 14 min. Tesla looks miraculous in view of all of this. They havesurvived a lot to this point. I STRONGLY urge TSLA to make a car in the form factor of a Jeep, or a 1978 Chevy Caprice. Nice, vertcal A pillar with a nice bend at the top where it joins the nice, tall roof,which roof stays tall all the way back!! Make the vehicle tall. Tall stance. Maybe with nice big wheels. Make it easy for six-footers to get in and out of, or see the red-ink flow and thecars piling up. All of the auto makers have by now sold vehicles to nice, short people who can get in and out of their cars with their low roofs, and now they will produce vehicles for tall people or seered ink on their income statements. I look at cars with severely sloping A pillars and see nice, short people driving them. And, why would you make a robo taxi by taking the steering wheel and pedals out of anexisting car? If it is to function as a taxi, it has to be built for the general population. See the London Taxis, the PHEVs, Miles of vids on Youtube, and I've sent those out in emails. SeeZoox. Zoox will eat TSLA's lunch as a robo taxi. Hey Elon, make your robo taxi like a Zoox, only taller and even easier to enter and exit. There's no patent on the shape of a Zoox. People who buy a small car with a severely sloping A pillar and a low roof have gotten inand out of one and, because they are short, have determined that it is acceptable in terms of ease of entry. But a taxi has not been put through that test by users. It is to be used byeveryone, and a big % of everyone will not pay to ride in a tiny car that is tough to get in and out of. I know. Call a Lyft and you get a dinky car that is tough to use. So the big, new, tall TSLA robotaxi can run them off the road in terms of ridership. Tell the press where they can go, cancel the intro. of the robo taxi, and design one forhumans. Start designing cars like Jeeps or '78 Chevys and you will bankrupt a bunch of competitors. If that cuts into your drag coefficient, Version 3 of CATL's LFP battery will helpout. Look directly into the camera, Elon, and say that Tesla is going to produce cars that are easy to get in and out of and anybody who doesn't like it can go to hell. Building cars like thatis a huge opportunity for Tesla, and for GM. You both need a huge opportunity at this point, and there it is. I would use the Model X and maybe the new Tesla van as my robotaxi until you can designsomething like Zoox. Model X as a robotaxi would be a big hit. Why So Many EV Companies Fail (youtube.com) L. William Harding Fresno, Ca. GM retiree and TSLA stockholder From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:Ed Lauing; Josh Becker Subject:What Happened to the Joe Biden I Knew? The New York Times Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 2:26:41 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. What Happened to the Joe Biden I Knew? https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/19/opinion/biden-gaza-war.html?smid=nytcore-ios- share&referringSource=articleShare From:Rice, Danille To:Council, City; Shikada, Ed Cc:ORG - Clerk"s Office; Executive Leadership Team Subject:City.Council Bundle: April 19 Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 2:26:10 PM Attachments:image009.pngRE ATT is putting big metal box for Fiber in our backyard without permission.msgCrosswalk parking .msgFW Grade separation.msgRE No fire trucks at Station 4 Mitchell Park!!.msgRE 722 SB 9 regarding 722 Marion p.msg Dear Mayor and Council Members, On behalf of City Manager Ed Shikada, please see attached staff responses to emails received in the City.Council inbox through April 19, 2024. Thank you,Danille Danille RiceAdministrative AssistantCity Manager’s Office|Human Resources(650) 329-2229 | danille.rice@cityofpaloalto.orgwww.cityofpaloalto.org From:Michelle Go To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto City Council Agenda - April 22 - Quarry Road Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 2:17:21 PM Attachments:MTC_QuarryRoad_Letter_signed.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from mgo@bayareametro.gov. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council Members: Please see attached letter of support from MTC for the April 22nd meeting, agenda item 11 on Quarry Road. Thanks, Michelle Go, AICP (she/her) Principal Transportation Planner mgo@bayareametro.gov Metropolitan Transportation Commission O: (415) 778-6649 April 19, 2024 Palo Alto City Council City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Palo Alto City Council Members: On behalf of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), I would like to express our support for the resolution to undedicate a passive section of El Camino Park to enable significant transit and safety improvements via a new linkage between the Palo Alto Transit Center and El Camino Real along Quarry Road. Through the work of our Blue Ribbon Transit Recovery Task Force, MTC is supportive of efforts to improve transit speed and reliability and multimodal access to restore and grow transit ridership in the region. The Palo Alto Transit Center is a vital regional hub for cross bay multimodal transit operations, with service provided by SamTrans, AC Transit (Dumbarton Express), VTA, Caltrain, and commuter shuttle operators like Stanford’s Marguerite shuttles, linking the counties of Santa Clara, San Mateo, San Francisco, and Alameda. The Quarry Road Connection Project’s estimated 5-8 minutes travel time savings and reduced congestion in University Circle is significant for the roughly 600 buses using the transit center daily. Additionally, the project would complement MTC’s Dumbarton Forward projects in development to improve transit reliability and bicycle access in the Dumbarton Bridge corridor. These include a part-time bus-only lane on Bayfront Expressway and other bicycle access improvements in Menlo Park and Redwood City. Combined with the Quarry Road Connection Project, these projects will improve the attractiveness of alternatives to driving alone in the area. Note that while we are supportive of collaborating with the City of Palo Alto and Stanford in identifying potential funding opportunities, this letter of support does not commit MTC to approve applications for funding for the project. We look forward to working with the City of Palo Alto, Stanford, and partner transit agencies as conceptual plans for the Quarry Road Connection Project are further developed. Getting voter approval to repurpose this section of minimally used parkland to enhance multimodal transit access is an important first step in this process. I respectfully ask you to add the proposed parkland changes to the November 2024 ballot. Sincerely, Alix A. Bockelman Chief Deputy Executive Director AB:MG From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angel, David; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Wagner, April; Binder, Andrew; Bryan Gobin; Cecilia Taylor; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; Don Austin; DuJuan Green; Ed Lauing; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Greg Tanaka; Jack Ajluni; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Jose Valle; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; KEVIN JENSEN; Kaloma Smith; Karen Holman; Lewis james; Linda Jolley; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Palo Alto Free Press; Raj Jayadev; Raymond Goins; Robert. Jonsen; Roberta Ahlquist; Rodriguez, Miguel; Rose Lynn; Rosen, Jeff; Salem Ajluni; Sally Lieber; Sean Allen; Tom DuBois; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Perron, Zachary; Zelkha, Mila; chuck jagoda; editor@paweekly.com; Figueroa, Eric; kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Foley, Michael; walter wilson; yolanda Subject:East Palo Alto City Council calls for Ceasefire in Gaza Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 12:12:32 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. East Palo Alto City Council calls for Ceasefire in Gaza https://www.epatoday.org/post/east-palo-alto-city-council-calls-for-ceasefire-in-gaza From:Soheila Mozayan To:Council, City Subject:RE: Invitation to Join AbilityPath’s Power of Possibilities Event on May 2nd Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 10:22:12 AM Attachments:image002.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from smozayan@abilitypath.org. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the Palo Alto City Council, It was wonderful seeing some of you yesterday at the Palo Alto Chamber event.Your engagement and commitment to our community are inspiring. In the spirit of our shared dedication to making a difference, we are delightedto invite you and your partners to our Annual Power of Possibilities event onThursday, May 2. This special event celebrates the extraordinary individuals wesupport and is a testament to the values of acceptance, respect, and inclusionwe all cherish. We are thrilled to announce that Tim Shriver, Chairman of Special Olympics,will be our distinguished guest speaker for the evening. Event Details: Date: Thursday, May 2, 2024 Time: 5:30 PM - 9:00 PM Venue: San Francisco Airport Marriott Waterfront, Burlingame Entrée Selection: We kindly request that you inform us of your preferredentrée for the evening: Ginger Soy Glaze Sea Bass with Bamboo Rice Pilaf, Ginger and Garlic Wine Sauce, Baby Bok Choy, Glazed Baby Carrots Grilled Filet Tenderloin with Roasted Garlic and Boursin Cheese Butter, Red Wine Demi-Glace Sauce, Sundried Tomato and Shallot Mashed Potatoes, Brussel Sprouts Herb Crusted Cauliflower Steak with Braised Gigante Bean and Tomato Ragout, Seasonal Vegetable Medley Your support and presence at this event would be immensely valuable as wecontinue to advocate for and celebrate the achievements of individuals withdevelopmental disabilities. We hope you will be able to join us for an eveningfilled with inspiration and camaraderie. Please let me know if you can attend and your meal choices so we canprepare a warm welcome for you! Sincerely.Soheila Soheila Mozayan (she/her) Vice President, Community and Donor EngagementCell: (650) 862-4801AbilityPath + Via Services AbilityPath.org viaservices.org Via Services is now affiliated with AbilityPath, thriving together to provide a lifetime of opportunities forindividuals with developmental disabilities. Learn more at abilitypath.org/affiliationFAQ. ? “Love has to be at the center of whatever we are doing.”-Bryan Neider, CEO of AbilityPath and Via Services View this email in your browser From:LWV Palo AltoTo:Council, CitySubject:Join Our Thursday Conversation on Stanford Land Use, 4/25 @4:30 PMDate:Friday, April 19, 2024 8:41:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. LWVPA Thursday Conversation Thursday, April 25, 2024 4:30 pm - 6:00 pm New Location: PCC Raptor Room, 3921 E. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto We will be joined by Kelly Kline and Maya Perkins of the Stanford University Office of Government Affairs for a conversation about Stanford land use and the recently approved Santa Clara County Stanford University Community Plan. Please note that our location has been changed to the PCC Raptor Room at 3921 E. Bayshore Road. Thursday Conversations are informal League get-togethers that feature interesting conversations on topics related to our community and provide a place where we can share ideas and build community in an informal way. Bring a friend or colleague, we invite everyone to join us! RSVP below. LWVPaloAlto.org Facebook Twitter YouTube LinkedIn Email Email Copyright © 2024 League of Women Voters Palo Alto, All rights reserved. From Voter Recipient List Our mailing address is: League of Women Voters Palo Alto 3921 E Bayshore Rd Ste 209 Palo Alto, CA 94303-4303 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list. RSVP Here From:gel@theconnection.com To:Council, City Subject:Plastic Recycling Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 8:37:18 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello City Council, On last Sunday’s CBS Sunday Morning TV program, there was a segment discussing how much plastic is actually recycled. It was about 6%. I think you need to tell us more about what we should put in the Recycling Bin. How about those clear plastic boxes that produce is packed in. Should we really put them in The Trash Bins. And what about the polyethylene bags, etc. I have sent this information to Green Waste, but did not receive a response. Thank you, Gary Lindgren 585 Lincoln Ave. Palo Alto CA 94301 650-326-0655 Check Out Latest Seismometer Reading I hear and I forget. I see and I remember. I do and I understand. Chinese proverb Be Like Costco…do something in a different way Don’t trust Atoms…they make up everything Fortune Favors The Brave A part of good science is to see what everyone else can see but think what no one else has ever said. The difference between being very smart and very foolish is often very small. So many problems occur when people fail to be obedient when they are supposed to be obedient, and fail to be creative when they are supposed to be creative. The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours. It is sometimes easier to make the world a better place than to prove you have made the world a better place. Amos Tversky From:Charlie Weidanz To:Council, City Subject:Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce News & Updates - April 19, 2024 Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 8:31:37 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto Chamber Logo NEWS & UPDATES - April 19, 2024 Cake Weekend at Sweet55 Supporting Our Schools Event Graduate Hotel Events Job Opportunities by SlingShot Connections Sweet55 Cake Weekend - Gold Chocolate Cake Once a month, Sweet55 places their CAKES front and center! It's what they call CAKE WEEKEND. This coming weekend, Friday April 19 - Sunday April 21, Sweet55's symphony of three European cakes will be available in both of our locations only until sold out. Swiss Kirsch Cake Chocolate Mousse Cake (flourless available) Opera Cake Each cake is available by the piece for $8.00, or as a sampler box with all three cakes for $14.00. If you would like a larger cake to share with family and friends, get in touch to place a special order: info@sweet55.com, or call 650.440.4330. In any case, be sure to swing by our stores in Palo Alto or Half Moon Bay, and try them inperson! Supporting Our Schools Event - April 25, 2024 - T&C Village Palo Alto Supporting Our Schools Backpack Drive with Town & Country Village, Family Giving Tree, NBC Bay Area, & Telemundo In a time when the cost of living feels higher than ever, Town & Country Village is excited to once again host the annual Supporting Our Schools initiative with Family Giving Tree, NBC Bay Area, and Telemundo on Thursday, April 25th from 2-6pm near The Penny Ice Creamery. Shockingly, nearly half of all Bay Area families are considered low—or very low-income. That means that this time of year they are faced with difficult decisions. Decisions like choosing between buying your child school clothes or buying them school supplies. These dilemmas are what Supporting Our Schools aims to alleviate with this initiative. Framed as a “family-friendly happy hour,” the event will feature a community “build” where volunteers prepare kits to be included in backpacks that will be distributed during Family Giving Trees’ 2024 Back-to-School Drive. Here are all the fun activities and freebies to enjoy: Face Painting Glitter tattoos Balloon Artists Games and STEM-related resources from The Tech Interactive Freebies and promotions from your favorite Town & Country Village shops Guest Speakers from the community, including the Mayor of Palo Alto, Greer Stone andEast Palo Alto’s Police Chief, Jeff Liu Event Info Supporting Our Schools Event - Family Giving Tree | NBC Bay Area | Telemundo 48 Supporting Our Schools Event Banner Ad Check out these Events at the Graduate Hotel Palo Alto Graduate Palo Alto Sessions ♫ Graduate Sessions: Charged Particles | Graduate Hotels ♫ May 8th at 6pm - 3-hr event in Lobby June 5th at 6pm - 3-hr event in Lobby July 10th at 6pm - 3-hr event in Lobby August 27th at 6pm - 3-hr event in Lobby September 18th at 6pm - 3-hr event in Lobby ♫ Graduate Sessions: Jamie Zee & Brycon | Graduate Hotels ♫ April 24th at 6pm – 3-hr event in Lobby May 8th at 6pm – 3-hr event in Lobby Graduate Palo Alto Vinyl Nights ♫ Vinyl Nights at Graduate Palo Alto | Graduate Hotels ♫ Every Thursday from 5pm-9pm in Lobby Graduate Palo Alto Silent Book Club Silent Book Club at Graduate Palo Alto | Graduate Hotels Last Monday of every month in Lobby 2-hr event Graduate Palo Alto Floral Workshop Mother's Day Floral Workshop with Sève | Graduate Hotels Saturday, May 11th at 10am 2-hr event in lobby Hot Jobs Near You - SlingShot Connections flyer SlingShot Connections is offering GigWork with Benefits in Silicon Valley Learn More and Apply See Our Upcoming Events Learn More About The Chamber PALO ALTO CHAMBER & VISITORS CENTER 355 ALMA STREET | PALO ALTO | CA | 94301 | 650-324-3121 WWW.PALOALTOCHAMBER.COM This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe clickhere. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:Aram James To:Ed Lauing; Julie Lythcott-Haims Cc:Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Cecilia Taylor; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; EPA Today; Emily Mibach; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Jeff Moore; Lait, Jonathan; Linda Jolley; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Shikada, Ed; chuck jagoda; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; cromero@cityofepa.org; editor@paweekly.com Subject:Newsom calls out homeless ‘failures’ Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 8:23:43 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Newsom calls out homeless ‘failures’ Newsom calls out homeless ‘failures’ https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?guid=720e66e6-b633-4f98-a797-c873982161a9&appcode=SAN252&eguid=788f7acb-56ac-4688-afc4- 748246955bea&pnum=2# For more great content like this subscribe to the The Mercury News e-edition app here: From:Gautam Srivastava To:Council, City Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Friday, April 19, 2024 8:20:04 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from togurug@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, I am writing to you as property owners at 545 Chaucer St. who has objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. I SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. I ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Furthermore, it is important that the city council realize that by not restricting this process, you have taxed property owners, residents, your voters with extraordinary effort on an issue that doesn’t matter at all to the real problems in the city around flooding, homelessness, and traffic, for example. Why you cannot better manage the business of the city, has not gone unnoticed by voters. It seems you prioritize running for Congress above doing real work in the city, and none of you seem to mind that we have to write letters and wade through a (bureaucratic) city staff in service of the HRB (vs. in service of residents), and fight for every inch of reasonableness, simply to forestall an issue, that in 2024, doesn’t matter at all. What a waste. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Gautam Srivastava From:Megan McCaslin To:PAO Planning Cc:Council, City Subject:Expanding airport Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:25:18 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from meganmccaslin@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ To Whom it May Concern: I am in Europe, but recently received news that Palo Alto airport is considering lengthening its runways, adding newhangars, and generally expanding to increase the capacity specifically for a number of executive planes, as well asfor the general number of planes coming into Palo Alto daily. None of this is required or recommended by the FAAbut is being considered to alleviate a small minority of pilots/owners who fly private planes, specifically the PilatusPC-12 aircraft. I strongly oppose this idea. It is wrong on so many levels, the obvious ones being increased emissions over PaloAlto and our neighbor East Palo Alto, and increased noise from our already cacophonous skies. Palo Alto’s qualityof life would be impacted beyond belief. Palo Alto character has already been changed enough by the increased number of a certain kind of people who canafford their own private planes. Intolerable noise is already created by our airport and San Francisco internationaland has ruined the quality of life for many of us in Palo Alto. I fear an expansion of the Palo Alto Airport would bethe last straw for my ability to stay in town. Please don’t do this, I beg you. And why is it necessary? These Pilatus planes already have been landing without incident 500 times a year. The plane noise is already so disruptive to residents’ peace and quiet. Personally, I can’t even be in my gardenduring the day. That, and the combined expansion of the freeways and traffic in town is making Palo Alto unlivable. I strongly disagree that this airport needs to be expanded. This just depresses the heck out of me that you’re eveneven considering it. How could you, given all the fight that’s been going on about San Francisco airport and therouting of planes that has made so much noise over our little town. Please don’t succumb to the wishes of entitled few, please. Think of who Palo Alto has always been, and please dowhat you can to keep it that way. Thank you, Megan McCaslin.Sent from my iPhone From:TAAPE To:Council, City Subject:Monthly News: TAAPE-Exploring Amusement & Attraction Parks in Thailand Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 10:37:05 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lucy@gjb.grahw.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. TAAPE Monthly News Immersive storytelling: creating Zootopia at Shanghai Disneyland Shanghai Disneyland’s new Zootopia land is a mammalian metropolis, home to innovative technologies and immersive theming. Based on the 2016 Walt Disney Animation Studios film, the world’s first and only Zootopia-themed land debuted in December 2023 in a ceremony attended by Shanghai city officials and senior leaders from Disney and Shanghai Shendi Group. Adventure Island new ride delivered and being constructed ADVENTURE Island’s long-awaited £1million drop tower ride has been delivered to the seafront theme park and the huge mission to see it constructed is under way.Fans of Adventure Island have been waiting eagerly for the thrilling new attraction to rise in Southend after it was teased by bosses last year.Last month Marc Miller, managingdirector of the Stockvale Group, which owns Adventure Island, joined the firm’s head of engineering in Italy to test out the new attraction. Columbia Pictures Aquaverse: bringing Sony IP to life in Thailand Columbia Pictures Aquaverse, a partnership between Sony Pictures Entertainment and Thailand-based attractions developer Amazon Falls, officially opened last October.Located in Bangsaray, close to Pattaya and Bangkok, the attraction is the world’s first Columbia Pictures ‘water theme park’. It features rides and experiences inspired by films including Ghostbusters, Jumanji, Bad Boys, Zombieland, The Emoji Movie, Surf’s Up and Hotel Transylvania. I m writing on behalf of the Thailand Amusement & Attraction Parks Expo (TAAPE) Organizing Committee to extend an invitation for you to meet with our team during The Saudi Entertainment and Amusement (SEA) Expo, which willbe held from May 7-9. We believe that your presence at the event would be highly beneficial for both parties, as it presents a unique opportunity for us to discuss potential collaborations, share insights into the amusement and entertainment industry. You are warmly welcomed to join TAAPE 2024 asexhibitor or visitor. Thank you for considering our invitation, and we eagerly await your response! Notice: The above information belongs to the network. Please feel free to contact us if there are any modifications needed. From:matt@evolutionaryteams.com To:palo-alto@fridaysforfutureusa.org Subject:FFF Follow Up – April 12 (Week #118) Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 9:34:00 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of openingattachments and clicking on links. Reminder: Global Climate Strike/Earth Day Rally Tomorrow! Climate Slow Marchers head out at 4PM andreturn to King Plaza for the Youth Climate Leader speeches at 5PM. After that, the Raging Grannies, Danceof Peace and The Climate Strikers! perform for rally goers. Come join the fun! Last Friday, we discussed the final chapter of All We Can Save entitled “Rise” with the Climate Friends BookClub facilitated by Claudia. We found the words of the fearless women climate leaders inspiring and hopeful. After our discussion, Ingrid volunteered to take the lead for the next discussion on May 10, and Ian volunteeredfor June 14. Thanks, Claudia, Ingrid and Ian! Sgt. Alex stopped by, his first visit to our weekly climate demonstration. He wanted to make sure we were allset for our April 19 climate rally. He kindly gave us permission to hang our End The Era of Fossil Fuel bannerbetween the blue (sad?) trees. (Apparently, hanging our banner between the flagpoles is a no no.) Thank you,Sgt. Alex! The Climate Slow Marchers discussed conducting a slow march around downtown prior to Friday’s rally inKing Plaza. The marcher’s message: KIDS DESERVE CLIMATE ACTION NOW. Casey created a beautifulflyer just for the occasion, and Rick and Kimberly plan to hand them out to EVERYONE in downtown. Thanksto the entire Slow March Team! Kadir created a website to promote our Green Mic videos and our group’s actions. Check it out here:https://www.greenmic.org/ Thank you, Kadir! Chris from Pro Bono Photo will be joining us Friday to memorialize the Global Climate Strike. Thank you,Chris, Jack and Pro Bono Photo! This is truly a global event! David will be joining the Climate Strike and Rally in Dhaka. Thanks, David, foryour persistence and commitment! Marianna facilitates an amazing monthly Climate Leaders conversation and publishes a fantastic news-you- can-use monthly email. Don’t miss out. Sign up right here. Here’s a sample of the latest email: April News You Can Use (mailchi.mp) Vincent created a website to keep us updated on the many climate-related activities in our community. Check it out here: https://climatecommunitycenter.org/ There’s something for everyone—we have such an amazing community! If you do not see your action highlighted on the website, please be sure to let Vincent know so that he can add it. Thank you so much, Vincent! Here We GO! See you tomorrow in King Plaza. 4PM for the Slow March and 5PM for the Youth ClimateLeader Rally! Keep Up the Fight and See You Friday! Heat Pump Water Heater Program Update As of:4/4 2/29 1/31 12/28 HPWH full-service interest list signups 878 797 750 687 Site assessment agreements (SAA) sent 878 783 748 679 Signed SAAs 696 613 579 522 Completed site assessments 615 538 510 473 Installations Total Full Service HPWHs installed 226 224 184 158 Total DIY HPWH installed 73 57 49 44 Total HPWHs installed 299 281 233 202 Target Installations 1000 1000 1000 1000 Monthly Installation Rate Monthly Installation Rate 18 48 31 19 Target Monthly Installation Rate 83 83 83 83 Weekly Photos FFF April 12: https://photos.app.goo.gl/2pugeXv1XNRosazw6 What We Are Reading/Watching/Listening to: Tipping Point Podcast: The Problematique (Part 1) (tippingpoint-podcast.com) Maybe We Did Want to Save the World (Part 2) (tippingpoint-podcast.com) Maybe We Did Want to Save the World (Part 2) (tippingpoint-podcast.com) (We knew and know so much and have yet done so little – sigh) Climate One podcast: https://www.climateone.org/listen-watch/podcasts The Great Simplification with Nate Hagens (podcast): https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/ Follow Fridays For Future Palo Alto: Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/fridaysforfuture_paloalto/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/Fri4Future_PA Email notifications of FFF Palo Alto events: https://mailchi.mp/c8c130127345/join-fridays-for-future-palo-alto You are receiving this email because you have expressed an interest in supporting climate action in Palo Alto. If you no longer wish to receive these emails, please let me know. Matt Schlegel Schlegel Consulting 650-924-8923 Author: Teamwork 9.0 Website: evolutionaryteams.com Blog: evolutionaryteams.com/blog/ Linked In: linkedin.com/in/mattschlegel/ Twitter: twitter.com/EvoTeamMatt Instagram: instagram.com/MattSchlegel6 Facebook: facebook.com/mattschlegel.77 YouTube: youtube.com/channel/UCLkUMHuG4HVa831s9yeoZ5Q Enneagram Quiz: www.EnneaSurvey.com From:Aram James To:Perron, Zachary Cc:Wagner, April; Binder, Andrew; Braden Cartwright; Bryan Gobin; Council, City; D Martell; Ed Lauing; Enberg, Nicholas; Jensen, Eric; GRP-City Council; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Lewis james; Palo Alto Free Press; Raymond Goins; Reifschneider, James; Robert. Jonsen; Roberta Ahlquist; Sally Lieber; Sean Allen; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Supervisor Otto Lee; Barberini, Christopher; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Lee, Craig; Figueroa, Eric; Tannock, Julie; kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Foley, Michael Subject:Bay Area district attorney charges three police officers with killing of Alameda man Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 9:04:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Bay Area district attorney charges three policeofficers with killing of Alameda man https://share.newsbreak.com/6oefflja From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Baker, Rob; Binder, Andrew; Bryan Gobin; Cait James; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; Dennis Upton; Diana Diamond; Don Austin; DuJuan Green; Ed Lauing; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Jack Ajluni; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; KEVIN JENSEN; Kaloma Smith; Lewis james; Marina Lopez; Michelle; Zelkha, Mila; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Robert. Jonsen; Rose Lynn; Salem Ajluni; Sally Lieber; Sean Allen; Supervisor Otto Lee; Tom DuBois; Vara Ramakrishnan; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; cfisk@law.berkeley.edu; dennis burns; district1@bos.sccgov.org; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; yolanda Subject:USC Silences Its Valedictorian. She Vows to Fight On Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 6:43:03 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. USC Silences Its Valedictorian. She Vows to Fight On https://www.democracynow.org/2024/4/18/usc_silences_its_valedictorian_she_vows From:Jose Aguilar To:Council, City Cc:fili@youthunited.net Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:58:08 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from joseaguilar@youthunited.net. Learn why thisis important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello Palo Alto City Council, My name is Jose. I'm a core member at Youth United for Community Action (YUCA). I wanted to extend an invitation to our upcoming town hall on April 23 from 5:45 pm to 7:30 pm. We will have two members from the national EPA giving updates on the remediation of a local contaminated site and another presenter to talk about how groundwater rise can affect our community. We would love to see you there! From, Jose From:Faith Brigel To:Council, City; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Veenker, Vicki; Lauing, Ed; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg Cc:Faith Brigel; greg.stone@cityofpaloalto.org; Burt, Patrick Subject:New Construction at 511 Byron Street, and more, Palo Alto Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 5:21:46 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from faithwb3@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council of City of Palo Alto, This morning I attended an Architectural Review Board meeting to discuss the newconstruction that is being proposed for 511 Byron Street, 660 University Ave., 680 University Ave., and 500 Middlefield Road. Once all of these buildings will be demolished they will construct an immense four story, mixed usage of many offices and many residential rentals, and a two story basement for parking, though theparking spaces will be much reduced from what is needed. And I assume a lot ofwater will need to be drained since our water level is shallow. Their presentation talked about several of the other buildings in that area that are large, though not as large as this one: the Hamilton project, Lytton Gardens, TheWebster House and there is the 3 story 2 condo on Webster and University Ave.There are already several large buildings in this area. And I think none of them have a two story basement. That intersection is already very congested. And there is rarely any parking on Byron Street. One person opposed to this project this morning stated thatconstructing this building into that area is like squeezing it into a lot that is much too small. I have owned the single, story Victorian that is more than 100 years old, for almost 40 years. My building was not mentioned this morning. And I will lose some of mydaylight plan, which was also not mentioned. Byron Street and University Ave. in that area has always been a quiet, professional area for the past 40 years. My building has a psychiatrist, and a psychologist. They work in my building because it is quiet. Adding many residential apartments with balconies to those structures will totally change the nature of this area. And I more than likely will lose at least some of my tenants, if not all of them. I understand that the State is requiring more housing. But a very large building with offices and apartments right downtown on UniversityAve. beside Middlefield is not a good spot for it. There should be some consideration for people like myself who have been in that area for many years- not just the developers who are not concerned that they are overbuilding the downtown area. I ask and hope that you who represent all of us on the City Council and will take into consideration all of us not just the developers. Thank you for your consideration, Faith W. Brigel From:Alan Cooper To:Council, City Cc:Historic Resources Board; French, Amy; Alan Cooper Subject:CLARIFICATION: Historic designations - "keep the ball rolling" Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 3:10:24 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from akcooper@pacbell.net. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I want to clarify the recommendation in my email to you earlier today (see below) I want to see as many houses as possible on the local historic register, certainly more than the 16 thatare being put forward now. Hence, I am ok with the current staff recommendation if it does not restrict houses, such as mine, from being put forward in the future. We need moreincentives to make this possible. Thank you, Alan Cooper From: Alan Cooper <akcooper@pacbell.net> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:37 AM To: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Cc: Historic Resources Board <hrb@CityofPaloAlto.org>; French, Amy <Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org>; Alan Cooper <akcooper@pacbell.net> Subject: Historic designations - "keep the ball rolling" Dear City Council, I am writing to ask that you NOT adopt the current staff recommendation on designating only a few (16 out of 147) houses as historic properties to go on the local historic register. I am one of many other homeowners who would put our historic homes on the Palo Alto register, if the city offered additional incentives (see below)*. There is a better solution than staff now offers and would get more homes on the register. That solution is to direct the Historic Resources Board (HRB) to do a year-long in-depth study of incentives (e.g. financial, zoning, community-building, etc.) that would entice homeowners to historic designations. The City provided hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past year to an outside contractor for this Palo Alto project. Yet, the city never tasked the HRB to do the work that was really needed to educate and incentivize historic-home owners. I am willing to put my home on the local register, if there are better incentives. Please task the HRB to investigate incentives. Thank You! Alan Cooper 270 Kellogg Ave Potential Category 1 house * please see my 1/21/24 letter to the HRB (below) which was discussed extensively at a 2/25/24 HRB community meeting. Date: 1/21/24 To: Historic Resources Board members, Cc: Palo Alto City Council,I ask the HRB to consider 6 new incentives for listing historic homes on the Palo Alto historic register. To assure that the City and historic-home owners are treated equitably in achieving community historic- preservation goals, more incentives than now exist should be implemented and promoted. Incentives 1 and 2: these resurrect prior historic preservation incentives that were formally approved by City Council in 1999. Incentives 3 to 6: these are new ideas to align City historic incentives with contemporary incentives by other civic organizations. The following two historic preservation incentives were part of the prior Palo Alto Ordnance 4571 that was approved on June 28, 1999. (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city- clerk/ordinances/ordinances-1909-to-present/ordinances-by- number/ord-4571.pdf) 1. Increase FAR to 500 ft.² from 250 ft.² (ie. Today) - when Ordinance 4571 was later rescinded and revamped to the current Ordinance, the number of square feet allowed was reduced to 250 ft.² However, there is no public record and justification as to why this reduction from 500 ft.² was made. PA Ordinance 4571 Section 3: <image002.jpg> As a greater economic incentive to list homes on the PA register, why not raise the square footage allowed back to 500 ft.² 2. Reinstate the HRB resident advocate - Section 10 of Ordinance 4571 appointed one member of the HRB "... To represent and further the interests of persons, having an economic interest in real property… eligible for inclusion on the Palo Alto Register." Alternatively, this function might be done by a city planner dedicated exclusively to educating and helping the public with historic preservation issues. <image003.jpg> 3. Eliminate costs to an owner for listing their home/building on the historic register - encourage owners of historic homes/buildings to list their homes on the register by having the city, absorb the costs for evaluation and approval of the home/building being listed. For the owners that have filed objections to their house/building being listed this year, allow them to remove the objection and list their property at no cost. 4. Provide civic recognition for owners of historic homes/buildings - civic recognition is a fundamental tenet of charitable and volunteer organizations. Recognition could include such things as an honor roll plaque/wall (eg PA Anniversary Wall), annual invited social function (eg. PAST functions), City-hosted events at a historic home/building. All of these would be paid for by the City in acknowledgment of the help/participation of historic property owners. 5. Eliminate administrative, permitting and inspection fees for historic preservation work requested by the HRB - work that is suggested/required to the exterior of a building to continue to make Palo Alto a beautiful place to live, should be supported in part by the City. Eliminating fees is a straightforward way to do this. For work that is not historic preservation as determined by the HRB, such as interior work, usual City fees would apply. 6. Provide listed-historic property owners with educational opportunities - for these property owners, provide a free membership in the California Preservation Foundation (https://californiapreservation.org/). As members, they can sign up for lectures and seminars on historic preservation. The objectives of these incentives are to encourage more historic- property owners to join the Palo Alto Historic Register AND to engage the city more actively in equitably augmenting the Register. I hope that the HRB and City Council will look favorably on implementing these and other new historic preservation incentives! Thank you, Alan Cooper 270 Kellogg Ave From:Aram James To:Julie Lythcott-Haims; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angel, David; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Binder, Andrew; Bryan Gobin; Cait James; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; Don Austin; EPA Today; Ed Lauing; Emily Mibach; Enberg, Nicholas; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Jax Ajluni; Jeff Moore; Josh Becker; Kaloma Smith; Karen Holman; Lewis james; Linda Jolley; Zelkha, Mila; Roberta Ahlquist; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Supervisor Otto Lee; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Perron, Zachary; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Lee, Craig; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Figueroa, Eric; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Tannock, Julie; kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Foley, Michael Subject:Google fires 28 workers for protesting $1.2 billion Israel contract Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 1:59:13 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Google fires 28 workers for protesting $1.2 billion Israel contract https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna148333 From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:Angel, David; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Baker, Rob; Bryan Gobin; Cait James; Cecilia Taylor; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; Dave Price; Dennis Upton; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; Ed Lauing; Emily Mibach; Enberg, Nicholas; Jensen, Eric; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Human Relations Commission; Jack Ajluni; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; KEVIN JENSEN; Kaloma Smith; Karen Holman; Lewis james; Lotus Fong; Marina Lopez; Michelle; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Palo Alto Free Press; Reifschneider, James; Robert. Jonsen; Roberta Ahlquist; Rodriguez, Miguel; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Tim James; Tom DuBois; Vicki Veenker; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Perron, Zachary; Zelkha, Mila; Barberini, Christopher; chuck jagoda; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Lee, Craig; cromero@cityofepa.org; dennis burns; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Figueroa, Eric; Tannock, Julie Subject:LEAKED NYT GAZA MEMO TELLS JOURNALISTS TO AVOID WORDS “GENOCIDE,” “ETHNIC CLEANSING,” AND“OCCUPIED TERRITORY” Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 1:08:10 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. LEAKED NYT GAZA MEMO TELLSJOURNALISTS TO AVOID WORDS“GENOCIDE,” “ETHNIC CLEANSING,” AND“OCCUPIED TERRITORY” https://theintercept.com/2024/04/15/nyt-israel-gaza-genocide-palestine-coverage/ From:Aram James To:Council, City; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Raymond Goins; Rose Lynn; Sean Allen; SupervisorOtto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; district1@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Verbal CPRA Request of 4/16/24 Re: Disparity Study Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 12:28:24 PM Attachments:image001.png MGT Disparity Study_Contracts & Amendments.zip CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Good Afternoon, The County of Santa Clara confirms receipt of your public records request lodged duringpublic comment at the April 16, 2024 Board of Supervisors Meeting during Item 8, the County Disparity Study. Attached please find documents responsive to your request. No documentswere withheld or redacted. This request is closed, thank you. John A. Castro | Deputy County Counsel Office of the County Counsel, County of Santa Clara 70 West Hedding Street, East Wing, 9th Floor | San José, CA 95110 Office: (408) 299-9015 | Mobile: (669) 287-2439 | Facsimile: (408) 292-7240 john.castro@cco.sccgov.org | counsel.sccgov.org NOTICE TO RECIPIENT: The information in this email is confidential and may be protected by the attorney-client and/or work product privileges. If you received this email in error, any review, use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of it is strictly prohibited. Please notify Administration, Office of the County Counsel, of the error immediately at 408-299-5900 and delete this communication andany attached documents from your system. From:Ava Knapp To:Council, City Subject:Rail grade separation updates Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 12:07:00 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from avaknapp10@icloud.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Good morning, My name is Ava Knapp and I am a student reporter on the Palo Alto High School Voice Publication. I am writing a story regarding the rail grade separation and how the decision for a pedestrian/bicycle pass through Kellogg might impact the bike path behind Viking Stadium. I was hoping to get more information about how likely this option is to being realistic. Any other comments you would like to add would be helpful as well. Thank you for your help. Best, Ava Knapp News Editor The Paly Voice From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Wagner, April; Binder, Andrew; Braden Cartwright; Bryan Gobin; Cait James; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; Dave Price; Diana Diamond; Don Austin; EPA Today; Ed Lauing; Emily Mibach; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Human Relations Commission; Jack Ajluni; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; KEVIN JENSEN; Kaloma Smith; Karen Holman; Lait, Jonathan; Lewis james; Lotus Fong; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz; Marina Lopez; Michelle; Zelkha, Mila; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Palo Alto Free Press; Patricia.Guerrero@jud.ca.gov; Preminger, Steve; Raymond Goins; Roberta Ahlquist; Rose Lynn; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Supervisor Otto Lee; Tim James; Tom DuBois; Vara Ramakrishnan; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Perron, Zachary; cfisk@law.berkeley.edu; chuck jagoda; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; dennis burns; district1@bos.sccgov.org; editor@paweekly.com; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com; Tannock, Julie; kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Foley, Michael; yolanda Subject:Anti-woke Republicans attacked Columbia University. It capitulated Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:56:54 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Anti-woke Republicans attacked Columbia University. It capitulated https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/18/columbia-university-congress-antisemitism-republicans-gaza From:Alan Cooper To:Council, City Cc:Historic Resources Board; French, Amy; Alan Cooper Subject:Historic designations - "keep the ball rolling" Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:39:25 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from akcooper@pacbell.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious ofopening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council, I am writing to ask that you NOT adopt the current staff recommendation on designating only a few (16 out of 147) houses as historic properties to go on the local historic register. I am one of many other homeowners who would put our historic homes on the Palo Alto register,if the city offered additional incentives (see below)*. There is a better solution than staff now offers and would get more homes on the register. Thatsolution is to direct the Historic Resources Board (HRB) to do a year-long in-depth study ofincentives (e.g. financial, zoning, community-building, etc.) that would entice homeowners tohistoric designations. The City provided hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past year to an outside contractor forthis Palo Alto project. Yet, the city never tasked the HRB to do the work that was really needed toeducate and incentivize historic-home owners. I am willing to put my home on the local register, if there are better incentives. Please task theHRB to investigate incentives. Thank You! Alan Cooper270 Kellogg AvePotential Category 1 house * please see my 1/21/24 letter to the HRB (below) which was discussed extensively at a 2/25/24HRB community meeting. Date: 1/21/24 To: Historic Resources Board members,Cc: Palo Alto City Council, I ask the HRB to consider 6 new incentives for listing historic homes on the Palo Alto historicregister. To assure that the City and historic-home owners are treated equitably in achievingcommunity historic-preservation goals, more incentives than now exist should be implementedand promoted. Incentives 1 and 2: these resurrect prior historic preservation incentives that were formallyapproved by City Council in 1999.Incentives 3 to 6: these are new ideas to align City historic incentives with contemporaryincentives by other civic organizations. The following two historic preservation incentives were part of the prior Palo Alto Ordnance 4571that was approved on June 28, 1999. (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/city-clerk/ordinances/ordinances-1909-to-present/ordinances-by-number/ord-4571.pdf) 1. Increase FAR to 500 ft.² from 250 ft.² (ie. Today) - when Ordinance 4571 was later rescinded and revamped to the current Ordinance, the number of square feet allowed was reduced to 250 ft.² However, there is no public record and justification as to why this reduction from 500 ft.² wasmade. PA Ordinance 4571 Section 3: As a greater economic incentive to list homes on the PA register, why not raise the square footageallowed back to 500 ft.² 2. Reinstate the HRB resident advocate - Section 10 of Ordinance 4571 appointed one member of theHRB "... To represent and further the interests of persons, having an economic interest in realproperty… eligible for inclusion on the Palo Alto Register." Alternatively, this function might bedone by a city planner dedicated exclusively to educating and helping the public with historicpreservation issues. 3. Eliminate costs to an owner for listing their home/building on the historic register - encourage ownersof historic homes/buildings to list their homes on the register by having the city, absorb the costsfor evaluation and approval of the home/building being listed. For the owners that have filedobjections to their house/building being listed this year, allow them to remove the objection andlist their property at no cost. 4. Provide civic recognition for owners of historic homes/buildings - civic recognition is a fundamentaltenet of charitable and volunteer organizations. Recognition could include such things as an honorroll plaque/wall (eg PA Anniversary Wall), annual invited social function (eg. PAST functions),City-hosted events at a historic home/building. All of these would be paid for by the City inacknowledgment of the help/participation of historic property owners. 5. Eliminate administrative, permitting and inspection fees for historic preservation work requested by the HRB - work that is suggested/required to the exterior of a building to continue to make PaloAlto a beautiful place to live, should be supported in part by the City. Eliminating fees is astraightforward way to do this. For work that is not historic preservation as determined by theHRB, such as interior work, usual City fees would apply. 6. Provide listed-historic property owners with educational opportunities - for these property owners,provide a free membership in the California Preservation Foundation(https://californiapreservation.org/). As members, they can sign up for lectures and seminars onhistoric preservation. The objectives of these incentives are to encourage more historic-property owners to join the PaloAlto Historic Register AND to engage the city more actively in equitably augmenting theRegister. I hope that the HRB and City Council will look favorably on implementing these and other newhistoric preservation incentives! Thank you, Alan Cooper270 Kellogg Ave From:jj ho on behalf of Jim Holmlund To:PAO Planning Cc:Council, City Subject:Airport expansion Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 11:37:02 AM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from jjh2000@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ Please do not do it. After the change of the SFO paths a few yearsago, we get a lot of airplane noise, and we get some from the PA airportalso. Especially that very noisy single engine prop plane that peoplesubscribe to. Did I mention the SJC reverse flow noise?What is the reason for wanting to increase air traffic at our airport?? More noise we do not need! Focus instead on environmental issues.Thanks Jim Holmlund --jjh From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Baker, Rob; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; Dan Okonkwo; Daniel Kottke; EPA Today; Ed Lauing; GRP-City Clerk; GRP-City Council; Human Relations Commission; Jack Ajluni; Jeff Moore; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Lewis james; Linda Jolley; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Van DerZwaag, Minka; Palo Alto Free Press; Roberta Ahlquist; Salem Ajluni; Sally Lieber; Sean Allen; Shikada, Ed; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; WILPF PeninsulaPalo Alto; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; district1@bos.sccgov.org; editor@paweekly.com Subject:Re: The progression of Suppression & Censorship Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 1:44:52 AMAttachments:IMG_3732.PNG CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links. On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 1:30 AM Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: FYI: ON CAMPUS - The Progression ofSuppression & Censorship:Rule#1: Zionists are ALWAYS Victims. Rule 2. When Israelis are Aggressors, Refer to Rule#1 Pro-Apartheid Zionist lobbying against American values of Equality, Self-Determination, Free Speech and Assembly, Pursuit of Happiness (Knowledge & Truth) for the Purpose of Suppressing any Support for Palestinians’ Right NOT beDenied Citizenship, and For the Purpose of Undermining U.S. and worldwide support for honoring our moral and legal responsibilities to protect and abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law, and For the Purpose of Censoring any Negative ideas, thinking, speech about the Truth about the scourge of colonialism and imperialism, including Israel’s Apartheid Occupation and tyranny against Palestinian people and the wider Arab world For keeping college campuses a "Zionist Safe Zone" in order to retain and recruit the next generation of young Jews who are destined to be blindly subservient to pro-fascist Zionist agenda and continues to lobby unlimited U.S. support for all things "Israel" at the expense of American values and national security interests. From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Baker, Rob; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; Dan Okonkwo; Daniel Kottke; EPA Today; Ed Lauing;GRP-City Clerk; GRP-City Council; Human Relations Commission; Jack Ajluni; Jeff Moore; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Lewis james; Linda Jolley; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; VanDer Zwaag, Minka; Palo Alto Free Press; Roberta Ahlquist; Salem Ajluni; Sally Lieber; Sean Allen; Shikada, Ed; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; WILPFPeninsula Palo Alto; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; district1@bos.sccgov.org; editor@paweekly.comSubject:The progression of Suppression & Censorship Date:Thursday, April 18, 2024 1:30:38 AM Attachments:IMG_3732.PNG CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments andclicking on links. FYI: ON CAMPUS - The Progression ofSuppression & Censorship:Rule#1: Zionists are ALWAYS Victims. Rule 2. When Israelis are Aggressors, Refer to Rule#1 Pro-Apartheid Zionist lobbying against American values of Equality, Self-Determination, Free Speech and Assembly, Pursuit of Happiness (Knowledge & Truth) for the Purpose of Suppressing any Support for Palestinians’ Right NOT be Denied Citizenship, and For the Purpose of Undermining U.S. and worldwide support for honoring our moral and legal responsibilities to protect and abide by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international law, and For the Purpose of Censoring any Negative ideas, thinking, speech about the Truth about the scourge of colonialism and imperialism, including Israel’s Apartheid Occupation and tyranny against Palestinian people and the wider Arab world For keeping college campuses a "Zionist Safe Zone" in order to retain and recruit the next generation of young Jews who are destined to be blindly subservient to pro-fascist Zionist agenda and continues to lobby unlimited U.S. support for all things "Israel" at the expense of American values and national security interests. From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:Angel, David; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Binder, Andrew; Braden Cartwright; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; Don Austin; EPA Today; Ed Lauing; Emily Mibach; GRP-City Council; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; KEVIN JENSEN; Kaloma Smith; Karen Holman; Michelle; Zelkha, Mila; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Sean Allen; Tom DuBois; chuck jagoda; dennis burns; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com Subject:Opinion: USC got it wrong in canceling valedictorian’s speech. Here’s what the school should do now Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 9:29:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Opinion: USC got it wrong in canceling valedictorian’s speech. Here’s what the school shoulddo now https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-04-17/usc-valedictorian-commencement-graduation-speech-university-asna-tabassum-victor-guzman From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:Angel, David; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Damon Silver; Dan Okonkwo; Daniel Kottke; Don Austin; Ed Lauing; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Gennady Sheyner; Greg Tanaka; Jack Ajluni; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; KEVIN JENSEN; Karen Holman; Lewis james; Linda Jolley; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Michelle; Palo Alto Free Press; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Shikada, Ed; Supervisor Otto Lee; Tom DuBois; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; Zelkha, Mila; editor@paweekly.com Subject:No Tech for Apartheid: Google Workers Arrested for Protesting Company’s $1.2B Contract with Israel Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 4:16:15 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. No Tech for Apartheid: Google Workers Arrested for Protesting Company’s $1.2B Contractwith Israel https://www.democracynow.org/2024/4/17/no_tech_for_apartheid_google_israel From:Jo Ann Mandinach To:Council, City Subject:Please save the CineArts Theater. Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 3:38:49 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and Council Members, Please save the CineArts Theater. We don't need more empty offices since they'realready at a record high. We don't need to see more local amenities destroyed like the restaurants, parking, sales tax revenue,,, And one again, please say no to the El Cmino bike lanes. Did you see the front page article in Sunday's San Francisco Chronicle about the San Francisco restaurant owner who's staging a 30-day hunger strike to protest the bike lanes there becausethey're destroying his business and forcing him to lay off staff? I see it's also making NATIONAL and TV news as another example of California's oddity: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco-business-hunger-strike-bike- lane/3509250/ San Francisco business owner goes on hunger strike over new bike lane https://nypost.com/2024/04/13/us-news/san-francisco-restaurant-owner-eiad- eltawil-on-hunger-strike-protesting-bike-lanes/ San Francisco restaurant owner launches hunger strike over controversial bike lanes ruining his business: ‘It’s a last resort for me’ Most sincerely, Jo Ann Mandinach From:Ann Balin To:Council, City Subject:CinéArts Theater Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 3:16:13 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from alafargue@mac.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Mayor Stone, Vice Mayor Lauing and Council Members, I am writing to impress upon you the important contribution the CinéArts theater has made to our community which needs to continue going forward. Please retain this cultural asset where festivals, music, blockbusters, independent film, documentaries as well as foreign movies will contribute to our well being. You know well that we in Palo Alto do not need more office space. Now with all of the housing in the pipeline focussed on the El Camino Real the theater will thrive. Neighbors in Barron Park, Evergreen Park, College Terrace and Ventura can walk to the theater. It will attract movie goers from other neighborhoods and towns as well. The concept can be expanded to include music just like the Varsity Theater offered residents. I saw Van Morrison perform there. My dad’s era included the Count Basie Band at the Varsity. The CinéArts can have TED talks and poetry readings as was included at the Varsity Theater. There are existing venues in the bay area to emulate on some level including the Guild. Cinema offers a bridge to culture where art enriches our lives. The residents are now vaccinated and hungry to return to the comfortable venue the CinéArts where they can enjoy the public experience. Another important example of this is the Town & Country Village Shopping Center where after vaccinations shoppers and restaurant goers support this thriving destination. It was the council’s decision to maintain the venue and not allow medical offices on the ground floor. Would it be the successful and charming sought after center if the ground floor was up zoned? I doubt it. Please do not succumb to pressure from Hudson Properties to deprive us of the valued amenity that the CinéArts Theater holds for the community. It is your duty to uphold this public benefit. Respectfully, Ann Lafargue Balin From:appeal.bryan.gobin@gmail.com To:"Aram James"; naor@president.gov.il; lior.haiat@mfa.gov.il; bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il; yoavg@knesset.gov.il;eylon@president.gov.il; ted.deutch@gmail.com; rosend@ajc.org; billigl@ajc.org; frankela@ajc.org Cc:"Baker, Rob"; Council, City; "D Martell"; "Daniel Kottke"; "DuJuan Green"; "EPA Today"; "Ed Lauing"; "Friends of Cubberley"; "Jack Ajluni"; "Jay Boyarsky"; "Jeff Moore"; "Josh Becker"; "Julie Lythcott-Haims"; "Karen Holman"; Gardener, Liz; "Lotus Fong"; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; "Palo Alto Free Press"; Bains, Paul; "Paul George @ PPJC"; "Roberta Ahlquist"; "Rosen, Jeff"; "Salem Ajluni"; "Sean Allen"; "Tom DuBois"; "Vicki Veenker"; Perron, Zachary; "Bryan Gobin"; "Supervisor Susan Ellenberg"; HELEN.BENDIX@jud.ca.gov; frances.Rothschild@jud.ca.gov; Gregory.Weingart@jud.ca.gov; Victor.Viramontes@jud.ca.gov; Victoria.Chavez@jud.ca.gov Subject:USC Cancel Culture@Valedictorian Citing "Security" Concerns RE Billionaire Zionists like Adelson, Crips & BloodsOffer Protection to USC Crowd Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 2:43:35 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from appeal.bryan.gobin@gmail.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. USC Cancels valedictorian | Adelson's $180M reasons | USC can't cope w/blowhard Zionist billionaire's Macau Moolah! Attached proposal for LA’s Crips & Bloods to provide Protection Services —Maybe they can replace the ADL & it’s alphabet soup of unregistered hostile foreign agents! USC’s Cancellor in Chief--Miriam Adelson-Holocaust Hobbyist, Promoter of Jew-Hating Trumpism, Fascist, Democracy-hater (in US & Israel), No Free Speech Subject: CANCEL USC valedictorian | Adelson's $180M reasons | USC can't cope w/blowhard Zionist billionaire's Macau Moolah! But first, facts sponsored by our Malibu Mafia –Adelson, Bendix-Kronstadt household (3 judges under one roof) et al.. APARTHEID FACT OF THE DAY, from O.G. on the OCCUPIED WEST SIDE | Sponsored by Republicans Democrats Criminal Conviction Rates:California 97%| U.S. Federal Courts 99%| RUSSIA 99% | Occupied Palestine Sham Courts 99.99% Zionists Order Student Arrests at Claremont Colleges /Bibi's War on Trees / Stop the S.S. Warmongers (Joe Biden & Kabbala Harris & Blitzkrieg Blinken) Zionists arresting students, threatening to bump off non-compliant presidents—Pomona, Harvard, USC, Columbia…No Balls, No Standing Up for American Education and American Values Dear Aram, Thanks for the update on USC Cancel Culture. We are in an Intra-Jew War like nothing since the partition of our homeland in the 1780s (the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth, home of the Ashkenazi Jews). Real Jews have to stand up against the Zionist menace. If USC can’t keep the place safe for a valedictorian speaker, they should CANCEL COMMENCEMENT altogether. Clearly there are SECURITY Concerns above & beyond speech and TRUTH that delusional double-speak Zionists can’t handle like Genocide Joe who apparently can’t see or hear or think—because the law on genocide is clear—and the Israeli officials have made clear their INTENTION to commit genocide, and will not stop until we in the USA make clear to Bibi that we can create a hell for him far worse than peril of prosecution he seeks to avoid. As for the pathetic Israeli generalissimos on copy, they are not fit to be Sheriff deputies in LA County. Their counter-terrorism Nazism that they try to export to LA County on ADL-sponsored trips for municipal police must END, and their state of Forever War is flat-out Nazism—the Orwellian stuff of Insoc, complete with Newspeak, doublespeak, Carl Schmitt legalism for Fuhrers, and unholy ‘freedom’ to cause carnage. Here is my USC research page RE Adelson’s Veto on the Valedictorian with USC Law on copy. USC’s Cancellor in Chief--Miriam Adelson-Holocaust Hobbyist, Promoter of Jew-Hating Trumpism, Fascist, Democracy-hater (in US & Israel), No Free Speech The university did not simply betray the valedictorian by CANCELING her over bogus bloated- billionaire Hasbara propaganda Hate! USC is NOT fit to be called an American institution---USC sold out its students, faculty, staff, heritage, VALUES, and credibility…over security? Are you kidding me? Some tiny young woman is so powerful she’s gonna cause the commencement to call for counter- terrorist backup like the Claremont Colleges (see below)? Thanks for sharing the article about USC selling out so cheaply to Zionist Overlord Miriam Adelson and some other board members, including Steven Spielberg, who apparently posing a security threat with his new movie, Bibi’s List, E.T. Don’t Get to Phone Home from Rafah. Yes, Spielberg’s Shoah foundation is using the dreadful IHRA definition of anti-semitism to crank up counterfeit-claims of anti-semitism so Zionists like Udi Mokady and Alan Dershowitz and the To Line can live a peaceful life in America but condemn their fellow Jews to Forever Wars and the Holocaust in the Holy Land that they are responsible for…and their warmongers and colonial-imperial thugs like Blitzkrieg Blinken, Genocide Joe, and Kabbala Harris. I pulled the list of board members—and the governance rules amended in Dec 2023---Why? Reading between the lines, I am speculating that ‘San Marino’ WASPs at USC thought they could take the “new money” on the westside without strings attached---but NOW they see the $180 million for USC’s Diplomacy school of Birthright-apartheid travel to israel apparently does in fact have strings attached---as does all of the ‘new’ money for ‘research,’ which as we see in the Harvard example, is just dirty money laundered for research…Likewise, Hopkins and AJC have a common board member who is a primitive-version of SBF—namely “Cash-for-Gold” Mr. Arenson—who is the reason why a lot of hospitals like Chester-Crozer are now disasters after having once been outstanding community hospitals. Yes—I will say KKR is nothing but a Chop-Shop---Asset-Strippers like Zell destroyed American newspapers—and who had No club in Palm Beach until Trump opened one and let them in….and like Adelson, the Zell abomination does NOT represent Judaism. They are chip-on-their-shoulder, inferiority-complex, self-hating Jews who have a country club they call the ADL-Holocaust-Racketeering organization---Remember our DA candidate’s Papa is Bruce Hochman, the ADL-spymaster and pro-apartheid promoter who handed over the names of Jewish- Americans to the Apartheid South African authorities…As Joan Rivers famously said, “Fck the ADL,” they don’t give a fck about civil rights—they are a NAKED-POWER-GRABBING group of thugs who are neither friend to America nor friend to Jews in Palestine…they want a security state in the USA just like Israel. All Bibi has to do is just give the Palestinians the right to Vote---NEVER---NEVER---There is a literal connection from Bill Buckley’s 1957 article about “Why the South must Prevail” to present-day Bibi and the global authoritarian problem we face today… The common thread is Arthur Finkelstein—Bibi’s Brain…The opposite is Ukraine. Zelenskyy is NOT supported because he’s NOT fascist! He’s not a Putin-MBS-Orban pal, and Orban was elected by Bibi’s campaigner—Finkelstein again… I stand with Zelenskyy. I am Goldstein and I believe in PRO-American values... Apparently, the American’s Creed is out-of-fashion in Klanifornia. We see hat USC is a dumpster school for selling out America like we’re some cheap whore in Adelson’s Venetian Macau. The only place worse is Harvard’s Greatest Cartoon Controversy (and possibly Stanford & Yale). See links below Aram et al. Thanks again for sending the note about USC’s Cancel Culture—or more aptly, Anti-American, pro-Apartheid culture…. USC’s Cancellor in Chief--Miriam Adelson-Holocaust Hobbyist, Promoter of Jew-Hating Trumpism, Fascist, Democracy-hater (in US & Israel), No Free Speech Silence of the Lambs - Bibi – Hamas is Scapegoat, Hostages Sacrificial Lambs, The Goal is Forever War-Crush Opposition to Bibi; Kill All Palestinians Bibi’s Trust Confidante & Kushner Pal – National Security Advisor Ben-Shabbat says Wipe them all Out; All hamas; All of Gaza; All of the Inhabitants of Gaza—Don’t STOP until they Drop Dead or Be Gone! Harvard’s Greatest Cartoon Controversy– Altman’s Jewbot ChatGPT and Muhammed Ali Belt Zionism!—Dean & Prez Cry! Cancel Jews against Apartheid & Holocausting along with other Pro-American values e.g. Racial Miniorities, Twofer-Black-female President— Ackman’s Whatsapp 50-billionaire Group goes Gangbusters! Israel’s Zionist war on College Campuses and Assault on American Education Campus Case Studies-Zionists Assault on Academic Freedom and Students in Israel & America *** Israel’s War on Trees, Holodomor (Siege Starvation Stalin-style) and Little Rock Arkansas (same land area as the Gaza Strip) *** Research Page: Why Terrorism Works for Zionists, but Not for Palestinians USC – I would suggest USC figure out how to provide “security” or 1. We have valedictorian speak w/ Crips and Bloods offer to provide security at a reasonable fee 2. We have no valedictorian speak---and Crips and Bloods Show Up for Apartheid Angeles at your Commencement----And all it takes is 10 of us to make National News (and when I say “us,” I mean the people who are the US of the this city—not just Crips & Bloods) 3. We have No Commencement at all because either you have the ability to provide security or you don’t 4. We have a Valedictorian speak---business-as-usual—and I don’t have to make you and your donors look dumb-as-fck on national news—You know I’m right—10 people show up, and ALL HELL is Gonna Break Lose—because you will OVER_REACT—You Zionists are Bull Connor of Birmingham. I know ADL-StandwithUS-Nazis-ZOA-JNA-AJC-will all say EXACTLY the same thing… Think about what you wanna do…And think about the damage that even press release from stating that the Crip & Bloods will be their to either protect you or shut you the fck down is gonna do…Call FBI, on copy. Call LASD, on copy. I don’t give a fck about your little Nazi-security apparatus. *** Riot Police Assault peaceful Campus-Sit-in----Zionist Overlords rule the day---Black Prez-I ain’t getting fired like Harvard’s Claudine Gay! Orders ARRESTS of Students engaged in Peaceful Sit-in - ARMY OF RIOT POLICE, GRENADE LAUNCHERS *** My Criminal Gangster Goldstein MAIN PAGE: Skipworth & CPD Conspiracy | Claremont Colleges | Krooked HK Kounsel *** Chief SKIPWORTH Dedicated Page [just Skipworth's LIES & LIBEL] My Linkedin Profile-Connect with O.G. Goldstein on Orwell’s 1984 Occupied Westside From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:31 PM To: Supervisor Susan Ellenberg <supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org> Cc: Baker, Rob <rbaker@dao.sccgov.org>; Bryan Gobin <appeal.bryan.gobin@gmail.com>; CityCouncil <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>; Daniel Kottke <daniel.k@earthlink.net>; DuJuan Green <dujuang@sbcglobal.net>; EPA Today <epatoday@epatoday.org>; Ed Lauing <elauing@equitysearchpartners.com>; Friends of Cubberley <friendsofcubberley94303@gmail.com>; Jack Ajluni <jaxpolo@gmail.com>; Jay Boyarsky <jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org>; Jeff Moore <moore2j@att.net>; Josh Becker <becker.josh@gmail.com>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <julieforpaloalto@gmail.com>; Karen Holman <rsvp.paloalto.2022@gmail.com>; Liz Gardner <Gardnerjaqua@gmail.com>; Lotus Fong <lyfong@pacbell.net>; Minka Van Der Zwaag, <minka.vanderzwaag@cityofpaloalto.org>; Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>; Paul Bains <pbains7@projectwehope.com>; Paul George @ PPJC <peaceandjusticecenter@gmail.com>; Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>; Rosen, Jeff <JRosen@dao.sccgov.org>; Salem Ajluni <ajluni@hotmail.com>; Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>; Tom DuBois <tom.dubois@gmail.com>; Vicki Veenker <admin@siblingcitiesusa.org>; zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: USC valedictorian’s grad speech is canceled: ‘The university has betrayed me’ USC valedictorian’s grad speech is canceled: ‘The university has betrayed me’ https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-16/usc-valedictorian-banned-graduation-speech From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:31 PM To: Supervisor Susan Ellenberg <supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org> Cc: Baker, Rob <rbaker@dao.sccgov.org>; Bryan Gobin <appeal.bryan.gobin@gmail.com>; CityCouncil <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>; Daniel Kottke <daniel.k@earthlink.net>; DuJuan Green <dujuang@sbcglobal.net>; EPA Today <epatoday@epatoday.org>; Ed Lauing <elauing@equitysearchpartners.com>; Friends of Cubberley <friendsofcubberley94303@gmail.com>; Jack Ajluni <jaxpolo@gmail.com>; Jay Boyarsky <jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org>; Jeff Moore <moore2j@att.net>; Josh Becker <becker.josh@gmail.com>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <julieforpaloalto@gmail.com>; Karen Holman <rsvp.paloalto.2022@gmail.com>; Liz Gardner <Gardnerjaqua@gmail.com>; Lotus Fong <lyfong@pacbell.net>; Minka Van Der Zwaag, <minka.vanderzwaag@cityofpaloalto.org>; Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>; Paul Bains <pbains7@projectwehope.com>; Paul George @ PPJC <peaceandjusticecenter@gmail.com>; Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>; Rosen, Jeff <JRosen@dao.sccgov.org>; Salem Ajluni <ajluni@hotmail.com>; Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>; Tom DuBois <tom.dubois@gmail.com>; Vicki Veenker <admin@siblingcitiesusa.org>; zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: USC valedictorian’s grad speech is canceled: ‘The university has betrayed me’ USC valedictorian’s grad speech is canceled: ‘The university has betrayed me’ https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-16/usc-valedictorian-banned-graduation-speech From:Carmen Stuhlmuller To:Council, City Cc:Darlene Yaplee Subject:request to council Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 12:34:45 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from carmen@stuhlmuller.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you as property owners at [insert your address] who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. CONFIRMING 2005COWPER ST OBJECTS TO BEING INCLUDED IN THE HISTORICAL REGISTRY AND YOU RECEIVED OUR LETTER OF OBJECTION per Amy French’s email 4/8/24 WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Carmen and Roger Stuhlmuller 2005 Cowper St From:Hotel Parmani | Palo Alto To:charlie@paloaltochamber.com; John Hutar; John Hutar Cc:City Mgr; Council, City; Apple, Kara Subject:Concerns About Hotel Re-Engagement Discussions Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 12:27:11 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from info@hotelparmani.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Charlie and John, I've learned that the Chamber and San Mateo County CVB have had discussions with a select few hotels about re-engagement, without including many key stakeholders. Either the SanMateo CVB is soliciting the participation of Palo Alto hotels again and excluding the voices of many, or the Chamber has initiated the re-engagement without the same. It is unclear whether your ongoing discussions seek mandatory or voluntary participation. Given the reasons Palo Alto hotels previously chose to exit the SMCCVB, this lack oftransparency and outreach is disappointing. As you recall, when the original relationship was first formed decades ago, the same scenario played out - zero outreach to smaller propertiesand decisions made by a few, in their own interests, for all. Broad consultation is required. I urge the Chamber and CVB to provide clarity and openness about the discussions that have already taken place and those scheduled to take place. Engaging in conversations in theshadows erodes trust in both organizations. Lastly, there are smaller properties that are members of the Chamber of Commerce. Any preliminary discussions between representatives of a small subset of properties in secretiveprocess is a disservice to all other Palo Alto hoteliers excluded. Equally disappointing is that there are two Chamber Board Members who are hotel representatives. Either they both do notbelieve that the voices of other properties are important enough to participate in these back channel discussions, or worse, they simply don't care about the broader hotel community'sopinion. I, and others, would appreciate more details on the nature of these discussions and why they've been conducted without wider input. Yatin -- Hotel Parmani | Palo Alto 3200 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306Tel: 650.493.9085 Fax: 650.493.8405 www.hotelparmani.com From:Aram James To:Prior, Christine Cc:Braden Cartwright; Council, City; Dave Price; Diana Diamond; EPA Today; Ed Lauing; Emily Mibach; Friends of Cubberley; GRP-City Council; Greg Tanaka; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Linda Jolley; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Sean Allen; Stump, Molly; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Vicki Veenker; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; editor@paweekly.com; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com Subject:Re: Request Records be released by PDF Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 11:19:01 AM Attachments:image006.pngimage007.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage001.png April 17, 2024 Hi Ms. Prior, Thanks so much. Emailing the records( cost of trip to tax payers etc.) to me re Mayor Greer Stone’s recent trip to Japan on city taxpayer money, his salary and benefits for his role asmayor of Palo Alto will be very helpful. In addition, emailing records regarding Mayor Stone’s outside income, for his job as a school school teacher as well as outside income he receives ( if any) as a member of the California State Bar # 306103. Thank you so much for your assistance in this important matter. Best regards, Aram James State-Bar # 80215 On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:41 AM Prior, Christine <Christine.Prior@cityofpaloalto.org>wrote: Hi Mr. James, Thank you for reaching out. Yes, we can email the documents to you. Thank you, Christine Prior Deputy City Clerk Office of the City Clerk P: 650.329.2159 | E: Christine.Prior@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2024 11:44 AMTo: Prior, Christine <Christine.Prior@CityofPaloAlto.org>Subject: Request Records be released by PDF CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. April 15, 2024 HI Ms. Prior, I still have problems navigating the city portal for receipt of public records released to me bythe city. When records are released pursuant to my current CPRA request, filed April 14,2024, I would appreciate if I could receive the records in a PDF easy to open format. Pleaselet me know if this is possible. If you have any questions to ask me or concerns to share withme regarding my current CPRA request please feel free to give me a call at: 415-370-5056 Best regards, Aram James Dear Mr. James, Thank you for your email. We’ve received your request and entered it into GovQA, theCity’s public records portal. You should receive a separate confirmation email fromGovQA. Staff will release records through the portal. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you, Christine Prior Deputy City Clerk Office of the City Clerk P: 650.329.2159| E: Christine.Prior@cityofpaloalto.org www.cityofpaloalto.org From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:Angel, David; Angie Evans; Cait James; Council, City; Ed Lauing; Jack Ajluni; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Kaloma Smith; Lewis james; Linda Jolley; Lotus Fong; Marina Lopez; Michelle; Zelkha, Mila; O"Neal, Molly; Palo Alto Free Press; Rodriguez, Miguel; Rose Lynn; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Shikada, Ed; Stump, Molly; Tim James; Vara Ramakrishnan; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; dennis burns; editor@paweekly.com Subject:Pro-Israel money pours in to unseat progressives in congressional races Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 11:09:46 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Pro-Israel money pours in to unseat progressives in congressional races https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/apr/17/pro-israel-money-progressives-congress-challenges From:Marie-Jo Fremont To:Council, City Subject:4/22 City Council Meeting - Agenda Item 12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 10:56:57 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from mariejofremont1@gmail.com. Learn why thisis important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Palo Alto City Council Members, I have Palo Alto friends who are concerned about having their properties being designated as historical. I am not in this situation. However, as a Palo Alto resident, I wondered about what I would do if my property became a candidate for historical properties. The City should not add properties to the Palo Alto historical inventory without the owner's consent. A historical designation comes at a considerable cost to the owner and includes restrictions on improvements either by the owner or future buyers, which may result in a reduced property value. Therefore, before designating a property as historical, the City should formally seek the owner' s agreement. I urge the City Council to take immediate action to: 1) Remove properties from the “eligible for historical inventory list” if owners have objected to having their property classified as historical. Being on an “eligible list” could still have negative implications on the sale of a property. 2) Modify the Palo Alto ordinance to ensure that historical property designations occur only after property owners provide their consent in writing. Property owners should not have to object to a historical property designation. In other words, the default should be that the owners' consent is required before any historical eligibility starts. My friends have gone through a painful year-long process only to have the Historic Resources Board and Council decide at the very end not to override the wishes of the property owners who objected. Given this decision and to save everyone time and worries, the current ordinance should be revised to ensure that property owners have provided their consent in writing before any property can become eligible and then be designated as a historical property. Thank you for considering my input. Best regards, Marie-Jo Fremont From:Florence LaRiviere To:Renzel, Emily Cc:Council, City; Shani Kleinhaus; McLaughlin, Eileen; Bobel, Phil Subject:Re: Flood Basin Tidegate Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 10:37:31 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from florence@refuge.org. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Sure takes me back Emily. Do we have a copy of the permit?? On Apr 17, 2024, at 9:28 AM, Emily Renzel <marshmama2@att.net> wrote: Dear Mayor Stone and Members of the City Council: When I recently attended a Valley Water District meeting at the Palo Alto Flood Basin Tidegates, I was shocked to learn that the City of Palo Alto Mitigation tidegates are not currently functioning as designed. As a bit of history, prior to 1975 the City of Palo Alto violated its landfill permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The City had filled about 25 acres of wetlands without a permit. In conjunction with mitigating that violation, the City also requested permission to fill an additional 40 acres of wetlands. Altogether a total of ~65 acres of prime tidal wetlands would be lost. (It should be noted that the entire 137-acre landfill aka Byxbee Hills Park is on filled wetlands, much of which was done prior to adoption of the U.S. Clean Water Act.) In March 1975 the City prepared a draft Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Area EIR which identified two mitigation measures - one for the already filled wetlands and one for the proposed new fill. Those mitigation measures were: 1) pipes allowing tidal fluctuation in the lagoon adjacent to the Interpretive Center, and 2) Conversion of two of the 16 tidegates for the Flood Basin to allow very limited and closely controlled tidal fluctuation in the 600 acre Flood Control Basin to improve water quality and to encourage the growth of wetland habitat. The City Refuse Utility has a perpetual obligation to keep those tidegates functioning properly for the purposes specified. The City of Palo Alto Refuse Utility charged residents and businesses as much as $100,000/acre/year rent for use of dedicated parkland as landfill for FIFTY YEARS! Much of that revenue went to the General Fund. The City budget was heavily subsidized by that revenue. Please live up to our City’s mitigation responsibility. I hope the Council will follow up with the Refuse Utility and get them to repair the mitigation tidegates as soon as possible. The nesting season has begun and if the tidegates are malfunctioning, an entire season of nesting birds will be flooded out. Please instruct staff to fix the flexible tidegates pronto. Thanks. Emily Renzel Councilmember 1979-91, Planning Commissioner 1973-79 Information from Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Area Draft EIR, March 1975 From:Aram James To:Palo Alto Public Records Center; Gardener, Liz; Tanaka, Greg; Tannock, Julie; Veenker, Vicki; Emily Mibach;Braden Cartwright Subject:Re: City of Palo Alto Public Records Request :: W005799-041724 Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 9:58:33 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Thank you so much for your help. aram On Wed, Apr 17, 2024 at 9:42 AM Palo Alto Public Records Center <paloaltoca@mycusthelp.net> wrote: 04/17/2024 Dear Aram: The City of Palo Alto is dedicated and responsive to our community. Your request has been received and is being processed. Your request was given the reference number W005799-041724 for tracking purposes. Records Requested: Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, I'm requesting the following in relation to the Revised 2023-31 Housing Element: • A number of consultants that we are currently paying • their firms • when they were first hired • their hourly, the monthly, yearly rate • the total amount of money that has been paid to consultants. Your request will be forwarded to the relevant department(s) to locate the information you seek and to determine the volume and any costs associated with satisfying your request. You will be contacted about the availability and/or provided with copies of the records in question. You can monitor the progress of your request at the link below and you'll receive an email when your request has been completed. Thank you for using the Public Records Center. City of Palo Alto Track the issue status and respond at: https://paloaltoca.mycusthelp.com/WEBAPP//_rs/RequestEdit.aspx?rid=5799 From:Emily Renzel To:Council, City Cc:Shani Kleinhaus; McLaughlin, Eileen; Bobel, Phil Subject:Flood Basin Tidegate Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 9:29:09 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from marshmama2@att.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Mayor Stone and Members of the City Council: When I recently attended a Valley Water District meeting at the Palo Alto Flood Basin Tidegates, I was shocked to learn that the City of Palo Alto Mitigation tidegates are not currently functioning as designed. As a bit of history, prior to 1975 the City of Palo Alto violated its landfill permit issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The City had filled about 25 acres of wetlands without a permit. In conjunction with mitigating that violation, the City also requested permission to fill an additional 40 acres of wetlands. Altogether a total of ~65 acres of prime tidal wetlands would be lost. (It should be noted that the entire 137-acre landfill aka Byxbee Hills Park is on filled wetlands, much of which was done prior to adoption of the U.S. Clean Water Act.) In March 1975 the City prepared a draft Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Area EIR which identified two mitigation measures - one for the already filled wetlands and one for the proposed new fill. Those mitigation measures were: 1) pipes allowing tidal fluctuation in the lagoon adjacent to the Interpretive Center, and 2) Conversion of two of the 16 tidegates for the Flood Basin to allow very limited and closely controlled tidal fluctuation in the 600 acre Flood Control Basin to improve water quality and to encourage the growth of wetland habitat. The City Refuse Utility has a perpetual obligation to keep those tidegates functioning properly for the purposes specified. The City of Palo Alto Refuse Utility charged residents and businesses as much as $100,000/acre/year rent for use of dedicated parkland as landfill for FIFTY YEARS! Much of that revenue went to the General Fund. The City budget was heavily subsidized by that revenue. Please live up to our City’s mitigation responsibility. I hope the Council will follow up with the Refuse Utility and get them to repair the mitigation tidegates as soon as possible. The nesting season has begun and if the tidegates are malfunctioning, an entire season of nesting birds will be flooded out. Please instruct staff to fix the flexible tidegates pronto. Thanks. Emily RenzelCouncilmember 1979-91, Planning Commissioner 1973-79 Information from Palo Alto Refuse Disposal Area Draft EIR, March 1975 From:Marlene Strauss To:Council, City Subject:Make the Cal Ave. Pedestrian/Bike Tunnel Safe Again Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 8:58:20 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from marlene.strauss@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members: As an avid walker and longtime Palo Alto resident, I have been dodging bikes, skateboardsand even electric motor bikes in the California Avenue Pedestrian/Bike Tunnel for over 30 years. With new designs in the works for both the closure of California Ave. and also for railgrade separations, now is an opportune time to develop a better plan for pedestrian/bike traffic at Cal Ave. and Alma. The tunnel has never been a walk in the park for pedestrians, but over the years the space hasbecome more hazardous. Very few bicyclists dismount when traveling through the tunnel, even though signs at both ends of the tunnel clearly instruct them to do so. As the number ofbikes continues to rise, risk to pedestrians increases as well. The tunnel barriers have been "improved" at least twice since the 1980’s. The barriers of 35 years ago were designed so that bicyclists had to dismount to pass through them. Twosubsequent redesigns have accommodated faster and faster bike speeds. Minimum safety protocol for a tunnel that narrow requires the separation of bikers and walkers. Besides potential injuries and lawsuits, why subject walkers to such unpleasantness?And by the way, tunnel aesthetics, which this letter does not address, rate a 1 out of 10. Please consider creating a new traffic plan for bikers and pedestrians at California Ave. and Alma apriority. Thank you! Respectfully, Marlene Strauss2885 South Ct Palo Alto From:Charlie Weidanz To:Council, City Subject:Town & Country Village Supporting Our Schools with Family Giving Tree, NBC, and Telemundo Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 8:03:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Supporting Our Schools Backpack Drive with Town & Country Village, Family Giving Tree, NBC Bay Area, & Telemundo In a time when the cost of living feels higher than ever, Town & Country Village is excited to once again host the annual Supporting Our Schools initiative with Family Giving Tree, NBC Bay Area, and Telemundo on Thursday, April 25th from 2-6pm near The Penny Ice Creamery. Shockingly, nearly half of all Bay Area families are considered low—or very low-income. That means that this time of year they are faced with difficult decisions. Decisions like choosing between buying your child school clothes or buying them school supplies. These dilemmas are what Supporting Our Schools aims to alleviate with this initiative. Framed as a “family-friendly happy hour,” the event will feature a community “build” where volunteers prepare kits to be included in backpacks that will be distributed during Family Giving Trees’ 2024 Back-to-School Drive. Here are all the fun activities and freebies to enjoy: Face Painting Glitter tattoos Balloon Artists Games and STEM-related resources from The Tech Interactive Freebies and promotions from your favorite Town & Country Village shops Guest Speakers from the community, including the Mayor of Palo Alto, Greer Stone and East Palo Alto’s Police Chief, Jeff Liu Event Info Supporting Our Schools Promo This email was sent on behalf of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce 355 Alma St Palo Alto, CA 94301.To unsubscribe clickhere. If you have questions or comments concerning this email or services in general, please contact us by email at info@paloaltochamber.com. From:appeal.bryan.gobin@gmail.com To:"Aram James"; bnetanyahu@knesset.gov.il; udi.mokady@cyber-ark.com; ehershenov@adl.org;jgreenblatt@adl.org; klmarcus@brandeiscenter.com; dersh@law.harvard.edu; Stuchman@zoa.org Cc:"Baker, Rob"; Council, City; "D Martell"; "Daniel Kottke"; "DuJuan Green"; "EPA Today"; "Ed Lauing"; "Friends of Cubberley"; "Jack Ajluni"; "Jay Boyarsky"; "Jeff Moore"; "Josh Becker"; "Julie Lythcott-Haims"; "Karen Holman"; Gardener, Liz; "Lotus Fong"; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; "Palo Alto Free Press"; Bains, Paul; "Paul George @ PPJC"; "Roberta Ahlquist"; "Rosen, Jeff"; "Salem Ajluni"; "Sean Allen"; "Tom DuBois"; "Vicki Veenker"; Perron, Zachary; nesaias@usc.edu; marcohay@usc.edu; adawiya@usc.edu; sespino@usc.edu; sri.narayan@usc.edu; bkim@usc.edu; ignon@usc.edu; crush@usc.edu; prenger@usc.edu; jeff.chemerinsky@gmail.com; YHsu@perkinscoie.com; YQiu@perkinscoie.com; "Supervisor Susan Ellenberg"; Steve.Mazer@calbar.ca.gov; tblacknell@da.lacounty.gov; JiWang@perkinscoie.com; dbharath@ap.org; matt@wdx.che; cgeer@reviewjournal.com; rvelotta@reviewjournal.com; michael.hiltzik@latimes.com; ashley.powers@latimes.com; jean.lee@nbcuni.com; simone.weichselbaum@nbcuni.com; jaweed.kaleem@latimes.com; nesaias@usc.edu; marcohay@usc.edu; adawiya@usc.edu; sespino@usc.edu; sri.narayan@usc.edu; bkim@usc.edu; ignon@usc.edu; crush@usc.edu; glater@berkeley.edu; gerry.rosberg@columbia.edu; ebarnaby@barnard.edu; TBailey@tc.columbia.edu; ckromm@columbia.edu; sarah.huddleston@columbiaspectator.com; Anemona.Hartocollis@nytimes.com; Stephanie.Saul@nytimes.com; Nicholas.Fandos@nytimes.com; Alan.Blinder@nytimes.com; Karoun.Demirjian@nytimes.com; Liam.Stack@nytimes.com; sellers.hill@thecrimson.com; nia.orakwue@thecrimson.com; jack.trapanick@thecrimson.com; claire.yuan@thecrimson.com; miles.herszenhorn@thecrimson.com; cam.kettles@thecrimson.com; michelle.amponsah@thecrimson.com; anemona@nytimes.com; joyce.kim@thecrimson.com; matt.barnum@wsj.com; annabelle.timsit@washpost.com; raoul.simons@telegraph.co.uk; erica.green@nytimes.com; anemona@nytimes.com; liptaka@nytimes.com; katie.benner@nytimes.com; jenny.jarvie@latimes.com; kiara.alfonseca@abcnews.com; ssenne@ap.org; mcasey@ap.org; Paradise.Afshar@cnn.com Subject:CANCEL USC valedictorian | Adelson"s $180M reasons | USC can"t cope w/blowhard Zionist billionaire"s MacauMoolah! Date:Wednesday, April 17, 2024 3:13:29 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from appeal.bryan.gobin@gmail.com. Learn whythis is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Aram, Here is my USC research page RE Adelson’s Veto on the Valedictorian. I should add that I risked and ended up being jailed for BLOCKING the abusive public defender from subpoenaing my USC physician for the purpose of discrediting her and harassing her. But of course, CALBAR won’t hold Monica Roman Perez (public defender) to account because they are Govi Gavi’s tool for enforcing Angeles Apartheid. Those on the TO line of course support Angeles Apartheid. USC’s Cancellor in Chief--Miriam Adelson-Holocaust Hobbyist, Promoter of Jew-Hating Trumpism, Fascist, Democracy-hater (in US & Israel), No Free Speech The university did not simply betray the valedictorian by CANCELING her over bogus bloated- billionaire Hasbara propaganda Hate! USC is NOT fit to be called an American institution---USC sold out its students, faculty, staff, heritage, VALUES, and credibility…over security? Are you kidding me? Some tiny young woman is so powerful she’s gonna cause the commencement to call for counter- terrorist backup like the Claremont Colleges (see below)? Thanks for sharing the article about USC selling out so cheaply to Zionist Overlord Miriam Adelson and some other board members, including Steven Spielberg, who apparently posing a security threat with his new movie, Bibi’s List, E.T. Don’t Get to Phone Home from Rafah. Yes, Spielberg’s Shoa foundation is using the dreadful IHRA definition of anti-semitism to crank up counterfeit-claims of anti-semitism so Zionists like Udi Mokady and Alan Dershowitz and the To Line can live a peaceful life in America but condemn their fellow Jews to Forever Wars and the Holocaust in the Holy Land that they are responsible for…and their warmongers and colonial-imperial thugs like Blitzkrieg Blinken, Genocide Joe, and Kabbala Harris. I pulled the list of board members—and the governance rules amended in Dec 2023---Why? Reading between the lines, the WASPs at USC thought they could take the “new money” on the westside without strings attached---but NOW they see the $180 million for USC’s Diplomacy school of Birthright-apartheid travel to israel apparently has strings attached---along with the rest of the ‘new’ money, which as we see in the Harvard example, is just dirty money laundered for research…Hopkins and AJC have a common board member who is primitive SBF—“Cash-for-Gold” Mr. Arenson—who is the reason why a lot of hospitals like Chester-Crozer are now disasters after having once been outstanding community hospitals. Yes—I will say KKR is nothing but a Chop-Shop---Asset-Strippers like Zell destroyed American newspapers—and who had No club in Palm Beach until Trump opened one and let them in….and like Adelson, the Zell abomination does NOT represent Judaism. They are chip-on-their-should, inferiority-complex, self-hating Jews who have a country club they call the ADL-Holocaust-Racketeering organization---Remember our DA candidate’s Papa is Bruce Hochman, the ADL-spymaster and pro-apartheid promoter who handed over the names of Jewish- Americans to the Apartheid South African authorities…As Joan Rivers famously said, “Fck the ADL,” they don’t give a fck about civil rights—they are a NAKED-POWER-GRABBING group of thugs who are neither friend to America nor friend to Jews in Palestine…they want a security state in the USA just like Israel. All Bibi has to do is just give the Palestinians the right to Vote---NEVER---NEVER---There is a literal connection from Bill Buckley’s 1957 article about “Why the South must Prevail” to present-day Bibi and the global authoritarian problem we face today…The opposite is Ukraine. Zelenskyy is NOT supported because he’s NOT fascist! He’s not a Putin-MBS-Orban Pal… I stand with Zelenskyy. Anybody who wants to debate me on Anti-semitism will find out that I will fcking destroy you. I am Goldstein. I am Better than you are…USC is a dumpster school for selling out America like we’re some cheap whore in Adelson’s Venetian Macau. See links below Aram et al. Thanks again for sending the note…. USC’s Cancellor in Chief--Miriam Adelson-Holocaust Hobbyist, Promoter of Jew-Hating Trumpism, Fascist, Democracy-hater (in US & Israel), No Free Speech Silence of the Lambs - Bibi – Hamas is Scapegoat, Hostages Sacrificial Lambs, The Goal is Forever War-Crush Opposition to Bibi; Kill All Palestinians Bibi’s Trust Confidante & Kushner Pal – National Security Advisor Ben-Shabbat says Wipe them all Out; All hamas; All of Gaza; All of the Inhabitants of Gaza—Don’t STOP until they Drop Dead or Be Gone! Harvard’s Greatest Cartoon Controversy– Altman’s Jewbot ChatGPT and Muhammed Ali Belt Zionism!—Dean & Prez Cry! Cancel Jews against Apartheid & Holocaustingalong with other Pro-American values e.g. Racial Miniorities, Twofer-Black-female President—Ackman’s Whatsapp 50-billionaire Group goes Gangbusters! Israel’s Zionist war on College Campuses and Assault on American Education Campus Case Studies-Zionists Assault on Academic Freedom and Students in Israel & America *** Israel’s War on Trees, Holodomor (Siege Starvation Stalin-style) and Little RockArkansas (same land area as the Gaza Strip) *** Research Page: Why Terrorism Works for Zionists, but Not for Palestinians For the Occupation regime on CC: Your APARTHEID FACT OF THE DAY (about the LASD & Klanifornia)… OCCUPIED WEST SIDE | Sponsored by Republicans Democrats Criminal Conviction Rates:California 97%| U.S. Federal Courts 99%| RUSSIA 99% | Occupied Palestine Sham Courts 99.99% Zionists Order Student Arrests at Claremont Colleges /Bibi's War on Trees / Stop the S.S. Warmongers (Joe Biden & Kabbala Harris & Blitzkrieg Blinken) Zionists arresting students, threatening to bump off non-compliant presidents—Pomona caves… Perkins-Coie and OliverWyman supplying Zionist thugs waging war on campus and American Education-- -Looks Like the Zionist that had me arrested and nearly assassinated twice are going full- Gaza on Peaceful Sit-ins…Proving their Insanity and Contempt for Human life and endangerment by use of Riot Police on Peaceful Students--These pathetic thugs believe ANY means justify their SS Ends just like Carl Schmitt-Lawless, Malignant Narcissistic Sociopaths.. *** Riot Police Assault peaceful Campus-Sit-in----Zionist Overlords rule the day---Black Prez-I ain’t getting fired like Harvard’s Claudine Gay! Orders ARRESTS of Students engaged in Peaceful Sit-in - ARMY OF RIOT POLICE, GRENADE LAUNCHERS *** My Criminal Gangster Goldstein MAIN PAGE: Skipworth & CPD Conspiracy | Claremont Colleges | Krooked HK Kounsel *** Chief SKIPWORTH Dedicated Page [just Skipworth's LIES & LIBEL] My Linkedin Profile-Connect with O.G. Goldstein on Orwell’s 1984 Occupied Westside Claremont College Board members Sam Glick (oliverwyman) and Paul Eckstein(Perkins coie) tell black president Gabby Starr, “We will lynch your black-a*s like wedid Harvard’s first-last Ni**ga-Bi*tch Claudine Gay unless you do our bidding! WhitePower!” Apparently “House Negro” rules require following The Israel SS orders issuedby general Klousel Yael at StandwithUS-Nazis based in LA-where the DA Klandidate isthe scion of Bruce Hochman, mobster tax lawyer, ADL spymaster & S.Africa Aparthiedpromoter, and general villain! ...You know, just like Trump has enablers, so do the thugZionists ordering arrests of students in Claremont CA, Columbia, Vanderbilt and elsewhere….Get OUT of Gaza NOW-----Get OUT of Ukraine NOW! ---and Get out of theWH Blitzkrieg Blinken & Genocide Joe unless you act on this message----If you trying to be Hitler---then we’ll vote for the real thing and accept our fate. – Goldstein, OG on the Westside—Orwell ‘84 From: Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:31 PM To: Supervisor Susan Ellenberg <supervisor.ellenberg@bos.sccgov.org> Cc: Baker, Rob <rbaker@dao.sccgov.org>; Bryan Gobin <appeal.bryan.gobin@gmail.com>; CityCouncil <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; D Martell <dmpaloalto@gmail.com>; Daniel Kottke <daniel.k@earthlink.net>; DuJuan Green <dujuang@sbcglobal.net>; EPA Today <epatoday@epatoday.org>; Ed Lauing <elauing@equitysearchpartners.com>; Friends of Cubberley <friendsofcubberley94303@gmail.com>; Jack Ajluni <jaxpolo@gmail.com>; Jay Boyarsky <jboyarsky@dao.sccgov.org>; Jeff Moore <moore2j@att.net>; Josh Becker <becker.josh@gmail.com>; Julie Lythcott-Haims <julieforpaloalto@gmail.com>; Karen Holman <rsvp.paloalto.2022@gmail.com>; Liz Gardner <Gardnerjaqua@gmail.com>; Lotus Fong <lyfong@pacbell.net>; Minka Van Der Zwaag, <minka.vanderzwaag@cityofpaloalto.org>; Palo Alto Free Press <paloaltofreepress@gmail.com>; Paul Bains <pbains7@projectwehope.com>; Paul George @ PPJC <peaceandjusticecenter@gmail.com>; Roberta Ahlquist <roberta.ahlquist@sjsu.edu>; Rosen, Jeff <JRosen@dao.sccgov.org>; Salem Ajluni <ajluni@hotmail.com>; Sean Allen <sallen6444@yahoo.com>; Tom DuBois <tom.dubois@gmail.com>; Vicki Veenker <admin@siblingcitiesusa.org>; zachary.perron@cityofpaloalto.org Subject: USC valedictorian’s grad speech is canceled: ‘The university has betrayed me’ USC valedictorian’s grad speech is canceled: ‘The university has betrayed me’ https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-16/usc-valedictorian-banned-graduation-speech From:Aram James To:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg Cc:Baker, Rob; Bryan Gobin; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; DuJuan Green; EPA Today; Ed Lauing; Friends of Cubberley; Jack Ajluni; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Karen Holman; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Palo Alto Free Press; Bains, Paul; Paul George @ PPJC; Roberta Ahlquist; Rosen, Jeff; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Tom DuBois; Vicki Veenker; Perron, Zachary Subject:USC valedictorian’s grad speech is canceled: ‘The university has betrayed me’ Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:30:59 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. USC valedictorian’s grad speech is canceled: ‘The university has betrayed me’ https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-16/usc-valedictorian-banned-graduation- speech From:Pat Frankenfield To:Council, City Subject:Save PA Square Movie Theaters Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 5:01:31 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from pvfrankenfield@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. This is a no brainer! With the demise of the Guild in Menlo Park, Palo Alto is left with no nearby movie theaters. Saving PA Square is a must! Pat Frankenfield From:Hal Prince To:Council, City Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:38:09 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from hal@aya.yale.edu. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ City Council, Re agenda item #12 (Historical Resources Inventory): 1) We appreciate the fact that our property (211 Middlefield Rd) is NOT on the recommended list, because of our objection. 2) We are concerned that any list of properties "eligible for inclusion" could result in some differential treatment in the future. Therefore, we request that the council and the HRB NOT keep such a list. Sincerely, Hal Prince and Carolyn Godfrey From:Keri Wagner To:Council, City Cc:Keri Wagner Subject:Separated rail crossings at East Meadow and Charleston in South Palo Alto Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 2:00:58 PM [This sender might be impersonating a domain that's associated with your organization. Learn why this could be a risk at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clickingon links.________________________________ Dear Palo Alto City Council Members, I am unable to attend or listen to the Rail Committee meeting today. I have spoken at many of the prior meetings onthe topic of grade separations for East Meadow and Charleston. My neighborhood, Charleston Meadows, would be impacted negatively and severely by a viaduct along Alma. Ourneighborhood has spoken out multiple times about why we categorically oppose a viaduct along Alma. The consultant’s noise analysis was incomplete and poorly conducted, and it was not based on an accurate mappingof our neighborhood streets or homes. The initial analysis is invalid. Any plan must conduct a proper noise analysis. As I have mentioned many times in public comment, there is not a single separated bike/pedestrian crossing inSouth Palo Alto. There are currently four in North Palo Alto (Cal Ave, Embarcadero, Forest/PAMF, andUniversity), with a 5th crossing planned near Paly High School. We need at least one separated crossing in SouthPalo Alto regardless of the rail separation design chosen, and we need this is place as soon as possible and definitelybefore construction begins. I am frustrated knowing that South Palo Alto, especially my neighborhood of Charleston Meadows, must bear everynegative impact resulting from a viaduct. I am angry that bikes and pedestrians in South Palo Alto are continuouslyde-prioritized for safety improvements along our roads and rail crossings. Particularly upsetting is the fact that somany of our students walk and bike to school, including many Gunn High School students who MUST cross Almaand the railroad tracks twice daily. South Palo Alto deserves at least one single protected and separated crossing for bikes and pedestrians as soon aspossible. I appreciate your time and attention to this overlooked problem. Thank you for your time and the work you do for our City. Keri Wagner311 Edlee Ave, Palo Alto From:Katherine Clark To:Council, City Cc:Larry Clark Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:50:10 PM Attachments:Letter to PA dated 4.16.2024 re 555 Center.docx Some people who received this message don't often get email from kclark@clarklaw.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please see letter of today’s date attached. Thank you. Katherine Clark Lawrence & Katherine Clark 555 Center Drive Palo Alto, CA 94301 April 16, 2024 TO: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org SUBJECT: 4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you as trustee-owners of 555 Center Drive who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION • To add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. o In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. o As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. o An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. o This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. o Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. o For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. o In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. o Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Katherine S. Clark ( kclark@clarklaw.com ) Lawrence M. Clark (lclark@creditcorp.com ) From:Yayoi Izumi To:Council, City Subject:Bike Safety wrt Rail Grade Separation Project Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:46:34 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from yayoi.izumi@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I am writing to you with regards to the rail grade separation project to be discussed at the RailCommittee meeting today, April 16. I am particularly concerned with the overall lack of attention given to bicycle and pedestrian safety in most of the proposed plans. With themajority of Gunn High School students commuting by bike and having to cross Alma at either Meadow or Charleston, and with the project slated to take at least 4 years, it is vital that 1. weprovide them safe passage via bike tunnels in South Palo Alto before the construction begins and 2. consider a bike path separated from train and car traffic in all of these designs. Thankyou. Sincerely, Yayoi Izumi From:Joe Caroselli To:Council, City Subject:Rail Project: Vital Safety Considerations for Students and Community Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:45:21 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jcarosel@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Members, I am writing to express my deep concern about the lack of emphasis on bicycle and pedestrian safety within the current rail grade separation project proposals. Considering the high number of Gunn High School students who commute via bicycle and the project's expected 4-year timeline, taking the following actions is imperative: 1. Establish safe bicycle tunnels in South Palo Alto prior to the start of construction. 2. Incorporate separated bike paths into all project designs to safeguard both students and community members. Please prioritize the wellbeing of our students and community by addressing these vital safety considerations. Sincerely, Joseph Caroselli 3467 Ramona St, Palo Alto, CA 94306 (650)283-4408 From:Aslihan Biyikoglu To:Council, City Subject:Concerns over railroad crossings Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:38:34 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from ab.design@outlook.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear Council Members, We are deeply concerned about the dire need of safe crossing on our railroad crossings. The ongoing project has been stalled for 14yrs. Our kids safety is put at risk every day that this project is delayed. We urge you to take the necessary steps to expedite and finalize the project. Best, Aslihan From:Gretchen Harding To:Council, City Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:35:29 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from gretchen.harding@gmail.com. Learn why thisis important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, We are writing to you as property owners at 336 Byron Street who have objected to being on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory regarding Item #12 - City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE SUPPORT STAFF’S RECOMMENDATION Add the 16 properties who have “affirmatively requested” to be on the City’s Historical Resources Inventory. WE ASK THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF 1. Remove objecting properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, “(a) the nominations process, to clarify: the HRB does not forward ‘objections’ properties to the City Council for listing on the inventory, but these objections properties do remain eligible for local listing should the owner wish to request that Council place the property on the local inventory at a later date (subject to documentation of the ongoing integrity of the resource)”. As property owners we have objected to being on the Historical Inventory and therefore we do not want to remain on the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list. An “eligible for Historical Inventory” list is a new categorization that may be used to restrict owner rights in the future and could easily confuse property buyers who seek clarity and predictability in real estate processes. The “eligible” for Historical Inventory list serves no useful purpose for owners who have objected to being on the inventory list and an owner should agree in writing to remaining on the “eligible” list. 2. Update the PAMC 16.49 (Historical Ordinance) similarly to Mt. View Ordinance, an application for Historical Inventory listing "will be processed only if the property owner agrees in writing to such designation”. This would avoid today’s lengthy process which is unwarranted, burdensome, and time consuming. Both the HRB and the Council are not overruling the property owner’s objection. Of the 99 properties who responded: 84% objected (83) and 16% affirmative (16). 47 properties have not responded. For Objectors in the City’s present-day Historical Inventory process it has been a stressful and agonizing 1 year so far starting with one of two community meetings to get information, followed by one of three HRB meetings based on our property grouping, then the meeting with all the Objectors, reviewing the survey information on our property and creating a response, sending in an objection letter, some Objectors met with staff, and now we are here today. In the staff report for HRB, April 11th 2023 mentioned earlier, regarding the future HRB work plan - PAMC 16.49 modifications, the HRB could discuss language needed to provide clarifications, the same process as today is asserted “submitting a written statement if the owner objects” and “HRB does not forward ‘objections” properties to City Council for listing on the inventory…”. Requiring the owner’s agreement provides clarity and predictability for property buyers, eliminates the fear of government overreach, and addresses the concern of arbitrary and capricious interpretation of a home as historic. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Gretchen and Mike Harding -- Gretchen Hardingc:) 650-296-1322 From:Sanjay Sharma To:PlannerOnDuty; pdsdirector Cc:Council, City Subject:Re: ATT is putting big metal box for Fiber in our backyard without permission Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:26:42 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from s2sha@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Photo attached. On Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 01:24:58 PM PDT, Sanjay Sharma <s2sha@yahoo.com> wrote: Hello, City Planning Department, I am the homeowner at 270 Campesino Ave., Palo Alto CA 94306. This is to bring to your attention that ATT is putting a metal box for fiber right behind my property. Photo attached. I understand that this is a city easement but nobody asked for our permission and started digging right behind our backyard. We are planning to build an ADU and this is where we were planning to build a door for an ADU entrance and now this box is right behind our backyard. I sincerely request ATT to remove this box and place it somewhere else. There is a lot of land in Palo Alto, just not in our backyard. I don’t even know the long- term effect of this box on our health and well-being. I hope you act on it promptly and take care of it. Thanks. Sanjay Sharma (Owner) 270 Campesino Ave. Palo Alo CA 94306. From:Niklas Klemmer To:City Mgr; Info, Plandiv; PWD; Council, City Subject:Request for Information on Measures to Prevent Caltrain-Related Fatalities Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:25:36 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from 815518@seq.org. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto Board of Supervisors, I hope this message finds you well. As a journalist from the local M-A Chronicle High School Paper, I am writing to inquire about the current and planned infrastructure measures to preventfatalities related to Caltrain operations within Palo Alto. Could you please provide detailed information on the following: Existing Safety Measures: What specific infrastructure or initiatives are currently implemented to ensure the safety of residents and commuters in relation to Caltrainoperations? Future Plans: Are any upcoming projects or enhancements intended to reduce further risksassociated with Caltrain? If so, could you provide details on what these involve and the timelines for their implementation?Community Response: Has any infrastructure or safety measures been put in place as a direct response to community petitions or concerns regarding Caltrain safety? If yes, I wouldappreciate specifics on these actions and how they align with community requests. Additional Comments: Any further comments or insights you would like to share would begreatly appreciated. Your perspectives are invaluable to understanding our community's broader context and ongoing efforts. Understanding these points will significantly aid in comprehending the breadth and depth of our community's response to Caltrain-related safety concerns. Thank you in advance for yourattention to this matter and your continued commitment to the safety and well-being of our community. Warm regards, Niklas Klemmer Menlo-Atherton High School Class of 2026 This is a student email account managed by the Sequoia Union High School District. The contents of this email are governed by the laws of the State of California and the board policies of the school district. For abuse, misuse, or objectionable content concerns, please contact abuse@seq.org. From:Sanjay Sharma To:PlannerOnDuty; pdsdirector Cc:Council, City Subject:ATT is putting big metal box for Fiber in our backyard without permission Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:25:03 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from s2sha@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, City Planning Department, I am the homeowner at 270 Campesino Ave., Palo Alto CA 94306. This is to bring to your attention that ATT is putting a metal box for fiber right behind my property. Photo attached. I understand that this is a city easement but nobody asked for our permission and started digging right behind our backyard. We are planning to build an ADU and this is where we were planning to build a door for an ADU entrance and now this box is right behind our backyard. I sincerely request ATT to remove this box and place it somewhere else. There is a lot of land in Palo Alto, just not in our backyard. I don’t even know the long- term effect of this box on our health and well-being. I hope you act on it promptly and take care of it. Thanks. Sanjay Sharma (Owner) 270 Campesino Ave. Palo Alo CA 94306. From:Carol Bly To:Council, City Subject:Comment on: Charleston/Meadow grade-separation designs Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 1:20:01 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from cbly@blyhome.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council members, My family has lived in the Charleston Meadows neighborhood for 40 years. We read about possible rail crossing options, urging you to eliminate the raised options from your consideration and to approve the trench or underpass option. I canvassed our neighborhood explaining the situation to my neighbors and collected signatures. We were very relieved when the viaduct option was removed from consideration. We felt that our time and efforts in participating in the process were respected and considered. It is infuriating, now, to hear that is being disregarded, and you are again considering the viaduct option. This shows a tremendous disregard for the value of residents’ time and concerns. A decision cannot and must not be based on choosing the lowest cost.The option chosen will be legacy infrastructure that will be visible long after we are all gone. A solution must be found that is effective and visually appealing. Large concrete viaducts and overpasses are ugly and are not compatible with a residential neighborhood in a green community. Palo Alto would be embarrassed and ashamedby such a structure and future generations will wonder how a city of smart engineers let this happen. Our neighborhood has been engaged in this process from the beginning.Theoverwhelming majority of residents oppose a raised option. We submitted a Petition early in this process with 600 signatures in support of the trench and tunnel options and in opposition to the raised rail options. That opposition has not waned. Neighbors havesubmitted letters and spoken at every stage in the process to the point of exhaustion. It was our impression that the XCAP members favored the trench design but wereconcerned about the cost estimate prepared by the consultant. Significantquestions were raised about the accuracy of the cost estimate of the trench option vis-a-vis the raised options. Similar trench projects have been built in other locations, at much, much lower costs. Many residents feel that the consultants went into thisproject intent on pushing an elevated option and that the stark cost differential between the raised options and the trench reflects that bias. An independent cost review is needed to have any confidence in the analysis. There has never been an adequate noise analysis. The consultants only addressed noise level for the two rows of houses closest to the track, which represent a very small component of the affected homes. Their report assumed that two- story homes would buffer noise beyond thesecond row of houses. Clearly, the consultants' analysis is misinformed. Had they visited the neighborhood, or done any research at all, they would have learned that there is a one-storyoverlay over much of the neighborhood. There are very few two-story homes and none is located where they will buffer noise for the affected area. The noise analysis is sloppy, inaccurate andinvalid. I live in one of the few two-story homes in the neighborhood. My house is approximately 2 and ½ blocks from the tracks. The train noise is much louder on oursecond story where there is nothing to buffer it than it is downstairs. An elevated train would affect all the homes in the neighborhood in this fashion; there would be nothing to buffer the noise for many, many blocks in both directions. We urge you to remove the raised options from consideration. They are unsightly and strongly disfavored bythe public. Sincerely, Carol and Jim Bly 261 Edlee Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:Steven Chanin To:Council, City Subject:4/22 PACC Meeting, Item #12 - Historical Resources Inventory Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:59:18 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from steven_chanin@me.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, I’m a Palo Alto resident (857 Waverley St) who has friends who are concerned about havingtheir homes designated as historical resources. It doesn’t seem fair to me for the City to designate privately-owned homes as historical resources without the consent of the owners. That designation imposes significant limitationson the improvements they (or future buyers) would be able to make and impairs the value of the home as a result. Preserving older homes owned by residents who agree to that designation sounds totally fine. As I understand the issue, the next steps that I would hope the council takes are: 1) Add the sixteen properties to the City’s Historical Resources Inventory whose owners have“affirmatively requested” that designation. 2) Remove properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list whose owners have declined the designation (simply being on that list could impair the resale value of thosehomes). 3) Continue outreach to the homeowners on the "eligible for Historical Inventory” list who have not responded to the city's requests on the issue, seeking one of the two outcomes above. 4) Create a new application for homeowners who wish to be on the "eligible for HistoricalInventory” list, so future buyers of these (and other) homes might consider being included in the City's Historical Resources Inventory (opt-in, rather than opt-out). Thanks for your time & effort on this issue. Thanks, Steve _____________________ Steven Chanin steven_chanin@alum.mit.edu 857 Waverly St Palo Alto, CA 94301 (415) 377-7503 From:George Jaquette To:Council, City Subject:Historical Resources Inventory input (4/22 City Council Meeting, item 12) Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:44:25 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jaquette@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Honorable City Council Members, I would like to share my input with the Council concerning the City’s Historical Resources Inventory review process, as it has affected a few close friends quite adversely. It is to me quite an over-reach for the City to designate privately-owned homes as historical resources, since that designation comes with considerable limitations on improvements to those properties and consequently impairs the value of those homes. The quest to preserve older properties should focus on those homeowners who are seeking the designation, and should not create expense or burden for those who have expressly declined the city's proposed designation. My recommendations: 1. Add the sixteen properties to the City’s Historical Resources Inventory whose owners have “affirmatively requested” that designation;2. Remove properties from the “eligible for Historical Inventory” list whose owners have declined the designation (simply being on that list could impair the resale value of those homes); 3. Continue outreach to the homeowners on the "eligible for Historical Inventory” list who have not responded to the city's requests on the issue, seeking one of the two outcomes above; 4. Create a new application for homeowners who wish to be on the "eligible for Historical Inventory” list, so future buyers of these (and other) homes might consider being included in the City's Historical Resources Inventory (opt-in, rather than opt-out). Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, George Jaquette Palo Alto resident, parent, volunteer -- "Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work."Thomas Edison From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Daniel Kottke; Ed Lauing; GreerStone; Greg Tanaka; Jeff Moore; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Gardener, Liz; Sean Allen; Supervisor SusanEllenberg; Lee, Craig; cromero@cityofepa.org; Figueroa, Eric Cc:Angel, David; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Wagner, April; Cait James; Dave Price; Diana Diamond; Emily Mibach; Friends of Cubberley; Human Relations Commission; JIM MINKLER1; Jack Ajluni; Joe Simitian; Kaloma Smith; Lewis james; Linda Jolley; Lotus Fong; MGR-Melissa Stevenson Diaz; Michelle; Zelkha, Mila; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Palo Alto Free Press; Reifschneider, James; Salem Ajluni; Supervisor Otto Lee; Vara Ramakrishnan; Vicki Veenker; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; district1@bos.sccgov.org; editor@paweekly.com; Tannock, Julie Subject:Yanis Varoufakis Banned from Germany as Berlin Police Raid & Shut Down Palestinian Conference Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:23:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Yanis Varoufakis Banned from Germany as Berlin Police Raid & Shut Down Palestinian Conference https://www.democracynow.org/2024/4/16/germany_palestine From:Lorrin M Koran To:Council, City Subject:Please don"t close the PA Square CinéArts movie theatre Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:47:14 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from lkoran@stanford.edu. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council members, With Covid much less prevalent and both better vaccines and better treatments soon to be available, people now are returning to movie theatres, and can be expected to do so in even greater numbers once the new treatments are available. Live attendance at a movie is a wonderful cultural experience and stress reliever and adds to the quality of one's life. Please don't diminish these contributions to Palo Alto's quality of life by allowing the profit motive to overwhelm health-oriented motives. The closure decades ago of the theatre on University Avenue was a tragic loss; please don't add to its negative impact on Palo Alto residents. Sincerely, Lorrin Koran, M.D. From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Wagner, April; Binder, Andrew; Council, City; Ed Lauing; Enberg, Nicholas;Human Relations Commission; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Rosen; Kaloma Smith; Gardener, Liz; Reifschneider, James;Robert. Jonsen; Shikada, Ed; Vicki Veenker; Perron, Zachary; citycouncil@mountainview.gov; Figueroa, Eric;Tannock, Julie; kenneth.Binder@shf.sccgov.org; Foley, Michael Subject:Audit: Palo Alto officer disciplined for ‘coverup’ of violent Buena Vista arrest Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:22:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Audit: Palo Alto officer disciplined for ‘coverup’ of violent Buena Vista arrest https://www.paloaltoonline.com/express-newsletter-content/2024/04/15/audit-palo-alto- officer-disciplined-for-coverup-of-violent-buena-vista-arrest/ From:Susan Phinney Silver To:Council, City Subject:Re: Charleston/Meadow Rail Grade separation options. Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:16:57 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from phinneysilver@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Rail Committee Members, I am writing to strongly support the underpass design for the East Meadow and Charlestoncrossings. This is the only option that preserves the integrity of the residential neighborhoods in this part of Palo Alto. I urge you to reject the elevated options such as the hybrid or viaduct, which will create apermanent and destructive eyesore overshadowing our neighborhoods. We hope you will equally consider the integrity and visual impact on our South Palo Alto neighborhoods. Susan Phinney Silvercell 650-400-3971 On Tue, Apr 16, 2024 at 9:30 AM Jim Silver <jsilver94306@gmail.com> wrote: Dear City Council Rail Committee Members, I am writing to you about the remaining grade separation options at Charleston/Meadow, which is very close to my house. Please continue to reject elevated options such as thehybrid or viaduct, which will divide the city and be an eyesore for the next century. This will also disrupt the privacy of homes near the train, many of which are Eichlers and havelarge glass windows on the ground floor. I strongly support the underpass design. To further improve this design, the upcoming engineering work must reduce the need for property acquisitions, thereby improving thefavorability of this option. This engineering study must also reduce impacts to Park Blvd traffic. Safe bike routes, such as a bike tunnel or bridge near El Carmelo must also be implementedbefore construction begins, otherwise hundreds of Gunn High and Fletcher Middle school students will have no safe way to ride their bikes to school, which would in turn causesignificant traffic increases. Thanks for your consideration, James Silver 45 Roosevelt CirclePalo Alto From:Chien Liu To:Council, City; Clerk, City Cc:chien_liu@att.net Subject:Rail Committee Meeting: April 16, 2024: Public Comment Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 11:11:03 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from chien_liu@att.net. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links.Dear Committee Members: My name is Chien Liu and I am a resident of Palo Alto. After several years of listening to the issues on the Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossings, I recommend that the crossing be installed on Seale Avenue. My reason are: Recommendations for Seale Avenue Bicycle and Pedestrian Crossing: 1. Abundance of Space currently exist on Seale on both sides of the train tracks: a. there are currently existing space along both sides of the train tracks, these are spaces that will prove invaluable to a robust crossing 2. Efficient and Direct channel in working with the City of Palo Alto: a. The proposed crossing will require the cooperation with the City of Palo Alto. Since the City is leading the rail redesign, working on the crossing is common sense. 3. Proximity of Peers Park and the Crossing will be beneficial to cyclist and pedestrians: a. The entire purpose of designing the crossing is to bring pedestrians closer from both sides of the train tracks. Having the crossing that directs pedestrians into Peers Park will enhance this objective. 4. The Seale Avenue crossing is already supported by prior plans and committee with detailed analyses so there is no reason to object to the installment of crossings at Seale Avenue This is my first comment on the crossing proposal as I have spent many years listening to all stakeholders of the project. The Kellogg alternative is simply secondary to the one on Seale Avenue. Not only is there limited existing space which makes a sharable design or automobiles, cyclists, and pedestrians a potential for accidents, working with CalTran on an easement approval will be decades in the making. Another problem with the Kellogg crossing is that it will funnel an increased number of non-PAUSD population closer to Palo Alto High School. Given the increasing violent crime around school campuses around the country, I believe there is absolutely no reason to introduce non-PAUSD personnel to any school unnecessarily. It is just a safety issue. Sincerely, -Chien From:LISA MARCACCI To:Council, City Subject:Rail Committee - comment on grade separation considerations Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:40:24 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from marcaccijl@aol.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Committee members: We are concerned about the current alternatives and/or the preparation/considerations yet to be studied in order to fully identify what impacts these alternatives will have on the neighborhood and individual properties. It is difficult to believe that we are still at this point, having been through this so many times in the past. This is a legacy project and long-term considerations should be at the forefront. As such, we urge you to consider the following:A. Elevated Rail will be a physical division of the city and will have life changing impact on the neighboring communities. B. The current underpass design requires several property acquisitions and eliminates the Park/Meadowintersection. These issues need to be addressed and fixed, with highest priority. The upcoming engineering study/recommendation must reduce the impacts to Park Boulevard traffic and reduce property acquisitions - we would like to understand what it means to eliminate the Park/Meadow intersection? What impact does this have on Charleston? What does this mean for the bike path on Park. - how many properties will be taken? How many partial properties will be taken? C. We need more South Palo Alto bike crossings. The Council needs to study such underground bike tunnels asap, as these will need to be constructed prior to any Meadow/Charleston construction. If we really only have two alternatives, we would choose the underpass option, however this would depend on whether the above issues can be satisfactorily addressed. As a community “Charleston Meadows” we have twice spent lots of time with City Council members, going to meetings etc. We have voiced our opinions about any elevated tracks. We hoped that we were being heard then, and once again now. We understand that the viaduct is again being proposed by others. Again without enough information we think that, that may be better a better solution than the hybrid. Lisa & Jeff Marcacci From:Jim Silver To:Council, City Subject:Charleston/Meadow Rail Grade separation options. Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:31:05 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from jsilver94306@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council Rail Committee Members, I am writing to you about the remaining grade separation options at Charleston/Meadow, which is very close to my house. Please continue to reject elevated options such as the hybridor viaduct, which will divide the city and be an eyesore for the next century. This will also disrupt the privacy of homes near the train, many of which are Eichlers and have large glasswindows on the ground floor. I strongly support the underpass design. To further improve this design, the upcoming engineering work must reduce the need for property acquisitions, thereby improving thefavorability of this option. This engineering study must also reduce impacts to Park Blvd traffic. Safe bike routes, such as a bike tunnel or bridge near El Carmelo must also be implementedbefore construction begins, otherwise hundreds of Gunn High and Fletcher Middle school students will have no safe way to ride their bikes to school, which would in turn causesignificant traffic increases. Thanks for your consideration, James Silver 45 Roosevelt CirclePalo Alto From:John Guislin To:Council, City Cc:Diana Diamond; editor@paweekly.com Subject:JPA offers unusual benefit to resigning staff Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:28:46 AM Attachments:Creek - Daily Post 41524.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. April 15, 2024: Daily Post published a story (attached) about the resignation of Senior Project Manager Kevin Murray after working for the JPA for 23 years. According to the Post, Murraysaid he was "Burned out after working on the same project for so long." How does his "burnout" compare with residents' frustration with lack of effective flood relief "for so long" - 26 years! It is fair to suspect that there is more to this story. Voluntary resignation of a position does nottypically include 3 months pay. Does the JPA Executive Director have the authority to spend public funds to give a "bonus" toan employee who has resigned? I urge our City Council and the Councils of East Palo Alto and Menlo Park to start an investigation of these actions by this city-funded organization. From:Brian Cooper To:Council, City Subject:Rail Grade Separation Project - RESEND Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 9:24:55 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from brcooper411@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Members of the City Council, As a long-time resident of the Charleston Meadows neighborhood, I am writing this tocommunicate my strong support for the proposed Underpass Option at Charleston and Alma, and the total rejection of the Viaduct alternative. I also request that the impact of theCharleston roundabout be mitigated to the extent possible, in order to minimize property acquisition. In addition, it would also be appreciated if the traffic impact on Park Boulevardcould also be reduced. While the grade crossing issues are paramount, I also hope that the need for additional bike tunnels in South Palo Alto receive immediate study so that the work could be completed priorto the start of construction for the Meadow / Charleston projects Sincerely, Brian Cooper 237 Edlee Ave Palo Alto, CA 94306 From:phil.yu@yahoo.com To:Council, City Subject:Fw: Proposed Churchill Partial Underpass. Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:52:15 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from phil.yu@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. One additional note about the proposal as-is that went to XCAP regarding Churchill: Bike underpass at Kellogg - Running a bike path on a collision course with Castilleja car traffic also absolutely makes no sense. (this proposal seems to lack basic understanding of the existing area and traffic flows). ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: phil.yu@yahoo.com <phil.yu@yahoo.com>To: city.council@CityofPaloAlto.org <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2024 at 08:27:43 AM PDTSubject: Proposed Churchill Partial Underpass. The proposed Churchill Partial Underpass has serious pedestrian safety and traffic oversights. The proposal eliminates the median between the sidewalk on alma and the 50+ mph rate of traffic onAlma Northbound. This is a no go with regards to pedestrian and student safety. Why would this evenbe considered/proposed right across from a high school in a city with a known student mental healthissue and a suicide crisis PAUSD+Stanford? I encourage anyone in doubt to walk over Embarcadero onAlma's sidewalk and see what it feels like to walk next 50mph cars with zero/NO barrier. The proposalaims to eliminate the median and trees for many blocks. Alma northbound merges to 1 lane at Melville over Embarcadero and becomes a 25mph zone north ofthat bridge. This is the start of the commerical downtown area. Traffic already backs up during rushhours in the northbound direction south of Kellogg due to these reasons. It makes no sense to propose 3north bound Alma lanes that merge down to 1 lane only 1 block later. This would be a traffic nightmareand makes no sense. The Churchill Proposal would destroy the residential area around churchill (eliminating trees, movingpower lines, eliminating the minimum setbacks for most houses on Alma (and run a 5th lane of 50mphtraffic right through existing yards and too close to homes) Making a 101 type underpass as proposed makes no sense. Thank you for being sensible and considering the safety of children and the lives of residents in the area. From:Joyce To:Blackshire, Geoffrey; Council, City; Greg Schmid (external) Subject:Re: No fire trucks at Station 4, Mitchell Park!! Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:41:54 AM Attachments:image009.png image006.png image007.png image008.png image010.png Some people who received this message don't often get email from joycegschmid@aol.com. Learn why this isimportant Dear Fire Chief Blackshire, Thank you so much for taking the trouble to respond to my concerns about the lack of a fire truck at Fire Station 4. I have a few questions. When you in your video talked about response times to fires in South East Palo Alto, I did not hear you mention the Palo Verde Neighborhood. Would you let me know what is the response time to that area? Also I thought I heard you say that the ONLY fire truck in Palo Alto is on the Stanford Campus. Is that true? Are there no other fire trucks in our city? If there are other trucks, would you let me know where they are located? It seems to me that the time needed for a fire truck to arrive at a burning building would depend on traffic on the roads as well as traffic lights. Do fire trucks control the traffic lights? Can they pass traffic on, for example, a rush-hour Embarcadero Road? When we had a fire inspection by the PA Fire Department many years ago, we were told that if our home caught fire it would be totally consumed in 8 minutes. So for us, even at the fastest arrival under current guidelines, our home would be gone with the truck arrived. And now, with the state is demanding that Palo Alto build dense housing, the City Council has decided to build a large portion of it in our neck of the woods--thousands of new units in big buildings along Fabian Way and West Bayshore Rd. Don't youthink that means we will need at least one fire truck nearby? I understand that the plan for fire fighting in Palo Alto is a whole-city plan. However some parts of the city are more flammable than others. Our wooden Eichlers areextremely vulnerable to fire. And, added to that, the balance of city dwellings is now changing with the planned addition of quantities of dense housing in our and other neighborhoods. I also understand that you are operating under constraints. I don't know what the staffing constraints are-- is it hard to find firefighters to hire? Is that because Palo Alto is not offering our firefighters adequate pay and benefits? And does "financial constraints" mean that the City Council not allocate enough funds for Fire Station 4 to have even one fire truck? If the constraint that prevents our area from having adequate staff and resources is financial, I would beg the City Council to reconsider their priorities. I believe fire protection is one of the highest-priority services that a City needs to offer its residents, and would implore the Council to allocate adequate funds to protect all neighborhoods, including ours, from fire. Thank you for reading this and considering my perspective. Respectfully,Joyce Schmid On Monday, April 15, 2024, 09:59:15 AM PDT, Blackshire, Geoffrey <geo.blackshire@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Greetings, My name is Geo Blackshire and I am the fire chief here in Palo Alto. Thank you for bringing your concerns to our councilmembers. For context, in August of 2021, the Palo Alto Fire Department’s (PAFD) deployment model was modified to improve upon the budgetary impacts that affected our emergency response. For example, when daily staffing was inadequate, Fire Station 2 was browned out on weekday evenings and weekends. To eliminate the brown-out, Station 4’s fire engine, Engine 64 (E-64), was taken out of service. Medic 64 (M-64),previously crossed-staffed with E-64, was put into service at Station 4 for 24/7, 365. This deployment modification, among others, ensured that every Palo Alto fire station is staffed with a full-time fire personnel. Your concerns have been brought to our council members as well as members of my staff several times over the last couple of years. In last years Finance Committee Meeting, May 5, 2023, I addressed this issue to the committee as former Mayor Kou asked for me to speak on this item in this forum. And, due to the multiple emails I received, I recorded a video, Fire Station 4 Information, for the public to access that helped answer many questions that were asked of me. Please take some time to view the hyperlinks to the videos as I think it may provide you with some understanding of why Fire Station 4 is without a fire engine, and also our plan for the future as it relates to increased call volume and population growth in South Palo Alto. Some people who received this message don't often get email from joycegschmid@aol.com. Learn why this is important Fire Station 4 is nearly 70 years old. This building was not able to be seismically retrofitted and additionally, does not meet the current and future needs of the fire department. The new building will not only meet our needs, it will be a safer building for our firefighters, and it will be able to house five personnel, enough to staff a fire engine and an ambulance. I see the City as one system, and it is my responsibility to ensure that a PAFD unit can respond to emergencies in the City within the adopted response time standard, including South Palo Alto. I always encourage members of the Palo Alto community to ask questions to help understand how the fire department works and I thank you for reaching out for answers. I will continue to have discussions with City staff on how we can staff all of our fire stations with fire engines. I am available if you want to know more about how I have determined assurance in our emergency deployment model. Best regards, Geo Blackshire Fire Chief Palo Alto Fire Department (650) 329-2424 www.cityofpaloalto.org From: Joyce <joycegschmid@aol.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2024 11:45 AMTo: Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org> Subject: No fire trucks at Station 4, Mitchell Park!! CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Honorable City Council Members, I have just learned to my horror that there is no fire truck at our local fire station on East Meadow and Middlefield. Fires may thankfully be uncommon in our area— but they have occurred. A neighbor’s house burned on Kenneth Drive a few blocks away from us some years ago on July 4 after sparks from fireworks ignited a fire. A few months ago, there was a fire on or near Evergreen Drive, also just a few blocks away from us. Fires are not common in any area of Palo Alto. Does that mean no one should have fire trucks easily accessible to their homes? The City Council has recently chosen our area to build a crowd of dense apartments to fulfill the state mandate for new housing. And I just read in today’s SF Chronicle That Liberty Mutual Insurance Company has cancelled someone’s homeowners insurance policy because his “home [on a residential street] was located in a region where the dwellings are considered to be too densely concentrated” . I understand that the City will be spending $15.3 million to build a new fire house in an Eichler style for Station 4. My neighbors and I would be safer if that money were put toward keeping up-to-date fire trucks at that location! As density in our Southeast Palo Alto area increases, we will be increasingly vulnerable to the risks of that density, including fires. Please please please give us back our fire trucks!!!! Thank you so much for reading and considering this plea. Your friend and fellow Palo Altan, Joyce Schmid 3428 Janice Way, Palo Alto, CA 94303 From:phil.yu@yahoo.com To:Council, City Subject:Proposed Churchill Partial Underpass. Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:27:57 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from phil.yu@yahoo.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. The proposed Churchill Partial Underpass has serious pedestrian safety and traffic oversights. The proposal eliminates the median between the sidewalk on alma and the 50+ mph rate of traffic on Alma Northbound. This is a no go with regards to pedestrian and student safety. Why would this evenbe considered/proposed right across from a high school in a city with a known student mental healthissue and a suicide crisis PAUSD+Stanford? I encourage anyone in doubt to walk over Embarcadero onAlma's sidewalk and see what it feels like to walk next 50mph cars with zero/NO barrier. The proposalaims to eliminate the median and trees for many blocks. Alma northbound merges to 1 lane at Melville over Embarcadero and becomes a 25mph zone north ofthat bridge. This is the start of the commerical downtown area. Traffic already backs up during rushhours in the northbound direction south of Kellogg due to these reasons. It makes no sense to propose 3north bound Alma lanes that merge down to 1 lane only 1 block later. This would be a traffic nightmareand makes no sense. The Churchill Proposal would destroy the residential area around churchill (eliminating trees, movingpower lines, eliminating the minimum setbacks for most houses on Alma (and run a 5th lane of 50mphtraffic right through existing yards and too close to homes) Making a 101 type underpass as proposed makes no sense. Thank you for being sensible and considering the safety of children and the lives of residents in the area. From:carlin otto To:Council, City Subject:Underpass, underpass, underpass ... NO RAISED TRAIN Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 8:09:47 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council I am sorry for you that you are still struggling with this difficult decision. I would not want to be in your shoes. However, I cannot believe that we are being told that raised solutions are still being considered. Thousands of hours of citizen time and thousands of messages have been written to you against the viaduct and the hybrid options by Charleston Meadows residents. I feel insulted by this persistent consideration of raised solutions when the vast majority of residents near Charleston and Alma DO NOT WANT IT. Since the tunnel and the trench are not possible, then PLEASE choose the UNDERPASS for the Charleston Road intersection. I understand its complications. I have studied the plans. I know it is not perfect. But it is SO SO SO SO SO SO SO much better than any raised solution. Even if you have to buy some homes and destroy them to execute, the underpass is still the better solution. In the '50s, the brave city council eminent domained numerous homes in order to create Page Mill. Be brave !!!! Carlin Otto resident of Palo Alto since 1959 231 Whitclem Court Palo Alto, CA 94306 PS: while you are at it, why not bury Charleston all the way from El Camino to Alma with narrow ground-level cross streets at Park and Wilkie? The new land above could be sports fields!! Or, if you are allowed to build above the underground street, you could build a walkable community of below-market housing. From:Deborah Ju To:Council, City Subject:RE: Please reject the Unsightly Viaduct for Charleston Road and approve an underpass Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 7:42:05 AM Some people who received this message don't often get email from dsju371@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto City Council members, My family has lived in the Charleston Meadows neighborhood for 38 years. We participatingin MANY hearings about possible rail crossing options, urging you to eliminate the raisedoptions from your consideration and to approve the trench or underpass option. We were very relievedwhen the viaduct option was removed from consideration. We felt that our time and efforts in participating in the process were respected and considered. It is infuriating now to hear that allthat work is being disregarded and you are again considering the viaduct option. This shows a tremendous disregard for the value of residents’ time and concerns. A decision cannot andmust not be based on choosing the lowest cost. The option chosen will be legacy infrastructure that will be visible long after we are all gone. A solution must be found that is effective andvisually appealing. Large concrete viaducts and overpasses are ugly and are not compatible with a residential neighborhood in a green community. Palo Alto would be embarrassed andashamed by such a structure and future generations will wonder how in the world a City full of smart engineers let this happen. Our neighborhood has been engaged in this process from the beginning. The overwhelmingmajority of residents oppose a raised option. We submitted a Petition early in this process with 600 signatures in support of the trench and tunnel options and in opposition to the raisedrail options. That opposition has not waned. Neighbors have submitted letters and spoken at every stage in the process to the point of exhaustion. We participated in the XCAP Zoommeetings. It was our impression that the XCAP members favored the trench design but were concerned about the cost estimate prepared by the consultant. Significant questions wereraised about the accuracy of the cost estimate of the trench option vis-a-vis the raised options. Similar trench projects have been built in other locations at much, much lower costs. Manyresidents feel that the consultants went into this project intent on pushing an elevated option and that the stark cost differential between the raised options and the trench reflects that bias.An independent cost review is needed to have any confidence in the analysis. There has never been an adequate noise analysis. The consultants only addressed noise level for the 2 rows of houses closest to the track, which represents a very small fracture of theaffected homes. Their report assumed that 2nd story homes would buffer noise beyond the second row of houses. Clearly, the consultants' analysis is misinformed. Had they visited theneighborhood, or done any research at all, they would have learned that there is a one-story overlay over much of the neighborhood. There are very few two-story homes and none locatedwhere they will buffer noise for the affected area. The noise analysis is sloppy, inaccurate and invalid. I live in one of the few two story homes in the neighborhood. My house isapproximately 2 and ½ blocks from the tracks. The train noise is much louder on our second story where there is nothing to buffer it than it is downstairs. An elevated train would affectall the homes in the neighborhood in this fashion--there would be nothing to buffer the noise formany, many blocks in both directions. We urge you to remove the raised options from consideration. They are unsightly and strongly disfavored by the public. Sincerely,Deborah and Werner Ju 371 Whitclem DrivePalo Alto, CA 94306 From:Aram James To:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Wagner, April; Bryan Gobin; CindyChavez; Council, City; D Martell; Damon Silver; Daniel Kottke; Dave Price; Ed Lauing; Emily Mibach; Friends ofCubberley; Greer Stone; Jack Ajluni; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims;Kaloma Smith; Karen Holman; Michelle; Zelkha, Mila; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; O"Neal, Molly; Palo Alto Free Press;Raymond Goins; Reifschneider, James; Roberta Ahlquist; Rose Lynn; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Supervisor OttoLee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Tom DuBois; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; district1@bos.sccgov.org; Tannock,Julie Subject:Citing safety, USC bans pro-Palestinian valedictorian from speaking at graduation Date:Tuesday, April 16, 2024 12:05:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Citing safety, USC bans pro-Palestinian valedictorian from speaking at graduation https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-04-15/usc-valedictorian-asna-tabassum From:Patrice Banal To:Council, City; Stone, Greer; Tanaka, Greg; Burt, Patrick; Veenker, Vicki; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Lauing, Ed; Kou,Lydia Subject:Impact of Underpass and Roundabout on Charleston Rd Families PLEASE READ Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 11:55:49 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from patbanal@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Please reject the Underpass and Roundabout as a solution to grade separation. Any plan that calls for housing acquisitions through eminent domain has no place in Palo Alto. The impacted families on Charleston Road will lose their long-term financial investments and access to the communities we have created with friends, neighbors, schools, churches, teams, and medical providers. Our multi-generational home is a safety net, anchor, and launch pad for my older kids, my infirm mother, and my two school-aged nieces. It is the ONLY home my children shared with their father, who died while they were in kindergarten, and it is irreplaceable. There are only 8 homes for sale in nearby neighborhoods. Where would we go? Home acquisitions are tantamount to banishing us from Palo Alto. The council assured us they would do everything possible to avoid home acquisitions. We are asking the council to keep their word. The objective must be to move traffic, not families, and KEEP Palo Altans in their homes and communities. Financial impact: Currently, the average sales price for a single-family home is $3.2 million. This sounds like a windfall UNTIL you break it down: For Example: Acquisition Est FMV $3,200,000 with Original Purchase Price $700,000 Means Cap. Gains on $2,500,000, federal $600k, state $375k= 975K So, $3.2m-$975k = $2.2M is the max you can put toward a new home, but a new home cost $3.2M or $1M more than you have to spend, NOT including paying off a CURRENT mortgage(s). ANDThe FMV price does not include: increased mortgage rates, increased debt-bigger mortgages increased property taxes, increased homeowners insurance increased real estate and banking fees-buyers fees, inspection fees, transfer fees, attorney fees, title, transfer or escrow fees relocation and associated storage costs, increased childcare costs delayed retirement and second jobs relocation outside Palo Alto-increased commute times and commute costs All positive equity and upside would be lost to partially finance new homes. FMV, based only on the sales price of impacted homes, will NEVER cover the lossesCharleston Rd families would face financially or socially when losing our communities through EMINENT DOMAIN. Please make sure the PA Housing Element Plan includes a contingency plan that prioritizes six single-family homes for the Charleston Rd families who would lose their homes if the Underpass Option is selected. Finding homes within our city for these six families out of the 6000-unit plan should be feasible. Prioritize rehousing these current residents with the same commitment shown to creating spaces for future residents. Thank you, Patrice Banal At every meeting regarding grade separation, the council assured citizens they would do everything possible to avoid home acquisitions. We are asking the council to keep their word. With some creativity and shared civic responsibility we can move forward with grade separation, build the underpass, improve traffic flow and safety, and KEEP Palo Altans in their homes and communities. Alternative Solution:attached Utilize existing infrastructure to flow traffic in conjunction with the underpass instead of installing the traffic circle. This may involve some additional traffic lights, but will NOT require a traffic circle or home acquisitions. As an artery to 101, Charleston Rd. is already very busy. Diverting some of the cars onto Ely-Mumford will reduce overall traffic on Charleston, and maintain the successful single-lane road diet already installed, increasing safety for cars, pedestrians, and bikers without taking homes. It is environmentally friendly - fewer cars will be backed up emitting gases, and cost efficient when funding is challenging. Based on the city's studies this involves very little traffic, maintaining Ely and Mumford as much as possible as residential streets. Charleston would handle the largest west-east traffic flow, but diverting some to other residential street will make driving safer for all. This shares civic responsibility without placing it solely on the backs and homes of families on Charleston Rd. City Council and Planners - Please move traffic flow, NOT FAMILIES. From:khurshid gandhi To:Council, City Subject:Grade Separation comments for 16Apr2024 Rail committee meeting Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 11:32:22 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from khurshidgandhi@yahoo.com. Learn why thisis important CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hello, I live in the Charleston – Meadows neighborhood and I would like to bring up a few pointsand my preferences for the imminent grade separation happening in Palo Alto, specifically for the Charleston-Meadows crossings. 1. Over 6 years ago, the Charleston-Meadows neighborhood submitted a petition signed byalmost 600 individuals stating their preference for an underground option for the trains. You can also find the petition here https://drive.google.com/file/d/1klcrioBxfiCyueO2F-ECz-TlfpJH- ihe/view?usp=sharing. I urge you to consider that petition and know that that the preference still holds good. That is still the preference. 2. If however, that underground option is absolutely off the table, then I strongly urge you toconsider an alternative option that would satisfy the following: (a) keep the roads at grade level: While many options provide under and over passes forbike/peds, that is not optimal. Even a 20 ft wide lane to be shared by peds, children, bikers, wheelchairs, strollers and double strollers, joggers, older folks using walkers or lugging alongwheeled crates would not be enough area. Any level of a grade to these bike/ped makes it more unfriendly for the younger and older bike/ped users. Having a grade has manyproblems: Difficulty for bike/peds (specially at either end of the age spectrum), cars and traffic accelerating on the downward grade, line of sight obstruction which always makes thearea a bit more unsafe, pooling of water during heavy rains and many more. (b) No necessity of eminent domain acquisition . We love our neighbors and neighborhood and don’t want anyone to be compelled to either have a decrease in house value or to moveout. (c) All turning intersections at Meadows and Charleston have to be accessible bytraffic as well as bikes/peds. This is extremely important to maintain connectivity in the neighborhood and to prevent traffic from being funneled into neighborhood side streets. 3. I am opposed to the underpass and hybrid options due to the above. I feel like the underpass is the worst offender due to the comments in #2 above. The berm required for thehybrid would become a solid physical barrier that would divide Palo Alto. Also, to someone holding a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. I hope that is not the case with AECOMand hybrids. While AECOM has a lot of experience building hybrids in the bay area, and they might be most comfortable with building hybrids, I do not think that the hybrid or underpassis the best solution for Charleston-Meadows. Thank you for your attention and consideration of this matter. Sincerely Khurshid Gandhi From:Michael Wessel To:Council, City Cc:Burt, Patrick; Lauing, Ed; Lythcott-Haims, Julie; Stone, Greer; Kou, Lydia; Tanaka, Greg; Veenker, Vicki Subject:Public comments - Rail Committee City Council Meeting April 16th 2024 Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 10:53:44 PM Attachments:Charleston-Roundabout-Alternative-Michael-Wessel.pdf Some people who received this message don't often get email from miacwess@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear City Council & Rail Committee, please find my public comments for tomorrow's (April 16th 2024) RailCommittee City Councile Meeting attached (PDF document). Best regards, Michael Wessel Dear Rail Committee Members of the Palo Alto City Council, I am very concerned about the roundabout on East Charleston Road which is part of the current design of the Charleston-Meadow underpass option for achieving Caltrain grade separation. The roundabout will require forced housing acquisitions on East Charleston Road.The impact of the roundabout on families losing their homes cannot be overstated -not only can there be no “fair market value”compensation for the properties based on the current very dire housing situation in Palo Alto,but worse,there can in principle be no compensation for the loss of neighborhood,community,friends,shared memories and belonging.The option of eminent domain should be avoided at all costs,and we owe it to the affected families to propose and evaluate alternative solutions.I am presenting such an alternative. In my opinion,the proposed roundabout is largely disproportional and its main purpose is to enable traffic flows of minor importance which would be otherwise impossible by the current design of the underpass.According to the official data https://connectingpaloalto.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Traffic-Analysis-Report_Churchill-M eadow-and-Charleston-Grade-Separation_revised.pdf the purpose of the roundabout is to enable three traffic flow patterns which the underpass would otherwise thwart -Pattern A on page 28,Pattern B on page 29,and Pattern C on page 30. The maximum car per hours peak flows in the above report show that these three patterns are of marginal importance -at peak,Pattern A accounts for 23%of southbound traffic on Alma, Pattern B for 7 %of northbound traffic on Alma,and Pattern C for 15 %of eastbound traffic on Charleston. An alternative solution is to route this traffic through the existing infrastructure -namely,Ely and Mumford.Please find the proposed alternative traffic flows in the attached pictures.I have no doubt that the existing infrastructure can accommodate the additional cars relatively effortlessly,maybe with some additional traffic signals -as the data shows,Patterns A,B,and C can be expected to contribute one additional car every 7 to 8 seconds to Ely and Mumford. Note that currently,turns from Alma onto Ely are permitted and supported,whereas the proposed design would (unnecessarily!)disable right turns from southbound Alma into Ely. I hence propose to keep the underpass in the design,but omit the roundabout.Instead, share civic responsibility with the other neighborhoods along these streets -(East)Charleston Road is already busy enough,so diverting and hence diluting the traffic is a good idea and should be a shared responsibility of all neighbors in the affected area.Putting this burden on the shoulders of a few is not fair. Another benefit of this proposal is reduced costs -the money saved on the roundabout can instead be spent on improving the safety of pedestrians and bicyclists. In a nutshell,the proposed roundabout is a disproportionate monstrosity that needs to be avoided at all costs.The here proposed option should be studied and thoroughly evaluated and at least simulated,as some of the other options have been. A formal designation of Mumford and Ely as residential should not prevent the city from considering and evaluating the proposed alternative -formal road /street designations can be changed.Lifes,destroyed by the devastating impact of forced property acquisitions for which there can be no fair market value compensation,can not! It also came to my attention that the city is working on a New Housing Element to add 6000 new homes to Palo Alto per state guidelines.If eminent domain acquisitions are unavoidable,at least there should be a conversation with the affected families.These conversations should have been started years ago -in 2020,when the roundabout was first proposed.To the best of my knowledge,this has not happened.The council should prioritize the impacted families by creating a rehousing plan and start conversations ASAP. Diverting traffic onto Ely and Mumford would move traffic flow,and NOT families. Best regards, Michael Wessel,East Charleston Road resident APPENDIX -Traffic Flow Graphics and Proposed Alternative PATTERN A PATTERN B PATTERN C From:Nick Briggs To:Council, City Subject:Parking too close to crosswalks, marked or unmarked Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 9:29:46 PM [Some people who received this message don't often get email from nicholas.h.briggs@gmail.com. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification ] CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ Dear City Council -- Could you inform us what direction, if any, has been given to the PAPD regarding issuing warnings for violations of the State Vehicle Code section 22500, as amended by AB 413, regarding parking too close to a crosswalk. The Legislative Counsel's summary of the law described it thus: "This bill would prohibit the stopping, standing, or parking of a vehicle within 20 feet of the vehicle approach side of any unmarked or marked crosswalk or 15 feet of any crosswalk where a curb extension is present, as specified. The bill would, prior to January 1, 2025, authorize jurisdictions to only issue a warning for a violation, and would prohibit them from issuing a citation for a violation, unless the violation occurs in an area marked using paint or a sign." Yours sincerely, N. Briggs From:Stephanie Martinson To:Council, City Subject:Rail meeting 4/16/24 Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 9:28:21 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from rsmsmartinson@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Palo Alto Rail committee, 1. My family and I do not support either elevated rail option as this divides the city and has a huge impact on its immediate neighbors. 2. The (very preliminary) underpass design requires several property acquisitions and also eliminates the Park/Meadow intersection but is much better than either elevated rail option. Please continue this design. The upcoming engineering work must reduce impacts to Park Blvd traffic reduce property acquisition (for example, by shrinking/eliminating the Charleston roundabout) 3. For the safety of our community, especially the children who bike to Gunn, we need more South Palo Alto bike crossings, we need them constructed beforeMeadow/Charleston construction. Thank you in advance for this consideration. Stephanie MartinsonPark Blvd. between Meadow and Charleston From:ladoris cordell To:Council, City Cc:Florence Keller; Deborah Ju Subject:Support for the Underpass Solution Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 8:29:22 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from ladoris@judgecordell.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Dear Council Rail Committee, As residents of Wilkie Way, a street that will directly, both visually and auditorily, be impacted by the CalTransplans, we ask that you vote for the Underpass solution to the East Meadow and Charleston crossings. The Underpasswill be the least obtrusive solution for residents who live within the blocks adjacent to or separated by only a blockor two from the railroad tracks. Both the Hybrid and the Viaduct solutions will only serve to ghettoize those of ussandwiched between the trains and El Camino Real, much as New York's 2nd Avenue El did to that city before itwas recognized to be a blight and subsequently torn down. Palo Alto leadership and the City administration has historically given short shrift to those of us who live in SouthPalo Alto. The time has come to heed the concerns of South Palo Altans, most of whom are voters who are sick andtired of being ignored. The Underpass solution is a win-win for everyone. Thank you. LaDoris H. CordellFlorence Kelller4124 Wilkie Way, Palo Alto. LaDoris Hazzard Cordell LaDoris@judgecordell.com twitter.com/judgecordell JudgeCordell.com From:John Hofer To:Council, City Subject:Grade Separation Alternatives Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 8:18:27 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from johnkhofer@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. My wife and I strongly support the underpass option where West Charleston Road and West Meadow Drive would be depressed under the tracks and Alma Street. Any elevated option (either the hybrid or viaduct) would divide Palo Alto, and negatively impact property values along the railroad right-of-way. The process of evaluating grade separation options has taken years so far. Now that the decision is fast approaching, the City should not take the most economically expedient route. Such a decision could permanently damage the very quality of life that most of us sought when we moved here. John and Renee Hofer 4111 Park Blvd. Palo Alto, CA 94306(408) 391-4338 From:Pradeep Solanki To:Council, City Subject:South Palo Alto grade separation options Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 8:17:43 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from psolanki4105@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Petition: We strongly feel that the Palo Alto City Council consider the following points: ● We adamantly oppose EMINENT DOMAIN and seek to minimize property losses for ourneighbors. ● We oppose road OVERPASS options for the Charleston/Meadow crossings in allcircumstances. ● We oppose RAISED RAIL OPTIONS such as those involving berms or viaducts.● We support LOWERED RAIL OPTIONS such as those involving a tunnel or trench. ● We support INCREASED SAFETY for all residents of our community, and especially forstudents, cyclists, and pedestrians. From:Samina Shetty To:Council, City Subject:Caltrain Rail option - viaduct Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 7:36:24 PM Some people who received this message don't often get email from sami.ina@gmail.com. Learn why this isimportant CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi, Please help Palo Alto be safe by constructing the viaduct (preferred) or underpass (lesspreferred) for the trains to pass but do not divide the city by building a berm which is nothing but a wall that divides the neighborhood. Regards,Samina Shetty (Concerned Palo Alto resident) From:Aram James To:Cindy Chavez; Council, City; Ed Lauing; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor SusanEllenberg; district1@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Protesting war in Gaza, hundreds stop traffic on two major Bay Area freeways Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 7:11:54 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Protesting war in Gaza, hundreds stop traffic on two major Bay Area freeways https://eastbaytimes.com/2024/04/15/protesters-block-i-880-in-oakland-forcing-closure-of-all- lanes/ From:Aram James To:Raymond Goins Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Damon Silver; Daniel Kottke; District1@bos.sccgov.org; Friends of Cubberley; Jack Ajluni; Jax Ajluni; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Jeff Rosen; Joe Simitian; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Lewis james; Linda Jolley; Lotus Fong; Michelle; Zelkha, Mila; O"Neal, Molly; Palo Alto Free Press; Reifschneider, James; Rose Lynn; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Stump, Molly; Supervisor Otto Lee; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto Subject:Re: Please place a cease-fire resolution on Tuesday BOS calendar Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 2:26:47 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. April 15, 2024 Hi Raymond,You have humanized the conversation regarding the ongoing genocide being perpetrated by the Israelis in Gaza- with U.S. money and weapons- and, at the same time, brought homebrilliantly the utter hypocrisy of the moment: that if such a genocide were occurring here in Santa Clara County to the white population our Board of Supervisors would, no doubt, havecalled for and demanded a cease-fire and peace many months ago. It's time that our Board of Supervisors calls out for a cease-fire in both Gaza & the West Bank Now!! Thank you,Raymond. Aram On Mon, Apr 15, 2024, at 1:43 PM, Raymond Goins <goinsrayl@gmail.com> wrote: Aram I couldn’t agree with you more. Wonderfully said, our board should call out anddemand a cease fire to end the genocide that going on in Garza. If it was local and the non POC population of Santa Clara county was being impacted in such a devastating way,theboard would demand a cease fire, and peace. So that we as a community can began the healing process. It’s not a matter of right or wrong in my eyes, it’s a matter of Humanity,and diplomacy, demanding such gives that to be an option that they do not have at this present moment.Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 14, 2024, at 9:36 AM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote: > > <IMG_2091.JPG> From:Raymond Goins To:Aram James Cc:Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Damon Silver; Friends of Cubberley; Jack Ajluni; Jeff Moore; Joe Simitian; Josh Becker; Julie Lythcott-Haims; Michelle; O"Neal, Molly; Palo Alto Free Press; Rose Lynn; Salem Ajluni; Sean Allen; Stump, Molly; Supervisor Otto Lee; WILPF Peninsula Palo Alto; District1@bos.sccgov.org Subject:Re: Please place a cease-fire resolution on Tuesday BOS calendar Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 1:43:50 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links.________________________________ Aram I couldn’t agree with you more. Wonderfully said, our board should call out and demand a cease fire to endthe genocide that going on in Garza. If it was local and the non POC population of Santa Clara county was beingimpacted in such a devastating way,the board would demand a cease fire, and peace. So that we as a community canbegan the healing process. It’s not a matter of right or wrong in my eyes, it’s a matter of Humanity, and diplomacy,demanding such gives that to be an option that they do not have at this present moment.Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 14, 2024, at 9:36 AM, Aram James <abjpd1@gmail.com> wrote:> > <IMG_2091.JPG> From:Aram James To:Julie Lythcott-Haims; Gardener, Liz; Lotus Fong; Roberta Ahlquist; Supervisor Susan Ellenberg; Vicki Veenker Cc:<michael.gennaco@oirgroup.com>; Angel, David; Angie, Palo Alto Renters Association; Wagner, April; Baker, Rob; Binder, Andrew; Cindy Chavez; Council, City; D Martell; Dan Okonkwo; Daniel Kottke; EPA Today; Ed Lauing; Emily Mibach; Human Relations Commission; Jay Boyarsky; Jeff Moore; Josh Becker; Linda Jolley; Kou, Lydia; Michelle; Zelkha, Mila; Van Der Zwaag, Minka; Raymond Goins; Reifschneider, James; Robert. Jonsen; Roberta Ahlquist; Rosen, Jeff; Sean Allen; Vara Ramakrishnan; district1@bos.sccgov.org; editor@paweekly.com; Tannock, Julie; yolanda Subject:Scandal-Plagued East Bay Women"s Prison To Close: Reports Date:Monday, April 15, 2024 1:13:01 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Scandal-Plagued East Bay Women's Prison To Close: Reports https://patch.com/california/dublin/scandal-plagued-east-bay-womens-prison-close-reports